It's like if some one said to get rid of the monarchy, there would be an outcry, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is there to protect the people,
To paraphrase Rizzo, they don't kill 11'000+ people a year though...
Neither do firearms, in the US, there was 8500 gun related homicides in 2011 (not 11000 as Morgan keeps saying), 1000 of them were justified.
It's like if some one said to get rid of the monarchy, there would be an outcry, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is there to protect the people,
To paraphrase Rizzo, they don't kill 11'000+ people a year though...
Neither do firearms, in the US, there was 8500 gun related homicides in 2011 (not 11000 as Morgan keeps saying), 1000 of them were justified.
Oh, that's okay then... LOL
The point is that, if he's gonna gob on about stats and tell the Yanks they've got it all wrong, he should at least have his information correct before hand. The geezer is a melt!
It's like if some one said to get rid of the monarchy, there would be an outcry, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is there to protect the people,
To paraphrase Rizzo, they don't kill 11'000+ people a year though...
Neither do firearms, in the US, there was 8500 gun related homicides in 2011 (not 11000 as Morgan keeps saying), 1000 of them were justified.
Oh, that's okay then... LOL
The point is that, if he's gonna gob on about stats and tell the Yanks they've got it all wrong, he should at least have his information correct before hand. The geezer is a melt!
I'd be wary of drawing too many conclusions from the US coverage - anything on the Fox network being presented as 'balanced' is a bit of a joke, and of course Mr Morgan is unlikely to be afraid to use stats selectively...
In any case comparing international crime stats is notoriously tricky. Murders are relatively easy to compare, so from that point of view the US has a clear case to answer, (whereas something like 'violent crime' is more open to interpretation and manipulation.). But even there, it's easy to find places with few murders and higher gun ownership than then UK (eg. Germany). And there's guns, and there's AK47s.
I'd be wary of drawing too many conclusions from the US coverage - anything on the Fox network being presented as 'balanced' is a bit of a joke, and of course Mr Morgan is unlikely to be afraid to use stats selectively...
In any case comparing international crime stats is notoriously tricky. Murders are relatively easy to compare, so from that point of view the US has a clear case to answer, (whereas something like 'violent crime' is more open to interpretation and manipulation.). But even there, it's easy to find places with few murders and higher gun ownership than then UK (eg. Germany). And there's guns, and there's AK47s.
It's all pretty complexed, but the fact is, Morgan has opened himself a can of worms and I for one, hope to enjoy watching him suffer!
Think there's a certain level of gravity that should be included in this kind of thing too, for example "violent crime" could qualify as two guys having a small brawl outside a pub over footy, a couple of black eyes and a broken nose the results. However many kids and their teacher getting shot with an automatic weapon in a primary school on the other hand, is a little more serious.
Personally, I think the debate is related to other countries too much, just because you're nation doesn't have the worst crime stats doesn't mean that you should forget that 11000 (or whatever the correct fact is) people are being murdered by guns yearly. And that the statistics are rising.
Despite coming accross as a rambling idiot, Jones makes one or two decent points. The 2nd amendment is there almost as a principle, to give the population protection against their own government. This has become pretty irrelevant now however as the army and the government have access to nuclear weapons, jet planes, tanks etc, but the principle still remains. It's like if some one said to get rid of the monarchy, there would be an outcry, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is there to protect the people, a lot like the US have guns.
.
Indeed. Mr Jones does himself no favours but like you say he makes some great points. Looking at the stats for homicides and the amount killed by illegal guns, why is nobody debating the : Fast and furious : debacle where the Obama administration have been caught trafficking illegal weapons to known criminals, weapons that have turned up at many drug related crime scenes and also ben used to kill US border agents!!WTF. AG Holder refused to hand over many many documents of evidence to a congressioal investgation effectively stonewalling it. Obamas reaction? He invoked executive privilege to deny the investigation access to those documents. Charming. A lot of ATF field agents felt the whole debacle was politically motivated. Wonder what they're up to?
