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

[Deleted]

Alex Jones' mouth moves but I don't hear anything intellectual.

[Goldfingaz]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here are the complete stats for reference, and no, it doesn't debunk the theory since guns are used 10x more for self defense than crime here. I also don't buy the argument that we don't report assaults. There are some cases where mutual combat (essentially duels) can be legally established, but for the most part all crimes are reported. Even a shove is an assault if someone calls the police and embellishes it. Remember, America is a country where insurance fraud and lawsuits are a huge legal problem.


http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crim...ecdjan2012.pdf

The US is quite lenient when it comes to two guys fighting each other. You get two men, minor fight cops more often than not give them a slap on the wrist and send them away, whereas in the UK you get into a fight you are charged, doesn't mater the severity, and there lies the difference...

Even in Canada, bar fights if they aren't severe (No injuries sans bruises and cuts) the Police will take them in for causing a disturbance and release them when they are sober (Drunk in Public).

Unfortunately what people do not realize is that isn't the case with the UK, you're beating on someone and that's it you're being charged, hell even if it's self defense and you didn't use excessive force it's highly possible you will be charge for assault regardless.

With that said, gun control holds nothing over assaults/rapes/robberies/burglaries, how can I say this? Canada has strict gun laws and is lower than the UK and US. I mean that's all assuming you want to use these failed statistics of comparing violent crimes to gun crimes anyways.

[Priestiality]

The US is quite lenient when it comes to two guys fighting each other. You get two men, minor fight cops more often than not give them a slap on the wrist and send them away, whereas in the UK you get into a fight you are charged, doesn't mater the severity, and there lies the difference...

Even in Canada, bar fights if they aren't severe (No injuries sans bruises and cuts) the Police will take them in for causing a disturbance and release them when they are sober (Drunk in Public).

Unfortunately what people do not realize is that isn't the case with the UK, you're beating on someone and that's it you're being charged, hell even if it's self defense and you didn't use excessive force it's highly possible you will be charge for assault regardless.

With that said, gun control holds nothing over assaults/rapes/robberies/burglaries, how can I say this? Canada has strict gun laws and is lower than the UK and US. I mean that's all assuming you want to use these failed statistics of comparing violent crimes to gun crimes anyways.

Just so you know, what you call a "slap on the wrist" is basically the exact same thing they do in Canada. If they're drunk and disorderly, they're spending the night in jail. No exceptions. At least not where I'm at.

[Wildtree]

This page here shows that the ban had little to no effect on mass shootings. They existed before, during, and after the weapons ban. And while you argue that these particular types of firearms made it possible, very few of these mass shootings involved anything classed under the ban.

This source is widely accepted, and referred to, even by high ranked politicians.
It's the most accurate, and best maintained track record available. Was linked in other threads numerous times too already.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=1
If you jump to page 2:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=2

There's a neat timeline to see, and it's very easy to notice how the amount of said shootings increased up until now. The timeline is still missing the two shootings that happened after Sandy Hooks. Where also, and again formerly banned weapons have been used.
Would other weapons have less deadly force? No... Every gun can be used to kill someone. But the ease, is significantly different. And the time needed to kill a high amount of people is highly increased. It is a lot more precise to shoot at a target with a rifle, than it is with a hand gun. It takes a lot longer to shoot let's say 100 bullets with a pistol, than it is with a high capacity magazine used in semi-automatic rifles. Let alone the precision of the shots.

[rnbwtrout]

i hate to break it to you, but if you think you need the guns for checks and balances, because the democratic republican government could become something like a dictatorship

a) if that´s possible in your imagination, then you´d face the army, you know, the most expensive army in the world, you won´t stand a chance with your guns and you certaintly won´t start a revolution

b) if that´s possible and the army wouldn´t be on the dictators side, the dictatorship wouldn´t last very long, a few days maybe, so you wouldn´t need your guns

c) if it ain´t possible, you don´t need your guns

so in what scenario where your democratic republican government turns into a totalitarium or dictatorship would it be meaningfull for civilians to own guns?

don´t come with "but in history", yeah in history there were other kind of weapons, so that can´t translate

i can tell that you've never served in the army or seen any real combat, but to explain all the deep implications of an armed populace versus an unarmed populace would make no impact to someone like yourself. so i'll just ask you a simple question: what's easier to herd, a sheep or a lion? i bet i can outfit you in the best military gear we have and drop you in africa and you'll still wet your pants at the first pack of lions you see.

maybe if you think about that for more than a few seconds, you may be on your way to appreciating the reasons our forefathers included such rights in the constitution of our union and why that right is the first to be attacked by dictators and totalitarians.

