Children killed in Connecticut school shooting (likely 27 dead,including 18 children)

**Janszoon** · 12-26-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

The best way to asses this, is to look at four English speaking countries that have been built up on immigration. These four would be the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Then looking at the ratio of gun ownership and how it relates to gun crime in each of the respective countries. I' sure there are stats out there for this. Then one of the most crucial factors is the type of immigration that each country attracts.

Initially both the USA and Australia took anybody before they really tightened up on their immigration criteria, whereas Canada and New Zealand have always been more restrictive on the type of immigrants that they let in.

I'm not sure if that's actually true or not, but assuming it is, so what? HHBH's point was that immigrants are by definition risk-takers so it shouldn't really matter what "type" were let in, all of them would still be risk-takers.

Unknown Soldier · 12-26-2012, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I'm not sure if that's actually true or not, but assuming it is, so what? HHBH's point was that immigrants are by definition risk-takers so it shouldn't really matter what "type" were let in, all of them would still be risk-takers.

The point being, that if a country is more selective on the type of immigrants it takes (ie. those with an education and a profession) they're less likely to be involved in risky behaviour. HHBH has just lumped all immigrants together here and hasn't broken them down into immigrant categories.

But of course for that to be relevant, there has to be an argument that immigrants are directly connected to risky behaviour, in some cases they are but in other cases definitely not.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 12-26-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I'm not sure if that's actually true or not, but assuming it is, so what? HHBH's point was that immigrants are by definition risk-takers so it shouldn't really matter what "type" were let in, all of them would still be risk-takers.

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.

Unknown Soldier · 12-27-2012, 05:07 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

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.

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.

Neapolitan · 12-27-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

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.

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."

Unknown Soldier · 12-28-2012, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

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.

hip hop bunny hop · 12-28-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

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."

Whoops, I meant prior to the 20th century.

Neapolitan · 12-28-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

Whoops, I meant prior to the 20th century.

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?

Unknown Soldier · 12-28-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Funny you say that because until recently Europe was war-like. 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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

**Janszoon** · 12-28-2012, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

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