5 ms·

Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone

by pyre 10y ago

Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone needs a semi-automatic "assault-style" weapon to hunt for food. Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with.

rsync 10y ago
"Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with." Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles. They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.
- losvedir 10y ago
  On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.
AlexB138 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?
- scott_s 10y ago
  The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.
jimmywanger 10y ago
Nobody "needs" anything. Do you "need" a car that can exceed 80mph on a road? We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.
hueving 10y ago
You can have guns solely for target shooting. Hunting is a PITA.

by pyre 10y ago

rsync 10y ago

"Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with." Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles. They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.

losvedir 10y ago
On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.
LyndsySimon 10y ago
When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.

AlexB138 10y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?

scott_s 10y ago
The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.

jimmywanger 10y ago

Nobody "needs" anything. Do you "need" a car that can exceed 80mph on a road? We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.

hueving 10y ago

You can have guns solely for target shooting. Hunting is a PITA.