June 13, 2009The BBC posted this article about three recent violent events in the United States. Two appear to be the work of (so-called) right wing nut jobs and the other appears to have been comitted by a self-styled jihadist. As the BBC points out, the US allows its citizens the right to “keep and bear” arms in its constitution. That means, whether by accident or intent, there are about 30,000 gun injuries or deaths a year in the US. This is out of over 300 million citizens (according to Google, exactly 304,059,724 in July of 2008). You do the math.
The BBC, like American gun control lobbyists, points out that if guns in the US were controlled as they are in the UK, the US would have the same crime rate and level of civil liberties as in the UK. They are probably right. But that prospect is only appealing if you believe that Great Britain is a noticeably safer place to live than the US.
It is not.
For instance, in the UK, an elderly man bought a 22 caliber rifle to defend himself and his home after having been burglarized a number of times (so much for counting on the government for protection). This was the outcome:
Thus, in one recent notorious case, an elderly man who had been repeatedly burglarized and had received no meaningful assistance from the police, shot a pair of career burglars who had broken into his home. The man was sentenced to life in prison. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml
That’s life in prison for defending his home against two physically superior individuals who were already inside his home.
My point is not in support of gun ownership or of any particular form of government over another (England is flooded with crime AND security cameras AND repressive gun laws).
My point is that the BBC, valuable for presenting an additional perspective on world news, is no more trustworthy than the American press.
There are over 300 million people in the US and the BBC, like their anti-gun counterparts in the US, focused on the three (1:100,000,000) that involved extremist hate crimes involving guns as further evidence that the US population should willingly disarm itself.
Yes, there are other examples of similar violent crime, but all their inclusion does is reduce the numbers from totally ridiculous to merely ridiculous.
So, the next time you read a news article from ANY source, read it closely. Most often you will find a hidden agenda. This is to be expected, as only a handful of individuals control the worlds media – both print and electronic – and the wealth that is to be had by carefully parceling out “the news”.
The internet is the remaining bastion of free dialogue in a mass media and it is under concerted attack by those who would meter its content so as to prevent those with shallow pockets from having any say at all.
Be awake. Keep on the alert.
[...] Watch your back | Bill Canaday, hisself By Bill Canaday The BBC, like American gun control lobbyists, points out that if guns in the US were controlled as they are in the UK, the US would have the same crime rate and level of civil liberties as in the UK. They are probably right. … Bill Canaday, hisself – http://nmwoodworks.com/life/ [...]
Your comments go both ways, the man who was given life in the UK was done so for shooting the burglar in the back and letting him bleed to death in a field next to his house, the Police were in a position to have to have saved a life but he lied to them, therefore it became murder and not self defense.
At least in the UK if I get involved in a car accident or an arguement I don’t have to worry if the other has a gun.
On the whole my personnel experience is Americans are frightened more of the time than Brits, It could be the way crime is presented by all branches of the media
Perception of crime is always more important than reality
Bill Canaday Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Thank you. The original source did not provide enough details for me to double check the matter. Neither, however, have you. Could you provide, at least, the name of the convicted man? (and more, if you know it)
In the US, we are allowed to shoot the burglar after entry into our homes but, for the sake of keeping matters simple, we are encouraged to keep him inside if we can. As for the bleeding to death part, slow police response time all but insures that.
Hey, if we can’t count on police response time to save us, why should the burglar fare any better?