Source
r/unpopularopinion•
Divvel

We should get rid of the public education system before ever implementing gun control.

It's no coincidence that all high school shootings happened in public schools. Public schools and compulsory education in particular force aggressive low-IQ children from shitty backgrounds with actually hard working and decent children. I'm not surprised there is strife. Further there's the dysgenic effect of forcing young women with these piece-of-garbage men but I won't go into that now.

Besides, gun control is immoral. It's infringing on someones bodily autonomy for a crime they haven't committed. A gun is a tool, it's no different than a bottle of water, it does not have moral responsibility. Buying a gun should be as simple as buying groceries. Any and all barriers and regulation are immoral.

Posted Mar 16, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC · edited

0134
fre_rn•

this is utter bullshit

9
DivvelOP•

Feel free to explain how. I feel like I have done a pretty good job of defending my worldview.

2†
cmarsh1026•

A gun is a tool used to inflict damage on something and therefor it has negative usage

3
DivvelOP•

No. A gun is a gun. The premise that a gun exists does not infer a crime. You're making a low-IQ assumption.

0†
IronTyrant57•

Tell me for what reason guns were invented?

5
[deleted]•

You said crime. u/cmarsh1026 just said that guns are tools to inflict damage, and that this constitutes negative usage.

3
BawDrop•

Hi, congrats on posting an actual unpopular opinion. Now to comment on what you said:

​

Your first paragraph actually has some reasoning behind it in the sense that you are presenting your opinion on a particular phenomenon and why you think it happens. However, your second paragraph mostly lays out your opinion on something without as much reasoning behind it.

​

I'd disagree with these particular ideas:

A gun is a tool, it's no different than a bottle of water

You would need a massive amount of water to deal the same damage as a single gun. I've seen a lot of American pro-gun individuals make this kind of argument and what scares me is that you don't seem to realize how dangerous these tools are, so I'm not sure I'd feel safe knowing they are in your hands. Guns, knives, etc., I agree they are tools, but to say all tools present the same level of danger or are comparable in that aspect is disingenuous at best.

it does not have moral responsibility

True, but the responsibility is in the hands of the gun owner. And it's quite a big one at that, so not everyone is ready for gun ownership from the get go.

Buying a gun should be as simple as buying groceries.

Dangerous and quite irresponsible unless you want to live in some sort of Far West-ish, Mad Max post-apocalyptic-style society, or if you truly think a utopia where everyone has the same high moral standards and sense of individual and collective responsibility is feasible or desirable.

Any and all barriers and regulation are immoral.

Even if you were talking strictly about gun control laws, they're meant to be in place to guarantee the safety of the citizenship. I wouldn't say they are immoral given their animus. You could make an argument for laxer or tighter regulation, but to say that said regulation's existence is immoral is quite far-fetched.

​

I'm not advocating for the end of the right to gun ownership, but I wouldn't agree on your particular stance. I'm more for a Switzerland-style stance on gun ownership. However, I think it's quite an unpopular one, so again, good job for posting something relevant on this sub.

3
DivvelOP•

Hi, congrats on posting an actual unpopular opinion. Now to comment on what you said:

I wish it wasn't unpopular.

Your first paragraph actually has some reasoning behind it in the sense that you are presenting your opinion on a particular phenomenon and why you think it happens. However, your second paragraph mostly lays out your opinion on something without as much reasoning behind it.

ok

You would need a massive amount of water to deal the same damage as a single gun.

No, you wouldn't. Because guns don't cause damage on their own.

I've seen a lot of American pro-gun individuals make this kind of argument and what scares me is that you don't seem to realize how dangerous these tools are, so I'm not sure I'd feel safe knowing they are in your hands. Guns, knives, etc., I agree they are tools, but to say all tools present the same level of danger or are comparable in that aspect is disingenuous at best.

You're making a logical error by inferring action.

True, but the responsibility is in the hands of the gun owner. And it's quite a big one at that, so not everyone is ready for gun ownership from the get go.

Not your decision to make.

Dangerous and quite irresponsible unless you want to live in some sort of Far West-ish, Mad Max post-apocalyptic-style society, or if you truly think a utopia where everyone has the same high moral standards and sense of individual and collective responsibility is feasible or desirable.

An armed populace is a polite populace.

Does New Hampshire look like Mad Max to you?

Are you American? I'm curious.

Even if you were talking strictly about gun control laws, they're meant to be in place to guarantee the safety of the citizenship. I wouldn't say they are immoral given their animus. You could make an argument for laxer or tighter regulation, but to say that said regulation's existence is immoral is quite far-fetched.

