[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pkbites *
**The only people who can have guns are the police…
…the debate question to you idiot gun banners…
…What are you going to do about it?..**
This isn’t a loaded question is it?
How is your puny fifteen clip going to protect you from
a million baby boomers with pitchforks and torches?
Oh, lordy, I lose track of a thread for a couple days and look what happens…
Rather than go back and respond to everything on Page 2 (I think everything’s been addressed… but if I missed something, feel free to mention it and I’ll see what I can do with it).
Now, about the stuff on this page…
Rubber…
Where, exactly, did you get that number from?
Well, if you want to point to a single type of crime and extrapolate from there… how many people are attacked by kangaroos every year in Australia?
The facts show that Australia’s total crime rate has gone UP since the heavier gun restrictions were put into place. What does this tell us? Quite simply, both that gun control, alone, does not stop crime, and that if guns are taken away, criminals use other methods to complete their crimes.
I mean, what’s the point of lowering the number of firearm deaths if the number of people stabbed or strangled quadruples? It seems to me that common sense would call for a decline in ALL TYPES of crime.
So because one guy goes off his nut, the whole friggin’ country must be punished.
Yeah. That’s REAL freedom, ladies and gentlemen.
Unclebeer didn’t quote a single NRA source. Just how biased are you that you must use every attempt to demonize the opposing side?
It is said that “No man is an island.” Same goes for economic/social climate.
Think of it this way… is someone more or less likely to risk breaking into a house if they know there’s only a tiny chance that the owner will have a gun? Is someone more or less likely to risk mugging someone if they know it’s very unlikely for their target to be holding a gun?
“Absolutely nothing to do with firearms” my ass.
No he doesn’t. Quite the opposite. The point of his post was to show you that despite all your vaunted “Gun Control”, your country is still facing a serious, growing crime rate, which (again) indicates that Gun Control is NOT some sort of “magic bullet” (no pun intended) towards fixing social problems.
Maybe you should stop shouting Huzzah’s for all your gun legislation and start doing something to fix all your other crime, hmm?
Abe…
Is this a sentence?
He threw in his comment because your labeling the US death-by-gun rate as “ridiculous” means nothing if you don’t know what the rate is.
Yes. Simple math. Divide 32,000 by 250,000,000, and tell me what you get. (Hint: There’s a little calculator tool on your computer to help you… and the answer is very, very small.)
It is a “whacked-out post” (“whack” is spelled with an “H”, incidently :D), simply because it assumes that our culture has been completely dominated by Hollywood… which is in error, since this particular aspect of our culture (guns) has been in place for more than a century before film was even invented.
Then you’re not looking very hard.
No there isn’t. There’s a huge emphasis on “Rights”… moreover, the natural right people have to defend themselves. The simple fact of the matter is thusly: GUNS EXIST. They are NOT going away. Ever. And since they will always exist, there will always be those who misuse them. And since there will always be those who misuse them, there will always be a need for the common man to potentially have to defend against someone with a gun.
When that day comes, I’d rather have a gun of my own to rely upon rather than some meaningless legislation and some self-satisfied politicians getting elected for a second term.
This is utterly irrelevant. The purpose of owning a weapon doesn’t matter… only the fact that people HAVE THE RIGHT to be armed.
Personally, I think the whole “hunting” argument is a meaningless hunk of tripe meant to dumb-down the whole purpose of being able to be armed.
Here’s your mistake… there isn’t any single reason why problems exist. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
Some say it is. Look at all the Gun Control measures that have passed through US law books over the past couple decades. One would think that those laws would actually DO something. But no, crime (including gun crime) still fluctuates… strangely, often in tandem with the strength of the economy.
Just look at how successful the much-vaunted and touted Brady Bill was… (there was a thread about it a whiles back if you want to search).
First off, many people think the whole “gun violence” thing is vastly overblown… you would think we have a school shooting every other day (the closest we got was a few months ago, with the two shootings in Southern California within a week or so of each other… beyond that, serious school shootings are a rarity). The problem is that the media - whether liberal or conservative, I really don’t care which - is after ratings. And to get ratings, they run a friggin’ story into the ground.
Acidkid…
I’m sure a few tens of thousands of soldiers with automatic rifles and submachine guns could repel a “million” (how’re you gonna get all of them into one spot, I wonder?) people with pitchforks and torches. But, heck, if them Baby Boomers just had a simple pistol each… all it’d take would be for one-tenth of one percent of them to get lucky shots…
I think that’s the point.
