Harry Le Hermit
Member
Yes, the gun haters do like to point out the gun deaths, but avoid the subject of how many are homicides and how many are suicides. Suicides make up about 2/3 of gun related deaths and guns are about 2/3 of suicide deaths.
Newsweek reports United States is the 2nd most hated country in the world
- Thread starter Paco Dennis
- Start date
- Status
fuzzybuddy
SF VIP
- Location
- The Sticks, Northeast PA.
I don't think it matters what Americans think of the USA. You have to admit they are somewhat biased. The question is how the world views the US. It's hard to deny that the US has a yahoo, gun crazy, cowboy image. I think it's a shock to Americans that the world does not share the image of the US as a Knight, in shining armor, fighting for truth and justice.
Lawrence00
Senior Member
Well I have just realized how I can make the most money on the internet. It's rather ugly, but I really need the money.
I'll be making websites that have a lot of click bait and just let Google adsense go wild with the irritating ads all over the place.
First topic will be "why most people hate cats". Then I'll move on to "why most people hate dogs". They will go viral.
It seems that France is the most loved country with Spain number two. United States needs to settle for third place.
I'll be making websites that have a lot of click bait and just let Google adsense go wild with the irritating ads all over the place.
First topic will be "why most people hate cats". Then I'll move on to "why most people hate dogs". They will go viral.
It seems that France is the most loved country with Spain number two. United States needs to settle for third place.
Lawrence00
Senior Member
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
NO way, most countries hate France....that chart is not possible... Sweden for example would come way above France or even Spain.... Austtralia is loved by a vast amount of people, as is New Zealand... ..that chart is way skewed...
Lawrence00
Senior Member
never said the U.S. was infallible. Keep trying -- maybe some day you'll connect with something that makes sense.My AI buddy is wildImagine being mad at a calculator for doing math faster than you. But sure, let’s play your way: Next time I’ll carve my critiques into stone tablets so you know they’re ‘authentic.’
You’re mistaking correlation for causation. You say gun laws are the “one unique difference,” brushing aside all other variables as if urban gang dynamics, demographics, geography, and socioeconomic stratification don’t matter. But that’s not analysis—it’s narrative. The U.S. isn’t just an outlier in gun laws. It’s an outlier in gang warfare, inner-city poverty, broken policing in major cities, and a border that feeds organized drug trafficking into urban zones. You’re comparing a continent-sized country with over 330 million people—many of them living in segregated, decaying metro areas—with a population smaller than California’s and nowhere near the same crime pressures. Australia didn’t need to “fix” Chicago, Baltimore, or St. Louis. You never had those problems to begin with. So yes, different gun culture—granted. But let’s not pretend it exists in a vacuum. The idea that gun laws alone explain everything is tidy, but lazy.
Ah, here it is. You worship not only at the altar of AI, but also at the feet of globalists.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Absolutely on point, sir.
Let's not forget that there are some 395+ million firearms in the U.S. Legal owners comprise somewhere between 40% and 47% of the adult population. With that many adults owning firearms, the vast, vast majority of those owners are not the perpetrators of crimes using those firearms.
So who's committing the gun crimes? That's where we get to the sticky problem of "how do you determine who is not eligible for protection under the 2nd Amendment?" Leftists constantly seek ways to work around 2A but completely fail to address the central issues with gun violence, particularly involving mass shooters:
- Mental health reform
- Gang activity
- Breakdown of the family, particularly in poor communities
I won't even get into the oft-reported violence committed outside the USA with knives and other weapons.
Go figure.
Lilac
Well-known Member
- Location
- Flyover Country
@Harry Le Hermit, thanks for making that point. That stats of homicide & suicide shouldn't be combined.
After 30 years in law enforcement (civilian) & my husband (sworn) with 35 years, we both have seen that any one who is determined to kill themselves won't be stopped & will do so by any means available.
For those who say it wouldn't have happened if the gun was not available, they're either using it as a straw man argument or are deluding themselves to reality.
I can answer that question very simply -- I don't care how the world views the U.S. I am not a diplomat, nor do I play one on TV. I prefer plain language, spoken in ways that leave no question as to what I'm saying.
For those who are completely hung up on this issue, I pity you. You don't know what you have.
Ah yes, the noble tale of Australia learning its lesson from domestic massacres and rising above it all with wise legislation and gun control. Inspiring stuff. But let’s rewind to Kibeho, Rwanda, 1995, where Australian troops stood inside a refugee camp while thousands of unarmed civilians were gunned down by the Rwandan Patriotic Army. Men, women, and children were cut down with automatic weapons, and the Australians, fully armed and trained, were under strict orders to do nothing. Not intervene. Not return fire. Just watch. Afterward, they counted the bodies and patched up the survivors. So forgive me if I don’t buy the narrative of moral superiority. Passing laws back home is easy when you’re not the one standing in front of a real massacre and being told to stay quiet. That’s not a triumph of values, it’s a tragedy of timidity.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
OK..let's say for arguments sake that out of the 47,000 gun deaths in the USA in 2023 alone.. a whole 2/3rds of them were suicide... that still leaves a Massive 15,666... deaths in one year from guns that was not suidide.. how is that right ?.. what other western country does that happen ?
