Largo
Well-known member
Crime and violence rates are far worse in the United States than Europe.
United States US presidential election 2024
- Thread starter Carrot of Truth
- Start date
Ahhh...I love statistics...show me.
*Looks at UKnand it's rape gangs that go unpunished. Rampant knife crime. Swedish rape gangs, hell Immugrant rape gangs in general throughout Western Europe...that are allowed to roam free*
Yes, statistics are biased when the cirminals arnt even arrested
Bigking321
Well-known member
Look, if you ignore the places democrats are strongest like Chicago, New York, and other cities where the strictest gun control and worst enforcement of laws are, the crime rate in America drops dramatically.
Largo
Well-known member
We can take the Mises Institute, hardly a left-wing source.
The Mises Institute argues that such comparisons are irrelevant and that the United States should be compared with say, other American countries than smaller European states. But if you accept that as true, you cannot turn around and then argue "Actually, we are safer than those European countries thanks to our guns," which was tao's argument.
Compared to other American countries outside of Canada we ARE safer...
Vastly so.
But that doesn't mean we can nit compare with Europe
Unless a militia has AA, orbital assets, and nukes of their own, they are no more than a nuisance for LEO's to handle, not a threat to the state that would make them stop with the vote/election fraud.
So no amount of 'keeping your gun by your side' is going to shift the needle in US domestic politics, because the fact is that no amount of force, or threat of force, by the populace is sufficient to actually do anything, and thinking it will is part of why the Right/GOP keep shooting themselves in the metaphorical foot by thinking they can always threaten to vote with bullets, instead of ballots.
And no, comparing the US populace to A-stan or Veitnam isn't going to help either, because the US domestic side exists in a wholly different context and society.
There is no revolution or ACW 2.0 that can be made to work, and the sooner people stop thinking a 'gun by their side' will actually have any effect on US politics, the sooner people can instead focus on shit that might actually work.
Hey Bacle.
You do know that there are more guns in the US civilian hands then in the entirety of the Russian military.
And the fact that in a ACW 2, there won't be a military that is united in the same cause.
Unlike the initial ACW, this one would have a lot less Military fighting due to multiple reasons.
One of which is a tank, Aircraft, Ship, takes a lot more then just the crew to maintain.
Logistics to get these things is insane.
A US base also has civilians running it.
Who very on politics as well.
Basically Bacle.
A rifle in the hand of a civilian will do numbers on making sure the government can not take over.
And orbital assets are good and all.
But all that data has to be gone through.
Add in the need to also focus on external threats?
The military would be fucked
Yeah, sure, I'll believe the military would split in a case like this when they actually do their fucking job and protect the Constitution that is getting torn to shreds by the very chain of command they have sworn to follow.
This is why I do not operate on the assumption there will be any significant split in the military over anything in US politics, because we saw what happened in 2020 and how Milley and friends helped coup Trump, while the rank and file did NOTHING.
No amount of guns in civie hands or supposed hypothetical splits in the military is going to change that most of the military is going to continue to follow orders from DC and their pay masters (or just the threat of the UCMJ and Leavenworth) regardless of the Constitutionality or legality of orders from on high.
Some one forgot to tell the taliban that...because they won dispite having none of that shit.
Yeah, because the Taliban could still flee to Pakistan and we wouldn't follow them, because of the Pakistani nukes/deals with made with Pakistan.
There is no Pakistan to flee to in order to hide, organize, and regroup in our case; everyone the US borders (sans Russia) would help DC deal with any rebels/insurgents.
Trying to pretend what happened in A-stan is at all useful for thinking about how domestic affairs might go is foolish, and missing/ignoring massive context for meme's sake.
These guys can't competently build rail roads, you have a lot more faith in their long term vitality then I do.
It's not faith, it's knowledge of both sides of the issue, and awareness of how much of the right basically ignores the larger context around A-stan, Iraq, and Veitnam.
If it had not been for 'safe haven' areas and countries, the insurgents in most of those areas would have been easily handled.
But when insurgents can run to places where we cannot hit them directly (Pakistan for A-stan, Iran for the Iraqi insurgents, and the north for the Veit Cong) it makes it so they are much more able to maintain cohesion and planning actions.
