Sujet : Re: Todays rant
De : frkrygow (at) *nospam* sbcglobal.net (Frank Krygowski)
Groupes : rec.bicycles.techDate : 11. Dec 2024, 04:48:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vjb21u$1c0f4$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/10/2024 7:40 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:15:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 12/10/2024 1:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/10/2024 11:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/10/2024 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
For those who feel a .223 is too low in mass, AR-15 are offered
in .30 REM-AR ...
>
For what practical purpose?
>
>
Considered better for larger animals.
F = MA and all that.
>
I was referring to the platform, not the projectile. Choosing an AR for
hunting large animals is choosing fashion over function.
O.K. disregarding caliber tell us why the
a AR type is unsuitable hunting large animals but first specify what
"large animals" you are referring to. Elephants?
That's a question for Andrew. He's the one who introduced "larger animals."
My point is that the AR platform is not optimized for hunting. That was not its design objective. It was optimized for combat against other men with guns.
Is it possible to hunt "large animals" with it? Yes, but it's also possible to hunt large animals with bows & arrows, or I suppose even spears. It's certainly been done.
My point is the AR's advantages are used too often for killing many innocent people at once, and/or members of less innocent, competing gangs who also have ARs or other rapid fire guns.
And their ready availability has required large expenses (taxes, police resources, etc.) to try to mitigate their potential and actual harm. They are a large net detriment to society.
-- - Frank Krygowski
…