PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

Hempy 13th May 2015 15:15

Thanks for the history lesson. Sadly we don't live in the 1700's, but whatever works for you. Man your muskets, the British are coming and all that.

My reference, in case it was too obtuse, was in regards to Darwins development to the law of natural selection. He'd question his outcomes today I'm certain...

Keef 13th May 2015 15:20


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 8975406)
He'd question his outcomes today I'm certain...

Oh, I don't know.

Hempy 13th May 2015 15:47

Really? Tell that to the cops who get gunned down by drug fked teenagers. It was a bit easier when fists and brute physical force were the only option, now all you need is a trigger finger..

PukinDog 13th May 2015 16:22


Hempy
Thanks for the history lesson. Sadly we don't live in the 1700's, but whatever works for you. Man your muskets, the British are coming and all that.
It's because of your ignorance of what these people wrote, debated, and discussed openly before and after hammering out the Dec of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that you think they only thought of their present time or near future. It's clear you're ignorant about what they saw as the future and what they knew were their own limits to predict it. They were fully aware of this, even if you are not. Their whole point of underpinning the Revolution and subsequently constructing a system of government based on a philosophy by establishing, recognizing and enumerating Truths/RIghts was so it could be flexible and changeable while at the same time protecting Rights that wouldn't fall victim to whims of changing government and/or mobs.

The biggest signpost of your ignorance is your belief that these people, who were part of the Enlightenment not only in political thought philosophy but also of invention, progress, and in a changing world making great leaps in science and discovery, were short-sighted and didn't even know it. That's a ridiculous assertion of course. This self-awareness and therefore the desire to design a system that would last far into the future they knew they couldn't see or predict plays a large role in their debates and essays. They state this clearly, and it's all there for you to study if you doubt it. These things were published for everyone to read then, and now. You see, they had to persuade others to sign on to what they were trying to accomplish, and to do that they needed to explain their line of thinking to the people in 13 separate, disparate colonies all with their own histories, allegiances, and concerns economic, philosophical, and sometimes religious. Winning a Revolution didn't form a country, it merely allowed them to try to form one out of 13 separate States with 13 separate governments that were still surrounded by 3 great, warring, expansionist powers (England, France, Spain).

For instance, the main argument of the Federalists against adopting the Bill of Rights was they figured that those Rights they had fought for didn't need enumerating..that they were a given. The anti-Federalists didn't trust what was generally accepted in the "now" as it was then. They demanded they be written and included the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution before the ink was even dry.

You are evidence that the Anti-Federalists were spot on. What you're saying now could have just been easily said 10, 50, or 100 years after the Revolution. It was certainly being said at the time of the Revolution. Your mindset of mob "democracy rules", which you've expressed elsewhere, is exactly why they did what they did, as a protection against such collective ignorance that would trample the Rights of the minority or individual. This was all laid-out and debated in the Federalist and Anti-Federlist Papers, which I'm sure you never read.

Not that I have any illusions that you would. Chirping from the sidelines is always far easier than learning and understanding. Unfortunately for you, that means what works in the footy grandstands fails miserably when giving your views on U.S. Constitutional issues, the politics surrounding them, and why what's what. Unlearned opinions are just that.

Hempy 13th May 2015 16:30

You talk of ignorance yet the best you can come up with (thank goodness for google...) is Ned Kelly as an Australian patriot??

http://opencda.com/wp-content/upload...RISY_METER.jpg

As for the rest, tl;dr (google it, I know you have the skills..)

PukinDog 13th May 2015 17:10


Hempy
You talk of ignorance yet the best you can come up with (thank goodness for google...) is Ned Kelly as an Australian patriot??
I didn't come up with him, or consider him to be one. But I do find it amusing that in terms of original, political thought the history of Oz represents such an empty wasteland as a consequence so many of you consider him an historic icon. A symbol of rebellion against injustice. Whatever. Not exactly what anyone outside the range of dingos, by any stretch of the imagination, would call a brain trust of revolutionary ideas. I try to find the Oz version of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Jay, Adams, Henry etc. but I just keep coming up empty.

