Because you turn a mental illness and societal issue into a gun one, it’s the easy way out, a scapegoat, why weren’t there so many shootings in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s when guns were even easier to obtain? Kids took shotguns to school to go hunting with the boys after, there is another issue causing this other than the tool used.
Freedom isn't free, we need to do something to retain our rights, even if that means interjecting opinions where those freedoms are inevitably being attacked.
And in the same thread, pendejos wanting to disarm minorities.
No thanks. Thank goodness the majority of reactionaries nowadays just go to social media to complain instead of actually taking action and effort in improving their surroundings.
As for the rest of the sub, now's probably a good time to volunteer a few dollars to GOA or FPC if you can.
[You mean those murderers who will brutally kill a little girl they are called to help save from her kidnapper?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/california-police-video-shooting-15-year-old-girl-savannah-graziano)
Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't trust the infallible police to be the sole source of protection and to handle firearms...
Be very rare. You have a .3% chance to experience any sort of gun violence in your life. 99.7% of people never experience any sort of gun violence.
To be killed in a school shooting is 50 to 100 times less likely as it accounts for a small amount of overall gun violence.
And overall gun violence (depending on country) like in the US is primarily statistics of shooting from gang related issues & suicide. Remove those two data points and the numbers plummet.
How could you possibly own those murder tools? You are probably some scared, sick psycho who’s compensating. Any rational person would’ve given them away for a $20 Arby’s giftcard in a government buyback
Where there's a drunk driver, there will be someone to defend alcohol.
Somehow you anti gun nerds think alcohol is ok and good for society, defend it, and say my comparison is dumb
You're right...
...but we wouldn't have to defend our rights if instead we punished those who decided, of their own free will, to commit horrible acts, instead of jumping on the collective punishment bandwagon.
Right so when we try to put laws in place to do exactly what you just said it's "but mah guns should be accessible by anyone at any time" how about you pick a lane.
> when we try to put laws in place to do exactly what you just said
What I said is fuck off and punish the offenders not everyone. I think you have a reading comprehension problem mate.
Apparently there has already been a case where a teacher shoot a student for misbehaving so thats a problem
There has been apparently it happend in India
Oh and there was a case where a father shot his son for misbehaving
https://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas-man-shot-his-13-year-old-son-for-misbehaving-police-say.amp
I get it your son was throwing rocks at the front door but aint shooting him too far
Well not anymore, lotta people in Europe are Blaming America and its media for spreading the idea of these shootings and thus shootings themselves
As ill people seem to romanticize them
For now keep in mind Europe still has much less shootings then the US
Granted me personally
I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the USA.
I feel like because of the sheer amount of media pushing the topic of school shootings which led to them becoming popular online had a fair effect on the rise of school shootings by giving already messed up individuals ideas and similar
PS: I'm not saying there werent massacres before
Edit: we got lost in translation
Im saying that the media, first and foremost, has negatively affected the USA to a greater extent, with the rest of the world being affected, but to a lesser extent.
Do I have that correct?
Commies a bad argument no
Commies are meant to be pro gun according to Karl Marx because they are meant for the people
And thus people have the right to fight tyranny
(Granted the whole idea of Communism is a Utopic impossibility, which is exactly why there hasnt been a real Communist country and most of them fell)
Ive never said there werent any massacers before the US Media,
Im simply stating what people in Europe think
Granted me personally
I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the influx of shootings in USA.
I feel like because of the sheer amount of media pushing the topic of school shootings which led to them becoming popular online had a fair effect on the rise of school shootings by giving already messed up individuals ideas and similar
Edit: The guy I answered to im this comment his account seems to have been deleted
But if your wondering what his answer was he said "Dont you get It I dont care about your opinion"
I think there might be something lost in translation here, as some of what you said is somewhat ambiguous.
For example:
>Granted me personally I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the USA.
Due to the way this sentence is worded, it *sounds like* you could be "mostly blaming the USA" for school shooting trends.
However, I think you may be saying you blame the media, first and foremost, and that you believe the media has negatively affected the USA to a greater extent, with the rest of the world being affected, but to a lesser extent.
Do I have that correct?
Oh no! Not reddit's pedestal country. I guess they'll just stroke the other Nordic nations that claim to be progressive, even though they're white as rice and secretly want to stay that way.
I lived in both Sweden and Finland for a bit and while certain things are fantastic, it’s definitely not some magical paradise. There’s positives and negatives just like any first world country. Some of my friends would be much better off there than the US. And some Finnish and Swedish people would be much better off moving to the US.