[Priestiality]

This source is widely accepted, and referred to, even by high ranked politicians.
It's the most accurate, and best maintained track record available. Was linked in other threads numerous times too already.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=1
If you jump to page 2:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=2

There's a neat timeline to see, and it's very easy to notice how the amount of said shootings increased up until now. The timeline is still missing the two shootings that happened after Sandy Hooks. Where also, and again formerly banned weapons have been used.
Would other weapons have less deadly force? No... Every gun can be used to kill someone. But the ease, is significantly different. And the time needed to kill a high amount of people is highly increased. It is a lot more precise to shoot at a target with a rifle, than it is with a hand gun. It takes a lot longer to shoot let's say 100 bullets with a pistol, than it is with a high capacity magazine used in semi-automatic rifles. Let alone the precision of the shots.

Right cause MoJo totally ISN'T an obviously biased left-wing publication. I assume those "high ranked politicians" you're referring to are all democrats?

Also, notice all those names and pictures of shooters, and yet not one victim is named beside Gabby Giffords. Guns aren't the problem. The desire to "get famous and try to beat the high score" is the problem, or rather, the underlying mental illness behind that.

[N-7]

the conspiracy theory he holds so tight erases a lot of credibility, but im all for the freedom to own guns. do some research and you'll find that the first thing totalitarian or dictatorships do is to dis-arm the general population. it happens centuries after centuries, in countries from japan to the new world. whether you like it or not, gun ownership is part of the checks and balances, and has to remain as such, in our democratic republican government.

do we need further iteration/amendments on gun ownership? yes. do we need to do away with the general populaces' rights to arm themselves? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Even if every citizen owned a bazooka they won't stand a chance against a modern army that is out to get you.

[GreatOak]

They confirmed yesterday the guy who shot up that movie theater fired off 57 shots in 27 seconds. I just want to call absolute bullshit on what you just said right there. One can hope someone you know is facing down the barrell of a automatic weapon before you change that high and mighty opinion.

No chance the founding fathers had automatic weapons in mind when they made the 2nd amendment and people know this. Only way to change peoples minds is for someone to do an act so horrid and ghastly and post photos, so that America can see it.

That is why nothing is change. We have heard about the movie shooting or heard about the school shooting. Post the photos and watch how fast people come to realize that automatic weapons should be banned. Families in Colorado or Newtown can keep dreaming because everything politicians are saying about gun control is bullshit and we all know nothing will get done.

Just hope when it happens again and it will over and over and over that it is not in my area.

Lol, read the federalist papers and jeffersons letters, and get out of here with that weak sauce.

You're fucking clueless

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[RickJamesLich]

i can tell that you've never served in the army or seen any real combat, but to explain all the deep implications of an armed populace versus an unarmed populace would make no impact to someone like yourself. so i'll just ask you a simple question: what's easier to herd, a sheep or a lion? i bet i can outfit you in the best military gear we have and drop you in africa and you'll still wet your pants at the first pack of lions you see.

maybe if you think about that for more than a few seconds, you may be on your way to appreciating the reasons our forefathers included such rights in the constitution of our union and why that right is the first to be attacked by dictators and totalitarians.

I will say, regardless herding sheeps or lions, if you have a major grievance with the government, heading to city hall with your gun probably won't solve your problem and will likely lead to you being killed. It's a very different day and age then when our forefathers wrote the constitution, one of the brilliant things about the constitution is that they allowed it to be flexible and changable over time.

