Shoulder fired guns first appeared in Europe during the 15th century.  It took them a few centuries to displace archers as the primary medium range battle weapon.   What would a "new weapon" require to replace the gun?  I would put forth the following: 

It has be,

1.  relatively inexpensive.  (To manufacture and operate)
2.  fast to learn 
3.  accurate
4.  unique enough that it doesn't fit into the fire arms laws.  (Why make it easy on bureaucrats.)
5.  portable.


I would be interested in your requirements and ideas.

-MD

Doesn't a tazer already fit the bill?

I have a better solution!!! dump the fugging firearms laws and the buttbrained morons that support them..

Posted By Two Tales on 04 Jan 2013 07:52 PM
I have a better solution!!! dump the fugging firearms laws and the buttbrained morons that support them..

What he said!

Posted By rthomas4 on 04 Jan 2013 07:39 PM
Doesn't a tazer already fit the bill?

RT,

I have not heard of a tazer with a hundred yard range.

Interesting thought though, no bloody meat or holes in the hide. 

-MD

By the way, not sure if you noticed by Tasers are heavily regulated in the same states that trash our gun rights (oh ya, California for instance). It is a felony in most states I have lived in to carry a knife for self-defense. These people's goals are a defenseless population. Therefore, no matter what you call your firearm, no matter how you try to blame their game, the bottom line is that they want your firearms out of your hands. They may be starting with the “assault weapons” because only armies need them and there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own one, but be assured that your single shot .22 short is on the list too. They just need the time to keep chipping away until that is the last thing you can have, then they will take that too. Don’t believe me, look around the world, it keeps happening.

jack

by = but

sorry stupid fingers

jack

Posted By Mark_D on 04 Jan 2013 06:43 PM
What would a "new weapon" require to replace the gun? 

I always chuckle when you watch SciFi movies and they are still using "cartridge" weapons.  Starship Troopers, the Alien-series, Total Recall (both versions), etc.  The next weapon should be a directed energy weapon, or laser/phaser/photon torpedo/turbo-laser/turbo-cannon/blaster, etc.

I would vote for an ion or particle weapon, still a projectile but energy based. Laser\photon based weapons would be degraded in many combat environments.

Hasn't there been some ongoing research conducted for the military on both laser and particle weapons, since the 70's? Didn't the Navy have some type of underwater weapon actually tried out by the Seals, or was that just some of the typical bs that gets spread over the internet???

The Navy is still testing a mounted laser beam weapon as we speak. It has proven to be very accurate and will destroy an outboard engine when it is hit. Saw it on a tv show called " Weaponology " on the military channel.

yeah, but you know if they are showing you that, they are working on something that's much better. They never disclose the latest technologies under development. Ever!

Dawg, now I remember seeing that same program. I didn't think I had imagined they were testing some of these ideas.

Fellows

The original point of the post was to develop a new weapon that is not a gun so we can thumb our noses at the gun banner. I would just say that if you have no legitimate use for a gun, I can only imagine the response to the laser/particle blaster you guys are discussing. I can hear the talking heads now.

jack

We all have a legitimate use for a gun.

What does that mean no legitimate use for a gun my our fore fathers gave us the right for the legitimate use of guns and the assbags in Washington know it and want to take it

Sorry, forgot to say "read in a sarcastic tone". All I hear on the tube is that I have "no need" or "no legitimate use" for what ever they want to bad.

jack