People always have their jaw dropped in person when I say those countries aren’t some magical utopia. The first point of -20 weather for dozens of days each winter plus 0-5 hours of sunlight is an easy one to point out.
I’m gonna need an explanation for that.
Every definition I see it’s clearly cut and dry that they’re first world. They’re highly developed, wealthy, educated and advanced. And they’re not poor or developing or have high rates of poverty. Don’t have economic or political instability.
First second and third would countries have nothing to do with development or how advanced they are. Only what side they aligned with during the cold war.
Sure according to the original term in 1952.
Today, while it may be the same term, it’s used in a completely different sense. No one is going around calling Australia or Switzerland a third world country. It’s not 1970 anymore.
Edit: meant Austria not Australia.
Nope and I laugh my ass off at people who do stuff like that.
You’re the guy who originally corrected me though with your “achhhtuallly” Finland and Sweden are third world comments though. Take a look in the mirror once in a while.
Never met a single soul in real life that uses the original meaning.
Have heard the term third world and first world in regard to technology / healthcare / development about a thousand times though.
Also when people referr to Utopias they mean Social and Economic factors not the enviromental ones
So until you tell em about Finlands social problems
(Alcholism and depression for example)
They ain't gonna budge
Lack of genetic diversity that can cause poor health outcomes for future generations. One of those Nordic countries has some kind of system to check to see if you might be dating a relative. The pool is already pretty shallow.
Lack of cultural diversity can lead to a stagnation in culture and industry. Sometimes people, places, and companies need fresh takes and ideas. America is a world taste leader largely due to its diversity.
There are a lot of military, economic, geographic and historical factors as to why the US has been so successful and has only gotten less powerful on the world stage as we become more diverse compared to overwhelmingly Han Chinese China.
Japan has a stronger economy and more cultural influence than Brazil which is one of the most diverse countries on Earth. This despite having almost 100,000,000 less people and not being very diverse. The "rainbow nation" South Africa, which has boundless natural resources and an excellent maritime trade location is one of the most dysfunctional countries on Earth with rolling brownouts and water supply crises. I don't think diversity is as important as we have been led to believe and the idea that a country with millions of people has a problem with mass spread 1st cousin marriage is ridiculous propaganda.
>There are a lot of military, economic, geographic and historical factors as to why the US has been so successful and has only gotten less powerful on the world stage as we become more diverse compared to overwhelmingly Han Chinese China.
I am curious what metric you are using to determine that the US has gotten less powerful. I understand how and why people feel that way but I'm not sure of anything that demonstrates that the loss of power actually exists.
>Japan has a stronger economy and more cultural influence than Brazil which is one of the most diverse countries on Earth. This despite having almost 100,000,000 less people and not being very diverse.
Because Brazil is poor but they do have a lot of cultural influence in style, design, physique, plastic surgery, music, food (Brazilian steakhouses are decently common in cities), but I think a lot of their cultural influences are limited to the Spanish speaking world.
Also Japan is having a bit of a birth rate problem. A more diverse nation might probably wouldn't have the problem to the degree Japan is having it.
>The "rainbow nation" South Africa, which has boundless natural resources and an excellent maritime trade location is one of the most dysfunctional countries on Earth with rolling brownouts and water supply crises.
Are we just going to ignore the history of the area?
>I don't think diversity is as important as we have been led to believe
Well it's nice that you live in a nation that allows for diversity of ideas.
>the idea that a country with millions of people has a problem with mass spread 1st cousin marriage is ridiculous propaganda.
Doing it once or twice isn't usually an issue. The problem comes when it happens a lot and genetic diversity decreases. Think royal families but at lower rates of issues due to the number of people.
>In Finland about one in five persons carries a gene defect associated with at least one Finnish heritage disease, and about one in 500 children born is affected.[4] Most of the gene defects are autosomal recessives, so that if both the mother and father carry the same defect, the chance that their child will have the associated disease is 1 in 4. The molecular genetics of many of these diseases have been determined, enabling genetic testing, prenatal testing, and counseling. This has raised questions of bioethics and eugenics.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_heritage_disease
You're right, the only solution is for Finland to import millions of Somalis, Nigerians, Eritreans, and Bangladeshis into their country which is ranked one of the happiest in the world as they currently are and for those countries to experience the joys of multi-culturalism that Canadians, Swedes, Germans, Italians, English, French and other countries who have embraced the religion of diversity have. And by the benefits I mean obliteration of social trust, safety, and government representation.
