Murderous Americans
Tony K Bounds
5/22/00 5:54 PM:
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
>
> Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
>
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
>
>
> What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
> What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the comparitively
> backward and dangerous 'New World'?
>
> In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to deal
> with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found themselves.
>
> In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
>
> I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
>
>
>
> The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of fish
> altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors of
> today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
>
> I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> purchased from West Africa.
>
> If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> individuals who seemed strongest.
>
> Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
> stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
>
> However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
> of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> predilection towards violent conduct.
>
> Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
> that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
>
>
>
> I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
> comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> reasons.
Fascinating. When you have some studies and facts to back up your theories
and assertions let us know.
What I've always wondered is why the Brits have such bad teeth, large ears
and a sheep like disposition. I think it's due to the generations of
inbreeding and their rampant practice of bestiality. I concede this theory
is simplistic and not particularly complimentary to the Brits. However, it
is a wonderful passive/aggressive way to be a bigot.
---
³ŒAbsolute thinking¹ is that which forgets that it is my thinking, that I
think, and that it exists only through me. But I, as I, swallow up again
what is mine, am its master; it is only my opinion, which I can at any
moment change, i.e. annihilate, take back into myself, and consume.²
‹Max Stirner
---
Tony K Bounds
Marksman
"Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
>
> Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
>
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
The US liberals destruction of the family and it's values. That is why the
US has so much crime. Parents are taught to let the State raise their kids.
Parents are no longer held responsible for rearing their own kids. Personal
responsibility is no longer taught or condoned. The kids are taught they are
not to blame for their actions.
George of the Jungle
I see you are posting from Europe. What an ingrate.
Are from the part of Europe whose butts we saved in WWII, or from the part
whose butts we kicked?
--
In an exchange with Christopher Morton, Lee Harrison wrote:
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Congratulations Harrison! -- let the world see your intolerance and bigotry.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>>>>
Do you have even the vaguest idea of the history of mass murder
in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
-----------------------------------------------
Marksman
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:rQmW4.22010$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Hi Leo:
> I guess you will catch a lot of abuse with your posting. But I
> just wanted you to know that I think you're right, and at least
> you have one American supporter who read your post, and
> found it very soulful. Things here in America are just dreadful.
> I'm a 17 year old junior in high school, and I would just love to know
> more about where you're from. I guess you're not from the
> U.S., so I can imagine you must see all the great things. I'm
> from the East Coast, and it's really blah here, just cheerleading
> and dull boys who know nothing at all about anything other than
> football (Blah). I'd really like to meet someone who really knows
> what the world is like, outside of my dull life. I don't post
> much here, but I do read a lot and feel much the same as you do.
> It's really stupid how things are going here. I do have my own
> home page, with my picture (!!!) and me with my puppy, and hope
> you have some time to take a look at it. Perhaps we can get
> together by e-mail later on, and maybe even be pen-pals. Hope
> that doesn't sound too forward <GGG>
> MY HOME PAGE: http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> XOXOXOXOX
>
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excellent!
Christopher Morton
>Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
>residents of other industrialized democracies?
You mean like Germany?
Funny that you should mention it, but there's a famous gun factory
right outside of a little town called Dachau....
---
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
Top of the list is that we have a low tolerance for gross stupidity.
*BANG*
Kirk Dudley
same area.
Larry Fishel <lfi...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:392A1089...@gate.net...
> Leo wrote:
> >
> > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
> > It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> > sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
> How do you work Australia, for instance, into this theory? The white
> population there is largely descended from criminals, forcibly expelled
> from England isn't it? Wouldn't you expect them to be at least CLOSE TO
> as violent as Americans? Doesn't seem to be the case...
> --
> Larry D. Fishel
> lfi...@gate.net
> http://www.gate.net/~lfishel
The-Trainers
here from white nations around the world in large waves for our entire
history. There is no consistant genetic line or date that we trace back
to. Very FEW came here in colonial days.
However, it does make sense that the white who came here did so because
they WANTED to live the life of the free and self-reliant. Sort of
self-selection of attitude Darwinism. NOT some genetic choice, but
an attitude choice.
But one thing you seem to be ignorant of is WHEN our nation became
so violent. BEFORE 1920 we were just as non-violent as anywhere
in Europe, then came the explosion in organised crime as a result
of Alcohol Prohibition.
Things fell back to nearly as low once WWII began and did not
get bad again untill 1969 and the big gun-control laws and
the beginning of the huge "War on Drugs" and the Welfare State.
Before you make up theories you really need to look at crime rates
through the decades, NOT just today.
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Leo wrote:
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
Partly, because the laws keep criminals safe by making sure lawful
citizens cannot defend themselves,like in DC where the criminals are
the only ones with guns.
Partly because of illegal drugs and alcohol abuse.
Mostly because of unemployment and generational poverty and
Welfare.
This explains why the USA criminals kill more people with knives
or clubs than than the criminals in other nations.
The "war on Drugs" is the cause of a great deal of the most violent
crime.
> Some blame the proliferation of guns;
Only fools, LIARS and politicians, most people know better since
we kill more people by non-gun methods than most European
nations kill in total. Guns mainly relate to crime by mostly being
used for self-defense to PREVENT harm.
> others claim that the death
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
> more violence.
What a weird theory, I'll bet you can't explain that one either, can you?
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
Well, since blacks are subjected to the poorest education and are always
te first to lose jobs and the last to get jobs, since blacks have been
subjected to the worst generational poverty and Welfare, then, yes,
the black crime rates do indeed seriously distort the national
figures.
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
Of course, the English live lives of quiet desperation, heck, when
a Brittish "man" finds out his wife is sleeping with other men,
he just apologises and leaves her to her fun.
Many Brits are sheeple, just look what they did to the farmer who stopped
two career criminals who broke into his home, they sent the farmer
to prison for LIFE!
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
Well, maybe, but not anywhere near the way out of proportion as they do
here.
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
Sure, but when you look at the white murder rate over the last 60
years you will see that it has been pretty flat and slowly falling
since WWII.
It has been the black and hspanic murder rates that have been
wildly varrying up and down following the unemployment rates.
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
Of course, and again, with or without guns.
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
That is utter non-sense! The USA population is made up of whites
that came here from other nations stretching over the entire history
of the USA.
If you want to claim that you should look to Australia where they
have a huge percentage of descendants from exiled prisoners.
My own family only came here about 100 years or less ago.
Genetics makes no sense unless you claim that the mixing makes people
more violent, but if that were true, other places would be as bad,
but they are not.
> What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
The people who were looking for the challange of a new world and
for a better life.
> What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the comparitively
> backward and dangerous 'New World'?
Silly theory, you don't even know that very few Americans can actually
trace their roots that far back.
> In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to deal
> with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found themselves.
Well, that makes a little more sense, it is NOT genetics, but
self-selected attitude.
> In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
> I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
Well, the genetics part is hogwash, but the attitude self-selection
bit may have some validity.
> The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of fish
> altogether.
> My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors of
> today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
Most of those slaves were captured and sold into slavery by the
African black kings who started slavery and still practice it today.
> I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> purchased from West Africa.
>
> If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> individuals who seemed strongest.
>
> Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
> stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
>
> However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
> of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> predilection towards violent conduct.
>
> Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
> that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
That would need a great deal of study, but it won't get it.
> I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
> comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> reasons.
Who cares? As long as you don't argue to restrict our right, who gives
a shit what the reason is.
MT
Leo
residents of other industrialized democracies?
Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
more violence.
Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
the American murder rate.
However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
English people.
Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
than blacks in other Western democracies!
Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the comparitively
backward and dangerous 'New World'?
In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to deal
with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found themselves.
In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of fish
altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors of
today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
purchased from West Africa.
If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
individuals who seemed strongest.
Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
predilection towards violent conduct.
Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
reasons.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Leo
Kevin Baker
Leo wrote amusingly:
>Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
>residents of other industrialized democracies?
Good question.
>
>Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
>penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
>more violence.
Neither, I suspect, having much effect on the rate.
>Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
>the American murder rate.
>
>However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
>truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
>address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
>intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
>English people.
>
>Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
>number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
>Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
>murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
>It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
>English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
>than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
>
>Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
>It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
>sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
You mean the English, Germans, Italians, Africans, Spanish, Chinese,
Japanese, French, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Belgians, Indians (from India),
Turks, Greeks, Croatians, Koreans, Russians, Poles....well, you get the
idea. We're from EVERYWHERE, you idiot. The problem is more likely linked
to THAT fact than anything else
>What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
>What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
>region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the comparitively
>backward and dangerous 'New World'?
>
>
>In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
>succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
>Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
>populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
>wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to deal
>with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found themselves.
>
>In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
Heinlein wrote words to the effect that when a society becomes overbearing,
those who cannot accept it leave for the new frontier. I would add that
today there IS no new frontier. Personally I suspect that is the greatest
contributor - too much pressure, and nowhere to go.
Australia, however, was founded mostly by criminal exiles, and Australia has
nowhere near the murder rate in the U.S. Then again, the U.S. has nowhere
near the murder rate of many "third world" countries. I'm sorry, what was
your point again?
>I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
>to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
>today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
>people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
I think it has to do with the destruction of the family and the
desensitizing of our kids to violence. You should note the primary source
of murder, male children of broken homes, usually abused, and usually under
the influence of alcohol and other drugs. Advanced social skills aren't
hereditary, they're LEARNED. Hell, we're lucky if we teach them to read,
these days.
>The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of fish
>altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
>immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors of
>today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
>
>I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
>American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
>purchased from West Africa.
>
>If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
>work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
>individuals who seemed strongest.
>
>Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
>stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
>
>However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
>of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
>predilection towards violent conduct.
>
>Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
>that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
>
>
>
>I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
>complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
>comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
>reasons.
No, it's not simplistic, it's racist. You just use flowery phrases instead
of invective. Do us a favor, stay in Europe, or someone over here might
take offense and choose an option other than dialogue on your sorry ass.
Kevin
--
If PRO is the opposite of CON,
then the opposite of PROGRESS is...?
A Planet Visitor
I guess you will catch a lot of abuse with your posting. But I
just wanted you to know that I think you're right, and at least
you have one American supporter who read your post, and
found it very soulful. Things here in America are just dreadful.
I'm a 17 year old junior in high school, and I would just love to know
more about where you're from. I guess you're not from the
U.S., so I can imagine you must see all the great things. I'm
from the East Coast, and it's really blah here, just cheerleading
and dull boys who know nothing at all about anything other than
football (Blah). I'd really like to meet someone who really knows
what the world is like, outside of my dull life. I don't post
much here, but I do read a lot and feel much the same as you do.
