EPTMetal Storm, new weapon technology - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Last.Midnight
Australia906 Posts
| ||
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
On October 22 2006 01:46 Last.Midnight wrote: It's a good thing they're workin' on this shit instead of curing AIDS / Cancer. yea because its either metalstorm or AIDS. Theres just no way people can work on both. Theres just not enough money floating around. I mean, im sure they litterally STOPPED AIDS research to build those guns. -_- what a dilema | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On October 22 2006 01:59 itzme_petey wrote: [removed quote within quote] yea because its either metalstorm or AIDS. Theres just no way people can work on both. Theres just not enough money floating around. I mean, im sure they litterally STOPPED AIDS research to build those guns. -_- what a dilema Yeah, there are enough money around for everything, there's no such thing as underdeveloped countries or starvation in Africa! I'm pretty sure there's money for everything and they should spend more on weapon research. These money can always have a better use, than weapon research, always! | ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
| ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
Machine guns is to World War I as Metal Storm is to now. | ||
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
On October 22 2006 02:10 lololol wrote: [removed quote within quote] Yeah, there are enough money around for everything, there's no such thing as underdeveloped countries or starvation in Africa! I'm pretty sure there's money for everything and they should spend more on weapon research. These money can always have a better use, than weapon research, always! Are we talking about the same country? The USA has ALOT of money and its spread among alot of different programs. So since there is "media" focus on a certain subject doesnt mean that other projects are forgotten. | ||
|
Last.Midnight
Australia906 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5214 Posts
| ||
|
LazySCV
United States2942 Posts
| ||
|
coolio
Finland196 Posts
that ´just sounds like a waste of bullets, they should just try to figure out anti-matter and make a weapon out of that... or a battlecruiser | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 22 2006 04:29 Last.Midnight wrote: My point was, any money or time spent on weapons is money and time wasted. Better weapon technology = fewer casualties for that country. Sparing the lives of a country's citizens is a waste of time? | ||
|
JacobDaKung
Sweden132 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28830 Posts
On October 20 2006 13:20 StarcraftNewb wrote: wow..........I'm in awe looks great too........definitely deadly in the wrong hands though sucks how it will only be held by the wrong hands | ||
|
lawl mart
United States1289 Posts
gosu | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28830 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:25 BlackJack wrote: [removed quote within quote] Better weapon technology = fewer casualties for that country. Sparing the lives of a country's citizens is a waste of time? isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? | ||
|
Dametri
United States726 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: [removed quote within quote] isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? Good luck with that | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: [removed quote within quote] isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? I suppose that argument could be made. It just wouldn't be made by the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Blacks in colonial America, the Kurds in Iraq, the Tutsis in Rwanda and so on. In my opinion, investing in weapons techonology prevents war. There has been no shortage of evil dictators over the past 50 years. If not for the threat of being blasted into the stone age by the US/NATO would they just be sitting idle? If all the democratic/developed nations are armed with swords and crossbows, I don't think they will maintain their independence very long. From the other side -- If North Korea's investment in nuclear techonology pays off, will war with them be more likely or less likely? | ||
|
NoName
United States1558 Posts
But rate of fire is not such a great selling point for personal weapon. There's a reason why M-16s are only shot in bursts -- if everyone was shooting full auto everytime, the ammo would just get too expensive, run out too quickly, and accuracy goes down. The military and police want their people to be disciplined when firing their weapons, and rather them hit their targets with less amount of shots fired. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands4001 Posts
On October 20 2006 14:48 [angst]chraej wrote: [removed quote within quote] haha, advanced technology is very interesting. so...if the weapon shot fire it would be ok? How does you wanting to injure someone for creating a weapon (presumably for injuring others) make sense? Hippy talk. In the middle ages they chopped a hand off someone who committed burglary, or an and it worked. If you're against excessive violence, you don't have to refrain from any type of violence. I'm against wars and killing people, but there's nothing wrong with some forms of corporal punishment (slapping a kid on their hand when they're repeatingly doing something that's not allowed is one example). By just using violence to those 100 weapons manufacturers you might save more lives elsewhere. But i don't think this type of gun will revolutionize anything. It may take the reliability from 95% to 99%, and i don't really see the point of multiple bullets shot at the same spot when 1 already kills. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 22 2006 06:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: [removed quote within quote] isnt not going to war a better way to spare lives tho? people have been going to war since they had nothing but sticks and rocks to fight with. technology does not cause war, it prevents or slows it. now that everyone knows if there is a big enough conflict everyone will get whiped off the face of the earth by nukes it takes alot more to provoke such a fight. | ||
| ||
