CNN anchor Piers Morgan isn’t benefiting from much Christmas cheer, at least according to one measure: The number of signers on a petition urging the White House to deport Morgan has skyrocketed by late Tuesday afternoon to nearly 66,000 names. The petition, created last week, had 65,887 supporters around 5 P.M. Tuesday and is posted on the White House’s official petition site. It slams Morgan for comments he has made regarding gun control in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School that killed 20 children and six adults.
“British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment,” the petition to the Obama administration reads. “We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.” On Christmas, Morgan jabbed back at his critics.
“Merry Christmas! Even to those who want me deported,” he snarked on Twitter.
By Monday, the petition had passed at least 25,000 signatures — the number required to receive a White House response.
Brits Petition Government: We Don’t Want Piers Morgan Back.
Clarkson: ‘It took us 40 years to get rid of him’
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 26, 2012
Brits have responded to the petition calling on the White House to deport Piers Morgan for his anti-second amendment stance by lodging a petition of their own with UK Home Secretary Theresa May entitled ‘Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America’. The original petition to deport Morgan for his unconstitutional rhetoric following the Sandy Hook school shooting has now achieved almost 70,000 signatures, well beyond the 25,000 required to mandate a White House response.
However, a counter-petition which features on the change.org website calls on the UK government to prevent Morgan from returning to the UK.
“We got rid of him once and why should we have to suffer again. The Americans wanted him so they should put up with him. We washed our hands of him a long time ago,” the petition reads.
The petition is authored by a user named “hackergate” and includes a YouTube video of the former News of the World editor testifying before the Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal.
Morgan has been accused of being complicit in the scandal but only appeared in front of the inquiry via a video link from the United States. The CNN host’s claim that he had no knowledge of the phone hacking scandal wasdescribed by Lord Justice Leveson as “utterly unpersuasive”.
Morgan was hired by CNN as a prime time host despite the fact that he was fired from his editorial position at the Daily Mirror for publishing a fake news story in May 2004.
British television personality Jeremy Clarkson has also weighed in on the controversy over Morgan by tweeting a plea for him to remain in America.
“Americans. It took us 40 years to get rid of Piers Morgan. Please don’t send him back,” remarked Clarkson.
Morgan himself addressed the controversy, which quickly turned into a viral story after the petition was first lodged by Infowars.com, commenting yesterday, “Merry Christmas! Even to those who want me deported.”
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
Legal precedent suggests that Morgan could be deported from the United States for openly engaging in subversion by calling for Americans to be disarmed, but the fact that he has cultivated a friendly personal relationship with Barack Obama, something which denigrates his supposed impartiality on CNN further, makes that outcome a long shot.
I find the constant reference to petition numbers as though they are somehow significant hilarious. What percentage of the US population is 66,000 anyway (less than .0002)? Seriously. These petitions are so meaningless. Why do they keep making it into the news?
The original petition to deport Morgan for his unconstitutional rhetoric following the Sandy Hook school shooting has now achieved almost 70,000 signatures, well beyond the 25,000 required to mandate a White House response.
unconstitutional rhetoric
*looks at source*
Yep, tinfoil hat idiots continue to be idiots. What else is news?
Is nobody else perplexed by the concept that these idiots want to sacrifice the First Amendment in order to save the Second Amendment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:I find the constant reference to petition numbers as though they are somehow significant hilarious. What percentage of the US population is 66,000 anyway (less than .0002)? Seriously. These petitions are so meaningless. Why do they keep making it into the news?
Because they're often quite funny. Like the petition for the secession of Texas, which had most of its digital signatures originate outside of Texas.
Is nobody else perplexed by the concept that these idiots want to sacrifice the First Amendment in order to save the Second Amendment?
MURICA!!!!
Much as I dislike Morgan, that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. Basically the constitution is sacrosanct, it's never been altered or amended in all it's history, since Moses brought it down off the mountain and it's entirely built to suit ma' purpose till it says something I don't rightly agree with...
Is nobody else perplexed by the concept that these idiots want to sacrifice the First Amendment in order to save the Second Amendment?
MURICA!!!!
Much as I dislike Morgan, that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. Basically the constitution is sacrosanct, it's never been altered or amended in all it's history, since Moses brought it down off the mountain and it's entirely built to suit ma' purpose till it says something I don't rightly agree with...
cretins.
1) We're not sacrificing anything... just a bunch of hooligans voicing their displeasure... jeeze.
2) Constitution ain't sacrocanct... the problem is that some folks believe it's impossible to amend the constitution so they'd rather just pass some laws and dare the court to strike it down.
Is nobody else perplexed by the concept that these idiots want to sacrifice the First Amendment in order to save the Second Amendment?
MURICA!!!!
Much as I dislike Morgan, that was the first thing that sprang to my mind as well. Basically the constitution is sacrosanct, it's never been altered or amended in all it's history, since Moses brought it down off the mountain and it's entirely built to suit ma' purpose till it says something I don't rightly agree with...
No way CNN is going to give him away now. This scandal will only bring him greater ratings. I'd expect him to chest thump on air every 5-6 days to keep the story in the cycle.
Necroshea wrote: Hey maybe we could trade him for that veteran stuck in that bed in mexico.
That guy's back home, thankfully.
Drat it! Well thats cool to hear about him getting back home, I stopped following the thread a bit ago, but that means we're still stuck with our much loved reporter.
I have mixed feelings about Piers Morgan. I absolutely loathe the guy, but I've always had grudging respect for how he turned his sacking from the Daily Mirror into the ultimate career move.
Regardless, keep him. He's right on this issue anyway.
Flashman wrote: I have mixed feelings about Piers Morgan. I absolutely loathe the guy, but I've always had grudging respect for how he turned his sacking from the Daily Mirror into the ultimate career move.
Regardless, keep him. He's right on this issue anyway.
He's suggested trying British-style gun amnesty in the US. It worked for you guys, and that's all well and good, but suggesting something like that in America isn't right, it's delusional.
Piers Morgan is unbelievably belligerent. I don't agree with everything Pratt had to say but Piers Morgan was incredibly disrespectful, while Pratt was pretty civil throughout the whole discussion. And this is supposed to be better than Fox News? Totally unprofessional.
Well, this seems like the perfect place to put this. Jump to 4:37 for the greatest moment in the recent history of CNN.
Props to Mr. Pratt for not sinking to Pier's level. I do find it highly amusing that he immediately switched to name calling when he ran out of counter arguments. Is CNN an elementary school playground now?
He was glib and patronizing and I'm not surprised he got a roasting. Morgan milked it for all it was worth and remains a snide turd but all those little jabs about 'merry olde england', yeah, merry old england with lots more people safely in nursery and cinemas dill weed.
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
Wait WHAT?
As much as I think this guy's a tosser, and would love to see him leave, I'm pretty sure that's wrong...
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
"all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)
That includes permanent residents like me or those working on a visa like Morgan. Sorry.
Flashman wrote: I have mixed feelings about Piers Morgan. I absolutely loathe the guy, but I've always had grudging respect for how he turned his sacking from the Daily Mirror into the ultimate career move.
Regardless, keep him. He's right on this issue anyway.
Its ok. Per his ratings only about three people watch him anyway.
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
"all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)
That includes permanent residents like me or those working on a visa like Morgan. Sorry.
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
"all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)
That includes permanent residents like me or those working on a visa like Morgan. Sorry.
It's Infowars. Trivial details like "facts" don't matter.
phantommaster wrote: Seems like Jeremy Clarkson signed his name 80,000 odd times.
I would think Clarkson is enjoying a morgan-free UK
Now, if only we could enjoy a Clarkson free planet...
How dare you sir?
How dare I imagine a world without a lanky denim clad spanker who randomly spouts Daily Mail headlines and desperately wants to be a 'national treasure'?
There is only one King of the Britons, sir... He of the voice like thunder and beard like a primordial forest. Behold him and wonder!
phantommaster wrote: Seems like Jeremy Clarkson signed his name 80,000 odd times.
I would think Clarkson is enjoying a morgan-free UK
Now, if only we could enjoy a Clarkson free planet...
How dare you sir?
How dare I imagine a world without a lanky denim clad spanker who randomly spouts Daily Mail headlines and desperately wants to be a 'national treasure'?
There is only one King of the Britons, sir... He of the voice like thunder and beard like a primordial forest. Behold him and wonder!
You really have to post video for the full effect:
Caution, a slightly naughty word is used towards the end
Now, if only we could enjoy a Clarkson free planet...
I'm just waiting for his deliciously ironic car crash. Hopefully involving a Mexican/Indian/other nationality he has managed to piss off prostitute who will of course be unharmed.
Brian Blessed is massively into yoga and is shy. Honestly.
Now, if only we could enjoy a Clarkson free planet...
I'm just waiting for his deliciously ironic car crash. Hopefully involving a Mexican/Indian/other nationality he has managed to piss off prostitute who will of course be unharmed.
BRIAN BLESSED is MASSIVELY into yoga and is SHY! Honestly.
All this talk of 'attacking' the constitution just gives me an ironic image in my head of Piers Morgan rushing into the National Archives with an assault rifle.
I haven't been this confused since the ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion. And that was excusable as the studio ran out of money.
This just makes...no sense.
You yankees sure as hell like your guns.
Yes we like our guns more than foreign devils who come to our country, take our money, and then tell us how stupid we are. I vote deport him just because he's a scurrilous dog unfit to kiss Tbone's toe nail. But thats pretty much every "journalist."
