# Are Americans Paranoid?



## fenixpollo

Americans have been accused of many things: arrogance, imperialism, insensitivity, rudeness, stupidity...  I could go on and on.  

But in a thread on gun control, I started hearing comments that Americans are paranoid, and that the social atmosphere in the U.S. is one of fear, where people are guarded in new situations, not trusting of strangers, wary of their neighbors and in a state of constant, low-level fear for their safety.  

Is this true?


----------



## alexacohen

What a question, Fenixpollo. Some Americans are paranoid, some are not. The same as everywhere else. 
There are sure more paranoid people in America than in Spain; but Spain is much smaller, has less population, and we do not make so much noise.
Alexa
Whoops. By noise I mean that everything that happens in the U.S. is big news.


----------



## JamesM

Why do you say that? What do you _really _mean? 

I suppose an American is the last person to be able to comment on whether Americans are paranoid or not. The culture varies quite a bit from place to place. People in big cities are more wary than people in small towns. I know that from personal experience. People in the south seem to have a strong bent towards being hospitable, gracious and "chummy" with complete strangers, which is both charming and a bit unsettling to me. 

Whether as a culture we are paranoid, I can't say. I think we are going through a period where we are much more wary of "foreigners" than usual as a result of 9/11, but in everyday affairs it doesn't affect anything. I know I was slightly taken aback when the X-ray technician at Heathrow airport was in full Middle Eastern dress, including burka. After my initial reaction I thought about it and decided it was a silly reaction, but it was an unconscious one.

I come from a small town and now live in a suburb of probably the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. When I return to my hometown, things are much the same as they used to be. It's hard to walk a block without getting stopped three times to be greeted by someone and visit for a while. On the other hand, I have almost no idea who my neighbors are where I live now, other than the ones to each side of my house. I know a few people down the block and in the general neighborhood through my children, but we don't talk at all.

I don't lock my front door unless I'm going on vacation.  My back door doesn't even lock.   I don't own a gun and wouldn't even consider owning one.

I'll be very interested to see what others have to say about it. I don't know that it would be easy to be aware of being paraniod if it were actually ingrained in the culture. It might take outside eyes to see it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Idle supposition and prejudicial stereotypes are alive and well.   Let's add this bit of nonsense to the broken old
assumptions about English cooking and French hygiene and other twaddle.  My neighbors don't own guns. We leave our doors unlocked most of the time, and have no fear of attack.  Our biggest problem is tourism.

When I was in (xxxxx =southern European country) I grew accustomed to seeing bits of broken glass bottles embedded in walls around houses.  On both sides of the US Mexican border I've seen bars on first floor windows, just as I've seen in South and Central American countries.  People in big cities around the world often have more than one lock on their apartment doors.

Does this indicate paranoia, or problem avoidance and prudence?

I have never seen a need to own a gun for self-defense.  Those people I know who have guns own hunting rifles, which they use to supplement the family diet with deer meat.  

Maybe the Martians have avoided an invasion of Mid-coast Maine for fear of being invited to eat venison.  Clearly the hunting arms don't dissuade them.  Yes, I can prove that as easily as someone can prove that the population of my nation lives in fear.

Just trust me.


----------



## übermönch

Irrational fear is common to all western societies. You should have seen what's been going on in Germany after the Chernobyl disaster or during the bird influenza on other end of the globe. I honestly don't believe the opposition to gun control in USA makes it's inhabitants extraordinary paranoid, as the fear of getting shot is perfectly justified by the very same presence of guns in every household. 
Though, indeed, I would daresay that the 9/11 outsparked a public paranoia, as did the Madrid train station bombings.


----------



## JamesM

> ...as the fear of getting shot is perfectly justified by the very same presence of guns in every household.


 
Just as a point of fact, there are not "guns in every household." There are some households with five, ten, or twenty guns and there are many households with no guns. It probably averages out to a gun per household, but "a gun in every household" sounds like we believe them to be an essential appliance, like a refrigerator.  I can assure you that we don't, at least not all of us.

I got the following statistic from this site:

In the *United States* the *percentage of households* with any type of *gun* (about 36 *percent*) is two to three times greater than for our peer nations.

So it still is the case that there are more households without a gun than with, nearly two to one.


----------



## heidita

> I started hearing comments that Americans are paranoid


 
I think the Americans have a lot of stress. Vacations do not exist a such like here in Europe (as I was told on a visit) where even the first year of a new job you have a 30 day vacation. 

I think this has something to do with the people getting paranoid. I have seldom heard of somebody going crazy for no apparent reason at all like this young man killing 30 fellow students. 

