Why the difference in murder rates between Europe and US?

[Don Gwinn]

Ever heard this one, MK?

So be it--threaten no more
To secure the peace is
To prepare for war

So be it--settle the score
Touch me again and I'll
Hunt you and pound you
Forevermore. . .

Don't tread on me!

[Don Gwinn]

And with that, I've had enough of this. Troll me once, shame on you. Troll me fifty-seven times. . . . .

I leave you with a few points:

1. Your premise on murder rates is faulty. Europe's murder rate is exponentially higher than ours over the last century. Pretending that it is otherwise by pretending that people murdered by their governments with the blessing of the majority weren't murdered is disgusting and dishonest.

2. You clearly have no idea what the laws or customs are outside your own small, cloistered corner of the EU and should not be commenting on them. You try to tell us that the Swiss are unarmed, for Pete's sake. Ridiculous.

3. Swiss people certainly "can" and DO use their service rifles. They shoot matches all the time and have many times more rifle ranges than we do here in the U.S. But you miss the real point. The point is that you say it's the access to those weapons that should cause massive crime and murder nationwide--but the Swiss have one and not the other. Therefore one CANNOT be causing the other.

4. Come back when you have some kind of clue what it means to live in the world and not in mom and dad's spare room. There's nothing wrong with being your age, but it would be smart to practice a little discretion when in the company of people who've been there and done that. Your crocodile mouth is writing checks your hummingbird butt can't cash.

'Bye now.

[Frohickey]

Metallic Kitty wrote:

If you like to look at your weapons and polishing them, why not do so? I do not think however that your guns are increasing your personal security. If you meet a gang trying to rob you, you will have a better chance to survive if you are not armed than if you are. An advice, as I gave to someone else too on this thread, run like hell.

What if you are in a wheelchair?
What if you are on crutches?
What if you had a genetic defect that made running painful?
I guess those 3 types of people are out of luck in your scenario.

Sometimes, you CANNOT retreat. Even the various classes about personal safety here in the United States preach 'Situational Awareness' (SA). This means that you are aware of your situation, and can take the proper measures to avoid contact or maximize your advantage.

Also, what would you do if a group of thugs wait until your parents have left for work, and they would like a taste of sweet 16 year old 'charm'? What if flight is not an option? What then? What if instead of letting you go after they have had their way, the do not want any witnesses? What then?

Guns are tools. So is the rock Cain used. So are swords, knives, baseball bats, clubs, scissors, icepicks, poison, automobiles, hands and fists and legs. You use the tool that gives you the maximum 'multiplication' of effort. For a 95 pound (43.2 kg) woman against (2) 180lb (81.9kg) men, what do you suggest? Harsh language? Manicured fingernails? Or maybe, the woman should have her boyfriend around at all times to protect her. Wait, what happened to the female independence that feminists always talk about?

True, if guns are more readily available in society, then the criminals as well as their peaceful victims would have weapons. The way I see it, if a peaceful victim shoots dead a vicious criminal, society is improved. If a vicious criminal kills a peaceful victim, then society is diminished.

When you make gun ownership more difficult, you only affect the peaceful victim, while the vicious criminal will evade the barriers put there by well-meaning politicians. It is the peaceful victim that is harmed. In fact, the criminal's lot is improved because it just means that his victims would be less likely to stop an attack.

[Dave Bean]

MK

Thanks for replying to my message. If you read my original profile of you, I stated "upper secondary education or early university." In the US, "upper secondary" means grades 10-12, the age equivalent of 16-18. I also stated "late teens or early twenties." So...I was close to guessing your age.

To reply with real world experience: I was 15 when I first got mugged by a gang of four. I did run....they caught me. Needless to say, 4 on 1 is not good odds. I lost....badly.

My friend (who was 22 at the time) was approached by a gang of 8 from behind. They said "hey you, what's in the bag ?" (he had shopping bags) Needless to say, it was street talk for "there are 8 of us, just give us the bags." He turned around with a gun in hand. They scattered. They never bothered him again.

Real life is very different.

Dave

[Tamara]

Re: Gun Laws and Crime.

