Could someone explain this to me:

My pleasure sir I realize that many people get passionate about this subject and I do as well sometimes but throwing insults around doesn't help anyone or accomplish anything good.

Or something. I have deer that walk through my front yard on an almost daily basis and they are tasty. I live outside a small town up in the mountains. For me, a walk in the woods across the street could easily end in an encounter with a bear or cougar. There are also people called moutain gorillas that grow marijuana up in the mountains; they generally don't like visitors. I think a gun is a tool in a class of tools called weapons. I think its unfair and overly simplistic to say that guns are only for killing people and aren't useful for anything constructive. I may be taking your words too far and I apologize if I've done so.

I respect your right to hold this opinion. However, I can tell you that in this country, opinions on this subject vary widely. Some would agree with you, some would not. I know that my neighbors own weapons and they know that I own them as well. We stick together and look out for each other. I want them to have their weapons so they are able to come to my aid if need be and they feel the same way.

I see your point and your logic appears sound. However, many people in this country do own weapons and want to continue to own them. I think we will have to agree to disagree my friend.

Yes it would be less likely for the weapons to fall into the wrong hands, it would be more difficult for the wrong people to obtain weapons. However, I disagree on one life saved making it worth it. I consider myself a fair and reasonable person. Nobody around me will ever have anything to fear from my weapons as long as they don't threaten my family. When a thief, rapist, or murderer breaks into a home with evil intent, I say blast away. If its my house they are going to get some buckshot from my shotgun or 3-5 rounds from one of my pistols in their chest as quickly as possible. I will make every effort to shoot first and I will be shooting to kill. While many victims of gun violence are innocent and their deaths are tragic, I believe that the majority are not.

That's a great question and quite a philosophical dilemma! I don't think there's any one answer to that question, you'll get as many answers as people that you pose the question to. In a democratic society, the voters ultimately decide that question by vote with the majority opinion ruling. This country was founded on the idea of keeping the government as small as possible and out of our lives as much as possible while leaving the individual to decide their own path and deal with the consequences of their own choices. I believe that it is the responsiblity of each individual to protect themselves, provide for themselves, and govern themselves and their actions. When we do not do that, when we decide to have the government protect us, provide for us, and govern us, freedom fades away. Over the last few decades, more and more people in this country are depending on the government for their needs so eventually, there will be enough of them to form a majority and the laws will change. The reason I would answer "no, absolutely not!" to your question is because I believe that you are responsible for your own security. Having the government pass laws banning my hobby and restricting my property in order to provide security to you is a restriction of my freedoms. In regards to property and the construction of highways, I think its criminal for the government to force people off of their land against their will in the name of "the common good".

More secure. I lived in the south for many years where gun laws are the loosest. Everyone knows that everyone else is armed. Everyone knows that if they try to break into a home, they have a very, very good chance of getting shot and killed. They also know that no tears will be shed if that happens. The result? People are generally more respectful towards each other and crime is very low. I lived in a town of 15,000 people and I was 20 minutes away from 6 million people, yet it was rare even for a car to get broken into. The streets were safe to walk on at night. My neighbors smiled and said hello to me when they saw me and I did the same with them. I felt safer there than I do here.

If you detect any venom in my words, let me assure you that that is not my intent. Thanks for the good discussion, I'll look forward to more of the same

 

I've been thinking about our discussion and I wanted to post again in order to concede a point to you and also to share something that I've never thought of before. John Adams, one of our founding fathers, said that "Democracy is only suitable for the governance of a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited for any other."

Over the years, this has become more and more apparent to me as I watch my country "circle the drain" morally. I'll give you an example of this principle in action.

In my state, there is no law against openly carrying a handgun in public. To carry concealed, you must have a permit. I could walk around town with a pistol on each hip and I wouldn't technically be breaking any laws. However, others would be alarmed because its not normal to see someone carrying openly. They would almost certainly call the police who would then question me and ask for my identification, just so they would have a record of having spoken with me. They would then send me on my way. Now, while it is legal to openly carry a firearm, my fellow citizens also have the right to live in peace and tranquility. I choose to govern my own actions using the rights of my fellow citizens to do so which leaves me two options.

