I hate guns. They are engineered from the ground up to take lives of other people. That is their sole purpose. To kill
1y 4mon ago by lemm.ee/u/Emmie in unpopularopinion
I hate people who treat them like some toys and fantasize about them. That makes me think they are in some sort of death cult. That they found socially acceptable way to love violence.
I would still get one for safety but it is a tool made for specifically one thing. To pierce the skin and rip through the inner organs of a person.
They can serve a good purpose but they are fundamentally grim tools of pain and suffering. They shouldn’t be celebrated and glorified in their own right, that is sick. They can be used to preserve something precious but at a price to pay.
Gotta resist fascism somehow
You already had a coup and nobody is using guns to stop it.
I got an assload of harsh language that work?
How's that working out for ya?
Luigi did more with three bullets than peaceful protest has accomplished in the last 25 years.
I'm curious what you think he's accomplished. Cause the dead guy was replaced immediately with someone just as evil, and the anesthesia coverage thing you all love to claim was already in the works weeks before Luigi.
Nothing changed. It's still business as usual for health insurance companies.
He wiped out 6 months of UHC stock price gains overnight and caused Cigna to commit to expanding their accountability, transparency and customer service departments and tie executive compensation to customer satisfaction metrics.
What did peaceful protest get you in the last two decades? Romneycare is all I can think of and the insurance mandate was a huge step backwards that wipes out any benefit that might be seen from the mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Just a few nits: he did cause the price to drop, but it's not as significant as you make it sound. Their price had just spiked up to all time highs, and it dropped down to where it was before the spike.
The drop wasn't even out of proportion with the fluctuations the price normally has seen over recent history.
Finally, stock price falling doesn't actually get us anything. If anything, it'll make them more aggressive about costs to bolster the earnings sheet to get the price back up.
I'd focus on the "spotlight on the dark situation" side of things, and how making the insurance companies aware that we're mad enough to kill them and laugh at their death means we might actually be getting close to mad enough to institute a program that saves us money and pays for more treatment of higher quality for more people.
Cigna was already doing all of that.
Source: used to work there, have friends that still do, including execs
You saw damn near the whole country coming out in support of Luigi and gaining more class consciousness seemingly overnight. Imagine that power of mass organization being used to, say, organize a general strike.
Even most Trump supporters voted for him because they were/are going through economic struggle, and Trump (and decades of right wing propaganda) was able to successfully brainwash these people into pointing the finger at immigrants and trans people instead of the obvious culprit (billionaires).
It's not too difficult to help someone come to the conclusion that billionaores are the problem if they're struggling financially.
Obviously, you have the Trump supporters who specifically support him (and continue to) because he's a fascist leader who has Nazi idiology that they agree with, but I think that's a (very, very vocal) minority of his supporters.
Hopefully, he encouraged other people to carry on his work.
Oh, by all means, give that a try, see how it goes. I'd say "and then report back", but... you know, that wouldn't be much use.
I have a feeling that the "punch the nazies" people who are the loudest online are the ones nowhere to be found when the shit actually hits the fan. The ones who actually would aren't talking about it on social media and especially not on Lemmy.
"Bum bum pif paf" is a childish, almost cartoonish way of resistance. If you're a serious person, you understand that while certain actions may sometimes be necessary, celebrating or eagerly anticipating them is disturbing. Additionally, such actions are rarely the real solution to a problem.
People who fantasize about violence write things like this not because they want to solve anything, but because they’re looking for an excuse to act out and release their anger.
Wow you really project a lot onto one short sentence. Ignoring any reference to historical resistance in order to feel superior about your views.
Gun defenders are always like this. Historical this, historical that but in truth they just want a license to kill.
I know that on Lemmy there are many bloodthirsty motherfuckers who just go to sleep imagining saving the world with a smoking 92fs. Not because it would help anyone but because they are kinky like that
Well that’s an awfully specific gun reference for someone who hates them so much.
word salad
Not to mention hunting is a thing.
Bows and crossbows exist.
But are comparatively wildly inefficient and cause more pain before the death of the animal.
Not disagreeing with that, but the topic at hand were alternatives to hunting with guns. I think bolt action rifles should be the only allowable gun for hunting.
Yer not gonna get a tasty bird with a bolt-action rifle or a bow!
You've obviously never had a grouse, or are just a bad shot. lol
I hit my bag limit with a 22lr all the time.
Okay but I’m talking about sky birds.
Metal sky birds?! Use a SAM
Just out of curiosity, would you please point out your approximate location on this map of invasive feral swine distribution:
My thumb isn't big enough to point it all out.
I will do the people reading along the favor of not posting images from an article titled "Penetrating Anorectal Injury Caused by a Wild Boar Attack: A Case Report".
Suffice it to say, hunters in the marked areas have a distinct need for semi automatic rifles.
Or are they not man enough to hunt old school with a pike and 44?
I'm not. Are you?
Semi automatic? Not good enough to aim and hit cleanly with one shot?
Hogs aren't deer. You don't hunt invasive hogs one at a time. They are too destructive, too dangerous, and too prolific for that. They aren't game animals; they are varmint.
There is no closed season, and no bag limit. When you see them, you shoot every one of them you can, as quickly as you can, before they can scatter.
That seems like a very I have nothing to fear from other people viewpoint. Lots of places in urban areas where a firearm is a tool for safety that has everything to do with other humans.
No, it's just that rural people expect their opinions to count more, as though their lifestyles are more authentic or honorable.
And where exactly is it that a firearm is necessary to protect from wildlife? Kodiak Island?
As far as the safety argument goes, let's examine Police. The number one cause of "in the line of duty" fatalities is auto accidents, the second is heart disease, with COVID jockeying for position. If guns were a prophylactic, you'd expect them to shoot cheeseburgers and their cruisers. But as Richard Pryor observed: "Cops don't kill cars..."
A firearm is necessary literally anywhere that has predators, unless you want to have all your livestock killed.
Also necessary if a tweaker decides on a midnight visit, as the police are half an hour or more away.
Counterpoint: cities shouldn't exist
There should be a commission that caps the local human population at sustainable levels
Cities are a way better way of sustainably housing our population than suburban or rural sprawl. We get to be a lot more space efficient by living in multistory housing, having public transportation, etc.
Counterpoint: we don't need to be that space efficient, and are better off in smaller communities
With the amount of people existing, yes we do. Otherwise there will be no nature left.
Cropland is not nature. For every 180 people in your city, add a square mile of cropland to its area before trying to determine the spatial efficiency of that city.
There is some truth to that idea, but not nearly as much as you think. You need about a square mile of cultivated cropland for every 180 people, whether your population is spread out in small towns or concentrated in large cities.
There is no reason to cram humanity into the tightest package possible. We are using a square mile of cropland for every 180 people; it makes more sense to spread out, allowing us to get out of each other's way.
Congestion kills efficiency gains.
Huh...? Is this an actual thing you actually believe in?
The commission bit was a joke but yes I'm not fond of cities
On a global scale, population density is about 180 people per square mile of agricultural land.
Cities don't change that: you need a swuare mile of cultivated land for every 180 people to sustain those urban populations.
We need more, smaller, more dispersed cities. Not these urban hellscapes.
I'm about as left as they come but weirdly enough I'm also a hunter, and I have to disagree, the guns I own are tools designed for specific purposes that aren't killing humans. Hunting turkey, hunting deer, hunting duck, I even have a muzzleloader for that season, and a gun for back packing and hunting out of a saddle in a tree.
Hunting IMO is way more sustainable and ethical than buying store bought meat and it connects me with nature and let's me first hand observe, appreciate, value, and want to protect ecology of my area.
How is hunting sustainable? It's currently sustainable because a small number of people do it. I can't see how it would be more sustainable than farmed, storebought meat.
From what I understand, it's sustainable because hunters kill overpopulated species like deer. The deer become overpopulated due to lack of predators in the area and end up damaging the ecosystem by eating all the plants
Indeed. "Hunting is more sustainable than farming" is an idiotic assertion.
It might be if all the humans not hunting their meat starved to death - orwere never born. I think it really depends on what counterfactual you want to dream up.
