3 ms·

I own a handgun, given to me as a hand-me-down, that was originally used for small game hunting.

peterwwillis 14y ago
This is reeeeeeeally missing the point. The conversation was about (apparently) the ethics of selling a product which is known to be used a majority of the time for the aim of killing a thing (whether that be deer or human, is up to the owner of the gun/bullet). This should not be a controversial statement. Before someone says "oh but you can use it for target shooting and/or sport!", there is nothing about the function of a gun and bullet which suggests it is intended for (for example) target shooting, since you don't need something as incredibly powerful as your average gun or bullet to shoot a target. Not to mention the wide variety and increase of both power and rate of fire of different weapons... these things are designed for war, basically. An AK-47 is an incredibly reliable and impressive weapon, and unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end. And let me go even further: bows and arrows are intended to kill things as well. It's harder to kill something with it, but that's what they were invented for, and that's what you're practicing for on the range. But I don't hear many people screaming about boycotting bow and arrow manufacturers/salespeople. The fact that it takes skill to kill with one killing instrument while a child can kill with another, does not take away from their intended purpose, nor the fact that the market for the thing is why they exist to begin with.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I don't disagree with the intent of your comment, but I think you are arguing your point in a poor fashion. Even if guns were only ever used for target practice, you would still see excessively designed guns. Just like, and for the same reasons as, you see excessively designed cars; people find them fun. I know a guy who hunts with an AR-15. Is that necessary in any way? No, I don't expect so. He seems to enjoy it though.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  Peter and the sibling comment to this one seem to be ill-informed about firearms. unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end. This is false. An AK-47 shoots 7.62x39 cartridges, similar to .308 Winchester, which is a very common load for deer hunting. I own an SKS, which was the predecessor to the AK, and shoots the same ammo. It's very cheap, and like the AK is very reliable. This, plus some quirks of US gun control laws, have made this a very popular hunting rifle. The sibling comment said I know a guy who hunts with an AR-15. Is that necessary in any way? Actually, he's got it completely backwards. The loads used in an AR-15 are too weak to use in deer hunting, unless you're a damned good shot. It's a 5.56mm bullet -- essentially a .22 caliber bullet, but with a bunch more velocity to it. This standard NATO round was designed (or maybe later rationalized?) with two important features: (1) it's smaller and lighter, allowing a soldier to carry more of them; and (2) it generally does not kill its human target (and understand that deer are tougher than humans in this regard), and thus ties up not just the enemy's wounded, but also medical resources in caring for the wounded. The bottom line is that deer, and even more so, bears, elk, moose, etc., are really tough prey. It takes a lot more to take down one of them than it does to incapacitate a human enemy. Thus you need greater kinetic energy from your ammunition when hunting them. This, of course, says nothing about rate of fire. Semi-auto is very helpful to a hunter. However, full auto is not useful. But then again, it's not very useful to most soldiers, either. That's why the later NATO assault rifles -- M16A2 -- no longer feature full auto. They're selectable to single shot, or three-round bursts. EDIT, clarification: actually, saying that it takes more kinetic energy for large game is only part of the picture. The real key is energy transferred to the target. So a solid bullet that passes through the target does less harm than a bullet that fragments and gets caught up in the target, thus imparting all of its energy into the target.
  - peterwwillis 14y ago
    What I was saying about the AK-47 is that it's overkill in terms of weapons designed for hunting deer. The AK is designed to work in the sand after being left in the desert for a year and shoot practically like new. The clip is (imho) overkill - you really need more than 5 rounds to take down a single buck? And like you mentioned, full-automatic is dumb for hunting (thought I might appreciate it if I suddenly discovered a grizzly in my tent at 3am). I'm no great hunter, but an assault rifle is IMHO not best suited for hunting game. Effective stopping power is important, but so is picking the right tool for the job.

This is reeeeeeeally missing the point. The conversation was about (apparently) the ethics of selling a product which is known to be used a majority of the time for the aim of killing a thing (whether that be deer or human, is up to the owner of the gun/bullet). This should not be a controversial statement. Before someone says "oh but you can use it for target shooting and/or sport!", there is nothing about the function of a gun and bullet which suggests it is intended for (for example) target shooting, since you don't need something as incredibly powerful as your average gun or bullet to shoot a target. Not to mention the wide variety and increase of both power and rate of fire of different weapons... these things are designed for war, basically. An AK-47 is an incredibly reliable and impressive weapon, and unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end. And let me go even further: bows and arrows are intended to kill things as well. It's harder to kill something with it, but that's what they were invented for, and that's what you're practicing for on the range. But I don't hear many people screaming about boycotting bow and arrow manufacturers/salespeople. The fact that it takes skill to kill with one killing instrument while a child can kill with another, does not take away from their intended purpose, nor the fact that the market for the thing is why they exist to begin with.

jlgreco 14y ago
I don't disagree with the intent of your comment, but I think you are arguing your point in a poor fashion. Even if guns were only ever used for target practice, you would still see excessively designed guns. Just like, and for the same reasons as, you see excessively designed cars; people find them fun. I know a guy who hunts with an AR-15. Is that necessary in any way? No, I don't expect so. He seems to enjoy it though.
CWuestefeld 14y ago
Peter and the sibling comment to this one seem to be ill-informed about firearms. unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end. This is false. An AK-47 shoots 7.62x39 cartridges, similar to .308 Winchester, which is a very common load for deer hunting. I own an SKS, which was the predecessor to the AK, and shoots the same ammo. It's very cheap, and like the AK is very reliable. This, plus some quirks of US gun control laws, have made this a very popular hunting rifle. The sibling comment said I know a guy who hunts with an AR-15. Is that necessary in any way? Actually, he's got it completely backwards. The loads used in an AR-15 are too weak to use in deer hunting, unless you're a damned good shot. It's a 5.56mm bullet -- essentially a .22 caliber bullet, but with a bunch more velocity to it. This standard NATO round was designed (or maybe later rationalized?) with two important features: (1) it's smaller and lighter, allowing a soldier to carry more of them; and (2) it generally does not kill its human target (and understand that deer are tougher than humans in this regard), and thus ties up not just the enemy's wounded, but also medical resources in caring for the wounded. The bottom line is that deer, and even more so, bears, elk, moose, etc., are really tough prey. It takes a lot more to take down one of them than it does to incapacitate a human enemy. Thus you need greater kinetic energy from your ammunition when hunting them. This, of course, says nothing about rate of fire. Semi-auto is very helpful to a hunter. However, full auto is not useful. But then again, it's not very useful to most soldiers, either. That's why the later NATO assault rifles -- M16A2 -- no longer feature full auto. They're selectable to single shot, or three-round bursts. EDIT, clarification: actually, saying that it takes more kinetic energy for large game is only part of the picture. The real key is energy transferred to the target. So a solid bullet that passes through the target does less harm than a bullet that fragments and gets caught up in the target, thus imparting all of its energy into the target.
- peterwwillis 14y ago
  What I was saying about the AK-47 is that it's overkill in terms of weapons designed for hunting deer. The AK is designed to work in the sand after being left in the desert for a year and shoot practically like new. The clip is (imho) overkill - you really need more than 5 rounds to take down a single buck? And like you mentioned, full-automatic is dumb for hunting (thought I might appreciate it if I suddenly discovered a grizzly in my tent at 3am). I'm no great hunter, but an assault rifle is IMHO not best suited for hunting game. Effective stopping power is important, but so is picking the right tool for the job.