For all you Brits who claim Britain is not trying to push its brand of Gun Bans on the U.S.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

This is an article that I will retype here, which appeared in the Sun-Sentinel (south Florida newspaper) on 22 April 1999, following the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado (aka the Columbine Shooting):

Quote

BRITISH: INCIDENT SHOWS U.S. SHOULD ACT ON GUNS

LONDON - Remembering 16 tiny coffins after a gunman opened fire in a Scottish school three years ago, Britain urged the United States on Wednesday to respond to its deadliest school massacre by putting handguns out of reach.

Britain imposed a near-total ban on handguns after Thomas Hamilton used four legally owned guns to kill 16 kindergarten children and their teacher before killing himself on March 13, 1996, in Dunblane.

Tuesday's school attack by two Littleton, Colo., teen-agers who laughed as they shot their victims and then killed themselves, stunned much of the world.

"I hope that they will look carefully at what this country did in banning handguns after the Dunblane massacre, and I hope we never have to wake up to this sort of news again from America," Defense Secretary George Robertson told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Now, what was that, again, about how Britain does not seek to impose its gun control on the U.S.?

'Cause I've seen it claimed here repeatedly that we Americans are out-of-line criticizing British laws because they never piously try to suggest that we do the same... Noooo, of course they don't.

note: I also wonder if "much of the world" includes places like Zimbabwe and Somalia, where mobs hack SCORES to death with machetes and axes with stunning regularity. I'm sure they were really shocked at the deaths of what, 12 kids? Talk about hyperbole being used to inject bias into a "news" story.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Paulipod 0]

The main thing I think is wrong with your posts PJ is that you cannot identify between single people and groups...

Us / Them / Britain / US / Africans / AIDS suffereres..

Enough of the sweeping generalisations please! I hate it when all you god damn white people do that.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[crozby 0]

Ok, so you've trawled the internet and found ONE instance where, on BBC Radio 4, in 1999, some British politician was asked his opinion on a particular news story. He said: "I hope that they will look carefully at what this country did in banning handguns after the Dunblane massacre, and I hope we never have to wake up to this sort of news again from America..."

And you interpret that as Britain, the nation, trying to impose gun control on the USA.

In one of your earlier posts you stated you'd never done any drugs. Now is the time to start. You need to chill out and relax. Go get yourself some weed, roll a fat one, and take a well earned rest.

• Quote

[miked10270 0]

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH....!!!!!!!!!

Don't you just love the current crop of British Politicians. No incident is so terrible that they're unable to try and grab a bit of soundbite attention from the media.

The Dunblane Massacre was terrible. But I believe that the politicians, realising that something had to BE SEEN to be done to prevent a repeat, took the illogical course on the basis that it gave maximum publicity for them!!

The police officer who last renewed Thomas Hamilton's firearms licence objected to it's renewal and recommended it be rescinded as he believed Hamilton was no longer a fit and proper person to hold firearms. This from an admittedly junior officer, but the officer who HAD PERSONAL CONTACT with Hamilton! He was overrruled by his supervisors.

If you look at Lord Cullen's recommendations from the public enquiry;

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dun12.htm

He DID NOT recommend banning handguns!!! This was a decision taken by POLITICIANS for POLITICAL REASONS.

IMHO, the current UK Firearms Legislation is too restrictive, while the US standpoint is too relaxed. I do believe in registration and licensing of firearms holders PURELY as a record of who owns what firearms, and to restrict the open sale of firearms and ammunition to unsuitable persons. Beyond that, a person who is not found to be "Unsuitable" (such as the recently released armed robber, etc...) will be entitled to hold a firearms certificate without further restriction except that he will notify the firearms licensing dept of details of any firearms he acquires or disposes of, and he can only dispose of firearms to another certificate holder or registered dealer.

The idea is to positively vet people who hold guns. If they pass the vetting, then they should be able to hold what they want.

Makes sense to me!?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[skreamer 1]

Do you work nights or do you get up very early to post on the internet? Just curious because you seem to post when all your countrymen are still asleep (not that the Brits aren't grateful of course. )

[Tonto 1]

Quote

The main thing I think is wrong with your posts PJ is that you cannot identify between single people and groups...

Amen.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"And you interpret that as Britain, the nation, trying to impose gun control on the USA."

