- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If anyone was at the old boards forums before VuTales, you may remember one thread regarding the theory (which I may have mistakenly labeled as a fact) that firearms require significantly less skill to obtain a kill or injury than a primitive weapon, like a sword or a spear or a bow and arrow.
After all, guns have the advantage of piercing armor, automatic fire, and/or lack of weight over most medieval arms, so guns are more wieldy and more easily able to damage an opponent. There is a lesser time investment in refining the art of firing a gun than honing sword strategies or building strength to stretch that longbow. And armor protection of early weapons were often rivaling in defense to their offense, while firearm defense took a considerable time to have been refined- Kevlar is a fairly recent development, though it has certainly accelerated the research toward bullet protection.
What are your says about the argument? Do you agree with the statement, or perhaps believe otherwise? Because there were certainly many nay-sayers in the previous forum.
Guns take less skill to use to be able to kill a man. That is fact and irrefutable. See trigger, point exit side of gun at bad guy, pull trigger.
See trigger, point exit side of gun at bad guy, pull trigger, get hit in the face by gun due to recoil.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.