GTP Alternative Cool Wall: 1957-present United States Machine Gun, Caliber 7.62 mm, M60

[Roger the Horse]

I'm pretty certain that machine guns are generally designed to be good at killing people.

Shotguns not so much, they're generally more intended for use against animals, but machine guns. Killing people.

 

[GranTurismo916]

Protecting your country is not.

Having to protect your country period is pretty uncool to me...

 

[Sage Ages]

Shotguns not so much, they're generally more intended for use against animals, but machine guns. Killing people.

They do make other firearms intended for purposes other than killing people. Not just shotguns.

Then again, that doesn't really have much to do with a gun designed for spraying lead in a general direction.

Having to protect your country period is pretty uncool to me...

The people that threatened it are even less cool.

 

[Exorcet]

All guns are the same. They fire projectiles. You can make of use of that in many different ways.

These weren't typical aimed at people, and in the current state certainly aren't



These to my knowledge have never been



Here's something that can apply to all guns as well:



Deterrence. The crime was stopped without death. This applies to war as well.

 

[Lizard]

All guns are the same. They fire projectiles. You can make of use of that in many different ways.

These weren't typical aimed at people, and in the current state certainly aren't

So enemy planes flew themselves?

These to my knowledge have never been

It can be used as anti air if absolutely nesercery. As shown by this accident.
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-05/news/mn-11915_1_japanese-ship

Deterrence. This applies to war as well.

Or you end up with the security dilemma in which both nations just end up pouring loads of money into an arms race because they can't trust the other one.

Now I am not one of those guys that is all war should be avoided no matter the cost but your arguments have some huge flaws.

 

[Exorcet]

So enemy planes flew themselves?

I'm making the same distinction that was made between in the post before mine. The guns on aircraft were there to shoot at other vehicles primarily. They also happen to be machine guns, and very similar to ones used on the ground for a variety of roles including anti-personnel. I don't see what difference it makes though, they're all guns. What someone is using them for is another subject.

It can be used as anti air if absolutely nesercery. As shown by this accident.
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-06-05/news/mn-11915_1_japanese-ship

Many devices have a very large pool of potential uses.

Or you end up with the security dilemma in which both nations just end up pouring loads of money into an arms race because they can't trust the other one.

That's still avoiding war though. Both sides had nukes in the Cold War, and that contributed to none of those weapons being fired.

Weapons don't need to be given the chance to kill to serve a purpose. Deterrence is just as valid as live firing. People sometimes like to think that guns need to be linked to death and suffering, but that's completely ridiculous. Even if the direct inspiration behind the story of this gun's creation was murder that does not make it a tool good for only murder.

Now I am not one of those guys that is all war should be avoided no matter the cost but your arguments have some huge flaws.

What flaws? My argument is that guns =/= killing or death. Or more generally what something is, is distinct from its use.

 

[Slash]

Sub :censored:ing zero.