Tornado recovery heightens Parkersburg’s community spirit
Eastern Iowans love the great outdoors
Plan for Coralville’s ‘Old Town’ goes to City Council
Tom Harkin donating papers to Drake University
Race for Iowa U.S. Senate seat in 2014 wide open, poll indicates
Iowa Legislature ends rancorous 2013 session on high notes
Blood found likely that of missing teen, abductor called “pure sociopath”
Can gun buybacks by police make a community safer?
Related Stories
Police Chief Wayne Jerman is planning a gun buyback event in the city this spring.
In a report to the City Council on Tuesday, Jerman said the buyback plan fit into his effort to get tough on gun violence in the city. He called the current level of such violence “unacceptable.” A buyback program is a success, he said, if it removes one gun from the street that might hurt someone.
City Council member Ann Poe said she liked the idea, though council member Don Karr said he did not.
“No bad guy is going to turn in a gun,” Karr said after the council meeting. Most of the guns that the program will attract are unused guns that law-abiding citizens own, he added. Money used for the buyback program, Karr said, ought to be used to add a police officer to the department.
Read the article linked above for more background. What are your thoughts? Can gun buybacks by police help make the community safer?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Other than taking away a possible source of where to illegally get a firearm, I doubt that there will be any reduction in crime. I may setup a table on the street to buy some firearms before they go in the front door.
Can’t hurt. Getting even a small amount of guns out of circulation should help. Hope the CRPD does not let it turn into a gun show and stop people from buying the guns before they are turned in.
It can’t do anything but help, although perhaps not much. Most of the people turning in guns for the pittance offered in return have absolutely no future personal need for those guns- they were acquiired through inheritance, gifts, or as war souvenirs, and the current owner who wishes to dispose of them has no intention or capability of ever using them. Getting these guns securely routed to a melting pot means that they are not available to get into the illegal weapon supply stream through theft or informal (garage-type) sales.
I don’t know what the mix of these turn-ins is likely to be, but most will probably be shotguns, rifles, and cheap foreign “saturday night special” type pistols that flooded the country 50 years ago before the first wave of gun control legislation took effect in the wake of the ’68 assassinations. Most of these guns are now virtually untraceable due to the era in which they were made and acquired. For example, suppose someone had the misfortune to be sniper-murdered by an 8mm Mauser K98; thousands of these weapons are legally traded every year and are therefore traceable; however, there is still a huge reservoir of these rifles sitting in the closets of the grandchildren of the WW2 vets who brought them back from Europe- guns easily stolen, unlikely to be missed in that event, and with no “chain of ownership” documentation.
“8mm Mauser K98″
A wave of K98 death and destruction is about to envelope the US of America? I doubt that we’ll have a huge amount of crimes committed with a bolt action rifle. Then again, I could be in for a rude awakening.
The point being that it is easier to trace a commercially-sold weapon than a “war prize”. A fair number of SKS/AK47 type captured weapons probably found their way back into the US via Vietnam-serving personnel in an “under the radar” fashion; however, the generation that served in Vietnam and that possesses these weapons is only just beginning to die off, so that pool of untraceable firearms isn’t going to be problematic for a few years yet. WW1/WWII rifles such as the K98 brought back by US Army members have almost 100% passed into the hands of others, some of whom don’t value them, don’t want them, and are responsible enough to try to ensure that they don’t fall into “the wrong hands” through theft or unwise gifting. A gun buy-back program is one way to ensure that (unless the cops running the program are corrupt and simply dump the functional turn-ins onto the gun market, as has been done in at least a couple of cases).
classic old arms belong in collections not buy back programs! Those WW2 vet bring backs are worth a lot of money, more than a 100 or 200 dollar voucher. this will be a waste of time, criminals will not turn in their firearms.
The idea is to take guns out of circulation before they fall into the hands of criminals. Maybe a small number of meth-heads would turn in their piece to get cash for a fix, but not a significant number. Disarming presently-armed criminals was never the intent of any of these programs; the premise is one of denial rather than surrender.
Probably many “collectible” guns (and what gun isn’t, to someone?) will be torched, but if you aren’t aware of the value of your personal property, you deserve to be parted with it. People with credible expertise in gun appraisal aren’t exactly a vanishing species.
