|
reagan posted:I'm not trying to defend people's attitude re: native americans, I am just stating a fact. People in this state do not care about them. No-one said you are specifically trying to gently caress over native americans. But you, yourself, in the loving post I am responding to right now, said that [white] people in your state don't mind if they do get hosed over. Which is not much better! And the claim that you're just making an impartial observation about public opinion would be more plausible if not for, like, every other sentence in your posts
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Obviously it is the (partially deserved) stereotype that Americans are ignorant of geography and countries beyond the border, but on the flip side I've had some hilarious experiences talking to Europeans about American geography and culture as well. Trying to describe where I was from (New Jersey) resulted in a hell of a lot of confusion, with some people having learned anything they know about the region from Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen songs, or thinking that it was one of the boroughs of NYC. People also thought I was from Canada based on my (real) accent, but thought that I should sound like Fran Drescher or Tony Soprano since I was from NJ. It's a really odd feeling that so many non-US folks "know" a lot about the country, but through the lens of entertainment media. Hence this thread, of course. For sure, I met Europeans that didn't even know about other countries in the EU. Ignorance transcends all boundaries  American media definitely plays a big part, you're exposed to it no matter where you are in the world. I remember thinking King of the Hill was some ridiculous parody until Americans told me "no, it's actually like that." Canada has laws specifying that a certain percentage of television must be original Canadian programming, because it's so easy just to air a sitcom from the US instead. TV there was mostly a mix of US and UK programming. France had a lot of original programming, but you're exposed no matter where you go and learn from a comedian's point of view. Anyway, I never meant it as something that bothered me, just funny. Plus you can have fun with it, I had a coworker convinced that bagged milk means you get your own bag and dunk it in a vat of milk. Let's be honest though, NJ is totally a borough of NYC  . Hell, so is Cary in NC (Containment Area for Relocated Yankees).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Ein cooler Typ posted:Why are Europeans so afraid of guns? If you grew up in the UK after like 1985 or whenever Dunblane was, there's a good chance you've never seen a real handgun in your life. The idea you'd 'need' a handgun to protect yourself is like if someone kept a battleaxe around 'just in case' - it's an equally absurd thing to have. Guns do exist here, mostly shotguns for farmers and country sports, but depending where you live you could go your whole life and never know about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Jenalia posted:Milk and cheese are very popular in the US. Very very popular. If you're like me and lactose intolerant it can be really hard to find stuff that DOESN'T have lactose in it. Even things like bread will have this little text somewhere on the packaging that says "may contain traces of milk" or "processed in a facility that manufactures milk products" which is legalese for THIS WILL gently caress YOU UP. I've experienced this before (you learn to be careful) but in the US moreso than anywhere else it's been more of a guarantee. I'd had products containing the warning before and been fine, but in the US if it even mentions milk or whey anywhere on it then it's like eating a brick of cream cheese. For the first few months I was perpetually eating lactaid and feeling awful until I had systematically gone through and eliminated every single food product that was made within 100 feet of milk. If I'm eating out I just accept that it'll be impossible to avoid, Americans put cheese on absolutely everything. There are dishes where I question why they even include the other ingredients, because they're just vessels for getting hot cheese into your mouth. No we don't-  Ok maybe a little. To contribute to the current discussion- I've always found it weird that Europeans actually had laws against them having guns. Well not all of Europe I'd guess but the point is I guess we all just view that differently. You guys may think we're all strapped 24/7, I might think you're afraid of being arrested if you try to fight back against a mugger and injure them. Both are not true ( I, uh, hope? ).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:To contribute to the current discussion- I've always found it weird that Europeans actually had laws against them having guns. Well not all of Europe I'd guess but the point is I guess we all just view that differently. You guys may think we're all strapped 24/7, I might think you're afraid of being arrested if you try to fight back against a mugger and injure them. Both are not true ( I, uh, hope? ). uh, even america has laws restricting gun ownership, dude and while owning a gun for self-defence is generally a bad idea, that's not the main reason countries restrict gun ownership. it's because the only effective way to prevent criminals getting guns is to make it harder for people in general to get guns I don't really see why you think banning guns means you'll go to prison for self-defence. it does mean you're much less likely to get away with killing someone in "self-defence", since if no guns are involved it's less likely you can plausibly claim that you had no choice but to kill someone. that seems pretty obviously good though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:uh, even america has laws restricting gun ownership, dude Oh I'm aware we can't buy certain sorts of guns, and others you need some papers for. I was under the impression that getting anything that wasn't obviously a gun meant for hunting was either impossible or nearly so in a lot of Europe, and its just kind of weird to me. Its like people that put milk in their tea- Its just not something I'm used to. I don't own any guns, for the record, if that matters any. And my other question would be the part