Conversation
georgia
georgia
not a fan of gun culture. theyre basically just murder weapons for the weak. at least swordplay is an art, guns are just a skill.
5
2
4
techndesuolyze
technolyze@whinge.town
@georgia what if you put a gun on a sword or like a sword on a gun and it was a cool gun sword
0
0
1
@georgia I like guns and consider them morally good because they allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong
1
0
1
@scathach I understand that but I'm pretty sure more guns are used to kill good people than bad people. my philosophy is that the weak should get strong if they want to exact violence. of course I dont adhere to it myself or havent in years. -_- honestly if only women were allowed to have guns I'd be pro gun
2
0
0
@georgia No amount of training will let an old woman protect herself from a strong young man, but a gun will
1
0
3
🌸 Bisexual Flower 🐀
Alex@boymilk.cafe
Guns are for the weak. this is their best feature. They are the great equalizer, that enables the weak to defend themselves from those who are far stronger than them. This is why I believe that guns ought to be owned primarily by the oppressed and the weak; they are the tool those incapable of wielding a sword use to defend themselves from those stronger than themselves. The kinds of people who tend to be most obsessed with gun culture are, in fact, the people with the least reason to own a gun.
1
0
1
🌸 Bisexual Flower 🐀
Alex@boymilk.cafe
yeah exactly. i agree with you, the culture is awful. it is the exact opposite of what it should be.
0
0
1
#CastratisForClavicular
FiringSquadsEnjoyer@social.xenofem.me
@georgia i think id be more anti gun as like a "common sense" liberal nanny state policy if the UK didn't also ban literally all other forms of self defence including pepper spray as well for law abiding citizens while basically anyone intending to harm people can just get a massive knife online if they don't care about the law
1
0
2
#CastratisForClavicular
FiringSquadsEnjoyer@social.xenofem.me
@georgia as it is the british anti gun obsession has been used to ram through a load more far-reaching laws basically entirely stripping the right to self defense
1
0
1
@FiringSquadsEnjoyer banning mace and tasers is literally fucking insane
1
0
2
#CastratisForClavicular
FiringSquadsEnjoyer@social.xenofem.me
@georgia the insame idea of the law is that anything that could conceivably be used for self defense could also be used to assault someone and as such should be counted as illegal possession of a weapon with intent to harm
0
0
1
Gun culture: Exibit A
At least she has trigger discipline.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
@nerthos @scathach you really consider that and me evil? you say that villains should be branded to protect people but youre opposed to such a radical measure of anti-violence that would save countless lives? men could use other means to defend themselves. my concern is more rooted in a desire to see guns become rare in society along with all modern tools of mass murder than it is in any feminist militancy you think I possess. frankly if you consider "leave weapons for the weak to the weak while the strong can have weapons for the strong" evil I dont know what to tell you. you dont like me so why do you even follow me.
1
0
1
Khamenei's Top Guy Katze Kattepus 
nerthos@shitposter.world
@georgia @scathach I don't particularly dislike you, I think you have a few flaws and a few virtues. I have several evil friends. I also just like debating moral/religious/political views. Your posts about games and animals and some about religion are good, and I think we'd get along if we ever got past some incompatible morals.
I believe that limiting access to guns, when guns are available, across sex lines is an atrocity. This also applies to limiting it by racial lines in a place with several ethnic groups coexisting. It is not a measure of anti-violence, it's an apartheid-style extreme imbalance of power to grossly benefit one group and put the other at their mercy.
