There are some that find the question itself, in any form, to be insulting and/or ignorant.
I am well aware of the definition of a semi automatic firearm, thank you.
Can we trust such people to wield deadly firearms? Clearly they lack good judgment if they can’t handle being questioned.
democracy can function perfectly fine without civilian arms. It does so in a whole bunch of western democracies with strong gun control.
In America people don’t want to give up their guns. Theres also the fear that the wrong people have guns in America (angry white nationalist fascists are heavily armed), and that the police sympathize with them so it would be a mistake for their targets (feminists, minorities, leftists, LGBT, muslims) to not also be armed in case they try to overthrow the government again. Unilaterally disarming while fascists keep their guns and the police sometimes refuse to protect marginalized people is a bad idea.
I support gun control when its done scientifically, but rifles and shotguns are not used in many firearm deaths. Handguns make up the vast majority of gun deaths
Are you? You clearly think semi-auto rifles are some sort of massive critical danger to the public , and simple math shows they are not.
I personally hunt with a semi auto 20 gauge shotgun. The decreased recoil is the only way my artificial shoulders can handle a day shooting trap with 100 or 200 rounds and during duck season it isn’t uncommon to shoot 20 or 30 times and I like being able to move my arms afterwards. Of course like every other hunting shotun mine only holds 3 rounds so you won’t be taking it on a murder spree.
Other hunting reasons I have used a semi auto are hogs, Prarie dogs, or coyotes. I don’t personally own a semi auto rifle but borrow my friends when we go out on one of those hunts.
I also always carry a gun when I’m hiking, backpacking or fishing since there are entirely too many bears, mountain lions, and apparently grey wolves now. I normally carry a 357 revolver but I’m planning on moving to a semi auto 10mm this fall.
Of course, none of these reasons will be good enough for the OP.
Risk-reward. As stated, you don’t need them for any reason, so any harm they cause is pure harm.
You also don’t need handguns, and yes, those do cause way more damage, for just as little reward; but the exchange that prompted THIS thread involved rifles specifically.
Realistically, something like bear spray is much better at actually protecting you against wild animal attacks; and if overzealous hunters hadn’t wiped out nearly all the wolves, bears, and mountain lions from North America, hogs, coyotes, and similar pests would pose much less of a problem. (Incidentally, attempts to control coyote populations through hunting have led to a boom in coyote populations… cite below)
But of course, those are facts, and facts don’t feel as good as shooting a coyote in the face.
It seems that this thread is specifically about why banning semiautomatic rifles would be harmful to hunting. It seems the answer is that it would not be. Thus such is a bad argument for keeping semiautomatic rifles.
Arguing that only a small minority of gun deaths are caused by semiautomatic rifles would be a valid argument. My question is, why is it that it seems semiautomatics are used in mass shootings, and do you think that having to cock or use a handgun would change how mass shootings play out?
Because most of the stuff about banning semiautomatic rifles seems to be based on the goal of stopping mass shootings or reducing their effects, not about gun crime or shootings in general. An argument for why it wouldn’t help there would be good.
Though I’d point out that always arguing against anything to be done about an issue but never arguing for something else to be done generally suggests you don’t think that the issue is important.
Sure there are lots of ways to deal with coyotes that doesn’t mean when hunting is the chosen method that you should choose a lesser way. What is your suggestion for for wild boars? How about Prarie dogs? And of course calling and shooting them is fun and the primary reason it’s done.
The real question you want to ask is me having fun worth 500 deaths a year? I say absolutly.
The general impression I get from reading the thread is that handguns kill people and long guns don’t (very often, except for when they do spectacularly). If this isn’t a derailment of the thread, I’d like to hear a defense of semiautomatic handguns. If it is, I’ll be happy to move it along to another thread.
Hunting them doesn’t work. That is the point.
Reintroduce their natural predators and try to restore the ecosystem (if this is even possible now considering how much we have damaged it) to an equilibrium. But you certainly can’t kill your way out of a mess we killed our way into.
This link seems to show that you are silly for carrying a gun to defend yourself against bears, wolves, or mountain lions; you should carry a gun to defend yourself against lawnmowers!
To clarify: hunting coyotes to control their population is like kicking dandelions to clear them from your lawn.
Your linked article uses the term “may” in terms of causing X or Y more than once. That’s not compelling evidence.
Yes, they use “may” when interpreting results; but the results themselves (despite huge efforts to cull coyotes their populations and range are both rapidly growing) are not in question.
But you do need a weapon that can kill a man and fires 30 rounds? You must be a terrible shot. Why not just shoot them with your bolt action hunting rifle?
Plus, the MightyCurmugeon claimed he needed his rifle to protect himself from animals. Coyotes are rarely pack hunters and you can chase them off with a loud noise or a thrown rock. The chance of a coyote being a threat to humans is miniscule. Kind of like the chance your house would be attacked by a roving hoard of bikers so you need to be as heavily armed ad a soldier in a combat zone.
Please quote the bit where the poster you quoted said he needs a semiauto.
It depends on how seriously you take climate change.
From the site, the average gaming computer uses 1400 kWh per year, based on 4.4 hours of play per day. If you play more, or have a top-end gaming system, adjust upwards accordingly.
Across all energy types, the U.S. averages emitting about .9 kg of CO2 per kWh. So, if you are an average gamer on a gaming PC, your activity is pumping about 1320kg of CO2 into the air every year. That, by the way, is more than 1/4 of the CO2 put out by the average car in a year. And cars do useful things. If we are going to limit cars, the least we can do is get rid of gaming computers first, right?
Industry sources say about 35% of Americans play games on PCs. If half of those have ‘gaming’ PCs, that’s roughly 55 million gaming PCs. That means PC gamers emit about 72,600,000 metric tonnes of CO2 per year that wouldn’t be emitted if they just read a book instead. Or they could take up shooting. It’s fun, and guns don’t emit CO2.
Aside from the CO2 disaster, gaming PCs cost money that could go to needy people for a laptop (which uses less than 1/10 the energy), and books make you smarter and you learn things. No one needs a gaming PC, and they are a pernicious influence and helping to destroy the planet. Is it really worth pumping millions of kg of CO2 into the air just so you can play games? Isn’t burning CO2 like that for pure amusement kind of a socially awful thing to do?
No one needs a gaming PC. In the fight against climate change, they are low hanging fruit. Getting rid of them and mandating non-CO2 consuming entertainment in place of them would be like pulling millions of cars off the road instantly. It’s a no-brainer, really.
I’d take you more seriously if you actually wanted to do something about climate change.