What point?

I thought hhbh was talking strictly personality traits. Those who had the gumption to get up and go to another country (in this case America) were risk takers and then they passed that risk-taking gene down to their discendants. I don't know if that is the case. I doubt if he could prove that is true since basically all humans descend from people who migrated at one time or another. And what the gunman did imo doesn't equate to "risk taking." Since a risk implies what choice is the better in the long run. I took it that hhbh was talking through his hat.

Try this out:

link


link

link


Nope. I'm referring to the descendents of White, European immigrants during the settling period, meaning those who came during the 20th century (the stimuli/impetus for coming to the US changed drastically after this period) & how this resulted in different frequency of certain genetic traits as opposed to those in the old country.

link

....the point being, white americans tend to be more violent than their European counterparts because prior to the 20th century the culture & socio-economic system of the country made it so these traits paid off more.


This is my best guess as to why this country is more violent than other nations with similar levels of economic development.




No, it doesn't. The point you're making is not a new one, & the over representation of white males in such incidents has been pointed out by, among others, Jared Taylor.

^They weren't joking when they said you have no idea how to debate. Holy ****.

I don't see him as an excellent debator. His post are short somtimes cryptic, and his logic is somewhat disconnected. It doesn't flow from one point to another.

That link isn't even about aggressive behaviour, it's about decision making and cognitive processes. "Risky decision making" refers to making a decision under circumstances where the outcome is uncertain. Nowhere in either abstract do I see where this study is about aggression.

EDIT: "Risky behaviour" in your sources, and in the world of psychology means something quite a lot more specific than you yourself have meant it, so your use of psychological sources appears to me to be irrelevant.

EDIT: Your source isn't about regional "novelty seeking" behaviour either, it's about the connection between "novelty seeking" behaviour and ADHD. What were these sources supposed to illustrate again?

This one.

Almeida, J. Et al. Peer Violence Perpetration Among Urban Adolescents: Dispelling the Myth of the Violent Immigrant, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2011.

At the very least, this source is relevant in four ways. 1) Discusses aggressive behaviour and violence, 2) Discusses aforementioned in regards to immigrants, 3) The research was based in the US and 4) The research was based on adolescents (as we are discussing school shootings, this seemed important).

Importantly:

It would appear that violent behaviour is in the US's existing culture, not that which has been brought in from abroad.

Maybe he does it for the adulation, and you played right into his hand.

I'm changing my vote on "Worst Debater."

In New Zealand we don't let people in unless they have learnt English and have either an education or skills to bring to the workforce. It doesn't mean they won't go around killing people.

Now I said that I wouldn't throw the thread offline anymore with my ramblings, but I'm a liar so I'll go on;)

I assumed he was talking about the risky behaviour that immigrants can often demonstrate when they move country, but now I see that he was referring to 'genetics' and in some aspects I'd agree with the 'risk gene' concept. But I guess some kind of scientific facts would need to back this up. But I don't doubt for one moment, that the USA is the most violent of all the developed countries.

This is actually a belief that some Europeans including myself share. In that the formation of the USA had quite violent beginnings. The early settlers and the frontier mentality, the war of independence, a civil war, the wild west and then participating in two world wars and two wars in Asia. Now a lot of countries in Europe have had similiar ocurrences down their history, but I don't think any can boast at having all these drastic conflicts in such a short historical time period! Also the USA is still actually quite a young country compared to the old world.

This is why I said it was one of the toughest countries to get into and it also helps to limit the amount of violent offenders that can enter from abroad.

See this is an example of what I mean when I say he is difficult to read. First he said "European immigrants during the settling period" then he said "meaning those who came during the 20th century." What does he mean? The "settling period" was not in the 20th century, unless he has a different defintion of "settling period."

I noticed this as well, as by the later part of the 19th century the USA was both the fastest growing and probably biggest economy in the world, meaning that the immigrants had long since settled in.

What about France? They've certainly been involved in a hell of a lot of drastic wars and violence in the past 200 years or so.

I believe the late 19th and early 20th centuries were when we had our highest levels of immigration.

Of all the European countries France has been involved in the most conflicts, but like Great Britain they were hugely experienced in statecraft and they're an old state fully used to conflicts, so its people dealt with the hardship as generation after generation had done so before and its people just got on with things. In relation to what is being discussed, the USA are basically a young country that has had to absorb a lot of conflicts in its short history and the results of this are open to debate, as to how this has affected American society over the last 100 years or so.

A couple quick comments about this:

• Modern France isn't an old country, it's younger than the United States.
• Like the modern British and French people, Americans are also descended from generation after generation of people who come from "states fully used to conflicts", many of them in fact from the two states you just named.

Whoops, I meant prior to the 20th century.

When isn't America at war?