Firstly. I'd be very wary of any show on Fox that claims to be broadcasting "in the interests of balance". Fox is not balanced by any stretch of the imagination.
Secondly, I don't recall Piers Morgan making any reference to 'violent crime' in the interview with that nutjob Jones. He was referring to gun homicides. And regardless of whether there were 11k or 8.5k in the US compared to 35 or 69 in the UK, there is no denying that the US figures are orders of magnitude higher than the UK. Or indeed most other countries in the world. Being proud of 'only' being the 27th worst country in the world seems somewhat odd.
Thirdly, none of the Ben Swann report, or the Alex Jones interview is actually relevant to what Morgan is saying, which is "What possible reason could you have for owning an assault rifle?". Neither Jones nor Swann is willing to answer that question.
As the great Winston Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans doing the right thing, once all other avenues have been exhausted."
That said, America is not the UK, Europe or Australia, it is a very different country and they have a very different culture in which guns are an integral part of life for millions of people.
Asking Americans to give up guns - even assault weapons - is like asking Old Firm fans to stop singing sectarian songs.
Very very well done to those teachers, and I think this proves that guns are not always the answer when words did more positive help than a gun in that situation ever could have.
Just catching Morgans show from last night and he's debating Ben Shapiro on the topic (is this literally all Morgan talks about on his show?).
Shapiro's argument is quite interesting, he's saying it's not about the amount or calibre of weapons a person has access to but about whether that person is a responsible or irresponsible gun owner.
Whilst I'm not sure I agree (how exactly would you establish and then enforce a degree of responsibility ?) it's good to hear a pro-gun argument from someone capable of articulating a decent argument.
Interesting clip Rob, assuming all the stats are correct it does show that maybe us brits should not be so quick to throw stones.
The stat re. UK being more violent than South Africa was a surprise!
Yes, but the way in which it's measured is different. For example in the UK all crimes where violence is perpetrated count towards the total, in the USA there are defined categories - that is, many crimes that would count in the UK don't in the US.
More to the point, if the UK really is more violent than the USA this supports the argument that guns are the differentiator, it doesn't deny it. The argument goes that because I have a gun people are slower to consider committing violent crime against me; that might be true, but it's also true that because I have a gun you must have a gun too, and if you do commit a violent crime against me the chances are you'll use your gun because you must assume I have one.
Incidentally in both nations suicides are by far the bigger cause of death by firearm. Again, the availability of guns in the home makes carrying out that decision a lot easier.
Just catching Morgans show from last night and he's debating Ben Shapiro on the topic (is this literally all Morgan talks about on his show?).
Shapiro's argument is quite interesting, he's saying it's not about the amount or calibre of weapons a person has access to but about whether that person is a responsible or irresponsible gun owner.
Whilst I'm not sure I agree (how exactly would you establish and then enforce a degree of responsibility ?) it's good to hear a pro-gun argument from someone capable of articulating a decent argument.
This is of course true, a vase in the wrong person's hand becomes a weapon, but but it's only part of the argument.
Firstly, responsibility can be a transient condition - anyone's state of mind can change very quickly. Derrick Bird was seen as a responsible gun owner, he had been gun-licensed for many years and was well liked in his village community - but something snapped, he killed his brother and things unravelled from there. We all know too that it's very easy to get very angry if the right (wrong) buttons are pushed, and in those moments we should be thankful we don't have guns to hand.
But most poignantly this is surely an argument for greater gun control. Keep the laws as tight as possible so that only those who are unarguably responsible can have them, and even those can only have what they need. 12,000 gun murders a year, considerably higher than any other developed nation, says to me there's a hell of a lot of irresponsible gun owners out there.
There's no persuading me that Alex Jones is a responsible gun owner - who needs 50 guns in their home for protection? The second amendment wasn't put in place to allow people like him to fulfil his fantasies. He is a marvellous argument for taking all the guns away.
