Originally posted by Bardock42
No. Not what I said though, is it?
No but you did say less people would die in wars and in less painful ways, or at the very least equally painful which I just don't see happening. Mass fighting with huge army's against another huge army would kill far more people then modern day conflicts.
Originally posted by Fishy
No but you did say less people would die in wars and in less painful ways, or at the very least equally painful which I just don't see happening. Mass fighting with huge army's against another huge army would kill far more people then modern day conflicts.
No, I would say it would decrease the total death rate. Which I am standing by.
I won't claim it will be less painful. I don't know.
But if we just have sticks less people will die.
End of le story.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I would say it would decrease the total death rate. Which I am standing by.I won't claim it will be less painful. I don't know.
But if we just have sticks less people will die.
End of le story.
Sticks perhaps, but without guns we'd still have bows and swords... I'd rather be in a war with guns then in a war with those.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd rather have an army with sticks marching at me than a nuclear warhead.
The possibility of total destruction does of course exist with modern day army's. But the far more controlled destruction that happens most of the time with the incredibly small risk of total destruction is still preferable to me then a full out war with medieval or ancient technology....
Sticks might do, but they would still hurt like hell... Less casualty's though seeing as you probably wouldn't have the time to beat most people to dead because there are others you need to fight. And when the battle is over you probably don't have the energy to kill everybody that's still breathing.
Originally posted by Fishy
The possibility of total destruction does of course exist with modern day army's. But the far more controlled destruction that happens most of the time with the incredibly small risk of total destruction is still preferable to me then a full out war with medieval or ancient technology....Sticks might do, but they would still hurt like hell... Less casualty's though seeing as you probably wouldn't have the time to beat most people to dead because there are others you need to fight. And when the battle is over you probably don't have the energy to kill everybody that's still breathing.
Point one. Also if your neighbour has a gun and hates you and can kill you easily he might do it sooner than beating you with a stick to death, seeing as you have better chances to protect yourself.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Point one. Also if your neighbour has a gun and hates you and can kill you easily he might do it sooner than beating you with a stick to death, seeing as you have better chances to protect yourself.
This is true, on the other hand the chance of my neighbor having a gun is really small. And still even if he would and he would kill me that would still not relate to the total amount of deaths in an average medieval or ancient battle....
My initial idea for this thread was that without the simplicity of 'Point click' that a gun gives crime rates would drop as it takes more skill to utilise a sword (Though the ideas of army's marching to war with sticks and stones got a good lol out of me) then it does to fire a pistol.
It would be an interesting conflict though , oh and no other tech is reduced. We still have current medical knowledge and all that Jazz .
Originally posted by Fishy
This is true, on the other hand the chance of my neighbor having a gun is really small. And still even if he would and he would kill me that would still not relate to the total amount of deaths in an average medieval or ancient battle....
You think? I dunno, I think modern Battles kinda top the medieval ones extremely.
Originally posted by grey fox
My initial idea for this thread was that without the simplicity of 'Point click' that a gun gives crime rates would drop as it takes more skill to utilise a sword (Though the ideas of army's marching to war with sticks and stones got a good lol out of me) then it does to fire a pistol.It would be an interesting conflict though , oh and no other tech is reduced. We still have current medical knowledge and all that Jazz .
Well it would as first, as well as the amount of wars and the amount of people that would die in them, but that will only last for a small period of time. Eventually we'll learn again.
You think? I dunno, I think modern Battles kinda top the medieval ones extremely.
Well look at the war in Afghanistan for instance, or the last Gulf War... Far more peaceful then conquests of Ghenghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or whatever... Battle's there killed thousands, no entire wars kill hundreds...
Then again the aftermath of the conflict kills a lot of people, I have no idea how it was in those days so perhaps the Iraqi war would have taken less lives if swords and bows would still have been the primary weapons.
Originally posted by FishyWar is what causes us to go through pain and suffering in many ways. When I say no weaponds, I ment to give out to any citizen. That is why Gun safety is complete bullshit. You can buy guns anywhere and they can shoot anyone.
We'll just beat the shit out of each other and use natural resources like rocks and wood to kill others... Removing weapons will just make people die in a more painful way.
Originally posted by Fishy
Well it would as first, as well as the amount of wars and the amount of people that would die in them, but that will only last for a small period of time. Eventually we'll learn again.Well look at the war in Afghanistan for instance, or the last Gulf War... Far more peaceful then conquests of Ghenghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or whatever... Battle's there killed thousands, no entire wars kill hundreds...
Then again the aftermath of the conflict kills a lot of people, I have no idea how it was in those days so perhaps the Iraqi war would have taken less lives if swords and bows would still have been the primary weapons.
Well, you are comparing this latest small one with the greatest ever though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you are comparing this latest small one with the greatest ever though.
I don't really consider Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan Project Russia, WWII or WWI to be modern day conflicts... Although that would depend in how far in history you would be willing to call modern.
If you would look however from the start of gunpowder till now then you are definitely right. If you would look at like me from the fall of the wall till now then casualty's are a lot lower
Originally posted by Fishy
I don't really consider Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan Project Russia, WWII or WWI to be modern day conflicts... Although that would depend in how far in history you would be willing to call modern.If you would look however from the start of gunpowder till now then you are definitely right. If you would look at like me from the fall of the wall till now then casualty's are a lot lower
Well, no major conflicts since then. And Iraqis lost a good amount of blood. Don't underestimate that.
Also, comparing 10 years to 1000 I dunno.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, no major conflicts since then. And Iraqis lost a good amount of blood. Don't underestimate that.Also, comparing 10 years to 1000 I dunno.
Not to a thousand years but the way wars were fought back then, wars are fought differently now then they were 20, 30, 40, 50 & 60 years ago... Back then it was more mass destruction now it's more minimal damage and minimal loss of life. I guess it just looks at how you want to look at it.
Originally posted by Fishy
Not to a thousand years but the way wars were fought back then, wars are fought differently now then they were 20, 30, 40, 50 & 60 years ago... Back then it was more mass destruction now it's more minimal damage and minimal loss of life. I guess it just looks at how you want to look at it.
Not because of the weapons though. But because of the different state of mind.
You think if the weapins had been available to Hitler he wouldn't have used them? Also, you think if we all had sticks nowwe would go back to that mentality?