NationStates Jolt Archive

The point that since any particular ethnicity, such as 'white' doesn't indicate culture and amount of indigenousness then comparing % of ethnicites as levels of diversity is not accurate. Also with other ethnicities being present for a long period of time (thinking of African-Americans mostly) to the point that they are part of the indigenous (or the new indigenous that replaced the native americans).

Ethnic diversity does not necessarily equate with cultural diversity.

Of course I agree that over time any population homogenizes -- usually. (Roma all over Europe and Turks in Germany are obviously cases of governmental discrimination).

The point was to compare the UK and US culturally and ethnically. Flat out, the UK is more homogenous and there is less likely to be cultural mistrust, clashes, etc. When was the UK's last Rodney King episode and subsequent riot? How about a natural disaster leading to a host of BS ala New Orleans?

No matter how you slice it, the UK has the anti-crime advantages of being more like Japan than the US: a relatively homogenous population on an island nation that mostly speak the same language.

Markreich is using flawed data, the dated statistics he's quoting include hispanics in the other races (mostly whites) as well as giving a seperate figure.

US census figures for 2006 are actually:

Black persons 12.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons 1.0%
Asian persons 4.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races 1.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 14.8%
White persons not Hispanic 66.4%

I won't even bother with the languages but it looks like his religion figures are a little skewed too. His protestant figures without even breaking down for all the various branches, are a little high and his Catholic and other christian figures are likewise low. The other religions are close with the notable exception of unaffiliated (which includes atheists and agnostics) which is more like 15%. Religion figures I quote are for 2001 and it should be noted that all prodestant religions have been losing ground for the decade prior, catholics have been holding about even and the percentage of other christians and unaffiliateds has been growing steadily.

Yes, I just posted I forgot to lower the white %. Mea culpa.

Protestants outnumber Catholics in the US by 2-1. As for exact breakdowns, I didn't bother. I cited the link I used above.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

So I hear you like trolling just waiting to happen?

How many times, you think we go through these threads?

Um... less population density means LESS crime and LESS gun violence!

Feel free to cite those numbers.

You're the one who stated that having denser populations would result in less gun violence.

Here:

Um, becuase the other devoloped nations have more homogenous populations with less immigration, religious diversity, and are more compact so they are easier to police? Less stife tends to lead to less violence. And therefore less gun violence.

So, you are contradicting yourself.

Now, since you're so fired up about immigration levels, can you please show me some evidence that indicates that increased levels of immigration would result in increases of gun violence?

From the CIA factbook:

Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

USA: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

And according to this link (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html), the USA has a gun homicide rate 12 times higher than Canada.

So, Canada has a more heterogeneous population, and a lower rate of gun violence. I don't think intercultural strife is the cause of gun violence in the USA.

Of course I agree that over time any population homogenizes -- usually. (Roma all over Europe and Turks in Germany are obviously cases of governmental discrimination).

The point was to compare the UK and US culturally and ethnically. Flat out, the UK is more homogenous and there is less likely to be cultural mistrust, clashes, etc. When was the UK's last Rodney King episode and subsequent riot? How about a natural disaster leading to a host of BS ala New Orleans?

No matter how you slice it, the UK has the anti-crime advantages of being more like Japan than the US: a relatively homogenous population on an island nation that mostly speak the same language.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1405317.stm

2001. Which was a bad year all round in terms of race riots in the UK. At least three major ones I can remember sadly.

The UK is more homogenous, but I don't think the different is as much as you suggest. In urban areas especially the UK is very diverse (or more particularly in the central region, say in a square of Cardiff, London, York, Southampton) it's in rural areas where it's nearly 100% white British that brings the stats further that way. I think the levels of diversity in the UK are heavily split along those lines.

So I hear you like trolling just waiting to happen?

How many times, you think we go through these threads?

To be fair this is more innovative than most. Usually we go through these threads, end up arguing over comparative gun rates and the consensus is that cultural issues cloud things to the point that just looking at gun control laws doesn't provide a fair comparison. Given that, a thread on the cultural issues is a good idea.

Maybe you should stop trying to ban guns. Every time there's a whiff in the air of "let's ban some guns", people rush out and buy more.

There's been a tremendous surge of buying since Obama was elected.

People who didn't own one went out and bought their first gun. Others bought more.

It's hard to find 30-rd magazines for the M-16 series right now, because people are hoarding them.

Gun ownership is almost twice what it was 10 years ago, and it's been doubling every 10 years because people keep saying "oh let's ban guns". The last assault weapons ban didn't really ban shit, because Democrats don't know one type of gun from another, and all it did was create a market that didn't really exist previously.

Guns are an integral, historical part of American culture. The last professor (Belesiles) to assert otherwise by making up his research out of whole cloth was found out, lost his tenure, and was disgraced.

