BBC Article

[JT-AR-MG42]

Why are you picking on the Brits?

No beef with the Brits here, except I have to use closed caption to understand their accent.

BBC has a large world-wide following.
Perhaps if BBC would attempt to write a story showing
differing points of view in really fair and equal light?
We Americans can get all the poorly (sloppy) written coverage of gun related stories
we can handle right here in the U.S. without having to import them.

being British = Liberal. That is short-sighted (and actually dumb).

No argument on that one.
I've read that London is the most photographed city in the world.

From within.

'Security' cameras pretty well blanket London - the most in any city -and I don't see that
as a Liberal agenda.

JT

[Pond, James Pond]

'Security' cameras pretty well blanket London - the most in any city -and I don't see that
as a Liberal agenda.

That is more about trying to justify cutting police expenditure costs than population control. For now.

Perhaps if BBC would attempt to write a story showing
differing points of view in really fair and equal light?

There have been, but the fact is that no one on has ever been satisfied with the coverage. The claim is always that it is biased this way or that and full of stereotypes. The truth as I see it is that almost no one on here will ever be satisfied with any report until it makes no mention of gun control or anything like that.

To my mind the BBC tends to be more even-handed than many US networks yet even that is not good enough.

In other words, the bias is as strong on here as it is claimed to be within the BBC. More so, in some instances.

This is why I just don't bother linking stories I find that I may have found encouraging, that I don't see as putting all gun owners in bad light and which, to the uninformed UK public, might actually draw attention to people who don't fit the negative stereotypes.
Because every time there's a furore about "how dare they?", "1776" "It's all biased reporting!" etc.

I just don't bother. From now on each their own biases and confirmation seeking behaviours....

[Sweet Shooter]

A couple of folks have said/implied that the article has a European perspective, perhaps a veiled promotion of what a model society looks like, and is somehow anti American. Yes Brian Wheeler is British, so— a "Libtard" right? But in fairness he posted a video in his article with commentary by Dan Baum who is American (did anyone bother to watch the video?), who appears to lean to the left to me, but what matters is that he's a gun guy and has an audience (New York Times, New Yorker, among some popular magazines). It is foolish to attack the voices, professional or otherwise that are promoting/protecting the safe, legal, and the responsible RKBA.

The BBC is a corporation that packages news and journalism for specific parts of the globe. I personally think they are one of the more impartial entities, but in the end they are packaging and shipping only that which they have calculated we want to hear. Why? Confirmation. It's always been odd to me that the right watch right leaning "news", and the left watch the left. Because we treat news like entertainment, we think it's there for our amusement. And as long as we do that they will ship it as such.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. —Machiavelli (?)

Edit (close/r)

[Pond, James Pond]

but in the end they are packaging and shipping only that which they have calculated we want to hear. Why? Confirmation.

I think there is far worse in this respect than the BBC although they are not perfect: Daily Mail, The Sun, RT, to name a few are way worse for just reporting what people want to hear rather than what needs to be said.

However, the BBC have reported some things regarding my region and they dropped the ball IMO, so even they now don't instil full confidence for me on all fronts...

[2ndsojourn]

The BBC is not much different from a lot of other lamestream media outlets when it comes to reporting issues in a fair and balanced manner. However, in this instance, this article, there's actually some balanced coverage about increased gun ownership in the U.S. But why is an increase in gun ownership such a big issue with so many people? That's what they ought to be asking.

From PJP: "There is a misguided view on here that because the situation in the UK is what gun owners fear for the US, ..."

There is that view on here, but I disagree that it's misguided. The anti 2A left wing here keeps harping on how successful the gun restrictions in the UK and other countries are, and as a model we should copy that. And their agenda came mighty close to that realization on Nov 8.

[Pond, James Pond]

There is that view on here, but I disagree that it's misguided. The anti 2A left wing here keeps harping on how successful the gun restrictions in the UK and other countries are, and as a model we should copy that. And their agenda came mighty close to that realization on Nov 8.

If you re-read my post you'll notice that the misguided aspect is that attacking the UK in threads like this one will make any difference to what anti-gun promoters do or don't do.

