> You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind.
I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?
You seem to think that "designed" is important but is that a material difference by itself? If so, how does that work? Is that true for anything else? (There's a lot of cross-over between other outdoor equipment, such as vehicle drive systems, clothing, and shelter, so ....)
If it's that the intent results in other differences, what are they?
It's not the ammunition. It's not how the gun functions. (Yes, the SKS is supposed to be more tolerant of rough handling than most guns, but the AR-15 is less tolerant.) Surely it's not appearance....
Yes, people tend to shoot back, but what material difference in gun design/function is a consequence of that?
You contrasted deer hunting with shooting people, but how are they appreciably different at the same distance? (The obvious difference, that the military prefers wounds to deaths, works against your conclusion.)
.223, which is what the AR-15 shoots, isn't legal for deer hunting in some jurisdictions because it isn't powerful enough. 7.62x39, which is what the SKS shoots, usually is legal for deer, because it is roughly equivalent to the ancient 30-30. However, typical deer rifles are significantly more powerful. (Of course, people do hunt things other than deer.)
You seem to think that a bayonet is important, but are bayonetings a problem? If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? Does that difference persist after the bayonet is removed? If so, how? (I ask because the first thing that most people do with an SKS is to remove the bayonet.)