"COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America"
Phil Smythe
Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
BY Rebecca Berg
LONDON – America is known for its trendsetting.
It’s the land that brought the world McDonald's, Facebook and Lady
Gaga. When Americans buy into something, everyone takes notice.
But some hot items are more dangerous than others. A recent article in
Marie Claire’s UK edition identified one questionable craze: “Across
America, firearms are fast becoming a must-have accessory.”
Trend alert?
It’s long been the stereotype that Brits view America as a gun-toting,
violent and generally unrefined nation. The caricature could actually
be closer to the truth than we think.
A shocking act of violence here recently threw the issue of gun
control in Britain versus America into sharp relief.
In a quiet town in the north of England, 12 people were killed in
early June when a taxi driver went on a shooting spree. In its wake,
the tragedy left a shaken, paralyzed and livid nation.
One person interviewed following the shootings summed up the British
point of view: “You hear of these things happening in America, but not
here.”
Ouch. Yet indeed, the British reaction was exactly contrary to that
one would expect from the States.
Almost immediately, UK residents and media pressured their government
to consider tightening gun laws – even though those in the UK are
already among the most stringent in the world.
People were enraged to a degree that would have been unimaginable in
the States, and rightly so. Here in the United Kingdom, where the
concepts of concealed carry or guns as self-defense are entirely
foreign, people view gun control as a matter of course.
Gun crimes here are practically nonexistent. According to the 2010
British Crime Survey, an annual study carried out by the British
government, a mere 39 people were victims of fatal gun shootings in
England and Wales during the past year (not including the recent and
highly uncharacteristic shooting rampage).
Annual statistics compiled by the FBI, however, paint a much different
picture: In 2008, a startling 9,484 people were killed in shootings in
the US.
Do the math and, accounting for population, a U.S. citizen is nearly
50 times more likely to be shot and killed than someone living in the
UK.
Why? It’s because Brits are serious about gun control.
In 1997, a piece of legislation made it nearly impossible to legally
own a handgun in the UK. Not even Britain’s Olympic shooters are
exempt from the ban, and the team is required to train outside of the
country. Special permission was needed to allow any shooting events at
the London 2012 Olympics.
Here, even most police officers are not allowed to carry firearms,
including Tasers. Between 2007 and 2008, only 21,181 law enforcement
officers were licensed to carry firearms in England and Wales,
according to the Home Office.
Owning a gun legally in the UK can be enough to do a person’s head in,
as they say here. You need to complete extensive paperwork, exhibit
proper competence to the police, and provide a “good reason” for
wanting a gun. Oh, and you’ll need independent references to prove
you’re sane, too.
Compare this to owning a gun in the U.S. The laws vary slightly by
state, but a number of firearms do not even require a permit for
purchase.
And a national handgun ban in the States? Not anytime soon.
It appears the United States is moving in the opposite direction. In
late June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Chicago handgun ban
in a decision that will dramatically hinder states’ efforts to limit
gun ownership.
Some people argue that America wouldn’t be free without the Second
Amendment to the Constitution, and that gun ownership should not be
limited in any way. But have we forgotten what inspired that amendment
– or, rather, whom?
Ah, yes. It was the British.
Since the 18th century, Britain has moved on from problems like
taxation without representation, oppressive monarchy and overreaching
empire. It has accepted its place in modern society as a progressive,
First World nation.
As Americans, we pride ourselves on our anti-British, nonconformist,
trendsetting nature – but that doesn’t mean we can’t take a good idea
and make it our own.
We don’t need 100 percent gun control, but some increased limits would
be a positive step. Allow handgun bans for the urban areas that need
them the most, while allowing states more power to dictate specific
regulations. After all, isn’t the right to bear arms only acceptable
when it does not infringe on the rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness?
Unchecked violence is so last season. Could gun control be the new
black?
Rebecca Berg is interning at CBS News and studying in London this
summer through a Missouri School of Journalism study abroad program.
She will return to the Missourian as an assistant city editor in the
fall.
brad herschel
betweentheeyes
"Phil Smythe" <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in message
news:68d5249e-9519-4472...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
> Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
> BY Rebecca Berg
Ms Berg's opinion along with her comparisons ignore reality while condemning
the innocent. Gobbles accomplished something similar in the 1930's with a
segment of the German population.