1. If I feel unsafe, I can obtain a permit to carry my weapon concealed so that I can obey the law without alarming my fellow citizens.
2. I can leave my weapons at home.

I choose the latter because I don't feel the need to carry a weapon while in town. If everyone acted this way, it would not be necessary for the government to impose restrictions because everyone would be using their freedom to honor their fellow citizens.

The point that I want to concede to you is that sadly, there are a growing number of people in this country that refuse to govern themselves and have no regard for the rights of their fellow men. Sooner or later, it will be necessary for the government to impose restrictions in order to avert a chaotic bloodbath.

What I've never thought of before is that I think the reason I and other gun owners get so angry about gun control is that we are doing our part. We govern ourselves. We have a high degree of respect for the law and for the rights of our fellow citizens. We see this coming and we see the indifferent shrugs of others and we are outraged. We feel that we are to be punished and our freedoms will be taken away because others do not have the decency to govern themselves. Hopefully I've given you a glimpse into the minds of the pro-gun crowd. I understand your position better now and I thank you for teaching me some things that I didn't know. God bless

 

That's the point of a forum in my mind. We get closer to understand each other

I didn't realize that you were living in a small town, which makes things very different in my eyes. I happen to live in three countries. Austria, where I live in a city with about 250,000 inhabitants (half a million with the suburbs) which is my primary residence. In the city the need for a weapon drops drastically in terms of protecting yourself from another species than humans. Therefore I may have chosen the wrong approach which was more appropriate to my location.
In the other two places (Slovenia and Croatia) I live in very small communities and the first doesn't use guns really but uses rifles and other precision guns for hunting purposes too. But you need a permit for those! Everybody owns weapons at home even though it is illegal, but they're not on display but very hidden. In 99% of the cases the rest of the family doesn't know the location of the weapon.
Croatia is different. I live there about 3 months annually even when Croatia was at war from 1991-1995. The closest artillery fire we had was roughly 1 mile away and the front of the battles remained about 3 to 5 miles in distance. Therefore I was living behind front lines. So I didn't see that much of the war but I do remember bits and pieces, which were enough to make me a pacifist. Because of the war everybody was armed. I was 6 years old when I held my first barretta, which was the first and last time I ever will hold a weapon. But I remember artillery shells the size of me (so probably in the 4 feet range) being stored in our celler.

So most of my close friends even post 1996 were armed like you wouldn't believe. Pistols being the least of the problems. I remember though that I went out with my older sister (probably around 1994) and we went out to the only bar which was open in the area. It was the only one you couldn't see from the sky if the lights were on - hence no danger of bombings. It had a hallway at the entrance and I ran into my sister and the person behind me ran into me. The reason for this was the first guy who entered the bar stopped at the entrance. He spotted some soldiers who were drunk and then said: "Let's go! These guys will get drunk and start shooting up the place." Me and my sister coming from Slovenia made us an immediate target (especially for drunk soldiers) because our Croatian had an accent which sounded Serbian. And even if it didn't sound Serbian it sounded foreign that's for sure, and this was enough for quite a few times people with a very mean expression on their face and with massive weaponry asking me where I come from and a friend from Croatia jumping between us and saying "He's one of us." which may have saved my life a couple of times. But I cannot know for sure.

The weaponry in Croatia remaining is stuff I believe outlawed in any country. It doesn't make me feel safer there than the other two places I live. I still avoid going to bars and for drinks without Croatian companionship. And I can recommend anybody who thinks weapons are cool to go and live in a random war-zone for a year as a civilian. Very quickly you'll see how fast the toughest people in the world cry and have brake-downs.