I also believe that the Americans think themselves paranoid. As I have only just read that like 50 % of the population has a shrink. That's right out unbelievable. ( I am sorry, can't find the link )



> Nearly half of Americans have had someone in their household seek mental health treatment


----------



## cuchuflete

Well, as long as we are collecting and propagating rumors, how about the well-established fact that all
 residents of _________, when vacationing in country ___________, consume extraordinary amounts of ______?


How many shrinks would a population of 300 million require to service half the population?
JamesM has already debunked the absolute falsehood about every American household having a gun.

People will believe silly rumors because they choose to embrace these, not because there is truth to them.



> Other countries have wide variations in the number of psychiatrists per 100,000 of population: Canada 12, Australia 10.6, New Zealand 4.3, Holland 12, and Great Britain 4. Currently, we have about 14 psychiatrists per 100,000 in the U.S., 16 if child psychiatrists are included.





> There are approximately 39,000 psychiatrists and another 6,000 child psychiatrists for a total of 45,000


source


----------



## cirrus

The current US government has done absolutely nothing for US PR.  The slight matter of waging war with a country which had no relationship whatsoever with 9 11 has given many thinking people (whether enemies or not) the impression that the US is driven and consumed by psychosis and paranoia.


----------



## alexacohen

> Throw a stone in Buenos Aires, and you may well hit a psychoanalyst. A hostile act, but the shrink will be there to consult. The city has one of the densest concentrations of Freudian therapists in the world, says Mariano Plotkin, editor of *Argentina on the Couch: Psychiatry, State, and Society, 1880 to the Present* (University of New Mexico Press).


Well, if we are to speak about psychiatrics...
Alexa


----------



## Musical Chairs

Quite honestly, I'm not at all paranoid about my personal safety.


----------



## JamesM

cirrus said:


> The current US government has done absolutely nothing for US PR. The slight matter of waging war with a country which had no relationship whatsoever with 9 11 has given many thinking people (whether enemies or not) the impression that the US is driven and consumed by psychosis and paranoia.


 
I can't say I blame them. I had the same reaction. I remember a friend asking me about the Iraq war when it happened, asking what I thought about it? I said, "What happened to Afghanistan? How did we suddenly jump focus several thousand miles and attack an unrelated country?"  Not just people outside the U.S. saw the switch to Iraq as bizarre.

We have an administration that has been running full-speed in their own direction despite the mounting concerns of the public and Congress. The most recent congressional election makes it very clear that the American public changed what they could change by vote. The next presidential election will be interesting to watch. I can't imagine how anyone crying "Stay the course!" could possibly be elected now.

I don't know that this has anything to do with the average American's sense of paranoia. I can understand where it would leave an impression that we are paranoid, though.


----------



## TrentinaNE

fenixpollo said:


> the social atmosphere in the U.S. is one of fear, where people are guarded in new situations, not trusting of strangers, wary of their neighbors and in a state of constant, low-level fear for their safety.


I don't know whether this is any more true of the U.S. than other countries, but the idea that certain U.S. corporate and political interests find it valuable to *promote* a culture of fear is not a new one.  A certain movie with the word "Bowling" in its title argued that thesis quite vigorously.

Elisabetta


----------



## LouisaB

I think this is a ridiculous and decidedly offensive generalisation. 

I accept the word 'paranoid' here is probably not being used in its true psychiatric sense of a mental disorder accompanied by delusions, but it still implies a fear which is totally unwarranted.

So what if Americans _are_ worried about terrorism? Haven't they a right to be? A nation that's suffered an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 has every right to take what precautions it chooses, without anybody throwing accusations of 'paranoia' about. It's true the British press has made snide comments about decline in visitors from the US whenever we have a terrorist incident here, and contrasted that with the British response, but in truth it's different for us. We have lived with being a target of terrorism for many years, and we're used to it. I suspect the US will soon acquire the same blasé attitude, although I hope very much they wom't have to.

As to fear of neighbours, etc, it's already clear from this thread that this is far from being a true picture of the US as a whole. Yes, I'm sure there are neighbourhoods in the US where this is the case, but aren't there everywhere? Again, I'd say that's not paranoia anyway, it's possibly a reaction to a real threat. I've been burgled twice lately, once while I was actually in the house, and now my home resembles Fort Knox. I don't think I'm paranoid, just sensible.

Low-level fear for one's safety is common in Britain too, largely due to media reporting of crime. Old people have an unusually high fear of crime, even though statistically they're least likely to fall victim to it. Paranoid - or just a natural reaction to hysterical reporting and skewed presentation in the media?

No, fenixpollo. I don't think the accusation is remotely true.

Louisa


----------



## cirrus

Oh I'm sorry I'll just mount a vendetta against a country headed up by a dictator I used to sell arms to.  Paranoid, what are you saying?  I've just been talking to god and he says it's alright.


