I hate guns. They are engineered from the ground up to take lives of other people. That is their sole purpose. To kill

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess you live in the US - well, I sure hope you do.

In the US I believe that guns are like pick-up trucks: far more people own them to plug gaps in their personality than the number of people who own them because they need their utility.

My personal view - and a generally held one - is that guns are a tool and to fetishise a tool is… weird; and suggests to me a troubled mind.

God made man. Samuel Colt made him equal.

Any tool used incorrectly is a significant danger.

I already found the ideas and the people who hold those ideas that you're referencing are a minority who are scared fanatic and unreasonable and those are the type of people that should not have guns or tools of any capacity.

However, someone like you who wants one for protection and the ability to protect those around you regardless of circumstance are why it's important to protect gun rights in my opinion.

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 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

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

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.

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.

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

Gotta resist fascism somehow

That's not an unpopular opinion IMO.

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.

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 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.

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.

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’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 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.

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.

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.

Counterpoint:

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)

Pretty popular opion though, isn't it?

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.

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'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.)

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.

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

I had to go look up if this was a tongue-in-cheek obscure reference to Frank Miller. It's not, apparently.