Abe, you will note that you initially claimed there was some vast number of deaths “due to firearms.” Actually, and you’ll call this logic-chopping I’m sure, but the firearms are not responsible for any of those deaths. Unless you believe gun owners are somehow magically hypnotized to violence by shiny metal objects. You’ve completely ignored the effect of free will and blamed the object for the action of the individual. What’s truly ridiculous is your attribution of human powers to a cold lump of steel. So, the number of deaths “due to firearms,” truly, approaches zero. The only deaths which can be blamed on the firearms themselves, are those in which a properly cared for gun catastrophically malfunctions. Whether you like it or not, this position is absolutely unassailable.
What your numbers from the AAP (pediatricians, there’s a group of experts on gun policy, I’m sure), do not reflect is that the vast majority of those “children and adolescents” are, in fact, young adults, between 18 and 20. The injured and now dead members of this group are shot in the course of criminal activity, not as you imply, by some band of NRA activists roaming the country shooting people under the age of 21 so they don’t drink our beer. These “children and adolescents” are not typical gun owners.
RubberEntropy, kindly provide a source for your claim of 60,000 guns. Until then, I’m dismissing it. You’ll note, as Spoofe said, I got my numbers directly from one of your government agencies, not the NRA, as you’ve implied.
Finally, minty green, you’ve made the assertion that my facts are fatally flawed with simple suppostions and speculations. Care to back up any of that with some data from all that reading you’ve done in the past few months? Let’s take that D.C. example again. You’ve speculated that because, as I said, guns are virtually uncontrolled in nearby Arlington that is where the criminals in D.C. are getting them for commission of their D.C. crimes. Is this just wishful thinking on your part, or do you have any actual evidence of that?
Lastly, to address a side issue of minty green’s since this thread can’t stray too much farther off topic. Red herring, my ass. It is incumbent upon anyone wishing to change the status quo to prove the benefit of his proposed change. Especially, if one’s proposal restrains and/or circumvents the rights of a nominally free people. To do otherwise, as I stated, would indeed be immoral. The real red herring is your statement that I should oppose attmepts to repeal existing gun control laws. You see, I’m trying to return freedoms to, and reduce restrictions on, law abiding citizens, not as you propose, enacting additional restrictions. That’s a whole other topic though, but if you wanna start a thread on the morality of law, me and Libertarian, I’m sure will be ready to rumble.
What, like those illegal guns in D.C. are just magically materializing there? They’re obviously coming in from somewhere, and the most logical explanation is that they’re coming from places with little or no gun control. Remember that lawsuit that just got dismissed where the plaintiff city (I think it was D.C.) tried to sue the gun industry over that very point? It was dismissed for lack of a duty, not for failure to prove where the guns are coming from.
And legislatures act without full knowledge of the consequences of their actions all the time. Sometimes it may be really stupid to do so, and sometimes it may be precisely the thing to do because the intended effect is incredibly likely to result from the legislation, merely as a matter of logic. Looks like once again, we’re running into the “guns are great, guns are good” exception to the normal course of lawmaking.
I’ll try to post some contrary statistics later today.
Correction: At least one of the suits against the gun industry claiming negligent distribution was indeed dismissed, not for a lack of duty, but for failure to provide sufficient evidence of negligent distribuition. That’s Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, a case ruled on last month by the N.Y. Court of Appeals.
You are reading more into what I’ve said, than I meant. I never claimed any special conditions should apply to making gun laws. The benefits of any proposed law should be subject to reasonable proof prior to implementation. That’s why I suggested a new topic on the morality of law. I apologize if that wasn’t totally clear.
Panaceas and wishful thinking are the basis of poor legislation. All laws (and bureaucratic regulations), after enactment, should be critically and dispassionately reviewed, the actual effects (intended and unintended) of them scientifically determined to the best of our abilities, and those proving to be ineffectual, rescinded. To leave them in effect is also immoral. Not to mention inefficient and foolish.
Guess I might have misunderstood you a bit on that point, UncleBeer. If you’d care to start a thread on the philosophy of legislating in general, I’d be happy to contribute. In fact, here’s a thought on the topic: How would you determine the baseline from which legislatures are morally barred from deviating except upon adequate evidence the legislation would be effective? You’ve already said that existing gun control laws are not the appropriate analytical starting point, but how far back do you have to go before you reach the appropriate analytical starting point? U.S. v. Miller, the 2nd Amendment, the Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi?
And now, back to your regularly scheduled gun control slugfest . . .
Uncle Beer
The issue of the number of firearms returned is probably score one to you. It is though, partly a matter of semantics.
