Like any dictatorship, the primary concern for North Korea's leadership is to uphold the regime. Starting a nuclear war, much less a conventional war would be counter-productive to their interests.

This is true. The only thing we ever get his by is that occasional hurricane that survives all the way up to NC. And by then they are pretty weak anyway and you're only really affected if you're on the coast.

China. And they would nuke back at anyone nuking so close to their territory.

MAD still aplies.

Anyway, here in Finland it's safe. No earthquakes, no hurricanes, no tsunamis, no terrorist interest. Only thing to watch out for is the unemployed, drunk and angry locals

I don't know, after all the Argentinian dictatorship started a war precisely to try to uphold their unpopular regime (if you start a war you can divert attention away from the problems at home). One day North Korea could try this, shortsighted as it may sound

edit: more on topic, I guess that means I don't consider South Korea the safest place to live in the world.

(edit2: that post was not meant to be political, I hope I didn't cross any line)

You heard it here first folks. EVERY American has a gun.

I would say North Dakota or some north-western state would be pretty safe. Not much going up there.

What ridiculous and, pardon me, ignorant generalizations about a country of over 300 million people and almost 10,000,000 sq km. That's like saying all of Europe is like Moldova or Albania (so for God's sake don't move there).

I don't see how that is implausible. every Australian has at least one kangaroo, after all (fastest way to get to our morning croc-wrestle ).

Sooo... everyone?

the world is a glass dome. every one lacks the romanticism and sentience to realize it.

we'll tear our selves apart soon enough, enjoy the ride.

nowhere is safe.

I plan to retire in the Amazon jungle, since my ancestors were pretty much all indians from those parts and I have some knowledge of survival in those climates. No politics, no problems. Just me, my naked self, and the dangerous animals and game. Might even marry an indian woman too.

All honestly, I rather suffer at the hands of the wild then at the hands of politics.

I wouldn't, rampant disease, no electricity, no antivenin, no way to easily get food and a lower life expectancy? No thanks. The concept of living wild being better than civilization has been romanticized and is not at all like a nonstop camping trip.

And there aren't any Indians in the Amazonian jungle.

I'd like to live in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. I like the mountains, and I know for sure that there is big game there for me to eat, and also waterfowl. Food..protection, what else could someone want?

My ex wanted to do something similar and take my son with her as well....

...on those grounds I was awarded custody over my kid.

Just sayin'

What's going on in people's bathrooms to make so many dieing in them? I thought they were areas of privacy?

Slip hazards, to start with.

Pretty much this.
Sure Australia has dangerous animals, but as long as you're not an idiot around them, they don't kill you. And the North of New Zealand's only real risk is tsunami's, and the area around Hamilton is pretty safe from natural disasters - although if you're looking for fun, I wouldn't go there.

Some parts of America look safe, but there's the risk of invasion and all. No one wants Australia and New Zealand.

Islands have high elevations too? Why would they be affected anymore than coasts? Island=mountain in the water...unless it was a continental island in which case it may or may not be highly mountainous. None of them would be underwater...

Has anyone else noticed that soap often has the same color as bathroom floor tiles?



Not all of them.. The Maldives are on average only three feet above sea level..

As for the Netherlands, most of it is twenty feet below sea level, so that rules out 90% of this country

Thankfully this island is part of that 10%

was never a debate about which was more lethal. the point is that if you completely get rid of guns, people will then kill each other with swords. Get rid of swords people will kill each other with sticks and stones, etc.

there is no amount of laws or regulations that can contain the intent to kill.

But they can contain the destructive level of any one individual. There are generally less who wish to deal harm to others than more, but guns and other weaponry allow them to be even more destructive on their own. A man with a stick might kill one person before being stopped, a man with a sword might kill 5, a man with a gun might kill 50 and a man with the ability to launch a nuclear missile might kill 500.000 people. Scale up the weapons and eventually people start thinking "I'm not really comfortable knowing someone has that much destructive power at his fingertips" which is one of the reasons a lot of wars are waged these days, especially the ones of the developed countries against the ones who haven't got it so nice yet. It's just a matter of scaling it down and I think the end of the scale is simply whatever tool is the most destructive yet still serves a purpose. So like a chainsaw can be pretty dangerous but it still helps cut down trees so that would be okay. A gun on the other hand only has the purpose to kill, sometimes it's another human and sometimes it's an animal, the latter being something that might give guns a purpose outside of killing humans, but I'm sure a species as ingenious as ours can find some other way to keep people safe from animals in certain places, other than decking them with guns that they can use the moment they decide to go on an angry rampage.

I for one feel pretty safe knowing that if anyone is going to go on a rampage where I live it will most likely just be with a knife or something of the sort but not a gun which would bring my survivability of the situation from high to slim to none.

If you were on the street, gun shots get fire and kills some people, you'd know right away by the bang to find cover and get to safety.
If you were on the same street, someone stabs several people you wouldn't have a clue and this would allow the murderer to target you because his approach is more stealthy. If the people screamed, you'd likely rush to help - running into the murderers arms.
I'd rather take my chances with people carrying guns.

AGREED!!!

your sense of security is a delusion. there are hundreds of ways a person could go on a rampage more lethal than one with a gun:

vehicular manslaughter
poisoning of water supplies
arson
smothering babies in an infancy ward.

Death is death, making a law to deter the chances of death or reducing its numbers is an act of blatant futility.

Even if you acheive the ideal of reducing the number of deaths related to violence and accidents it would be compensated by starvation and famine due to overpopulation.

Now you're just being silly, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_Ds2ytz4o&feature=related