|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 2, 2022 13:20:16 GMT
The weapons?
or the culture?
School children's class in gun safety, Indiana, 1956
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 2, 2022 16:30:23 GMT
The weapons?
or the culture?
School children's class in gun safety, Indiana, 1956
Both. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 3, 2022 1:44:29 GMT
The weapons?
or the culture?
School children's class in gun safety, Indiana, 1956
Both.
I would argue the guns have not really changed all that much. They may look different......all black, scary.....with lasers and scopes. But fundamentally the same design.
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 1:48:30 GMT
I would argue the guns have not really changed all that much. They may look different......all black, scary.....with lasers and scopes. But fundamentally the same design.
Modern firearms are not the same as those produced over 60 years ago, therefore they're different. Otherwise, why not just continue to make firearms based on those older designs? |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 3, 2022 2:00:15 GMT
I would argue the guns have not really changed all that much. They may look different......all black, scary.....with lasers and scopes. But fundamentally the same design.
Modern firearms are not the same as those produced over 60 years ago, therefore they're different. Otherwise, why not just continue to make firearms based on those older designs?
Where's the Thompson sub-machine gun today?
Listen, I'll leave up to Prometheus to lay down the final judgement as he's clearly much more of a gun guy than I will ever be.
But from the 1911 to the AK-47, there's a lot of similar designs still in use. Just gussied up.
If anything, even this newer term 'weapons of war' is silly. NATO has called for more and more weapons that are designed to wound...... NOT kill. So smaller calibers are used and it causes troops to spend more time and energy tending to their wounded.
That's why I mentioned the 9mm compared to the 45 tale earlier this week,
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 4:29:43 GMT
Modern firearms are not the same as those produced over 60 years ago, therefore they're different. Otherwise, why not just continue to make firearms based on those older designs?
Where's the Thompson sub-machine gun today?
Listen, I'll leave up to Prometheus to lay down the final judgement as he's clearly much more of a gun guy than I will ever be.
But from the 1911 to the AK-47, there's a lot of similar designs still in use. Just gussied up.
If anything, even this newer term 'weapons of war' is silly. NATO has called for more and more weapons that are designed to wound...... NOT kill. So smaller calibers are used and it causes troops to spend more time and energy tending to their wounded.
That's why I mentioned the 9mm compared to the 45 tale earlier this week,
Jon's been in China since around 2008, so I'm not sure how up-to-date his experience and knowledge is... I was going to ask Jpatt for his input, but I'm currently engaged in a "discussion" about guns and gun-related homicide rates, so we might have to wait until the smoke has cleared and the blood has been wiped up.  There's been a few of those recently. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 6:06:11 GMT
I would argue the guns have not really changed all that much. They may look different......all black, scary.....with lasers and scopes. But fundamentally the same design.
Modern firearms are not the same as those produced over 60 years ago, therefore they're different. Otherwise, why not just continue to make firearms based on those older designs? The AR-15 entered production in 1958. Do your math. |
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 6:25:05 GMT
Modern firearms are not the same as those produced over 60 years ago, therefore they're different. Otherwise, why not just continue to make firearms based on those older designs? The AR-15 entered production in 1958. Do your math. Has it remained exactly the same, without any alteration in any way, shape or form since its inception? Only one model, only one manufacturer, only one set of materials used in its construction? Technically, it started production after that photo was taken, so there has been a change in firearm production since that date... over 60 years ago. And surely there have been other firearms - of all types - created since then, with superior designs, superior materials used, superior performance to their forebears? |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 7:06:06 GMT
The AR-15 entered production in 1958. Do your math. Has it remained exactly the same, without any alteration in any way, shape or form since its inception? Only one model, only one manufacturer, only one set of materials used in its construction? Technically, it started production after that photo was taken, so there has been a change in firearm production since that date... over 60 years ago. And surely there have been other firearms - of all types - created since then, with superior designs, superior materials used, superior performance to their forebears? Any significant change - not cosmetic - would actually require a designation change.
Every semi-automatic weapon (and they've been around for over a hundred years) functions in essentially the same way (simplified): The trigger is pulled The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round The trigger is pulled
The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet
Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round The trigger is pulled
The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet
Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round ... until there are no more cartridges
That's it.
