3 ms·
I don't know what you're considering "high powered", but hunting rifles actually tend to be on the larger caliber side of things. If you're shooting a large mam
by OkayPhysicist 4y ago
I don't know what you're considering "high powered", but hunting rifles actually tend to be on the larger caliber side of things. If you're shooting a large mammal, using something like a 22 is just unnecessary cruelty. You want a round that will kill as fast as possible, so .338 in, .30-06 or 7.62 mm are the calibers of choice. If you're talking about .50 BMG as "high powered", then lucky for you, "high powered" rifles are almost never used in crime. They're just too expensive. In the few cases that they were used, I can't find a case where the "high powered" nature of it was actually relevant.
And I have the exact opposite point of view with regard to HP rounds. If we're talking handguns, we're talking self defense, and in self defense situations, the only rounds you want are hollow point. Because they're designed to flatten out on impact, they go through a lot fewer walls, ceilings, and home invaders, making the shooter far less likely to accidentally over-penetrate into their family or neighbors. Using full metal jacket for home defense is putting everybody else at excessive risk.
Incendiary rounds are for fun, and little else. They look scary, but they don't really have any real effect.
This kind of illustrates one of the big issues with firearms discourse in the US: people who like having guns tend to know a lot about them, and take for granted that people have that same knowledge, neglecting the fact that there's a whole other group of people who know next to nothing about them. Then the people who know next to nothing about firearms propose gun legislation which is just baffling to anyone who knows anything about guns, like banning specific models of firearm, or certain ergonomic features, or banning silencers/suppressors (this isn't Goldeneye, they just make it less hearing damagingly loud to shoot).
- taeric 4y agoI'm almost swayed by the animal cruelty argument, at the same time, the best hunters I know are all bow hunters. Such that, yes, it will be harder; but hunting isn't supposed to be easy. Guns are largely fun for most that have them. Little else. Such that I don't think that changes things. I should note that I've probably owned more guns than makes sense. Had friends with desert eagles. There is basically no reason for any high school age kid to have access to the kind of crap I had access to. It isn't so much ignorance as flat disregard for the bullshit reasons so many pro gun folks put forth. Including here. Your "need this for self defense" is a large part of the reason folks "need them for self defense." It is circular at best, and you can only make it work by poisoning the conversation with pulling in hunting.
- Alupis 4y agoSo, please, play the scenario out. You take away all the legal guns... now what? Violence ends? Right? Right? What's the plan for taking away all the illegal guns? What's the plan to protect citizens that are now disarmed? Why don't we just focus on taking away all the illegal guns? Oh, right... we have been... for 89 years - yet there's more illegal guns on the streets today than in 1934. What a shock... Kind of like how there's more drugs readily available to average citizens than before the "war on drugs" started. It's literally an impossible task... have you seen the homemade guns in countries with outright bans? Or worse, illegally imported automatic firearms. Regular Joe - no gun. Criminal Joe, full auto! People like to point at Prohibition as evidence an outright ban of Drugs can never work. Yet, it's different with guns somehow? You're looking at an infected wound and deciding the appropriate treatment is duct tape. Why duct tape? Because you haven't bothered to even learn rudimentary medical knowledge but are a self-proclaimed expert. Duct tape holds things together, so why not? Banning guns means no gun violence, right? Why don't we just make it illegal to hurt or kill people? It's already illegal? Ok, make it double-illegal, that'll show them!
- taeric 4y agoAt what point did I propose taking away "all legal guns?" I have put forth regulating all guns. But, it doesn't take an active imagination to see that regulation is not a total banning/taking away. We still have cats, after all. Edit: leaving cats, for obvious reasons. I meant cars.