Guns In Australia
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">One for every nine people?!</div> Thats what I saw a few weeks ago on my usual news site, www.news.com.au . A little article stating that despite very strict guns laws over the past few years and a massive gun buy-back initiated after the Port Arthur massacre (35 people killed, see <a href='http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/' target='_blank'>http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/</a> ), one in every nine Australians owned guns. This struck me as very strange for a number of reasons.
Firstly, there isn't a "gun-culture" in Australia. If you're not a farmer, or live in a farming community, odds are you've never even seen a gun. Guns are not considered nessessities for someone in a city, nor is it considered "average" to own a gun for home or personal protection. I live in Brisbane, a city of 1.5 million people, and have never seen a gun shop, a gun, or anyone with a gun, or even heard a gunshot. . I have a mate who's father owns a shotgun on his farm for shoting wild pigs. He's the only guy I know with a contact to someone with a gun
Secondly, gun deaths in Australia are rare. Whenever one happens, they make the news. I can't remember the last time I heard about a gun death (edit, no wait, there's a news article today about a murder-suicide with two policeman). They are extreamly rare occurances that are regarded as "abnormal".
Yet guns are virtually common. One in nine Australians is not a farmer; whilst obviously farmers and cattle-station owners must make up a proportion of that statistic, that still leaves a lot of urban Aussies packing heat. But why so few gun deaths? Why so few gun murders? Why so few cases of armed robbery?
I guess fundamantaly what I'm asking is what makes Australia differant to the US? Why in one case, despite there being guns in the populace, guns are almost unheard of and almost never used, yet in the other guns are used daily and acount for roughly 17,000 deaths every year? The people of both countries are fairly similar: we are both mainly urban populations with similar culture and society. Discuss.
Firstly, there isn't a "gun-culture" in Australia. If you're not a farmer, or live in a farming community, odds are you've never even seen a gun. Guns are not considered nessessities for someone in a city, nor is it considered "average" to own a gun for home or personal protection. I live in Brisbane, a city of 1.5 million people, and have never seen a gun shop, a gun, or anyone with a gun, or even heard a gunshot. . I have a mate who's father owns a shotgun on his farm for shoting wild pigs. He's the only guy I know with a contact to someone with a gun
Secondly, gun deaths in Australia are rare. Whenever one happens, they make the news. I can't remember the last time I heard about a gun death (edit, no wait, there's a news article today about a murder-suicide with two policeman). They are extreamly rare occurances that are regarded as "abnormal".
Yet guns are virtually common. One in nine Australians is not a farmer; whilst obviously farmers and cattle-station owners must make up a proportion of that statistic, that still leaves a lot of urban Aussies packing heat. But why so few gun deaths? Why so few gun murders? Why so few cases of armed robbery?
I guess fundamantaly what I'm asking is what makes Australia differant to the US? Why in one case, despite there being guns in the populace, guns are almost unheard of and almost never used, yet in the other guns are used daily and acount for roughly 17,000 deaths every year? The people of both countries are fairly similar: we are both mainly urban populations with similar culture and society. Discuss.
Comments
Australia doesn't have the history of violence that America has. It probably has better laws on firearms. It isn't driven with fear from the media. Doesn't have patriotic rednecks, at least I think...
Edit: I always thought Australia had a much larger population, could that be wrong? :/
I can't really see that as an argument (and so says the regisseur of Bowling for Columbine, btw.). The Australian history isn't <i>that</i> non-violent i believe, and there are many countries with a <i>much more</i> violent history than USA which still have much less gun deaths...
I can't really see that as an argument (and so says the regisseur of Bowling for Columbine, btw.). The Australian history isn't <i>that</i> non-violent i believe, and there are many countries with a <i>much more</i> violent history than USA which still have much less gun deaths... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct. Australias aboriginals were slaughtered just like americas indians. Not to mention that australia was used as a prison colony. It was the conclusion in BfC that the violent history doesn't have anything to do with the violence.
