YOU CRINGE YOU LOSE

[Dodger]

uhm firearms really dopnt mater in the whole sceme of things..,,,, wat does matter tho:: is stopping tribals from disproving my loveuality/gender (they r difrent) and the fact that ike's patriarchal attitude is practically raping me,...

thanks

[Ad Bot]

[kidplasma]

No I meant firearms changed war
I don't think I even came close to implying they made them less violent and with lower death tolls
And it's also good to know the history of mass production and its effect on war

i thought you meant guns got less destructive over the years due to gun laws, but okay.

[Dodger]

I edited the original post, I thought it was kinda clear that firearms revolutionized the dynamic of battle and war

[HellHound]

Fun Fact: Skilled longbowmen were far more lethal than guns for a majority of history. The reason why we didn't use bowmen was because it took five years to train a bow soldier vs about a month (estimate) to train a gun soldier.

[Foxscotch]

I don't think I even came close to implying they made them less violent and with lower death tolls

"changed the destructive nature of them"

And it's also good to know the history of mass production and its effect on war

mass production and guns both made wars more deadly. that is as bad as it gets. nobody ever has issues destroying things that are bad, so why do they now?

Instead of having an open discussion on something, you reached a conclusion on your own behalf on something you never bothered to research. There is a lot of rich history on something you instead claimed isn't important.
Firearms and the right to bear them are, in fact, a real part of history. A part of history you know nothing about, and yet claim it doesn't exist.

I don't claim it doesn't exist, I'm claiming it's unimportant

well, not unimportant... but like. not... something. it's important for where we are now. but in a bad way

[ZombieDude]

"changed the destructive nature of them"

he's implying guns are changing how people fought wars
not that guns made wars less violent

[Foxscotch]

he's implying guns are changing how people fought wars
not that guns made wars less violent

it's changing them in a bad way. which isn't by any means a reason to respect them. I naturally assumed he was trying to tell me why guns were good

[HellHound]

I think it'd be a good idea to respect an object that can change whether or not you survive in a matter of seconds.

[Foxscotch]

I think it'd be a good idea to respect an object that can change whether or not you survive in a matter of seconds.

yeah if it's pointed at you. sure. just like if someone is threatening to kill me in any other way, I'm going to act like I respect them for as long as that situation lasts. but as soon as it's over it doesn't matter

[ZombieDude]

it's changing them in a bad way. which isn't by any means a reason to respect them. I naturally assumed he was trying to tell me why guns were good

guns aren't good. i assume nobody likes killing people
it isnt his point anyway, he's telling you that gun are a relic of war and that they HAVE history.

if i told you that the mongols changed the world, its not very smart to assume i mean that mongols are good

[HellHound]

Night Fox knows nothing about guns; keeps arguing.

[hodot]

foxscotch why do you enjoy this

this is fun for no one

[Foxscotch]

if i told you that the mongols changed the world, its not very smart to assume i mean that mongols are good

if you were trying to tell me why you should respect mongols, and you said they changed the word, then I would assume you meant exactly that, regardless of how wrong you'd be

[legowarrior1414]

foxscotch why do you enjoy this

this is fun for no one

because it get's his post count up

[Victor Von Doom]

"changed the destructive nature of them"

Can be taken in BOTH ways, they either made them MORE destructive or less. This argument is literally nightfox V all =L and frankly I think we should get back on topic