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.

  • m4xie@lemmy.caEnglish
    16·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • 1ns1p1d@lemm.eeEnglish
    16·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • notsoshaihulud@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    11·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      You are wrong about them being designed only to kill, though. The point of them is to wield deadly force,

      …?

      uh dude. you’re creating complexity where the simpler answer is obvious. if their point is to wield a force that’s deadly, it’s point is to be able to kill at a trigger pull.

      you’re correct elsewhere that firearms reduce the training necessary to be a lethal threat at short notice, but imho that’s academic. An amateur with a knife can still be deadly, same with a spear. Atlatls are a different story; they require actual training. this is all over the place and loses the thread that firearms are distinctly weapons to maim and kill.

  • LeroyJenkins@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    3 days ago

    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.

        • BenLeMan@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 days ago

          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.

  • willybe@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    8·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • endeavor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    23·
    4 days ago

    Guns are made to make a tiny piece of metal go very fast. You don’t have to use them to kill or think about using them to kill. You can, for example, use them as a remote light switch or their most popular use: remote hole punch. Healthy society shouldn’t have to ban guns since they would be used for completrly non violent things, same a swords and bows.

    I mean you could shoot at the sun to combat global warming even.

    • Allero@lemmy.todayEnglish
      7·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • endeavor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        6·
        4 days ago

        So are bows and swords and crossbows. But they don’t have hillbillies ruining their public image. I see no harm in having guns around for recreational and hobby purposes as long as they are only in the hands of people who can safely store and operate them.

        • Allero@lemmy.todayEnglish
          4·
          4 days ago

          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.

          • LordGimp@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            4 days ago

            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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              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.

  • 3dmvr@lemm.eeEnglish
    10·
    4 days ago

    They’re also used to kill animals, look up some nature docs where they snipe animals

      • 3dmvr@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        every nature documentary, is super boring, then cute animal suddenly dies, then weird looking animals have sex, then they snipe some the end

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 days ago

          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.

      • 3dmvr@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        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

  • tcgoetz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    5 days ago

    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.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          23·
          5 days ago

          But are comparatively wildly inefficient and cause more pain before the death of the animal.

          • rimmedalpha@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
            4·
            5 days ago

            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.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
              3·
              4 days ago

              Just out of curiosity, would you please point out your approximate location on this map of invasive feral swine distribution:

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
                  1·
                  4 days ago

                  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.

    • yesman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      5 days ago

      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_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        5 days ago

        Counterpoint: cities shouldn’t exist

        There should be a commission that caps the local human population at sustainable levels

        • Bumblefumble@lemm.eeEnglish
          10·
          5 days ago

          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.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
            2·
            3 days ago

            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.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
            1·
            3 days ago

            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.

      • Godric@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        5 days ago

        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.

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      4 days ago

      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.

    • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      15·
      5 days ago

      “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.

      • WarlockLawyer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        34·
        5 days ago

        Wow you really project a lot onto one short sentence. Ignoring any reference to historical resistance in order to feel superior about your views.

      • aislopmukbang@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8·
        5 days ago

        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.

  • yrnttm@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • BigTurkeyLove@lemmy.worldEnglish
    59·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.caEnglish
      7·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • 000999@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        4 days ago

        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

      • oo1@lemmings.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        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.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      10·
      4 days ago

      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?

      • dgbbad@lemmy.zipEnglish
        14·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • AtariDump@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          4 days ago

          Agreed; and want to add it’s probably because people killed off the predators that kept the deer population in check.

          • dgbbad@lemmy.zipEnglish
            7·
            4 days ago

            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.

      • Wooki@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        5 days ago

        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

      • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        4 days ago

        You pushed the predators out of the area you live by living there. Not just your ancestors are guilty, you participate in disrupting the ecosystem by simply living. Without predators, prey animals overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem themselves.

        Either give up your living space for the predators to balance out the ecosystem you live in, or do the balancing yourself. Don’t sit here being a self-righteous prat and bitch about people hunting when you’re fucking up the local habitat yourself.

        • oo1@lemmings.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 days ago

          Yes, I think mostly it was farmers who deforested the planet; and are still doing it.

    • dx1@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      4 days ago

      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).

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • dx1@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          4 days ago

          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.

          • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            4 days ago

            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.

            • dx1@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              4 days ago

              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.

              • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                2·
                4 days ago

                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.

              • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                2·
                4 days ago

                you start ignoring the moral implications

                you didn’t raise any moral implications. like what?