You could argue that modern farming techniques created the agricultural surplus and enbled population growth and urbanisation and maybe helped the human population to grow to a level that hunter gatherers woud not be likely to have reached.
I think it is the scale of human population that is challenges sustainability of any tech, either method would be sustainable at some scale. I'm not convinced that modern farming practices are very sustainable for 10+bn people , for all that long. But I guess we'll see.
Over the long term i think hunter gathering humans were around a lot longer than farmers have been, and a much much longer than modern intnsive monocultural/ pesticide / fertilizer based methods. So you'd have to wait a few thousand years to know how sustainable modern farming is.
Killing animals isn't ethical. Inevitably the false dilemma gets painted between killing them or overpopulation, but the overpopulation is also a human-created problem, both through overdevelopment and killing off natural predators - the actual antidote is to scale back our development, or reintroduce predators, or simply let other natural stressors manage the population. Plant-based/vegan diet is far more ethical (nonsense about "plants feel pain", "mice killed by plows", "I can't eat vegan because of my blood type" and other vegan bingo card BS aside).
Inevitably the false dilemma gets painted between killing them or overpopulation
it's not a false dilemma. it's a real dilemma. and your solution is also to kill them.
Taking just the "solution" of reintroducing predators - it's still not the same. Predation specifically targets old, weak, sick members of a herd. What do hunters do? It's what, a tag limit and age limit, and that's it.
This whole conversation always seems so disingenuous. People doing hunting claim these altruistic motives, but have every adverse incentive that has nothing to do with those motives, from stocking their freezers to just bragging about what they hunted. Let's be for real here, you're not scientists or veterinarians carefully monitoring and managing a population, what you're doing is taking the first justification you can find for what you already wanted to do.
it’s still not the same.
no, it's not the same, but your solution is also to kill them. if that happens, and people can benefit above and beyond balancing the ecosystem, that's even better.
Uh-huh. So of all the options - just shooting adult deer, or restoring the ecosystem to the way it was, or actual scientific approaches like sterilization, you're only interested in the one that benefits you, and then you start ignoring the moral implications, and associated risks like humans getting shot. See, the conversation would go smoother if you just declare from the outset that you only care about what benefits you, and we could drop the pretense that this is about what's actually the best solution.
the conversation would go smoother if you just declare from the outset that you only care about what benefits you, and we could drop the pretense that this is about what’s actually the best solution.
being snide is unnecessary. you can apologize.
you start ignoring the moral implications
you didn't raise any moral implications. like what?
This comment right here. Carnists are always arguing in bad faith.
Hunting IMO is way more sustainable
Right whales would like a word.
sustainable and ethical than buying store bought meat
- it doesn't scale
- it's inconsistent
- zombie deer
Hunting [...] [lets] me [...] want to protect ecology of my area
Sorry, which part of killing animals fixes a landscape or its residents? What are you protecting by killing something? Does Fonzie need to give Ritchie another speech about Two Wrongs and a Right?
I am anti gun in almost every way, but I know where I live, deer populations get out of control. I've never hunted, nor do I have any desire to, but the fact is that if we didn't cull the deer population periodically, they would breed themselves into starvation and cause who knows what kinds of damage to themselves and their ecosystem.
As unfortunate as it is, it's a thing that has to be done for their own good and for the good of this area. I'm sure it's like that in lots of places with lots of different species.
Agreed; and want to add it’s probably because people killed off the predators that kept the deer population in check.
Either that or they were brought to places where they didn't have predators. Either way, it's definitely our fault. We love fucking up natural habits.
WTF, whales have NOTHING to do with anything they said.
Derailing with strawman fallacy and red herrings undermines anything you say coming across as broken AI chatbot
Yes, I think mostly it was farmers who deforested the planet; and are still doing it.
it is a tool made for specifically one thing. To pierce the skin and rip through the inner organs of a person.
This isn’t true. I live in a country with sensible gun control laws and live on a rural property with 10 acres of forest. We have a small rifle to protect the wildlife against rabies or to put down an injured animal.
The US conversation around guns is toxic.
Really toxic.
I think it's handguns and anything semi-automatic or automatic that are designed for violence.
Basically anything that makes it simple to shoot more than twice, or makes it easy/convenient to carry.
Bolt action or double barrel shotguns are for hunting or actual self defence.
They are tools.
Pump actions, handguns, semi-autos and automatics are for "I have made a very bad mistake".
If your rifle is semi-automatic, have there ever been actual occasions where you have gone "thank god this is semi-automatic"?
If I can get excited for a cordless Bosch track saw, I can get excited for a nice gun. Guns have served two purposes in my life - target shooting with friends and the meat I get from hunting. I don't need to take on someone elses trauma and stop enjoying something to respect what they are.
I live in Australia and I theoretically love guns. I love them from an engineering and design point of view. Going shooting inanimate objects and making a skill based sport out of it looks like enormous fun. But my country has very strict gun control laws so owning one isnt worth the headaches.
But then I'm at the 24hr supermarket near the sketchy neighbourhood and the junkie is screaming at the cashier about something and I am so fucking happy that the likelihood of that guy having a gun is next to zero that I think "Yep, I'll take that trade"
They are engineered from the ground up to take lives of other people.
I have no love for guns, but hunting for food is the reason humans created weapons in the first place. To your point, I’m pretty sure slaughterhouses aren’t using fully automatic rifles on the killing floor.
I am afraid I am not a big animal lover myself but I respect those who are. However for me human life is most important.
My point is more about the justification of firearms. It’s easy for me to forget as a city-dweller, but there are still many people who hunt for their food.
There are what I feel neutral guns and more dark guns. For example sport guns shooting .22 LR do not trigger me so to say. Maybe because I used to be a sport shooter when young. Hunting guns also. But HK MP5? Well it has no other purpose. It exists to inflict as much damage in the shortest amount of time to a human body.
You've never been hog hunting, I guess. Sometimes you need the ability to fire a lot of bullets quickly, and it has nothing to do with killing people.
I mean, fully automatic weapons are illegal without a tax stamp in the US, and modern automatics aren't allowed to be sold to civilians.
I am sure they are made for hog hunting. “Hog hunt today with HK”
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess you live in the US - well, I sure hope you do.
In the US I believe that guns are like pick-up trucks: far more people own them to plug gaps in their personality than the number of people who own them because they need their utility.
My personal view - and a generally held one - is that guns are a tool and to fetishise a tool is… weird; and suggests to me a troubled mind.
You've never shot one and you're trying to rationalize it,eh? They're simply a lot of fun to understand mechanically and to use. I have mine for home defense and fun, nothing more. No fetish, no mental problems, I hardly even think about them. They're simply an impractical tool.
I use guns. I use a lot of other tools, too. My chainsaw doesn’t define my personality, so why would a gun?
See I think that's where you're getting lost. Most gun owners are not defined by their guns. They just own them and mind their own business. You're seeing all gun owners as those military cosplaying scared little boys that put bullets all over their trucks with gun maker stickers to let the world know they really like guns. The vast majority of gun owners are not tools owning tools.
Uh, that’s essentially what my first comment is saying… that’s why I assumed the poster was from over in the US - the rest of the world ain’t really like that. The vast majority of gun owners across the world are normal people; who just happen to own guns, amongst other possessions.
I'm not familiar with the existence of chainsaw clubs where people meet up to show off their chainsaw collections, buy chainsaw accessories and merchandise, and swap fantastical stories about using their chainsaws to kill people who have wronged them.
I really like my electric leaf blower. It's a lot of fun to just turn it on and watch all the leaves and dirt fly off the sidewalk so effortlessly. You just squeeze the trigger and it blows, you don't need to pull a string or prime it or anything.
I enjoy it so much that the path to the front door is always clear, despite being under a tree that constantly drops leaves.
But leaf blowers don't kill, and I don't have vinyl stickers on my car bragging about my leaf blower. Or shirts stating it's my legal right to own a leaf blower. It's just a tool that I enjoy using.
The rise of battery leaf blowers gives me hope that humanity can be saved. I hope you have many happy years with it. It’s an incredibly satisfying pastime.
High five! I just build a gas chamber in my basement. It's simply a lot of fun to understand mechanically and to sit in, valves not turned on of course. ;) I have mine for home defense and fun, nothing more. No fetish, no mental problems, I hardly even think about the gas chamber in my basement. It's just nice to have.
