this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025

1 points (100.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7478 readers

79 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.

6. Defend your opinion

This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

admiralpatrick@lemmy.world

I hate guns. They are engineered from the ground up to take lives of other people. That is their sole purpose. To kill (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Emmie@lemm.ee to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] BigTurkeyLove@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months 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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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."

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But crossbows are obvious.

Correct.

They are so obvious that even the angry meathead who doesn't understand the concept of "No" is capable of comprehending the danger of using his muscles against the woman wielding a crossbow: he's going to take a bolt to the face.

And he's capable of recognizing when another woman is not wielding a crossbow. And he's capable of recognizing he faces no danger from that second woman. He's not going to take a bolt to the face.

When that angry meathead learns that a lot of women are "sneaking" handguns, he doesn't know whether he is going to take a bullet to the face. He is sufficiently motivated to learn the meaning of "No".

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So explain every other country.

Explain school shootings.

For the potential that a man might. Might not lay hands because hand fins exist.

Pathetic stupidity

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago

The only argument you can make that will demonstrate your point is that you, yourself, would shoot me if given the opportunity.

I trust that you won't do that. I trust that I don't need to deprive you of firearms, because you are not a psychopath.

Feel free to disabuse me of that notion.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most people don't seem to realize the perfect deer rifle is the perfect human rifle.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hahaha

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

(white tail, mule appropriate cartridges in particular)

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Riigght. So it's not about guns any more, it's "cartridges".

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

oh ffs. do you not know what a cartridge is, or its relationship to cylinder bore?

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

So you dont know what a gun is.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] tcgoetz@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Counterpoint: cities shouldn't exist

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

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.today -1 points 4 months 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.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Counterpoint: we don't need to be that space efficient, and are better off in smaller communities

[–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Huh...? Is this an actual thing you actually believe in?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 4 months 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.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

The commission bit was a joke but yes I'm not fond of cities

[–] Godric@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months 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.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not to mention hunting is a thing.

[–] rimmedalpha@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bows and crossbows exist.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] rimmedalpha@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] rimmedalpha@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My thumb isn't big enough to point it all out.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 4 months 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.