Reminder to the US : most of the rest of the world has adequate gun control
Reminder to the US : most of the rest of the world has adequate gun control
Can I not be flamed for making a single joke, please?
So do most of the states in the US.
Their gun control laws are not as lax as the media like to make out, particularly since the 1990s.Countries like Switzerland have arguably more firearms per capita than the US, yet is perceived to be safer.
The problem with gun violence in the US stems from a general culture of violence, rather than "lax" gun laws or the proliferation of guns.
It's perceived to be safer because even though there are more guns than people, theres never been any real gun crime.
no this is what he needs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xyuX7u-Xts&feature=fvst
.That's an absolute bullshit statement. Tell me one thing in Americas past that's more violent than in any other country.
Well they teamed up with the French to kill the English, then they killed the French, then when they ran out of foreigners to kill they started fighting with each other...
Then again, their record of wars is far less colourful than Britains.
The difference, as far as I can assertain, is twofold: Firstly they have many more people living in cities and when Humans live in close proximity to each other they tend to blow each others head off with guns; secondly they are a more religious country which encourages the more extreme elements of society to blow each others heads off with guns.
I wouldn't say they are culturally violent though, quite the opposite.
1. Relatively lawless frontier culture during the 18th and 19th centuries.
2. Huge influx of migrants during those eras leading to ethnic tension and violence, which continues to this day.
3. Continuing racial problems between blacks, Hispanics, and whites.
4. Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s leading to sharp increases in organised crime gangs and black-market trade of alcohol. After prohibition, these trades moved onto drugs and weapons.
5. Extremely high population density in metropolitan areas.
On the other hand, Western Europe has been relatively peaceful with a long history of civil order (aside from some localised revolutions), relatively little mixture between opposing ethnic groups, and recent history of subservience toward authoritarian rule (Italy, Germany, Spain, etc.) which tends to kill criminal activity.
Rule #25 in action.
Which was quite a war torn period in europe...
The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a multi-ethnic nation with tensions so high that they eventually triggered WW1
We didn't have too many blacks back then, and most of these were regarded as zoo animals. Still, antisemetism wasn't an invention of the 1930, hatred aimed at jews, roma and other ethnicies was rather the rule than the exception for centuries.
Yeah, organized crime... not only quite older in Italy, it was certainly more violent than civil wars throughout europe and the rise of the NSDAP.
Is true now, but not until the beginning of the 19th century. Also, Europe in general has a much higher density of population than the US..
The only somewhat peaceful period, despite the Pax Augusta back in 27 BC up to 16 BC in western europe started in 1945, and it was still greatly disturbed by the proximity of the USSR which hung like a huge sword of damocles over europe, actually strengthening the new bond, and the balkan crisis. And a few guerilla and terrorist conflicts in Ireland and the UK, the basque region, germany, sardinia...
Honestly, the direct link of violence to crime is also somewhat flawed, or else Australia would have to be one of the most dangerous places on earth, it being a prison colony and many of it's todays white inhabitants still offspring of the inmates...
The "US history is more violent than others" is just a very lame and shallow argument to defend the Second Amendment of Rights, which was originally added to strengthen the Americans in their struggle for independence from the British Empire.
Muay Thai (Striking) & Brazilian jiu-jitsu / jiu-jitsu (Grappling)
Or
Boxing (Striking) & Wrestling (Grappling)
choose yourself what you would enjoy the most and stick at it!
Or
Boxing (Striking) & Wrestling (Grappling)
choose yourself what you would enjoy the most and stick at it!
Nice try but no cigar.
Australia has not had a civil war. Australia became a federation and achieved independence from Britain via the mighty pen and some political defiance.
QUITE different from the US.
You show a distinct lack of knowledge of the subject matter. The Second Amendment wasn't added to "strengthen the Americans in their struggle for independence from the British Empire". The Second Amendment was first penned four years after the Treaty of Paris and the end of the American War of Independence! The US Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, eight years after the war. You're way off the mark.