I like this new system of polls for inane subjects. I think we should start a petition to make TBone the Wiener Dog Master of America.
Perhaps NATO can all chip in and buy him an island or something...
Better yet, we can use him for covert unsettling of peaceful nations by planting his arse into foreign media.
d-usa wrote: Rush Limbaugh said he would leave the country if the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare.
And if Obama got reelected.
And I am sure lots of other reasons.
What a liar...
He did none of that. He said that if Obamacare was passed and everything came through as it was supposed to, he'd go to Costa Rica to get his health care. Not move there.
As for Obama winning, not finding any reference to that either. He did say that America could survive four more years of him.
Greenizbest wrote: You're right. I guess referring to assault rifles as "military-grade" is redundant. Either way, there is no reason for private citizens to own them.
Greenizbest wrote: You're right. I guess referring to assault rifles as "military-grade" is redundant. Either way, there is no reason for private citizens to own them.
Fortunately it's almost impossible for private citizens to own real military-grade weapons, since it requires a special federal permit (with background check, inspections, etc) and costs a huge amount of money. And then a lot of states just have a complete ban anyway. Oh, and the number of legally owned military-grade weapons used in a crime in the past 50 years? You can count them on one hand.
The weapons you are probably thinking of are semi-automatic weapons that just look like military weapons and are not used by any serious military organization.
Greenizbest wrote: You're right. I guess referring to assault rifles as "military-grade" is redundant. Either way, there is no reason for private citizens to own them.
Fortunately it's almost impossible for private citizens to own real military-grade weapons, since it requires a special federal permit (with background check, inspections, etc) and costs a huge amount of money. And then a lot of states just have a complete ban anyway. Oh, and the number of legally owned military-grade weapons used in a crime in the past 50 years? You can count them on one hand.
The weapons you are probably thinking of are semi-automatic weapons that just look like military weapons and are not used by any serious military organization.
I... wait what? Peregrine said something I 100% agree with? Even if it was just a factual statement this is extremely odd. (Well except for the "fortunately" bit. I want my Browning M2)
Though you can actually count the number of legally owned full auto weapons used in a crime since the original restrictions went through in the '30s on one finger as I recall. Police officer shot his wife with the Thompson Sub-Machinegun he'd bought for work.
Fun fact: In many states flamethrowers are completely unregulated.
It's depressing that so many people who I would presume consider themselves educated believe that phrase actually references something existent.
You're right. I guess referring to assault rifles as "military-grade" is redundant. Either way, there is no reason for private citizens to own them.
What's the max speed on your car? Why does it need to go that fast? Don't you know that's dangerous? You don't need that. Why do you have a big TV? That can hurt your eyes, you can have this smaller one instead, and you can only look at it for a couple hours a day, while we're at it some TV shows might offend you or damage your fee fees. So to prevent that we'll just take them off the air. Enjoy your state approved programming citizen!
On a side note so called "assault weapons" (which as we've just covered don't exist) are responsible for something like 1% of the gun crime in this country. Really want to make a difference? Well for one bulldoze Chicago. Then start work on eliminating poverty and controlling black market handguns.
LordofHats wrote: Oh that is so gauwdy. I request a law banning weapons from being colored pink.
Can you pretty please? If I ever have to duracote a handgun shocker pink for some lady again it'll be too soon.
It's depressing that so many people who I would presume consider themselves educated believe that phrase actually references something existent.
You're right. I guess referring to assault rifles as "military-grade" is redundant. Either way, there is no reason for private citizens to own them.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: I want a pink revolver. That would be kick ass.
There is a group of gals that run in IDPA in central Texas. They all have pink holsters. Its kind of trippy.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
The first amendment was drafted in the time of the printing press. I'm not sure they intedted the average citizen to have the ability to speak to the entire world with the push of a button, or to communicate to a large audience over such magical things like television or radio.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
The first amendment was drafted in the time of the printing press. I'm not sure they intedted the average citizen to have the ability to speak to the entire world with the push of a button, or to communicate to a large audience over such magical things like television or radio.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
The first amendment was drafted in the time of the printing press. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have the ability to speak to the entire world with the push of a button, or to communicate to a large audience over such magical things like television or radio.
I agree d-usa, I mean so much has changed since then. What else can we update for the modern world? Let's see... habeas corpus is already out the window, so we should probably cut to the chase and knock off the 4th and 5th Amendments as well, if you're a law abiding citizen you should have nothing to hide right? So why shouldn't police officers be able to perform warrant-less searches? Speaking of that let's kick Posse Commitatus in the groin so we can put troops in the streets... for your safety of course. Now move along citizen.
d-usa wrote: And that pesky Freedom of Religion too. Seriously, there is no way that the founding fathers would have ever imagined Scientology!
Oooh good one! I forgot about that, I think we'd be a lot more calm and unified as a society if we all had one unified religion and mandatory services once or twice a week.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
The First Amendment was drafted in the time of the manual printing press and the street corner. Clearly it was not meant for texting, the internet, Twitter, or even letters to the editor. I'm not advocating the banning of all speech but i don't see a need for these types of communication in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much speech for civilian communication.
As an aside... that's the great thing about the Constitution... it still works!
To a point. As LordofHats mentioned in another thread (or possibly this one), it is a 200 year old document.
The other thread. But yeah. Scientology is a less example of what I mean. They're a scam. Anyone with a brain can see it. But for better or worse we aren't allowed to make that distinction within the bounds of the Constitution (and in the case of Scientology, I can honestly say I can live with that).
Now, the Church of Body Modification. They earns my ire. EDIT: This however is a problem I don't think any solution exists for so I don't feel the Constitution is lacking in it. Any possible 'improvement' would just be overtly arbitrary.
Greenizbest wrote: The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
OH GOD A FLASH SUPPRESSOR!!!! ITS PROBABLY GOING TO MURDER A THOUSAND PEOPLE!!!!!!
You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
So what? Even if the only reason to own a gun like that is because you enjoy shooting lots of holes in paper targets really fast and dreaming about how someday you're going to get off the couch, get in shape, and join an elite special forces team and save America from all the terrorists you still have a right to own it, just like you have the right to own all kinds of things that have no practical value. There's no credible evidence that a ban on evil military-looking rifles would have any meaningful effect on crime, so individual freedom takes priority.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
Are you kidding? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when private citizens could - and did - own warships.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
Are you kidding? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when private citizens could - and did - own warships.
I want a warship
Evil Banker: So why do you need $600mm Mr. Frazzled?
Frazzled: I want to commission a fully stocked frigate to raid the seven seas under appropriate letters of marque. I need $590mm for ship and crew, and $10mm for congressional campaign contributions.
Evil Banker: Sounds like a plan.
Fine then, don't own one. The rest of us will keep our Second Amendment rights and politely hope you lose your First Amendment rights just as blithely.
The second amendment was drafted in the time of single shot rifles. I'm not sure they intended the average citizen to have an .223 AR15 MOE M4 Carbine with a flash suppressor, night vision scope, and 30 round magazine.
I'm not advocating the banning of all firearms but I don't see a need for these types of weapons in the hands of private citizens. You don't need this much firepower for hunting or home defense.
Are you kidding? The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when private citizens could - and did - own warships.
I want a warship
Evil Banker: So why do you need $600mm Mr. Frazzled?
Frazzled: I want to commission a fully stocked frigate to raid the seven seas under appropriate letters of marque. I need $590mm for ship and crew, and $10mm for congressional campaign contributions.
Evil Banker: Sounds like a plan.
You've got a letter of marque? Where do I sign up?
I'm surprised we even have an army. Nationalized soldiers seems like socialism to me. Why don't we let the free market reign and switch to pure mercenaries and privateers?
You've got a letter of marque? Where do I sign up?
Get Ron Paul elected and we might start issuing them again.
I think that's the best reason to vote for Ron Paul that I've heard so far. You want to be my first mate, Dogma? You'll get your fair share of the booty!
I think that's the best reason to vote for Ron Paul that I've heard so far. You want to be my first mate, Dogma? You'll get your fair share of the booty!
Considering how many cruise ships are around, the second half of that double entendre would probably get you more crewmen than the first.
Was that a printing press joke to go along with your First Amendment riffing.
If so, I approve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I'm surprised we even have an army. Nationalized soldiers seems like socialism to me. Why don't we let the free market reign and switch to pure mercenaries and privateers?
No, no. Militias raised in time of need! It gives us a reason to have our AR-15s.
Didn't mention juice boxes, just how the banks are trying to take our guns to implement the New World Order and that anti-depressants are suicide pills that are going to kill everybody.
Didn't go on about how the Olympic logo spells "Zion" and we'll see a false flag alien invasion and then Nasa will use project Blue Beam technology to usher in a fake messiah/anti-christ and usher us all into.. oh.. hang on
reds8n wrote: Didn't go on about how the Olympic logo spells "Zion" and we'll see a false flag alien invasion and then Nasa will use project Blue Beam technology to usher in a fake messiah/anti-christ and usher us all into.. oh.. hang on
Alex Jones (b. 1974) is a radio personality who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. He is one of the very few people to make Glenn Beck look sane and rational in comparison. And that is all you really need to know about him.
His radio program is typified by frequent use of the Imperial March from Star Wars while he rants about the impending roundup and execution of Americans by the New World Order (NWO) in the next week or two. He has been predicting this for well over a decade now. We're still waiting. He largely discusses the Illuminati and how they control the world.