Slovenia is different. I live in a mountainy area there and it's rather peaceful. Crime is on an all-time low, and I think we had one local homicide I can recall in the last 20 years or so. It's a region with a 10 mile radius I'd say and has roughly 30.000 to 40.000 inhabitants. No big or bigger cities anywhere. The idea of being armed is still viewed as "maniac behavior" by the community, although most people have some sort of weaponry at home. But unless you're a certified hunter or a police-men you shouldn't have weapons because getting a permit is rather difficult. Although illegal to own people have them because a bear or some other animal could show up in their garage going through the freezer. The chance of criminals showing up at your home is too small. So that's not even in the consideration-process of the people. And if it was they know they don't need guns for this because those people are old fashion farmers and are so huge and tough it would be an insult if they couldn't beat up a couple of rowdies

But back to topic:

The thing is that rural communities are bringing up the death-tolls. And at least in Europe most people live in cities. So the need for weaponry really drops down to self-defense for most of us.

It's definitely not Wyoming or Utah in the USA which make the murder rate go up. And compared to Europe the murder-rates in the US are really high. Britain has only 35 people who get shot annually, in the USA it's over 10.000. So even per capita the rate in the USA is so much higher than what you'd see in Europe. According to wikipedia the "murder-capitals" are D.C., Luisiana, New Mexico, Maryland, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missuri, Michigan, South Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Nevada, Gorgia, Florida, Texas, California, North Carolina and Pensilvania. In that order!

I knew the D.C. was the murder-capital, but it surprised me to se New Mexico that high in the list. I'd put high murder-rates as a result of loose gun laws and/or the poor enforcement of the existing gun-laws in combination with rural areas. As I said Wyoming or Utah are for sure not the problems, and I'm pretty sure most people own massive weaponry in the countryside compared to rural areas. But they use weapons as tools not purely for self-defense purposes. These people ought to get permits for their weapons pretty easily. Even here in Europe it's not that big of a problem to get a weapon if it's obvious that you need that gun for more than the self-protection. I think it shouldn't be much different in the US. The problem is that in some locations you get a weapon without a permit in the USA. So even if D.C. has strickt gun-laws for purchasing firearms, you could drive for a few hours and get yourself some weaponry elsewhere. So gun regulations are not black or white, it's so much gray in those regulations that it makes it rather easy for anybody to get their hand on weapons.

I believe the only way to stopp the wrong people of getting weapons is not a across the board ban (which can't be done in the USA anyways), but across the board law of permits for weaponry. A federal permit! It doesn't make sense that you just change the location and then it's easier to get a hold of these things. The idea of gun-laws was always (even by the far left) to keep them out of the wrong hands. If you own a gun or rifle you have to have a good reason because of your location or your profession and therefore it should be easier to require a permit for a weapon in the countryside of Utah than in rural Chicago. Exceptions for firearms in my mind should be only antiques.

I think the federal government's primary job is to provide protection. From foreign and domestic forces. And I don't feel safe in the US. Every time I turn on the TV there, there's been a murder of some sort. While our news covers world wide events due to the lack of crime locally, the American news stations can provide enough "news" by following the local police around.

 

I dont like guns, I dont play with them, I have no interest in them as things.

I do want to be able to protect myself. You may well be one of those fortunate ones who has never experienced what it is to be in gravest extreme, to be severely injured by those wishing you harm.

I dont like paying fire insurance. Who would have his house burn down and still not buy insurance for the next home?

Provide me with equal or better protection and I will happily toss the gun in the ocean.

You cant, nobody can. Expressing a holier than thou attitude and expressing false stereotypes about people you dont know doesnt change that.

 

Under these circumstances I can certainly understand your position on guns. Living in a war zone like this is a horrible reality that most Americans don't have the ability to understand.

