Question for Europeans

McDread,

You have some very good points there. I generally agree with Leowind; Americans don't look down when they are "on top". I find this sad...many of my friends have never even been out of the country excluding Mexico. That is the interesting point though. Here in Arizona, the people know a great deal about Mexican culture, politics, etc., because of the great interaction that we have with Mexico...New Englanders don't know a great deal about Mexico but know much more about Canada. It boils down to exactly what Leowind said: People here don't care unless it affects them. I will tell you one thing though: I lived in China for a year studying and I found them to be even more ignorant about the world around them. I guess thats what happens when you are fresh out of isolationism after 4000 years...

Referring to "God Bless America" statements, one must understand that America is still a religious country; the great majority follow one religion or another. I am not religious myself, and I really frown on the religious right here, but it is inevitable with so many "people of faith". And about the environment, I think Americans do care, as long as they don't lose their jobs trying to protect it. If you have ever travelled around America, though, I think you'd find we do an excellent job maintaining our natural beauty...and no offense, but I have been through Europe several times and don't see that there. I know it wasn't your generation, and it is due to the enourmous population density, but forests are rare and every river is polluted. So when Europeans criticize our environmental positions, such as Kyoto, I think it would be important to consider this. And Kyoto had serious flaws that would have affected this economy in a very bad way...I think our leaders have requested many revisions, like including China and India into the protocal, in attempts to salvage the agreement, but they did not work. So sign it; I hope you guys can take the lead on this issue.

And the death penalty, well, that issue has strong support here, including most leftists, so don't worry about it. You can protest against it, but nothing will change for a long time. The theory here is that it will help curb the crime, where Europe enjoys much lower crime rates.

And I agree, there are some nations in Europe which have equally free constitutions, but in my interests, such as hunting, Europe is much more oppressive in terms of state land use, etc. And the socialization of business and a notable lower amount of economic opportunity, business is not as free-market oriented. Consider the fact that opening a business in America is really a straightforward ordeal...a few papers and approvals and your off! In Europe, I have personal experience which leads me to believe this is not the case (a huge amount of red tape in Germany, for example). So while I agree with your statement, I would rather live here. This is still the place, with a small handful of other nations, which provides real chances of gaining wealth and power from nothing. Look at some of our past presidents: Jimmy Carter (born into a peanut farming family), Ronald Reagan (born dirt poor in a small town in Illinois), Bill Clinton (born in Arkansas to a poverty-stricken family with only a mother). In Europe, it seems that it is more difficult to rise up like this...although of course I am not saying it doesn't happen.

I do wish Americans would take more interest in world affairs. It would certainly improve our abilities as the sole superpower if people understood the world around them.

~Chris
 
Interesting, Rhye. One thing though, I am not condoning nor condemning the lack of licenses for firearms. I am simply pointing to the fact that our differences (Europe vs. America) have changed, but should not be worse. We should be upset because the UK, Germany, and Spain, among others, outlawed the death penalty in the 1970's and now expect to push their agenda across the Atlantic. So despite what you think about both gun control and the death penalty, our constitution (which provides another example of the freedom afforded in it, despite whether or not you agree) protects the individuals right to own guns, and our current political climate strongly supports the death penalty. So, in short, keep your political views on your side of the ocean, and don't dislike us because you disagree with us. That is the utmost in absurdity.

~Chris
 
Your welcome dogberry and mikoyan
 
Originally posted by sonorakitch
keep your political views on your side of the ocean, and don't dislike us because you disagree with us. That is the utmost in absurdity.
~Chris

I'm saying my views because this is a post called "Question for Europeans", and the question is why europeans hate or criticize America.
I'm european and so I'm asked to give an answer. I don't dislike USA, I don't hate USA, and it seems that anybody european has said "I hate USA" until now in this posts. So the main question is changed in what europeans disagree with USA.

And I can assure that about 98% of the people I know thinks my "political view". The 2% are fascist.
Here in Italy we're all stunned, when we hear news from America like "a boy shots her teacher and two schoolmates at school".
Liberty must be mediated with safety.
 
