An AR-15 is usually chambered in 5.56 (.223) which is a common (very) hunting calibre since it's the NATO cartridge.
And yes, you HAVE been shown wrong, if you don't grasp this yet, then it's a you problem, not an everyone else problem.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
An AR-15 is usually chambered in 5.56 (.223) which is a common (very) hunting calibre since it's the NATO cartridge.
And yes, you HAVE been shown wrong, if you don't grasp this yet, then it's a you problem, not an everyone else problem.
Which means that your original statement was.... ?
I brought up Mad Max as a way of poking fun at the hypothetical scenario of social breakdown, anarchy, and having to fend off violent looters; that caricatured hypothetical scenario being the only imaginable time I would want to own a gun, and you took this as an example of me arguing that I need a gun.
I can't be responsible for your comprehension.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
AR-15 ... for hunting .. seriously?
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Wait. Couldn't I just buy a firearm as a gift for someone else?
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
That ... I cant argue against.
And by wrong, he means objectively, necessarily wrong because you've contradicted your own contention.
The statement: "Guns have only one purpose and that is to kill human beings" cannot coincide with other statements acknowledging that guns can have purposes other than to kill human beings.
It's non-contradiction, I'm afraid: if we're allowed to break that rule, then we can all give up attempting to communicate any idea at all.
You clearly have zero clue what you're talking about. Why can't you just admit you waded in balls deep blindfolded?
AR-15 rifles are CHAMBERED IN 5.56 which is .223 - .223 is a VERY COMMON HUNTING CALIBRE, HUNTING IS ONE OF THE... I'll stop shouting.... things you think is OK, right?
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Do I really need to repeat the toothbrush analogy?
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
It doesn't prove your point; rather, it hinges on a conflation between the intention behind the invention of a firearm, and the intention behind purchasing a firearm. If I purchased a firearm in order to prop up a table that's missing a leg, then by definition, I didn't purchase it with any plans to shoot anyone.
About as much as I need to repeat the boxing analogy.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
Okey, the lets take another one ... how about the Mac 10 or FNP 90?
How about a Glock 18(1200 bullets a minute, in theory)?
Come on ...
I'd suggest waving your arms around vigorously.
What about them? Now you want to move the goalposts AGAIN by whining about the mechanism they use? What about what colour they are? What if we made them in pink and put fluffy ribbons and glitter on them?
Your contention has been debunked many times over. Just deal with it and move on dude.
D
Deleted member 42253
Guest
No, I am just wondering if there is any type of gun, you would accept as being "only made for killing humans" and I am trying not to be hyperbolic by bringing out a freaking gatling gun.
No, not really. I mean if you want to go to the original intent then perhaps certain types with certain mechanisms in certain calibres were made specifically for war, ergo, killing humans, but so what? That, by even your own admission doesn't render the only purpose as killing humans. I mean, obviously, right? Let's say there was such a combination, invented with the sole idea of killing humans, it doesn't matter.
Btw gattling guns are usually small calibre like 9mm.
Just acknowledge and modify it - something like:
I think there are a lot of people who buy guns for only one purpose and that is to kill human beings
Trying to make sentences restate your opinion as fact is where you run into issues of skepticism. It hurts not a jot to acknowledge when you've said something that's unsupportable and then to amend it. In fact, I think it's generally commendable.
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
I dunno. I guess one of the first historical iterations of a gattling gun was meant to kill people? But I'm pretty sure they were meant to contend with a full on infantry or cavalry charge, which are pretty out of fashion. I thought gattlings were too inaccurate to effectively kill a single target, and were used more for suppressive fire.
Last edited:
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
They're used for suppressive fire, right? I'm not crazy?
No, you're not crazy. Gattling guns are intended to be compact, not excessively heavy, and firing full auto. There are massive fuckers don't get me wrong, but I don't think the OP even knows what a Gattling gun is tbh.