[GreatOak]

That's called "Cherry picking definitions" I'm afraid. First world Countries are based on more than just their economy, standard of living would show Brazil isn't a First World Country.

There are far more things that play a role in Brazil's crime rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRjxEAWwagc

[rnbwtrout]

Even if every citizen owned a bazooka they won't stand a chance against a modern army that is out to get you.

im not gonna argue that better weapons and equipment gives you a huge advantage in war, cause it does. but i can name you wars where countries that had better weapons and equipment lost. however, that's a topic for a separate thread.

refer to my reply to mayhem above, its not just about numbers.

[Mayhem]

i can tell that you've never served in the army or seen any real combat, but to explain all the deep implications of an armed populace versus an unarmed populace would make no impact to someone like yourself. so i'll just ask you a simple question: what's easier to herd, a sheep or a lion? i bet i can outfit you in the best military gear we have and drop you in africa and you'll still wet your pants at the first pack of lions you see.

maybe if you think about that for more than a few seconds, you may be on your way to appreciating the reasons our forefathers included such rights in the constitution of our union and why that right is the first to be attacked by dictators and totalitarians.

i´m not american

[Deleted]

angry fat man is fat and angry

worrying thing is people like this can pop down to their local supermarket and purchase an assault rifle

[Deleted]

This source is widely accepted, and referred to, even by high ranked politicians.
It's the most accurate, and best maintained track record available. Was linked in other threads numerous times too already.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=1
If you jump to page 2:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=2

There's a neat timeline to see, and it's very easy to notice how the amount of said shootings increased up until now. The timeline is still missing the two shootings that happened after Sandy Hooks. Where also, and again formerly banned weapons have been used.
Would other weapons have less deadly force? No... Every gun can be used to kill someone. But the ease, is significantly different. And the time needed to kill a high amount of people is highly increased. It is a lot more precise to shoot at a target with a rifle, than it is with a hand gun. It takes a lot longer to shoot let's say 100 bullets with a pistol, than it is with a high capacity magazine used in semi-automatic rifles. Let alone the precision of the shots.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Motherjones is a notoriously left-wing site, it's even more biased to the left than Fox News is to the right. It's like saying Hannity is a widely accepted and referred to source. Yeah, maybe by right-wing politicians, but no one serious.

[Wildtree]

i hate to break it to you, but if you think you need the guns for checks and balances, because the democratic republican government could become something like a dictatorship

a) if that´s possible in your imagination, then you´d face the army, you know, the most expensive army in the world, you won´t stand a chance with your guns and you certaintly won´t start a revolution

b) if that´s possible and the army wouldn´t be on the dictators side, the dictatorship wouldn´t last very long, a few days maybe, so you wouldn´t need your guns

c) if it ain´t possible, you don´t need your guns

so in what scenario where your democratic republican government turns into a totalitarium or dictatorship would it be meaningfull for civilians to own guns?

don´t come with "but in history", yeah in history there were other kind of weapons, so that can´t translate

Yeah, I think the same..
Actually I go further than that.....
How can anyone want to live under circumstances where one basically HAS TO HAVE firearms, just to feel save?
I am not saying that this isn't the case. In fact, for the most part, and for most people I know in the USA, no one has a weapon and feels like they have to have one.
And through my work, I know a lot of people, and talk to a lot of people. Some of them would have rather valid points, because there's actually something to get, in case of a break in. In fact.... many really rich people show a lot less paranoia.....
Here is a prime example.... I've been at that house... One could literally walk right into it, without anyone to stop you.
Yet one would think, that if it was possible to enter, one would immediately be confronted by some armed security guard, let alone if it was even possible to set foot onto the property at all......

Warren Buffet's residence, where he lives, in Omaha, Nebraska.
There are shootings in Omaha almost every day. People die there pretty much every week..... Yet, apparently the situation is long not how those who claim that guns are NEEDED to defend their own keep. Sorry, but if one of the three richest men on earth doesn't need high precaution, almost everyone else definitely doesn't need it either.
And I bet my ass there's more to steal in that house than many people, who are paranoid about how vulnerable they would be without high volume fire power, earn in their lifetime.