The materials used etc, sure, they can change the efficiency, weight, and so on, but the mechanism of operation is essentially the same... and it all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger. Mechanically it's really no different.
Are internal combustion engines more efficient now that a hundred years ago? Yup? But has any of that changed the basic mechanics of "explode fuel to push pistons to make wheels turn"?
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 7:47:06 GMT
Has it remained exactly the same, without any alteration in any way, shape or form since its inception? Only one model, only one manufacturer, only one set of materials used in its construction? Technically, it started production after that photo was taken, so there has been a change in firearm production since that date... over 60 years ago. And surely there have been other firearms - of all types - created since then, with superior designs, superior materials used, superior performance to their forebears? Any significant change - not cosmetic - would actually require a designation change.
Every semi-automatic weapon (and they've been around for over a hundred years) functions in essentially the same way (simplified): The trigger is pulled The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round The trigger is pulled
The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet
Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round The trigger is pulled
The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet
Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round ... until there are no more cartridges
That's it.
The materials used etc, sure, they can change the efficiency, weight, and so on, but the mechanism of operation is essentially the same... and it all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger. Mechanically it's really no different.
Are internal combustion engines more efficient now that a hundred years ago? Yup? But has any of that changed the basic mechanics of "explode fuel to push pistons to make wheels turn"?
Nope.
It seems to me that while the basic principles and mechanical processes have remained the pretty much the same, there have been changes in other areas... Whether it be new designs to correct previous flaws and weaknesses, materials used, ammunition capacity, ammunition specifications and so forth. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 9:24:49 GMT
Any significant change - not cosmetic - would actually require a designation change.
Every semi-automatic weapon (and they've been around for over a hundred years) functions in essentially the same way (simplified): The trigger is pulled The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round The trigger is pulled
The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet
Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round The trigger is pulled
The firing pin strikes the cartridge, firing the bullet
Expanding gases from the chemical reaction of the propellant force the spent cartridge from weapon while nearly simultaneously chambering a new round ... until there are no more cartridges
That's it.
The materials used etc, sure, they can change the efficiency, weight, and so on, but the mechanism of operation is essentially the same... and it all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger. Mechanically it's really no different.
Are internal combustion engines more efficient now that a hundred years ago? Yup? But has any of that changed the basic mechanics of "explode fuel to push pistons to make wheels turn"?
Nope.
It seems to me that while the basic principles and mechanical processes have remained the pretty much the same, there have been changes in other areas... Whether it be new designs to correct previous flaws and weaknesses, materials used, ammunition capacity, ammunition specifications and so forth. But the most fundamental feature of gun mechanics is this:
"It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger."
This isn't Skynet. The machines have not become self-aware.
Since the guns haven't changed, that leaves only the "culture."
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Jun 3, 2022 11:55:05 GMT
It seems to me that while the basic principles and mechanical processes have remained the pretty much the same, there have been changes in other areas... Whether it be new designs to correct previous flaws and weaknesses, materials used, ammunition capacity, ammunition specifications and so forth. But the most fundamental feature of gun mechanics is this:
"It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger."
This isn't Skynet. The machines have not become self-aware.
Since the guns haven't changed, that leaves only the "culture."
I think many people read or hear things like "Capable of firing 600 rounds per minute' and assume it's some new modern feature. ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
They aren't aware the old designs could manage similar feats. And both older and newer models would require a 2nd person with feed belts either way.
Then or now, it takes an evil person intent on doing harm to others........and THAT can be accomplished many, many weapons.......the AR is not the only tool in the shed.
Even the push for Glocks or 9mm on police forces ended up looking cosmetically bad for the police.......WHY? Because a smaller caliber weapon will often take more rounds to 'end the threat' as opposed to a larger more powerful weapon. a la Dirty Harry
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 18:07:39 GMT
It seems to me that while the basic principles and mechanical processes have remained the pretty much the same, there have been changes in other areas... Whether it be new designs to correct previous flaws and weaknesses, materials used, ammunition capacity, ammunition specifications and so forth. But the most fundamental feature of gun mechanics is this:
"It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger."
This isn't Skynet. The machines have not become self-aware.
Since the guns haven't changed, that leaves only the "culture."