This just another examplle, in a long line of examples, of governing by style rather than substance.why not buy back skateboards, or….swimming pools? As long as it prevents just one injury…..its worth the investment of taxpay money, thats in unlimited supply, man hours, its not like patrolling the neighborhoods is worth while.
But this is just the kind of slight of hand that low information voters base their decisions on in the polling place. Cosmetic feel good, wrather than the government doing what they are supposed to do. Because the Police…their job is not to protect you. Its just a popular lie that gets repeated.
Your comment is so garbled I can’t make a lot out of it but in regard to your “skateboards” and “swimming pools” comment: Neither are designed as weapons, nor are cars, motorcycles, and bicycles which also are involved in a number of deaths.
You do realize that people die as a result of using “skateboards”, “swimming pools”, etc.? It’s the same effect, it doesn’t treat the cause, you know criminal intent.
I’ve never heard of anyone using a swimming pool or a skateboard as a murder weapon. However, I don’ t watch many Perry Mason reruns, either. “It’s a strange one, Perry- the victim was done in by a swimming pool- from the marks on the body, we think that it was an Olympic-sized one fitted with a springboard silencer.”
LOL ! “It’s a strange one, Perry. According to the wheel-marks, the victim was run down by a skateboard, then repeatedly run over, and then the body was tied to the back of the skateboard and dragged for blocks. Terrible, terrible ! We’re trying to establish positive identification — skateboarded beyond recognition !”
“I’ve never heard of anyone using a swimming pool or a skateboard as a murder weapon.”
But you are aware that people die while using them, right? In fact more people die from fists and feet than they do from rifles.
“In fact more people die from fists and feet than they do from rifles.”
That may be true in the narrow case of “rifles” v.s. “fists and feet”, but handguns are the firearms of choice for murder in the USA, the only place that personally concerns me (as a US citizen). Murders involving guns outnumber those by “feet or fists” (or other blunt objects) by a factor of 10 to 1 (2008 stats).
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
“the only place that personally concerns me (as a US citizen).”
Nothing like a man trying to hide behind another mans pants to show true courage. Please, if you keep your drug dealing ways to a minimum, you should be fine.
LOL! I’d respond to that if only I could figure out what the frack it means!
It means, Mr Lorenz, that Abernathy has run out of anything substantive to say so he decided to switch from an adult level discussion of the issue to calling you a drug addled sissy.
I think that in order to understand the direction of this conversation from the pro-gun side that we need to pay close attention to Wayne Lapierre. His response to the State of the Union address is a jaw dropper.
We must stockpile weapons because America is on the verge of collapse and there will be no money for police officers and we will be living in a hellish world of hurricanes, kidnappers, drug gangs, looters and on and on and on. He did leave out the Walking Dead but no matter, I’m sure that’s next on the list.
What’s really disgusting about this man’s latest encyclical is his reference to black people are coming to take your stuff (looters in South Brooklyn–which didn’t happen) and Mexicans coming to kill you (Latin American drug gangs).
The question is do we really want to base our laws on what a crazy person says. Do we really want to take seriously people who repeat what this crazy person says.
Thanks for clarifying that, Ms. Bell. I had thought that he had merely run out of intellectual steam and dropped down a throttle notch from “inarticulate” to “incoherent”. If you don’t buy into the NRA-promoted dystopian world view (as I do not) it’s almost impossible to determine what a “true believer” is attempting to say. I’d insert trite comments about them being “sheeple” and “drinkers of NRA Kool-Aide” but such verbage is the hallmark of ignorant AM talk-radio listeners and as such is beneath me.
I see in the article that the Chief also wants to focus on reducing drunken driving. By similar logic I don’t understand why he isn’t offering a car buyback. That would take cars off the street. Cars that could be used for crimes. Cars that statistically kill more people than firearms.
Ever hear of “cash for clunkers”? That was a wildly popular program. It was mainly aimed at getting gas hogs/ air polluters permanently out of circulation, but it probably had a (miniscule) effect on the number of vehicles available to criminals, too. And it had a similar coterie of antique fanciers upset about it, too (“I can’t believe that they are going to crush that pristine ’37 Packard V-12!”). (Old-car fanciers, calm down- I made up the part about the Packard- but the point is, some people get excited about the prospect of crushing mundane old rides like a ’52 Chevy.)
