Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius wrote:
The US is friends with all of these, but since it knows that it has Japan, Aussie and NZ, and Canada more or less locked up as solid allies for various reasons, it's goal is to keep the UK from joining the European Club, which would give that club enough social status to start setting more trends around the school.

This is something that rarely gets touched on, and you're completely correct. It isn't in the long-term interests of the US to allow the EU to become a strong, federal state; as doing so forces us to either look elsewhere for a Eurasian partner (unfortunately the idea of playing splendid isolationist with China, India, and Japan doesn't really jive with classical American sensibilities), or accept a subservient role in the great geopolitical game.

Of course there are other ways of disrupting EU politics. For example, a stable, friendly Iraq can help relieve Kurdish pressure on Turkey; allowing them to make a stronger bid for EU membership (an action which also links Europe to the Middle East in a way which forces the EU to work in opposition to Iran). But leaning on the UK is the least strenuous option by a large margin.

Incidentally, the thing that's going to kill the 'special relationship' isn't any single diplomatic action, but technology. Previously America and the UK could bank on possessing at least some form of common perspective due to their similar geographic situation. However, air power, nuclear weapons, and communications technology have increasingly made the Channel irrelevant from a strategic standpoint. The Cold War artificially acted to maintain the relationship because both states had a common interest in preventing France from dominating the European order. However, now that the EU is becoming a more significant actor, I think we'll start to see the UK's ties with the US fade organically over time.

Keep in mind, that doesn't mean there will be an 'off' switch as the US will need to remain relevant within the European power calculus, and the UK will need the US in order to prevent being overtaken by France or Germany in terms of influence.

There is always a danger to stretching a metaphor too far, but this seems to have some legs, so let's play with it a bit.

First off, there are no women in the school. It's an all boys school, for two reaons. First, no nation is really feminine, and there's no real analogue to dating in foreign policy. Second, as anybody who went to such a school will tell you, reputation and saving face matters quite a bit. (BTW, I didn't go).

High school students generally have several circles of colleauges: classmates, teammates, old friends, current social friends, and club mates. Looking abroad, I think the following comparisons can be made:

Military alliances are teams. The US is the quarterback of the football team, the NATOs, which is the most successful team at the school. There is the European Alliance, which competes in Track and Field, but that's mostly the result of everybody training alone, and coming together to use their abilities together. It's a team, just not as cohesive as the football team that is NATO. The US also is on the golf team, which is an odd little team but does well thanks to it and the ANZACs. The US won't let Japan join the football team, but everbody knows it's competing on it's own in high level gymnastics. It doesnt' get a lot of cred at school, but those in the know not to take it lightly. Finally, the US does just enough beach volleyball with South Korea to keep that program winning. It used to be full court volleyball, but nobody in the leauge could keep the interest in fielding full teams.

The problem comes when the US wants to start a new team and play a new sport. In it's mind, now that Football season is pretty much over, the NATOs should play other sports, like Hockey. The problem is that Hockey is expensive, a lot of people get hurt, and can only be played in inconvenient places at inconvenient times. Also, most people don't understand hockey, and even a good general athlete might not succeed on the ice. The US went ahead, even as the school board seemed to send mixed signals about it's support, and keeps playing despite some serious complaints. The US is really glad that at least the UK joined the hockey team with it, as the US likes to win, and wished the UK still had a more competitive spirit.

USA gonna get aids from mexico (Swine Flu!)

Russia is currently in Rehab.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The US is friends with all of these, but since it knows that it has Japan, Aussie and NZ, and Canada more or less locked up as solid allies for various reasons, it's goal is to keep the UK from joining the European Club, which would give that club enough social status to start setting more trends around the school.

This is something that rarely gets touched on, and you're completely correct. It isn't in the long-term interests of the US to allow the EU to become a strong, federal state; as doing so forces us to either look elsewhere for a Eurasian partner (unfortunately the idea of playing splendid isolationist with China, India, and Japan doesn't really jive with classical American sensibilities), or accept a subservient role in the great geopolitical game.