I'm not here to defend Australia -- there are plenty of Aussies here who will do that. But in this instance involving Rwanda, let's please consider that soldiers will do as they're ordered. I'm sure it works that way as it (mostly) works that way in the US.
This is a failure of political leadership, and I'll say that even with the risk that my post will be deleted for crossing that "no politics!" line. (We've kinda been dancing around that for several pages anyway, but I digress...)
Are you calculating the 335 million people that live in the U.S.? How does that statistic measure up to your 15,666 deaths in one year?
A far more accurate measurement would be how many deaths PER THOUSAND in the population. No, I'm not going to do that research for you.
dilettante
Well-known Member
- Location
- Michigan
Who else remembers those documentaries on Australia?
Harry Le Hermit
Member
First of all, I don't report to you, nor do I answer to you. The fact that the homicide rate has fallen over the past 40 years, should be considered. That FBI stats have consistently indicated that approximately 90% of homicides are within each demographic group, with one group accounting for nearly half of homicides. Of course, we are not allowed to discuss that, nor are we allowed to discuss how nearly half of all violent crime is from the same group. However, we can lament the incarceration rate of that group.
I realize that you and others have a particular hatred of the US and have demonstrated it, with snide remarks and asides, with the current situation giving you cover to come out into the open with your hatred. I don't care... got it!
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Oooh nasty attitude..
. if you don't want to believe figures or listen to anyone else who has figures then don't you post them on this forumI have absolutely no hatred for the USA.. and it's people...NONE..just the opposite... people like you who won't face up to a problem the rest of the world sees, pull that Haters will be Haters card every single time...extremely childish !
if we saw children doing something wrong we would let them know and hope they would stop it.. we wouldn't HATE children.. because of it...
Last edited:
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Yeah, the article you posted is nothing new. A lot of people claim to hate America (and/or Americans), but it has the highest immigration rate in the world.I think it has been the wars. Iraq, Afghanistan,
Ukraine, Palestine. We have military all over the globe. We act like we are #1 all the time, but we are not. The rest of the world sees Americans, as selfish, greedy, con artists.
When asked, most foreigners say they see Americans as loud, obnoxious, and entitled. I suppose that's because a lot of us act the same abroad as we do at home.
Most American tourists don't bone-up on the social restrictions or commonly unacceptable behaviors of the countries they visit, but it doesn't even enter 99% of American tourist's minds to take a whiz on historic statues, smear feces on plaques and memorials, or blow up a few skyscrapers during their time abroad, like some of America's visitors have done.
When Americans visit your country, they check out your famous sights, enjoy your local food, and take lots of photos of your local architecture and natural environs...and within a couple weeks, after spending a bunch of money that you gladly accept, they go home and you can take something for that headache.
Who_so_ever
Saved By Grace
- Location
- Grateful American
It's no skin off my nose if people don't like America....
What stands out to me in this entire movie series is this:
- People will always do what is in THEIR best interests. That's an anthropological fact that is often forgotten or ignored.
- Extend the above bullet point to NATIONS. That's another anthropological fact that is often forgotten or ignored.
But the theme of this entire Mad Max movie series can't escape what happens when people are pushed to the edge of survivability.
“just following orders” might seem like a reasonable defense at first glance, but history disagrees. The judges at the Nuremberg Trials made it absolutely clear: obeying orders is not a valid excuse when those orders result in crimes against humanity or in standing by while they happen.
In fact, the legal precedent set at Nuremberg establishes that willful inaction in the face of atrocity, even under orders, can itself be criminal. Soldiers are not absolved of moral responsibility simply because they were told to look the other way. What happened at Kibeho wasn't a moment of foggy confusion. It was a sustained massacre, unfolding in front of armed peacekeepers who had the training, the means, and arguably the moral obligation to intervene. So no “they were just following orders” doesn’t clear the air. If anything, it clouds it with cowardice wrapped in bureaucracy.
True dat -- but in the case of Rwanda, how much of that was pre-planned genocide facilitated ahead of time by the Australian military? Furthermore, when we're talking about the behavior of Aussie troops, how much of their behavior was actually directed by their leadership, as opposed to the inevitable Nazi documented do-it-or-die mentality?
I don't deny your point and find it credible -- but when it comes to ultimate leadership, I put that squarely on the politicians that direct such behavior without clear-cut evidence that military leadership deliberately and knowingly ignored what was happening in front of them.
A difficult subject -- I well remember the time frame, but was not aware of some of these details. Thank you.
Fair enough, and yes, the political and UN leadership that issued those rules of engagement deserve serious blame. But we can’t absolve the Australian soldiers on the ground either. They weren’t helpless, and they weren’t ignorant. The Kibeho massacre unfolded in front of them over many hours. They knew what was happening. They were trained, armed, and capable of stopping it—or at the very least, of intervening in some way. Instead, they obeyed orders to stand down and watched thousands of unarmed civilians be gunned down. That wasn’t just morally indefensible. By the legal standards set at the Nuremberg Trials, following such orders is criminal. The principle established there is clear, you do not escape responsibility by obeying unlawful orders, especially when those orders involve turning your back on crimes against humanity. So yes, this is an indictment. Maybe not of every individual’s intent, but of the collective failure to act when it mattered most. And that failure wasn’t just a stain on their conscience. It meets the legal threshold of complicity in atrocity.
- Status