That was my point.
Here is another one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41484909
Earliest records appears to be the Chines Fire lance which was a kind a flame thrower, that used black powder, to which shrapnel was added to make a more effective killing device. I would hazard that such a device was used in warfare not in hunting for animals (which is still killing anyway). Every single innovation or development since then has been driven by arms race for the purpose of killing.Yes, but was it for killing people or for food?
Good for you, have an extra point.So I stand by my point.
Well, as a research scientist I would have hoped you had a better grasp of logic.IDM wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:18 pm No That would be ridiculous. Though it was you that started the debate with your absurd comparison of guns and cars. an argument that was basically laughable and simply had to be shown for what it was.
I work as a research scientist and will find a ban on sulphuric acid an absolute pain in the arse as I will now have to apply for some form of exemption license
imo it doesn't matter how many times it's done the rounds, it'll never reach too many times.