Well, no sooner had the news come in about the terrible massacre at the Connecticut school than the BBC were using it to advance their agenda of restricting gun ownership. The Today programme had several segments this morning on the issue and the clear meme that MORE must be done to restrict the right to bear arms. Naturally Obama was also able to emote on the loss of the children AND then also launch into his political agenda. Given that more people are killed on our roads each day than were killed at Sandy Hook elementary school, shall we ban cars? What happened at this school was appalling, an act of sheer evil and THAT is something you cannot ban but the BBC has form on this issue and so it has proven. I am sure all Biased BBC readers will share my sense of horror at the loss of these infants but it is also nauseating to see parasites like the BBC wilfully taking advantage of such to advance their own agenda.
HORROR IN THE CLASSROOM
Bookmark the permalink.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly as I was listening to it all unfold yesterday. This type of horror will always happen from time to time whether guns are legal or not. My sympathy goes out to the victims although those that have lost their children will be inconsolable.
They happen a lot more often when guns are legal and widely owned. The same day a Chinese man attacked a classroom full of children with a knife. Twenty six were injured, but none were killed.
“……………………. but it is also nauseating to see parasites like the BBC wilfully taking advantage of such to advance their own agenda.” ……………………. Sorry but “pot, kettle and black” spring to mind when reading your comment.
If keith vaz gets his arse in gear he can be there by tea time.
Hey, anyone doubt that if it turns out the killer recently converted to a certain peaceful religion, the BBC will suddenly decide that this is a completely random incident from which no lessons can be learned?
This from your rubbish: ” Given that more people are killed on our roads each day than were killed at Sandy Hook elementary school..” makes me realise that you see bias in virtually everything! There is a huge difference between a car ACCIDENT , and the INTENTION of using a gun!
You are way out of line here.
Shmedrick by name & Shmendrick by nature.
I think your comments are spot on , we have millions of vehicle traffic movements every day and sadly these end in some people being killed. As a biker I know perhaps better than most that, going to your friends funeral isnt nice. The difference is that transport overall is for the good of the country and brings us freedoms and wealth. What do guns bring us ? Nothing but pain.
Apart from over a million cases of self-defence every year.
I don’t want to live in a society in which people have to resort to threatening each other with guns, I want to live in a civilised society.
Now as a life long bike rider myself all I can say is that most of the population hate bikers we have to fall over ourselves trying to look all fat Harley Santa for them but they hate us and our freedom so maybe you should be more understanding of the loss of that freedom ? the death thing is relative I have lost more mates by suicide then by bike crashes and every one of those deaths wasn’t deserved !
Love this site generally and it is such a great daily read. Normally, with the odd exception, it reduces my blood pressure with so much sense from so many like minded respondents venting here, with the odd idiot, who normally gets slated.
Perhaps it is my 25 year military experience, that makes me strongly disagree with the direction of this leader article, about the BBC attitude to the guns and lobby issue in the States.
In my mind a responsible nation should have laws that leaves guns only in the hands of those professionals who have been properly trained to use them for legitimate accountable purposes, (with the exception of those oppressed nations of course seeking freedom).
The comparison of the car kills is, so ban that as well is ridiculous.
Responsible states like Canada and Switzerland perhaps?
Or the UK where guns are banned yet there are more deaths by gun crime in our ‘capital’ than in New York or Washington?
Somehow I don’t think it’s the gun laws that are broken in the US.
Crime is getting out of hand in the UK because the police are scared to tackle non-white criminals. That is the sort of problem that English conservatives should be tackling, instead of advocating gun ownsership.
Your views would find favour with every dictator in history. I’m sure North Korean gun laws would suit you down to the ground.
It is just nonsense to argue that gun controls favour dictatorship.
I agree, I mean putting a 9mm Glock in the hands of a 17 yr old , with no training, no respect, no experience of the world, and maybe lots of other issues is just an accident waiting to happen. It like giving a young person a high powered car. I watch ” The First 48″ crime series which investiagates murder and the young americans who shoot each other are ofetn horrified and crying when the law catches up with them
Translation of Charlatan’s comment: Magically, criminals will not have guns either, and our wondrously benign leaders (and the wealthy who will have armed guards) will rule us sheep with sweetness and light.
