3 ms·

> You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer huntin

by anamax 3y ago

> You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind. I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences? You seem to think that "designed" is important but is that a material difference by itself? If so, how does that work? Is that true for anything else? (There's a lot of cross-over between other outdoor equipment, such as vehicle drive systems, clothing, and shelter, so ....) If it's that the intent results in other differences, what are they? It's not the ammunition. It's not how the gun functions. (Yes, the SKS is supposed to be more tolerant of rough handling than most guns, but the AR-15 is less tolerant.) Surely it's not appearance.... Yes, people tend to shoot back, but what material difference in gun design/function is a consequence of that? You contrasted deer hunting with shooting people, but how are they appreciably different at the same distance? (The obvious difference, that the military prefers wounds to deaths, works against your conclusion.) .223, which is what the AR-15 shoots, isn't legal for deer hunting in some jurisdictions because it isn't powerful enough. 7.62x39, which is what the SKS shoots, usually is legal for deer, because it is roughly equivalent to the ancient 30-30. However, typical deer rifles are significantly more powerful. (Of course, people do hunt things other than deer.) You seem to think that a bayonet is important, but are bayonetings a problem? If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? Does that difference persist after the bayonet is removed? If so, how? (I ask because the first thing that most people do with an SKS is to remove the bayonet.)

defrost 3y ago
> If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? From family history, you can't shoot a rifle well during a flat out four mile cavalry charge on machine guns, but you can sling a rifle and hold a bayonet. https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-beersheba/index.aspx https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-b...
dghlsakjg 3y ago
> I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences? For one, I can stab someone in close quarters with a bayonet. It is a feature designed specifically with killing humans in mind. A bayonet has no legitimate or legal use in recreational hunting or shooting. It makes the weapon less useful for legitimate purposes if only as a weight penalty. The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with guns designed specifically as human killing weapons have happened?". The answer is that there have been thousands. People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included). Pretending that an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an SKS was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it. If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.

by anamax 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

> If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? From family history, you can't shoot a rifle well during a flat out four mile cavalry charge on machine guns, but you can sling a rifle and hold a bayonet. https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-beersheba/index.aspx https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-b...

dghlsakjg 3y ago

> I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences? For one, I can stab someone in close quarters with a bayonet. It is a feature designed specifically with killing humans in mind. A bayonet has no legitimate or legal use in recreational hunting or shooting. It makes the weapon less useful for legitimate purposes if only as a weight penalty. The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with guns designed specifically as human killing weapons have happened?". The answer is that there have been thousands. People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included). Pretending that an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an SKS was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it. If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.