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 take considerable amounts more.

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 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.

They’re also used to kill animals, look up some nature docs where they snipe animals

everything made my human minds is a tool. artillery is no exception.

a gun is a tool just like a hammer, a drill, a paintbrush, a glue stick, etc. some people have favorite tools.

personally I have a carpenters pencil my father left behind on the job site we both last worked on before he died. it’s my favorite pencil and I only use it on personal projects I wish he was around to help me with. in a sense I feel like he’s there with me still, even all these years later.

I know of people who have favorite guns, because they bonded with their fathers over them while hunting.

having an emotional connection to a tool isn’t wrong or unhealthy.

that said, having an infatuation with the killing power or firepower of a gun isn’t healthy. knowing your tools is one thing but obsessing over how many rounds your gun can fire and proudly treasuring it only for that is sick.

guns are tools to be respected, and like any other tool you hold with your hands, it starts with how you perceive it in your mind.

Love it. You can never post anything bad about guns on Reddit’s unpopular opinion section. And I agree, it’s to murder other humans. The 2nd amendment’s present interpretation is an amazing example why I have such low respect for constitutional lawyers: The well-regulated militia part is in the same sentence to specifically set the context in which the right to bear arms is protected and people getting away without taking the militia part into consideration is total bullshit.

Also, the 2nd amendment does not absolve irresponsible gun owners for the consequences of their gun ownership. Since Americans lose 350K guns annually (!!!) and provide most of the Mexican cartels’ firearms, there’s a lot of bad gun ownership that people should be punished for. Generally speaking, you’ll be the last to know about the gun ownership of people who actually store them responsibly.

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.

It’s fun to reach out and touch something from 50 yards.

No rule that says toys have to be safe.

I think there are a few toys with weapon origins. Like yoyos and slingshots. Guns don’t have to be any different.

This is only unpopular in the USA, it’s the popular opinion everywhere where we don’t worship guns.

There are too many responses here to reply to all of them individually so I’m just going to post some quotes here, more in response to other comments than the OP, but perhaps also a perspective to consider for OP as well.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

• George Orwell

And the shockingly only increasingly relevant full quote from one of the founders of the Black Panthers party:

“Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment. If the guns are taken out of the hands of the people and only the pigs have guns, then it’s off to the concentration camps, the gas chambers, or whatever the fascists in America come up with. One of the democratic rights of the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, gives the people the right to bear arms. However, there is a greater right; the right of human dignity that gives all men the right to defend themselves.”

• Huey Newton

I’d really ask more people to consider their position of privilege, to be less afraid of state sanctioned or enabled violence of all forms than some crazy neighbor with guns who was likely failed many times by that very state to have come to this point. Please just consider the counterpoint, that armed minorities are harder to oppress, and that far, far more people have been killed by state sanctioned and enabled violence, than by access to firearms by “the common people”.

I’m not telling anyone that they’re wrong, I’m just asking that you really internalize and consider this perspective. Thank you for reading and thinking.

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 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.

we are all entitled to our opinion. i just happen to disagree with yours.

I hate why they exist. I like how they represent a mastery of engineering, material science, chemistry, and physics.