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.
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.
It’s a very American viewpoint. Many countries in Europe have high gun ownership and manage to do so without murdering eachother.
That’s not an unpopular opinion IMO.
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.
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.
Counterpoint:
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.
This seems like a very urban viewpoint. There are still places in the world and in the US in particular where a firearm is tool for safety that has nothing to do with other humans.
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.
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
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.
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.
Gotta resist fascism somehow
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.
Cigna was already doing all of that.
Source: used to work there, have friends that still do, including execs
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.
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.
“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.
deleted by creator
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
FWIW I don’t believe you are wrong. Most people advocating for/ fantasizing about violence have never experienced prolonged conflict. Sure, you’re hot shit the first day or two but even if the fighting stays a few hundred miles away, it becomes exhausting and sickening. Especially if you have a family to worry about.
All of this said, it is not the only reason to own a gun. Many own weapons for the purpose of self defense — whether that be from other people or wildlife. We own guns because we are afraid — justifiably or not.
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’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 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.
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
I agree, but I doubt the majority ever will.
