From Europe to Silicon Valley - things I do/don't like about USA | Hacker News Reader

From Europe to Silicon Valley - things I do/don't like about USA

filipmolcan.com

68 pointsevahenson110 comments

I think one of the big points that this article misses (I love these kinds of posts, though) is that the United States are crazy diverse. The post talks about it a little with regards to safety on the streets, but I mean in a broader context: Silicon Valley is hardly a microcosm of the entire country. States, regions, and cities have broadly differing cultures and atmospheres, sometimes even to the same extent as going from one country to the other (especially when it comes to climate.)

Given that the author said he had spent time in a great number of states, I was quite surprised by a lot of his points being seemingly so specific. I think that's one of the US's biggest advantages: five years in one city will leave you a different person than five years in another.

(Also, if you think people are friendly in SF, spend a weekend in South Carolina. You'll forget how not to smile.)

I wish the weather were so nice, and the people so friendly in Seattle. And only beer snobs are concerned about the head on their beers, as most people are drinking domestics and cheap microbrews directly from can or bottle.

I used to think it rude of baristas or burger clerks to check their phone while prepping my order, but instead now I check my phone at the same time. I think the key to it not being rude is to synchronize, so we all pop in and out of the conversation at the same time.

I've been living on the Eastside for almost half a year now, and I find people in the area extremely friendly. Also in Seattle.

I guess it's a matter of what we're comparing to. Compared to most southern Brazilian people, Seattleites are very, very friendly.

"Given that the author said he had spent time in a great number of states"

After reading some of the items I could not help but think that "spent time in a lot of states" was an exaggeration. That being said the problem with making generalizations about the US is one of my favorite things about the US; remarkable diversity of environment/culture/weather/architecture/etc.

> Everybody talks to everybody, people are very friendly to each other...

Dont get me wrong I like NYC but you cant spend much time in Manhattan and continue to hold this belief.

> It is almost always sunny. You don't need any forecast, it will be sunny and between 20-25 degrees Celsius. Every day. Great!

I live in Syracuse, NY, we compete with Seattle for least amount of sunny days in the continental US. The big difference from Seattle is that instead of rain we usually get 100+ inches of snow in winter. I want to move because of the weather in Syracuse.

> Can somebody explain to me why most of the houses are almost glued together so that I can reach my neighbour's wall?

Never visited the suburbs or any city in the midwest.

> Even local side roads look like our highways. All other roads are in great condition. Traffic is fluent, drivers are more respectful and chilled out.

Road condition: Never drove/rode on a highway in Pennsylvania or West Virginia. Traffic: Never drove in Boston or Manhattan or inside the beltway.

>> Everybody talks to everybody, people are very friendly to each other...

> Dont get me wrong I like NYC but you cant spend much time in Manhattan and continue to hold this belief.

Eh?! I think people in Manhattan are very friendly, probably more so than any other American city I've been to.

They're also often extremely blunt, of course, and won't hesitate to tell you if they think you're full of it, and if they're busy, well, they'll tell you that too, but in general New Yorkers seem quite outgoing and social. I've never talked to so many strangers in so many settings in such a short time as I have when visiting Manhattan. This was true everywhere, on the street, in cafes, in restaurants, on the phone (receptionist offers her opinion), waiting for the subway, on the subway, ...

I found the combination of bluntness and sociability pretty refreshing, especially compared to the constant "plastic smile" one finds in many other cities.

[A favorite incident: walking down the street in Manhattan on a hot summer's night, talking with my GF about a book I read. She reacts strongly (it was a scary scene)... two girls walking the other way jump in out of the blue: "Yo, what's up, what's wrong?!" ... "It's this book I read, she got scared" ... "What happened in it?" ... <describe scene> ... [girl 1:] "is that it?" [girl 2:] "No, no, actually that was kinda scary... what was that author's name? Have you read <other book>??" <etc etc>]

Maybe NYC has changed? My only visit was in 2009, but I found them to not be particularly unfriendly. I think you might be right about the bluntness, and as you say bluntness and friendliness aren't in opposition.

I was eager to get there since "at last, I can talk to someone at normal speed!"... but they still didn't talk fast enough. They could understand me at normal pace though, so that was enough :)

> Maybe NYC has changed?

I dunno; the first time I visited NYC was in 1989, the last time a few years ago. Details always vary of course, but the general vibe always seemed pretty much the same to me.

[By reputation, the 1970s were sort of a low point for NYC in general, but I don't know how that was reflected in peoples' behavior...]

I was a little suspicious of your initial reply but the "NYC in 1989 was all rainbows and smiles" was too much. 1989 was close to if not the peak of the crack epidemic in NYC. Its almost impossible to say crack epidemic and smile or think happy thoughts.

Have you ever experienced southern hospitality? Instead of rattling off a bunch of cities lets stick to the "Chars;" Charlotte, NC, Charlottesville, VA, Charleston, SC?

> I was a little suspicious of your initial reply but the "NYC in 1989 was all rainbows and smiles" was too much.