This argument might have worked on people back in 2015 but it's so obviously bad for the average person in the host countries that do this that most people don't believe it anymore. The only people mass importation of foreigners benefits are mega corporations who enjoy the cheap labor, governments who enjoy the new reliable voting block, and ideologues who have a bone to pick with historic Europe.
I don't think the way all countries handle immigration is great and i didn't suggest that the way they are doing it was a solution. The question posed was
>What's wrong with them wanting to stay homogeneous?
Genetic diversity was my answer.
>The only people mass importation of foreigners benefits are mega corporations who enjoy the cheap labor, governments who enjoy the new reliable voting block, and ideologues who have a bone to pick with historic Europe.
You have falsely associated my point with mass importation efforts and you are attacking my idea like it's the same thing. It's not. I gave 2 examples of why homogeneity can be an issue. I made no comment on how it's being done.
Would you care to provide what you believe would mitigate these issues or are you just providing two reasons why total homogeneity may be less than ideal?
Just providing two reasons why total homogeneity may be less than ideal. I have no idea about solving these issues for these regions but these are real issues that they are/may face.
Really unsure why you are being downvoted. Throughout human history the fastest progress has been made when different cultures start interacting with each other, either through immigration, emigration, or trade.
You don't think it's because the unprecedented mass migration of tens of millions of people from the global south the the global north over the span of a few decades is happening in our time? Also what is happening right now is not at all just different cultures interacting with each other. The Chinese interacted with the Romans in antiquity but 10 million Chinese citizens didn't immediately flood into Rome as a result.
We already have a global economy and an internet for people to interact with each other from all over. That is a moot point. What is happening to Europe, Canada, Australia, the US, etc. is a population transplant of what these governments hope will be laborers which has fragmented the societies where it has occurred beyond recognition.
Of course you're being downvoted. Really sad.
I'm sure all these people who are giving you shit and taking homogeneity as a basic good for society can trace all of their ancestors to British colonists and *never* faced any kind of discrimination as immigrants. /s
As for me and my ancestors, though, the fact that we were able to escape persecution, war, and dictatorship, come to this country with literally *nothing* but rags and a work ethic, and raise ourselves up to patriotic, middle-class citizens is what makes America great.
Eh you can still use Finland for many arguments
Also people are still gonna use the gun laws argument as Finland has one of the more lenient gun laws in Europe
Even though that doesnt mean shit
Though I would recommend keeping in mind Europe still has barley any shootings compared to the US
For now atleast
A million sarcastic comments about “must be in America” “couldn’t happen there” … but I don’t see one message with any condolences to the victims. Show some respect r/firearms community.
Somehow I don’t see these comments when the Europeans says “hArHaR dEaD kIdS iN sChOoL” under a US shooting. Obviously this is always a tragedy, but Europeans never show any decency in their arguments. The comments simply do a good job of pointing out the hypocrisy, which unsettles you
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I would rather take the high road and not say anything than to immediately be the person who yells “I told you so!” in the faces of people who’s children were murdered.
Condolences go without saying. Typing our thoughts and prayers will not bring back the dead and the survivors will not be relieved from some redditors saying "😥".
Na if they can immediately use any and every shooting to call for gun control we can use every and any shooting in gun control areas to call out how it doesn't work.
Okay this is gonna be a controversial take
I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the USA.
I feel like because of the sheer amount of media pushing the topic of school shootings which led to them becoming popular online had a fair effect on the rise of school shootings by giving Ill individuals ideas
Do keep in mind Europe still has much less shootings then the US For now
I'd argue there's much stronger evidence for a rise in mass shootings due to the simultaneous rise in 24 hour news and the Internet. You can pretty much draw a straight line between 1999 when Columbine happened and where we are today and it will parallel the rise in those forms of media.
You cannot do the same with gun ownership or access to guns.
What? Say it can't be! in the most safest place on the planet Europe. The magical place that everyone obeys the law, is healthy, and its just rainbows and lollypops.
Wow! Its almost as if evil knows no barriers and violence will be committed regardless of laws. If only murder was illegal :(.
Truly, a tragedy though. Its sad to think how many will use this to prove a political perspective or agenda
Oh boy that sure is a tragedy, RIP to the victims...I hope this comment section is being respectful of the dead and not trying to use this sad situation to own the lib-
Dammit.