The original concept of a regulated militia meant more than something controlled by the government to protect against foreign enemies – it was also meant to allow locals to bear arms in case of tyranny from our own government. The State would provide guns to those who needed them to fall in with their militia, but it would have been inconceivable to prevent people from buying their own guns for that purpose. The “regulated” part was about giving orders and commissioning officers and all that, not deciding who could carry a gun or not. That gets nicely swept under the rug by those who want an unarmed, meek populace.
You need to get out of the eighteenth century. The whole militia thing was created for a frontier society with marauding savages on the border. The US is no longer a frontier society and the UK never has been.
A rather myopic, narrow vision of reality. I live in the 21st Century where free adults ought to be allowed to make their own decisions, and your rights end where mine begin. You apparently want to live in a totalitarian state where people who hold the approved thoughts make all decisions for the great unwashed. No thanks.
“The comparison of the car kills is, so ban that as well is ridiculous.”
I have to agree there. Car accidents in this context are irrelevant.
Problem, though, with making gun ownership a crime is that only criminals will have guns – making ordinary people defenceless against them.
Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt
Puerile argument. So how were these children protected by the Second Amendment? Did it make them safer? They were killed by legally-held arms. Should their teachers have been armed too?
Yes, they should. However, this would have been illegal, as fatuous federal laws decree that schools shall be “gun free”, unless and untill a deranged killer turns up, of course.
The 2nd Amendment was never meant to let paranoid women arm and train the mentally ill. I wonder why there’s no law against having a gun in a home with a clinically mentally ill person? Probably the same reason why clinically mentally ill people who are known to be dangerous and don’t take their meds aren’t locked up where they can’t steal mommy’s AR-15.
Just imagine if the kid had bought illegal guns from a Mexican drug dealer instead of stealing legal ones from his mother. Would the Left be screaming at Eric Holder and The Obamessiah for providing those guns?
So punish criminals with guns severely. Enforce the law. That’s what conservatives should do. I don’t have a gun, I don’t want a gun, I wouldn’t trust any neighbour who did. The old almost gun free England was a better, safer, freer place than the US has ever been.
This is an idiotic straw man. Nobody here has said laws should not be enforced.
The thing that really annoys me about these massacres is the MSMs total lack of curiosity when it comes to the murderer themselves and the their motive. What is it that has happened within the last 30 odd years that makes these shootings more common ? Firearms were widespread in the UK up to the 1950s but this never happened. Why did Michael Ryan do what he did but why did this never happen 40 years before ? Ryan plus Thomas Hamilton (especially Hamilton) now seem forgotten while the Political elites solution is always to ban guns and if they are already banned to ban them more.
It might help if Lord Cullen’s findings were not subject to a 100 year closure. Who or what was he hiding? As for Hungerford, the Thatcher government never bothered even to have an inquiry to try and establish the facts, Douglas Hurd just decided to ban the sort of guns he didn’t own.
Good point — why was Lord Cullens findings subject to 100 yr closure?
It cant be IRA terrorism etc
Good point — is it was that young people were under more control 40 yrs ago? I mean when I was a child in the 60s right was right and wrong was wrong, in the 70s as we experienced drink ,drugs, sex and rock and roll we had no thoughts of hurting anyone. Our fathers generation had paid an awful price in WW2 for us to be free and we had no violent thoughts. I think there is in every generation a small percentage of people who enjoy killing. I can remember being 20 and we had such a good time heavy rock groups like Led Zep, Sabbath and Purple, girls , booze, — we had no thoughts of hurting anyone
I’ve lived in Belfast in the same period and I’m afraid that was not my experience. A long dead Cardinal in Belfast used to refer to the ‘thin veneer of civilisation’ which had shattered in Ulster. That it remains relatively intact in the mainland is a blessing.
I was especially pleased with their assertion that “many Americans “believe” they have the right to own guns.”
Well yes. That’s because that’s what the Second Amendment says.
Indeed. Although it is explicitly framed as being in the context of having a well-regulated militia, drawn up when the battle for independence was still part of living memory.
Given the substantial changes in armaments across the intervening centuries, one could certainly argue that what being “well-regulated” means could do with being updated to reflect present day realities.
Scott, you left a bit out there
You know the other part after the “,” about the “People”
But don’t just take my word for it here’s the full quote;
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Baning guns will not stop people with evil intent from doing that evil, it may even make it harder to stop them. That’s not to say they should be as freely available as they are and no lessons can be taken from this tragic event. But any kneejerk legislation that may come from it will be bad legislation that will more than likely be struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbioa vs. Heller ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. I’m a little oversimplifying because of appeals, attempts to make the case an exception, etc but the bottom line is that the militia argument (one I supported) is no longer relevant.
