What could be considered more dangerous, a gun or a car?

Question

If you had 24 hours to kill as many people as you want with unlimited ammo..and so with gas.

A regular gun, with single shot gun with unlimited ammo and a regular car for example a ferrari (with the engine in the back)

Okay its not like we are going to kill people but friend and i are having an argument about this.. this is just for fun

Answer 1

Neither. Both are inanimate objects that are relient on the laws of physics to operate.

Now dogs are more dangerous than both because dogs have a brain and have the capability to revert to it's nature.

Answer 2

Common sense says the gun because you're not going to find that many people just walking in the middle of the street with the car and if you do get in an accident trying to kill, there is a chance that they will survive

Answer 3

I don't think all eight of your cylinders are firing, but I will take a shot at it. =)

Car is more dangerous than a gun.

Think about it. You are going to have recoil with a pistol or shotgun or whatever. Your finger will get tired and your ears will hurt, and inevitably your wrist is going to hurt as well. Why not sit back and hit the cruise control in your pick-up, turn up the Lynard Skynard on the 8-track and drive down to chinatown... Fill up before you get there though. Gas is really expensive.

Answer 4

When both used properly I'd say the gun. Its designed for killing...the car isnt...the car would probably be so damaged it cant drive straight anymore after a few dozen people.

Of course you could drive it into a body shop and get it fixed up quick...this will also get the cops off you, and you can't do this on foot.
Cheer for GTA!

Answer 5

nicely Charles, you're making a great case for taking greater care of swimming pools - possibly we choose greater enforced rules? on the different hand, the stats won't comprise what proportion toddlers are orphaned as a results of fact of weapons. additionally, the message of vilence weapons carry. somebody has already hinted on the advantages of swimming pools. individually i do no longer choose to have the duty of a pool. Neither do I also have a gun, yet as quickly as I did, i might shop it nicely locked away. If we glance at issues logically, - an motor vehicle isn't geared up with the purpose of killing, even though it does kill. So maximum if no longer all governments require which you ahve a enable in the previous driving an motor vehicle, and a license to even very own one. weapons are synthetic for the purpose of killing some thing, if no longer somebody. lots greater reason at the back of governmental regulations, a license to possess, and a renewable enable to apply, - oh specific, and necessary coverage to boot. interior the comparable way, if swimming pools are truly the reason at the back of lots of drowning deaths, shouldn't there be greater regulations? - an necessary course with a view to have a license to possess a pool, case in point?

Answer 6

The danger of a gun or car is proportional to the person holding/driving it.

As far as which would be deadlier in a killing spree - I would probably take the gun (depending on what kind of gun it was), since you would probably wreck the car pretty quickly trying to hit people with it.

Answer 7

Depends on who is operating the car and who has the gun. Its not really the car or the gun that's the problem its the moron driving the car or firing the gun that's the problem.

Answer 8

Both can be dangerous if they are not handled properly
this means you need to be trained to be able to drive a car
( driver's training ) ( the use of a gun ) ( gun safety course )

Answer 9

Leave the gun, take the car.

Answer 10

A gun would do the job for me. In LA, CA that stuff happens all the time.