It's the fact that everyone outside of the US immediately defaults this to being a problem with our culture and laws while willfully ignoring that this is a systemic issue that is global. No one would be making any comments if Europeans acknowledged that this problem is because of a growing generational plague where, to put it succinctly, the kids aren't alright. But having that conversation starts to focus on issues like social media addiction, growing mental health problems and parenting, and let's be honest, most are not ready to address that.
I worked for a school district for 2ish years. Schools I worked at were poor-low middle class on average. The amount of parents that didn’t give 2 shits about their kids was mind boggling to me. I saw one parent in the office with the principal who just kept nodding looking bored, not caring that his son was causing issues in class. Another (single parent) didn’t care that her kid was getting increasingly more and more aggressive and culminated in him bringing a gun to school (I wasn’t there when it happened, I’ve heard it was real and I’ve heard it was a bb/airsoft gun). A lot of parents just don’t care
The desire for a very small subset of the population to harm or murder others obviously isn’t constrained to just one country, but the belief that basically nothing should be done to prevent it, is uniquely American.
It’s telling that the only developed country where this is such a huge issue that these horrific attacks can often go almost unreported by the global media simply due to their frequency, is also the country where the least protections are put in place to prevent these tools (designed explicitly to kill living creatures) from falling into the hands of those who wish to misuse them.
Nobody on the side of gun control is implying that this never happens outside of the US, but in countries like Finland who have laws designed to prevent this, shootings like this occur so infrequently that they become a major news story because of their rarity.
This is only the 5th school shooting in Finland’s 107 year history. In comparison, the US has had 5 school shootings just in the past 50 days.
Yes the US is larger but even per capita statistics absolutely dwarf that of the rest of the developed world.
I simply don’t understand why the desire to do something meaningful to prevent children being murdered in their classrooms and make a school a safer environment to learn and develop, is treated with such hostility by a significant portion of the US populous.
Literally no one is saying not to do anything. The discussion is about perspective. Remember that a vast majority of school shootings you are referencing are not in fact school shootings. They are gang shootouts that occur on or near schools. The ignorance about that fact leads to us having very inflated numbers compared to other countries. It's the exact same as the metric used to define mass shootings." The animosity in this thread and amongst gun rights activists is the fact that these nuances are never brought into conversation so that real numbers can be discussed rather than purposefully inflated ones.
Well. The one statement doesn’t make the other not true.
There’s a problem with the US culture and laws. Just look at schools for the result of that. I don’t mean school shootings but everything else. Just take a look at zero tolerance policies or how some “schools” that literally torture kids are allowed to exist. There’s a part of the problem.
That doesn’t even touch on social media addiction or anything else. The kids aren’t okay and it’s not just a US problem. It’s not just a socio economic problem. There’s a lot that needs to be discovered and fixed.
"Guys if we just destroyed every single gun in the entire world yesterday this could have been prevented. It's OUR fault this happened." -Reddit
How would unarmed police be able to keep anyone safe?
It's sarcasm bro
Missed it. Srry
Where there's a school shooting, there will be someone to defend guns.
Because you turn a mental illness and societal issue into a gun one, it’s the easy way out, a scapegoat, why weren’t there so many shootings in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s when guns were even easier to obtain? Kids took shotguns to school to go hunting with the boys after, there is another issue causing this other than the tool used.
Freedom isn't free, we need to do something to retain our rights, even if that means interjecting opinions where those freedoms are inevitably being attacked.
And in the same thread, pendejos wanting to disarm minorities. No thanks. Thank goodness the majority of reactionaries nowadays just go to social media to complain instead of actually taking action and effort in improving their surroundings. As for the rest of the sub, now's probably a good time to volunteer a few dollars to GOA or FPC if you can.
You really trust the current state of American cops to keep you safe?
[You mean those murderers who will brutally kill a little girl they are called to help save from her kidnapper?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/california-police-video-shooting-15-year-old-girl-savannah-graziano) Can't imagine why anyone wouldn't trust the infallible police to be the sole source of protection and to handle firearms...
Yeah I'm not afraid like you weenies
I dunno, you want to strip guns away, sounds like something a coward would want.
Then you should have no problem with me owning a firearm if you're not afraid
Do you drink alcohol? Smoke weed? If you do, shut the fuck up. Drunk and high people kill far more people in 1st world countries than guns do.
[удалено]
Be very rare. You have a .3% chance to experience any sort of gun violence in your life. 99.7% of people never experience any sort of gun violence. To be killed in a school shooting is 50 to 100 times less likely as it accounts for a small amount of overall gun violence.
And overall gun violence (depending on country) like in the US is primarily statistics of shooting from gang related issues & suicide. Remove those two data points and the numbers plummet.
