<p>It took only three pages for someone to invoke Goodwin's Law. Congratulations folks!</p>
<p>pyro, the nazis seized all the guns in Germany during the 30s. Most totalitarian regimes do the same...</p>
<p>gun control works!! for tyrants that is...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every Western country has saner, more stringent gun control that the US. Yet, none are tyrannies, and all have much, much lower crime rates
[/quote]
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.
I will not confuse correlation and causation.</p>
<p>Brew's right on this one. Saying that stringent gun control = lower crime rates is tunnelvision. Switzerland is the most lenient country on gun control in the world and yet it also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Every time I see this type of reasoning I feel like hitting my head into the wall -- good reasoning takes into account ALL active factors in a situation, not just the one(s) that happen to fit into your personal agenda. While I do not have the time to do a detailed study of this (few people do...), I'd suggest that cultural factors have more to do with crime rate than gun control does. For example, Japan has been touted as a model for stringent gun control because of its extremely low crime rate. On the surface, it could appear that stringent gun control could be the explanation for Japan having a much lower crime rate than the United States, which is not nearly as strict with gun control. However, this view overlooks other relevant facts: if gun control is the reason behind the vast disparity in crime rate between the two countries, why is the United States' NON-GUN robbery rate over seventy times higher than Japan's? The answer, at least in part, probably lies in differences between the two cultures. The Japanese culture was molded around unflinching submission to authority. Indeed, merely sixty years ago the Emperor of Japan was viewed as GOD and thousands of Japanese soldiers kamikaze'd their planes into U.S. ships in WWII simply for his honor...is it any wonder Japanese citizens have so much more respect (as well as fear) for their leaders than Americans do and thus do not commit nearly as many illegal acts? In contrast, rebelling against authority is practically a way of life for many Americans, particularly for teenagers, who are responsible for a disproportionate share of violent crime. Other factors can include Japan not sharing a land border with any country so it is more difficult for illegal weapons to get through inspections and tighter control over illegal drug use, etc...</p>
<p>You seem like an intelligent guy academic. Hope that clarifies things even more.</p>
<p>Already read it, but thanks. Unfortunately I dealt with people who are so extremist in their views that I knew posting even a well-known site as Snopes.com as a source would get blasted as "biased" or "bigoted" because it is not PC, especially in this case. God only knows what would have happened if I had posted a peripheral site like that as a source.</p>
<p>It's a shame that people who think that apartheid was "better for the blacks" than the alternative can still get into college.</p>
<p>I've done some research on apartheid and I would have to agree that it was better for Blacks to a certain extent (they had jobs, excellent subsidized public services etc). The way it was dismantled shouldn’t of taken place though (if one looks into the history it looks like the people were obviously sold out by De Klerk and the National Party), I think that if everyone (USA, Europe etc) left that country alone then they would of sorted out their own problems. I believe that they would have used their right to self-determination and had a Zulu Republic, Afrikaner Republic, Xhosa republic etc in a confederacy of some sort (or maybe just separate nations). Now everyone in that country is living under horrible conditions that were unimaginable under apartheid (for both White and Blacks) but I believe that there is an extreme Marxist propagandist act going on through South Africa presently, and what do Marxists do? They delete history and rewrite their own, I think it’s pretty obvious. They’re changing historical Afrikaans cities and towns to mythical African names and whenever the government has a problem they use the excuse “apartheids fault” for virtually everything. </p>
<p>Now, don’t get me wrong, apartheid probably wasn’t the right way to go but I believe there are some extremely ignorant people in this thread who just throw apartheid off as “evil White Nazi regime.” People need to do some unbiased research on topics instead of making assumptions. I’ve read “The Afrikaners” by Hermann Giliomee and I have a pretty good ground on South African history than the average person. I don’t want to get off topic too much here, I think someone should open up a South African thread if they want to discuss this; it’s really a complex history to describe.</p>
<p>You know I also spend time on an international soccer site and have been coresponding with several South Africans of what decent I don't know. However, they don't write about the same stuff you are when I asked about the infrastructure and stability of the country as they will host the next world cup in soccer. It seems as if they are 180 degrees apart. </p>