The state in the US with the loosest gun laws is Vermont. In Vermont, you do not even need a permit to carry a gun concealed on your person. Vermont's population in 2001 was 613,000; in 2001 they had 7 non-negligent homicides. This is a rate of 1.1 per 100,000. By comparison, comparable with Denmark or Austria.

Just across the state line from Vermont is New York, with some of America's toughest gun laws. It's non-negligent homicide rate for 2001 was 5.0 per 100,000.

Incidentally, your views of America being some gunfire-riddled warzone where folks take heavy artillery to the park out of fear is pretty droll. Here where I live, you could leave your doors unlocked, your car keys in the ignition, and your wallet and watch on the dashboard.

[Frohickey]

Metallic Kitty wrote:

Nobody will burn your house down if you don't want to participate in the general welfare system as defined by us in Europe. I don't know if it is known for you that the payments into the general welfare account are not done by the employees in question and these payments are not the employees taxes. The payments into the social welfare system are done by employers as a kind of duty. In fact, citizens are not paying onto the account of social welfare, that is done by the employers (in some European countries a part of these payments are paid by employees). In other words, a part of the payments onto the common welfare account are done by work-buyers (employers) and another part by work-sellers (employees). It is the general agreement in the societies in question, an agreement accepted by both work-buyers and work-sellers.

Where does the work-buyer (employers) get the resources to pay into this social welfare system? Maybe they get it from the proceeds of doing business with the goods-buyer (consumer).

Where does the goods-buyer (consumer) get the resources to pay for the increased cost of buying goods from the work-buyer (employers)? Maybe they get it from the salary they earn as work-sellers (employees).

In the end, it is the employees who pay for this social welfare system in the form of higher cost of necessary goods and services. And for what? To aid the few who are ill-suited for work from laziness, lack of skills or lack of ambition? I would rather have these few get the resources they need in order to live from voluntary contributions.

When Peter gives willingly to Paul, Peter feels good about his act of charity, and Paul feels good for getting a necessity.

When government forces Peter to give to Paul, Peter resents it, and thinks that Paul is a lazy bastard. Paul thinks government is wonderful, and that Peter is greedy and doesn't want to share. Sounds like the making of a divided society.

[Tamara]

The payments into the social welfare system are done by employers as a kind of duty.

"Corporate taxes" are a myth and a joke. For every $1 demanded of a corporation, they take $0.50 from their employee's salaries and get the other $0.50 by jacking up the price of their goods/services.

You can't tax a corporation; it's merely an indirect way of extorting more money from the taxpayers.

[Art Eatman]

MK, you've posted a lot of opinions, but you have presented little in the way of facts to support them. Further, you have had most of your arguments refuted and the refutations have included supporting data.

My suggestion to you is the same as I've offered to others of your general age: Do more listening, and a lot more reading about how other countries operate. Given the ease of travel around the general European area, I suggest you take more advantage of opportunities to do so. Since you are already poly-lingual, I suggest you spend time talking to "just folks" as to their attitudes about their systems--taxation, personal freedoms, etc.

I've always felt fortunate that I had a year of high school in the Philippines; I learned a lot from a tour of U.S. Army occupation duty in South Korea in 1954/1955 and then a two-year tour in Paris. Spent a good bit of time in more than a dozen other countries, as well.

A couple of points: Socialism inherently cannot enable the creation of wealth to the extent that capitalism does. From a material standpoint, then, people are far better off in the more-free system such as we have than do people in, say, Germany. (I have a couple of recent trips to my son's home in southern Germany.) Remember that we have people in our public-support ("welfare") system who own homes, drive cars, smoke cigarettes and drink beer/booze--yet many are alleged to be in poverty.

As to guns, I've been shooting since the early 1940s. I last had a real physical fight in 1951. I've never had violence offered to me "on the street". However, I've never had a house burn down--but I have insurance. I've never had a major car wreck--but I have insurance. I've never had a major illness--but I have insurance.

A firearm is merely another form of insurance.

Regards,

Art

[Dave Bean]

"America being some gunfire-riddled warzone where folks take heavy artillery to the park out of fear " - Tamara

Tamara...if I didn't know you better....are you trying to flatter me ????