Yeah guns are used in the past but it dosnt mean you should have one now. Im sure horses were an integral part of American culture too. Prehaps you should all buy a horse instead.

Yeah guns are used in the past but it dosnt mean you should have one now. Im sure horses were an integral part of American culture too. Prehaps you should all buy a horse instead.

Firearms = inanimate objects. Horses = living, breathing animals. Your suggestion = fail (http://forum.alsacreations.com/upload/2043-fail-camera.jpg).

Yeah guns are used in the past but it dosnt mean you should have one now. Im sure horses were an integral part of American culture too. Prehaps you should all buy a horse instead.

I dont understand your point, for all its worth, im against banning the ownership of horses as well.

Maybe you should stop trying to ban guns. Every time there's a whiff in the air of "let's ban some guns", people rush out and buy more.

There's been a tremendous surge of buying since Obama was elected.

People who didn't own one went out and bought their first gun. Others bought more.

It's hard to find 30-rd magazines for the M-16 series right now, because people are hoarding them.

Gun ownership is almost twice what it was 10 years ago, and it's been doubling every 10 years because people keep saying "oh let's ban guns". The last assault weapons ban didn't really ban shit, because Democrats don't know one type of gun from another, and all it did was create a market that didn't really exist previously.
.

I just bought my first AR and previously i had never owned more then a handgun. Colt LE 6920

I just bought my first AR and previously i had never owned more then a handgun. Colt LE 6920

Pics? I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

Maybe you should stop trying to ban guns. Every time there's a whiff in the air of "let's ban some guns", people rush out and buy more.

There's been a tremendous surge of buying since Obama was elected.

People who didn't own one went out and bought their first gun. Others bought more.

It's hard to find 30-rd magazines for the M-16 series right now, because people are hoarding them.

Gun ownership is almost twice what it was 10 years ago, and it's been doubling every 10 years because people keep saying "oh let's ban guns". The last assault weapons ban didn't really ban shit, because Democrats don't know one type of gun from another, and all it did was create a market that didn't really exist previously.

Guns are an integral, historical part of American culture. The last professor (Belesiles) to assert otherwise by making up his research out of whole cloth was found out, lost his tenure, and was disgraced.

I bought my 30 rounders at 44mag.com. I got them when they were $10 per, and I got 10. Of course, that was a while ago, and the price has gone up to $12.99.

Pics? I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

Give me 5 days, its still in mail lol Just got my Nightforce 2.5x10x32 NXS with zero in mail and my Larue LT 104 should be in tomorrow :)

I bought my 30 rounders at 44mag.com. I got them when they were $10 per, and I got 10. Of course, that was a while ago, and the price has gone up to $12.99.

Wow ive been seeing colt 30s going for as much as $22

Wow ive been seeing colt 30s going for as much as $22

Well, these aren't Colt branded mags, but they've functioned fine for me (and they were recommended to me on AR15.com).

You're the one who stated that having denser populations would result in less gun violence.

Here:



So, you are contradicting yourself.

Now, since you're so fired up about immigration levels, can you please show me some evidence that indicates that increased levels of immigration would result in increases of gun violence?

From the CIA factbook:

Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

USA: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)

And according to this link (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html), the USA has a gun homicide rate 12 times higher than Canada.

So, Canada has a more heterogeneous population, and a lower rate of gun violence. I don't think intercultural strife is the cause of gun violence in the USA.

! Sorry, I was not being clear: less population density in any area reduces crime (obvoiously). Having a smaller area to patrol also reduces crime, as a state is able to concentrate it's manpower. Thus the UK or Japan has it easier because it easier to police (and more homogenous) than the US. Likewise, if one took the entire population of London and put it in (say) Rhode Island, crime would skyrocket.

So... Canada is more homogenous than the US. Thanks. (NB: The white stat is reduced for the US when one breaks out hispanics.

You want me to believe a site that says 1200 Canadians have been killed and "over 1000" have been wounded every year from firearms, and puts the cost at $6 billion a year?
FUD!

Again: Canada has a more HOMOGENOUS population than the US, and a lower level of gun violence for a myriad of reasons, including a lesser population density, and an eaiser to guard border (few drug cartels in Greenland!).

As said, I'm pointing out that a non-homogenous population leads to more strife, and that the US has both more legal and ILLEGAL immigration than any of the first world countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1405317.stm

2001. Which was a bad year all round in terms of race riots in the UK. At least three major ones I can remember sadly.

The UK is more homogenous, but I don't think the different is as much as you suggest. In urban areas especially the UK is very diverse (or more particularly in the central region, say in a square of Cardiff, London, York, Southampton) it's in rural areas where it's nearly 100% white British that brings the stats further that way. I think the levels of diversity in the UK are heavily split along those lines.

Pitting that against the LA riots of 1992 or the Chicago riots of 1919 is like comparing the income of the Isle of Man to the UK.

