Argentina is still trying to start wars... It will only end badly for them.
So you would rather have a guy able to take you down from long range quickly, than someone who has to run after you.
Stabbing isnt a quick way to die (depending where you get stabbed) and I bet atleast one person would see the guy with the knife.

Also guns =/= loud.

Guns only do harm in the hands of those who use them to do harm though. I've heard of plenty of shootings in broad daylight and increases in gang activity in Sweden lately, and the gun restrictions don't affect the criminals and gangs too much since they just smuggle in their arms along with the drugs and the other good stuff. The difference it makes in the end is that it disarms the law abiding citizens. I can sincerely say that if I was a criminal I'd prefer to be it in a Scandinavian country, or something similar. Very little resistance from civilians, "humane" punishment etc.

Which just means they have someone else doing the defending for them.

I doubt that Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Poland etc were invaded during WW2 because of their mighty armies and imperialistic ways. Just to name a few examples. If you don't have the means to defend yourself you put yourself at the mercy of those willing to use force to get what they want. The countries with populaces willing to get rid of their forces due to peaceful mentalities are not the ones one should worry about anyways. I'm not convinced the world would be a better and more peaceful place if the allies had gone pacifistic when Nazi Germany started reving up their war machine, to be honest.

Yet the people of that island made their choice and weren't forced into but still the want to "re-take" the island because oil was found on/at it.

I'd rather not get touched by either to be honest, but since stabbing are more likely here and the possession of one is illegal it's hard to tell who might be carrying on and if/when they wil snap. Same goes for a gun but it's not something everyone has access to.

Gun = louder than a knife, though

Mostly just the men. Mostly

I won't talk about it in depth because that would definitely go against the no political discussion allowed rule, but I agree. It just seems so pointless...
So? My point still stands, Iceland can't be invaded by just anyone as some people were implying in this thread. Thanks to NATO it does have a fairly strong military protection and is safe in that regard. That's the only point I was trying to make.

I thought that knives counted as a concealed weapon which was illegal? And besides if guns are illegal (like in Australia) then you can be sure anyone carrying one around in the street is probably a criminal. I am against guns on principle though.
Silencers. With a quick shot to the face they are almost silent and certainly a lot more quiet than the struggle required to stab someone to death

Depends on the island. Some islands are barely above sea level right now. If sea levels rise and only 1/2 of the island is still above water there's going to be a lot of fighting over that smaller space. Plus, if there's a global catastrophe the island won't be able to get any imports. And I already said no coasts for me


The Midwest is pretty safe, barring tornados, but the Yellowstone mega volcano is due for a cataclysmic eruption any day now. . .


Just you wait until the Canary Island mega-tsunami. Everything on the East Coast will be washed away.

(Except me)

Fair enough. Just pointing out that they are kept safe at the expense of others.

Still louder than a knife. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjRpe_o_NI&t=1m21s And not sure about the alleged struggle either, probably goes faster than you'd think. A sudden stab in the stomach and you might be done for. And it being illegal to carry knives may not do that much, since it may not be found out until after it has been used already. How many pat-downs have you experienced and how many metal detectors have you gone through lately?

If you get stabbed in the stomach you'd still be able to scream and you could kill someone without a struggle, but there are a lot more variables than simply pulling a trigger. And a small caliber pistol is just as easy to conceal as a knife and more lethal.

I'm sure there's plenty of countries out there who wouldn't mind getting control of Australia's plentiful natural resources. You're probably right about New Zealand though

That's where tactical cowardice comes into play, ally with whoevers army is biggest and closest.

Well, the whole world is more or less screwed when that happens.

Screaming for help is easier said than done since you'd probably be too scared to think properly, and getting stabbed might put you in shock too, for that matter. And getting stabbed can be just as lethal. If you get stabbed in the liver or similar then I don't think there's much you can do. Difference is that it'll take longer before you bleed to death. And as I said, even with gun bans you'll still have criminals with guns(example being Sweden lately, as said). Difference being that the honest citizens won't have the option of having a fair chance. For instance, do tell me if you think this security guard was better off thanks to the lack of arms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbNQk5vUOmY To be quiet honest though, I'm only here to offer another point of view. I don't care at all what everyone does in their respective countries, as long as it doesn't affect me.

It is illegal, doesn't stop people from carrying them though, even if it is in plain sight it's still an offence and carries some pathetic jail time as 'punishment'.
Yeah no doubt, they are most likely a 'professional' criminal but someone in possession of a weapon is far far harder to come by than someone carrying a knife/sharp weapon.

If someone happens to walking around with silenced weapons and gives you a clean shot to the face then you were most likely the target of an assassination so there's nothing you could do about that.
If I was to kill you with a knife silently I could approach from behind and slit servere your jugular so that you could yell/scream for help and the only noise would be you hitting the ground but I could lay you down so the noise would happen at all - unlike being shot were you'd fall and likely make a noise hitting the ground.

I think that two people having guns in a hostile situation such as a robbery might result in more deaths than one person with a gun robbing someone else. Security guards should have guns as they are both protectors and targets, but then again you have crazies who kill anyway regardless n whether people are armed.
I don't really think there is a way of keeping murders at 0% but I do think that less guns do cut down on violence

I don't really think the noise of a thud is really that incriminating, and to get a stab (no pun intended) at someone with a knife in the circumstances mentioned would require as much premeditation as a silenced shot albeit a lot harder to pull off.

The city of Manaus provides anti-venin and medicine. I do realize it's a hassle to be living in a damn jungle. But hey, at least there is a capital many miles away.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Brazil

Well, I certainly wouldn't take that risk.
Very good, you have earned the Politically Correct perk

I realize you all must of mistaken "indians" for the people who live in India, rather than the natives. I should of been more specific.

Nevermind, I read that incorrrectly

I can imagine the Vault Boy icon for that one

I'm not convinced that a lack of guns help. Or it does help criminals, who prefer unarmed target due to the fear of getting shot. Examples from articles concerning prison surveys:
"On the streets, many of the St. Louis robbers "routinely targeted law-abiding citizens," who, unlike their counterparts in most American states, were certain not to be carrying a gun for protection. Law-abiding citizens were chosen as robbery victims because, as one robber noted, "You don't want to pick somebody dangerous; they might have a gun themselves."
(was going to quote more but I figure it's redundant)

Also helped in situations like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQyt0CshI84 . And a link related to what I was saying earlier about Sweden: http://www.thelocal.se/33984/20110525/
But in the end it's a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Every single sane advlt could carry an assault rifle without there being any violence, since it's use boils down to personal values. But as seen in the article, bans stop the people following the law from getting guns, but not necessarily the criminals. And as said, only food for thought.

This is why everyone should be armed all the time. As a matter of fact - we should all graft guns into our arms.

Imagine how safe we'd all be.

Personally I'd rather get robbed than get into a firefight
Giving everyone guns increases chances of accidents, people getting caught in the crossfire, crimes of passion, vigilantes and the police becoming less relevant which is imo a bad thing. It all depends on how effective the police in a country are, personally I'd rather trust trained police/security guards with guns than myself.

Not saying that every robbery should end with a firefight, but having the option to defend yourself could help. If the odds are against you then you can just step down and do as the robber says. If it's a thug with a knife then you can pull your gun on him and end it peacefully.
Depends on the laws concerning ownership too. Requiring people to know how to handle a gun properly before giving them a license would help keep the mishaps down, just like with cars. And the police can't be everywhere at once, nor can they do everything. A woman with a gun can take care of would-be criminals before they [censored] her, for instance, while the police won't deal with them until after the deed.

"Indian" isn't a synonym for "indigenous people", and you should feel silly for using it in such a way.