Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9816786:


The ideal woman is fictional 24 5, 7:25pm

@Brigid Poverty does not equal crime and violence, but there is a strong connection between those 2. Ultimately I suppose it comes down to your personal moral code, to your own descent into fear and despair, but let's just say that if the society denies your existence, you are way more likely to follow your own rules and to have moral codes that don't match the no crime, no violence code enforced by the society, which is probably why violence is way more frequent in poor areas. Because when you are poor in our societies, where all the worth of an individual is measured by its ability to make money (it's probably even truer in the US than in Europe), you are considered trash. I'm not saying that there are no other reasons to become violent and that all poor people become necessariy violent, I'm saying it's a systemic cause that can explain violence and probably the one that has the biggest impact.

Well what you are talking about is a transitional problem, that you can probably solve by introducing gun regulations little by little instead of just vote a hard ban on guns. But it has nothing to do with the political concept that you ultimately want to produce more healthcare or education (or transports, or solve fossil fuel dependancies... those are just examples) than firearms.

Ok I guess my argument was a little weak, I never realized it was that easy to make weapons nowadays. Well it's still way harder than making booze (it may be a little harder than making drugs I suppose), but I suppose if the incentives are strong enough it wouldn't be a deterrent for a shadow organization to start making them.

Well you misunderstood me about basic need : I would consider cars (even if this one is sure a problematic need) or electricity as basic human need in our society. Democracy is a little tougher to consider a basic need. I would say freedom is a basic human need, but not democracy, democracy is just an idea that the people making important decision are the people. But it doesn't represent much for an individual, because an individual is not the people. Also the best proof we have is that we live in oligarchies not democracies (well the luckiest of us, some people still live in autocracies or totalitarian regimes).
What I meant by basic need was something that you need in your day to day life. If I don't have food or electricity or cars (well actually I don't have one, but let's just say means of transportation in a broad sense) in my day to day life, I would certainly miss it a lot, but a gun... well... not really (I never posessed one though so maybe it's why I can't see what it would bring me). Sure, if someone was trying to kill me I would certainly be happy to be able to defend myself, but it never happened once in my life... That is why I said violence precedes gun need, not the other way around : if there is no violence where you are living, you don't need a gun.

Well actually Europe as a whole is a biggest trade node than the USA. Sure each country individually is less important, but I think there are enough of legitimate freight here to conceal illegal stuff in it.

Well I suppose it depends on the government, if you live in a real democracy (which you don't because there is no such thing), the state is the embodiement of the people, so it's probably safer that the people have a monopoly on armaments. In a real world though, I'll grant you it is at least debatable. That being said people who have the means to mass produce guns are part of the elite that rule our precious 'democraties', I'm not so sure they act that much as a counter-power as one might think.