5 ms·

Guns are useless. Everyone who believes guns are some kind of savior or last-ditch protector is fucking stupid. There is a reason why, during westward expansi

Guns are useless. Everyone who believes guns are some kind of savior or last-ditch protector is fucking stupid. There is a reason why, during westward expansion, the first thing towns did when they got two nickels to rub together to buy bricks to build a church was ban guns. There are so many real-world examples of guns being useless that it defies logic and belief that people cling to the myth. There are so few examples of guns being useful that those examples are the irrelevant exceptions to the norm. Every single valley in Afghanistan has a small village along the valley stream where every household has at least one automatic rifle. That is what a society saturated with weaponry looks like: paranoid, tribal, and rapey. In the US, the second "the good guys" show up with their AR and wish.com tacticool gear and start to pose any actual threat, the bad guys will retreat behind fortified walls and fences and start dropping JDAMs.

shrubble 1y ago
Like with the Viet Cong and the Afghanistan people who were conquered and absorbed into the American or Russian systems, right?
- throwawayoldie 1y ago
  And now let's imagine what might happen if the US military tried to occupy a country full of guerillas who look like them, dress like them, speak the same language, and share a cultural background.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    The US wins on logistics because it has a lot of stuff already built, and anything we need we can build in the US and get it out of the US quickly. This quickly falls apart in the US if we go civil war on each other. We are technologically fragile. If just a small portion of the people of the US went around shooting electrical distribution, fuel refining and NG compression facilities the US would have one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the last 50 years, maybe longer. This said, there are a number of countries that would love to see us do this to each other.
- nostrademons 1y ago
  The Vietnam war killed close to a million Vietnamese between North and South Vietnamese civilians and the Vietcong [1] The Afghanistan war killed about 3500 U.S. & allied soldiers, and about 300,000 Afghans. [2] The Iraq war killed about 5000 U.S. & allied soldiers, and about 1 million Iraqis. [3] U.S. military power since WW2 can basically be summed up by "We can't win, but we can still kill you." If you end up dead, your side may win, but that's cold comfort (literally) for you. The root of the discrepancy is the difference between winning as in annihilating your opponent and winning as in getting them to do what you want. Oftentimes, military force and lots of deaths actually just entrenches opposing ideology. Nothing like a common enemy that's trying to kill you to get people to band together. But you can still end up with a lot of dead people that are ideologically victorious. Always more people where they came from, and people may switch over to your cause. Also, the huge irony of the Vietnam war is that by 1989, 15 years after the North Vietnamese "won", Vietnam was one of the most intensely capitalist countries on Earth. Because they realized that communism didn't work, and they'd all be better off with free trade and markets. Given the US's stated goal of preventing the spread of communism in southeast Asia, they would've been far more effective just letting the communists win and run the country for a few years and then dealing with the consequences of that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20241203211818/https://ucdp.uu.se/country/700 https://web.archive.org/web/20241203211818/https://ucdp.uu.s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
  - achierius 1y ago
    Yeah but they're still independent. > U.S. military power since WW2 can basically be summed up by "We can't win, but we can still kill you." If you end up dead, your side may win, but that's cold comfort (literally) for you. Some of them, yes. But even for those who do die: haven't you heard "give me liberty or give me death"? Many people do feel this way. > Also, the huge irony of the Vietnam war is that by 1989, 15 years after the North Vietnamese "won", Vietnam was one of the most intensely capitalist countries on Earth. Yet where is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Why do Vietnamese billionaires not run the government like they do that of America, and why does their government not have to kowtow to American business interests like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea do? Because despite opening up their economy, their political system is far from a liberal democracy. You're making a false equivalence to try and pretend that the Vietnamese war was a no-op, that they should have just rolled over and accepted defeat like you're suggesting all the peoples of the world do.
benreesman 1y ago
The United States Military is the most terrifying institution of force in the history of the human race (history of the universe as far as we know). It achieves a level of training, discipline, organization, morale, combat effectiveness and general formidavlbility that makes the median Marine among the best soldiers on the planet anywhere, all backed by a logistical apparatus unrivaled by any conceivable combination of private sector actors working together. Unrivaled now, maybe ever. And it got its ass kicked in Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars and countless lives later and a bunch of Pashtun tribesmen with AK-47s and RPG-7s have the country back, and a bunch of our materiel for our trouble. Because the only thing on the planet more dangerous than a United States Special Forces operator is a man with nothing to lose.
- glitchc 1y ago
  Nah, that's only true because the US fought in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It could have easily turned the entire country to glass if it wanted to.
  - achierius 1y ago
    Would American soldiers do so? If you think they all would, you have no understanding of history.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      History seems to indicate enough would. And with modern weapons, that can be a low number.
    - glitchc 1y ago
      After the firsr few years, most soldiers were either mad enough or terrified enough of IEDs that they would have willingly accepted alternative options.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    Sure, but that would have been pointless because none of the objectives would have been achieved. All those tribesmen would now be in Iran, and the US would have abandoned the world two decades earlier.
bluecalm 1y ago
The idea is that guns are useful because it makes pacifying the population more difficult. If it's the coup or something your own army may not be willing to trade fire with civilian groups but may still be willing to engage in.softer subduing efforts like arrests, water cannons, etc. It's rich to call people stupid when you're missing the obvious point while engaging in a fantasy of all out war between civilians with guns and an army trying to exterminate them.
- os2warpman 1y ago
  I am not engaging in fantasy. “But we have guns” is fantasy.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
achierius 1y ago
What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that guns can't defeat a modern military, or that it would be better if we just always let those in power do what they will? Because you're mixing the two, here and in the comments. You accept multiple times that guns can be used with success to throw off a modern military, but each time you do you pivot to trying to argue that the revolt was pointless anyways. Are you saying that no matter what the government does, no matter what it takes from you, no matter what crimes they commit -- it would always be preferable to just lie down and take it? Because I can tell you, most of your countrymen do not agree. Most of humanity doesn't agree. And as long as there are so many examples -- from the French Revolution to Vietnam -- of people rising up against their oppressors, people will hope that should times become hard enough, they could do the same.

