There’s glory for you. I’d much rather call it what it is: a rather poor and obvious dodge. Firearms are weapons. They are designed for only one function: to kill things, whether its people or animals. Saying a firearm isn’t a weapon is absurd on its face.
I sure am glad we have people like yourself around to tell us what is and what is not civilized.
There are several pieces of information that you should almost always take with a healthy dose of salt whenever the media is reporting them in the first few hours / days following a shooting spree:
[ul]
[li]the number of victims and their status (killed vs wounded)[/li][li]the number of perpetrators (multiple shooters)[/li][li]the type(s) of weapon(s) used[/li][li]the shooter(s) had body armor[/li][li]the fate of the shooter (on the loose vs shot and killed)[/li][/ul]
They routinely get these things wrong.
Most of the deer I’ve killed in the southern part of the United States have weighed between 90-130 pounds. I typically use a .30-30 Winchester rifle but a .223 would kill those deer just as dead.
You’re being absurdly pedantic. His point, as a military veteran, was that it wasn’t designed for hunting.
Yes people can use it for hunting, but that wasn’t why it was designed.
Funny how no one ever starts threads about whether the shooter wore body armor or not.
A weapon that is useful for hunting animals is useful for hunting people. A weapon that is useful for hunting people is useful for hunting animals. This is not confined to guns. A bow that can kill a deer can kill a human. A spear that can kill a deer can kill a human (And I fear the guy that can spear-hunt a deer as an aside).
Why does it matter the reason it was originally commissioned?
Most firearms, including almost all of those that are wildly popular for hunting, have origins / ties with military / law enforcement uses. I don’t know why people seem to think that they’ve “gotcha” by pointing out that some gun was originally designed for / once used by the military. That’s the norm. In other news, water is wet.
No, that’s okay. But I’ve heard of people buying weapons chambered in 7.62x51mm :eek: That’s a round developed by the military, a weapon only meant for killing humans!
Calling one a weapon and another not is pedantic. They’re all weapons, but that doesn’t make them inherently wrong.
No, that wasn’t his point. He said “…it’s not a hunting weapon”. As point of fact, it is a common hunting weapon where legal. The reason he said what he said was that if nobody calls it out as incorrect the point is conceded. It is not conceded.
Well, not here at least:
AR15.com: Surprise Initial reports of Lanza wearing body armor were wrong…
AR15.com: Aurora shooter’s armor?
ETA: the problem is that your average civilian is almost as ignorant as your average reporter when it comes to guns and gun-related items, so one of the witnesses to a shooting notices that someone was wearing some article of clothing in a camouflage pattern, or something with pockets, and mentions to the eager reporter that “i think he had some body armor on or something”, which the media then rushes to publish and gets recycled endlessly while they try to fill air time until someone who actually knows something can be made available to give some actual information.
i’m happy to hear you acknowledge that fact. you can also be happy to acknowledge the fact that in places where guns are banned there are no killing sprees that seem to be ever present in america. just my two cents.
after the sandy hook massacre and obama wanted gun laws changed, who was that guy who said he would shoot anyone who would take his gun away? left this nation with a collective headshake as to where america is heading with all this. the again we are a peaceful nation of gatherers who are tied to american apron strings in war, what do we know?
I guess the sarcasm didn’t make its way through the screen. Sorry, I’ll try to be more clear the next time I dismiss your arrogance.
That’s funny, because we’ve noticed almost the exact opposite here in America. Almost all of the killing sprees happen “in places where guns are banned” (including this latest one - at a military installation, in Washington DC: that’s literally a gun-free zone within a gun-free zone). There are precious few places in America where guns are “more banned” than the Navy Yard.
Actually, by rounds expended and man-hours involved, target and sport shooting is much more common than the use of firearms to inflict bodily harm on anything. It’s a quite popular sport, and one practiced and practical for just about anyone. It takes considerable skill and practice to do well, but doesn’t require a particular body type or physical training. there are quite a few firearms oriented more towards this type of shooting.
And, by the by, it was no dodge. I say that in person, have said it since I was age eight, and will say it as long as I am graced with continued life. Hunters carry firearms. Soldiers carry weapons.
…because americans think its their constitutional right to carry a weapon. ban them nationwide. you don’t need a weapon ( unless you are police, army, etc), you want one, compensates for something. why would the average joe blow need a gun?
My deer hunting rifle, a Ruger model 77, is chambered for 7.62 x 39 or AK-47 rounds.
How about because criminals have them and there aren’t always police around to protect you? As an Englishman living in one of the most restrictive nanny states on earth I envy our transatlantic cousins their constitutional right to bear arms.
Americans think it is their Constitutional right to carry a weapon because it actually is their Constitutional right to carry a weapon (except in DC, no small irony there). Imagine that.
As for need, we don’t have to demonstrate need here. In spite of what you might read about our increasingly intrusive law-enforcement apparatus, we don’t have to explain ourselves to them when we go to purchase a firearm. Alas, in other “civilized” countries, explanations are required if permission is to be granted at all.
the old self defense trick. here is an old thread i found interesting about countries which have banned/restricted gun ownership How many countries completely prohibit civilian firearm ownership? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
and an interesting article These Laws Are the Reason Canada, Australia, Japan and the UK Have Such Low Gun Homicide Rates
"Australia is a rare nation that has had a significant shift toward additional gun control in recent years. Following a 1996 shooting spree that left 35 Australians dead at the Port Arthur tourist location in Tasmania, the government launched a major overhaul of gun laws.
In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings; since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.
Here’s what they did: Pro-gun Conservative John Howard pushed through an ambitious gun control program. The laws banned all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and instituted strict licensing rules involving background checks and waiting periods for purchases.
The conservative government also instituted a buyback program, where people were paid for turning in newly illegal automatic and semi-automatic rifles; 650,000 weapons were voluntarily handed in and destroyed at a cost of roughly $359.6 million."
Read more: These Laws Are the Reason Canada, Australia, Japan and the UK Have Such Low Gun Homicide Rates