I don't think that is a particularly fair correlation. Guns are (historically) tools created with the express purpose of KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, capitalized for emphasis. Being uncomfortable around them is not indicative of some kind of basic phobia of inanimate objects.
You skipped over the middle of that sentence. If you're afraid that the person you're visiting has guns and is unsafe with them, or will actively try to kill you with them, by all means don't visit them. Most gun owners feel the same way. Allowing people to own guns does not give them carte blanche to handle them any way they want without being criticized, shunned or charged with a crime.
They also might accidentally stab you with a knife or have horrible aim when trying to butcher a chicken you're holding, and cut off your hand with a cleaver. Is it reasonable, then, to be uncomfortable around knives in a kitchen, too? Even when they're not in use? Within certain boundaries of storage and safe handling and usage, knives are not dangerous.
It's the same with guns. Within certain boundaries of safe handling, by someone who you don't suspect is mentally unhinged, gun possession or use is a non-problem. Anyone who is unsafe with guns, around anyone who's familiar with gun safety, will quickly be educated about proper gun handling.
As with bows and arrows, and swords, and crossbows (which, when cocked, are not so different from guns... they must be handled very carefully, but where's the casual disparagement of crossbow owners?). And all other things that have their places in everyday use, sport or culture, even when they could be dangerous. The origins of guns as weapons is irrelevant. Guns are not unique in that respect, yet many people who dislike, or are afraid of guns, treat a gun phobia uniquely as something to be praised. "How would any reasonable person not be afraid of guns? They're instruments of death!" How would any reasonable person not be afraid of a crossbow, or a katana, or even a knife? We learn to use knives safely without fear, and learn not to be afraid of swords and (cross)bows when they're being stored or carried or used properly.
Maybe it's not a basic phobia, but the grandparent poster implied that anyone who likes target shooting and owns guns for that purpose is "odd/unhinged".
I don't understand why people can say, "oh he's a farmer, so he's not insane for having a gun" but the moment someone's not a farmer, they're suddenly unhinged or obsessed with violence, as opposed to perhaps, a target shooter or other kind of hobbyist. It's like they have this mental pattern "grandpa with a gun" where it's ok, and everything else just sets off alarm bells. It's odd, because it's usually liberals (in the US this is a liberal/conservative thing) that have more "openness to experience" but for some reason they are rarely open to the experience of growing up with guns, considering them dangerous but useful tools, using them for sport and hunting, and not being insane while doing so.
Weapons of war have historically become objects of sport: it happened with fencing and archery - firearms are no different.
> Guns are (historically) tools created with the express purpose of KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, capitalized for emphasis.
I've never been able to fathom that argument. Even if a gun was made to kill people (one could equally argue that a particular gun is made for target practice or hunting and often that is true) the intentions of the maker of an object have absolutely nothing to do with whether you should be scared or not.
As an example, suppose someone hits you on the head with a hammer. As you sit in the hospital with a concussion is it any solace that the maker of the hammer intended it to be used on nails?
I'm an American, and I'm fascinated by space exploration. These kind of endeavors bring people together and make us look at the Earth as one entity that we all need to live on. It brings people together by strengthening trust through a common goal and achievement.
Now, as far as the "hur-dur my tax monies..." argument. I wonder if he has heard of the asteroid mining company in the US. Planetary resources speculats that a single 30 meter diameter asteroid could have over $50 billion[1] worth in platinum. Developing technology like ESA has done obviously helps advance a companies that can bring these resources back to Earth. So, I feel like he has to be trolling unless he really just hasn't had ANY interest in space exploration from the start. But, if he is going to out-right dismiss the program, he needs to have done some searching to at least form an opinion for why it is bad. Very untactful.
I hope this mission (and hopefully future missions like this) will either confirm or deny a claim like that - TBH, large claims like that kinda sound like space mining companies trying to get people to invest large amounts of money into their business.