Screw all you europeans! You have started 2 world wars last century that resulted in over 50 million deaths. While America helped to end both wars. My grandfather fought in France in 1917 and my other grandfather fought in Italy and North Africa in 1940-43. They both enlisted to save your sorry arssses. I will not enlist next time you losers are invaded and neither will most Americans that continue to bear your inane and inaccurate criticism of your best friends in the world.
After world war II America spent the next 50 years rebuilding your countries that you had destroyed with our tax money. Then we fought the cold war so that you wouldn't be purged by your friendly communists neighbors to the north. My Uncle spent the first 2 years of his marriage in Hannover guarding you from Stalin.
So now because Bush isn't some suave and elitist leader like the ones you elect you hate America? You don't like the fact that we use our power to try to solve foreign issues like Iraq and Serbia? Why the hell don't you guys solve them if you can. Its really easy to blame us when we do the dirty work for you.....
Especially while you line your pockets while we fight. Our troops containing Saddam are made the targets of islamic hatred while France continues to sell the components for Saddams' nuclear program to Iraq around the embargo which we have tried in vain to uphold. Why don't you criticise France for their tacit support of the terrorist regimes that we are actively trying to contain? Are they sharing the profits with the rest of you smelly, hairly, misspelling, socialist, elitist , ingrateful wretches?
----robert wormley
 
Originally posted by Rhye

Here in Italy we're all stunned, when we hear news from America like "a boy shots her teacher and two schoolmates at school".
Liberty must be mediated with safety.

Same here in England and of course we all come to the conclusion that its because in America anyone can carry a gun (practically) and in England you cannot...Obviously this shouldn't be true because people should be able to be trusted with guns. Its possible to blame school shootings on the fact that America has a larger population than Europe and maybe it does although if they didn't have access to guns...

Another problem with licencing dguns is the criminals get bigger guns so more people die in the end...What would you prefer to lose: Your TV or your life?

After reading the post above:

You wonder why Europeans get annoyed at Americans? And if the simpsons and red alert 2 is correct then it will be America that gets invaded first next...Please think about what your saying before you insult alot of people.
 
Rhye, I see what you're saying about the guns, but, if it is taken away, that's one less right. First, to use your school shooting example, kids aren't allowed to have guns. It's law. If they break it, well? You said "Liberty must be mediated with safety." Well who mediates stupidity? If some jackhole is gonna off and shoot someone, the law will handle him. There's plenty of stupid people, and even though inbreeding is frowned upon, I think a lot still practice it... ;) You understand what I mean? Yes, guns can cause crime and problems, but so do stupid people. So do a LOT of things. But then unless we join the Taliban, it's how it is. And even Taliban can't make things better, they make things worse in MY opinion. I dunno, rights are rights, take em away and what do you have left? A safer world? Maybe. A reason to live? Maybe not.

Leowind and MCDread made a real good point I thought. Wish he were European... ;) I kind of thought before "Why does everyone care so much about America." Makes more sense now... As for us being arrogant, I kinda feel we have the right to be. Rights again... :) Not trying to offend with that at all.

Along with MCDread, I hate the mix of Church & State also. President on television sayin GOD bless america pisses me off also. IN GOD WE TRUST on our money pisses me off. But whatever.

As for trusting the American government, if they did something wrong, no one would have to attack us. I think we the people would jack up our own country plenty.
 
I agree with Dell. Sumociv, you made some good points that I agree with and have thought for a while now, but chill on the agressiveness... :)
 
