>>30232124
Step 1: form a brain
Step 2: think for yourself

You can't compare the two you idiot. Apples and oranges.

>>30232144
>Step 1: form a brain
OP might have a hard time with that one mate he's letting the unibomber think for him

>>30232144

Not an argument. Was the design of guns a surrogate activity to make obtaining food even easier, leading to an efficient and sterile society? Or did they enable the average person autonomy by allowing him/her a good means of self-defense?

There's so many angles here

>>30232160

Not an argument

>>30232164
>Not an argument
fuck off back to riding the /pol/ cunt

>>30232124
No, guns were made out of necessity. They're survival tools and nation-building tools.

>>30232124

it enables autonomy

>>30232216

I would tend to agree with this, but it has its drawbacks (from Terrible Ted's perspective.) They make survival and warfare much more efficient, like >>30232197 said.

I suppose a blackpowder rifle might be acceptable for hunting, but why not just use a bow and arrow?

If guns were never invented then you wouldn't need one for autonomy, anyways. You could just isolate yourself or be a member of a tight-knit community.

Are rocks dangerous technology?

Are pointy sticks dangerous technology?

Are sharp chiseled stone dangerous technology?

Are bladed weapons dangerous technology?

Are throwing weapons dangerous technology?

Are bows and arrows dangerous technology?

Are crossbows dangerous technology?

Are brass weapons dangerous technology?

Are iron weapons dangerous technology?

Are steel weapons dangerous technology?

Are firearms dangerous technology?

Are laser guns dangerous technology?

Are electromagnetically propelled weapons dangerous technology?

Are controlled nanoswarm dangerous technology?

Are psionic wave platform dangerous technology?

Are particle matter manipulation dangerous technology?

Are space time benders dangerous technology?

Are rifter runners dangerous technology?

>>30232322

There is a line, and a clear distinction. The cold war was the most significant event in human history because for the first time, a conflict could end the world. Don't be pedantic.

>>30232332

I think his point is that what you are asking is vague and can be answered by your own research.

>>30232332
>end the world.

Nope. Stop reading nuke scare fan fiction.

World would go on just fine, humanity would too.