Interesting Editorial Cartoon

[Subdeacon Joe]

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.

 

[J-BAR #18287]

Any information on where/ when it was drawn and published?

[Badlands Bob #61228]

The Germans did not like the Winchester 1897 during the trench warfare of WWI.

[Subdeacon Joe]

From 1918, don't know the source.

 

Looks like it posted it in 2020

 

 

[Rip Snorter]

Clifford Berryman, most likely the Washington Post or Evening Times - lots of info and more cartoons out there.

[Subdeacon Joe]

4 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Clifford Berryman, most likely the Washington Post or Evening Times - lots of info and more cartoons out there.

 

Thanks. I couldn't make out the signature.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I found this:

 

[Caladisi kid]

 

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 

[Dantankerous]

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

 

 

 

 

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

That photo reminds me of shooting in the army.  No eye or ear protection. 

[Rip Snorter]

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.  

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

I do not figure , walkin' into a load of oo buck would be any fun 

 

  let alone a 1/2 dozen of em 

 

  CB 

[Pat Riot]

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. 

[Cypress Sun]

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.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

4 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

Any information on where/ when it was drawn and published?

Clifford Berryman

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_K._Berryman

[Sedalia Dave]

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. 
 

 

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

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 ........  

[Alpo]

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

 

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

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.

[Cypress Sun]

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.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

40 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

I done learnt me something today.

HEY! We'll have none of that here!

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

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.

 

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 ? 

[Crooked River Pete, SASS 43485]

I read once that there are no known pictures of Doughboys fighting with shotguns. When the Germans objected, Pershing ordered no pictures of American solders with shotguns be taken so as to not give the Germans any extra evidence. 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

On 11/1/2023 at 11:57 AM, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

The Germans did not like the Winchester 1897 during the trench warfare of WWI.

Why did we even care?

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

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.

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.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

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.  

[Rip Snorter]

The flip side of course, was the German Sawback Engineer's bayonet.

[Irish Pat]

the US will do the right thing after they have tried everything else first