about it being about preventing criminals from getting guns. At least here in the US that would never work just because there's so many people that already have guns ( and also the NRA sorts would absolutely go berzerk ). If its illegal to have them what would stop someone that owned one from selling it to some shady criminal anyway? I should probably google how they managed to get all the guns that people already owned pre-ban. Or more likely Europeans don't have as many gun nuts as we do, stockpiling them and all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:I should probably google how they managed to get all the guns that people already owned pre-ban. Buybacks and amnesties. You give people an opportunity to get some cash for handing in their guns, then you set up a way for people to get rid of them at any time without being penalised for holding onto them after the buyback period. And of course you punish anyone you catch holding onto an illegal weapon and not handing it in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
reagan posted:I'm not trying to defend people's attitude re: native americans, I am just stating a fact. People in this state do not care about them. I lived in Bismarck when this was actually a point of discussion: Mid 2014, not 'last year'. The plan was submitted in early-ish 2014. Local government had to sign off on it. A discussion was had. Local residents were mad because the pipeline was supposed to come in north of Bismarck, which meant that any leak there would damage the Missouri River. The city told Dakota Access that if it didn't reroute, the city would formally deny it. Dakota Access, not wanting to deal with Bismarck, DA submitted a new route that went north of Standing Rock and far away from Bismarck. Sioux county did not file a formal complaint against the new route, but whether or not they were actually told how or when is pretty unclear. This is the major talking point that some people use as an argument for 'laying that loving pipe' -- The county hosed up. They informally protested it of course and since then because of various people in higher government, we are where we are today. I sat in one such discussion about the pipeline. I too objected to it going north of Bismarck. No one said, 'Why not just run it through the rez?'. Everyone said, 'Not in my backyard'. Of course, it's much easier to force it down the throat of the natives than it is the state capital, where people with resources and power live.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Tar_Squid posted:Oh I'm aware we can't buy certain sorts of guns, and others you need some papers for. I was under the impression that getting anything that wasn't obviously a gun meant for hunting was either impossible or nearly so in a lot of Europe, and its just kind of weird to me. Its like people that put milk in their tea- Its just not something I'm used to. I don't own any guns, for the record, if that matters any. Well there's two different things here: Existing guns would be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. There's lots of ways to take guns out of circulation, and over the course of, say, 10 years, it would become much much harder to get your hands on one illegally. The political issue, on the other hand, is probably insurmountable for the foreseeable future! Politically feasible gun control stuff tends to either target particularly stuff that people use in massacres (which is fine, but most gun violence is handguns), or local, or focused on people with particularly bad backgrounds (neither of which do much about how easy it is to get illegal weapons when so many people get them legally). That's why, as someone who would, all things considered, prefer a complete ban on handguns, I still don't consider gun control a top political issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Ein cooler Typ posted:Why are Europeans so afraid of guns? You have "thing that can kill whatever I point it at" in a list along with batteries and water. And not as a hunting item, as a protection device. Considering the need for that as part of basic emergency preparedness involves a level of fear and paranoia that is unmatched in the western world. America includes a culture of fear that is so hard to express from the outside but it's always there. We don't share the fear YOU have to feel the need for guns, if that makes sense. So I guess the answer is a question: why are Americans so afraid of each other? (is it not ironically because of guns?) Scudworth fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:You have "thing that can kill whatever I point it at" in a list along with batteries and water. And not as a hunting item, as a protection device. Considering the need for that as part of basic emergency preparedness involves a level of fear and paranoia that is unmatched in the western world. I tried to cover this earlier in the thread, but the whole level of fear and implied bloodthirstiness ascribed to gun owners by many folks is really...weird to me. Again, certainly you have the outliers for wackos and such, but at the same time there's a whole other cohort of people who have a paranoid aversion to guns. Actually, as a personal anecdote, before my wife and I got married and were still dating, we went through this discussion. A few months in I purchased a shotgun, which was my first non-inherited firearm (the couple other inherited/gifted guns which were "mine" were stored at my parents place at the time and she never encountered them). When I told my then girlfriend that I has bought the shotgun, she got extremely angry and wouldn't talk to me for two days. She wouldn't even come over to my place for a while "because the gun was there". At this point, it was a dissembled shotgun, in a box, with no ammo. Her family was generally very anti-gun, but had never really had any tradition or exposure to them. So they were always the nebulous tools of destruction that "kill stuff that you point them at for no good reason" that some of the posters in this thread have described. Over a short amount of time, of course, my wife familiarized herself with firearms and the fear melted away as she realized it was just a tool and not some inherently murderous object. She now enjoys going to the range and safely use and handle our weapons. If anything, I count that as an overall reduction in paranoia and fear. Again, it'd be a shame to turn the thread into gun-chat or a gun control slapfest. I agree that there's a certain level of fear running through American society, but it has far more to do with what has been going on with our news media and social networks. There's paranoia on any number of subjects, from pro-gun folks, anti-gun folks, anti-vaccination folks, fear of fascist/socialist coups, FEMA concentration camps, etc. That's a far more pressing issue in American life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:So I guess the answer is a question: why are Americans so afraid of each other?