Of course there are other ways of disrupting EU politics. For example, a stable, friendly Iraq can help relieve Kurdish pressure on Turkey; allowing them to make a stronger bid for EU membership (an action which also links Europe to the Middle East in a way which forces the EU to work in opposition to Iran). But leaning on the UK is the least strenuous option by a large margin.

Well, I quietly cheer a little whenever a nation rejects the EU constitution for exactly that reason. The US, and to greater than people realize extent the UK, have learned the very hard way how to make large federal systems work. The EU has some growing pains in it's future, and the UK might not want to jump completely in the pool with them. In my concept of the Anglosphere, Britian wouldn't be the third banana it would be in the EU, but second to the US. Given Britain's influence over the rest of the lot, it has a lot more muscle. the US also respects Britain for the things that continental Europe tends to dislike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, Mexico is the troubled middle class kid from a broken home that just cant' put it all together. He's a good kid compared to most, but the US and Mexico's relationship isn't based on shared interest, mutual admiration, or having a common goal: it's about money.

Money in this example is both literal money, and also the things that money buys high school students: influence, drugs, parties, etc.

Mexico isn't invited to the parties because it's cool (even though it's really just as cool as, say, Turkey or Egypt), but because it can score good weed and it's step dad will let us party in their backyard. It's simply beneficial for both sides.

Russia is like the stud pitcher for the Baseball team, the Pacts, that was almost as successful as the football team some years. The problem is that Russia hurt it's arm, and while it should be able to recover, it can't. It's dad lost a ton of money but he still has a nice care (oil reserves), that still make it a bit of a rich kid. And while injured, Russia can still compete, particularly for short bursts.

Polonius wrote:
Well, I quietly cheer a little whenever a nation rejects the EU constitution for exactly that reason. The US, and to greater than people realize extent the UK, have learned the very hard way how to make large federal systems work.

The unfortunate thing is that reality is likely working against us. The world is progressing towards and age of multinational, federal states. We may well be forced into a choice between the devil we know, and the devil we don't. Whether the devil we know is Europe, or China depends on how much emphasis one places on cultural commonality. There's also the twin wild cards of Iran (with its hegemonic designs) and Russia (with its dreams of a resurgent empire).

Another scary thought: there aren't any 'unoccupied' territories to fight over this time.

Polonius wrote:
The EU has some growing pains in it's future, and the UK might not want to jump completely in the pool with them.

For the most part the concentration of power in Western Europe should mitigate any potential conflicts. Tension will only become a real problem should Turkey be allowed to join (what's that former Ottoman territories? You now feel very much empowered?), or in the event of conflict/friendship between Germany and Russia. That isn't to say there won't be problems, but that the really big problems only seem to arise in the wake of those two scenarios.

Polonius wrote:
In my concept of the Anglosphere, Britian wouldn't be the third banana it would be in the EU, but second to the US. Given Britain's influence over the rest of the lot, it has a lot more muscle. the US also respects Britain for the things that continental Europe tends to dislike.

I expect a similar partnership.

whatwhat wrote:I would imagine the average American sees America's relationship with Britian somewat similar to that friend who isn't really your friend but just follows you around. It's a relationship which seems much more important to the British than the US.

While it would be stupid for me to be able to claim to speak for anyone else in this massive and diverse country, I will say that I do not believe this is the case. I grew up with a tremendous amount of respect for the UK and most of it came from reading history books and watching documentaries, some of which were originally form the BBC. I was in high school when 9/11 happened and it really touched me when you guys broadcast a singing of our national anthem as a symbol of sypmathy. When I heard you guys were going to war with us, honestly it cemented a feeling like.... brotherhood.. to me.

It was a few years after that I learned my biological grandfather was from England, so im at the very least 25% english, probably more since my grandmother's side has been here since the colonies. Which makes sense because the only other place ive been able to find people who share my last name (Fookes) is in the UK.

That being said, I'm dissapointed with the way your government has given ground, however little, to islamification, and the whole, banning imports of AIRSOFT guns because they RESEMBLE a fire arm... well thats just lame.