Do people really think that saying "Stupid UK with its stupid gun restrictions" is going to alter the anti agenda one jot?!
On the contrary, it's drawing your fire instead of actually tackling/raising the issues in the US that are relevant to US gun ownership policy rather than those in the UK.

[2ndsojourn]

I didn't interpret your statement like that. And I don't see the UK being attacked, it's just that I view their restrictions on firearms misguided. It seemed to me that you were/are disagreeing that the UK firearm policy has any effect on US domestic policy, which is what I was referring to. And I believe it does. During election campaign season, countless times the anti 2A candidates compared the US to policies of other countries. And that's what I don't like. And like I said, we came mighty close to that.

If you're stating that judgements and statements made here(on this board) have no effect on US policy, then yes, I agree. But that's not how I read your post initially.


"On the contrary, it's drawing your fire instead of actually tackling/raising the issues in the US that are relevant to US gun ownership policy rather than those in the UK."

That's true. And it is misguided in that respect. It's drawing our fire because certain candidates for office keep serving up how successful it is in other countries, and they almost got elected.

[Pond, James Pond]

I made my initial post in the context of some of the sentiments that can surface on here when UK firearms policy comes up. I've read all sorts on here from the misinformed regarding the true state of firearms legislation anywhere outside the US, not only the UK to the simply vitriolic.

It's just not called for and that is what I was describing as misguided. The feeling that such remarks are justified and permissible.

Do a search and you may be surprised at what some have posted. I certainly have been.

[SPEMack618]

While I would often role my eyes and find an excuse to leave the room at Benning when my British Army colleague would go on about the Brits really won WWII, I don't disparage the Brits at all. I mean, come on, Holland & Holland is there.

I think a lot of American's truly need to understand the ugliness that was the IRA, the Troubles, and terrorism in general, and the impact it had on the British psyche.

[TailGator]

I doubt that the British citizenry is any more homogeneous than that of the US.

What we are seeing now in the US, highlighted by an article in the British press, is an increase in the understanding of why private citizens should be allowed to own firearms, by people who have more typically liberal opinions on other matters. Did anyone notice the statistic that nearly a third of Democratic households own guns? It is typical on gun forums and in NRA rhetoric to denigrate Democrats and liberals under the assumption that they advocate aggressive gun control. While it is commonly true, it is not universally so, and we should, in my opinion, be looking for friends among them. As in other political discussions, the emphasis seems to have shifted to insulting those who disagree rather than convincing them with reason. We have potential allies that we reject with disrespectful rhetoric. We and the organizations that represent us need to broaden our acceptance of those who favor gun rights.

[xcc_rider]

@

xcc_rider
... he might have found out that we are the ones who openly welcome new gun owners and are willing to help them learn how to safely handle their new firearms.

Bingo. He did. Look again. That's what I thought was interesting.

If you read the below I don't consider being called a rightist\extremist and a harrassing gun nut who welcomes new shooters with open arms a confirmation that we're actually the good guys. Plus it was one person from an organization that portrays us in that fashion but are willing to accept and help?

Patton, of the Pink Pistols, a club for for gay, lesbian and transgender gun owners, says new members fear being "harassed by the gun nuts at the range".
But she says they are mostly "welcomed with open arms by the shooting community".

Sorry, I just dont consider it a flattering article. And when it comes to being concerned about losing rights over the last several years, we'll come on out to the left coast and see what's happening. It's getting harder and harder to exercise our rights and it is getting worse all the time...

[roscoe]

Now what are we to think of the "liberal" newspaper editor who used HIS First Amendment to write that "... anyone who owns a gun should be arrested and executed without the nonsense of a trial... that is the only way we can have a free society without fear... "

What - who said that?

[seeker_two]

One thing to remember....the words and actions of a country's government do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and attitudes of that country's people.

The last eight years should have taught us that.....

[KMAX]

I must admit it seems like some of those liberals have fears of the Trump administration similar to my fears of a Hillary administration. I hope that some of them learn the simple joys of gun ownership and realize that not all gun owners are wack jobs although there are wack jobs in all walks of life.

[Sweet Shooter]

xcc_rider @
If you read the below I don't consider being called a rightist\extremist and a harrassing gun nut who welcomes new shooters with open arms a confirmation that we're actually the good guys. Plus it was one person from an organization that portrays us in that fashion but are willing to accept and help?

