Domestic Violence, Mental Illness, and Guns: A Dangerous Combination

At the conclusion of writing my thesis, I was relatively optimistic about the future of gun control reform in America, probably more so than many people. I thought that the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, the death of so many school children, would be horrifying enough to put Americans and politicians into enough shock to finally move forward with policy reform. President Obama’s formation of a gun policy task force within his Cabinet was an important step forward. However, Congress still continues to be deadlocked on this issue. While Congress chooses not to act on gun control reforms, people continue to die from gun violence. Mass shootings have continued to occur as a result of mentally disturbed individuals, and in the home women and children are still being victimized by men with guns.

An example of the horror of domestic gun violence that occurs in this country recently happened in my state of Maine. Called by state police as “‘one of the worst cases of domestic violence in Maine’s history’,” Heather Smith and her three children were killed by her husband Joel using a pump-action shotgun before killing himself on July 26^th. The likelihood that a woman is killed by her abuser increases five times if he has a gun. Also unsurprisingly, most intimate partner violence in the U.S. that ends fatally involves a gun. There is a clear correlation between states with lax gun laws relating to domestic violence and the number of intimate partner homicides using a gun. As you can see below, Maine is one of the states with the highest percentage in the first figure and one of the states on the far right in the second figure. 

Source: Mother Jones

Source: Mother Jones

There is no evidence that the Heather Smith had taken any protective court orders against her husband or there was a history of abuse. But it is likely that even if Heather had, her husband still would have been able to have access to guns since there is a relationship between lax domestic violence laws and access to guns. An example of this relationship and the problems with the U.S.'s domestic violence gun laws are illustrated by a domestic violence killing that came not long before the one in Maine. Earlier in July a man in Texas, Ronald Lee Hassell, killed four children and the two parents of the same family, the woman being his former wife, Katie Stay.  

The killer had been arrested once before for domestic assault in 2008 while living in Utah with Katie at the time, but the charges were dropped after he accepted a plea deal. It is possible that his 2008 conviction did not prohibit him from having guns because he was charged with “simple assault” and not domestic violence, according to Laura Cutiletta, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But according to Chelsea Parsons, director of crime and firearms policy at the Center for American Progress, his simple assault charge in 2008 should have meant he was prohibited from owning guns, but since he entered a plea deal and he committed no crimes in the following 8 months, he was able to own guns. Then in July 2013, Katie filed a protective order against him in Utah, but she moved away and filed for divorce a month later. This protective order should have prevented him from owning guns, but as part of the divorce and custody procedures, the protective order was converted to a mutual restraining order, which did not prevent him from owning guns. Cutiletta says that the mutual restraining order could have made him eligible for gun possession prohibition, but since it comes under the divorce decree and not the domestic violence statute, it is likely the information would not have been communicated to the FBI to be included in the background check system when purchasing a gun. 

These domestic violence killings and the laws surrounding them show the confusing, convoluted, and hole-ridden nature of American domestic violence laws in relation to guns. Fortunately there is some hope that American politicians are recognizing that reform in this area is necessary. On July 30^th the first ever senate hearing on domestic violence commenced, petitioned by Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-Arizona), the famous gun violence survivor of the 2011 Tuscon Shooting and now gun control advocate. She petitioned to Senator Patricky Leahy (D-Vermont) of the Judiciary Committee who headed the hearing. The hearing’s focus was on gaps and weaknesses in American laws and background check system that allow known abusers to gain access to guns. 

Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, started Americans for Responsible Solutions, a nonprofit aimed "to encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership."  Source: www.commongunsense.com

Multiple Democratic Senators have proposed legislation that enlarge the definition of domestic abuse under federal law to stalkers and non-married dating partners. It also prohibits guns from abusers under temporary restraining orders, since current law only covers permanent orders. In Australia, people with domestic violence histories also cannot have guns. The following is one of the grounds on which a firearms licence must be denied in all parts of Australia as defined in the 1997 National Firearms Agreement:  "Specific reasons—applicant/licence holder has been the subject of an Apprehended Violence Order, Domestic Violence Order, restraining order or conviction for assault with a weapon/aggravated assault within past five years." 

