Who is remote to whom? Does the USA have weapon problem with it's biggest bordering country...Canada?
Australia is an "Island". So is NZ. So is jolly old Britain.
Well, all of those countries combined have a population slightly over 1/3 of that of the United States. Today we have more guns on the street with easier access to weapons in general, but the challenges to importing those weapons are much decreased in the US regardless. And again, there is no problem moving mountains of illegal drugs, imigrants, etc across the border as needed. The square miles of land border and port entry points pales by comparison to the US in those examples listed.
You also have to look at the range of economic conditions present in these countries, and compare and contrast to the US. You have to look at social decisions made in the 1960s that created bastions of crime in the US that are hard to reengineer today. You have to look at thug culture where the easy way out (huge short term financial rewards) lets the hopeless have a shot of the American Deam (as seen on TV). The fact that the end is a life in prison or in the ground doesn't seem all that important to most young thugs. However, Britain and much of Europe seems to be catching up to our legacy in recent years in these areas, in my general opinion.
Are most of the gundead from organized killings? What is the background of most of the shooters? Answer: It's a mess.Not very organized. Mostly a spur-of-the-moment thing, or people unbalanced, - things that get out of hand. But yes, servicing the crimeworld with artillery and ammo is a small marked. But...what about the UK then?
Organized crime (not just the Italian Mob anymore) moves the product into the markets from overseas that creates the environment for "messy" street crime during distribution. The street gangs, which are growing sophisticated to the point of committing Web and mortgage fraud distribute it for a tremendous profit. The killings are fairly loose (think 1920s prohabition) ranging from solid territority issues to layered revenge killings that initially over some girl or someone flashing the wrong sign in the wrong neighborhood, etc.
Moving guns is no harder than moving Cocaine, if not easier for a variety of detection reasons. If needed: "Just add "x" number of weapons and "X" amount of ammon to the next 100kg shipment Raoul, and deduct the cost please..."
For the UK comparison you have to look at all the differences between the two countries, from socioeconomic factors to how the justice systems works against the victim to the point that "take what you want and get out" seems to be a SOP.
http://porcupinenine.blogspot.com/2005/10/comparing-us-and-uk-murder-rates.htmlThe same disparity can be seen in the UK. While the country as a whole has a low rate of murder, there are areas where the murder rate is high. In Glasgow, Scotland, the murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000 (cite). In London, by contrast, it's 2.1 per 100,000 (cite). In the Manchester metro area, it's 10 per 100,000. And in the Manchester neighborhoods of Moss Side and Longsight, and in the Manchester suburb of Hulme, the murder rate is a monstrous 140 per 100,000 (cite)-- which is considerably worse than Washington, DC, America's most murderous city.
Perhaps the US just has way more Manchesters per square mile? Perhaps the drug distribution infrastructure is more "results driven" in the US high crime areas?
Like in the US, the majority of the murders in the UK are being committed by gang members, mostly against other gang members. This is true whether one speaks of murders with or without guns. The murders are not distributed evenly across either country; they are localized in rather compact "hot spots" which bring up the murder rate for the whole country. And even though the UK has a total handgun ban, its hot spots of murder are just as bad as those in the US, and they are getting worse.
And gun crime hasn't decreased in the UK since the 1997 ban.
If gun bans prevented murder, we would expect the murder rate in the UK to have been trending downward since 1997, if not before then (in the decade preceding the 1997 total ban on handguns, the UK government passed a series of laws and regulations making it harder and harder to get guns). We don't... we see a country where the rate of murder is increasing, where there are some areas that are more dangerous than America's most dangerous city, and where criminals have all the guns they need. When we look at the UK, we see a country where the violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than that of the US.
You also see plenty of daylight/resident home invasions (which you don't see in the US all that much) because, as best I can gather from this board and on the net, not only is the homeowner barred from firearms for defense but discouraged legally from providing any defense.
http://www.wmsa.net/pubs/reason/reason_nov02_crime_in_uk.htm• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
I suppose that's one way to reduce deadly confrontations of any kind -- just give the criminals what amounts to a free shot at your goods. Doesn't sit all that right with me, especially if they decide to have some fun with my wife or threaten my kid.
Charon
