Lets talk about firearms- guns...

[MR_Soren]

I don't think it's stretching the facts to say that MR_Soren was insinuating that America isn't as good as Europe in certain ways.

Wrong, he pointed out the lack of certain reasons for the lack of violence in most of Europe. I say 'most', because in some places (Charleroi, Crete, etc.) a favourite past-time is random violence (say, in Charleroi there's a lot of fatal stabbing...). The situation is similar to any big U.S. city, in terms of poverty, stress, etc.

I wasn't trying to say America was better or worse than Europe, I was merely citing some differences between the US and some parts of Europe with low crime. If somebody thinks those differences make one place better than the other, that's their interpretation, but it's off topic.

My point was that reducing the desire to commit crimes is more practical than trying to take away one of many possible weapons available to potential criminals.

[Ed Oscuro]

I wasn't trying to say America was better or worse than Europe, I was merely citing some differences between the US and some parts of Europe with low crime.

I know; I used a stupid phrase that wasn't even directed towards you. Sorry about that!

I agree with your second point there; I was trying to point that out to pro-gun advocates as likely a more fruitful avenue of approach than worrying about one's guns.

[Michaelm]

My point was that reducing the desire to commit crimes is more practical than trying to take away one of many possible weapons available to potential criminals.

Getting rid of capitalism would work wonders there !

[Randorama]

[
Let me put this in a way even you can understand. You are being a hypocrite.

I am afraid you're using a completely improper term, but I get the 'exterminate!' message. Anyway:

Unfortunately, you show up with a high-and-mighty attitude and decide that a response much worse is in order. That opens you up to a charge of hypocrisy, and certainly your attitude here hasn't been very pro-American, which somewhat undermines the whole venture.

I wonder the relevance of pro vs. con, in this regard. None, of course, and my actual post does not sound pro-Europe, if you want to use such tones (Again: not that it matters, but ehi). I was talking about something else, namely: "Is the whole "gun ban" (regardless of the country) the core point of violence control?". So, I am afraid that you're charging something which is not there in the first place. Well, not really afraid, but whatever.

You would have also noticed that I listed a number of issues that touch the topic and are usually not brought up in such discourses, skewing the picture and creating artificial oppositions (again: I wouldn't go to a soccer match in Italy, I could risk a random bullet in the teeth just because). The overall idea of 'violence=guns', as I said, is a bit bizarre: if one has to ban dangerous things, well then: how many deaths by car accidents there are, on both side of the Atlantic...?

Aside that, you don't know Europe's history, as you have shown from your own post (which makes the whole point you want to post even more skewed, but whatever). If someone points you out that you get it wrong and from that you draw the wrong conclusions, 'name-calling' won't solve any problems. A bit of wisdom, as opposed to foolishness, consists in checking if one is effectively posting tenable stuff and drawing the right conclusions via the correct premises. And so on, and so forth...I hope you won't insist on this, seriously.

[JoshF]

Getting rid of capitalism would work wonders there !

Have fun doing that without guns.

[Ed Oscuro]

If someone points you out that you get it wrong

You had two failed chances to say so directly, and you blew up with the attitude on the third. Perhaps you know of our little American pasttime called "baseball?" Three fuckups and you're done, mister.

'name-calling' won't solve any problems.

Indeed! You should consider this point, hypocrite. Are you autistic, or what?

Seriously, it wasn't meant the way you think it was - as I've explained - and it wasn't even addressed to you, so you need to butt out. MR_Soren and I have already addressed this point so I would like to close the door on that.

Incidentally, I have no need for your "recent European history lite" explanation; I know all of that already. Germany is simply the first case of ethnic strife that came to mind; I don't see how mentioning all the others is necessary when I obviously referenced them.

On the subject of "Europe has had racial harmony," it would have been more appropriate to say "Europe has striven for racial harmony." Obviously not my strongest point. Again, I've made some mistakes, but your insufferable attitude is getting in the way of letting me comfortably acknowledge them. If you try to back somebody into a corner they'll lash out at you - or didn't you know this was the case?

I try to choose any battles (?!) carefully, and it seems you have no compunction about alienating those who would otherwise be agreeable to you. I see no further use in compounding these problems by allowing you the chance to waste more of my time.

Anyhow, to skew the discussion suddenly back towards fruitful topics, I will make some statements and we will see if there is any objection towards them:

- Areas with ethnic, sectarian, or economic tensions tend to have higher crime
- In Europe, areas seeing recent immigration or that are claimed by / sit on the border between different ethnic groups tend to suffer from these tensions
- Furthermore, in Europe many immigrants have not been well "assimilated" into their host countries, and often not allowed citizenship. The proper course of action here is up to debate.
- These tensions can be addressed

[Michaelm]

Getting rid of capitalism would work wonders there !

Have fun doing that without guns.

Yeah I know, capitalists are extremely trigger happy when their 'earnings' are at stake

[MR_Soren]

Getting rid of capitalism would work wonders there !

Have fun doing that without guns.

