Guns are a form of natural selection. Do you agree with this statement?

Guns are a form of natural selection. Do you agree with this statement?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mqoJ28-Ol4o
twitter.com/AnonBabble

by definition anything that isn't liberal is natural

If the society that you want is ISIS then yes.

Anyone can pick up an assault rifle and aim it at someone right?

That's exactly what I don't want.

What do you mean? They carry out natural selection? They are a product of natural selection?

No.

Guns are a tool like any other. If you consider guns to be a form of natural selection, you must consider shovels and ladders to be forms of natural selection as well.

Our ability to create and use such tools is, on the whole, indeed an ability which enables us to resist the forces of natural selection and forge our own future in spite of the powers stacked against all living things.

>i dont know what natural selection is: the thread.

Gun's don't reproduce. They're manufactured.

...

Friend told me that this was just natural selection.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqoJ28-Ol4o

Yeah it's a really weird question. It's like asking if spoons are a form of natural selection. What the fuck does that mean.

The people that engineer it and use it reproduce.

How would you restate a better question?

Can't stronger people use bigger guns? And more creative people build better guns?

They're neutral weapons, they aren't a form of anything

GET OUT, COLUMBINE

Ellaborate please.

I see what you did here.

What type of gun is that burger bros

In which case, the strength and creativity of these people would be the selective force. Those that are strong enough to use the larger weapons may survive to reproduce, while those weaker will not.

The gun will not reproduce with stronger guns to create even stronger guns.

This, but don't get any ideas maplefag, you're still a faggot

Polish or Russian AKMS?

I don't agree, but for the purposes of destroying those who want to destroy our countries, I don't mind them at all.

Guns are the apex of sexual attraction.
Do you agree with this statement.

>Guns are a form of natural selection. Do you agree with this statement?
no, gun selection is influenced by corruption in military contracts, marketing, and bizarre gun laws.
If guns were a result of natural selection the only guns would be:
a 357 revolver
a 1911
a m14
a ruger 14
a mosin
a ruger 10/22
a 410/22
a pump action 12 gauge

It's a glock ar47 with the shoulder thing that goes up
/thread

I'd say guns are against natural selection, as in the days of swords, a superior fighter could regularly survive battles, whereas now even poor fighters have a much better chance to kill superior warriors.

Doesn't matter if you're the worlds greatest soldier if you get hit by artillery, or even a stray round from a child soldier who wasn't even aiming at you

AK-47

>now even poor fighters have a much better chance to kill superior warriors.
my personal thoughts exactly. But what about the man who created the artillery shell or the operator of the artillery? Does luck have a play in this also? Or does luck not exist?

Guns are the foundation of civilization. Do you agree with this statement?

"recoil spring cam" ??

Lies, part of the recoil spring or maybe it's pointing to the rear trunnion.

The natural selection is with the intelligence and strength of the humans creating or being able to use the devices because of their biology. Natural selection is the passing of genetic phenotypes that lead to better survivability. I guess you could say that the tools are a byproduct of natural selection because someone was intelligent enough to come up with them and then refine them to increase their survivability. It's a weird vague question that can only result in a messy answer.

Guns no. Weapons yes may have played a part in all of it.

No. I disagree. Strongly and wholeheartedly. I can even say it's quite the opposite.

Not at all, guns are powerful equalizer and thus they actually set back natural selection. With access to firearms, someone genetically inferior - stupid, unhealthy, with many flaws - is roughly equally able to eliminate his opponent as a healthy individual at his peak, provided none of them has disabilities posing difficulty in using a gun in general and they have roughly the same experise in using a gun.

Generally, concept of natural selection stopped really affecting people. Due to how medicine and society works and develops, most people disadvantaged by certain conditions are often not only not under greater threat but actually are in better position than able-bodied, due to welfare etc.