The total number of returned firearms was indeed about 650 thousand, however, These firearms were not simply confiscated, they were bought back at prices significantly higher than market value. Many owners (including myself, $300 for an old shot-out bolt action Mossberg was too good to miss !) returned old or unwanted firearms because it was actually quite a good deal, even where not specifically required to do so by the new legislation. The approximate number of firearms that were actually confiscated (still with compensation) was in the order of 60,000 being mainly military style weapons and rapid-fire shotguns. I have just discovered that since the figure of 650,000 was published, further voluntary sell-backs have added about another 50,000.
The other highly selective statistics in your post are unrepresentative, outdated, and seem be a retitition of the stuff sent to the NRA by the SSAA,(Our NRA). The facts are;
“There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998. Australia’s firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.” — Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). A 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country’s new gun laws came into force. — Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun homicide per 100,000 population remains 1/15th that of the United States. (The UK figure is 1/50th)
“We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia.”
– Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6
Assault and Robbery
Those who claim that Australia suffered a “crime wave” as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.
“Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low.”
– Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999
Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania
“A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been successful in Tasmania.”
– Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.
Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.
In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.
Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.
At this point I should make my own position clear. I am not a firearms abolitionist. I currently own 2 firearms myself, and will be adding a 9mm Browning pistol soon. I oppose the UK style blanket ban which I believe goes too far. I do believe that the Australian legislation does a reasonable job of balancing my rights against those of society at large.
Sources: http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/
http://www.statistics.gov.au/ (see media release 68/99, 16 Jun 1999)
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi116.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/outlook99/warner.pdf
firearms
Possibly. Is your question relevant to the argument?
No, and frankly it looked like a senseless challenge in response to my point of view, which he may have taken as an insult to the US. I had to look up the precise figures, but the rates of firearm related incidents and deaths in the US are commonly known (at least outside the US) as being higher than any other developed nation. And, more specifically, so are firearm related deaths. Perhaps it would have been more reasonable for Unclebeer to inform me that he found my label offensive instead of challenging me on the facts and implying that I was talking in ignorance.
Simple maths indeed. Hint: put the figure in context. Hint: think other developed nations as a comparison. Hint: look at the medical costs incurred by firearm violence. You could argue that heart disease in the US only kills a very small number of people, and that it is therefore acceptable, if you use these techniques.
Firstly, I was quoting Freedom’s version of “wacked”, since he is the one who applied the term to my post. Secondly, I suspect your correction is incorrect, since “wacked” probably derives from “wacko” and not from “to whack” (note that “whacko” is a variant of “wacko” and is not the original term). Thirdly, you corrected my spelling (with an incorrection) and then wrote “incidently”. That’s not very effective, Spoofe. As to the influences Holliwood may have on the population by making movies that depict guns in a usually positive light, that can be a whole other argument (and is particularly interesting especially in an international context). Maybe I’ll offer my views later, as a foreigner who frequently watches Holliwood movies. You’d think people would value frame of reference information like that instead of mocking it.
That statement is both uninformed and arrogant, since you are judging me and others on something for which you have no reliable frame of reference (since you appear to be American, you can’t really be an objective observer looking in from the outside).
This is a circular argument based on a hypothetical premise (that guns will always be there). I suspect you have just made the anti-gun lobby’s point for them!
Apart from hand-waving, you are saying that you want a weapon in your own hands, and do not trust the state to protect you from people who also want weapons in their own hands. Although that does make sense (if we ignore that one of the premises is merely hypothetical) I think this is a tautology. It is certainly not the ideal logical solution and can result in problems from anarchism to accidents.
Agreed, I was actually addressing the comment of some posters who were (I think–it’s a mess back there) debating the right to go hunting and therefore to own arms accordingly.
I am happy to have someone explain the reasons why the problems exist. I did not imply that there was any single reason, and you will recall that I expressed several possible reasons for the problems, coming from the point of view of a non-American who takes an interest in American affairs.
Now we’re getting somewhere promising! Although I don’t know exactly how many gun control laws were passed and in which states, it is my understanding that there is always a strong resistance to any attempts at gun control. Perhaps this resistance undermines the efficacy of those laws? Again, this is something I am not very clear on and I would be grateful for a reasonable discussion. From what I see in this thread it seems that at least some Americans share my confusion about the details of the situation.
Yes, but perhaps I was imprecise. Rather than limit this to deaths, I would prefer to consider also injuries, since injurying someone is better than killing them, but is still not a desirable thing and could be considered only a minor difference for the purpose of this discussion.
Considering what a weapon is, I would call this a senseless argument only dimly related to my original point. I would also say that only a very bizarre system would allow you to own and use items that greatly increase your potential to encroach upon the freedom and well-being of others, while at the same time banning ownership and use of items that do not impinge on others at all (such as drugs, full nudity in strip clubs, etc.). That’s a skewed argument, but I bring it up only because you’re playing cat’s cradle with the logic here.