Here is a news report about a gun buyback in Albuquerque. As one can see, the results were mixed. Pictures showed a lot of old “long guns” but also showed a number of handguns. It also drew some buyers to the location offering higher prices than the buyback.
http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/Gun-buyback-results/-/9153728/18491948/-/qm1tuhz/-/index.html
Apparently not. Maybe the chief could find a better use for the money and time?
“Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/
I think that the chief is aware if this and is simply doing it because it is a low-cost, high-profile way to generate a lot of publicity for himself and the department, and in so doing make himself (a newbie to both the job and the area) and his policies known.
He could have chosen a lot more intrusive way of getting his “there’s a new sheriff in town, boys and girls” message across. Judging by their response, the gun nut contingent is guilelessly playing into his publicity-seeking plan.
I believe Don Karr is absolutely correct! The chances of a “bad guy” giving up his illegal weapon at a gun buy back for a voucher are microscopic. If a “bad guy” was to sell a weapon it would be out of the back of some car; probably in Chicago from the looks of the police log. I believe the police chief is “grabbing at straws” to do something. I also believe that the use of those funds would be better spent on another patrol officer and that if the police chief wants to capture illegal weapons he should focus his attention within a 16 block radius of the areas reporting the most shootings in the city area you’ll be able to spot the seller because they’re standing on the street corners looking for buyers. If the police chief wants to take illegal weapons off the street go to illegal sellers, give them undercover buyers and quit “whistling in the dark”.
This might just be a relocation of the guns. Has anyone ever seen the turned in weapons get destroyed? Is this after the officers or Chief get to cherry pick thru the bunch for those worth a lot or those that make the perfect “drop gun” to carry? If they are to be destroyed why not have a chop saw at the turn in and cut the barrels down as far as possible in front of the people who want them destroyed? Do they ever inform the person turning in a valuable antique what the book value is for their gun? Seems like a great way to get some good guns cheap. I hope the area gun shops offer to inspect and appraise the guns long before the “buy back.” I noticed an ad earlier for a shop purchasing used guns since new ones are flying off their shelves. I think the place is on CenterPoint Rd just South of Hwy 100. The public should not be mislead or taken advantage of. And if a person wishes their weapon to be destroyed then it should be.
I believe that the pledge made by the police to the people turning in their guns is that they will be sequestered and destroyed, with no “gleaning” of the turn-ins to be permitted. Of course, this rule gets broken from time to time- it depends largely on the integrity of the cops in charge of the program. One recent turn-in program (within the last 6 months) turned up an exceedingly rare WW2 German MP43/44 “assault rifle” (supposedly the first of its kind) that was collector-valued at several thousand dollars. This particular gun got a “commutation of sentence”, and I think ended up in a cop museum rather than private hands.
Hopefully the police taking the turn-ins can discriminate “modern” (that is, smokeless-powder-safe) guns from their black powder predecessors. A criminal using a smokeless cartridge or shotgun shell in a gun designed for black powder would have to be (1) desperate; (2) clueless; and/or deserving of whatever happened to his face and hand subsequent to firing such a gun.
I see no point in wasting buyback money on a non-viable gun, even if it functions exactly as it was originally designed.
BTW, the argument against point-of-receipt destruction is that each gun is
checked against a database to see if it has been reported stolen or involved in a crime. If there’s a “hit”, the gun needs to be preserved in a fireable state in order to check its ballistics against rounds recovered from a crime scene. It’s dubious that this is a “while you wait” procedure.
A much better idea to get illegal guns out of the criminals’ possesion is to adopt an ordinance of “stop and frisk” as NYC has implemented. They are having good success with it and have covered the legalities. Gun crime isn’t going to decrease until we get tuff and deal with the criminals.
For this to work, the police would have to stop and frisk everyone, including you. Why not push to have telescreens installed in everyone’s homes.
Steve, I have no problem getting checked and often do. I keep my permit within easy reach. Any time LEO want to check me out I am happy to spend a few minutes of my time and hope they keep checking others. I consider it proof they are not “profiling” when I get checked and appreciate that they are being fare about it. I was referring to being out in public and not inside my own home. But if LEO wants to pay for my cameras and monitoring I will gladly send them the bill and link them up. Stay legal and you have no worries.