Oh, I agree with that: you're always bound to find more diversity in cities. But the idea that the UK is a melting pot on the level of the US is just plain off. :)

Yeah guns are used in the past but it dosnt mean you should have one now. Im sure horses were an integral part of American culture too. Prehaps you should all buy a horse instead.

Change out "guns" with "candles" and see if you still think your point makes sense. Do you think we should ban everything from before 1900?

GREAT! No more blackpowder, AK-101 and M-4s all around! :D

It's hard to find 30-rd magazines for the M-16 series right now, because people are hoarding them.

Damn, when I get home I should sell the 15 of them I've got stashed away, I don't have an AR and don't intend to buy one.

Damn, when I get home I should sell the 15 of them I've got stashed away, I don't have an AR and don't intend to buy one.

wait until assualt weapons ban comes in. they will increase in value 4 X

! Sorry, I was not being clear: less population density in any area reduces crime (obvoiously). Having a smaller area to patrol also reduces crime, as a state is able to concentrate it's manpower.

Population density may be a factor in violent crime. But that would then be cancelled out by the advantage the police have in terms of being able to concentrate its forces. Which is it?

So... Canada is more homogenous than the US. Thanks. (NB: The white stat is reduced for the US when one breaks out hispanics.

The numbers I show demonstrate that the USA has a non-white population of ±20%. Canada has one that is ±34%. If you subtract the numbers of hispanics on the flawed assumption that they are all not white, it gives the USA a non-white population of about 33%, the same as Canada.

Now, many hispanics are white. Many are also black. This means that when you subtract the entirety of Hispanics from the white population and add them to the non-white population, you end counting some non-whites twice, and not counting some whites at all. In other words, the percentage of non-whites in the USA must be less than 33%, i.e. less than Canada's.

It's simple math.

You want me to believe a site that says 1200 Canadians have been killed and "over 1000" have been wounded every year from firearms, and puts the cost at $6 billion a year?
FUD!

You may not like what the government website quoting peer reviewed studies had to say, but unless you can do something other than pretend that the site is biased, I will assume that you concede this point.

Again: Canada has a more HOMOGENOUS population than the US, and a lower level of gun violence for a myriad of reasons, including a lesser population density, and an eaiser to guard border (few drug cartels in Greenland!).

As said, I'm pointing out that a non-homogenous population leads to more strife, and that the US has both more legal and ILLEGAL immigration than any of the first world countries.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that ethnic homogeneity reduces violent crime? You keep claiming that, but you have yet to show any evidence.

Pitting that against the LA riots of 1992 or the Chicago riots of 1919 is like comparing the income of the Isle of Man to the UK.

Oh, I agree with that: you're always bound to find more diversity in cities. But the idea that the UK is a melting pot on the level of the US is just plain off. :)

You asked for recent rather than bad. And for sectarian violence in the UK, Northern Ireland has a fairly notable record.

I think the UK has a far more extreme difference between city and country than most places (and between the heart of Britain and more outlying regions as I mentioned) though again that's just an impression.

It depends what you mean by melting pot. In terms of first generation the US has about 11% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Immigration_to_the_United_States) of population born abroad in 2000. The UK in 2001 (i.e. pre-EU expansion) had 8-9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_immigration). I'd suggest that now they're probably pretty close.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?


Promote it. Make all the liberal weenie wannabes take gun classes. Education is the answer. Lets face facts, the world is not a utopia like you think. An armed society is a polite society. Removing gun laws and regulations reduces crime every place it has been tried. Gun control leads to crime.

So relax and have a cold one.

Guns are a part of our rights. Nobody should be able to "deglamorize" them. But I do agree on the educational subject. Teach children about the importance of gun safety and the harm it can do if not properly handled. But, I am against anyone who feels that guns altogether must be ridden of. The Amendments have been changed enough. Leave it be.

Population density may be a factor in violent crime. But that would then be cancelled out by the advantage the police have in terms of being able to concentrate its forces. Which is it?



The numbers I show demonstrate that the USA has a non-white population of ±20%. Canada has one that is ±34%. If you subtract the numbers of hispanics on the flawed assumption that they are all not white, it gives the USA a non-white population of about 33%, the same as Canada.

Now, many hispanics are white. Many are also black. This means that when you subtract the entirety of Hispanics from the white population and add them to the non-white population, you end counting some non-whites twice, and not counting some whites at all. In other words, the percentage of non-whites in the USA must be less than 33%, i.e. less than Canada's.

It's simple math.



You may not like what the government website quoting peer reviewed studies had to say, but unless you can do something other than pretend that the site is biased, I will assume that you concede this point.



Do you have any evidence for your claim that ethnic homogeneity reduces violent crime? You keep claiming that, but you have yet to show any evidence.

