I have heard this argument and that argument for the repeal of guns in the United States, basing one's opinions off of irrelevant comparisons with Australia and the UK, which aren't apt. Then I just read a piece on yahoo news about two Englishmen being sentenced to six years in prison for converting blank guns into guns that shoot real ammo. They converted about a gun a day, according to the article for 14 months...that's 420 guns, and sold them to....guess who? NOT law abiding citizens, but criminals. This kind of casts doubt in my mind about the pristine, peaceful Englishman living in a gunless utopia (as if I had ever believed that).
But, for the sake of our fellow bloggers in England and Australia, I would like to present some statistical comparisons to show why elimination of guns isn't a very workable solution in the United States:
The contiguous 48 states in the US (all except Alaska and Hawaii) have a land area of just over 3.1 million square miles. Australia is close, with 2.97 million square miles, but England is considerably smaller, having a land area of 50,319 square miles.
As for population, there are approximately 300 million people in the US, compared to 50 million in England and 20 million in Australia. The population of the United States is more broadly based than Australia, as Australia's population is focused on certain metropolitan regions in the coastal areas and the interior remains sparsely populated. This would make a gun ban far more difficult to enforce due to the sheer logistics. If thousands of foster kids can fall through the cracks, I have no doubt that hundreds of thousands of guns could do likewise.
England and Australia are island nations, and large shipments of arms into their country on a large scale are unlikely to go undetected. In the lower 48 of the US, however, we have approximately 6,000 miles of sparsely protected border; 4,000 with Canada, and 2,000 with Mexico. While the former isn't a serious threat for the import of arms, the latter certainly poses such, given the significant traffic flow between the 2 countries. Given that we haven't been able to stop a $100 billion a year drug trade, it remains unlikely that we would be able to halt arms shipments.
The US consists of a vast largely unpopulated desert area, not far from the greater Los Angeles area, which holds a population of 15 million people. This gives a large region of unfenced area where illegal guns could be cached and through which they could be delivered. I know of several good cache sites within 1/2 hour of my house, and I live less than 50 miles from one of the most secure military bases in the United States, if not the world. All of the above means that if guns were banned tomorrow, criminals would have ready access to all they need, while honest citizens would lose their right to self defense against these thugs.
Add to all of this the long standing tradition of guns in America. Even honest gun owners would be highly unlikely to turn their weapons over to the government, and a door to door search would be necessary for such a measure to be successful. The second amendment to the Bill of Rights was put there for a reason, and we would do well not to forget that.
All of that to say this: the comparisons with England and Australia are not apt because these countries are not similar geographically, demographically, or culturally. If you feel content with the laws of your vountry, that's wonderful, I applaud you. But don't endorse a "one size fits all" government when in this case, one size clearly does NOT fit all.
respectfully submitted,
Gideon MacLeish