TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Ammo maker posts Mens Right article.

Razvedka

May 19, 2015
3 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.minutemanmunitions.com/blog/of-man-media-and-metal/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Ammo maker posts Mens Right article.
Author

Razvedka

Upvotes 3
Comments 43
Date May 19, 2015 4:43 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/36idhr/ammo_maker_posts_mens_right_article/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ammo-maker-posts-mens-right-article.979858
https://theredarchive.com/post/979858
Top posts by Razvedka

Spoke with radfem, mentioned the 3:1 suicide ratio of men to women. Her response? "I don't F*cking care, men are idiots."

792 upvotes
September 8, 2014
/r/MensRights

What am I to do with my life?

9 upvotes
December 13, 2014
/r/MensRights

Female Libido Pill Fires Up Debate About Women And Sex. (Warning: bad science ahead).

1 upvotes
February 17, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]PurpleViolettron 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

He's basically seen that people keep blaming the guns for what is truly a mental health problem. And that that mental health problem is largely a men's mental health problem. Since men own guns more often (the chances of a man owning a gun is about 5 times higher than a woman), this becomes even more exacerbated.

I will say, guns are pretty. Though I've never shot an actual gun.

[–]Razvedka[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're missing out, its amazing. Give it a shot sometime ;)

[–]PurpleViolettron 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I could, but it's kinda scary to me. I've shot BBs and pellets and paintballs before, but never a bullet or even shot. I mean, my great-grandfather was a gunsmith. My family has plenty of guns so it's not for lack of opportunity.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bring someone to teach you and go do it. I love teaching absolute noobs because they have no bad habits to untrain.

[–]Razvedka[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm a gun owner so I inhabit this "sphere". Felt it was good to see this happening, although I respect many of you here may not think highly of gun ownership.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

although I respect many of you here may not think highly of gun ownership.

I don't respect anyone who thinks citizens should not own guns. I'm fine with those who choose not to own them, but to think citizens shouldn't is just plain wrong.

America was born out of a society which revolted against it's rightful government. The founders were smart enough to realize that a revolution might again be needed. As such, they gave their free citizens the ability to do so again by guaranteeing their right to posses firearms. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate check on government.

Anyone who thinks citizens should not own firearms thinks that citizens should not have a right to self-determine.

[–]hellowayer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think people on here are starting to miss the point by some way. This discussion doesn't belong here at all - it belongs somewhere in the guns'n'whisky subreddits. Whether or not you agree with gun control, this is not the place for a gun control discussion - just as its not the place for PUA or red pill discussions. Thanks

[–]TRPACC -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How is that men's rights?

I don't think we aren't the sort of loopers that believe the general public actually has some legitimate use for guns.

[–]hellowayer -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Precisely - I don't think this belongs here at all. I think the presence of this discussion in this forum can only hurt by giving ammo to detractors.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the presence of this discussion in this forum can only hurt by giving ammo to detractors.

If you worry about what the detractors think you are in their frame of argument and have already lost.

[–]TRPACC -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its someone trying to link something that's important to them personally, to men's rights.

[–]hellowayer -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

My personal thoughts:

  • The gun industries is a predator on men in the U.S.: it takes male lives, it lands men in jail, and more subtly, it gives men a false sense of autonomy and independence in their lives where they actually have none.

  • This kind of thing being linked to the MHR movement is not going to help one bit: it is regressive and has too many associations that will immediately give ammunition to those who wish to criticise and shut down the MHR movement as violent, regressive and chauvinist.

  • There is, incidentally, plenty of evidence that guns increase crime, assault and murder rates. All you need to do is compare the murder rate of countries with strict gun control, to the murder rate of countries without strict gun control, that are similar in all other respects (poverty rates, unemployment rates, pervasion of organised crime, etc).

[–]Razvedka[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Actually there is strong evidence which supports the conclusion that gun control doesnt do anything. Read the source in the article linking to harvard. Kleck is another solid source.

I also don't see your reasoning on the gun industry landing men in jail. How does it manage this?

I'm a strong supporter of 2nd amendment rights and a supporter of male rights. I'm amazed you think people like me are regressive. Am I a luddite?

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Wisconsin has the lowest of gun murder deaths in the USA, and its on a par with Dublin, the city with the highest rates in Europe that's a terrorist and gang activity hotspot.

I live in a country with gun control, I've never encountered a situation where I would need one - because generally people don't have guns.

They are only used by high level criminals and never used willy nilly.

[–]Razvedka[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Mistake made. Gun control's sole metric of success is net crime reduction, not gun crime.

Because if you remove guns and gun crime but net crime remains the same or worse, you've failed.

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Guns don't mean crime reduction, it just means the guy breaking into your house has a gun because he knows you might have one.

Thats why I know the person breaking into my house isn't going to have one.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

it just means the guy breaking into your house has a gun because he knows you might have one.

Hahahaha, no.

When you remove private citizen's guns the guy doesn't sneak in, he breaks in with a gun (because he knows you don't have one) and then proceeds to have you show him where the valuables are.

You face the failing that most people do: you think police are the first responders. They are not. Criminals don't fear police. Criminals fear private citizens with firearms who have less hesitation to shoot them dead.

[–]TRPACC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, buglers don't carry guns here.

There is no need for the lower petty crims. to carry guns, and no need for the street police to.

So they don't.

Guns are only for high level serious business, hits and the like.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you need to reconnect with reality.

[–]TRPACC -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Your source says the problem is that the carrying of guns has become increasingly common place and that its gangs using them, on each other.

It also makes a dishonest correlation = causation claim.

