|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 22:50:21 GMT -5
How about arrows that explode? Or ones that make you sticky. neither are better then guns. Especially in the modern world where explosive ammo and glue/foam actually exist. Even ignoring such, grenades and rocket launchers are better then such arrows. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 22:51:53 GMT -5
But, but.......  |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 22:56:49 GMT -5
But, but.......  |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 23:10:15 GMT -5
But look how awesome archery is  Plus, just look how hard it is to use a gun:  |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 23:11:49 GMT -5
But look how awesome archery is Guns are objectively better as eye candy:  |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 23:13:28 GMT -5
She better be careful or she could get blasted in the face  |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 23:15:52 GMT -5
And unlike an arrow... it will actually be effective |
|
|
|
Post by Gender on Aug 31, 2011 23:29:01 GMT -5
Hawkeye doesn't use guns, the same reason Rambo doesn't use guns. To make dozens of grown men piss their pants as you absolutely demolish them. And guns make things too !@#$ing easy: SNIPER: "Nothing we can do" You remember when someone fires an arrow through peoples skulls. People remember... and respect your authority! |
|
|
|
Post by DedmanWalkin on Aug 31, 2011 23:31:29 GMT -5
Arrows are silent and can pierce most bulletproof vests whereas bullets are loud and cannot pierce most bulletproof vests. Even silenced bullets are loud whereas the loudest bow is still barely audible at range.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 23:33:03 GMT -5
Guns impart more authority then any pointed stick!
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Aug 31, 2011 23:35:33 GMT -5
whereas bullets are loud and cannot pierce most bulletproof vests. false most bulletproof vests can at best only stop the weakest rounds and that's a mid range where most of the velocity is lost. And the gun defeated the arrow in every relevant way. If bows really were superior we'd still be using them as standard issue for our soldiers. We don't, why? because guns are better. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 31, 2011 23:59:50 GMT -5
hellos you reminded me of the most bad ass application of a bow of all time: Arnold Schwarzeneggar vs. a Predator.
|
|
|
|
Post by DedmanWalkin on Sept 1, 2011 0:09:26 GMT -5
Type I's can stop everything up to a 9mm. Everything from a type II and up can stop all your larger stuff. It should be noted that Type I's are no longer the standard.
We don't use bow and arrows because they take skill and strength to use whereas you can teach anyone how to use a gun in very little time. Convenience always trumps effectiveness. You need to look no further than your local Wal-mart to know this is true.
|
|
Afterglow
Sidekick Ledger
"Forced kindness is an act of evil."
Posts: 129
|
Post by Afterglow on Sept 1, 2011 0:51:20 GMT -5
Hawkeye's bow in Thor is much cooler than any gun in existance  . Highly impractical of course. You notch an arrow and there are already fifty bullets flying at you. I hope Hawkeye in the 'Avengers' uses all sorts of weapons; guns, knives, cards, marbles, fingernails, but a bow will still be his primary choice of weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 1, 2011 12:56:26 GMT -5
Type I's can stop everything up to a 9mm. Everything from a type II and up can stop all your larger stuff. It should be noted that Type I's are no longer the standard. wrong and police as well as military statistics prove it. T We don't use bow and arrows because they take skill and strength to use whereas you can teach anyone how to use a gun in very little time. Convenience always trumps effectiveness. You need to look no further than your local Wal-mart to know this is true. Completely false. -Guns are more accurate -Guns are much more powerful in any way. Even small calibers are better then the best arrows -Guns are faster -Guns are more efficient -Guns have broader applications -Guns have much longer range There is nothing to dispute. You are wrong, period. The Gun is superior to the bow and has been since the 1700's the fact that you even argue otherwise shows to me you know very little of actual warfare or history. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 1, 2011 12:58:32 GMT -5
Type I's can stop everything up to a 9mm. Everything from a type II and up can stop all your larger stuff. It should be noted that Type I's are no longer the standard. wrong and police as well as military statistics prove it. Come on crom, you know the police in Canada don't carry guns |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 1, 2011 13:01:21 GMT -5
Come on crom, you know the police in Canada don't carry guns actually they do, in fact the RCMP (our equivalent of the FBI) carry a bigger caliber weapon as their standard issue then the FBI and most U.S police forces to booth. Plus they can cross the border to arrest people in the U.S and the U.S government will back them. Thanks to the cooperative treaty of joint North American law enforcement with our neighbors to the south. |
|
|
|
Post by DedmanWalkin on Sept 1, 2011 13:41:53 GMT -5
How about you provide me those statistics then, I would love to see them. One of my friends is in Iraq right now and has been for quite awhile. He was in a firefight and was saved by his body armor.