There's no persuading me that Alex Jones is a responsible gun owner - who needs 50 guns in their home for protection? The second amendment wasn't put in place to allow people like him to fulfil his fantasies. He is a marvellous argument for taking all the guns away.
Indeed he is a good case for the argument but an even better counter argument is the government trafficking guns to known criminals!! Who is the crazier?? Imo it isn't Mr Jones. If its about being responsible......well nuff said. The thing is guns are a way of life there so we have to work with that. Don't forget that there are already gun laws in place and alarmingly these laws make the children extremely vulnerable to these attacks. The kids , those that are unable to defend themselves, should be protected the most imo. People like to debate these issues from a position of safety but put it this way.........My 5 year old child is at school and a crazed lunatic comes in with guns (Alex Jones anyone?)...and he starts shooting. Standing between my child and the crazy is a brave teacher protecting them,like what happened in reality. Do I want that teacher armed with a gun ? 100 percent YES. That armed teacher would certainly shoot the crazy and save lives. Its not an ideal scenario but a very real one for parents in the States. If my child was shot and killed because they failed to provide protection then I would have their ass!! Let them bring in laws if they want , which would be good, but let the most innocent and vulnerable be the last ones to be disarmed.
There's no persuading me that Alex Jones is a responsible gun owner - who needs 50 guns in their home for protection? The second amendment wasn't put in place to allow people like him to fulfil his fantasies. He is a marvellous argument for taking all the guns away.
Indeed he is a good case for the argument but an even better counter argument is the government trafficking guns to known criminals!! Who is the crazier?? Imo it isn't Mr Jones. If its about being responsible......well nuff said. The thing is guns are a way of life there so we have to work with that. Don't forget that there are already gun laws in place and alarmingly these laws make the children extremely vulnerable to these attacks. The kids , those that are unable to defend themselves, should be protected the most imo. People like to debate these issues from a position of safety but put it this way.........My 5 year old child is at school and a crazed lunatic comes in with guns (Alex Jones anyone?)...and he starts shooting. Standing between my child and the crazy is a brave teacher protecting them,like what happened in reality. Do I want that teacher armed with a gun ? 100 percent YES. That armed teacher would certainly shoot the crazy and save lives. Its not an ideal scenario but a very real one for parents in the States. If my child was shot and killed because they failed to provide protection then I would have their ass!! Let them bring in laws if they want , which would be good, but let the most innocent and vulnerable be the last ones to be disarmed.
That's pretty much the NRA line isn't it?
I mean, putting guns into every classroom in America, even in crime ridden inner city schools, into the hands of inexperienced, nervous teachers - what could possibly go wrong with that?
There's no persuading me that Alex Jones is a responsible gun owner - who needs 50 guns in their home for protection? The second amendment wasn't put in place to allow people like him to fulfil his fantasies. He is a marvellous argument for taking all the guns away.
Indeed he is a good case for the argument but an even better counter argument is the government trafficking guns to known criminals!! Who is the crazier?? Imo it isn't Mr Jones. If its about being responsible......well nuff said. The thing is guns are a way of life there so we have to work with that. Don't forget that there are already gun laws in place and alarmingly these laws make the children extremely vulnerable to these attacks. The kids , those that are unable to defend themselves, should be protected the most imo. People like to debate these issues from a position of safety but put it this way.........My 5 year old child is at school and a crazed lunatic comes in with guns (Alex Jones anyone?)...and he starts shooting. Standing between my child and the crazy is a brave teacher protecting them,like what happened in reality. Do I want that teacher armed with a gun ? 100 percent YES. That armed teacher would certainly shoot the crazy and save lives. Its not an ideal scenario but a very real one for parents in the States. If my child was shot and killed because they failed to provide protection then I would have their ass!! Let them bring in laws if they want , which would be good, but let the most innocent and vulnerable be the last ones to be disarmed.
