3 ms·

AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreov

AKs and ARs are used for hunting and use the same rounds as other non "assault rifle" weapons. There is no ballistic difference. Both are just as deadly. Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles[1]. 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

asdkhadsj 7y ago
> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting. How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife? I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places. I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.
- giantg2 7y ago
  "I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc." Can you explain what those limitations are? Your mention of use cases and what is neccessary may conflict with others'. For example, quick follow up shots are necessary when hunting multiple feral hogs to reduce their environmental impact.

asdkhadsj 7y ago

> Moreover, many more people are killed with knifes than rifles I'm sure. Just like I expect cars to be more dangerous than guns, too. But you're drawing odd conclusions. My point was that tools have a place. A car is a tool. A knife is a tool. A hunting rifle is a tool. A rifle with the capability of mowing down herds (or people) with a high rate of fire has little merit in my mind. I speak generally, because I don't explicitly mean automatic/semi/etc because that's a whole other debate. Hunting rifles don't need "mow down herds" capability. Likewise, if you can walk into a store and shoot 50 people with ease, I question if you really need that capability for hunting. How many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with bolt action hunting rifles? Likewise, how many people in a crowd do you think you can kill with a knife? I despise these arguments of "but I have sports with X guns!" or "but I use X gun to hunt!". You can fish with explosives but it's not needed nor is it legal in many places. I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc.

giantg2 7y ago
"I support rifles for hunting, but there are limitations on the types of rifles, rate of fire, real use cases and etc." Can you explain what those limitations are? Your mention of use cases and what is neccessary may conflict with others'. For example, quick follow up shots are necessary when hunting multiple feral hogs to reduce their environmental impact.