Mr Reece,
“Stop and Frisk” was declared unconstitutional Jan 8, 2013. No brainer violation of Amendment IV. Also Amendment XIV.
The overwhelming majority of people stopped–close to 90%–were law abiding people minding their own business and often on what amounted to their own property. People were stopped and frisked for taking out the garbage, picking up the mail, jogging around the block, walking to the corner store. And between 80 and 90% of those stopped just happened to be people of color.
The City could not present any convincing evidence that profiling people based on ethnicity and turning entire neighborhoods into the equivalent of prison camps was necessary to preserve public order. The City also could not present any convincing evidence that “Stop and Frisk” had any real effect on crime or that the ill will and distrust this program cultivated was worth its effort, cost, and problematic effectiveness.
“Jerman, who pointed to the success of a recent gun buyback program in Waterloo”
By success, does the police chief mean that crime in Waterloo has been reduced, or does he mean that they bought a lot of guns?
Rudy Giuliani showed the entire nation how to reduce crime in New York City and was pilloried by the press during his entire term in office for being too harsh and too insensitive.
The NRA and like-minded pro-gun groups are fond of the statement “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. One logical deduction: Reduce the number of people. A 2nd deduction: Reduce the number of people who possess guns. A 3rd could be to reduce the number of irresponsible people permitted to possess guns. (Gun buybacks may accomplish a little of 2.) The NRA position appears to be opposed to 1 and (considering their opposition to universal background checks) 3. I don’t know that they’ve taken a position on 1.
The proposed (by me!) Truth in Sloganeering Act will require a re-engineering of the NRA’s signature catchphrase. It will become:
“Guns don’t kill people. People with guns, and knives, and swords, and poison, broken bottles, skateboards, and swimming pools kill people. But most killers prefer guns for their combination of ease of use, ready availability, portability, concealability, fast lethality, and long-distance reach .”
Note to fiends, do NOT read this (and get ideas).
” . . . long-distance reach.” Until some FIEND mates a skateboard, knife, or broken bottle (or a poisoned knife or broken bottle) to a rocket.
Relax- this is Iowa, not Wisconsin (State Motto: “You’re Among Fiends”)
Jack, just for grins, let’s hear how many NRA members are arrested/convicted of physical confrontations each year. If it was an issue, you’d be parroting out those numbers.
What does NRA membership have to do with the acquisition of guns by criminals? AFAIK most NRA members are law abiding (although the policies their national organization promotes abets criminals who use firearms).
BTW, those few NRA members who are “arrested/convicted of physical confrontations” are probably now inactive members only, as they most likely would have forever lost their right to post-conviction gun ownership under both state and federal laws, barring an executive pardon.
Guns don’t kill people………..Liberalism has killed more people in the United States than all wars combined less civil war.
Well, while you’re at it, why not blame the Civil War on Liberals, too? After all, the South didn’t leave the Union because it favored the progressive, anti-slavery politics of the North.
Arrgh Meant to say ” . . . position appears to be opposed to 2 . . . “
Can you say “This is a Joke?” I knew ya could!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously? People in CR have been “dumbed-down” to the point where they actually believe a so-called buy-back will achieve a reduction of crime? By the way . . . when tried in Seattle, dealers showed-up, created an impromptu gun show at the event, and bought more guns than the police collected. Duh.
What’s wrong with that? The action by the dealers- assuming that they are legitimate businesspeople holding current FFLs- is neither illegal or undesirable. It may not get weapons “off the streets”, but it does get them “on the books” and estabishes an ownership chain record for future
regulation of these weapons. Actually, it probably is an economic gold mine
for everyone involved- the dealers get to cherry pick the valuable guns, offering Aunt Margie $30 more than the buyback table clerk would have paid out, and the dealers get a new inventory for way under wholesale.
Another “gun slogan” re-write:
IS: “When gun ownership is criminalized, only criminals will own guns.”
SHOULD BE: “Well, duh!”
Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.
