I'm stroingly in favor of Quaker Guns, tho' I've just learned of them. They seem less expensive to manufacture, to maintain, and are probably less harmful overall.

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Might be obvious, but “less harmful” is why it’s called a “Quaker” gun!

The name derives from the Religious Society of Friends or "Quakers", who have traditionally held a religious opposition to war and violence in the Peace Testimony.

From Wikipedia, which also has a different photo where they’re even more obviously logs!

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I've known plenty of Quakers over the years. Prolly the one I knew earliest was my boss back in High School/ Undergrad. Fine folk as far as I can tell. Anyway, yes, I get the pun, but others might not.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Weirdly enough they have a terrible track record with the American presidency. The only one was Nixon

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 4 points 16 hours ago

They even have a flared base.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Well, they can't actually fire, so definitely a lot less harmful.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 4 points 14 hours ago

Splinters are the worst tho. I’d rather me leg blown off.