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.
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
With the amount of people existing, yes we do. Otherwise there will be no nature left.
Cropland is not nature. For every 180 people in your city, add a square mile of cropland to its area before trying to determine the spatial efficiency of that city.
Removed by mod
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.