----------



## Musical Chairs

I think that if Americans were paranoid because of every incident that happened (9/11, school shooting, bomb, etc), they would have no life. It doesn't happen every day, and those things can happen anywhere, anytime. It would be like never leaving your house because you just *might* get shot.

The general atmosphere in the US is relaxed, and most people trust strangers. I think the only time the average person in a certain area would be scared for their safety (temporarily) is when something bad just happened there.


----------



## ireney

Cirrus we are talking about all the millions of Americans here.  I don't know enough to have enough data for a statistic's report, but those I do know have no problem whatsoever with strangers and live their lives without thinking about being targets of terrorist atacks or anything of the kind for years on end .

I find it extremely hard to believe that a whole nation (even a small one) really believes that everyone's out to get them and live their lives looking over their shoulders and I am glad to day that none of those I know personally or via the internet show any signs of paranoia. There are bound to be some in the US. There are also bound to be really mentally unstable people who suffer from literal paranoia. Im afraid you can get both in every country in the world.


----------



## faranji

I saw fenceless houses in the middle of nowhere. Huge lower windows, bars nowhere to be seen. Flimsy lattice doors. Wide open barns and garages. As a native to one of those Mediterranean countries where people decorate the high walls around their houses with a glass-shard topping, I didn't find Americans paranoid about their personal safety. As a matter of fact, I found them a bit too carefree regarding this issue. All of my American friends and acquaintances lived in houses it'd take a one-arm burglar a couple of minutes to break into.


----------



## TRG

This thread is a serious challenge to the saying "there is no such thing as a stupid question." The notion expressed by some here that this has anything to do with American foreign policy is no less assinine.


----------



## cuchuflete

Oh come on TRG, haven't you noticed, as a fellow card-carrying paranoid—and as we've been told, we are all that by definition, just as we carry our multiple automatic concealed weapons to and from our shrink appointments—that some folks will take just about any thread topic as an excuse to ride their favorite horse?

I don't disagree with the disagreement with W, but I fully agree with you that it has diddly squat to do with the supposed paranoia of my fellow citizens.  

To be sure, when I was a kid I owned a daisy air rifle that could propel a clump of dirt about twenty feet, on a less-than-straight line.  I played politically incorrect games with it at age 8, and sometimes tried to shoot small crab apples at galvanized trash cans.  This must be proof that foreign policy and national paranoia and peanut butter have a common heritage.  

Or that they don't.


----------



## cirrus

I am not saying Americans are paranoid, what I am saying is that aspects of their government's foreign policy shows paranoid tendencies.  

I am assuming we are sufficiently sophisticated to differentiate between government and people. Or am I being paranoid?


----------



## cuchuflete

cirrus said:


> I am not saying Americans are paranoid, *what I am saying is that aspects of their government's foreign policy shows paranoid tendencies.  *
> 
> I am assuming we are sufficiently sophisticated to differentiate between government and people. Or am I being paranoid?



I am assuming that you are welcome to open another thread to discuss a topic dear to your heart, and which has nothing at all to do with the thread topic in the first post.  Now if you read Fenixpollo's question as pertaining to Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and not the other 300 million folks who live in the US, I suppose you are fully justified in discussing foreign policy, despite the absolute lack of any mention of foreign policy in the thread opener.

Should we also include Gordon Brown's plans for the NHS in this thread?  
You are not being paranoid....just a few light years off topic.


----------



## ernest_

I reckon there is certainly some degree of paranoia about communism in America, which has always amused me. I mean, you can hear all kinds of utterly ridiculous theories involving communists over there. One guy, quite well educated by the way, told me with absolutely no sense of irony that the metric system was a communist plot. But, other than that I wouldn't call them paranoid. I'll tell you what but, a bit of paranoia has never hurt anybody. It could be even healthy. I think that they work too much, but that's another story.


----------



## cuchuflete

> One guy, quite well educated by the way, told me with absolutely no sense of irony that the metric system was a communist plot.



No quite so well educated, by the way, if he said such a thing.  Are you mistaking ignorance for paranoia?


----------



## TRG

Some may be interested in knowing that the interest in American paranoia is not so new. See here.