There is a famous hitman/gangster from New York who stated that an unarmed population would be a dream come true. He would never have to worry about pulling off a crime because no one would fight back. Running is not a option with his "gang", they would eventually find you.

Dave

PS. So...umm.....can we close this thread yet ???

[Frohickey]

Metallic Kitty wrote:

By helping temporary losers to come back into the society, we are preventing the extension of permanent losers. The last mentioned ones make the basis for the criminal individuals and gangs. But, for heping temporary losers you need an advanced and costly social welfare system. But, are you ready to pay for it? If not, take the consequences and live under circumstances of high level crime.

"I will kill you unless you give me your money."
"I will steal from you unless you give me what I need."

By making your social welfare system, you have just condoned the two above statements. I think that doing so is a very bad idea, because it weakens the ethical and moral barrier to 'not kill' or 'not steal'. This is not the way to solve your 'temporary loser' problem.

The way to solve it is to encourage voluntary contributions to help the 'temporary loser' problem. Here, the voluntary-ness of the contribution is well-known in advance by the 'temporary loser', and they are well-adviced to not depend on the aid as perpetual.

The sentiment and feeling condoned by this voluntary contribution system is:
"I better try my hardest to not need the welfare system, because I can't count on it."
"I better work as hard as I can, and be as prepared as I can to weather a job loss because I can only count on me, and not some handouts."

These two sentiments are better overall for society, since it tries to elevate everyone. Some might not be able to rise as high as others, and some might fall, but they would be helped with private charity, while still being propelled towards self-reliance.

[orlando5]

What socialism are you talking about? I have no experience of living in socialism so I cannot comment your points of view.

*sigh*

You are promoting socialism and you don't even know it.

[Art Eatman]

I have long found it ironically amusing at just how socialistic the U.S. governmental system has become, yet over half the population fights it, hair, teeth and eyeballs. Much of the irony derives from the fact that many of those who vote for representatives who espouse socialistic structure will yet complain loudly against governmental intrusiveness into their lives.

Art

[Bog]

By helping temporary losers to come back into the society, we are preventing the extension of permanent losers.

Hm. There's no distinction made between a temporary loser, and a permenant loser suckling at the teat of government-extorted money by welfare laws - not in such a way as counts.

Myself, I've had hellaciously rough times in the past. More than once, I've found myself without heat, light and subsited on beans on toast. Almost every single time I've bounced back with the help of my friends, who leant me everything from money, to a place to live, etc. Then, when I'd bounced back, I paid 'em back and did nice things for 'em on top.

If I'd been a two-time loser who'd never amounted to much in the first instant, they wouldn't have leant me their money, or offerred their aid. More to the point, I didn't even ask for their assistance, it was "Hey, Bog, can I help you out of this?" It was their choice to offer help. It was my choice to accept it. It was part of my bounden responsibility to accept no more help than I needed, and to not accept such help as would discommode the helper.

I've returned the favour in more direct ways for other friends of mine when they've been in dire straits.

State supported "welfare" taxes are the equivalent of saying "Hi, stranger. Help me out, or I'll get my uniformed friend there to throw you in prison".

I'm

Too stinkin' proud

to take money from the Gubment, but if a friend offeres to help out, in a way I'm sure I can repay, then I'll accept gratefully. And pay 'em back with interest.

One way is based on a person's proven value to society. It operates on human decency, and the volitional choice of good people to do good. The other is based on coersion, and the horrible lie that everyone's as worthy of help as everyone else.

Gah..... that's my tuppence's worth, and I've just realised that it's OT... oh, well...

[Bog]

And seeing as my previous post rambled, here's a nice short one on murder rates.

Fight crime.
Shoot back.

[Fred Hansen]

Gah..... that's my tuppence's worth, and I've just realised that it's OT... oh, well...

No worries Bog. In a hopelessly meandering thread like this one, there is no such thing as on topic.

[Ben Swenson]

The payments into the social welfare system are done by employers as a kind of duty. In fact, citizens are not paying onto the account of social welfare, that is done by the employers (in some European countries a part of these payments are paid by employees).