Now this is different in America. A home invasion is not something that can be solved by beating someone up. Criminals here will often lay in wait, sometimes for days watching you. They figure out when you go to work, when you get home, what your patterns are. When they do come into your home, there is a very good chance they will kill you and take whatever they want or worse. Some horrible things happen here sometimes. Children are stolen from their beds and taken away by predators to be sex toys. Women are raped and violated. I keep loaded guns in my house because I will not gamble with the safety of my family. If someone comes in, I will shoot them.

In my opinion, very few of those 10,000 deaths are innocents. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of them are criminals killing each other or criminals being shot by police officers or home owners; both of which are fine with me. We have severe budget problems in this country and it costs a lot of money to keep people alive in prison for decades. If criminals are going to kill each other that saves the rest of us a whole lot of trouble and money.
Are you aware that D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the nation? I find it very interesting that the state with the toughest laws has the highest murder rate. Do you think that supports the position that gun control laws do not prevent crime?

I agree that guns are potentially dangerous tools that need to be kept out of the wrong hands. Most gun owners in America agree with certain measures (such as background checks and gun locks) that are designed to keep the wrong people from getting ahold of them. However, I think that passing gun control laws is like someone with a toothache eating half a bottle of aspirin. It may provide some temporary relief but it does nothing to address the real problem and has negative consequences that can outweigh the benefits. What do you think of this?

On this, we just think differently and I don't think we will ever agree. That's okay with me. I have my opinion and I respect your right to have yours.

 

There are 26,000 local, state, and federal gun laws in the US.

The entire premise of your argument is wrong.

 

Let me answer all this step by step.

I wish to start with criminals braking into the house. Most people who brake into houses don't do that professionally. It could be something as simple as some teen looking for alcohol, or a junky for money. I read that the average junky needs an excess of $100 every day on average to cover their addiction. In "socialist" Austria they salved the problem by giving junkies (especially heroin-junkies) a substitute drug at the pharmacy in the morning which covers the junky's needs for about 18 hours. That way we as tax payers pay for that, but in return the junkies have no longer the need to rob houses or stores for a few bucks. By this simple measure the small crimes in this country went down considerably. Also junkies are not persecuted in only one area of the city. If they use drugs anywhere else, they get arrested. So all the junkies are at one location and this one location is filled with cameras and the police watching. They only arrest the dealers. Since you cannot stop crime this has been the best concept of the "war on drugs" I've seen so far. I'm never worried going through the city

But back to the criminals braking into the house. People here are not that wealthy. We pay so much taxes, that we have a huge middle class, who earn similarly. Whenever an Europan answers the question how much they earn, they mean how much they get once all taxes are payed already. A monthly 1000 Euro income results in 1200 Euro taxes payed for by the employer. And the more you earn the bigger the tax percentage is you have to pay. I think by law 3000 Euro incomes result in 4000 Euro taxes. Once you hit the 5000 mark your paying 10,000 Euro taxes. So there are not that many millionaires around here. Braking in a house makes virtually no difference. Ideally you can get a couple of grand worth of stuff you need to sell. So the usual criminal here is no master-mind; they're usually some sort of burglars who just brake in the hope of getting some money. That's why we don't prepare for rapes and violent crimes. It makes no sense for professionals to rob some small house and not something more major where they can really expect to get more money.

Since murder is not an issue in Austria (at least compared to the USA) it's pretty close impossible for a criminal to get to your home and kill you for no reason, especially because they wouldn't have a weapon either. The best they could have is a taser or maybe a knife. The regulations and the enforcement of those regulations is here so good, that there is really a close to zero percent chance of any criminal coming to your house with a gun. And I have to say, that according to what I've read, most murders happen with victim and perpetrator knowing each other for a longer period of a time. The serial killers who really kill randomly are to seldom for a standardization. The standard is murders between family members or close relatives and friends. It is more likely that one of your friends or family kills you than someone you've never met.

To the D.C. topic: I think that everybody is innocent until proven guilty. And since most murders usually happen within family and friends I'd question the view of your's. It is true that there are gangs in America. Something virtually non-existant here.

