Unpopular Opinion

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.

They're tools designed specifically for killing, not just for killing humans.

The people who take umbrage at that distinction are an actual problem.

It's sad to see this is an unpopular opinion (context from the community rules: 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.)

I had a rabid raccoon on my farm a little while ago. What do you suggest is the best way to handle that situation?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty popular opion though, isn't it?

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)

They are helpful as someone who sometimes needs to cull animals,

Apart from that I see them more as a symbol of power. I would never go to a protest with a loaded gun, but carrying a gun while protesting facism shows we are serious, we have power.

Many are actually engineered to take the lives of animals, when you factor in the design of a hunting rifle and its hunting ammo. Those designs allow for the hunter to fill their freezer with high quality meat for far less cost than it could be purchased.

Pistols are generally designed for killing people though. Pistols are used more often in any kinds of homicide than any other type of firearm, yet strangely enough most modern gun control legislation tends to be focused on rifles.

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.

i prefer to call them what they are 'human killing devices'.

for example; its ludicrous that american police are armed unnecessarily with human killing devices their entire shifts. it just demonstrates their cowardice and incompetence with regards to policing.

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.