7 ms·

I have mixed feelings about the topic. Where I live, police are reasonable and populace is unarmed. On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that

I have mixed feelings about the topic. Where I live, police are reasonable and populace is unarmed. On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet. And perhaps 2nd amendment may have something to do with that. Along with rest of the constitution.

cel1ne 10y ago
> On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet. What about most european countries?
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  The history of Europe I learned is littered with tyrannical regimes throughout Europe.
  - eru 10y ago
    Yes, but less so the modern republics. (But that borders on True Scotsman argument.)
    - venomsnake 10y ago
      Hungary is moving in that direction, Poland too, Austria is mixed case and even the western Europe countries are not as hostile towards wanna be authoritarians as before.
      - a_imho 10y ago
        That is simply false, corruption and amassing political power is a thing, not that most people can do anything about it. Which is an elephant in the room very few want to address, exactly because it is a hard problem to tackle. It is interesting however, from here it seem one of the US presidential candidates is much more above the law than any leader in Europe, and no one bats an eye.
        eru 10y ago
        Have you seen Berlusconi?
      - _98fj 10y ago
        I happen to live in Austria, and while the presidential election (between a far right and a far left candidate) stirred up global attention, I can tell you we are not a tyranny or authoritarian state. I always read about this supposed "freedom" in the US, but what does that mean actually? I mean here you can drink alcohol in public, wear no t-shirt on the subway, still smoke in many bars, say what you want online, and there are even illegal misdemeanours like kids smoking weed in public that nobody really cares about.
        venomsnake 10y ago
        I said that European countries are moving in that direction. Not that we are tyrannical yet. Although France with its permanent Extraordinary Circumstances since Paris ... But if in 2050 I live in united authoritarian Europe, I won't be surprised the least.
        _98fj 10y ago
        I understand. But still: the US has homeland security, the patriot act and so on. Aren't those rights like "permanent extraordinary circumstances"? We don't have anything in that magnitude. I think it's actually way easier to defend yourself against the state here, than in the US.
        venomsnake 10y ago
        Well the US have headstart before us. But as with electric grid voltage, telephones and wall sockets - we the europeans take their innovation and do it right. Everything you say is true. But I think that adding yet to the end of each statement is not great stretch.
        _98fj 10y ago
        You know, I don't think europe's immediate future is pretty either. But I don't think there will be much more oppression of it's citizens. I think the borders will be closed and immigration forced to stop. After that happens people will be content enough to stop leaning further to the right.
      - ahoka 10y ago
        How are these countries tyrannic?
        venomsnake 10y ago
        Google Victor Orban.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      Yeah that is a bit of a stretch. Last 50 years have been far from universally peaceful, but even then - this period is an anomaly in European history, not yet the norm.
ceejayoz 10y ago
> On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet. Tell that to the Native Americans and slaves.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  Another little known historical fact. "Only" 300.000 black people have been brought to US as slaves. Less than 5% of American families owned slaves. Also to put things into perspective - between 1MM and 1.3MM white Europeans have been enslaved by Arabs. What has been done to Native Americans is horrible. Slavery is horrible. But I have no idea what any of that has to do with the fact that United States is really a one-of the kind country in the world. I think that Americans should take a long hard look at all the problems on their plate, but they should really stop falling for snake oil peddlers who are selling Identity Politics and trying to benefit from pitting communities against each other.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > "Only" 300.000 black people have been brought to US as slaves. Less than 5% of American families owned slaves. That's a really odd point to make. From Wikipedia: "In South Carolina in 1720, about 65% of the population consisted of enslaved people... The number of enslaved people in the US grew rapidly, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census."
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      People are mamals. Mamals breed. There were 1bn people in 1800, there are 7bn today. Facts don't care about your feelings.
      - vacri 10y ago
        So you're saying that slavery only counts if they're imported (your 300k)? Being born a slave is not a problem (ceejayoz's 4M)? And seriously, does it matter if it was 5% or 30% that owned slaves, if 65% of the population were slaves themselves?
cmdrfred 10y ago
And as the government gets more tyrannical, with homicide rates at historic lows[0], they seek to remove that right for our 'safety'. I smell bullshit. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/
- vacri 10y ago
  The reduction in homicides since 1990 is due to the j-curve in incarceration rates, not the various forms of carry (that for the most part across the US, didn't start in the early 90s). Washington state also went concealed carry in 1961, and it's crime rate rose and fell with the rest of the country over time. Seriously, it's not an armed population, but an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    > an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration. Do you have any sources on that? The causality is not obvious.
    - ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
      Here's a pretty good paper titled "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 90s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six Factors That do Not" it's written by Steven Levitt the author of Freakonomics. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta... >Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion. Other factors often cited as important factors driving the decline do not appear to have played an important role: the strong economy, changing demographics, innovative policing strategies, gun laws and increased use of capital punishment. In stark contrast, the crime experience between 1973 and 1991 is not well explained by the factors identified in this paper. The real puzzle in my opinion, therefore, is not why crime fell in the 1990s, but why it did not start falling sooner.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12054660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12054660 and marked it off-topic.

cel1ne 10y ago

> On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet. What about most european countries?