Eh! It's one of the oldest countries in Europe! What you're thinking of is the French Republic, which was just an overhaul of the previous system and hierarchy, but France was still France. It's no different from when Russia became the Soviet Union back in the early 20th century, it was still essentially Russia but with just a load of extra states added on.

Yes, but these people that made up the USA came from a multitude of different cultures and backgrounds and then had to forge out a new life in a new environment. You cannot compare that to a European model, which already had a far more established socio/economic mainframe for its people. If you want to make a comparison then somewhere like Australia and even countries like Brazil or Argentina would make much better modern comparisons.

Did the people who make up Brazil come "from a multitude of different cultures and backgrounds and then had to forge out a new life in a new environment."

?

When you become the world's policeman, wars are easy to find.

But I guess the 'roaring twenties' were quite a peaceful time.

Very much so and it was one of the huge immigration hotspots of the 20th century and also one of the largest. Huge amounts of people from Portugal, Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, much of Eastern Europe and also quite a few people from the Arab states most notably from the Lebanon. You don't get a population of 194 million people without taking in quite a few immigrants! and then of course they had to adapt to their new and strange environment.

Funny you say that because until recently Europe was violent and/or war-like as well. Britain was the other half of the American War of Independence. France had a bloodier revolution. Germany was fractured into minor states & political entities and no sooner did Bismark diplomatcally unified them into a single nation, Germany found itself in war. America fought in the both World Wars, but it happened in Europe, so how are European countries exempt from being violent?

Forgive me if I don't quite understand what you are getting at, what is difference between the people who came to America prior to the Revolutionary War and the immigrants that came to America after The Civil War?

Firstly, I DID mention that European wars had been spread out over a much longer time period whilst those in the USA were over a much more relatively shorter period, meaning that those in the USA have had a greater impact on more recent generations and the development of the country. In Western Europe there have been no principal conflicts since 1945 barring the odd colonial skirmish, the Falklands which was a joke and the recent Gulf and Afghan conflicts and these have hardly had an impact on society here. Wars only have a major impact on a society, when the nation gears it's economy up for war and its sons start coming home in body bags or start coming back in droves with traumatic stress.

You're forgiven but I didn't address this at all but you seemed to have quoted me so I'll respond. In some ways I would say there is a difference. The early settlers are the real pioneers and are those venturing into the unknown, later immigrants have it just as hard and often face resentment from earlier settlers, but they had the advantage of knowing what to expect, along with usually having their own ethnic group getting/being established there, mass immigration into the USA has been a highly documeted, whilst that of other countries less so but I'd say the same principal applies to most countries that have high immigration.

I'm not taking sides on this debate, but I just have to point out that our nation hasn't really geared it's economy up for war and relatively few of our sons are coming home in body bags, at least compared to other conflicts. I live in Hampton Roads, which is home to the world's largest naval base and a seriously military town. But I only know one guy who has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan and nobody who has died over there. I don't think our society is really being affected all that much by these conflicts. Again, compared to past conflicts.

That's because the USA doesn't have to gear its economy up for war, its economy has been able to absorb modern conflicts. Also I call the total 211,000 dead and wounded from the Vietnam War no small number either and this is a significant amount to actually affect a nation. Modern warfare is far better documented now than it has ever been, so the modern horrors of war are evident to everybody.

I wouldn't actually call the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as affecting your nation, as the soldiers that fight there are professionals and not conscripts and these are extremely limited campaigns.

The point I'm putting across, is that the USA has had a large number of conflicts in its short period of existence, it's just an angle to try and shed some light on why your society is probably the most violent of the developed world. We know much of this violence is connected to 'gun crime' but we also know that guns don't pull their own triggers and thus need a person of a particular mindset to pull those triggers. A formal scientific approach could be used here, but as formal sciences are not exactly my strong point, I prefer to use social sciences based on empirical observation, using my knowledge of history and sociology on why the USA has these current ills.

I find the subject very interesting and complex and open to all kinds of approaches and opinion. As the question here, is what makes somebody like Adam Lanza go into a school and kill a load of people and why don't these crimes happen on the same frequency in other countries in the developed world?

Exactly my point. I don't even know if we've had a tenth of the losses in the current wars.

Again, that sort of proves my point.

As opposed to the seemingly constant wars that European nations have been engaged in in the last few hundred (or thousand) years? As opposed to the two bloodiest wars in human history that were started by Europeans, not to mention the Seven Years War? It seems that the Europeans have thought nothing of putting the entire world at war for the sake of imperialism in the past. If we're engaged in a few more wars in the past half century, it's just because we've been the world police while Europe has been playing second fiddle. I'm not saying that the US is any better, but pretty much all of the human race is a violent, brutish lot.

Two things: 1. America may not have been at war with other countries at that time, but we had prohibition then and domestically it was a ****ing nightmare.

2: Going to Brazil to hide out from the retribution of the world for your imperialist/fascist crimes is not equatable to people immigrating to the US because there was less of a class structure and more economic opportunity.

