Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Interesting Editorial Cartoon


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

I just noticed...."short shotgun." That they were common enough to be the subject of an editorial cartoon says that they have some "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and should be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

FB_IMG_1698862915309.thumb.jpg.778501c6b09093220a2086b56d8ae973.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
The Germans issued a formal diplomatic protest in 1918 against the use of shotguns in the war, specifically the Winchester Model 1897, declaring their use as inhumane and in violation of the law of war. The US rejected the protest.
The Germans issued a formal diplomatic protest in 1918 against the use of shotguns in the war, specifically the Winchester Model 1897, declaring their use as inhumane and in violation of the law of war. The US rejected the protest.
 
We use cookies to ensure you get the 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the 12 gauge shotgun continues to be an awesome weapon. Oh Lordy, no... a "weapon of war" now too! :D

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story I heard behind the WW I shotgun is that they were issued to expert shotgun shooters to fire at grenades in the air and deflect or detonate them.  It turned out that they could put an awful lot of lead in the air and were effective at stopping charges as well.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coincidentally I was just thinking about this subject and the subject of the use of FMJ bullets in military ammunition used in battle yesterday. 
I have never understood why a country would voluntarily limit themselves in regards to their small arms ammunition to fight an enemy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said:

The story I heard behind the WW I shotgun is that they were issued to expert shotgun shooters to fire at grenades in the air and deflect or detonate them.  It turned out that they could put an awful lot of lead in the air and were effective at stopping charges as well.  

 

Along with the shooting grenades and clearing (or trying to) trenches, they also used shotguns to shoot down enemy messenger pigeons. Messenger pigeons were used a lot in WW I.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pat Riot said:

Coincidentally I was just thinking about this subject and the subject of the use of FMJ bullets in military ammunition used in battle yesterday. 
I have never understood why a country would voluntarily limit themselves in regards to their small arms ammunition to fight an enemy. 


 In the past, wounding the enemy was more effective than killing them outright.  Caring for a wounded soldier uses up more resources. 
 

 In today’s society this is no longer true. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pat Riot said:

Coincidentally I was just thinking about this subject and the subject of the use of FMJ bullets in military ammunition used in battle yesterday. 
I have never understood why a country would voluntarily limit themselves in regards to their small arms ammunition to fight an enemy. 

 

 I was told that the Geneva Convention has a lot to do with the limitations ........  :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

 

 I was told that the Geneva Convention has a lot to do with the limitations ........  :o

Common mistake.

 

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with how you fight a war and what you do it with. The Geneva Convention is about the treatment of Prisoners of War.

 

The Hague accords - and there have been several - are about how you will fight a war. What you will use. According to the Hague you can't use poison gas anymore, for example. And the Hague says no soft point or expanding bullets.

 

Interestingly, the accords only apply if both belligerent parties have signed them. If you are a signatory, but your enemy is not, you don't have to abide by them. During World War II we could have done just about anything to Japan because they didn't sign. So nobody was bound to follow the rules while fighting the Japanese. But you did have to follow the rules while fighting the Germans.

 

Except we didn't have to. Because we hadn't signed either - I don't know if we have signed yet, but we had not during World War II.

 

And since we had not signed we were not bound to follow the rules and not use expanding bullets. But we did it anyhow. Because we're dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Common mistake.

 

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with how you fight a war and what you do it with. The Geneva Convention is about the treatment of Prisoners of War.

 

The Hague accords - and there have been several - are about how you will fight a war. What you will use. According to the Hague you can't use poison gas anymore, for example. And the Hague says no soft point or expanding bullets.

 

Interestingly, the accords only apply if both belligerent parties have signed them. If you are a signatory, but your enemy is not, you don't have to abide by them. During World War II we could have done just about anything to Japan because they didn't sign. So nobody was bound to follow the rules while fighting the Japanese. But you did have to follow the rules while fighting the Germans.

 

Except we didn't have to. Because we hadn't signed either - I don't know if we have signed yet, but we had not during World War II.

 

And since we had not signed we were not bound to follow the rules and not use expanding bullets. But we did it anyhow. Because we're dumb.

 

The US did not sign the Hague Conventions of 1899 in which Convention IV - 3 deals with expanding bullets and so on.

The US did sign the Hague Conventions of 1907 but did not ratify Convention V ( Rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land) or VI (Legal position of enemy merchant ships at start of hostilities).

 

For what it's worth, I've always thought that it was the Geneva Convention that dealt with types of bullets. Thanks Alpo, I done learnt me something today.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alpo said:

Common mistake.

 

The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with how you fight a war and what you do it with. The Geneva Convention is about the treatment of Prisoners of War.

 

The Hague accords - and there have been several - are about how you will fight a war. What you will use. According to the Hague you can't use poison gas anymore, for example. And the Hague says no soft point or expanding bullets.

 

Interestingly, the accords only apply if both belligerent parties have signed them. If you are a signatory, but your enemy is not, you don't have to abide by them. During World War II we could have done just about anything to Japan because they didn't sign. So nobody was bound to follow the rules while fighting the Japanese. But you did have to follow the rules while fighting the Germans.

 

Except we didn't have to. Because we hadn't signed either - I don't know if we have signed yet, but we had not during World War II.

 

And since we had not signed we were not bound to follow the rules and not use expanding bullets. But we did it anyhow. Because we're dumb.

 

5 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

The US did not sign the Hague Conventions of 1899 in which Convention IV - 3 deals with expanding bullets and so on.

The US did sign the Hague Conventions of 1907 but did not ratify Convention V ( Rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land) or VI (Legal position of enemy merchant ships at start of hostilities).

 

For what it's worth, I've always thought that it was the Geneva Convention that dealt with types of bullets. Thanks Alpo, I done learnt me something today.B)

 

4 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

HEY! We'll have none of that here!

 

 .... Thank You Gentlemen.  :)

 

      .......... it's the sobriety we'll not have here, ...... haven't you been paying attention ? :huh:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

The US did not sign the Hague Conventions of 1899 in which Convention IV - 3 deals with expanding bullets and so on.

The US did sign the Hague Conventions of 1907 but did not ratify Convention V ( Rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land) or VI (Legal position of enemy merchant ships at start of hostilities).

 

For what it's worth, I've always thought that it was the Geneva Convention that dealt with types of bullets. Thanks Alpo, I done learnt me something today.B)

Some days you learn something no matter hard your try not to.  Happens to me all the time and my brain is overflowing and some stuff is running out my ears.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Germans threatened to execute any soldier captured with a shotgun.  The Americans countered with promising to try and execute any officer who carried out that threat when the war was over.  Since the war was going badly for the Germans, there were no summary executions of soldiers carrying shotguns.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.