Since we seem to be going in circles...

[clutch-monkey]

get a really vicious dog

[fpv_gtho]

Ive got a "vicious" dog, a damn purebred staffie with a 5kg head you wouldnt believe it but hes the biggest chickenshit in the world (once you know the dog of course). its his cross breed of a daughter thats the one barking at the smallest things in the middle of the night

[clutch-monkey]

my grandmas dog is so vicious it will piss on you when go through the front door. although it has recently learned how to drag people out of cars before they have unbuckled

[SlickHolden]

No dog for me i'll do all the barking now.
I caught him in the car but by the time i got to the front door he was around the bend, And i was in undies and t-shirt.
I almost gave it a gallip but didnt wanna hurt me mates

[clutch-monkey]

my other grandma has a cockatoo that barks

[Matra et Alpine]

are there many places to go hunting etc in britain anyway?

Can't say for Englandshire
In Scotland you need permission from the landowner to hunt on thier farm/forest/mountain.
The best shooting areas charge for access and limit quantity.
Stag are culled but there are restriction on who can do this to ensure the animals go down on the first shot - so it takes a good marksman to get a 'ticket'.
Pheasant and grouse are common to hunt when the season opens on Agust 12 each year ( the "glorioius 12th" )
Wood pigeon can be shot all year round.
Ducks and geese I'm not sure of the limits/controls, but some are open-season and some aren't. Theese are too close to "pets" for me
Farmers LOVE you to come on the land to shoot hares, rabbit, foxes and (oddly) seaguls.
My grandfather used to breed gun dogs !!

[cls12vg30]

I had an interesting thought on this. Can you imagine if a war the scale of WWII were fought with swords, spears, etc? See nowadays typically a very high percentage of soldiers who are wounded survive. But back in the days when two groups of people just ran at each other and started hacking away with swords, there weren't all that many "walking wounded". You were either still standing when it was over, or more likely, you were dead.

Now we can extrapolate and say that if guns weren't invented maybe airplanes and bombs weren't either, so in that case there would be fewer civilian casualties in a large war like WWII where the two sides bomb each other's cities. But as for soldiers, if the numbers involved were the same, I think you would have seen a lot fewer people survive to the end.

[Coventrysucks]

I had an interesting thought on this. Can you imagine if a war the scale of WWII were fought with swords, spears, etc? See nowadays typically a very high percentage of soldiers who are wounded survive. But back in the days when two groups of people just ran at each other and started hacking away with swords, there weren't all that many "walking wounded". You were either still standing when it was over, or more likely, you were dead.

The fact that medicine was hardly more than rubbing herbs on someone may have had a small role to play in that.

[crisis]

I had an interesting thought on this. Can you imagine if a war the scale of WWII were fought with swords, spears, etc? See nowadays typically a very high percentage of soldiers who are wounded survive. But back in the days when two groups of people just ran at each other and started hacking away with swords, there weren't all that many "walking wounded". You were either still standing when it was over, or more likely, you were dead.

Now we can extrapolate and say that if guns weren't invented maybe airplanes and bombs weren't either, so in that case there would be fewer civilian casualties in a large war like WWII where the two sides bomb each other's cities. But as for soldiers, if the numbers involved were the same, I think you would have seen a lot fewer people survive to the end.

Kind of hard to extrapolate the theory as you have to indeed take into account medical advances, mobility ie jeeps truck etc. I rekon a war without guns would definately drag on longer so it is hard to say what the loss of life would be. Essentially guns, cannons and bombs enable the destruction of life to proceed and a much quicker rate.

[clutch-monkey]

, mobility ie jeeps truck etc. I rekon a war without guns would definately drag on longer so it is hard to say what the loss of life would be. Essentially guns, cannons and bombs enable the destruction of life to proceed and a much quicker rate.

very true. tactics and mobility count for alot. also, modern military weapons make each individual soldier more effective: with swords you have to get as amny people together as possible to increase effectiveness.

[SlickHolden]

WW2 with swords would be like a marathon that didn't stop, They both sides would retreat cause they wouldn't have anything left to give by the end of a week they would die of stress exhaustion.
It would be the never ending war, So they give up in the end and say WTF I'm stuffed lets go home chief.
Who would want to fight with swords againts 500,000 people, So hey lets make a gun and make the killing easy so we can go home for supper

[crisis]

WW2 with swords would be like a marathon that didn't stop, They both sides would retreat cause they wouldn't have anything left to give by the end of a week they would die of stress exhaustion.
It would be the never ending war, So they give up in the end and say WTF I'm stuffed lets go home chief.
Who would want to fight with swords againts 500,000 people, So hey lets make a gun and make the killing easy so we can go home for supper

Pragmatism at it most human.

[clutch-monkey]

unfortunately thats what war does. it spurs each side to try and gain a technological upper hand on the other to minimise the losses required for victory. ask yourself this: if Iraq was at the same technological level as america, would an invasion have been as likely?

[Fowler]

But you could argue that you need to be skilled to use a sword or hand weapon, plus the fact that guns were made to replace hands weapons as they could kill more people more safely and quickly, so there would be less deaths in relation to those which involve guns...

Actually, the most vicious weapons of the age didn't require much training. The German Guttentag was an oversized bat with a spiked chunk of wood at the end. A small village of revolting peasants stopped a whole army of sword armoured knights. And there is the halbred, the lance, the morning star, the ax, the dagger and countless others (Including farming implements). All of them much more brutal than just a little piece of lead that only made a small amount of localized damage. While the Gun requires training (And maintenance), it's not that hard to bash someone's skull in with a hammer.

And who's to say these weapons didn't kill more people than guns do now? Wheres the ancient statistics to back this up with? I never heard of any records speaking of how many murders there were back then.

Besides, I'd pick the Bullet over the blade, spike, head & arrow any given day. It's cleaner, it only causes very localized damage, and doesn't hurt nowhere near as much as the others when it comes to execution. If I'm gonna get killed, I'd prefer a quick round to the head rather than still being conscious when my head gets chopped off.


So, as usual, I throughly own yet another anti-gun thread. *dances a victory jig*

[crisis]

Besides, I'd pick the Bullet over the blade, spike, head & arrow any given day. It's cleaner, it only causes very localized damage, and doesn't hurt nowhere near as much as the others when it comes to execution. If I'm gonna get killed, I'd prefer a quick round to the head rather than still being conscious when my head gets chopped off.


So, as usual, I throughly own yet another anti-gun thread. *dances a victory jig*

So how many blade, gunshot and arrow injuries have you sustained then?