You may want to work on your logic. Math is based on logic. this does not mean that everything based on logic is math.

I'll give you two answers, feel free to pick the one you like.

1) When you are fighting a less-advanced army, they won't have the technology to implement your suggestions.
2) Defense (haha) contracts are written based on what will sell with congress, not necessarily what is useful

A slight correction. My numbers compared states to Western Europe only. North and South are slightly higher in homicide rates, but still well below US averages and below all but one or two of US states

If you take a tiny handful of small neighborhoods out of the equation (places like Flint, Michigan) the United States is actually an extremely peaceful place

Your statement is completely false. Take a look at the murder rate by state and you will find that the lowest rate state is New Hampshire. Guess what? New Hampshire still has a higher murder rate (barely) than Western, Northern or Southern Europe. 42 of the 50 states have a more than double rate. 37 triple. 28 quadruple. 18 quintuple.

So no, taking a couple ZIP codes out of the equation will not get us to where civilized countries homicide rates are.

Anybody on Slashdot who doesn't know who she is ... get the fuck out, because you're on the wrong website.

You might try wrapping your head around this: obligatory XKCD.

Do you know the difference between a summary and an article?

Nowhere in the article is Gothenburg called the capital of Sweden nor is it the capital. Perhaps the submitter is suffering from Gothenburg Syndrome.

You are splitting hairs

"I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won't do that, because I fear the consequences."

The only reason he says he wouldn't kill someone who disagreed with his viewpoint is because of the consequences. If he thought he would get away with it, he is saying he would.

At a certain point I realized that folks with a different viewpoint than mine aren't usually out to do me harm and are not evil people but simply have a different viewpoint. The vitriol becomes tiresome to read...

I can, but that isn't the point.

I'd argue that you are ignoring the distinction that Adams (who I normally find surprisingly shallow) manages to keep in mind:

"I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too."

He disagrees with; but holds the vitriol, for people who disagree with him; but does not hold the vitriol for people who have actually acted to impose upon others their position.

No, I am not ignoring the distinction because I find it idiotic. Basically, he is saying that he doesn't wish death on you for disagreeing but for having the gall to actually act on your convictions. That is plain stupid and infantile. And this is coming from someone who agrees that we need euthanization laws.

So, "FOE" to you is someone who's views you disagree with. I find that quite sad.

For the record, I believe euthanasia laws need modernized. But wishing mass deaths on people who don't share your views is just wrong.

"I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too."

"If you're a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out."

I'll attribute most of this to personal pain... but seriously, Scott needs to dial it back a notch. When you go into threats of killing someone, your political discourse has gone way too far.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984