Newtown School Shootings

[Montmorency]

That's a falsehood.

Edit: I think it may be a syntactic misapprehension on my part. You mean to say that the Australian homicide rate is one-fourth of the American, and not that the Australian homicide rate is 25% greater than the American - right?

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a falsehood.

Edit: I think it may be a syntactic misapprehension on my part. You mean to say that the Australian homicide rate is one-fourth of the American, and not that the Australian homicide rate is 25% greater than the American - right?

it is approx 25% of our rate.
Here are some stats from the UN. While we have a higher rate, our rate has been going down at a faster rate than Australia's for the past few years, in spite of expanded firearms rights following the assault weapon ban expiration in the 90's. This, coupled with our radically different demographics, our much higher concentration of large urban areas totaling 250k individuals or more, and the fact that we are much more accessible to extremely impoverished and under educated immigrants (which I welcome as they need our opportunity the most) begins to answer some of the questions regarding why we have a higher homicide rate than australia in this instance. Our ownership and protected status of firearms absolutely explains our higher gun homicide rate and the higher success rate of suicide attempts, but it has an inverted relationship with violent crime globally. Our second amendment is a unique and cherished thing in this country for self defense and as insurance against abusive government and, I believe, that the data is consistent with a pro-access argument of guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally sound Americans.

Australia	2010	229	1.0	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2009	263	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2008	261	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2007	255	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2006	281	1.4	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2005	259	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2004	264	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2003	302	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2002	318	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2001	310	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2000	302	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1999	343	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1998	285	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1997	321	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1996	312	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1995	326	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ

United States of America	2010	12996	4.2	National police	CJ
United States of America	2009	13636	4.4	National police	CJ
United States of America	2008	14180	4.6	National police	CJ
United States of America	2007	14831	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2006	14990	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2005	14860	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2004	14210	4.8	National police	CJ
United States of America	2003	14465	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2002	14263	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2001	14061	4.9

[Papewaio]

it is approx 25% of our rate.
Here are some stats from the UN. While we have a higher rate, our rate has been going down at a faster rate than Australia's for the past few years, in spite of expanded firearms rights following the assault weapon ban expiration in the 90's. This, coupled with our radically different demographics, our much higher concentration of large urban areas totaling 250k individuals or more, and the fact that we are much more accessible to extremely impoverished and under educated immigrants (which I welcome as they need our opportunity the most) begins to answer some of the questions regarding why we have a higher homicide rate than australia in this instance. Our ownership and protected status of firearms absolutely explains our higher gun homicide rate and the higher success rate of suicide attempts, but it has an inverted relationship with violent crime globally. Our second amendment is a unique and cherished thing in this country for self defense and as insurance against abusive government and, I believe, that the data is consistent with a pro-access argument of guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally sound Americans.

Australia	2010	229	1.0	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2009	263	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2008	261	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2007	255	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2006	281	1.4	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2005	259	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2004	264	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2003	302	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2002	318	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2001	310	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2000	302	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1999	343	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1998	285	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1997	321	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1996	312	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1995	326	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ

United States of America	2010	12996	4.2	National police	CJ
United States of America	2009	13636	4.4	National police	CJ
United States of America	2008	14180	4.6	National police	CJ
United States of America	2007	14831	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2006	14990	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2005	14860	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2004	14210	4.8	National police	CJ
United States of America	2003	14465	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2002	14263	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2001	14061	4.9

Australia is more urbanized then the US (89 vs 82%)

As for gun deaths Au has less per capita, and it looks like it is dropping faster

2001 -> 2010
US 4.9 to 4.2 = 9% drop
AU 1.6 to 1.0 = 48% drop

If you can supply the 1995 homicide rates for US I can calculate out the percentage change.

For the US to have a similar percentage drop it would have had to have around 6.7 /100k in 1995.

PS the chart lists only some of the potential deaths... Mainly the large or outliers... It mentions this in the bottom right corner as a partial listing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I trust the FBI's statistics more than the UN.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl01.xls

I have already brought these figures up before. 50% reduction in such crimes since 1991. Equal or better than Australia.