You were "suspicious"? So what, do you think I'm lying?

Anyway, I didn't say "NYC in 1989 was all rainbows and smiles," I said people were outgoing, sociable, and friendly. That certainly doesn't mean there wasn't any crime, or that there weren't social problems, but those things are not the same as an unfriendly populace.

My impression of NYC is probably more influenced by later visits, but I certainly don't recall any particular difference in people's overall demeanor in 1989 (and that would have been surprising; such things don't change quickly).

As a visitor I no doubt avoided the nastiest areas of the city, but spent quite a bit of time walking around in Manhattan (though the farthest north I ever got was just north of Columbia). And yeah, people were friendly. In 1989. In 1991. In 1994. ...etc...

Maybe you have a different opinion, but I very much stand by what I wrote.

"As a visitor I no doubt avoided the nastiest areas of the city"

That was so blatantly obvious that it is a little weird that you thought you needed to mention it.

I think its mind blowing that someone could think that the general vibe in NYC (let alone friendliest city in US) was the same in 89, 97, 01-02, 06, 09? If you dont like years that is crack epidemic, Giuliani crime cleanup, pre/post 9/11, bull market, and housing crash.

That's pretty true, a lot of his points are specific to some cities only. The only good point he makes, while not really making it, is that Americans are very religious, anywhere you go, even in the most civilized cities. Which is the thing I understand the less.

America was settled by people who got kicked out of their countries for being too religious.

Wasn't it for having a different religion than others?

I also think it is a bit unfair to the Czech Republic to be compared to such a large country.

When he talks about the traffic lights being placed across the intersection, he should come visit Denmark; that's how we do it here! And it's not that far from Czech Republic, and we also like good beer (unlike the Americans who just drink flavoured water).

unlike the Americans who just drink flavoured water

Or beer that is hopped to up to crazy levels without any consideration for things like flavor balance and finesse.

You can always opt to drink only Mexican beers there. Last time I was in the US, some of these beers were up to the level of European beer quality, some better, some worse, but in the same league.

Even in Europe, not every beer is good. There is a term "Eurobeer", and it is an insult, usually targeted at Heineken or SABMiller products (or beers from other breweries with similar quality).

Having better beer than Eurobeers is no problem then. Good beers, on the other hand, are really good.

Fair point. I considered only good European beers and good Mexican beers, not some products with high marketing and low quality. Unfortunately, when I was in US I didn't have a luck to try good US beer, and moved on to Mexican beers as soon as I discovered them.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/144/96

Try stuff like that and tell me its hopped up to crazy levels. As with everything in the US, location matters. Where I'm at in Minnesota, and being by Wisconsin, there are a metric ton of local breweries that put out lots of beers that you cannot buy more than a few states away. These breweries also pump out some of the best beers you can have.

If you're going to compare like to like, stop using crap like Budweiser and the other commercial stuff.

Well, the big brand beers lik Bud and Coors are rubbish, but you can find more unique wheat beers and local beers in most supermarkets, I've found.

California has one of the best beer scenes in the world. There is no kind of beer you can't find locally and lots of novel experimentation with the craft. Don't judge the US on Budweiser alone.

Stop by the Stone brewery or Russian River brewery if you want a mind-expanding beer experience. Although I find Europeans don't like as much variety in their beer as Americans.

And don't leave out Three Floyds.

In America, one can get many kinds of beer. One can get shitty American beer, beer that is crazy hopped up (as posted below), good American beer... and also the same exact beer you drink in Europe. We import too, you know.

I hope you are talking about real imports, and not just those Export brand ones. I mean; can you get a Leffe there?

Given that Leffe and Budweiser are owned by the same company (OK if you want to be technical, Leffe is owned by a company that's owned by a company that also owns the company that owns Budweiser), I imagine that that global distribution shouldn't be a problem.

"most of my time I had spent in California, therefore I will relate all my conclusions to it."

Europe is pretty diverse too: look at how many languages are spoken there, and how many different cultures there are. Thinking about the US, in some ways, it's pretty strange to consider that people across such a large swath of land speak the same language. Even the regional accents are quite a bit less varied than Italy's dialects and languages.

I'm Chinese American. My parents are from Taiwan. I was born in Phoenix. Among all the places I've traveled, I've found California and New York's racial diversity unmatched by any other part of the world. There is no other part in the world where you'll find Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Persians, Israelis, French, Mexican, Irish and so forth on the same road. I haven't seen it on the scale as it happens in Cal or NYC.

Have you been to Toronto or London?

Toronto is great, but I don't see it as more diverse than other big cities in the US, such as Boston, Chicago, or Washington.

From that point of view, yes, the US is likely more of a 'melting pot' than most of Europe. London is probably close. There's a lot of nuance to it, though - big cities are different than small towns, immigration patterns change over time, and so on.