Bowling for columbine says it all really. I don't know if there's much more to discuss <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for BfC, I'm not so sure on virtue I haven't seen it (it has triggered several alarms in my head though).
can be summed up with this statement:
the united states has a LOT of pr*ck bastages. it's just a fact. somehow our country can breed the best, and at the same time, foster worthless sacks of crap without regard for human life. maybe it's the media, maybe the history, the state of our social community... i don't know. but it's true.
edit: i'm saying this in regards to the ratio of murders per year HERE to those in au.
In america, The right to bear arms is part of our constitution, and is <u>very</u> closely tied to our idea of defending ourselves. When they talk about gun registration laws getting stricter, and banning certain kinds of weaps, the first argument you hear is "THEYRE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT DO DEFEND OURSELVES"
Course, you Aussies werent attacked by the british, and had to repel them with muskets you used for hunting, Penal colony, right?
anyway, someone tries to take our guns, theyre making us defenceless, someone takes YOUR guns, their making you safer... pretty much the bottom line
[EDIT]:
Btw, MY family owns relatively few guns for oklahomans, and we have
2 shotguns, one 10 gauge, one 20
4 rifles, 3 .22 and 1 30.06
3 pistols, 1 .22 one .45 and one .50 revolver (not deagle...)
And i am a good shot with all of them, well practiced
In america, The right to bear arms is part of our constitution, and is <u>very</u> closely tied to our idea of defending ourselves. When they talk about gun registration laws getting stricter, and banning certain kinds of weaps, the first argument you hear is "THEYRE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT DO DEFEND OURSELVES"
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something I have trouble understanding as an European (and worse , french) is that irrationnal need for guns. Do you have so little confidence in the police that you need guns to protect your own life and your relative's ? Do you want to make one with the army ? You're defending yourself , but against who ? Other US citizen ?... this might denote a lack of faith in the Nation , what kind of America are you building if you need to be constantly protected from other Americans ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw, MY family owns relatively few guns for oklahomans, and we have
2 shotguns, one 10 gauge, one 20
4 rifles, 3 .22 and 1 30.06
3 pistols, 1 .22 one .45 and one .50 revolver (not deagle...)
And i am a good shot with all of them, well practiced<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is surreal , again , what's the need for such weaponry ? You describe theses weapons as if you're commonly using them , which I can't believe (it's not like you are from a mafiosi family)
So what ? Do you just feel safer , carrying theses guns ? Though rifles can be trophies in display , shotguns are more relevant of special forces than house keeping...
I have little knowledge of the american culture , so I'd like to be enlightened on the true reason of that gun frenzy...
Course, you Aussies werent attacked by the british, and had to repel them with muskets you used for hunting, Penal colony, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There were a few revolts back in our history, most notably the Eureka Stockade during the gold rushes of the the 1850's. Occured in 1854 and the people revolting actually embraced many of the ideas of the American system (universal suffrage, voting by ballot, annual parliaments, payment of parliamentarians, abolition of licensing system, reform of administration of the gold fields, revision of laws relating to Crown land). The spin you're putting on the American Revolution is a little biased: in terms of "who attacked first" it was actually American minutemen.
Yes, we did start as a penal colony. Right now the entire reason for the Australian colonies being founded is undergoing revision in Australian history; a growing field of thought places the Australian colonies at the centre of a Pacific trading empire, bringing goods such as sandlewood to China in exchange for tea. Also the early efforts to use Norfolk island pine trees for masts in the British navy, plus the growing of hemp for rope, point to a possible role as a naval supplier. Regardless after the 1810's convict shipments dropped significantly, being phased out across the continent by the 1860s. The vast majority of the population of Australia by 1900 was free immigrants, coming mainly from the British Isles. Let me also remind you that the American colonies also served as a dumping ground for Englands convicts prior to the Revolution, so we are not so differant.
Essentially however the position American finds itself in today is not the same as it was during the Revolution when the constitution was drawn up. Back then, it made sense to have a right for everyone to bear arms: Washington's army was based around volunteers and the nation itself was verging on bankruptcy: if the soldiers could supply their own arms all the better. Also there were no plans for a standing army, which was distrusted by many of the founding fathers, on the grounds that such a force would exert too much power in the government and could possibly rebell and establish a dictatorship. Hence defense of the continent would come from small local militias, and hence the US needed armed citizens.