[Papewaio]

I think you will find the UN sources from the local police as noted in the table.

If guns provided safety then your homicide rates would be less then Australia. The end results is an epic fail at having four times the rate. So either guns don't act as shields or it means when people get angry or snap they have better tools for the job at hand.

[Fragony]

Stupidity evolved, a US newspaper supposedly published a list of (legal) gun owners, how dumb can you be now burglars know who probably doesn't have one. Way to go. Am I so smart or are some people so dumb.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think you will find the UN sources from the local police as noted in the table.

If guns provided safety then your homicide rates would be less then Australia. The end results is an epic fail at having four times the rate. So either guns don't act as shields or it means when people get angry or snap they have better tools for the job at hand.

Never argued that guns stopped crime. Haven't thought that since I read Freakonomics and did my own looking into the question. I am merely contesting the idea that guns cause more crime. A statement which is proven false by the data provided.

Everyone who was around back in the early 1990s will probably tell you that much of the crime reduction was due to the subsidence of the crack cocaine (or was it crystal meth, I don't remember) wave that happened in the late 80s/early 90s and tougher criminal punishments for violators, especially in regards to drugs.

EDIT: Or if they really bought into the message of the book, they will tell you about the hidden miracle of prevalent abortions.

[Fragony]

Crack is just boiled out cocaine it isn't nearly as addictive as some say. Glad the meth isn't here though, poor man's drugs, always bad.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Crack is just boiled out cocaine it isn't nearly as addictive as some say. Glad the meth isn't here though, poor man's drugs, always bad.

My understanding of it is that crack cocaine is simply the crystalline form of the pure substance as opposed to the powdered form that wall street people snort in movies. It is "more addictive" than powdered cocaine due to the difference in consumption methods from crack cocaine and powdered.

EDIT: This is just my understanding of it. Unlike many people who have taken chemistry classes, I have no interest in learning all the ins and outs of illegal and damaging drugs.

[Fragony]

You got it right. Boiling it cleans it, it becomes a clumb of almost pure cocaine that can only be smoked, but it isn't any more harmfull.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The US violent crime rate has been plummeting. The violent crime rate in aussieworld has been increasing over the same time period - 91 to 2007 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a moot argument anyway. This country is flooded with guns, and criminals will always get them.

And the law abiding gun owners would raise serious hell if the government ever tried to take them away. Guns are here to stay in America.

We did it here.

First you make people feel safe, so they don't feel they need guns; the US really should be sliding that way given that you're averaging a mass-killing a year now. Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty. We managed it after WWII when this country was awash with weapons and paranoid about Germans.

The problem with US gun control is purely one of attitude, not logistics.

[rory_20_uk]

In Eastern Europe after the USSR collapsed the countries were awash with levels of unregulated weaponry rarely seen. And they also managed to restrict these without civil war.

[drone]

Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty.

Automatic weapons are essentially banned anyway. They are quite difficult to get, and legally obtained ones are rarely, if ever, used in crimes.

[rory_20_uk]

As I understand it, automatic weapons have no place in committing a crime as their purpose is suppressive fire which used as such would require a lot of ammo and either needs to have a proper emplacement or be mounted on a van - neither option are particularly appealing.

Semi automatic assault rifles have the accuracy to kill at range, the punch to get through body armour and outside of the military a couple of bullets is going to adequately suppress all but the most terminally enthusiastic would be heroes.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?

Killed? Fewer, because even the criminals would ordinarily not have a gun to protect themselves either. They wouldn't need to.
Raped? About the same. You see, rape is typically committed by a person who is implicitly or explicitly trusted by the victim. Or by someone with apparent authority who cannot be challenged. For example, a police officer raping a teacher at gun point as you pointed out in the police abuse thread IIRC. Or law enforcement abusing their position to rape sex workers in the USA (depressingly common).

Again it seems we're back at this funny place called the United States of Assault, wherein every issue is best solved with a gun. Until you realise that yes, the bad guys carry guns and will use them too. So it solves exactly nothing.