Yeah I know, capitalists are extremely trigger happy when their 'earnings' are at stake

I didn't want to write it in my previous post, but I agree that unfettered capitalism is the cause of many problems in the United States. Unfortunately, we only have two parties to vote on in each election, and they are both pro-capitalism.

Anybody who opposed capitalism and made a serious bid for any real political power would do well to carry a gun and surround himself with people who do the same.

[Super Laydock]

- Furthermore, in Europe many immigrants have not been well "assimilated" into their host countries, and often not allowed citizenship. The proper course of action here is up to debate.

Assimilation isn´t an option here.
Most of West Europeans reject the possibility of those immigrants staying permanently. It´s a lost cause though.

The fact is that a LOT of those so called immigrants want to be a member of their host state as well as their `home`state.

Countries like Marocco or Turkey even forbid kids of former Marocs or Turks to become solely Dutch (insert any other country here).
Kids of Marocans or Turkish people get 2 passports. They get the one of their parents´birth country by default. They also get Dutch nationality purely by being born here.

In my opinion one should choose. Dutch!?
Or Turkish, Maroccan, etc,...

No picking of two sides of the story. (hope you get what I mean as I staightly translated this from Dutch)'.

Western Europe is under attack by the inserts of this Trojan Horse.

[Randorama]

Stuff

I really mind the use of 'autism' in an offensive tone. Could you be more respecteful to people with autism? Thank you. As for the rest, I see you want to talk about wars and other non-sense (e.g.: 'I have never got history of Europe wrong!'). Freedom of Speech in the Millian sense, indeed.

Anyway:

- Areas with ethnic, sectarian, or economic tensions tend to have higher crime
- In Europe, areas seeing recent immigration or that are claimed by / sit on the border between different ethnic groups tend to suffer from these tensions
- Furthermore, in Europe many immigrants have not been well "assimilated" into their host countries, and often not allowed citizenship. The proper course of action here is up to debate.
- These tensions can be addressed

Ethnic tensions have a long story and revolve around 'national states' making patchworks of ethnic groups that hated each other. Just about everyone is immigrant with respect to some other group: until yesterday, most countries had internal or short-range immigration (North to South, East to West, etc.).

Non-local groups (more than muslims, it's Eastern european and southern mediterreans) are now the 'cheap labor from away'. Aside that, they serve the purpose of keeping the ill-controlled ethnic tension alive. Yesterday it was the southern 'terroni', now it's the rumenians, in Italy (same goes for most of the other European countries).

Sure, there aren't too many guns around, but all othe violence-related problems are still there. Going to a soccer match is deadly dangerous, for instance, not to mention of the crime wars in e.g. Naples (like, 400 deaths per year, a good chunk innocent bystanders).

One question: if one removes the domestic accidents from 'gun fatalities' and compares other violent deaths (against where they occur, for instance), would there be a 'Land of the free vs. Eurosocialism' picture at all?

Which reminds me: euro-what? The euro-parliament is run by Vivendi and Vodacom, basically...again: pro- or anti- what, exactly? Should I care to side with Kang or Kong, seriously? (How this thread has become 'problems in Europe' , btw?)

Hence my comment of 'whose side of the Bilderbeger'. Ironically, Pinker says that violence is at an all time low, apparently.

[Ed Oscuro]

Stuff

I really mind the use of 'autism' in an offensive tone. Could you be more respecteful to people with autism? Thank you.

Offer accepted with thanks! :D

One question: if one removes the domestic accidents from 'gun fatalities' and compares other violent deaths (against where they occur, for instance), would there be a 'Land of the free vs. Eurosocialism' picture at all?

I doubt it. For the reasons I stated before - introducing a firearm into any crime situation provokes reactions (i.e. Doodude's story), at best. At worst, of course, you have people dying when somebody is taking around a pear or standing in somebody's turf.

Which reminds me: euro-what? The euro-parliament is run by Vivendi and Vodacom, basically...again: pro- or anti- what, exactly? Should I care to side with Kang or Kong, seriously? (How this thread has become 'problems in Europe' , btw?)

Another good point: Andrea Merkel has been viewed for a while as the "leader of Europe" and is solidly with the EU. On the other hand, Berlusconi has re-ascended to the top job in Italy, and along with France's Sarkozy they are forming an alliance of sorts with Russia (and Putin). All three are in no way a threat to the stability of Europe, just old-time national (not nationalist, in the case of Sarkozy who takes pains to please everybody) politicians.

Of course, in the context of gun violence Euro-whatevers certainly matter. Switzerland is amending its gun laws to move in line with 'the rest of Europe,' and more importantly to move in line with EU laws.

As a side note, if talking about problems in Europe bores you, don't feel I need a lecture about them (although I suspect some people might be interested to hear of them). There are problems, and they are thankfully not much exacerbated by firearms, thankfully. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Hence my comment of 'whose side of the Bilderbeger'. Ironically, Pinker says that violence is at an all time low, apparently.

Odd, I thought I just read it was increasing - could be wrong.