Non-IT News Thread
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Europe doesn't have the gang violence like we have here, again probably because the drug situation is different there, at least a little.
It has gangs and organized crime, not unlike the US. Just much less violent
-
@Dashrender said:
Of course you're probably right - but you're missing the point. The point was to compare gang related violence vs non gang related violence.
Because that primarily shows things like drug influence?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Of course you're probably right - but you're missing the point. The point was to compare gang related violence vs non gang related violence.
Because that primarily shows things like drug influence?
I was going for gang influence, but yeah, it's probably more related to drugs, since you say that Europe and Japan have gangs as bad as the US but not as violent (which really is something I can't comprehend - what are people just so weak that they just cave to the gangs over there before violence takes place? if so, is that a good or bad thing?)
-
Gangs don't produce the fear or problems there. They are far, far less effective.
Each region has some massive organized crime (Japan is famous for this, no idea how influential they are) but it isn't the same "don't go down that street" that is all over the US.
-
I"m not having luck finding stats on gang violence outside of the US. Not sure everyone classifies gangs the same.
-
TL;DR - take away? Have we learned anything? Anyone that brave?
Many letters were spilled on this white canvas and I don't think we got anything done. -
We generated a lot of traffic and that alone is valuable
-
Surprise apology from North Korea in the ongoing crisis on the peninsula.
-
Newlywed sixteen year old Honduran mother to be possibly buried alive, but pronounced dead once reaching hospital after being exhumed when family heard screaming from burial spot.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Maybe that is what it is meant to do maybe not, that isn't stated. I appreciate the idea that you want the ability to overthrow the government but I don't believe it is safe or realistic.
I'm sure England thought the same thing until 13 colonies decided to fight back.
Is it safe? No, definitely not. Realistic? Definitely!
Is it probable that it will happen again? Eeeeehhhhh. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime or maybe even our children's... But you can bet if / when it does, it will bad for everybody involved.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's definitely a realistic thing, the US simply might be a violent culture.
I think you could largely be right about this. Going back in history, we had to fight for our independence, then we had slaves revolting against unfair owners, and then we had to fight amongst ourselves (hey, I did it! ... see the Random Words thread, lol)... Nowadays, it looks like people are just being violent for the sake of being violent, when reality is, it is pretty much ingrained in all of us.
Thinking on a global scale, I think it could also have something to do with how small the planet has gotten -- especially in the last say 30 years or so.
-
@MattSpeller said:
TL;DR - take away? Have we learned anything? Anyone that brave?
Many letters were spilled on this white canvas and I don't think we got anything done.But we covered so many topics! And as @scottalanmiller we generated lots of traffic!
The Short, Short version: People Like Guns! People Don't Like Guns! We can still be friends!
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Maybe that is what it is meant to do maybe not, that isn't stated. I appreciate the idea that you want the ability to overthrow the government but I don't believe it is safe or realistic.
I'm sure England thought the same thing until 13 colonies decided to fight back.
Actually no, the military leaders prior to the war advised the king that a war in the colonies was unwinnable due to terrain and population. England went to war knowing it had no ability to win. Both the army and the navy (commanded by brothers) had told the king they were incapable of winning a war should be pursue one.
-
@dafyre said:
Is it safe? No, definitely not. Realistic? Definitely!
The revolution is not the war to compare to. That was an unwinnable war fought by a foreign power fought via attrition.
A war at home would be a civil war and would be neighbor against neighbor. Every weapon kept at one person's home would be turned on the weapons at the house next door. It's not government versus government but person against person with, presumably, the military on one side (almost certainly the same side with the most guns at home since the politics of the military and the "guns at home" groups have always aligned.)
If anything, an armed populace suggests an irregular force that would back the military rather than oppose it. But in either case, we are talking about killing each other, not one country versus another. The US civil way would be a better example, but a bad one, but one that had a far better chance of succeeding (and had almost none as it was.)
-
@dafyre said:
Is it probable that it will happen again? Eeeeehhhhh. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime or maybe even our children's... But you can bet if / when it does, it will bad for everybody involved.
I'm confident that it will never happen. Very confident. There is no precedence in history for a sovereignty at the imperial level (which the US very much is) having an uprising of that type. It has literally never happened AFAIK and simply could not happen.
The only situation where it would make sense is a small group of heavily armed irregulars supporting the regulars in a military coup to become a dictatorship.
-
Not that I'm saying military dictators are bad. Cuba has done pretty well. They have better healthcare than the US, lower homicide rate and do so with almost no resources and two generations of embargo. Dictators are not always bad things. But I feel like the people who often fear the government taking over aren't the ones who normally want dictators to be the result.
-
@dafyre said:
Nowadays, it looks like people are just being violent for the sake of being violent, when reality is, it is pretty much ingrained in all of us.
Only in the east. In the west there was traditional a culture of nonviolence. During the pioneer days of the west, for example, gun fighting was almost unheard of and even lacking a central government and police force there was very little violent crime.
-
@dafyre said:
Going back in history, we had to fight for our independence
"Had to fight" wouldn't make us violent. But what really happened was that we "chose to fight", and that's what makes the violence more likely ingrained. There was no need for a war. It was not the clear cut war that we like to feel like it was today and the people egging the populace on were very rich and set to become richer by doing it. It was anything but a grassroots fight for freedom. Most Americans may have actually become less free through the process.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Going back in history, we had to fight for our independence
"Had to fight" wouldn't make us violent. But what really happened was that we "chose to fight", and that's what makes the violence more likely ingrained. There was no need for a war. It was not the clear cut war that we like to feel like it was today and the people egging the populace on were very rich and set to become richer by doing it. It was anything but a grassroots fight for freedom. Most Americans may have actually become less free through the process.
By and large, I can agree with this.