It's really stupid how things are going here. I do have my own
home page, with my picture (!!!) and me with my puppy, and hope
you have some time to take a look at it. Perhaps we can get
together by e-mail later on, and maybe even be pen-pals. Hope
that doesn't sound too forward <GGG>
MY HOME PAGE: http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
XOXOXOXOX
Vicky (Victoria)
"Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
>
> Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads
to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more
murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
>
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
>
>
> What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
> What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the
comparitively
> backward and dangerous 'New World'?
>
> In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to
deal
> with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found
themselves.
>
> In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
>
> I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
>
>
>
> The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of
fish
> altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors
of
> today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
>
> I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> purchased from West Africa.
>
> If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> individuals who seemed strongest.
>
> Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
> stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
>
> However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
> of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> predilection towards violent conduct.
>
> Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
> that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
>
>
>
> I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
> comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> reasons.
>
>
Kevin Baker
Marksman wrote in message ...
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
>news:rQmW4.22010$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> I guess you will catch a lot of abuse with your posting. But I
>> just wanted you to know that I think you're right, and at least
>> you have one American supporter who read your post, and
>> found it very soulful. Things here in America are just dreadful.
>> I'm a 17 year old junior in high school, and I would just love to know
>> more about where you're from. I guess you're not from the
>> U.S., so I can imagine you must see all the great things. I'm
>> from the East Coast, and it's really blah here, just cheerleading
>> and dull boys who know nothing at all about anything other than
>> football (Blah). I'd really like to meet someone who really knows
>> what the world is like, outside of my dull life. I don't post
>> much here, but I do read a lot and feel much the same as you do.
>> It's really stupid how things are going here. I do have my own
>> home page, with my picture (!!!) and me with my puppy, and hope
>> you have some time to take a look at it. Perhaps we can get
>> together by e-mail later on, and maybe even be pen-pals. Hope
>> that doesn't sound too forward <GGG>
>> MY HOME PAGE: http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>>
>> XOXOXOXOX
>>
>
>
>
>
(Wiping tears from my eyes....) Usually when I type ROFLMAO, it's a
chuckle. Not this time. That was done by a MASTER. I am in awe. We're
not worthy!
Larry Fishel
>
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
How do you work Australia, for instance, into this theory? The white
arriereban
Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
Why are British, Japanese and so many other citizens of so-
called "industrialized countries" so incredibly suicidal when compared
to Americans? Could it be they don't have enough access to guns and
find the lack of freedom and liberty just not life-inspiring?
>
--
Patrick Henry "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined....
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants,
it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"
Richard Jackson
Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads
to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more
murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
Your genetic theory of violence in Americans is interesting. There
has been some research in recent years which indicates that some
people are physiologically more prone to violence than others. Such
research seems to at least partly support what you say, at least in
caucasians.
With African-Americans, however, I do not believe genetics can explain
nearly as much in this instance. Slaves were not sought out for
warrior qualities. Aggressive behavior such as you suggest was not a
wanted tendency in slaves, and was severely punished and sometimes
eliminated through death.
In any event, the people who came to America from Europe did not always
do so because they didn't belong, but out of economic or religious
necessity necessity.
If your reasoning is true, then Australia should be the most violent
of all nations in the world. The original settlers there were
criminals. The Australian murder rate is far below that of the US.
I believe that part of the problem are the factors which led to
immigration to the US, but are not genetic so much as cultural. Many
of those who came to the US were independent sorts who fled the
tyrrany of European dictatorships and repressive European governments.
It wasn't the culture they despised nearly as much as they valued the
freedom to worship and own land of their own without the strict caste
system imposed in some nations.
This independent nature led to people who struck out on their own in a
new and sometimes hostile land. People who had to solve their own
problems and fight their own fights without being able to call on a
government official to solve them for them. These were the
frontiersmen and women who moved steadily westward and eventually
formed the United States of America. this independence and pioneer
spirit still survives to thei day.
We have an old saying around here that: "Country people kill their own
snakes and shoot their own dogs." The saying comes from the time when a
man had to rely on his own wits and strength to solve his problems. If
his dog went rabid, or kiled an neighbor's chickens, he didn't call for
someone else to solve the problem. Shooting his own dog might be
painful, but he did that himself to remedy the problem.
The same held true with personal disputes. These were rough and rugged
individuals who settled the US. If they had a dispute with a neighbor,
it was often settled with fists. If the dispute grew bad enough, knives
and even firearms were used. Blood feuds were not uncommon between
families, and some well known ones lasted decades.
This spirit is still alive today in many regions of the nation. We
just haven't had as much time for our society to sort itself out as
Europe has. Remember, Europe has a dark and violent past itself. In
the US, we didn't have the Dark Ages and such. We haven't had the
thousand plus years to evolve as much as Europe has. We will
eventually, in our own good time.
--
Richard Jackson
Dave Proctor
news:8gd4v...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Most likely the fact that Australia has about 1/20th the population, and
the
> same area.
But it shoots the "genetic" argument out of the water.
Dave
> Larry Fishel <lfi...@gate.net> wrote in message
> news:392A1089...@gate.net...
> > Leo wrote:
> > >
> > > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >
> > > It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> > > sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
> >
Dave Proctor
news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
> >>>>
>
> in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
Kingdom, to name just a few?
> It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
Already exceeded us.
Dave
Al Montestruc
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads
to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more
murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
> What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the
comparitively
> backward and dangerous 'New World'?
>
> In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to
deal
> with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found
themselves.
>
> In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
Don't forget that many were trasported criminals, England used us as a
dumping ground for criminals right up until 1776.
My great-great-grandfather was a Basque Anarchist who was wanted in
Spain and France who came here on the lam, so I can vouch that there is
an element of truth in what you say in that a significant fraction of
the people who moved to America were "Anti-social" as you call it, or
were the "wolves" not sheep as I would put it.
Most of us wound up much better off economicaly, and while there may be
a large amount of individual crime in the USA, we also see far less
mass murder or confiscation by governments as seen in Germany,
Yugoslavia, Ireland (by the brits), and Russia. I think it's was a
good trade.
> I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
I don't see it as a lack of social skills. I see it as an
unwillingness to put up with bullshit beyond some level. I have little
doubt that you would meekly comply with the Nazis had they invaded your
country, while I would not, and would likely be killed for it,
hopefully after taking some with me.
Likewise I have gotten into a fight with a fellow who wanted to rob me,
while no doubt most Englishmen would meekly let the robber take what he
wants.
One thing, our crime rate was MUCH, MUCH lower prior to WWI. During
and just after WWI, drug and alchohol prohibition started, and women
got the vote. Prohibition started a crime wave in this nation that
will not end until we are treated as free people again.
> The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of
fish
> altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors
of
> today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
>
> I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> purchased from West Africa.
>
> If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> individuals who seemed strongest.
>
> Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
> stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
>
> However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
> of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> predilection towards violent conduct.
>
> Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
> that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
>
> I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
> comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> reasons.
Your theory about Black slaves is all wet. Black Africans also seem to
be more violent, check out the levels of violence in Nigeria or Serra
Leon (sic). Blacks in the US tend to be more violent when they live in
all black communities within white communiuties, and mainly violent
with each other. While blacks living surrounded by whites at all times
are much less so. At least that is what I have observed, and is my
understanding of statistics as reported by the FBI. One should also
consider the propensity of a people to irrational violence in
government. I hold that the two may well be linked.
Al Montestruc
Larry Fishel <lfi...@gate.net> wrote:
> Leo wrote:
> >
> > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
the
> > sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended
from.
>
> population there is largely descended from criminals, forcibly
expelled
> from England isn't it? Wouldn't you expect them to be at least CLOSE
TO
> as violent as Americans? Doesn't seem to be the case...
> --
> Larry D. Fishel
> lfi...@gate.net
> http://www.gate.net/~lfishel
Well how about the Boar war? All those Dutch women and children died
in those concentration camps thought up by the English and their
Australian stooges.
How about India??? How many indian men women and children were
murdered by the British Empire up until '48 or so when they finally let
India go? I know it was not zero, and I know Austrailians took part in
it.
How about the handing over of many people to the Russians at the end of
WWII knowing the Russians would kill them?
Were you under the impression you would only have to account for those
killed within your borders?
msm...@my-deja.com
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
Nice try. But all you have are 'just-so' stories to back this up.
Come back when you have concrete evidence that can stand up to
peer review.
Mike Smith
--
Email: maxomenos@SPAM=DEATH.mindspring.com
Member, National Rifle Association
Member, American Civil Liberties Union
Member, The Witches' Voice (http://www.witchvox.com)
msm...@my-deja.com
"Marksman" <Klinto...@palace.com> wrote:
> The US liberals destruction of the family and it's values. That is why
the
> US has so much crime. Parents are taught to let the State raise their
kids.
> Parents are no longer held responsible for rearing their own kids.
Personal
> responsibility is no longer taught or condoned. The kids are taught
they are
> not to blame for their actions.
I would submit that this is just as simplistic an explanation as the
'genetic' one offered by the original poster.
msm...@my-deja.com
xer...@my-deja.com
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > "Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
the
> > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >
> > >>>>
> >
> > in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
>
> You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
> Kingdom, to name just a few?
>
> > It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
>
> Already exceeded us.
>
> Dave
>
I believe he was talking about the ones you left out: Germany, Austria,
Italy, Russia, Yugoslavia....
Jack Brooks
A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:rQmW4.22010$S31.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Hi Leo:
> I guess you will catch a lot of abuse with your posting. But I
> just wanted you to know that I think you're right, and at least
> you have one American supporter who read your post, and
> found it very soulful. Things here in America are just dreadful.
> I'm a 17 year old junior in high school, and I would just love to know
> more about where you're from. I guess you're not from the
> U.S., so I can imagine you must see all the great things. I'm
> from the East Coast, and it's really blah here, just cheerleading
> and dull boys who know nothing at all about anything other than
> football (Blah). I'd really like to meet someone who really knows
> what the world is like, outside of my dull life. I don't post
> much here, but I do read a lot and feel much the same as you do.
> It's really stupid how things are going here. I do have my own
> home page, with my picture (!!!) and me with my puppy, and hope
> you have some time to take a look at it. Perhaps we can get
> together by e-mail later on, and maybe even be pen-pals. Hope
> that doesn't sound too forward <GGG>
> MY HOME PAGE: http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> XOXOXOXOX
>
Dammit! Now I'm gonna have to go get some more screen wipes and a new
keyboard. Warn me next time before I get a cup of coffee.....
Riot!!!!!!!
Jack Brooks
NRA Member
Steve Hix
<dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > "Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >
> > >>>>
> >
> > Do you have even the vaguest idea of the history of mass murder
> > in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
>
> You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
> Kingdom, to name just a few?
Try Germany and their erstwhile pals.
> > It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
>
> Already exceeded us.
Not even close.
