Guns

[myrkul]

Military always wins.

Yup, every time. See? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Oh. Err....

 

Want to edit it? That was a was between superpowers - three of them.

So, which "superpower" was fighting with the punji sticks and pit traps?

[caveden]

Military always wins.

Perhaps, but you cannot deny that they are less likely to even start it if the costs are too high. Check this related interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
Plus this again, which has already being linked here: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/john-joe-grays-militant-group-texas-compound/story?id=9819578#.T-x1N7WXRS0

Also, there's police brutality too. I already gave an example here in this same thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg994129#msg994129

[vampire]

So, which "superpower" was fighting with the punji sticks and pit traps?

Soviets and Chinese were involved - providing equipment, also it wasnt just civilians vs americans. It was South Vietnam vs North Vietnam. Military causalities are in millions.

Also modern weapons are much much better, its practically almost impossible to take out a modern tank.

[vampire]

Perhaps, but you cannot deny that they are less likely to even start it if the costs are too high. Check this related interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
Plus this again, which has already being linked here: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/john-joe-grays-militant-group-texas-compound/story?id=9819578#.T-x1N7WXRS0

Also, there's police brutality too. I already gave an example here in this same thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg994129#msg994129

There is police brutality in states, gun ownership in most states is allowed. Even in pretty restrictive states like NY, you can still conceal carry weapons with a permit.

[myrkul]

So, which "superpower" was fighting with the punji sticks and pit traps?

Soviets and Chinese were involved - providing equipment, also it wasnt just civilians vs americans. It was South Vietnam vs North Vietnam. Military causalities are in millions.

Also modern weapons are much much better, its practically almost impossible to take out a modern tank.

As I said earlier, which you conveniently ignored, 1) the battle isn't about "winning," it's about making continuing prohibitively costly (which is exactly what happened in Vietnam), and 2) It's not worth fighting that battle unless something drastic changes - the example I used was a military coup. Unless something like that happens, where everyone and their brother knows that the US government is not even remotely your friend anymore, the necessary numbers to produce that prohibitive cost simply aren't going to be there. And nothing like that is going to happen. They've gotten far too good at boiling the frog to fuck it up like that. So while you're wrong in the specifics, you're right in the generalities, that it's stupid to think that your home gun ownership is going to prevent some government crack-down.

However, it does seem to do a pretty damn good job of stopping a home invasion, as long as that home invasion isn't done by a SWAT team, and at least it is stopping the troops marching in the street that would generate those numbers. It's forcing them to boil the frog slowly, rather than just tossing it in the pot and holding the lid down.

[FirstAscent]

But tell you what, you find me some data that gives just firearm accidents, by state, per 100k population, I'll run up a graph on it. While you're at it, look up lawnmower or chainsaw accidents by state per 100k population, so we have a control.

Spreading those NRA memes again, are we? Let me explain why you're too stupid to recognize the differrence:

Guns are designed to kill. Lawnmowers are designed to cut grass. If you want to use an analogy that works (I know you do want an analogy that works, but aren't quite unbiased enough in your thinking to discover it), I'll suggest one for you. Instead of lawnmowers, use any type of weapon that is not a gun.

A chainsaw is most definitely designed to kill. Trees, yes, but wood is much tougher than flesh. So if you want to compare a weapon other than a gun, I suggest a chainsaw. So, go, get me that data. I'll do a side-by side comparison.

Sad. Truly sad. A chainsaw, just like a lawnmower and an automobile are designed to fulfill a purpose which is not to kill. That's why the NRA meme you and your buddies like to use has faults and is not effective. Find a better meme, and don't fall victim to such memes so easily.

Better yet, stop it with the memes altogether. People might respect you for it, as it would be indicative of true thought.

[Explodicle]

I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!

Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.

Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.

[nimda]

Military always wins.

Yup, every time. See? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Oh. Err....

 

Again, "American Revolution" or "why we even have the second amendment"

[FirstAscent]

I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!

Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.

Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.

If I get your meaning, then it fails. Political memes aren't always truisms, but slogans designed for misdirection. I thought you were a little more intelligent than that.

Let's look at a classic gun rights meme. It goes something like this: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Some people get stumped by that. It's typically the unintelligent and those who spread the meme. Let's follow through:

Gun rights person: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Intelligent person: "Cars provide daily utility, and are designed to provide that daily activity, which, decidedly, is not killing. Tanks, on the other hand, do analogize well to guns. Spread that meme."

[vampire]

Source FBI and from http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Here are my charts which prove, well nothing:

Murder with guns:

[FirstAscent]

Source FBI and from http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Here are my charts which prove, well nothing:

Murder with guns:

Note to myrkul: that's how you make a chart. It's visually clear.

[vampire]

From least permissive to most permissive.

[vampire]

More useless statistics.

[Explodicle]

I have stopped buying into this "2+2=4" meme. All the sheep keep repeating it ad nauseum, but's it's far less original than my 2+2=5, which almost no one ever says. At least say "4-2=2" for crying out loud, at least it's more original!

Try and think for yourselves for a moment. What's 2+2? And if you mindlessly parrot "2+2=4", then you're just buying into propaganda. I had hoped better of you, you stupid sad disappointing pathetic worms.

Say it with me now, libertard randroids:
The frequency with which I hear an argument is inversely proportional to its truthiness.

If I get your meaning, then it fails. Political memes aren't always truisms, but slogans designed for misdirection. I thought you were a little more intelligent than that.

Then I guess I'm unintelligent, because I've been evaluating statements based on if they make logical sense, not based on my assumptions about the intent of the speaker.

Let's look at a classic gun rights meme. It goes something like this: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Some people get stumped by that. It's typically the unintelligent and those who spread the meme. Let's follow through:

Gun rights person: "People driving cars kill people too. Why don't we outlaw cars too!"

Intelligent person: "Cars provide daily utility, and are designed to provide that daily activity, which, decidedly, is not killing. Tanks, on the other hand, do analogize well to guns. Spread that meme."

I know that you know that's a strawman argument. If you think that "usefulness for things other than killing humans" should be a factor, that's fine - I'm not objecting to that. But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant.

[westkybitcoins]

Clearly, no amount or quality of evidence will suffice for some.

Really though, it's absurd how the debate on this thread is still stuck at the "guns cause crime, they're evil!" stage. It reminds me of how drug war defenders keep trying to push the whole drug issue into the "drugs are bad, they have to be stopped!" corner, as if that would have any real bearing on the legitimacy of the drug war anyway.

Whatever lets one feel they can solve a complex social issue with such simple "solutions," I suppose; must be easier than acknowledging there's no magic wand to fix this, and taking the more difficult actions required to really address it.

[vampire]

Clearly, no amount or quality of evidence will suffice for some.

Really though, it's absurd how the debate on this thread is still stuck at the "guns cause crime, they're evil!" stage. It reminds me of how drug war defenders keep trying to push the whole drug issue into the "drugs are bad, they have to be stopped!" corner, as if that would have any real bearing on the legitimacy of the drug war anyway.

Whatever lets one feel they can solve a complex social issue with such simple "solutions," I suppose; must be easier than acknowledging there's no magic wand to fix this, and taking the more difficult actions required to really address it.

Or people are stioll stuck at the guns cause less crime. I've proven that so many times that there is no statistics to support either way. Each city is different, what may work in NYC won't work in Detroit.

[RodeoX]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

[FirstAscent]

But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant.

No. Because it's not irrelevant. You can't build and defend a political ideology on memes which upon evaluation are misleading. But people try - witness the meme we just discussed and many others prevalent within this forum.

[FirstAscent]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

For crying out loud.

[vampire]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63