violent persons with guns?

Question

What do you think is the difference between violent people who cary guns or weapons , and others who not cary guns and weapons but they are also violent?

Answer 1

Well first of all I should note that the nature of damage is different between guns, melee weapons and unarmed combat. A weapon is a tool of leverage. Now while an unarmed strike can be just about as deadly as a gun, assuming that it is coming from a skilled combattant with a murderous intention, there is also the perspective to consider.

When guns were a novelty on the battlefield they were looked upon both with fear (or snubbed depending on the level of ignorance) as well as with disdain. It was generally accepted that the way of the gun was the weapon of the coward.

For a comparison watch 'The Last Samurai' to get an idea of what I am talking about. The melee fighter gunned down feels cheated and there is no glory in pulling the trigger on a relatively unarmed opponent (which is why there was a phase where warning shots became fashionable).

While the gun is cowardly, so too is the suicide bomb belt against unarmed combattants. While some would argue that it takes courage to don a suicide belt I do note that many are deluded into great promises in the afterlife, which mostly negates any delusion of glory.

Long story short, the greater the leverage one possesses in combat (through superior weaponry or unfair weakening of the opponent (such as through poison)) the greater one's cowardice is in the perspective of the 3rd party viewer.

Answer 2

The person with the gun may have some killing skills but if a killer with no weapons but alot of skills? I would have to say it's kind of even. The person with a weapon has easier control and speed. The person without weapons is vunerable but is very swift and skilled. So: person with weapon 50% kill + weapon 50% kill
person without weapon (but skilled) 100% kill

This may be a confusing answer.

Ok consider this. You are challenging somebody in an eating contest. You eat a big bowl of soup but they eat a small bowl. The person with the small bowl finishes first by 15 seconds. But when they think it again, the person with the small bowl didn't actually win. If the big bowl was filled with the equivelent amount of 15 seconds of soup, it would be a tie.

Answer 3

If a person is violent, it doesn't matter whether or not they have a weapon or not they'll try to kill you with or without a gun, but if they have a gun (or any other weapon for that matter), it makes it more convenient to kill you.

whether or not a weapon is present is irrelevant, they can be even more dangerous because they'll do whatever it takes to kill you, so you gotta do what you can against them.

Answer 4

the only difference is the weapon.

If in both cases they are violent people, then they will act out thier tendancies regardless.

If you are talking about a person who carries a weapon, respects it and is willing to use it if pushed but is not "violent" then they are not dangerous unless you pose a danger to them or are an arab in which case you will be setting off a suicide bomb and are a danger to everyone....

Answer 5

Those with weapons are a lot more dangerous. Both types need treatment or incarceration.

Answer 6

what do i think what kind a question is this. id be more threatened by a violent person with a weapon as appose to a violent person without a weapon.

Answer 7

No difference. The ones WITHOUT the weapons are more dangerous because they feel they can kill people WITHOUT the need of a handy weapon. You need to avoid those people...

Answer 8

i think people with guns can do a lot more damage.
weapons can create more injury. and death easier.
weapons can also be used by another person...
like a dropped or stolen gun or knife so it enables
someone else to be more damaging.

Answer 9

One can be arrested before he commits an act of violence, the other cannot.

Answer 10

the ones with the guns don't have to get close.