@dankmaximus I've removed a few toots of my own before I clicked 'Toot!' because I'm not in the mood to escalate this conversation much myself. :P
You seem rather young to me with those ideals. I've lived in the USA for 4 years about 2 decades ago (basically right before the shitstorm era started).
Nice country to visit (especially when you're white to begin with), wouldn't mind going there again for a holiday (provided a non-crazy is at top). Would absolutely not want to live there because there's a shitton of socio-economic issues they have to fix.
If you read in our Dutch news about minorities not getting all the help they deserve.. Just imagine it 10-100 times worse than that, and you've got exactly what USA has.
The only thing I wouldn't mind importing is the ADA law.
And I don't view weapons as freedom, FYI.
🇳🇱
In general I agree with you, if you want to just measure what is a more pleasurable place to live in then the Netherlands beats america, I moved there for a reason. But I'd also say that is only polarization of america (last 1-2 decades), prior to that I would have picked the USA.
That said freedom by definition is being able to choose for yourself. You may think freedom to own guns is not a good freedom, you may think it puts peoples lives at risk or creates a more dangerous situation, but it is freedom all the same. Freedom doesnt have the requirement that it is good (though i do hold the opinion in this case it is a good sort of freedom). But by any definition it is freedom.
That is my opinion entierly.. the USA was a great place pre-911 and had amazing freedoms (thought othe issues did need addressing as we covered).. post 911 I would take the Netherlands over the USA in a heart beat... but constitutionally the USA still has the netherlands beat, and in the specific ways I listed. Its just the USA has created so many anti-freedom laws that arent constitutional IMO that we really cant claim superior freedoms anymore.
would I feel as free to have an argument with him?
How free you feel is not the same as how free you are… you are just as free to argue with him, and you are just as free to not get shot (he would loose his right to carry a gun to even threaten it). So if your neighboor carried a gun you would have all the same freedoms (and one extra).. the fact that you have a bias against guns and feel a certain way doesnt change your freedoms. You owning a gun also has no effect on your actual freedom to argue with him.
After all, it would not be a level playing field anymore if I wouldn’t get a gun as well.
The playing field is already level even without you having a gun, because your neighbor has no legal recourse of any kind to use that gun in response to an argument.
I know American friends who don’t want a gun. But because the wife is black, the area they live in is racistic (gotten worse under Trump), they are considering getting one for her safety. Is that freedom? REAL freedom?
The right o be able to buy a gun if you happen to be in a situation where your life is at risk… yes of course that is freedom. What isnt freedom is me being in a Dutch neighborhood where my life would be at risk (and they do exist, though admittedly not many of them) and not having a right to defend myself with a gun and save my life, now that isnt freedom. Being told “sorry you just need to sit there and let the mob kill you cause guns are bad” is absolutely not freedom.
@freemo So far I don’t know how to respond to this. I’ve tried to let this concept sink in, but it’s so fundamentally different from what I’ve been raised with that I still don’t know whether I agree or disagree with this. :P
My gut response is kinda ‘Well, if you were allowed guns and are in a bad neighbourhood… then those bad hoodlums will have a bigger chance of carrying guns as well, escalating the situation and possibly putting you in a worse position.’
After all, isn’t USA having the most gun incidents per amount of people in the world?
That said, I have a Norwegian buddy who owns over 20 rifles/guns, legally.. and Norway isn’t really known as a violent country. Okay, except for that one rightwing mad guy almost a decade ago.
USA has a serious mentality issue methinks. :P
So far I don’t know how to respond to this. I’ve tried to let this concept sink in, but it’s so fundamentally different from what I’ve been raised with that I still don’t know whether I agree or disagree with this. :P
Well you are nothing if not honest and self reflective. So whether we agree on a topic or not I can at least say I respect you and your thought process, which is rare and important these days. So already your ahead of the game :)
My gut response is kinda ‘Well, if you were allowed guns and are in a bad neighbourhood… then those bad hoodlums will have a bigger chance of carrying guns as well, escalating the situation and possibly putting you in a worse position.’
Well, yes and no.. criminals would not have legal access to guns. So while some may still get them the criminal element would be at a disadvantage when it comes to their gun supply than a law abiding citizen would. Therefore if a citizen is responsible and expects to be in a dangerous neighborhood they would almost certainly carry a gun with few obstacles. While their aggressor may carry a gun it would be less likely. So the good guy would have the upper hand.
After all, isn’t USA having the most gun incidents per amount of people in the world?
While strictly speaking this is true it is also a fallacy in statistical logic. Consider the following counter example as to why:
Vaccines, by en large, save far more lives than they kill. But a very small fraction of people who take the normal round of vaccines will die from vaccines, but that number is much smaller than the number saved by vaccines, so overall we tend to agree most vaccines are a good thing and we say they save lives…
But guess what if you were to compare a country where vaccines are illegal to a country where vaccines are legal you could make the very real statement: “In countries where vaccines are legal you have the most incidents of vaccine deaths.”… its the same statement as with guns, sure its true, but to draw the conclusion from that that it is an argument against guns or vaccines is a fallacy in logic.
That said, I have a Norwegian buddy who owns over 20 rifles/guns, legally.. and Norway isn’t really known as a violent country. Okay, except for that one rightwing mad guy almost a decade ago.
Yup, plenty of examples of countries, people, or regions where you will find responsible gun ownership.
USA has a serious mentality issue methinks. :P
This is absolutely true, and wont just result in more gun deaths but more deaths overall. When someone wants to kill someone, and they are mentally unhealthy enough to carry through with it, they will find a way with or without guns. As disturbing it is to say this, killing a person is a pretty easy thing to do, even killing lots of people, and you dont really need a gun to do it.
I often remark that living in the USA is like living in a mental hospital. In my view the overwhelming majority of the population, some 99% all have very serious mental health issues. Simply being around those sort of people tends to cause ones own mental health to be in jeopardy. I myself have a hard time keeping healthy mentally in the USA unless I isolate my interactions to my close circle of friends. But even then I take a chance on new people and new friends and add them to that circle which is always a big risk since more often then not they turn out to be unstable socially and mentally.
In response to: ‘Well, if you were allowed guns and are in a bad neighbourhood… then those bad hoodlums will have a bigger chance of carrying guns as well, escalating the situation and possibly putting you in a worse position.’
A possible alternative, explaining narrative: Proliferated access to low-power firearms can be seen as a barrier to entry for any violent crime. If you’re looking to use crime as a means to an end, you have to invest in that much more power (more people and/or stronger weapons). And there’s a degree of Mutually Assured Destruction with each level of firearms introduced. All that is to say it seems to create a downward pressure on using force as a means to an end because it becomes more expensive to do so at the same pay-off.
@freemo In the 90's (and earlier) we considered USA to be quite the pinnacle of freedom. It got squandered bigtime after 9/11. I can understand why USA went the way it went, but... I also can't understand why it went overboard. I can only say I left on time.
And my reasoning with guns is the following:
If my neighbour gets a gun and carries it all the time (let's say that's allowed), would I feel as free to have an argument with him? Or should I need to get a gun of my own first, show my neighbour that I own one too, before I can start an argument with him?
After all, it would not be a level playing field anymore if I wouldn't get a gun as well.
I know American friends who don't want a gun. But because the wife is black, the area they live in is racistic (gotten worse under Trump), they are considering getting one for her safety. Is that freedom? REAL freedom? Or is it peer pressure in a vicious circle?
@dankmaximus @mur2501