Steve
> Hi Leo:
> I guess you will catch a lot of abuse with your posting. But I
> just wanted you to know that I think you're right, and at least
> you have one American supporter who read your post, and
> found it very soulful. Things here in America are just dreadful.
> I'm a 17 year old junior in high school, and I would just love to know
> more about where you're from. I guess you're not from the
> U.S., so I can imagine you must see all the great things. I'm
> from the East Coast, and it's really blah here, just cheerleading
> and dull boys who know nothing at all about anything other than
> football (Blah). I'd really like to meet someone who really knows
> what the world is like, outside of my dull life. I don't post
> much here, but I do read a lot and feel much the same as you do.
> It's really stupid how things are going here. I do have my own
> home page, with my picture (!!!) and me with my puppy, and hope
> you have some time to take a look at it. Perhaps we can get
> together by e-mail later on, and maybe even be pen-pals. Hope
> that doesn't sound too forward <GGG>
> MY HOME PAGE: http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> XOXOXOXOX
>
> Vicky (Victoria)
>
> "Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >
> >
> > Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> > penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads
> to
> > more violence.
> >
> > Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> > the American murder rate.
> >
> > However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> > truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> > address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> > intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> > English people.
> >
> > Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> > number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
> >
> > Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> > murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
> >
> > It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> > English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more
> murderous
> > than blacks in other Western democracies!
> >
> >
> > Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
> >
> > It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> > sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
> >
> >
> >
> > What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
> > What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> > region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the
> comparitively
> > backward and dangerous 'New World'?
> >
> > In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> > succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> > Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> > populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> > wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to
> deal
> > with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found
> themselves.
> >
> > In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
> >
> > I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> > to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> > today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> > people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
> >
> >
> >
> > The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of
> fish
> > altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> > immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors
> of
> > today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
> >
> > I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> > American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> > purchased from West Africa.
> >
> > If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> > work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> > individuals who seemed strongest.
> >
> > Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
> > stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
> >
> > However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
> > of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> > predilection towards violent conduct.
> >
> > Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
> > that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> > complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
> > comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> > reasons.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
TeHeHe.......nice piece'o work...'A Planet Visitor'.
Cheers
Steve
Eric Williams
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
> What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
> What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the comparitively
> backward and dangerous 'New World'?
>
> In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to deal
> with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found themselves.
>
> In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
>
> I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
>
Excerpt from "Gun Laws Around The World -- Do They Work?" by Don B.
Kates:
Western Europe, in fact, has always had very low homicide rates as
compared to the U.S. This is not something caused by strict anti-gun
laws, because this low homicide rate existed before such laws were
adopted, and the low rate occurs also in Switzerland and Austria which
have no such strict anti-gun laws.
European anti-gun laws only arrived after World War I, and they were not
passed in order to curb crime. They were passed in response to the
political violence of that tumultuous era (1918-1939) between the two
World Wars.
Whatever their purpose, European anti-gun laws have miserably failed.
They have not prevented assassination, terrorism, and other political
violence -- problems occurring throughout Europe on a fairly regular
basis, but not so in the U.S. Neither have these anti-gun laws stopped
non-political crime, which has steadily increased throughout Europe
since World War II.
To this issue, the further question has been asked, "Why has Europe had
so much less non-political violent crime than the U.S." Yale
University's preeminent historian, Dr. C. Vann Woodward, suggests an
answer. He writes, "The impact upon Europe of the emigration [to the
U.S.] of 35,000,000 Europeans in the Century between the Napoleonic Wars
and World War I remains to be acknowledged. The importance of the West
as a safety valve for American society has undoubtedly been exaggerated.
But the significance of America as a safety valve for Europe and the
effect of the closing of that safety valve after World War I remain to
be fully assessed."
--
Arrest rate of Washington, DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate of St. Louis police officers: 13 per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
(Source: "D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge" Washington Post
8/28/94; Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of
Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to office of the
Governor, dated 3/15/95.)
JC
rate then the exited states.
--
John Crawford
u1f...@home.com
Music Is A Five Chime
Steam Whistle
D. Staples
Canada and England have higher crime rates than the US. We excel in
homicide, only. for the reasons stated.
Nice try, but so unoriginal as to gain no prize.
msm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
The door to my web page: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news
groups, as well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing
conversation on forestry.
John Rennie
Are they trying to claim another record? Well they cant -
not when our Doctor Harold Shipman is still around. 192 deaths and still
counting.
John Rennie
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:GdsW4.2096$_Q6.7...@news0.optus.net.au...
> "Kirk Dudley" <pimpy...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:8gd4v...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > Most likely the fact that Australia has about 1/20th the population, and
> the
> > same area.
>
> But it shoots the "genetic" argument out of the water.
>
> Dave
>
>
> > Larry Fishel <lfi...@gate.net> wrote in message
> > news:392A1089...@gate.net...
> > > Leo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> > >
the
> > > > sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended
from.
> > >
> > > population there is largely descended from criminals, forcibly
expelled
> > > from England isn't it? Wouldn't you expect them to be at least CLOSE
TO
> > > as violent as Americans? Doesn't seem to be the case...
> > > --
> > > Larry D. Fishel
> > > lfi...@gate.net
> > > http://www.gate.net/~lfishel
The population of Australia is NOT largely descended from criminals. This
is a romantic canard (that word again) spread mainly by the Australians
themselves. Most Australians 95% are descended from straightforward
emigrants. Those few who are descended from convicts are extremely proud
of the fact.
And so they should be because most of the criminal acts
their forebears were convicted for would hardly be considered crimes today.
Which all adds up to Australians being descended from an average bunch of
English, Irish and Scots.
Che'Gu Maru
continue to delight inflicting on each other even today (as in Bosnia and
Croatia.
Richard Jackson wrote:
D. Staples
http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal02.htm
Canada, 8,537 crimes per 100,000 population
Canada, 984 violent crimes per 100,000 population
US, 4,616 crimes per 100,000 population
US, 553 violent crimes per 100,000 populations.
You are victimless in Canada if you are young, male, fast, and own no property.
JC wrote:
--
Dave Proctor
news:8geng4$pmc$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The population of Australia is NOT largely descended from criminals.
This
> is a romantic canard (that word again) spread mainly by the Australians
> themselves. Most Australians 95% are descended from straightforward
> emigrants. Those few who are descended from convicts are extremely
proud
> of the fact.
I can trace mine back to the Second Fleet.
> And so they should be because most of the criminal acts
> their forebears were convicted for would hardly be considered crimes
today.
Transported for steailing a loaf of bread.
> Which all adds up to Australians being descended from an average bunch of
> English, Irish and Scots.
No, not the Scots!
Dave
Dave Proctor
news:392AFB7D...@livingston.net...
> I did, spurt, see the following.
>
>
> http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal02.htm
>
> Canada, 8,537 crimes per 100,000 population
> Canada, 984 violent crimes per 100,000 population
>
> http://www.fbi.gov
>
> US, 4,616 crimes per 100,000 population
> US, 553 violent crimes per 100,000 populations.
>
> You are victimless in Canada if you are young, male, fast, and own no
property.
But what sort of crimes are they? So called "victimless" crimes or crimes
against the person or property crimes? Are we comparing apples with apples
or apples with pears?
Dave
Dave Proctor
news:sehix-259A02....@news.dsldesigns.com...
> In article <J7sW4.2094$_Q6.7...@news0.optus.net.au>, "Dave Proctor"
> <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> > news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> > >
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
> >
> > You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
> > Kingdom, to name just a few?
>
> Try Germany and their erstwhile pals.
>
> > > It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
> >
> > Already exceeded us.
>
> Not even close.
So the mass murder rate of the countries I mentioned (five industrialised
Western democracies) exceeds that of the United States then? Proof please.
Dave
Dave Proctor
> In article <J7sW4.2094$_Q6.7...@news0.optus.net.au>,
> "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> > news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > > "Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with
> the
> > > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> > >
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > Do you have even the vaguest idea of the history of mass murder
> > > in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
> >
> > You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
> > Kingdom, to name just a few?
> >
> >
> > Already exceeded us.
> >
> >
>
> I believe he was talking about the ones you left out: Germany, Austria,
> Italy, Russia, Yugoslavia....
Nobody mentioned *ANY* specific country, but the way that the statement was
made made it appear that he was referring to *ALL* industrialised
democracies.
Dave
thorn
Can't add to that! Good shot Marksman!
thorn
"Marksman" <Klinto...@palace.com> wrote in message
news:KLlW4.624$tD6...@news3.atl...
>
> "Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >
> >
> > Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> > penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
> > more violence.
> >
> > Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> > the American murder rate.
> >
> > However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> > truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> > address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> > intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> > English people.
> >
> > Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> > number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
> >
> > Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> > murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
> >
> > It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> > English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
> > than blacks in other Western democracies!
> >
> >
> > Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
>
Marksman
<msm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8geiop$rtn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> the
> > US has so much crime. Parents are taught to let the State raise their
> kids.
> > Parents are no longer held responsible for rearing their own kids.
> Personal
> > responsibility is no longer taught or condoned. The kids are taught
> they are
> > not to blame for their actions.
>
> 'genetic' one offered by the original poster.
>
> Mike Smith
>
I would suggest you can't tell the difference between genetics and family
values.
D. Staples
manner. Both include property crime, they also include murder. Look em up.
Dave Proctor wrote:
--
A Planet Visitor
What do they do, beat themselves over the head with bats?
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:fNDW4.18$Dr3.3...@news0.optus.net.au...
Marksman
> > Crimes, Dave, as reported by the Canadian gov and the us gov, in a
uniform
> > manner. Both include property crime, they also include murder. Look em
> up.
>
> robberies with 400 prostitution offences.
>
So you do admit Canada has a higher crime rate?
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Proctor
news:392B1353...@livingston.net...
> Crimes, Dave, as reported by the Canadian gov and the us gov, in a uniform
> manner. Both include property crime, they also include murder. Look em
up.
I have no doubt that they are all crimes. BUT, is it comparing 300 armed
robberies with 400 prostitution offences.
Alas, I cannot visit the websites at the moment, as I am posting offline,
but I will do so.
Dave
Odagnop
thorn wrote:
> Boy You hit the Nail Right on The Head!
> Can't add to that! Good shot Marksman!
>
No, he hit *you* on the head, sucker, and then
you thank him for it! The U.K. has had a much longer
history of "liberalism" than the U.S. has.
ROFL!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
AFTech
states' (whatever the hell THAT means)?
--
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax
is a fine for doing well.
--|AFTech|-- AFTech...@fdn.com (cut the cheese to e-mail)
JC <SN...@home.com> wrote in message news:392AD63A...@home.com...
AFTech
That's a nice theory but, of course, you will need research to back it up.