Unlike the 1930, the group Ms. Berg targets are more aware of propaganda and
have just a loud a voice in its refutation.
slate_leeper
<smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
<Plagiarized tripe>
Which, once again, tries to compare two country's "gun crimes" based
on a single variable, gun ownership rates.
Once again, this theory is very easily disproved by two simple facts
involving the same two countries.
1) Since the UK instituted some of the "strictest gun controls in the
world," their overall crime rates and "gun crime" rates have increased
substantially.
2) Over 25 years the number of firearms in the US has increased by 10s
of millions, and 40 states now allow any law-abiding citizen who so
desires to carry a concealed firearm. Overall crime rates and "gun
crime" rates have dropped substantially in the US, and have continued
to do so even during the current recession. After the Supreme Court
nullified the gun ban in Washington DC, the homicide rate there
dropped 25% over the next year.
So just HOW would "a little gun control be good for America?"
-dan z-
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
Klaus Schadenfreude
>COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
>Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
>BY Rebecca Berg
We have a little gun control.
Klaus Schadenfreude
talk.politics.guns :
>
>"Phil Smythe" <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in message
>news:68d5249e-9519-4472...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
>> Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
>> BY Rebecca Berg
><snip>
>
>Ms Berg's opinion along with her comparisons ignore reality while condemning
>the innocent. Gobbles accomplished something similar in the 1930's with a
>segment of the German population.
This is typical of an anti-gun "journalist" who feels perfectly free
overlooking facts for a "good story."
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe
><smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
><Plagiarized tripe>
>
>
>Which, once again, tries to compare two country's "gun crimes" based
>on a single variable, gun ownership rates.
>
>Once again, this theory is very easily disproved by two simple facts
>involving the same two countries.
>
>1) Since the UK instituted some of the "strictest gun controls in the
>world," their overall crime rates and "gun crime" rates have increased
>substantially.
>
>2) Over 25 years the number of firearms in the US has increased by 10s
>of millions, and 40 states now allow any law-abiding citizen who so
>desires to carry a concealed firearm. Overall crime rates and "gun
>crime" rates have dropped substantially in the US, and have continued
>to do so even during the current recession. After the Supreme Court
>nullified the gun ban in Washington DC, the homicide rate there
>dropped 25% over the next year.
>
>So just HOW would "a little gun control be good for America?"
I know. Maybe Chicago should have a gun ban as she suggests. That will
bring down crime, you betcha.
>>Almost immediately, UK residents and media pressured their government
>>to consider tightening gun laws – even though those in the UK are
>>already among the most stringent in the world.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
Albert Einstein
Michael Ejercito
wiretaps, abolish the exclusionary rule, and abolish the privilege
against self-incrimination in those places too?
>
> Unchecked violence is so last season.
Michael
RM v2.0
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gpig469qpeuaeqiur...@4ax.com...
> slate_leeper <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>>Almost immediately, UK residents and media pressured their government
>>>to consider tightening gun laws - even though those in the UK are
>>>already among the most stringent in the world.
>
>
Maybe a double secret ban? How could they make a ban more stringent?
ozark...@yahoo.com
<smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
Another non-thinking opinion from a budding journalists......
Phil Smythe
> Little Jewess has all the answers!
Now, that's a brilliantly concocted response isn't it?
Phil Smythe
A classic example of Godwin's Law, ie given enough time, all
discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being
about Hitler and the Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Phil Smythe
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe
>
> <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
> <Plagiarized tripe>
>
> Which, once again, tries to compare two country's "gun crimes" based
> on a single variable, gun ownership rates.
>
> Once again, this theory is very easily disproved by two simple facts
> involving the same two countries.
>
> 1) Since the UK instituted some of the "strictest gun controls in the
> world," their overall crime rates and "gun crime" rates have increased
> substantially.
