Is it really hard to fathom why many people despise the US?

[emordnilap]

Interesting story:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/us/fo ... .html?_r=1

Offer a pint of blood instead of going to jail - not sure what to make of this idea.....

While not being totally against the idea, especially if the blood is properly screened, (maybe it should form part of a raft of solutions; maybe not but I'd give blood if I was foolish enough to find myself needing to pay a fine and that was an option) we're all aware of the underlying problems which bring about such a high level of petty and other crimes, so eliminating inequality as a goal would be a good start. Fat chance!

It's a bit like how we should put the majority of resources into tackling causes of cancer rather than cures. And it's probably the same reasons why we don't - there's no money in eradicating causes but there's loads in treating the consequences, particularly in America Inc.

[biffvernon]

Is it really hard to fathom why many people like Denmark?

Here are 9 reasons Denmark’s socialist economy leaves the US in the dust:

http://usuncut.com/world/here-are-9-rea ... -the-dust/

[Lurkalot]

As to what I would change if given the dictatorship? I would make the right to own ,carry, open or concealed, a gun of any type other then a fully automatic machine gun, and use it lawfully and in self defense,

Why not a machine gun? Armies all over the world since its invention have found it to be an excellent defensive tool.

[vtsnowedin]

As to what I would change if given the dictatorship? I would make the right to own ,carry, open or concealed, a gun of any type other then a fully automatic machine gun, and use it lawfully and in self defense,

Why not a machine gun? Armies all over the world since its invention have found it to be an excellent defensive tool.

True but bank robbers in the US grew very fond of them and I just abhor those that will "spray and pray".

[AutomaticEarth]

Another shooting in the US:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 05261.html

[clv101]

As to what I would change if given the dictatorship? I would make the right to own ,carry, open or concealed, a gun of any type other then a fully automatic machine gun, and use it lawfully and in self defense,

Why not a machine gun? Armies all over the world since its invention have found it to be an excellent defensive tool.

True but bank robbers in the US grew very fond of them and I just abhor those that will "spray and pray".

Ah, this is interesting. So you don't think every American should have a fully automatic machine gun! Why not!?

Maybe you can understand the rest of the developed world's logic as just an extension of your own - we don't think everyone should have a gun (fully automatic or otherwise) in the same way you draw the line at fully automatics.

Very interesting that you just choose to draw your line in the sand in a different place.

[Little John]

My guess is he doesn't consider himself to have any need for something like a machine gun and thus is untroubled by anyone else's right to own one being curtailed. The logic of this position, then, is entirely morally arbitrary and is based, in fact, on merely personal pragmatic preferences. That is to say, so long as his desire to own what he wants is not curtailed in any way, either potentially or actually, he is uninterested in anything else including how many Yanks get killed by guns that fall into the category of ones he happens to have a personal preference for to how many other Yanks are deprived of the right to own guns that fall into the category of ones he does not happen to have a personal preference for. In short, so long as his personal gun fetish is satisfied, he doesn't actually give a shit about anything or anyone else.

All of which would be morally consistent, of course, if he was at least honest about this. But, he's not. Instead, he hides behind mealy-mouthed, half-baked pseudo-moral rationales that try to square the un-squareable.

[vtsnowedin]

My guess is he doesn't consider himself to have any need for something like a machine gun and thus is untroubled by anyone else's right to own one being curtailed. The logic of this position, then, is entirely morally arbitrary and is based, in fact, on merely personal pragmatic preferences. That is to say, so long as his desire to own what he wants is not curtailed in any way, either potentially or actually, he is uninterested in anything else including how many Yanks get killed by guns that fall into the category of ones he happens to have a personal preference for to how many other Yanks are deprived of the right to own guns that fall into the category of ones he does not happen to have a personal preference for. In short, so long as his personal gun fetish is satisfied, he doesn't actually give a shit about anything or anyone else.

All of which would be morally consistent, of course, if he was at least honest about this. But, he's not. Instead, he hides behind mealy-mouthed, half-baked pseudo-moral rationales that try to square the un-squareable.

It is a difficult question. The battle of Lexington and Concord was fought over cannon and shot and not small shoulder arms so the precedent for any arms including machine guns is there. And certainly a modern military with Gatling guns , drones and satellite reconnaissance is a formidable enemy but 100 million USA gun owners with the percent that will fight to the death if forced to that extreme may well turn the tide.
No matter how great your tank is , sooner or later you have to come out of it to take a wizz.
Edited for spelling.

[PS_RalphW]

The battle of Lexington and Concord was fought over cannon and shot and not small shoulder arms so the president for any arms including machine guns is there. And certainly a modern military with Gatling guns , drones and satellite reconnaissance is a formidable enemy but 100 million USA gun owners with the percentage that will fight to the death if forced to that extreme may well turn the tide.
No matter how great your tank is , sooner or later you have to come out of it to take a wizz.

I can't get the image of Corporal Jones out of my head.

[vtsnowedin]

I can't get the image of Corporal Jones out of my head.

I don't get that reference? Some movie perhaps?

[biffvernon]

I can't get the image of Corporal Jones out of my head.

I don't get that reference? Some movie perhaps?

There is just no way of explaining that to an American

I suppose you could try looking at this: http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/

[vtsnowedin]

I can't get the image of Corporal Jones out of my head.

I don't get that reference? Some movie perhaps?

There is just no way of explaining that to an American

I suppose you could try looking at this: http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/

Ok got it. I hadn't seen any of that just a lot of Bennie Hill.
Time does pass on. Very few of the WW2 and Korean war vets left standing and the Vietnam era Vets are getting well into their dotage.

[biffvernon]

just a lot of Bennie Hill.

See, I said it would be no point explaining it to an American. The required paradigm shift would be impossible.

[AutomaticEarth]

Police brutality. You can see why Americans don't like their police force:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34644373

[fifthcolumn]

In other news: given that I have gone native in the great state of Texas I'm trying to make my mind up if I should get a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle or just a tactical shotgun for home defence in case TSHTF. The problem with the shottie is that it doesn't have enough capacity and even though it's easy to shoot a bad guy at short range because of the spread, it might not kill him if you miss. Ideally you want a larger capacity magazine like on the AR-15. The problem with the AR-15 conversely is that the walls of houses here are made of gybroc and 2x4's so the bullets will go right through the walls outside and maybe shoot your neighbours.
On the other hand, maybe I should just reinforce the doors. Decisions decisions.