I'm not denying it but believe it needs more proof.
As for the Black Americans' propensity towards violence, how about
frustration at not being able to convince the Whites that the Blacks are
equal?
--
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax
is a fine for doing well.
--|AFTech|-- AFTech...@fdn.com (cut the cheese to e-mail)
Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
>
> Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
> It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more murderous
> than blacks in other Western democracies!
>
>
> Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
>
> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in the
> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended from.
>
>
>
> What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
> What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the comparitively
> backward and dangerous 'New World'?
>
> In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to deal
> with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found themselves.
>
> In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
>
> I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
>
>
>
> The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of fish
> altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of ancestors of
> today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
>
> I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> purchased from West Africa.
>
> If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> individuals who seemed strongest.
>
> Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger and
> stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
>
> However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high levels
> of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> predilection towards violent conduct.
>
> Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen for
> that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
>
>
>
> I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide to
> comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> reasons.
>
>
Don Staples
sport, Canada does not have a higher crime
rate then the exited states."
What part of "crime" do you not understand?
Dave Proctor wrote:
So, you argue from a point of having no information, and fail to look it up.
TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT
Don Staples
The term is crimes, dave, you said, Canada has a lower rate, you have been
given evidence that you are either dense as rock, lying, or trolling. Not
you try to qualify your statement.
TROLL ALERT
Dave Proctor wrote:
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:fTEW4.26678$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Violent crimes are "Victimless crimes???"
> > What do they do, beat themselves over the head with bats?
>
> I was not referring to that part. I was referring to the first statistic,
> which was merely "crimes".
>
> Dave
>
> > "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:fNDW4.18$Dr3.3...@news0.optus.net.au...
> > > "D. Staples" <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote in message
Dave Proctor
Dave Proctor
> > > Crimes, Dave, as reported by the Canadian gov and the us gov, in a
> uniform
> > > manner. Both include property crime, they also include murder. Look
em
> > up.
> >
> > I have no doubt that they are all crimes. BUT, is it comparing 300 armed
> > robberies with 400 prostitution offences.
> >
>
>
I never admitted anything. I don't know enough about Canada to comment, and
I cannot get at the statistics to look.
> THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For what?
Dave
Red Herring
>Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
>residents of other industrialized democracies?
You mean, the democracies that are responsible for two world (and many
regional) wars, and 100,000,000 dead just in the past 100 years?
That is a cool 1,000,000 murders per year.
It would take us 50 years to murder as many people as the enlightened
democracies do in a single year!
Dave Proctor
"Red Herring" <r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:393344f7....@news.gulfstream.org...
> On Tue, 23 May 2000 01:54:30 GMT, Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> >residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
> You mean, the democracies that are responsible for two world (and many
> regional) wars, and 100,000,000 dead just in the past 100 years?
I dno't recall him mentioning any specific country, but just to be
difficult, why not compare them with democracies that are not responsible
for these wars, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
>
> That is a cool 1,000,000 murders per year.
>
> It would take us 50 years to murder as many people as the enlightened
> democracies do in a single year!
And it would take as long for the countries I have mentioned to reach your
murder rate in a single year, even after taking into account population
differences.
Dave
Dave Proctor
"Don Staples" <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote in message
news:392B5899...@livingston.net...
> TROLL ALERT: DAVE IDENTIFIED, OUT FROM UNDER BRIDGE.
>
> The term is crimes, dave, you said, Canada has a lower rate, you have been
> given evidence that you are either dense as rock, lying, or trolling. Not
> you try to qualify your statement.
WHERE did I say that Canada had a lower crime rate? Please quote it.
> TROLL ALERT
I am glad you identified your post as a troll, but I am replying to it
anyway.
Dave
> Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:fTEW4.26678$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > Violent crimes are "Victimless crimes???"
> > > What do they do, beat themselves over the head with bats?
> >
> > I was not referring to that part. I was referring to the first
statistic,
> > which was merely "crimes".
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > > "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:fNDW4.18$Dr3.3...@news0.optus.net.au...
> > > > "D. Staples" <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote in message
David Lentz
AFTech wrote:
>
> You were doing OK with the White Americans' propensity towards violence.
> That's a nice theory but, of course, you will need research to back it up.
> I'm not denying it but believe it needs more proof.
>
> As for the Black Americans' propensity towards violence, how about
> frustration at not being able to convince the Whites that the Blacks are
> equal?
Observation, black in the United States commit proportionally
more crimes than whites. Theory, well it all the whites fault
because they don't accept the blacks as equal. Fine. Then
explain the turmoil in Africa, where the blacks are killing
white, blacks or just about anything.
Just because I am a white European male, does not mean that I
have to accept all blame for every problem, and I will not do so.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
D. Staples
crime
> rate then the exited states.
This is the post I was responding too, before you stepped in trolling. Try to
follow the bouncing ball, at least.
Dave Proctor wrote:
--
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
news:392BD445...@nowhere.net...
[snip]
> Observation, black[s] in the United States commit proportionally
> more crimes than whites. Theory, well it all the whites fault
> because they don't accept the blacks as equal. Fine. Then
> explain the turmoil in Africa, where the blacks are killing
> white, blacks or just about anything.
> Just because I am a white European male, does not mean that I
> have to accept all blame for every problem, and I will not do so.
>>>>
Then explain WWI and WWII...
-----------------------------------------
Richard Jackson
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The Trail of Tears suffered by
the Cherokees, the war with the Seminoe tribe, and the systematic
destruction of the life of Native Americans in general looks pretty
similar to "genetic cleansing" to me.
From the time the British first established the custom of using a
bounty for enemy scalps during the French and Indian War, the
descendants of Europeans have been systematically killing and
destroying the way of life of Native Americans as we pushed across the
nation. Of course, the act of migration of a stronger ethnic group
eliminating ans assimilating weaker ones as it expands into new
territory is a story as old as mankind. Still, I would not go so far
as to say we haven't had our pogroms.
--
Richard Jackson
Julie Cochrane
Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Red Herring" <r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:393344f7....@news.gulfstream.org...
>> On Tue, 23 May 2000 01:54:30 GMT, Leo <bag...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>>
>> >Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared
with the
>> >residents of other industrialized democracies?
>>
>> You mean, the democracies that are responsible for two world
(and many
>> regional) wars, and 100,000,000 dead just in the past 100
years?
>
>I dno't recall him mentioning any specific country, but just to
be
>difficult, why not compare them with democracies that are not
responsible
Why not? Why not is because that's called "cherry picking"
and it's a logically flawed method of making comparisons.
You CAN compare anything with anything else. It's just that
if you don't follow the rules of logic and social science in
making your comparison, you can't draw any (valid) conclusions
from the comparison.
Julie
>for these wars, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
>>
>> That is a cool 1,000,000 murders per year.
>>
>> It would take us 50 years to murder as many people as the
enlightened
>> democracies do in a single year!
>
>And it would take as long for the countries I have mentioned to
reach your
>murder rate in a single year, even after taking into account
population
>differences.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Julie Cochrane
wrote:
>In article <8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic -
specifically in the
>> sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are
descended from.
>
up.
>
>Come back when you have concrete evidence that can stand up to
>peer review.
>
>Mike Smith
>
>--
(Good point, Mike. Pardon me for piggybacking.)
Not only that, but when you break US crime rates down by
ethnicity, Americans of European descent are as law-abiding
(or more so) as Europeans. American of Asian descent are
typically more law abiding than the Asians in the countries
they came from.
The difference between American and European crime is all
in the Black and Hispanic crime rates, and any "genetic"
theories there lead to (justified) charges of racism.
What is much more likely is that in many cases crime is
caused by the number of sociopaths* in society, and the
(until recently) poor US track record at quarantining our
identified sociopaths away from the rest of our population.
The social factors that contribute to sociopathy are far
more prevalent in the affected minority communities than
in the sub-populations with lower crime rates
Rather than genetic fingerpointing, we as a society
need to do a better job of preventing the kinds of
damage to children that typically increase the risk of
sociopathy, and one of the most important of those is
to quarantine existing identified sociopaths before they
can breed AND ABANDON or abuse another generation of
potential sociopaths---it's not so much the genetics, it's
the abandonment and abuse, and the abuse of other abandoned
children that that particular sociopath did not father.
For the portion of sociopaths caused by bad mothers who
get pregnant as teens by some random guy(s) and then abuse
alcohol and drugs while pregnant and then aren't prepared
or inclined to be a good parent to that child, the
interventions that would be necessary to prevent those
babies and children from being damaged to the point of
sociopathy would be regarded by most modern Americans as
utterly draconian. Until there is more political will
in this country to restrain the harmful reproductive**
behaviors of many young women, the best remaining option
will be to live with the first serious crimes of each
generation of the resultant new sociopaths and quarantine
those new sociopaths as we identify them.
Julie
*Sociopathy is partly caused by unmarried (particularly
never-married) mothers raising children, by children being
left in abusive homes instead of removed from abusive and
neglectful situations and being adopted out, partly caused
by pregnant women abusing drugs (particularly crack), partly
caused by unmarried or never-married single mothers
shacking up with men other than the father(s) of her
child(ren), since those men are much more likely to abuse
the children, partly caused by men (often sociopaths themselves)
who get teenage girls pregnant and then abandon mother and
child. Pregnant women abusing alcohol, child abuse from
alcohol abuse by adults, early abuse of alcohol by children
are all also factors in sociopathy---the alcohol abuse may
be one of the more critical factors in parts of the hispanic
community since many American hispanics have substantial
Native American ancestry and therefore MAY be at higher
genetic risk for alcoholism.
**This is not a criticism of sex qua sex. A young girl
who gets a Norplant or a depo provera injection and then
screws around may or may not risk various diseases and
may or may not have a problem with the moral standards of
her religion, but she isn't bringing children into the world
in a situation that is harmful to the psyche of the child.
>Email: maxomenos@SPAM=DEATH.mindspring.com
>Member, National Rifle Association
>Member, American Civil Liberties Union
>Member, The Witches' Voice (http://www.witchvox.com)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
Julie Cochrane
are counting American hispanics as "white" or not---ethnically,
why the heck not, but just for the purpose of comparing
largely-English-descended Americans with other
largely-English-descended peoples, you shouldn't include
hispanics if you're comparing apples to apples.
There are varying theories about why hispanic crime rates
are so high. Personally, I suspect that it's not a
problem uniform throughout the hispanic population but
breaks down more along lines of alcohol abuse. A fair
portion of the hispanic population is also heavily descended
from Native Americans, who have a higher risk for a genetic
predisposition to alcoholism*.
Alcoholism causes crime by causing violent and irresponsible
criminal behavior by the alcoholic, by causing child abuse
which can result in the child becoming a sociopath, and by
causing fetal alcohol syndrome resulting in stupid kids who
are thereby made more likely to become sociopaths.
