For the first time in a long while I am prepared, temporarily at least, to suspend my animus towards the BBC. When they are prepared to publish an article called ‘Why Britain needs more guns’ by the outstanding Joyce Lee Malcolm then they have earned a respite from my relentless hostility. Nay, they may even by the worthy recipients of a nod of appreciation.
“The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.”
Amen to that. Testify, Sister Joyce!!
And, yes, it is on the BBC website. No word of a lie. Go and check the link yourself if you don’t believe me. Yes, you could have knocked me down with a feather as well.
Since they have invited comments from their readers this will give ample opportunity for the British ones to rant, scream, pull out their hair, void their bowels and otherwise hissy-fit themselves into a cocked hat. But that doesn’t matter because the truth has been spoken and it’s out there in black-and-white for every anti-self-defence nut to see and try, in vain, to rebut.
This is a good start. In fact, and I don’t want to runoff at the mouth here or jump the gun (pun gleefully intended) but I do believe that we could be getting just a little bit of traction with this issue. About bloody time, too.
Mass market news media aren’t liberal, socialist, not even consevative… they’re just whores. They print whatever confirms and plays to (what they think are) the beliefs of their target audience.
Which makes this rather interesting, and encouraging.
Very encouraging.
Astonishing. I’m still rubbing my eyes.
Given the bankruptcy of current policies in criminal justice, it would be more heartening if the right to self-defence was strengthened, or if there were calls for such a reform to occur.
No sign of that happening as yet. One swallow does not a summer make.
The force of David’s point is rather diminished by the fact that the accompanying BBC discussion forum is entitled:
“How can guns be made less accessible?”
Nuff said.
cydonia,
Yes but ‘ways to make guns less accessible’ is the customary fare of the BBC and is likely to remain their editorial position.
It is still remarkable that they have published Malcolm’s article at all. No longer can they say that there is no argument on the issue.
Some public comments to the original article are in.
And the general response seems to be “Ahhhhhh, Guns, No!”
I can’t find it now, but I read a Guardian opinion (I swear) last weekend, which actually pointed out things like “the gun laws aren’t working” and “the problem with amnesties is, only the good guys hand over their guns” and “when guns are bad, only criminals get guns”. It didn’t go the whole way, but I sensed a turning in the tide.
If people don’t *feel* gun-free in the UK anymore, they will inevitably start wanting guns of their own. They don’t feel gun-free because they keep getting shot. The old arguments are only fairly recently being seen not to work in practice; thngs are changing.
It’s telling that the author of that article is American.
The BBC allows an American academic to promote gun ownership on its website. Astounding.
What’s next, the Guardian running editorials about the necessity of war in Iraq?
I’m going to repent immediately, because it is clear the Apocalypse is upon us….
Just kidding. The real sign of the Apocalypse would be Labour MPs supporting legislation to allow “shall-issue” concealed-carry permits in Britain.
What shocks me is the number of Britons – normally a sensible and sane people – who are horrified by the thought of being able to defend one’s self from violent assault and plundering hoodlums. What abyss, what chasm in these people yawns where self-respect ought to be rooted? How degraded and depraved can one possibly be to allow evil to happen when an alternative is present?
A more right-minded Englishman once noted that all that is required for evil to spread is for good men to do nothing. Now it seems that good men are not only doing nothing, but actively advertising their prostration before the wicked. Is any sane person surprised that crime is soaring in the UK?
Ditto to all you said, Jeffersonian — except Burke was Irish.
Just possibly the miracle may have been helped along by the power of the blogosphere. Er, specifically, by me. As I recount on a recent post for Biased BBCm I had a brief e-mail exchange with Professor Malcolm where I pointed out the shameful one-sidedness of last October’s clutch of BBC articles on guns in America. Also, we know the BBC look at Biased BBC from a recent flap involving HonestReporting.com and BBC Middle East correspondent Orla Guerlin.
Very probably I’m just preening myself for something that would have happened anyway – but I do hope that, if not individually, at least collectively, the opinions of blogs are making a difference on this issue.
Just possibly the miracle may have been helped along by the power of the blogosphere. Er, specifically, by me. As I recount on a recent post for Biased BBCm I had a brief e-mail exchange with Professor Malcolm where I pointed out the shameful one-sidedness of last October’s clutch of BBC articles on guns in America. Also, we know the BBC look at Biased BBC from a recent flap involving HonestReporting.com and BBC Middle East correspondent Orla Guerlin.
Very probably I’m just preening myself for something that would have happened anyway – but I do hope that, if not individually, at least collectively, the opinions of blogs are making a difference on this issue.
Actually I believe that the Guardian article was by Mark Steyn, who lives in New Hampshire most of the time, but is a Canadian. Whatever his nationality, he makes a valid point that in burglars (and other criminal)s make cost/benefit analyses; weighing the risks of damage to their persons and/or apprehension and a jail sentence against the value of the goods they are likely to walk off with. In areas of the US where many residents have firearms and can legally use them to protect themselves and their property, the result of this analysis is Not Good by the burglar’s lights, and so there are fewer burglaries. If the legal property owners are prevented from protecting their stuff or even their persons by the government, the ratio swings drastically in favor of the criminal, and therefore these crimes occur with greater frequency.
I’ve probably garbled it a bit, so you can go to http://www.marksteyn.com or the Guardian’s site, and read the actual article.
>>Ditto to all you said, Jeffersonian — except Burke was Irish.<< [slapping of forehead] Of course you are correct. I thank David Jaroslav for correcting me.