Shotguns now OK by Geneva Convention?

My brother got back from training as an armorer at Aberdeen, MD for the USMC and one of the items he trained on was the Joint Service Combat Shotgun made by Benelli. I was under the impression shotguns were banned by international law for use against human targets in combat - I wonder what happened? And make no mistake, this isn't a breaching gun... it's designed to accept optics, flashlights, and other goodies you'd usually find hanging from a "tacticool" M4 carbine. Does anybody know what's going on?

On a related topic, I noted with some disappointment that the magazine capacity was only 4+1. That's not enough for a combat shotgun - I'd rather buy a Saiga 12 and an extra magazine or two. You know the AK action will keep ticking under any conditions whether it's been cleaned in the past 10 years or not, and it can accept accessories too. Can anybody explain this to me? Are we too arrogant to license Soviet technology for our own use?

I'm not sure about the Geneva Convention, but the US has used shotguns in every war since WW1. Especially the SEALs/Special Forces types.

Although that shotty is cool looking I'd rather use the AA12.

As ABTOMAT said, shotguns have been issued by the US military since WW1 (personally owned shotguns were used in conflicts prior to that).

In WW1, the US military felt that shotguns (equipped with bayonets) would be "perfect" for trench warfare; they were used to repel German attacks, shoot down German carrier pigeons, even to stop hand grenades thrown at US troops. The German government did file a protest through the Swiss, claiming the shotguns would cause "unneccessary pain and suffering"; the Germans even threatened to "immediately execute" any captured US soldier possessing a shotgun or shotgun ammunition. The Swiss government basically said that shotguns were no more inhumane then the flame throwers the Germans were using. No executions were known to have occurred because of shotgun possession. In fact, the US military actually issued more shotguns after the prostest was filed.

In WW2, shotguns were mostly used for guarding POW's and installations, but some made it to the Pacific Theater (the Marines loved them, and it was reported that Marines would "borrow" shotguns from Army units via the "Midnight Requisition Route"). To my knowledge, very few shotguns were used in Korea, but some were issued for Vietnam (there is even a infamous video of a soldier in Vietnam using a shotgun as a bong). I haven't seen any pictures of shotguns being used in the Middle East, but I'm sure some are in use.

Hope you found this helpful.

Mike

See this recent account from Baghdad.

The US never signed the agreement at the Haque Convention that outlawed certain guns and ammunition in combat. That's why our snipers still use hollow points while others countries cannot. :naughty:

Besides, the Geneva Convention never banned shotguns.

Daekar said:

I noted with some disappointment that the magazine capacity was only 4 + 1

Click to expand...

The shotgun is not meant to get into a gun battle with, they use it to neutralize a threat immediately when sweeping an area until the rest of the team come into play.

Well, I don't know what the Geneva Convention says, but I'll soon be using a Benelli M4 entry with colapsable stock and 14" barrel for home defense, clays, and for bears when I am camping in the woods... I can't wait until it gets here!!! I'm like a little kid waiting for Christmas.

When using 2.75" shells, it's actually 5 + 1 + 1 and 4 + 1 + 1 when using 3" magnums.

Shotguns have never been "banned". And, in reality, there's no such thing as "international law" in war. Don't confuse media hype with the real world.

If I recall the years ago "Geneva Convention" course in BCT, the 50cal BMG was "banned" for use against troops (not armor or "things"). I distinctly remember the DI stating "....doesn't mean you can't shoot their belt buckles".

Combat is truely a terrible thing and rules don't apply.

BIGIRON said:

Combat is truely a terrible thing and rules don't apply.

Click to expand...

No truer statement. Amen.

A quick check of Wikipedia gets the following:

1. The Hague convention prohibits the use of hollowpoint bullets and bullets designed to flatten in the body.

2. Geneva has four conventions, none of which are applicable to weapons. However, a Geneva attachment to the Hague does prohibit poisons, gases, chemical and biological weapons.

3. Signatories to Hague and Geneva are bound by law to obey them--even when opponents do not.

4. The current combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't specifically defined because they do not meet the standards of recognized combatants or non-combatants and the opinion is that they are, in effect, criminals.

As long as it's in Counter-Strike v1.5 I think HURAH!! Not sure about reality though - don't they just use the "let God sort them out" mentality nowadays?

Lightraven said:

A quick check of Wikipedia gets the following:

1. The Hague convention prohibits the use of hollowpoint bullets and bullets designed to flatten in the body.

2. Geneva has four conventions, none of which are applicable to weapons. However, a Geneva attachment to the Hague does prohibit poisons, gases, chemical and biological weapons.