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Over a short amount of time, of course, my wife familiarized herself with firearms and the fear melted away as she realized it was just a tool and not some inherently murderous object. If you have a gun for self defence then you are planning to shoot someone. Not someone specific, but a person. That is the purpose for which you have acquired a gun. How can you argue that it's just an emergency preparedness tool no different to a torch or first aid kit? Those are tools designed for seeing in the dark and helping people who are injured. Darkness and injuries are everyday facts of life. Needing to shoot someone is not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The "it's just a tool" argument always seems to me to be blatantly ignoring the very obvious fact that tools have specific purposes and the purpose of a gun (as a tool) is to kill things. It's probably safe to assume you've never been through a situation where the rule of law disintegrated for an extended period of time, like say the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where there were no emergency services available in some areas for days. If nothing else, having a firearm in such emergency situations diminishes the helplessness one would experience in securing food (yes sometimes you have to kill your food). Self-sufficiency is the American way after all. We're the country that spawned the doomsday preppers craze.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
I've never lived somewhere where I thought I would need a gun for anything nor would I ever want to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
God Hole posted:It's probably safe to assume you've never been through a situation where the rule of law disintegrated for an extended period of time, like say the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where there were no emergency services available in some areas for days. And anyway, how many American gun owners live somewhere where that's a realistic concern? God Hole posted:If nothing else, having a firearm in such emergency situations diminishes the helplessness one would experience in securing food (yes sometimes you have to kill your food).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
The nice thing about living in the Bay Area is that we need no guns. During the auto-de-fe this morning, I was able to use my superior vehicle to eliminate several candidates from the employment pool. This is good and well because it continues to demonstrate that I am a worthy employee and my employer will surely see my worth. They say that Samuel Colt made all men equal with his gun but the gun is a tool for cowards. Here in San Francisco, if you kill someone with a gun because they are better at your job, you blame Twinkies. If you kill someone with your car, well, that could have happened to anyone. Once again, guns are for pussies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The "it's just a tool" argument always seems to me to be blatantly ignoring the very obvious fact that tools have specific purposes and the purpose of a gun (as a tool) is to kill things. Firearms are tools in that they are pieces of metal, wood, and plastic and are not inherently scary or malevolent. I was about to go back and quote myself from a few pages ago where I explicitly acknowledged that, yes, the ability to be more lethal and dangerous was both the point of knowing/owning firearms, and explained why that was a legitimate thing. But then I noticed I was responding to you in the first place so the point must have sailed over your head. Tiggum posted:What are you going to do, shoot someone for trying to steal your stuff? How is a gun helpful in that situation? In fact, in a hypothetical scenario where some enormous catastrophe has happened and there are no emergency services, I'd really rather no one have any guns. And again there's this apparent conflation of "emergency services" with "people with guns who will use them on your behalf". I think I'd be much more concerned about the lack of fire and ambulance services than with the lack of armed police. Nobody is conflating the two except you. You're putting the "gun" in the forefront, and we're putting "defense". The police are there to first and foremost enforce the law, and also protect life and property. The reason I and others keep talking about "police response times" or emergencies where there's a lack of police coverage, isn't because we expect the police to come in and blow away the bad guys for us. It's because the police have a a habit of either making the bad guys high tail it, or having enough backup to resolve things. If they're not available, then it's up to you to defend yourself and your property until things are resolved one way or the other. Having a firearm and knowing how to use it extend your ability to do so. EDIT: And you mentioned that you'd be more worried about disruption of ambulance and firefighter services. I completely agree. Which is why I have a first aid kit, and know CPR to do my best until the EMTs arrive. And why I have a fire extinguisher and know methods to escape a burning building until the local volunteer corps show up. Why not have the same level of preparation for personal protection? LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Why not have the same level of preparation for personal protection? Because it's really easy to show that statistically the worst way to protect your family is owning a gun. All outcomes show that doing so multiplies their chance of being killed in the home to a hilarious degree. This has already been posted, in more depth, in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