<p>Have you ever considered that the materials you're reading aren't giving you a true impression of the situation? Have you been there?</p>
<p>A little story from my past.. I went on a rugby tour of the UK and Ireland back when I weighed a hell of alot less and could run. In the weeks before we went the Welsh coal miners strike occurred. There were evening news accounts of riots and tear gassing and arrests. The marxist party was blamed on the news and people were told to consider changing travel plans because it was so unstable.. a powderkeg. Well we went anyway. Outside of seeing machine gunned police officers at heathrow (IRA was still active then) everything was "groovy baby". </p>
<p>When we hit the Welsh countryside, we billeted in a small village that had 80% of it's men out of work because of the strike. They welcomed us and we stayed for several days playing rugby, drinking beer and getting to know the communist party leaders of the striking miners. </p>
<p>I sat one night with the president of the local communist party (also their scrumhalf) just released from jail so he could play us ( I mean there's politics and there's rugby for christ sakes) and we drank and drank and talked. As we talked about the strike and what we saw on the news back in America he explained himself between pulls on his pint..."we aren't a bunch of Karl Marx loving <em>*tards, Marx was a *</em>, we just want what we were promised for going down into the mines.. </p>
<p>The English governemt told us if we would mine, they would give us jobs ( and our children) for life and proper healthcare for our elderly, and education for our kids. Now they aren't, so we walked out on the ***tards." Is that classic marxist? I don't think so</p>
<p>My point is maybe before you decide SA is falling down, go see for yourself, not what others tell you it is. </p>
<p>Depending on where you are in America, it's either a fantastic place to live or just as bad as shanity town outside of Johanisburg. Before the storm brought attiention to the South, I knew people from churches where I live who moved down to Mississippi to work as missionaries with the poor. Just like they do all over the world. </p>
<p>Aparthied was wrong, it was a way to segragate and keep a minority in power. It had nothing to do with the Nazi's and everything to do with maintaining control of the country.</p>
<p>Well, I have talked to a lot of South African people in Brazil and they told me a lot of stuff about South Africa and I thought it was quite fascinating, so I did a lot of research on the country. Now there are numerous websites out there dealing with crime and other problems, and I dont really think anyone has to really go to South Africa to understand that the place is practically destroyed compared to what it once was. </p>
<p>Here is a blog that shows you the aftermath of the end of apartheid on JoBurg - <a href="http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/%5B/url%5D">http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/</a> and believe me that most of the cities in South Africa look exactly like this. There are some nice suburbs out there (well I dont know if nice is the correct word ) that have gated complexes and high walls to try to keep the crime out but still they are suffering from violent attacks and killings. Here is good site - <a href="http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.crimexposouthafrica.org/</a> - and like I said, there are many more.</p>
<p>Here is the book Ive read - <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813922372/sr=8-1/qid=1154735420/ref=sr_1_1/102-1537251-0420912?ie=UTF8%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813922372/sr=8-1/qid=1154735420/ref=sr_1_1/102-1537251-0420912?ie=UTF8</a> and its really a great book on the history of the Afrikaners.</p>
<p>Now in my understanding, apartheid wasnt really about segregation, apartheid was a false dream sold to the White population that never became reality. South Africa was really a 1st world nation inside a 3rd world nation and what destroyed them (much like what the USA and Europe is doing) is reliance on cheap non-White labor. See the White and Black population a hundred years ago use to be about equal in population but then a lot of corporations came over and paid the Black population low wages to do work so this drew a migration of Blacks down to South Africa to work in mines etc (population explosion). If this were true segregation then they wouldnt of let Blacks into their houses, businesses etc to do work, they would of completely isolated themselves and relied on their own people to do the dirty jobs. This is what I believed destroyed the Whites in the long run. I mean how retarded is it to have Black labor make your food but wont allow that same Black labor to eat the food they made in the restaurant? I also dont think anyone could ever really blame the Afrikaners for what happened, if anyone is to blame it is the British. They were the ones who set up racist policies in the first place, and after a couple generations these policies became the norm. These people were not stupid either, I mean honestly what did people think was going to happen when the Black majority was given the right to vote? Anyone could look at the rest of sub-Saharan Africa and figured that one out. This isnt meant to be taken as a jab to anyone, I know that Americans/Europeans are very touchy on anything racist because they might lose their jobs so they ignore the issues, but Im South American and we think that the Northern Whites are just heck I dont even know, you guys (I hate to even generalize) just dont have love for your own people. See back in Southern Brazil when I watched some American TV/Movies/Media in general I thought that USA was like 3/4ths Black/non-White. I also couldnt believe the amount of White girls I saw with Black males, something that I honestly as a catholic wouldnt tolerate. But then people tell me this is the liberal agenda and its the liberals fault so I guess this does fit in with the original topic?</p>