As you say these European wars have been fought over a very long time period, in the USA these wars have been fought over just a 230 year time period in a relatively new nation. Just think of it as the difference between how a child and an adult would deal with adversity and trauma in life.

WWI was based around imperialism, but WWII was just about a dictator who had been given too much slack and then it was too late to stop him. Western Europe finally matured after WWII with the forming of the EEC in the 1950s and since then Western Europe has been war free an amazing feat considering its history. Whilst the USA at this time, had developed an unhealthy fear of communism and then became involved in two bloody conflicts connected to this, whilst trying to be 'the worlds's policeman' and performing a balancing act in the Cold War, which at anytime could've evolved into another world war. These historical events, usually create a mindset within the society that is involved.

I won't argue with that one, but it must've been a bummer for drinkers.

You've got this totally wrong here. Most of the people that were emigrating to Brazil were doing it for the same reasons as those that were emigrating to the USA, which was to get away from their miserable lives and improve themselves. In the middle part of the 20th century the country was undergoing its industrialisation process and it needed people. The country should've been one of the major economic success stories of the 20th century but due to rampant corruption and dictatorships it wasn't, but it seems to be getting there now.

A few escaping Nazis must've been a drop in the ocean, because at the time the country was taking in around 35,000 people a year.

The underlined is wrong. Centuries of warfare between frontiersmen & the "earlier settlers" (indians) is in no way equitable to being kicked out of a saloon for being a greasy wop. It's not the same.

The underlined is not wrong and your example is just relative to its time period that is all. Modern immigrants have faced their own issues, just because they didn't face getting stuck with a load of arrows, doesn't mean they didn't have it just as hard. The only type of easy immigration, is when somebody goes to a guaranteed job with decent conditions or at least has the chance of attaining that. Any immigrant that doesn't qualify for that, is going to have it hard unless they are facing persecution in their in their own country.

Now you are beginnig to sound like Bill the Butcher from Streets of New York.

The Chinese who came over during the Gold Rush were kicked out of the country. The Irish suffered many hardships as new immigrants to America, what they faced in Ireland was persecution and starvation. There was a strong Anti-Italian sentiment in the US and many left for Canada and Brazil. Each group (Indians, Pilgrims, Squatters, post Civil War immigrants etc etc) has their own story of hardships, each had a different set of circumstances. I don't see it as who faced more or less persecution.

The **** are you talking about? The Crimean War? Germany's wars of unification and almost constantly fighting with France? Napoleon? The French Revolution? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Europe's countries have pretty much constantly been at war with each other until the last half century. I might also add that the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were about fighting European colonialism and aggression, so I think you get the blame for those as well.

So, WWII doesn't count? That's bull****. It was still an extension of Europe's imperialism, and along with WWI put any war we ever started to shame with a nail-spiked bat to the face.

Bull. ****. You had peace after WWII because your countries were too ravaged to defend your imperialist empires. Which didn't stop them from trying. France's war in Vietnam ring a bell?

Yeah, we have now filled your place and do what you used to do. You don't get credit for that.

What I'm talking about is that these wars were part and parcel of European culture and had been fought over several centuries and were very much part of the European identity, therefore European society was accustomed to fighting these wars. The USA as a country has had far less time to absorb those wars.

It doesn't count if we're talking about imperialism as being the major cause. Facism, Nazism and Communism are different concepts to imperialism and were the major causes of WWII, far more so than imperialism ever was, as far as the European powers go.

France's war in Vietnam is a bad example, as it was already part of French Indochina and the French were just trying like the British to hold onto their existing colonies before giving up on them.

You're welcome.

Awful shootings, but definitely not because of the gun laws.

If it's not the guns then what is it? The country's dodgy history perhaps? Their adoption of classic liberalism? A melting pot of too many cultures in the gene pool? The glamorization of violence in film? A lack of Education? The insular/sheltered feel of the people? The stress of being in such a developed country? A bit of everything I've put above or something else completely different or none of these things at all?

Unknown Soldier, it might be very well a mixture of all that and much more. I come from a relatively small country where these incidents rarely (actually, I haven't really ever heard of any!) happen. One has to understand that the US is a huge country. It's almost the size of Europe, and Europe is not just one country. These things are bound to occur in a country that big. It's not normal, but it isn't all that surprising. Anyway, look at Canada and their gun laws. They're doing all right with them, right?

Some good points there, small countys are the same in most places and relatively violence free, which makes the Conneticut shooting more surprising, because isn't Conneticut a relatively violence free region?

If that's the case concerning Europe's and the USA's size, why do we not have the same level of violence as you do? Is it because we don't have the same amount of guns?

Sorry, but I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. I'm European and not exactly sure where you're from now, so I can't answer your question. But I'm guessing you're European too, your location being London, and your nickname being a famous Finnish book?