I can think of three types of people who own guns that I semi-regularly interact with: 1. People who are current or former military. My dad and uncle, for example, were both in the army for 20+ years and they're just used to having guns around and using them. My dad has a pistol and a .22 for target practice, and thats it. Ditto for my uncle. Seems fine to me, I guess. 2. People who live in in rural areas and/or go hunting fairly frequently. Also fine. 3. People who "need them for self defense" but otherwise don't actually have a reason. It's generally someone who works an office job and lives in a nice neighborhood but is obsessed with the idea of having to protect themselves from all sorts of calamities or crisis situations. It's unsettling to be around these people even though they're generally reasonable about other things. It's not because they own guns necessarily, but because they have this weird siege mentality where everyone and everything could potentially be out to get them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
The nice thing about living in the Bay Area is that we need no guns. During the auto-de-fe this morning, I was able to use my superior vehicle to eliminate several candidates from the employment pool. This is good and well because it continues to demonstrate that I am a worthy employee and my employer will surely see my worth. They say that Samuel Colt made all men equal with his gun but the gun is a tool for cowards. Here in San Francisco, if you kill someone with a gun because they are better at your job, you blame Twinkies. If you kill someone with your car, well, that could have happened to anyone. Once again, guns are for pussies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The nice thing about living in the Bay Area is that we need no guns. So your cops don't carry guns? That's pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
I'm immensely glad that Germany has comparitively strict gun laws. Why? Easy, poo poo like this doesn't happen here: Germany has got crazies like everybody else, but generally speaking they won't shoot you. Because they can't. Like, a couple of months ago my dad and I were driving to the supermarket when some psycho in the car behind us apparently decided that we had wronged him somehow (I still have no idea why) and followed us, only stopping and turning around after we had gotten out in the parking lot and he had realised that there were two of us. In the US I would have been legitimately afraid that he would have been packing. In Germany the best he could do is trying to beat me up or draw a knife, both of which it's immeasurably easier to just run away from. Also it's pretty hard for toddlers to kill you or themselves with a knife. With a gun it's easier, so easy in fact that it happens more than once a week in the US. poo poo, since 2004 at least ten Americans have been shot by their dogs (and one by their cat). Guns aren't inherently evil, they are, as you said, "just tools". On the other hand they are tools explicitly designed to kill effortlessly and from a distance. People either carelessly operating guns or using them for nefarious purposes is to be expected when guns are as cheap and easy to obtain as they are in the States. I don't deny that guns have their uses, but I'd rather see that the only ones being allowed to handle them are licensed professionals with a good reason to carry a gun, because this will minimise hurt. When you don't do that and make guns available to virtually everybody, the above is what you get. Is this a price you want to be paying for something that you will in all likelihood never, ever really need? Also re: guns for "self defence": for every shooting someone dead in self-defence there were 32 criminal homicides involving a gun. The same report also shows that of all cases of self-defence against violent crime from 2007-2011, in only 0.8% of them a gun was used to threaten, intimidate or even attack the criminal. Using a gun in self-defence doesn't significantly change your chances of success either; after taking any sort of protective action against attempted violent crime (e.g. screaming for help, calling the police, attacking the offender or simply running away), in 4.2% of all reported cases, the victims were yet injured. When a gun was in place, the ratio was 4.1%. Only in cases of attempted burglary using a gun was shown to be more effective in avoiding property loss (38.5% of gun-using victims reported lost property vs. 55.9% of those who took any protective action at all). Yet using a weapon other than a gun proved to be in fact more effective (34.9% of all cases there reported property loss). Or, to put it short: having a gun at home has no effect on avoiding being attacked, and not using guns turned out to be the better alternative during burglaries. In the vast majority of cases such a gun is discharged it won't be in self-defence, but instead accidentally, when attacking friends or family members or in suicide. Again: guns are not evil. But the price society has to pay for having unfettered access to these tools is simply too heavy, and I think it's really weird that so many people don't see that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Lots of good words Oh hey, someone that can intelligently argue the subject, unlike literally everyone else. You have put forth good words sir and for that I salute you. I still like having my guns for target practice/clay shooting because it's fun . Also yeah, if for some reason I have to hunt for food, I'd like to have a gun and not a bow and arrow; I'm terrible with a bow. *edit* Also, the picture you linked amuses me. We play a little game when we see headlines like those it's called: Texas, Florida or California. Typically stupid gun poo poo and pickup truck stuff happens in Texas, weird drug poo poo happens in Florida and other dumb poo poo happens in California. MF_James fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Worth nothing that gun ownership is highly regional and cultural, like everything else here. I grew up in NJ, live in NYC, and to the best of my knowledge have never known a gun owner. We have pretty strict gun laws in NYC and a local pastime is laughing at tourists who open carry and get arrested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 05:15