JanezStupar 10y ago
The history of Europe I learned is littered with tyrannical regimes throughout Europe.
- eru 10y ago
  Yes, but less so the modern republics. (But that borders on True Scotsman argument.)
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    Hungary is moving in that direction, Poland too, Austria is mixed case and even the western Europe countries are not as hostile towards wanna be authoritarians as before.
    - a_imho 10y ago
      That is simply false, corruption and amassing political power is a thing, not that most people can do anything about it. Which is an elephant in the room very few want to address, exactly because it is a hard problem to tackle. It is interesting however, from here it seem one of the US presidential candidates is much more above the law than any leader in Europe, and no one bats an eye.
      - eru 10y ago
        Have you seen Berlusconi?
    - _98fj 10y ago
      I happen to live in Austria, and while the presidential election (between a far right and a far left candidate) stirred up global attention, I can tell you we are not a tyranny or authoritarian state. I always read about this supposed "freedom" in the US, but what does that mean actually? I mean here you can drink alcohol in public, wear no t-shirt on the subway, still smoke in many bars, say what you want online, and there are even illegal misdemeanours like kids smoking weed in public that nobody really cares about.
      - venomsnake 10y ago
        I said that European countries are moving in that direction. Not that we are tyrannical yet. Although France with its permanent Extraordinary Circumstances since Paris ... But if in 2050 I live in united authoritarian Europe, I won't be surprised the least.
        _98fj 10y ago
        I understand. But still: the US has homeland security, the patriot act and so on. Aren't those rights like "permanent extraordinary circumstances"? We don't have anything in that magnitude. I think it's actually way easier to defend yourself against the state here, than in the US.
        venomsnake 10y ago
        Well the US have headstart before us. But as with electric grid voltage, telephones and wall sockets - we the europeans take their innovation and do it right. Everything you say is true. But I think that adding yet to the end of each statement is not great stretch.
        _98fj 10y ago
        You know, I don't think europe's immediate future is pretty either. But I don't think there will be much more oppression of it's citizens. I think the borders will be closed and immigration forced to stop. After that happens people will be content enough to stop leaning further to the right.
    - ahoka 10y ago
      How are these countries tyrannic?
      - venomsnake 10y ago
        Google Victor Orban.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    Yeah that is a bit of a stretch. Last 50 years have been far from universally peaceful, but even then - this period is an anomaly in European history, not yet the norm.

ceejayoz 10y ago

> On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet. Tell that to the Native Americans and slaves.

JanezStupar 10y ago
Another little known historical fact. "Only" 300.000 black people have been brought to US as slaves. Less than 5% of American families owned slaves. Also to put things into perspective - between 1MM and 1.3MM white Europeans have been enslaved by Arabs. What has been done to Native Americans is horrible. Slavery is horrible. But I have no idea what any of that has to do with the fact that United States is really a one-of the kind country in the world. I think that Americans should take a long hard look at all the problems on their plate, but they should really stop falling for snake oil peddlers who are selling Identity Politics and trying to benefit from pitting communities against each other.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > "Only" 300.000 black people have been brought to US as slaves. Less than 5% of American families owned slaves. That's a really odd point to make. From Wikipedia: "In South Carolina in 1720, about 65% of the population consisted of enslaved people... The number of enslaved people in the US grew rapidly, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census."
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    People are mamals. Mamals breed. There were 1bn people in 1800, there are 7bn today. Facts don't care about your feelings.
    - vacri 10y ago
      So you're saying that slavery only counts if they're imported (your 300k)? Being born a slave is not a problem (ceejayoz's 4M)? And seriously, does it matter if it was 5% or 30% that owned slaves, if 65% of the population were slaves themselves?

cmdrfred 10y ago

And as the government gets more tyrannical, with homicide rates at historic lows[0], they seek to remove that right for our 'safety'. I smell bullshit. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/

vacri 10y ago
The reduction in homicides since 1990 is due to the j-curve in incarceration rates, not the various forms of carry (that for the most part across the US, didn't start in the early 90s). Washington state also went concealed carry in 1961, and it's crime rate rose and fell with the rest of the country over time. Seriously, it's not an armed population, but an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  > an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration. Do you have any sources on that? The causality is not obvious.
  - ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
    Here's a pretty good paper titled "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 90s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six Factors That do Not" it's written by Steven Levitt the author of Freakonomics. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta... >Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion. Other factors often cited as important factors driving the decline do not appear to have played an important role: the strong economy, changing demographics, innovative policing strategies, gun laws and increased use of capital punishment. In stark contrast, the crime experience between 1973 and 1991 is not well explained by the factors identified in this paper. The real puzzle in my opinion, therefore, is not why crime fell in the 1990s, but why it did not start falling sooner.

dang 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12054660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12054660 and marked it off-topic.