Unpopular Opinion

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.

It was interesting reading your thoughts and all the different opinions in the comments. I enjoy firearms, and regularly go target shooting. I forget sometimes people don’t spend their time understanding firearms.

Yes, you are correct, the purpose of a firearm is to kill. That’s why they’re referred to as lethal weapons, where the word lethal can be defined as deadly.

It’s great you came to this conclusion on your own and it’s a great opportunity to explain some other aspects of firearms being lethal that folks often miss.

Since firearms are lethal weapons they’re not appropriate to use when less than lethal force is desired. This is why for example police “don’t just shoot criminals in the leg.” Because if they’re successful the person can still bleed out and if they miss they could accidentally apply lethal force to a bystander or the person they’re not trying to kill.

Another thing to understand is police should only have their weapon drawn if they fear for their lives or others. If the officer is following protocol, you shouldn’t see a firearm until the officer thinks lethal force is merited. Which is to say, if a cop pulls a gun, take it seriously.

I have a permit to conceal carry where I live. The laws understand firearms are deadly, and legally I can’t use or even draw my firearm unless I think my life is threatened or that I might suffer great bodily harm, think knife attacks or broken bones.

To add to that, because firearms are lethal, if someone flashes a gun in a threatening manner such as lifting up their shift to show the firearm in a holster during a heated argument, I could reasonably assume my life was in danger and legally respond with lethal force.

These are just some examples, but yes, guns are 100% designed to take life. You should always think of a firearm as a lethal weapon especially in situations where they’re pointed towards you.

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.

I am very leftist and somewhat split.

Modern guns are an engineering marvel and I can understand if someone is fascinated in the precision and engineering knowledge needed to construct them - the same way some people are fascinated by mechanical watches, steam engines, etc.

They are also a necessary tool for some jobs - I can worked alongside these and in theory am trained to handle one(but haven't had a gun in my hand for 15 years if you don't count two instances I had to take it from a patient before law enforcement arrived). So I am very happy that the people who need to have it have modern,safe, versatile and easy to handle guns at their disposal. And I want these people to have the best training,the best equipment and the best recruitment and background check possible.

This brings me to another point: I am sternly against people using "shooting" (large calibers) as a hobby and the whole gun culture around it - we see in the US this can easily become a purpose on it's own and the detrimental effects it has on everything, from mental health care,policing, emergency medicine to the political culture, even influencing their neighbours negatively.

Go for small calibers all you want, no problems with that. But there is no reason an average private citizen needs a 9mm or a AR15 (even with manual fire)as a hobby or for self defence here. (There might be some very rare cases when people are under so much threat for their life that it is different - but these are really rare and tbh should require the same amount of training a professional carrier needs)

Hunting is a bit different, but even there I see problematic behaviour within recreational hunting. I am not at all against hunting per se, it's absolutely an requirement in most industrial nations to keep the ecological balance in the few remaining ecosystems and is the most ethical source of meat available.

But again in some nations a subculture around it has formed that is not healthy,not required to maintain biodiversity and ecological balance, etc. My shire owns large wooden areas and has decided to switch to (semi-) professional hunters quite a while ago, they are payed to hunt according to a ecological plan, do not get less or more money if they are successful, the shire sells the meat to the inhabitants for relatively cheap prices. This model has been proven (scientifically) to be successful as it allows very targeted hunting, e.g. to keep animal tracks away from certain roads, to intentionally allow the reintroduction of larger predators,etc.

Wish that sniper had a better scope tho

It's a very American viewpoint. Many countries in Europe have high gun ownership and manage to do so without murdering eachother.

I don't like guns my self, but I don't have a problem with people who own them responsibly in a locked safe unloaded. I understand for some people a gun is needed, Hunters for one, while bow hunting is a thing a gun is just easier to use.

I’ve held this position for a long time. Guns are designed to kill. They are they threat of death even if the trigger isn’t pulled. They are there to force compliance with the bearer, for good or for ill. Even as a “tool” to put food on the table, they kill the thing that is to be food.

That said, I don’t have too much problem with guns. I have major problems with those who own them, make them, or turn them into part of identity politics.

They are exploited for profit and control, and the mulish obstinacy of gun owners in general is in part their enslavement to identity politics and those that profit from it - the politicians looking for election and money in the pockets of the manufacturers and supporting lobbies. Guns have become fashion accessories for the owners, and are often treated with similar gravity. Gun owners feed guns to criminals because of lax storage security on the owner’s part - just leave them in the car or closet unsecured - and they get stolen, used in crimes, for which they gun nuts “need” to buy more guns to leave laying about for instant access and which can be stolen. Nearly 80% of guns used in crimes are taken without permission or stolen from owners.

And the worst part are the killing sprees, workplace or schools, where gun owners just distance themselves so that the rest of society can be the victims of their refusal to regulate their hobby.

Guns can be safely kept in a society. There are plenty of countries that manage it. In this context I’m going to use this line: “Guns don’t kill people, people do”….and the people doing the killing are the owners that refuse to deal with regulating and securing guns.

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 unpopular opinion IMO.

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