Its pro gun propaganda, like feminist propaganda only less sophisticated.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It also makes a dishonest correlation = causation claim.

I gotta repeat what the other poster said about your argumentation style: "Wow."

[–]TRPACC0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Im not saying the gun ban is what resulted in the decrease of crime.

I'm saying your source is out right lying about crime going up since the ban, and trying to say the ban is what lead to crime going up.

Your source is a pack of lies, sorry.

[–]hellowayer -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're linking to gun-industry propaganda which tries to argue for re-instituting gun-ownership in Britain. They are never going to succeed because the British public would demonstrate en masse against it, quite sensibly. We have one of the lowest murder rates in the world in the UK.

[–]TRPACC -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From the source your source is weaving its lies out of.

He said the survey trends since 1997 showed all crime down by 27%, burglary by 39%, vehicle theft by 32% and violent crime by 26%.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz3acDFUIr9 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So over all the crime rate is going down since the gun ban.

[–]Razvedka[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No, no. What I'm saying here is that the burden of proof is on you that removing guns results in net crime reduction. Not gun crime reduction.

I never made the statement that guns mean less crime.

Gun control can only be successful if it lowers net crime. If it is fully enacted but it did not cause crime to go down, or if it went up, thst is abject failure.

[–]TRPACC -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The reduction is irrelevant.

Crime plus widespread gun ownership is worse than just crime.

It means all the criminals have guns, as well as being criminals.

[–]Razvedka[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Wow.

[–]TRPACC -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What?

If you have 10 crime rate plus gun proliferation.

And you have 10 crime rate without gun proliferation.

Which is the worst environment?

If I catch someone breaking into my house, I know nobodies going to be shooting.

[–]PurpleViolettron 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The environment that doesn't limit personal rights. In other words, the one with guns.

[–]TRPACC0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Crime wise, which is the worst environment.

The ones where ordinary people and petty crims. have guns like the wild west or Afghanistan ... or modern cultures where they don't.

[–]PurpleViolettron1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You cannot look at guns solely from the perspective of guns, though. That's utter stupidity. You know what the most common use of a gun has always been where I'm from? Getting rid of coyotes, foxes, and feral dogs that could kill our chickens, ducks, and baby goats. We have a right to defend our animals from that which would hurt them.

[–]TRPACC0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Gun control in most countries allows for farmers to have gun licences for exactly that sort of thing.

[–]PurpleViolettron1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except why in the world does the government get to control what I'm allowed to own? In the US, why should I ever have to get an exemption to have what the Constitution gives me a right to have? Guns are awesome. Guns are widespread in the US and you can never get rid of them. The US is extremely different from the rest of the world. Don't act like what works in England will work here. Demonization of guns takes the focus off true problems and puts it on the one that is "easy to solve" no matte if the "solution" is to take people's rights away!

[–]hellowayer -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What evidence would that be? I don't have to look hard to find evidence to the contrary. Simply looking at the murder rate by country on Wikipedia, I see that the U.S. has a higher murder rate than any other developed economy. It is currently sandwiched between Niger and Latvia. Countries with a lower murder rate than the U.S. include: India, Iran, Egypt, Liberia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh - all poor countries with strict gun control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The second amendment was intended for special circumstances including militias and paramilitaries, not for domestic gun ownership.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The second amendment was intended for special circumstances including militias and paramilitaries, not for domestic gun ownership.

It was entirely intended for domestic/private gun ownership. The revolutionary war was fought with privately owned firearms, cannon, and warships.

[–]hellowayer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What evidence do you have that gun availability doesn't affect the murder rate? You realise it's an absolutely extraordinary claim - it's a little like trying to show that cars don't affect the time it takes people to get places. Firearms are designed to kill people with - making it easier to kill people must surely increase the number of people who are killed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're entirely moving the goalposts. This isn't about murder, this is about the rights of free citizens.

About your claims, perhaps you need to read some facts.

[–]Razvedka[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually check out the sources, do yourself a solid here.

It isnt as simple as looking at murder rates and gun ownership. That's just... Looking for any data that will lead to the conclusion you want to see. Confirmation bias.

[–]hellowayer -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The majority of those murders in the U.S. are from gunshot wounds. Surely by the principle of Occam's razor, I don't really need anything further. Like I say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Confirmation bias could equally be lobbied at all the research that tries to show that gun murders do not increase with gun availability being sponsored by pro-gun lobbies and companies. This is also called propaganda and conflict of interests.

[–]Razvedka[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lmfao trying to invoke occams razor here is ludicrous.

UK banned most firearms and weeded them out... So what is now a huge cause of death? Stabbings. Now they are trying to highly regulate knives.

You don't see a problem here? Where this leads? If you adjust for the games they play in recording crimes and US crime rates- they're not better off.

True, US still has more homicides but the gap is much narrower. UK has more or equal violent crime (again, controlling for record keeping and definitions).

The issue is altogether too complicated to derp and blame guns. What, you think Detroit and Chicago crime is down to guns? Those cities drag down the US as a whole, along with others.

Population, population density, poverty, homogeneous pop- these are all important for crime.

There are varioud factors at play and the US is NOT europe. They dont have the problems we do.

So comparing us to one european country or another is like us looking at a single state. Apples to hand grenades.

[–]hellowayer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Rather than laughing at a valid invocation of Occam's razor, why don't you provide evidence for the startling things you're claiming.

[–]Razvedka[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I already have. Repeatedly.

Like I've said elsewhere, follow the article links. Read Kleck. Check out the CDC study.

I think the author links to most or all of those.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I already have. Repeatedly.

While he has provided no evidence. Gotta love how these types argue, neh?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter