who destroyed Piers Morgan? has he done another interview I've missed? because the one I saw had an ignorant and reactionary pillock making himself look foolish by thinking that being loud, rude, and comming over as slightly unhinged is how you conduct a debate....
In his very person he was an arguement for very strict gun control as any rational person would never trust that nutter with a sharp knife, let alone a gun.
IF I TYPE ALL IN CAPS IS MY ARGUEMENT MORE VALID? no so why do you think shouting makes an arguement stronger?Incidentally I dont actually like Piers Morgan, but he came across as pretty rational and had a good point.
There is no reason for a person to own a gun in modern society unless they live in the middle of nowhere and have to deal with dangerous animals.
The only reason you own a gun is to kill someone. They have no other purpose. The real question is how Americans (and lets be fair some other countries) have let their society degenerate to a state where normally rational people live in so much fear and perceive crime to be so prevalent that they actually think its reasonable to require a deadly weapon to feel safe?
I live in the UK and the idea of needing a gun is absurd, because my society is generally safe, and I feel safe, I dont ever need to assume anyone else has a gun.
The idea that the 2nd amendment allows gun ownership is bordering on the absurd, its says as part of a militia and not unrestricted, and lets face it, it was written when personal weapons may have helped defend the country, in an age of missiles, planes, nukes and armoured vehicles, do you really think your gun is going to help? really?
In a society where people can seriously suggest teachers carry weapons to protect themselves and students from other students....I think any sane person would agree that gun control is needed, badly.
I see it as..
one side - we don't see a "good" reason for theses items "assault weapons"... ban them and we somehow become magically safer.
other side - banning "assault weapons" will do nothing to prevent mass killings or keep weapons out of the hands of people who are more likely to kill.
The debate is focusing on the easy feel good we did something solution. It has nothing to do with actually solving any issue other than getting reelected and i did something.
Clamping down on some types of weapons will only force the people determined to carry out theses attacks to get creative with the weapons used: chain saw, tomahawk.
Just an assumption... You don't know if that's a fact. The bigger criminals already probably get their weapons through the illegal circuit. Also, preventing assault weapons will not stop everyone, but I think it will prevent the shootings by people like the colorado shooter. You shouldn't be needing a gun, let alone an assault rifle as an ordinary citizen anyways.
Last edited by Condemner; 2013-01-14 at 03:28 PM.
Call me stupid all you want but what would I, a normal citizen, need an assault rifle for anyway?
In fact, what would I need ANY gun for? I'm not a hunter, policeman or soldier, so I actually see absolutely NO point in me owning any kind of gun but an old replica to hang up on the wall.
Let's say guns were banned: What would be the impact on murderers? They'd find other weapons, sure, but no weapon is as effective as a gun (let's leave explosives out). Murder will still happen, but less, just because it's harder to kill someone with a melee weapon, as it requires a certain amount of force in your arms. It's also not as easy to kill groups of people with an ordinary knife compared to a gun that holds 30 bullets or more and fires 40 in a minute.
That and think of this: Would you rather shoot someone or stab someone.
A ban on assault weapons would just be the first step, if you manage to get something like that through later you could more easily convince people that a ban on all weapons in some states are the best thing, and then further down the road the entire country. Just like smoking, first it was only in crowded public areas or work spaces, and later it was pretty much a ban on all smoking everywhere.
You just need the first step inside the door.
The resistance to a heavier regulation on guns is hillarious. The only reason for people wanting to have them are utterly selfish and pointless. People are whining and crying like spoiled babies that want another sweetie.
I'm sorry if someone finds that offensive, but I really can't express it any other way.
You don't need guns, you need care and compassion. That's the stuff that stopped another shooting from happening, not more guns.
I strongly suggest you guys do some research before saying all mass shootings were done with assault weapons. The shooting at Virginia Tech, for example, was carried out with 2 semi-auto handguns. At Sandy Hook, a rifle was found in the shooter's car, but was never used.
