This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Guns more dangerous or nuclear weapns???

Poll

What are more dangerous: guns or Nuclear weapons?

Am doing some research so I wanted to get public opinion...

What do you think? Guns vs. nukes? Which are more dangerous and WHY???

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Beekeeper

A nuclear weapon has the power to whipe out a whole city of it's children. Very rarely does a gun kill a child, let alone so many.

I'm inclined therefore to go with nuclear weapons, but a gun can be just as dangerous if used at a certain time against a particular person, say a religious or political leader...

Reply 2

Agent Smith

More people have guns than have nukes. Duh. So the toss-up is between the reality of a very large number of small tragedies, and the possibility of one global one. I can't actually decide, so I haven't voted.

Reply 3

Beekeeper

Agent Smith

Well theres a difference between gangsters getting killed in a shootout, and dropping a nuclear bomb over a school...

Reply 4

Nox11

Guns can b used for a long time n can b kept concealed. U juz need enuf bullets 2 wipe out all d elements u dnt like...whereas nukes r 4 1 time use...no 2nd chance...u gota kno wer u want 2 use it+de r xpensive...few can afford 2 use it...thus guns r more dangerous.

Reply 5

Agent Smith

Beekeeper

Well theres a difference between gangsters getting killed in a shootout, and dropping a nuclear bomb over a school...

I know there is; that was precisely my point. The difference is that one is a localised tragedy that DOES happen, on a regular basis, while the other is a cataclysm that MIGHT happen. The question is whether the possible biggie outweighs the definite smallies.

DISCLAIMER: I don't mean to belittle gun crime, by the way, by saying "smallie". It's a relative term. Obviously gun-related deaths are tragedies.

Reply 6

smellielli

me thinks nukes, by a long shot.

Reply 7

Rusty33

Beekeeper

Well theres a difference between gangsters getting killed in a shootout, and dropping a nuclear bomb over a school...

Or, Columbine High School?

Reply 8

Rusty33

Nox11

Your IP should be logged and banned for typing like that. l0$3r

Reply 9

Agent Smith

Rusty33

Or, Columbine High School?

Doesn't alter the numbers question, though, does it? You CAN kill many more people with a nuke, but guns DO kill more people in practice. I see that "might vs. does" dichotomy as the crux of the debate.

Reply 10

Beekeeper

Rusty33

Or, Columbine High School?

You're comparing the destruction of dropping a nuclear warhead over a city to Columbine?

As awful as Columbine was, this is a silly and unnecessary comparison.

Reply 11

Rusty33

Agent Smith

Beekeeper

You're comparing the destruction of dropping a nuclear warhead over a city to Columbine?

As awful as Columbine was, this is a silly and unnecessary comparison.

No. I am saying that guns that kill people aren't restricted to gangsters.

Reply 12

AlphaNumeric

As Ethan Hawke says in 'Lord of War'

Keeping track of nuclear arsenals, you'd think that critical to world security, well it's not. 9 out of 10 war victims today are killed with assault rifles and other small arms.... Those nuclear weapons, they sit in their silos. The AK47, that is the real weapon of mass destrution.

Reply 13

Agent Smith

Interesting, but I wouldn't cite a film quote as authoritative. And anyway, we haven't had a rogue nuke yet (as far as I know), so we don't know whether that is true.

Reply 14

ForeverIsMyName

Just for once I'd like to see a 3 hour documentary on where guns have managed to protect people in their own homes. Seems like the only way to put balance into the media.

Reply 15

Apollo

AlphaNumeric

As Ethan Hawke says in 'Lord of War'

Was about to post the same thing! :biggrin:

Reply 16

L i b

Guns. Mutually Assured Distruction has actually kept us a lot safer than we otherwise would've been.

Imagine a gun was like a bee sting and the person who fired one was assured of killing himself too... it'd cut the problems down to size a bit.

Reply 17

AlphaNumeric

Agent Smith

Interesting, but I wouldn't cite a film quote as authoritative.

The writer researched a lot for the film, and even without that, I'd still say it's pretty accurate. Tanks and planes don't do the main killing, they are more for building destruction. Most people are shot.

Reply 18

Byronic

The only thing more dangerous than the two is roundhouse kick to the face, delivered by Chuck Norris.

But seriously, I think the two are incompatible for comparison. It's like comparing Mike Tyson to the military power of America - just because both will bite your ear off doesn't mean you can necessarily compare them. Ah.

Reply 19

psychic_satori

Well, I consider nuclear weapons more dangerous in that they are typically deployed without the victims having any idea until vaporization. However, with guns, the shooter is typically within sight, so most people will at least have the possibility of fleeing.