I’ve always looked at them from a utility/engineering/sport perspective. I have no intent of ever carrying a weapon, but the training it takes to learn how to target practice, and the engineering that goes into them are incredibly fascinating.
I don’t encourage people to own guns and I don’t have any myself, but I really wish target practice didn’t have to share a platform with a killing machine.
You can target practice with air guns. Some can still kill, but it's what Olympians use in their target sport.
For sure, they are fun to learn and to use. I’ve done safety training and target shooting several times and briefly considered taking it up as a hobby. However the nearest gun club didn’t offer lockers or rentals, and there was no way a weapon was going to be in my house
Shooting and gun safety should be part of gym class for every student in the country.
target practice didn’t have to share a platform with a killing machine.
The problem is that, I may be wrong but for the most gun enthusiasts it is a feature and not a flaw.
You're wrong
I'm being pedantic, but many are designed to take the lives of animals rather than people. Absurdly heavy precision .22 cal target rifles are clearly only for sport.
A few are designed to launch flares high into the air for communication. A very small number are designed to trigger avalanches under controlled conditions.
There are too many responses here to reply to all of them individually so I'm just going to post some quotes here, more in response to other comments than the OP, but perhaps also a perspective to consider for OP as well.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
- George Orwell
And the shockingly only increasingly relevant full quote from one of the founders of the Black Panthers party:
"Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment. If the guns are taken out of the hands of the people and only the pigs have guns, then it's off to the concentration camps, the gas chambers, or whatever the fascists in America come up with. One of the democratic rights of the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, gives the people the right to bear arms. However, there is a greater right; the right of human dignity that gives all men the right to defend themselves."
- Huey Newton
I'd really ask more people to consider their position of privilege, to be less afraid of state sanctioned or enabled violence of all forms than some crazy neighbor with guns who was likely failed many times by that very state to have come to this point. Please just consider the counterpoint, that armed minorities are harder to oppress, and that far, far more people have been killed by state sanctioned and enabled violence, than by access to firearms by "the common people".
I'm not telling anyone that they're wrong, I'm just asking that you really internalize and consider this perspective. Thank you for reading and thinking.
It's amazing how the media and propaganda has made enemies of our neighbors and stoked those fears until the populace thinks they need to always be vigilant of some perceived slight or danger.
They have kept us blind of those who have organized a societally approved threat. Law and order is not kept through threats of violence by the state. It is built through the community and rising up all those around us.
A rising tide lifts the boat, we all benefit when those around us are doing better.
If that's the reason why Yanks like to arm themselves to the teeth, you'd think that at least one of them might actually do something about what's happening to their country now.
Instead it just looks like they enjoy the power fantasy, imagining that they might get to legally murder someone who trespasses on their property one day.
I don't know how you read what I wrote and took from it "I don't think American culture has a problem involving guns"
It's a very American viewpoint. Many countries in Europe have high gun ownership and manage to do so without murdering eachother.
That is a very American excuse. The US has 120 guns per 100 people, Europe's highest, Serbia, which had a literal civil war not 2 decades ago, has 40.
The US has a gun problem.
I actually know a few Serbs personally and the 40 guns per 100 people definitely refers to legally acquired and nationally registered guns. And doesn't include the Kalashnikovs picked up after the war and kept by people's grandmother's.
Honestly I don't even see guns as a terribly effective method of mass murder. If I were to want to take out a large number of people, I'd use a Timothy McVeigh style truck bomb. Fertiliser and diesel are comparatively cheap in any country. Or you know I could just grab a kitchen knife and probably take out around a fair number of people.
The difference is that Americans have a hard-on for violence. America has a serious mental health problem. You just elected litteral fascists to the Whitehouse to stop trans girls from taking a shit in a public bathroom, so don't pretend that y'all are mentally healthy.
Many countries in Europe have high gun ownership and manage to do so without murdering [each other].
But can we agree that the not killing is a by-product of not using the gun, instead of using the gun? To re-phrase, the more the gun is used to shoot at something, the higher the chance of something getting hit?
America needs to address the mental health crisis that's endemic in their country. There's also a general lack of firearms safety in the country. I was thought to safely use a rifle when I was 8 and never even came close to killing someone. The problem is that your attitude towards firearms is always framed in terms of defense. I was thought to use a gun to procure food or for entertainment in the form of clay pigeon shooting. The idea that I would use it against a human never entered my mind.
If I were to want to get rid of someone, I'd either use something quiet like a kitchen knife or piano wire, or do it remotely with an ied.
Accidents happen, there's no denying that, but that applies to literally everything that exists. Not setting your house on fire is a byproduct of not using candles, doesn't mean their purpose is arson.
I personally have zero desire to hurt or kill anyone, human or animal (so much so I deliberately avoided the mandatory military conscription of Finland) but I really like target shooting. Most of the time I do it with air pistols/rifles because I can use them on my back yard, but the bows, crossbows and firearms I own are strictly for that exact same purpose as well.
Agreed. But russians don't count. If those fuckers come over the border I'm going full John wick.
Making a piece of something go fast is a purpose of any accelerator. Trains go fast along the rail, and are driven by an engine - or, in case of maglev, sort of the rail itself.
Guns are engineered specifically to be most effective at killing or injuring people. Sure, it's people who put them to action, but it's also people who make them as deadly (or otherwise efficient at hurting people) as possible. It's insane we just look at this industry and haven't closed it for good, forever.
Please, use an electrical switch next time you want to turn the light off.
Honestly I'd rather not have a man on the street with a real sword/bow/crossbow either, and the only reason we may find it less threatening nowadays is that we know there are more perfect weapons that could be used to take such a man down very quickly should he become a tangible threat - and that he himself would use should he go crazy about killing people.
Swords are actually the only weapons specifically designed to kill people. Every other weapon used by humanity is or was a tool for another task at one point. Axes can be used to cut down trees, maces are just fancy hammers, and spears were the first real hunting tools for large game. Swords stand above all other weapons in that it's use is specifically engineered to be as dangerous to humans as possible. It's too long to be used effectively as a knife and too fragile to use as any other tool. It's almost as dangerous to the person wielding it as the person it's used on. It's remarkable how every other killing tool used by man has other purposes, but the sword really has just the one.
Swords are actually the only weapons specifically designed to kill people. Every other weapon used by humanity is or was a tool for another task at one point.
Roman soldiers used their gladius, the standard sword issued to them, as a tool for all kinds of things. Everything from cutting meat to trimming their sandal leather. They also used them to kill.
I can only hope that this is satire
Love it. You can never post anything bad about guns on Reddit's unpopular opinion section. And I agree, it's to murder other humans. The 2nd amendment's present interpretation is an amazing example why I have such low respect for constitutional lawyers: The well-regulated militia part is in the same sentence to specifically set the context in which the right to bear arms is protected and people getting away without taking the militia part into consideration is total bullshit.
Also, the 2nd amendment does not absolve irresponsible gun owners for the consequences of their gun ownership. Since Americans lose 350K guns annually (!!!!!!!) and provide most of the Mexican cartels' firearms, there's a lot of bad gun ownership that people should be punished for. Generally speaking, you'll be the last to know about the gun ownership of people who actually store them responsibly.
You can't actually be that dumb, the militia part was state level.
You can’t actually be that dumb, the militia part was state level.
It's hard to debate such well-regulated arguments.:) Also, we found the redditor!
No, you found a person can read, ain't even american.
No, you found a person can read, ain’t even american.
Certainly not one who proofreads.😂 I'm very eager to hear your explanation on the state level stuff, but I suspect you're not here for the intellectual discourse:D
You can’t actually be that dumb, the militia part was state level.
This you?:D
I have worked in Accident & Emergency in England and in an ER in America. Guns are a curse.
You all need to see the deserted dead body of a 15 year old laying on the table after an unsuccessful resuscitation attempt. A baby who has been shot through, or the crowds of relatives helplessly sobbing in the streets outside the emergency room.
Every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they arent. Its simply not possible to be 100% safe 100% of the time. That's not a thing that humans do.
And no. There are nowhere near as many knife deaths in England.