Sorry, I just dont consider it a flattering article. And when it comes to being concerned about losing rights over the last several years, we'll come on out to the left coast and see what's happening. It's getting harder and harder to exercise our rights and it is getting worse all the time...

I'll have to check again, but I thought there was a level of irony in that statement. After all that is the overarching messaging in the article.

[Pond, James Pond]

If you read the below I don't consider being called a rightist\extremist and a harrassing gun nut who welcomes new shooters with open arms a confirmation that we're actually the good guys. Plus it was one person from an organization that portrays us in that fashion but are willing to accept and help?

Who portrayed gun owners in that light?! That rep' simply said that some members were worried that it might be the case, but found it wasn't...

How is it a bad thing to say "There were preconceptions and they were proven groundless to those who had held them, by their own experiences."?!

Surely, you should be rejoicing in the fact that such myth-busting statements are being publicised. Would it happen on CNN? After all, most non-gun owning public only ever see gun owners as OC activists in a Starbucks.

Sorry, I just dont consider it a flattering article.

Since when is reporting supposed to be about flattery?
If you think any article that refers to gun culture should be an ego-massage for those covered, you're missing the point of journalism.

I see an article that other "liberals" may see and realise that gun owners are not an alien species after all, that they perhaps have far more in common. That is a good thing, IMO.

[Colorado Redneck]

My dear old Irish mother advised us kids many times: "Two things that can start a fight are discussions of religion and politics." She was right. This thread has actually been conducted in a fairly adult manner.

I can promise that I darned seldom discuss either, because things can go south fairly quickly. There have been several threads here in TFL where posts that were not lockstep with the NRA were shouted down. Doubtful that any of us change our thinking because of others piling on.

[OcelotZ3]

So the "rights" people have said they have lost over the last 8 years are:

1) Local (state or private business) regulations, nothing to do with Obama or the feds. If I want to buy ammunition at Big 5 Sporting Goods, I have to show an ID, but there are absolutely no laws/regulations requiring that. It's the private business requiring that.
2) The possibility of the feds listening in on their communications, something that started under a Republican administration.
3) No 22lr.

As I thought.

I was (and am) certainly upset that Oregon decided that private sales have to go through a dealer, and to add insult to injury, they discount the use of a C&R license too. Asses. But that's local, not federal.

[Skans]

So, the article seems to champion liberals as becoming gun enthusiasts because they think Trump will lead to an apocalypse or bigotry toward different factions of the left wing. In essence, just folks wanting to be prepared and defend themselves. Sound familiar?

I speculate the truth about liberal folks wanting to buy guns is that there are simply liberal people who LIKE guns. Perhaps they have always wanted a gun, but they fear that their friends would think of them as right-wingers. So, some of them feel they have to justify their new-found fondness of guns. Whatever the reason is, the more people supporting the 2nd Amendment the better off we all are.

My question is when will British folks realize that We Americans like guns - liberal, conservative, moderate - it doesn't matter. We like them for all sorts of individual reasons. I sense a little jealousy from Brits when they write these articles trying to explain how people more aligned to their political views really want to own a gun.

[Sweet Shooter]

Skans

My question is when will British folks realize that We Americans like guns - liberal, conservative, moderate - it doesn't matter.

And once and for all... when will Yanks realize that so do the Brits?
I agree with other points in your reply.

[Skans]

And once and for all... when will Yanks realize that so do the Brits?

We (Yanks) do tend to think that most Brits hate guns - mostly based on what we read. I acknowledge this may be a faulty prejudice of mine. Apologies.

[Sweet Shooter]

Well time to stop tending. Time to start thinking... independently.

[DT Guy]

Ocelot23, we don't have to base our opinions of the current (now, very nearly former) administration's feelings about our rights by discussing the rights they have managed to curtail; the administration's STATED intent was to ban several popular types of firearms, to expand restrictions on purchases and in opposition to 'stand your ground' laws that protect those using firearms to defend themselves.

The fact that they FAILED to curtail my rights, after trying to relentlessly to do so, isn't a reflection of their lack of animosity to my freedoms, but rather an endorsement of those who resisted them.


Larry