The melting pot, to some degree, eliminates that diversity, though. After a generation or two, lots of people are unable to speak their parents/grandparents native language. Perhaps that's less true today, with cheap travel, the internet, and people placing more value on diversity and knowing more than one language - it'd be interesting to see some research. Anecdotally, a ton of the older Italian-Americans I've met don't speak Italian much - they wanted to blend in and not be 'foreigners', and only later in life realized that not speaking the language was a loss.

I've lived in both London and NYC. NYC feels more diverse simply because it's a bit strange to have loads of foreigners in the country when we know very well that it's very difficult to enter the country legally, whereas London is about 50/50 british to non-british. Not to mention, GB is comprised of England, Wales, Scotland, so you have that combined with the Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers, Italians, Germans, Irish, Spanish, Russians, etc. Not a day goes by that I'm working with a non-British citizen in London. Couldn't say the same for NYC.

Vancouver (and other areas in Canada, particularly Toronto) seems to be making a real go of it though....

[My impression was that in the days after the HK handover, it seemed like half of HK moved to Vancouver (I gather the Canadian government had unusually generous Visa policies), and that apparently really started a ball rolling; the last time I was there, it seemed amazingly diverse.]

Does racial diversity matter a great deal to you Americans? I find cultural diversity far more significant. Whether you can understand someone, or whether a thumbs up is a positive gesture or a grave insult to them. These things matter a great deal more than whether they have a pink face or a brown one.

When you look at a random central European city, and see Slovenes, Austrians, Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Serbs, Croats, Romanians, Germans, Russians, Poles, Italians, Macedonians, Bosnians, Ukranians, Moldovans, Estonians, Lithuanians, etc etc etc, do you think to yourself "Wow, there's no diversity at all here, is there? Everyone is white!" Then how about any random western European city, where you'll find the same mix, plus immigrants from their former colonies in Africa and Asia, plus the usual North Africans, does that almost meet your standards?

There are some very diverse countries in the world such as India, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, South Africa and DR Congo, all large (former) colonial empires in the old world. Some might even count the European Union, depending whether you think of it as a confederation or not. There is nothing like that in the Americas.

"Does racial diversity matter a great deal to you Americans?"

Given our peculiar history, yes, it means a lot.

Chicago has some spots diversity on that scale as well.

Maybe Toronto, Singapore, HK? But yeah I guess NYC and San Francisco are on the top 2.

I'd suggest you spend some time in Melbourne, Australia.

> States, regions, and cities have broadly differing cultures and atmospheres, sometimes even to the same extent as going from one country to the other (especially when it comes to climate.)

OT: I find it funny that as soon as a foreigner talks about "how the US is", Americans are all too eager to point out how diverse the US is and how it is hard to paint it in broad strokes. Meanwhile, Americans are all too glad to visit two European countries and relay their experiences by refering to the places they were as "Europe" and the people there as "Europeans". Europe, a continent that is in a whole other league then USA the country when it comes to diversity.

The USA is so vast and so diverse that it's very hard to make general statements that apply to all of it. While the author of this post claims to have seen quite a bit of America, a lot of what he says doesn't mesh with my experience on the east coast. I have never paid half price for food if I'm kept waiting, for example, and the weather here is humid and hot in the summer and bitter cold in the winter. Most roads are OK in urban areas but I've seen some truly dreadful roads in more rural areas. Most houses (excluding condos) here aren't glued together, either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, but things aren't quite as rosy here as they are on the west coast, especially in the Valley.

Not true. Vast yes, but diverse, not so much, unless you're specifically referring to wildlife and not to people. Coast to coast you'll find the same language, the same religion, the same sports, chains, food, traditions, holidays, it's all the same. To you, the differences between a Texan and a New Yorker may be huge, but to outsiders they're the same thing.

Travel the same distance in any direction in the old world and you'll find dozens or even hundreds of languages, completely unrelated cultures, cuisines, traditions.

Europeans often comment on flimsy US house construction. Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock. And also the propensity of Americans to tear it down and start over. There's less reason to build for forever in this case.

Another factor is seismic conditions (the OP was clearly most influenced by the Bay Area). Masonry or stone construction is incompatible with earthquakes.

Masonry or stone construction is incompatible with earthquakes

There's more to quality construction than building out of brick (although I think brick houses will ride out an earthquake a lot better than you imagine, as some of the oldest houses around the Bay Area are made out of brick). It's other things like the fact that you build houses with Tyvek instead of insulating them properly, crappy aliminum windows, and so on. People here tend to tear their houses down and start over because a lot of houses are so poorly built that they're not worth repairing, rather than out of any aesthetic impulse.

Many houses in the Bay Area are about as well insulated as a wooden shed, frankly. People seem comfortable to let it get 50° inside.

I once asked a Scot if they had any wooden houses back in his homeland. He replied "Yes, we keep our lawnmowers in them"...

Scottish house construction is definitely quite a bit flimsier now than it was 150-200 years ago though...

I lived in Edinburgh for a few years, and most of the apartments I lived in were built in the 19th century (maybe the 18th; I forget the details, but there were several major housing booms in Edinburgh back then). They all had walls made of stone blocks like half a meter thick, and that was typical for buildings from that era, which account for a huge proportion of the city-center housing stock. New suburban houses I saw, on the other hand, seemed liked they'd blow over in a stiff wind (something there was a plentiful supply of), and of course were ugly to boot...