----------



## }{SPQR}{

LouisaB said:


> I think this is a ridiculous and decidedly offensive generalisation.
> 
> I accept the word 'paranoid' here is probably not being used in its true psychiatric sense of a mental disorder accompanied by delusions, but it still implies a fear which is totally unwarranted.
> 
> So what if Americans _are_ worried about terrorism? Haven't they a right to be? A nation that's suffered an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 has every right to take what precautions it chooses, without anybody throwing accusations of 'paranoia' about. It's true the British press has made snide comments about decline in visitors from the US whenever we have a terrorist incident here, and contrasted that with the British response, but in truth it's different for us. We have lived with being a target of terrorism for many years, and we're used to it. I suspect the US will soon acquire the same blasé attitude, although I hope very much they wom't have to.
> 
> As to fear of neighbours, etc, it's already clear from this thread that this is far from being a true picture of the US as a whole. Yes, I'm sure there are neighbourhoods in the US where this is the case, but aren't there everywhere? Again, I'd say that's not paranoia anyway, it's possibly a reaction to a real threat. I've been burgled twice lately, once while I was actually in the house, and now my home resembles Fort Knox. I don't think I'm paranoid, just sensible.
> 
> Low-level fear for one's safety is common in Britain too, largely due to media reporting of crime. Old people have an unusually high fear of crime, even though statistically they're least likely to fall victim to it. Paranoid - or just a natural reaction to hysterical reporting and skewed presentation in the media?
> 
> No, fenixpollo. I don't think the accusation is remotely true.
> 
> Louisa




Here here. Personally generalizations should be shot down. Any generalizations about anything can hurt. Saying ALL Americans are paranoid is false. Saying some Americans are paranoid is true.It's like saying that all French men wear a Beret and have a baguette, newspaper, and a litter of wine under their arm. 

    Generalizations are natural for humans to make. Why don't we just become better? Instead of saying the Germans wanted to conquer the world let's say Hitler and his administration wanted to conquer the world. Instead of saying the French wanted to conquer the world under the reign of Napoleon let's say that Napoleon wanted to conquer the world. Personally, It's stupid to tag people with their nation's history. Here's a little scenario. 

 Felix was just born in Vietnam. His certificate was made and he was officially a citizen of Vietnam. Later on in his life he traveled to the United States, where he learned english and went to college. While at college he got lots of pressure from many different people. They constantly insulted him because of his automatically tagged history. Felix is a great guy. He's never gotten into a fight he has an American girl friend he's studying to become a lawyer, yet because of his history which he can't change he's persecuted.

 Seriously people. You can't judge people by their nationality. You have to judge each person by their character and their actions. Sure, there are things that are unique for the French, the Spanish, the english, and the Americans, but to generalize the character of each and every person by their nationality is personally, a sin. 

   I refute any claims that "Americans are paranoid."

SPQR


----------



## Kajjo

Paranoid is a hard word and I have no indications whatsoever that Americans are paranoid, or that they are more paranoid as Europeans.

Different people are different. American are different in some ways, very similar in other aspects. 

Kajjo


----------



## Musical Chairs

}{SPQR}{ said:


> to generalize the character of each and every person by their nationality is personally, a sin.



It's not a sin, but it's ignorance. So whatever.


----------



## Brixta

Kajjo, I agree with you 100%.

I also think that what´s really to blame is the worldwide media. They show what is convenient for their respective goverments. People in general tend to think whatever it´s on tv it´s true and that´s it. No second thoughts about what they are told and view.

The media is a really powerfull tool and is used to brainwash all of us. SOme people take, some people don´t.

First time I went to America I was expecting it to be like in the movies.  (I was 16 then)


----------



## }{SPQR}{

Musical Chairs said:


> It's not a sin, but it's ignorance. So whatever.




What I mean is to judge someone's character by their nationality is a sin. In my book that is.


----------



## maxiogee

I doubt a whole nation could be described as paranoid.
Many people are often described as being paranoid for a while after particular notorious incidents - the media coverage of such incidents (be they mass murders, serial killings, disappearing children or just a spike in the burglary figures) heightens people's fears that they will fall victim to these problems. They usually settle back down to a more normal state of concern about these matters.

Are they therefore to be termed 'paranoid' - suffering from "_a psychological disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or grandeur"_? That's a big leap to make for a whole country.

I'd give a large amount of money to see something which proved conclusively that all Americans, or any other grouping, are X - with X being anything other than human.


----------



## alexacohen

ernest_ said:


> I reckon there is certainly some degree of paranoia about communism in America, which has always amused me. I mean, you can hear all kinds of utterly ridiculous theories involving communists over there. One guy, quite well educated by the way, told me with absolutely no sense of irony that the metric system was a communist plot. But, other than that I wouldn't call them paranoid. I'll tell you what but, a bit of paranoia has never hurt anybody.


Come on, Ernest. If you can tag silly theories silly individuals say as "paranoia about communism" in America, please read the silly theories said by silly individuals in Spain about 11-M and classify all of us as paranoid as well,
Alexa


----------



## Qcumber

The first time I was in the US, I was living with a host family. 