I never saw a fatal stabbing in the UK, but I've seen many in America. The numbers are insignificant when compared to gun accidents and murders.
All "tools" that kill this many people should absolutely be regulated.
Americans never shut up about freedom, but don't pay attention to the freedom taken away simply by the threat that anyone around you could be carrying a gun. You're all just used to it being your way. It's so nice not to have to consider the possibility. The american way is like spending your lives with the sword of Damocles dangling over your heads. That's your freedom.
Every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they arent. Its simply not possible to be 100% safe 100% of the time.
Thank you. I have said something similar multiple times myself, but I have no medical experience to back that up.
Edit: It reminds me of fellow parents who declare, "I'm a responsible parent." No, you try to be a responsible parent. You've fucked up on that front before. We all have. Hopefully you didn't fuck up too badly. If you are a parent and you think you've never once behaved in any way with your child that might have been considered irresponsible, you are a narcissist. And wrong.
Every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they arent. Its simply not possible to be 100% safe 100% of the time. That’s not a thing that humans do.
yep. and that's the small percentage that gives a flying fuck about safe firearms use and security, apparently. Around 380,000 stolen guns every year.
https://www.axios.com/2024/05/09/guns-stolen-cars-everytown-report
https://jalopnik.com/youve-got-to-stop-keeping-your-gun-in-your-car-1850929717
https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-thefts-from-cars-the-largest-source-of-stolen-guns-2/
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-ii-part-v-firearm-thefts/download
https://jalopnik.com/a-gun-is-stolen-from-a-car-every-9-minutes-in-america-1851472717
https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/03/Stolen-Guns-FACT-SHEET-030619B.pdf
Oh look, inner city bullshit stereotypes by some moron blathering about England in the later half. Fuck you and everything about you.
Here in Germany this is a quite popular Opinion. If you have an open fascination for guns, you will be looket at like a serial killer or someone who will be going amok. And wont be allowed to be a police officer (the almost only people to wield a gun in public)
That's not an unpopular opinion IMO.
They are probably americans. These comments trying to justify weapons...XD
I agree with you. You hate them, that's reasonable. They represent humanity's failure at cooperation.
You're also totally justified to hate those who fetishize them.
You are wrong about them being designed only to kill, though. The point of them is to wield deadly force, and they are designed to send a high-speed projectile in order to achieve that goal, of deadly force. It's alittle semantic, but an important distinction imo, because the point of wielding deadly force is to make opponents compliant even if you never use it.
Swords, spears, bows, atlatls, and pretty much every weapon of war was the exact same way. A key difference between them and the firearm, though, is that the firearm takes little to no training in comparison to the others, which take considerable amounts more.
Everything else, we're in agreement about. I think you hold a hate for violence as well, based on your stance. That is also healthy, but I hope you also see violence for the liberating force that it is, able to protect those that are targeted.
We are on the brink of having the US become a full-blown fascist state - as opposed to the fascistic nation it's always been. Should that happen, I fear the only way back is through violence, and I'd much prefer having a rifle in hand to the alternative of charging down gunfire armed with a lesser weapon, as the Egyptians had to during their revolution in 2011.
You don't know the first thing about requirements engineering. Technically, these assault rifles are primarily designed to kill/injure people, it's 100% part of the stakeholder/requirements analysis in their systems engineering workflow.
An airliner is not designed to fly through the air. It's designed to transport people and cargo from A to B within a given amount of time. Flying is just a means to achieve it.
*Technically* they were engineered from the ground up to send a small projectile as far as possible using a chemical reaction.
I'm referring to this bit: they are not technically engineered to simply shoot a projectile. They are engineered for a specific purpose, which is to kill people. Your comment sounds like you want to downplay the role of requirements in the engineering process, like a lot of people here do.
Another one of those Schrödinger's jokes.
I don't think that's an unpopular opinion, although I'd detach the violence from people.
Guns are weapons specifically designed as tools of violence. Some are for designed with animal hunting in mind, some for hurting people, and some for target sports, which are ultimately derived from the other two.
Like any tool, how people intend to use it matters, as well as how they expect to use it and how they prepare to use it.
I will easily judge people based on those factors.
Separating the tool from the use also lets us be a little more objective in our discussions about how we want to regulate the tool. "This type of weapon poses an undue risk to surrounding people in this context, so you can't have it in this context".
I think just about every gun owner I've met agrees with the sentiment if you get rid of the "against people" part.
Some are for designed with animal hunting in mind, some for hurting people, and some for target sports
The same was once said about dogs; but then we learned.
I can honestly say that I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you pro gun, or anti dog? Do you think that guns aren't designed with a purpose, or that there's some other purpose beyond shooting at people, shooting at animals, or shooting for fun? Companion firearms?
I'm trying to guess but I honestly don't know.
I hate people who treat them like some toys and fantasize about them.
Agreed.
I would still get one for safety ...
Firearms decrease your safety in any but the most dire situation. Unfortunately, those situations are nigh impossible to predict. This means that carrying a firearm incurs some additional risk right now as insurance against a future potential very large risk.
They can be used to preserve something precious but at a price to pay.
Also agreed.
You might be suffering under a variation on the toupee fallacy, and some confirmation bias. You're not going to hear a whole lot from responsible gun owners, because those people have an understanding of the risk and responsibility they are taking on, and part of taking that responsibility and mitigating that risk is not crowing like a knob about your guns.
Firearms decrease your safety in any but the most dire situation
This doesn’t have to be the case. Guns can be safe with proper regulation and enforcement.
You're missing my point.
Any situation where a loaded and functional firearm is present is necessarily less safe than one without it except in the most dire circumstances.
In such a dire circumstance, your having a firearm can - not will, but can - ward off, injure, or kill someone or something that presents a serious and imminent danger to you. But by and large, almost all situations don't present that kind of serious and imminent danger.
In the absence of that kind of danger, a firearm being present introduces some increased risk (decreased safety).
The proper regulations are removing firearms from situations, not making the guns themselves safer.
I would have considered this the popular opinion, but it seems I'm the odd one out. The comments here defending it are hard to read.
Like, Farmers and Hunters: You know you are like 8% of the population at most, right? Killing animals should have maybe been mentioned as an alternative use for guns, sure, but come on: most gun nuts, as most people in general, are city folk. They buy a gun to shoot or threaten to shoot people exclusively.
Couple things.
First, firearms are used for sporting and competition of marksmanship by millions of Americans, and Europeans.
IPSC / USPSA are massively popular and all you ever do is put holes in paper or hit steel targets. The gear is purpose designed explicitly for this. So is the ammunition. Even down to the holsters and mag pouches. It’s ALL for the game of the sport.
The civilian marksmanship program is again, millions of Americans across many cities nation wide. A rifle designed to shoot a Palma match, or an F-class match, or benchrest rifles are specific to those disciplines. Nothing about a 37 lb sled riding benchrest rifle is designed to harm a person. It’s a purpose built tool for competition where mostly old people drive them with dials on a sled and put small groups on paper far away. They often don’t even get shouldered.
Sporting clays, variations of this are Olympic sports. There is no possible way to say an over under shotgun has been designed from the ground up for harming people. It’s a tool built around the rules of the sport. 2 shotgun shells. That’s all it can hold and is long as hell with a massive choke on it to control spread of small pellets precisely, pellets that are very bad at killing. Birdshot is almost never lethal past extremely short ranges and they are engaging clays at 40-80 yards.
PRS competitions are bolt action rifles with physical exercise and difficult physical stages under time pressure to shoot steel. Most have transitioned away from high energy calibers, like military chosen caliber that are for imparting energy into a target, and to small bullets you can watch trace in the scope for… you guess it, the specifics of the sport.
.22 long rifle is extremely popular in sports speaking of small cartridges. It’s what we use in Olympic competitions and bi-athalons that ski and shoot bolt action rifles. We use it in small bore pistol and rifle matches the world over. It’s terrible at killing a person, but is great for target use at 10 meters. Which is what the Olympics world over do.
I could go on and on with more examples. Firearms are just not used for killing things. They have in many countries beyond the US, a strong and friendly competition community for sport that only sees paper hole punching. The UK had a thriving and popular rifle community. France, Sweden, Finland, and Italy have thriving sporting gun competition cultures as well.
