American gun politics and foreign news outlets. Thoughts?

K

Kimio

New member
It's very clear that the MSM here in America is extremely anti gun, dancing to the tune in most cases with that of the anti-gun groups.

However, how is the story of American politics in regards to guns represented in foreign news stations such as BBC and Al Jazeera (I know I know). What do you normally see, does it appear more pro, anti or neutral? Most articles I've seen tend to be neutral, for example, here is an article posted on BBC USA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24202316


Here's another that appears to represent both sides fairly well IMO.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24129127

I know quite a few people that go to BBC for news, to try and avoid a lot of the partisan drama that gets stirred up in local news outlets. So the ultimate question is, do we have a friend or foe or perhaps neither in foreign news outlets?

The media is a strong tool, something that is working against us unfortunately here in the states. Knowing who is against us in the war of (mis)information is something I think we can benefit from in regards to our efforts to counteract what the MSM spin-doctors concoct and spew out to the masses.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The BBC is supposed to be neutral. For the most part they are. There are a few occasions when I didn't feel the succeeded and in the UK, in relation to politics there are a few cases where there have been complaints made, but I can't remember their being followed through. I have seen a few online reports about US gun culture, particularly in the period following Sandy Hook, when the gun debate was highly charged. For example there was a report about how easy it was to buy an AR at a gun show.

Was it anti? No, because it never said it was a bad thing, just that it was very, very easy to do. Nor was it pro because it made no references to the 2nd A or how an AR can be a SD boon or just be a hunting or sporting firearm.

Just the facts of the ease of acquisition.

Never seen any gun-related reports on Al Jazeera, but as a news service I rate it pretty highly: reports I have seen seemed thorough, even-handed and professional. I go there from time to time when I want a perspective that is not the BBC.

I must say that what I have seen of TV networks in the US, they seem very politically charged. On the face of it, it seems hard to get just straight forward, balanced facts. I've not seen hours and hours of news reporting, so I may be wrong...
 
what few opinions I've seen from foreign, generally British media on the U.S. "gun culture" have been either balanced and neutral, though never really delving into much detail of WHY we cherish our 2A rights, to downright insulting and condescending.

Essentially saying "Look at these primitive Americans clinging to their guns and outdated ideas, how stupid can they be to not see the clear benefits of gun control as we have, harumph." The plain ignorance wouldn't bother me much however. It's the condescending sense of superiority they sometimes show that's just insulting. They won't even acknowledge the fact that WE the PEOPLE are clinging to our guns and old ideas. But instead the NRA and evil gun lobby have tricked us and are holding us hostage, like we're a bunch of children too blind to realize it. Like we WANT to be like Europe with all the gun-control that entails but the gun lobby won't let us have it.
One article even claimed that our gun culture is not just a crime problem but a humanitarian problem like some 3rd world country run by evil gun corporations and suggesting the "civilized" world should send a humanitarian mission to help solve our gun problem.

I really had to keep myself from shouting expletives on a crowded subway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Al Jazeera America had a gun control related article yesterday. I wish they had done a little more research on Wintemute before they published it.
Click to expand...
I agree. This claim should have been verified:

Wintemute said he never received any money from anti-gun groups. "I've turned it down, in fact," he said.
Click to expand...
While he may not have personally taken the envelope and deposited it in his personal bank account, his department at UC Davis has taken plenty from the Joyce Foundation, and they've paid for plenty of his studies.

One thing to remember is this: few other countries really have much of a gun culture. None have one like ours. Ours is a right to guard freedom; theirs is a limited privilege to hunt quail. From across the pond, it's natural that we might seem a bit odd to them.

The reporting in their media doesn't necessarily represent hostility so much as it does misunderstanding.
 
I've deleted or edited some posts. The topic of this thread is the attitudes of foreign new outlets, not "Let's be snarky about foreigners." No more of that, please.
 
I have lived overseas for a number of years and come to know a lot of people from a lot of different countries. As a native English speaker I end up meeting and getting to know a lot of people from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

Their cultures have been so ingrained with the idea the weapons are not necessary in a civilized nation that even their former servicemen seem to lead the pack in disparging not just gun ownership but ownership of any type of weapon.