I suspect, but have no evidence, that hispanic families
without alcoholism or drug abuse have the same crime rates
as other families without alcoholism or drug abuse.
Julie
*By the way, I am 1/64th Creek, so I'm not trying to get
into any racist taint-of-blood thing. It's just that if
you're Jewish you're more likely to have the gene for Tay
Sachs, if you're Euro you're more likely to have the gene
for Cystic Fibrosis, if you're black you're more likely to
have the gene for sickle cell anemia, if you're Native
American you're more likely to have a genetic risk for
alcoholism. I'm not alcoholic, but I have my own genetic
risks just like anybody else---in my case, risk of diabetes
and heart disease, and I have bipolar (II) disorder (which
is heavily genetically influenced). Genetic risks are like
belly buttons, everybody has one.
Kenny P
Julie Cochrane wrote in message
<1147938c...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>...
> Genetic risks are like belly buttons, everybody has one.
Or two, depending on genetics ...
Kenny P.
Bama Brian
impression on you!
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Eh, what a maroon!"
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
NRA Life
GOA Life
Libertarian
Voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for an evil.
Vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
.
"Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gcoj0$jm1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
<rest of arrogant, condescending, bigoted rant snipped?
A Planet Visitor
misspeak. Or at least, hardly ever.
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:6xFW4.62$Dr3.4...@news0.optus.net.au...
A Planet Visitor
racially charged and motivated direction this thread
has now taken concerning Black and White violence
"propensity," comparisons. But I would ask that if
both of you continue to quote racially motivated, opinion
based observations, you at least observe the most
fundamental issue regarding this problem, and that is
the "ghettoization" factor, existing in both the U.S. and
Africa, or better yet, just take your garbage to another
newsgroup. A true observation of a "propensity," toward
violence, would be a comparison between Blacks and
Whites of the same economic stratum. When such is
done, I believe, and will until the most conclusive data
possible proves otherwise, that economic ghettoization
contributes completely to the disparity which is observed
in any Black and White violence comparisons. I would
defy you to find more upper to middle-class, educated
Blacks guilty of crimes of violence than their upper to
middle-class, educated White counterpart.
When given equal opportunities, lacking prejudicial
racial motivation, Blacks succeed at the same pace
as do Whites, and do not exhibit the violence
characteristics, which you would draw with your broad
brush of racial prejudice across an entire race. Only
ingrained prejudices, as those expressed here, reflect
otherwise. And to set aside any delusions you may
have over this observation, let me also observe that I
am White, and I am middle-class, and I most definitely
am not a Young Turk with a liberal view of society. I am
more conservative than liberal, but I can still recognize an
agenda when I see one, and I am also not blind to
realities.
"David Lentz" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:392BD445...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> AFTech wrote:
> >
> > You were doing OK with the White Americans' propensity towards
violence.
> > That's a nice theory but, of course, you will need research to back
it up.
> > I'm not denying it but believe it needs more proof.
> >
> > As for the Black Americans' propensity towards violence, how about
> > frustration at not being able to convince the Whites that the Blacks
are
> > equal?
>
> Observation, black in the United States commit proportionally
> more crimes than whites. Theory, well it all the whites fault
> because they don't accept the blacks as equal. Fine. Then
> explain the turmoil in Africa, where the blacks are killing
> white, blacks or just about anything.
>
> Just because I am a white European male, does not mean that I
> have to accept all blame for every problem, and I will not do so.
>
> David
>
> --
> qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
>
Dave Proctor
"Julie Cochrane" <jcochran...@eattorney.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0cabe360...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com...
> In article <vAIW4.862$Dr3.5...@news0.optus.net.au>, "Dave
> Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >"Red Herring" <r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM> wrote in message
> >news:393344f7....@news.gulfstream.org...
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2000 01:54:30 GMT, Leo <bag...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> with the
> >> >residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >>
> (and many
> >> regional) wars, and 100,000,000 dead just in the past 100
> years?
> >
> >I dno't recall him mentioning any specific country, but just to
> be
> >difficult, why not compare them with democracies that are not
> responsible
>
> Why not? Why not is because that's called "cherry picking"
> and it's a logically flawed method of making comparisons.
Which is exactly what you did. You "cherry-picked" examples of countries to
suit your own ends.
Dave
John Rennie
Attn: Planet Visitor
What a cracking response. Reminds me an incident
in my working life. I was a Principal in a very busy telecommunications
department of a major british bank.
A female Manager, a friend, was appointed to take charge of the department
and she was my boss.. She was an excellent manager and a real motivator
of staff but I couldn't resist taking a rise out of her now and again. I
studied the attendance figures for the department for a year and produced
accurate statistics that proved that the female staff had more time off sick
than the male staff. When I presented her with this 'proof' she took one
glance and then asked me to present her with the absentee records of the
department according the grades of responsibility held. I did. I
daresay you have guessed the result; the more responsible position held in
the department, the less the absenteeism. You have also probably guessed
the other half of the story; the females
held most of the more menial jobs in the department. So much for slanted
statistics.
rglencheek
> "Steve Hix" <se...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:sehix-259A02....@news.dsldesigns.com...
> > In article <J7sW4.2094$_Q6.7...@news0.optus.net.au>, "Dave Proctor"
> > <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> > > news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...> > > > news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with
the
> > > > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> > > > in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
> > >
> > > You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
> > > Kingdom, to name just a few?
> >
> > Try Germany and their erstwhile pals.
> >
> > > > It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
> > >
> > > Already exceeded us.
> >
> > Not even close.
>
> So the mass murder rate of the countries I mentioned (five industrialised
> Western democracies) exceeds that of the United States then? Proof please.
Dont even point to Switzerland, Dave, it has a machinegun in every home,
locked and loaded.
The US has comparable crime rates, even lower than those of sheepish
England, if you take out the cities ruled by that party of criminals, the
Democratic Party! We have high crime rates because drug dealers and other
criminals do so much to keep Democrats elected.
RGlenCheek
Julie Cochrane
their babies young and have never been married, are proven
factors in sociopathy. They're also proven factors in
poverty.
Having a man in the home who is mommy's boyfriend but isn't
related to mommy's children is a known risk factor for child
abuse, and child abuse is a known risk factor for sociopathy.
Drug abuse also tends to make you poor, people tend to do
stupid and criminal things while doped up (or drunk), and
abusing drugs or getting drunk while pregnant tends to make
the resulting kids much more likely to be stupid and, in the
case of crack babies, violently sociopathic.
Doing these behaviors makes you much more likely to be poor.
Leaving a child in the home of a parent who does these
behaviors tends to make the child much more likely to grow
up to be poor and/or sociopathic.
That single motherhood is much more common in the black
community is NOT a racial criticism of black women who don't
have and keep babies without getting married and NOT a racial
criticism of black men who don't father and then abandon
their babies.
In fact, I'm only criticizing the people who DO do these
things to a very limited extent. Most of the people who
are doing these things grew up in homes with bad parents.
I'm saying it's not a race problem, it's a BEHAVIOR problem
that happens to presently have a demographic difference
across ethnic groups.
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell of it
happening, but I think the best way of breaking the cycle
of self-destructive behavior for future generations is not
to allow never-married teenage women who get pregnant to
keep their babies if there is a stable, loving, two-parent
adoptive family of any ethnicity available and willing to
adopt the baby.
I also think that if you're never-married and a minor and
you get pregnant they should drug test you and if you
regularly and if you flunk a drug or alcohol test, they
should civilly commit you until the baby is born.
I think a teenage, never-married pregnancy is prima facie
evidence that that person is not a fit parent at that time
for that child, and the best interests of the child are to
be adopted by a two-parent family if one is available.
I also think that if this policy were implemented, there would
be far fewer teenage pregnancies as more teen girls got their
Norplants or depo provera shots.
I think that IF the father and the mother of a teen-conceived
baby are willing to get married and try to make a go of raising
the baby together, that that shows sufficient maturity to say
that the best interests of the child are to stay with the
married but young parents (the child's risk factors are
immediately reduced when the parents marry).
-----------
I'm pretty sure I've seen the theory that poverty causes
crime debunked repeatedly in a variety of different times,
places, and ways.
However, I DO believe that some of the behaviors that cause
poverty ALSO cause or tend to correlate with criminal
behaviors.
Julie
rglencheek
> <xer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gen5i$v6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I believe he was talking about the ones you left out: Germany, Austria,
> > Italy, Russia, Yugoslavia....
>
> Nobody mentioned *ANY* specific country, but the way that the statement
was
> made made it appear that he was referring to *ALL* industrialised
> democracies.
Oh, good Lord. Dont squirm Dave, the fact that you were wrong because many
European countries do have a higher crime and murder rate than the US is
rather apparent. Just have some dignity and drop the thread, OK?
RGlenCheek
Julie Cochrane
Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Julie Cochrane" <jcochran...@eattorney.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>news:0cabe360...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com...
>> Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Red Herring" <r...@gulfstream.org.NOSPAM> wrote in message
>> >news:393344f7....@news.gulfstream.org...
>> >> On Tue, 23 May 2000 01:54:30 GMT, Leo <bag...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
compared
>> with the
>> >> >residents of other industrialized democracies?
>> >>
world
>> (and many
>> >> regional) wars, and 100,000,000 dead just in the past 100
>> years?
>> >
>> >I dno't recall him mentioning any specific country, but just
to
>> be
>> >difficult, why not compare them with democracies that are not
>> responsible
>>
>> Why not? Why not is because that's called "cherry picking"
>> and it's a logically flawed method of making comparisons.
>
>Which is exactly what you did. You "cherry-picked" examples of
countries to
>suit your own ends.
>
>Dave
>
*I* didn't. However, I'll address the point because you
appear to be under a very common misconception that the
burden of proof for someone asserting A causes B is exactly
the same as for someone asserting that A does not cause B.
It's not, but the reasons why appear to be difficult for
some people to understand:
Comparisons across cultures and across countries
are so tricky because there are so MANY factors involved,
that it's "cherry picking" when you pick a few countries that
differ on two relevant dynamics and try to conclude, based
on that, that A causes B.
Picking a few countries that don't match a causal hypothesis
on those two dynamics and saying, that no, A does not
necessarily cause B----rather, saying that there is no
evidence that A causes B is PERFECTLY VALID.
By the rules of social science, causality is VERY, VERY
HARD TO PROVE.
To take a classic example of how the burden of proof on
two sides of an argument is not only not necessarily equal,
but can differ dramatically, take the proposition that
"All Crows Are Black."
You have to show a LOT of crows to provide strong evidence
that "All crows are black."