I live in a city of 2.5 million people in it and he surrounding area. I shoot every weekend for sport, as I have done since I was on a shooting team in high school, run by my high school. I won a junior olympic medal in that team. I love the engineering and competition elements of the sports and would highly encourage you to try one to see if your view might be expanded to see how kind and friendly the sports are to anyone new coming to try them.
I disagree. I only see one "thing" here, and that's "shooting as a sport". I also didn't consider quail and deer hunting separately, so I don't know why you wasted so much time writing all the different forms down: to an outsider, the are the same in this context. Maybe 2, the sports that arose from hunting and the ones that arose from the military, the latter often drawing human outlines on their targets which just adds to my point.
And unfortunately, I already was at such competition as a visitor. It's a sport like any other, your enjoyment largely depends on the people there, and guns attract the kind I want nothing to do with.
If you have been to an Olympic village match or sat down to enjoy the sun at the preside t’s 100, then your words used before, “they buy a gun to threaten people exclusively”, we’re a known misrepresentation. Exclusively is an absolute word. An absolute with no possible other options.
You would have seen the other reasons for yourself and still chose to lump every single person who competes in marksmanship into a camp of this opinion.
Take a look what subject "they" is standing for in my sentence. And then the quantifier before that subject.
Don't lecture me on semantics.
The prior sentence was “city folk” as your focus, and “they” buy firearms exclusively to kill. So yeah, I’m going to point that you, since you allowed for no room for alternatives to exist with that last sentence if I exist on a city.
that's not the only purpose dude. you can use a machine gun to shoot a circle around a door knob to unlock any door.
It's a tool whose primary purpose is to kill
Hunting is also killing. Don't get me wrong, among the various ways of killing animals for food it is probably the most ethical. But still.
I say this because I've always resented the particularly odious false equivalence that cars also kill people so if we ban machine guns wE sHoULd aLsO bAN cARs.
No. One is purpose built to maim and kill people and the other most certainly isn't.
everything made my human minds is a tool.
What sort of tool is the Mona Lisa?
This is only unpopular in the USA, it's the popular opinion everywhere where we don't worship guns.
That’s not an impopular opinion, that’s the opinion of normal people, firearms are not toys, unless you are in murica of course; then it’s like a Barbie, you buy the Barbie itself and then collect all the accessories
That's like saying all cars are meant for the racetrack or all knives are made for spreading butter.
I own several guns, and none of them are so I can kill. My over/under shotgun is designed for skeet shooting. My 22 pistol is for plinking. My precision rifle weighs 30 pounds with its optic, so is incredibly impractical as a weapon.
They're also used to kill animals, look up some nature docs where they snipe animals
That sounds like a terrible nature documentary
every nature documentary, is super boring, then cute animal suddenly dies, then weird looking animals have sex, then they snipe some the end
My wife and I are fond of listening to nature documentaries as we're going to bed and there's an incident in them that happens so frequently that "dead baby" has become a regular phrase at bedtime. Although sometimes it's a fake-out and that has become sort of disappointing at this point.
I feel like every other one I was shown back in school had a scene like that, overpopulation of deer? (something like a deer) and boars can get insanely bad, they threaten all other species not just humans
Probably not the right animals idr it was a decade ago
Documentin' Nature with Jeff Foxworthy
I guess I’m the opposite then - I love guns, yet I probably wouldn’t get one even if I could. I definitely wouldn’t carry one. It’s too easy to make hasty, irreversible decisions with a firearm.
Carrying a gun means that every altercation has the potential to become life-threatening. I wouldn’t want to end up in a brawl while armed and risk having my own weapon used against me if I got overpowered. That’s something cops, for example, have to constantly be aware of.
Funny thing about carrying, at least for the sane among us, it makes one hyper-aware of one's environment. Knowing that if you fuck up it could end with killing someone really, really, makes you less likely to take risks. Don't know if I'm clear there. You look for danger so you can stay the hell away from it.
Interesting how OP talked about him killed with your his weapon, and you spun it around to you killing someone else.
Which do you think is more likely if you get in a bar brawl?
I, on the other hand, am fascinated not just by guns but by weapons (and other military technology) from throughout history. Weapons, as products of human ingenuity, are unusual in the sense that they function in direct opposition to the ingenuity of other humans. It's a very high-stakes competition.
How many missile defence systems do you own?
You can find something interesting without needing to own it.
No, only some are and even then it's not broadly accurate, it's closer to Anthropomorphism.
Weapons are designed from the ground up to kill animals. From birdshot 10g shotgun to bolt action plastic tip single shot rifle.
Assault rifles are a category designed primarily to kill humans
Killing animals is pretty shitty as well though
Hunters hunt overpopulated animals. Humans before us killed off most predators, leaving us with the duty of filling the roles of predators to control prep populations.
Hunting is necessary, unless you want lions, bears, and wolves in your backyard, or else thousands of deer eating crops and crossing the highways.
Overpopulated? What kind of wank stain talk is this?
White rhinos? Oh sorry we killed all those.
Hunters hunt overpopulated animals. Ever heard of deer? If they aren't hunted, their populations explode, and they start starving in winter and spreading disease. Because in earlier times people didn't have proper hunting laws and killed off all the predators. That's why we have laws about that now.
Poachers violate those laws to illegally destroy animals, often endangered, usually to sell body parts on the black market. I wasn't defending poachers, numbnuts. May lions, tigers, and bears eat them all alive.
Most people don't seem to realize the perfect deer rifle is the perfect human rifle.
Hahaha
(white tail, mule appropriate cartridges in particular)
Riigght. So it's not about guns any more, it's "cartridges".
oh ffs. do you not know what a cartridge is, or its relationship to cylinder bore?
So you dont know what a gun is.
I said "cartriddge" because the bullet from a .223 and a .22 are very fucking similar in diameter, but i wouldn;t go deer hunting with a .22. So what the fuck is your point.
Hint: It's in the post title.
I was with you up until the "I would still get one for safely" part. We must clearly live in different kinds of areas, I've never felt the need to own one for any reason.
The vast amount of Americans aren't in that boat....
Every crazy person around me is carrying, all it takes these days is not driving exactly like how someone wants or unintentionally minor inconveniencing them for them to pull out a gun.
It's not even staying out of "bad areas" anymore. It can (and does) happen everywhere. It just usually doesn't make the news unless someone is shot in a nice area. A crazy person pulling a gun out might get media attention if it's on video if not, cops don't even care.
And it’s worse than that. At least in most parts of the US, carrying a weapon “for safety” is likely to have negative results. You are less safe.
There are always accidents, innocent people in the way, curious kids, mental health crises.
And a gunfight is usually the worst possible situation. Given the choice of swallowing your pride and backing down or getting in a gunfight, swallowing your pride is safer. You don’t need a hun for that and a hun will tempt you to the choice that’s worse for you.
So you’re counting on having a loaded weapon around unsecured that’s never used by the wrong person or purpose. You’re counting on firing first and somehow being justified. Or that someone else shoots first and misses, then gives you time to get your weapon and shoot back…. And that your aim is better than there’s.
Its possible that you will successfully defend yourself but the odds are very long
100% this.
OP is right though, there are parts of the world where self defense is not as clear cut. The question you need to follow up with is "is this self defense against nature or people?".
For example, there are places in the far north where polar bears are a problem, I doubt anyone other than Greenpeace would not have a problem with you shooting an animal attacking you. Its tragic, but by that point its not really avoidable.
The issue most of us have is the "defense against people" where lines get drawn, the problem is how inconsistent that line is. Im in the camp where survival is fine, and sport is conditionally ok, but outside that there are no ethical reasons to persue gun ownership, but others will say collections, historic preservation, or self defense are valid reasons. Culture has a lot to do with it, some places handle it well, like Switzerland, but the elephant in the room is America and their, I would argue very unhealthy, relationship with guns.
You're right. Most of the issues with guns aren't with someone who keeps one to protect themselves from a wild animal, it's those who keep them to... those who have semi automatics and live in suburbia and fetishish the idea of someone?? breaking into their home so they can use their big, fancy, killing weapon??