On one hand I agree with you, but on the other: please spare me the high school philosophy. Guns are designed and sold with the instrumental purpose of killing or wounding seriously another human. Guns also make it much easier to do so, because a gun is more lethal and has a longer range than any other weapon. Therefore guns are part of the problem (the other problem being violence in general).
Now, you will note that at no point have I stated that I blame only guns for the problems the US has with violence. In fact, in my first post in this thread, I was asking about possible reasons that may explain the problems, precisely because I recognize that the average person anywhere is far from responsible and educated. I think it is fair to blame the easy and relatively abundant availability of guns, and frankly I thought that is what the debate was about.
What is truly ridiculous, if I am reading you correctly, is that you can write such nonsense with a straight face. To begin with, you are putting words in my mouth. To continue, I am not arguing that guns are or are not instruments. In many cases intent is indeed required to cause harm. If you have the intent but not the means–or not as efficient and impersonal means-- then my guess is that the resulting violence will be less severe and probably less frequent (and this is something we can debate, but not numbers). You are misrepresenting my earlier point when you focus on this “guns have free will” idiocy.
Whether you like it or not, I agree with you. However this is a conclusion you reached arguing with yourself, because at no point was this anything like my argument.
You are slipping into worse debating techniques, Unclebeer. We are not discussing the AAP’s views on gun policy. Focus on the argument–although so far you appear intent on ridiculing me.
Cite please. If it is a problem, please don’t bother because this is not the issue. It’s not even a point I implied at any time.
I did not imply anything about the NRA shooting anyone, although I find their public persuasive methods (on the occasions I have witnessed them on TV) to be perfect illustrations of low-brow ad hominem fallacious arguments. Heston ought to have stuck to acting. Anyway, can we settle that firearm related violence in the US is, if you object to “ridiculous”, perhaps “extreme” for a developed nation?
A cite you ask, Abe? Sure thing.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997.
1.7 x 365 = 621, only about 25% of your figure of 4223. Incidentally, attacking your source, is only turnabout here. Many of you pro-control folks have attacked evidence as “NRA inspired,” thereby insinuating the facts are somehow less worthy, or truthful, than facts from other sources. This is why I try to use government sources to make my points. I believe an honest assessment will prove me right; I have no need to use statistics from a source that could be perceived biased, unless, of course, I’m using numbers developed by pro-control institutions. I’m perfectly happy to use their own words against them.
I’ll deal with the rest of this a bit later.
Whoops! How about 15% rather than 25?
What about cars?
Sigh. That’s just silly. Again, it’s not the damned object; it’s the intent of the user, it’s free will. If we accept that the object is the cause rather than the will of the user, your statement could be extrapolated across a vast range of things. From automobiles, to overly loud stereos, to property rights, even to free speech and government itself.
I think you’ve stumbled into the wrong thread, UncleBeer. Czarcasm’s “Does magic exist?” thread is the place for claims about how people can make small, deadly objects fly across the room at at amazing speeds using nothing but the power of the mind. 
Ouch! Now that just hurts, minty.
Abe…
Trust me, Chuckles, in a thread like this, I wouldn’t post something if it weren’t relevant.
It’s not just an insult to the US, it’s an insult to intelligence. Throwing around terms like “ridiculous” without knowing WHY something is “ridiculous” is the height of both stupidity and arrogance. I trust you’ll be more careful about such carelessness in the future.
Point 1: How do you define a “developed nation”? Because Russia and Brazil both seem rather “developed” to me…
Point 2: Again, what’s so great about having lower rates of gun deaths if all other crime is higher? Is a death-via-gun somehow worse than all other types of murder? How and why?
Or maybe you should just get your facts straight and refrain from talking from ignorance in the first place. It seems that you are the one who is offended at your “arguments” (laughable though they may be) not holding water.
Sure. They’re going down. How’s THAT for context?
But, better yet, I’ll add more context: Project Exile. Run a search on that sometime. Seems like it’s possible to greatly reduce the number of gun-related deaths without violating the natural freedoms people possess.
Hint: Russia and Brazil. Very strict gun control laws. Four times the gun-related death rate. How 'bout them apples, Chuckles?
Not significantly more (overall) than getting stabbed, strangled, beaten, or hit by a car.
I never said it was “acceptable”, I said it wasn’t “ridiculous”. Maybe you should get over your selective illiteracy problem before you post?
'Twas a joke, Chuckles.
I can’t understand how you think that Hollywood portrays guns “positively”. They portray guns as “tools”, that both the good guys AND the bad guys use.