As a result, you only ever slowly pulled at the British leash, and over time they let you have a little more, and then more as long as you heeled. You or your forebears never figured out a way to break cleanly away to go do your own thing.

That's fine. It suits your condition and level of aspiration. But don't think for a second your system isn't merely a tweaked, British hand-me-down and you're barely past the stage of being considered British subjects, 1950 being the first year Australian citizens even existed. You didn't even have to fight for it, they merely allowed you to exist through re-classification. So given that, why would any American care what you think about how we came about being a country through Revolution or your opinion on what American Founders were thinking in order to devise an entirely new form of government 175 years or so before you stopped having to curtsy and bow?

You roll your eyes at people concerned about their 2nd Amendment Rights being infringed, as if it couldn't happen in 2015. And yet here it is in 2015 and never mind the 2nd Amendment in the U.S., in Australia there still is no Constitutional Right to Free Speech or Free Press as found in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But that figures, because there is no Australian Bill of Rights at all. Yes, no Australian Bill of Rights, which kind of makes you the weird, backward cousin in the family of advanced countries.

Maybe it's exactly how those old 1700s guys foresaw; that most governments aren't inclined to recognize Rights that limit their own power, your own Nanny State 200 years later, included.

The fact that your country even now has no Bill of Rights despite the opportunity to adopt one is a great testament of how right the American founders were. That you are from a country with no Bill of Rights designed to limit government's power, and actually believe that Constitutional protections aren't needed because the supposed goodliness of the majority of people will protect minority factions and individuals against mob rule despite volumes of history to the contrary, means that whatever your government is feeding you must be working. Tell me, how many times today did they tell you you were "leading the world" when it comes time to tax carbon, tax food, censor film and books, and being your big, bosomy Nanny? I'm sure that old refrain is still part of their playbook.

bcgallacher 13th May 2015 18:24

RH200 -Where did these leftist policies that have so degraded your society come from? There has never been a left leaning government in the USA that I can think of. We have governments of a much more leftist philosophy than any that ever existed in the USA yet our criminals - of which we have our share of the violent have not shot a policeman for years nor have the police force shot and killed anyone for a long time. Our unarmed policemen seem to be able to subdue the violent and drug addled without resorting to killing them. Other posts I have seen state things such as " You better do as the policeman says or you deserve all you get" seem to infer that disobeying a policeman in the USA justifies the death penalty. Is this not against the constitution that so many seem to regard as equal to Moses tablets? The continual carping about "freedom " wears a little thin when weighed against the misery caused by the deaths and maiming of so many - I would rather have the freedom not to fear my children being shot by some stupid gun owner by accident or myself being shot by some trigger happy policeman who thought he saw my hand move off the steering wheel. I am sure the mothers and wives of your policemen who have to wait for their loved ones to come home every day would rather your society did not have the obsession with guns that exists. I have no solution for you - nor do I believe anyone else has,it will take generations or perhaps never for the USA to reduce the carnage to what I would call "normal" levels

Lonewolf_50 13th May 2015 22:18


Originally Posted by bcgallacher (Post 8975591)
RH200 -Where did these leftist policies that have so degraded your society come from?

Originally, the UK. :E Apples and trees.

There has never been a left leaning government in the USA that I can think of.
That may demonstrate a lack of thinking on your part. Or, it may just be a matter of forgetting the basics of political differences: left and right are not absolutes. ;)
Classic liberalism, 19th century version, is a different animal than post Kennedy Liberalism here in the US.

rh200 14th May 2015 00:23


Really? Tell that to the cops who get gunned down by drug fked teenagers
Really, try asking your self about the policys that lead to the fact we have so many peices of sh!t around, both rich and poor that leads to that situation.


RH200 -Where did these leftist policies that have so degraded your society come from?
Moral bracket creep is a well known phenomena, can be good, can be bad. The rate of change is what can be most problematic. Just because you don't notice it, doesn't mean its not happening.


