If you could wave a magic wand and disable every bomb, every gun, every warhead, etc on the planet, would you?

by Yosyp Posted 2012/07/26 11:27:47

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	33 votes	46%
	No	30 votes	42%
	Undecided	5 votes	7%
	None of the above	3 votes	4%

More polls by Yosyp

lucky 2012/08/10 14:26:13

Undecided

Weapons like bombs maybe, guns no, guns are also used to provide food for families and sometimes when faced with an criminal element and multiple assailants a gun is the only choice you have.

reply
artistheweapon 2012/07/30 18:09:55

Undecided

+1
hollow victory, that just means we need to make more

reply
Pendy 2012/07/29 17:35:26

Yes

+1
at least then swords would be back in, and that will create jobs and a more skillful working class.

reply
Bucky aka KINGPIN 2012/07/28 21:32:11

No

+1
It would only force us to go back to the old ways of defending ourselves!

reply
Child of light 2012/07/27 05:32:43

Undecided

+2
Sounds good, but it won't eliminate killing. People would just resort to other weapons

reply
bman~AVA 2012/07/26 22:02:19

Undecided

+2
Actually I think I'd rather wave that wand to get rid of all the hatred that is in everybody's heart. You get rid of all that hatred and then there would be no need for the weapons. You can go ahead and disable every bomb, warhead, and firearm in the world but if the hate still exists then they will just go back to the clubs, rocks, and arrows to do their damage. You get rid of the hate and then things will start to heal.

reply
Chloey Hamer 2012/07/26 21:55:18

Yes

+1
Yes I would.

reply
Aahz_OneAndOnly 2012/07/26 21:55:05

No

+1
Just the WMD's

reply
Riobhca 2012/07/26 20:21:52

Yes

+1
That would definitely be awesome.

reply
KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/07/26 19:19:10

No

+1
You have to know how to make people sick in order to best know how to heal, so what about the ramifications of banning any study of biological warfare? Nah. Make whatever weaponry disappear and someone will invent something new. That's a given!

reply
Prime Time Lime 2012/07/26 19:12:20

Yes

+1
It would be like living in Nirvana,what could be better than a peaceful word.

reply
David 2012/07/26 17:52:03

Undecided

+1
I don't like the look of some of those cross bows, could be painful have one of those arrows buried in ones chest

reply
kick2head 2012/07/26 17:18:54

No

+2
No, it is my belief that destroying some of the implements of war won't destroy the nature of man.

reply
lil crazy 2012/07/26 17:17:57

Yes

+1
Especially the bombs and warheads because they not only hurt the humans that other humans are trying to hurt, they also hurt the land, animals and ecosystems where they are used.

reply
cents-less 2012/07/26 16:50:11

No

+1
First I'd wave it to get a few arms for myself then I'd disable all the other ones.

reply
dandieselonian 2012/07/26 16:29:24

No

+1
we need ways to make wars its the only way we can control the population .

reply
Yosyp to dandies... 2012/07/26 16:32:50 (edited)

we have hunger.

About 25000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every three and a half seconds

reply
dandies... to Yosyp 2012/07/26 21:30:21
rspell 2012/07/26 16:13:07

No

+1
Then my guns wouldn't work.

reply
Recruit 2012/07/26 16:03:14
Divya 2012/07/26 15:53:22

Yes

+2
yes i ll... no violence!!!!!

reply
thefatguy 2012/07/26 15:43:35

No

+2
If I had a "magic wand", I'd be focused on much more important things than this.

reply
Yosyp to thefatguy 2012/07/26 15:58:57

such as?

reply
thefatguy to Yosyp 2012/07/26 16:20:53

+1

reply
Footage 2012/07/26 15:14:01

No

+1
That's too broad a brush.

reply
Lerro DeHazel 2012/07/26 15:13:54

No

Absolutely NOT . . . After the Bombs? . . . What next? . . . The Homosexuals? . . . The non-White People? . . . The Whole-Wheat Breat Eaters? . . . The Corn-on-the-Cob eaters? .. . Everyone who drives a Ford? . . . Everyone's Daughter who is not-yet 17? . . . NO-NO-NO! .. . . Let's keep our Bombs. Who knows? . . . We might even need them.

reply
ScatterJoy! 2012/07/26 14:47:55

Yes

+2
Without question

reply
Kat 2012/07/26 14:47:42

No

There are worse way to die and we would be exploring their usage all over again. If you want someone dead, it'll happen if the only thing available is a stick or rock. Larger groups can be poisoned. Governments need to be changed, they cause more deaths than any other group.

reply
SoftBear 2012/07/26 14:32:16

No

+1
Nice, idealistic approach. Of course it is unworkable. All tools become weapons at one time or another. Eliminate all tools, and you've still got human nature and the opposable thumb.

reply
oros 2012/07/26 14:10:12

Yes

+1
You bet.

reply
Not-A-RINO 2012/07/26 13:58:09

No

+2
History is replete with murder, conquest, genocide, slavery, torture and such long before modern weapons came about. Getting rid of today's weapons won't solve anything and may make things even worse. The threat of total annihilation is enough to keep enemies from attacking us.