One day, the husband asked me in private to put paper bags on a bunch of sunflowers. I didn't know they were their neighbours' since there was no fence. As I thought he wanted to collect the seeds, I asked for pieces of string to secure the bags. He said he couldn't care less for the seeds; he just could no longer stand the sunflowers watching him, and didn't have the courage to cover their "faces" with the bags himself!

Another time, I dreamt of a storm, and that a branch of the big tree near the sidewalk broke into their kids' room, and took them away. I told my dream at breakfast, and he immediately threatened townhall he'd saw the tree down if they didn't do it themselves!

Apart from these freakish episodes, he was a normal guy.


----------



## }{SPQR}{

There are phsyco's in the world. Not only in the States.


----------



## fenixpollo

LouisaB said:


> I accept the word 'paranoid' here is probably not being used in its true psychiatric sense of a mental disorder accompanied by delusions, but it still implies a fear which is totally unwarranted.
> 
> No, fenixpollo. I don't think the accusation is remotely true.


 Thanks for seeing that I was not intending to ask if Americans are clinically paranoid to the extent that we should all seek psychiatric help and possibly be committed to a mental institution for our own safety.


Musical Chairs said:


> The general atmosphere in the US is relaxed, and most people trust strangers. I think the only time the average person in a certain area would be scared for their safety (temporarily) is when something bad just happened there.


 So generally, if I go walking one evening in the Bronx, I'll trust strangers and be relaxed to the same degree as if I took the same walk in Boulder?


TRG said:


> This thread is a serious challenge to the saying "there is no such thing as a stupid question." The notion expressed by some here that this has anything to do with American foreign policy is no less assinine.


 There are stupid questions, TRG. A stupid question is one that is asked even though the person asking already knows the answer. Any question that is asked with a valid reason and a sincere desire to learn, is not a stupid question -- no matter how obvious the answer may seem to you.

*If* the answer to the question is "yes", that Americans are, in general, more fearful than people in other countries, then the discussion about American foreign policy is very relevant. Many people are saying that the reason that we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was because the government used fear of terrorism to manipulate the Congress and the people into supporting a war they would not have otherwise. If we were already prone to fear, this would be an easier sell. 





}{SPQR}{ said:


> but to generalize the character of each and every person by their nationality is personally, a sin.


 So, if I make a generalization about Americans and say that we tend to be industrious, more independent and individualistic than many other cultures, then I've committed a sin? Does that mean I'm going to Hell? 





> Personally generalizations should be shot down. Any generalizations about anything can hurt.


 I'll save you a seat.


----------



## Musical Chairs

So generally, if I go walking one evening in the Bronx, I'll trust strangers and be relaxed to the same degree as if I took the same walk in Boulder?

Why not? Do you seriously think you're more likely to get shot in Boulder than in the Bronx?? Edit: not shot, but just general bad feelings about your safety


----------



## }{SPQR}{

fenixpollo said:


> So, if I make a generalization about Americans and say that we tend to be industrious, more independent and individualistic than many other cultures, then I've committed a sin? Does that mean I'm going to Hell? I'll save you a seat.



No, When i say it's a sin I'm talking about judging people's character by their nationality. It is true that Americans tend to be more industrious, independent, and individualistic, but not all. Let me rephrase what I said. 

"In my book, Making generalizations about each and everybody's character according to their nationality is a sin."

  For example. Joe shmoe is an American. Great so if we conclude that Joe shmoe is like any other American then he's industrious, independent, and individualistic, but in sooth Joe Shmoe is a lazy bum. He sits on his couch all day. 

Tendencies. If we look at Joe Shmoe again this time let's use some tendencies. Since Americans tend to be Industrious etc... Joe shmoe could be that type of person. Also since Americans tend to be overweight then we could also assume that Joe Shmoe could be overweight. If you see what I mean either way it's "possible" that his is one thing or another according to his nationality, but that doesn't mean that he is. 

Also before you start saying any body's going to hell let's look at what I said. "in my book" I'm not talking about the bible. Also, there's no need for snide remarks.

SPQR


----------



## Fernando

The thesis of "paranoic America" has been (successfully) marketed by Michael Moore and is now the general, popular wisdom explanation to everything US or his citizens do.

I disagree, for the sweeping generalization and because, if US is paranoyd, what is Switzerland?


----------



## }{SPQR}{

Fernando said:


> The thesis of "paranoic America" has been (successfully) marketed by Michael Moore and is now the general, popular wisdom explanation to everything US or his citizens do.
> 
> I disagree, for the sweeping generalization and because, if US is paranoyd, what is Switzerland?




So true. I have my reasons...


