Funniest thing I have ever seen in my life (Piers Morgan-Alex Jones interview)

[TooMuch]

Funny how most of the "true Americans" posting here don't even know their own law/country and how it came into existence. Then they say a lot about the rest of the world (especially Europe) which even shows more of their ignorance. For every "fact" they post, it's easy to post a lot of other "facts" to counter them...
And Alex Jones: with a different hair lock and a small mustache he would look like someone of 70-80 years ago!

[select20]

Guns != babies


You're not being punished. You're being legislated.



Generalization. Gun violence in Australia specifically is not following your generalization, I believe.

Gun crimes have gone up because there's access to guns somewhere. The only problem to care about is to stop that access.
Any penny spent on that is a penny well spent.

I also take issue with using statistics like this... You're ignoring other factors, like the times being different.
People IN GENERAL don't behave the way they did 50 years ago. Don't be ignorant and ignore that factor in the statistics.
You haven't isolated gun laws as the only factor, so stop using those statistics against the gun laws. It's disingenuous, dishonest and ignorant.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 02:05 PM ----------



You're right, this is the wrong thread to discuss gun control.

This is about Alex Jones being a fool of a human being as usual.

Not trying to be rude but you've lost track of your owns points and are contradicting yourself. And now your name calling so I will now decline to respond to your posts. A wise man said, "You can't argue with someone who isn't willing or capable of perceiving truth." Sucks but I have to go to work, good day all, I suspect this thread will be huge by this afternoon.

[Deleted]

So you want people like Alex to have guns? I don't. Leave guns to police and military.

What matters is not what I want, but what will actually happen.

I would like for people to stop using drugs, but banning all drugs doesn't actually accomplish what I want.

[Sarojini]

That's not even close to accurate. If someone broke into my house, and I shot and killed them, I would still at the very least be subject to a full police investigation, at which time the municipality/county/state would decide whether or not I should face charges. Sadly, based on prior incidences, I would rather shoot to kill than shoot to wound/incapacitate. Criminals have sued homeowners that shot or in some other way injured them, and won.[COLOR="red"]

Well then at least you are going through due process and undergoing a trial (as you damn well should). Something you have denied the person laying dead on your living room floor. Perhaps you would prefer a straightforward execution too. An eye for an eye, do unto others and all of that.

[Deleted]

Not trying to be rude but you've lost track of your owns points and are contradicting yourself. And now your name calling so I will now decline to respond to your posts. A wise man said, "You can't argue with someone who isn't willing or capable of perceiving truth." Sucks but I have to go to work, good day all, I suspect this thread will be huge by this afternoon.

I am very willing to percieve the truth.
In particular: Please enlighten me as to where I contradict myself, and where I use name-calling.

I don't see any contradictions, and I get the feeling that you think I called someone ignorant/disingenuous/dishonest. I deliberately did not.

I did call Alex Jones a fool of a human being, but I think that's a fair assesment.

[N-7]

"This is the man who want to deport me from the country..."
"NO, NOOO, IT IS.. IT IS TO POINT OUT THAT YOU"RE A FOREIGNER.. A RED COAT COMING HERE TELLING US WHAT TO DO".

lol

[Frozenbeef]

He is an idiot.

Piers Morgan only cares about money and fame. He didn't leave England to get away from a strict government. He went to America because we all hate him.

[Priestiality]

I think the issue here, and which is the major issue with this ENTIRE debate (Not with just us on MMO-Champ but everywhere) is that pro-gun enthusiasts are assuming anyone against guns wants a full out ban which isn't the case, they just want to regulate and restrict them.

You can't tell me you need an "Assault Rifle" to protect your family or hunt, protect your family? A pistol is more than enough would you not agree? As per hunting what else would you need besides your average hunting rifle and a shot gun? (Pistol as well in case the animal is suffering right?).

All they really want to do, is remove the ability to obtain guns that have telescoping Stocks, Pistol Grips and a rail system used to mount things such as bayonets, grenade launchers etc. Do you really need those options on a rifle to hunt with? I can see the use of a telescoping Stock to be honest, and a Pistol Grip to make it more compact easier to lug around and the grip for comfort, but it isn't needed at all and certainly isn't necessary.

In my opinion guns should have limited magazines in which they should only have 5-15 round capacity as you're either shooting animals with it (And lets be honest you miss more than 5-15 times you weren't going to hit it with the other 15 bullets).

I think everyone should be forced at least to be tested to obtain a gun license and various stages of it (Hunting Rifle/Pistol Permit etc), and proper background checks.

I also believe that your guns should be locked up safely (Trigger lock + Cabinet if the cabinet is breakable ie not a safe), as long as someone can't get a hold of it and accidentally shoot a sibling. I understand "But if we train them young that won't happen", that isn't entirely true as accidents will always find a way to happen and there is no need to allow them to happen easily.