>
> 2) Over 25 years the number of firearms in the US has increased by 10s
> of millions, and 40 states now allow any law-abiding citizen who so
> desires to carry a concealed firearm. Overall crime rates and "gun
> crime" rates have dropped substantially in the US, and have continued
> to do so even during the current recession. After the Supreme Court
> nullified the gun ban in Washington DC, the homicide rate there
> dropped 25% over the next year.
>
> So just HOW would "a little gun control be good for America?"
>
> -dan z-
>
> Protect your civil rights!
> Let the politicians know how you feel.
>
> The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
It seems that amount or quality of gun laws in the US juxtaposes with
its gun crime rate in a not flattering comparison.
Phil Smythe
wrote:
Pity your gun crime rates are anything but little.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Jul 22, 9:04 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
>> >Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
>> >BY Rebecca Berg
>>
>> We have a little gun control.
>
>Pity your gun crime rates are anything but little.
Harldy any gun crime by me Phil. Lots of guns, too.
slate_leeper
Pity your crime rates are rising so rapidly since gun control, while
ours are dropping since so many states have passed laws allowing any
law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm.
-danz-
Tankfixer
@c36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, meje...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Jul 22, 4:23 am, Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
> > COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
> > Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
> > BY Rebecca Berg
> >
> >
> > It?s the land that brought the world McDonald's, Facebook and Lady
> > Gaga. When Americans buy into something, everyone takes notice.
> >
> > But some hot items are more dangerous than others. A recent article in
> > America, firearms are fast becoming a must-have accessory.?
> >
> > Trend alert?
> >
> > It?s long been the stereotype that Brits view America as a gun-toting,
> > violent and generally unrefined nation. The caricature could actually
> > be closer to the truth than we think.
> >
> > A shocking act of violence here recently threw the issue of gun
> > control in Britain versus America into sharp relief.
> >
> > In a quiet town in the north of England, 12 people were killed in
> > early June when a taxi driver went on a shooting spree. In its wake,
> > the tragedy left a shaken, paralyzed and livid nation.
> >
> > One person interviewed following the shootings summed up the British
> > here.?
> >
> > Ouch. Yet indeed, the British reaction was exactly contrary to that
> > one would expect from the States.
> >
> > Almost immediately, UK residents and media pressured their government
> > already among the most stringent in the world.
> > People were enraged to a degree that would have been unimaginable in
> > the States, and rightly so. Here in the United Kingdom, where the
> > concepts of concealed carry or guns as self-defense are entirely
> > foreign, people view gun control as a matter of course.
> >
> > Gun crimes here are practically nonexistent. According to the 2010
> > British Crime Survey, an annual study carried out by the British
> > government, a mere 39 people were victims of fatal gun shootings in
> > England and Wales during the past year (not including the recent and
> > highly uncharacteristic shooting rampage).
> >
> > Annual statistics compiled by the FBI, however, paint a much different
> > picture: In 2008, a startling 9,484 people were killed in shootings in
> > the US.
> >
> > Do the math and, accounting for population, a U.S. citizen is nearly
> > 50 times more likely to be shot and killed than someone living in the
> > UK.
> > In 1997, a piece of legislation made it nearly impossible to legally
> > exempt from the ban, and the team is required to train outside of the
> > country. Special permission was needed to allow any shooting events at
> > the London 2012 Olympics.
> >
> > Here, even most police officers are not allowed to carry firearms,
> > including Tasers. Between 2007 and 2008, only 21,181 law enforcement
> > officers were licensed to carry firearms in England and Wales,
> > according to the Home Office.
> >
> > as they say here. You need to complete extensive paperwork, exhibit
> > wanting a gun. Oh, and you?ll need independent references to prove
> > you?re sane, too.
> >
> > Compare this to owning a gun in the U.S. The laws vary slightly by
> > state, but a number of firearms do not even require a permit for
> > purchase.
> > And a national handgun ban in the States? Not anytime soon.
> > It appears the United States is moving in the opposite direction. In
> > late June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Chicago handgun ban
> > gun ownership.
> >
> > Some people argue that America wouldn?t be free without the Second
> > Amendment to the Constitution, and that gun ownership should not be
> > limited in any way. But have we forgotten what inspired that amendment
> > Ah, yes. It was the British.