That's pretty much the NRA line isn't it?
I mean, putting guns into every classroom in America, even in crime ridden inner city schools, into the hands of inexperienced, nervous teachers - what could possibly go wrong with that?
Not interested in the NRA line tbh. Can I presume you would be happy to let your kids be killed at school to satisfy some gun law in a country thats armed to the teeth. I doubt that . Nor would I. The places that we see mass shootings are the places that are covered by the current gun laws. I see good sense in disarming the people before the schools. Its not ideal but its what we've got.
There WERE armed guards on duty at Columbine in the mass shootings there - did not do much to stop all those kids getting slaughtered there.
You have to remember that these US schools are often huge facilities, to keep everyone safe you would have to have an armed guard outside every block - who is going to pay for that?
It is madness to suggest the answer to a gun crisis in society is to pump more guns into the system, its like saying that when the AIDS crisis hit that we should have encouraged more reckless sexual behaviour rather than safe sex.
I think, quite frankly, if I were a parent in a society where we had reached a stage where we felt we had to put guns into every class room to keep children safe that that could be the thing that would make me take stock of what the f**k the world had come to.
We are very lucky here in Oz that former Conservative PM John Howard had the balls to bring in very strict gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre, something for which the gun lobby loathe him for to this day.
The NRA run this 'guns in schools' bollocks to deflect from the real problem -them.
Like I said before on the other thread, the Americans (Law makers, Gun Owners, Anti-Gun Groups) could do no worse than look at gun laws in the UK.
Not sure gun laws are the issue. Not sure there was much of a change in gun crime in the uk after dunblane. The merkins could do worse than look at the UKs attitude to guns... We don't fetishise them and get all excited by them
Like I said before on the other thread, the Americans (Law makers, Gun Owners, Anti-Gun Groups) could do no worse than look at gun laws in the UK.
Not sure gun laws are the issue. Not sure there was much of a change in gun crime in the uk after dunblane. The merkins could do worse than look at the UKs attitude to guns... We don't fetishise them and get all excited by them
Guns used in gun crime, in the UK, are almost exclusively illegally held firearms, a completely separate issue!
It is madness to suggest the answer to a gun crisis in society is to pump more guns into the system, its like saying that when the AIDS crisis hit that we should have encouraged more reckless sexual behaviour rather than safe sex.
You are not wrong OA but the New York Times is today reporting that gun sales in the US in the last month are 58.6% up on 2012 and that the NRA have 100,000 new members.
It will need a root and branch change in attitudes to make a difference and I fear that the gun culture in the US is now so ingrained there will be no change in the foreseeable future.
You are not wrong OA but the New York Times is today reporting that gun sales in the US in the last month are 58.6% up on 2012 and that the NRA have 100,000 new members.
So people's response to gun crime and liberal gun ownership laws is to buy a gun themselves just in case they are held up/threatened and so the problem escalates.
The NRA don't help either - one prevalent right-wing meme is that Obama is going to take their guns away from them, that was either right-wing scare tactics or a canny piece of marketing by the suppliers and manufacturers, you decide...
Well said OA. This bollocks that the NRA and BaronPaulo seem to be espousing is frankly nauseating.
You can blow that out your arse Rizzo. Obviously you didnt read what I said. I care nothing for the NRA nor arming Americans. I said I would like to see them disarmed but the children in schools and soft targets should be the last to be disarmed. You are obviously happy with the current gun laws that see children getting murdered in mass shootings. I don't like it.
Comments
In any case comparing international crime stats is notoriously tricky. Murders are relatively easy to compare, so from that point of view the US has a clear case to answer, (whereas something like 'violent crime' is more open to interpretation and manipulation.). But even there, it's easy to find places with few murders and higher gun ownership than then UK (eg. Germany). And there's guns, and there's AK47s.
