The Official "Ask Bürke About Military Hardware" Thread (3 Viewers)

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
125,366
#21
I'm anti-weapons too, but i'd like to know what do you mean exactly by "weapons"? Only guns, rockets, riffles etc or do you also mean spears and swords?
Who uses these nowadays? I consider them artifacts, they look nice indeed. But at the same time spears and swords and other ancient weapons lead to the development of today's deadlier and more dangerous weapons. It is either too late now or there is a solution but far fetched. It is just a dream I have that will never be fulfilled is to live in a violent-free weapon-free world.

We could start by banning all adversarial words on the forum, cause that's where it starts.
It should start gradually if you are thinking of a plan. Let's start by getting rid of all nuclear weapons for a start, then we can start by getting rid of the ones which are slightly less dangerous. It is a tedious process and as I said, far fetched.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Il Re

-- 10 --
Jan 13, 2005
4,031
#22
That can be taken one step further as a guy a know was arrested & convicted for defending his girlfriend.He's a professional boxer & the judge ruled that due to his intense training & knowledge of where to deliver deadly blows classified him as a dangerous weapon.

That being said anyone with self defense traing,wrestlers,army personnel could be classified as dangerous.
exactly, my dad is a 2nd dan kyokushinkai karate black belt, he can kick some serious ass, does he count as a 'weapon'? i mean i have a baseball bat and a cricket bat in my room, they could weapons
 

Il Re

-- 10 --
Jan 13, 2005
4,031
#23
but therein lies the problem,what constitutes a weapon? i have a flame tempered wooden baseball bat in my home, i have never played baseball in my life but i have had it since i was 14. now i am not a violent man but when i first got that bat i was playing with my younger cousin when these other kids started to hit her, one ran up to me with a brick in his hand so i smashed the bat full force into his ribs.
now that was a toy that became a dangerous weapon and has become a constant companion
it's people like you who are bad for society! :p
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#24
It should start gradually if you are thinking of a plan. Let's start by getting rid of all nuclear weapons for a start, then we can start by getting rid of the ones which are slightly less dangerous. It is a tedious process and as I said, far fetched.
So how would you go about it? You see if you go talk to the US military and you take their guns away then you're completely missing the point. What you have to do first is cut off production, stop it at the source. But that's never gonna happen because zomg arms manufacturers employ thousands of people and what about unemployment (the scariest thing you can ever say to a politician).

Even supposedly ethical and upstanding countries like Norway look through their fingers and sell military equipment to people who really shouldn't be trusted with it (well noone should, tbh). Now they may say it's just a frigate and it doesn't have any guns, but it's military just the same, and a source of income for the company or state selling it.

Selling arms is a lot like selling drugs. Completely unethical and exploitative, and destructive.
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
125,366
#25
So how would you go about it? You see if you go talk to the US military and you take their guns away then you're completely missing the point. What you have to do first is cut off production, stop it at the source. But that's never gonna happen because zomg arms manufacturers employ thousands of people and what about unemployment (the scariest thing you can ever say to a politician).

Even supposedly ethical and upstanding countries like Norway look through their fingers and sell military equipment to people who really shouldn't be trusted with it (well noone should, tbh). Now they may say it's just a frigate and it doesn't have any guns, but it's military just the same, and a source of income for the company or state selling it.

Selling arms is a lot like selling drugs. Completely unethical and exploitative, and destructive.
You're telling me about it? Let's just think it is an ideology and dream of it.
 
OP
ßöмßäяðîëя
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #30
    burke, u didn't answer my question :cry:

    ak or m4?
    Over 50 meters and a trained soldier in relatively "good" conditions, M4.

    Under 50 meters, trained or untrained and in extremely rugged condition (sand, grime, swampland, et cetera), AK model 47.

    But the Russians liked the caliber and M-16 so much they chambered a weapon with a similar round to the 5.56 and it was the Automatic Kalashnikov Model 1974.

    But then that was replaced in small numbers by the AN 70, which is a very rare weapon and only used by SpecOps groups.
     

    Il Re

    -- 10 --
    Jan 13, 2005
    4,031
    #37
    ßüякε;1824048 said:
    Over 50 meters and a trained soldier in relatively "good" conditions, M4.

    Under 50 meters, trained or untrained and in extremely rugged condition (sand, grime, swampland, et cetera), AK model 47.

    But the Russians liked the caliber and M-16 so much they chambered a weapon with a similar round to the 5.56 and it was the Automatic Kalashnikov Model 1974.

    But then that was replaced in small numbers by the AN 70, which is a very rare weapon and only used by SpecOps groups.
    interesting, that's why terrorists seem to like ak's then, i've alwyas been under the impression m4's are more accurate, with ak's having the better power
     

    Alen

    Ѕenior Аdmin
    Apr 2, 2007
    53,891
    #38
    But at the same time spears and swords and other ancient weapons lead to the development of today's deadlier and more dangerous weapons. It is either too late now or there is a solution but far fetched. It is just a dream I have that will never be fulfilled is to live in a violent-free weapon-free world.
    Yeah, well said.

    That's why i asked you, because these weapons i mentioned were used in the middle ages and wars couldn't stop.
    The existance of the A bomb prevented many wars. It prevented a 3rd world war. Statistically, there were less wars and less killings after the gunpowder was produced than there were before that when there were no guns or cannons.

    If there are no guns, rockets, a-bombs....then you can bet that many new countries will start looking for their place under the sun, there will be a change of the balances of power, and that can not be done without wars and killings. :irritated
     

    JCK

    Biased
    JCK
    May 11, 2004
    125,366
    #40
    Yeah, well said.

    That's why i asked you, because these weapons i mentioned were used in the middle ages and wars couldn't stop.
    The existance of the A bomb prevented many wars. It prevented a 3rd world war. Statistically, there were less wars and less killings after the gunpowder was produced than there were before that when there were no guns or cannons.

    If there are no guns, rockets, a-bombs....then you can bet that many new countries will start looking for their place under the sun, there will be a change of the balances of power, and that can not be done without wars and killings. :irritated
    It's all connected actually and I personally blame money or not money itself but the concept of money. This is what drives people to see power and disturb the balance. Now we're becoming philosophical but unfortunately that's the only solution.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)