And no matter how hard she tries, my scottish girlfriend cannot get me to appreciate british comedy. Red dwarf was alright, black adder was lame.

The one thing that annoys me is that Americans (my experience thereof) have this sense of superiority over the British; to suggest that we owe THEM for something.

On the contrary, most British people (from my experience) can't stand Americans, for their brash and arrogant and bombastic behaviour. Something reflected right back to the colonies, the civil war, and the fighter pilots coming over and stealin' our wimminz.

We've this relationship that's kept, but hasn't been evaluated in recent years. The British Language, and most certainly, it's folk identity, and it's respective celtic cousins is slowly being diluted in the wake of giants of consumerism and capitalist gain and it's a sad thought to think we're losing our heritage to Big Macs, Obesity, The Jonas Brothers, and apple pie.

But this is a thread for another day.

Apple pie was invented in Britian in 1381 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Actually, although Britain dallied in slavery for some time, we cannot forget that they are the ones who abolished it. And, contrary to popular beleif, it was still a profitable a business. How long did it take for America? Another 100 years behind the rest of the world?
(kudos to William Wilberforce, the Ghandi/Mother Teresa/Space Jesus of British Polotics)

You don't need slaves when you have the entire sub continent of India doing all that work for you (Spice, dye, cotton leading to textiles and light manufacturing) Slavery still exists today in places like east Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Then of course there is "wage slavery", which I'm sure many on Dakka are familiar with.

Here's one thing never to forget about Americans: we don't have our own ancient culture to fall back on. We grab what we like, stuff it all together, and constantly move forward rather than dwell on what we were. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but it's what we do.

In many ways, that's why American's don't understand why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant. The french think that if you're not french, you're less tahn them, but they won't let you become french.

Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

Polonius wrote:
Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

What about immigrants from, say, Mexico? They may be illegal, but aren't they trying to find a better life in your country? Yet they are regarded with disdain and thrown out or locked up?

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

What about immigrants from, say, Mexico? They may be illegal, but aren't they trying to find a better life in your country? Yet they are regarded with disdain and thrown out or locked up?

Well, as I said, that really only applies to developed countries. We have our prejudices to be sure. And illegal Immigrants aren't second class citizens or some horribly maligned social class: they are people who are in the country illegally. Now, I'm sympathetic to why they came and view a lot of our immigration policy with Mexico to be poorly thought out (especially since they only come over because there is demand for illegal labor by american businesses, which is the under reported and investigated problem here), but they are still breaking the law.

I live in Texas, no one actually cares about busting illegals and everyone turns a blind eye toward hiring them. Illegal immigration is mostly noise people make when they want to scapegoat someone for economic problems.

Lord-Loss wrote:Apple pie was invented in Britian in 1381 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Yeah well knickers were invented in 44 BC by George Jefferson.

avantgarde wrote:I live in Texas, no one actually cares about busting illegals and everyone turns a blind eye toward hiring them. Illegal immigration is mostly noise people make when they want to scapegoat someone for economic problems.

Lord-Loss wrote:Apple pie was invented in Britian in 1381 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

Yeah well knickers we're invented in 44 BC by George Jefferson.

"Hamburgers were originaly made from Ham in Hamburg Germany in the early 1800's. Americans changed the ingredients to ground beef between slices of bread. Australians added the salads to make a hamburger a real meal."

Hamburgers have brought this world together

Now.Who added the cheese!?

Wolfstan wrote:From what I've read it would appear this term has expanded from the US involvement in WWII. History appears to forget that FDR had a hell of a job getting the US involved and if it wasn't for Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on it, you may not of been involved that deeply.

Being a nation born of revolution and a conservative mindset, it's a little different here in the States than in Great Britain. You come from a tradition of monarchism and doing as the royal family tells you, of government having that 'loving father' thing that monarchies sometimes have; so if the PM and the Queen tell you it's time to go fight, I think you're more likely to say "Okay."

