hmmm there was a treaty…
That doesn’t mean it’s unsafe.
Some people are afraid of the number 13. That doesn’t mean the number 13 is unsafe.
What if I told you that none of the people who think there are unsafe areas near their homes are afraid of the number 13?
That’s a bit of an edge case. Safety is not a binary where you either completely have it or completely don’t in all but the most extreme cases. Away from the edges there’s a case to be made that society can pick a spot balancing a trade of freedom to institute controls to reduce risks. I believe that’s what Doctor Jackson was conveying along with his preference in that zone. It sounds like he’s either more risk tolerant than you or places higher weighting on the value of specific freedoms than you when doing a risk to benefit determination.
Don’t screw up one of my retirement options by letting more people know about it. :smack:
It’s only safe internally relative to it’s Central American neighbors. It’s got cartel and drug trafficking security issues just to a lesser extent. Their drug interdiction efforts have been supplemented in a manner many Central American countries use their military; it’s just been the US Navy and Coast Guard providing the support instead of Costa Rican armed forces. It’s murder rate is isn’t exactly good.
It’s also got festering border disagreements with Nicaragua. It has sent armed militia to the border since abolishing their military and at times have had well armed border police numbering around Brigade strength wearing camouflage and armed like Infantrymen. It spends more on security than Nicaragua. Their police force is about the size of the Nicaraguan Army and reasonably armed for dealing with cartels or lots of “illegal immigrants carrying guns.” They also have a small commando force that trains very much like military special operations units. It’s not exactly been a matter of threatened independence but they’ve been willing to at least deploy the armed force card against an external threat even if it hasn’t been the main effort of response. It is something many of them seem to be uncomfortable with based on my reading. Still it’s there - guys with guns prepared to use violence on the states behalf. Just don’t call it an army. 
It sounds like a great place for a lot of reasons. The brochure may not be the whole reality though.
New Zealand.
“One thing about living in Costa Rica I never could stomach… all the damn dinosaurs…”
I’m certainly far from the first or brightest person to come to that conclusion. Benjamin Franklin wisely noted “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We all have a tolerance for how much freedom we are willing to cede to gain some measure of safety - for example, we give up the liberty to establish a homestead wherever we want in order to gain some security through property rights.
DinoR nailed it in one!
And a stranger on the Internet making strained analogies doesn’t mean it’s safe.
I’m not sure why you’ve taken such an interest in whether and where I feel comfortable walking alone late at night, but this is really none of your business and I’d appreciate it if you’d stop trying to tell me that I’m wrong about my own life. You don’t know me, you don’t know where I live, and you are not in a better position than I am to make good decisions about my personal safety.
Male checking in. Yeah, I felt safer when I lived in Britain – less muggings with guns if somewhat more pickpocketing. I’m also wary when I walk around at night in certain urban areas in the US, including my neighborhood. I have stories. I find Lamia’s position to be common and rational given the relatively high homicide rate in the US as well as elevated levels of nonfatal firearm injuries here. I’m not even sure what the controversy is.
Really, when thinking of Iceland, trolls aren’t the monsters that typically come to mind.
So do you admit that firearms don’t make you safer? Or are you saying that not carrying a weapon is freeing? Not really very clear.
Which is probably related to the fact that freedom and safety aren’t really opposites.
Um, in the first place I never mentioned firearms at all, anywhere. In the second place your post makes no sense. In the third, what you call a “fact”, while true as written, means nothing in this context because in the fourth, “inversely proportional” and “opposite” are not the same thing.
But thanks for chiming in.
To answer what I think is your argument - in a completely free society one would be able to own, carry and fire any weapon, anywhere, anytime. Most countries trade some of that freedom in exchange for a safer society. The only question is where each draws the line. The US has almost always swayed toward the personal freedoms side of this and other issues (the whole Constitution and Bill of Rights thing) while other countries choose to effectively ban private ownership of firearms. As safety from being shot goes up, the freedom to own firearms goes down. See how that works?
Think of it as a continuum. The ends of the spectrum - complete freedom and complete safety - exist only in theory. All countries/societies exist somewhere in between.
Yes, Americans are ridiculously paranoid about crime, I think that’s fairly well established.
Safety and freedom aren’t really inversely proportional. If you restricted my freedom to purchase a home security system, my safety would also be compromised. Absolute freedom is usually not particularly safe, but neither is absolute restriction.
There are cases where you are trading freedom for safety or vice versa, but there are cases where both freedom and safety improve. We just don’t talk about them much, since no one argues against them.
That’s not true.The US has been more free in some areas, less so in others. In most others, I think. It especially has a habit of letting the corporations and wealthy trample all over everyone else, and claiming that being oppressed or exploited by them doesn’t count as a lack of freedom.
Off the top of my head:
Hong Kong
South Korea
Singapore
UK
Netherlands
Australia
I assume “weapons” you mean private gun ownership. Of course pretty much all countries have some sort of standing professional military.
In fact, taking a cursory look at the data, you would have trouble convincing me that private gun ownership makes a nation any more or less free.
Of course, asking right-wing people to “look at data” is a big ask.
Reminds me of the line from the Starkweathers song “Burn The Flag”.
“If you don’t love it, change it”
Homicides are not equally distributed. Certain areas are very dangerous, but one could argue that is because of the surplus of guns, not their lack. But lots of people in very safe areas read the news and are petrified, like my neighbor for instance. We live in one of the safest cities in the country, and in a good part of it, and he is sure someone is going to invade his home.