Hypothetical. All guns dissapear. What happens?

[Cow Poke]

You think it's a hypothetical that unicorns don't exist?

I think you're overthinking this, Roy. The post to which you responded was me questioning JimL's super nutty comment that "guns couldn't exist". That's dumber than possum poop.

[Roy]

I think you're overthinking this, Roy. The post to which you responded was me questioning JimL's super nutty comment that "guns couldn't exist". That's dumber than possum poop.

I often do. But I'm accustomed to considering hypotheticals, and JimL's isn't all that extreme compared with e.g. 'what if gravity worked as an inverse cube' or 'what if the world was an infinitely long cylinder'.

[JimL]

Wait, WHAT? and guns 'couldn't exist'?

Hypothetical, CP.

[Cow Poke]

Hypothetical, CP.

A totally nonsense hypothetical. But, after all, it came from you.

[Cow Poke]

I often do. But I'm accustomed to considering hypotheticals, and JimL's isn't all that extreme compared with e.g. 'what if gravity worked as an inverse cube' or 'what if the world was an infinitely long cylinder'.

But hypotheticals, by definition, really need to be based at least in some hope of reality.

hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

It's silly to discuss something inconceivable as a hypothetical, like "guns couldn't exist". Unpossible!

[Sparko]

Really? Do we really need to have this conversation? Have you ever heard of the phrase "bringing a knife to a gunfight"? Do you know what that means?

Lethal is lethal. You can't be more dead than dead. Mountain man was saying that there are just as many deaths with knives and other means as there were under guns. So same number dead doesn't make guns "more lethal" - the knives and other methods killed just as many people as the guns did. "same" lethal.

[JimL]

A totally nonsense hypothetical. But, after all, it came from you.

It's the intended hypothetical of the OP, CP. Stop being jackass.

[Cow Poke]

It's the intended hypothetical of the OP, CP. Stop being jackass.

No, you added the idiotic "couldn't exist" phrase. And I can't stop being something I'm not.

Here's the OP...

If all guns dissapeared right now what would happen? Or more accurately what would possibly happen?.

If you asked me it would be short lived.

NOTHING in there about "couldn't exist". The fact that he offers his opinion that "it would be short lived" proves you dead wrong.

[Adrift]

Lethal is lethal. You can't be more dead than dead. Mountain man was saying that there are just as many deaths with knives and other means as there were under guns. So same number dead doesn't make guns "more lethal" - the knives and other methods killed just as many people as the guns did. "same" lethal.

I did not take MM to mean that there are just as many deaths by knives as there are guns, and as far as I can tell, that hasn't been demonstrated. The phrase "more lethal" is used all of the time. Google comes up with 492,000 results. Typically what people mean by "more lethal" is that one thing is more likely to make someone dead than another thing. In the case of knives vs. guns, guns generally kill people quicker and easier. This is the reason that soldiers are generally outfitted with weapons like M16s, 9mms, AKs, and the like. Far less often are soldiers outfitted with just a knife.

[Mountain Man]

Don't you think it's a bit silly the measures you'll go to in order to wiggle out of the general observation that guns are more lethal than knives (or ladders for that matter)?

Don't you think it's a bit silly the measures you'll go to in order to wiggle out of the general observation that the lethality of any given weapon is entirely dependent on the circumstances in which it is used?

"Guns are more lethal!"

Really? Tell that to the 29 people who were killed in a knife attack in China in 2014. Would they somehow be more dead if the attackers had used guns?

[Mountain Man]

I count 11 from 1997-2016 and 15 from 1977-1996. Even including the Melbourne incident from 2017 and the Monash incident with only 2 deaths in the 20 years after doesn't result in as many murders after as before.

Yep. A negligible decrease proving that people don't need guns to kill each other.

[Adrift]

Don't you think it's a bit silly the measures you'll go to in order to wiggle out of the general observation that the lethality of any given weapon is entirely dependent on the circumstances in which it is used?

"Guns are more lethal!"

Really? Tell that to the 29 people who were killed in a knife in China in 2014. Would they somehow be more dead if the attackers had used guns?

So you're going to die on the hill that knives are just as lethal as guns then. Unbelievable.

[Mountain Man]

So you're going to die on the hill that knives are just as lethal as guns then. Unbelievable.

It depends on what you mean by "just as lethal" which is not a phrase I used. I said that it depends on the circumstance. Getting stabbed in the heart versus shot in the heart will leave you equally dead. From a distance, yes, a gun is the weapon of choice. In close quarters or when fighting hand-to-hand, a knife would be much more practical. Guns have the disadvantage of being extraordinarily noisy while knives can kill silently. It's all very situational, which is why soldiers are armed with both guns and knives.

[JimL]

No, you added the idiotic "couldn't exist" phrase. And I can't stop being something I'm not.

Here's the OP...



NOTHING in there about "couldn't exist". The fact that he offers his opinion that "it would be short lived" proves you dead wrong.

Hmm, sorry, you're right. But the hypothetical should have been "if they didn't and couldn't exist." The point of the hypothetical is what would the world be like without guns. If you could just manufacture more guns, then there's no point to the question.

[Sparko]

Hmm, sorry, you're right. But the hypothetical should have been "if they didn't and couldn't exist." The point of the hypothetical is what would the world be like without guns. If you could just manufacture more guns, then there's no point to the question.

So you are saying that removing all guns won't make a difference, then?