[Papewaio]

Your country is smaller than several of our states, and we probably have more modern firearms just in Texas than were ever in the hands of British citizens.

Are you talking about population or land area?

UK has twice the population of California which is the most populous state.

London is 50% more populated then New York City which is the USAs largest city.
London is about the same population as LA + NYC.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lethality of violent crime in the U.S. is clearly greater, most likely as a direct result of our Second Amendment and less strenuous gun laws. Our rates of violent crime are some of the lowest in the OECD, however and absolutely low when compared globally.

This argument needs to be framed in a different way. There are arguments for and against easy access to lethal firearms. In the United States, we have the benefit of the 2nd amendment and related jurisprudence which most nations on earth do not have. This gives us the upper hand, but if we aren't careful, even the protected status could be compromised. The proposed AWB effectively illegalizes most handguns in common use. The fact that they have removable magazines with conspicuous pistol grips below the action makes them assault weapons. Even though the mini-14 ranch rifle bypasses the "evil features" list as it has a traditional rifle stock, they specifically mention it for a ban, making sure that any common use semi-automatic is eliminated unless it is specifically a hunting rifle. On the one hand, reliance on only allowing hunting weapons puts them within the target of being overturned as the 2nd amendment has history in self defense from human beings and not just bears and rabid squirrels. The more they rely on "the rights of hunters" the more tenuous their position will be, but the more in danger our actual rights will be or radical elimination.

[Papewaio]

I'm saying the UK is tiny, and the USA is large. Our population dwarfs it, the amount of firearms is incomparable, and so saying "well, it worked for them" is not a convincing argument.

And never mind the cultural differences. :sly:

Yet none of your cities dwarf London. Your largest state population is half the size of UK. So size shouldn't be an issue.

If you are saying the US is too large for change then that is far more dangerous then more or less guns.

Cultures that are living change and adapt. If you don't you lose momentum until either a systemic shock or replacement.

[Montmorency]

For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I posted:
this in facebook.

Friend A replied:

doogie howser should stick to medicine. this dude is sort of ridiculous -- he makes a big deal out of "the media" cherry-picking its statistics, then does the exact same thing himself, noting that the violent crime rate in the UK is 3.5 times that of the US (!!!!!) while totally downplaying the fact that the murder rate in the US is three times that of the UK.

the post-newtown conversation is about preventing mass shootings, and i think it's pretty clear that, in this case, murder rate is a more relevant statistic to look at than overall violent crime rate. (it should go without saying that making an apples-to-apples comparison between violent crime statistics collected by two different agencies in two different countries is going to be difficult.)

i also don't see the relevance of his point that crime is concentrated in cities. this, of course, isn't news. but it's also the case that these mass shootings don't seem to go on in cities nearly as often as they go on in suburban/rural areas -- newtown, virginia tech, columbine. violent crime in cities is a problem, but it's a separate issue.

in particular, though, the thing that leads me to believe that this dude is retarded is him making a big deal out of the US having "six times the number of large metropolitan areas!" as the UK. well, we also have five times the population of the UK. if he wanted to make some meaningful comparison, he'd look at the fraction of the US and UK populations that live in cities.

some other statistics are probably helpful. in england and wales, 9.3% of homicides are committed with a firearm, and in scotland it's 2.2%:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

in the US it's in the neighborhood of 66%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us...esbyweapon.svg

this, to me, says a lot about why the murder rate is so much lower in the UK. -- the non-firearm-related murder rates are actually pretty similar. it seems like guns play a significant role here.

he's right that banning the AR-15 (or any other assault rifle) isn't going to eliminate violent crime. but saying that they account for only a small portion of gun-related crime is like saying that no one was killed by nuclear weapons last year. it's true, sure, but it doesn't mean that there's a compelling reason why people should have them

Friend B replied:

While in Oklahoma, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with some locals. Consensus is that there is no purpose for the AR-15 or related weapons in civilian life other than to make dudes (or chicks) feel like they got bigger wangs

I replied:

The fact that rifles of any type are involved in approximately 400 homicides on average per year is a foolish thing to bring up? Or that 3x as many people died from automobile accidents as they did from ALL gun related homicides in the U.S. over the past 3 years? I think that perspective is an important thing to bring up in a discussion about radically diminishing the right of individuals to defend themselves in an effective way.