I've known about him for a good few years. When X-Files/UFOs etc etc were all plat-de-jour his name cropped up and I've kept an amused/bemused eye on him occasionally ever since.
he got involved -- of course ! -- when poor old Rik Clay hit the conspiracy hall of fame, which I heard about via the always cool Akira the Don, specifically his ZION 2012: THE APOCALYMPICS release which is pretty much the best album released in 2012.
Jon Ronson did a pretty good piece on him a few years back
I think that would actually make a pretty quick and easy universal background check.
"Do you believe that the international banks control a New World Order and want to take away your guns and feed you anti-depressants so that you will kill yourself?"
Of course!
"Sorry, no guns for you. Better give us the ones you already have..."
Frazzled wrote: Alex Jones is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging radio ratings.
Piers Morgan is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging TV ratings.
Is there a connection?
I wouldn't watch that 7 minutes. Thats seven minutes of your life you'll never get back.
It's funny how Piers had to get Jones on his show to lend him (Piers) some credibility. Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
Frazzled wrote: Alex Jones is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging radio ratings.
Piers Morgan is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging TV ratings.
Is there a connection?
I wouldn't watch that 7 minutes. Thats seven minutes of your life you'll never get back.
It's funny how Piers had to get Jones on his show to lend him (Piers) some credibility. Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
Frazzled wrote: Alex Jones is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging radio ratings.
Piers Morgan is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging TV ratings.
Is there a connection?
I wouldn't watch that 7 minutes. Thats seven minutes of your life you'll never get back.
It's funny how Piers had to get Jones on his show to lend him (Piers) some credibility. Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
He sucks at researching.
The definition of violent crime in the US is very different to the one in England
I wonder how high the violent crime stats would be in the US if you also count all the little nits that they count in the UK, and vice versa, how low the stats would be there if they only counted manslaughter, rape, muggings and assaults. Way to bend the facts, poster of that vid! You just did the exact same thing as those who you are criticizing!
I do however partly agree with him on what he said about reducing violent crime by fighting poverty and educating people.
MrMerlin wrote: He sucks at researching.
The definition of violent crime in the US is very different to the one in England
I wonder how high the violent crime stats would be in the US if you also count all the little nits that they count in the UK, and vice versa, how low the stats would be there if they only counted manslaughter, rape, muggings and assaults. Way to bend the facts, poster of that vid! You just did the exact same thing as those who you are criticizing!
Are you sure he did that? It seems to me that he simply went to the Home Office web site and compared stats listed. Perhaps he simply assumed (a mistake that many people involed in this debate make) that violent crime meant the same thing in both countries? I suppose you can break down the definition of violent crime into specifics but the points of where violent crimes are predominate and that a simple ban on guns won't solve those problems as claimed are both valid.
MrMerlin wrote: He sucks at researching.
The definition of violent crime in the US is very different to the one in England
I wonder how high the violent crime stats would be in the US if you also count all the little nits that they count in the UK, and vice versa, how low the stats would be there if they only counted manslaughter, rape, muggings and assaults. Way to bend the facts, poster of that vid! You just did the exact same thing as those who you are criticizing!
Are you sure he did that? It seems to me that he simply went to the Home Office web site and compared stats listed. Perhaps he simply assumed (a mistake that many people involed in this debate make) that violent crime meant the same thing in both countries? I suppose you can break down the definition of violent crime into specifics but the points of where violent crimes are predominate and that a simple ban on guns won't solve those problems as claimed are both valid.
Well, since he compared the data, it was a crucial mistake to be ignorant of the fact that the UK have nearly 40 offences listed as violent crime and the US only has a handful. Also, I bet that those offences listed by the US are also the ones that predominantley happen in urban areas in britain. I mean, since the englishmen also count endangering people at sea as a violent crime, that and many other factors take the weight off violent crime off british cities.
Sure, a simple ban of all guns wouldn't stop violent crime, and it'd really help to invest more money in education, etc.... but denying douchebags and irresponsible people access to guns by dong better background checks would also help lower the amount of people shot
MrMerlin wrote: ...but denying douchebags and irresponsible people access to guns by dong better background checks would also help lower the amount of people shot
Exactly what sort of "better" background check would have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook?
MrMerlin wrote: ...but denying douchebags and irresponsible people access to guns by dong better background checks would also help lower the amount of people shot
Exactly what sort of "better" background check would have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook?
MrMerlin wrote: ...but denying douchebags and irresponsible people access to guns by dong better background checks would also help lower the amount of people shot
Exactly what sort of "better" background check would have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook?
Had there been better background checks, his mother would probably not have gotten any guns in the first place, becuase apparently she wasn't very responsible (they were just lying around, and she overlooked the fact that her son was a psyho.) In any European country, that guy would not have gotten his hands on anything with a trigger because of the background checks. They do mental tests, train you to handle the guns responsibly, require you to lock them away when you're not using them....
but school shootings aren't even the real problem when you look at the stats... there are like 11.500 gun murders in the US every year, and only a fraction of those are school shootings and such.
Sure, background checks won't stop every crime, but it's apparent that when the fethheads don't have access to guns, they can't shoot around (they will probably resort to another way of inflicting damage, like knifes or such, but it takes a lot more to kill a man with a knife than with a gun; hell, you just have to aim properly and pull the trigger and boom, he's dead.) So, if you take away the guns from those who'd use them for the wrong purposes, you will have considerably less homicide deaths.
Peregrine wrote: So why is it that other countries with high gun ownership have much lower murder rates than the US?
(Hint: it's because of cultural problems in the US, not the presence of guns.)
It's partly that, and the fact that they don't distribute guns to those who'd use them to kill people ( background checks). btw what countries are you talking about?
MrMerlin wrote: It's partly that, and the fact that they don't distribute guns to those who'd use them to kill people ( background checks). btw what countries are you talking about?
Let's just go with Switzerland, the country where every household has a military rifle that US gun owners can only dream of ever getting to touch, and yet somehow the murder rate is lower than in the US and there aren't daily mass shootings.
Also, background checks aren't magical "know everything there is to know about this person" spells. A background check isn't going to find a problem if there's no record of it (someone who has mental problems but has never been diagnosed with anything), or if the problem only develops later after the person has passed the background check (for example, someone shooting their cheating spouse). Nor do they prevent someone from getting a gun from someone who did pass the background check, whether by stealing it (like in the recent shooting), or by getting someone with a clean record to pass the check and give it to them.
MrMerlin wrote: It's partly that, and the fact that they don't distribute guns to those who'd use them to kill people ( background checks). btw what countries are you talking about?
Let's just go with Switzerland, the country where every household has a military rifle that US gun owners can only dream of ever getting to touch, and yet somehow the murder rate is lower than in the US and there aren't daily mass shootings.
Also, background checks aren't magical "know everything there is to know about this person" spells. A background check isn't going to find a problem if there's no record of it (someone who has mental problems but has never been diagnosed with anything), or if the problem only develops later after the person has passed the background check (for example, someone shooting their cheating spouse). Nor do they prevent someone from getting a gun from someone who did pass the background check, whether by stealing it (like in the recent shooting), or by getting someone with a clean record to pass the check and give it to them.
In Switzerland they probably don't have mass shootings because there are only a few million swiss people, and you have 300.000.000 in the US.
Also, the funny thing is, background checks actually work like that. In Germany for example, they do a number of tests to determine wheter you're mentally fit to have a gun (if you're the kind who might shoot his cheating spouse, sorry, no gun for you), they teach you how to use it responsiveley, they require you to keep it in a locked safe (exept when you're using it for self defense, but the mother of that shooter probably wasn't) Also, it's a serious offence to let anyone without a gun owners license use your guns, so nobody would go get one for a school shooter, becuase they'd end up in jail for a loooong time... So see? Better regulation = less people shot dead
Breotan wrote: Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
That video insulted my intelligence by ignoring the variance in how violent crime is defined, which is a common objection and one which any considered speaker should address.
MrMerlin wrote: In Switzerland they probably don't have mass shootings because there are only a few million swiss people, and you have 300.000.000 in the US.
We're talking about rates, not absolute totals, so the population difference is accounted for. Unless you're going to blame the US crime rate on a higher urban population (IOW, higher population density), in which case you have to admit that it's not just about how many guns there are.
In Germany for example, they do a number of tests to determine wheter you're mentally fit to have a gun (if you're the kind who might shoot his cheating spouse, sorry, no gun for you),
I hate to ruin your fantasy, but there's no magic test that can discover that unless you're stupid enough to say "yes" when they ask you if you want to kill someone.
they teach you how to use it responsiveley
And how does that matter? Do you really think that a class in responsible gun ownership is going to stop someone from murdering? That the would-be serial killer is going to take the class, realize the error of their ways, and go live a peaceful gun-free life?
they require you to keep it in a locked safe (exept when you're using it for self defense, but the mother of that shooter probably wasn't)
I won't disagree here, this is a sensible law that should be enforced in the US. Lack of proper gun storage is a problem.
Also, it's a serious offence to let anyone without a gun owners license use your guns, so nobody would go get one for a school shooter, becuase they'd end up in jail for a loooong time...
It's already a crime in the US to buy a gun for someone else if you know they aren't legally allowed to buy one, and it's certainly a crime to buy a gun for someone if you know they're going to use it in a crime (conspiracy to commit murder anyone?). However, the fact that it's a crime doesn't stop people from doing it, just like the fact that robbery is a crime doesn't stop people from stealing.
MrMerlin wrote: He sucks at researching.