I think that this paranoia is but a fake argument. The government of the USA shows zero signs of being anywhere near totalitarian tendency. Hell, it's not even capable to decide on anything of much smaller scale. The country is divided pretty much exactly in half, regarding political powers. Any tyrannical regime would have to be able to claim a majority of at least 75+% approval rate of the population to be able to start such regime. That's how every tyranny started. Where ever else that wasn't the case, it was in a situation when the country was already in total disarray cause by former regimes.
With high approval, the numbers of resistance crumble. Then it would be that civilians who own guns will start pointing them at each other.
Why would someone who supports the tyrant, and voted them into power, suddenly turn their back on the tyrant?
Me first, then the others... Human nature... So, people would keep supporting, because life then is easier... Opposing the tyrant with force. Sure, possible. But the almighty force strikes hard then. Maybe not at the opposing fighter. But everyone has family.. Their lives will be living hell.

I believe that's a problem with lots of Americans. Due to the countries own short history, they have never really had to face and deal with such things at all.
They've had the war to become independent. A total different ball game. Yet the Brits shown afterwards how easy they could have retaken all the colonies, if they had any further interest.
They had the civil war. Yet even that shows where one gets when you refuse and try to fight the government.
After tens of thousands of casualties, the legitimate govt. prevailed.
Today, we have different times......
And I cannot see how it's worth living in a country where I have to claim that I need to be armed, to protect me from my government.
That's not how most people want to live. Natural desire is to live in peace and safety. And the last threat to fear would be ones own government.

---------- Post added 2013-01-09 at 10:03 AM ----------

Are you fucking kidding me?

Motherjones is a notoriously left-wing site, it's even more biased to the left than Fox News is to the right. It's like saying Hannity is a widely accepted and referred to source. Yeah, maybe by right-wing politicians, but no one serious.

You don't seem to follow news thoroughly... And what does it matter on kept track? Did they fake weapons into the lists? Did they create incidents that didn't happen at all?

[Deleted]

I don't think that you know what first/second/third world country actually means...

Yes I do. The definitions vary however.

It can either be used to describe economic prosperity and technological development (strictly speaking this is the wrong use, but it's a very common use).

The other use is in regards to post WWII situation where countries were divided into first, second and third world depending on which side they took in the cold war. Third world countries were neutral/not-allied.

Brazil is not an economically prosperous nation, because you cannot measure prosperity as the aggregate wealth of a nation, but it must be measured on a per capita basis. Otherwise countries like China would be considered wealthier than Sweden, even though chinese citizens are ten times poorer than swedish citizens. Thus it cannot be considiered a first world nation on this basis.

Brazil was also not allied to either side during the cold war, making it a third world nation by this definition. Thus, Brazil isn't a first world nation by any definition.

[Mazar]

Alex did go overboard. But he's right, its just hard to listen to when someone rants like that.

Facts are facts though. Europes violent crimes rises while US vilent crime diminishes, yet the US are viewed as the "GUN toting radicals". I'll take lower violent crimes rates and keep our guns. You can't stop mental unstable pople from their actions.

Both of them are idiots.

[N-7]

im not gonna argue that better weapons and equipment gives you a huge advantage in war, cause it does. but i can name you wars where countries that had better weapons and equipment lost. however, that's a topic for a separate thread.

refer to my reply to mayhem above, its not just about numbers.

The question is compared to American government, the number one militaristic power there are only two things that could win you a war over it in it is own territory which are:
a. If the rest of the world decided that the citizens of America are more valuable than the government and decides to help the people defeat that government.
b. If the US army decides that it won't serve a tyrannical government and sides with the people.

If a time comes where the US governments turn to tyranny and none of a. and b. applies then I believe no amount of guns that the citizens may have would save the day.

[Mazar]

I believe no amount of guns that the citizens may have would save the day.

315 million people in the US, over 300 million registered legal guns in the US. You dont think there is enough?

[Priestiality]

315 million people in the US, over 300 million registered legal guns in the US. You dont think there is enough?

Hi, you got here late. Please go read the other 21 pages before you post.