If you are trying to prove the antithesis, that "Not all
crows are black." All you have to do is come up with one
white, blue, yellow, purple, or otherwise non-black crow.
Switzerland and Israel are therefore much, much STRONGER
evidence that looser gun laws DO NOT cause crime than
New Zealand and Australia are that looser gun laws do
cause crime.
To put it another way, if it were easy to tell what causes
what, we'd already have cures for cancer, heart disease,
and every other illness known to mankind.
It's a lot easier to tell that A doesn't cause B or that
we have no VALID evidence to believe that A causes B than
it is to figure out whatinthehell DOES cause B.
rglencheek
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
Easy answer:
Brittain = sheep.
United States = wolves.
That is pretty self explanatory, doncha think, POME bastid?
RGlenCheek
Erich
<rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:cIDW4.12$Dr3.3...@news0.optus.net.au...
> > "Steve Hix" <se...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:sehix-259A02....@news.dsldesigns.com...
> > > In article <J7sW4.2094$_Q6.7...@news0.optus.net.au>, "Dave Proctor"
> > > <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Henry Glenworthy" <Henry Glenw...@xteleport.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:TKmW4.484$NE3.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > > > > "Leo" <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with
> the
> > > > > > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> > > > > Do you have even the vaguest idea of the history of mass murder
> > > > > in the 20th century of these so-called industrialized "democracies"?
> > > >
> > > > You mean like Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United
> > > > Kingdom, to name just a few?
> > >
> > > Try Germany and their erstwhile pals.
> > >
> > > > > It will take about 20,000 years for the U.S. to catch up...
> > > >
> > > > Already exceeded us.
> > >
> > > Not even close.
> >
> > So the mass murder rate of the countries I mentioned (five industrialised
> > Western democracies) exceeds that of the United States then? Proof please.
>
> Dont even point to Switzerland, Dave, it has a machinegun in every home,
> locked and loaded.
Members of the Swiss armed forces do keep a personal weapon at home. A
sealed package with 72 rounds of ammunition is also supplied. The gun
must be stored unloaded and locked to prevent access by unauthorized
persons. Ammunition for these weapons is only available at rifle
ranges and may not be removed from the range.
Half of all US households own a gun. Even including the army weapons,
only 36% of all Swiss households have a gun of any kind.
... Erich
Dave Proctor
"rglencheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8ghotn$arn$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> England, if you take out the cities ruled by that party of criminals, the
> Democratic Party! We have high crime rates because drug dealers and other
> criminals do so much to keep Democrats elected.
All I was doing was taking issue with the blanket claim which seemingly
referred to all other industrialised democracies, which was clearly wrong.
There are too many issues involved to lay the blame on any one factor. It
could be argued, for example, that the small rise in crime in Australia
after 1996 had more to do with the newly elected governments crackdown on
welfare fraud rather than the new gun laws. It could be argued that forcing
some people off welfare forced them into crime. No one factor is responsible
for the crime figures, either a rise or a fall, rather it is a complex mix
of all of the factors.
Dave
Dave Proctor
> > <xer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gen5i$v6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > I believe he was talking about the ones you left out: Germany,
Austria,
> > > Italy, Russia, Yugoslavia....
> >
> > Nobody mentioned *ANY* specific country, but the way that the statement
> was
> > made made it appear that he was referring to *ALL* industrialised
> > democracies.
>
> Oh, good Lord. Dont squirm Dave, the fact that you were wrong because many
> European countries do have a higher crime and murder rate than the US is
> rather apparent. Just have some dignity and drop the thread, OK?
I am not wrong. The claim was made that other industrialised countries do
not have the high crime rates of the US. Someone (not sure who) then said
that perhaps they should look at the countries responsible for WWI and WWII,
all I was doing is showing that not all industrialised democracies fall into
this basket, that some actually have lower crime rates.
Dave
Dave Proctor
> Comparisons across cultures and across countries
> are so tricky because there are so MANY factors involved,
> that it's "cherry picking" when you pick a few countries that
> differ on two relevant dynamics and try to conclude, based
> on that, that A causes B.
See my reply to one of rglencheck's posts in this thread.
Dave
AFTech
industrialized nation and we have more guns ergo guns cause murder, what do
we respond with? We say there are too many cultural differences to blame
the high murder rate on the high gun ownership rate.
The fact that the Africa is filled with with warring is not just because it
is filled with blacks. There are too many cultural differences to blame it
on just that one factor. After all, look at the Balkans. Much the same
thing going on there and they're white. When Western Europe was as poorly
developed as Africa is now (all the way until the industrial revolution and
even a little beyond), it too was filled with warring factions killing each
other in large numbers. Again, white on white.
Blacks in this country started off (at the very beginning) equal but very
quickly had their rights forcibly stripped away by Europeans. Those rights
have never been entirely returned. Thus the frustration. Like it or not,
you (and I) are to blame for that. I try to be fair but I am a product of
my society. I have, on occassion, found myself addressing a white man when
the black man standing next to him was the one in charge. I just made an
assumption because, until recently, black men just weren't in charge (you
and I both know why).
No, for the most part, whites are not actively holding down blacks in the
U. S. but we are doing it passively instead. It's those lingering attitudes
that need to be cleared up. Too be fair, the blacks have lingering
attitudes also but that is, again, as a result of the centuries of
mistreatment from whites. Still, each side needs to give the other a
chance.
--
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax
is a fine for doing well.
--|AFTech|-- AFTech...@fdn.com (cut the cheese to e-mail)
David Lentz <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:392BD445...@nowhere.net...
>
>
>
Desmond Coughlan
> When an anti-gunner says the U.S. has more murders than any other
> industrialized nation and we have more guns ergo guns cause murder, what do
> we respond with?
Nine times out of ten, you respond with prevarication, myths, and half-truths,
to support your love for objects which serve no purpose other than to take
life.
Whatever turns you on, but this is a death penalty newsgroup, not a 'I'm-a-
NRA-card-carrying-gun-nut' newsgroup. In the future, if you don't want to
be regarded as a clueless newbie, try not to crosspost.
[snip]
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@coughlan.net
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/fs2000/
Doug Smith
>
<snip>
>
> Members of the Swiss armed forces do keep a personal weapon at home. A
> sealed package with 72 rounds of ammunition is also supplied. The gun
> must be stored unloaded and locked to prevent access by unauthorized
> persons. Ammunition for these weapons is only available at rifle
> ranges and may not be removed from the range.
>
> Half of all US households own a gun. Even including the army weapons,
> only 36% of all Swiss households have a gun of any kind.
>
> ... Erich
Uhh..no. Government subisdised ammo for the automatic
rifles is supposed to be fired off at the range, but
the same cal. may be bought at retail with no restrictions.
I somehow doubt your 36% number, unless Swiss demographics
are really weird.
rglench...@my-deja.com
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "rglencheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8ghp14$dtu$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:dIDW4.13$Dr3.3...@news0.optus.net.au...
> > > <xer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8gen5i$v6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > I believe he was talking about the ones you left out: Germany,
> Austria,
> > > > Italy, Russia, Yugoslavia....
> > >
> > > Nobody mentioned *ANY* specific country, but the way that the
statement
> > was
> > > made made it appear that he was referring to *ALL* industrialised
> > > democracies.
> >
> > Oh, good Lord. Dont squirm Dave, the fact that you were wrong
because many
> > European countries do have a higher crime and murder rate than the
US is
> > rather apparent. Just have some dignity and drop the thread, OK?
>
> I am not wrong. The claim was made that other industrialised countries
do
> not have the high crime rates of the US.
Dave, this implies that American murder rates are outside the range of
murder rates for industrialized nations no? But such claims are not
taking into account the murder committed by the governments of those
nations, such as Nazi Germany.
>Someone (not sure who) then
said
> that perhaps they should look at the countries responsible for WWI and
WWII,
> all I was doing is showing that not all industrialised democracies
fall into
> this basket, that some actually have lower crime rates.
Since governments impose the laws, they usually exclude their own agents
from those laws (look at Congress for example). But if we look at
illicit activities, legal or not, onecould argue that the Brittish
government robs its own people each year when it takes their wealth from
them in the form of taxes. Just because they are the government does not
make it right.
You are over-narrowing the range of behavior considered for apparently
self-serving purposes, which is not unusual in polemics I suppose.
RGlenCheek
Erich
<dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> wrote:
> Erich wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Members of the Swiss armed forces do keep a personal weapon at home. A
> > sealed package with 72 rounds of ammunition is also supplied. The gun
> > must be stored unloaded and locked to prevent access by unauthorized
> > persons. Ammunition for these weapons is only available at rifle
> > ranges and may not be removed from the range.
> >
> > Half of all US households own a gun. Even including the army weapons,
> > only 36% of all Swiss households have a gun of any kind.
> >
> > ... Erich
>
> Uhh..no. Government subisdised ammo for the automatic
> rifles is supposed to be fired off at the range, but
> the same cal. may be bought at retail with no restrictions.
Nope. I suspect you are just making this claim off the cuff.
> I somehow doubt your 36% number, unless Swiss demographics
> are really weird.
That figure is from the 1996 International Crime Victim Survey.
Reality is far different from the machine gun in every home myth
promoted by the gun lobby.
... Erich
K. Parsons
> I did, spurt, see the following.
>
>
> http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal02.htm
>
> Canada, 8,537 crimes per 100,000 population
> Canada, 984 violent crimes per 100,000 population
>
> http://www.fbi.gov
>
> US, 4,616 crimes per 100,000 population
> US, 553 violent crimes per 100,000 populations.
These are worthless statistics without a breakdown of such factors as what
is considered a crime and what is considered a violent crime by each
source. Canada may have more laws on the books, or include more or
different categories of crime than the FBI, Canadians may have a broader
interpretation of what constitutes "violent crime" or Canadians may be
more likely to report crime than those in the United States, for just a
few examples of how raw data can be misleading.
It also appears these two groups of statistics were collected by different
organizations. That makes it even more likely that different definitions
were used in the individual interpretations.
Parsnips
John Rennie
>
> Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8gcoci$jjr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
>
> Brittain = sheep.
>
> United States = wolves.
>
> That is pretty self explanatory, doncha think, POME bastid?
>
> RGlenCheek
Yes it is self explanatory - it explains you! Nothing else can.
!
!
>
>
>
J. Doe
> "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> "D. Staples" <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Crimes, Dave, as reported by the Canadian gov and the us gov, in
>>> a uniform manner. Both include property crime, they also include
>>> murder. Look em up.
>>
>> I have no doubt that they are all crimes. BUT, is it comparing 300
>> armed robberies with 400 prostitution offences.
>
> So you do admit Canada has a higher crime rate?
>
> THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd rather be mugged twice than murdered once, sport.