<p>A lot of extremist Islamic governments bring law and order to their societies. If Apartheid wasn't really that bad, then maybe we should let Talibanesque governments to exist as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also couldnt believe the amount of White girls I saw with Black males
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fear the black man. That's why whites created all those anti-miscegenation laws, right?</p>
<p>When you know the difference between "shouldn't HAVE" and "shouldn't of", perhaps I'll take you seriously. Apartheid was wrong. PERIOD. Natives didn't ask for their freedom and their culture, two of the most sacred things humans need, to be tampered with. Whatever benefits--the shanty towns (whoops technology), the indoctrination (whoops education), the violence (whoops, security)--are far outweighed by the negatives. You provided me with some unbiased literature (lol) so I'll do the same. Read "Kaffir Boy" by Mark Mathabane and tell me apartheid was good in any way. Tell him for that matter. I met the man and everyone at the venue, white, black, what have you, was ashamed. You say they would've sorted it out themselves? I went there 2 years ago and although everyone was friendly to me and my family, I heard hotel managers and store owners call blacks there "boy." Sounds like the 1800s in the U.S. Things are far from equal. Not when 98% of the population travels by night in dilapidated buses to get to the department stores, mansions and tourist attractions that serve 2%. The vestiges of apartheid are still alive 10+ years removed. I cannot believe you have the audacity to say that the U.S. and the rest of the so-called civilized world should not have intervened when the human rights violations in SA were comparable to Iraq and the racial struggle there was comparable to the struggle for civil rights at home. That the U.S. sat on its hands represents a profound hypocrisy that ought to make you disturbed at the very least.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of extremist Islamic governments bring law and order to their societies. If Apartheid wasn't really that bad, then maybe we should let Talibanesque governments to exist as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't even think that you can compare those two governments at all; this is an entirely complex issue. Taliban attacked the USA, correct? Now did Apartheid attack or even remotely threaten the USA? It seems like you agree that the USA should be the world police, so why don’t they do anything with all the corrupt African governments (instead of giving them money) and all the other politically incorrect governments? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Fear the black man. That's why whites created all those anti-miscegenation laws, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it’s to keep their identity alive. I wouldn’t want to see my grandchildren not looking a thing like my family and not keeping their heritage alive. I don’t really think anybody, hell South Americans especially, fears the black man just only gringos do. I honestly don’t think you need the laws in the first place if you have a strong culture, we don’t have those laws in Brazil and I never saw a German-Brazilian with anyone non-White. We do have a huge mulatto population because in the 1600’s there were a lot of Portuguese men in the colony with no European women so they took slaves as their wives. Oh well, I don’t see why people don’t respect people who want to keep their identity and don’t buy into this liberal craze.</p>
<p>pofreshnyc</p>
<p>I don't really understand what your saying. You said "natives" and that right away is very ignorant to Afrikaners who have been in South Africa longer than the majority of the Black population. On the rest of your post I don’t really understand what you’re saying, sounds like a rant? I think you really don’t understand South Africa at all… </p>
<p>
[quote]
I cannot believe you have the audacity to say that the U.S. and the rest of the so-called civilized world should not have intervened when the human rights violations in SA were comparable to Iraq and the racial struggle there was comparable to the struggle for civil rights at home. That the U.S. sat on its hands represents a profound hypocrisy that ought to make you disturbed at the very least.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What human rights violations? What about North Korea, Iran, heck mostly all of the African governments? You seem to live in hypocrisy. I want you to tell me the amount of people who died under apartheid and then tell me now the amount of people who have died under the new government. Big difference, you seem to think that apartheid went around gassing and murdering millions of people, never happened. Sure they put down huge violent protests. China put down a huge peaceful protest with tanks and weapons, why didn’t the USA do anything about that?</p>
