1

2

Clumsy Cannons A Thing Of the Past…Embrace the Hand Gun!

Heavy, Clumsy cannons are a thing of the past. They were heavy, hard to aim, dangerous and hard to

move. The men who died firing them and those who lost their hearing paid the price for these monsters. Now, rejoice for the arrival of the hand gun! So light and mobile, Invented in NW Italy, these guns have replaced the need for Cannons. Men can hold their own, feel brave and courageous holding them. Can you take any more of the harmful guns that may have killed loved ones or that have lost their hearing!By Amber

Bows V Fire ArmsFire arms are expensive and can blow

up in the middle of the battle, what makes them even more expensive because people don’t like carrying

bombs, so they will have to be paid a lot more of money, and fire arm have no accuracy at all meaning they have

to shoot from close up.

Bows are a lot cheaper and do not explode, plus they have a very good

accuracy.While fire arms have to be shot in

formation at a close range, bows can be shot from far away and they shoot way more arrows, a skilled bowman can have 6 arrows in the air by the time the first one hits the ground.

Fire arms have no place in war; the war of future will be full bows and

arrows!Arrows versus

Explosions

50% of the soldiers of Great Brittan, are arguing about why, the excellent and effective common bows and arrows should be but above the barbaric, dangerous, ear popping cannon? “It’s an outrage, that so great and light a weapon that can kill a man from a hundred yards, be cast aside just for the sake of so unholy a vile metal weapon of war. Nay by my counsel!” said a captain File. One of our men pulled up a fully armed canon and aimed it at a target. He used a long stick in case of an explosion. And what’s the result? One very scorched earth. The canon exploded and didn’t reach so much as 10% near the target.

3Plus, were it on open battle field, 3 people on our side would have died. These people should not create more cannons. Bows are easy to reload, quicker to fire and you can aim better. While with cannons they take long time to fire, 4 times harder to reload. So what we’re saying is “Stop this waste of warfare and time. The only thing you are going to achieve is more death.”

Reporter: Nicholas Clarke

Can-nons Can-not By Helen PritchardCannons cannot replace the great British archers!People are still raving about the cannons but cannons cannot and will not replace the great English longbow men who have always been and always will be the ones who win wars!The brave and strong longbow men are able to aim their arrows, shoot and hit the target every time. They show the world how to win wars. The dreadful new cannons cannot be aimed by anybody and so often the missiles land nowhere near the target if they fly in the right direction at all because they often back fire.

The mighty archers can shoot many arrows a minute but the poorly thought out new cannons can only fire a few each day! This is no way to win a war.Many of the soldiers are saying that we should abandon the awful cannons and let our brave archers back in.We need to go back to tried and tested methods of warfare. Everyone knows that the great English archers cannot be defeated. We don’t need these ghastly new cannons; we need heroic, strong, brave, English longbow men.

Cannons- the future or are they just full of hot air!!

The new and latest weapon to be used in wars over Europe, but are they a positive addition for our military or should we return to the traditional longbow archery that has served our armies for so many years?It seems that a lot of leaders in the military are also asking the same question, our newspaper spoke to several leading army figures who are quoted to have said in their opinion cannons are a dangerous and unwanted weapon. One soldier said ‘many men have been killed when the ball explodes out of the side or back of the cannon instead of the muzzle. Another said they are useless as it is almost impossible to get any sort of aim of target with any accuracy. There is call from these men to return to the use of longbows which have more precise aim and can be reloaded quickly unlike the cannon which can only be reloaded several times.

4Others however disagree, they see the cannon and its invention as an exciting breakthrough in modern warfare and that the problems are only temporary and that work on getting it right must continue to keep up with armies around the world.It seems that this debate will continue for some time yet In my opinion why not combine the use of both? I understand new technology will always be invented but what is the harm with sticking to the old tried and tested methods?By Lewis

Brilliant Bows Blast Gunpowder

Traditional methods like longbows have a much higher success rate than cannons and guns because they can shoot rapid fire at the enemy and are much more accurate. How many times has a cannon exploded in our soldier’s face or guns taking too long to load? we should move back to long bows and stop this nonsense.

My second point is that bows are really cheap while guns and cannons are really expensive. For the price of a cannon we could buy hundreds of bows. And on rainy, or even damp, days gunpowder doesn’t even work!

Archers can have 4 arrows in the air by the time they fire the fifth but it takes a huge amount of precious time to load guns and cannons and they are made useless by a small breeze. Also the massive ball from a cannon that you’re going to fire at the enemy could literally go off in your face. Bows and arrows are quiet but cannons and guns are noisy and sparks From your gun shine in the dark revealing your position at night.

In summary you’re more likely to kill yourself than the enemy if you have

these weapons. Let’s go back to Long Bows Now!

By Matthew

Bang Bang BangBy Paul

The guns should stay you know because the person you shoot is most likely going to die but bow and arrow they can get the arrow out. Plus the mighty gun is long ranged you see someone in the distance bang there died. But the gun is hard to carry around but that doesn’t change my opinion about the gun.

The Causes of Bow-gunsI think that bow-guns were useful when it came to wars and battles but they also prevented lots of danger. In the picture above you can see that the bow-gun has many handy things but as you may have seen there is smoke coming out of it. The smoke could either kill the person using the gun or could cause pollution. So I’m actually against the bow-guns and I think that they should invent a handgun with less smoke coming out of it and use that one more often and save the other one for when it is really need, like in battles and wars. Even though the bow-guns were dangerous to the person using them they were still easy to carry around because

5they had the rope attached to the gun so when they were finished using them they could hang the rope over their shoulder so they could carry it without having to use their hands. Now I don’t actually mind them being dangerous with all the smoke coming out of it because it has useful parts of it as well, like the rope and the powerful gunpowder.By Becky

Guns: good or bad?

Guns are better than longbows because they don’t require a lot of training for someone to be able to shoot them but they are bad because they aren’t accurate and they aren’t very reliable. As a weapon, longbows are better, but they are a lot harder to use, and the archers require a lot of training in order to pull them back.By Billy