Again, convenience always trumps effectiveness. The fact is that you can train and entire army to use a gun in little time but training an entire army to use a bow will take you up to twice or 3 times as long. Also, guns have existed in one form or another since the 1400s, it took them 300 years to become better than the Bow and Arrow? Good plate armor could stop a gunshot at range during that 300 year period and only could pierce it at very close range. Why would anyone, government or otherwise, sink that amount of time into a weapon that was for all intents and purposes less effective than the bow and arrow? What is it that all the movies say today about guns, "It's easy, just point and click." You can't do that with a bow and arrow which is why it was eventually dropped for the easier to use gun.
You also just said that bullet proof vests could stop small calibres yet even they are superior to even the best arrows which can essentially ignore bullet proof vests?
I am not wrong, convenience always trumps effectiveness. The fact that you don't know this is true shows you don't know much of human nature, history, or warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 1, 2011 13:54:03 GMT -5
How about you provide me those statistics then, I would love to see them. One of my friends is in Iraq right now and has been for quite awhile. He was in a firefight and was saved by his body armor. which does nothing to prove your point other then pointing out that having armor is better then not having it. It does nothing to prove the nonexistent superiority of the bow. Again, convenience always trumps effectiveness. The fact is that you can train and entire army to use a gun in little time but training an entire army to use a bow will take you up to twice or 3 times as long. Also, guns have existed in one form or another since the 1400s, it took them 300 years to become better than the Bow and Arrow? Good plate armor could stop a gunshot at range during that 300 year period and only could pierce it at very close range. Wrong. Guns have effectively been beating plate armor since the Italian wars. Try again and research instead of spewing typical bullshit that bespeaks of an armchair scholar rather then someone who actually studies this. The only thing arrows had over guns until the 1600's was effective range. Which in mass battles and cavalry was quickly proven less effective when smaller forces armed with firearms constantly performed better over bow users. You also just said that bullet proof vests could stop small calibres yet even they are superior to even the best arrows which can essentially ignore bullet proof vests? There isn't an arrow in the world that can pierce the porcelain/metal/and composite flexible strips of bullet proof armor. Large calibers do not have this problem. Your wrong here. I am not wrong, convenience always trumps effectiveness. The fact that you don't know this is true shows you don't know much of human nature, history, or warfare. The only one showing ignorance here is you. I'm working on a PHD in history, come back when you actually show knowledge of anything you mention above or respect then we'll talk. The fact that you actually keep calling me ignorant while spewing this bullshit only makes me take you seriously even less. Guns are better, period. Convenience is a strength. Even discarding that. Take a team, make them the best of the best archers in the world with the best of the best training. I'll take a normal SAS sniper and light infantry team. They'll win every time. Bow and Arrows may look cool, but guns are better. We stopped using them because they simply weren't performing. A gun can drop a man at 3 miles. Arrows measure their lethality in yards. |
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 1, 2011 15:27:03 GMT -5
Hawkeye's bow in Thor is much cooler than any gun in existance . My friend .50 cal would like a word with you.  |
|
. Highly impractical of course. You notch an arrow and there are already fifty bullets flying at you. I hope Hawkeye in the 'Avengers' uses all sorts of weapons; guns, knives, cards, marbles, fingernails, but a bow will still be his primary choice of weapon.