In some way it's understandable and even good - we are advanced enough that we simply do not need natural selection and provided an individual is decent, they can be a real boon to the society, hardworking and developing their abilities to benefit the society despite their flaws that would make them less able to survive without amenities of civilization.

that claim would only hold water if access to tools would be based and limited to the same preferable traits that made creation of tools possible. However, tools, including weapons are partially so good and proliferated because subpar individuals can also get them and use them to perform deeds that even their more able-bodies and -minded peers would be unable to without similar equipment.

Very nice response. Thank you I much appreciate it.

>be me
>walking down street minding my own business
>see skinny frail dipshit with a MAGA hat
>he shouts: the irish aren't white
>me: watchu say dik ed
>you heard me potatoe nigger
>me: imma punch your face in
>try it nigger
>i walk towards him
>he takes out a handgun
>kills me
>evolutionisfucked.jpg

Would it be better to quit trying to invent new and improved fire arms and work on more productive areas? Maybe disarm all of the world? (Mostly large ranged weapons)

Dindu nuffin

Sure, if you could make everyone agree with you, eliminate greed and somehow redirect ambitions to more moral pursuits.

Otherwise you'd get exactly the same situation you have now - where someone decides they want an advantage and control over everyone else and develops new and better weapons, thus forcing others to keep up to prevent said control/advantage and protect themselves.

Some adapt and develop new ways to kill others to kill others (usually to acquire wealth or due to ideology) thus forcing everyone else to do the same since they don't want to be killed (and may want to kill someone else, too).

Would it be better to eliminate all who gorge themselves and who are power hungry? Or conquer all and regulate everything. But if you did that, no one would have freedom to do as they please. There cannot be a middle. Why is the human race so fucked with aggression and greed?

WRATH

So in conclusion have we decided that this is a case of both depending on how it is looked at?

no. if dumb criminal types shoot kill the smart good types, often happens in many countries, the bad ones will live and the good ones will die. opposite of natural selection

>Would it be better to eliminate all who gorge themselves and who are power hungry?
No, elimination without control over how much powerful they could get would only make others, including perhaps maybe the ones doing eliminating - to take their place. And if you have such controls in place, you don't need to do eliminating.

>Or conquer all and regulate everything. But if you did that, no one would have freedom to do as they please.
Yup, that'd be horrible and actually nothing would change. It's just that now the ones in power and control would be the ones who are and do so to prevent others from acquiring same power and control. So you get back to where you were.

>There cannot be a middle.
In theory, it can in that one may try to limit maximum of power and control available to any single individual or group of them, even though again - being able to establish such limits would require someone with quite a lot of power and control in the first place. So the best you can hope for is someone able to do much, but deciding to not abuse their ability.

>Why is the human race so fucked with aggression and greed?
Because it's an important dark side to necessary good side. Aggression and greed, while detrimental to society, were also driving force behind ambition and establishment of human specie on top fo the food chain as a dominant specie. Without aggression to fight, conquer and dominate any potential threats, humanity wouldn't be able to carve their own niche in the world and create places where threats were destroyed. Without greed which is a counterpart to ambition, humanity would never develop and plan to do be anything more than primates on some trees.

While we can and should control our basic impulses now, we have to accept that we have them and that most of those impulses we have for a reason as they were absolutely necessary to less us get where we are now.

>less us
let us*
It's late, time for me to go to sleep soon.

Pretty much how now and days man kind couldn't live without electricity is the same type of feeling I would have with living with no guns I'm a 25 yr old black dude who's never shot a gun before an I still feel like humans just needs guns around...... It handles shit

i think you're retarded.

So then is it better to let the bigger businesses be greedy and effect all who stand in there way while killing everything over something that is called
currency?

Yes. But it's mental damage to hate the thing that is so ingrained into the life style of other people that they keep screaming and poking violence at.

So then is it better to let the bigger businesses be greedy and effect all who stand in there way while killing everything over something that is called
currency?
Tell me please why I am retarded. Thank you.

go back to score english tests, user

Wrong. This just means dumb criminal > smart pacifist when it comes to genetic fitness.

yes because the habilities to shoot and form a militia , are also survival habilities i think.

AR-15s breed like rabbits though.