shrubble 1y ago

Like with the Viet Cong and the Afghanistan people who were conquered and absorbed into the American or Russian systems, right?

throwawayoldie 1y ago
And now let's imagine what might happen if the US military tried to occupy a country full of guerillas who look like them, dress like them, speak the same language, and share a cultural background.
- pixl97 1y ago
  The US wins on logistics because it has a lot of stuff already built, and anything we need we can build in the US and get it out of the US quickly. This quickly falls apart in the US if we go civil war on each other. We are technologically fragile. If just a small portion of the people of the US went around shooting electrical distribution, fuel refining and NG compression facilities the US would have one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the last 50 years, maybe longer. This said, there are a number of countries that would love to see us do this to each other.
nostrademons 1y ago
The Vietnam war killed close to a million Vietnamese between North and South Vietnamese civilians and the Vietcong [1] The Afghanistan war killed about 3500 U.S. & allied soldiers, and about 300,000 Afghans. [2] The Iraq war killed about 5000 U.S. & allied soldiers, and about 1 million Iraqis. [3] U.S. military power since WW2 can basically be summed up by "We can't win, but we can still kill you." If you end up dead, your side may win, but that's cold comfort (literally) for you. The root of the discrepancy is the difference between winning as in annihilating your opponent and winning as in getting them to do what you want. Oftentimes, military force and lots of deaths actually just entrenches opposing ideology. Nothing like a common enemy that's trying to kill you to get people to band together. But you can still end up with a lot of dead people that are ideologically victorious. Always more people where they came from, and people may switch over to your cause. Also, the huge irony of the Vietnam war is that by 1989, 15 years after the North Vietnamese "won", Vietnam was one of the most intensely capitalist countries on Earth. Because they realized that communism didn't work, and they'd all be better off with free trade and markets. Given the US's stated goal of preventing the spread of communism in southeast Asia, they would've been far more effective just letting the communists win and run the country for a few years and then dealing with the consequences of that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20241203211818/https://ucdp.uu.se/country/700 https://web.archive.org/web/20241203211818/https://ucdp.uu.s... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
- achierius 1y ago
  Yeah but they're still independent. > U.S. military power since WW2 can basically be summed up by "We can't win, but we can still kill you." If you end up dead, your side may win, but that's cold comfort (literally) for you. Some of them, yes. But even for those who do die: haven't you heard "give me liberty or give me death"? Many people do feel this way. > Also, the huge irony of the Vietnam war is that by 1989, 15 years after the North Vietnamese "won", Vietnam was one of the most intensely capitalist countries on Earth. Yet where is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Why do Vietnamese billionaires not run the government like they do that of America, and why does their government not have to kowtow to American business interests like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea do? Because despite opening up their economy, their political system is far from a liberal democracy. You're making a false equivalence to try and pretend that the Vietnamese war was a no-op, that they should have just rolled over and accepted defeat like you're suggesting all the peoples of the world do.

benreesman 1y ago

The United States Military is the most terrifying institution of force in the history of the human race (history of the universe as far as we know). It achieves a level of training, discipline, organization, morale, combat effectiveness and general formidavlbility that makes the median Marine among the best soldiers on the planet anywhere, all backed by a logistical apparatus unrivaled by any conceivable combination of private sector actors working together. Unrivaled now, maybe ever. And it got its ass kicked in Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars and countless lives later and a bunch of Pashtun tribesmen with AK-47s and RPG-7s have the country back, and a bunch of our materiel for our trouble. Because the only thing on the planet more dangerous than a United States Special Forces operator is a man with nothing to lose.

glitchc 1y ago
Nah, that's only true because the US fought in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It could have easily turned the entire country to glass if it wanted to.
- achierius 1y ago
  Would American soldiers do so? If you think they all would, you have no understanding of history.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    History seems to indicate enough would. And with modern weapons, that can be a low number.
  - glitchc 1y ago
    After the firsr few years, most soldiers were either mad enough or terrified enough of IEDs that they would have willingly accepted alternative options.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  Sure, but that would have been pointless because none of the objectives would have been achieved. All those tribesmen would now be in Iran, and the US would have abandoned the world two decades earlier.

bluecalm 1y ago

The idea is that guns are useful because it makes pacifying the population more difficult. If it's the coup or something your own army may not be willing to trade fire with civilian groups but may still be willing to engage in.softer subduing efforts like arrests, water cannons, etc. It's rich to call people stupid when you're missing the obvious point while engaging in a fantasy of all out war between civilians with guns and an army trying to exterminate them.

os2warpman 1y ago
I am not engaging in fantasy. “But we have guns” is fantasy.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

achierius 1y ago

What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that guns can't defeat a modern military, or that it would be better if we just always let those in power do what they will? Because you're mixing the two, here and in the comments. You accept multiple times that guns can be used with success to throw off a modern military, but each time you do you pivot to trying to argue that the revolt was pointless anyways. Are you saying that no matter what the government does, no matter what it takes from you, no matter what crimes they commit -- it would always be preferable to just lie down and take it? Because I can tell you, most of your countrymen do not agree. Most of humanity doesn't agree. And as long as there are so many examples -- from the French Revolution to Vietnam -- of people rising up against their oppressors, people will hope that should times become hard enough, they could do the same.