Man, that's a softball question. "The world has a lot more pipe bombs and hand grenades". More seriously, several of the assertions in this piece are seriously

Man, that's a softball question. "The world has a lot more pipe bombs and hand grenades". More seriously, several of the assertions in this piece are seriously borked. OK, a few paras in: "a bow with a draw weight of 45 lbs can kill almost any creature on this planet". Umm, no? Maybe a "HELL naw man". It doesn't even sound true if you think about it, say, medium-hard. He's also comparing bow maximum ranges with aimed rifle precision ranges, another "the hell is this guy thinking" sort of assertion. Historical stuff: "became the dominant hand-held missile weapons from the 1500s onwards" Nope, he is at least a century too early here, possible a century and a half - hell, the Spanish colunellas was only invented in 1510, to say nothing of it being successfully implemented. I'm done. After all that we don't even touch on the actual reason for firearms in the early modern period, which is . . they're cheap as hell. It's an iron tube with special dirt. And it can be fired by a conscript peasant with a couple days' training. Every other missile weapon is orders of magnitude more costly, and only occasionally maybe marginally better in some edge cases. I totally dig on the idea of sustainable ranged weapons, but dude . . you gotta get some better background if you want to get taken serious. Sorry this sounds kinda hostile. I am sure the author is a great person and really smart. I'd probably really enjoy hanging out with him.