Yes, they are both exercises in reviewing the facts and drawing a conclusion totally unrelated to said facts. I doubt that many buyback participants are motivated by an altruistic (if completely erroneous) desire to somehow reduce the number of guns that criminals already have. Most are probably people who have an old or useless (to them) gun which in their eyes would be better off being converted into a small amount of cash than languishing in the hall closet where it could get stolen by an intruder.
From where I stand as a gun owner and collector, gun buyback programs are non-threatening, if largely symbolic, attempts by police departments to show that they are being “proactive” in attempting to improve public safety in a community. And yet, the gun nut crowd react to them as if they were signup drives to have people sacrifice their firstborn children to Baal. I might expect such a reaction from feline lovers if the Audibon Society were to start a “Turn In Your Cat for Euthenasia And Get $50″ – but…guns? Totally incomprehensible.
I suspect the “the more guns the better crowd” hates gun buybacks because on the simple thinking level they see them as reducing the number of guns in the country not realizing that most of them are likely non semi-auto, old and outdated guns that, in some cases, will be replaced by modern and more lethal weapons.
“And yet, the gun nut crowd react to them as if they were signup drives to have people sacrifice their firstborn children to Baal”
That is a characterazation without example. I have only pointed out that the gun buy backs are an ineffectual exercise, and a waste of resources that the police claim to have to little of.
Their only measure of success is in fooling the low information voter.
The position of Chief of Police is not an elected position. So what do “low information voters” have to do with this buyback program discussion?
I suggest that you review all of the responses in this thread, not just assume that my comment was a personal assault on your remarks. I tend to agree that gun buybacks are ineffective; but they certainly don’t warrant the kind of inchoate rage and fear expressed by the “gun nuts” posting here.
If you care to speculate on why the gun nuts are so terrified of buybacks, let’s hear it. As I said, I can’t comprehend it.
I dont see anyone terrified of the buy back sham, thats just you painting with a broad brush. Just pointing out that the govt is always saying they are operating in the peoples best interest of the citizens, when, as this examples proves, they are acting out of self interest, and accomplishing nothing.
You continue to confuse “the police” with “government”. The Police are not Government: they are not elected (either by “low information” or “high information” voters) and they have no partisan agenda to promote (unless you believe that promoting public safety is itself a subversive concept).
Reading the various comments in the thread above, one could objectively conclude either that (1) many of the posters are incapable of accurately assessing the issue at hand; or (2) they are intentionally attempting to introduce argumentative “red herrings” in order to obfuscate the conversation. Maybe there’s a mixed bag here; but I suspect that Reason #2 is the predominant one- and that indicates a fear-driven, rather than rationalistic, approach to the discussion. It’s almost like discussing religion, and it shouldn’t be- guns are steel and wood, and not something supernatural.
Trying to have an intelligent conversation with the NRA hardcore types is like talking to the anti-abortion gang. Don’t waste your breath, because you are talking on deaf ears.
True enough; but for every NRA mindless drone out there who reads this thread, there are probably 3-4 others who are undecided and who can detect BS when they smell it. Discussions like this are important to helping them get the facts, not the party line; and as such, they are not a waste of time.
Make a community safer?
Safer for criminals, maybe.
FYI on buy backs.
This from MYFOXNY.com Jan 29, 2013
“Trenton gun buyback yields rocket launcher, illegal guns”
Recent New Jersey buyback recovered more than 2,600 weapons, approximately 700 of which were illegal. 90% of these guns were operable.
From the article:
“Among other weapons, the Mercer buyback brought in more than 100 sawed-off shotguns, nearly 1,000 handguns, four Tech-9 semi-automatic pistols, two Hi-Point semi-automatic assault rifles like those used in the Columbine shootings, a shotgun disguised as a nightstick, an antique Uzi, two Thompson submachine guns, an Egyptian fully-automatic assault rifle, a World War II vintage Luger pistol, at least three M-1 carbine rifles, a 12-gauge shotgun with a “streetsweeper” drum cartridge capable of holding 12 rounds of ammunition, a shoulder-firing rocket launcher and a tear-gas/riot gun”
So What? Its a gun buy back program, there are going to be guns brought in. So What?
No gun buy back program has ever reduced crime or gun violence.
It is a massive waste of taxpayer money, Police assets of man power, time, and resorces.