----------



## xrayspex

_I have seldom heard of somebody going crazy for no apparent reason at all like this young man killing 30 fellow students. 
_ 

Guns have been romanticized in literature and media for decades.   Crimes involving guns are very dramatic, and draw a lot of attention.   To put it into perspective, however, during the approximately 3 hour period that a mentally disturbed person went on a dramatic killing spree, the same number of people were killed by drunk drivers.   One event is so rare that it merits days of media coverage in every country in the world.  The other so commonplace that only the families of those involved are even aware of it.   The dramatic killing spree is a one-time event.  The carnage from drunk drivers goes on, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Why the disparity?


----------



## xrayspex

*Are Americans Paranoid?* 

Well, you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you. Are you? 

Apparently gullability and believing everything you see on TV isn't solely an American affliction. It's pretty funny to see people criticizing American culture because of what they see on the news and in movies. 

*TODAY 297,345,844 PEOPLE WERE NOT KILLED BY GUNS*

Doesn't make for a very compelling headline, does it?


----------



## Sallyb36

xrayspex said:


> _I have seldom heard of somebody going crazy for no apparent reason at all like this young man killing 30 fellow students.
> _
> 
> Guns have been romanticized in literature and media for decades.   Crimes involving guns are very dramatic, and draw a lot of attention.   To put it into perspective, however, during the approximately 3 hour period that a mentally disturbed person went on a dramatic killing spree, the same number of people were killed by drunk drivers.   One event is so rare that it merits days of media coverage in every country in the world.  The other so commonplace that only the families of those involved are even aware of it.   The dramatic killing spree is a one-time event.  The carnage from drunk drivers goes on, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Why the disparity?



The dramatic killing spree is not a one-time event though is it?  

Evidently drink driving is also very wrong, and people guilty of this should be punished, as they are in charge of a potentially lethal weapon under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## Kajjo

xrayspex said:


> Crimes involving guns are very dramatic, and draw a lot of attention.   To put it into perspective, however, during the approximately 3 hour period that a mentally disturbed person went on a dramatic killing spree, the same number of people were killed by drunk drivers.   One event is so rare that it merits days of media coverage in every country in the world.  The other so commonplace that only the families of those involved are even aware of it.   The dramatic killing spree is a one-time event.  The carnage from drunk drivers goes on, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  Why the disparity?


The disparity you mention is easy to explain: Driving has an important function in everyday life. Driving is necessary, almost all people need to drive for several reasons. I am very strictly opposed to drunken driving, but it is a side-effect of millions of people in need of a car that some people will abuse it in some way. However, possessing a gun is not necessary for a normal person, shooting even less necessary in everyday life -- as can be seen by the fact that in many European countries no guns are allowed, but daily life is equally well led.

The disparity is: There would be almost no negative effect if private person were not allowed to own guns. There would be tremendous change of life if no cars were allowed.

Kajjo


----------



## }{SPQR}{

Sallyb36 said:


> The dramatic killing spree is not a one-time event though is it?
> 
> Evidently drink driving is also very wrong, and people guilty of this should be punished, as they are in charge of a potentially lethal weapon under the influence of alcohol.



There's not much you can do to punish a dead body. 
And for those that still live, they'll be out of prison in a few years terrorizing the streets.

In the end what would stop it all would be to ban the evil substance. You know there would be no need for punishments if everyone followed the rules. 
SPQR


----------



## xrayspex

_There would be almost no negative effect if private person were not allowed to own guns._ 
To you.  

There ARE alternatives to cars, you know.  It is not only possible, but actually a very very good idea to have only public transportation, with each driver a well-trained and thoroughly background-checked professional (with a uniform and badge if that makes you feel better.)  This would virtually eliminate drunk driving, affect people only in minimal or acceptable ways, and help the environment as well.  It's also cheaper, etc.  If you want to save the world (or just give advice to people in other countries) maybe you could start there. 

But don't stop there, of course.  Bullfighting is cruel, barbaric, and completely unnecessary.  Petition our Latin friends to end this useless practice, which does no good for anyone. 

Football/Soccer matches have become forums for hooligans and bullies to take out their animosity on others.  MANY people are killed, many other injured.  Football is not necessary; it only inflates the national pride of people who are too lazy to exercise for themselves.   It serves no useful purpose for any society.  Let's end it now, and save many lives.  Besides, I don't like it, I don't understand it, and I think I should be able to tell people in other countries how best to lives their lives and raise their children.


----------



## lizzeymac

fenixpollo said:


> So generally, if I go walking one evening in the Bronx, I'll trust strangers and be relaxed to the same degree as if I took the same walk in Boulder?



I am a born & bred New Yorker.  I wonder, am I being paranoid?

How about you pick on your own state if you feel the irresistible need to take a cheap shot at a neighborhood?  
How about you rephrase that to:



> So generally, if I go walking one evening in _the Roosevelt section of Phoenix AZ_, I'll trust strangers and be relaxed to the same degree as if I took the same walk in Boulder?


