I used to think exactly like you. Then I realized that the real purpose of guns is not to protect from robbers.
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
- A study sponsored by the Center for Disease Control compared gun owners and non owners of the same gender, race, age, and neighborhood. Those who kept a gun in the home (often for protection) were 2.7 times as likely to be murdered-nearly always by a family member or a close member acquaintance (Kellerman, 1993, 1997).
- Another study found that the risk of suicide in homes with guns was 5 times as high as in homes without them (Tuabes, 1992).
- Compared with others of the same gender, age, and race, people with guns at home were 41 percent as likely to be homicide victims and 3.4 times as likely to die of suicide (Wiebe, 2003).
Countries that ban handguns have lower murder rates. Compared with the United States, Britain has one-fourth as many people and one-sixteenth as many murders. The United States has 10,000 handgun homicides a year; Australia has about a dozen, Britain two dozen, and Canada 100. When Washington, D.C., adopted a law restricting handgun possession, the numbers of gun-related murders and suicides each abruptly dropped about 25 percent. No changes occurred in other methods of murder and suicide, nor did adjacent areas outside the reach of this law experience any other such declines (Loftin & others, 1991).
According to Milgram's obedience studies, remoteness from the victim facilitates cruelty. A Knife can kill someone, but a knife attack requires a great deal more personal contact than pulling a trigger from a distance.
............................................................
I am a strong supporter of the constitution, which of course includes supporting the 2nd amendment. The more I research the effect that guns have on our society, the more I'm starting to see this amendment as old and outdated. Back when our constitution was drafted, those people weren't exposed to all the violence we receive on a daily basis from the media today. People back then were generally more mature and respected their firearms. They also didn't have access to weapons that could mow down 40 people in one clip. The fact that a gangster who flunked out of high school can just as easily acquire a weapon from Walmart as I can because of the 2nd amendment is just scary. As shown in the statistics above, I really don't think most of our violence hungry society holds the maturity/responsibility needed to own a firearm anymore.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you're going to claim that the furniture makes something a target rifle vs a killing rifle, there's no room for discussion. You're a moron, that's all there is to it.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you're going to claim that the furniture makes something a target rifle vs a killing rifle, there's no room for discussion. You're a moron, that's all there is to it.
No, you just can't seem to comprehend that some rifles were designed solely for target shooting. It's sad that such a simple concept eludes you.
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you're going to claim that the furniture makes something a target rifle vs a killing rifle, there's no room for discussion. You're a moron, that's all there is to it.
No, you just can't seem to comprehend that some rifles were designed solely for target shooting. It's sad that such a simple concept eludes you.
I believe their point is it doesn't matter what modifications you have made to a gun, it's still a gun. Just because a target rifle might not be able to withstand the wear and tear of combat, or regular hunting trips over a long period of time, doesn't make it any less capable of being used to kill, if needed. I could shoot and kill something just as easily with a target rifle as I could with my 30-06, or an M16, or an M4. In the end, it's still a rifle.
Now if the ammo was designed soley for target shooting, and only had the capacity to penetrate paper, that would be a whole different argument.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you're going to claim that the furniture makes something a target rifle vs a killing rifle, there's no room for discussion. You're a moron, that's all there is to it.
No, you just can't seem to comprehend that some rifles were designed solely for target shooting. It's sad that such a simple concept eludes you.
I believe their point is it doesn't matter what modifications you have made to a gun, it's still a gun. Just because a target rifle might not be able to withstand the wear and tear of combat, or regular hunting trips over a long period of time, doesn't make it any less capable of being used to kill, if needed. I could shoot and kill something just as easily with a target rifle as I could with my 30-06, or an M16, or an M4. In the end, it's still a rifle.
Now if the ammo was designed soley for target shooting, and only had the capacity to penetrate paper, that would be a whole different argument.
No, they were responding to a reply I made to the question "What is the PRIMARY purpose of a gun?". A guns primary purpose is determined by it's design. Some guns are designed for target shooting, so their primary purpose is to shoot at targets. This is a simple concept to understand.
Originally posted by: AFMatt
All firearm's primary purpose is to strike a target with a projectile. Rifles for target shooting are simply designed (via added equipment) to be more accurate/stable than your regular every day rifle, but the target you fire at is not limited to paper by it's design. Whether you are aiming to kill something, or just punch a hole in some paper, the purpose is the same. Squeeze - bang - projectile - hit.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: AFMatt
All firearm's primary purpose is to strike a target with a projectile. Rifles for target shooting are simply designed (via added equipment) to be more accurate/stable than your regular every day rifle, but the target you fire at is not limited to paper by it's design. Whether you are aiming to kill something, or just punch a hole in some paper, the purpose is the same. Squeeze - bang - projectile - hit.
lol. No the target is not limited. You can shoot at whatever you like. That does not change the purpose of the rifle. Target rifles are designed to be shot at targets. That is what they are marketed towards, and that is what people use them for. Your explanation has no bearing on this argument. It's like saying all cars are designed to drive, therefore all cars serve the same purpose. That is foolish. Would you take a delivery van to a race? Sure, you could but it would be stupid, because a delivery van is not designed for that. Race cars are. Their fundamental operation is the same, but their designed and purpose is different. This is the same with guns. Some guns are designed for close quarters combat, others are designed for target shooting. That is their design dictates their purpose.