Oh I get that "It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger." for now. Of course, that could well change going into the future... and no, I'm not talking about Skynet or terminators... Although I'm not sure if people will be able to tell the difference after a certain point. |
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 18:14:27 GMT
But the most fundamental feature of gun mechanics is this:
"It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger."
This isn't Skynet. The machines have not become self-aware.
Since the guns haven't changed, that leaves only the "culture."
I think many people read or hear things like "Capable of firing 600 rounds per minute' and assume it's some new modern feature. ![[giveup]](//storage2.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
They aren't aware the old designs could manage similar feats. And both older and newer models would require a 2nd person with feed belts either way.
Then or now, it takes an evil person intent on doing harm to others........and THAT can be accomplished many, many weapons.......the AR is not the only tool in the shed.
Even the push for Glocks or 9mm on police forces ended up looking cosmetically bad for the police.......WHY? Because a smaller caliber weapon will often take more rounds to 'end the threat' as opposed to a larger more powerful weapon. a la Dirty Harry
No, but I consider "capable of firing 600 rounds per minute" without jamming due to redesigns and improvements to be fairly new. Yeah, but the AR-15 is a lot more efficient and effective that throwing sticks and stones at people. Yeah, but you're missing an important point here... Inspector Harold Francis Callahan looked cool! |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 22:49:42 GMT
But the most fundamental feature of gun mechanics is this:
"It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger."
This isn't Skynet. The machines have not become self-aware.
Since the guns haven't changed, that leaves only the "culture."
Oh I get that "It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger." for now. Of course, that could well change going into the future... and no, I'm not talking about Skynet or terminators... Although I'm not sure if people will be able to tell the difference after a certain point. When robots start shooting up schools, I think we'll know the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 22:51:05 GMT
I think many people read or hear things like "Capable of firing 600 rounds per minute' and assume it's some new modern feature.
They aren't aware the old designs could manage similar feats. And both older and newer models would require a 2nd person with feed belts either way.
Then or now, it takes an evil person intent on doing harm to others........and THAT can be accomplished many, many weapons.......the AR is not the only tool in the shed.
Even the push for Glocks or 9mm on police forces ended up looking cosmetically bad for the police.......WHY? Because a smaller caliber weapon will often take more rounds to 'end the threat' as opposed to a larger more powerful weapon. a la Dirty Harry
No, but I consider "capable of firing 600 rounds per minute" without jamming due to redesigns and improvements to be fairly new.  Yeah, but the AR-15 is a lot more efficient and effective that throwing sticks and stones at people. Yeah, but you're missing an important point here... Inspector Harold Francis Callahan looked cool! And Harry tried never to shoot anyone who wasn't a threat to himself or others. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 22:56:59 GMT
But the most fundamental feature of gun mechanics is this:
"It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger."
This isn't Skynet. The machines have not become self-aware.
Since the guns haven't changed, that leaves only the "culture."
...
Then or now, it takes an evil person intent on doing harm to others........and THAT can be accomplished many, many weapons...
...
No one remembers the propane tank bombs at Columbine... mostly because they failed to explode... but maybe because no one is ever going to try to ban the sale of propane. |
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 22:58:24 GMT
Oh I get that "It all starts with a PERSON pulling the trigger." for now. Of course, that could well change going into the future... and no, I'm not talking about Skynet or terminators... Although I'm not sure if people will be able to tell the difference after a certain point. When robots start shooting up schools, I think we'll know the difference. How about cyborgs? |
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 3, 2022 23:00:48 GMT
No, but I consider "capable of firing 600 rounds per minute" without jamming due to redesigns and improvements to be fairly new. Yeah, but the AR-15 is a lot more efficient and effective that throwing sticks and stones at people. Yeah, but you're missing an important point here... Inspector Harold Francis Callahan looked cool! And Harry tried never to shoot anyone who wasn't a threat to himself or others. Harry Callahan: "Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot!" |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Jun 3, 2022 23:02:35 GMT
When robots start shooting up schools, I think we'll know the difference. How about cyborgs? Is "Ace" a cyborg? I've no clue. |
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[giveup]](http://storage2.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
Jun 1, 2022 23:27:03 GMT
Jun 1, 2022 23:27:03 GMT