For anyone that would really like to learn more, I suggest taking a look at http://www.assaultweapon.info/
This is a site that breaks down both what an assault weapon really is and why banning them would make a near-negligible difference in gun crime.
a bullet is a bullet, semi-auto handguns can be fired just as fast as semi-auto rifles, handguns generally use larger caliber rounds than rifles (.223 or .308 compared to 9mm which is .355, .40 or .45), and a handgun can be reloaded just as fast if not faster than a rifle....so all your points are pretty much null.
---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 10:59 AM ----------
why do anti-gun people always use projection as an excuse? "well i don't need a gun, what does anyone else need it for". Or the classic "i don't trust myself with a gun, why should i trust you"?
when fact of the matter is you probably walk past several people every day that have a gun on them and you have no idea...yet they have never shot you.
So tell me...how do all guns in the world magically vanish when a gun ban is initiated?
I'd also like to go through this. There are a lot of fallacies here. First, there is a difference between an assault RIFLE and an assault WEAPON. A true assault rifle is a fully-automatic rifle, such as an M-16. An assault weapon as defined by Congress is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a number of largely cosmetic features making them more "dangerous-looking". As for calibre, the most popular "assault weapon" sold in the US shoots a bullet approximately the same diameter as a .22LR. A handgun generally shoots a larger-calibre round than an AR-15, and take about the same amount of time to reload.
Anyone believing that handguns is going to prevent tyrancy is an idiot, thus the guy on the interview is an idiot. If Obama (or any other american president in power) wanted to become a tyrant all he has to do is step up and use bigger weapons (drones anyone?). They already do this in middle east to kill terrorists, their firearms are not exactly saving them from death eh?...
Oh and the constitution is not a "holy grail" either. It was written in times where the British were still considered the oppressors. The police were virtually non-existant in large areas across the United States, and the miltary/government and the public had access to the very similar arsenals, thus making "firearms" an effective way to prevent tyrancy. Needless to say 200 years after, the British are now considered "allies", the police covers most populated areas very effectively and arsenals are very different. The right to bear arms is VERY OUTDATED!
Last edited by mmocff76f9a79b; 2013-01-14 at 04:20 PM.
Maybe we need a system whereby a guy can't park, walk 50m to the school, enter unbidden, then wander around shooting people with a rifle in plain view?
How many "school destructions" have there been? Virginia Tech was a couple handguns, Jonesboro was two kids with hunting rifles on a hill outside the school, and now Newtown. Have their been more since Jonesboro in 98 that I missed?
The point in trying to ban (or at least heavily restrict) the more military-style weapons and larger magazines is NOT to stop most of the 200+ gun killings every day. The point is to try to increase public safety, and the lowest-hanging fruit where you are most likely to get a wide consensus of agreement is banning weapons that can cause such mass carnage and with little or no actual civilian need to have these weapons at all.
Other measures are being discussed that could help deal with other parts of the problem. Mandatory background checks, gun registration and sharing databases, mental health treatment issues, the consideration of violent media in our society, and so on.
Firearms are simply equalizers. They normalize force between opposing parties in a violent confrontation. Two men with clubs or knives squaring off will favor the more physically powerful of the two. But most criminals only prey on people who they know they have a distinct advantage over, so they do things like target the elderly, women and children. What a firearm is capable of doing is elevating the would be victim to a level to either match or surpass the physical advantage of a would be attacker. Its something that a criminal has to account for. Its an additional risk they have to consider and serves as a deterrent against crime in general. You don't have to own or carry a firearm to gain the benefit of an armed society because it creates a 'what if' scenario for criminals that protects all of us. If you eliminate that 'what if' consideration, you may in fact see fewer murders, but violent assaults, rapes, kidnappings and home invasions will all go up. A murder victim is not the only kind of victim that we should be worried about. My own family members were victims of 2 home invasions over 3 years before they were able to move away from their house just outside of Baltimore where they had lived their entire lives. My uncle was beaten and they were robbed of not just their possessions, but of their security and well being. Does their plight not matter? Are we OK with more of those crimes and worse just because the victim lives? Are they not effected for the rest of their lives with the fall out of a major crime? Trying to justify any kind of restrictive firearm legislation by only pointing to murders is obtuse and insensitive argument that fails to grasp the entire scope of what these laws will actually do. They will create more and more victims who have to live the rest of their lives carrying serious trauma with them.