Like... They have a perceived threat that's never going to happen and yet they keep this murder tool under the guise of protection when it's really just something they think is cool, but is also something that is more likely going to be fatal to themselves and their family than to an intruder.
Then you're privileged.
Well that’s nice and all, I am glad
Pretty popular opion though, isn't it?
Really popular everywhere except the US AFAIK
I am very leftist and somewhat split.
Modern guns are an engineering marvel and I can understand if someone is fascinated in the precision and engineering knowledge needed to construct them - the same way some people are fascinated by mechanical watches, steam engines, etc.
They are also a necessary tool for some jobs - I can worked alongside these and in theory am trained to handle one(but haven't had a gun in my hand for 15 years if you don't count two instances I had to take it from a patient before law enforcement arrived). So I am very happy that the people who need to have it have modern,safe, versatile and easy to handle guns at their disposal. And I want these people to have the best training,the best equipment and the best recruitment and background check possible.
This brings me to another point: I am sternly against people using "shooting" (large calibers) as a hobby and the whole gun culture around it - we see in the US this can easily become a purpose on it's own and the detrimental effects it has on everything, from mental health care,policing, emergency medicine to the political culture, even influencing their neighbours negatively.
Go for small calibers all you want, no problems with that. But there is no reason an average private citizen needs a 9mm or a AR15 (even with manual fire)as a hobby or for self defence here. (There might be some very rare cases when people are under so much threat for their life that it is different - but these are really rare and tbh should require the same amount of training a professional carrier needs)
Hunting is a bit different, but even there I see problematic behaviour within recreational hunting. I am not at all against hunting per se, it's absolutely an requirement in most industrial nations to keep the ecological balance in the few remaining ecosystems and is the most ethical source of meat available.
But again in some nations a subculture around it has formed that is not healthy,not required to maintain biodiversity and ecological balance, etc. My shire owns large wooden areas and has decided to switch to (semi-) professional hunters quite a while ago, they are payed to hunt according to a ecological plan, do not get less or more money if they are successful, the shire sells the meat to the inhabitants for relatively cheap prices. This model has been proven (scientifically) to be successful as it allows very targeted hunting, e.g. to keep animal tracks away from certain roads, to intentionally allow the reintroduction of larger predators,etc.
"very leftist" "wants police to have lots of versatile guns and the populace to not" I'm confused.
Not all leftists are anarchists,not all leftists are communists,not all are utopians and not all leftists are pacifists either. Some of us know Realpolitik fairly well. But considering I was a candidate for a state parliament for one of the furthest left parties in Europe I think I can still claim that. (I left in the meantime on their stance on supporting the Ukraine,btw. Don't be shocked,some of us aren't couch pacifists either and firmly believe that democracy needs to be defended - even though a lot of us and a lot this ideology died back in Spain)
I firmly believe that a healthy society needs a very well regulated, extremely well qualified and trained and well equipped police.
That does not make me a friend of the police as it is acting in a lot of countries (we have our fair share of them and I am constantly addressing them publicly - but our situation is far better than e.g. in the US and a lot of other countries) and I campaign for that a lot. With police officers,btw. Because good policeman have one major problem - the bad apples spoil the whole lot.
I am neither anarchist nor communist but the day I'm okay with police being better armed than the populace is allowed to be is the day I can't imagine police not standing with labor unions or treating minorities significantly differently than those in the dominant socio-economic class and not a second sooner.
Police here are amongst the jobs with the highest union participation and while due to some special legislation they cannot go on strike their major union (there are smaller ones, one right wing, one for detectives only)are in a association with all major other unions here and they cooperate heavily - due to fact that they are seen as regular "public officers" with a small policing allowance they profit from the collective agreements the regular public administration workers fight for and the regular public administration workers on the other hand can use them as a bargain.
The treatment of minorities is a an issue and while a lot of officers are alright in that regards more than enough aren't - and that is something we need to address.
...but I must disagree on the armed population point - it is a absolute delusion that an armed population can "resist" a possibly oppressive government any better than an unarmed one as the nature of oppression is always systemic - and an armed individual is unable to withstand the tools of oppression the government can use on them, not even considering the actual force imbalance. Some amateurs with a assault rifle won't stand a chance against a trained military or police force. Instead of the false narrative of "we can topple the government with guns in our hands if necessary"(no you can't - and if you could the other side can do it as well) it would be far more important to secure democracy against extremism - what happens if this is not done is currently seen in the US.
Additionally a armed population fuels the "we against them"/"warzone environment" perception in part of the police force, which leads to an escalation of violence by the police, has an extremely detrimental effect for mental health patients and fuels the general danger for the population by providing more weapons for criminals.
There is an abundance of research on this topic that sustain this - an armed population is a very bad idea.
Police being better armed is extremely common in developed counties with far better police than the USA.
I am very glad for them? I hope their police stay that way
Let me preface this with I’m very liberal so I’m not attacking anyone but I’m also a physics nerd so…
Anyway, is a .22LR a small caliber? Because the difference between a .22LR (5.66mm) and the typical shell in an AR15 (5.7mm) is only 0.04mm, about the size a small human hair. A better distinction is muzzle energy which is a function of mass of the projectile and velocity of the projectile. I mean a typical paintball is bigger the a 50BMG. It just doesn’t weigh very much or go very fast. So caliber is a terrible measure for your purposes.
There is a distinct difference in terms of sport shooting which I was referencing to - with Olympic shooting .22 lfb is the reference for "small caliber shooting". Everything above that, including other kinds of .22 are often seen as larger calibre. Therefore I was intentionally referencing the sport context.
While a .22 lfb surely can absolutely kill and has done so, nevertheless the chances of doing so are far smaller compared to 9mm, 5.56,etc.
Everything Olympic related is air guns as far as I know. But I’ve even seen 50cal air rifles. Again these are going to be much much slower.
Nope,Olympic has .22lfd as their main calibre,but larger calibers exist.
i own a gun whose sole purpose of being manufactured was to kill himans - it is a war rifle.
i have killed as many things with it as i want to: zero.
i am not a gun nut, but i do enjoy the history of it. i learned a lot about yugoslavia just because i was curious about the time period it came from.
i agree that some guns are created with the sole purpose of killing people... i just dont feel like killing people with it. never have, never will (its not for protection, etc.. its for history)
Is this community just popular opinions? Every comment agrees with OP.
I agree with op. Guns are used to intimidate, and for entertainment. Men and their fascination with power by holding a gun is toxic and a failure of society.
I've played shooter games since a kid and I've never wanted to own a gun. it's 100% a special kind of brainrot/power trip to want to hold and own deadly weapons and you won't convince me otherwise
yes hunting is a thing, I promise you the vast majority of American gun owners are not hunters.
I can appreciate guns from a technical design standpoint. Some of them can look good. I'd even consider owning an inert USFA Zip .22 as an example of spectacularly bad product design. (I'm a UI/UX guy and the total lack of consideration for ergonomics is fascinating to me.)
I have no desire to own a functioning gun, though. Very few people really need one.
Thank you! You have a way with words.
God made man. Samuel Colt made him equal.
Any tool used incorrectly is a significant danger.
I already found the ideas and the people who hold those ideas that you're referencing are a minority who are scared fanatic and unreasonable and those are the type of people that should not have guns or tools of any capacity.
However, someone like you who wants one for protection and the ability to protect those around you regardless of circumstance are why it's important to protect gun rights in my opinion.
The thing is, using the gun for killing is exactly the correct one. That's the intended purpose. Then you may threat to use it correctly as a means of protection.
But there are other ways. Gun rights are almost universally revoked throughout Europe, for example, and barely anyone fears for their close ones, because of a working police and professional army, as well as, exactly, less access to guns that could be used to perpetrate violence.
As the result, banning guns normally leads to a decrease in the number of homicides and assaults.
Honestly the bigger factor is social cohesion and combating criminogenic factors. While far from perfect, European societies are doing much better here than a proudly hyper-individualist US.
Also true, but having wide access to guns is one of those factors, even though it's not the whole story.
We still have people atacking people with axes and knives. Thing is you can at least try to run away from an idiot with an axe, unlike an idiot with a gun.