Personally, I think the debate is related to other countries too much, just because you're nation doesn't have the worst crime stats doesn't mean that you should forget that 11000 (or whatever the correct fact is) people are being murdered by guns yearly. And that the statistics are rising.
Secondly, I don't recall Piers Morgan making any reference to 'violent crime' in the interview with that nutjob Jones. He was referring to gun homicides. And regardless of whether there were 11k or 8.5k in the US compared to 35 or 69 in the UK, there is no denying that the US figures are orders of magnitude higher than the UK. Or indeed most other countries in the world. Being proud of 'only' being the 27th worst country in the world seems somewhat odd.
Thirdly, none of the Ben Swann report, or the Alex Jones interview is actually relevant to what Morgan is saying, which is "What possible reason could you have for owning an assault rifle?". Neither Jones nor Swann is willing to answer that question.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608
8500+ is quite a figure
That said, America is not the UK, Europe or Australia, it is a very different country and they have a very different culture in which guns are an integral part of life for millions of people.
Asking Americans to give up guns - even assault weapons - is like asking Old Firm fans to stop singing sectarian songs.
Shapiro's argument is quite interesting, he's saying it's not about the amount or calibre of weapons a person has access to but about whether that person is a responsible or irresponsible gun owner.
Whilst I'm not sure I agree (how exactly would you establish and then enforce a degree of responsibility ?) it's good to hear a pro-gun argument from someone capable of articulating a decent argument.
More to the point, if the UK really is more violent than the USA this supports the argument that guns are the differentiator, it doesn't deny it. The argument goes that because I have a gun people are slower to consider committing violent crime against me; that might be true, but it's also true that because I have a gun you must have a gun too, and if you do commit a violent crime against me the chances are you'll use your gun because you must assume I have one.
Incidentally in both nations suicides are by far the bigger cause of death by firearm. Again, the availability of guns in the home makes carrying out that decision a lot easier.
Firstly, responsibility can be a transient condition - anyone's state of mind can change very quickly. Derrick Bird was seen as a responsible gun owner, he had been gun-licensed for many years and was well liked in his village community - but something snapped, he killed his brother and things unravelled from there. We all know too that it's very easy to get very angry if the right (wrong) buttons are pushed, and in those moments we should be thankful we don't have guns to hand.
But most poignantly this is surely an argument for greater gun control. Keep the laws as tight as possible so that only those who are unarguably responsible can have them, and even those can only have what they need. 12,000 gun murders a year, considerably higher than any other developed nation, says to me there's a hell of a lot of irresponsible gun owners out there.
There's no persuading me that Alex Jones is a responsible gun owner - who needs 50 guns in their home for protection? The second amendment wasn't put in place to allow people like him to fulfil his fantasies. He is a marvellous argument for taking all the guns away.
It should have read "The right to arm Bears"
Coat......
You have to remember that these US schools are often huge facilities, to keep everyone safe you would have to have an armed guard outside every block - who is going to pay for that?
It is madness to suggest the answer to a gun crisis in society is to pump more guns into the system, its like saying that when the AIDS crisis hit that we should have encouraged more reckless sexual behaviour rather than safe sex.
I think, quite frankly, if I were a parent in a society where we had reached a stage where we felt we had to put guns into every class room to keep children safe that that could be the thing that would make me take stock of what the f**k the world had come to.
We are very lucky here in Oz that former Conservative PM John Howard had the balls to bring in very strict gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre, something for which the gun lobby loathe him for to this day.
The NRA run this 'guns in schools' bollocks to deflect from the real problem -them.
It will need a root and branch change in attitudes to make a difference and I fear that the gun culture in the US is now so ingrained there will be no change in the foreseeable future.
So people's response to gun crime and liberal gun ownership laws is to buy a gun themselves just in case they are held up/threatened and so the problem escalates.
The NRA don't help either - one prevalent right-wing meme is that Obama is going to take their guns away from them, that was either right-wing scare tactics or a canny piece of marketing by the suppliers and manufacturers, you decide...