What is this? You europenas think that 1) America mixes church and state because we use the word "God" in out anthems and on our money? and 2)This is dangerous to liberty in general and to the world?
Unbelievable........ I'd like to hear any of you europens name a war we Americans started or even fought in for religious reasons........(I'm hearing lots of silence here while they all try to think.........)
You guys think that Secular Governments are so ideal. Can you Europeans name the four greatest mass-murderers in history? 1)Mao. 2)Stalin 3)Genghis Khan 4)Hitler.
Guess what, none are American and 2 are European.......,and all 4 were the heads of some of the least religious governments in the world.
The true lesson of the 20th century is that the great modern idea of replacing violent religious states with peaceful secular, socialist nations was the greatest and most dangerous myth in the history of the world. You Europeans created the myth and then implemented it to a monstrous degree. You proved your own world view to be totally erroneous and yet you still cling to this enlightenment nonsense of righteous secular power.
How many socialists win election in the U.S.? How many socialist are elected to your governments? Only 60 years after Hitler and Stalin tried to destroy you with their views of Socialist Utopia, France's majority party in their parliment is socialist. If you can forget those lessons so quickly then it is no surprise that you have also forgotten that we gave our blood, our money and our isolation to save you........Ingrates!
----Robert Wormley
 
You all are making me shutter with your holyier than thou positions.

First on the second ammendment right to bear arms. Guns don't commit crimes people do. this has been proven over and over again. I have a gun sitting in a cabinet here and all it does is sit there...i'll show you a picture. If you outlawed handguns here who do you think would turn them in. Just the law abiding citizens and not the criminals. I hope to god I never have to use a gun, but I would also never put a sign on my front door that says "gun-free household," either. I know this probably didn't make front page news in Europe but did you guys know that Paris has a higher crime-rate than NYC? Also Chicago has some of the highest violent crime rates in the country and some of the toughest gun laws as well.

The death penalty...some people are lost causes, and when it comes right down to it most people want to survive. The death penalty was outlawed here in the U.S. in the '70s, but quickly returned in most states when violent crime-rates sky-rocketed.
 
First of all ,to sumociv:

i have read youre posts ,some things you say are interresting some thing you say really arn't appropiate on this board:

you smelly, hairly, misspelling, socialist, elitist , ingrateful wretches?

If you wish to be taken seriously on this forum i suggest you adress youre oppinion's with more tact.I am a European ,and although i do not agree with all reply's posted by european's on this topic, i still think that on some issue's the european model is sometimes more constructive.On the other hand on some issue's the American aproach is better.We can all learn something afrom the other.

Now about the guns issue:

if it is taken away, that's one less right

Interresting that most American's agree with arms laws just because they beliefe they must fight in order to preserve the right to own firearms.I ask myself the question if it is rightfull to give people such a right ,considering the potential threath it can impose on the civilians.Probably there is a pecentage of people in America that will use a weapon for self-protection ,an other percentage will use it for commiting crime's.Although real criminals will always have acces to firearms ,even if you don't allow it.But i think that by this way "the small fish" also get's acces to firearms ,where under a firearms ban they probably wouldn.it is likely that by allowing firearm's sales crime will rise to a certain degree ,it will also give the comman people a reason more to own a firearm out of defencive considerations.
It is also questionable against wich sort of threats one will use a firearm to defend himself.Let's say for exampel people that just knok you down ,but don't kill you ,as for exampel to steal your wallet.If you own a gun and have it with you in such a situation you will probably use it (and maybe kill someone) ,where if you wouldn't own a gun nobody would get killed. (although this is a weak point) At this point ,if you would kill youre robber it would be considerd an act of self-defence.You would be the one that punishes him ,effectively with the death penalty ,but this was still just a robbery ,although it is an crime ,would this punishment be appropiate?
Also a question is this: Could 'n the use of firearms to defend yourself actualy put yourself in a more dangerous position as before? As example we go back to the robber situation.let's say he just smashes you down ,although he (the robber) own's a gun but he won't use it because it's just a robbery.But at a certain point his victim pull's out a gun ,making it a dangerous situation for him so he will probably also pull his gun and actually shoot his victim.This would be a situation that went out of control.
Another consideration is kids.A lot of gun owner's hide or lock away their guns.But kids are not dumb ,and guns are a popular toy ,even if they don't understand the risks ,if they get it in their hands they will probably "play with it".
And another consideration is revenge.For ex man loves his wife very much ,comes home and sees his wife in bed with another man.If this man is a gun owner he will probably use it at that point ,when it's his revenge-madnes is at it's height.If he wouldn own a gun ,he couldn't use it.
Lose enough for what you care and everybody could be filled with bloody revenge ,even if you were the most peacefull man on earth.(take this symbolicly)

And about the death penalty:

I'm just plain against it ,part of for moral reasons (nobody should kill or be killed),partly because it is usseless.Why kill a man if he can be kept safe in jail for the rest of his life ,making it virtually impossible to become ever a threat for us.I even think givving somebody a life sentence is a far greater punishment than killing him off.