There has never been a left leaning government in the USA that I can think of
ROFL. Its all perspective, there is no absolute center, its only a statistical mean, that is only relavent to a particular time period. Which of course is interpreted by each side to reflect its own particular bias.:p

bcgallacher 14th May 2015 01:01

Rh200 - I am at a loss to comprehend what you are trying to express,rarely in a jet blast debate have I read such total nonsense. A great deal of meaningless pretentious gibberish. You will have to try again with some kind of rational thought. U.S. Governments left wing politics? We have policies far to the left of the U.S. But we do not shoot each other with the same frequency - nor does any other advanced country some even further to the left. We have poverty - admittedly on a much smaller scale due to our left wing policies on welfare and health care but our poor do not get shot by policemen or shoot them in the same numbers. I would think that most people capable of thought would be able to link the huge number of firearm owners in the U.S. With the large number of gunshot deaths - to reduce it to utter simplicity,if you do not have a gun available you are not going to shoot anyone,deliberately or accidentally.

Hempy 14th May 2015 02:04


Originally Posted by bcgallacher
Rh200 - I am at a loss to comprehend what you are trying to express, rarely in a jet blast debate have I read such total nonsense. A great deal of meaningless pretentious gibberish.

You obviously don't read much of rh200s work. Come over to the Aus politics thread, it's standard fare. :ok:

rh200 14th May 2015 03:24

Its sad when people don't have the basic intellect to think laterally and also understand the concept of cause and effect, symptoms versus cause etc.

Would you just be happy if your doctor just treated the symptoms, but not the underlying issue?

BOING 14th May 2015 04:08

The number of guns in general circulation in the US is nowhere near what most anti's would have us think because I own a large number of them and they are safely locked in my collection room. :E;):)

bcgallacher 14th May 2015 07:15

Boing - unless you own several million guns I doubt that your secure collection will make much of a dent in the numbers in circulation. You are to be congratulated on keeping your collection secure - the sad fact is too many guns in the USA are not secured in any way resulting in needless deaths and injuries. In the last couple of weeks several children under 5 have been accidentally killed by guns. I am sure that as a responsible gun collector you cannot disagree on this point.

bcgallacher 14th May 2015 07:26

Rh200 If you want to be taken seriously you will have to come up with better arguments - nobody with an ounce of common sense could deny that the relatively huge number of guns and the lack of control as to who obtains them are the main cause of the shameful figures for gun deaths in the USA. If you want to blame the situation on US government socialist policies imported from the UK go ahead but do not be surprised if you are thought to be joking.

obgraham 14th May 2015 14:31

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you lot, that the laws and culture here are not going to change during any of our lifetimes. Why in the world do you continue to whinge on about it?

BOING 14th May 2015 15:42

BCG,
Merely an attempt at levity to break the boring cycle of ill considered thoughts, impractical proposed "solutions" and general pompousness of this thread.

When I shoot I do not feel that I am training for the apocalypse. I have a darn good time just like any golfer, trials bike rider or fisherman. I see no difference between shooting and these other leisure activities. I do see that extending my shooting skills on the range could certainly be useful in a conflict situation but the main aim is purely extension of skills as would be practiced by any golfer.

I have an eight position 25 yard firing range on my property. For this I need no permits or other inspections by the State, I am purely responsible for the safe use of the range. Several other people in our rural area have their own shooting areas and it is not unusual to hear them shooting in the evenings.

I used to hunt deer and elk in the past but no longer do so. This was simply a matter of purchasing a license from the State and heading out to a suitable location. No other restrictions or formalities. The "suitable location" is public lands or private property with the owner's permission.

The point is that possession and use of a firearm, in our locality at least, is not seen as an unusual occurrence, it is very much a normal fact of life and in just the same way that some Europeans cannot understand why we would want to possess a firearm we fail to see why they would not.

You can rabbit on about the number of firearms deaths in the US but we know the background. The majority of these deaths are associated with criminal activity in times and places not visited by the average person so the average person just does not get excited about them. In some ways the news of another gang-land death counts as a plus.