|
|
Tater Love 
|
LogisticEarth posted:I was about to go back and quote myself from a few pages ago where I explicitly acknowledged that, yes, the ability to be more lethal and dangerous was both the point of knowing/owning firearms, and explained why that was a legitimate thing. But then I noticed I was responding to you in the first place so the point must have sailed over your head. LogisticEarth posted:Nobody is conflating the two except you. You're putting the "gun" in the forefront, and we're putting "defense". The police are there to first and foremost enforce the law, and also protect life and property. LogisticEarth posted:The reason I and others keep talking about "police response times" or emergencies where there's a lack of police coverage, isn't because we expect the police to come in and blow away the bad guys for us. It's because the police have a a habit of either making the bad guys high tail it, or having enough backup to resolve things. LogisticEarth posted:If they're not available, then it's up to you to defend yourself and your property until things are resolved one way or the other. LogisticEarth posted:And you mentioned that you'd be more worried about disruption of ambulance and firefighter services. I completely agree. Which is why I have a first aid kit, and know CPR to do my best until the EMTs arrive. And why I have a fire extinguisher and know methods to escape a burning building until the local volunteer corps show up. Why not have the same level of preparation for personal protection?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:
Hey one time at 3am someone knocked at my front door but since I live in a sane country I just turned on the porch light and asked who it was and they went away. Wish I had a gun, would have made it much easier to accidentally shoot my wife.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Oh boy a gun debate. So many hot takes itt, no rehashed useless talking past each other here no sirree
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Oh boy a gun debate. So many hot takes itt, no rehashed useless talking past each other here no sirree Yeah, I'm not going to do much more to perpetuate the derail. Save to say that System Metternich had a decent good-faith post. However, looking at national aggregates like that can be misleading. There's definitely a "responsible" vs "irresponsible" gun culture, and of course criminal elements as well. His basic point: System Metternich posted:Is this a price you want to be paying for something that you will in all likelihood never, ever really need? conflates these multiple communities. Since the basic question of the thread is "what's it like living in the US?", this is a pertinent question. Based on voting records and such, it seems the majority of folks understand that this "cost" is not spread equally around the country and most of the issues come from irresponsible folks and crime. Because of this, the answer to "is this price worth paying?" is "Yes, it is. But we can do better by looking at other causes rather than simple aggregate gun ownership numbers". zakharov posted:Worth nothing that gun ownership is highly regional and cultural, like everything else here. I grew up in NJ, live in NYC, and to the best of my knowledge have never known a gun owner. We have pretty strict gun laws in NYC and a local pastime is laughing at tourists who open carry and get arrested. This is a very important point to understanding everyday US culture. I also grew up in NJ, but a different area, and as I've said I'm now in eastern PA. I've always known gun owners, friends and family, and grew up with firearms being very familiar. My dad taught me basic firearms safety when I was 5 or 6 or so, and I was out hunting when I was 11. Where I live is very much on the cusp of the New York Metropolitan Area and rural/agricultural Pennsylvania. We're right across the border, and there are a number of gun clubs and ranges. Since NJ law is pretty hostile to firearms, you have a lot of folks coming over the border to use our ranges, since ranges in NJ aren't nearly as common and the ones that exist tend to be expensive. Judging from license plates, you definitely see the interaction between the crotchety Rod & Gun Club type dudes (which kind of describes who I grew up around), and the tactic-lol dudes from the urban areas. There's very much an urban-rural divide in the US. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Tbh I'm pretty sure that everybody who got gunned down by the dog or got drunk and shot up the living room would have described themselves as a "responsible gun owner" too. And saying what amounts to "it's not me, but those other people that are the problem" frankly seems to me as rather deflecting the problem. But I also don't think that I will be able to change anyone's mind in here (or vice versa), so I won't continue on this topic too. Okay, so other topic. I've never been to the States, and with the latest TSA madness the likelihood that I'll be going sometime soon is basically in free fall - no, I won't give you my FB password, thank you very much. But other friends who have been there told me that Americans basically take the car for every distance that's longer than the car itself. That's hyperbole, of course, but which distance would you be ready to walk instead of drive? Every Wednesday I walk to choir practice and back which Google Maps tells me is 1km (~0,6 miles) or about 12 minutes of walking each. Would you take the car for that? And would it even be feasible to walk in your average American town?