Gun Statistics

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

The primary purpose of most guns is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move people/goods from one location to another. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet there are more traffic fatalities than gun deaths. Everyone knows this.

cars are also used with much greater frequency than guns.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
cars are also used with much greater frequency than guns.

It doesn't matter. They weren't designed to kill, in fact, they are designed with safety in mind, yet they kill more than guns.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am surprised that no one has brought up the racial component.

Compare murder rates of various countries their ethnic make up and you will see that the more homogenous a country is the lower its murder rate tends to be.
(murder rates are per 100,000 people)

Greece .76 94% Greek
Norway .78 91% Norwegian
Japan 1.1 99% Japanese
England 1.37 84% White British
Belgium 1.5 92% Belgium, but this is tough because like Canada the country has two large groups who speak two different languages
Canada 1.85 at least 20% of the country is non-whites.

And I am not saying this is a white vs. black issue. It is an us vs. them issue.

Look at nearly any place in the world where there is war or violence and you will find two different ethnic or religious groups fighting it out.

Look at murder rates by state and you see this is true. The 'whitest' states generally have the lowest murder rates, while the states with higher murder rates tend to have larger numbers of minorities.

BTW you notice how these anti-gun studies never talk about racial make up? Montana has one of the lowest murder rates link in the country and one of the highest gun ownership rates link while Maryland has a low ownership rate, but has the second highest murder rate.

Montana is 92% white 7% American indian and less about 1% black or asian.
Maryland is 66% white 29% black and 5% asian.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am surprised that no one has brought up the racial component.

Compare murder rates of various countries their ethnic make up and you will see that the more homogenous a country is the lower its murder rate tends to be.
(murder rates are per 100,000 people)

Greece .76 94% Greek
Norway .78 91% Norwegian
Japan 1.1 99% Japanese
England 1.37 84% White British
Belgium 1.5 92% Belgium, but this is tough because like Canada the country has two large groups who speak two different languages
Canada 1.85 at least 20% of the country is non-whites.

And I am not saying this is a white vs. black issue. It is an us vs. them issue.

Look at nearly any place in the world where there is war or violence and you will find two different ethnic or religious groups fighting it out.

Look at murder rates by state and you see this is true. The 'whitest' states generally have the lowest murder rates, while the states with higher murder rates tend to have larger numbers of minorities.

BTW you notice how these anti-gun studies never talk about racial make up? Montana has one of the lowest murder rates link in the country and one of the highest gun ownership rates link while Maryland has a low ownership rate, but has the second highest murder rate.

Montana is 92% white 7% American indian and less about 1% black or asian.
Maryland is 66% white 29% black and 5% asian.

Race is a huge factor, but it isnt worth getting into anything racial here. Lets just say there is some amazing data out there that noone will bring up due to fear of being called racist...

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

The primary purpose of most guns is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move people/goods from one location to another. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet there are more traffic fatalities than gun deaths. Everyone knows this.

cars are also used with much greater frequency than guns.

Because there are probably more cars out there in the US than there are firearms. Even then, people spend more time in cars each day than they do firearms. If the average person drives 10k miles a year, that implies 10,000 minutes a year with a car at highway speeds. How many people spend 10,000 minutes with their firearm in their hand each year?

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

The primary purpose of most guns is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move people/goods from one location to another. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet there are more traffic fatalities than gun deaths. Everyone knows this.

There you go. So it makes more sense inherently to secure the things DESIGNED to kill. Look where we have come in the past 15 years. When I was a kid, airbags were just coming out, and JUST became a standard. When I was older, our next car had passenger airbags standard. Now side airbags are coming in too? And more? Look, there are huge strides being made in vehicle safety. Look at early 90s cars in collisions versus cars today. Look at how far we have come in lowering murders with firearms. Whether or not vehicles kill people is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT issue.

I'm not saying let's not fight for safe cars and prevent people from running others over. I'm saying address firearms whether or not cars kill, because whether or not I can run you over or not is IRRELEVANT to the fact that anyone, even criminals, can easily get their hands on a weapon with little or no effort at all.

Yes and read my post above.

We don't ban alcohol because safe usage of alcohol leads to no deaths. Why do you think we are moving to regulation of having breathalyzer controlled ignitions for first time DUI offenders? We're MOVING in a certain direction with these things whereas in firearms we're stuck where we were 10 years ago because the gun freaks say that any attempt to regulate (not disarm) and to even to use proper documentation and records keeping equals taking our rights away. It's like saying regulation of our financial industry is like communism. It's not. It's capitalism with rules to make sure no one gets hurt or screws the economy over.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
We don't ban alcohol because safe usage of alcohol leads to no deaths.

