• At least in this current time

    In the modern world, People would not go back to the barbaric practice of fighting with sticks stones swords and bows, If all the guns were somehow destroyed we would have less war at least. If Al-Queda never had assault rifles or the Taliban never had weapons,There would be less war.
    To conclude my argument,
    This is a true statment

  • No guns means war will be less efficient

    Firearms are only a means to wage war and attack one's enemies. Without firearms, people will find other methods of killing. Sticks and stones still kill people as they always have. The Romans waged war on many occasions utilizing swords and spears. Firearms merely shoot projectiles at a high speed to kill or wound instantly. Before there were guns, people utilized bows and catapults to shoot projectiles at their enemies. But these weapons require much more skill than a firearm.

    Firearms are easy weapons to learn how to use. Even a great grandma with fifteen grand kids can wield a pistol in a war. She most likely wouldn't be able to do that with a bow and arrow because she would like the strength. That is the difference. Guns can accommodate for even the most feeble of users.

  • No Greed nor Religion means No War:

    Most wars are created by greed, the weapons used are inconsequential. The second most common cause of conflict are Culture/Religious differences, such as groups that subscribe to belief systems that claim the world belongs to them. The Bible denotes that the world belongs to the Israelites and the Koran lays claim that Islam is to control the World.
    These are still listed under the heading of GREED, because they are indoctrinated form of Prophesy of Ownership or Theological/belief-system Egotistical Greed.
    We are the Chosen Ones. Is essentially a statement of extreme Egotism.
    Egotism is a primary source of Greed.

  • No guns does not mean no war... You high?

    Obviously no guns means no war because people can still fight without guns. Saying that no guns means war is like saying that before guns were invented there were no wars which is incredibly incorrect. I do agree with the statement that guns make war more deadly and lead to more casualties in most cases.

  • Not according to the Historical account of the Wars here on Earth

    According to all the resources used to calculate the estimations provided in the link below, guns make up a tiny fraction of the weapons that were used in the History of War. With the evidence here, you can see that Guns haven't been needed to wipe out millions in the past, since we're more advanced now than ever that it can be said that we also don't need them to wipe out millions now. And finally, we won't need them in the future if we want to wage war and wipe out millions more. So get rid of all of them, then we can just go back to killing each other with Morning Stars, swords, poleaxes and mauls.


  • No. Just no.

    Have you ever heard of nuclear warfare? Chemical warfare? Biological warfare? What about the middle ages? I'm pretty sure kingdoms battled each other.

    Wars can be fought with any type of weapon. If somehow all guns in the world magically disappeared, humanity would resort to nukes, swords, or even sticks and stones if it came to it.

  • Nuclear warheads exist

    With pay-loads.

    Since I've run out of things to say here, I would like to say that the grammar of the OP is a little annoying. He/she might not know English as a first language, but I can't help but point out that the title of this opinion poll is a bit badly worded.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.