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Tbh I'm pretty sure that everybody who got gunned down by the dog or got drunk and shot up the living room would have described themselves as a "responsible gun owner" too. And saying what amounts to "it's not me, but those other people that are the problem" frankly seems to me as rather deflecting the problem. But I also don't think that I will be able to change anyone's mind in here (or vice versa), so I won't continue on this topic too. I will say that this is the chronic issue with trying to convey what actual every day life is like re: guns. Suffice it to say that there are rules of basic safety that if followed will make getting shot by your dog or toddler all but impossible. If I had time and this was a different thread a long, thoughtful discussion would probably make it clear that I don't wish to deflect the issue. But, there's one thing to say about long thoughtful discussions about guns on the internet, and that is: lol good luck The walking vs. driving topic is a much better direction to take the thread. When I'm not phone posting from work I might dig into that one. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Yeah enough of the gun talk, though to be fair as said it is a part of living in America. Let's get back to the topics-System Metternich posted:Okay, so other topic. I've never been to the States, and with the latest TSA madness the likelihood that I'll be going sometime soon is basically in free fall - no, I won't give you my FB password, thank you very much. But other friends who have been there told me that Americans basically take the car for every distance that's longer than the car itself. That's hyperbole, of course, but which distance would you be ready to walk instead of drive? Every Wednesday I walk to choir practice and back which Google Maps tells me is 1km (~0,6 miles) or about 12 minutes of walking each. Would you take the car for that? And would it even be feasible to walk in your average American town? Well unless you live in a very densely urban area, chances are high the way the layout is won't be feasible to walk, no. I live about that walking distance from a nearby Aldi's, and there's no way I'd want to walk there, since I'd have to cross an extremely busy road that is not at all laid out for pedestrians. There's no sidewalk, and the shoulder of the road is small and bordered by a deep ditch. I did have to walk it when my car was totalled in an accident late last year, but I would not voluntarily choose to do so. That having been said, I'm also one of those people that prefers to park their car in one spot at a shopping center and just walk to and from the stores while I do my shopping. Yes some people move their whole car for that, but to be fair sometimes its worth it for very heavy items. Edit to add- My brother lives in Chicago, for example, and he barely ever uses his car. But that's an exception, not the rule all over the country. Maybe later I'll post about Savannah, Georgia, which is the only other place I've really lived in for a long time, and its more of what a lot of posters here seem to be thinking about when they say 'the South'. But of course its also different. Tar_Squid fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:I will say that this is the chronic issue with trying to convey what actual every day life is like re: guns. Suffice to say that there are rules of basic safety that if followed will make getting shot by your dog or toddler all but impossible. If I had time and this was a different thread a long, thoughtful discussion would probably make it clear that I don't wish to deflect the issue. But, there's one thing to say about long thoughtful discussions about guns on the internet, and that is: lol good luck It's weird how you responded to the one not-particularly-important aside (no poo poo, toddlers do not shoot people very often anyway) rather than the actual content about why owning guns for self-defence is insane System Metternich posted:Okay, so other topic. I've never been to the States, and with the latest TSA madness the likelihood that I'll be going sometime soon is basically in free fall - no, I won't give you my FB password, thank you very much. But other friends who have been there told me that Americans basically take the car for every distance that's longer than the car itself. That's hyperbole, of course, but which distance would you be ready to walk instead of drive? Every Wednesday I walk to choir practice and back which Google Maps tells me is 1km (~0,6 miles) or about 12 minutes of walking each. Would you take the car for that? And would it even be feasible to walk in your average American town? It varies a lot! My suburban relatives seem much more inclined to drive ridiculously short distances. In a city, less so. I can't imagine trying to drive to something only half a mile away here unless a) I was going to get some really heavy stuff or b) I was going there on the way to something else. Like Tar_Squid said, it's also the case that in a lot of places walking sucks even if the distance itself is reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Okay, so other topic. I've never been to the States, and with the latest TSA madness the likelihood that I'll be going sometime soon is basically in free fall - no, I won't give you my FB password, thank you very much. But other friends who have been there told me that Americans basically take the car for every distance that's longer than the car itself. That's hyperbole, of course, but which distance would you be ready to walk instead of drive? Every Wednesday I walk to choir practice and back which Google Maps tells me is 1km (~0,6 miles) or about 12 minutes of walking each. Would you take the car for that? And would it even be feasible to walk in your average American town? Most places I've been are not walkable at all, and most cities have pretty lovely public transportation. As I mentioned, I live about 10 miles outside of DC, which is technically the suburbs, but they are definitely a more urban type of suburb. I really only drive my car to work or other places that are not accessible by public transportation (friends or family, for example), or if I needed to transport something that I can't feasibly carry while walking. Sometimes if I'm feeling lazy or it's very cold, I'll drive the car on a shorter trip. This is not the norm for most parts of the country. That being said, the major urban areas on the East Coast are also a lot more connected than I think some people imagine. For example, I could walk 10 minutes from my house to a Metro station, ride that to Union Station in DC, get on a train to New York City, and be there in a few hours without ever need to drive (or fly) anywhere. Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