Safe usage of guns leads to no deaths.

Answer me this - we ban guns. How do we prevent the millions of guns that are out there from being horded, the millions of guns in the world from getting imported (just like drugs), or the people that have the knowledge to make guns from doing so?

And yes, it's quite sad we can't talk about race when the statistics paint a pretty clear picture about the correlation. Heaven forbid we actually talk about the real issues instead of doing things to make ourselves feel better because we're scared of guns.

 

[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.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am surprised that no one has brought up the racial component.

Compare murder rates of various countries their ethnic make up and you will see that the more homogenous a country is the lower its murder rate tends to be.
(murder rates are per 100,000 people)

Greece .76 94% Greek
Norway .78 91% Norwegian
Japan 1.1 99% Japanese
England 1.37 84% White British
Belgium 1.5 92% Belgium, but this is tough because like Canada the country has two large groups who speak two different languages
Canada 1.85 at least 20% of the country is non-whites.

And I am not saying this is a white vs. black issue. It is an us vs. them issue.

Look at nearly any place in the world where there is war or violence and you will find two different ethnic or religious groups fighting it out.

Look at murder rates by state and you see this is true. The 'whitest' states generally have the lowest murder rates, while the states with higher murder rates tend to have larger numbers of minorities.

BTW you notice how these anti-gun studies never talk about racial make up? Montana has one of the lowest murder rates link in the country and one of the highest gun ownership rates link while Maryland has a low ownership rate, but has the second highest murder rate.

Montana is 92% white 7% American indian and less about 1% black or asian.
Maryland is 66% white 29% black and 5% asian.

Race is a huge factor, but it isnt worth getting into anything racial here. Lets just say there is some amazing data out there that noone will bring up due to fear of being called racist...

qft. just watch the evening news and you will see this.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: bob4432

qft. just watch the evening news and you will see this.

Exactly. I have noticed that Asians are the most likely to snap and slaughter people. There was the Xerox employee in Hawaii that walked into the office and killed nearly everyone there. Then the VT guy, and the immigration center guy. White kids like to shoot up schools. Blacks and latinos tend to slaughter themselves. It's quite amusing, really. Sad that no one talks about it though.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

The primary purpose of most guns is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move people/goods from one location to another. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet there are more traffic fatalities than gun deaths. Everyone knows this.

cars are also used with much greater frequency than guns.

Because there are probably more cars out there in the US than there are firearms. Even then, people spend more time in cars each day than they do firearms. If the average person drives 10k miles a year, that implies 10,000 minutes a year with a car at highway speeds. How many people spend 10,000 minutes with their firearm in their hand each year?

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

The primary purpose of most guns is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move people/goods from one location to another. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet there are more traffic fatalities than gun deaths. Everyone knows this.

There you go. So it makes more sense inherently to secure the things DESIGNED to kill. Look where we have come in the past 15 years. When I was a kid, airbags were just coming out, and JUST became a standard. When I was older, our next car had passenger airbags standard. Now side airbags are coming in too? And more? Look, there are huge strides being made in vehicle safety. Look at early 90s cars in collisions versus cars today. Look at how far we have come in lowering murders with firearms. Whether or not vehicles kill people is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT issue.

I'm not saying let's not fight for safe cars and prevent people from running others over. I'm saying address firearms whether or not cars kill, because whether or not I can run you over or not is IRRELEVANT to the fact that anyone, even criminals, can easily get their hands on a weapon with little or no effort at all.

Yes and read my post above.

We don't ban alcohol because safe usage of alcohol leads to no deaths. Why do you think we are moving to regulation of having breathalyzer controlled ignitions for first time DUI offenders? We're MOVING in a certain direction with these things whereas in firearms we're stuck where we were 10 years ago because the gun freaks say that any attempt to regulate (not disarm) and to even to use proper documentation and records keeping equals taking our rights away. It's like saying regulation of our financial industry is like communism. It's not. It's capitalism with rules to make sure no one gets hurt or screws the economy over.

Your claim of an attempt to regulate is just one step closer to disarmament, that's always been the way these things are done.

I maintain my point about alcohol. People are much less responsible with that product than they are with guns. How many people do you know that have driven drunk? Probably quite a few. Driving drunk is about as dangerous as firing a loaded weapon in the direction of a group of people. You may not hit anyone the first or second time you do this, but your chances increase with time. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who has fired a firearm in the direction of a group of people.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
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 are you blabbering about? The above doesn't even make sense. Tell me what a target shooting gun is.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
whats your point ?

30k gun related deaths per year. Over half are suicide.