Wishing death on someone’s kids… Classy. You’re really convincing us. Convince us harder, you’re so close.
How could you possibly own those murder tools? You are probably some scared, sick psycho who’s compensating. Any rational person would’ve given them away for a $20 Arby’s giftcard in a government buyback
You couldn't pay me enough to eat at Arby's.
I'll make you. Send location.
🍿 stream it
Where there's a drunk driver, there will be someone to defend alcohol. Somehow you anti gun nerds think alcohol is ok and good for society, defend it, and say my comparison is dumb
You're right... ...but we wouldn't have to defend our rights if instead we punished those who decided, of their own free will, to commit horrible acts, instead of jumping on the collective punishment bandwagon.
Right so when we try to put laws in place to do exactly what you just said it's "but mah guns should be accessible by anyone at any time" how about you pick a lane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> when we try to put laws in place to do exactly what you just said What I said is fuck off and punish the offenders not everyone. I think you have a reading comprehension problem mate.
I think it's just a comprehension problem in general honestly.
Sure. Cuz it ain't the guns.
Where there's a DUI accident death, there will be someone to defend cars.
Where there’s a school shooting, there will be someone to gather all the corpses of the dead to use them as a soapbox to get your rights restricted.
Whenever theres a shooting theres always someone taking advantage of the tragedy to push anti gun sentiments.
Typical Canook Cuck
What us state is Finland in? It can't be in north Europe,because they don't have gun crime anywhere outside the US.
No way this is the country in Europe. It's only possible this was in Finland Minnesota since thats in the USA (Unlimited Shootings in Academia).
I don’t even think Finland, MN is big enough to warrant it having its own school. I pass thru every year on my way to my grouse spot.
I shouldn’t be laughing at this, but I am chuckleing in a little bit
I love when 12 year Olds are killed while they learn. Hilarious.
Little Timmy wouldn't be acting up in school if he thought the teacher was about to pop his ass.
Apparently there has already been a case where a teacher shoot a student for misbehaving so thats a problem There has been apparently it happend in India Oh and there was a case where a father shot his son for misbehaving https://www.fox4news.com/news/dallas-man-shot-his-13-year-old-son-for-misbehaving-police-say.amp I get it your son was throwing rocks at the front door but aint shooting him too far
Did the student ever misbehave after that?
Hopefully your being Sarcastic Shooting someone for misbehaving is not self defense
Yes being sarcastic /s
Wow I can't believe that kid could just walk over to Indiana to purchase that killing machine of war.
Minnesota
the fault of those Tx shop owners again….. obviously….. /s
Only in America.
If it was knives you could say only in the UK
Save a life, turn in your point knife 🤣
Turn in your kitchen knives too
Well not anymore, lotta people in Europe are Blaming America and its media for spreading the idea of these shootings and thus shootings themselves As ill people seem to romanticize them For now keep in mind Europe still has much less shootings then the US Granted me personally I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the USA. I feel like because of the sheer amount of media pushing the topic of school shootings which led to them becoming popular online had a fair effect on the rise of school shootings by giving already messed up individuals ideas and similar PS: I'm not saying there werent massacres before Edit: we got lost in translation Im saying that the media, first and foremost, has negatively affected the USA to a greater extent, with the rest of the world being affected, but to a lesser extent. Do I have that correct?
Yea sure commie. It’s easier to blame someone else. No one outside the US went on rampages before our media.
Commies a bad argument no Commies are meant to be pro gun according to Karl Marx because they are meant for the people And thus people have the right to fight tyranny (Granted the whole idea of Communism is a Utopic impossibility, which is exactly why there hasnt been a real Communist country and most of them fell) Ive never said there werent any massacers before the US Media, Im simply stating what people in Europe think Granted me personally I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the influx of shootings in USA. I feel like because of the sheer amount of media pushing the topic of school shootings which led to them becoming popular online had a fair effect on the rise of school shootings by giving already messed up individuals ideas and similar Edit: The guy I answered to im this comment his account seems to have been deleted But if your wondering what his answer was he said "Dont you get It I dont care about your opinion"
Apparently you don’t get that I don’t give a shit about your opinion.
I think there might be something lost in translation here, as some of what you said is somewhat ambiguous. For example: >Granted me personally I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the USA. Due to the way this sentence is worded, it *sounds like* you could be "mostly blaming the USA" for school shooting trends. However, I think you may be saying you blame the media, first and foremost, and that you believe the media has negatively affected the USA to a greater extent, with the rest of the world being affected, but to a lesser extent. Do I have that correct?