I hope my point's are considerd valuable.
 
Duck,

"Probably there is a pecentage of people in America that will use a weapon for self-protection ,an other percentage will use it for commiting crime's."

There is also the vast, vast, vast majority of firearms owners who use the weapons for hunting, target shooting, competition, and collection. The number of gun owners here who actually use firearms in crimes is extremely low, and simply doesn't warrant further restrictions until the ones that are in place are enforced. Like General Hot Rod said, the communities across this country with high crime rates (washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles) are the same cities that have had significant restrictions in place since the late 1970's. The communities that enjoy much lower than average crime rates, ie. Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Dallas, and my hometown Phoenix have much more unrestrictive firearms laws. In both Texas and Arizona, as with 27 other states, have concealed weapons permits available to those who qualify. These states, like North Dakota, Oklahoma, Georgia, Colorado, etc. indeed have lower crime rates. So the consensus by most (including most Democrats who arguably lost the last election because of gun control...among some other things) have backed away from the support of further controls.

Again, my main point is that Europeans on this board generally share disheartening feelings towards Americans because of our different political ideologies. This is absurd and should not matter. I don't hate Muslims, even though I disagree with veiling women, and I don't hate Filipinos, even though the consumption of dog is a widespread practice throughout the islands, and I certainly don't hate Belgium, even though I don't like fondu, and I don't hate Britain, even though Kenneth Clarke wasn't elected Conservative Leader, and I really like Germans despite the lack of ice cubes in Coca~Colas and no free refills on drinks. :D

~Chris
 
by sonarkitch:

Again, my main point is that Europeans on this board generally share disheartening feelings towards Americans because of our different political ideologies. This is absurd and should not matter. I don't hate Muslims, even though I disagree with veiling women, and I don't hate Filipinos, even though the consumption of dog is a widespread practice throughout the islands, and I certainly don't hate Belgium, even though I don't like fondu, and I don't hate Britain, even though Kenneth Clarke wasn't elected Conservative Leader, and I really like Germans despite the lack of ice cubes in Coca~Colas and no free refills on drinks.

And i don't hate american's ,even if gun's are allowed over there.And making the genneralization that all European's "share disheartening feelings towards Americans" is wrong.Not all European's think that way!
You make up a good point in youre reply ,but it was only applicable on a small part of my reply: Do you care to review the other point's i stated in my reply?
 
Duck,

Yes, I agree that most Europeans do not feel this way about Americans. I didn't say all Europeans--only the ones on this board--and again, not everyone on this board. And in no way am I suggesting you do. Those comments were more directed to Mikyoan and Hakan and others who obviously have disheartening feelings for Americans due to political disagreements. Point taken.