However, the definition of who can be a domestic abuser in Australia is much more broad than in the U.S.  For example, in the Australian state of New South Wales, the definition of "domestic relationship" under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 says that one does not need to be married or had been married to the person to be considered a person that is legally eligible to be a domestic violence offender or victim. As a result, a broad group of people are eligible to commit domestic violence offenses and thus eligible to lose their gun licences.

In the U.S., domestic violence is still considered to be between spouses. People who have committed a domestic violence offense against another who they were never married to, lived with, or had a child with are not forced to forego their guns. For example, dating partners who have committed a domestic violence misdemeanor, in all but 9 states, are allowed to keep their guns. If you have been convicted of misdemeanor stalking, you are allowed to have a gun under both federal and states' laws. If the person is convicted of felony stalking instead, only at that point he is then prohibited from guns.

In Australia, this surely would not fly. In New South Wales, an Apprehended Violence Order allows for an individual to gain protection from forms of violence that is not covered under federal law in the U.S., such as stalking and harassment. In New South Wales there are two types of Apprehended Violence Orders:

"1. An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order - used when there is a domestic relationship between you and the other person e.g. partner, relative, house member etc.

2. An Apprehended Personal Violence Order - used when there is a not a domestic relationship between you and the other person - neighbour."

It is extremely important that the U.S. updates its old fashioned definition of domestic violence to fit the current times. The majority of domestic violence offenders today are dating partners, not spouses. Between 2003 and 2012, 39% of nonfatal violence against women was perpetrated by a current or former dating partner, while 25% was a current or former spouse.  In 1980, 69% of intimate partner homicides were perpetrated by spouses and 27% by dating partners, but in 2008, 49% were carried out by a dating partner versus 47% by a spouse. The marriage rate in the U.S. reached a historic low last year, and surely these numbers are reflective of a changing social environment. Since less people are getting married, it is imperative that laws are changed to reflect this change in our social environment.

Although it is hopeful that this Senate hearing has been held on domestic violence, it is yet to be foreseen whether there will be any big outcome from it. Sadly the news surrounding it when it occurred was minor, and there is no news to be found of any of it outcomes yet.

As loopholes and weaknesses are a key aspect of domestic gun violence, they are also exactly the problem when it comes to the relationship between gun violence and mental illness. For one, our federal background system’s mental health information is simply incomplete and incomprehensive due to the challenges of state health privacy laws.  Many states have not provided records because states’ mental health, patients’ rights, and privacy laws prohibit disclosure. A point of comparison that I did not touch on in my thesis between Australia and the U.S. was this difference of mental health records reporting.  Is there something about the Australian legal system that allows for better mental health record reporting? 

Seemingly the difference could be a difference in privacy laws, using the example of the state of Victoria in Australia. Section 120A of Victoria's Mental Health Act 1986 governs the disclosure of health information by mental health services. Under this Section there are exemptions allowed by the Minister of Health for types of information that can be disclosed. This information must be considered “necessary in the public interest.”  One of these exemptions is information communicated from certain types of health professionals to the Victoria Police about people who are unfit to own a firearm. These health professionals have statutory immunity when it comes to this type of information. Health professionals in the U.S. should also have the same immunity. Changes need to be made in our health privacy laws to ensure that this information can be legally communicated to our federal background check system.

While the inability to provide mental health information to our background check system is one aspect of the problem, there is also the issue of individuals who have not yet been deemed to have a mental illness because they have not yet been treated. In the time before there is official recognition of a person’s mental illness, the individual can gain access to a gun and commit a mass shooting. There are multiple examples of this in our mass shooting history: Eliot Rodger and the 2014 Isla Vista shooting, Jared Lee Loughner in the 2011 Tuscon Shooting, Adam Lanza in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, and the list goes on and on…

A way in which to prevent gun access for individuals not yet formally deemed to have a mental illness is through a “gun violence restraining order” or GVRO. State legislators in three states have introduced bills that allows a person to petition a court for a GVRO if it is believed that the person poses a significant risk to themselves or others by possessing guns. I personally think the GVRO is a great idea.  Not only would it bring a person’s condition to the Court’s attention so that the person can be legally prohibited from possessing guns, but it would bring a person’s mental problems out and into the open and jump start the process of getting the person professional help. For whatever reason the person has not obtained mental health help prior, but surely the Court will order that the person undergo treatment once it has been brought to the Court’s attention. 