Personally, if these things were requirements I think a lot of the gun crime would come down (It wouldn't disappear it never will, but it's not about making it disappear it's about slowing it down), as it wouldn't be so easy for little Johnny over there to grab his Father's gun and shoot poor Susie because they were playing.

I probably should have worded that better as I never meant to imply ALL firearms would be banned. As for assault rifles, you and I differ on the definition. An assault rifle isn't classified by anything beyond ability to select firing type (auto, burst, semi). True assault rifles have been banned since 1986, and contrary to popular belief, THAT ban is still very much in effect. A rifle with a folding stock and pistol grip is no less or no more difficult to fire effectively than any other rifle. I agree with magazine size restrictions, but as has also been pointed out, someone with a decent amount of practice can change a magazine and resume firing in less than a second. The only reason those types of rifles became popular is it allows misguided types, who probably shouldn't own a firearm to begin with, to feel on-par with the military. They get an ego boost out of it. As far as the cabinet/safe thing, I think it depends on the family. I never had a problem understanding what firearms are capable of, because I was trained in safety and proper usage long before "Child finds loaded, unsecured weapon, kills friend" headlines were ever a thing. In those cases, if the parents took responsibility for their firearms, and taught the child properly what they're capable of, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. It's much easier for the media to say "GUNS ARE BAD" than it is to say "THIS ONE PERSON ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY AS A PARENT".

[Deleted]

Yes, they let a man that loves to scream his point of view, do just that. I am sure I could make my own show, and invite an anit-gun crazy person on, and let them scream at me. Does that make my point of view any more valid? Not at all. Cheap debate tactic.

I think that letting a leading pro-gun front man display his craziness all by himself is hardly a cheap tactic. It doesn't add much value though, because the man's rants are rather monotonous and available on many channels already, but the argument that some fun supporters use that their side doesn't get fair coverage in "liberal" media kind of forces them to it.

Problem with finding a rational pro-gun front man is that they are hard to come by. When you toss this man in a room with Mike Huckabee, Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, try finding a sane person to talk to. It's only the degree of craziness that varies slightly.

[Frozenbeef]

and people wonder why Americans are generalized as being loud, big mouthed and arrogant >.<

He is probably the worst person you could use to represent a sane person with a gun.

I wouldn't trust him with a sharpened pencil let alone a gun :S

[Priestiality]

Well then at least you are going through due process and undergoing a trial (as you damn well should). Something you have denied the person laying dead on your living room floor. Perhaps you would prefer a straightforward execution too. An eye for an eye, do unto others and all of that.

What should I do in that situation then? Just let them assault and possibly murder myself and/or my family? The fact is, they took their life into their own hands when they decided to violate property that doesn't belong to them. There's a huge difference between self-defense and execution. For starters, someone that's executed is unarmed. If someone tries to break in unarmed and sees a gun, the odds of him doing anything besides running are slim to none. If someone breaks in and is armed, chances are they're willing to use that weapon, in which case it becomes self-defense, and not an execution.

[Goldfingaz]

I probably should have worded that better as I never meant to imply ALL firearms would be banned. As for assault rifles, you and I differ on the definition. An assault rifle isn't classified by anything beyond ability to select firing type (auto, burst, semi). True assault rifles have been banned since 1986, and contrary to popular belief, THAT ban is still very much in effect. A rifle with a folding stock and pistol grip is no less or no more difficult to fire effectively than any other rifle. I agree with magazine size restrictions, but as has also been pointed out, someone with a decent amount of practice can change a magazine and resume firing in less than a second. The only reason those types of rifles became popular is it allows misguided types, who probably shouldn't own a firearm to begin with, to feel on-par with the military. They get an ego boost out of it. As far as the cabinet/safe thing, I think it depends on the family. I never had a problem understanding what firearms are capable of, because I was trained in safety and proper usage long before "Child finds loaded, unsecured weapon, kills friend" headlines were ever a thing. In those cases, if the parents took responsibility for their firearms, and taught the child properly what they're capable of, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. It's much easier for the media to say "GUNS ARE BAD" than it is to say "THIS ONE PERSON ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY AS A PARENT".

Not talking Assault Rifle, meant Assault Weapon, was a mistype on my behalf. My apologies on that one, I'll go back an edit. (My definition of Assault Weapon currently is correct, just used Rifle instead of weapon. Getting sleepy )

Now that I've read your entire post I can respond to the bits that are in line with my discussion (AKA not the Assault rifle typo bit).

The idea behind the limited magazines, is that ti will essentially take up more carrying space. The more of these magazines you carry, the easier it is for them to be spotted. Not to mention the simple fact that someone with one of these guns would probably only have 2-3 magazines rather than 10.

Quick math 3 magazines with 15 rounds each = 45 rounds. 3 magazines with 30 rounds each = 90 rounds each. In order to carry the same ammunition (Pre-loaded magazines) you would need 6 magazines. 6 vs 3, added reload time and more space effectively taken up.