It is nothing more than a PR scam, designed to impress low informatrion voters. And by those on this thread that are defending the program, is is hugely successful by that measure.
“No gun buy back program has ever reduced crime or gun violence.”
That is something that you can not possibly prove. It is like saying that AA is pointless because there are still homeless stew bums on the street.
Sometimes you have to try to make a difference where you think you can, whether or not you think you can change the larger society. To paraphrase the Chief, maybe success should be measured in increments rather than as an aggregate; a la the Bush “thousand points of light” notion.
“That is something that you can not possibly prove” Right you are, I, being smart enough to know, that negatives cant be proven. That leaves those defending this dog and pony show, with proving that anything is accomplished.
I am all for improving by increments, but those incremental actions should have results. Gun buy back programs have shown no results and distract the police from doing productive police work. That has always been my position.
Go back and read my 1st response, this is just an example of govt taking action,spending tax payer money, with full knowledge that it will have no effect.
Want another example??? Go back to Obama’s SOTU adress, and his promise to increase spending on early childhood education. Except according to the govt own study, early childhood education has failed to do anything.
Like I said, the gun buy back sham is just an ongoing example of the govt illusion of doing something.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/head-start-earns-an-f-no-lasting-impact-for-children-by-first-grade
I answered this earlier. Your confusion persists re how elected public officials differ from appointed public servants. Blaming the police for the perceived failings of government is both nonsensical and nonproductive.
Mr Willliamson,
We are talking about local gun buyback efforts organized by city governments and implemented by local police. We are not talking about pre-school. Please stay on topic. You do not get extra points by changing the subject.
If you had no proof why did you make the statement as fact without any qualifiers such as “I believe” or “I think” ?
The question posed is clearly about gun buybacks and community safety.
That says nothing about the government spending taxpayer money and certainly nothing about early childhood education or Head Start. You are simply introducing red herrings. That tactic is often used when rational arguments are slim, and to muddy, and often to politicize, a discussion.
“If you had no proof why did you make the statement as fact without any qualifiers such as “I believe” or “I think” ?”
Because it is logic 101…….It is impossible to prove a negative. So don’t try, lest you end up looking silly.
So in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, gun buy back programs accomplish nothing.
The examples I proffered supported my opinion that gun buy back programs do not make the community safer, I then expand to explain -why- symbolic actions are prevalent through out govt.My response is no more ‘garbled’ than the nonsensical rambling of the chiefs report to the “ELECTED” city council that must VOTE to SPEND taxpayer monies on useless symbolic programs
“In a report to the City Council on Tuesday, Jerman said the buyback plan fit into his effort to get tough on gun violence in the city. He called the current level of such violence “unacceptable.” A buyback program is a success, he said, if it removes one gun from the street that might hurt someone.”
So the chief starts out by stating he is getting tough on gun crime, then quickly (because he knows the truth) devolves into the pablum speak of ‘if it removes even one gun that ‘might’ hurt’ someone, its a success. Notice no claim about reduce crime Thats some pretty weak tea.
I just expanded on my reasoning by purposely picking a non related topic to validate the logic of govt programs that sound good, waste lots of taxpayer money, resources, time and talent, and then, after years of showing no results, are rewarded by even more taxpayer money.
I could have stayed on the gun theme, and ask why the current local, state, and national govt proposals on restricted civil rights are directed at rifles, when they make up a minute portion of gun violence……..yet more symbolic action that doesnt accomplish what the stated goal is?
I was attempting to get people to take a logical, analytical, non-emotional look at the roll of govt in their lives, and ask the critical question of whether the govt is truly serving the public, or is the public merely abdicating their control and containment of a runaway, unaccountable govt agency. Settling for grand symbolic gestures, instead of honest confrontation of issues.
Williamson,
“It is impossible to prove a negative” is not Logic 101. It’s a logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy of negative proof—assuming a claim to be true because it is not proved false or false because it is not proved true. The fallacy lies in the inability or the refusal of the arguer to provide or consider evidence
Here is a study of the Australian gun buyback program. It’s true that Australia is not the USA but I have had contact with some Australians and not found them that much different from us, and it is notable that the country was originally founded with British convicts.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf