Future Close combat weapon

[Calus]

amsfan your idealism isn't going to make others give up something that they may need to defend themselfs with.

Massive Carnage isn't going to stop anyone from fighting, look at every war that has happened in the last 5000 years.

I think most of us here are a more likly to give you up then are guns.

[Fixer]

Guns are best used as a deterrent. People who only respond to violence may be deterred by a gun, and cannot be deterred by negotiations. "Gun" can mean any device whose primary purpose is to cause physical harm or death to another.

As long as there is greed, arrogance, prejudice, intolerance, or even ambition, there will be a need for guns. Those who possess something will need it in order to keep it from those who do not possess it.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Imperator Severn";p="138951"]

Whats honor and fidelity when there is no life?

Cattle die. Kindred die.
Every man is mortal.
But the good name never dies
Of one who has done well.[/quote]

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'

- Percy Bysshe Shelley

[SothThe69th]

Well, if we're putting up quotes...

Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence; to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.

- Sun Tzu

[ChronoSword]

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.

If there reaches a point that a device that can completely neutralize projectile weapons, then the days of melee weaponry might return

[FuzzyBunny]

"Killing is both bad and wrong. There should be a new, stronger word to describe it . . . like badwrong."

[tankkisankari]

I've used guns from paintball guns to 73mm tank cannon and it's side arm the 7.62mm PKT. I liked shooting on all of them, but i don't want the heavy stuff to appear on the streets. I'd draw the line on hunting rifles and other bolt actuated weapons, for me, hand guns or semiautomatic weapons aren't really needed for civillians.

and as futuristic more humane weapons are concerned, armies are developing systems that immobilize enemies without injuring them too badly. If a soldier can be knocked out for few hours, battles can be fought with less bloodshed. I dont remember ecactly what kind of methods are beeing looked into and i don't have time to browse the net while i'm working and 56k modem at home isn't suitable for anything bigger than checking mail. So if there are people with nothing more important to do and have some "real" bandwidht there's a job for you.

[amsfan]

.........And later when huge "control system" of the humanity fires a large weapon at a population, then people will regret that projectile weapons were made............

Humanity's conscious is controlled by a force of leader(s), while the conscious is forever free, our actions judged by a system, our intentions shot down like birds, our opinions unheard, and being lie to by those that control.(the examples I state does not include harm and interference with other conscious or enviroment).

Out lawing guns should raise the individual's power and the voice of the people can be heard.

[Seir]

[quote="amsfan";p="140186"]
Out lawing guns should raise the individual's power and the voice of the people can be heard.[/quote]

How many peasant revolts in history were successful when only melee weapons were available and there was an elite fighting class (ie knights or samurai) that was responsible for keeping the status quo?

[amsfan]

And their coup was brought down by melee weapons as well.
Not necesary status quo, peace is never stable.

[Martin Blank]

Removing firearms from the populace and leaving guns only in the hands of the state leaves the population open to oppression. Just check with post-revolution Russia, post-revolution Cuba, and post-revolution Iran, all of whom relied on individually-owned weapons to overthrow the oppressive government and then largely confiscated the firearms immediately after, leaving the people with only limited hunting rifles, if anything at all.

[amsfan]

I meaning baning all range weapons, even in the hands of the government.

[tankkisankari]

Why is that when someone in for example these forums suggest that there should be more gun control, an army of gun huggers come out and oppose it massively. M.Blanks references to Russia or Iran are a bit far fetched, or is the U.S goverment just waiting to oppress it's own people if weapons are taken from it's citizens. Some of these people stat sounding like the ones that patrol in the U.S countryside looking for U.N forces.

[asp55]

A gun in the hand of every man should in theory be as good as a gun in the hand of no man. However there are variables such as skill, practice, and desire.

The US government is some ways does oppress it's own people. Less so than many countries, but still there are things you can't say, and things you can't do. The list of things that are not allowed has become larger in recent years due to the fun of terrorism.

As for the suggestion of swords replacing guns. I have contemplated and discussed this very idea before, and it came down to one clear new thought. The majority of the time a man with a gun will not make a successful shot, but the wound will be a clean one, and thus the likely hood of the victim being able to be treated and survive is much higher than it would be with a blade. Blades cut, slash, rip, hack, and make many other MESSY wounds. Making them harder to be treated, and less likely to survive.

Thus I see the blade as more dangerous device, as it has more potential to kill. This is not to say that a gun cannot kill but rather that it is more likely to merely be a treatable wound than a sword wound would be.

In an ideal world, violence would not be necessary, at least not in a large scale. A small brawl would be plenty, and the loser would merely have a few more bruises than his combatant. However we live in a world of death and destruction, greed and corruption, and thus the larger violence is still necessary, as it can do some good.

And as our technology increases, our accuracy does too, we are able to be more percise, and thus less able to hit an innocent.

What I believe we should not do is distance ourselves too far from the violence we create. The reason militant people are able to live with themselves and still be considered a stable individual is that they are trained to dehumanize the enemy. Which becomes easier and easier the farther you can strike the enemy from. It is not a village full of innocent civilians, and 3 soldiers. It is a gathering of potential death for you and your friends.

It is not a country of innocent civilians, with an evil governing power; it?s a box on the computer screen you are targeting the missiles at.

The farther one can distance oneself from the target, the easier it is to believe the target was not human. And this is where people become dangerous.

(This all from a guy who refuses to hit a man who has been hitting him for 45 minutes, impeding him from his work...that?s right I?m a pacifist.)

[Seir]

[quote="amsfan";p="140201"]And their coup was brought down by melee weapons as well.
Not necesary status quo, peace is never stable.[/quote]

The point was to show that firearms allowed the common man to be more heard in their society. If melee weapons only allowed the elite class in society to dominate the common man, then having melee weapons only permitted would hardly be beneficial to the common man would it?