AFTech
archives and notice this thread (which I did not originate) has been
crossposted for days and you are just now bitching about it. Since you also
attacked me on an issue other than the crossposting and that issue is not
related to the group you claim to be posting from, I have to assume that is
why you chose my post to complain about even though there are many others.
You have opened the gates for rebuttal.
Where do you get off calling me a liar without even having heard my views
on why I reserve the right to self-defense. The post in question only
briefly touched on the subject and was about something else entirely.
But since you accused me of offering up prevarications, I will inform you
that I am not the one lying about how many 'children' are killed per day
with guns. It's only 13 if you count 18 and 19 year olds as 'children'. And
'children' of that age are nearly 1/2 of the number all by themselves.
15-17 year olds comprise almost all the others. There are only 1.7 *real*
children (14 or under) who are killed by guns per day. Those numbers come
straight from the Center for Disease Control.
I am not the one so blind as to think a guns only purpose is to kill. It's
purpose is to defend, provide food, provide entertainment. To defend,
usually just requires the display of the gun or sometimes just the mention
that one might be handy. No deaths need occur.
I am not the one trying to make America believe that violent crime is on
the upswing and coming to a neighborhood near you. As the FBI and CDC
report, crimes of all sorts, and especially violent crime, have been on the
decline for years. So why are goofs like you trying to raise fear in this
country?
Gun (people) control proponents don't like concealed carry laws because
"this isn't the wild west and we don't want shootouts all over the place".
This unreasonable fear ignores the fact the 31 states who currently allow
concealed carry not only don't have shootouts but have less crime in
general than the states who don't allow concealed carry.
I will post no further to the death penalty group if people from that group
refrain from attacking gun rights in talk.politics.guns. But if you want to
argue that matter, that's what we're here for.
--
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax
is a fine for doing well.
--|AFTech|-- AFTech...@fdn.com (cut the cheese to e-mail)
Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ipvau....@lievre.voute.net...
Desmond Coughlan
On Fri, 26 May 2000 06:08:59 -0400, AFTech <AFTech...@fdn.com> wrote:
> First let me apologize for the crossposting. However, I looked through my
> archives and notice this thread (which I did not originate) has been
> crossposted for days and you are just now bitching about it.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that I was on holiday until
a few days ago. Duh ...
[snip]
> But since you accused me of offering up prevarications, I will inform you
> that I am not the one lying about how many 'children' are killed per day
> with guns. It's only 13 if you count 18 and 19 year olds as 'children'. And
> 'children' of that age are nearly 1/2 of the number all by themselves.
> 15-17 year olds comprise almost all the others. There are only 1.7 *real*
> children (14 or under) who are killed by guns per day. Those numbers come
> straight from the Center for Disease Control.
'Only' 13 children killed per day ? That's more than we have in a year ...
'Real' children ? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the term 'child' isn't
defined by you and your NRA buddies. It's defined in international law,
and a 17 year old is a child until his eighteenth birthday.
> I am not the one so blind as to think a guns only purpose is to kill. It's
> purpose is to defend,
... by killing.
> provide food,
Yeah, sure ...
'Would you like mayonnaise with your .357 Magnum, sir ..?'
> provide entertainment.
'Wow, did you see the way that nigga bucked when my slugs hit 'im ..?!'
Please, don't insult out intelligence ...
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 06:08:59 -0400, AFTech <AFTech...@fdn.com> wrote:
> > But since you accused me of offering up prevarications, I will inform
you
> > that I am not the one lying about how many 'children' are killed per day
> > with guns. It's only 13 if you count 18 and 19 year olds as 'children'.
And
> > 'children' of that age are nearly 1/2 of the number all by themselves.
> > 15-17 year olds comprise almost all the others. There are only 1.7
*real*
> > children (14 or under) who are killed by guns per day. Those numbers
come
> > straight from the Center for Disease Control.
> 'Only' 13 children killed per day ? That's more than we have in a year
...
No, only "1.7".
So what?
> 'Real' children ? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the term 'child' isn't
> defined by you and your NRA buddies. It's defined in international law,
> and a 17 year old is a child until his eighteenth birthday.
"International law" is an ass and only the brain damaged would regard
14-15-16-17 year old drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, gang-bangers,
robbers, rapists as "children". If it acts like an adult, commits crimes
like an adult, then for all purposes it is an adult.
-------------------------------------------------
A Planet Visitor
should return to the Fountain of Knowledge, and this time
swallow. Also, would that be the Imperial "out," (sic) or a
Freudian slip, and you are planning to announce? Duh....
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8isvis....@lievre.voute.net...
> [follow-ups directed to that gun nut group, where they belong]
You don't get off that easy.
(Lots of snips)
> Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that I was on holiday
until
> a few days ago. Duh ...
> Please, don't insult out intelligence ...
>
AFTech
news:slrn8isvis....@lievre.voute.net...
> [follow-ups directed to that gun nut group, where they belong]
off Desmond}
my
> > archives and notice this thread (which I did not originate) has been
> > crossposted for days and you are just now bitching about it.
>
until
> a few days ago. Duh ...
Yeah, I believe that! (you call me a liar, I return the favor). Besides,
this thread didn't start until you claim you came back. Duh ...
>
> [snip]
>
<snip>
> > I am not the one so blind as to think a guns only purpose is to kill.
It's
> > purpose is to defend,
>
> ... by killing.
As I said in my original post (which, by way of the usual deceptive
practices of an anti-rights goon, you snipped so people wouldn't have to
face the TRUTH), most defensive gun uses only require the display of the
gun or sometimes just the mere mention.
>
> > provide food,
>
> Yeah, sure ...
>
> 'Would you like mayonnaise with your .357 Magnum, sir ..?'
You obviously don't hunt.
>
> > provide entertainment.
>
> 'Wow, did you see the way that nigga bucked when my slugs hit 'im ..?!'
So, you're a racist too.
>
> Please, don't insult out intelligence ...
>
It's hard to insult something that is non-existent.
JEAN SPRAGGINS
merriment, when an anti-gun person starts to hyperventilate that the
rest of us are fibbing, or suddenly gets skeptical about source
verification and citation.
According to the North American Coordinator for _Feldschiessen_
(Swiss-style marksmanship competition), all members of the Swiss armed
forces must retain the arm they trained with, plus an initial combat
ammunition load, in certain states of readiness. Since universal
training is required for all Swiss males beginning at age 18 (I
believe), and continues until they leave active service at about age 55
(again my best recollection), this means some homes have more than one
military arm. For infantrymen, it has meant--since 1958--either the
StGew 57 (7.5x55mm) or StGew 90 (5.56x45mm) full-auto assault rifles.
For officers, it means handguns. Each must demonstrate yearly that he
retains minimal competency by completing a qualifying course of fire
with his issued weapon, or he undergoes remedial training. When a man
reaches the end of active service, he enters the reserves (continuing in
some cases beyond the age of 60) and is given the option of purchasing
his issue arm at nominal cost. This has been true for most of this
century, so at any time quite a few more homes harbor really substantial
armaments than one might guess by a simple comparison of total homes to
Swiss Army personnel rosters--no one knows for certain, but it is higher
than 36 percent. Only the initial combat load of ammunition ever
requires accounting; much surplus is available at low cost, and
commercial sources abound.
According to a US national, married to a Swiss of dual US/Swiss
citizenship, who visits the country often, annual Swiss qualification
firing is an eagerly awaited event, a festive affair, and anyone who
cannot make the grade is subjected to mild opprobrium and a great deal
of good-natured ribbing. Since men serve in units alongside neighbors
and relatives, everyone knows who can hack it, and who cannot, pretty
quick. The countryside bristles with sport-shooting ranges; teenagers
sling target guns over their shoulders, hopping bus or train to
competition sites; groups of shooters stop for coffee on their way to
the range and lean their assault rifles in the restaurant booth next to
them; on weekends, the valleys and hillsides fairly crackle with
gunfire. Rifles--real military weapons--are a common feature of
everyday life, no more remarkable than bicycles or tennis racquets in
the US.
Documented news stories and researched tomes on the laws of various
Swiss Cantons (local region governments roughly equivalent to US states)
have revealed that most have no death penalty. Most murders are
committed by foreigners. Only nominal registration requirements stand
in the way of any Swiss wanting to purchase really heavy stuff, machine
guns and artillery and the like. There wasn't even a Swiss federal gun
law until very recently, when the government bowed to pressure from
other European nations, where anti-gun hysteria blames Confederatio
Helvetica (the Confederation of Swiss Cantons, its official name) for
crime and social unrest. Actually, most illegal guns of Swiss origin
that turn up elsewhere are stolen--again, by foreigners.
-------------------------------------------------------
A Planet Visitor
recognized as an irrational attacker of all things strange to
his experiences. He has spent his adult years wandering
the caverns of the Metro of Paris, searching for his soul.
He is violently against:
1) All things foreign to Europe -- most especially the U.S. of A.
His comments in this regard border on the insane, but
nevertheless remain a threat to anyone within earshot.
2) The DP. He regards all murderers -- From Hitler, to Stalin
to Bundy, to Gacy to your everyday murderer, such as those
who entered a Wendy's restaurant yesterday and executed
5 employees -- as only misunderstood, or positively falsely
accused of their crimes. He also believes in housing all
convicted murderers in the Beverly Hills Hilton, with accompanying
free room service until their natural demise. He calls that L wop.
3. Guns. Do not ever approach the subject of guns with him,
and expect to get a sane response. I can assure you, that will
not happen. Apparently when he was younger, one of his
youthful companions playfully aimed a slingshot at him, and from
this point on, an unreasoned paranoia of guns has consumed his
every fiber.
Other subjects such as the characteristics of fine wine, the raising
and cloning of cows in Scotland, the art of fine dining, European
Dance contests, those wild and crazy French comedies, and other
subjects of refinement, plus his hatred for the U.S., the DP, and
guns will happily be discussed by him at length. Most of all, do
not disagree with any of his statements concerning the fabulous
benefits of Europe and Socialism. You will find he can be most
unreasonable. Lastly, understand that he is this newsgroup's
cross to bear. We accept this task humbly, yet proudly, with the
full understanding that someone has to do it. He is universally
despised in this newsgroup except for a few of his followers we
refer to as "The Gaggle." They adore him, and follow him as
those geese in a gaggle are wont to do. I have looked at your
previous posts and have found them to be fairly reasonable, but
if you intend to cross swords with Desi, rest assured that no matter
how successful you may believe you have been, you will affect
his behavior not one bit. He is.. as is the Rock of Gibraltar...
the eternal stonehead.
"AFTech" <AFTech...@fdn.com> wrote in message
news:wNFX4.3571$DQ3.2...@news1.atlantic.net...
rglencheek
John Rennie <Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:8gk7hl$nhp$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Why, thank you!