Personally, I'd prefer guns to be limited to use against invaders and foreign enemies as well as gangs and similar bad elements, and see them made taboo when it comes to conflicts between people. I think normal, decent people should fight with their fists or with melee weapons if they must, in most cases to first blood rather than to death. I also think most cases of extreme violence that would require guns for self defense could easily be solved by branding or executing violent criminals to make the potential profit of crime so far below the potential costs that it'd be limited only to the unavoidable (batshit insane weirdos that will commit violence no matter what tools they have available)
Guns are a thing now, and they're extremely easy to build. I could give any of my smart 16 year old students a bunch of steel tubes, a nail, a welding machine and a shotgun shell and tell them "build a gun, you have an hour" and they'd do it. There's no banning them. Even if it were possible, I do not want conflicts where one side is armed and the other isn't. Even my enemies, the ones I would like destroyed, I believe should die weapon in hand, not shot unarmed. Killing the unarmed is the way of the parasite, of the resentful coward.
As for "weak vs strong", I don't think societies should be built on such a theory. Strength is a virtue, worth pursuing, and a society like that would punish it as if it were a sin. I've always been strong and I've always been honorable. If a society sought to put even more disvantages my way (the advantages deliberately given to the weak and infirm currently are more than enough, bordering on the unfair, and the "advantages" given deliberately to the strong and capable range from nonexistant to open sabotage) I would see no just path other than gathering all the strong and waging war against that injustice, because willingly putting our heads on the chopping block is not an option. This would create immensely more violence. It is also completely unnecessary, as people would deal with violent elements naturally if allowed to rather than regulated into inaction. Things like pedophiles and murderers only stay alive because there are huge systems put in place by the state to keep them safe, the normal human reaction to someone in a community being dangerously violent is to rally a hunting party and get them.
TL;DR equality of outcome philisophies are evil with a capital E, especially when it comes to people's lives, which should be defined by their merits and decisions.
I believe that limiting access to guns, when guns are available, across sex lines is an atrocity. This also applies to limiting it by racial lines in a place with several ethnic groups coexisting. It is not a measure of anti-violence, it's an apartheid-style extreme imbalance of power to grossly benefit one group and put the other at their mercy.
Personally, I'd prefer guns to be limited to use against invaders and foreign enemies as well as gangs and similar bad elements, and see them made taboo when it comes to conflicts between people. I think normal, decent people should fight with their fists or with melee weapons if they must, in most cases to first blood rather than to death. I also think most cases of extreme violence that would require guns for self defense could easily be solved by branding or executing violent criminals to make the potential profit of crime so far below the potential costs that it'd be limited only to the unavoidable (batshit insane weirdos that will commit violence no matter what tools they have available)
Guns are a thing now, and they're extremely easy to build. I could give any of my smart 16 year old students a bunch of steel tubes, a nail, a welding machine and a shotgun shell and tell them "build a gun, you have an hour" and they'd do it. There's no banning them. Even if it were possible, I do not want conflicts where one side is armed and the other isn't. Even my enemies, the ones I would like destroyed, I believe should die weapon in hand, not shot unarmed. Killing the unarmed is the way of the parasite, of the resentful coward.
As for "weak vs strong", I don't think societies should be built on such a theory. Strength is a virtue, worth pursuing, and a society like that would punish it as if it were a sin. I've always been strong and I've always been honorable. If a society sought to put even more disvantages my way (the advantages deliberately given to the weak and infirm currently are more than enough, bordering on the unfair, and the "advantages" given deliberately to the strong and capable range from nonexistant to open sabotage) I would see no just path other than gathering all the strong and waging war against that injustice, because willingly putting our heads on the chopping block is not an option. This would create immensely more violence. It is also completely unnecessary, as people would deal with violent elements naturally if allowed to rather than regulated into inaction. Things like pedophiles and murderers only stay alive because there are huge systems put in place by the state to keep them safe, the normal human reaction to someone in a community being dangerously violent is to rally a hunting party and get them.
TL;DR equality of outcome philisophies are evil with a capital E, especially when it comes to people's lives, which should be defined by their merits and decisions.