But why does it need them today? Sheilded by the world's largest and most powerful military, and virtually immune to military attack thanks to the vast oceans that surround the continent coupled with a massive nuclear stockpile, the United States doesn't fear invasion from any other nation, and rightly so. Say for pure arguement's sake that the Soviet Union had invaded the US back during the Cold War: that was a war that would be fought with nuclear arms, vast armies of well training American infanty using modern arms and armor and a high tech air force. Citizens would hardly have entered into such a struggle, except as charred corpses in razed cities or conscripts/recruits for the military. Against any sort of invador that theoretically could invade the United States an armed populace would not even come into the battle: most likely the battle would be over in a few minutes in a flash of nuclear fire.
You say you have to defend yourselves. But do you have no faith in a military that costs you hundreds of billions of dollars every year? No faith in millions of American servicemen and women trained to defend your nation? No faith in 25,000 nuclear weapons, able to hit any section of the earth's surface with pin-point accuracy? What held true 200 years ago can and often does change.
Yes, Exactly.
BUt the shotguns can be used for sport, the .22 are good for bottle busting, the 30.06 is mostly used for killing animals that attack my livestock, the pistols, the .50 is my grandfathers war issue, and the others are my Dads military Side arm, and one that we bought to shoot for fun
The truth is they are used mostly for sport, very dangerous sport, and the whole "Defending ourselves" thing is just a ploy to gain support from undereducated fanatics.
Oklahoma is a rural state (lotsa farm-like area bordering on woods)
And in the past year alone i have shot 3 dogs that were attempting to eat my Goats, hehe, French Alpine,
Part of the problem with a country as big as ours is the sheer number of places for criminals to hide, France is about as big as Texas, one of the larger states here, It would be easy to police an area the size of texas with resources as vast as the U.S. Governments.... But we have the same sort of budget as you French, and we have an area the size of Europe to police.... No matter how hard we try, we will never get all the areas, there are 3 million people in oklahoma, and many, many many more than that throughout the rest of the country, especially in big cities, what is France's population?
Well Australia is just about as large as the continental United States, and I can gureentee that our police budget doesn't approach that of the US. So why don't we have trouble policing our country? Why don't we feel the need the arm everyone to the teeth to protect ourselves from each other? Why arn't our prisons overflowing?
Well Australia is just about as large as the continental United States, and I can gureentee that our police budget doesn't approach that of the US. So why don't we have trouble policing our country? Why don't we feel the need the arm everyone to the teeth to protect ourselves from each other? Why arn't our prisons overflowing? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not taking sides but most of the people live on the coasts. If I've understood it right, barely no one lives in the "bush" which is the largest part of your country.
The problem in the US, imho, is that the more guns are allowed, the more guns criminals get and more guns civilians feel they need. It's a circle. If one were to brake that circle and ban most of weapons, civilians would be "helpless" for a brief moment but after that it would all get better in few decades. Criminals would have hard time getting firearms and civilians could need them less.
One pretty great solution would be to make pepperspray very common. Maybe criminals would just spray teir victim to steal the cash instead of stabbing or shooting them and vice versa <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
American political rethoric, which carries on into literature and the more modern media such as the movies, which in turn all influence the way we're thinking, is still largely based around the catchphrases of the independence war:
<li>"Fight for our rights."
<li>"Struggle for liberty."
<li>"Defense of what we built up."
Show me the <i>one</i> American politician not using those or paraphrased versions of these phrases with regularity. Watch 'Black Hawk Down' and all the other military action blockbusters and try to find one that doesn't rely on one of these themes.