The "choose your own crime stats" title clued me in to the idea that he might choose his own crime stats. I think that violent crime is an important metric and appreciate that you think it goes without saying that comparing one set of data between the FBI and Home Office might not be as congruous as we'd like it to be. Also, you are discussing the "murder rate", but I haven't read that rate anywhere. I've read "homicide rate" as 4.2 in the U.S. and 1.7 in the U.K. for 2011. As you know, homicide is the killing of another person, whereas murder is the unlawful killing of another person, with malice aforethought; a subset of homicide.

Without question, violence in the United States appears to be more lethal than in most other OECD countries, but in many cases violence tends to occur with more regularity in those other countries than you'd expect and, I believe that the availability of firearms in civil society does not increase rates of violence which is important to consider when defending or attacking fundamental and Constitutionally protected rights.

Thank you for answering my request without bringing up wangs, even though you used the words ridiculous and retarded to describe someone who was arguing opposing points. Although, Doob did discuss the issue of gun rights with a viable sample-sized group, I'm sure.

Friend B replied:

Again owning an AR-15, any "assault weapon" or stockpiling guns and ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with the "right of individuals to defend themselves in an effective way". And if more people die by accident or improper use of firearms than in homicides perhaps that is even more of a reason to impose limitations. yes, the sample size in question was men and women with above average sized wangs.

I replied:

That depends on who or what we are defending ourselves from. There can be limits to gun ownership, as the NFA and background check laws show. A convincing argument can be made in the use of the word "Infringe" rather than "Abridge" in the clause, although this has been believed to be a difference of inches rather than miles. Sensible, arguably constitutional limits might include high capacity magazine bans which I don't like but might make sense or the idea that people must pass checks at gun shows which I am in favor of as this is clearly an unnecessary risk when easy internet access is available at the shows (as they weren't in the 80's). If you believe that the right to bear arms on an individual basis extends only to hunters and those practicing to hunt, then you would disagree, but I don't believe that this approaches the core of the reasoning behind founding or modern Constitutional jurisprudence, except in minority dissent.

Friend B replied:

Ok. What type of nonhuman that exists in reality do you need an AR-15 to protect yourself from?

I replied:

No, AR-15's are primarily designed to kill/stop human beings. I'm not suggesting that most people use them for any other purpose (other than the most common "preparing to use them for this purpose"). I maintain that we have a right to kill/stop humans to an extent in special circumstances around the protection of our own life/liberty or that of those immediately around us. This right has been limited with regards to indiscriminate spraying using select-fire automatic weapons, but the death rate using these weapons - which are now in common use - is exceptionally low. These weapons are effective for this purpose and this purpose is viable, to a reduced extent, for civilians in a Democratic Republic with a right to arm themselves with an eye on government. It's important to try to show that these policies and concerns are reasonable and that they resonate without using Constitutional protection in and of itself as an argument. That is a legal, historical and possibly a moral argument, but to leave it aside allows people to discuss ideas without undue merit, other than in a circular argument.

To decry the 2nd amendment as an archaic policy against an abusive government because of the perception that we are living at the "end of history" is foolish when discussing these issues, as it is when discussing opposition to the Patriot Act, or "stop and frisk", or eliminating due process for non-citizen individuals in areas controlled by the U.S. government, or extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens abroad. I'm sure that I don't like government making these decisions and these decisions are ominous.

Friend A replied:

comparing raw numbers of automobile accidents and gun homicides is totally pointless; how many people get in a car every day and how many people handle a gun? and the number of deaths from one says absolutely nothing about the number of deaths we should tolerate via the other. and the discussion is about mass shootings, not overall violent crime, so bringing in violent crime stats doesn't add anything.

anyone who sincerely believes that the AR-15 is what's standing between democracy and tyranny is vastly out of touch with reality.

maybe it's cute to split hairs over the exact wording of the second amendment, but real people are really dying. if you think that's acceptable, great, but i don't. banning assault rifles would help stop at least some of these shootings, without taking away other effective means of defending your home -- how about a shotgun?