Whereas in the U.S., we don't trust the government as a whole, and we learned from centuries of European conflict that getting involved over there was probably a pretty bad idea. The Founding Fathers were quite clear on that. Too bad we didn't listen to them after 1945...

So, yes, America's isolationism was still very much in effect during the early years of the war, but there are some who suggest that FDR ordered the blockade of the Philippines, the main source of Japanese oil, knowing full well that the United States might come under attack but perhaps that was the spur the U.S. needed for the populace to get behind the war effort.

The ships that the Japanese destroyed at Pearl Harbor were old rather old ships...all our aircraft carriers, which would prove so vital to the war in the Pacific, just happened to be away from the island when the attack hit. All of them.

Wolfstan wrote:Added to this the US military had a different view of how to pursue the war than we did.

Indeed. Eisenhower should have told Monty to shove it when he proposed Market Garden and supplied Patton instead. The U.S. believed that brute force and attack would be the best way to pursue the war...the British liked to be more sneaky...didn't quite work out.

Wolfstan wrote:From a British perspective I think we believed that because the US spoke English and was a former colony you'd come running to protect the mother country.

I am curious...is this a British tack on history? I've never heard anything like this ever said before. I can't believe the British would have thought we'd have come running to "protect the mother country." I don't know if Americans felt that way at all after the War of 1812, ever.

Wolfstan wrote:I think we overlooked the fact that the US had grown up and developed it's on "personality", kinda like your kids growing up.

I don't think the British ever thought that the U.S. had anything in common with them from the very beginning. If you look at the mid-19th century, the British clearly had the perception of Americans all being overly-passionate, prone to anger mavericks who weren't properly cultured. Rough around the edges. Even our upper classes still weren't looked at equally by the British upper class. We were decidedly our own animal a long time ago.

Nowaday noone gives a flying gak what the queen does. She only sits on her arse anyway, lazy bitch.

There is value in having a non-political head of state. There's all kinds of excitment because Obama is going to speak to school kids on tuesday, and the right is all up in arms because they think it's indoctrination and what not.

We're one of the few nations with a unified head of state and head of government, and some of the lightweight ceremonial stuff could really be shucked off to a figurehead monarch. Admittedly, we like to use the VP for that (and attending funerals).

The whole "English Speaking Special Relationship" (UK, US, NZ, AUS, Canada) is based on the universal starting point of ol'blighty and a common heritage of language, customs and politics. In essence, we basically watch each others' backs in case anyone gets in our faces, individually or collectively. Just like if your cousin rang you up to tell you your uncle or aunt had been roughed up by some goons, you show your support with cash (economic) or muscle (military) or both (pure awesome high 5).

History has shown that neighbours of our relatives can turn into total d!cks from time-to-time (France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc), so we close ranks and get ready for some smackdown. Grant it, just as our flesh and blood relatives can be total a$$holes, like the cousin who drinks and drives or owes you cash, so can our global relatives. Sure the US pisses everyone else off, but it's nice to know if the gak hits the fan, they'd be there. Sure they might not take their shoes off when they enter the house and use the plates as ashtrays, but isn't that better than having Jerry, Pierre, Kentaro or Ivan burn your car and Fething your sister?

I personally have lived in three of the countries mentioned above and visited Oz as well. I've never met anyone from any of these countries and thought "what a D-bag...because he's NATIONALITY ENTER IT HERE." The person is a D-Bag because they just are. To quote Robert DeNiro in the film Brazil, "We're all in this together."

Our Special Relationship might not be as strong as the Scandinavian Special Relationship, where they can move freely between borders and immigrate or emigrate without really heavy bureaucratic headaches, but it is strong nonetheless. Seriously, if Oz was attacked or dropped the gloves (a Canadian euphemism for fighting coming from Hockey fighting where opponents remove their gloves to fight) with Indonesia, or whatever, don't you think the rest of the group would be there throwing chairs in from ringside, distracting the ref and eventually coming over the ropes to dish out some sweet, sweet chin music? We owe it to one another to help each other out. over

Some videos kind of related to the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watchv=LysxbVZ1DNM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_mkwB9ayK4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04f2UJOPJfQ

If you've lost family or friends through 9/11, I wouldnt watch this next video cause you WILL be offended, this women is a complete pycho:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XkgOdb8tdA&feature=related

Polonius wrote:There is value in having a non-political head of state. There's all kinds of excitment because Obama is going to speak to school kids on tuesday, and the right is all up in arms because they think it's indoctrination and what not.

