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

**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.

**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.

Unknown Soldier · 12-28-2012, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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.

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.

**Janszoon** · 12-28-2012, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

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.

TheBig3 · 12-28-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

When isn't America at war?

Unknown Soldier · 12-28-2012, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

A couple quick comments about this:[LIST][*]Modern France isn't an old country, it's younger than the United States.

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.

Quote:

[*]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.

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.