Piers Morgan vs Alex Jones: Guns

[phil675]

Overthrowing a school = not cool. Gun laws are changing in the US. They will only go one way.

The UK evolved to outlaw guns progressively. The bill of rights meant that all protestants in England could be armed, initially this was a crossbow but later rifles and pistols as they were developed. This became law. As the colonization of new lands around the world occurred this law came with it. The US right to bear arms is the UK right to bear arms. Since then the law was changed in the UK to prevent the ownership of these weapons because of the crime they were causing. There were a lot of guns. The change to licensed guns happened. Further acts came into force to manage these guns and restrict them from access by children. Soon after WW2 automatic weapons were made illegal. Recently, in 1996 all pistols were made illegal after the Dunblane school massacre. Every single gun in the UK has to be licensed now and owning a gun is easily possible (not pistol or assault rifle) through a license. As a result the UK has the lowest rate of gun murders in the world. These changes were driven by public attitude.

I would estimate that if you were to plot the percentage of gun owners in the US and UK over time, the US would have tons more. As has been said, gun culture in ingrained into the way of life in some areas in America.

When the handgun ban here went through, most people probably didn't care or agreed that it was a good thing because they have no interest in guns and have probably never seen one. The US is completely different, in some places everyone owns a few guns and has done for decades. Threatening to take their birthright away over a few unrelated incidents is simply unacceptable to them.

The reason there is such a divide on this is because of the difference of attitudes and laws regarding guns across the different states. The key here is states. States decide the regulations on firearms except for fully automatic weapons and the like which require federal licensing. The feds shouldn't be the ones proposing a blanket ban on certain firearms when the states very so wildly in gun culture. If you don't like gun laws in your state, move to another one. That's the idea of having a /union/ of states, the republic of America is being eroded and this is a stepping stone towards complete federalisation of America, which a lot of people are opposed to. It's what the civil war was partly about.

I agree that you shouldn't just give out guns to everyone, but the new proposed ban is a death sentence to the firearms industry. If you were to completely remove guns from legal owners, you open up a huge gap for criminals, who will always be armed even if you ban weapons, to step in. The people lose out.

It's also worth mentioning that 13 'mass shootings' occurred in the United States last year and most of them weren't reported in wide media because it wasn't white school children getting shot. Incidents where a bystander ends the gunmans spree with a legal weapon are not reported because this doesn't support the anti-gun agenda being pushed by various groups.

 

[bitslice]

...

yep, see earlier edit

 

[kwerk]

Why are Americans so protective of constitutional clauses, to the point that they think they are set in stone... when:

"21st Amendment: Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment and prohibits violations of state laws regarding alcohol."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

17 amendments in 230 years. 2 of them canceled each other so more like 15 in 230 years. Hardly a fluid document. The first 10 were tacked on right after it was drawn up so dont really count.

 

[bitslice]

Why are Americans so protective of constitutional clauses, to the point that they think they are set in stone... when:

"21st Amendment: Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment and prohibits violations of state laws regarding alcohol."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

This was something the people were in favour of though and it isn't taking away a right, it is giving one back, banning guns is not something the majority of people are in favour of as they see it as a right.
No point in an amendment if everyone ignored it.

 

[delta0]

I would estimate that if you were to plot the percentage of gun owners in the US and UK over time, the US would have tons more. As has been said, gun culture in ingrained into the way of life in some areas in America.

When the handgun ban here went through, most people probably didn't care or agreed that it was a good thing because they have no interest in guns and have probably never seen one. The US is completely different, in some places everyone owns a few guns and has done for decades. Threatening to take their birthright away over a few unrelated incidents is simply unacceptable to them.

The reason there is such a divide on this is because of the difference of attitudes and laws regarding guns across the different states. The key here is states. States decide the regulations on firearms except for fully automatic weapons and the like which require federal licensing. The feds shouldn't be the ones proposing a blanket ban on certain firearms when the states very so wildly in gun culture. If you don't like gun laws in your state, move to another one. That's the idea of having a /union/ of states, the republic of America is being eroded and this is a stepping stone towards complete federalisation of America, which a lot of people are opposed to. It's what the civil war was partly about.