Source: wikipedia

So maybe it is really different and gang-members killing other gang-members are really the most common thing in the USA. If you think about it, it is a fact that more than 90% of all murderers kill one or two people and they usually do it in a short period of a time. The FBI classifies someone a serial killer if they killed three or more people with a longer time spread than a month. These "serial killers" are really rare as you know. So out of those 10,000+ killed we probably are looking at about 5,000 or more murderers who most likely knew their victims, which just enhances the stat if you compare it to any European country (or the EU).

The thing I mentioned before applies for D.C. too. A county/state has regulations and others around it do not. People just drive for 100 miles and can pick up any sort of weaponry they wish. That's the first problem, that's why I said that a federal law must be in place so this would stop, because it wouldn't be possible anymore. The thing I mentioned too was that gun-murders happen with poor regulation and/or poor enforcement of those laws. So obviously D.C. doesn't properly enforce those laws and one county making a ban doesn't solve the problem.

But looking at the quote from wikipedia above, I'd say license for guns would be a solution. You need a license for a car and you're not allowed to drink alcohol till you're 21. A combination of that might bring the rate down in the us since most gun-murders are committed by teenagers. And it seems limiting the access to hand-guns nation-wide might help too.

 

You have other countries you can compare the laws and regulations to. So if you feel something needs fixing you can compare it with 100 countries usually, and you'll find 100 solutions for the same problem and then then you just look at which of the top 5 my be aplicable to your country. At least that's what I'd do as a government.

So in the terminology we know a few factors which play into guns getting into the wrong hands: First, poor communities are more likely to own and wrongfully use weapons. Solutions which have worked in other countries was helping the poor get educated and getting out of their income bracket. Whether this is done through government or non-profit charities is irrelevant to this discusion. Second, more weapons lead to more violence, especially in urban areas. But we have countries who can be followed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Map_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rate.png

Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Spain, Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Denmark, Iceland and New Zealand can be role models. You just pick whatever system seems to work best for your people and your region. But if you look at this you see that the income and inequality seems to be the most important factor.

 

Answer me this, why isn't gun control working in Mexico. They have a very similar leftist socialist government there as in Austria.

They have very, very restrictive laws on private gun ownership. Citizens can really only get small .22 rifles, as any military style firearms are forbidden. Citizens must go to their local, corrupt police force and do the paperwork to get a gun---maybe for a bribe.

However, there have been tens of thousands of killings, mostly from drug gang related violence. Just in one city Juarez, there were 67 people killed in just on day.

Why aren't these gun laws working? What solutions would you put in place that would actually work to stop the violence? The majority of the people have a high tolerance for corruption.

 

I think the reason is inequality. A rich well-educated person is less likely to shoot his neighbor for a few hundred dollars or drugs than somebody who sees his only survival in selling drugs. I simply base that on the fact that very wealthy areas of the world have low or lower crime-rates than poor neighborhoods. If you can provide housing, education, health care, security, etc. for as many people as possible in your society the crime rates drops. There are always exceptions, but I believe if those basic things are provided an individual is less likely to become a murderer.

Think of it this way: Most people who own guns (to stay on topic) are afraid. They are afraid for their security or for the security of their family. This means the basic need for security is not provided. Scared people make irrational decisions, because they are controlled by fear not by rational though, hence these people shouldn't carry guns. At least in my opinion.

I see though often Americans looking to Mexico to compare, they don't tend to compare their system with Japan or Europe because it has a tendency to present an better working alternative, which seems to clash with the "America is the greatest country in the world"-type concept the media pushes.