While it is more than understandeable that the memory of the Revolution - the first true unifier amongst the colonies and thus the birthhour of the United States in the mind of their people - is being carried on, the large absence of new influences in the political mindset create an atmosphere in which it is still possible to feel as if the US - and conversly its citizens - remain in the danger of losing their independence at the first moment of lowered awareness, when the former colonies have in fact become the by far most powerful country in the world, so powerful in fact, that its mere presence has become a threat to <i>other</i> countries independences. Thomas Paynes metaphor of the defense against the burglar invading your house and holding your family hostage is still present in the American collective unconcious - the fact that crime rates are on an all time low is not.
This strange duality of real overwhelming power and felt impotence is in my opinion the main reason for the American way of weaponry.
I think that idea has more to do with the size of our military than gun ownership.
Here's something that hasn't been touched on yet. I think racism has a lot to do with American feelings of gun ownership. Huge sections of the country are still significantly segregated, my home town Cincinnati being one of the worst offenders. I think that in the minds of a lot of people this creates sort of an 'us and them' division that makes fears of a home invasion robbery seem more sensible and immediate. People who would never admit to being racist, still picture criminals as black. Crime is a lot more conceivable when the percieved offender is alien to you, with motivations that you don't think you understand. I've been looking for information on the subject, but I haven't been able to find anything making reference to Australian ghettos. The only things that come up are articles worrying about the eventual formation of ghettos in Australia due to immigration.
Ghettos play a huge role in american crime rates, since most gun crime is drug related.
One thing I've noticed about the gun enthusiasts I know is that they tend to be libertarians. As such, they don't trust the government to do <i>anything</i> right. They don't think the government is cabable of defending themselves and their family from crime, and feel that as a result, it is their right to equip themselves in any way necessary to make up for it. To answer Stakhanov's question, a lot of people don't trust the government to do anything efficiently and competently except wage war. Take a look at our rediculously low poll turnouts. A large percentage of the people not showing up think that the government is unfixably incompetent.
Well Australia is just about as large as the continental United States, and I can gureentee that our police budget doesn't approach that of the US. So why don't we have trouble policing our country? Why don't we feel the need the arm everyone to the teeth to protect ourselves from each other? Why arn't our prisons overflowing? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, our pop is 255 mil at last census, what australia?
and 2nd, our prisons are full partially for the same reason, but allso cause america has this strange fetish against drugs, in my state, Oklahoma, you <u>will</u> go to jail longer than a serial murderer if you're found with Marijuana, not to mention Meth,Crack,Cocaine,X,and prescription drug abuses
and 2nd, our prisons are full partially for the same reason, but allso cause america has this strange fetish against drugs, in my state, Oklahoma, you will go to jail longer than a serial murderer if you're found with Marijuana, not to mention Meth,Crack,Cocaine,X,and prescription drug abuses <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, we just had a census so I don't have exact figures yet (it was like 3 days ago <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Closest estimate would be 19 - 20 million. My point was that you seemed to be saying that it was hard to police large areas, because there's so many places to hide, and I was saying that Australia is just as big but doesn't have the same problems.
Secondly, that's one of the weirdest statements I've seen. Australia has tough drug laws just like the US. Supervised injection rooms are being trialed in some of the suberbs of Sydney where drugs are a big problem but if you're caught with any illegal substance it's generally a jail term (although marajuana can tend to carry lesser sentances depending on the quantity). Our government cracks down hard on drugs just like the US. I can't see the differance there.
Nemesis, excellent point, and one of the central feilds of thought here at the University of Queensland's American History department. The two most important events in the history of the US are the Revolution and the Civil War. To understand the US today, and the actions it takes, one must understand these two events, because they have been what has shaped the US nation throughout it's history. Political decisions made today and political thought in America all link back to these 2 events.
