this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
204 points (77.3% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6579 readers
663 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
 

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.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I hate people who treat them like some toys and fantasize about them.

Agreed.

I would still get one for safety ...

Firearms decrease your safety in any but the most dire situation. Unfortunately, those situations are nigh impossible to predict. This means that carrying a firearm incurs some additional risk right now as insurance against a future potential very large risk.

They can be used to preserve something precious but at a price to pay.

Also agreed.

You might be suffering under a variation on the toupee fallacy, and some confirmation bias. You're not going to hear a whole lot from responsible gun owners, because those people have an understanding of the risk and responsibility they are taking on, and part of taking that responsibility and mitigating that risk is not crowing like a knob about your guns.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Opinionhaver 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I guess I’m the opposite then - I love guns, yet I probably wouldn’t get one even if I could. I definitely wouldn’t carry one. It’s too easy to make hasty, irreversible decisions with a firearm.

Carrying a gun means that every altercation has the potential to become life-threatening. I wouldn’t want to end up in a brawl while armed and risk having my own weapon used against me if I got overpowered. That’s something cops, for example, have to constantly be aware of.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I, on the other hand, am fascinated not just by guns but by weapons (and other military technology) from throughout history. Weapons, as products of human ingenuity, are unusual in the sense that they function in direct opposition to the ingenuity of other humans. It's a very high-stakes competition.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty popular opion though, isn't it?

load more comments (1 replies)

i own a gun whose sole purpose of being manufactured was to kill himans - it is a war rifle.

i have killed as many things with it as i want to: zero.

i am not a gun nut, but i do enjoy the history of it. i learned a lot about yugoslavia just because i was curious about the time period it came from.

i agree that some guns are created with the sole purpose of killing people... i just dont feel like killing people with it. never have, never will (its not for protection, etc.. its for history)

[–] _____@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I can appreciate guns from a technical design standpoint. Some of them can look good. I'd even consider owning an inert USFA Zip .22 as an example of spectacularly bad product design. (I'm a UI/UX guy and the total lack of consideration for ergonomics is fascinating to me.)

I have no desire to own a functioning gun, though. Very few people really need one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

The vast amount of Americans aren't in that boat....

Every crazy person around me is carrying, all it takes these days is not driving exactly like how someone wants or unintentionally minor inconveniencing them for them to pull out a gun.

It's not even staying out of "bad areas" anymore. It can (and does) happen everywhere. It just usually doesn't make the news unless someone is shot in a nice area. A crazy person pulling a gun out might get media attention if it's on video if not, cops don't even care.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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)
[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OP is right though, there are parts of the world where self defense is not as clear cut. The question you need to follow up with is "is this self defense against nature or people?".

For example, there are places in the far north where polar bears are a problem, I doubt anyone other than Greenpeace would not have a problem with you shooting an animal attacking you. Its tragic, but by that point its not really avoidable.

The issue most of us have is the "defense against people" where lines get drawn, the problem is how inconsistent that line is. Im in the camp where survival is fine, and sport is conditionally ok, but outside that there are no ethical reasons to persue gun ownership, but others will say collections, historic preservation, or self defense are valid reasons. Culture has a lot to do with it, some places handle it well, like Switzerland, but the elephant in the room is America and their, I would argue very unhealthy, relationship with guns.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -3 points 15 hours ago (2 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 1 points 15 hours 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›