The greatest leap forward for humans happened after the Revolutionary War when our Founders instituted government which respected man's inalienable rights to be free. Government was limited to defending us from invaders and protecting our liberties. As Americans, we have been blessed with the peace and civil society these visionary men handed down to us. We need to defend our way of life so our children and grandchildren will have an America as free as what we have enjoyed.

reply
ģhøṡτ øώl 2012/07/26 13:57:15 (edited)

No

+3
Why? So we could all start being chopped up and run through by swords again? I'd much rather bleed to death after having my leg chopped off by a battle axe than be killed by a bullet to the head? No thanks. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO YOU WILL NEVER DISARM THE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPON IN EXISTENCE:

THE HUMAN EGO

reply
Yosyp to ģhøṡτ øώl 2012/07/26 14:04:25

We would still have the medical technology to stop the bleeding, having your leg chopped off by a sword or by a land mine, or a bomb falling from the sky or mortar fire, is there a difference in the pain and could thousands be killed at the same time with a sword?

reply
ģhøṡτ øώl to Yosyp 2012/07/26 14:09:25

+2
HUMAN EGO. Disarm THAT. Then we have nothing to worry about. Until then we are DESTINED to destroy ourselves.

reply
Headhun... to Yosyp 2012/07/26 14:20:54

+1
Yes thousands can be killed at the same time and there are worse weapons than guns. We are lucky that a so called brilliant neuroscience student chose a gun instead of a biological or chemical weapon. At the end of the first crusade the Commander was asked what about the people in Jerusalem since there were not only muslims but jews and christians as well. He responded kill them all and let god sort them out. Thousands were killed in that genocide. The streets were said to have run red with blood. How many did St Stephen and Vlad Tepes kill without guns? Need more examples from history?

reply
Yosyp to Headhun... 2012/07/26 14:31:37

I don't know how long it took for that to happen, we could still have people who could defend the innocents, just not drop bombs on cities to do it. Even America's civil war, do you think as many would have been killed if guns and cannons were not used, would ww1 and 2 have taken as many lives. I know there would still be slaughters I'm just thinking it might be less.

reply
Headhun... to Yosyp 2012/07/26 14:43:15

you are naive.

But what I am getting from you is that it is the amount of time it takes to kill that many vs actually killing that many. So since slaughters are still going to happen it is more acceptable doing it slowly. How many were killed in WWI not by guns or bombs but by chemical weapons?

reply
Yosyp to Headhun... 2012/07/26 14:57:39 (edited)

chemical weapons are weapons and would be among those taken away by the magic wand. Maybe I'm naive maybe not, but dropping a bomb on a city and killing thousands of people in less than a minute could not have happened 1000 years ago. I see a big difference. Even the situation in Colorado , yes, good thing he did not walk in there with a bomb because many more would have been killed, but if he had a knife instead of a gun, less would have been killed.

Also I'm not saying the killing over amount of time matters, but that more time it takes the more time and chance of it being stopped, once that bomb falls from the plane there is no taking it back.

reply
Headhun... to Yosyp 2012/07/26 15:05:17

Last year I bel;ieve it was a guy with a knofe and sword in eiker Japan or Chins killed over 8 and wounded many more. A guy ran his car into a crrowd and killed a dozen and injured more.

Who is going to stop the next hitler, pol pot, stalin Mao for killing tens of millions. Grow up, stop tyhe fantasy and the childish magic wishes. Here are people that wanted to end guns for the people

reply
Yosyp to Headhun... 2012/07/26 15:15:24 (edited)

don't tell me to grow up, everyone has an opinion, no weapons mean no weapons, for all sides.

If you don't think the person in Colorado wouldn't have had a better chance of being stopped before as many were killed and injured if he had a knife and not a gun that's your right to think that, but I think differently I don't care about your gun laws over there, that's not what this is about, it's hypothetical what IF,, of course I know it's not possible. We don't agree that is fine,

reply