Something I have trouble understanding as an European (and worse , french) is that irrationnal need for guns. Do you have so little confidence in the police that you need guns to protect your own life and your relative's ? Do you want to make one with the army ? You're defending yourself , but against who ? Other US citizen ?... this might denote a lack of faith in the Nation , what kind of America are you building if you need to be constantly protected from other Americans ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The police are not your personal bodyguards(and they wouldn't even do a good job at this anyways). They are there to round up criminals and solve crimes(and other things). If they are in the right place at the right time and save your ****, great! But don't rely on that. Consider the logistics of them saving your ****. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem in the US, imho, is that the more guns are allowed, the more guns criminals get and more guns civilians feel they need. It's a circle. If one were to brake that circle and ban most of weapons, civilians would be "helpless" for a brief moment but after that it would all get better in few decades. Criminals would have hard time getting firearms and civilians could need them less.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not gonna happen. This is because of the black market. If they can't make it go away now, they won't make it go away just by banning guns. To a criminal, why buy a gun at a gunstore? There is no need for registration/gun license, black market can be cheaper, and illegal guns can be bought.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is surreal , again , what's the need for such weaponry ? You describe theses weapons as if you're commonly using them , which I can't believe (it's not like you are from a mafiosi family)
So what ? Do you just feel safer , carrying theses guns ? Though rifles can be trophies in display , shotguns are more relevant of special forces than house keeping...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He has no need besides hunting, target shooting and the rare situation of home defense. Someday his government may screw him over, but that is unlikely. The biggest reason of all is JUST BECAUSE. Until he threatens innocents with his guns, he has harmed no one. Guns are not inherently evil...
(especially when a SWAT team saves your life with them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
But alas, a lot of rednecks and the many gun associations would go haywire. Other than fun target shooting and a couple of traditional hunts each year, guns serve no purpose anymore. Maybe they will introduce lasers soon for us to worry about.
And I agree with what lazy gamer said.
When I meant, "Austrailia doesn't have a history of violence that America has," I meant a lot of things. The gangsta life, the slave trade, 9/11, shows like "cops," columbine, pearl harbor, anthrax attacks, and many other things all combined in one conglomerate claymore. All of this is masterfully made into fearful propaganda ready to explode and effect everyone, which it does on a daily basis. People buy guns, because they want to protect themselve. Plus, if your allowed to buy ak-47's or smuggle them with ease, no duh people are dieing. The American government needs to ban guns/ammo period, because 1) There is no use for them anymore, except for tribal people still hunting food 2)no guns means no more deaths caused by them 3)The chances of a country invading our soil are zero to slim. 4)A lot of people don't know how to properly handle guns. 5)A gun's main purpose is to kill.
But alas, a lot of rednecks and the many gun associations would go haywire. Other than fun target shooting and a couple of traditional hunts each year, guns serve no purpose anymore. Maybe they will introduce lasers soon for us to worry about.
And I agree with what lazy gamer said.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)Well technically it's use is for defending yourself against other people with guns who mean you immediate harm. Also, consider living in a ghetto VS living in a well off area in a small town. The small town guy is probably very safe, but what about the ghetto guy?
2)Plenty of deaths can be and are caused by other things besides guns. Without guns the overall violent crime deaths wouldn't decline a huge amount. Also, banning guns has no effect on the black market(were talking about banning guns for civlians right?). Finally, deaths of criminals due to gun owners killing them in self defense doesn't count as valid deaths(that's not to say that most gun deaths are this). Same with suicides and accidents(assuming the accident killed the user, not another person). <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And has gun control really helped reduce deaths?
4)Then this means that they hurt themselves. IMO it's more likely they will hurt themselves than others due to accident. And I think a whole s**tload of people know basics about handing guns. Even people who are gun noobs can still have common sense.
5)Yep, same with a sword and a mace. What's the difference between a baseball bat and a mace? A mace might be better at killing/wounding, but the baseball bat could do it's job fairly well! Yet isn't the baseball bat a truly innocent tool, not a weapon? Would you think it's ok for someone to keep a sword as a self defense weapon instead of a gun? Remember both of these weapons are designed to kill really good.
Firstly, we just had a census so I don't have exact figures yet (it was like 3 days ago <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Closest estimate would be 19 - 20 million. My point was that you seemed to be saying that it was hard to police large areas, because there's so many places to hide, and I was saying that Australia is just as big but doesn't have the same problems.