[OTOH, it turned out that in one of the places I lived, the drinking-water tank was made of lead...! >< So if my comments seem kinda dumb... TT ]

I had a friend in Charlotte show me the panelling on his house - you could remove it with your hands (he pushed it right in with a mild press), pick out the insulation, and punch through the plasterboard inside. I've never before been in a house where you could break through a wall with your bare hands.

I don't think that house is up to code. At the very least there should be cement board behind the panelling.

But, I don't know anything. I grew up in Miami. A hurricane (Andrew) turned an entire town to kindling because the houses were so poorly constructed. Some of them had nothing but gravity holding the roof down.

One thing I do know is the next house I buy I'm building myself. I've rented far too many places that were so poorly constructed; it's indescribable. My last apartment was on 2 floors. Just walking around felt like there were giants over my head. The beams were so far apart you could feel the floor shift under your weight.

It was in a slightly upmarket housing estate type thing about 20 minutes drive out of the city - clipped lawns; all the houses look identical and made of premade plastic parts; you get a visit from some sort of supervisor if your bins are out one day too long. There wasn't that cement board - another house had lost one of its 'boards' and there was no such thing behind it. The house was certainly a rush job though - inside the power points were slightly off-plumb, that sort of thing. It was supposed to be a 'nice area' though. The house was kind of puzzling, given that.

> Perhaps it's because of the relative newness of most US housing stock.

No, brand new houses and apartment buildings in at least the Bay Area are of shoddy quality compared to brand new houses built to Northern European standards. Same goes for older houses. Doesn't matter if it's brick or wood or concrete, there's just a huge quality gap.

Some of it is explained by the climate, it always amuses me to see housing ads proudly proclaiming "double glazing!". Meanwhile, over here, triple glazing has been the legal minimum for decades, and older houses were required to retrofit it.

Some of it is explained by the british heritage, they can't build houses on the british isles either.

The rest, I don't know how to explain. I guess people simply don't know how good houses they could be having, and therefore don't crave it?

As a British person in Sweden I just had a chuckle out loud with my morning coffee reading your comment. Good stuff (I couldn't disagree more but good stuff nonetheless).

Double glazing is huge in the UK. I never actually heard about it in the US.

Maybe lowering the cost of construction by setting the quality bar lower is one of the factors behind the higher rate of home ownership in the US?

(I have relatives who, last I heard, live in trailers, err, manufactured homes, which I believe are pretty much unheard of as dwellings in northern Europe.)

Houses in the US are flimsy. Even brick homes are actually just 2x4s spaces 1.5 feet apart with insulation in between. The brick is just stack up on the outside with an air gap between. In Europe that entire space will often be completely solid.

I heard of a guy who built a German standard home in a hurricane zone in Florida (must have been insanely expensive). When the next hurricane did come the only damage to his house came from the shrapnel of broken apart american-style houses.

It's a difference in approach that is tied to time: suburban American houses were mostly built after forced air central heating, and in that kind of heating insulation is "less" important (the air mass is mixed and heated thoroughly, not the structure). Europeans still use radiators which means insulation is more important (a radiator next to an outside wall is radiating half of its heat toward the outside wall). But fundamentally it seems like a US apathy toward waste more than an improvement.

SF has historically shoddy construction due to the gold rush, mail order housing bought sight unseen, and a mild climate.

If I built a house in the US I would have it designed by a European.

Housing is one of those things that varies regionally. In Florida, no one builds with wood anymore - the next hurricane will knock your wooden house over. Almost all the buildings here have solid concrete or concrete block exterior walls.

So you are a straight European dude in your 20s-30s in one of the most lucrative and in-demand industries in the USA in SV/SF. This might give you a slight case of rose colored glasses. You might have seen in your travels to other parts of the country that many Americans do not have this standard of living. To be blunt, it is likely that minority women in the deep south would have a slightly different expierence.

The realitiy of living in the USA is : 1. Don't get sick. We don't want to pay for you to go see the doctor, even if it would save $millions in medical bills for diabetes/cancer/chronic disease. There is the legal obligation for any emergency room to stabilize you, but then they kick you out if you can't pay.

2. Don't have kids. Kids cost a fuckton, and the governmnet doesn't really want to pay for it, but they partially do through a clusterfuck of programs (WIC/CHIP et al). There is no legally-mandated Parental leave or anything, that is for those lazy Frenchmen.

3. Don't be a woman. People will make rape jokes about you all the time (hello microsoft, E3) and that would be just the start of it. Never mind access to affordible healthcare like cancer screening and abortion.

4. Be christian, or if that isn't possible be Jewish. Just don't be Athiest/Muslim/Hindu/Bhuddist/....

If you aren't Protestat Christian there is no chance you will be president, JFK excepted.