I agree that you shouldn't just give out guns to everyone, but the new proposed ban is a death sentence to the firearms industry. If you were to completely remove guns from legal owners, you open up a huge gap for criminals, who will always be armed even if you ban weapons, to step in. The people lose out.

It's also worth mentioning that 13 'mass shootings' occurred in the United States last year and most of them weren't reported in wide media because it wasn't white school children getting shot. Incidents where a bystander ends the gunmans spree with a legal weapon are not reported because this doesn't support the anti-gun agenda being pushed by various groups.

As a percentage the amount of guns in the US has fallen dramatically. In the UK every man was armed because they were fighting or had come back from war. They had rifles and pistols. Percentage wise it was near 100%. Far in excess of anything in the US. However those were the days of the empire. Now things are more relaxed and the commonwealth is a different setup with it independence from government but not monarch.

 

[arekgreenman888]

Shame he didn't do us all a favour and shoot Morgan.

Looks like Alex is a gentlemen and offered to take it in to a ring with gloves all proper. But coward Pierce chickens out.

 

[kwerk]

The difference is guns in the UK are (or were) a hobby. Guns in America are a religion. It's the linchpin that holds together the entire culture. The escape clause that backs up all the other freedoms.

Remember the only reason Europe is "free" today and not under the thumb of the Gestapo/Stasi/KGB is because of Americans. Except there's nobody who can come and bail out America if things ever went sour, except the American citizens themselves.

 

[delta0]

The difference is guns in the UK are (or were) a hobby. Guns in America are a religion. It's the linchpin that holds together the entire culture. The escape clause that backs up all the other freedoms.

Remember the only reason Europe is "free" today and not under the thumb of the Nazis/Stasi/KGB is because of Americans. Except there's nobody who can come and bail out America if things ever went sour, except the American citizens themselves.

The Russians were in Berlin far before anyone else. However even the US could have only made a minor dent. It was a combined effort and no one was going to say no to help were they?

 

[Robbo]

The difference is guns in the UK are (or were) a hobby. Guns in America are a religion. It's the linchpin that holds together the entire culture. The escape clause that backs up all the other freedoms.

Your entire culture is held together by guns?! No it isn't.

Remember the only reason Europe is "free" today and not under the thumb of the Gestapo/Stasi/KGB is because of Americans.

That has less than nothing to do with civilians being armed.

Except there's nobody who can come and bail out America if things ever went sour, except the American citizens themselves.

Yes, I'm sure all the hillbillies with their shotguns would be a real match for an actual army, with air support and chemical/nuclear weapons, etc. What nonsense. They might as well be holding twigs.

 

[PMKeates]

Where have you been?

The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.8 firearms per 100 people

(edit: technically about 50% of households have at least one gun, which makes your point almost right but somewhat misleading I feel)

and I think some 74% were in favour of keeping them

I posted that really quite intentionally knowing that someone who has been fed a statistic without really understanding it would jump up. Unfortunately you bit

The reality is the claim that 'most Americans do not own a gun' is actually far, far more reflective of the reality of the situation and far less misleading than the 88.8/100 statistic, which is at best double if not triple the real rate (studies are inconclusive). If most (you quote 50%, everything I've said suggests slightly lower which grants me the use of 'most' ) households (the household includes anything on a property, as well as cars and trucks) do not have a gun, then we are looking at something much closer to those who would really consider themselves 'gun owners'.

The 88.8/100 statistic is just a very crude number crunch that seems to prove that the average gun ownership rate is between about 2 and 3 guns per household that has guns, rather than say anything about Americans that have guns.

 

[phil675]

Yes, I'm sure all the hillbillies with their shotguns would be a real match for an actual army, with air support and chemical/nuclear weapons, etc. What nonsense. They might as well be holding twigs.

It's still an effective deterrent, its why all of history's great dictatorships took guns from civilians before they stepped things up into genocide.

 

[Robbo]

It's still an effective deterrent, its why all of history's great dictatorships took guns from civilians before they stepped things up into genocide.

I don't think it is. It may have been more of a deterrent a long time ago, but not now.