So, do us a favor, stop frothing at the mouth from a distance about a situation that we have learned to understand and accept. We live with it, you don't. The number of times I am threatened with gun violence in a year, zero. The number of times I am threatened with death, every day, driving on the roads - probably twice. Our priorities are not your priorities so, with thanks for your genuine concern, go find some other windmill to tilt at.

.

PukinDog 14th May 2015 18:50


bcgallacher
nobody with an ounce of common sense could deny that the relatively huge number of guns and the lack of control as to who obtains them are the main cause of the shameful figures for gun deaths in the USA.
I feel the same way about the huge number of bagpipes in Scotland and the way people can just walk around, willy-nilly, blowing on them. Shameful, and it keeps me awake at night knowing there's all that god-awful screeching going on over there.

I don't know who or what policies are responsible for the lack of bagpipe regulations or who's idea it was to make so many of them in the first place, but they should be found and shot.

bcgallacher 14th May 2015 19:08

The relevance of your thread is what exactly? With reference to bagpipes - it has been a while since we had anybody shot dead with a set of bagpipes.

Lonewolf_50 14th May 2015 19:21


Originally Posted by bcgallacher (Post 8976812)
The relevance of your thread is what exactly? With reference to bagpipes - it has been a while since we had anybody shot dead with a set of bagpipes.

Obviously, your doing it wrong. :}
(^^This is humor^^.)

The hamster wheel continues to spin.

PukinDog 14th May 2015 20:07


bcgallacher
The relevance of your thread is what exactly? With reference to bagpipes - it has been a while since we had anybody shot dead with a set of bagpipes.
Not true. Just last week some idiot down the street was up on his rooftop at 2 AM, bagpiping away leading a chorus of howling neighborhood dogs, so I had to shoot him dead.

The relevance is, you keep talking about these shootings as if they're all bad and all of those who get shot don't deserve it. That is simply not the case. There are many, many, many who deserve it. See my example above if you don't believe me.

Hempy 15th May 2015 00:21

Well that all depends on how morally depraved you are, doesnt it? 'Deserved it' according to who?

BOING 15th May 2015 00:56

Hempy,

I suppose you could say according to the members of the opposing gang who wanted his drug territory.
Or perhaps according to the parent whose son he bullied and robbed last week.
Or according to his wife who he beats and batters every night.
Or according to the family of the street vendor that he and his friends beat to death with baseball bats.
Yep, some people just deserve it.

( And, just to save you the bother of asking I can document each of these offenses as having been committed by our local gangs.)


.

Hempy 15th May 2015 06:15

So of the 88 Americans who get killed by a gun every day, how many do you estimate 'deserve it'?

bcgallacher 15th May 2015 07:02

Hempy - the posts of gun owners have sometimes struck me as being a bit odd - our friend PukinDog has gone from firearms to bagpipes. Reminds me of the book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat." The term thread drift has a whole new meaning. I wonder if he knows the meaning of the Scottish term "banjo player"?

BOING 15th May 2015 07:53

A few miscellaneous quotes for you Hempy.

Note how many US firearm deaths are due to suicide. Unfortunate numbers but suicide is a matter of making a choice to die and the firearm can hardly be blamed for being the convenient instrument. Removing suicides lowers your daily number of firearm deaths from 88 to 34. Since about 60% of the remaining firearms deaths are inter-criminal and gang related I would say that about 21 of the remaining 34 "deserved to die" or more exactly, they made choices that led to their death and very few will miss them.


Basic to the debates on gun control is the fact that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Dealing with recidivism is key to solving violence.

71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
64% had been convicted of a crime.
Each had an average of 11 prior arrests. 1, 2
63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). 3
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns. 4

Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.

Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the U.S. were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[17][21] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the U.S. is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[28][29][30]

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[17] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[38] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[17][39] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[40]

Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.

Hempy 15th May 2015 07:59


Originally Posted by BOING
I would say that about 21 of the remaining 34 "deserved to die"

I'm take it that by your post that you mean that you are ok that 13 people a day, or 4,745 innocent people a year, are just 'collateral damage'..