I am strongly in favour of strict gun control but it will never happen unless the 2nd Ammendment is repealed and a new ammendment is passed giving the Federal Government (ie taking the power away from the states) the right to make uniform laws over gun ownership. Neither constitutional change is remotely likely.
The price of the freedom to own firearms is massacres like Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. It is a price Americans seem willing to pay.
and the benefit of the freedom to own guns is a civil society where rape, random assault and home invasions are far rarer than otherwise, not to mention the implicit restriction on the power of the state to trend towards tyrany.
These massacres generally occur where guns are restricted, where students are denied their right to protect themselves, where teachers are prevented from saving their pupils. The answer is not more gun control, it is removing gun control where it exists.
Tyranny is only restricted by political culture. No wannabe dictator is deterred by the threat of violence as they are all lovers of violence.
Who knows how often teachers would snap and shoot their pupils if they all had guns in their desks?
The constitution is just a piece of paper. Americans should stop worshipping it and think for themselves.
I see, so agreeing with something other than one’s own original thoughts is no good? What a bizarre sentiment.
A common factor in some of these incidents is that the perpetrator is mentally ill. In some cases, the danger signs were very apparent – but in these PC times it is difficult to put them away somewhere for their own safety and the safety of society.
And it costs a lot
This is an excellent point. I believe that in the 1970s the liberal Supreme Court of the era made it much more difficult to section mad people, as it would deprive them of their “rights”. Nor can they be forced to take their meds. The results can now be seen, but no doubt 100 million law abiding gun owners will take the blame for the grim legacy of 1970s liberal activism in the legal system.
Peter Hitchens’ blog made the link, not just with mental illness but with the medications used to ‘treat’ so many more young men than ever before.
Hitchens wrote Shootings followed by suicides, of this sort, were rare in that country until the era of modern medication for mental illness, and there is a strong correlation (yes, I know, correlation is not causation) between such shootings and the use of these medications. Until the media take more interest in this correlation, we won’t get the proper inquiry into it that we so badly need.
I don’t know if he is right but this surely merits investigation.
We have two incidents in the UK where mass murder was attempted by motor vehicles. In one European country, I think it is Switzerland, all military aged males are obliged to have a rilfle in their homes.
Indeed. Switzerland, where gun crime is far, far more common than in the UK. Tightening gun law cuts crime. The evidence is overwhelming.
Is it? Despite that, Switzerland seems to have overall only slightly more than half the murder rate of Britain. Perhaps the availability of guns switches some murders from knife to gun, but it seems no bar to Switzerland being a more peaceful society.
Switzerland’s overall murder rate per 100,000 population is 0.7.
Britain’s overall murder rate per 100,000 population is 1.2.
Source
Gun deaths per 100,000 population per annum:
USA: 9
Switzerland: 6.4
UK: 0.22
Be careful there, Natalie. Switzerland has another “difference” which might be relevant. Whisper it quietly, of course.
Britain’s murder rate has gone up because the police and courts are afraid to impose the law on ethnic minorities. Much of the violence is among recently arrived immigrants from more violent cultures. Ordinary white English people have a tiny gun ownership rate and a very low crime rate.
Wow, the 2nd Amendment is an extremist position now? Your slot on Any Questions and Dateline is assured.
This indefensible post has ensured I won’t bother visiting this blog again. Somebody with more reasonable politics needs to set up a site to scrutinise the BBC, because the extreme views regularly expressed here are beyond the pale. As others have pointed out, the only person using this horrible story to further a personal agenda here is David Vance. There is virtually no support for gun ownership in the UK. Handguns were banned by a Conservative government and not a single parliamentarian has spoken in favour of liberalising the law. Those who disagree are a tiny and extremist minority.
Bye then.
Sad to see that this site is for extremists to let off steam when there is a crying need for a serious attempt to reform the BBC. A site which advocates views repugnant to most British people, including most British Conservatives, has no ability to make an impact on the issue it is supposedly about, i.e. BBC bias.
I came here because tonights BBC report about the seven year old boy with cancer was a shocking example of how the BBC simulates balance without sacrificing bias. I wish I hadn’t bothered because this site has annoyed me as much as the BBC did.
