Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7804150" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, when I was in the military, it was certainly brought up.  Most battlefield weapons are designed to wound, rather than kill, because wounding is far, far more effective than killing.  If you wound a soldier, it takes dozens of enemy personal to bring that soldier back to the line (people to take the soldier off the battlefield, forward area medical treatment, transport further to the rear, more medical treatment, possibly removal to their home country for still more medical treatment) whereas if you kill someone, it takes two or three people to bury the body.  It's more about economics than anything.[USER=15700]@Sacrosanct[/USER] - a point to remember about the Vegas shooting was the advent of modern medicine.  Had that same shooting occurred even as recently as a couple of decades ago, the death toll would have been significantly higher.  Numerous US cities have reported large reduction in firearm fatalities, not because there are less firearm incidents, but because they can now save people who would have died from their wounds twenty years ago.There is the other issue to remember as well - a modern or SF character can carry SO MUCH more firepower than earlier era's.  Compare the firepower of a modern US infantry platoon to even a Korean War era US platoon and they're not even close.  The modern load out of soldiers is truly terrifying.  Never minding the non-weapon stuff too - body armor that is reasonably effective, night vision goggles that are often standard issue, heck, even something as simple as kneepads make a huge difference.  Now, advance technology 20 years, 50 years, 500 years, and the average soldier is an engine of destruction.  Imagine for a moment what a platoon sized unit (or company sized if you want overkill) could do at, say, Agincourt.</blockquote>

Verification