As per the "Friend shooting friend", it's happened far longer than you or I have been on this planet walking around I'm afraid, and will always happen.

[Deleted]

I think that letting a leading pro-gun front man display his craziness all by himself is hardly a cheap tactic. It doesn't add much value though, because the man's rants are rather monotonous and available on many channels already, but the argument that some fun supporters use that their side doesn't get fair coverage in "liberal" media kind of forces them to it.

Problem with finding a rational pro-gun front man is that they are hard to come by. When you toss this man in a room with Mike Huckabee, Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, try finding a sane person to talk to. It's only the degree of craziness that varies slightly.

I think it's quite unfair to call Alex Jones a "leading pro-gun front man". The guy talks about the most ridiculous conspiracy theories on his show, including contrails (i.e. the vapor from aircraft jet engines is actually toxic substance meant to poison the population).

[Kryos]

What matters is not what I want, but what will actually happen.
I would like for people to stop using drugs, but banning all drugs doesn't actually accomplish what I want.

I'm happy that here in Germany there are only few guns (I still don't like how many still can have guns by joining a shooting club) and I can go out at night in the city without fearing gun violence. It's very uncommon here. Japan has it even better. All the "no guns = police tyranny" bullshit is falling on deaf ears here because we live the opposite of these stupid claims every day for 67 years now.

[Deleted]

What should I do in that situation then?

Sneak into your living room, enter the pin code to the weapons locker, open the weapons locker, grab your gun, load it, sneak back to the criminal who had a gun pointed at you, and... Waitaminute...

It's idiotic to think that having a gun in your house would help you in that situation.
Unless you constantly carry the gun on you, or have it lying out in the open, loaded. In which case YOU are the criminal in my mind.

No, all you can do in that situation is to put your hands in the air and promise to comply, give them everything, and then let the insurance company replace what they take, and have the police track them down for justice.
Or you could try to grab their weapons - a highly dangerous prospect.

Yes, this is a lose-lose situation. Which is why the effort should go into avoiding such situations in the first place.

[Goldfingaz]

I think it's quite unfair to call Alex Jones a "leading pro-gun front man". The guy talks about the most ridiculous conspiracy theories on his show, including contrails (i.e. the vapor from aircraft jet engines is actually toxic substance meant to poison the population).

I very much agree. To be perfectly honest, I think he's just saying what no one else will, simply for the ratings and nothing beyond it. Some of the stuff he talks beyond guns is just so out there. I'd like to believe any well educated person wouldn't be so "out there".

Fueling the hate machine because he knows there is an audience.

[Deleted]

There's a huge difference between self-defense and execution. For starters, someone that's executed is unarmed. If someone tries to break in unarmed and sees a gun, the odds of him doing anything besides running are slim to none. If someone breaks in and is armed, chances are they're willing to use that weapon, in which case it becomes self-defense, and not an execution.

Yet shooting and killing an unarmed burglar, just because they might be armed is ok?

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 02:28 PM ----------

I think it's quite unfair to call Alex Jones a "leading pro-gun front man". The guy talks about the most ridiculous conspiracy theories on his show, including contrails (i.e. the vapor from aircraft jet engines is actually toxic substance meant to poison the population).

When his petition is signed more than 100.000 times, I think it's safe to say he's a more than some random lunatic.

[Frozenbeef]

His fake "British" accent sounds like the queen when she is drunk :S

[Priestiality]

Sneak into your living room, enter the pin code to the weapons locker, open the weapons locker, grab your gun, load it, sneak back to the criminal who had a gun pointed at you, and... Waitaminute...

It's idiotic to think that having a gun in your house would help you in that situation.
Unless you constantly carry the gun on you, or have it lying out in the open, loaded. In which case YOU are the criminal in my mind.

No, all you can do in that situation is to put your hands in the air and promise to comply, give them everything, and then let the insurance company replace what they take.
Or you could try to grab their weapons - a highly dangerous prospect.

Yes, this is a lose-lose situation. Which is why the effort should go into avoiding such situations in the first place.

Of course, if you actually READ the thread you would see where I've already explained that it would be next to impossible for someone to gain full entry to my house without my knowledge, and if it came down to it I have a select few firearms in a glass-faced locking cabinet with loaded magazines (in the cabinet, NOT in the firearm). By the time someone gets through a solid steel security door with reinforced frame or breaks a pane on my antique windows and unlatches them, the glass will be broken and the firearm will be ready to go. You try to say "oh well who are you to decide someone is a criminal?" Well, I'm the guy that OWNS the property that this person is currently violating WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. By definition, he is guilty of criminal trespass. If he manages to enter my home, that's criminal trespassing as well as breaking and entering and attempted robbery. How do I know this? Because it's MY property, and I decide who is allowed to enter it, and what they are allowed to do on it.

[Deleted]

When his petition is signed more than 100.000 times, I think it's safe to say he's a more than some random lunatic.

Yep. That makes him the spokesperson for random lunatics.