The per capita stabbing rate in the USA is actually worse than most, if not all of Europe, but it doesn't hit the news because of all the shootings taking up air time.
Finland has very similar access to guns, yes it has much fewer total guns but that is much fewer people having many guns, they have a very similar percentage of homes with at least 1 firearm in them as the US currently does. It is actually a myth that they control the ammo, they control their military ammo, not their hunting/personal ammo. Switzerland is not THAT far behind though they I believe do have tighter restrictions on ownership. Also the percentage of households with at least 1 gun in it has remained mostly unchanged in the US for the last 60+ years, and the types of guns available have also remained largely unchanged, intermediate caliber semi automatic mag fed rifles have been shockingly cheaply available in the US since the M1 Carbine became available as military surplus after WW2. Something other than "availability of firearms" is very different now to explain the gun violence (it's mostly culture and systemic poverty).
there are antimaterial guns as well.
They're tools designed specifically for killing, not just for killing humans.
The people who take umbrage at that distinction are an actual problem.
I had a rabid raccoon on my farm a little while ago. What do you suggest is the best way to handle that situation?
Kill the poor thing quickly and painless.
But you do not need an assault rifle with incendiary ammunition for that. You just use a tool for the job. You do not glaze over your remington or what have you.
You use it and then close it up. Nice. It has served for something beneficial. Once in a blue moon
Do you hate guns and believe they are designed from the ground up to kill? Or do you think it's a beneficial tool that has its uses? You're giving me mixed messages here with the title of your post. It's okay to dislike gun culture and also think guns have their uses.
I hate guns because they are there just to kill things. I do not take pleasure in killing things. I would still own a gun if I had to
It’s simple as that
I don't take pleasure in euthanizing animals either. Its expected to hate killing but it's not the gun's fault that these jobs need to be done.
Do you hate archery as a sport? Because those things were invented and designed purely for killing people too.
You do not see people with bows going around and one shooting people cmon. Let us be serious please
So do hate the intention of the design or do you hate that they are sometimes misued? You said you hated guns because they were designed to kill people.
It’s about efficiency and power difference. Not everything is black and white, despite your attempts
What about a break barrel .22 with shorts? That's slower to kill than someone trained with a bow. So some killing devices are okay, as long as they don't kill very quickly?
If you don’t see what I mean by now I think we will never understand each other and must just move on to avoid pointless word exchange
I have my weekly limits for ridiculous hair splitting debates on the web
It’s really not that hard to understand “I hate guns because they are made for killing”. It’s not some kind of attack on you
I’m sure if he asks politely it’ll just keel over dead for him.
Funny, the first one I had did that. It came out in broad daylight and keeled over on the front yard before I had time to grab the gun.
I didn't use an assualt rifle or incendiary ammunition. How do you suggest I kill it quickly and painless while protecting myself from a possible bite?
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about lol
Counterpoint:
Okay but this is a movie. If you aren’t below certain age you do not mistake this with reality
It’s not that such situations never happened but they weren’t anywhere as inglorious and cool. Yeah some brain went on the walls. Someone shat themselves in pre death agony uttering incredible smell, someone went deaf from shooting in a small room and got killed right after. It’s just not that cool
There are sooo many cool things why killing each other must be the stuff some ppl find so exciting. It happens and it’s messy and grim. There’s nothing exciting about our innards. It’s fucking disgusting and revolting even
Oh sure, violence is awful, traumatizing and cruel.
But if you think that you must be a child to mistake violence with reality, than I'd say that you are actually the one with the priveleged, childlike view of the world.
I agree that guns should not be fetishized, that that is a dangerous sign of immaturity, but guns are a useful and prevalent tool.
You can't just wish them out of existence.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
- Karl Marx
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
- Paul Simonom
I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming.
- Luigi Mangione
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- John F. Kennedy
Politcal power grows from the barrel of a gun.
- Mao Tzetung
Yes. This is also nutty and I don’t think you can manage to change my mind. All the violent lemmings are a creepy. You are disturbing.
Even my country which struggled with communism for years, freed itself from the red oppression not by violence but by peaceful negotiations after mass worker strikes.
I know you lot. You pretend to want to solve problems but deep inside you just want to kill someone and get away with it. I have no respect for you.
I don't even own a gun, but uh ok?
I've worked at non profits to house the homeless, for years. Could have made a lot more money in a corporate job, but I eschewed that in favor of doing actual good in the world.
I've been homeless, been robbed and beaten by people with guns, dodged a drive by shooting by 20 or 30 feet, been held against my will, without charges, by armed agents of the state for simply existing while honeless, been held captive by a madman and beaten for a week straight.
I have firearms training, because I grew up around guns, but I've never owned a gun.
I have martial arts training, and I've only ever used it to defend myself and others; never once have I instigated a random assault, but I've broken up a few.
My country is the most armed country on the planet, and it's currently undergoing a fascist coup.
But please, do go on about the revolution your parents had, and the comfy, detached from reality moral structure its allowed you develop.
Tell the Ukranians defending their country how guns are evil and they should just roll over and accept assimilation.
Tell the Palestinians to stop resisting and just allow themselves, their people, to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Meanwhile, leftist demonstrations in my country have been terrorized by openly armed right wing militias and terrorists for years, been black bagged and arrested by armed secret police.
But I'm sure you're quite fine telling victims of armed violence that they're actually the guilty ones for pointing out the basic underlying fact that all politics and laws are only as meaningful as the monopoly on violence that enforces them, and that guns are the most common and direct tool in that trade.
Sorry but your experiences are meaningless here. It’s the basic fundamental thing not some comfort. Wherever you are advocating for violence, you will meet me opposing you.
I will always be there.
How you gonna oppose them lol
Just like I do it now. Whenever somebody advocates for some violent idea I will always voice my opposition without hesitation even if that ruins the jolly revolution mood.
Kill only in your name alone and face the consequences but if you kill in the name of some noble idea then you ruin it and corrupt it. You are no part of whatever good you think you are.
Yappin
You and I will never meet.
EDIT: I gave you my personal experiences because you made a personal claim about me, that I am violent, that I want to kill someone.
Not because its relevant to the larger idea about guns.
You made it personal, you became judgemental, and gaslit met.
Yeah, you and I will never meet, I've suffered knowing far too many manipulative, sanctimonious gaslighters in my life.
Hope all your friends enjoy you victim-blaming them as much as I have.
You will meet hundreds like me. Not quite me but just like me. And you will keep meeting them and they will say exactly same thing. They are me and you will meet me in each of them.
Yep, I've certainly met and will continue to meet many priveleged, sanctimonious, manipulative fools.
And when their peaceful protest gets dispersed and peppered with gunfire by armed thugs with guns, I'll just stand aside and watch, just like they'd want me to.
I don't like guns my self, but I don't have a problem with people who own them responsibly in a locked safe unloaded. I understand for some people a gun is needed, Hunters for one, while bow hunting is a thing a gun is just easier to use.
As much as I like bows, a lot more things can go wrong for a swift, clean, painless kill. Which is why bow hunting is illegal in places like UK.
As a sport, I prefer bows over guns, it's more fun for me.
It's sad to see this is an unpopular opinion (context from the community rules: if you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.)
Have I disturbed the peace of this community
Probably not, it's named unpopular opinion anyways :)
I think that people in USA may be more different from those of Western Europe than I even imagined. It was very cool experience. Ive even grown a bit from it and crystallised my fundamentals. It was an unexpectedly productive chat
I agree, but I doubt the majority ever will.
By majority, do you mean the people in the US? If not, please ignore the rest of this comment. People from US in the fediverse and on corporate social media sometimes assume everyone on earth lives in the US. Related post: https://fe.disroot.org/@DavidB@firefish.social/posts/AZRx7njZJE1vq6fHE0
I'm not american. I don't know what nationality has to do with my statement.
Oh sorry, I thought by majority you meant the people around you, not the people in this community.
They are helpful as someone who sometimes needs to cull animals,
Apart from that I see them more as a symbol of power. I would never go to a protest with a loaded gun, but carrying a gun while protesting facism shows we are serious, we have power.
I agree it's about power, and people get hopped up on feeling that power.
However, please stay the fuck away from any protests. You're likely to get other people killed brandishing guns whether they are loaded or not.