Figure 15,000 others are homicides or accidents

15,000/250,000,000 (current estimate of privately owned guns in U.S) =
.006%

I can live with 6 one thousandths of a percent.

EDIT:

more people die from flue each year @ 20,000 people

41,611 car related fatalities per year

around 250,000,000 registered cars in the US

41,611 / 250,000,000 = .016%

Cars are deadlier than guns in America

Forget cars, how about alcohol? Alcohol is directly and or indirectly responsible for how many thousands of deaths per year? Better yet, while a gun doesn't make anyone do anything, being under the affects of alcohol seriously degrades a person's ability to make decisions and act responsibly.

Nobody needs alcohol, and look at all of the pain that it causes people every year. Ban alcohol.

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

OK. What is the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights?

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[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.

As far as I am aware, the only devices designed to cause death are the electric chair, gas chamber, etc.

A gun is designed to shoot bullets. If/what you shoot them at is the owner's responsibility.

Unfortunately you are wrong about guns not ever being banned. It started in 1968 (or possibly even earlier). I think it is unlikely that guns will ever be confiscated out right, but all the government has to do is give an enforcement agency like the ATF or other unrelated agency the power to tax/tariff/regulate guns, and they become effectively banned over time. For example, the GCA of 1968 effectively banned the importation of military-style weapons for civilian ownership. The 1986 MG ban effectively banned the ownership of civilian machine guns. It's a boiling frog.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
So make it more difficult to own a gun Dealmonkey? If the people are the problems, we need to restrict those irresponsible people.

Pretty much the reason for my OP. It is currently way to easy for idiots to purchase firearms (which happens to be the majority of gun owners).

So by your logic all people that do not own guns are idiots too.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
So make it more difficult to own a gun Dealmonkey? If the people are the problems, we need to restrict those irresponsible people.

Pretty much the reason for my OP. It is currently way to easy for idiots to purchase firearms (which happens to be the majority of gun owners).

More likely than not, your true concern is about inner city minorities and gang violence, not rural sportsmen. But of course you can't admit that, because it wouldn't be politically correct.

Thank you. Here's a beer :beer: If I could shake your hand I would.
The OP and the like spout statistics and look for the largest numbers supporting their view. They leave out the fact that the majority of the murders commited by guns are the results of a gang related activities. To further the issue they claim that thousands of children are killed every year by guns, but they don't tell you that that number includes teenagers that are involvec in gang activity. If you do the break down in numbers, more children, i.e. 1-12 year olds are 5x more likely to die in the backyard swimming pool than they are from a gun.
http://100777.com/node/516

 

[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.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am surprised that no one has brought up the racial component.

Compare murder rates of various countries their ethnic make up and you will see that the more homogenous a country is the lower its murder rate tends to be.
(murder rates are per 100,000 people)

Greece .76 94% Greek
Norway .78 91% Norwegian
Japan 1.1 99% Japanese
England 1.37 84% White British
Belgium 1.5 92% Belgium, but this is tough because like Canada the country has two large groups who speak two different languages
Canada 1.85 at least 20% of the country is non-whites.

And I am not saying this is a white vs. black issue. It is an us vs. them issue.

Look at nearly any place in the world where there is war or violence and you will find two different ethnic or religious groups fighting it out.

Look at murder rates by state and you see this is true. The 'whitest' states generally have the lowest murder rates, while the states with higher murder rates tend to have larger numbers of minorities.

BTW you notice how these anti-gun studies never talk about racial make up? Montana has one of the lowest murder rates link in the country and one of the highest gun ownership rates link while Maryland has a low ownership rate, but has the second highest murder rate.

Montana is 92% white 7% American indian and less about 1% black or asian.
Maryland is 66% white 29% black and 5% asian.

i think you would get a much stronger correlation to income inequality, poverty, and chronic unemployment than to race.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am surprised that no one has brought up the racial component.

Compare murder rates of various countries their ethnic make up and you will see that the more homogenous a country is the lower its murder rate tends to be.
(murder rates are per 100,000 people)

Greece .76 94% Greek
Norway .78 91% Norwegian
Japan 1.1 99% Japanese
England 1.37 84% White British
Belgium 1.5 92% Belgium, but this is tough because like Canada the country has two large groups who speak two different languages
Canada 1.85 at least 20% of the country is non-whites.

And I am not saying this is a white vs. black issue. It is an us vs. them issue.

Look at nearly any place in the world where there is war or violence and you will find two different ethnic or religious groups fighting it out.

Look at murder rates by state and you see this is true. The 'whitest' states generally have the lowest murder rates, while the states with higher murder rates tend to have larger numbers of minorities.