Is that why Brazil is in the state that it is in? People are joining together to fight each other because of aggression?

>So then is it better to let the bigger businesses be greedy and effect all who stand in there way while killing everything over something that is called currency?
"So then" doesn't apply in this case as the question moves far from both natural selection and necessity of certain traits that can have negative expression. In other words, you kind of start changing the topic.

To answer your question, of course it's not good to let big business get greedy and kill people for profit but you know that yourself and you intentionally made the question loaded. Do not mistake explanation for importance of ambition in human condition despite that ambition sometimes being expressed as greed with some sort of blanket approval of greed in every situation. Those are two different things. You can oppose greed without demonizing it as some supernatural, external factor in human action, but realize it for what it is - a negative but largely unavoidable expression of a trait that was and still is important for human development and one that should be controlled.

Same with aggression. Aggression is a reaction that may stem from hate, but may also stem from need for justice, or care and will to defeat threats to one's close ones. Those traits, when discussed from the standpoint of a specie rather than individual aren't negative on their own - it's how they're used.

Anyway, that'd be all from me for now. Goodnight, Sup Forums.

those better be full auto you cuck

My apologies for the shit off topic question. Glad you pointed me out. Good night sweet user.

Yes, but only the truly evolved know when they should pull the trigger.

>that wood furniture on those aks

muh DICK

Can we turn this into another discussion or should we let this thread just die off?

Agree. It's helping those autistic psychopaths propagate their genes to the next generation.

>natural
>human made
You literally can't be that retarded or can you?

Yes.
Those who choose to not have guns, get selected out.

How awful. What happened in those years?

No they aren't considering a manlet beta supreme gentleman can kill a 6'3" muscular high test guy with a bullet.

Communism

What a success.

You don't really understand how natural selection and evolution work do you?

Bet you think the goal of evolution is to evolve into a 10ft winged 1000IQ beautiful dragon with a 2 ft dick or some shit

Communism would sound like a great idea if majority of your country was just poor people who just want an equal amount of power but it just never works out because the men in charge never distribute the wealth evenly and the food so the poor just die poor.

Well one government before the 70's era genocide, the previous government confiscated the combodians people's guns. Then they had couple of civil wars n sheeit, then the Khmer Rouge side (Communists, but really out there freak commies) took over and part of their plan was genociding one million or so of their own countrymen.

Not like a different race, or enemy or something, just boom their own same people, genocide, oddly well documented.

Many such cases. SAD!!

where was the logic in murdering their own people? What was the motive?

FPBP

Yes, because guns mate with other guns, and the best guns survive and pass on their effective gun genes.

"You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet!"

Basically, they had to purge society so Communism could be built.

Khmer Rouge killed 25% of its own population, totally discredited the Hippies and "Peace Movement" which is why they never fucking talk about the Killing Fields.

I guess you're right. That's why bolt action rifles are no longer used in modern combat.

Post killing fields. Pics or it didn't happen.

I'm not informed enough to answer-- But the Khmer Rouge communist retards who took over Cambodia, had some really retarded insane ideas. They thought they would (purify) or whatever their society by killing the million or so people, they deemed unfit, for whatever reason. (I think they were just casually genocidal murderers, and the stupid justifications were just a ruse for the sick pleasure they got in mass slaughter)

The mass slaughter and 'brilliant' plan of the leaders, in no way succeeded, and did not bring about any better age of prosperity for Cambodia. (My opinion here) It was just a mass slaughter, accompanied with torture, and meticulous record keeping of who they killed. Against disarmed, helpless victims of their own government.

Lesson? Never turn in your guns.

You fucking responded to a picture of the Killing fields.

What did you think that mountain of skulls was?

It's not open for debate, Vietnam invaded Cambodia because they even got spooked by Pol Pot. Then there was a UN tribunal where they documented shit and basically are just waiting for the last cadre members to rot in prison before they bother to convict them.

Tru

I think I'm off for tonight. Very nice discussion. Goodnight Sup Forums