RGlenCheek
"Duane" K/ Kelly
>
> [follow-ups directed to that gun nut group, where they belong]
>
>
> > First let me apologize for the crossposting. However, I looked through my
> > archives and notice this thread (which I did not originate) has been
> > crossposted for days and you are just now bitching about it.
>
> Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that I was on holiday until
> a few days ago. Duh ...
>
>
> > But since you accused me of offering up prevarications, I will inform you
> > that I am not the one lying about how many 'children' are killed per day
> > with guns. It's only 13 if you count 18 and 19 year olds as 'children'. And
> > 'children' of that age are nearly 1/2 of the number all by themselves.
> > 15-17 year olds comprise almost all the others. There are only 1.7 *real*
> > children (14 or under) who are killed by guns per day. Those numbers come
> > straight from the Center for Disease Control.
>
> 'Only' 13 children killed per day ? That's more than we have in a year ...
Try 2.6 per day... and the fact that the USA population exceeds your
puny little population by leaps and bounds. Here in the USA, that makes
the odds of a child being killed with a firearm 0.00001:1. Hell, if it
was in your country, one a month would exceed that limit. Hell, America
has as many children 0-14 years of age (57,927,663) as France has for
its entire population, (58,978,172). Frances population of children is
11,014,373 (0-14 years: male 5,638,462; female 5,375,911), that is only
19% of the total number of children of the same age in the USA. This
mean if France has over 0.494 children killed per day by firearms, the
precentage is equal.
> 'Real' children ? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the term 'child' isn't
> defined by you and your NRA buddies. It's defined in international law,
> and a 17 year old is a child until his eighteenth birthday.
Again, you have shown your ignorance... Here, let me show you that the
definition of a child is not 17 and under, (that is unless your country
is made up of late bloomers), as both linguistically and scientifically,
a child is one under the age of puberty.
child (chìld) noun
plural children (chîl´dren)
Abbr. ch.
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus. b. An infant; a baby.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version
licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution
restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.
1997, United States
Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races , Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14
E922, E955.0-.4, E965.0-.4, E985.0-.4, E970
Number of Crude
Deaths Population Rate
630 57,927,663 1.09
1997, United States
Suicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races , Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14 E955.0-.4
Number of Crude
Deaths Population Rate
127 57,927,663 0.22
1997, United States
Legal Int. Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races , Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14 E970
Number of Crude
Deaths Population Rate
1* 57,927,663 0.00*
1997, United States
Homicide/Legal Int. Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races , Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14 E965.0-.4, E970
Number of Crude
Deaths Population Rate
347 57,927,663 0.60
997, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races , Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14 E922
Number of Crude
Deaths Population Rate
142 57,927,663 0.25
1997, United States
Undetermined Intent Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races , Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 14 E985.0-.4
Number of Crude
Deaths Population Rate
14* 57,927,663 0.02*
* Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. Use with caution.
1997 Unintentional Injuries and Adverse Effects, United States
Ages 1-14, All Races , Both Sexes
Cause of Death Number of Deaths
MV Traffic 2,521
Drowning/submersion 905
Fire/burn 631
Suffocation 280
Pedestrian, other 148
Firearm 142
Transport, other 128
Fall 101
Struck by, against 87
Poisoning 75
Natural/environmental 67
Medical Care, Adverse Effects 65
Unspecified 60
Other specified and classifiable 57
Machinery 49
Pedal cyclist, other 24
Other specified / NEC 20
Cut/pierce 10
Drug, Adverse Effects 5
Overexertion 1
---------------------------------------- ----------------
Total 5,376
1997 Homicide and Legal Intervention, United States
Ages 1-14, All Races , Both Sexes
Cause of Death Number of Deaths
Firearm 338
Unspecified 149
Other specified and classifiable 84
Other specified / NEC 71
Fire/burn 48
Cut/pierce 43
Suffocation 43
Struck by, against 22
Poisoning 17
Drowning/submersion 16
Fall 1
---------------------------------------- ----------------
Total 832
1997 Suicide, United States
Ages 1-14, All Races , Both Sexes
Cause of Death Number of Deaths
Suffocation 156
Firearm 127
Poisoning 14
Fall 3
Unspecified 2
Cut/pierce 1
Fire/burn 1
MV traffic 1
Other specified / NEC 1
Other specified and classifiable 1
---------------------------------------- ----------------
Total 307
Produced by: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, CDC
Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths.
Bureau of Census for population estimates.
> > I am not the one so blind as to think a guns only purpose is to kill. It's
> > purpose is to defend,
>
> ... by killing.
>
> > provide food,
>
> Yeah, sure ...
>
> 'Would you like mayonnaise with your .357 Magnum, sir ..?'
>
> > provide entertainment.
>
> 'Wow, did you see the way that nigga bucked when my slugs hit 'im ..?!'
>
> Please, don't insult out intelligence ...
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
> des...@coughlan.net
> http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
> http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/fs2000/
--
========================================================
"A government which will turn its tanks upon its people for ANY reason,
is a government with a taste for blood and a thirst for power, and must
be smartly rebuked, or blindly obeyed in deadly fear"
-Jack Salter
=========================================================
pyotr filipivich
>The "white" American murder rate depends on whether you
>are counting American hispanics as "white" or not---ethnically,
>why the heck not, but just for the purpose of comparing
>largely-English-descended Americans with other
>largely-English-descended peoples, you shouldn't include
>hispanics if you're comparing apples to apples.
>There are varying theories about why hispanic crime rates
>are so high. Personally, I suspect that it's not a
>problem uniform throughout the hispanic population but
>breaks down more along lines of alcohol abuse. A fair
>portion of the hispanic population is also heavily descended
>from Native Americans, who have a higher risk for a genetic
>predisposition to alcoholism*.
One other factor to consider - the role of "transient single
males." Single guys a long way from home (even if it is just one the
street out front) are more at risk of performing "dangerous" acts. All
sorts of reasons for that, testosterone, boredom, trying to prove how
manly one is, no reason to go home tonight, .. all tend to a sense of a
lack of connection to the community, and to "responsible behavior."
Lotta responsibility when one gets connected, in a family manner, and it
changes one's behavior to some extent. My brother wrote after his son
was born "I have begun to think in terms of founding a dynasty."
My father, a Chaplian for twenty plus years, observed that guys
who were good poker players before they got married, began to loss
thier "touch" afterwards, especially when the baby came along. Kind of
hard to bluff when losing means the family goes hungry instead of you
spending the rest of the month stuck eating in the messhall cause you
lost.
Single Transient Males - vowboys in Dodge City, migrant workers
in Yakima, sailor on a liberty pass... testosterone steeped trouble looking
for someplace to "get a littlle unwound".
b
--
pyotr filipivich
It could be worse, I could be in Ballard.
Greg
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
> ...
So what is your point? You all pushed out of shape about our
being free because we are so well armed? It has always been and
will always be the American way...
--
There is only one gun law on the books- the second amendment.
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
Greg
Johnny Lee Pettimore <johnny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Leo wrote:
>
> > Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> > residents of other industrialized democracies?
> >
> > penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and
leads to
> > more violence.
> >
> > Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that
inflates
> > the American murder rate.
> >
> > However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> > truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do
not
> > address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> > intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> > English people.
> >
> > number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
> >
> > Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times
the
> > murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
> >
> > It is clear, then, that American whites are much more murderous than
> > English (and other) whites; and American blacks are much more
murderous
> > than blacks in other Western democracies!
> >
> > Why should this be? What is it that causes the American to kill?
> >
> > It occurs to me that the answer might be genetic - specifically in
the
> > sort of person from whom many of today's Americans are descended
from.
> >
> > What sort of (white) person left Europe for America generations ago?
> > What would make them wish to leave the most powerful and advanced
> > region on the planet for what was then, in many ways, the
comparitively
> > backward and dangerous 'New World'?
> >
> > In many cases, I would submit, it was because they were not able to
> > succeed in their current circumstances. They found that, in crowded
> > Europe, it was difficult for them to co-exist with their fellow
> > populace. Natural 'loners', they were attracted by the concepts of
> > wide-open spaces, where they could be self-reliant and not have to
deal
> > with as tightly-woven a society as that in which they found
themselves.
> >
> > In many cases, in short, they were anti-social people!
> >
> > I believe it is the genetic legacy of their ancestor's inability
> > to 'get along' with others that causes such a high proportion of
> > today's Americans to resort to violence to resolve conflict, where
> > people with more advanced social skills would choose dialogue.
> >
> > The violence of American blacks, however, is a different kettle of
fish
> > altogether. My explanation of white violence relies upon white
> > immigration being voluntary, and of course the majority of
ancestors of
> > today's 'African-American' had no such choice as to their new home!
> >
> > I believe that the high levels of violence inherent in today's black
> > American male is also the genetic legacy of those slaves that were
> > purchased from West Africa.
> >
> > If one was selecting a slave, or slaves, to purchase for hard manual
> > work, I would have thought one would naturally been drawn to those
> > individuals who seemed strongest.
> >
> > Hence, the ancestors of today's black American were surely bigger
and
> > stronger, on average, than their brethren who remained in Africa.
> >
> > However, a muscular physique is naturally associated with high
levels
> > of hormones, such as testosterone, that are also associated with a
> > predilection towards violent conduct.
> >
> > Hence, I believe that it is the very genes that slaves were chosen
for
> > that results in much of the violence in U.S. cities today.
> >
> > I wholly concede that my theory is simplistic, and not particularly
> > complimentary to Americans. However, I ask that, should you decide
to
> > comment, you refrain from dismissing it for purely nationalistic
> > reasons.> Beats me, the Leftist Extremists murder kids right from the womb with
> abortions and even partial birth abortions. Life means nothing to
them,
> unless it's a potenial welfare recipient or future democratic party
voter,
> then they'll pull handouts out of their butt to pander to them.
You go guy!
gen...@my-deja.com
Leo <bag...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Why are U.S. citizens so incredibly murderous when compared with the
> residents of other industrialized democracies?
>
> Some blame the proliferation of guns; others claim that the death
> penalty, far from deterring, actually *brutalizes* society and leads
to
> more violence.
>
> Still others maintain that it is the violence of blacks that inflates
> the American murder rate.
>
> However, it seems to me that, while there may well be a scintilla of
> truth in those (and similar socio-economic) explanations, they do not
> address the basic truth that Americans, like it or not, are
> intrinsically much more violent and murderous than, for example,
> English people.
>
> Additionally, while it is true that blacks commit a disproportionate
> number of U.S. murders, the same is true in other countries.
>
> Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
>
Gene S.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Yet, the *white* American murder rate is still approx. three times the
> > murder rate of *all* English people, whether white or black!
> Tell that to the Scotts, Irish and Indians.
Who are the Scotts ?