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)
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/
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.
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
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."
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
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
I mean... Technically they were engineered from the ground up to send a small projectile as far as possible using a chemical reaction.
It just so happens that humans are really sensitive to projectiles hitting them at high speed being made out of mostly water and mush.
Also there are many far north towns all around the world where it's almost mandatory to carry a high powered rifle with you at all times because polar bears will rip your arms off just for the hell of it.
Not just for the hell of it. It just so happens that people are made of meat, and meat is delicious.
I..... Are you trying to imply that cannibalism was a driving force behind the invention of the gun? Lol
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 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.
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.
That's not an unpopular opinion IMO.
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.
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.
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.
You are exactly the person that shouldn't get a gun.