The most insulting thing you could do to your own people is not trust them to make their own choices.

1
whoomprat•

And churches, and mosques, and synagogues, and malls, and nightclubs, and really any place where people gather...

3
DivvelOP•

Typical statist mistake. You fail to take freedom of will into account. Children are forced by the government to go to public schools.

0
[deleted]•

You wouldn't be able to put forth this idea and hope that your audience will understand you without public education. The irony of your opinion is laughable. How is our glorious country sowed? Not with wheat and corn. How is our glorious country sowed? Fruit is deformed children.

2
whoomprat•

No they aren't. You can home school them.

1
DivvelOP•

That's still regulated by the government and it's not even true for many European countries. Homeschooling is banned in Germany and the Netherlands, the EU court even ruled in favor of the German government kidnapping homeschooled kids and testing them.

1
whoomprat•

Mass shootings hardly ever happen in the eu.

2
Arithese•

It's not banned in the Netherlands, it's just not allowed for everyone. Which is a good thing, less parents thinking they can educate their children themselves.

2
Groxy_•

Do I downvote for a shitpost or upvote for the unpopular opinion?

3
DivvelOP•

Calling an argument you disagree with a "shitpost" is the best way of showing how incapable you are of arguing the point.

2
Groxy_•

I'm just curious of this is a serious post or just a fake bait. There's no point arguing with you when it seems like a bait becuase I don't believe anyone is this dumb.

3
DivvelOP•

I'm completely serious. Come on with the valid arguments big boy and stop bluffing like a sissy.

1
Groxy_•

Ok, let's do this.

force aggressive low-IQ children from shitty backgrounds with actually hard working and decent children. I'm not surprised there is strife.

School shootings have absaloutly nothing to do with IQ or even really background that much. You're assuming it's always the stupid kid but usually it's someone with a very serious mental illness, previously hard working kids shoot up schools all the time and a lot of the time it's white kids.

Not to mention schools aren't the only place where mass shootings happen. Clubs, churches, mosques, the streets, etc. The only connection between them is the mental illness. Schools don't breed shooters, mental illness, bullying, guns and other issues cause shooters.

Your argument is a really simplified loose correlation you've found that only really applied to a selection of shootings and it's asinine.

And giving people the ability to buy guns easily just increases the risk of shootings, they are hardly ever stopped by civilians with guns so clearly it's not an effect deterance to give everyone access to guns. Take away the guns and shootings become much harder to happen.

I know gun control is going to be hard to enforce in America but guns do more bad than good.

3
[deleted]•

Or it's a way of recognising how pointless your argument obviously is.

2
BawDrop•

If it's well written, upvote it.

1
Arithese•

If you truly think a bottle of water is as dangerous as a gun, then maybe you are the low IQ here, ffs. Also, how is owning a gun bodily autonomy? That makes no sense.

3
DivvelOP•

If you truly think a bottle of water is as dangerous as a gun, then maybe you are the low IQ here, ffs.

Unlike babies, I don't judge something by how mean it looks, and that's the difference between you and me.

Also, how is owning a gun bodily autonomy? That makes no sense.

Because a gun is a passive tool. The simple fact of owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, therefore, preventing people from owning guns is violent and unjust.

1
Arithese•

Then tell me, how can I kill someone with a bottle of water within a second?

Bodily autonomy is the right over your own body, last I checked, a gun wasn't your body.

2
DivvelOP•

Then tell me, how can I kill someone with a bottle of water within a second?

I can kill the shit out of you with a knife. Should we ban all knives? What about large rocks. If you throw that at someone head they're fucking out.

Bodily autonomy is the right over your own body, last I checked, a gun wasn't your body.

How will you take peoples guns away and prevent them from making or buying new ones without using violence [against their body]?

0
Arithese•

Oeh dodging the questions. Lovely. But again, what did I expect? You answer my question first. How can I kill someone with a bottle of water within a second?

How will you take peoples guns away and prevent them from making or buying new ones without using violence [against their body]?

The same way all the other countries did. You really gotta start asking harder questions if you want to win this debate hun.

​

2
[deleted]•

The purpose of public education isn't to teach people not to break the law.

2
DivvelOP•

I don't understand your comment.

1
[deleted]•

He means that education is there to give people the critical faculties to see the obvious flaws in your argument.

0
[deleted]•

He means

Ehm, did you forget to switch accounts? :D

1
Groxy_•

So close... XD

1
Maga4lifeshutitdown•

The only gun control I need is proper handling, aim and muzzle discipline.

2
drydunedenBirth By Sleep is terrible•

The sole purpose of a bottle of water isn't to harm people.

2
DivvelOP•

You're framing it incorrectly. Guns don't have moral responsibility. They might be designed to do a certain task more effectively, but that does not infer a crime on it's own.

Even if I enter this shitty definition of judging something by its arbitrary "purpose", harming people isn't necessarily a bad thing. Self-defense scenarios exist. Guns can also be used to hunt, which unless you're a vegan, you shouldn't have a problem with.

0
[deleted]•

You're the one talking "crime" -- others keep pointing out that things can be harmful/negative/undesirable simply due to their actual impact.

In the case of guns, that negative impact is implied by what a gun is: a tool to shoot bullets at things and people with the goal to inflict damage.

Nobody but you is even using the word "crime" in this discussion. There is no "crime" on part of the gun. Nonetheless, guns are made to inflict damage, and they do have a massive negative impact when people are allowed to possess them. That's not controversial, those are just facts.

2
DivvelOP•

You're the one talking "crime" -- others keep pointing out that things can be harmful/negative/undesirable simply due to their actual impact.

And you can make that argument, but it's consequentialist drivel. I'm way more of a deontologist and I believe in protecting individuals rights.

In the case of guns, that negative impact is implied by what a gun is: a tool to shoot bullets at things and people with the goal to inflict damage.

No, that's what a gun is capable of. It doesn't fire on it's own.

Nobody but you is even using the word "crime" in this discussion. There is no "crime" on part of the gun.

Then why ban it?

Nonetheless, guns are made to inflict damage, and they do have a massive negative impact when people are allowed to possess them. That's not controversial, those are just facts.

It's true, when governments have guns, they do indeed commit horrible atrocities, since they have a monopoly on justice and can't be held accountable.

It's always strange to me how people like you claim to be for gun control but only for civilians. You're not anti-gun, you just want only the government to have them. Governments have committed more atrocities than civilian mass shooters ever have. You're not against violence, only against freedom and anyone who tries to fight back.

1
[deleted]•

No, that's what a gun is capable of.

No, that's what a gun is made for: to inflict damage on things and people. Guns are weapons by design, plain and simple.

You're not anti-gun, you just want only the government to have them.

Yep. I'm pragmatic. I accept the fact that there will always be a state. I mean, I could sympathize if you wanted to keep guns as a means to resist the massive inequality in your society. But you're a libertarian, so I guess you don't really care about inequality, or you believe the magic of muh free market will take care of it.

So yeah, I'm a statist. And I also want to minimize the negative impact of guns. The government will always have guns. And tanks, fighter jets, missiles and nukes. They have those weapons for valid reasons. We don't have them, also for valid reasons.

You're not against violence, only against freedom and anyone who tries to fight back.

Who or what exactly are you trying to fight back against?

1
GhostlySlime•

I like how your defense is "if you bring an argument I don't like up you actually have a low IQ" lmao

2
nahuelholyman•

r/insanepeoplereddit

You'd better have low resource kids on the streets doing drugs or some shit because they don't know anything else?

2
DivvelOP•

The literacy rate in Massachusetts was 99% before they implemented public schooling.

1
AutoModeratorMOD•

Hi everyone! Please make sure to upvote well written unpopular/controversial opinions, and downvote badly written opinions OR popular opinions.

Please note that we are currently removing all political opinions as part of a trial period. If your post is political and was not caught in the filter, please post it in the politics megathread at the top of the sub. Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
Lifty_Pete•

I would rather just keep the system and put dumb kids down

1
DivvelOP•

COINTELPRO?

1
TopperHarley007•

Besides, nuclear weapon control is immoral. It's infringing on someone's bodily autonomy for a crime they haven't committed. A nuclear weapon is a tool, it's no different than a bottle of water, it does not have a moral responsibility. Buying a nuclear weapon should be as simple as buying groceries. Any and all barriers and regulations are immoral.

FTFY.

1
DivvelOP•

Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate weapons and have the problem of radiation.

But yes, in a libertarian society, you would have private nuclear weapons. And I have zero problems with that.

1
AutoModeratorMOD•

This submission has been removed as your elaboration was less than 160 characters (roughly two or three standard sized sentences). If you wish to resubmit the post, make sure you include an elaboration/explanation to your post that is has more content. Please read Rule 1 (Correct Formatting) and Rule 6 (Elaborate), and the rest of them while you're at it.

Note that Reddit's character count is unreliable as they count spaces, whereas I'm programmed to not count spaces and there's nothing the mods can do about it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1