Lonewolf_50 15th May 2015 13:03


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 8977276)
So of the 88 Americans who get killed by a gun every day, how many do you estimate 'deserve it'?

Since the stats show that about 3 in 5 are doing it to themselves, suicide, then at least 53, if one is using averages.

Hempy 15th May 2015 15:26

As stated above, I'm just glad that I won't be one of the 4.5 thousand (and change) each year who are just 'along for the ride', so that everyone else can defend their constitutional rights..

BOING 15th May 2015 17:01

It is the "glass of water" concept again Hempy.

You stated that 88 Americans are killed by a gun every day.

So of the 88 Americans who get killed by a gun every day, how many do you estimate 'deserve it'?
As rationalised only 13 events out of the 88 are actually cases of non-inter-criminal related homicide, definitely not good a statistic but it is far from the misleading 88 persons per day implied by the gross figure you provided. This distortion of the facts (gun deaths all equal homicides of innocents) is a staple of the anti-gun movement and it is one you are clearly happy to promote.

It is important to note that the number of 13 includes other causes as well as homicide including police shootings, accidents and unknown causes. Perhaps the actual number of homicides should actually be around 11. Now, unfortunate as this situation is, 11 homicides per day in a population of 350,000,000 people may represent a sort of base figure that is not going to reduce by very much regardless of the weapon chosen to carry out the crime.

Now, I am going to use the word "homicide" to refer to killings which are considered as "killer on innocent victim" as opposed to "criminal on criminal" related homicides. If we allocate one of those homicides to each the 11 biggest cities in the US in descending order of size the last one is allocated to Austin, Texas - still a pretty big city. Which means that the REST of the US is homicide free. Now do you see why it is difficult for the US population in general to get excited about the homicide rate - the vast majority of the country rarely sees a homicide and if it was not for the media and sensational reporting most people would never know the homicides are taking place.

In actual fact the situation is even more benign for the average American. On average New York, Los Angeles and Chicago (by the way, all cities with extreme gun control) account for an average of about 4.5 of the 11 remaining daily homicides.

.

Lonewolf_50 15th May 2015 17:18

We had a murder recently in our neighborhood.
It was first reported as a "home invasion."

As it turns out, this gent in a middle class neighborhood was dealing dope, and was working with some seriously shady characters. It appears that he owed them money, or something like that.

One night, three guys show up around 1AM, get through the front door and put three bullets into him. His wife and kids were untouched. Assailants left. (As far as I know, have not been found yet. Will check with my friends in the local constabulary).

Crook on crook. Happened about a quarter mile from my front door. I have a hard time getting excited over that. Did he deserve it? I'd say "yes" but I am also not pleased that we have hit squads, crooks, running about. With the drug trade come a lot of rough customers.

BOING 15th May 2015 18:29

LoneWolf gives a good example.

I feel badly for the wife and children of this fellow, especially the children. However I do find it difficult to believe that the wife did not know that her husband was involved in criminal activities.

There is however another aspect to this type of situation. We know that people are killed because of their direct involvement in criminal activities such as in this case but how many of the completely innocent people killed die because of collateral damage caused by criminal activity? How many of the 11 people from the original 88 die because of violence caused by others supporting their drug habits or as a result of their killer becoming mentally disturbed after drug use? These deaths are a direct result of the criminal activity not simply the availability of firearms. The killers in the above case would certainly have killed the husband with knives or by beating if a gun had not been available because they needed to make a point to their other dealers - pay up or else.

.

con-pilot 15th May 2015 18:38

The IRA (No, not the Individual Retirement Account and yes some American experts here did get that wrong.) didn't seem to have any trouble in offing folks.

Seldomfitforpurpose 15th May 2015 20:59

If you want to further expand the debate the question to be asked is why the bad guys feel the need to carry guns?