Interestingly Australia is not only a model for the U.S. in terms of gun control overall, but also a model for mental health research and training. A program that has originated in Australia has come to our shores and has been endorsed by President Obama. Mental Health First Aid is an organization that began in Australia in 2001 by a psychologist and his wife, whom developed a program for early identification and intervention of mental health illnesses. In 2008 Mental Health First Aid came to the U.S. and since then the number of people trained has been growing across the country, now more 100,000 trained people country wide. 

After the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama called for Mental Health First Aid training to be given to teachers and staff. The Mental Health First Aid Act of 2013 has passed in both the Senate and the House which would give $20 million in grants to train individuals of the community, such as law enforcement, educational organisations, parents, and students. Also in Congress’s 2014 budget, there are two grant programs for state and local education agencies to carry out the training. Hopefully in the absence of a movement on gun control reform in the U.S., at least as a country we can move forward with Mental Health First Training country wide to help people recognise mental illness and get people the help they need before they hurt themselves or someone else, whether it is with a gun or not.

Source: livingisforeveryone.com.au

Overall legal barriers are currently the biggest hurdle preventing  the U.S. from having gun laws that comprehensively prohibit domestic violence offenders and mental illness sufferers from doing hurt with guns. Some of our laws must be changed to fit the present times and in the interest of public safety. The scope of domestic violence must go beyond the meaning of married couples. Although health privacy is a valued individual protection, exceptions must be made to protect many when one's health has the potential to do great hurt to many. As I believe we should look to Australia for a model to improve our gun control laws, I also believe we should also look to Australia to improve our legal definition of domestic violence and health privacy.  

Written by: The American.

Going Shooting in a Gun Loving State

A little over a year ago, I completed my senior honors thesis on American federal gun control. In my thesis I compared the American federal gun control system to that of Australia, using Australia as a model for reform in the U.S. In many ways the U.S. and Australia are similar both culturally and legally, making Australia the best country for an international comparison of gun control. Prior to 1997, Australia had a very weak gun control system because each state had its own system. After Australia's worse mass shooting occurred in 1996, known as the “Port Arthur Massacre,” the Australian Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, and the federal government overcame the adversity of pro-gun sympathetic politicians to implement a comprehensive federal gun control system.This system greatly improved the shortcomings of having individual systems in each state. Since 1997 Australia has had decreasing numbers of gun-related deaths. In the eight years before Port Arthur there were thirteen massacres in Australia, each with four or more deaths, but since the reform there have not been any massacres of this kind. Overall the 1997 National Firearms Agreement has been successful.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet proof vest to an angry pro-gun rally in the state of Victoria in 1996.  Source: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/.

During the year of writing my thesis, I developed knowledge about guns, gun control law, gun history, and gun culture in the U.S. I did not grow up with any family members that went shooting or hunting, nor is my home state of Massachusetts a place where shooting or hunting is very popular. It is one of the states with the strongest gun control laws. The Law Center to Prevent Violence gives Massachusetts's gun control laws a "B+". While I was writing my thesis, some of my professors and peers asked me why I chose to write on this topic. They assumed I chose the topic because I had some personal connection to gun use. I thought the fact they all made the same assumption was interesting. Did they think no one would be interested enough in this topic to write extensively about it, if they did not have a very personal interest in it? Going to college in Connecticut (which received an "A" grade by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence), and living in the north-east, which generally has strong gun laws (but not every north-eastern state does as I will discuss later in this post) and the gun lobby is looked poorly upon, I thought people would not automatically assume a desire to write about gun control at length meant I was personally invested in guns themselves.  Rather I thought they would think that I was a concerned individual about gun violence, as I am. I think the questions by my professors and peers can possibly be explained by the liberal thinking people tend to have in the north-east, where people assume a person's a desire to talk about guns at length correlates with gun fanaticism. I am certainly no gun fanatic, but writing my thesis did push me towards wanting to shoot a gun.

In addition to my Public Policy & Law degree, under which I completed my thesis, I also studied for an Anthropology degree. My Anthropology education taught me that to best understand a culture one must “do as the natives do” and immerse oneself in the culture. As my thesis progressed, I became more interested in shooting a gun myself, as a way to understand gun lovers’ point of view, and simply because I was personally interested in how it felt. I had read much about why people love guns in my research, so I wanted to see what it was like for myself. I did not end up having the opportunity to go shooting during the actual writing of my thesis, but I knew it was something I wanted to do in the near future.