The Bronx is a beautiful, vibrant, family-friendly, multi-cultural place to live & work & visit.  There are several museums, The New York Botanical Gardens & the Bronx Zoo & The Cloisters, historic mansions, huge green parks, riding stables, golf courses, art galleries, amazing restaurants, cultural & community centers, colleges, dance & theater companies.......!

There are as many high crime neighborhoods in the other boroughs as there are in the Bronx.  There are a few places in Manhattan & Westchester & New Jersey that are in my personal experience every bit as dangerous, if not more, as some places in the Bronx. 

It's bad enough that some ignorant idiot in the German Army is spouting such crap but do I have to hear this from a fellow American as well?

Paranoid? No.
Out of patience? Yes.


----------



## heidita

xrayspex said:


> Besides, I don't like it, I don't understand it, and I think I should be able to tell people in other countries how best to lives their lives and raise their children.


 
I agree, let's ban, or abolish or get rid of everything xray doesn't understand or like!


----------



## heidita

lizzeymac said:


> The Bronx is a beautiful, vibrant, family-friendly, multi-cultural place to live & work & *visit**.*


Now that really does surprise me. I visited New York once and was actually very interested to visit the Bronx. But there was no way somebody would take me. It was easy to see Harlem, but nobody would take a foreigner to the Bronx. 
I don't believe you, I am sorry.  And I do not mean to be offensive.


----------



## Jalisco07

Why is everybody judging a people because of the unwise acts of their government? I find Americans, if we are to speak in psychiatric terms, mostly friendly and somehow hysteric. They have to invent themselves everyday, every morning. It's easy, from an European country, where we still have some family traditions, to judge them for their amnesy of their own selves.


----------



## xrayspex

_I find Americans, if we are to speak in psychiatric terms, mostly friendly and somehow hysteric._ 

Where did you meet the Americans that you're basing your opinion on?   This isn't criticism!  But be aware that Americans who travel to Europe tend to be either young carefree students (not representative of the average) or older wealthy people.  We're a long way from Europe, and it's too expensive for the average person here to travel there.   I've always thought that the image of the obnoxious/ugly American mostly came from the fact that our self-appointed representatives WERE obnoxious and rude, but not because they're American... because they're wealthy and privileged, and that's how they behave here too.   

If your opinions were formed by visiting here...  uh... never mind.


----------



## Jalisco07

Well, I have friends in America from coast to coast. I've been living in the US several times for periods going to one month to three. I'd published several outstanding American authors, among them E. L. Doctorow, in Spanish. I had traveled the "Wild West" by car, been to Rockies.

And when I say "hysteric" I'm not trying to be dismisive, I have not in mind a nervous and irreflexive person: I have in mind people who have to start anew everyday, people looking for an identity --a personal identity, not that of a nation-- all the time.

Sorry if I sounded rude. I do like Americans.


----------



## lizzeymac

heidita said:


> Now that really does surprise me. I visited New York once and was actually very interested to visit the Bronx. But there was no way somebody would take me. It was easy to see Harlem, but nobody would take a foreigner to the Bronx.
> I don't believe you, I am sorry.  And I do not mean to be offensive.



I don't think you mean to be offensive or unpleasant at all, really. 
You are merely confirming, by your own admission, that you have no idea what you are talking about, as you have been to NY "once" & to the Bronx, never.  As I have lived in NYC for 47 years, I know a bit more about it than you do.
So, what you choose to believe about a place you have never been to is entirely up to you.  

I am sorry no one you know would take you anywhere in the Bronx. 
Like pretty much every large city in the world, there are great areas in the Bronx & lousy areas in the Bronx.  If you ever come to NY again, email me - I'll take you to visit all the great places in NYC.


----------



## fenixpollo

lizzeymac said:


> It's bad enough that some ignorant idiot in the German Army is spouting such crap but do I have to hear this from a fellow American as well?
> 
> Paranoid? No.
> Out of patience? Yes.


 Where in my post did I suggest that the Bronx is not safe? I've never walked in either Boulder or the Bronx, and I don't know which is safer than which.  I chose them for the alliteration, because they're in different regions and because one is urban and one is not.  My purpose was to make previous posters examine their own generalizations.  

Before you call me an idiot, examine your own assumptions.


----------



## jlc246

> But be aware that Americans who travel to Europe tend to be...


 
People who took their opinions about Americans from watching me when I recently had the wonderful opportunity to visit Europe would probably think that we are cranky, bossy, and red-faced, but not paranoid. If they knew me better, they might realize that I was very short on sleep, being "mom" to several 13 year olds from a Latin class, frequently embarassed when I wondered if I said something horribly rude while trying to use my six words in another language to say "thank you" and "I am allergic to milk products," and not paranoid. 

