Ban on Firearms

Despite being having a intense personal interest in firearms, I do think a blanket ban on firearms is necessary in all 'civilised' societies. It is far too easy to perpetuate massacres with firearms, be it a pistol, a hunting rifle, a shotgun or an assault rifle. The keyword is massacres, not murders.

Right to bear arms in an American context? Seriously, will hunting rifles or pistols be of any threat to a military dictatorship or foreign invader should there ever be one in the USA? Almost certainly not. A militia or rebel group armed with assault rifles, possibly. In that cause, arm every citizen with assault rifles, however, that clearly is just not practical or safe in a societal context. Thus, that law is definitely, well, to say the least, obsolete.

BAN ALL FIREARMS. ALL.

Meanwhile, I have just read a disgusting rationalisation from the BBC of why they gave the madman's person and actions publicity.

"As to what of the NBC video should be transmitted, we decided what was editorially relevant for our audiences. For our TV audiences, where people are not choosing to watch a specific item in the way the online audience can, we bear in mind the time of day, who may be watching and the editorial purpose."

Here is another snippet (I bet every news agency is rationalising it this way, bravo):

"However, given that the video is already widely available, we had to judge whether withholding the video from BBC audiences was the appropriate thing to do. We decided that playing short clips, responsibly contextualised, could aid understanding of the story."

I posted a comment in the BBC editors' blog. I doubt if they will publish it:

"Justify it all you want, rationalise it whatever way you can, I am sorry but this is sheer irresponsibility.

The BBC has suffered from biased reporting (and is still biased) and now, it has gleefully succumbed to a ratings war and has gone ahead and published the manifesto of a madman, playing into Cho's hands. I am sad at the decline of this once great institution."