Originally posted by: Genx87
What is the major difference between a target AR-15 and a non-target AR-15? From looking at a few a couple of weeks ago it appears the length of the barrel is a major factor. Most of the target AR-15s I saw were 20 or 24 inche barrels vs the standard 16". And they have lower twisting for heavier bullets and typically come with a 5 round mag vs a 30 round.
Am I missing anything?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Except that the difference between a "target rifle" and a normal hunting rifle (or even a battle rifle), is like the difference between a Corvette ZR-1 and a racecar, not the difference between a delivery van and a racecar. The differences are very, very, very small.
And, as I have pointed out, "target" AR-15s are perfectly suited for offensive use as well despite being "target" firearms. I have also already pointed out that .22LR is only good out to about 100 yards at which point accuracy diminishes. A "target rifle" for 200+ yards would be using a cartridge like the 5.56 NATO, or the 7.62 NATO or even the old standard of the .30-06 due to the need to maintain appropriate ballistics at longer ranges.
A "match-grade" .30-06 or .308 rifle is simultaneously ideally suited to use as a hunting or sniper rifle.
Really, you have done enough to demonstrate that you don't actually shoot anything, you just look at photographs of guns. Go out and get some practical knowledge instead of sitting around trying to look smart on the internet.
ZV
Originally posted by: BoberFett
This is amusing, I hope theflyingpig keeps it up. His desperate gasps for air as he drowns in a sea of facts is music to my ears.
If form determines function, then clearly this is designed to be a toy for seven year old girls: http://secretsocietynyc.wordpr...o-kitty-x-ar-15-rifle/
Originally posted by: Genx87
What is the major difference between a target AR-15 and a non-target AR-15? From looking at a few a couple of weeks ago it appears the length of the barrel is a major factor. Most of the target AR-15s I saw were 20 or 24 inche barrels vs the standard 16". And they have lower twisting for heavier bullets and typically come with a 5 round mag vs a 30 round.
Am I missing anything?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: BoberFett
This is amusing, I hope theflyingpig keeps it up. His desperate gasps for air as he drowns in a sea of facts is music to my ears.
If form determines function, then clearly this is designed to be a toy for seven year old girls: http://secretsocietynyc.wordpr...o-kitty-x-ar-15-rifle/
It's painted pink. It would be stupid to take into a situation where concealment would be necessary. Go ahead and try to take a rifle like this into a tactical situation. You will be laughed at. Why? Because the design of the rifle dictates it's purpose. Other than the color this AR is identical to all others, yet the color makes the difference in when and where it can be used. Everyone knows this.
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: BoberFett
This is amusing, I hope theflyingpig keeps it up. His desperate gasps for air as he drowns in a sea of facts is music to my ears.
If form determines function, then clearly this is designed to be a toy for seven year old girls: http://secretsocietynyc.wordpr...o-kitty-x-ar-15-rifle/
It's painted pink. It would be stupid to take into a situation where concealment would be necessary. Go ahead and try to take a rifle like this into a tactical situation. You will be laughed at. Why? Because the design of the rifle dictates it's purpose. Other than the color this AR is identical to all others, yet the color makes the difference in when and where it can be used. Everyone knows this.
So because this weapon is pink, it could never be used to rob a bank? Or be used in a drive by? Or just shooting randomly into a crowd of people? Or even knock down a deer? The color of the weapon has absolutely no effect on it's capability. Nobody will be laughing at the sound of shots fired, regardless of the color, shape, or design of the firearm.
Your argument seems to revolve around how much sense it would make to carry a particular weapon into a tactical situation. Ok, you are right, no trained professional is going to choose a weapon modified for target shooting over other weapons in a tactical situation, and no trained professional is going to take a bright pink colored rifle into a situation where concealment is necessary. There are a whole slew of other firearms that wouldn't make sense to use in a variety of situations as well.
That doesn't make them any less capable of shooting someone or something, it just means they are not the optimal choice in every situation. The design of the firearm and it's externals simply dictate where it is best used. So what if a target shooting rifle's choice situation is, well, shooting targets? That doesn't make it any less of a rifle, and any less capable of what rifles were designed to do. That just makes it a lesser choice in specific situations over other firearms (not that any of these details matter to the average joe or average criminal.. a gun is a gun).
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Auryg
Safe usage of guns leads to no deaths.
Technically, this is incorrect. A properly used firearm will result in the death of a creature. However, some firearms are specifically designed for target shooting, and so, properly used, they will result in no deaths. The fact that most guns are designed to kill cannot be denied. What also cannot be denied is the fact that guns will never be banned from the US. Everyone knows this.
A gun is designed to shoot bullets. If/what you shoot them at is the owner's responsibility.
guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Auryg
Safe usage of guns leads to no deaths.
Technically, this is incorrect. A properly used firearm will result in the death of a creature. However, some firearms are specifically designed for target shooting, and so, properly used, they will result in no deaths. The fact that most guns are designed to kill cannot be denied. What also cannot be denied is the fact that guns will never be banned from the US. Everyone knows this.
A gun is designed to shoot bullets. If/what you shoot them at is the owner's responsibility.
guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.
I think it could be argued that guns were invented to scare people away, because they were unreliable, inaccurate, but make a loud, distinctive bang. To this very day people duck and run when they hear shots going off. Shock and awe
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
-Adolf Hitler