BOING 15th May 2015 23:30

Let's see :hmm::hmm::hmm:

I know, to protect themselves from the good guys who are walking around simply minding their own business.:rolleyes:

Seldomfitforpurpose 15th May 2015 23:43


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8978266)




Let's see :hmm::hmm::hmm:

I know, to protect themselves from the good guys who are walking around simply minding their own business.:rolleyes:


What a bizarre notion, tough questions often prompt that sort of thing :ok:

BOING 16th May 2015 00:23

Well, we could try to imagine that unless all of your victims are 94 year old, five foot tall, great-grandmothers a predominance in force helps to make robbery more profitable.

Got any more tough questions?

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th May 2015 08:40


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8978289)
Well, we could try to imagine that unless all of your victims are 94 year old, five foot tall, great-grandmothers a predominance in force helps to make robbery more profitable.

Got any more tough questions?



The one I posed seems to be sufficiently difficult for you all though you are starting to get it, so we can just stick with that one for now.


Just a thought but we have bad people here in the UK who commit all sorts of dastardly deeds but virtually none of them carry guns, any thoughts on why that might be?

PukinDog 16th May 2015 08:43


Hempy
As stated above, I'm just glad that I won't be one of the 4.5 thousand (and change) each year who are just 'along for the ride', so that everyone else can defend their constitutional rights..
It's a good thing you'll steer clear, because if 4,500 undeserved gun deaths causes you to soil your panties and has bcgallacher wringing his hands, here's some recent death numbers that'll surely petrify you and render him inconsolable. Approximately;

34,000 vehicle deaths
38,000 unintentional poisoning deaths
30,000 unintentional fall deaths
4,000 drownings
5,000 suffocation/choking deaths

The list goes on, but to sum up, in the U.S. last year there were approximately 130,000 accidental injury deaths. Incidentally, if you're wondering how many of those accidental deaths out of 130,000 were due to firearms, the answer is 600.

600 unintentional firearms deaths is of course 600 too many, but at least it's not 2,500 unintentional firearms deaths. I say 2,500 because 40 years ago in 1975 when the US population was 100,000,000 (that's 100 million) less than it is now, that's how many there were. In fact, 65 years ago 1950, with appx half the current population, the number of these accidental deaths due to firearms was over 2,000.

I do realize that no matter how small those numbers get, and they have been getting smaller for decades, they may still look like "carnage" to you and therefore remain fodder for your fear and griping even though you aren't affected by these deaths in the slightest. But remember, they didn't occur in little Australia or in wee Scotland or itty bitty NZ. They occurred in a country of 320 million people, the 3rd largest populace on the planet. To put the US population in terms you, him, and other moaners might be able to understand;

1 USA = 10 Australias + 10 Scotlands + 6 New Zealands. Or, if you'd all to prefer to stand alone,

1 USA = 14 Australias or 60 Scotlands or 74 New Zealands.

You see, because the US is such populated place, numbers for any calamity, disaster, or societal ill can quickly add-up to being scary-sized to an inhabitant of a little, wee, or itty-bitty place since your mental tools aren't calibrated to deal with large numbers and your notion of what constitutes a "society" is geared-to that small pool of people. On the other hand, having 320 million people in a society means having mental calibrations commensurate to that size, and why to our eyes your society isn't really a pool of people so much as it is a petri dish, or perhaps a puddle. You have to re-calibrate and think bigger, because even smaller slices of US population are comparable (or larger) than the total populations of little or wee places. For instance, Immigrants; the U.S. currently has over 40 million of them. That US segment by itself is more people than the total populations of Australia, Scotland, and NZ put together. 40 million is also how many people have been added to the U.S. population only since the World Trade Center attacks. It's like all your countries moving into America since 2001. Hell, the US has almost 12 million ILLEGAL aliens. If we deported them all to Australia, OZ's population would jump 50% overnight. If we shipped them to Scotland or NZ, their populations would triple (and I support any of those options). I could go on and on, slicing and dicing segments of our population to demonstrate to you how small you are.

Or if it's easier, you could think of it this way. Population-wise, Australia in 2015 is what the US was 165 years ago in 1850. bcgallacher? For you, we have to go way back 215 years to 1800 in order to find the US population equivalent to current-day, 2015 Scotland's.