That isn't the reason people have/want guns, anyway.

 

[PMKeates]

It's still an effective deterrent, its why all of history's great dictatorships took guns from civilians before they stepped things up into genocide.

How many of those dictators ruled over very civilised societies and already held an enormous military technology advantage over their populations?

As said, when you slice the minority of Americans that have any guns to those who have serious weapons and are ready and willing to go out and fight the government, you are left with a very small group that would be completely overwhelmed by the technology of the military. The only hope would be an internal military coup by pro-gun people.

 

[bitslice]

If most (you quote 50%, everything I've said suggests slightly lower which grants me the use of 'most' ) households

Last figure I have is 2011, 47% and rising so you win

I was saved by my edit when I realised what 88 actually meant

However I'm assuming that a lot of gun ownership isn't being tracked (private sales, grandfathered, illegal), so who knows what the real figure is.

I've nothing for demographics either but I suspect almost nobody in a city has one, suburban ownership would be influenced by local crime rate and everyone in the countryside will have 10 shotguns each?
Unfortunately people in cities have an undue influence over political decisions and there is a definite liberal media bias on this issue.

 

[phil675]

I'm not saying its the main reason people own guns, but it is a deterrent for the government using force against the people. Being able to push people around with no risk of retaliation is ideal for a government. An armed populace holds the governments power back. The people who wrote the constitution knew this because it happened to them, that's why the 2nd amendment exists.

Kind of like how the mass shooters tend to off themselves as soon as someone actually confronts them. They go to these places advertised as 'gun free zones' (there are literally signs on the sandy hook gates saying this) because they know for a fact that the people in that school will not be able to use equal force against them. As soon as the police show up they kill themselves.

There was actually a random shooting in a US shopping mall recently where someone was injured, a bystander pulled a gun on him and he just ran off into a corner and killed himself.

It's also worth noting that the first gun restriction laws in America came about because black slaves started arming themselves when it was perfectly legal for them to own one.

 

[PMKeates]

Last figure I have is 2011, 47% and rising so you win

I was saved by my edit when I realised what 88 actually meant

However I'm assuming that a lot of gun ownership isn't being tracked (private sales, grandfathered, illegal), so who knows what the real figure is.

I've nothing for demographics either but I suspect almost nobody in a city has one, suburban ownership would be influenced by local crime rate and everyone in the countryside will have 10 shotguns each?
Unfortunately people in cities have an undue influence over political decisions and there is a definite liberal media bias on this issue.

The statistics that are quoting the numbers in the range of 47% are including more than those officially tracked. Take a look at this more pessimistic/optimistic (depends on your point of view!) report: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/26/One-third-of-US-households-own-guns/UPI-46991303850331/ (take a look at the end - some interesting reasons for the decline)

I think your summary, demographically, is probably pretty accurate.

 

[kwerk]

There's no decline in guns, nearly every year there is an increase of background checks (i.e. dealer sales). Nearly all of them will be brand new guns since private used sales dont have a check. Last year was the highest ever with nearly 20 million. Each background check means there was at least 1 sold, many of them will be 3 or 4 sold at once.

 

[kwerk]

I don't think it is. It may have been more of a deterrent a long time ago, but not now.

um why do you think hillary clinton has EIGHTY agents with M4s protecting her at all time. How many agents does William Hague have?

if it wasn't a deterrent they would have taken them already!

edit: i suppose william hague would be her UK counter part.

 

[PMKeates]

There's no decline in guns, nearly every year there is an increase of background checks (i.e. dealer sales). Nearly all of them will be brand new guns since private used sales dont have a check. Last year was the highest ever with nearly 20 million. Each background check means there was at least 1 sold, many of them will be 3 or 4 sold at once.

These figures offer no information about the number of American who own guns. This is like saying that because 20 tons (40mn good lines) of cocaine were imported in to the UK during 2012, 40mn people snorted coke.

 

[Robbo]

um why do you think hillary clinton has EIGHTY agents with M4s protecting her at all time. How many agents does Teresa May have?

if it wasn't a deterrent they would have taken them already!

Are you for real?