1
0
1
georgia
georgia
@nerthos @scathach I agree about equality of outcome philosophies being evil, but I dont see letting only women have guns as equality of outcome any more than letting only adults have drivers licenses or disabled people have parking spaces. women are much less likely to use guns for evil and much more likely to need them.
we envision the outcome of such a thing very differently, and I agree that if your vision of a gender apartheid society of every woman carrying a rifle and benefitting from the current arms industry and men being at their mercy came true it would be monstrous. but my vision is of a society where guns are almost anathema, and a few small handguns are used only by the weak who are in personal danger but can't defend themselves any other way. they would be used only in extreme cases where mace and tasers aren't enough. ideally they wouldnt exist at all of course and would be replaced by swordsmanship. such a vision in my eyes is better than what currently exists, which is a society at inner war between the gun toting members of the state apparatus, criminals and gangs, and citizenry who like guns or want to defend themselves from criminals and gangs. guns havent made the world a better place at all.
even if what you say is true and guns are readily manufactured, these would be crude things. you dont see people making their own cannons despite the ease of it.
we envision the outcome of such a thing very differently, and I agree that if your vision of a gender apartheid society of every woman carrying a rifle and benefitting from the current arms industry and men being at their mercy came true it would be monstrous. but my vision is of a society where guns are almost anathema, and a few small handguns are used only by the weak who are in personal danger but can't defend themselves any other way. they would be used only in extreme cases where mace and tasers aren't enough. ideally they wouldnt exist at all of course and would be replaced by swordsmanship. such a vision in my eyes is better than what currently exists, which is a society at inner war between the gun toting members of the state apparatus, criminals and gangs, and citizenry who like guns or want to defend themselves from criminals and gangs. guns havent made the world a better place at all.
even if what you say is true and guns are readily manufactured, these would be crude things. you dont see people making their own cannons despite the ease of it.
2
0
0
Khamenei's Top Guy Katze Kattepus
nerthos@shitposter.world
@georgia @scathach My disagreement here is twofold:
1) the only conflict humanity should ALWAYS avoid is one between the sexes. In any other conflict, if one side is wiped out, in the grand scheme of things nothing happens. In a conflict between the sexes, a bad outcome means extinction.
2) the past two decades have shown how, when women are given big legal advantages and feel there will be no consequence to abusing said advantages, especially to the detriment of men, they abuse them horribly.
Women are not less likely to do evil, they're more risk-averse, so crime-inclined women usually just get their boyfriends or brothers to do the violent part of the crime for them. In this scenario, they'd do it themselves, since they'd have the advantage.
As for the non-morally-related part of this scenario, this level of gun restriction would only affect law-abiding citizens, criminals already get their guns outside the legal system, be it by stealing them or buying them illegally.
Handmade weapons aren't common in places where commercial weapons are easy and cheap to get, but they're extremely common and abundant in places where guns are very expensive or complicated to obtain. Even in countries that are somewhat normal, areas that devolve into warzones without the availability of guns matching that status see mass production of homemade guns, as is the case in the Brazilian favelas, where police raids consistently capture huge amounts of them, of different levels of quality.
There are also plenty of WWII era designs like the M3 grease gun or FP45 liberator that are made to be manufactured extremely easily, and can be made at any workshop. Hell I've seen an AK-47 made from a shovel, the guy only bought the barrel and firing pin rather than make them himself because of legality.
Finally, there's currently a 4:1 ratio for murder victims male:female, because criminals generally believe they're more at risk by leaving a male victim alive. In your scenario where women have guns and men don't, criminals will do the exact opposite and ambush-kill female victims to ensure there's no risk to their own health. If I was forced to fight someone who was armed and I wasn't, I would ambush them and immediately either destroy their hands or just kill them, and this is the same mindset that anyone seeking to commit a violent crime would have. There would be no more "punched and robbed", it'd be "knife to the neck, then robbed, and now I have a gun" for any criminal. Plus, within five meters, a knife or hatchet has an advantage over a gun.
As for "every woman carrying a rifle", ironically, banning handguns and allowing everyone to carry rifles would be a good way to greatly reduce gun crime. Most gun crime is done with handguns that can be concealed. You don't see guys with FALs robbing others of their cellphones and wallets.