I replied:

Real people are really dying. Everyday. The question of cost vs benefit should be at the heart of every serious policy decision, not just emotional pandering, even though that isn't going anywhere soon. Things can be done, but what is being floated is not acceptable. I place a high value on the Second amendment as it is currently understood. You claim that the AR-15 is not what is "standing between democracy and tyranny". What is? I believe that there are quite a few things occupying that space. Bloomberg says that stop/frisk/confiscate without probable cause isn't isn't a breach of the search and seizure restrictions in the 4th amendment. You say semi-automatic guns are not part of the right of citizens to be armed, and their reasoning is anachronistic in the first place. Anwar alAwlaki, a U.S. citizen, shouldn't have been convicted prior to his execution, and he didn't actually need his 5th amendment right of due process because of reasons. In fact, lets just scrap that stuff. Those things arn't what is holding our nation of laws together, but rather details which have no bearing on the future of expansive freedom. Lets just use the LCD of exactly what the framers meant when they said "free speech", start prosecuting "pornography" and leave protected speech to cover only what is "informative". Good people say good things, pornography or music with curses in it isn't what is holding our country together anyway.

I re-replied:

and, technically, there are more civilian owned guns (approx 270mil ) in the U.S. than there are registered private passenger vehicles (approx 254mil). If there are approx 200mil licensed drivers and the average round trip commute is 46 minutes, that is about 153 mil hours spent in a car per day all together. If there are approx 9 million CCW holders in the U.S., they carry approx 8 hours per day maybe - about 72 million hours spent with concealed weapons. tee hee hee

Friend A replied:

the people driving their cars are operating them; someone carrying a firearm isn't operating it the whole time, or else something has gone very wrong. you're also completely missing the larger point that the two have nothing to do with each other, so you bringing up car accidents accomplishes nothing.

and i agree that costs and benefits should be weighed -- that's completely obvious. we're never going to prevent all bad things from happening, but there's certain low-hanging fruit that should be taken care of. among that is the ban of assault rifles. i'm saying that doing so would provide a clear benefit at pretty much no cost.

and i don't know, dude, but it looks to me like there are a whole lot of democracies around the world featuing citizens that stave off tyranny without access to the AR-15. you can fear-monger all you'd like, but it's never going to be a compelling argument.

and, back to the original post, i still think that this dude is a tard. there are a lot of people who want to Act Serious and talk about Data but either have no ability to understand what they're looking at or else use this Seriousness as a mask. this dude is among them

I replied:

I disagree that the guy is retarded and I think that he makes good points about our purportedly violent culture when compared with actual rates of violence elsewhere. It is convenient to disregard points that don't contribute to your larger argument, but I try to recognize legitimacy in the arguments of others where it exists. His point is that we are a much less violent culture than is currently believed and, because gun rights are important, this point directly reduces the cost side of my cost benefit understanding. Your point that shootings are higher as a result of our gun rights is legitimate aNd increases the cost side of my understanding. Are there things that can be done to help lower the cost side without substantially reducing the benefit side? Sure. Without question, the weight that I give the benefit site is greater than the weight you give it

Friend C:

I just listened to something on the public radio today about gun violence and that hand guns are the main cause of these kinds of deaths as opposed to rifles. I don't have time to read what all you guys think, but Chris, my thoughts are that rifles aren't the problem, nor hand guns, or rules around them -- but the issue really lies with individuals believing that someone else's life isn't important or valuable.

I replied:

That sums up the cause of just about every problem that we have. Hit the nail on the head.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're making a conscious effort to misunderstand me!

No - he isn't.

The American idea contains the notion that some day the people might have to overthrow the government.

This is a European idea - you imported your variant from Britain after we chopped the head off our Divinely Ordained King. People forget that now, but that's what Cromwell and the others believed they were doing. Without the English Civil War your rebellion would have been inconceivable.

It is part of our psyche, and a vital part of our collective morality over the ages.

And ours.