Secondly, that's one of the weirdest statements I've seen. Australia has tough drug laws just like the US. Supervised injection rooms are being trialed in some of the suberbs of Sydney where drugs are a big problem but if you're caught with any illegal substance it's generally a jail term (although marajuana can tend to carry lesser sentances depending on the quantity). Our government cracks down hard on drugs just like the US. I can't see the differance there.
Nemesis, excellent point, and one of the central feilds of thought here at the University of Queensland's American History department. The two most important events in the history of the US are the Revolution and the Civil War. To understand the US today, and the actions it takes, one must understand these two events, because they have been what has shaped the US nation throughout it's history. Political decisions made today and political thought in America all link back to these 2 events. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, Im talking about population density, out in the outback i bet its easier to find a likely habitable hideout than it is to check every house in every neighborhood of the U.S.
Second, I was pointing out how stupid it is that we go to jail longer for non-violent drug offences than for murder. If a murderer is released in 7 years, he can kill again. thus, more murders, i bet you all keep yours locked away a good gosh darn long time.
And thirdly, what about WW2? after ww2 Great Britain gave us many of its humanitarian and super-power responsibilities, i mean, before ww2 we were isolationists, after, we rebuilt Europe (wiiiiiiiiiith the european's support......),invaded Germany, and posted troops there, and after the failed League of Nations, and the somewhat more succesfull NATO and later, UN, we became the police of the world, If you asked me, i would say ww2 is what most of our decisions are based on, allthough, all our decisions on ww2 were based on the civil war and revolution. But its easy to say that, i mean, all you have to do is reference the first possible opportunity for change in a nation, it could be said that Australia bases all its decisions off of the 100 years war, because the british fought in it, and Australians(the Aglo's) are from England and Europe...
No, Australia does not base it's decisions on the 100 years war any more than the US does. Australia and America are both nations formed from British stock: at the time of the Revolution in America and the founding of Federation in Australia both our populations were overwhelmingly British. But the 100 Years War did not play an intergral role in defining and shaping either the new nation of the United States, nor the Australian nation. The American Revolution however shaped the new nation that was born: it gave it a Constitution, a government, a legacy of independance and the political conscience of it's people. The decisions of the Founding Fathers shaped the US government and the politics that resulted; the laws the Founding Fathers decided on shaped the US legal system. The decisions of the early government on the spread of slavery and expansion into the North Western Territories and the Ohio River Valley would shape the way America expanded over the next 80 years, and would eventually lead to the Civil War.
The Civil War redefined the American nation. Prior to the Civil War, the US could be best decribed as a "Union of the States": the Revolution had produced a heritage of strong states and a weaker centralised government. Distrusting of strong government the rights of the states were considered by many to be greater than the rights of a Federal government, and this directly lead to the clash between the States of the Union. After the war ended the US had been redefined: state power would now be secondary to Federal power, and the United States would be instead seen as one nation as opposed to a constellation of states. The country would be protected by a strong national army and navy instead of state militias, and the US would now focus on building the nation as a whole instead of state by state.
World War 2 did alter some political factors in the US, but it did not reshape the nation like the Civil War or define and give birth to a nation like the Revolution. The US had been expanding since the Revolution; to expand and take over Pacific islands was not a new theme, nor was the idea of taking territory to help the nation's security: consider the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and later the Spanish-American war of 1898. What was new was actively taking part in foreign alliances, something which Washington had spoken against. The US alliance in the first World War provided a staging point for the alliances of the second world war, but what must be remembered is that the US entered into these alliances through nessessity. Only when the US was attacked, at sea in WWI and at Pearl Harbour in WWII did the US enter into a war fast becoming a global conflict, and only after Germany declared war on the US did America enter the European theatre. In both cases the US had held off getting involved because of it's heritage, formed by the Revolution and again by the Civil War (where it was crucial for Lincoln to prevent foreign intervention), of not getting involved in foreign affairs and conflicts.
