How would the world be without guns?

[DPS55]

Anybody ever think how the world be without guns. How would be if guns were ever invented? Who invented the first actual gun? What would cops carry tote to carry out there duties? Do you think the world would be a better place? Imagine a criminal holding up a liqour store with a sling shot?
Well cops of coarse wouldnt have guns but at least the criminals wouldnt either. Do you think that you could carry out your job duties correctly without one? Would you still even want this job? I would love to get some positive feedback from forum memebers.

[DPS55]

Come on I know somebodys gota have a little input

[pulicords]

A world without guns would be a world dominated by the biggest, meanest people with the biggest meanest clubs, knives, swords, etc... Size, strength and aggression would determine who is ruling and who is the ruled. Any person without the physical stature to challenge the ruling class would be without power, authority or a voice. Women would be reduced to below second class status, virtual slaves to any man physically able to enforce his will over hers. Not a very pleasant world (IMO). Thankfully, although God didn't make men and women equal, Col. Colt did!

[pkagel]

Yea, what he said!!!

[rookie2812]

A world without guns would be a world dominated by the biggest, meanest people with the biggest meanest clubs, knives, swords, etc... Size, strength and aggression would determine who is ruling and who is the ruled. Any person without the physical stature to challenge the ruling class would be without power, authority or a voice. Women would be reduced to below second class status, virtual slaves to any man physically able to enforce his will over hers. Not a very pleasant world (IMO). Thankfully, although God didn't make men and women equal, Col. Colt did!

I'm confused You're saying without guns women would be "virtual slaves to any men phyically able to enforce his will over hers". Are you suggesting that somehow guns prevent this now??? I'm not sure that most women can attribute their "slave-free" lifestyles today due to the guns they carry.

Other than that I agree with the first part of your statement.

[pulicords]

The presence of firearms in society enables those without physical strength to have recourse to abuse from those with physical power, even if they don't choose to utilize it.

[grog18b]

There was a world without guns. It was called the dark ages for a reason... Nice folks like Czars, Caesars, Vikings, Huns, Mongols, and such ruled and conquered. Firearms allowed us to throw off the yoke of English rule and become a free nation. You see, we already HAD a world without guns. You assume that since the world is more civilized in our day and age, that things would be better? Nope. Some things never change, and one primary truth is, that there will always be someone bigger, fiercer, and stronger than you that will want either your woman, your land, your stuff, or your life. Firearms level the playing field and prevent rule of the fittest.

[pulicords]

There was a world without guns. It was called the dark ages for a reason... Nice folks like Czars, Caesars, Vikings, Huns, Mongols, and such ruled and conquered. Firearms allowed us to throw off the yoke of English rule and become a free nation. You see, we already HAD a world without guns. You assume that since the world is more civilized in our day and age, that things would be better? Nope. Some things never change, and one primary truth is, that there will always be someone bigger, fiercer, and stronger than you that will want either your woman, your land, your stuff, or your life. Firearms level the playing field and prevent rule of the fittest.

I know (?) we're more civilized now than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. do you think they (the Germans and Russians of the 40's) believed they were more civilized than the kings/czars/etc.. of the 1700s and 1800s? And I'd bet that those leaders believed they were more "civilized" than the Caesars, Vikings, Huns, etc... Believe in your leaders! They are always more concerned about the masses welfare than those who proceeded them.

[grog18b]

I know (?) we're more civilized now than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. do you think they (the Germans and Russians of the 40's) believed they were more civilized than the kings/czars/etc.. of the 1700s and 1800s? And I'd bet that those leaders believed they were more "civilized" than the Caesars, Vikings, Huns, etc... Believe in your leaders! They are always more concerned about the masses welfare than those who proceeded them.

Of course we are more civilized... That doesn't mean diddly when it comes to oppression though. "Believe in your leaders"??!! I KNOW that's sarcasm My post was directed at the origional poster of the topic. Seems he want's to invision a world without guns, and thinks somehow it would be a place full of peace loving hippy tree huggers... Nope. World is a bad place. Not getting much better either.

[Cockney Corner.]

Firearms allowed us to throw off the yoke of English rule and become a free nation.

Wasn't it more due to the fact that the Revolutionary forces had massive French support and that the British were fighting with hugely extended lines of supply?

