A. Tanks throw a lot of metal shrapnel through the air, piercing organs and leaving behind bone fragments that would ruin the meat. B. When hunting, you aren’t trying to kill large groups of animals and inflict maximum damage. C. Large groups of animals aren’t typically going inside an enclosed structure and that’s where bombs are most effective. The point is that people will always find a way to kill other people no matter what you ban. I’m not trying to get into a debate but guns have been around for quite some time with very few mass shootings so it’s something else recently that is triggering all this. Keep hanging around and you might just learnt somin fr fr deadass BUSSIN 🐶
If there’s no need for repeated force and maximum damage, could you explain why many hunters want to still be able to use large-magazine semi-auto AR15s for hunting (as opposed to simple bolt actions)?
If it’s a useful tool for hunting (either prey) I’d say the point applies - guns turn people unable to kill into people able to kill. If it’s not a useful hunting tool, it maybe indicates gun owners often argue in bad faith with whatever lets them keep their toys.
You don’t always hit the target the first time and you only get a few seconds before the animal gets away or you may be shooting through brush and undergrowth. The same calibers that are in assault rifles also tend to be in regular bolt action rifles.If you have been stalking an animal for days or weeks, you want to reap your reward after all of your work. Just for giggles, go squirrel hunting or rabbit hunting one time and see how you feel about bolt action. I know you have probably never handled a firearm and probably won’t but there are responsible gun owners out there, the mainstream media is only showing off the newsworthy idiots because that’s what gets the views…
I feel like you’re not quite following what you’re admitting to, and failing to get that hunting is just the analogy for argument there.
Yes, semi auto makes it much easier to hit a victim through bullet spray. By your own point, that makes a semi auto weapon a much, much easier tool to kill a large number of people than fiddling with bombs or bladed weapons. People run, just like squirrels do.
So your whole point of “people will mass murder anyway” is failing to realize that the tool in question CAN in fact make that easier, and thus more likely to happen.
You just asked me to explain why hunters want large capacity clips. I explained it to you. I’m admitting that yes, clips do allow you to shoot ANY target more rapidly. You are failing to address why these shootings are happening, you are going for the low hanging fruit. It’s the same concept with drugs, ban one, another pops up. The exact same thing will happen with guns until you figure out the root causes. I’m not shooting up a school because weapons are available.
I’m “failing” to address why the shootings are happening because that’s not what you asked about. You are failing to acknowledge the complete fallacy in your argument about alternative weapons, and are arguing dishonestly by moving the goalposts. There’s nothing to be gained by anybody conversing with you.
A. Tanks throw a lot of metal shrapnel through the air, piercing organs and leaving behind bone fragments that would ruin the meat. B. When hunting, you aren’t trying to kill large groups of animals and inflict maximum damage. C. Large groups of animals aren’t typically going inside an enclosed structure and that’s where bombs are most effective. The point is that people will always find a way to kill other people no matter what you ban. I’m not trying to get into a debate but guns have been around for quite some time with very few mass shootings so it’s something else recently that is triggering all this. Keep hanging around and you might just learnt somin fr fr deadass BUSSIN 🐶
If there’s no need for repeated force and maximum damage, could you explain why many hunters want to still be able to use large-magazine semi-auto AR15s for hunting (as opposed to simple bolt actions)?
If it’s a useful tool for hunting (either prey) I’d say the point applies - guns turn people unable to kill into people able to kill. If it’s not a useful hunting tool, it maybe indicates gun owners often argue in bad faith with whatever lets them keep their toys.
You don’t always hit the target the first time and you only get a few seconds before the animal gets away or you may be shooting through brush and undergrowth. The same calibers that are in assault rifles also tend to be in regular bolt action rifles.If you have been stalking an animal for days or weeks, you want to reap your reward after all of your work. Just for giggles, go squirrel hunting or rabbit hunting one time and see how you feel about bolt action. I know you have probably never handled a firearm and probably won’t but there are responsible gun owners out there, the mainstream media is only showing off the newsworthy idiots because that’s what gets the views…
I feel like you’re not quite following what you’re admitting to, and failing to get that hunting is just the analogy for argument there.
Yes, semi auto makes it much easier to hit a victim through bullet spray. By your own point, that makes a semi auto weapon a much, much easier tool to kill a large number of people than fiddling with bombs or bladed weapons. People run, just like squirrels do.
So your whole point of “people will mass murder anyway” is failing to realize that the tool in question CAN in fact make that easier, and thus more likely to happen.
You just asked me to explain why hunters want large capacity clips. I explained it to you. I’m admitting that yes, clips do allow you to shoot ANY target more rapidly. You are failing to address why these shootings are happening, you are going for the low hanging fruit. It’s the same concept with drugs, ban one, another pops up. The exact same thing will happen with guns until you figure out the root causes. I’m not shooting up a school because weapons are available.
I’m “failing” to address why the shootings are happening because that’s not what you asked about. You are failing to acknowledge the complete fallacy in your argument about alternative weapons, and are arguing dishonestly by moving the goalposts. There’s nothing to be gained by anybody conversing with you.
It’s really frustrating when someone bounces around with their questions and claims isn’t it? Go hide in your room and wait for help cutie pie