Set up your own blog, set out your own non-extremist thoughts , post a link to the blog here – I for one would be happy to read your examples of BBC bias.
True, not a single parliamentarian has spoken up. Because they, and anyone holding a contrary opinion, is silenced by hysterics like you.
What is really indefensible is the faux moral superiority of the gun control lobby and its success is stifling proper debate based on facts, with these outpourings of emotional hyperbole.
I am sure Redwhiteandblue has promised before not to visit this site again – hope he keeps his word this time.
Missing you already
“Somebody with more reasonable politics needs to set up a site to scrutinise the BBC…”
Redwhiteandblue, you are completely full of crap. You don’t believe for a second that the BBC needs to be scrutinized at all. Why would there need to be any watchdog site? Or are you yet another one of those defenders of the indefensible who claim to believe that the BBC is biased, only this blog doesn’t do it right, while never once pointing out or agreeing with a single instance of bias.
Unless you’re one of those who believe the BBC is biased in favor of the Tories and is controlled by Zionists, in which case you’ve similarly failed to provide a scrap of evidence.
You’re just another one who comes here to fight against people with whose politics you disagree, and defending the BBC is mostly coincidental.
The BBC is biased on the most crucial issues affecting the UK: Europe, immigration, the welfare state, the NHS, education, etc. etc. I hoped this blog would focus on those things, not on the anarcho-libertarian agenda, which is a degenerate descendant of classical liberalism.
When Breivik went on his killing spree the Left used it to attack those on the Right who had never advocated violence EVER. When a loony goes on the rampage in the States, it is the the NRA wot gets the blame. But why no blame for the countless main n murder videos and games out there? Is it because they are produced – in the main – by the Leftist Hollywood and their Leftist sub-divisions? Surely these horrific video “games” are responsible for huge amounts of desensitising of childrens minds which in turn leads to atrocities such as this?
I make games for a living, and I can categorically state, that I am not a lefty!
You cannot push the blame that a nutter killing kids is down to games, that is lazy, and incorrect.
If that were the case, I’d have been banged up years ago, because I have to research 90% of games out there to make the one I am working on a better product, so from playing all of those “horrific” games, I’d surely have gone on a real rampage….yes?
The problem is not games, movies, rap music, nor, for that matter is it guns, the problem is in the mind of the killer, full stop.
Spotting that problem in today’s touchy-feely society HAS to be looked at, turning a blind eye to mental health problems, no matter who, or from what religious or political slant they come from has got to be re-examined.
Don’t fret: he didn’t say the games were the problem; he was highlighting the Left’s hypocrisy.
This is just another knee-jerk reaction Paul, someone, somewhere always wants to ban video games when an atrocity like this happens – why stop at video games? lets ban violent movies and books whilst were at it. This shit will happen again, video games or no video games, humans are capable of all sorts of barbaric behaviour and you cannot legislate for the odd nutcase.
Guns don’t kill people kill people.
2010: Derrick Bird shoots and kills 12 people in Cumbria, UK. How did tight firearms regulations help?
9/11 New York; Two passenger jets flown by licensed pilots kill 4000 people. How did Civil Aviation regulations help?
7/7 London; A group of men commit suicide on an underground train and bus killing 56.
Lockerbie; Suitcase bomb detonates bringing down a PanAm 747 killing 256.
In each case you have a deranged individual motivated by a grievance or some fanatical religious belief that perpetrated the crime.
The problem doesn’t lie in access to methods of committing murder but a problem within that society. Once again we can probably surmise that in the instances in the USA that many are directly attributable to dysfunctional families and much of this is due to increasing liberal attitudes, loss of respect for authority and indulgence of children
A new low?
Of course Vance works on trying to get publicity by being a shock jock blogger. So this has given him a great chance to link murder, the BBC, support for the gun lobby and a dig at Obama. How utterly pathetic.
I suspect a large number of the comments here are by Vance and Alan if he exists (I suspect he doesn’t as his silences seem to match Vance’s) using various sock puppet identities. Some of the spelling errors give you away:-)
However, it backfired today.
Good.
I think I’ll join the exodus, no doubt to Vance’s various other identities joy. He can then talk to himself more often.
Bye!
It’s always sad when a village loses its idiot.