But, really, can you say that firearms the little guy's guarantee of freedom? The fact is that even if you have a firearm, the average Joe has little or no chance against disciplined and trained troops. Take Iraq. Pretty much everyone seems to have rifles and RPG's. And who wins when the insurgents go engage the US and UK forces man to man ..?

[pulicords]

Wasn't it more due to the fact that the Revolutionary forces had massive French support and that the British were fighting with hugely extended lines of supply?

But, really, can you say that firearms the little guy's guarantee of freedom? The fact is that even if you have a firearm, the average Joe has little or no chance against disciplined and trained troops. Take Iraq. Pretty much everyone seems to have rifles and RPG's. And who wins when the insurgents go engage the US and UK forces man to man ..?

If the "little guy" didn't have firearms (ie: our Revolutionary War) the "big guy" wouldn't need hugely extended lines of supply! W/O firearms, an insurgency has no ability to win. Yes, the French were a source of some support, but do you (as a decent, God fearing Englishman) really believe that the French provided the critical support needed to defeat the British?

[tripledouble]

Anybody ever think how the world be without guns. How would be if guns were ever invented? Who invented the first actual gun? What would cops carry tote to carry out there duties? Do you think the world would be a better place? Imagine a criminal holding up a liqour store with a sling shot?
Well cops of coarse wouldnt have guns but at least the criminals wouldnt either. Do you think that you could carry out your job duties correctly without one? Would you still even want this job? I would love to get some positive feedback from forum memebers.

I feel like you are putting out a moot issue.
Before there were guns, there were other weapons. Crime still occurred. You kind of need to look at the history of law enforcement, I guess you didn't get that in your police academy training.

[Bing_Oh]

Wasn't it more due to the fact that the Revolutionary forces had massive French support and that the British were fighting with hugely extended lines of supply?

But, really, can you say that firearms the little guy's guarantee of freedom? The fact is that even if you have a firearm, the average Joe has little or no chance against disciplined and trained troops. Take Iraq. Pretty much everyone seems to have rifles and RPG's. And who wins when the insurgents go engage the US and UK forces man to man ..?

Ask the North Vietnamiese if a civilian will always lose against disciplined and trained troops. Admittedly, how a firearm is utilized means a great deal, but the firearm itself gave (and still gives) the untrained citizen a previously unmatched level of firepower, even with little formal training.

There's little doubt that the firearm changed the world. Before the modern firearm, wars were fought with a combination of untrained "cannon fodder," moderately well-trained bowmen, and exquisetly-trained noble swordsmen. The difference between the three classes was simple...money. The more money you had, the better weapons and training you could afford. Now, a civilian could, for all intents and purposes, have access to the same rifle that his military counterpart has.

And, to answer the original poster's question, it's generally accepted that the Chinese created the first man-portable firearm. Europe was still a pretty backwards civilization when the Chinese were tinkering with gunpowder.

[135dB]

prolly not too different. we would still had criminals and world changing wars and events. But! IMO, as i read about the samurai., firearms allow the "average farmer to kill a great warrior" Not to say that firearms do not require skill but, its "easier" than sword or spear fighting, etc (you have the distance advantage and it requires less timing, skill and strength than older melee weapons)

[grog18b]

Wasn't it more due to the fact that the Revolutionary forces had massive French support and that the British were fighting with hugely extended lines of supply?

But, really, can you say that firearms the little guy's guarantee of freedom? The fact is that even if you have a firearm, the average Joe has little or no chance against disciplined and trained troops. Take Iraq. Pretty much everyone seems to have rifles and RPG's. And who wins when the insurgents go engage the US and UK forces man to man ..?

No, I'm pretty sure it was the fighters going up against the British with musket and ball. The French helped, but weren't they armed too? Good point with the Vietnam point there. Vietnam proved to us as Afganistan proved to the Soviets that, people that want to fight governments can do so with firearms; So, yes. I can say that they are the little guys guarentee of freedom. Seems to have worked out well for us. Your statement that the average Joe can't stand up to diciplined and trained troops has been proved wrong throughout history. Not only our Vietnam, but they fought against the French prior to us being there and won. Look at historical events of revolution, when the populace is armed, and you will see many examples of the little guy defeating larger "diciplined and trained" troops. Our revolutionary war (sorry if you guys are still sore over that) is only one example. As far as who wins when the insurgents and our forces clash, as I recall the US won every major engagement of the Vietnam war. Still called "Ho Chi Minh city" these days ain't it? Seems your post proved my points, thanks.