The US however after WWII did decide to take part in world affairs actively, for better or for worse, and this did represent something new. But again, this was not something that was changing the American nation, nor was it representing a fundamental shift in the political conscience of the nation and it's people. It was a decision that America was forced into, and one which it never wanted. Now, with September 11, the US is returning to it's old isolationist stance. The ideas of the Revolution, of independance and the fear of losing it, of fears about foreign powers gaining influence and foreigners dictating US policy have reasserted themselves. The US is returning to it's roots, striking out once again on it's own and only accepting those nations that agree with it's policy. The effects this will have upon global security remain to be seen.
Thus WWII caused some political changes in US foreign policy, but the United States remained a nation shaped by the Revolution and the Civil War. The ideas and themes of those 2 conflicts remain prevelant today, and are the basis for the policial decisions now being made that see America reverting back to it's past ways.
We like to think we are such a glamour nation. (The U.S.) One in six children is impoverished in the U.S. The same family with the 12 kids, Is on welfare/similar program. They don't dress the children properly or feed them. Yet there's an RCA sattelite dish on the garage. The house reminds me of a demiliterized zone. That is the problem.
Well, you quote George Orwell in your signature. May I recommend a delightful book, 1984, written by the very same man...
American society is very focused on the individual. We choose to be well armed and accept the consequences of looser laws. It may seem cold, but I'm inclined to agree that my own life is more important than some kid in the ghetto. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nems notes: We had two mentionings of the 'Black Market'-argument in here so far. Let me put a few things into perspective.
Many of us are under the impression that a black market is mostly supplied by smuggle or other 'external' sources that are as difficult to control as the market itself. The matter of fact is however that the logistics of a successful smuggling operation exceeds the profit margins for most. The number one source for black market weaponry, especially in the handgun segment, is thievery. We all know of the quater of a billion handguns bought by suburbians. Not few of them end up in the hands of urban weapon dealers (BfC touches this subject briefly by interviewing a white suburban kid who did prison time for selling the guns of a friends father in Detroit.). Thus, banning handguns in civilian use would eventually dry the black market up.
"But then there'd be a time when the criminals are in the advantage!", some will argue. Don't kid yourself - if someone was truly hell bent on breaking into your house and hurting you, he'd be in the advantage already, not to mention that this scenario is incredibly unlikely. Most burglars are not even armed, and but a dissapearingly small group of them is actually on it with violent intentins - most are simply thieves.
Justifying the right to own assault weaponry with an incident that has the likeliness of a thunderstorm killing you is oversizing a danger tremendously.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2)Plenty of deaths can be and are caused by other things besides guns. Without guns the overall violent crime deaths wouldn't decline a huge amount.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good point, but the difference between gun-related violent incidents and otherwise violent crimes is that the lethality of a fireweapon is by far greater. Yes, countries with anti-gun policies have comparable crime rates, but less of them turn out to be fatal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, deaths of criminals due to gun owners killing them in self defense doesn't count as valid deaths(that's not to say that most gun deaths are this).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. They are unfortunately largely outnumbered by the deaths of innocents killed by gun owners thinking they were criminals. The case of a successful lethal self-defense against a criminal is the exception, not the rule.
Many of us are under the impression that a black market is mostly supplied by smuggle or other 'external' sources that are as difficult to control as the market itself. The matter of fact is however that the logistics of a successful smuggling operation exceeds the profit margins for most. The number one source for black market weaponry, especially in the handgun segment, is thievery. We all know of the quater of a billion handguns bought by suburbians. Not few of them end up in the hands of urban weapon dealers (BfC touches this subject briefly by interviewing a white suburban kid who did prison time for selling the guns of a friends father in Detroit.). Thus, banning handguns in civilian use would eventually dry the black market up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it's possible, I always assumed it was smuggling. So your basically saying that firearms are constantly stolen? My question is, if they banned guns, wouldn't alot of citizens just go and buy black market guns? It will only dry up if there are no more guns to steal, but if people keep buying them, just illegaly, how can it dry up? Also, where are these guns gonna go? If they aren't being stolen from suburbia, they are being stolen from other criminals by criminals. Could the police really confiscate the vast majority of the guns(and destroy them)? Maybe it would take a very long time. And if legal weapons are what's in the black market, what about those illegal weapons? You know cheap, common weapons like AK-47s for example. They don't come from civilians right? Overseas is the only place that would make sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"But then there'd be a time when the criminals are in the advantage!", some will argue. Don't kid yourself - if someone was truly hell bent on breaking into your house and hurting you, he'd be in the advantage already, not to mention that this scenario is incredibly unlikely. Most burglars are not even armed, and but a dissapearingly small group of them is actually on it with violent intentins - most are simply thieves.
