this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
92 points (98.9% liked)

HistoryPhotos

841 readers
213 users here now

HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.
  4. No genocide or atrocity denialism.

Related Communities:

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 15 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

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 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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 4 points 9 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 1 points 8 hours ago

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

They even have a flared base.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

I had no idea.