The definition of violent crime in the US is very different to the one in England
I wonder how high the violent crime stats would be in the US if you also count all the little nits that they count in the UK, and vice versa, how low the stats would be there if they only counted manslaughter, rape, muggings and assaults. Way to bend the facts, poster of that vid! You just did the exact same thing as those who you are criticizing!
Are you sure he did that? It seems to me that he simply went to the Home Office web site and compared stats listed. Perhaps he simply assumed (a mistake that many people involed in this debate make) that violent crime meant the same thing in both countries? I suppose you can break down the definition of violent crime into specifics but the points of where violent crimes are predominate and that a simple ban on guns won't solve those problems as claimed are both valid.
Violent crime and gun crime are complex social phenomena with many factors of causation.
The USA apparently does not collect national statistics for violent crime which does not involve the use of weapons. The UK does, and includes all sex crimes in its figures. This makes the UK violent crime figures look massive compared to the US figures, unless you look at murders specifically, which are much more clearly defined.
If we want to compare gun crime, however, it would be more relevant to look at the data for crimes committed with firearms, which are very clearly massively higher in the US than the UK.
It is valid to question if gun crime could be reduced by a gun licensing regime in the USA. However it may be noted that the UK has brought in the licensing regime dreaded by the NRA -- strong restriction on weapons for law abiding citizens only. The UK has not suffered a massive wave of gun crime even so, and avoids the numerous unfortunate suicides and accidental woundings that happen with easy access to weapons.
Gun woundings may be a price worth paying for the free enjoyment of weapons for sport shooting, and so on. It is an matter of social attitudes.
In Germany for example, they do a number of tests to determine wheter you're mentally fit to have a gun (if you're the kind who might shoot his cheating spouse, sorry, no gun for you),
I hate to ruin your fantasy, but there's no magic test that can discover that unless you're stupid enough to say "yes" when they ask you if you want to kill someone.
There is a "magic" test that can discover if a person is likeley to shoot people. It's of course much more complex than a simple "are you going to kill someone with that?"
You can actually say a lot about someone mental state by subconcious reactions and such
they teach you how to use it responsiveley
And how does that matter? Do you really think that a class in responsible gun ownership is going to stop someone from murdering? That the would-be serial killer is going to take the class, realize the error of their ways, and go live a peaceful gun-free life?
This of course won't stop serial killers, it's there to prevent accidents, which do atually happen a lot. There are tons of people who suffer gunshot wounds in the US because someone wasn't handling the weapon responsiveley. They try to prevent that in Europe by thoroughly teaching people how to and how not to handle a gun
Peregrine wrote: So why is it that other countries with high gun ownership have much lower murder rates than the US?
(Hint: it's because of cultural problems in the US, not the presence of guns.)
Do they actually have lower murder rates, or just lower murder rates with guns. Outside of SCandinavia of course because there are only forty two people in Scandinavia and twelve of them are on the Swedish bikini team. Scandanavia...the land where people have the right priorities. Pics or it didn't happen.
MrMerlin wrote: It's partly that, and the fact that they don't distribute guns to those who'd use them to kill people ( background checks). btw what countries are you talking about?
Let's just go with Switzerland, the country where every household has a military rifle that US gun owners can only dream of ever getting to touch, and yet somehow the murder rate is lower than in the US and there aren't daily mass shootings.
Also, background checks aren't magical "know everything there is to know about this person" spells. A background check isn't going to find a problem if there's no record of it (someone who has mental problems but has never been diagnosed with anything), or if the problem only develops later after the person has passed the background check (for example, someone shooting their cheating spouse). Nor do they prevent someone from getting a gun from someone who did pass the background check, whether by stealing it (like in the recent shooting), or by getting someone with a clean record to pass the check and give it to them.
Said weapons are also rigorously regulated, they also don't get any ammo for the guns and the national ammo market is strictly regulated. Switzerland is an argument for tighter control, not looser.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is valid to question if gun crime could be reduced by a gun licensing regime in the USA. However it may be noted that the UK has brought in the licensing regime dreaded by the NRA -- strong restriction on weapons for law abiding citizens only. The UK has not suffered a massive wave of gun crime even so, and avoids the numerous unfortunate suicides and accidental woundings that happen with easy access to weapons.
Gun woundings may be a price worth paying for the free enjoyment of weapons for sport shooting, and so on. It is an matter of social attitudes.
It may also be noted that the UK did not have even a tenth of the guns per capita that the US has when it brought in its 'dreaded licensing regime.' We have more guns than we have cars, and we have hundreds of millions of cars. Pretending that a solution that worked for a small population with a small amount of guns who already pretty much buy into the idea of 'flexible' rights would work here is not the way to go.
Daily Beast writer Buzz Bissinger says Piers Morgan should “pop” Alex Jones with a semi-automatic weapon.
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 8, 2013
CNN and the gun grabbing media are now calling for Alex Jones to be shot the day after his heated appearance with Piers Morgan.
In a segment on Piers Morgan’s CNN program, sports columnist for the Daily Beast, Buzz Bissinger, shockingly states:
“I don’t care what the justification is that you’re allowed in this country to own a semi-automatic weapon – much less a handgun. But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.”
Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post) : “I’d love to see that… [laughter] in uniform.”
Breotan wrote: Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
That video insulted my intelligence by ignoring the variance in how violent crime is defined, which is a common objection and one which any considered speaker should address.
That's fair criticism of the video, but I think it's still worth noting that the homicide rate in the US has been going down and is now lower than it's been in over ten years, something that few of the big media outlets have been mentioning. The concentration of murders in urban areas, and the fact that the US has more large urban areas than the UK is also pertinent.
Hordini wrote: That's fair criticism of the video, but I think it's still worth noting that the homicide rate in the US has been going down and is now lower than it's been in over ten years, something that few of the big media outlets have been mentioning. The concentration of murders in urban areas, and the fact that the US has more large urban areas than the UK is also pertinent.
Firearm crime rates going down, gun ownership going up, gun laws being relaxed, and women becoming an ever-increasing percentage of the gun-owning public, all at the same time. None of that fits the, "Guns are a terrible problem, we must do something!" narrative of most major media outlets in this country, though, so you won't often hear such mentioned.
That's fair criticism of the video, but I think it's still worth noting that the homicide rate in the US has been going down and is now lower than it's been in over ten years, something that few of the big media outlets have been mentioning. The concentration of murders in urban areas, and the fact that the US has more large urban areas than the UK is also pertinent.
True, but my central problem with the video remains: much as with many sources of "alternative media" this guy frames his argument with the concept that "mainstream media" is presenting only the facts that suit some abstract agenda, and then proceeds to do exactly the same thing. The abstract agenda is, of course, making money. I assume the agenda this guy, and most alternative media outlets, is much the same.
Peregrine wrote: So why is it that other countries with high gun ownership have much lower murder rates than the US?
(Hint: it's because of cultural problems in the US, not the presence of guns.)
Do they actually have lower murder rates, or just lower murder rates with guns. Outside of SCandinavia of course because there are only forty two people in Scandinavia and twelve of them are on the Swedish bikini team. Scandanavia...the land where people have the right priorities. Pics or it didn't happen.
You'll find your answers here. Please note that the US has a higher homicide rate than many of the Balkans. However, I will admit that I am unsure of what consitutes the homicide rate in these countries, as I suspect that terrorist/military conflicts are excluded from the count, given that countries such as Yemen, Turkey and Afghanistan are presented as having lower homicide rates than the US. And of course, many of these countries will present massive dark figures, as record-keeping isn't as strong there as it is in the US.
And, in juxtaposition of this grim figure and to fulfill your second request (Maybe NSFW if you work for a puritanical overlord?):
That's fair criticism of the video, but I think it's still worth noting that the homicide rate in the US has been going down and is now lower than it's been in over ten years, something that few of the big media outlets have been mentioning. The concentration of murders in urban areas, and the fact that the US has more large urban areas than the UK is also pertinent.
True, but my central problem with the video remains: much as with many sources of "alternative media" this guy frames his argument with the concept that "mainstream media" is presenting only the facts that suit some abstract agenda, and then proceeds to do exactly the same thing. The abstract agenda is, of course, making money. I assume the agenda this guy, and most alternative media outlets, is much the same.
You would be wrong in your assumption. If it is Alex Jones you are speaking of, then the agenda with him is BLALRGH!!! ARMAGUMMA!!! BLARHGISKJNE!!!! INFOWARS DOT COM!!! BLARHGHSAS!!!***
***Translation: I am a possibly-dangerous paranoid schizophrenic that has been granted a media platform which encourages erratic behaviour. Had I been raised in Canada, I instead may have channeled that energy into recording novelty songs. Unfortunately, I was raised in an environment without a functioning mental health system that has slowly amalgamated its criminal justice system with the entertainment industry to create an environment wherein my particular undiagnosed mental disorder is rendered virutally indistinguishable from the more polarized aspects of the news media. Please look at my website for a completely unfettered example of my psychological problems at inforwars.com
After having seen the Alex Jones interview, "Piers Morgan is bad" is nowhere near the top of the list of things that can be taken from that clip.
I see them as the same kind of person. Reprehensible gakheads.
See, I make a distinction: Piers Morgan is a douche who happens to be on the right side of things this time around, whereas Alex Jones is a victim of an underfunded mental health system.
Actually, it's quite possible that Alex Jones is perfectly sane, and has just figured out that tinfoil hat idiots are a good market to exploit. Sure, it might cost him his dignity, but maybe the money makes it all worth it?