Yes, I did read the rest of your message with interest. I tried to respond your gun comments with my blanket feelings. To go further, you state: "It is also questionable against wich sort of threats one will use a firearm to defend himself". Totally agree, but firearms provide a very effective deterrant towards crime in this manner here. Again, consider my geographical explanation of crime in this country, Indianapolis sees few muggings, as well as Anchorage and Colorado Springs. These cities have very high rates of firearms ownership (Color. Springs is upwards of 55%). Washington D.C. and Philadelphia of much much lower rates of ownership, and much greater thefts on the streets. Of course, this is due to other socia-political reasons, but firearms provide one more cure. Also, you state: "Also a question is this: Could 'n the use of firearms to defend yourself actualy put yourself in a more dangerous position as before?" Good point. But with proper training and level-headedness, this danger is far less than the danger of being killed in a confrontation with a felon robber or murderer. I, for one, have taken training and classes and know when to use and how to use. Taking my firearm away just puts me MORE in danger than before, because it is widely accepted that criminals break laws and good civilians don't...which boils down to the famous bumper sticker here: "If guns are outlawed only the criminals will have guns". If you turn your lights off and close your eyes and imagine that scenario, I think you may very well agree. Again, you state: "A lot of gun owner's hide or lock away their guns.But kids are not dumb ,and guns are a popular toy ,even if they don't understand the risks ,if they get it in their hands they will probably "play with it"." Totally agree. I keep every one of mine locked and put away, and I don't even have kids! The bottom line here is responsibility among gun owners, and these safety precautions are followed by the great majority of gun owners here. And really the statistics prove that child accidents by guns is very rare (there are more deaths in America every year by lightining, or <gulp> anthrax than by accidental shootings by children). So to put myself in danger by disarming me and not the criminals (which would be the outcome of a ban), my life is more in danger, and the statistics would probably shock all of us. Also you mention revenge: again not very common for a husband to shoot his wife in bed with another man here. Much more common use for guns is shooting deer, skeet, beer cans, or just to look at the shotgun your grandfather gave you every few years.

I really think it all boils down to this: humans are genetically very different...different strength levels, different intelligence, different speeds. Firearms provide the one great equalizer. Finally, a man 1.3 meters tall can defend himself against the Tyson-like people out there that feel a living can only be made by robbing and killing. That may be hard for you to understand, because of your lower crime rates. But consider this: America is a very diverse country...much more so than ANY European country. And with diversity comes conflict...we are seeing that today in India-Pakistan. There is also a good deal of poor people here, more than Europe, because of the lack of governmental services (aka. handouts to many here). The whole difference between us is the ideologies on which our nations' follow---America is about minimal government (liberals here would even be considered conservative over there to a great degree), whereas Europe is more social-oriented. I prefer my system over yours, but I do not think any less of you or the majority of Europeans who support and enjoy this socialist system.

So while we can agree we like each other, and while we can disagree with one another, we should all recognize that there are two very different ideologies at work here. And personally, I like ours better.:yeah:

~Chris

aka. "gun nut" :sniper:
 
Yes, I agree that most Europeans do not feel this way about Americans. I didn't say all Europeans--only the ones on this board--and again, not everyone on this board. And in no way am I suggesting you do. Those comments were more directed to Mikyoan and Hakan and others who obviously have disheartening feelings for Americans due to political disagreements. Point taken.

Apoligy accepted :goodjob: .Mental note: never make generalizations about any group anymore.

in review of youre post: (a long and good one ,so much work for me)

"It is also questionable against wich sort of threats one will use a firearm to defend himself". Totally agree, but firearms provide a very effective deterrant towards crime in this manner here.Again, consider my geographical explanation of crime in this country, Indianapolis sees few muggings, as well as Anchorage and Colorado Springs. These cities have very high rates of firearms ownership (Color. Springs is upwards of 55%). Washington D.C. and Philadelphia of much much lower rates of ownership, and much greater thefts on the streets. Of course, this is due to other socia-political reasons, but firearms provide one more cure.

Ok ,but i don't know for sure if weapon ownership is the reason for that less crime in cities like Anchorage.Indeed you say yourself that is due socia-political reason's. (i think mostly social reasons)
As to firearms providing one more cure ,there is not raly a figure saying us how much it is a cure ,nore there are figure's telling us how much crime rizes by firearms allowance ,or how more cruel'er the crime's are.so it will be hard for us to debate this.

Also a question is this: Could 'n the use of firearms to defend yourself actualy put yourself in a more dangerous position as before?" Good point. But with proper training and level-headedness, this danger is far less than the danger of being killed in a confrontation with a felon robber or murderer. I, for one, have taken training and classes and know when to use and how to use. Taking my firearm away just puts me MORE in danger than before, because it is widely accepted that criminals break laws and good civilians don't...which boils down to the famous bumper sticker here: "If guns are outlawed only the criminals will have guns". If you turn your lights off and close your eyes and imagine this scenario, I think you may very well agree.

