Solomon

Did you notice the chart I posted in this topic yesterday? It includes Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. Link: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9994-obligatory-gun-control-thread/page-3#entry179557

You do. You can compare the USA to the nations that are generally considered to be economically and socially developed or you can choose to say that at least its murder rate is better than Honduras, South Africa, and Jamaica. The decision you make depends on what you'd like the USA to be like 10, 20, 50 years from now.

Entrenched attitudes only mean that it takes longer to change. Maybe you have to wait for two generations to die! The USA has a very high murder rate compared to other developed countries but its non-firearms murder rate is similar. While it's probable the availability of firearms is largely responsible for this, some people believe that the USA is simply more murderous than other developed nations. This is a depressing - and I hope, wrong - view. Either way, easily available guns are a bad idea.

Wow. I didn't realize the US's gun problem was that large.

Sometimes, someone you know, maybe a friend, has a zit and that zit needs to be picked. You know it's going to be messy and cruel people will laugh, but it'll worth it in the long term. However, you won't know for sure how full of pus that zit is until you pinch it between your fingers.

Be patient. What should have been a rational decision became an emotional decision so it'll take a lot longer to resolve.

... any more than you can prove Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. I'm still open to believing in all three of them if someone can provide scientific evidence.

The UN has achieved a lot but it is politically hobbled by the ability of some Security Council members to veto resolutions. Would those of you who live in countries which have UNSC veto power (China, France Russia, UK, US) be willing to give it up in order to make the UN more politically effective?

Democracies often go to war with other democracies but they tend to assert that they are real democracies whereas the nations they are attacking are not. It's not a bad short term ploy if you get enough of your citizens to believe it.

If that's society's biggest problem, we all deserve a pat on the back for having become so civilized.

When you look at the details of PC, you can see things that are ridiculous and things that make good sense. That's true of most social movements. What I find fascinating is how the topic fascinates people.

^ This person understands the logical extension of "good guys v. bad guys" and "if you ain't with us, you're against us".

I wouldn't go as far as this but Clarke does make a point. I have a lot of sympathy with people who are forced into difficult situations, including those affected by military conscription and civil unrest in their countries. However, people who choose a profession willingly should accept the costs and benefits associated with that choice.

@ the OP: you're confusing luddism and primitivism. Luddism is the fear/rejection of technology. Primitivism has two meanings: the rejection of sophistication or the rejection of rationalism.

Very interesting. Please post a link to the research.

DEIC put itself into a shitty position. May it find a better way forward.

CNBC was the clear winner, but what a bunch of meanies for asking the poor little candidates searching questions.

I'd like to hear how you think the US could have "won" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You have it the wrong way round. Birthrate doesn't alter the environment; it responds to it. Creating offspring involves the use of resources (proteins, minerals, etc.) so there has to be a reason for it to be worth producing multiple offspring. In the case of creatures whose offspring have a low risk of dying before they reproduce (e.g. elephants), only one or occasionally two offspring are produced, whereas frogs lay thousands of eggs because there is a high probability of the eggs and tadpoles being eaten before the offspring reach sexual maturity. Humans are no different in that respect. Compare Italy - a predominantly Catholic country with one of the lowest birthrates - against Bolivia - a predominantly Catholic country with a high birthrate. What differs between them is the sense of security - the perceived risk of infant death from disease, starvation, or violence. Create a safer environment and the birthrate will come down.

"Native culture" diminishes in importance when the social and cultural barriers separating the nation from others come down. Changes in communication (especially from the internet) and attitudes (it's not easy to resist multiculturalism once you've experienced it) lessen the importance and the appeal of an insular cultural view. The developed countries that have adapted to this will be the ones that are most successful in the future.

Matt2004, are you drawing a parallel between SK and its allies and Nazi Germany?

I see what you did there.

I don't see how you can call them cowards when they named their pact after dragons and wolves. If they were cowards, they would have opened with something like "The Chicken and Hyena Chat over a Glass of Ribena"

You were correct; the document is not authentic. The United Nations "Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group" doesn't exist. Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/unoda.asp

That's news to me. Please give me a link to the UN's statement. You should read Ricochet. It's not a literary masterpiece by any means but I think you'd find it interesting.