3. Signatories to Hague and Geneva are bound by law to obey them--even when opponents do not.

4. The current combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't specifically defined because they do not meet the standards of recognized combatants or non-combatants and the opinion is that they are, in effect, criminals.

Click to expand...

The US never agreed to the Hague Convention. For years we went along with it's guidelines just to be nice neighbors, but we have since totally ignored it.

Was going to say something along similar lines!
Since when has the US gov respected any internatinal law or convention (except bare lip service), unless it benefits them?
Its quite sad to see how they ride roughshod over everything, and within minutes turn around and accuse everbody of not respecting the same laws they themselves so conveniently ignored.
I guess thats what goes for "diplomacy" these days.
PS regarding smiper bullets, the were investigated by US gov lawyers, who concluded since the cavity at the end is not by design an expanding feature, its ok to be used.

Marduke said:

The US never signed the agreement at the Haque Convention that outlawed certain guns and ammunition in combat. That's why our snipers still use hollow points while others countries cannot.

Click to expand...

If you're refering to the M852LR 7.62mm 168 grain Boat Tail Hollow Point bullet, these were approved by the Army JAG for combat sniping because the hollow point wasn't designed for expansion.

There are a lot of "rules" that have floated around for years, such as the .50 caliber being approved only for engaging equipment not personel. Used to hear soldiers saying, "I'll aim for his canteen."

Mash said:

PS regarding smiper bullets, the were investigated by US gov lawyers, who concluded since the cavity at the end is not by design an expanding feature, its ok to be used.

Click to expand...

The military report concluded that since they expanded so well, it was actually more humane since it killed faster.

What annoys me is lawyers and the "media" dictating the "rules" of war.

I assume Mash you are speaking of things like "Gitmo"? From your statement it is apparent you are drinking the "Kool-Aid" (see James town massacre) . Though the U.S. has made mistakes just like every other country, we are not in the practice of "taking over the world" and crushing the poor,weak and impoverished beneath our boot heels. Most of the actions taken by the U.S. were to benefit the world as a whole not just the United States. Stop blindly believing what the liberal media is feeding you . They are invested in the defeat of America just as the Liberal Democrats are.

luminata,
Gitmo would be one of those things, however there are many others.
Unfortunately the US media cultivates a culture of ignorance, and an almost divine justification and rightness in the actions of US. A US citizen is usually kept blissfuly unaware of actions done in their name (south america in the 80s anyone?), and until recently (due to changes in world communications, politics, spread of weapon knowledge etc) was tottally unaffected by them. Sept 11 was the first time in US history that the results of their foreign policy came to mainland US; before it was always contained in the area of the mess itself! So to an Iraqi, or a palestinian etc, in terms of number of deaths, they witness a Sept 11 virtually every month of their whole lives (usually either due to direct US action or indirect support).
So when the US people ask with genuine confusion: "but why do they hate us?", most foreigners are amazed by this lack of knowledge and awareness. Thats why the US has to be told things like "they hate freedom, they hate our way of life, and are trying to destroy it" which is easy to believe and fear. However in most cases, these "enemies" are fighting for their freedom, and to preserve their way of life!

This is most sad, since individually, most americans are really cool, helpful and good people; however their name is tainted globally by the actions of thier government.
This topic of conversation can run for ever between us with no resolution, so I'll stop here. But as a point I leave you with this example:
State department press release 1984, regarding Iraqs use of chemical wepaons (Saddam best buddy at that time, US actually increased supporting him afterwards, and chemical weapon use was NEVER widely publicised until 1991 when it was useful propaganda):

"While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq (ed: that was Saddam, in case you are wondering) to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

I hope you spot the many tragic hypocracies just in this one paragraph. These alone, can be held directly responsible for the deaths of 4 million people in the last 20 years. (2mil Iran/iraq war, 1 mil sanctions after desert storm (a genocide as termed by many world authorities, but hey whos listening), 1 mil and counting OIF). Did these people deserve to die? Did they hate freedom? Or were their deaths a price worth paying, as stated by Madeleine Albright? If someone said that we think its acceptable that your children, your whole family, neighberhood etc to die, so I can have cheap gas to go get my latte in my SUV, how happy would an american be; would you gladly comply, or become a "terrorist" to defend against this?

Think it's time this went to the Underground. Lasted longer than I thought. Mods????

luminata said:

What annoys me is lawyers and the "media" dictating the "rules" of war.

Click to expand...

Same here. War is brutal, ugly, inhumane, horrible, and should remain that way so that it's only done as a last resort where all other actions have failed. Sanitizing war with "rules" actually makes it more attractive. This is the last thing we need to do.