But what about "assault weapons"? Because the same principle of messing with the unknown applies as a societal mechanism to keep our so called representative government honest. The US government has proven in recent times that it is very capable and willing to break laws and skirt regulations to achieve its ends. The Patriot Act, the NDAA, Fast and Furious, domestic drone use and intelligence agencies monitoring the population without warrants are all bad laws and practices that must be challenged through our legal system. If our government gets to the point where it is so corrupt and controlled through cronies and corporate perversions that it is no longer possible for our system of laws to be upheld by the rule of the people through established checks and balances, then it may come to a battle of force rather than words. A population armed with weapons capable of military application is the only chance for the law to be upheld in the face of corruption.
Governments turn on their people. Its happened before and it will happen again. It may not be in the US, and it may not be in the near future, but when and if that time does come, the freedom to own firearms will be the #1 difference between those who will remain citizens and those who will become serfs.
There is no easy fix to this problem, unless viewed through the eyes of a politician or liberal media outlet.
When you apply common sense and critical thinking you would see that these "sensational" bans are not the solution.
I agree, it's time for some changes but the changes I have in mine are issues deep rooted into our society and will not be quick fixes.
if you want to see some really crazy shit check out this site
http://ssristories.com/
interesting article as well with some more of the drug info
http://www.naturalnews.com/038616_Jo...car_crash.html
assault guns are bad...theres a certain point where you reallly dont need a higher power assault weapon like that......
Ah - a fair question... Something quite lacking in the discussion to date. Here is your answer...Q: So why is this big talk about banning assault rifles, but not any other kind of gun?
Gun control zealots know quite well that mass murders are attention getting news stories. They also know quite well that over 95+% of all homicides are perpetrated by people using normal handguns and not assault weapons. What the zealots want though is a United Kingdom style ban on all guns. But they know that they can't get that right up front - so they are trying to go for these so-called assault weapons as a 'stepping stone'. They know that it doesn't decrease gun violence. They know it won't even accomplish their self-described goal of reducing mass shooting incidents. To them the long-game is simply to establish these stepping stone laws aimed towards the desired eventual 100% gun ban.A: It isn't about being the solution, it's about finding a stepping stone path to a solution.
Let's assume that an "assault rifle ban" passes. What will happen next? The zealots will cheer among themselves and go home... But they won't stay there. They will pull up a chair and wait... Like vultures... Then the next mass shooting will happen. The weapon? It'll be a pistol, or a shotgun, or some other weapon that wasn't in the ban. Then they will spin up the media outrage machine again and say "The assault weapon law wasn't enough!" Enter the next stepping stone... They'll go for semi-automatic pistols, or whatever. Lather, rinse, repeat until the goal is achieved - the full repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Now - Piers Morgan says "I don't want to ban all guns..." Let's take him at face value and say that's true. Now - that may be the case for HIM, but it that true for ALL of the gun-law advocates? Most assuredly not. In the past 4 weeks we have seen that there are lawmakers pushing for total gun bans in Maryland, in Chicago, in New York, and several other places. We've seen that there are people in Washington who don't just want "assault gun bans" but want to ban all guns. They're only saying it in word, or for the cameras for now. But they are like vultures. They circle and wait, and seek to advance what they said in "word" today in LAW tomorrow. So while there may be some people out there who are reasonable and only want to restrict/limit the laws to so-called 'assault rifles' (though they can't seem to even define THAT), there are others who want far more than that and they are not going away. To them an assault ban is just stage one.
I can't help but notice that these flare-ups in the "gun law" issue only happen when there is a significant gun event that has captured wide-spread media attention. Those same people don't care jack-squat about the 9,000+ other people killed by a pistol in 2012. But they sure as shootin' miraculously start to "care" when a thing like Sandy Hook happens because that's the story that gets them the attention they want. The guy was 100% right. They stand on the graves of victims, and when there isn't a big 'gun story' in the news they circle around like vultures waiting for one to happen. Sick, sick puppies.