I agree that proper training can act as a detterent here, this only for a percentage of the cases,i still think that in some cases people will actually risk their live when pulling a gun against a gun-owning criminal that probably woudn't shoot you if he getted what he wanted.Even then proper training wouldn't always help, i think owning a gu is also something psychological ,it is a feeling of power that you can defend yourself.I think most gun owners that would run into such a situation (just robed ,no life danger) would actually still draw their gun, risking their own life with it

.
Again, you state: "A lot of gun owner's hide or lock away their guns.But kids are not dumb ,and guns are a popular toy ,even if they don't understand the risks ,if they get it in their hands they will probably "play with it"." Totally agree. I keep every one of mine locked and put away, and I don't even have kids! The bottom line here is responsibility among gun owners, and these safety precautions are followed by the great majority of gun owners here. And really the statistics prove that child accidents by guns is very rare (there are more deaths in America every year by lightining, or <gulp> anthrax than by accidental shootings by children.

I don't think that Anthrax kill's more people than kids with gun's ,considering that it was aprox. 20 years ago that an anthrax mortality occured before the recent terrorist attack's.Although i agree that kids with gun's probably don't kill that much people every year.But i doubt that really "all" gun owners are that responsible.

Also you mention revenge: again not very common for a husband to shoot his wife in bed with another man here. Much more common use for guns is shooting deer, skeet, beer cans, or just to look at the shotgun your grandfather gave you every few years.

it happens though.Actually i think that there are a lot of cases like that ,not that specific ,but revenge-killing's in general.And a lot of these people wind up in jail ,although normaliy they were law abiding citizen's ,but they got up in the spur of the moment.

I really think it all boils down to this: humans are genetically very different...different strength levels, different intelligence, different speeds. Firearms provide the one great equalizer. Finally, a man 1.3 meters tall can defend himself against the Tyson-like people out there that feel a living can only be made by robbing and killing. That may be hard for you to understand, because of your lower crime rates.

Our crime rates are not that lower ,only generaly less violant.i think that is because less people here have guns :) .
by the way "the one great equalizer" is relative to.Try to fight somebody who own's a sniper gun with a mere pistol at longe range.Bad exampel, but i guess you must agree that weapons come in all form's and shape's that can give the owner specific advantages to.

But consider this: America is a very diverse country...much more so than ANY European country.

Never went to Europe? Atleast you live in a country that has only one official language. No ,there are some pretty diverse country's in Europe to ,believe me! ;)

And with diversity comes conflict...

Could you explain that further to me?

I prefer my system over yours, but I do not think any less of you or the majority of Europeans who support and enjoy this socialist system.

The same here for me! Good attitude :goodjob:

So while we can agree we like each other, and while we can disagree with one another, we should all recognize that there are two very different ideologies at work here. And personally, I like ours better.

And i like mine most ,but atleast we can come to a consencus of mutual respect.

Oh ,sorry about all the typing errors ,English is not my native tongue.

Some of these remarks on this reply were writtin fast withought sometimes much consideration for the facts ,excuse me for that ,but it was a long post and my fingers are begining to hurt.i gonna check some resources about this though (where can i find good statistics about this?)
 
Duck,

Good series of responses. I will in turn respond (haha...how did this ever evolve into a gun thing...thats okay:D ). First, I wasn't really apologizing, just trying to be more clear. I wasn't saying all Europeans dislike Americans for political reasons, just the ones sharing their "disheartening" views towards Americans for believing in a different ideology. Remember: "Again, my main point is that Europeans on this board generally share disheartening feelings towards Americans because of our different political ideologies."

Now, you are right about Anchorage...it was a bad example. And there are socia-political differences too. But it is not just a coincidence that cities with much stricter gun controls also have much greater problems as opposed to cities without such restrictions. Again, consider Dallas, Minneapolis, and even my home, Phoenix. And I really think if the average law-abiding citizen in Washington was issued a gun and knew how to use it (and when), crime would drop substantially (criminals aren't going to rob anybody with a Dirty Harry pistol..would you?)

