European had weapons too but dictatorships and then the two world wars removed them. They were removed not because an unstable person could try to exert force on others but because an unarmed population cannot revolt against their government. Remember that one unstable with weapons is dangerous, when all have weapons the field is flat and your weapons give you no advantage. P.S. the biggest genocides have not been made by an armed population...
Discussion
I’m not here to argue either side, just point out that the concept is alien to me. I have fired a rifle once but that’s it.
America’s a violent country, more so than the average citizen realises as most of the violence takes place elsewhere.
On balance I’d prefer humans to be less violent but with 5% having psychopathic tendencies that’s probably a pipe dream.
I worry about the USA and how a lot of the culture there gets copied here. Seeing it more and more. Knife crime. Eight year old children getting shot in London. A 61 year old worker on London Underground the other night ended up dying in hospital after being beaten.
America is more violent because there is an epidemic of drugs and mental illness in big cities. Add illegal immigration and you have violence. The areas with more violence are those more populated with gun restrictions. Europe will be way more violent quite soon and people will have no ways to protect their families.
We’re quite good at rioting… actually maybe not that good tbh.
If I recall correctly, the gun restrictions tend to tighten in response to rises in gun violence, so obviously those places will have more gun violence.
It usually doesn't start with increased gun restrictions; it starts with decreased marriage rates. Marriage rates are the main cultural artefact determining all other positive traits of a neighborhood or region, in the mid-to-long term.
Yes but here we had so many civil wars that an armed population might be suicidal. Consider this also
civil wars organised by an internationalist cartel who lend money to the leaders of each side and pick the winner to be the most tyrannical one that will make expanding to an empire easier
No we don&t need an internationalist cartel to kill each other. This is our national sport. It can help though...
Greece, right? Pffft, you guys haven't had a non-foreign-sponsored civil war since about 1400 unless I'm greatly mistaken...
yup, been a resort country for 1 and a half imperial epochs
You mean 1400 before christ was born, right? 😀
Well, from Constantinople you guys were doing most of the sponsoring, for a while :D
The first history book written (by Thucydides) in a scientific way, is about the peloponesian war between Sparta and Athens... whoever hasn't read it, should read it. It is a gem and you will find it incredebly familiar with what is going on nowdays. I promise...
I actually read some of that in high school.
And?
High school is a ways back, for me. 😂 Just remember vaguely that I read it.
Yeah right. But the fact that you read a part in the high school says something, i think. You can find it as a study material in universities too and not because it is the first sych book but for the actual political content.
We had a classical literature year, in GT English. 11th grade, I think. Ended with the Iliad and the Odyssey and Jason and the Argonauts, but we also had some histories and philisophy.
Yes nice stories too, but there is a difference in the analysis. A huge one. I guess if you will start re-reading something you will see what i mean.
We had the know how sice millenium already 😀