It’s more about a tit for tat, in my area we have right wingers open carrying around leftist protests. So our anarchist groups open carry (unloaded) guns as a sort of “you’re not going to intimidate us” response.
How do you know they're unloaded?
i prefer to call them what they are 'human killing devices'.
for example; its ludicrous that american police are armed unnecessarily with human killing devices their entire shifts. it just demonstrates their cowardice and incompetence with regards to policing.
It was interesting reading your thoughts and all the different opinions in the comments. I enjoy firearms, and regularly go target shooting. I forget sometimes people don’t spend their time understanding firearms.
Yes, you are correct, the purpose of a firearm is to kill. That’s why they’re referred to as lethal weapons, where the word lethal can be defined as deadly.
It’s great you came to this conclusion on your own and it’s a great opportunity to explain some other aspects of firearms being lethal that folks often miss.
Since firearms are lethal weapons they’re not appropriate to use when less than lethal force is desired. This is why for example police “don’t just shoot criminals in the leg.” Because if they’re successful the person can still bleed out and if they miss they could accidentally apply lethal force to a bystander or the person they’re not trying to kill.
Another thing to understand is police should only have their weapon drawn if they fear for their lives or others. If the officer is following protocol, you shouldn’t see a firearm until the officer thinks lethal force is merited. Which is to say, if a cop pulls a gun, take it seriously.
I have a permit to conceal carry where I live. The laws understand firearms are deadly, and legally I can’t use or even draw my firearm unless I think my life is threatened or that I might suffer great bodily harm, think knife attacks or broken bones.
To add to that, because firearms are lethal, if someone flashes a gun in a threatening manner such as lifting up their shift to show the firearm in a holster during a heated argument, I could reasonably assume my life was in danger and legally respond with lethal force.
These are just some examples, but yes, guns are 100% designed to take life. You should always think of a firearm as a lethal weapon especially in situations where they’re pointed towards you.
I’ve held this position for a long time. Guns are designed to kill. They are they threat of death even if the trigger isn’t pulled. They are there to force compliance with the bearer, for good or for ill. Even as a “tool” to put food on the table, they kill the thing that is to be food.
That said, I don’t have too much problem with guns. I have major problems with those who own them, make them, or turn them into part of identity politics.
They are exploited for profit and control, and the mulish obstinacy of gun owners in general is in part their enslavement to identity politics and those that profit from it - the politicians looking for election and money in the pockets of the manufacturers and supporting lobbies. Guns have become fashion accessories for the owners, and are often treated with similar gravity. Gun owners feed guns to criminals because of lax storage security on the owner’s part - just leave them in the car or closet unsecured - and they get stolen, used in crimes, for which they gun nuts “need” to buy more guns to leave laying about for instant access and which can be stolen. Nearly 80% of guns used in crimes are taken without permission or stolen from owners.
And the worst part are the killing sprees, workplace or schools, where gun owners just distance themselves so that the rest of society can be the victims of their refusal to regulate their hobby.
Guns can be safely kept in a society. There are plenty of countries that manage it. In this context I’m going to use this line: “Guns don’t kill people, people do”….and the people doing the killing are the owners that refuse to deal with regulating and securing guns.
Internal gun violence is such an unbelievably miniscule part of the death toll of American society.
And yet one which could be far more easily mitigated than many others if the will were there.
"This doesn't kill all that many people" is a weird argument. I assume you have no problem with asbestos being regulated despite the fact that it was also a minuscule part of the death toll of American society.
Wish that sniper had a better scope tho
I hate why they exist. I like how they represent a mastery of engineering, material science, chemistry, and physics.
Many are actually engineered to take the lives of animals, when you factor in the design of a hunting rifle and its hunting ammo. Those designs allow for the hunter to fill their freezer with high quality meat for far less cost than it could be purchased.
Pistols are generally designed for killing people though. Pistols are used more often in any kinds of homicide than any other type of firearm, yet strangely enough most modern gun control legislation tends to be focused on rifles.
It's fun to reach out and touch something from 50 yards.
No rule that says toys have to be safe.
I think there are a few toys with weapon origins. Like yoyos and slingshots. Guns don't have to be any different.
Yoyos were never a weapon, that's just one of those things a lot of people believe
Thanks for the correction.
I am actually with this. I've tried so hard to think of what purpose a gun has and the primary reason for it's invention was to make killing people easier. As it was invented in time of war. Every other reason we've found a gun useful for, are just for some impracticality that we decided to go with when the simpler option isn't available. But the bottom line still remains the same - the gun was made for making killing easier and it has been proven time and time again.
we are all entitled to our opinion. i just happen to disagree with yours.
I had to go look up if this was a tongue-in-cheek obscure reference to Frank Miller. It's not, apparently.
Gun fanatics always talk about stopping an evil government but we clearly see they have no intention of doing that, instead I just see them used to slaughter innocent people on a regular basis.
That’s just power fantasy, it doesn’t matter who is on the receiving end as long as they are the good guys
But to be clear I talk about some very specific breed. You can have a gun and not be a nutjob. It isn’t that rare though for someone to have this righteous fantasy
I love guns. My reasons are my own.
I pretty much 💯 agree with OP. If there was some absolute method to completely bar anyone from making/using all type of guns, I would make it my life's mission to see it through. The "gun", however it is you wish to consider it, was conceived and engineered to kill. To not repeat everything that's been said... all I'll add is, humans like to play god so much that they'll justify lots of unethical and immoral things... war, hunting.... all in the name of the "greater good". Right... 🙄
What I have a problem understanding is that the native Americans were able to hunt without firearms. They literally used sharpened stones and sticks on horseback. Yet, gun enthusiasts will swear up and down they need guns for "hunting." I get using new tech to make a job easier, but your life isn't dependant on the kill anymore. If it was truly "for the hunt," then wouldn't you want to honor the hunt the way your ancestors did? I know a few bow hunters and I have mad respect for them, because bow hunting needs a high level of tracking skills as well (not to say rifle hunting doesn't but a peice of metal being propelled by an explosion has a bigger punch than a piece of metal being propelled by a pulled bow string, thus a bigger damage output.) I get guns are fun but if your going to hunt, honor the hunt. The buck doesn't have new upgraded antlers or legs.
Maybe you're playing the wrong VR games?
Gonna recommend ultrawings here. It's an arcade VR flight sim. Keeps the flying fun and simple with different vehicles. I think it takes inspiration from pilot wings for the n64
Some VR games, you have a sword. Some, you have a bow.
A bunch are very much like Wii-style bowling & sports simulations.
Some are adventure games. And some are puzzle games.
Guns make it possible for anyone to kill anyone. Without them, the capacity to inflict death is far less egalitarian.
Hate them all you want; I trust you with guns far more than I trust some angry meathead who doesn't understand the concept of "No."
Except it's normally the angry meathead who ends up having that very gun.
Guns create violence.
Crossbows have a similar ideology.
They turned a woman into a killer, a child. The frail the weak. Anyone could unclip a bolt to the face and kill.
But crossbows are obvious. You can't sneak them into schools.
If you want guns. Why ?
To kill pests ? Then rifles not handguns. Rifles are harder to sneak
But crossbows are obvious.
Correct.
They are so obvious that even the angry meathead who doesn't understand the concept of "No" is capable of comprehending the danger of using his muscles against the woman wielding a crossbow: he's going to take a bolt to the face.
And he's capable of recognizing when another woman is not wielding a crossbow. And he's capable of recognizing he faces no danger from that second woman. He's not going to take a bolt to the face.
When that angry meathead learns that a lot of women are "sneaking" handguns, he doesn't know whether he is going to take a bullet to the face. He is sufficiently motivated to learn the meaning of "No".
So explain every other country.
Explain school shootings.
For the potential that a man might. Might not lay hands because hand fins exist.
Pathetic stupidity
The only argument you can make that will demonstrate your point is that you, yourself, would shoot me if given the opportunity.
I trust that you won't do that. I trust that I don't need to deprive you of firearms, because you are not a psychopath.
Feel free to disabuse me of that notion.
and only the state should have them
You are exactly the person that shouldn't get a gun.
No, it's the gun aficionados that I would trust the least.