Correction. Hispanics are hispanics. Where the hell did you hear about hispanics being white or black? There's Caucasians, hispanics, blacks, asians...and whatever else I've missed. Stop making things more complicated than they already are.

The numbers I show demonstrate that the USA has a non-white population of ±20%. Canada has one that is ±34%. If you subtract the numbers of hispanics on the flawed assumption that they are all not white, it gives the USA a non-white population of about 33%, the same as Canada.


I am going to explain this to you as only a Texan can. Hispanics don't consider themselves white.
The flawed assumption that they do comes from two factors.
A divide in black and non black Hispanic. white Hispanics don't want to be classified with black Hispanics and vice versa.
And old decision by Hispanic leadership in the 1950's to try and lump together with the whites as they were not large enough at the time to get benefits as a independent group.

Look at Latin American Spanish (not wanting the Spaniards to correct me).
Mulatto = That is what we is referred to as black Hispanic. And they actually a few hundred year old mix of European and black.

Mestizo= White and native American. what normally comes to mind when talking about Hispanics.

and if you really get technical Criollo is a Latin American born white. (a few places use it differently though).

Its a distinction Hispanics make that doesn't translate to English well.

I am going to explain this to you as only a Texan can. Hispanics don't consider themselves white.
The flawed assumption that they do comes from two factors.
A divide in black and non black Hispanic. white Hispanics don't want to be classified with black Hispanics and vice versa.
And old decision by Hispanic leadership in the 1950's to try and lump together with the whites as they were not large enough at the time to get benefits as a independent group.

Look at Latin American Spanish (not wanting the Spaniards to correct me).
Mulatto = That is what we is referred to as black Hispanic. And they actually a few hundred year old mix of European and black.

Mestizo= White and native American. what normally comes to mind when talking about Hispanics.

and if you really get technical Criollo is a Latin American born white. (a few places use it differently though).

Its a distinction Hispanics make that doesn't translate to English well.

Do you speak spanish? You coud make the distinctions in spanish if you want. I speak it fluently.

Correction. Hispanics are hispanics. Where the hell did you hear about hispanics being white or black? There's Caucasians, hispanics, blacks, asians...and whatever else I've missed. Stop making things more complicated than they already are.

Oh, I don't know, probably obscure publications like the US Census and all demographic studies based off of it.

From the 2000 questionnaire:

NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6.

5. Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? Mark
the "No" box if not Spanish/Hispanic/ Latino.

No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
Yes, Puerto Rican
Yes, Cuban
Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino — Print group.


6. What is this person’s race? Mark one or
more races to indicate what this person considers
himself/herself to be.

White
Black, African Am., or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or
Chamorro
Samoan
Other Pacific
Islander —
Print race.
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Other Asian — Print race.
Some other race — Print race.


Please, please tell the next Afro-Cuban-American you meet that they're not Hispanic and let me know what they say.

On another note, what's with the gravedigging around here? Is there a new club?

The solution to the gun culture in the US is to heavily arm all citizens with handguns, assault weapons and rocket launchers, then tell them that the last million people standing will run the country absolutely. Then we build a big wall around the country and forget about them.

The solution to the gun culture in the US is to heavily arm all citizens with handguns, assault weapons and rocket launchers, then tell them that the last million people standing will run the country absolutely. Then we build a big wall around the country and forget about them.

Buld the wall first, then tell them the contest rules. We don't want to accidentally hurt the Mexicans who are building the wall.

Buld the wall first, then tell them the contest rules. We don't want to accidentally hurt the Mexicans who are building the wall.

You make an excellent point.

Buld the wall first, then tell them the contest rules. We don't want to accidentally hurt the Mexicans who are building the wall.

The Mexicans like to shoot as well. They seem to be shooting at a lot of Border Patrol people these days, and accumulating huge arsenals to do so.

Nah, just dig a moat across the border and let the aligators swim.

The solution to the gun culture in the US is to heavily arm all citizens with handguns, assault weapons and rocket launchers,

Handgun. Check. (Glock 17)
Assault Rifle. Check. (Colt AR 15)
How does one go about getting a rocket launcher?

Handgun. Check. (Glock 17)
Assault Rifle. Check. (Colt AR 15)
How does one go about getting a rocket launcher?

In Florida you check empty sheds.

The solution to the gun culture in the US is to heavily arm all citizens with handguns, assault weapons and rocket launchers, then tell them that the last million people standing will run the country absolutely. Then we build a big wall around the country and forget about them.

Your going to give the populace walls AND rocket launchers? I can see a ,errr, hole in your plan.

Your going to give the populace walls AND rocket launchers? I can see a ,errr, hole in your plan.
Yea, rockets may ricochet.



(joke)

Your going to give the populace walls AND rocket launchers? I can see a ,errr, hole in your plan.

Why would they shoot rockets at the wall which from their point of view is keeping the Mexicans out:confused:

nothing wrong with guns