Actually, it's quite possible that Alex Jones is perfectly sane, and has just figured out that tinfoil hat idiots are a good market to exploit. Sure, it might cost him his dignity, but maybe the money makes it all worth it?
That's always been my theory for Jones. There's a market, he's meeting the market's needs and laughing all the way to the bank.
Actually, it's quite possible that Alex Jones is perfectly sane, and has just figured out that tinfoil hat idiots are a good market to exploit. Sure, it might cost him his dignity, but maybe the money makes it all worth it?
That's always been my theory for Jones. There's a market, he's meeting the market's needs and laughing all the way to the bank.
Very true. That's why I think FoxNews has the big chunk of the market. The country is roughly divided 50/50 in political ideology and there are quite a few news channels that are left leaning and only one really right leaning news channel. So it makes sense that they have the biggest share since they are not really competing with anybody when it comes to their demographic.
Frazzled wrote: Yes CNN is missing a golden opportunity to go center right.
Eh... I think they're heading that way...
Can't remember who, but a higher up CNN dude insinuated much that they'll be moving closer to FoxNews.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back to OP... there's a letter that a marine wrote to Dianne Fienstien:
“I am not your subject,” Boston wrote.
“I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.”
Boston explained that he believes once the government takes away assault weapons, it will be a “slippery slope” toward being able to restrict more and more types of firearms.
“Our firearms are important to us and they’re something that we have to have in order to keep what we have as a country going. And this starts us onto a slippery slope. They take (assault weapons) away, next they come for bolt-action guns. And there’s really no reason to register other than they confiscate at a later date in time,” said Boston.
Fienstein assured Mr. Boston that her bill excludes hunting rifle, and his response:
“This idea that the rights of existing gun owners is strictly limited to hunting and sporting purposes is just absurd and has no basis in the Bill of Rights. It’s not what it was for,” said Boston, who argued that throughout history there have been examples of governments confiscating citizens’ guns.
“It’s something we’ve seen happen time and time again in history. With Stalin, it happened in Cambodia and of course, the Third Reich. No one saw that coming until it was too late,” he said.
And here's Mr. Boston being interviewed by Morgan:
azazel the cat wrote: After having seen the Alex Jones interview, "Piers Morgan is bad" is nowhere near the top of the list of things that can be taken from that clip.
I didn't watch that one. I watched the one posted earlier where he called a lot of names, and I've seen a lot of his highly uninformed tweets.
Actually, it's quite possible that Alex Jones is perfectly sane, and has just figured out that tinfoil hat idiots are a good market to exploit. Sure, it might cost him his dignity, but maybe the money makes it all worth it?
I can just about assure you that he's been crazy since way before it was mainstream. You just probably haven't heard his earlier stuff.
/hipsterisms
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: After having seen the Alex Jones interview, "Piers Morgan is bad" is nowhere near the top of the list of things that can be taken from that clip.
I didn't watch that one. I watched the one posted earlier where he called a lot of names, and I've seen a lot of his highly uninformed tweets.
Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
People who think that more laws will have zero effect on anything are just as stupid as the people who think laws will result in reducing things to zero.
Seaward wrote: We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
Why can't they both be stupid? There are impossibly stupid people who think that the solution is to make murder even more illegal, and there are impossibly stupid people who think that giving guns to every teacher is a remotely sane idea.
azazel the cat wrote: But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
Except that:
1) Mass murder events are incredibly rare (they just get media attention way out of proportion to their frequency), so making any laws specifically to deal with them is bad policy. Yes, there are sensible laws that could reduce their impact as a side effect (better background checks, mandatory secure storage, etc), but creating a specific law to ban, say, magazine capacity in an attempt to make a 15-murder event into a 10-murder event is just pointless.
2) Banning "assault rifles" won't do much to stop mass murder. For example, previous shootings have involved pistols and lots of spare magazines, so all the "assault rifle" ban would do is force the shooter to reload more frequently (a negligible impact on the end result). Or, even if it somehow did reduce the potential death count, it might just convince the shooter to use a bomb instead. Or to block the exits so nobody can escape before they can kill everyone with their less-effective guns. Etc.
So, in the end, demands for an "assault rifle" ban are just a reflex that Something Must Be Done, and big scary looking guns are an easy target. It won't change anything, but it will make ignorant people feel that Our Politicians Are Supporting Us and let them pretend that they have some kind of control over future tragedies.
azazel the cat wrote: But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
Except they wouldn't, because I cannot think of a single mass murder committed using assault rifles in recent memory.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that sale of new assault rifles has been banned since 1986. Voila, azazel, you've gotten your wish.
azazel the cat wrote: But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
Except they wouldn't, because I cannot think of a single mass murder committed using assault rifles in recent memory.
You've got to be kidding me. The Batman movie theatre shooter used an AR-15. Why don't you go ahead and guess what AR originally stood for? And the Sandy Hook shooter, to my knowledge, was carrying a Bushmaster XM-15, which is also an assault rifle.
Seaward wrote:Not to mention, of course, the fact that sale of new assault rifles has been banned since 1986. Voila, azazel, you've gotten your wish.
No, if I'd gotten my wish, then the USA would have a socialist healthcare and public education system in place like Canada or Sweden, and truly work to reduce the causal factors behind these events, rather than a very weak bandaid solution in the form of machine gun bans.
Oh, who am I kidding. If I'd gotten my wish, it'd be Famke Janssen. To Hell with public safety.
And for what it's worth, the sale of new fully-automatic machine guns have been illegal since 1986. Assault rifles are still very legal. 20 minutes South of me, the residents of Washington State can buy one for about $1500.
Frazzled wrote: Alex Jones is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging radio ratings.
Piers Morgan is a blowhard idiot looking for fireworks to drum up his sagging TV ratings.
Is there a connection?
I wouldn't watch that 7 minutes. Thats seven minutes of your life you'll never get back.
It's funny how Piers had to get Jones on his show to lend him (Piers) some credibility. Still, since Piers went on to pick and choose his crime stats, I thought I'd link a better, rational video that won't address every aspect of the issue but it won't insult your intelligence either.
No, this is not rational, it is just as stupid as all the other crap out there. This whole thing is about guns and gun violence. We're not looking at overall violent crimes and violent crime rate. We are looking at Gun Control and Gun related crimes.
He keeps bringing up stats that mean absolutely nothing to the argument that as been put in front of him, and contrary to his belief, its been put in front of him clearly. People kill people with guns. There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Robberies, Rapes, Assaults and other crimes are just totally irrelevant.
azazel the cat wrote: You've got to be kidding me. The Batman movie theatre shooter used an AR-15. Why don't you go ahead and guess what AR originally stood for? And the Sandy Hook shooter, to my knowledge, was carrying a Bushmaster XM-15, which is also an assault rifle.
Neither of those are assault rifles, actually. They're semiautomatic rifles. By definition, an assault rifle needs to be capable of burst or automatic fire. Those are not.
And for what it's worth, the sale of new fully-automatic machine guns have been illegal since 1986. Assault rifles are still very legal. 20 minutes South of me, the residents of Washington State can buy one for about $1500.
No, they cannot. They can purchase a semiautomatic rifle that looks like an assault rifle, but they cannot purchase an assault rifle for $1500. As I mentioned above, if it's not capable of selective fire, it's not an assault rifle, no matter what clueless reporters tell you.
Poppabear wrote: There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Err, how exactly does not having access to a gun make you want to kill someone less? You might change the ability to kill someone, but the incentive is going to be exactly the same. Unless of course you're arguing that merely having possession of a gun makes you want to kill people?
Poppabear wrote: There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Err, how exactly does not having access to a gun make you want to kill someone less? You might change the ability to kill someone, but the incentive is going to be exactly the same. Unless of course you're arguing that merely having possession of a gun makes you want to kill people?
He may be arguing that the incredibly easy task of pulling a trigger at range is far less intimidating on the concience than, say, swinging a mallet again and again, up close and personal-like.
(I'm not certain I really believe that idea, but that's how I interpreted his statement.)
I don't know if there has been any research into the psychological aspect of gun ownership. (Alex Jones is not a good advert. He comes over as a swivel-eyed paranoiac with poor temper control, and apparently owns 50 guns.)
There is a practical argument from the medical angle though.
The ability to kill someone more easily is causative to the number of people killed. Medical research from the US and South Africa shows that gun wounds are more dangerous than knife wounds.
Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
I don't know if there has been any research into the psychological aspect of gun ownership. (Alex Jones is not a good advert. He comes over as a swivel-eyed paranoiac with poor temper control, and apparently owns 50 guns.)
There is a practical argument from the medical angle though.
The ability to kill someone more easily is causative to the number of people killed. Medical research from the US and South Africa shows that gun wounds are more dangerous than knife wounds.
Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Has Britain actually ended up with fewer homicides as the result of functionally banning guns?
I don't know if there has been any research into the psychological aspect of gun ownership. (Alex Jones is not a good advert. He comes over as a swivel-eyed paranoiac with poor temper control, and apparently owns 50 guns.)
There is a practical argument from the medical angle though.
The ability to kill someone more easily is causative to the number of people killed. Medical research from the US and South Africa shows that gun wounds are more dangerous than knife wounds.
Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Has Britain actually ended up with fewer homicides as the result of functionally banning guns?
Actually not what he said. The correct question would be "Has Britain actually ended up with fewer and/or less severe injuries as a result of functionally banning guns?"
Actually not what he said. The correct question would be "Has Britain actually ended up with fewer and/or less severe injuries as a result of functionally banning guns?"