When I found myself living in Portland, Maine for my first post-graduation job, I knew this would be the perfect opportunity to try shooting. Mainers love guns. It is not surprising given that the state is almost wholly wilderness. Living in Maine, a state with a report card grade of “F” from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was ironic given my thesis topic. What is also ironic is that my job in Maine is in a federal government office that has the duty to prosecute people who break federal laws. Therefore the office prosecutes individuals in Maine who break federal gun control laws, the very laws that I suggested policy improvements for in my thesis. Interesting though, Maine is one of the states with the lowest number of gun deaths per capita in the U.S. (10^th lowest in 2010). Could it be that Mainers are just really good examples of responsible hunters and shooters, despite the state's weak laws? However gun trafficking is a problem in the state and I have heard about this firsthand in my work place. Maine exports significantly more guns involved in crimes out of the state than it imports and has a crime gun export rate that exceeds the national average. In 2009, Maine had the 25^th highest rate of crime gun exports. While within the state, Maine's weak gun control is not hurting Mainers, the weak laws are letting guns easily move out of state where they can be dispersed country wide and may be involved in fatal incidents. Given all of these ironies, I absolutely had to shoot a gun while living in this state.

My research for beginner shooting opportunities in the Portland area ended with signing up to take a clay target shooting course at L.L. Bean in Freeport, Maine. If you are from the north-east., you will know L.L. Bean and I would guess it is likely many Americans countrywide are familiar with the clothing and outdoor recreation store. It has a well known “100% Customer Satisfaction Guarantee” marketing scheme and catalog that comes by mail. L.L. Bean sells guns in store and also offers an hour and a half clay target shooting course for the very, very low price of only $20. I could not pass up picking up some of the guns in store to see what they felt like before the class began. Only some of their guns are put behind glass. The instructors of the course were two older gentlemen, clearly true Mainers. They have many years of shooting experience, so I felt like I was learning how to shoot from the right people. The below photo is me with one of the instructors. He reloaded the gun every time I shot and also “pulled” the clay target for me each time, but only after I said "pull" of course. During the hour and a half I probably got to shoot the rifle about ten to fifteen times. I even hit the clay target on my first shot ever! I was a bit nervous and scared about the kick-back I would get on the gun when I shot it, but it was not as nearly as strong as I anticipated. The shooting was great fun and harder than it looks to nail that clay!

Probably the most interesting, funny, and ironic moment of the day came at the beginning of the course before we had even begun shooting. The instructors were speaking to the group, going over rules, and explaining the parts of a gun. They asked the group if anyone had every shot before. A few people raised their hands and the instructors asked them what they have shot before, such as clays, targets, etc. One gentleman, spoke up, in an Australian accent and said "Kangaroos". I was shocked. Not only was an Australian in Maine surprisingly, but here at L.L. Bean's shooting course of all places! Given my thesis topic, this was just too funny. The man explained that he and his wife now live in Boston, but back in Australia he shot kangaroos. From what I observed of his shooting abilities, he wasn't the best clay target shooter. I guess kangaroos are a bigger target to hit ;-). For those of you who don't know much about Australia or the kangaroo population there, it is extremely large. Kangaroos are sometimes considered to be a pest because there are just so many of them. So people shoot them for sport and to simply lower the population. As a result, one can buy kangaroo meat in Australia and it is exported worldwide. Also, kangaroos are often a hazard on roadways, much like how deer get hit by cars in the U.S.

Here I am shooting clay targets at L.L. Bean!

After taking the class, I reflected and thought about whether the experience has shaped my empathy for gun owners or my opinions of guns. I believe it has not impacted either. Through writing my thesis I came to the conclusion that those people who enjoy guns should be allowed to have them. I do not support taking away any American’s Second Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution. However, I strongly believe that the Second Amendment must be limited to protect public safety. Those who enjoy using guns for sport, hunting, or protection, should by all means be able to obtain one. However, adequate measures must be in place to ensure that only responsible people can purchase firearms. I believe that Australia’s federal gun control system, the 1997 National Firearms Agreement, creates a strong comprehensive system. But as I discussed in my thesis, not all aspects of it will be achieved or successful in the U.S., such as imposing strict storage requirements and a month long waiting period prior to purchasing a gun. The National Rifle Association (NRA) holds great political power in the U.S. and do not look kindly upon any law that is at all a seemingly “strong” or “strict” measure. 

