The bias is where the BBC does not report the fact that concealed weapons permit holders warned of this exact thing long-ago, were prevented from exercising their rights despite that warning and despite jumping thru many additional control-freak hoops beyond those required for simple gun ownership, and the violence happened as predicted. The BBC isn't likely to put forth that viewpoint because it makes victim disarmament look as stupid as it is. That's the bias. And when bias is this-blatant, it doesn't take much sensitivity to detect.
JMR

The bias is dripping in this story.  "Many Americans believe" it is our right to have guns?  Can't you see the presumption included in this statement?  What "many Americans believe" or don't believe has nothing to do with the issue.  The statement implies that those Americans who favor gun rights are somehow misguided or incorrect.  Our constitution assures us the right to bear arms.  A more objective media story would present it in this fashion:  "The American Constitution assures that country's citizens that their right to bear arms will not be curtailed by the government."  Of course, we seldom see wording like this in any popular media outlet.  This is a strong example of how media is tilted leftward; most stories of this nature are written from the liberal perspective--in this case the idea tha gun ownership rights should be limited.  This is one example of why it is absurd that some people still deny the existence of a liberal media bias.

...and bailing their asses out of WW2 (WITH OUR SUBSTANTIAL COLLECTION OF GUNS) didn't help much either...

Keep in mind that "a serious discussion" is defined as the one they win. Many pro-gunners think we have been having a 'serious discussion' about unreasonable infringement of civilian gun rights since 1934.

The Dems don't know how to put a political spin on the tragedy.  Except that rich people (not Dems, of course.......like the Kennedys and Ivy Leaguers) need to feel guilty for being successful.

I am active duty Army.  My feelings toward gun control is ambivalent.  All I know is that historically Hitler removed guns from the populace (Brown Shirts with brooms) and set his political agenda in order.  We will get run over by the likes of the Mexicans, like the French did.  If a student in the classroom were carrying a gun, there wouldn't have been such a tragedy.

Yeah, sorry BBC, I having trouble remembering the last time a riot broke out at an American football, baseball, basketball, or hockey game that resulted in the deaths of many spectators. But I guess they don't want to have THAT discussion now, do they?

"Putting guns in the hands of drunken frat boys..."

I think that's called "thinning the herd".

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Allowing concealed weapons on campuses? Wow, that's a bright idea!

Then I guess you are content with being a sitting duck, waiting for the government to come and save your inexperienced behind.

Had just one person been around with a gun and new how to employ it properly, there is a good chance that many of the people who died yesterday would still be with us. If you are afraid of guns, then don't buy one.

If you wish to put your llife in the hands of government employees, be my guest. Just don't ask the rest of us to do the same.

My life, and the lives of those I care about are far, far too important to be placed in the hands of government employees, who, with a few exceptions, are considered unemployable by those of us in the private sector.

That is something you will figure out when you are all grown up and out in the real world.

Damn, are you in for some surprises.

*Confucious say it is better to push a Porsche that to drive Ferrari.*

Homeland Security is you, at home, with a loaded firearm.