There is no such safe haven possibility for any rebels/insurgents who actually think they can make DC bow to them by trying to imitate the Taliban, without the Taliban's geopolitical position and context.
mrttao
Well-known member
1. No, you are comparing GUN crime rates instead of TOTAL crime rates.
England has more murder, but their murders are done 99% with knives. while in USA 90% of murders are done with a gun.
This leads to UK having higher crime but lower GUN crime.
2. There has been multiple whistleblowers from EU and UK showing they intentionally fake lower crime statistics.
In the USA, every randomly found corpse that the coroner says died from unnatural causes is a murder.
In the UK, they count the number of convicted murderers instead. And they combine incidents. A single person murdering 10 people is considered a single "murder".
mrttao
Well-known member
> rebellion gets to be too much for dems to handle
> they nuke the rebel cities
> oops, they killed 95% of democrat voters
> oops, they missed 90% of the rebels who are rural folk
> oops, we now rule a single city surrounded by radioactive desert
> oops, we have no food. the plebs are rioting for food in our cities
> oops, we can't maintain our infrastructure now. since we nuked it.
> china saunters in and colonizes america, hey, free real estate!
You can't rule a country by nuking your own nation. And you are assuming the rebels will be stupid enough to form up into a nice grid outside the city to be bombed by airplanes or something.
Instead the rebels will be planting car bombs in politician cars.
They wouldn't use nukes on Blue cities, they'd use them on places in Red States that have rebel armor or mechanized forces, or cities in Red States who coordinate/support the rebellion.
They'd also use nukes on any rebel nuke units.
Also, people putting car bombs in politicians cars don't accomplish anything in the US context, because that is not a scenario that allows any sort of victory via arms or political pressure.
Trying to change US politics through force of arms doesn't work anymore; it's not 1776 or 1865, and the only 'friends' insurgents in the US would have are nations who are currently our enemies.
So unless the rebels want to sell their souls to Moscow or Beijing, they won't be getting serious international help. And if they do sell out to those nations, then they are just foreign agents acting on behalf of our enemies, not domestic rebels or revolutionaries.
And the UCMJ means very, very few parts of the military will do anything other than what DC commands.
Lol. As usual, Bacle demonstrates his unique ignorance on how the military works. It's almost as dumb as his foreign policy takes.
"How do you fight drone pilots?"
Your house
Your neighbor's house
Your Neighbor's neighbor's house, who is a drone pilot coming home from work.
Lol even harder. Man, you are an idiot. Everyone and their mother, other than you, know that a civil war is a PR war, and there's no faster way to lose than nuking your own people. Frankly, I have a low opinion of government, but they aren't that stupid. But if they are that stupid, they'll lose.
Grimalkin
Well-known member
Nah, nuking their own country would still severely diminish their own international power. It's still a matter of mutually assured destruction.
Nuking their own citizens would give Moscow and Beijing an excuse to sanction and ostracize them from the international community. If the U.S started doing that shit they'd quickly find themselves isolated from everyone else, they'd essentially become the new North Korea.
Even Europe would distance themselves from shit like that.
I know how the military works, I also know how the fucking Federal LEO's work, and I know that trying to change US politics by means of arms is a self-defeating prospect these days.
I also know how the political winds in DC are blowing, and have been blowing, for years. Eric Swalwell may be seen as a joke for his willingness to be upfront about using nukes on domestic insurrections/rebels, but his views are very much the reality for much of the nation, who know that nukes are the ultimate trump card against domestic rebellion.
People here just don't like to take Swalwell seriously, because it undermines the whole 'rugged individualist militia can gut DC's power' memes.
And you aren't someone to be talking about 'dumb foreign policy takes', given you want to give Ukraine's lands away to Russia.
No, a fight that involves nukes is a fight that is happening after the PR war has been rendered moot.
Because in your tactically challenged mind, you are assuming the nukes are coming out as an opening move against cities, instead of as a counter against rebel armored formations, logistical hubs, and possibly even rebel nuke units long after the fighting has rendered the media war irrelevant.
Again, I don't want to. I simply acknowledge reality, something you cannot do.