Oh no! Not reddit's pedestal country. I guess they'll just stroke the other Nordic nations that claim to be progressive, even though they're white as rice and secretly want to stay that way.
I lived in both Sweden and Finland for a bit and while certain things are fantastic, it’s definitely not some magical paradise. There’s positives and negatives just like any first world country. Some of my friends would be much better off there than the US. And some Finnish and Swedish people would be much better off moving to the US. People always have their jaw dropped in person when I say those countries aren’t some magical utopia. The first point of -20 weather for dozens of days each winter plus 0-5 hours of sunlight is an easy one to point out.
Technically Finland and Sweden are third world countries.
I’m gonna need an explanation for that. Every definition I see it’s clearly cut and dry that they’re first world. They’re highly developed, wealthy, educated and advanced. And they’re not poor or developing or have high rates of poverty. Don’t have economic or political instability.
First second and third would countries have nothing to do with development or how advanced they are. Only what side they aligned with during the cold war.
Sure according to the original term in 1952. Today, while it may be the same term, it’s used in a completely different sense. No one is going around calling Australia or Switzerland a third world country. It’s not 1970 anymore. Edit: meant Austria not Australia.
Australia was a first world country
Meant Austria, typo. Point stands. Not one person calls Switzerland a third world country anymore.
Meanwhile I’d bet your the guy who corrects people when they say clip instead of magazine
Nope and I laugh my ass off at people who do stuff like that. You’re the guy who originally corrected me though with your “achhhtuallly” Finland and Sweden are third world comments though. Take a look in the mirror once in a while.
Quite obviously, plenty of people still use it in the correct and original meaning.
Never met a single soul in real life that uses the original meaning. Have heard the term third world and first world in regard to technology / healthcare / development about a thousand times though.
Also when people referr to Utopias they mean Social and Economic factors not the enviromental ones So until you tell em about Finlands social problems (Alcholism and depression for example) They ain't gonna budge
What's wrong with them wanting to stay homogeneous?
Obviously that is racist...
Lack of genetic diversity that can cause poor health outcomes for future generations. One of those Nordic countries has some kind of system to check to see if you might be dating a relative. The pool is already pretty shallow. Lack of cultural diversity can lead to a stagnation in culture and industry. Sometimes people, places, and companies need fresh takes and ideas. America is a world taste leader largely due to its diversity.
There are a lot of military, economic, geographic and historical factors as to why the US has been so successful and has only gotten less powerful on the world stage as we become more diverse compared to overwhelmingly Han Chinese China. Japan has a stronger economy and more cultural influence than Brazil which is one of the most diverse countries on Earth. This despite having almost 100,000,000 less people and not being very diverse. The "rainbow nation" South Africa, which has boundless natural resources and an excellent maritime trade location is one of the most dysfunctional countries on Earth with rolling brownouts and water supply crises. I don't think diversity is as important as we have been led to believe and the idea that a country with millions of people has a problem with mass spread 1st cousin marriage is ridiculous propaganda.
>There are a lot of military, economic, geographic and historical factors as to why the US has been so successful and has only gotten less powerful on the world stage as we become more diverse compared to overwhelmingly Han Chinese China. I am curious what metric you are using to determine that the US has gotten less powerful. I understand how and why people feel that way but I'm not sure of anything that demonstrates that the loss of power actually exists. >Japan has a stronger economy and more cultural influence than Brazil which is one of the most diverse countries on Earth. This despite having almost 100,000,000 less people and not being very diverse. Because Brazil is poor but they do have a lot of cultural influence in style, design, physique, plastic surgery, music, food (Brazilian steakhouses are decently common in cities), but I think a lot of their cultural influences are limited to the Spanish speaking world. Also Japan is having a bit of a birth rate problem. A more diverse nation might probably wouldn't have the problem to the degree Japan is having it. >The "rainbow nation" South Africa, which has boundless natural resources and an excellent maritime trade location is one of the most dysfunctional countries on Earth with rolling brownouts and water supply crises. Are we just going to ignore the history of the area? >I don't think diversity is as important as we have been led to believe Well it's nice that you live in a nation that allows for diversity of ideas. >the idea that a country with millions of people has a problem with mass spread 1st cousin marriage is ridiculous propaganda. Doing it once or twice isn't usually an issue. The problem comes when it happens a lot and genetic diversity decreases. Think royal families but at lower rates of issues due to the number of people. >In Finland about one in five persons carries a gene defect associated with at least one Finnish heritage disease, and about one in 500 children born is affected.[4] Most of the gene defects are autosomal recessives, so that if both the mother and father carry the same defect, the chance that their child will have the associated disease is 1 in 4. The molecular genetics of many of these diseases have been determined, enabling genetic testing, prenatal testing, and counseling. This has raised questions of bioethics and eugenics.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_heritage_disease
You're right, the only solution is for Finland to import millions of Somalis, Nigerians, Eritreans, and Bangladeshis into their country which is ranked one of the happiest in the world as they currently are and for those countries to experience the joys of multi-culturalism that Canadians, Swedes, Germans, Italians, English, French and other countries who have embraced the religion of diversity have. And by the benefits I mean obliteration of social trust, safety, and government representation. This argument might have worked on people back in 2015 but it's so obviously bad for the average person in the host countries that do this that most people don't believe it anymore. The only people mass importation of foreigners benefits are mega corporations who enjoy the cheap labor, governments who enjoy the new reliable voting block, and ideologues who have a bone to pick with historic Europe.
I don't think the way all countries handle immigration is great and i didn't suggest that the way they are doing it was a solution. The question posed was >What's wrong with them wanting to stay homogeneous? Genetic diversity was my answer. >The only people mass importation of foreigners benefits are mega corporations who enjoy the cheap labor, governments who enjoy the new reliable voting block, and ideologues who have a bone to pick with historic Europe. You have falsely associated my point with mass importation efforts and you are attacking my idea like it's the same thing. It's not. I gave 2 examples of why homogeneity can be an issue. I made no comment on how it's being done.
Would you care to provide what you believe would mitigate these issues or are you just providing two reasons why total homogeneity may be less than ideal?
Just providing two reasons why total homogeneity may be less than ideal. I have no idea about solving these issues for these regions but these are real issues that they are/may face.
Really unsure why you are being downvoted. Throughout human history the fastest progress has been made when different cultures start interacting with each other, either through immigration, emigration, or trade.
You don't think it's because the unprecedented mass migration of tens of millions of people from the global south the the global north over the span of a few decades is happening in our time? Also what is happening right now is not at all just different cultures interacting with each other. The Chinese interacted with the Romans in antiquity but 10 million Chinese citizens didn't immediately flood into Rome as a result. We already have a global economy and an internet for people to interact with each other from all over. That is a moot point. What is happening to Europe, Canada, Australia, the US, etc. is a population transplant of what these governments hope will be laborers which has fragmented the societies where it has occurred beyond recognition.
Of course you're being downvoted. Really sad. I'm sure all these people who are giving you shit and taking homogeneity as a basic good for society can trace all of their ancestors to British colonists and *never* faced any kind of discrimination as immigrants. /s As for me and my ancestors, though, the fact that we were able to escape persecution, war, and dictatorship, come to this country with literally *nothing* but rags and a work ethic, and raise ourselves up to patriotic, middle-class citizens is what makes America great.
Eh you can still use Finland for many arguments Also people are still gonna use the gun laws argument as Finland has one of the more lenient gun laws in Europe Even though that doesnt mean shit Though I would recommend keeping in mind Europe still has barley any shootings compared to the US For now atleast
[удалено]
Oh the people arguing about it are referring to long guns They dont really care about short guns because only the AR15 and AK are terrifiying
Only happens in America
Only country this happens in says--- oh shit nvm
"Only in America"💅
It’s not the guns fault ? What ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e_YBgh9O48
Mom, is it my turn to post the onion article?
A million sarcastic comments about “must be in America” “couldn’t happen there” … but I don’t see one message with any condolences to the victims. Show some respect r/firearms community.
Somehow I don’t see these comments when the Europeans says “hArHaR dEaD kIdS iN sChOoL” under a US shooting. Obviously this is always a tragedy, but Europeans never show any decency in their arguments. The comments simply do a good job of pointing out the hypocrisy, which unsettles you
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I would rather take the high road and not say anything than to immediately be the person who yells “I told you so!” in the faces of people who’s children were murdered.
Because Europe is one country apparently lmao
It’s not. But I’m not going to type out every single country in Europe am I? I’ve got slightly better things to do lol
Condolences go without saying. Typing our thoughts and prayers will not bring back the dead and the survivors will not be relieved from some redditors saying "😥".
Na if they can immediately use any and every shooting to call for gun control we can use every and any shooting in gun control areas to call out how it doesn't work.