<p>Rio you seem to be informed. I will read up on the info when I get a chance. My beef against the ANC is their ridiculous gun control policies (I don't know more about their undoubtedly bad policies). It seems nyc and chris lack content and they must appeal to emotion. Apartheid equal to Iran and North Korea? Does rap music really turn your brain into Swiss cheese?</p>
<p>From the Boers I've talked with, theyve told me a little bit about the gun control policies. What ethnic group do you think goes to stores and legally purchase guns and ammunition? Now what ethnic group do you think illegal has firearms such as AK47s and other weaponry? OK now when we take away gun stores and all the legal means of purchasing firearms, who will suffer from this? They are basically disarming the White population. The ANC is one of the most ruthless governments out there.</p>
<p>My solution:</p>
<p>White people, stay out of Africa, and if there's gonna be another debacle like Vanilla Ice, please give everyone fair warning.
Black people, stay out of Ivy League schools
Mexicans, stay out of North America
Asians, keep selling everyone those big screen TV's and awesome cars.
Indians, stop cooking.
Displace indigenous people's of all parts of the world, just die already. The whites people are getting angry at you.</p>
<p>Race problem solved.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't even think that you can compare those two governments at all; this is an entirely complex issue. Taliban attacked the USA, correct? Now did Apartheid attack or even remotely threaten the USA? It seems like you agree that the USA should be the world police, so why don’t they do anything with all the corrupt African governments (instead of giving them money) and all the other politically incorrect governments?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was al-Qaeda who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks (if you believe what the government tells you), not the Taliban. And the U.S. let most of the Taliban escape anyway, after the old Stars and Stripes were done impressing the world by kicking Afghanistan's ass. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it’s to keep their identity alive. I wouldn’t want to see my grandchildren not looking a thing like my family and not keeping their heritage alive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your children will have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, one brain, two arms, and two legs. They'll look plenty enough like you no matter who they marry. Heritage, schmeritage. Most white and black Americans have lost touch with their European and African roots that they all share the same American heritage. Unless you're one of those racists who feel that Black history is not really a cohesive part of American (aka white) history.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry if I'm wrong, but don't conservatives support
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keeping marriage between a man and a woman - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Anti-abortion laws - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Banning stem cell research - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Banning flag burning - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Patriot Act - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
The NSA spying on us - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Guantanimo Bay - Yes. The right to take prisoners of war exists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Keeping marriage between a man and a woman - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Anti-abortion laws - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Banning stem cell research - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Banning flag burning - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Patriot Act - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
The NSA spying on us - No. This is statist, and thus big government, and thus to the LEFT.
Guantanimo Bay - Yes. The right to take prisoners of war exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong on all accounts.</p>
<p>Left and Right only describes level of government involvement in economics (in the rest of the world anyways, Americans like to simpify too much). </p>
<p>Conservatives have traditionally been economically liberal but very much in favour of societal construction and defining what is moral and what isn't. Personal rights are more often then not supported by those on the left since they believe society can be constructed through economics. Conservatives believe the opposite.</p>
<p>Libertarians are a special case, they are generally deluded young people who still depend on their parents for income and thus throw all notions of one person affecting those around them out the window. </p>
<p>As for Guantanimo Bay, didn't you get the memo? They aren't POW's, they're "enemy combatants" and therefore are not subject to fair trials.</p>