I have carried firearms into the field both as a warrior and as a hunter. From this experience I have come to believe that there is something instinctive to the human experience about being armed. It is our natural state.

To my mind the movement over the past hundred years to try to extract this instinct from our beings is a futile measure which has negative outcomes (empowering criminals, for one) that too many people have to continuously ignore to maintain the lie they have accepted.
 
I like to liken that thought process to people willingly declawing/de-fanging (is this even a word?) themselves, and unable to accept the fact that there are some situations where you must bare your teeth to defend yourself.

It's interesting because I've run into people who would rather be shot themselves than to take their gun and shoot the person trying to do them harm. This of course boggles my mind.

It's fascinating how much difference there is in regards to ideology and beliefs of the right to bare arms in other countries (or rather the lack there of).
 
My experience with the UK news outlets generally is that they reflect the prejudices and orthodoxies of their population. This is even more pronounced on the continent.

There is a genuine cultural difference vis-à-vis the US and the UK and the continent. I would say generally that they have resigned themselves to coexistence with extensive and powerful government.

I can recall discussing firearms with a Greek friend in college. He was a physically imposing Olympic level practitioner of judo and his father was one of the colonels who displaced the parliamentary government in favor of military government several decades ago.

He initially did not believe me when I told him that Americans are permitted to own firearms privately. "That cannot be because if you went out and talked to another man's girlfriend and had a fight, you might be shot!" The first step would be not starting a fight. I saw the wheels turn as he contemplated this strange new idea.

I find generally that they do not think about civil rights the way Americans both liberal and conservative do. We think of our civil rights as a guaranty, a contract that cannot be broken without severe penalty. They, perhaps in recognition of their recent history, understand that they have the rights the government leaves them after the last election.

One of the best summations of the difference I have read is that an American when wondering whether he can do something legally looks to the law to see if it is prohibited, while a Western European will look to the law to see if it is allowed. That latter viewpoint is not an excellent basis for understanding our rights as we understand them.
 
Last edited:
I find that anti gun people in general project their own emotion, and lack of discipline onto us gun owners. They "feel" that they can not be trusted to act responsibly, so we can not either. The statement "what if you got in a fight, and shot someone can be heard both in the U.S., and abroad.

Tejicano nailed it. Foreign subjects have been unnaturally conditioned to believe that a civilized society does not need firearms except for military, and law enforcement. I have travelled abroad for business extensively, and there is utter disbelief, and then scorn from some when you mention the private ownership of firearms.
 
then scorn from some when you mention the private ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

That scorn is equally palpable from the other side of the fence re those who are anti gun.

You need only look at some of the pseudonyms that members on here give people who don't support unfettered firearms ownership or hunting activities.

Not saying you're wrong, just that that aspect swings both ways...
 
First, I have to strongly agree with two things that Pond said, above:
1)
I must say that what I have seen of TV networks in the US, they seem very politically charged. On the face of it, it seems hard to get just straight forward, balanced facts.
Click to expand...

and 2)
That scorn is equally palpable from the other side of the fence re those who are anti gun.
Click to expand...
-- just sayin'...

My comment has little to do with the way foreign news outlets portray American gun politics, but it is a little window on a "foreign" point of view.

In 1997 I got shipped off to Indonesia for about 4-5 days - a piece of equipment broke and I went to collect pieces to analyze. A local representative of my company picked me up at the international airport and took me to the terminal for a flight in-country to the site of the failure. He was making small talk (I was trying to remain coherent after 36+ hours on a 747) and it came out that I was deeply involved in Cowboy Action Shooting.

He scoffed and said something to the effect that if people had guns, they would overthrow the government. Within less than a year, Suharto was out. It did not take an armed revolution, just an economic collapse and some loud political protest.

Still, his comment stuck with me and as I get older and more simple-minded it gets clearer and clearer that if people believe that "resistance is futile" - it really is futile. But if people believe that they have power, they can effect change - and it may not actually involve "taking up arms" but rather just sensing their own power over their own destiny and applying just enough force (not necessarily burning any powder).

Ok, I'll go crawl back under my rock now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top