5. Belive that USA = #1. Keep that flag flying and that coolaid flowing.

Disclaimer: I'm just a white guy trying to get a PHD/marketable skills so I can leave this country and move 140 miles north to Vancouver. Yes I know Vancouver has a bit of a heroin/prostitution/housing problem, but it's better than the current situation.

I'd like to add a few points from my own experience:

Cars: In America/Golden Gate Park, people take their car into the park! They even park it right there, right next to where they have their picnic. Odd but understandable. In Europe cars are antithetical to nature and relaxation, something industrial you hide out of sight, while in the US they are (apparently) integral to it.

Hours. In the US/SF people 'like' to be in the office. It is practically their home when they are not commuting or sleeping. While on the weekends they go on trips to be away from home/the office (I could not imagine raising, rather than merely producing, a family in the US).

(all you say about the weather is true, unless you live in West SF. National parks are fabulous indeed!)

Poverty. Without being a Republican who believes the poor / racial minorities are to blame for their own d*mned fate, it is not possible to enjoy central San Francisco. Never seen so many homeless people in such horrible states of existence (and I am not a Republican but a social democrat, so I was not comfortable with US society...).

(the US is this odd mix between rich and modern and a 3rd world country... also with regard to infrastructure)

Traffic lights (and a lot of traffic) at almost every corner in the city. Perhaps nice if you are driving, but very annoying when you want to enjoy an uninterrupted walk.

Grid-pattern (mostly responsible for the former). Cities look like they were built on a chess-board. Nice if you want to go straight, but not good when you want to go diagonal (in Paris they solved this with diagonal avenues). And forget building diversity or atmosphere, especially in the suburbs (which are 97% of the city).

Houses are indeed quite flimsy. But in East SF there are at least some lovely pre-war houses that have atmosphere (I lived in a room in one, loved it...).

Business / startup opportunities; indeed, nothing beats California (never seen so many things bordering on the silly, fully funded...).

On balance, after a year in the US, I chose to go back to the old world when a great opportunity came up there. I'm a European again :)

How do traffic lights hinder your walk?

By being red at least 50% of the time (and making cars drive past fast & and making it an offence to cross the street even if there is no traffic (so in addition to watching the traffic one needs to scan the street for police...)).

Also, in many older (& also modern Dutch & UK inner cities) we have a thing called Woonerf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf), which means a ~15 miles per hour maximum speed off the main roads inside residential areas, so pedestrians and kids can actually enjoy/play on the roads...

Weather - always sunny. I think OP spending too much time in the SF Bay Area. Bay Area is among a few places in the world that has the best weather year round.

I am able to accept that there might be wolves in woods but not that I will be robed on street.

Some typos are too good to pass up.

Not sure why you'd want head on your beer, thats just wasted space...

:) It dissipates after a while and some of it turns into liquid so if done properly you should get the "liquid amount" ordered up to the little needle mark on the glass. A different culture. Here in the UK I always get an ale that spills on my fingers when I carry it as it is 100% full...

Amount of head on lager varies from country to country but it is hard to argue with a Czech given that they invented Pilsen lager. A good head has a different taste and adds a different texture to the beer and makes the carbonation (high in a lager) more smooth and less bitter.

This has always been confusing to me: "I have to drink my beer from a paper bag, so there is nothing to be seen. What do you think everybody drinks from their paper bags? Coca-cola?"

That's another thing that varies from state to state. In some states, like Nevada and Louisiana, public consumption of alcohol is quite legal, and often commonplace.

I wonder why Europeans feel physically unsafe here while simultaneously finding us extremely friendly. Is it just a normal reaction to being a stranger in a strange land?

Maybe they came from a smaller European town and then proceeded into a big city here in North America?

I've been to many parts of Czech and a few parts of Germany, and it is very nice there. Never saw anything like we have here in Vancouver with the downtown east-side (ie SF Tenderloin), but maybe I just haven't seen everything.

Ozzie here. It's not just being a stranger in a strange land, your country has some dangerous edges. My experience in California:

* The police are like military. I saw a couple of incidents, and concluded that if the police pull you up, it's best to drop to the ground and obey. Pretty scary.

* I didn't realise that nobody walks when I first arrived. It's pretty easy to end up in the wrong neighbourhood if you go for a long walk. Ie, packs of young rugged looking dudes eyeing you off.

* Bums in San Fran. I've never seen first world poverty like that. Very confronting.

* The missus visited LA, turned off one exit too early and ended up in Inglewood. Her descriptions of the neighbourhood were... colourful.

On the plus side, the nightlife was really safe. In Australia I'm used to constant fistfights and violence around clubs/pubs. On the flipside, I got the feeling that everyone was being so polite and respectful because ya never know who's got a gun. That's not really a relaxing feeling.

I wouldn't worry about people carrying guns in bars... not something I've ever seen happen. I've spent a good deal of time in Oz and the bar brawling culture there is just not something we have here. It happens sometimes, but usually when it looks like something's going to break out a half dozen people spring up and try to diffuse the situation. 98% of the time it never gets past the shouting-of-threats stage. In Oz it always went from zero to bloodspray in short order.