Justifying the right to own assault weaponry with an incident that has the likeliness of a thunderstorm killing you is oversizing a danger tremendously.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That makes sense. What do you think about gun heavy states having lower crime rates though? I don't know where the hell I'd find such facts on the internet, although they are obviously out there. That's what I've heard repeatedly.
It wouldn't happen from today to tomorrow, that's for granted, but keep in mind that there would be a very sparse (and costly) new supply. It takes a while to pump a lake empty, but once the river leading into it is cut off, it's possible. As for regular citizens buying their arms in the black market, I don't think it'd be much of an issue. Black markets tend to be more expensive (the 50$ AK is a myth) and pose a risk too big for most 'normal' people to tolerate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know cheap, common weapons like AK-47s for example. They don't come from civilians right? Overseas is the only place that would make sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think back, try to remember the news coverage of armed robberies / shootings / murders. How often do you hear about an offender using assault weaponry? They're a lot less normal as one might be led to believe.
As far as I understand it, it is possible to obtain an AK via black market in the US, but they're too clumsy for your usual mugger, too expensive, especially compared to the small firearms most 'poor' criminals use, and require, most of all, quite a lot experience. Try coping with the recoil of an AK on auto with no professional shooting training whatsoever.
Also, it's quite hard to smuggle them in big quantities. Gun control legislation would definetely not result in every criminal getting his fingers on an AK, otherwise, the whole of Europe would have to crawl with them - in reality, my mother, who works in a high security prison, encountered one guy owning one of them within her 20 years career.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What do you think about gun heavy states having lower crime rates though? I don't know where the hell I'd find such facts on the internet, although they are obviously out there. That's what I've heard repeatedly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It'd make sense as the most gun-heavy states are as far as I know rural on average - smaller communities just don't lead to an accumulation of crime as in urban areas. It'd have little to do with the weapons, though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wouldn't happen from today to tomorrow, that's for granted, but keep in mind that there would be a very sparse (and costly) new supply. It takes a while to pump a lake empty, but once the river leading into it is cut off, it's possible. As for regular citizens buying their arms in the black market, I don't think it'd be much of an issue. Black markets tend to be more expensive (the 50$ AK is a myth) and pose a risk too big for most 'normal' people to tolerate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
50$ AK could very well be a myth. But how expensive could it possibly be though? Aren't legit guns overpriced? For example it costs $1000 to buy a Desert Eagle but it probably doesn't cost nearly that much to make it and ship it.
The risk factor doesn't really make sense. It just seems to me that a person doesn't have to be a harddcore criminal to know someone who can get them a gun. It's a chain of criminality. Person A knows Person B who knows Person C who knows Person D. Of course maybe alot of people fear any contact with criminals of any type whatsoever due to Hollywood movies. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as I understand it, it is possible to obtain an AK via black market in the US, but they're too clumsy for your usual mugger, too expensive, especially compared to the small firearms most 'poor' criminals use, and require, most of all, quite a lot experience. Try coping with the recoil of an AK on auto with no professional shooting training whatsoever.
Also, it's quite hard to smuggle them in big quantities. Gun control legislation would definetely not result in every criminal getting his fingers on an AK, otherwise, the whole of Europe would have to crawl with them - in reality, my mother, who works in a high security prison, encountered one guy owning one of them within her 20 years career.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just trying to figure out where these AKs(or other illegal automatic weapons) come from, if little profits can be made from smuggling them outside the country. If money can't be made, why smuggle them?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It'd make sense as the most gun-heavy states are as far as I know rural on average - smaller communities just don't lead to an accumulation of crime as in urban areas. It'd have little to do with the weapons, though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a good point.