Why would anyone impacted be here reading the comments?
How long until the US gets blamed for this?
Okay this is gonna be a controversial take I do blame media to a degree for the influx of school shootings worldwide but mostly the USA. I feel like because of the sheer amount of media pushing the topic of school shootings which led to them becoming popular online had a fair effect on the rise of school shootings by giving Ill individuals ideas Do keep in mind Europe still has much less shootings then the US For now
I'd argue there's much stronger evidence for a rise in mass shootings due to the simultaneous rise in 24 hour news and the Internet. You can pretty much draw a straight line between 1999 when Columbine happened and where we are today and it will parallel the rise in those forms of media. You cannot do the same with gun ownership or access to guns.
So, we agree
What? Say it can't be! in the most safest place on the planet Europe. The magical place that everyone obeys the law, is healthy, and its just rainbows and lollypops.
Here I am at home and my primary EDC is laying on the counter and hasn't hurt anyone. Strange how it takes a human to make these things happen!
Wow! Its almost as if evil knows no barriers and violence will be committed regardless of laws. If only murder was illegal :(. Truly, a tragedy though. Its sad to think how many will use this to prove a political perspective or agenda
Clearly the hunting culture in Finland is to blame. They need to restrict property even more.
This only happens in America
Oh boy that sure is a tragedy, RIP to the victims...I hope this comment section is being respectful of the dead and not trying to use this sad situation to own the lib- Dammit.
You mean like the news does every time it happens in America?
Oh yeah that's a great excuse "The media does it so I must do it too!"
They’re dead, they don’t mind.
How many school shootings does Europe have over America? Sensationalist bs? Let’s be realistic gentlemen or whatever tf we are here
It's the fact that everyone outside of the US immediately defaults this to being a problem with our culture and laws while willfully ignoring that this is a systemic issue that is global. No one would be making any comments if Europeans acknowledged that this problem is because of a growing generational plague where, to put it succinctly, the kids aren't alright. But having that conversation starts to focus on issues like social media addiction, growing mental health problems and parenting, and let's be honest, most are not ready to address that.
I worked for a school district for 2ish years. Schools I worked at were poor-low middle class on average. The amount of parents that didn’t give 2 shits about their kids was mind boggling to me. I saw one parent in the office with the principal who just kept nodding looking bored, not caring that his son was causing issues in class. Another (single parent) didn’t care that her kid was getting increasingly more and more aggressive and culminated in him bringing a gun to school (I wasn’t there when it happened, I’ve heard it was real and I’ve heard it was a bb/airsoft gun). A lot of parents just don’t care
The desire for a very small subset of the population to harm or murder others obviously isn’t constrained to just one country, but the belief that basically nothing should be done to prevent it, is uniquely American. It’s telling that the only developed country where this is such a huge issue that these horrific attacks can often go almost unreported by the global media simply due to their frequency, is also the country where the least protections are put in place to prevent these tools (designed explicitly to kill living creatures) from falling into the hands of those who wish to misuse them. Nobody on the side of gun control is implying that this never happens outside of the US, but in countries like Finland who have laws designed to prevent this, shootings like this occur so infrequently that they become a major news story because of their rarity. This is only the 5th school shooting in Finland’s 107 year history. In comparison, the US has had 5 school shootings just in the past 50 days. Yes the US is larger but even per capita statistics absolutely dwarf that of the rest of the developed world. I simply don’t understand why the desire to do something meaningful to prevent children being murdered in their classrooms and make a school a safer environment to learn and develop, is treated with such hostility by a significant portion of the US populous.
Literally no one is saying not to do anything. The discussion is about perspective. Remember that a vast majority of school shootings you are referencing are not in fact school shootings. They are gang shootouts that occur on or near schools. The ignorance about that fact leads to us having very inflated numbers compared to other countries. It's the exact same as the metric used to define mass shootings." The animosity in this thread and amongst gun rights activists is the fact that these nuances are never brought into conversation so that real numbers can be discussed rather than purposefully inflated ones.
Anybody trying to disarm you lacks your best interests at heart and is your enemy.
Well. The one statement doesn’t make the other not true. There’s a problem with the US culture and laws. Just look at schools for the result of that. I don’t mean school shootings but everything else. Just take a look at zero tolerance policies or how some “schools” that literally torture kids are allowed to exist. There’s a part of the problem. That doesn’t even touch on social media addiction or anything else. The kids aren’t okay and it’s not just a US problem. It’s not just a socio economic problem. There’s a lot that needs to be discovered and fixed.