> We're not anti-gun. Just anti the "only used explicitly for killing people" kind of gun.
That doesn't square with Canadian classifying tasers (purely defensive, non-lethal) and anti-materiel rifles as prohibited firearms. Not that those kinds of bans don't have some sort of legitimate public policy basis, but there's something else going on here.
I'm not yielding to your premise but I'll entertain it for a moment. Massive biological differences aside, the rough composition and weight of a deer isn't so much different than a human. An AR chambered in something like 6.5 is one of the most ergonomic and effective deer killing machines you could possibly use. Very light, able to make follow up shots easily, swappable magazines, insane aftermarket availability and cheap ammunition for training because nearly the entire US military uses the parts, etc etc.
That's not determined by the gun but rather the magazine. The 30 round magazine is popular largely because it's often the cheapest and most readily available as the tooling was scaled up for mass production for the military. You can buy a 5 round magazine to put in an AR style gun it's just harder to find and it's not clear you're gaining much beyond maybe a slight hair better ergonomics or mobility from certain shooting positions so most hunters don't buy them.
If you want to single-load cartridges or pin to a 3 round magazine or whatever, have at it. Most of the argument still applies and especially the cheapness and parts availability and intercompatibility with mass after market options. Plus you'll be able to use a larger mag when target shooting. Another plus even if you don't care about magazine size is you can easily swap the barrel (actually upper receiver) without having to legally buy a new gun, so you can train with very cheap .22 ammunition using all the same ergonomics / muscle memory for when you hunt deer.
You know what, I will accept that there's some decent arguments for why hunters would want access to ARs.
Do you think it makes sense that people that don't hunt would prefer for widely, easily accessible weapons to be largely less efficient at killing human beings? It feels like many gun owners and gun enthusiasts struggle to accept any compromise. And I won't say this is particular to them, I think most people have some pet regulatory peeve, but it sure makes it difficult to have conversations about it!
What you're running to in the USA is not a conversation on hunting but rather the 2A considerations, under which a fundamental quality of the weapons is availability of efficiency at killing human beings.
There's actually a shit-ton of deer hunters in the US that hunt with .300 blackout under 16" barrel AR-type weapons that are legally "handguns." In part because the handgun-length barrel makes it less unwieldy when you add a suppressor on the end (if they put a stock on it, it becomes a short barreled [baddy] 'rifle' again but for retarded vestigial legal reasons they put a "brace" on it which does the same thing but magically means you don't need an NFA stamp). Though that was not directly question posed to which I answered.
It's kind of antiquated to use a "rifle"-length barrel for intermediate cartridge nowadays. The military uses a 14.5" barrel as standard issue for the AR-15 type rifle, which is "handgun" length, and most intermediate cartridges are handier and lighter in a legally handgun sized barrel for targets within the range of what you're likely to see in wooded areas. This means to use the most practical intermediate cartridge lengths you actually legally have a handgun with a "brace" on it.
It's my understanding hunters in Canada are often using the SKS for intermediate cartridge hunting, largely because it's/was cheap and wildly available, which was designed for killing people.
It doesn’t take too much effort to square the idea of being fine with firearms while not being a weapon-access absolutist. I’m able to have nuanced opinions about a lot of things that have negative externalities. Like how cigarettes kick ass but so do indoor smoking bans.
Simple. Cigarettes make you cool and hot, offering or bumming a light outside is instant chemistry to chat somebody up, and although I haven’t been a chronic smoker in probably a decade now, a drunk cig outside on a chilly night still hits like crack.
It’s not the heater itself, it’s everything else about them that is 10/10.
It's funny / overall-positive to compare how we seemingly see them to how my daughter's generation (18) sees them. In my 20s in the 90s despite being a mainly-non-smoker I felt/thought as you. That's not how my daughter or her peers think though.
We're not anti-gun. Just anti the "only used explicitly for killing people" kind of gun.
I grew up and live in rural Canada. Rifles for hunting or farming are just part of life. Though the long gun registry did make them more of a hassle.
Why do you need a killing-person gun? What's that for?