Blood wrote:pros and cons of guns and bow+arrow
There is a lot of generalizations here and a little bit of guess work. You seem young and did seem to give this some good thought, so I won't be mean.
One big bit of misinformation Id like to point out is that an arrow is more damaging than a gun. This is almost never the case. I think you are forgetting that the guns at the time are muskets and blunderbusses, these basically throw a lead ball a people, they are inaccurate as hell but when they do hit someone they basically are dead. Not necessarily because it killed them outright but because the ball would crush and splinter the bone where it hit. The limb had to be removed and that wasn't a simple processes either. I have heard (haven't fact checked) that in civil war more soldiers died as a result of amputations than killed outright in battle, and that was with 250 years of technological improvement.
The America's have witnessed the gun vs the arrow many many times and while the bow and arrow is not without merit the side with more guns nearly always won.