So while you can fool yourself into thinking that because you speak a similar language, share historical ties with England, and fought a couple wars on the same side that we have similar societies, in reality you're taking the self-deluded position that says a giraffe and platypus are the same organism because they're both mammals with 4 feet and a neck. There are minor points we as societies share, but when it comes to size, make-up, and issues the US and Oz/Scotland/NZ deal with or on the scale they present themselves, we share virtually nothing. There's no comparison, the illusion of some shared cultural traits aside. More perspective; The 3 of you, Oz, Scotland, NZ, together aren't as large or as diverse as the 1 State of California. If Oz were one of the 50 States, you'd fall behind Texas at #3 and Florida would probably bump you down another notch soon. The State of Scotland would share spot #22 with Colorado, and the State of NZ would approximate Kentucky, not quite making it into the top 25.

Your Prime Ministers and National governments govern people and manage economies on the scale not of the US, but rather what individual US State Governors and State legislatures deal with. Large US city Mayors and governments do the same. New York City, at over 8 million, is larger than Scotland or NZ by millions of people. The NYC metro area has over 20 million, approaching the size of Australia. There are 9 US cities that have a larger population in their metro area than all of Scotland (NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, Atlanta) and 13 larger than New Zealand (those listed + Boston, San Fran, Phoenix).

So when you begin giving advice on how our society should be run or what is or isn't important because YOURS does this or that and runs this way, remember this; Raw numbers-wise, expansion-wise, absorbing 20% of all the word's migrants and refugees while government adjusts and attempts to deal the complications, frictions, and downsides to those things...mate, these are issues and developments that your country has only had the faintest whiff of. With regards to depth of experience dealing with them, you're barely a blip on the big boy radar and Scotland/NZ don't even register. In this respect, you aren't like us, not one bit. You're infants trying to pull yourself up onto the first rung of a ladder on which we've already climbed.

That's why the smug delusions you hold, that if you slapped a template of your system that sort of works for your small, mostly homogenous (and British) domains onto one that's 14, 50, or 74 times the size, are merely amusing and bear little serious consideration. They have nothing to point to as evidence that it would improve a thing. It's pure speculation and at the heart of it, nothing more than a self-aggrandizing fantasy that makes you feel like your irrelevant chirping counts as real-world experience. So here's the deal for those full of moany advice. If you want' to be taken seriously;

Australian panty-soilers; throw open your borders and allow Oz to grow at the same numbers and influx of immigrants that the U.S. did since 1850. 165 years from now in the year 2180 when you finally reach the equivalent of today's US population of 320 million and have grown up, if you're not speaking Indonesian because they needed more elbow room we'll have a conversation about how wonderfully your system has worked up until that day. Comparing the U.S. "now" vs Oz "now" is a pointless exercise because if countries were aircraft, these back-and-forths are like 787 pilots listening to a couple guys flying old Chipmunks blab-on about how the Boeing is a hunk of junk compared to their ride because theirs never had a battery problem and burns less fuel.

Scottish and NZ worrywarts and moaners; If countries are aircraft, you don't have a Chipmunk. You're still building model airplanes, and since Flight of the Phoenix wasn't a documentary and you aren't protractor-wielding, German model aircraft designers, merely extrapolating what you have and thinking it will fly you out of the desert or well-govern the present day US is a speculative fantasy, nothing more. So for you, starting today if you begin a population growth spurt of the size and rate of what the US actually has managed from 1800, you will reach the US's current population 215 years from now. That means if you want your criticizing and advice taken seriously, do that, and then come see us in the year 2230.

Mr Chips 16th May 2015 09:08


Just a thought but we have bad people here in the UK who commit all sorts of dastardly deeds but virtually none of them carry guns, any thoughts on why that might be?
Well, that's not true. Considering how hard it should be to get hold of firearms in the UK, there are still thousands of crimes involving guns every year.

I don't think that counts as virtually none.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.