I am in love with the Meditteranean Sea. Maybe it has something to do with growing up near an ocean with hills and windy roads. Or with the colors. Or the light. Or the citrus trees. Or being American. Or being paranoid? 

Also, I can't spell, and have to look up every other word in a dictionary. Maybe Americans can't spell? Or maybe we are just paranoid about not being able to spell!


----------



## heidita

lizzeymac said:


> As I have lived in NYC for 47 years, I know a bit more about it than you do.


 
I suppose you should.


> So, what you choose to believe about a place you have never been to is entirely up to you.


 
I don't _choose to believe_ without even contrasting. People called me crazy to want to visit the Bronx. No taxi driver would take me, not for a visit. I am, of course, talking about Americans. They should know, too, don't you think? If they thought I was crazy and found it was a much too dangerous place, I , yes, _chose to believe_ what I was told by the Americans I spoke to, except you, of course.

I don't know if there is anybody else from NY here. Would you visit the place without any doubt?


----------



## cuchuflete

My personal paranoia doesn't extend as far as the Bronx.  My father grew up there.  One of my sons goes to university there today.  I have been there many dozens of times, to the nice residential neighborhoods, Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds when the Mets played there, the Botanical Gardens,  and to the vibrant area where my uncle lived for most of his 80+ years.  There are a few sections I would avoid, but I never felt fear walking blocks to or from my car at night.  I also enjoyed running in the Heptagonals (cross country race) at Van Cortlandt Park when I was a college student.  

I was never mugged, accosted, or in any way bothered there, and people were consistently friendly.


----------



## nurirgendwo

I have a question:  How do you evaluate the mental state of each individual in a country of over 300 million people?

I see the people in this thread generating their opinions from the americans they see on TV, the americans they meet in person, the atmosphere of a particular american city.  But does any of that really give you an accurate sampling of the millions of people you haven't seen or met from america?

Mathematically speaking, an individual could never amass any amount of data on the subject to be statistically significant.
Let's say you conducted interviews with 500 americans a week, every week until you died 80 years later to determine each one's state of paranoia and document the findings.  By the end, you would have wound up evaluating less than 1% of America.. (not even accounting for births and deaths)

With experience comes the strong feeling that you are right in your opinions, but in the end all you have is a generalization.


----------



## .   1

nurirgendwo said:


> I have a question: How do you evaluate the mental state of each individual in a country of over 300 million people?


Well spotted but a perusal of this thread will reveal about a dozen versions of your opinion.  Mine being one of them.

.,,


----------



## nurirgendwo

. said:


> Well spotted but a perusal of this thread will reveal about a dozen versions of your opinion.  Mine being one of them.
> .,,



Just adding some reinforcement to what I think is the only logical conclusion.  ;-)


----------



## lizzeymac

fenixpollo said:


> lizzeymac said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad enough that some ignorant idiot in the German Army is spouting such crap but do I have to hear this from a fellow American as well?
> 
> Paranoid? No.
> Out of patience? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in my post did I suggest that the Bronx is not safe? I've never walked in either Boulder or the Bronx, and I don't know which is safer than which.  I chose them for the alliteration, because they're in different regions and because one is urban and one is not.  My purpose was to make previous posters examine their own generalizations.
> 
> Before you call me an idiot, examine your own assumptions.
Click to expand...


As anyone can see from reading the your clip of my post, I _didn't _call you an idiot, I called someone else an idiot.  
I objected to your stereotyping The Bronx.




fenixpollo said:


> So generally, if I go walking one evening in the Bronx, I'll trust strangers and be relaxed to the same degree as if I took the same walk in Boulder?



As to The Bronx & Boulder (The City of Boulder, Colorado), now that you have explained that you don't know anything about what you were talking about, I understand perfectly.  You are telling me that a person reading the above quote should not think you meant that The Bronx was dangerous & Boulder wasn't.  
If you say so....
-


----------



## cherine

nurirgendwo said:


> I have a question: How do you evaluate the mental state of each individual in a country of over 300 million people?
> [...]
> Mathematically speaking, an individual could never amass any amount of data on the subject to be statistically significant.
> Let's say you conducted interviews with 500 americans a week, every week until you died 80 years later to determine each one's state of paranoia and document the findings. By the end, you would have wound up evaluating less than 1% of America.. (not even accounting for births and deaths)
> 
> With experience comes the strong feeling that you are right in your opinions, but in the end all you have is a generalization.


*Very wise  *

*I'd like to inform all interested parties that the forum guidelines have been updated.*
*Any further threads about cliches, prejudices, generalities... etc will be deleted.*

*I think we can use our energy and time for more fruitful discussions.*

*Thank you all.*


----------

