Future Close combat weapon

[countrygirl]

hmm...that would be interesting.
J

[FuzzyBunny]

I think the point is, high-tech weapons make it EASIER for that nutbag to kill. Of course you can kill someone with a turtle, or even a pillow for that matter, but it is much easier to kill someone(or several people for that matter) with a gun. And then we have bombs, you can kill even more people in even less time, and you don't even have to be present for it.

Of course the average person doesn't get trained in weapon use, even if they do own a weapon. And yes, there may be some nutbags who go out and learn to use every weapon they can get their hands on. And typically, the more sophisticated the weapon, the easier it is to learn how to handle it, and the easier it is to use for killing. I don't care if YOU'RE rifles are designed to harm only, every one that I've seen has enough kick to kill easily.

And as far as USAF training to disable people. . . Every shooting range I've been to, the bullseyes are on the head and heart of the target. And beleive me, if you pull a weapon on a cop, they're not going to aim for your hand to shoot your gun away. They won't hesitate to shoot you in the head.

I am by no means saying that I am against guns/weapons or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out their purpose and use. They can be used for good/just causes as well. What they're used for is up to the user. You can use your gun as a can opener for all I care. I think the point that was meant is that, it is much easier and more efficient to use a gun to kill someone than it is to use a sword(or a canopener, or a turtle.)

I'm also pretty sure it is much more efficient to use a canopener to open a can(although I'm sure if you tried, you could even get that turtle of yours to open it.)

[StruckingFuggle]

What about lightsabers? Heheh. It would be possible to eventually (hence, FUTURE weaponry) develop something to render ranged weapons like guns and missiles and bombs and the like unusable. Then tech would go towards creating more advanced melee weapons. Hmmm.

[FuzzyBunny]

now we all know that lightsabers would just be cool.

[MasterChief]

I think we should use lightsabers.

[StruckingFuggle]

Or better than lightsabers, some sort of warhammer that releases a massive concussive blast directed into what it strikes when it strikes anything. ^^ Little collateral damage, but massive, probably fatal damage to the target.

Like the impact hammer in UT.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="FuzzyBunny";p="137855"]And yes, there may be some nutbags who go out and learn to use every weapon they can get their hands on.[/quote]
A lot of those "nutbags" are cops and bodyguards.

And typically, the more sophisticated the weapon, the easier it is to learn how to handle it, and the easier it is to use for killing.

Having fired revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and pump, breech-loading, and semi-automatic shotguns (FIVE IN THE AIR! WOO!!! MY SHOULDER HURTS!), and even spending a day learning how to use an Uzi, I will state, unequivocally, that the less sophistocated weapons are easiest to use. Breech-loading shotguns are about as simple as a modern firearm gets -- Flip the release, push a round in each barrel, snap it closed. Revolvers are only slightly more complex. A semi-automatic pistol requires an additional step beyond loading, which is racking the slide. Semi-automatic rifles require the bolt to be racked. It's happened to me more than once that a friend has handed over a pistol to me, and I stare at it because I can't find a given feature (mag release, safety, whatever). Once you get to this point, you still have to fire the gun and be able to hit your target.

If you've never fired a gun (and this goes for anyone reading this), I strongly encourage you to do so. Find a friend that likes guns. Go to a range for an hour or so. Learn how to load the weapon, how to stand, how to aim, and how to fire it. Use two target distances, 10 feet and 25 feet. Carefully aim, slowly squeeze the trigger, and fire. Do this until the magazine is empty (usually ten rounds for a semi-auto pistol).

Retrieve the target, and see how many actually hit the target, especially at 25 feet, and then how many actually hit the body. Now, find the approximate circle size that it would take to fit over all of the visible hits. Don't be ashamed if this is a two- or three- or four-foot circle; novices usually don't shoot well. Now, in a crisis situation, that circle will be twice as big. If you can put all of your rounds in a two-foot circle, then you will be putting your rounds in a four-foot circle in a crisis situation.

Incidentally, once you've finished your range time, if a person is still anti-gun, that's fine. But you will have gained the respect of a lot of gun owners and enthusiasts for at least trying them out and possibly seeing their side of the argument.

And anyone who thinks an automatic weapon is easy to kill with has never fired one. I've fired an Uzi. By the end of the day, with expert training, on the second pass, I was able to keep all 20 rounds inside of a man-shaped target at seven feet. Most people couldn't hit with ten rounds. The instructor gave us a demonstration of a spray using 30 rounds (Uzi's full capacity) on five targets at about ten feet; he hit twice, and neither was a kill shot.

I don't care if YOU'RE rifles are designed to harm only, every one that I've seen has enough kick to kill easily.

They can all kill. A BB gun or a paintball gun can kill if pointed in the right direction.

Every shooting range I've been to, the bullseyes are on the head and heart of the target. And beleive me, if you pull a weapon on a cop, they're not going to aim for your hand to shoot your gun away. They won't hesitate to shoot you in the head.

Crisis situation: Two in the chest, one in the head. If you drop them with the chest shots, and they make any remotely threatening move, they get at least one in the head to remove them as a threat. Welcome to the real world of bad guys -- they can and do get up to shoot you, if only to take you with them.

To paraphrase Jim Malone in The Untouchables, the first rule of law enforcement is to make sure when your shift is over you go home alive.

[StruckingFuggle]

Hey Martin, how can you kill someone with a paintball gun?

>_>
<_<

My reasons for asking are curiosity, only. Really.

[SothThe69th]

Eye and mouth shots most likely.

[StruckingFuggle]

That'd just blind them in the eye, and as for mouth shots, I dunno, I guess if they opened their mouth you could make them choke on the paint.

[amsfan]

Repeatedly shoot someone in the nuggin area.(The brain cannot take such pressure and well...) Sorry for the grusomeness

[StruckingFuggle]

Oh, that's hardly gruesome.
I dunno if a paintbal gun woud have the force to cause brain trauma .. would it?

[amsfan]

Anyways, what I meant in using the sword was:
1. Because of mass carnage people might not go to war as often.
2. Without bombs and such, less people will be killed in an instant.
3. Everyone can fight the imposing (dictating) power (Not everyone can use a sword, but they sure can use a knive, better then no guns at all)
4. Strike fear into those who wishes war (carnage)
5. (continuing from 2) less enviromental (buildings and such) damage
6. No need to worry about enemies tech, unless there's better steel or lightsabers
List goes on, old mind need days to think of more...

[amsfan]

Oh yes, when repeatedly striking an object with force, it will either break physically or mentally. (If too kill: one does run out of paintballs, go get more)

[Cedrorakazishi]

It cannot be. Humans will always look for better ways to 'defend' themselves. So weapons will keep getting better.

Besides, which country would be dumb enough to surrender their nuclear weapons so they could have swords instead. It's a good idea, but no one will support it.

You go and try to snatch a gun out of a blood thirty rebel and replace it with a sword.