On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
Edit: Just some numbers to give everyone an idea of the homogeneity vs inhomogeneity thing: The United States is 72.4% white (as in, all whites combined, which includes some Hispanics). The Czech population is 94.24% Czech. The German population is 81% Germans of no immigrant background (i.e. exclusively German background). In France it's apparently illegal to collect census information about ethnicity and race (but they're perfectly fine with religious discrimination). The population of Sweden is 85% Swedish (as of 2005).
Funnily enough, the total population of the entire country of Sweden (9,422,661) is comparable the population of the city of Chicago (9,461,105), and less than the populations of Los Angeles (~12 million) and New York City (~18 million). Maybe if we concentrated the entire population of Sweden in a single city and created some economic and cultural disparity there would be a little bit more worry about crime, hm?
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
In general, you are right; Europeans are often naive about what drive Americans and what conditions they face and thus make their decisions upon. However, as I emphasized before, dismissing it as "naive" (or "European", for that sake) just because it's an understanding that's derived from a different culture does not make sense in itself. It is safe to say that your relativist argument about "universal morality" holds little relevance. Everyone, given time to understand this, will accept that there is no moral absolute. Rather, what we are discussing in this thread is what helps create the best society. And here, likely, what Americans want in the end is likely the same as what Europeans was, since it's down to basic human needs. That's why people are pointing out how it's unhealty for a society to place property above human life or to fight violence with violence. Regardless of what you're facing; be in due to lack of homogeneity or economic tension. I don't see acheivement, material or otherwise, as a counter to that, even disregarding that the level of success of USA and the reasons for such is debatable.
Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
On July 01 2011 05:10 ilikejokes wrote: Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
True, you didn't, and I was actually sitting here thinking that you might write that. However, I was merely adressing the implicaitons of what you were saying since you did say it in conjunction with a counter-arguement to the "European" perspective. When you call something naive, you will ignore it because it holds no value. When you clump arguments together as "European", you will ignore it through the rationale that it's somehow not relevant to you - "it's those other people". Neither of these are particularly productive to introduce to the discussion.
On July 01 2011 05:10 ilikejokes wrote: Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
True, you didn't, and I was actually sitting here thinking that you might write that. However, I was merely adressing the implicaitons of what you were saying since you said it in conjunction to a counter-arguement to the "European" perspective. When you call something naive, you will ignore it because it holds no value. When you clump arguments together as "European", you will ignore it through the rationale that it's somehow not relevant to you - "it's those other people". Neither of these are particularly productive to introduce to the discussion.
I probably could have used a better word than "naive" because of the negative implications. I did not mean to imply that the European perspective in general held no value; I simply meant that, in my experience, Europeans who haven't lived in America (i.e. most Europeans) don't have much of an idea of what things are really like here. I would describe the common American perspective on Europe to be similarly naive with respect to the European experience, as well, and I wouldn't mean that it held no value in general.
I wasn't clumping arguments together as "European" so much as identifying commonalities between the arguments presented by European posters versus those of American posters.
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
I don't agree with either approach, a real man uses his fists.
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
I don't agree with either approach, a real man uses his fists.
Chuck Norris thought about using his fists instead, unfortunately the mere thought of it already knocked out the thieves.
On July 01 2011 04:02 dybydx wrote: ya i think i prefer the US approach. screw knifing, give him some lead instead.
while i agree, in england you have a smaller chance of finding a robber with a gun though. I wonder if non-firearm projectile weapons are legal, Bows etc. Shouldn't be too hard to make a lethal shot with a 100lb recurve and a broadhead
I don't agree with either approach, a real man uses his fists.
To be fair, few can actually use a legitimate bow, so I think I prefer the US approach as well.
On June 30 2011 12:01 Arishok wrote: In the US it is legal to shoot intruders un-invited on our property if they are deemed a threat, AFAIK
Personally if someone broke into my house I wouldn't get close enough to them to use a knife, regardless of what was legal or not.
no it is not. you are only allowed to use equal force that they are using upon you. If they pull out a gun, then you are allowed to open fire. I wouldnt want to be on your property on accident!
Your information is false sir. In Alabama I can shoot somebody that comes in my home no questions asked
On June 30 2011 12:07 naggerNZ wrote: If someone enters your property, uninvited or not, they are your guest and should be treated as such. Stabbing people is not okay.
Ha! Good going Britain. Also, it is legal to pull a gun if they haven't, isn't it? Just not to actually shoot at them? It should be, at the very least.
There are no guns in Britain. Even the police are unarmed (except special weapons units).
You can't honestly think there are no firearms in Britain because of gun control. Of course there are firearms, it's just that you can't obtain them through legal means.