Do I need to go back and highlight the word 'deaths' in the following sentence?
Killkrazy wrote:Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Actually not what he said. The correct question would be "Has Britain actually ended up with fewer and/or less severe injuries as a result of functionally banning guns?"
Do I need to go back and highlight the word 'deaths' in the following sentence?
Killkrazy wrote:Reducing the availability of guns would directly result in fewer deaths as a result of violent crime, self-harming and accidents, regardless of people's possible desire to cause harm.
Saw the "self harming and accidents" part of that, the highlighting helped (even though you bolded instead of highlighted it) .
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the actual question then:
If the murder rate has decreased I do not think it is necessarily a consequence of tighter licensing, since the murder rate in the UK has historically been much lower than the USA's and "random" statistical variation might account for changes.
If the murder rate has decreased I do not think it is necessarily a consequence of tighter licensing, since the murder rate in the UK has historically been much lower than the USA's and "random" statistical variation might account for changes.
Tying any one action to any one particular result is also going to be virtually impossible.
So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
Correlation is not causation. Is there any evidence to support the case that the decreased homicide rate is a result of gun laws, instead of being a result of other factors which happened to occur at the same time as the new gun laws (for example, a better economy, lower crime rates overall, etc).
If the murder rate has decreased I do not think it is necessarily a consequence of tighter licensing, since the murder rate in the UK has historically been much lower than the USA's and "random" statistical variation might account for changes.
Tying any one action to any one particular result is also going to be virtually impossible.
So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
Correlation is not causation. Is there any evidence to support the case that the decreased homicide rate is a result of gun laws, instead of being a result of other factors which happened to occur at the same time as the new gun laws (for example, a better economy, lower crime rates overall, etc).
Yes, but it dose give lie to the argument that bans on guns increase crime, which is what some people are claiming with "Then only the "bad guys" will have them". Ugh... I hate the phrase "bad guys". It lives in a made up black and white world where the is "The good guys" and "The bad guys" with no shades of gray.
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
azazel the cat wrote: Calling the head of the NRA: Crazy Division an "impossibly stupid man" was quite accurate, however. I'm clearly not a member of the 'guns are bad, mkay?' crowd, but Larry Pratt really does appear to be saying unfathomably stupid things in the clip that I posted earlier in the thread, such as arming all teachers with TMPs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I tend to find it's the crowd who believe more laws will prevent people from committing mass murder to be the impossibly stupid ones.
But nobody (rational) is saying that more laws will prevent mass murder; they are saying that assault rifle restrictions will mitigate the damage caused during a mass murder event. That is, making assault rifles more difficult to obtain will reduce the likelihood of those tools being used in the process, and therefore the nutjob-who-will-kill-people-no-matter-what will be able to cause less death, by preventing said person from access to combat multipliers.
What you are thinking of is an amalgamation of a strawman argument and a nirvana fallacy.
Thats the same thing. COnsidering those rifles are already restricted there AND THE GUY STOLE IT its nonsense.
its just a rifle with plastic bits. Someone with a bat with nails in it could have done the same thing. He wasn't attacking ninjas, he was attacking trapped children.
Thats why this "lockdown" in case of emergency is nonsense. Get out. FIght back. Even better LOCK UP THE CRAZY fething LOONS AND QUIT GIVING THEM MIND ALTERING DRUGS BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Sandy - known nutjob
Aurora - known nutjob
They're almost always known nutjobs, yet nothing is done. This gak won't stop until that is corrected.
Thats the same thing. COnsidering those rifles are already restricted there AND THE GUY STOLE IT its nonsense.
its just a rifle with plastic bits. Someone with a bat with nails in it could have done the same thing. He wasn't attacking ninjas, he was attacking trapped children.
Thats why this "lockdown" in case of emergency is nonsense. Get out. FIght back. Even better LOCK UP THE CRAZY fething LOONS AND QUIT GIVING THEM MIND ALTERING DRUGS BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Sandy - known nutjob
Aurora - known nutjob
They're almost always known nutjobs, yet nothing is done. This gak won't stop until that is corrected.
He was able to steal the rifle because his mon was fething irresponsible and just had it lying around, and she must have known about his problems. With better regulations, the mother would have been required to lock her guns away and oh look! He couldn't have gotten to them in that case!
And oh Frazzled, do you really think a guy with a bat can kill as many kids than a guy with a fething rifle?? all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger, with a bat it's all close and personal, takes longer, and is not near as deadly. Do you know that in the same week as the Sany Hook massacre, there was a chinese douche who did the same thing in a chinese elementary school, but he didn't have access to guns, so he had to resort to a knife. And oh look, he didn't manage to kill a single child! He was just as crazy as the sandy hook killer, but without guns, the nutjobs actually do inflict less damage!
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
MrMerlin wrote: He was able to steal the rifle because his mon was fething irresponsible and just had it lying around, and she must have known about his problems. With better regulations, the mother would have been required to lock her guns away and oh look! He couldn't have gotten to them in that case!
You know how she stored her guns? I don't. Where did you find this information?
all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger,
I assure you, in all sincerity, this is incorrect.
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
Not really. I haven't seen a single serious proposal that would have affected Lanza's ability to pull off his murder spree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
MrMerlin wrote: And oh Frazzled, do you really think a guy with a bat can kill as many kids than a guy with a fething rifle?? all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger, with a bat it's all close and personal, takes longer, and is not near as deadly. Do you know that in the same week as the Sany Hook massacre, there was a chinese douche who did the same thing in a chinese elementary school, but he didn't have access to guns, so he had to resort to a knife. And oh look, he didn't manage to kill a single child! He was just as crazy as the sandy hook killer, but without guns, the nutjobs actually do inflict less damage!
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
When the kids are trapped in a room hell yea I do.
And the link shows (not 1963 but starting at 1965: 6,158
2004: 11,624
Gun suicides have almost doubled.
Accidents are greatly down though, from 2,344 to 649. I am going to guess that firearm safety programs are successful .
And the link shows (not 1963 but starting at 1965: 6,158
2004: 11,624
Gun suicides have almost doubled.
Accidents are greatly down though, from 2,344 to 649. I am going to guess that firearm safety programs are successful .
Probably because I was talking about all homicides, not simply gun-related ones. As was the poster I was responding to.
But even if we want to talk strictly firearm-related homicides, I still don't see it. That number's trending down, according to the VPC (lol) statistics, not up.
So the poster you were responding to (who specifically mentioned gun-violence in his post) is not just talking about gun-related crimes?
But even if we want to talk strictly firearm-related homicides, I still don't see it. That number's trending down, according to the VPC (lol) statistics, not up.
Keep on moving the goalposts then.
You specifically said "lowest since 1963". Now you are talking about "trending down"?
So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
Fewer homicides. Not fewer gun homicides, and your statistics are about all homicides, not specifically gun homicides.
Keep on moving the goalposts then.
You specifically said "lowest since 1963". Now you are talking about "trending down"?
Yes. Homicide in the US is at its lowest level since 1963, using 2011 data. Much as the data you provided, mine included all homicides, not just gun homicides.
I'll let you regroup and figure out what you're actually trying to say, if you like.
Kilkrazy wrote: Your point is that the widespread availability of guns has reduced the murder rate.
That's not my point. My point was that while the murder rate has gone down in Great Britain after guns were functionally banned, the murder rate in the US has also declined despite widespread loosening of restrictions on gun ownership. Perhaps, just maybe, the availability of guns doesn't have as much to do with it as some might like to pretend.
You asked for evidence if the gun laws in Britain have resulted in fewer homicides (all kind). I provided a link saying that they are at the lowest number since before the ban. You then talked about that our overall rates are down as well.
Thus concludes part one.
After you posted the overall rates, Killkrazy made a point to talk about gun-violence specifically, posting a link showing that gun violence is up.
You then said that you don't draw the same conclusion from the link he provided. I posted the number showing we went from 6,158 to 11,624. You then said that nobody was talking specifically about guns, even though that was the thing Killkrazy was focusing on.
I am fully aware that we were talking about homicides in general, until Killkrazy posted a link talking specifically about gun violence and making a point about "Yes violent crime is down, but gun violence is up".
I can keep up with the flow of the conversation, thank you.
You asked for evidence if the gun laws in Britain have resulted in fewer homicides (all kind). I provided a link saying that they are at the lowest number since before the ban. You then talked about that our overall rates are down as well.
Thus concludes part one.
After you posted the overall rates, Killkrazy made a point to talk about gun-violence specifically, posting a link showing that gun violence is up.
You then said that you don't draw the same conclusion from the link he provided. I posted the number showing we went from 6,158 to 11,624. You then said that nobody was talking specifically about guns, even though that was the thing Killkrazy was focusing on.
I am fully aware that we were talking about homicides in general, until Killkrazy posted a link talking specifically about gun violence and making a point about "Yes violent crime is down, but gun violence is up".
I can keep up with the flow of the conversation, thank you.
And even in that regard, gun violence specifically is up from 1964, but it's also trending down. As I said. It peaked a couple decades ago.
There just aren't numbers extant out there that suggest gun violence is becoming more of a problem in the US rather than less of one.
Kilkrazy wrote: Your point is that the widespread availability of guns has reduced the murder rate.
That's not my point. My point was that while the murder rate has gone down in Great Britain after guns were functionally banned, the murder rate in the US has also declined despite widespread loosening of restrictions on gun ownership. Perhaps, just maybe, the availability of guns doesn't have as much to do with it as some might like to pretend.