If I hadn't found this thread 3 pages in I maight say more but I don't want to create a wall of text to crush everyone so I will be brief.

Though I agree with your first point, the second one is slightly misleading. The 'right' aren't upset that he is talking to kids but with the questionnaire passed out to go along with it containing questions like "What can you do to help the President". I can see where they can sorta, kinda think of it as propoganda but I think it is more bi-partisan blinders than anything else.

As for the US having bad blood with the UK after the War of Independence, that isn't quite right either. Many in the US still wanted to have friendly relationship with Britain, they just didn't want Britain in charge anymore. Now when the British Navy started kidnapping our sailors (impressment) we got a tad upset and helped lead to the War of 1812. Even then we still got over it fairly quickly.

It is funny that we have gone to war with England twice and still like them better than the French!

I read an article today that said that something like 90% of democrats approve of Obama, while 85% of republicans disapprove. At this point, nearly anything he does is going to make half of america swoon and the other half angry.

And Reagan went on air to school kids to talk about lowering taxes, so there's precedent.

@Lord Loss: That was one scarily wierd b*tch.

A good article to show that perhaps the "special relationship" is stil going stong amongst the everyday joes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/we-pity-the-brits-the-view-from-the-marines-1782093.html

Polonius wrote:I read an article today that said that something like 90% of democrats approve of Obama, while 85% of republicans disapprove. At this point, nearly anything he does is going to make half of america swoon and the other half angry.

And Reagan went on air to school kids to talk about lowering taxes, so there's precedent.

I never disagreed in the first place. I was just pointing out that the cover argument is not that he is talking to the kids per se, but worksheets. The real complaint of course is that he is Obama.

Polonius wrote:Here's one thing never to forget about Americans: we don't have our own ancient culture to fall back on. We grab what we like, stuff it all together, and constantly move forward rather than dwell on what we were. I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but it's what we do.

In many ways, that's why American's don't understand why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant. The french think that if you're not french, you're less tahn them, but they won't let you become french.

Anybody can become American, just by moving here and embracing the way of life. Even legal citizenship is pretty easy, at least if you're from a developed nation. And yes, if we have a fault it's that we can't really see why anybody would not want to be an American.

Bill Bryson mentioned this in one of his books on America. He said that any exchange student or homestay would eventually be asked which they liked better, their home country or the USA. When they answered their home, people would look at them a bit mystified.

I think one of the main problems with foreigners' perceptions of the US is that there is a feeling in the US that it's the best country in the world, in fact it's perfect and everything it does or wants to do is right, so anyone who disagrees is on the side of the devil.

Cairnius wrote:
Whereas in the U.S., we don't trust the government as a whole, and we learned from centuries of European conflict that getting involved over there was probably a pretty bad idea. The Founding Fathers were quite clear on that. Too bad we didn't listen to them after 1945...

They were? Because I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers accepted aid from the French, signed a treaty with a former Ottoman subject, signed a treaty with Prussia, and accepted Spanish colonial boundaries. Seems like they were quite content to involve themselves with Europe, despite the infamous Adams quote (he counts as a Founder?).

Cairnius wrote:
So, yes, America's isolationism was still very much in effect during the early years of the war, but there are some who suggest that FDR ordered the blockade of the Philippines, the main source of Japanese oil, knowing full well that the United States might come under attack but perhaps that was the spur the U.S. needed for the populace to get behind the war effort.

The ships that the Japanese destroyed at Pearl Harbor were old rather old ships...all our aircraft carriers, which would prove so vital to the war in the Pacific, just happened to be away from the island when the attack hit. All of them.

Why thank you, Chalmers Johnson.