Depends where you are in Oz. In Melbourne, you don't have bar brawls. There is some violence late at night outside the nightclubs when they close, but the 'bar brawl' is largely myth here.

I can confirm I don't recall ever seeing a fight in Melbourne. Pretty much everywhere else, though...

You should try the UK. Find some small market town somewhere and wander around after chucking out time on a Saturday night. Loads of fights.

So just as a counterpoint as a native, also in an area with legalized carry, I've never had the feeling everyone was polite and respectful because you don't know if they have a gun. I think that is a bit of projection, never heard anyone say anything similar.

I'm talking about clubs/nightlife specifically. And yes it's pure speculation. But I've always wondered - surely it must cross your mind, "is that aggressive drunk wannabe tough-guy packing heat? What if he loses control?"

Genuinely curious as I have no reference point.

To be honest it never has for me. If I see an aggressive person the first thing I do is assess my exit strategy in general. It is the first thing I learnt from my sifu(s) in kung fu, best to remove yourself from potential danger than risk any altercation.

That said, I can't recall any time I felt weird at any clubs/etc either, but depending on the crowds I could see where you might be more alert in certain circumstances. I just don't think that's any different than anywhere though.

Maybe its because I grew up around the idea of more ubiquitous guns that the idea doesn't scare me, or I''m crazy, probably both. :)

Eh, cheers mate, if you're ever in the twin cities ill buy a round.

I generally agree with the other commenter here (who says he never worries about guns), but I thought it worth adding that the atmosphere can vary depending on the club. It's unusual, but not unheard of, to go through a metal detector (wand) at concerts and some clubs (say, a medium-size venue with space for ~500 and up -- much more unusual at a small club with space for 200, say). Why is there a metal detector? To keep guns and knives out. So, there can be caution and fear around guns in clubs.

I don't think the fear is about just guns. I think it's about all manifestations of violence (knives and beat-downs too). Two examples that come to mind are the fan who was attacked at the LA Dodgers game (just a beating) and ended up handicapped, and three hipsters who got shot outside a small but influential indie club in LA (http://www.laweekly.com/2011-01-06/news/mongols-and-hells-an...).

Teaser quote from that last link, which is worth reading:

"It seemed so cheesy, I thought it was a joke," says the guitarist, 30, whom we'll call Brad; he's a witness in the gunman's trial and fears for his life. "When he started shooting, I just stood there staring at him. I couldn't believe anyone would fire a gun into a crowd of nerdy indie-rock kids."

It has to be emphasized that the above story was a "story" because it was so weird (I've been to that club, and it really is a classic indie rock skinny hipster hangout).

What do Americans do when they get pulled over? Open the window and hold your hands on the wheel and dashboard? The police in New Orleans took a shot at tourists because when they pulled over their car, the person next to the driver reached over and grabbed a (silver colered) photocamera... Policeman thought it was a gun and shot. I feel European people need a 'How To Interact with the Police' course. Made us very jumpy whenever there was a policecar around.

> Open the window and hold your hands on the wheel and dashboard?

Yeah, they teach you to do that, and if you don't, normally the cop will tell you to do something like that next time you get pulled over.

I think it's a good system. The cop doesn't know if you have a gun. The chance is probably 1 in 1,000 or less, but still kinda scary.

As a sidenote, America is in many ways more like a 3rd world country than most of Europe. The bad guys will have guns no matter what [1], and it's much safer for us all if the good guys have guns, too.

[1] Well, we could change this in a few decades if we ended the drug war and eradicated endemic poverty. But the government is too busy spying on us and planning to invade Syria, to think about making other changes.

Thanks for the reply. On a side note: Most Europeans are (tough to be) very afraid of guns. They're not allowed to own guns (except for very heavily regulated guns for hunting and sports). Even carrying a pocket-knife downtown is against the law, as is defending yourself with something like a baseball bat against burglars at night in your own house. ('Excessive force').

I fail to understand how people accept that, especially the last part. That's basically taking away their right to defend themselves and their families. That kind of law favors and protects the bad guys - what's the point in that?

You can use weapons to protect yourself, but it is very limited and will always trigger an investigation if the use of force was excessive. (I think some if this might also be the case in the US, though in many european countries you really are in trouble if you end up shooting someone that didn't have any weapons on them, or just a knife)

The other thing is that it is rare that a burglar brings along weapons, because he can safely assume that the victim wont have any weapons. (so they usually just run away if they are caught)

If everyone had weapons at home, you would have more life or death situations, where a burglar would have to shoot someone, just to get out alive.

In most cases not even the police would shoot a criminal who is running away (if the person isn't threatening anyone), because they are also bound to never use excessive force if there are other means. (like picking up the criminal on another day at his home)

So yes: In rare cases you wont be able to properly defend yourself, but it reduces the amount of escalating situations on a larger scale, so you are generally better off. (Just take a look at statistics on how many people are injured/killed by weapons in a country like Germany vs USA)

In Italy you can harm someone physically only to defend people (self-defense, which of course also applies to your family or any bystander) , not to defend property. I guess that most European laws work like this, and I agree with this attitude.