Says the guy who accuses Americans of “gun worship”. Physician, heal thyself.
Do you have any evidence that guns will magically disappear in the future? Or do you have any reasonable methods with which guns can be removed from the worldwide society?
How is the assertion that “guns will always be there” a hypothetical? I guess I should add the addendum of “guns will always be there in the foreseeable future”, since I haven’t the foggiest idea what things will be like in 500 years. But ten bucks says that people will still be running around with laser guns even then.
It’s not a matter of “not trusting the state”, it’s a simple acceptance of the fact that it takes the cops more than a minute or two to get to my house. A lot can happen in a couple of minutes.
Please explain to me how crime is “logical”. Are we basing our laws on Vulcan philosophy now?
It’s a simple fact, pal, that you can’t reasonably rely on other people to protect you, as law enforcement officers will NOT always be able to do so. Or are you suggesting that, when someone is in trouble, all he needs to do is shout “Help!” really loud and Superman will come flying in to save you?
From some sources, yes. Some extremists believe that there should be NO gun regulation. Oftentimes, these extremists are labeled as the NRA, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The NRA is resistant to any gun control that places high pressures on law-abiding citizens without doing much to stifle crime. For example, it’s argued that gun locks are only a hassle to legit owners and do nothing to prevent crime. Similar arguments are applied to required registration and gun fingerprinting.
Again, run a Yahoo search on “Project Exile”, a wildly successful gun control program that focuses on stricter punishment. The NRA backs it fully.
Project Exile violates freedoms. It depends on and promotes the stripping of second amendment rights from ex-cons regardless of whether their crime was gun related. You can’t support that and at the same time uphold the notion that guns themselves aren’t the killers. As it stands, someone who has demonstrated no penchant for gun misuse can be denied the right to own guns. Not other potentially deadly weapons like cars, knives, or nunchucks - just guns. Project Exile depends on this kind of injustice to isolate those posessing guns illegally.
Even though those comments weren’t directed at me, Spoofe, several of them seem rather over-the-top for GD. The mere fact that somebody supports gun control and makes posts in favor of that position does not entitle anyone else to call them a clown, stupid, arrogant, or ignorant, all of which you just employed against Abe. There is an important difference between attacking a person’s argument and attacking his character. Great Debates will be a much more pleasant place if we respect that difference.
Can’t testify to Brazil, but I’ve lived in Russia, and Russia is definitely a third world coutry.
Maybe you meant to say “all other forms of murder.” But if you meant what you said, it ought to be pretty darned obvious that murder and robbery are not morally equivalent.
Are there any Law-enforcment officers or others with a body of experience of firearms crime on this board ?
I am interested in the whole idea of civilian firearms for self defence. Is this a practical proposition, and if yes, is the cost to society as a whole too high ?
It seems to me that if a firearm is going to be of any use in a self defence situation it must be,
a) immediately to hand,
b) loaded,
Easy access to ‘immediately to hand’, loaded firearms must surely be a major factor in America’s world beating rate of gun death and injury, both accidental and intentional, and a major source of illegal (stolen) weapons. It is essentially this situation that our legislation is designed to prevent.
I am certain that to some, firearm ownership provides a FEELING of security, but how real is the protection they presume it provides ? For a criminal to be deterred by the presence of a firearm he must be aware of that firearm, to be of any use we have aready established that it must be ‘immediately to hand’, and loaded. Are we not just advertising where the guy steals his next loaded gun from ?
If the thing is securely locked away its of little use in self defence.
As required by Australian law my own firearms are kept locked in a police approved steel cabinet bolted to at least 2 surfaces, with a separately locked compartment for ammunition. The weapons must not be stored loaded, or carried in public other than unloaded in an approved gun case. If we accept that there is a case in the USA for guns being needed for self-defence then our regulations would render them useless.
I am acutely aware that Australia is not the USA, and unlike America, our whole society is not already awash with illegal guns. I am not therefore entirely without sympathy for someone who, in the US context, might feel a firearm provides a level of personal security.
Here in Australia I can only personally recall one case where a firearm was used in self defence by someone not professionally putting themselves ‘in harm way’ (such as a Police Officer or Security Guard). In that case a 17yo car thief armed with a tire-iron was shot in the back.
I am certain that there have been other cases, but if there have been more than 5 in 50 years I will be astounded. Keep in mind that with our low murder rate EVERY murder is a headline story in the National press, and a case of a firearm being used in self-defence, successfully or otherwise, would definitely be major news.
In summary, can anyone provide informed statistics on the necessary and successful use of firearms for self-defence in the USA ?