My impression from the outside is that the major east coast cities are a lot more like Europe with dense, walkable centres and better public transport etc., and then as you move west things get way more spread out and with much less infrastructure that would support walking even short distances. This could be completely off base though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
It's less of an East vs. West thing as much as it is the age of the city and the time period in which development took place. Pretty much every city or town in the US has some kind of a walkable downtown--even if just one street--but the portions of a city (or rather, the city's metropolitan area) that developed during the era of suburban sprawl (after 1950s) are generally not walkable. What makes sprawl not walkable isn't just about distance (although that's certainly a factor) but also that roads are massive and highly-trafficked, sidewalks often are non-existent, and drivers are often not used to pedestrians so using a crosswalk or even just walking along a street with many turn-ins can be quite dangerous. Also, many suburbs don't have residential streets on a grid, but rather windy roads with cul-de-sacs and dead ends. So even if the grocery store is only half a mile (1 km) away as the crow flies, you might have to walk a couple miles around the neighborhood just to get there. Also, driving in a suburb isn't inconvenient like it is in older cities. Even relatively dense suburbs have ample free or cheap parking lots and/or street parking, while older cities usually have a chronic shortage and high price. Biking should be some kind of happy middle-ground, but driving is so pervasive that most metros haven't developed extensive cycling infrastructure, so cyclists are expected to "share the road" with motor vehicles which usually leads to resentment if not mortal danger for the cyclist. Public transportation is a separate, but somewhat related issue. The short version is that Americans are generally not-very-willing to support public transportation where driving and car ownership is common and it's viewed as unnecessary and wasteful of resources. There's also the racist and classist view that extending public transportation into suburbs will bring in "undesirable persons" and, ultimately, contribute to a loss of safety and property value. Support for public transportation goes up in parts of the country where driving is difficult due to traffic congestion, costs, etc. Jamwad is right that some East Coast cities are "better connected" (which is to say they have decent rail and bus transit options between each other) than the rest of the country due to their relative proximity. Washington to New York is the best, but also an outlier example, because of the denseness of the corridor which also includes Baltimore and Philadelphia. Otherwise the continental US has a extensive network of freeways and highways (the Interstate and National Highway Systems) that makes all the major metros easier and faster to access by personal vehicle than, say, passenger rail. High speed rail could change that, but that competes with air travel and inertia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
How is the political climate currently in the state and city that you live in? Denver and Colorado have an interesting political climate. Very few people that I have spoken to, liberal and conservative, have been particularly happy about things since the primaries wrapped up. Conservatives wanted Cruz and liberals wanted Bernie. Folks are mad that services and infrastructure are messed up around the state, but no one wants to vote for tax hikes. In Colorado, thanks to an amendment to the state constitution, every tax increase in the state has to go before voters. And if more taxes are collected than the initial estimate, those taxes are supposed to be returned to the people! The far west of the state and the far east are very rural and thus very conservative. Denver is slightly more radical left, but the second biggest city in the state, Colorado Springs, is pretty staunchly religiously conservative. The next biggest enclave, Boulder (pejoratively refereed to as The People's Republic by most everyone else in the state) is basically the result of trust fund hippies from SF deciding to settle down after the summer of love. They have no kill laws on the book for vermin, but also won't let anyone construct a building over like, 3 stories. What kind of food culture does your local area have? if you're into cooking, or simply know of some local delicacy, please share a specific dish, with a recipe if you have one, of something that you enjoy making or buying yourself that would be representative of your local food culture. Depending on where you are, food culture in the state tends to be on a sliding scale of Southwest, TexMex, and bland Midwestern. Most restaurants have some sort of hot sauce on the table and will have a green chili dish somewhere on the menu (unless it's an obviously ethnic place like Italian or Chinese). A lot of famous Fast-Casual joints were originally started in Colorado as well (Chipotle and Noodles & Co). I really don't know why. The two big crops that I know from the state are Palisade peaches and Rocky Ford melons, so you will usually see those used a lot in salads or preservatives/syrups. There is also a massive craftbeer/brewing culture in the state. Living in the capital, I'm a 10 minute walk from 3 craft breweries. But even in say, Grand Junction, you're never more than a short drive from a craft brewery. If you don't brew your own beer, you know someone who does. How is religious life and worship for you in the states? As an outsider, it appears as if religious life might vary pretty wildly from state to state, with some US areas having markedly different religious demographics than others. I'd be especially interested in whether people experience any prejudice or bias against their religious practice, or lack thereof, in their home states, or from US society at large. Colorado is Pretty White and Pretty Protestant. A lot of people in my circle aren't really involved or practicing, but they were usually baptized and will go to church when they are visiting family and Grandma wants everyone to dress up on Sunday. There are also a lot of evangelicals and mega-churches. I