I do not know how law enforcement enforces laws in Mexico but I'd imagine they're not doing a good job for some reason. Inequality in Austria has become worse. 10% of Austrians have to survive with 1000 Euro or less every month, only 10% own more than 50,000 Euro; but I'd imagine it's a little better than in Mexico. Also here you're covered for a 2 or 3 years with unemployment benefits if you are unemployed. You get 60% of the income you used to have and then it goes down to 40% up to 10 years. Our unemployment rate is at 4.5% which is pretty bad for Austrian standards. Also (full) healthcare costs 365 Euro annually unless you make sub 800 Euro (I think) then it's free. It's really expensive only if you have a 3500+ Euro income, because then they start charging you percentage wise on your income, no longer the flat 365 Euro. Also education is free including university. So you have a lot of unemployed people working on advanced degrees in order to being competitive once the graduate.

The solutions that the government provides through our taxes so you never really have to go broke if you are prepared to work hard enough are just unparalleled. I dislike looking at my paycheck due to all the taxes I pay, but in the end I'm glad I pay for all this just to have something to fall back on if I happen to loose my job or something.

I think it requires more than just laws for anything to work. But the better educated the people are the easier it is to make steps into the right direction. If you wanna control people then you need to demoralize them, keep them in debt and and scare them. Scared people will do anything...

 

Sorry, but the facts just don't support your views. You site how good people have it in Western Europe and Japan. Is it because of the laws and government, or is it because the vast majority of the population is made up of Whites and Japanese in each area?

If the majority of a population are hardworking Westerners, with Christian morals and a fair economy, crime is going to be low anyway. Whether it is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland or rural America. Then you can have a big socialist government, like you are so impressed with. Taxing the rich and bankrolling the poor (and lazy). The classless society of equality didn't work out so hot in the Soviet Union and Eastern Erurope, did it? Socialist states, even like Austria, will eventually fail after all the resourses (like government housing and unemployment benefits) are used up.

Crime is going to be high in Africa, just because of the people and culture. You may not like hearing it, but it is true. All of crime hotspots in the UK and America, that's every single one of the 25 most danagerous neighborhoods, have people of African decent dong virtually all the crime there. Hispanic populations also suffer heavy crime, depending on amout of drug traffic present. Here is what the UN says about it:

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Crime is not going to go away in Mexico, or in the urban hellholes of the US and UK by more free housing and education, that does not work. Gun laws are proven to fail. With narcotics, the temptation is too great for those in corrupt cultures to withstand not getting involved in it. If you could mark up a simple pencil and have it worth 600 times the cost to make it by selling it on the street...you see the problem with drugs. The only way reduce crime in Mexico to normal levels is to round up and execute the drug gangs.

 

Being white has in my opinion nothing to do with upholding the law or a working society. The support of the "poor and lazy" if you wish to call it that way is necessary for a stable community. And we have a study to prove this. There is a small community outside Vienna. Most towns were build around a market or church, this particular one was build around a textile factory. When the great depression hit the factory had to be shut down. In this community all of the sudden more than 75% of the people were without any income what so ewer, and a group of sociologist made a very detailed study of how this changes the community if nearly nobody has any income anymore. A fantastic read translated into English:

Marie Jahoda / Paul F[elix] Lazarsfeld / Hans Zeisel [d.i. Hans Zeisl] - Marienthal. The Sociography of an Unemployed Community. (Translation from the German by the authors with John Reginall and Thomas Elsaesser.) Chicago, Ill.–New York, N.Y.: Aldine, Atherton [1971], xvi, 128 S.

If you read this you'll find out that some sort of income is necessary to make improvements in life even a goal to people - never mind reality. To your point about Christian morals: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...elief_in_god.svg&filetimestamp=20120609015826 As you see the disbelief in God is a more widely spread phenomenon across western countries than eastern once. The fact of the matter is that the disbelief in God is more normal than the Catholic views pushed by the church. I am an Atheist myself and very few people my age have a connection to Christian beliefs.