Sounds like paranoia to me.

PJ voted for a guy because he wanted his right to bear arms maintained. Subsequently, that guy got elected.

Surely PJ has some faith in the integrity of his administration to actually keep their pre-election promises, regardless of what happens abroad?

Or doesn't he trust the guy he voted for?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

The main thing I think is wrong with your posts PJ is that you cannot identify between single people and groups...

Amen.

In fairness, The article does state "Britain" and carries a quote from a senior government minister, who could be assumed to speak for HM Government.

Isn't it more mature to respond to the content of the post and not the style?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

In fairness, The article does state "Britain" and carries a quote from a senior government minister, who could be assumed to speak for HM Government.

Isn't it more mature to respond to the content of the post and not the style?

Disagree Mike...

The post is the 'hope' of a single individual... and not a statement of government policy and direction.
It in no way presumes to reflect the view of the people of Britain in a majority.

[Added - > You did say 'assume' sorry.. missed that!]

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Isn't it more mature to respond to the content of the post and not the style?

Ordinarily yes, but where PJ's concerned his message is all in the presentation.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you work nights or do you get up very early to post on the internet? Just curious because you seem to post when all your countrymen are still asleep (not that the Brits aren't grateful of course. )

Some of us are insomniacs.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Disagree Mike..."

I do as well, but Mike and I can disagree without things becoming unpleasant.

There is a huge gulf between a British public figure discussing an issue with the BBC (thats the British Broadcasting Corporation), and personally exhorting the good and intelligent citizens of the USA to change their laws.

The good and intelligent citizens of the USA certainly won't listen to an Uppity Imperialist on these matters, especially not a Scottish one.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The main thing I think is wrong with your posts PJ is that you cannot identify between single people and groups...

Us / Them / Britain / US / Africans / AIDS suffereres..

Um, as I read the article, it says, "...Britain urged the United States..." That's a "group," is it not? That was the British Secretary of Defense George Robertson speaking in his official capacity for the nation of England, no?

There is no failure to distinguish between individuals and groups in my post.

I notice that you do not say anything about my main point. I wonder why that is.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

IMHO, the current UK Firearms Legislation is too restrictive, while the US standpoint is too relaxed. I do believe in registration and licensing of firearms holders PURELY as a record of who owns what firearms, and to restrict the open sale of firearms and ammunition to unsuitable persons.

Yeah, well, it's easy to believe in registration and licensing, "purely as a record of who owns what firearms"... And that's exactly why registration and licensing are pushed on the gun-owning public -- so that the government knows who to go to when they decide to confiscate the weapons.

It'd be wonderful if we could have registration and licensing without the attendant DANGER of the registration lists being used EXPRESSLY to take away the people's guns at a later date; unfortunately, trying to have registration and licensing without having that danger is like trying to have a coin with a "heads" side and no "tails."

And please, if you believe in the utility of gun registration, inform me how that can be used to prevent crime if a person is bent on committing it.

I think you would be surprised at how infrequently a gun trace of the last legal registered owner aids in the solving of a shooting crime.

Quote

The idea is to positively vet people who hold guns. If they pass the vetting, then they should be able to hold what they want.

We have that, in the U.S., via the instant-check system. There is no need to keep a registration list if a person's background check comes back such that he is authorized by the government and the FBI to purchase a gun. Why would there be?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Do you work nights or do you get up very early to post on the internet? Just curious because you seem to post when all your countrymen are still asleep (not that the Brits aren't grateful of course. )

My hours are somewhat reversed due to the fact that I work nights. I get home after 0200 and read and post for a few hours after that.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

The main thing I think is wrong with your posts PJ is that you cannot identify between single people and groups...

Amen.

t

There you go, bringing religion into it again!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

You want us to comment on your central point? That "Britain" "seeks" to "impose" our laws on the US?

Get real. Your story simply says: A politician said:

Quote

I hope that they will look carefully at what this country did in banning handguns after the Dunblane massacre"

He's not trying to "impose" anything on anyone. He's hoping the US administration looks at what the UK administration did in 97. I trust they have looked at it - they'd be foolish not to. Not to say they'd be foolish not to act on it - that's a different question all together.

As for the phrase: "Britain urged" - that is the authors own, NOT that of the politician... you don't show ANYTHING simply by pointing to newspaper editorial content alone. Newspaper hacks are responsible for some of the worst inaccuracies in society - you only have to look at a skydiving incident report for examples of that.

For a proof reader you make remarkable leaps in your interpretation of the English language.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"And you interpret that as Britain, the nation, trying to impose gun control on the USA."

Sounds like paranoia to me.

PJ voted for a guy because he wanted his right to bear arms maintained. Subsequently, that guy got elected.

Surely PJ has some faith in the integrity of his administration to actually keep their pre-election promises, regardless of what happens abroad?

Or doesn't he trust the guy he voted for?

Sophistry. Bush would not be the one making the law, and if such a law got passed, if it had enough support it could be veto-proof.

Not that that will happen, given that we have an increased majority of Republican congressmen coming in next term.
Look, I never said it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing: I was only refuting the bullshit claim that the brits here have made that brits aren't trying to foist their gun control on the U.S. as "the thing to do." How many times have people on this forum claimed that they recognize that what works for one country isn't necessarily right for the other? (This is particularly used as a defense against the idea that british crime might go down if you allowed good people to have guns.) But then you have a representative of the british government saying, in effect, "We hope America takes our lead and follows it."

No, no attempt to export british gun control there -- no sir!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"That was the British Secretary of Defense George Robertson speaking in his official capacity for the nation of England, no?"

Umm, NO, he doesn't have an official capacity to speak for the 'Nation of England', my fine neighbours South of the Border probably wouldn't like that very much.
What the newspaper from some place in Florida assumed, and what he actually said appear (from the limited and unverifiable press clipping cited) to be two entirely different things.

""I hope that they will look carefully at what this country did in banning handguns after the Dunblane massacre, and I hope we never have to wake up to this sort of news again from America," "

Is not the entire nation of the United Kingdom demanding in no uncertain terms that our well respected neighbours, and valued allies, surrender their firearms immediately and without further ado.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

You guys have been saying for a long while now that brits have no interest in seeing the U.S. institute brit-style gun control policy. The article (a clipping of which I found while cleaning tonight) states otherwise, and it is not like they just asked Nigel Hetwoodham of 83 Brookhill Road for his thoughts on the matter -- the guy is a government higher-up.

I'm sure that brits have representation on the U.N. committee on small arms, which seeks to impose global gun control via TREATY. We Americans, under Bush, told them they can go PISS OFF, but that doesn't mean you don't have diplomats hard at work trying to push a binding treaty on us and the world that would nullify our rights under the Second Amendment. It'd be interesting to find the voting record in the U.N. on that subject. But it's late and I'm going to bed.

Quote

You want us to comment on your central point? That "Britain" "seeks" to "impose" our laws on the US?

For a proof reader you make remarkable leaps in your interpretation of the English language.

That's because before I was a proofreader, I was a champion Olympic long-jumper.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

You guys have been saying for a long while now that brits have no interest in seeing the U.S. institute brit-style gun control policy.

Disinterested? Yes, definitely.

Uninterested? Well... we kinda like you guys - we'd like to see things turn out well for you, so I guess only in part. But that's not to say that Brit-style gun control is what's gonna make things turn out right for you guys.

Now if you were French...

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

I notice that you do not say anything about my main point. I wonder why that is

That is because...

1. I am not a Brit that suggested the US should ban guns.
(I think its way too late for that over there)
2. I have been through enough gun debates already and have really said all I need to.

However, you do have a tendendy to turn issues into a nationalistic ones....

So I dont see what point you think youve proved and can act smug about. Ohh yeah, what happened to your
reply about the sword wielder?

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[Tonto 1]

I didn't respond to PJ, nor did I quote his post. I simply agreed with Paulipod.

Why are you responding to me about PJ and his post?

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"That's because before I was a proofreader."
I would have thought a proofreader would have known when to give a country its correct tiitle, eg with a capital B in Britain.

"and it is not like they just asked Nigel Hetwoodham of 83 Brookhill Road for his thoughts on the matter -- the guy is a government higher-up."

So who solicited this statement from George, and in what context was the satement made?
And why can't we verify its authenticity?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

What did old Nige have to say anyway? How's he keeping, I've not seen him in ages?