Future Close combat weapon

Post by **Martin Blank** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 1:10 am

Then it's still the person holding the gun taking the action.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 2:05 am

I see what Amsfan is getting at... even if guns don't DIRECTLY kill people, the indirectedness of their involvement is very close to directly.

Yes, I could use a big fucking stick to club you to death if I was so inclined, if I had a gun it would be a LOT easier. And if I was a soldier and firing bursts of automatic gunfire at a target, there's a good chance they'd cause collateral damage, including even hitting people not involved in the skirmish or even involved with either side.

Swords or some other form of melee weaponry don't have this problem.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:18 am

So, you'd have us return to an even more brutal form of close combat? Would Bow's and Arrows be outlawed? And how the hell would you control whether or not people used swords only ? Germany signed the Washington naval limitations treaty, but that didn't stop Hitler from creating the Bismark.

CorruptTiki · Post by **CorruptTiki** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:46 am

When rational men resort to violence the only correct action is; swift, decisive, and above all effective. Do you have any idea what kind of carnage thousands of men armed with swords would leave behind? The number or maimings and people bleeding their lives out on a battlefield would be staggering.

Seir · Post by **Seir** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:46 am

Additionally, it wasn't until firearms were introduced that it became easier for the common people to rise up against the ruling elite class. The longbow doesn't count due to the fact that 1) you needed years and years of training to effectively use it 2) you all need a HUGE set of arms in addition to the training. If you want to talk about which brought about more equality it's actually the sword that made things worse off for the civilian population.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:51 am

[quote="Phong";p="136874"]So, you'd have us return to an even more brutal form of close combat? Would Bow's and Arrows be outlawed? And how the hell would you control whether or not people used swords only ? Germany signed the Washington naval limitations treaty, but that didn't stop Hitler from creating the Bismark.[/quote]

*I* didn't say anything, I just clarified what Amsfan seemed to be saying since all the other replies were taking sarcastic quips at him instead of addressing what he was trying to get out.

FuzzyBunny · Post by **FuzzyBunny** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:45 am

weapons(of any kind, whether it be nukes, guns, swords, or whatever) are made to kill. That is why they were invented, and is their primary function. Now, technology is all about efficiency. As weapons technology increases, weapons are able to kill more people in a faster, more efficient way, for any reason that the user so desires. Whether or not the owners use them for that is a different question. But yes, weapons are made to harm and/or kill.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 2:38 pm

Actually, many military weapons are made to wound. This is why assault rifles are not more deadly than they are. Wounded soldiers take a LOT of care to heal, and that means resources, often as much as five times the resources needed for a healthy person. Chemical and biological weapons were more useful when they didn't kill than when they were lethal, because a soldier wounded in such an attack could take 20-30 times the resources that a healthy soldier does. A dead soldier requires little to no resources (depending on if the soldier is buried or left behind).

countrygirl · Post by **countrygirl** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:13 pm

When we were trained on Deadly Force the rule is always to shoot to disable rather than kill. They don't teach us to always make headshots to blow someone's brains out. We are taught to aim for center mass because it's the largest part of the body. I don't know if it's just because the Air Force is funny like that or what but we weren't taught to kill. I don't know about the other services though.

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Mon Aug 18, 2003 8:22 pm

[quote="amsfan";p="136652"]Guns are dangerous, guns (all guns including large automatic airplane mount ones, sniper, small arms, pistols, etc.) are the driving force of violence. [/quote]

Guns don't kill people. I do.

Hopefully in the future, there will be less dangerous weapons to satisfy our needs for violence.

No, as history has shown, weapons tend to get MORE dangerous/effective, not less.

Lets also presume that bombs, ICBM, tacticle nukes, tanks, airplanes, amphibious vehicle etc are not used.

Yes, we'll just teleport neutron bombs to our enemies.

Therefore I suggest swords. Less scale violence that does not kill hundreds of people in less then one second. Less treats of the enemy's technology, and frontal confrentation where no man can be "picked off" from a distance.

Then people make armor. Then other people, seeing armor, make a way to overcome it, resulting in the crossbow. Refining it more, they change the source of power for the ammo from a taut string (which requires some musculature to pull.) to some form of concentrated explosion, resulting in small cannons, eventually those become further refined into guns. Thusly you have done nothing.

Equal chance of survival if you will.

Except for those people untrained in the use of swords, or those lacking the physical prowess to wield them, they're just screwed.

Count dé Chateau-Flames · Post by **Count dé Chateau-Flames** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:46 am

Any old fool can shoot a gun. But to fight with a melee weapon takes skill and training. If people wanted to go around massacring people with a sword, how many people do you think there are that are motivated enough to learn how to wield one? Not many. Any moron can go to a gunshop, buy a rifle, and kill someone with it. A sword takes discipline. Swinging it like a baseball isn't effective, it takes precision and skill. And there are alot of lazy people here, who aren't gonna go through the time to learn it.

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:49 am

Yes, because they don't think they'd need to use it in daily life. But what about the whackjob who DOES take the time to learn how to use one well who then goes around killing all the people who didn't learn how to wield one?

furre · Post by **furre** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:32 am

Any moron can go to a hardware store, buy a shovel, and kill someone with it. Or why not a nailgun? I've never tried it, but I'm pretty sure you don't need precision or skill to kill someone with a shovel.

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:33 am

You can kill someone with a rock if you throw it hard enough. The problem isn't weapons, its people.

billf · Post by **billf** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:39 am

You could kill someone with a turtle as well.

Real Life Forums

Future Close combat weapon

Re: Future Close combat weapon

Re: Future Close combat weapon

Who is online