And if a business refuses to pay into the Solidarity Account of Mutual Social Enjoyment and Pleasure? Say, they want to instead direct that money to a retirement program for their workers to hire new personnel?

You would force a company to pay people for not working for them to compensate nonproductivity. That is money that cannot be used to increase profits, pay more workers' wages, expand the business or what-have-you.

Doesn't fly with me.

[Bog]

A lovely quote by, I think, R.A. Heinlein spring to mind...

Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity.

[Metallic Kitty]

I agree that the crime problem in the society cannot be solved by simple means and in a short period. Only social welfare programs aren't sufficient. Other strategic and long term actions are necessary to carry on simultaneously and during a long period of time. Good, cheap and aviable schools for everyone, making order in ruined parts of big cities, well educated police corps, chasing big criminals and not only "bad boys" on the street, neutralize strong political lobbies financed by strong industrial complexes etc. Those things are only some of the possible efforts.

In Switzerland, Luxembourg, Scandinavian countries etc. the low level criminal is obtained by the above mentioned kinds of efforts during many decades. If you only want to think about your private interests without any will to pay for increased stability and security in the society, you don't deserve those things. As the criminals which you have mentioned want to have expensive cars so you want to have a secure society but, my dear friend, both of you must pay for the things you want to have.

[Fred Hansen]

R.A. Heinlein springs to mind...

Straight on the money. Another by Mr. Heinlein:

"Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

[Metallic Kitty]

To find crime in the US you do not need any research. Just go on the streets and have a glance. But, if you like reading, open FBI's site and read some statistics. Two days old news from that site show that each 2½ seconds one violent criminal deed occur in the US. Take a trip to Switzerland or any other EU country and you will see that it is not paradise there but that it is far as bad as you have it back home.

[Bog]

MetallicKitty,

I spent quite a while on Manhattan and Rhode Island's streets and never had any "crime" problems.

We're having quite a lot of trouble here in the UK though.

Out of interest, how much time have you spent in the US to back up your assertation?

[Metallic Kitty]

Hey there MeekAndMild,

Do you have any information if crime between the Mexican population in the US and the Mexican population in Mexico are comparable in terms of crime statistics?

[Mute]

To find crime in the US you do not need any research. Just go on the streets and have a glance.

Really? And you've been to every part of the U.S.?

I walk around the streets all over where I live (Los Angeles County, one of the statistically more dangerous places in the U.S.). I've never been approached by a criminal. Then again, maybe it's because I don't act or look like a victim in waiting.
And I can probably count on one hand the number of crimes I have personally seen in my lifetime (vanity prevents me from stating my age).

Someone can say the same thing about the U.K. Doesn't make it true or false just by saying it.

[Bog]

Someone can say the same thing about the U.K. Doesn't make it true or false just by saying it.

Ahh, the Road Song of the Bandar Log....

Thought anyone who says the UK doesn't currently have a crime problem, whilst not necessarily a liar, has a very fluffy definition of "Problem".

Gah. And again, gah.

[Metallic Kitty]

If you are not satisfied with your own kitchen furniture, you will not make extensive studies of what is wrong or what is not desireable in the kitchen. You simply state what kind of kitchen you want to have and you start making such a kitchen with your hands or you start collecting money to pay somebody else who will make the kitchen for you.

Why so many words about the bad things in the society as everybody already knows how it is. Instead, give proposals how you want to have it and how to acomplish it. In my correspondance with different participants on this thread, I am trying to express my opinion on what to do. Mostly I talk abuot development, social welfare systems and carrying on simultaneous other types of actions. My American friends are mostly answering in terms of "I want to have freedom", "I don't want to share my money with anybody else", "the government who us to pay taxes is a thief" etc. Dear friends, manage your country by objectives. Formulate the goals, plan the actions and go through with it. Stop whining about how wonderful and necessary it is to have guns and home and in your pockets. The second amandment in your constitution was good in time when it was formulated. But, that was another time than we live in now.

Your sociological points of view are too simple for solving the complex question of balance and security in a modern society.