He probably meant "guns are pretty rare in Britain" instead of "there are no guns in Britain".
Obviously I don't mean nobody has any. That'd be absurd, the existence of the army would disprove that. But having a gun is very illegal except in very specific circumstances, pulling a gun is gonna be way worse for you than pretending you're asleep and just buying whatever they steal. It has it's advantages. People don't bring guns to home invasions, people don't accidentally kill each other in the moment as much (because it's harder to do so), gun crime is taken much more seriously.
I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure. To be fair, you did say that there were no guns.
The problem I have with what you list as "advantages" is that those crimes still happen. People still get robbed, raped, and murdered. Guns or no guns, those crimes still happen. It's not like removing guns from the equation solves the problem. So much focus is put on the guns when in reality the guns have almost nothing to do with it. To be fair, gun control was never about the crime anyways; it was about the guns.
It's certainly preferable that an intruder not be armed with a gun, but if he's armed with something else you're just as screwed.
Well if the only thing that you consider is total elimination of crime then there is no solution. But if you also consider lowering it a worthy goal then somehow European countries seem to have solved something. If it is thanks to regulating gun ownership very strictly or not is much more open question. My guess is that it helps as killing someone without a gun is much harder. But my personal guess is that it is more in the whole approach to the violence, either "warranted" one or criminal one. Americans seem much more often to consider killing someone for one reason or another. But the whole question is hard to ascertain as most sociological ones, people have just opinions and guesses.
One funny train of thought that I do not really consider true in any significant way, but find ironically funny : If the society places high value on property then of course robbers will also place more value on it and try much harder to gain it, thus increasing crime rates
EDIT:typo
European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants.
Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US.
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world.
I am not really sure that US actually trades anything good for the bad things. As for "American Dream" many countries in Europe actually enjoy higher social mobility than US, which in my opinion is the reasonable version of "American Dream" as it indicates they are closer to meritocracy. As for universities and corporations I have big doubts that considered per capita they have less of them.
Also off-topic note : It is impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and it statistically describes the rate of success of such endeavor also in economic field. I just hate that idiom
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not.
This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem.
I am not sure that this is directed at me as I did not previously state anything contrary to it. I actually noted that laws in a country with high crime rates must reflect that reality. On the other hand this discussion in the end boils down to ethical/moral question as those are/should be basis for any law. There are universal moral "laws" and rules (but true, they do not necessarily have anything to say on the subject) and there are superior and inferior moral/ethical systems. But that discussion should be avoided here.
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics.
Edit: Just some numbers to give everyone an idea of the homogeneity vs inhomogeneity thing: The United States is 72.4% white (as in, all whites combined, which includes some Hispanics). The Czech population is 94.24% Czech. The German population is 81% Germans of no immigrant background (i.e. exclusively German background). In France it's apparently illegal to collect census information about ethnicity and race (but they're perfectly fine with religious discrimination). The population of Sweden is 85% Swedish (as of 2005).
Funnily enough, the total population of the entire country of Sweden (9,422,661) is comparable the population of the city of Chicago (9,461,105), and less than the populations of Los Angeles (~12 million) and New York City (~18 million). Maybe if we concentrated the entire population of Sweden in a single city and created some economic and cultural disparity there would be a little bit more worry about crime, hm?
As for France they do seem to try to opress all religions equally so is it actually discrimination ? And for the big numbers, it would seem China has lower homicide rates than US. And as I argued above cultural and economical disparity does not seem to explain all the difference.
On July 01 2011 05:10 ilikejokes wrote: Where did I dismiss your point of view? I'm not dismissing your point of view. I'm saying your point of view is based on an experience/reality that is not pertinent in America. I'm dismissing the assertion that the Europeans "figured something out" that lets their crime rates be lower by pointing to the fact that the two situations are not identical; in fact, they are far from being even remotely similar. I merely pointed out that yes, there are many advantages to European countries, but lest we forget that the United States has been at the forefront of nearly every major technological improvement over the past few centuries, created the first state-sponsored universities, and produces the highest-achieving academic professionals in the world, I was pointing out that there are many advantages to the American way of doing things as well (which was being oft-dismissed as barbaric, immoral, etc.). The proximate reasons for these differences are highly complex, but the ultimate reasons for the different attitudes have to do with diversity and ingrained cultural attitudes.
Really, centuries ? American contributions to science got significant after the WW1 and actually proportional to its size after WW2. Not even a century. And far from the forefront of everything.
On June 30 2011 23:49 aka_star wrote: Can you stab him with knife bullets or a gunknife from FF8? or perhaps a knife strapped to a broom? just nice to know my options.
games =/= real life
You can also use a baseball bat if you wanted ( btw, many of the cops in britain don't have guns )
EPT
