Tabbloid

There is trouble stirring in the Conservative party, and amongst their supporters. Head over to The Telegraph‘s comment sections about the EU and the most recommended comment will usually end with “Vote for UKIP!” or something of a similar message. This change has come about only recently, with many feeling that the EU is no longer what Britain needs. Because you cannot drive to mainland Europe from the UK, some feel that we are not part of Europe so should not be part of the EU. Right-wing blogs such as Guido Fawkes are incredibly anti-EU, as are papers such as the Daily Express (which has run laughable “crusades” to remove the UK from the EU) and the Daily Mail. I do not dispute that some of the things the EU tries to implement are ridiculous, like wanting control of the British press. When I read that story I groaned, how could the EU be so stupid? They must know that there is diminishing support for them in the UK and they go and insult those who write about them. Even papers like The Guardian, who are pro-EU, are anti-Leverson. The decision for Brussels to attack David Cameron over a popular decision, especially amongst the press, is beyond stupid.

On this particular issue, David Cameron had to be very careful. The right-wing media (both blogs, like Guido, and print newspapers and magazines, like The Spectator and The Telegraph) are strongly opposed to the EU and would dish out negative coverage if Cameron appeared too weak on the issue (most have already moved over to supporting UKIP). Luckily, David Cameron had a brainwave: schedule the In/Out referendum for after the 2015 election. Genius!

The timing of the referendum is excellent for several reasons:

- It is highly unlikely that the Conservatives will get back into power in 2015. Because of the cuts that have had to have been made (no matter how essential), people do not like the Tories anymore. George Osborne is seen by many as inactive on cutting back the deficit, with some new figures supporting their claims. Granted, UK voters don’t like quick changes of government (Labour was in power for 13 years, with the Tories going for considerably longer before them) but they may make an exception for 2015. A Guardian/ICM poll suggests that the Conservative sit with just 33% of the vote, while Labour has 38%. Another poll, published by Guido Fawkes, shows 38% are voting for Labour, 27% for the Tories and 17% for UKIP. Because the Tories are unlikely to be reëlected in 2015, the 2017 referendum will never happen. In this morning’s Daily Mail, Cameron was praised for his stance on the EU.

- The supposed referendum — see point one – whips the carpet out from under the feet of UKIP. What is the point of UKIP? To get the UK out of the EU. David Cameron has now negated the main reason UKIP exists. If the Tories will offer a referendum, and have better politics on other issues and are more likely to get in, what is the point of voting for UKIP? None. Some have suggested that UKIP are stealing Conservative voters and a “pact” should be reached. After Cameron’s referendum plan, that will stop. UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, “ridiculed” Cameron, but that is just bluster; Farage knows his party will fade back into irrelevance come 2015.

- In point one I focussed on the media, specifically the right-wing variant, giving Cameron stick for not offering a referendum. The other people who were giving Cameron stick were those on his own benches. Ed Miliband suggested that Cameron was “scared” of his back benchers. This may be true, but he has just gone a long way to pleasing them. There was some suggestion that some Tory MPs would defect to UKIP, but why would they do that now? They can stay with a party that represents their views (or isn’t adverse to them) and not have to face losing their seats in 2015. And Cameron’s ruse worked: he won back his Eurosceptic back benchers.

- Cameron has also pleased some business owners by not appearing too anti-EU. Trade within the EU is essential to the British economy, especially when we’re in the midst of a triple-dip recession. Countries such as Germany have already warned Britain that they will be displeased if the UK leaves the EU. Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, said Germany will “compromise” with the UK to keep them in the EU.

David Cameron’s EU referendum is genius, for many reasons. He has managed to please both the media (left and right), his back benchers and business owners. This wouldn’t normally happen, but I commend you for your political cunning, Mr. Cameron.

After a debate between Alex Jones and Piers Morgan on CNN on Monday that encapsulated the double-sided nature of opposing opinions and the truly horrific Newtown school shootings, it’s increasingly obvious that a decision needs to be reached with regards to gun laws in America.

The USA recorded 8,583 firearm murders in 2011 and a reported 12,000+ in 2012, an astonishing number easily accounting for the highest rate of gun crime for any country on Earth. A more interesting statistic perhaps is the fact that the rate of guns used for assault is 4% higher than those used for robbery, discounting any firearms used to defend property or human life.

It’s absolutely shocking that anyone can walk into a Walmart in America and purchase a high-capacity assault rifle. There is utterly no need for military-grade firearms to be available for public purchase. As Morgan rightly points out (when, of course, he could get a word in edgeways due to Jones’ unstoppable tirade of ignorance) that he is unable to buy 4 boxes of ‘Sudofed’ in a supermarket, due to the interests of public health, however he is able to purchase the same weapon used to gun down over 30 innocent children in Newtown.
There is simply not a requirement for such a weapon in any situation. It must be considered that if European-style gun licensing laws were brought into effect in America, those who the public are ‘defending’ against would not themselves have access to high-powered firearms. It is not ‘anti-consititutional’ to suggest  that some form of viable gun licensing laws should be brought into place in America.

America’s second amendment, an alien concept to those of us in Europe, should be kept in tact, as clearly the constitution is a cornerstone in the USA’s history and remains ever prevalent today, however it’s not a move to break that amendment to suggest that tactical weapons are not needed to ‘defend yourself. I hope a summit will be called including major world leaders in the near future to discuss this issue as the gun crime rate in civilised countries reaches a universally uncivilised level.
I saw a comment on Twitter some time ago that commented upon the fact the human race is the only species that has to pay for its right to live on earth. The fact is, though, we’re not paying for some global council tax or paying for the privilege to live on earth – we’re paying for the public services that defend our human rights, and to punish those who flout them.

Gun crime in Britain, for example, whilst higher than is ideal, represents a level at which the public feel reasonably safe under. In Britain, very few of us feel the need to carry a weapon upon our person for fear of getting shot at or attacked. Of course, this varies from place to place, as some violent suburbs in southern London carry a higher crime rate than anywhere in Europe.
However, imagine walking through a high street in your local city or town knowing that a large percentage of the public around you are carrying deadly weapons. If one,  just one of them, had evil intentions, lives could be utterly ruined.

The essential fact that must conclusively be considered is that solving the problems of gun ownership are far easier than solving mental insecurities of those likely to commit crimes. Additionally, ownership of weapons is far easy to monitor and control than predicting the outcomes of mental health issues. Whilst a mentally unstable individual could easily run into a primary school and attack a child, he/she could inflict far less damage than if they were carrying a high-capacity assault rifle. It’s a realistic decision that must be made to decrease loss of life in atrocious situations. It’s unrealistic to suggest we can create a utopia of good will and respect; even so, if that were the case, what would be the purpose in guns if there was no one to ‘protect yourself’ against?

What’s your view on America’s gun crime problem? What do you think the best course of action is? Comment below.