Cairnius wrote:
I don't think the British ever thought that the U.S. had anything in common with them from the very beginning. If you look at the mid-19th century, the British clearly had the perception of Americans all being overly-passionate, prone to anger mavericks who weren't properly cultured. Rough around the edges. Even our upper classes still weren't looked at equally by the British upper class. We were decidedly our own animal a long time ago.

And yet they underwrote the Monroe Doctrine.

Also, when did the mid-19th century become 'the very beginning'?

Polonius wrote:I read an article today that said that something like 90% of democrats approve of Obama, while 85% of republicans disapprove. At this point, nearly anything he does is going to make half of america swoon and the other half angry.

[bad joke] I know, its so black and white. [/bad joke]

Ahtman wrote:
It is funny that we have gone to war with England twice and still like them better than the French!

Actually, I have yet to see any Frenchmen (or at least recall any Frenchmen) being present on this board. Speaks for something if the question is one of culture.

Falconlance wrote:That being said, I'm dissapointed with the way your government has given ground, however little, to islamification, and the whole, banning imports of AIRSOFT guns because they RESEMBLE a fire arm... well thats just lame.

Who told you that? Airsoft guns are not banned, you're just not allowed to carry them around in public where they are visable, not in a box etc. For obvious reasons.

edit: Just searched it and you're right, as of 2007. Missed that one. ...fair one. But still I don't really have a problem with that. I think the main problem would be their use in hold ups.

Shamfrit wrote:

On the contrary, most British people (from my experience) can't stand Americans, for their brash and arrogant and bombastic behaviour.

Hmm..I don't agree with this. I'd agree there's a certain type of American tourist whom we can't stand. But that's more to do with them being rich arrogant arseholes who just happen to come from America rather than them being American specifially. Add to that the fact that we can actually understand what they are saying as they speak english I doubt they're any ruder or more arrogant than people from other countries.

The septic students at the uni where I work are all sound enough.

Even the Republican ones !

I do think they seem shocked by many aspects of British culture, like in the excellant Indy article above all of the American students are amazed at how often we swear, or at least the variety and colour of the words we use, whilst they tend to use the word "gak" almost exclusively. The american guy i used to argue over comics book with said it took him a while to get used to being greeted by his friends with the phrase "ya alright, ya daft witch ?"

whatwhat wrote:

edit: Just searched it and you're right, as of 2007. Missed that one. ...fair one. But still I don't really have a problem with that. I think the main problem would be their use in hold ups.

That's less a problem here. The way the laws are structured, as long as you have a reasonable belief that the guy robbing you has a gun, you can use your gun. Doesn't matter if you're a cop or a liquor store owner. Every year the stories come out of guys shot dead by the police after pulling a fake gun. It's sad, but totally legal.

whatwhat wrote:

Falconlance wrote:That being said, I'm dissapointed with the way your government has given ground, however little, to islamification, and the whole, banning imports of AIRSOFT guns because they RESEMBLE a fire arm... well thats just lame.

Who told you that? Airsoft guns are not banned, you're just not allowed to carry them around in public where they are visable, not in a box etc. For obvious reasons.

edit: Just searched it and you're right, as of 2007. Missed that one. ...fair one. But still I don't really have a problem with that. I think the main problem would be their use in hold ups.

It's still completely legal to obtain and use airsoft guns but they have to be painted a silly colour, it is illegal to repaint them (that'll stop the crims,) and you have to be a member of a club for several months to get a licence to buy one.

Anyone aged 17 can buy a far more dangerous air gun (e.g. 0.22 calibre pistol or rifle) over the counter for cash though. Modern air pistols are a lot more similar to military pistols than the old-fashioned Webley Tempest style, which you can't buy anymore.

Why, Oh Why? does the government not make it illegal to do armed robberies with real or pretend weapons?

The situation is the opposite in Japan. Anyone can easily buy the most realistic looking airsoft guns -- apart from specialist shops they are also sold is the toy sections of any decent department store. However air guns and real guns are tightly controlled. It's very hard to get a licence.