Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SKyOdin" data-source="post: 5395941" data-attributes="member: 57939">I can see one big problem with this comparison that hasn't been addressed. Why are you talking about a gun thats "roughly equivalent to a snipers rifle from the Civil war"? Civil war era firearms represented about the third major revolution in firearms technology, which obsoleted Napoleonic warfare and ushered in the age of WW1-era trench warfare. Essentially, you are not comparing an early modern firearm to contemporary melee weapons, you are comparing a modern, accurate firearm to a melee weapon. If we were talking about a 16th century firearm, the kid would have had to somehow had to sneak a lot closer to his target while carrying a weapon with a lit match on it (in other words, very easy to see or smell).And again, why do people always use swords as the point of comparison? As far as melee weapons go, they are somewhat hard to use and were rarely the primary weapon of soldiers. Why not an axe or a spear? Even a clumsy blow with an ax has the potential to do some serious damage.</blockquote>