Since I'm born in a true Socialist/Communist country and I'm a historian, I feel like I can make a jugement about that. Austria spends 1% of it's federal budget on military spending while the US federal government still spends over 20% of it's budget supporting it's empire. The 19%+ we have in addition in our budget makes these social programs possible. For example the health care system which costs the average citizen 365 Euro (so 1€/day) made a hard profit of 38 million Euros which the government took out of the medical system to cover other programs. The failing of the communist countries resulted in military investments and the fact that only party members could rise the economic leather while intellectuals were persecuted. Our intellect fled and created jobs and inventions elsewhere....

If you wanna compare the failing of the government you're welcome to compare socialist Austria with the USA. I'd be surprised if per capita the Austrian government produces worse numbers in terms of debt. Two wars (on a credit card) cost more than any social program

And I know Afrika is the worst, but you're forgetting that partially no country on that continent had a war-free environment for 40 years. It's not only the culture, but the fact that civil wars and other war-Szenarios completely destroy any progress possible. A country at war has always high crime rates. A country without a stable government has always a high crime rate.

But I have to ask: Why always compare Mexico to the US? Why not Germany or Britain? Is it unfair to compare to European western countries for some reason?

 

Austria has less dead weight living off welfare to support---but as more entitlement seekers come in, look out.

I like holding all people to the same standard, whoever they are, wherever they are. Yes you are proud of your little country. But just because Austria does it this way, does not mean it will work eleswhere for everyone.

You brag about your tiny military, but what has is done lately? Send a few troops out for a few months here and there, maybe as peacekeepers. Yes that saves money and the soldiers lives, but what about social justice? The truth is your leaders and your population at large are gutless cowards, too lazy and afriad to risk the skins of their own people to make a difference in the world. What about all the cruel dictators and terrorists in Asia, the Mid-East and Africa? Will your country do anything beside offer some money or a study on economics?

As for Africa, tell me the timetable for just one country there to get it right. 40 years sure isn't enough. How about a hundred years, a thousand? Where is socialism working there?

Finally, why do we have to compare every country to the US and Western Europe? Well, these places keep the best statistics, along wih Japan and other industrialized countries. Take crime for instance, when there is a dead body in a typicall area of Austria or the United State, the police show up, then there is a crime scene investigation if warrented, and the whole process is recorded and part of a database.

In Mexico, a group of dead gang victims show up. The police load them up, mabye an investigation, maybe not. Maybe the bodies are counted and sent to government, maybe not. Do you trust all the crime data coming out of Mexico? I don't.

In Camaroon in Africa, a dead body is found with stab wounds or bullet holes. You can't call 911, because there is no 911 service, and usually not even a police force. There is no CSI unit anyhere in the country. There is no government record of the body or a crime, unless maybe it is taken to a hospital. Usually, the body is buried by the family, if it is even found. Crime rates in Camaroon are very low---but lots of graves.

 

I wanna address this first. The fact that we have a tiny military is a good thing because the country adapted to the fact and in these days it's pretty close to impossible getting attacked by another country. It's not like any of the neighbors or any Middle-Eastern country would declare war on Austria. Times have changed. It's as simple as that. And thankfully the military forces don't need do much beyond peacekeeping. We've been at war for over 2000 years in Europe and decided that WW3 is not a solution to our problems. Somehow the EU, although many people might see it as a problem, has maintained the longest period of peace on European ground I can think of in the last 2000 years. And the best part: It's not over. If you shoot back with Greece, keep in mind that the EU has more unemployed people than there are Greek people and that Greece has a problem because their people don't pay taxes. Compare the tax revenue of any Greek city to a similar size city anywhere else in the EU-Euro zone. No money coming in yet money going out. That's the problem. And Greece spend more of its budget (4%) on military than any other EU country (besides Turkey).

Why do you think that Germany and Japan could possibly do so well after loosing WW2 just 68 years ago. Their cities were completely bombed out and it's not the fact that the people are that special, but the fact that the Allies guaranteed security in order to force them to downgrade their military force. Since 1945 weapons (of all kinds) have gone out of these countries and their government were prohibited to buy new material. If you can't buy new material, you put the money someplace else. So they put more of the tax revenue back into the economy and their bombed out cities recovered faster than somebody else's cities which may not gotten bombed. By the 1970s Germany had gained economic control in Europe again.