Does that mean that the USA is inherently a violent society?
(To explain the murder rate in the US being more than triple the UK's.)
MrMerlin wrote: He was able to steal the rifle because his mon was fething irresponsible and just had it lying around, and she must have known about his problems. With better regulations, the mother would have been required to lock her guns away and oh look! He couldn't have gotten to them in that case!
You know how she stored her guns? I don't. Where did you find this information?
Well, her son was able to take the guns, so I assume they weren't properly stored... or else he wouldn't jave been able to get to them
all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger,
I assure you, in all sincerity, this is incorrect.
In what way is this incorrect? Given you are a psycho and want to kill, that is exactly what it takes to kill someone; load, aim properly, and shoot.
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
Not really. I haven't seen a single serious proposal that would have affected Lanza's ability to pull off his murder spree.
Why do you think better regulations wouldn't work? They would have thoroughly checked his mom, and required her to lock away her guns (in Germany, the police visits you and checks if your guns are properly locked away and nobody but you can get to them)
Frazzled wrote:
MrMerlin wrote: And oh Frazzled, do you really think a guy with a bat can kill as many kids than a guy with a fething rifle?? all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger, with a bat it's all close and personal, takes longer, and is not near as deadly. Do you know that in the same week as the Sany Hook massacre, there was a chinese douche who did the same thing in a chinese elementary school, but he didn't have access to guns, so he had to resort to a knife. And oh look, he didn't manage to kill a single child! He was just as crazy as the sandy hook killer, but without guns, the nutjobs actually do inflict less damage!
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
When the kids are trapped in a room hell yea I do.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
MrMerlin wrote: Well, her son was able to take the guns, so I assume they weren't properly stored... or else he wouldn't jave been able to get to them
You must have been a model kid, then. I knew how to get at all sorts of stuff my parents didn't want me to get at growing up.
Why do you think better regulations wouldn't work? They would have thoroughly checked his mom, and required her to lock away her guns (in Germany, the police visits you and checks if your guns are properly locked away and nobody but you can get to them)
That type of regulation - where the police come by to check on your guns - will simply never, ever happen here. It has zero chance of occurring while we operate under the Constitution as currently written it. It is not in the realm of a serious proposal.
MrMerlin wrote: Well, her son was able to take the guns, so I assume they weren't properly stored... or else he wouldn't jave been able to get to them
You must have been a model kid, then. I knew how to get at all sorts of stuff my parents didn't want me to get at growing up.
I assume you also knew how to open a safe with 6 digit combination lock?
Why do you think better regulations wouldn't work? They would have thoroughly checked his mom, and required her to lock away her guns (in Germany, the police visits you and checks if your guns are properly locked away and nobody but you can get to them)
That type of regulation - where the police come by to check on your guns - will simply never, ever happen here. It has zero chance of occurring while we operate under the Constitution as currently written it. It is not in the realm of a serious proposal.
Well, then I am truly sorry for you guys. I guess you'll have to live with the occaisional killing spree and about 600 firearm accidents every year in that case.
Seaward wrote: [That type of regulation - where the police come by to check on your guns - will simply never, ever happen here. It has zero chance of occurring while we operate under the Constitution as currently written it. It is not in the realm of a serious proposal.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
And multiple adults went there to help. He would have had a harder time stopping 3-4 adults with a bat.
Guns make it a lot easier to kill people. That's why we conceal carry guns, not baseball bats.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it a good idea for an inherently violent society to be provided with large amounts of guns?
How is that at all relevant? Whether it's a good idea or not, it's the reality. Pie-in-the-sky notions of "just getting rid of them" are simply not applicable to this particular plane of existence, for a whole host of reasons.
*We have open borders here. Criminal cartels have easy access and are here now. one border is adjacent top a country where 50,000 people were murdered last year.
*Criminals are not going to turn in their guns. Formerly law abiding citizens will not turn in their firearms either. Massed attempts by police to enter homes is unconstitutional and could spark civl unrest up to and including a full on civil war.
There's far too many of them for it to be even approaching realistic. You might, might, MIGHT make a dent ten generations from now, but we have, by many estimates, more guns than the UK has humans by a factor of three.
The majority of gun homicides are gang/drug related, and people involved in crime are unlikely to turn in their guns just because the government says they have to. The government already says they can't own them. All you'd do with a complete nationwide ban would be to take the most effective means of defense away from law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to get guns out of the hands of the people who do the overwhelming majority of the killing with firearms in this country. Sandy Hook and Aurora are tragic, but they're so extremely rare, no matter how much they're sensationalized, that they don't move the needle on firearm crime statistics.
It would be blatantly unconstitutional, and if you think only a small minority of gun owners would be the only ones taking action of some sort or another against such a ban, you don't know your opinion polls. Support for the right to own a handgun is at 75% in this country. Support for keeping even so-called "assault weapons" legal is at 51%. The NRA has a 54% favorability rating. Those are all solid majorities - some shockingly so - despite the fact that less than half the US public owns a firearm.
It would be a bureaucratic nightmare that we could not in any way afford. You would need thousands, if not tens of thousands, of new enforcement agents. You would need massive staffing increases at the ATF, FBI, DOJ in general, and every law enforcement agency in the country. We're a bit cash-strapped at the moment.
Do you want me to go on or what? It's simply never going to happen.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
Please show me the article where the kids were trapped in a room.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
I think you're over-estimating the crushing power of a bat... I know from first hand experience that a bat hitting your skull hurts, and it doesn't take much to crack the skull, I can still feel the line where it cracked slightly and then fused.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
Please show me the article where the kids were trapped in a room.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
Please show me the article where the kids were trapped in a room.
I mostly read German news, so that might not work.
I think he would have done way less damage with a bat. And regulating guns (as well as improving the mental health care system, educating kids better and doing something against poverty) would signifcantly improve your crime stats.
Anyway, I don't really want to continue arguing about gun violence, there are other things that I should be doing, and our argument isn't leading anywhere anyway. Everything has already been said 20 times in the numerous other gun violence threads, and nobody's gonna change their opinions anytime soon.
So, have a nice day Frazzled and Seaward and everyone else
Goddammit, whembly. This entire thread has made it thus far without you posting ludicrous conspiracy theories from insanity respositories thus far, and you had to go and ruin that.
Just so we're clear, this is the advertising reel for Herman Cain's webcast network.
Even Glenn Beck cannot compete with that level of stupid; and if I didn't know otherwise I'd swear it was a Tim & Eric sketch. Please, please stop posting conspiracy-theory garbage.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's actual US law and being reported by CNN, how is it conspiracy theory garbage?
Do you see the same link that I see? Because I see a link to CaintTV.com
If you clicked instead of acting like a child and crying about Whembly you'd see the following:
From page 2037 of the ACA (aka Obamacare)
(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION- None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to–`(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;`(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or`(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It is precedent against registration though. So a legal challenge can be brought just based off of that.
How are you guys spinning "this doesn't mean one specific department is authorized to collect" into "all agencies are forbidden to collect." It's a pretty insane jump to take a paragraph saying "this is something this act doesn't do" and turn it into a prohibition against any other law.
Goddammit, whembly. This entire thread has made it thus far without you posting ludicrous conspiracy theories from insanity respositories thus far, and you had to go and ruin that.
In the Affordable Care Act, the gun lobby’s section is in Title X, starting on page 2,037, line 23. “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” contains five provisions mostly dedicated to shutting down conversation about guns in medicine. What do these sections contain?
Wellness and prevention programs may not require the disclosure or collection of information relating to the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or the use of a firearm. At least the law didn’t say we couldn’t ask about it, we just have to do it clandestinely.
The next provision states we can’t collect data related to owning or using firearms. So we can’t write it down? Sounds like an effective way to stifle research related to gun violence so we can no longer prove that easier access to guns increases the risk of mass violence.
Provision three states we can’t use or maintain records of individual ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. I’m fine with that not being allowed in medicine, but that information should be tracked somewhere. A person amassing an arsenal should raise an eyebrow.
Provision four limits the ability to determine rates or eligibility for health insurance based on gun ownership. Now why is that even in there? Title I of the ACA states that insurance will be guaranteed issue so no one can be turned down. Even if they own enough guns to hunt every squirrel in the United States, they will qualify for health insurance. Just so the gun owners have the correct information, rates are based on only four factors – age, location, number of family members, and smoking status. Wait – guns smoke, so maybe they thought that was meant for gun owners.
The final provision related to gun owners is that individuals do not have to disclose they own a gun. We know you can’t make people tell the truth, but fortunately most people in the throes of mental anguish and considering violence will tell the truth when asked.
So... I was merely voicing my opinion on a crap law because gun rights "stuff" has no business being in Obamacare... as one of many reason why it's a gakky bill. It's doesn't do what many believe it does....
Jeeze louese my man... CHILL BRO!
Just so we're clear, this is the advertising reel for Herman Cain's webcast network.
Even Glenn Beck cannot compete with that level of stupid; and if I didn't know otherwise I'd swear it was a Tim & Eric sketch. Please, please stop posting conspiracy-theory garbage.
So... I was merely voicing my opinion on a crap law because gun rights "stuff" has no business being in Obamacare... as one of many reason why it's a gakky bill. It's doesn't do what many believe it does....
All it says is "this bill is not an authorization for a gun registry, data obtained about guns during all events healthcare related cannot be used for that purpose." It's a perfectly reasonable part of the bill and was probably needed to shut up Agenda 21 idiots.
d-usa wrote: Funny thing is that even the crazy link doesn't say that it outlaws registration.