A very emotive subject thats for sure, a pity that some people feel they need to leave rather than argue against points that they disagree with. I was close to tears reading about the story last night, absolutely heartbreaking and my thoughts go out to the families out there who will have the first of many lonely christmases. I am a keen shooter myself here in the UK holding both firearms and shotguns and fortunately the laws in this country do mean that the absolutely vast majority of license holders are the most law abiding people you could hope to meet. Of course when I do visit the US I love to head down to a range and shoot but I do not know what the answer is to prevent this type of incident. There are far too many guns in circulation out there to even consider banning them and the trouble is that only the law abiding tend to follow the laws. One thought that did occur to me however, and please correct me if I am wrong, have the mass shootings in the US like virginia tech, cinema shooting etc all happened in so called ‘gun free’ zones? Because if so only the law abiding citizens would not be carrying guns and these would be the very people who might have been able to put a stop to this if they had been carrying. Please dont think this is my answer to this but just one of my thoughts when considering this awful incident. Regards, Chris
Yes, Chris, these things do happen in “gun-free zones”. Including one the President somehow forgot to mention in His tearful message: Ft. Hood. I wonder why that got left out?
The murder of so many people is simply appalling, no matter where. My sincerest sympathy goes to all those who have lost someone in this sort of atrocity. Activity that is not restricted to the US, this goes on routinely in the Middle East and elsewhere as the BBC knows, but does not want to comment on. Some murders have long been excusable in their eyes
As for the question of controlling widespread gun ownership. Frankly as far as the US is concerned this ideal, if indeed it is an ideal, is out of reach. There are at least 200 million weapons of one sort or another, most of which provide the owners with an interest or means of legitimate self defence. How would it be possible to justify any such attempt given that the majority of Americans own a gun of some sort.
Oh dear, oh dear. Can’t you stick to advocating real British Conservative values, and tackling the bias of the BBC on British issues, rather than making this blog a mouthpiece for gun-loving Yankee anarcho-libertarianism? You’ve certainly managed to alienate this English Conservative.
Another one who claims to want to address BBC bias but instead gets stuck in arguing against personal opinions he doesn’t agree with. You might actually have more of an affect by pointing out some BBC bias, explaining how and why it’s biased, and then hoping we learn from your excellent example.
Sadly, you don’t seem interested in doing anything other than joining an echo chamber for opinions you like.
Philip,
Firstly on what basis does the BBC, or any British media organisation, have a right to motivate for a change in the American Constitution?
They seem to have forgotten that the USA successfully attained independence from British rule some centuries ago.
The BBC’s (and the rest of our media) has a responsibility to report the news accurately. However their mindset is to immediately start advocating on American political issues that are a matter for the American public and their media.
The BBC and our media started prattling on about gun ownership from the first reports. When Obama started talking about his administration needing to get a grip on this to stop this happening he NEVER mentioned gun control yet the BBC immediately jumped to the conclusion that was what he meant.
The BBC and the British media in general have form for telling other countries what to do instead of reporting what they see accurately and allow Joe Brit to form his own opinion and allow the host country to do as they see fit.
As a follow-up to my previous post, your use of the word “right” [to bear arms] casts doubt on your own conservative values. Real conservatives focus on responsibilities and right conduct, not on spurious absolute rights.
You mean people ought to behave the way you personally believe, and the law should ban all other conduct? Not very properly conservative.
My thoughts on this come between the tweo extremes expressed in this thread. Surely the problem isn’t that the law-abiding are allowed to own guns to defend themselves but it’s the type of guns they are allowed to own. I’m sure when the framers of the amendment drafted it they could not have predicted how powerful these guns would become.
Restrictions need to be enforced on the nature of the guns used. There is absolutely no need for a house-holder to defend themselves with an assault rifle with rapid fire. Allowing them to keep handguns would be enough to keep with the spirit of the amendment but would remove most of the dangerous weapons from society.
As the constitution is a federal matter, the same checks will need to be carried out on gun sellers throughout the country to ensure that they are not selling what they shouldn’t. Checks will need to be made on the fitness of a person to own a handgun as well prior to being issued witha licence.