The real reason for the Second Amendment was to deter the federal government from tyrannical rule. The Anti-Federalist proponents specifically worded it to enable individual citizens (as opposed to "people" as a collective) to possess and bear firearms to enable resistance against tyranny. The "individual rights" interpretation was most recently affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the case of DC v Heller. There are certain permissible restriction to the Second Amendment, such as prohibition against military-style parades and open carriage of firearms, restrictions against convicts and mentally ill, etc. And in most US states, gun control laws are quite stringent, requiring criminal history checks, appropriate licensing and tracking of firearms, and prohibitions against high-capacity or "assault"-type weapons.
As I pointed out earlier, the proliferation of firearms does not equate to high incidences of homicides. Even in the US, there is no definitive cause-and-effect between stringent gun laws and rates of homicide. Don't confuse correlation with causation.
PS: I did not say "history". I said "culture". They are not necessarily related, although I took to the liberty to answer your demand with some historical statements.
Got me there. 
Should've researched more before posting.
Still, I can't see why the US should be more violent culturally than any other western society.
I am not denying that it is more violent right now, with the wars it wages and death penalty still carried out in some states, I just don't think that it can be justified by a more violent past or culture than anywhere else.
Should've researched more before posting.Still, I can't see why the US should be more violent culturally than any other western society.
I am not denying that it is more violent right now, with the wars it wages and death penalty still carried out in some states, I just don't think that it can be justified by a more violent past or culture than anywhere else.
It might be just the way that American media portrays violence. I sometimes get the impression that Hollywood and others of similar ilk present violence as a "cool" thing in itself. That's not a recent phenomenon. It's been going on for decades. I haven't seen anything similar in other countries or cultures.
In the US media, good guys are often just as reckless and destructive as the bad guys. But I can't recall any major movies or TV shows in other countries which show the good guys using as much mindless violence as those featured in US media (except comedies or war movies).
There has to be a source for that. And I think that source is not one particular "thing", but a cumulation of factors over the course of American social development.
Although I admire America's pride in being "the land of the free", I think American people are generally prone to the "I'll do whatever the **** I want" type of attitude, moreso than people from other countries. If you combine such an attitude with all the social woes of today, plus alchohol and drugs, and finally, weapons (including firearms), the result doesn't look nice.
I also wonder about America's firearms culture. In the days of the colonies, firearms were undoubtedly essential for agriculture, self-defence, and defence of communities. But as law and order, and military organisation grew, firearms would have had less utility as essential tools. Perhaps over time, the firearm was turned from being a tool of defence and hunting, and more as a tool of leisure. Did this bring about a more blase attitude toward firearms and their usage? Although I agree with the principles behind the Second Amendment, I wonder if America was too free about firearms?
I bring up Switzerland again. It's a country with a staggering number of firearms. Many of those firearms are automatic rifles for military service, the type that even most avid American gun-nut wouldn't be able to own. Yet the rate of gun-related violence is very low there. Is it because the Swiss have a stronger sense of purpose about firearms and take them more seriously than Americans? After all, in Switzerland, dad's SIG550 is a tool for national defence, not a play-thing.
In the US media, good guys are often just as reckless and destructive as the bad guys. But I can't recall any major movies or TV shows in other countries which show the good guys using as much mindless violence as those featured in US media (except comedies or war movies).
There has to be a source for that. And I think that source is not one particular "thing", but a cumulation of factors over the course of American social development.
Although I admire America's pride in being "the land of the free", I think American people are generally prone to the "I'll do whatever the **** I want" type of attitude, moreso than people from other countries. If you combine such an attitude with all the social woes of today, plus alchohol and drugs, and finally, weapons (including firearms), the result doesn't look nice.
I also wonder about America's firearms culture. In the days of the colonies, firearms were undoubtedly essential for agriculture, self-defence, and defence of communities. But as law and order, and military organisation grew, firearms would have had less utility as essential tools. Perhaps over time, the firearm was turned from being a tool of defence and hunting, and more as a tool of leisure. Did this bring about a more blase attitude toward firearms and their usage? Although I agree with the principles behind the Second Amendment, I wonder if America was too free about firearms?
I bring up Switzerland again. It's a country with a staggering number of firearms. Many of those firearms are automatic rifles for military service, the type that even most avid American gun-nut wouldn't be able to own. Yet the rate of gun-related violence is very low there. Is it because the Swiss have a stronger sense of purpose about firearms and take them more seriously than Americans? After all, in Switzerland, dad's SIG550 is a tool for national defence, not a play-thing.
Self defense - help please
(67 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG