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 hate that “playing a VR game” is litterally just gun slinging but with a goofy looking helmet
and only the state should have them
there are antimaterial guns as well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can only hope that this is satire
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)
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?
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.
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.
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 I build in my basement. It’s just nice to have.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Indeed. “Hunting is more sustainable than farming” is an idiotic assertion.
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.
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?
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
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.
Yes, I think mostly it was farmers who deforested the planet; and are still doing it.
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.
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
Most people don’t seem to realize the perfect deer rifle is the perfect human rifle.
Hahaha
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.
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 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.
Not to mention hunting is a thing.
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.
Gotta resist fascism somehow
I got an assload of harsh language that work?
You already had a coup and nobody is using guns to stop it.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
*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.
Removed by mod
Another one of those Schrödinger’s jokes.
Not just for the hell of it. It just so happens that people are made of meat, and meat is delicious.
Removed by mod
no
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.
