Really, I'm not interested in whipping Europeans for "past sins". That's not my game, though the numbers are staggering (one European murder spree alone, the attempt to wipe out the Jews, equals 500 years of American murders).

The more important question is whether modern Europe is prepared to meet the challenges ahead. Many Americans like me have given up on Europe and would be very disinclined to save Europe for a third time.

I think America at least shares some of the blame for this. Keeping American troops in Germany just encouraged Europeans to indulge pacifism. Forget getting out of Iraq, get America the fuck out of Europe!

Cuthbert wrote:
Maybe carrying a gun makes JAC happy. Maybe shoplifting makes me happy. Being made happy by something doesn't give either of us the right to do it.



Like cortes, I've got good reason to feel happy. Just a little common nonsense goes a long way here. I've got all the stuff I lift from shops. For free. Only a fool pays for his shopping. Any reasonable person would conclude that shop-lifting will promote his economic welfare - as long as nobody takes stuff from him of course. Same with owning a gun: it's clearly advantageous, as long as you don't get shot by someone who thinks the same way.

Tobias wrote:


I for instance am a different type. I am not very big or skilled in the ways of violence. For types such as Brack Obama and myself ( ) gun control makes sense. We like to promote argument as a way of conflict resolution. Lawyers you see.

The tide is turning in our favour luckily. Since self reliance is totally impossible in city life, deals have to be made and argument is the only way to survive the war of all against all. That means curtailing the ones who like to employ 'self reliant' tactics, because their physical superiority tends to disbalance the process of argumentation. Argument only makes sense if people have equal recourse to other means such as violence. You never win an argument for a gun. Ergo we argumenters don't want guns. We can't control them and we fear they will use physical or supremacy to win the day. We can't have that.

Conquistadores are an annoying breed because they seem to idolise violence and a general macho culture. This runs against our intellectual grain. So it makes sense, from a conflict perspective that we try to curtail you. We do that by promoting gun control and other measure to create a level playing field. Since lawyers make law we will win. A gun had a function in a past society, it is a relic, though a deadly one. So we ban it.

cortes wrote:

Let's run through your list:

The British? They are among the Euopreans saved. The French? They were conqured and contributed very little to their own liberation in spite of the romance of the French Resistence. Canadians? You forgot the Austrialians, Indians, and South Africans. All were part of the British Empire in one way or another.

As to the Soviets, there of course is the answer to why America stayed in Europe. Perhaps you are one of those who would have been as happy on either side of the Iron Curtain, there was certainly no shortage of home-grown communists in post-WWII western Europe. If so, you won't be inclined to crediting America for saving western Europe from Communism.

Yes, America had its own motives for saving Europe both from the Nazis and the Communists. But I fear that all that was accomplished was to kick the can down the road. As Mark Steyn puts it, "Ameica stands alone." Just look at how useless the Europeans were in Afghanistan.

Benkei wrote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/04/opinion/ed...

Friedman on US' position.

It appears happiness for most people has rather little to do with owning a gun, since they want completely different thing. Of course, I can understand that in a country with so much insecurity, the security of being able to blow someone's brains out counts for something. Personally, I'd be more agitated with a gun in my house; afraid my niece would find it, a friend decides to "play" with it, etc. etc. I'm happier without one because of it.

Having a gun is also a sense of fake security. Certainly when faced with another gun it just raises the chance of both gun-toting neanderthals to blow each other's brains out. And with more neanderthals packing guns, statistically it will happen more often. Actually... wait. Keep your guns. I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks.

Benkei wrote:

Certainly when faced with another gun it just raises the chance of both gun-toting neanderthals to blow each other's brains out.

Benkei wrote:

I have my stuff to give to the thief. I'm not risking my life for anything I can buy... I'm not that greedy.

In any case, if the thief packs a gun and he intends to shoot me, he will regardless of whether I am packing a gun. If I pack a gun there is a likelihood I will shoot the thief unnecessarily (in case he doesn't intend to shoot me) or that he will shoot me before I shoot him or that we both shoot each other. Seems like me that any way you cut it, more people are going to die if I'm packing.

keda wrote:

Greedy enough to not care about others who face thieves sponsored by you, who would be an accessory to crime.

That is illogical. People don't have guns only to protect themselves but also their property. A thief is not likely to try to rob anyone with a gun, for the risk of getting shot, however they are very likely going to target someone who has not got one.

Benkei wrote:
Whether you fight and lose and fight to win, the effort and intent does not change, does it?

Benkei wrote:
What is relevant is looking at what really happened and then we see blatant disregard for human life (Dresden bombing, Japan etc., holocaust) on both sides and competing interests on both sides.

Benkei wrote:
And about lessons: It was German nationalism and pride and unwavering support for the Nazi party because it identified with the "German" cause and the subsequent idea that it was exceptional among all the other States that created the environment for such atrocities to be committed.

Benkei wrote:
In any case, I wish Europeans as a whole would realise that America indeed stands alone. That, when push-comes-to-shove, it will not support any country (except for, maybe, Israel) unless its own vital interests are at stake.

Benkei wrote:
Cortes, how nice that you can point me to a book. Never mind that it has long since been shown that it makes no difference in the crime rate for violent crime but an increase in deaths due to violent crime. This can be seen in the recent crime rates in London for instance, which recently has forbidden gun ownership.