I also agree with that. I wouldn't want to live in a society that is okay with killing or otherwise harming someone for stealing or breaking into someones home, because it would profoundly change how criminals act, and I'm also not a sadist that enjoys harming other people.

If someone breaks into my home it could be annoying, or maybe I will even experience fear to some degree, but I am also insured, so it wont hurt me that much, as long as burglars generally don't feel the need to protect their lives with weapons.

I would protect myself an my familiy by force if I needed to, but I wouldn't do it just to protect some stuff that someone tries to steal.

'Some stuff?' I can see your house has never been burglarized. It's not simply 'oh someone stole my MacBook and other stuff, now I get a new one from my insurance'. It's someone (or several people) rampaging through all your possessions. Ripping open every closet, tearing everything out, going through all your personal stuff, stealing your expensive suit (you know, the one you got married in), stealing your credit and insurance cards, your passport, your letters from the bank with the security codes. Taking your grandfather's watch, the silver thing your grandmothers gave you. Going through every closet, stealing the spare keys of your car, your bike, your house... You can't sleep the next few nights as they now have keys of everything. You need new keys and what to do about your car, your bike? They also took your backup USB disks. Those contain your documents, your projects, your logins and passwords... It will take you months and thousands of dollars to get everything like it was. You won't feel save again for quite some time...

Some objects are replaceable, some have personal value to me, and it is generally annoying to replace keys and documents, but it wont take you thousands of dollars and months of work to fix that.

An insurance here that covers burglary (among many other things like accidentally damaging something and so on) costs about 200€ per year. And it will replace anything that was destroyed or stolen.

You might lose some things that have personal value to you, but I hope you wouldn't kill or harm someone just to get your grandfathers watch back.

When I was younger my family got burglarized, and, while it was definitely unpleasant and enough "expensive" - we weren't insured - psychologically it wasn't so shocking. Of course, the subjective experience is, by definition, subjective.

In most American states, forcing entry into an occupied dwelling is presumptively considered a threat to life and limb.

I'm not aware of any state in which one can legally defend property alone with deadly force, but it's always legal to resist force with equivalent force. Many states have rescinded "duty to retreat" laws, which means that you're under no obligation to yield to illegal force used against you no matter where you are.

It's not merely "defending property" if someone's trying to, say, carjack you at gunpoint, and you shoot them first; as soon as the assailant threatens you with violence, you're entitled to defend yourself.

Of course it is legal to always use equivalent force in Austria. If someone threatens your life by pointing a gun at you, you are allowed to use potentially lethal force.

It's just that burglars here do not bring weapons with them (because they do not expect their victims to have weapons), so you cannot assume that your life is threatened, just because you see someone in your house.

Of course, that might be different in other countries.

The thought goes something like this: "The burglar is a 'victim of society' and he needs treatment and education. We need to feel sorry for him. He needs our protection". Sickening. One guy used his kid's little bat to hit a junkie on his legs and was thrown in jail, fined for about $ 300 and got to visit courtrooms for 2 years because he couldn't work for the army with a 'record' and he needed this record to go away. Police even tell you (off the record) to kick the burglars ass and later say he 'fell down the stairs'. Same thing when you're a witness. The defendant has the right to know who testifies against him. But you do not have the right to even know the defendant's last name...

See also: "Lawyer Job Knoester about beating a burglar" : http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nl&sl=nl&tl=en&u=ht...

Or: Roadmap, How to hit a burglar: "A baseball bat under your bed is wrong. By arming yourself you take the risk of escalation. The danger is that you use the weapon quickly.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=nl&sl=nl&tl=en&u=ht...

I don't know anyone who thinks that a burglar is a "victim of society", but why shouldn't a burglar get a chance to better himself?

Whats the point of clubbing a burglar to death or breaking his legs anyway if he is no threat to me? If I wanted to live in an environment where people perceived "eye for an eye" as justice, I'd move to some country with sharia law like Saudi Arabia/Iran/Afghanistan. I am glad that we have more civilized ways to deal with criminals here.

I don't see how keeping uncivilized people around is good for a country. How often does a violent robber really reform himself to become an asset for society? In "The Diamond Age" a character is executed for mugging a guy and that seems reasonable to me.

The idea is not to club the burglar to death. The point is that such laws are overly protective towards the one that are doing bad stuff, and whoever tries to get in their way to prevent them from doing such usually ends up in a bad situation.

A family member once told me a story about a friend of him who's a Judo instructor. The guy was waiting at a bus stop and someone attempted to bug him at gunpoint (a daily occurrence in big Brazilian cities). The guy was able to immobilize the criminal and take his gun, but since he resisted and attempted to fight, he beat him enough that he didn't have any more energy to keep fighting. He then called the Police. Guess what? He was detained for having beaten the criminal!