BTW you notice how these anti-gun studies never talk about racial make up? Montana has one of the lowest murder rates link in the country and one of the highest gun ownership rates link while Maryland has a low ownership rate, but has the second highest murder rate.

Montana is 92% white 7% American indian and less about 1% black or asian.
Maryland is 66% white 29% black and 5% asian.

i think you would get a much stronger correlation to income inequality, poverty, and chronic unemployment than to race.

You can control for race in SES comparisons, but the homogeneity argument stands somewhat apart from that. That's why it's so significant.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
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 are you blabbering about? The above doesn't even make sense. Tell me what a target shooting gun is.

You don't know what at target rifle is? You are a fucking idiot.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: DLeRium
We don't ban alcohol because safe usage of alcohol leads to no deaths.

Safe usage of guns leads to no deaths.

Answer me this - we ban guns. How do we prevent the millions of guns that are out there from being horded, the millions of guns in the world from getting imported (just like drugs), or the people that have the knowledge to make guns from doing so?

And yes, it's quite sad we can't talk about race when the statistics paint a pretty clear picture about the correlation. Heaven forbid we actually talk about the real issues instead of doing things to make ourselves feel better because we're scared of guns.

I'm not for banning guns and no way would I want that. The problem here is any remote attempt at making our firearms safer results in a "BANNING GUNS DOES NOTHING" retort.

Originally posted by: Triumph
I maintain my point about alcohol. People are much less responsible with that product than they are with guns. How many people do you know that have driven drunk? Probably quite a few. Driving drunk is about as dangerous as firing a loaded weapon in the direction of a group of people. You may not hit anyone the first or second time you do this, but your chances increase with time. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who has fired a firearm in the direction of a group of people.

You're absolutely right that people are less responsible with alcohol than they are with guns, but like I said before... where have we gone with alcohol in the past 10 or 15 years? There's a lot more education about not driving drunk, we've gone towards breathalyzer ignition systems, and some cops have devices on their flashlights to detect alcohol. I'm all for systems that regulate alcohol and driving so long as they don't go too far (the flashlight thing may be in a gray area for me).

Either case, both alcohol and firearms cause damage and just because the other is a problem doesn't mean you ignore this one. I say tackle them both. I just hate people spewing out arguments that cars cause deaths, alcohol causes deaths, heart attacks cause deaths, deep fried crap causes deaths, pirates kill, etc etc. They're all bad, and certain things I believe need more control than others, especially when the item (firearm) is designed to kill or injure.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
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 are you blabbering about? The above doesn't even make sense. Tell me what a target shooting gun is.

You don't know what at target rifle is? You are a fucking idiot.

Explain it to me. What are the mechanical differences between a killing rifle and a target rifle.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
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 are you blabbering about? The above doesn't even make sense. Tell me what a target shooting gun is.

You don't know what at target rifle is? You are a fucking idiot.

Explain it to me. What are the mechanical differences between a killing rifle and a target rifle.

lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
guns were designed and invented to shoot bullets at people to kill them, stop trying to dance around that fact.

And knives were originally designed and invented to stab into people and kill them. What's your point?

Both knives and firearms have legitimate uses that cause no harm to anyone despite their initial design impetus.

ZV

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
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 are you blabbering about? The above doesn't even make sense. Tell me what a target shooting gun is.

You don't know what at target rifle is? You are a fucking idiot.

Explain it to me. What are the mechanical differences between a killing rifle and a target rifle.

lol. You realized that there are rifles which were designed for nothing but target shooting, so you've changed your question to "what are the mechanical differences...", knowing that the general function of all rifles is the same. Can a target rifle kill? Of course. Was it designed to kill? No. It was designed for target shooting. It is obvious to me that you have never held a target rifle and you have never looked through the sights of one. Your pitiful attempt to win this argument has made you look like a fool.

Let's not name call here. Look at it a different way. Why do you target practice? So you shoot something else with pinpoint accuracy designed to kill. The end goal is the same. Who CARES if he hasn't held a target rifle? I've gone shooting at shooting ranges plenty of times and I've never held a target rifle either, so what is your point?

Bottom line is you can dance around and say the target rifle is meant for target shooting but the only reason they exist is so you can practice accuracy which really matters when you're shooting other firearms. Now you can dance around with the .22 argument that people can get shot 20 times and still live or whatever but honestly if it's just about shooting accurately, you would be talking about air rifles like in competitions.

 

[desy]

NO FIREARM IS DESGINED TO KILL
They are desgined to use some gas to push a projectile down a barrel at velocity
Where the projectile goes to what purpose is multifaceted