mnrivrat,
Does that mean Minnesota River Rat? If so, I envy you. Sounds fun. Do you pack on the river, and if so, what? Is corrosion a problem?
Precis of this post: Some guns are designed for killing people, but that doesn't support Vindi's arguments.
I think we agree, for the most part. Vindi tryed to use the idea that guns are designed for killing to support his point. I read all six pages of replies (at that time) and found a lot of people trying to argue that guns aren't designed for killing. I was trying to say, and I believe I did say, that some guns are designed for killing, and that there is nothing wrong with that. I don't know why so many High Roaders are shying away from the obvious fact that SOME of our guns are designed for killing animals or humans and that almost anyone who legally carries a pistol does so in order to kill a violent human attacker, if that becomes necessary. I understand that we hope the encounter will end with the presentation of the gun, but still we expect that the outcome may be a dead criminal or enemy soldier. In fact, the lethality of the gun is what causes us to be careful with it.
I don't recall saying anything about the military. Unless I am misinformed, the S&W Model 19 was intended for the police market and is called the Combat Magnum. Sounds to me like it was made to stop or kill human targets. As I said earlier, we expect it may very well kill the target, and that expectation , hopefully, keeps us from firing carelessly.
Regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, the reason that its supporters were so successful with their rhetoric about military-style guns being designed to kill is that, on this point, they were correct. The so-called semi-automatic assault rifle is indeed designed for engaging several human targets quickly, in a way that some other rifles are not. We should have no problem with acknowledging this. Should we have military weapons that we can use to shoot a lot of folks real, real quick? Of course we should. The problem lies with the public's perception that civilians shouldn't have such weapons, or would have no need for them. Of course, it also has to do with the public's ignorance.
In case you don't get the point yet, I DON'T agree with Vindi.