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 grim 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.
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.
Guns make it possible for anyone to kill anyone. Without them, the capacity to inflict death is far less egalitarian.
Hate them all you want; I trust you with guns far more than I trust some angry meathead who doesn’t understand the concept of “No.”
Guns create violence.
Crossbows have a similar ideology.
They turned a woman into a killer, a child. The frail the weak. Anyone could unclip a bolt to the face and kill.
But crossbows are obvious. You can’t sneak them into schools.
If you want guns. Why ?
To kill pests ? Then rifles not handguns. Rifles are harder to sneak
But crossbows are obvious.
Correct.
They are so obvious that even the angry meathead who doesn’t understand the concept of “No” is capable of comprehending the danger of using his muscles against the woman wielding a crossbow: he’s going to take a bolt to the face.
And he’s capable of recognizing when another woman is not wielding a crossbow. And he’s capable of recognizing he faces no danger from that second woman. He’s not going to take a bolt to the face.
When that angry meathead learns that a lot of women are “sneaking” handguns, he doesn’t know whether he is going to take a bullet to the face. He is sufficiently motivated to learn the meaning of “No”.
So explain every other country.
Explain school shootings.
For the potential that a man might. Might not lay hands because hand fins exist.
Pathetic stupidity
The only argument you can make that will demonstrate your point is that you, yourself, would shoot me if given the opportunity.
I trust that you won’t do that. I trust that I don’t need to deprive you of firearms, because you are not a psychopath.
Feel free to disabuse me of that notion.
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 am afraid I am not a big animal lover myself but I respect those who are. However for me human life is most important.
My point is more about the justification of firearms. It’s easy for me to forget as a city-dweller, but there are still many people who hunt for their food.
There are what I feel neutral guns and more dark guns. For example sport guns shooting .22 LR do not trigger me so to say. Maybe because I used to be a sport shooter when young. Hunting guns also. But HK MP5? Well it has no other purpose. It exists to inflict as much damage in the shortest amount of time to a human body.
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.
No, it’s just that rural people expect their opinions to count more, as though their lifestyles are more authentic or honorable.
And where exactly is it that a firearm is necessary to protect from wildlife? Kodiak Island?
As far as the safety argument goes, let’s examine Police. The number one cause of “in the line of duty” fatalities is auto accidents, the second is heart disease, with COVID jockeying for position. If guns were a prophylactic, you’d expect them to shoot cheeseburgers and their cruisers. But as Richard Pryor observed: “Cops don’t kill cars…”
A firearm is necessary literally anywhere that has predators, unless you want to have all your livestock killed.
Also necessary if a tweaker decides on a midnight visit, as the police are half an hour or more away.
Counterpoint: cities shouldn’t exist
There should be a commission that caps the local human population at sustainable levels
Cities are a way better way of sustainably housing our population than suburban or rural sprawl. We get to be a lot more space efficient by living in multistory housing, having public transportation, etc.
There is some truth to that idea, but not nearly as much as you think. You need about a square mile of cultivated cropland for every 180 people, whether your population is spread out in small towns or concentrated in large cities.
There is no reason to cram humanity into the tightest package possible. We are using a square mile of cropland for every 180 people; it makes more sense to spread out, allowing us to get out of each other’s way.
Congestion kills efficiency gains.
Counterpoint: we don’t need to be that space efficient, and are better off in smaller communities
Huh…? Is this an actual thing you actually believe in?
The commission bit was a joke but yes I’m not fond of cities
On a global scale, population density is about 180 people per square mile of agricultural land.
Cities don’t change that: you need a swuare mile of cultivated land for every 180 people to sustain those urban populations.
We need more, smaller, more dispersed cities. Not these urban hellscapes.
Not to mention hunting is a thing.
Bows and crossbows exist.
But are comparatively wildly inefficient and cause more pain before the death of the animal.
Not disagreeing with that, but the topic at hand were alternatives to hunting with guns. I think bolt action rifles should be the only allowable gun for hunting.
Just out of curiosity, would you please point out your approximate location on this map of invasive feral swine distribution:
My thumb isn’t big enough to point it all out.
I will do the people reading along the favor of not posting images from an article titled “Penetrating Anorectal Injury Caused by a Wild Boar Attack: A Case Report”.
Suffice it to say, hunters in the marked areas have a distinct need for semi automatic rifles.
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
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.