Keep in mind that any plane or ship you buy for the military costs a lot of money to maintain, and then is outdated within 25 to 30 years. This means you not only spend a couple hundred million dollars on the plane, but then a few more million annually just to maintain and secure it for a decade or two. So all the money which went towards military since 1992 in the USA was out of place because the cold war was over. The USA used to be the poster-boy in that regard. They'd build up their military in WW1 and decrease it back "peace-time" leves after 1919. They'd build up in 1941 and stop at 1945. For some reason the military size didn't get downgraded after 1991 and so many people feel it's necessary for the federal government even to increase military spending now.

Most European countries spend 2 - 3% of their budget on military spending. The US spends 10-times as much. The biggest airforce in the world is the US-Airforce, the second is the US-Navy. So unless the US-Navy attacks the US-Airforce you're fine Nobody is arguing that the US shouldn't have a military force, nobody is arguing you shouldn't have the biggest one on the planet either, what I'm arguing is that too much of you federal money doesn't help your people. If the US would spend only 5% they'd still outspend any other country, however the money left over could be used to create jobs, improve the Medical-System further, save social-security, improve the police force, decrease the dept, you name it.

A friend of mine is Syria and two more are leaving for Afghanistan in spring. The Austrian forces are involved, they're just stopped attacking the people of random countries, because neither the people nor the government would approve. It's the history of the country which makes people more peaceful I suppose. People have grown tired of wars.

 

Now I'm gonna adress the rest. It is true that our welfare system only works with 5% people unemployed. I am not sure if it would work with the unemployment numbers over 10%, but I can imagine that it wouldn't.

I also agree with the idea that things that work in Austria might not work elsewhere. What I was trying to say is that there are as many solutions to the same problem as there are countries in the world. So you have plenty of solutions to choose from if you're willing to look at them. I'd look at the 10 best ones and try to implement whatever seems to be adaptable to your own country. The problem is if you only look at your own. The justice system and the medical system works here. What doesn't work here is the work our government does with the minorities and the work with immigrants. Illegal or otherwise...

The definition to get anything working is not really peace time. But it is a very important factor. There's a guy in Norway (Nobel-winner) a colleague of mine worked with who does a whole workshop and lectures of how to properly work with "out of war" coming countries. What factors to look for and what help needs to be provided. The first human need is not food or water it's security (apart from air obviously ). People are not too worried if they are hungry if they are unsure if they'll survive the day. There are special examples all over the world. You named Africa with specific needs depending on the region. Another example would be Papa Neuguinea where the county is at peace for a few decades now yet it's people are at war. There are hundreds of tribes on that island and their tradition is to go to war ever couple of months or years. Which is legal according to their law, and most people agree with that law. This is not adaptable to Europe or America obviously. But it is one "solution" worth looking at, because it shows you what to do or not to do.

That's why I mind the US only comparing to Canada and Mexico. There are simply so many other solutions to the problem worth looking at. "Even if you find 100 solution which would not work, you have proof how not to do it" - to quote Thomas Edison

 

You mentioned gangs, well most of the gun violence here is caused by drugs and the drug trade. Selling drugs is a way to make a quick buck but comes with some bad consequences sometimes. Some blame the "war on drugs" as causing much of the problem and to some extent I agree. If drug use were handled here as it is in your country, we would probably see a dramatic drop in our murder rate by gun.

 

Good point. It would be nice to have a hard figure we could use though. I figured gang-wars raised the gun-murder rate, but it would be know how big the ratio is.

 

Hard to say. Also cultural differences within the US are indicative of something going on. For instance almost 1/2 of gun violence is in the black community where unemployment is a higher percentage than the rest of the racial categories. It is harder to determine a reason than to just take statistics.