don't like those organizations at all. The evangelicals are filled with hate and corrupt the officers of our air force. The mega-churches are pretty blatant tax shelters. For as many folks living in Denver that are cool with other religions, you've usually got someone in the suburbs complaining about Jews running the media and Muslims killing our children. Sharing what you work with or study for, or if you have any specialized knowledge, would imo also be interesting, because it would allow follow-up questions for specific fields, like, imo someone working with law or healthcare would probably have interesting insights on those areas. I'm a programmer that used to work for the state courts (fun fact, they are one step above disfunctional) and I know a lot of folks involved in education and accounting (private business does great and still don't pay poo poo, state/municpal institutions also pay poo poo, but they don't provide free coffee either.) If you belong to a minority group, do you experience harassment? If you do and you are willing to share personal anecdotes, and thoughts about how your state or city might differ from other areas in the US, then please do. I'm about as white/male/straight as they come. Denver is the most diverse city in the state, but it's still pretty obvious that most of the poverty affects black/latino populations in the city and that the city/state is White As Hell. People have some wide and weird opinions about hispanic culture, Spanish, and Mexico. If you want a good insight into things, imagine Hank and Gomez's relationship in Breaking Bad. How familiar are you with other US states than the one you live in? Like, how many different ones have you lived in, or visited for a shorter or longer period of time. Are some states essentially as foreign to you, or even more, than some foreign countries might be? Do you feel as if there is animosity between your home state and other states? I've done a little travelling around the country. I've visited Chicago and NYC, and lived in Boston for a couple years. Honestly I've probably seen more of Europe than the US though. The deep south is a mystery to me and in some ways so is the west coast, although there are a lot of folks from CA/WA/OR that move to CO to provide some insight. Colorado is pretty closely tied to Wyoming, Utah, and Kansas. Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan are also pretty culturally in line with the state and before weed was legalized here most of the transplants I knew and liked were from that part of the country. The biggest "outsider" populations tend to come from California and Texas and folks who grew up in the state tend to have pretty strong opinions about them. Most people here like to pretend everything east of the Mississippi just doesn't really exist. have you experience bias or hostility as an American when travelling abroad? I've only traveled to Europe, once in 2012 and again in the summer of 2016. For the most part everyone was pretty pleasant and polite, curious and willing to talk about whatever, although I also tended to play my nationality lowkey and didn't talk to a whole lot of people outside of homes and hostels. Almost everyone wants to talk American politics at some point though, which is understandable but I will say that I often feel like I'm on the defensive in those situations and I hate my own ignorance of international politics which makes it hard to poke back. I've found that folks from the UK usually have the most negative things to say about American politics, although I did meet an older Slovenian gentleman on an airport shuttle who wanted to see Trump win so that the US Imperial wars would stop. I'm kind of curious how he feels about things now... If someone was to visit the US for the first time, or your state or city in particular, what sights would you recommend? I'll stick to Colorado/Denver, since there's plenty out there to read for bigger cities. I'm biased, as I like Colorado a lot better when it's not winter, so visit from late April to late October. Denver is probably where you'll fly into, so take the train downtown, stay there and stick around for a day or two. See the art museums, wander around downtown, drink some of the local beer, eat some good chili and burritos, maybe visit a dispensary  , walk along the Platte or Cherry Creek trails. Visit the botanical gardens or one of the parks. Then rent a car and just drive around the state. Go to Rocky Mountain National Park, go to the Great Sand Dunes, go to Mesa Verde, check out the Grand Mesa and Colorado National Monument, if you feel brave go over Red Mountain Pass. Drive up through Kenosha Pass into South Park. Drink coffee in Aspen and gawk at the rich Americans who live there. If you like camping, you can rent gear from REI and just camp your way around the Rocky Mountains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:So your cops don't carry guns? That's pretty impressive. That particular gang is still armed and still actively murdering people. Though hopefully someday their reign of terror will be eliminated. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-sf-police-filmed-unloading-barrage-bullets-man-article-1.2454453 All cats are beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Grandmother of Five posted:I realize that most goons are US-based, so maybe this sounds like an extremely mundane topic, but a bunch of us are foreigners & the US is a weird, alien place, and both super interesting on its own, but also because your nation's cultural significance probably can't be overstated. I also imagine that, with the US being as large as it is, US-goons might also be interested in hearing about state-specific stuff, since I'm guessing most people aren't really familiar with all of the US states. It's pretty great OP
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:It's pretty great OP More like oldcomplaintless Thought of another question: I hardly ever see Americans discussing “villages“, it's always “towns“ or “cities“, and the perception of size seems different as well - I've seen towns with like 40,000 people still being described as “small“. What would you say makes a village and separates small from mid-sized and big towns?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 08:23
|
|