Stories like that are abundant in Brazil. My mom is a Judge there, so I've heard a fair share of those. Not only regular citizens get punished for giving criminals what they deserve, but police officers to. Once in the city where my mom worked there was a large police operation to arrest a group of drug dealers. It ended up bad with gun shots and all. The aftermath was that the officers that fired shots against the dealers were all in bad waters after that, and got suspended for a while. What's the point in that??

The laws in western europe (to be more specific: Austria - I don't know that much about Brazilian laws) ensure that only the state has the right (in most cases) to use violence and give criminals what they "deserve".

It cannot be that a normal person or even worse, a victim, tries bringing justice (or at least what they personally believe to be justice) to criminals (or people they believe to be criminals), because they are not trained policement that know their limits, nor are they usually judges.

I am not saying that a normal person should not use self defense, I definitely would, but there are limits to what is considered an appropriate reaction.

I cannot kill someone if the person doesn't show aggression towards me or someone else. (a burglar breaking into my home)

Likewise I cannot beat someone into unconsciousness if I could have just held that person down until police arrives.

What did your friend do to the robber after he disarmed him? Could he just have held him down? What kind of aggression did he use? From your description many things are possible, from slapping him, to breaking his spine and many things in between.

The same goes for the policemen. Did they needlessly risk or cause the death of innocent bystanders? That is also something that policemen must consider before they do anything that could start a shooting.

It's just a whole different philosophy. If the bad guys don't feel threatened by the people they rob, they will be less likely to use force against them. If we hear a burglar in our home, we europeans tend to hide and call the police, not confront them. It's the police's role to capture the burglars and justice's role to prosecute them. The law protects everyone.

This will get me down voted to eternity, but this entire thought is so wrong. Let me tell you if you act like a victim, you will be treated like one. My house is rigged up to look a lot tougher to break into than my neighbors houses along with an alarm (accompanied by stickers on all windows). If someone does break in I will go down the stairs. I will not wait for the bad guys to come up and confront me beside my kid and wife. I will make a lot of noise and switch on the lights, but I will not wait for anyone to come up to us. And yes, I have a very nice bat lying around upstairs.

In most cases you are right when you say that you will be treated like a victim if you act like one, but I wouldn't tie having no weapons to acting like a victim in such a general way.

It just depends on where you live and how people behave in certain situations.

If I lived in the US, I'd probably have a gun at home, because the probability that it will protect my life outweights the chance that someone might get shot accidentally. (for example if you have children at home)

But in many western european countries you have almost no upside by possessing a gun (because you just wont experience a life threatening situation with a burglar), just the downside of your children possibly somehow getting their hands on the gun, no matter how safe you stored it.

Guns are expensive (well, the illegal ones, not the legal, they're not expensive). Most burglars won't use guns. To expensive, way to noisy in a country that is very crowded and is very afraid of guns (I imagine over 100 people phoning the police for the sound of a gunshot) and too high a fine ($ 10.000) and too high a sentence should they get arrested breaking and entering.

> This will get me down voted to eternity, but this entire thought is so wrong.

A different sort of wrong than 'technically wrong' perhaps.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statis...

There was a very high profile case a while back where a farmer shot some intruders and went to jail. It made national news because it was so extraordinary for an intruder to be shot.

Of course it triggers the debate of how much force should you be able to use and we go round again.

Or if they know they run the risk of getting badly beaten for breaking into someone's house, they won't do it?

And I'd guess that Europeans doesn't include Brits in your statement.

Most of this is certainly not true for Europe as a whole and I doubt that it's true for any particular country.

In some european countries, owning a gun is nigh on compulsory, and even in countries where it's restricted, there's usually not much restriction on particular kinds of weapons, e.g. shotguns.

Using a bat to beat someone until they flee is allowed almost everywhere, using it to beat someone until they're dead or brain damaged is not.

You're perfectly allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself in all European countries I know about as long as a reasonable person would think it necessary.

As non American living in US, I can agree with most points.

Wow, if he likes the corn tasting steaks from usa... I'm sorry for the cows in Europe.

Steak is great in Europe it's just expensive.

In central and eastern Europe (I mean outside France, Germany, UK) beef tastes like shit, no matter how the steak is prepared, unless you're happy to end up in a place with "american (style) steaks" (that are usually made from beef imported from UK or USA) or good French cuisine. It's basically a whole different animal, not a metaphor: the cattle are never the famous and tasty american Back Angus or anything similar, their meat has a totally different texture and flavor, and by different I mean horrible (usually... I'm sure a French cook can make a dead rotten rat taste divine with all those marinading and sauces, but that's a different story...).

...now about lamb and pork steaks, it's different story, but beef steak in any "non beef loving country" is always crap.

The cattle in Central and Eastern Europe is grown for the milk, not for the meat. That is the reason, why it tastes like shit. If you want a good steak there, get an Argentinian.

Of course, there are exceptions. In Prague, you can have good Czech-grown steak from cattle-frown-for-meat (go to Cestr).

I wish I could down-vote...

Don't worry, I'll happily give you one for your pointless no-content snark.

thanks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com