The two areas in which I believe need immediate reform in the American federal gun control system and most likely to be achieved are the prohibition laws relating to people with mental illnesses and a history of domestic violence. These two areas, time after time, are an aspect of gun violence events in this country. I also believe these are relatively uncontroversial areas of reform. Who would not support keeping guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses and domestic violence abusers? For example, a 2013 Pew poll found people supported a policy that prevents people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns, by 80% to 16%. NRA members cannot disagree with prohibiting these types of people in principle.

However the NRA and its fanatic supports attempt to argue that limiting in any area of gun law creates a “slippery slope” to the prohibition of all guns. They also attempt to argue that “a good guy” with a gun can stop “a bad guy” with a gun. Firstly, the prohibition of all guns is America is simply a reality that can never exist. In 2008, the Supreme Court stated in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have the right to bear arms for self-defence, but this right is not absolute and can be regulated in the name of public safety. Therefore, a “slippery slope” can never be possible and this pro-gun argument is of no significance.

Source: http://danhagen-odinsravens.blogspot.com/

 In regards to the latter argument about "good" and "bad" guys with guns, putting more guns into circulation by arming every citizen does not mean we would live in a safer society. In a specific instance when a mass shooting happens, it is possible that “a good guy” with a gun could shoot and kill the shooter. It is possible, but does it really happen? No. Mother Jones studied 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012, and none of which were stopped by an armed citizen despite the great number of gun owning and carrying people in the U.S. In some instances gun violence may have been prevented by a person brandishing a gun, but the armed citizens who intervened was seriously hurt or killed. In commonly cited cases by the pro-gun side, individuals who intervened were actually law enforcement officers, not normal citizens. These individuals have experience in these types of high pressure, fast moving situations and obviously felt confident intervening. Therefore this idea that having an armed society will be enough to protect us from "bad guys" with guns is not legitimate. More guns do not make us safer. 

The more guns that are introduced into the population means they are more likely to be used on a whim and it is more likely that accidents will happen. When there is no gun present to be used, people do not have the choice to use it or misuse it. The below cartoon I believe illustrates perfectly the belief of some pro-gun advocates that armed citizens can successfully hinder mass shootings. But what happens in a real life situation is not as simple as the cartoon portrays it. The lower picture portrays the citizen shooting the "crazy person" before he is able to shoot her. But in real life, it is likely he would shoot her before she is able to wield her gun successfully. 

Source: NBC News

Our focus needs to be on limiting the amount of guns circulating in the population and taking them out of the hands of people who should not have them— criminals, especially domestic violence offenders, and those with mental illnesses. In my next post I will discuss the problems with our current gun laws relating to prohibiting people with mental illnesses and domestic violence histories from accessing guns, and discuss how Australia provides a model to learn from in addressing these two areas.

Written by: The American.

The Spread of Cryptocurrency

The US dollar and Australian dollar are the 1st and 5th most traded currencies in the world respectively. Despite the fact that the theme of this blog is the comparison of the United States and Australia, my first article has nothing to do with either currency. Rather, the booming use of cryptocurrencies in both nations. While this is an odd topic to choose for my first post of this blog, it is something which has been in the media a lot in the last year or so, most recently with a cryptocurrency ATM opening in Canberra, the capital of Australia.
A cryptocurrency is essentially internet money. There have been many different currencies developed with different features but in general they are decentralised, anonymous, provide instantaneous transactions and have low or zero transaction costs. Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency and also currently is the most widely used. It became big international news when the price of one bitcoin shot up to US$1135.

Source: Google Finance

While the price volatility of these cryptocurrencies is currently too high for strong acceptance within the general community for business transactions but a number of early adopters have begun to use the new payment methods because of the low transaction costs. The high market volatility is caused by the fact that the largest market for these currencies at the moment is pure speculation from an investment perspective, rather than the value of the currency being determined by the value of goods and services traded. With small market capitalisations, many of these new currencies are particularly susceptible to market manipulation strategies such as a pump and dump.
Take up of cryptocurrencies has been strong within certain groups of people. The anonymity and decentralised nature is attractive to people such as libertarians who believe strongly in freedom and free markets, or to those who have something to hide. Bitcoin was strongly associated with online drug marketplace Silk Road before it was closed down as it provided an untraceable method of payment. Online businesses see cryptocurrencies as attractive to avoid payment processing fees charged by companies such as PayPal which eat into their profits.