> >
> > Since the 18th century, Britain has moved on from problems like
> > taxation without representation, oppressive monarchy and overreaching
> > empire. It has accepted its place in modern society as a progressive,
> > First World nation.
> >
> > As Americans, we pride ourselves on our anti-British, nonconformist,
> > and make it our own.
> >
> > be a positive step. Allow handgun bans for the urban areas that need
> > them the most, while allowing states more power to dictate specific
> > when it does not infringe on the rights to life, liberty and the
> > pursuit of happiness?
> Why not allow warrantless searches and warrantless domestic
> wiretaps, abolish the exclusionary rule, and abolish the privilege
> against self-incrimination in those places too?
Why do you think they call gun control the "first good step"
Tankfixer
fish...@live.com says...
> Op-ed piece. I think she needs to stay in Journalism School a little
> longer.
Or concentrate on her true skill, serving waffles at IHOP
Tankfixer
@c36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, smy...@upnaway.com says...
Why don't you cite the percentage of firearms that commit a crime..
Just curious since you think its such a large number.
Phil Smythe
wrote:
> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >On Jul 22, 9:04 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >> >COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
> >> >Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
> >> >BY Rebecca Berg
>
> >> We have a little gun control.
>
> >Pity your gun crime rates are anything but little.
>
> Harldy any gun crime by me Phil. Lots of guns, too.
Sadly, your word is worthless Buck. You are the man who claims to have
invented a device that can eliminate wind shear accidents at airports
but when pressed to verify this claim refuse point blank. Highly
untrustworthy most would deduce.
Phil Smythe
You want me to cite statistics you think will support you? If you had
such a case what's stopping you from doing that? Oh, that's right,
you're nothing but a troll.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Jul 24, 8:25 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >On Jul 22, 9:04 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> >> >COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
>> >> >Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
>> >> >BY Rebecca Berg
>>
>> >> We have a little gun control.
>>
>> >Pity your gun crime rates are anything but little.
>>
>> Harldy any gun crime by me Phil. Lots of guns, too.
>
>Sadly, your word is worthless Buck.
Even more sadly, I don't give a shit what you think Phil.
Tankfixer
6f5f79...@u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, smy...@upnaway.com says...
You keep saying gun crime rates are high yet you can't provide
supporting data.
I say you lie.
Bill Smith
<smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>COLUMN: A little gun control would be good for America
>Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CDT
>BY Rebecca Berg
How can you take a person seriously who describes gun ownership as a
fashion trend. This is defiant, deliberate, ignorance on a scale that
is breathtaking in it's scope.
The President of the United States has his finger poised over a button
that could destroy civilization as we know it and does not have to
prove he is sane, or even competent for such a task, but, somehow,
it's far more important for gun owners sanity and reliability to be
proven. Balderdash.
Bill Smith
Oglethorpe
"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:6u9r4615pjvbu33jb...@4ax.com...
Bill Smith
Christopher Morton
No, but then what would you expect from a Nazi?
They're every bit as retarded as any left-wing anti-gunner.
Then there's the whole pedophilia thing...
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com
Christopher Morton
<smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>Allow handgun bans for the urban areas that need
>them the most
Urban areas only "need" handgun bans if you think that those living
there should be required to be the passive, helpless victims of
violent home invasions the way British subjects are.
Of course as reported by NPR years ago, a lot of those home invasions
are racially motivated. Given that a lot of the people in those
"urban areas" are Black and Hispanic, there are unstated motivations
in play. The long history of racists and Jew haters advocating gun
control in usenet is proof of it.
Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Phil Smythe
> <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
> >Allow handgun bans for the urban areas that need
> >them the most
Or maybe instead of jury trials, a panel of cops can judge the guult of a criminal suspect.
> Urban areas only "need" handgun bans if you think that those living
> there should be required to be the passive, helpless victims of
> violent home invasions the way British subjects are.
>
> Of course as reported by NPR years ago, a lot of those home invasions
> are racially motivated. Given that a lot of the people in those
> "urban areas" are Black and Hispanic, there are unstated motivations
> in play. The long history of racists and Jew haters advocating gun
> control in usenet is proof of it.
>
> Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.
Michael