Demon, the “assault rifle” the lunatic boy mostly used was not one as legally defined. The AR-15 civilians are allowed to own cannot fire more than one round at a time. A shooter must pull the trigger for every shot, just like with a handgun. The only difference using the AR-15 makes as opposed to using a couple of handguns is the higher magazine capacity, plus it’s a bit easier to hit what you’re aiming at. Although, mommy trained her lunatic boy to shoot, so he most likely would have had little difficulty anyway. If the lunatic boy had only the Glock and whatever the other gun was, precious little would have changed other than he’d have had to reload a bit more often. Since nobody there could stop him, and the police took 20 minutes to get there, it’s a meaningless difference.
Contrary to all the misinformation coming from the media and politicians and all the right-on thinkers, banning AR-15s entirely from civilians would not have prevented this or any other tragedy. Of course, that’s irrelevant to those posturing now.
Alternatively, we could lock up (not in regular prison, but somewhere) or enforce medication on the dangerously mentally ill. But the Left wouldn’t allow that.
Thanks David. I hadn’t gone into the full details of the guns he used nor their capabilities. Your reply sheds a bit more light on the tragedy.
And now we’re learning that the lunatic boy went postal because he found out mommy was working on having him locked up after all. If only the laws about dealing with dangerous people could be changed, these tragedies could be prevented…..
Sad all the way through.
It seems to me that, regardless of the rights or wrongs of gun-control laws and what the 2nd Amendment really means today, let alone the state/ federal split, the key practical point would be: how could/ would the currently-held weapons be taken out of use?
Would all owners willingly hand over their guns? I doubt it.
I have not seen any analysis or discussion of how a reduction in gun-owning could be achieved.
That’s because nobody seriously thinks the government is going to start taking guns away. People like Nanny Bloomberg and our defenders of the indefensible would love to see that happen, sure. But they know it’s impossible and impractical. The best they can do is ban future purchases of this or that, which will achieve very little in the end anyway.
I expect you’re right, in which case – apart from massaging the egos of some commentators and professional grievers – what is the point in discussing hypothetical restrictions on gun ownership?
It’s all part of the attempt to transform the country into something they prefer. Nothing new.
That’s because nobody seriously thinks the government is going to start taking guns away
Maybe but it would explain the news from March:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/03/13/ATK-producing-ammo-for-Homeland-Security/UPI-91311331656764/
And September:
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-200-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/
Let the outrage from the Left commence:
Pistol purchased by ATF agent found at alleged cartel crime scene in Mexico
CBS News has learned that two guns found in the area of a recent Mexican drug cartel shootout have been linked to Fast and Furious: One trafficked by a suspect in the case, and the other purchased by a federal agent.
Mexican beauty queen Susana Flores Maria Gamez and four others died in the brutal gun battle between Sinaloa cartel members and the Mexican military in November. CBS News has learned that an FN Herstal pistol recovered near the crime scene in November was originally purchased by an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) manager who was faulted by the Inspector General in Operation Fast and Furious: George Gillett. Gillett was the Asst. Special Agent in Charge of ATF Phoenix when Fast and Furious began.
I await the BBC’s full, in-depth coverage of this latest example of poor gun control. Right?
another viewpoint regarding the tragedy and violent video games you wont be seeing on bBC or any other MSM outlet
Thanks for that link Leha, it summed up exactly what I said, but also roped in the reasoning behind the press (and sequentially) people who take their “own” opinions from the press.
Bravo.
The very idea of the likes of Evan, Jon, Krishnan or Kirsty DARING to tell the USA how to run itself, when the country that the BBC should have a view on, is sliding in its own bin juices and into the EU wine lake is typical cultural colonialism..typical of the patronising ignoramuses and leftards that bung up the media outlets of this country.
The poor kids and families of Newtown don`t deserve the Millie Dowler treatment and don`t even pay a license fee…so the likes of the BBC and Guardian have absolutely no right to spout off on their lefty colonial guilt tripping re guns etc.
As if their vibrant communities in neighbouring communities…not gated, no private schools and no cycle lanes..don`t have guns…those lefties wouldn`t ever get their recreational powders without them!
Hypocrites-stop shroud-waving at the NRA you liberal creeps there at the BBC…and stop using the tragic deaths of kids elsewhere to feel better about your ignorance.
Yet there has largely been radio silence from the BBC about Fast & Furious, where the President deliberately sold “assault weapons” to Mexican drug cartels, knowing the weapons would be used to kill hundreds of people. A handful of reports, coming from the White House defense angle that it was all a silly mistake, an not a single raised Beeboid eyebrow.