You say, "I think most gun owners that would run into such a situation (just robed ,no life danger) would actually still draw their gun, risking their own life with it" I agree to the extent that some would, but I personally would rather have that choice be determined by me, and not some politician in D.C. And most who are trained in the use would probably agree here. And referring to Anthrax, I was illustrating that in the past two weeks, more people have been killed by Anthrax than accidental child shootings all year (3 vs. 2). And I agree, not all gun owners are responsible. But the overwhelming majority are.

Referring to revenge, there are some cases every year, but many acts of revenge-induced murder are committed by other means...it is still just about as easy to kill somebody with an axe, lamp, or knife....and a naked woman in a bed is an easy target for such devices. And as far as the crime rates in Europe, they are much lower in terms of murder, and robbery is less too. They are more violent here, but that is also because of the availability of guns to criminals (which should be curtailed) and the lack of proper prosecution (for example, O.J. Simposon), which should also be reformed.

Now, in reference to the diversity issue, I have been to Europe, lived in Koln, Germany for a semester in college, and traveled through nearly every country west of Hungary. While countries there do have pockets of Turks, Algerians, etc., America does have much more global representation, and a much greater percentage of our population is immigration (something like 30% are foreign born). You can't say Europe is comparable...the only other nation that is similarly diversed is Russia, due to its huge size and enormous numbers of Mongloid peoples and Muslims. And as far as my diversity standpoint, that would take a 100 page book to explain, but it is apparent to myself that diversity does lead to more violence. People that are physically different are driven to unite behind there own types and defend their territory, etc. This can be seen in Los Angeles, one of the most diverse cities on the planet. I have lived there and travel there at least 4 times a year, and it is a daily occurance to read in the Times about gang conflict. These conflicts are fought between Blacks, Hispanics, Vietnamese, Chinese, and of course whites. It is a sick thing to see in these "civilized times", but it is human nature. In looking at India-Pakistan, the conflict is religious based, but all the same. It is unfortunate that people of different backgrounds tend to fight one another. But I do think that is a significant amount of the crime problem here (although I am not suggesting to do anything concrete about this, it would be impossible to do so without serious human rights violations. I do think education would help).

I think it is imporant to point out, to further my argument, the situation in Australia. Since a very restrictive gun ban was instilled in the mid-1990's, the statistics have proven that crime, especially robbery, has increased substantially. You can do a search on the net to find this data.

And finally, there are more than 300 million guns roaming around this country today. Europe was never so saturated with guns. To wipe off every handgun in the U.S. (not hunting rifles, those are hardly ever used for crimes), it would definetly solve the problem, and I would probably support it (although hunting with a handgun provides a much greater challenge, and gives the deer a better chance anyways :p ). The fact is, though, is that this is not realistic. Consider the drug war. Whenever our government tries to enforce against a popular item, they miserably fail. So the result would be good people would have no protection against bad people who didn't give up their guns. Do you really think that gangsters and thugs would line up to give in their handguns?

It is a very interesting topic to debate about, and you have some excellent points. While they are all applicable in Europe, it is just very different here. Good debate anyways!:D

~Chris
 
Maybe a little late, but Sumociv, I brought up the Church & State religion issue. I never said it was "dangerous to liberty and in general the world." And I am not a European. :D Stupid stinky Americans. :p
 
I am not religious, nor a gun owner. I believe power should be tempered with wisdom. I hate the two-party system, and am in favor of some socialized medicine.

Oh crap, Im turning into a European! :eek:
 
:mad: AArchh :mad:
i just constructed a magnificent reply on Sonarkith's reply ,containing 9700 typed character's (and i'm not a fast typer!!!) ,and just when i'm about to post it my ****ing browser craches.Godamned **** you microsoft ,Eat cakes Bill Gates.

i Think we realy need a frustration forum here :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom