[Romero254]

I was just watching the news and some Guy says something like: firearms technology has evolved like electronic technology making it easier to kill. What!?! Am I missing something here? Do guns shoot lasers now, do they have infinite ammo, or are there hand held bazookas?

The technology has no where near evolved like electronics. Revolvers, bolt actions, lever action, clip fed guns are no different then the old days. Ya the looks have changed and some functions of firearms have been improved but they are all along the same simple functions as when they were first created. Firearms went from muzzle loading black powder and balls to cartridges that fire bullets. Not telegrams to text messages or projectors to 3d TVs or record players to ipods!
I swear these people talk out of their rear ends! How dumb is that?

 

[Lance0812]

Maybe he saw a picture of a race gun?

 

[TexasAviator]

I can actually see his point about the advances at least. Think about what the repeating rifle did (when available, which was rare) during the war of northern aggression. The advent of "smokeless" powder on the battlefield, Muzzle loading to breach loading, to magazine fed. The self contained cartridge.

How would Lexington and Concord have turned out if one side was armed with contemporary weapons and the other with AK47's and 1911's for side arms supported by a Ma Duce or two? And the newest of those designs is 60 years old!

But just like the advances in electronics and electronic communications however it does not mean that those advances are not covered under the Constitution as well. Nowhere does it say that only physical letters are covered or that only muzzle loading weapons are covered.

 

[MrG]

Last I checked my PT1911 was basically designed in 1911 and hasn't changed. Not sure, but I don't think there was an XBox, TV or computers in 1911. Advances in electronics technology has dwarfed pretty much any other advances of anything in the last 100 yrs. Just another person trying to get an emotional response from people that don't really understand what he's saying and don't want to think for themselves.

 

[texastaurusguy]

We have had advances in the ergonomics and design, in safetys and safety transfer bars, in many things. But to me, a revolver is still a revolver and a semi-auto is still a semi-auto.


If they had said advances in bullet technology, I would have agreed 100%.

 

[GunsandNoses]

Modern cartridge technology is still basically 1850's-1870's technology.
We can say the "modern" cartridge revolver started in 1856-57 with the Smith & Wesson model 1.
The entire machine gun, automatic, semi-automatic development started with Hiram Maxim in 1883.
The first true modern semi-auto handgun I would say is the 1896 C-96 Mauser broom handle.

So modern weapons are actually not that modern after all.

Everything since then is just a variation on the theme.

Now if handguns had gone from the size of an M1 tank down to the size of wedding ring while having a similar increase in power and lethality in about 45 years then there could be a comparison to the evolving electronic technology.

I think the change from tube to solid state in the electronic world and the semi conductor would be similar to going from a smokeless powder cartridge gun to an individual targeting plasma rifle.

 

[Lance0812]

How would Lexington and Concord have turned out if one side was armed with contemporary weapons and the other with AK47's and 1911's for side arms supported by a Ma Duce or two? And the newest of those designs is 60 years old!

Can't answer that one for you but author Harry Turtledove thinks he knows what would have happened if Robert E. Lee had been gifted with AK-47s:

The Guns of the South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[94lt1]

I agree that this person was talking out his behind... in technology, chips are shrinking in size and doubling their power approx every 3 months...making everything smaller and faster,

I don't see pocket sized m4's with the power of an RPG.. do you???

 

[TexasAviator]

Can't answer that one for you but author Harry Turtledove thinks he knows what would have happened if Robert E. Lee had been gifted with AK-47s:

The Guns of the South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for posting that Lance, I'd never heard of the book, sounds interesting.

Lee could have given them to Hoods Texas Brigade, now that would have been a combination.

 

[Lance0812]

Thanks for posting that Lance, I'd never heard of the book, sounds interesting.

Lee could have given them to Hoods Texas Brigade, now that would have been a combination.

I encountered the book a long time ago.
The cover - showing Robert E. Lee holding an AK-47 - was all I needed to know to buy it.
Very good alternate history read.

 

[daytonaredeye]

Can't answer that one for you but author Harry Turtledove thinks he knows what would have happened if Robert E. Lee had been gifted with AK-47s:

The Guns of the South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turtledove? Hmmm. . . . I think I got two of those for Christmas one year?

Oh, and it sounds like a fascinating read!

Oh, and back to the OP topic - I think our technologies in weapons design has just improved in some of the design parts - metallurgy, use of polymers, etc. As noted, smokeless gunpowder dates back more than 60 years. Self enclosed cartridge also dates back to the 1800s. And is a 45ACP round really more efficient killer than a Civil war era >.50 caliber ball round? Don't think so.

Agree with those who claim he was talking out his A$$ - which, unless I'm off base, is Jim Carrey's trick.

 

[Sambuh]

I was just watching the news and some Guy says something like: firearms technology has evolved like electronic technology making it easier to kill. What!?! Am I missing something here? Do guns shoot lasers now, do they have infinite ammo, or are there hand held bazookas?

The technology has no where near evolved like electronics. Revolvers, bolt actions, lever action, clip fed guns are no different then the old days. Ya the looks have changed and some functions of firearms have been improved but they are all along the same simple functions as when they were first created. Firearms went from muzzle loading black powder and balls to cartridges that fire bullets. Not telegrams to text messages or projectors to 3d TVs or record players to ipods!
I swear these people talk out of their rear ends! How dumb is that?

I actually disagree with you. Not that it matters, haha. Lets take technology back to the 80s, computers are getting smaller and more powerful. Hell look at the iPod over the last 10 years.

Forget going back to the invention of the first firearm. Lets go back to the 1700s, wouldn't you agree that they have evolved, also making it easier to kill? A front loaded musket vs say a North American 22 magnum that fits in your back pocket? Take the military standard then, and then take today. A repeating fierce killing machine, vs 1 shot and reload. I think you are right the basic technology on which it was created is still there but with many many micro evolutions that makes the gun easier to fire, and kill. Just my two cents. Interesting topic for sure!

 

[Lance0812]

I actually disagree with you. Not that it matters, haha. Lets take technology back to the 80s, computers are getting smaller and more powerful. Hell look at the iPod over the last 10 years.

Forget going back to the invention of the first firearm. Lets go back to the 1700s, wouldn't you agree that they have evolved, also making it easier to kill? A front loaded musket vs say a North American 22 magnum that fits in your back pocket? Take the military standard then, and then take today. A repeating fierce killing machine, vs 1 shot and reload. I think you are right the basic technology on which it was created is still there but with many many micro evolutions that makes the gun easier to fire, and kill. Just my two cents. Interesting topic for sure!

You're still comparing a 200-year period of firearms development to less than twenty years of electronics development.

 

[rino451]

I personally believe that regulation has stifled small arms development in the U.S. to a great degree. Granted, it's difficult to prove a negative, but short of examples like the Kriss Super - V, I can't really point to anything particularly revolutionary attributed to U.S. development.

 

[TexasAviator]

You're still comparing a 200-year period of firearms development to less than twenty years of electronics development.

Things do advance at different rates. I think Sambuh understood the comment in the OP to be the same as I did. The Guy on tv was talking about firearms advances and used the electronics analogy. I assumed (yeah we all know what that does ) that in the current climate the guy on tv making the comment was some anti gun liberal and the time frame was 1789 to present and that the 2nd amendment was outdated. That seems to be one of the favorite arguments. (one I whole heartedly disagree with by the way!) I could be be wrong but I don't think the intent of the original comment was that electronics and firearms advances are completely alike in pace of advancement, just that they have advanced. And if you look at the long view from 1789 to present they have.

Where they differ is in rate of advance. At least without seeing the actual comment in context thats how I understood it.

I think technology for firearms is going to be small innovations as opposed to the leaps and bounds in electronics. Somehow you still need to send a mass (Lead, copper... whatever) down range at a high rate of speed. What the innovations will be I have no clue. But the big leaps will be stuff like persoanlized rail guns (no need for powder and primers) or even directed energy weapons, or who knows what else, but those are a long way off. Also its worth noting electronics will not advance at the same pace unless we find something new (like quantum computing) since Moore's Law will start running into quantum mechanical limitations in the next 20-40 years or so.

Just my two cents.

 

[Sambuh]

You're still comparing a 200-year period of firearms development to less than twenty years of electronics development.

Sure. The comparison was actually made earlier. It's the basis of the argument.. Naturally, we would all agree, technology has evolved faster. My point is simply, yes guns have actually evolved into easier to shoot, easier to kill machines.

 

[Sambuh]

Things do advance at different rates. I think Sambuh understood the comment in the OP to be the same as I did. The Guy on tv was talking about firearms advances and used the electronics analogy. I assumed (yeah we all know what that does ) that in the current climate the guy on tv making the comment was some anti gun liberal and the time frame was 1789 to present and that the 2nd amendment was outdated. That seems to be one of the favorite arguments. (one I whole heartedly disagree with by the way!) I could be be wrong but I don't think the intent of the original comment was that electronics and firearms advances are completely alike in pace of advancement, just that they have advanced. And if you look at the long view from 1789 to present they have.

Where they differ is in rate of advance. At least without seeing the actual comment in context thats how I understood it.

I think technology for firearms is going to be small innovations as opposed to the leaps and bounds in electronics. Somehow you still need to send a mass (Lead, copper... whatever) down range at a high rate of speed. What the innovations will be I have no clue. But the big leaps will be stuff like persoanlized rail guns (no need for powder and primers) or even directed energy weapons, or who knows what else, but those are a long way off. Also its worth noting electronics will not advance at the same pace unless we find something new (like quantum computing) since Moore's Law will start running into quantum mechanical limitations in the next 20-40 years or so.

Just my two cents.

I should of read this before I commented... So I could just say, "yeah what he said" haha

Well articulated.

 

[MadKaw]

If you look at military technology rather than civilian technology, he might have a point. I enjoy watching the Military Channel's programs about new tech.
F'rinstance the XM-307

This is one example of a vast increase in lethality.
Of course this has nothing to do with the gun control debate - you know that, I know that, the guy on TV knows that. He is just counting on the fact that the uninformed are incapable of making the distinction.

 

[daytonaredeye]

Don't look now but i think kaw's going thru an identity crisis . . .

 

[MadKaw]

Don't look now but i think kaw's going thru an identity crisis . . .

Nonsense. I yam what I yam.