If you want a society where the combat capability difference between men and women is smaller, go for polearms, not swords. Swords HUGELY benefit male anatomy, because they were designed by and for men, and a small difference in upper body strength and arm length tips the balance a lot. If we weren't in different hemispheres I'd get two practice swords and show you how much of a difference it makes in sparring. Polearms are much more lower body reliant and compensate reach, it's why samurai clans trained their women to use naginatas and not another weapon.
1) the only conflict humanity should ALWAYS avoid is one between the sexes. In any other conflict, if one side is wiped out, in the grand scheme of things nothing happens. In a conflict between the sexes, a bad outcome means extinction.
2) the past two decades have shown how, when women are given big legal advantages and feel there will be no consequence to abusing said advantages, especially to the detriment of men, they abuse them horribly.
Women are not less likely to do evil, they're more risk-averse, so crime-inclined women usually just get their boyfriends or brothers to do the violent part of the crime for them. In this scenario, they'd do it themselves, since they'd have the advantage.
As for the non-morally-related part of this scenario, this level of gun restriction would only affect law-abiding citizens, criminals already get their guns outside the legal system, be it by stealing them or buying them illegally.
Handmade weapons aren't common in places where commercial weapons are easy and cheap to get, but they're extremely common and abundant in places where guns are very expensive or complicated to obtain. Even in countries that are somewhat normal, areas that devolve into warzones without the availability of guns matching that status see mass production of homemade guns, as is the case in the Brazilian favelas, where police raids consistently capture huge amounts of them, of different levels of quality.
There are also plenty of WWII era designs like the M3 grease gun or FP45 liberator that are made to be manufactured extremely easily, and can be made at any workshop. Hell I've seen an AK-47 made from a shovel, the guy only bought the barrel and firing pin rather than make them himself because of legality.
Finally, there's currently a 4:1 ratio for murder victims male:female, because criminals generally believe they're more at risk by leaving a male victim alive. In your scenario where women have guns and men don't, criminals will do the exact opposite and ambush-kill female victims to ensure there's no risk to their own health. If I was forced to fight someone who was armed and I wasn't, I would ambush them and immediately either destroy their hands or just kill them, and this is the same mindset that anyone seeking to commit a violent crime would have. There would be no more "punched and robbed", it'd be "knife to the neck, then robbed, and now I have a gun" for any criminal. Plus, within five meters, a knife or hatchet has an advantage over a gun.
As for "every woman carrying a rifle", ironically, banning handguns and allowing everyone to carry rifles would be a good way to greatly reduce gun crime. Most gun crime is done with handguns that can be concealed. You don't see guys with FALs robbing others of their cellphones and wallets.
If you want a society where the combat capability difference between men and women is smaller, go for polearms, not swords. Swords HUGELY benefit male anatomy, because they were designed by and for men, and a small difference in upper body strength and arm length tips the balance a lot. If we weren't in different hemispheres I'd get two practice swords and show you how much of a difference it makes in sparring. Polearms are much more lower body reliant and compensate reach, it's why samurai clans trained their women to use naginatas and not another weapon.
1
0
2
georgia
georgia
@nerthos @scathach those are mostly good points except the first one about a war between the sexes. I dont think letting women carry guns in edge cases where their lives are in danger but giving men a sword would cause a war between the sexes at all. I'm also sure I'd disagree when you say women have abused certain legal advantages. and finally the notion that women are equally violent but just get men to do their violence is unsubstantiated. women are genuinely less violent.
about your other points, theyre mostly much more rigorous. my question is, what do societies with less gun violence do differently? restricting guns has to be a part of it, even though you say criminals would get their guns in other ways (which I'm not denying).
about your other points, theyre mostly much more rigorous. my question is, what do societies with less gun violence do differently? restricting guns has to be a part of it, even though you say criminals would get their guns in other ways (which I'm not denying).
0
0
0