Source: thebitcoinchannel.com

Given the 'border-less' nature of the internet, the take up of cryptocurrencies has been reasonably uniform throughout both the United States and Australia. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have both recently released guidance on the tax treatment of cryptocurrencies. While not acknowledging the legitimacy of them as currencies, they are recognised in both states as personal personal property for taxation purposes. This contrasts to some countries such as Ecuador which have declared currencies such as bitcoin illegal.

A currency which has emerged in the last 12 months as a major player in the cryptocurrency world, and one which has strong links to both Australia and the United States, is Dogecoin. Dogecoin was founded in 2013 by Billy Markus from Portland, OR and Jackson Palmer from Sydney, Australia. The currency is based on the internet meme doge, which features a Shiba Inu dog. Dogecoin is young but has a strong internet community on Reddit and Twitter where the currency is mainly used to give small rewards to amusing posts and comments.

The strong internet community of dogecoin have had a remarkable impact on the world outside of the internet in the small life of the currency. Charitable efforts such as raising money for clean water in Kenya (doge 4 water) as well as sporting sponsorship events such as sending the Jamaican bobsled team to the Sochi 2014 Olympics have aided the growth and media presence of the currency.

Source: http://rt.com/news/jamaica-sochi-bobsleigh-russia-961/

These community sponsored efforts of dogecoin have also spread to both the United States and Australia. NASCAR driver Josh Wise secured the sponsorship of dogecoin for a number of races in the 2014 championship which has sparked the efforts of Australian V8 supercars driver Lee Holdsworth to look for the same deal. I for one would love to watch the doge car driving up Mount Panorama at Bathurst next year, although it might be a bit of a shock for the other drivers on the course.

Source: wifflegif.com

Whether you agree that cryptocurrencies are a good idea or not, they have already started to have a significant impact on society and will only continue to grow in their use around the world. From Australia or America you can join in with the others around the world to sell your dollars and buy some bitcoin or some dogecoin or whatever takes your fancy and contribute to the crypto-economy.

If you enjoy our articles feel free to add your email address to the toolbar on the top right of the page and you will be notified every time we post a new article. We also gladly accept donations in bitcoin or dogecoin if you want to help us out to write more articles about all things American and Australian.

 

 

Written by: The Australian.

Hello and G'day!

Welcome to the American-Australian Connection!

This blog is authored by an American and an Australian.  We decided to translate our interest in each other's homelands into a blog where we will explore our own personal interests, but always through the lens of the U.S. and Australia.  Our posts will discuss a current topic and how it relates to the two nations by making comparisons and showing differences.  We aim to address a wide range of topics such as: law, policy, culture, social issues, economics, finance, science, engineering, and more.  We hope our blog will show readers the ways in which these two nations are both very similar and different through discussing the different topic areas. 

Source: heavy.com

  

Growing up as an American, one does not learn much about Australia other than the typical stereotypes, such as: lots of poisonous animals, kangaroos, koalas, Steve Irwin, funny accents, and the Sydney Opera House.  When Australia is profiled on American national news, 99% of the time it is a story involving one of Australia's unique or scary animals. 

Growing up as an Australian, one learns more about America than Americans do about Australia.  America is a common aspect of daily news.  However, Australians are not unsusceptible from developing stereotypes about Americans from the news they receive, such as: dumb, rude, gun-toting, fat, obsessed with freedom, and the home of Hollywood. 

However, there is a lot more to the "land down under" and "the land of the free" than our stereotypes.  Since learning more in depth about each other's nations over the past couple years, we have gained much understanding and insight causing us to often change our points of view.  We foresee this blog sharing what we have learned, continue to learn, and bring to light how these stereotypes are both true and false.  Overall we hope our blog will help readers of all nationalities become more knowledgeable about these two great countries and what they have to offer, both the good and the bad. 

Source: lolsnaps.com

 

We would also like to note that we have chosen to write all of our posts using Australian English and grammar for purposes of maintaining uniformity. The end of each post will indicate which co-author it was written by: "The American" or "The Australian". Enjoy!