Sorry was busy playing amateur landscaper/plumber/machine shop technician all day.
It’s not a minuscule market.
For the "Olympic style" competitive 22s you mentioned. Yep sure is. Now if we are talking a basic bitch 10/22 or 22/45 that's different but......
.22lr isn’t a round suitable for self defense by any measure,
Agree, but it's great for...
and the only hunting application is something like prairie dogs, but even that isn’t a good caliber for them,
Or squirrels or rabbits or any other small game or furbearerers or nuisance animals that get shot at short range typically, for which it's phenomenal and doesn't need replacement by....
which is why rounds like the .17HMR were invented.
Yes for when you want that tiny 22 punch but a little further away....say for prairie dogs like you mentioned or I hear it's great on groundhogs.
.22lr is marketed as a target/plinking caliber
Yep sure is, and it's great for that, but outside of competion I'd venture to say the overwhelming majority of that is cheap practice or teaching fundamentals for...... practical application. Yes plinking with a 22 is fun. No denying that. Doesn't change the express purpose of a firearm, in general though.
, and there are countless scaled-down models of larger firearms in that caliber designed for target shooting or plinking.
Like the gsg mp5 in 22lr? So dudes can LARP as thier favorite navy seal with the real deal, which is for? What's that?
It’s a gigantic facet of firearms designed solely for reasons separate than killing. Anyone who says these guns are designed to kill things is ignorant at best.
Again, giant is a bit of a reach.
I love how you keep dancing around my point by using different words, ignoring what Termine and I said
I'm not dancing around anything. I'm not the one going Herr derr projectiles at high velocity and ignoring what the intent of that was designed for, from the outset and in a majority of the arms produced.
. Yes, guns were invented to kill. Yes, they’re fully capable of killing. Go return your straw, because i never claimed otherwise on these points. But no, in the modern context, “the point” of them, wholly, is not to kill, and saying so is just as ignorant as calling all Muslims terrorists.
Lol wut? I'm not saying guns are bad or evil. I own lots of them. I also recognize, for example, as much as they want to call any of my ARs "modern sporting rifles" Eugene Stoner designed it as an effective combat weapon, which it is. If you want to play the semantics game with yourself fine..... but end of the day with few exceptions those tools are throwing high velocity lead for a reason.
Calling someone who chooses a career shooting IDPA
Literally international DEFENSIVE pistol association. What pray tell are we practicing defending ourselves from by shooting body shaped cardboard and steel targets with primary scoring zones center mass and in the head?
or Olympic target shooting “
Again, original intent. I recognize it's bullseye shooting, but are the marines qualifying on a bullseye not doing the same thing?
simulating killing for competition” is one of the most laughably bad things you’ve said in these wonderful STB threads.
That's like totally your opinion man.
That’s a talking point out of the Brady Campaign seeking to demonize a shotgun shooting clay pigeons as “murder simulations.
I mean.... it is. It's great practice for when I go out and murder birds. Sign me up for the Peta commercial.
” Good lord. Imagine claiming NASCAR is nothing other than a speeding simulation.
Being that it was originally formed around prohibition rum running cars...... accurate.
You are doing it again........you cannot use logic with these people. They cannot follow logic.
Lmao....bruh I'm in the category of pro gun most moderate righties think I'm a little extra. I just don't do the bullshit illogical semantics game.
