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 dark 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.
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
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.
Overpopulated? What kind of wank stain talk is this?
White rhinos? Oh sorry we killed all those.
Most people don’t seem to realize the perfect deer rifle is the perfect human rifle.
Hahaha
(white tail, mule appropriate cartridges in particular)
Riigght. So it’s not about guns any more, it’s “cartridges”.
oh ffs. do you not know what a cartridge is, or its relationship to cylinder bore?
So you dont know what a gun is.
I said “cartriddge” because the bullet from a .223 and a .22 are very fucking similar in diameter, but i wouldn;t go deer hunting with a .22. So what the fuck is your point.
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.
Funny thing about carrying, at least for the sane among us, it makes one hyper-aware of one’s environment. Knowing that if you fuck up it could end with killing someone really, really, makes you less likely to take risks. Don’t know if I’m clear there. You look for danger so you can stay the hell away from it.
Wish that sniper had a better scope tho
I’m being pedantic, but many are designed to take the lives of animals rather than people. Absurdly heavy precision .22 cal target rifles are clearly only for sport.
A few are designed to launch flares high into the air for communication. A very small number are designed to trigger avalanches under controlled conditions.
AVALANCHE GUNS??
Humans are animals…
Is this community just popular opinions? Every comment agrees with OP.
If I can get excited for a cordless Bosch track saw, I can get excited for a nice gun. Guns have served two purposes in my life - target shooting with friends and the meat I get from hunting. I don’t need to take on someone elses trauma and stop enjoying something to respect what they are.
I live in Australia and I theoretically love guns. I love them from an engineering and design point of view. Going shooting inanimate objects and making a skill based sport out of it looks like enormous fun. But my country has very strict gun control laws so owning one isnt worth the headaches.
But then I’m at the 24hr supermarket near the sketchy neighbourhood and the junkie is screaming at the cashier about something and I am so fucking happy that the likelihood of that guy having a gun is next to zero that I think “Yep, I’ll take that trade”
What I have a problem understanding is that the native Americans were able to hunt without firearms. They literally used sharpened stones and sticks on horseback. Yet, gun enthusiasts will swear up and down they need guns for “hunting.” I get using new tech to make a job easier, but your life isn’t dependant on the kill anymore. If it was truly “for the hunt,” then wouldn’t you want to honor the hunt the way your ancestors did? I know a few bow hunters and I have mad respect for them, because bow hunting needs a high level of tracking skills as well (not to say rifle hunting doesn’t but a peice of metal being propelled by an explosion has a bigger punch than a piece of metal being propelled by a pulled bow string, thus a bigger damage output.) I get guns are fun but if your going to hunt, honor the hunt. The buck doesn’t have new upgraded antlers or legs.
You don’t know shit about their hunting practises. They didn’t have horses. they had ballistic spear chuckers, dogs, and various ways to kill large animals that weren’t your racist bullshit implications.
that’s not the only purpose dude. you can use a machine gun to shoot a circle around a door knob to unlock any door.
I agree with op. Guns are used to intimidate, and for entertainment. Men and their fascination with power by holding a gun is toxic and a failure of society.
Yeah! Only men like guns! Fuck men! All hail the bears!
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.
Another thing to understand is police should only have their weapon drawn if they fear for their lives or others.
Yeah, but you never know when a lethal acorn might strike…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/florida-acorn-cop-shooting
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.
Thank you! You have a way with words.
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.
I agree with you. You hate them, that’s reasonable. They represent humanity’s failure at cooperation.
You’re also totally justified to hate those who fetishize them.
You are wrong about them being designed only to kill, though. The point of them is to wield deadly force, and they are designed to send a high-speed projectile in order to achieve that goal, of deadly force. It’s alittle semantic, but an important distinction imo, because the point of wielding deadly force is to make opponents compliant even if you never use it.
Swords, spears, bows, atlatls, and pretty much every weapon of war was the exact same way. A key difference between them and the firearm, though, is that the firearm takes little to no training in comparison to the others, which took considerable longer.
Everything else, we’re in agreement about. I think you hold a hate for violence as well, based on your stance. That is also healthy, but I hope you also see violence for the liberating force that it is, able to protect those that are targeted.
We are on the brink of having the US become a full-blown fascist state - as opposed to the fascistic nation it’s always been. Should that happen, I fear the only way back is through violence, and I’d much prefer having a rifle in hand to the alternative of charging down gunfire armed with a lesser weapon, as the Egyptians had to during their revolution in 2011.
I hate why they exist. I like how they represent a mastery of engineering, material science, chemistry, and physics.
I have worked in Accident & Emergency in England and in an ER in America. Guns are a curse.
You all need to see the deserted dead body of a 15 year old laying on the table after an unsuccessful resuscitation attempt. A baby who has been shot through, or the crowds of relatives helplessly sobbing in the streets outside the emergency room.
Every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they arent. Its simply not possible to be 100% safe 100% of the time. That’s not a thing that humans do.
And no. There are nowhere near as many knife deaths in England.
I never saw a fatal stabbing in the UK, but I’ve seen many in America. The numbers are insignificant when compared to gun accidents and murders.
All “tools” that kill this many people should absolutely be regulated.
Americans never shut up about freedom, but don’t pay attention to the freedom taken away simply by the threat that anyone around you could be carrying a gun. You’re all just used to it being your way. It’s so nice not to have to consider the possibility. The american way is like spending your lives with the sword of Damocles dangling over your heads. That’s your freedom.
Every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they arent. Its simply not possible to be 100% safe 100% of the time.
Thank you. I have said something similar multiple times myself, but I have no medical experience to back that up.
Oh look, inner city bullshit stereotypes by some moron blathering about England in the later half. Fuck you and everything about you.
Haha. What a well composed rebuttal
you a liar too. worked in the ER and never saw a fatal stabbing. You work there a week?
Really dude?
Yes really,
You know, the one person who is MOST aware that you’re stupid and wrong is me.
“I’m a trucker that has never driven on a paved road” You, that’s what you sound like,
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.
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 and reintroduce predators. 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.
it’s still not the same.
no, it’s not the same, but your solution is also to kill them. if that happens, and people can benefit above and beyond balancing the ecosystem, that’s even better.
Uh-huh. So of all the options - just shooting adult deer, or restoring the ecosystem to the way it was, or actual scientific approaches like sterilization, you’re only interested in the one that benefits you, and then you start ignoring the moral implications, and associated risks like humans getting shot. See, the conversation would go smoother if you just declare from the outset that you only care about what benefits you, and we could drop the pretense that this is about what’s actually the best solution.
the conversation would go smoother if you just declare from the outset that you only care about what benefits you, and we could drop the pretense that this is about what’s actually the best solution.
being snide is unnecessary. you can apologize.
you start ignoring the moral implications
you didn’t raise any moral implications. like what?
This comment right here. Carnists are always arguing in bad faith.
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
Worry, 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