Take away the guns, and we enter into a new chapter of total submission to the government, and most Americans are not keen on that.

The government is elected by the people - the people submit to the rule of Law when they are governed, not to the government itself. QED - the British are no more submissive than the Americans. We chose to ban most firearms, and there is little support for lifting the ban.

Far more dangerous is the American tendency to see "the Government" as something remote. That discourse has crossed the Atlantic and infected my country. Something I am not grateful more.

Newsflash people - politicians are human beings. Don't like them? Stand for election or shut up.

Secondly, London is a unique city that doesn't really compare to anything we have here. Sure, it's big. We have many, many large cities that don't have the benefit of london's suffocating surveillance. Good luck going into LA, or Dallas, or St. Louis, or Detroit with the intention of confiscating all the guns![/QUOTE]

And yet - we did. There are some guns in London - not many. We got most people to give theirs up before there was any surveillance.

Nor is the size issue what Americans make it out to be - your population is about 5-6 times that of the UK, the population of Texas is about half that of England. The US is governable at the state level to the same extent as the UK or any European country.

Bottom line - America isn't really special. It's the UK circa 1950 - corrupt antiquated law enforcement, awash with weapons, and no healthcare unless you're rich.

I'm sorry GC, but that is literally the way your country looks to me - not all of that's a bad thing - but you have some serious problems that everyone over here has already dealt with

For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.

It's something like 8 million New Yorkers to 7 million Londoners - logistically that's not a big difference.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."

That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.

This is a good point. We live in a nation that is expansive enough that Washington D.C. is further from me than London is from Brussels. They understand that reference and have been reluctant to give up their own sovereignty to the E.U. as they should be. I live in the Northeast, in "close" proximity to D.C.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."

That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.

311,000,000 people in the US, 62,000 in the UK - we are not "such a small country". The population of England is 50,000,000 or there about - there is no state government - I share parliament with 62,600,000 other Britons.

I'd say my government should be just as remote as yours. We're also not under "tight control" - I'm lucky if I see a cop a week and I live in the "County Town" which is also one of the wealthiest and best resourced town in two or three counties. You can forget about CCTV, half of the cameras have no tape.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm father from DC than London is from Istanbul. This is a very big country.

But we know space means less in the US - less than a hundred miles from me in a land where the people did not speak English until 50 years ago.

[ICantSpellDawg]

311,000,000 people in the US, 62,000 in the UK - we are not "such a small country". The population of England is 50,000,000 or there about - there is no state government - I share parliament with 62,600,000 other Britons.

I'd say my government should be just as remote as yours. We're also not under "tight control" - I'm lucky if I see a cop a week and I live in the "County Town" which is also one of the wealthiest and best resourced town in two or three counties. You can forget about CCTV, half of the cameras have no tape.

and yet you have higher violent crime rates per 100k? Interesting.

[Papewaio]

For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.

The state of New York has 19 million, NYC 8.2 million

London Metro is 13.7 million, Urban is 11.9M and with Greater London ~ 8.2M so it is the same size or larger depending on which urban planning metric one wishes to use... I for one don't think the medieval definition is the most apt.

[Papewaio]

I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."

That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.

Australia is only slightly smaller then the US 48 states. We are remote from each other with the average state size larger then Texas... So I'm not buying the geographic remoteness from government.

[Montmorency]

The state of New York has 19 million, NYC 8.2 million

To head off any potential ongoing equivocation:

Population [8]
• Estimate (2011) 8,244,910
• Metro 18,897,109 (1st)

Population [2]
• London 8,173,194
• Metro 13,709,000

[ICantSpellDawg]

Australia is only slightly smaller then the US 48 states. We are remote from each other with the average state size larger then Texas... So I'm not buying the geographic remoteness from government.

You don't have enough people with different ideas yet. Congratulations on your Independence from the the UK in 1942. Good luck with your troubles over the next hundred years of sovereignty as your population balloons from 23 mil to 315 million and the only common ground you have is someone else s illegitimate monarch and alcohol. Let us know if you need any ideas; if we don't implode in the next 20 years.