Not like you can simply pass a law that changes another law though.
Help me out here... the amendment makes it illegal for the federal government to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
Don't you need some information in order to have a registration database?
Unless I missing some obcure minute point, I don't think they current can do this.
Now, of course that law can be changed, and it'll likely be amended in some fashion.
So... I was merely voicing my opinion on a crap law because gun rights "stuff" has no business being in Obamacare... as one of many reason why it's a gakky bill. It's doesn't do what many believe it does....
All it says is "this bill is not an authorization for a gun registry, data obtained about guns during all events healthcare related cannot be used for that purpose." It's a perfectly reasonable part of the bill and was probably needed to shut up Agenda 21 idiots.
It doesn't outlaw gun registries.
Well... that's true...
Just mere prohibit Doctors from collecting that information?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It is precedent against registration though. So a legal challenge can be brought just based off of that.
No its just saying the ACA cannot be used for data collection or registration purposes related to firearms. I think the intent of whoever inserted that was to keep questions related to firearms away from Doctors and the Government.
d-usa wrote: Funny thing is that even the crazy link doesn't say that it outlaws registration.
Not like you can simply pass a law that changes another law though.
Help me out here... the amendment makes it illegal for the federal government to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
Don't you need some information in order to have a registration database?
Unless I missing some obcure minute point, I don't think they current can do this.
Now, of course that law can be changed, and it'll likely be amended in some fashion.
So... I was merely voicing my opinion on a crap law because gun rights "stuff" has no business being in Obamacare... as one of many reason why it's a gakky bill. It's doesn't do what many believe it does....
All it says is "this bill is not an authorization for a gun registry, data obtained about guns during all events healthcare related cannot be used for that purpose." It's a perfectly reasonable part of the bill and was probably needed to shut up Agenda 21 idiots.
It doesn't outlaw gun registries.
Well... that's true...
Just mere prohibit Doctors from collecting that information?
Again:
The amendment says "this act does not authorize the collection of data to make a database."
There is nothing in there to prevent any other law from giving that authority.
SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.
(c) Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights.--
(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.--A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to--
(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to--
(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.
(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.--A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon--
(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.--No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to--
(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
(B)the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.''.
Kilkrazy wrote: I should have thought doctors' rights to publish information relating to the epidemiology of gun wounding would be protected under the 1st amendment.
Perhaps as with Piers Morgan it is more important to have unlimited guns than free speech.
I'd agree if it means never having to hear Mr. Morgan blather on again.
Kilkrazy wrote: I should have thought doctors' rights to publish information relating to the epidemiology of gun wounding would be protected under the 1st amendment.
Perhaps as with Piers Morgan it is more important to have unlimited guns than free speech.
not at all. Patient records are protected. Herr Doktor has no rights to it. Only your insurance company can make money off of it. Of course in the real world this information is sent to all kinds of data banks. I know when I went for life insurance they popped up with infor I had given to my private doc multiple years before, and they popped that up before I gave them permission to review any doc records - so they had it online. Scary.
"Mr. Frazzled, it says when you were 19 you won three hot dog contests and got to eat free once under the "eat an entire 72 ounce steak and its free" dare at Bob's Steakhouse. That puts you in our "DAMN!" category. Your premium will be..."
Kilkrazy wrote: I should have thought doctors' rights to publish information relating to the epidemiology of gun wounding would be protected under the 1st amendment.
Perhaps as with Piers Morgan it is more important to have unlimited guns than free speech.
I'd agree if it means never having to hear Mr. Morgan blather on again.
Poppabear wrote: There would be less incentive to kill someone without a gun. So guns do in-fact... kill people.
Err, how exactly does not having access to a gun make you want to kill someone less? You might change the ability to kill someone, but the incentive is going to be exactly the same. Unless of course you're arguing that merely having possession of a gun makes you want to kill people?
He may be arguing that the incredibly easy task of pulling a trigger at range is far less intimidating on the concience than, say, swinging a mallet again and again, up close and personal-like.
(I'm not certain I really believe that idea, but that's how I interpreted his statement.)
That's exactly what I meant! Without a gun, it becomes a lot harder and even impossible to get close to a person if your goal is to kill them, (depending on the person).
Same here. Here's a list of other shows I won't watch:
-MSNBC
-Sean Hannity - ok really any Fox show after the 6PM news, but will occasionally watch OReilly.
-Wolf Blitzer (not political I just hate that guy something fierce)
-Fareed Zakaria
-NBC News (ok I almost never watch network news or the networks at all at this point).
Frazzled wrote: Same here. Here's a list of other shows I won't watch:
-MSNBC
-Sean Hannity - ok really any Fox show after the 6PM news, but will occasionally watch OReilly.
-Wolf Blitzer (not political I just hate that guy something fierce)
-Fareed Zakaria
-NBC News (ok I almost never watch network news or the networks at all at this point).
Yea, I'm a political junky but I don't watch cable news networks either. It seems like they're less concerned about discussing the issues than generating drama for ratings.
Why the hell wern't they armed? I don't know, you get yourselves a second ammendment and then you can't even be bothered to arm your children to protect them from all the guns that have inevitably flooded your society.
Why the hell wern't they armed? I don't know, you get yourselves a second ammendment and then you can't even be bothered to arm your children to protect them from all the guns that have inevitably flooded your society.
Why the hell wern't they armed? I don't know, you get yourselves a second ammendment and then you can't even be bothered to arm your children to protect them from all the guns that have inevitably flooded your society.
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!
Both my kids could shoot your eye out.
Frazz, one of your kids is an adult (or on the cusp of it), and your other kid conquered the second grade. Saying they could shoot my eye out isn't much of an accomplishment
Why the hell wern't they armed? I don't know, you get yourselves a second ammendment and then you can't even be bothered to arm your children to protect them from all the guns that have inevitably flooded your society.
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!
Both my kids could shoot your eye out.
Frazz, one of your kids is an adult (or on the cusp of it), and your other kid conquered the second grade. Saying they could shoot my eye out isn't much of an accomplishment
THE BOY shot his first deer at 6. HE KILLED BAMBI! The Future Empress of Mankind was hitting bullseyes at 8. She conquered second grade with only a stern look. As an aside its week two and I still have terminated her boyfriend's command with extreme predjudice. I did find myself sitting in the chair with a shovel and map of local bayous the other day...
Well at least you didn't say anything about wiener dogs peeing in your shoe. I could make that happen if you want it. Wouldn't be a problem.
Frazzled wrote: Well at least you didn't say anything about wiener dogs peeing in your shoe. I could make that happen if you want it. Wouldn't be a problem.
Frazzled wrote: Well at least you didn't say anything about wiener dogs peeing in your shoe. I could make that happen if you want it. Wouldn't be a problem.
For free?! Oh man usually I have to pay for that.
Well, you'll have to spring for steak. TBone and Rodney don't do anything without a nice ribeye. Fair warning. They can eat their body weight in meat in about 18 minutes.
Frazzled wrote: Well at least you didn't say anything about wiener dogs peeing in your shoe. I could make that happen if you want it. Wouldn't be a problem.
For free?! Oh man usually I have to pay for that.
Well, you'll have to spring for steak. TBone and Rodney don't do anything without a nice ribeye. Fair warning. They can eat their body weight in meat in about 18 minutes.
Strawman argument; fail.
Strawman argument; fail.
Strawman argument; fail.
4:02 ---> great point, amazing shot of pallid and dumb-struck speechless response
Strawman argument; fail.
Strawman argument; fail.
That was absolutely delightful to watch. I cannot recall the last time someone who actually understands how to hold a logical debate was allowed onto a pundit show without their mic being cut off.
Compel wrote: Yeah, that Morgan V Shapiro video is rather pants. Admittedly, I'm not halfway through it there but it is entirely possible that a proper working debate could have happened there. :(
While I think Mr. Shapiro could indeed such a debate, I doubt Mr. Morgan has the capacity or fortitude for such things.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It is precedent against registration though. So a legal challenge can be brought just based off of that.
I would question whether or not that is the case, given that the citation is for a Senate Amendment, and not the actual document.
Additionally, I've been looking for the relevant language in the final bill for some time (by direct search, and section search), and I've not found it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It is precedent against registration though. So a legal challenge can be brought just based off of that.
I would question whether or not that is the case, given that the citation if for a Senate Amendment, and not the actual document.
And it's not even a precedent against registration though. A section stating "The ACA does not give authority to enact a gun registry" does not equal the idea that "The ACA prohibits all gun registries."
And it's not even a precedent against registration though. A section stating "The ACA does not give authority to enact a gun registry" does not equal the idea that "The ACA prohibits all gun registries."
Doesn't really matter. The language of the Senate amendment that was cited (3276, passed in 2009) does not appear in the relevant section of the final bill (Title 1. Sec. 2716*), maybe similar language appears elsewhere but right now it looks like a case of poor research.
*Hint: there is no part (c) in the final version of Sec. 2716.
As Infowars documented in a previous article, Morgan’s assault on the constitutional rights of American citizens is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a U.S. citizen.
"all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)
That includes permanent residents like me or those working on a visa like Morgan. Sorry.
I forgot to say, welcome to the states MGS.
Its his right to speak his mind and to suggest deporting him for that is perhaps the most un-American thing to do. Sure the guy can be a douche but I feel its wrong to silence anyone even the Westboro crazies.
