376
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Emmie@lemm.ee to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] venotic@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 22 hours ago

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.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

How do you even find this post but yes I don't think it changed for me. When I grab a pistol the weight and precision is ominous and solemn. I know that it is specifically made to produce spills of blood and brain on the floor in split seconds. This in turn makes it impossible to lightheartedly enjoy or have fun handling it, cracking jokes left and right with beer and bbq.

[-] WeeTodd@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I love guns. My reasons are my own.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Thanks for your valuable input

[-] WarlockLawyer@lemmy.world 89 points 1 month ago

Gotta resist fascism somehow

You already had a coup and nobody is using guns to stop it.

[-] Emmie@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.world 31 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

How's that working out for ya?

[-] knightly@pawb.social 65 points 1 month ago

Luigi did more with three bullets than peaceful protest has accomplished in the last 25 years.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] tcgoetz@lemmy.world 77 points 1 month 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.

[-] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 month ago

Not to mention hunting is a thing.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month 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..."

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] BigTurkeyLove@lemmy.world 58 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Greg@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] otacon239@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] m4xie@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 1ns1p1d@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] notsoshaihulud@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

It's a very American viewpoint. Many countries in Europe have high gun ownership and manage to do so without murdering eachother.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Wooki@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] sudoshakes@reddthat.com 11 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

That's not an unpopular opinion IMO.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Actionschnils@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago

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)

[-] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

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

[-] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

That sounds like a terrible nature documentary

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] _____@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] yrnttm@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Dallimjp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
376 points (100.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6881 readers
38 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


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.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS