Gun control. Piers Morgan v Alex Jones.

[OkToBeTakei]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -dailymail

No fan of Piers really. But that other guy is hilarious. Wait he is not actually serious is he? Yes ..I know he is, it's pretty bad when somebody can make Piers look that good.

[TheSassyOne]

The irony is most fundies will probably agree with him, yet do they realize Jones' claim to fame was insisting that the evil government (at that time the W. Bush administration) was behind the 9-11 attacks. I know they hate government, except when a Republican is in charge. :roll:

[JesusFightClub]

Why have Alex Jones on the show? He is famed for being nuttier than a squirrel's nutsack.

The comments are comedy gold, as so often in the Mail. Apparently elderly people are never beaten up in the US, because they can all shoot. OIC :roll:

[freejoytoo]

If something makes Piers Morgan sound sane you know you're in trouble.

[debrand]

Throughout the exchange, Morgan attempted to foster a debate about gun control, beginning with the fact that the United States counted more than 11,000 gun murders last year while Britain had only 35.

What? Forget the argument between these two men. Is this fact true? Were there only 35 gun murders in Britain last year?

[rosamundi]

What? Forget the argument between these two men. Is this fact true? Were there only 35 gun murders in Britain last year?

About that. I'm looking for statistics, but we generally have between 30 and 80 gun murders per year.

[Artemis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

This is the list I'm looking at.

As a comparison, in 2011, in England and Wales (not Scotland):

6.6% of homicides were by firearm: 41 homicides.

The percentage of gun homicides per 100,000 people was 0.07.

The UK ranks 88th in the rate of ownership.

There's an average of 6.2 guns per 100 people

The approx. total of all civilian firearms is 3,400,000.

In the USA

60% of homicides were by firearm: 9,146 homicides.

The percentage of gun homicides per 100,000 people was 2.97

The USA ranks 1st in the rate of ownership

There's an average of 88.8 guns per 100 people

The approx. total of all civilian firearms is 270,000,000.

The USA has less than 5% of the world's population, but is home to more than 35% of the world's civilian-owned guns.

The number 2 gun owning country, Yemen, has 54.8 guns per 100 people. Firearm homicides aren't recorded.

Switzerland is the number 3 gun owning country, with 45.7 out of 100 people owning a firearm. In 2011, 72.2% of its homicides were firearm related, but this is still only 57 homicides in total. (This is 0.77 homicides per 100,000 people.)

[OkToBeTakei]

Yet still the gun nuts cannot see the wood for the trees.

I really will never understand it.

The Switzerland statistic is really interesting.

[Artemis]

Yes, I think the Switzerland statistic is really interesting. I'm not a statistician, and am open to correction on this, but what it says to me is:

that Switzerland has a relatively (relative to other countries) high percentage of gun ownership

that it has a relatively low homicide rate as a percentage of population

but that of those homicides a very high percentage are gun-related.

That could argue that

where gun ownership is high

even if the homicide rate is low

a statistically high percentage of those homicides will be gun related.

Which means that: guns don't kill people

people don't necessarily kill people

but people with guns kill people.

[JaChelle Sugar]

UGH. so sick of the gun debate. my fb feed is jammed full of conservatives shouting about freedom=guns=safety and how we should arm teachers. Why do they care so much more about giving people guns to shoot back at the shooter, instead of making mental healthcare easier to obtain to prevent shootings from happening in the first place? and then conveniently forgetting that the money it would cost to arm/train teachers, could go to make healthcare affordable instead. (not that my economics grasp is strong but theirs isn't either)

one fundy friend who thinks freedom=guns=safety, says what society needs isn't access to mental healthcare but fathers. Apparently lack of fathers is what's making these shooters snap? Mothers aren't good enough apparently, and an authority figure with the all-important magic penis will fix the chemical imbalance in a potential shooter's brain. Thank FSM for the 'hide' button.

Dammit it's hard being undecided in a town full of fundies/right-wingers.

[JenniferJuniper]

I can't take much of Morgan or his show, but Alex Jones is hilariously insane here. I don't see how Piers kept a straight face.

I've never personally known anyone who "saved his family" from an intruder or the government by having a gun in his or her home. When I was in junior high, a classmate of mine was accidentally shot and killed when his father was cleaning his gun. A few months ago, a friend of my 18 year old niece died in a similar manner when his brother accidentally shot him. In the late 1970's a teenaged friend of my cousin whom I'd met a few times was at home one New Year's Eve with his parents when three men invaded their home, looking to steal his father's extensive and expensive antique gun collection. His father signaled him to go for a gun in a nearby room. But before he could even raise the gun, one of the thieves shot the boy in the head and then proceeded to shoot and kill his parents. Would they have killed them if the son hadn't have gone for the gun? Maybe; then again, maybe not. But in the very rare chance your home is invaded by armed gunmen, you are at a disadvantage even if you have a gun strapped to your body. They're always going to be more ready for you than you are for them.

Here's the Second Amendment in it's entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, it seems pretty clear on its face that this isn't about "personal security" at all; it’s all about an armed militia. Secondly, it must be put in the context of its time. Having just fought a battle for independence from an empire, the new Americans wanted to make sure they could pull an army together if the need arose again. This intent was clarified during the Second Congress when the U.S. government enacted the Militia Acts, which mandated that all white males of military age obtain a musket, shot and other equipment for service in militias. They wanted to be prepared to resist aggression from other powers (British and European, maybe even Terrance and Philip in Canada), to confront Native American tribes, and to put down potential riots such as slave rebellions. Today there is zero need for all white males of military age to use muskets to accomplish any of these things, never mind the fact that individuals with guns aren't going to do any good against a modern nuclear enemy, no matter how many rounds those guns can shoot off.

Jones is all over the place here, but he seems to also be saying that individuals should have guns so they can rise up against their own government if it pisses them off. I tend to doubt the Founders were thinking along those lines in 1791, but again, even if they were, if the American government ever did decide to turn on its citizens, no amount of guys with semi-automatic weapons would be a match for it.

Honestly, I think these guys are all living in some sort of "Red Dawn" fantasy world. And they accuse progressives of being controlled by Hollywood...

[Austin]

The "we need arms so we can rise up against the government if need be" argument is so laughable. The government has sophisticated weapons and weapons systems and I'd like to see these idiots try to "stand up" to tanks and drones if it ever came to that. The whole argument is a paranoid wankfest.

[Alecto]

Alex Jones is a great argument FOR gun control. Who wants him to have a gun?

[Soldier of the One]

The thing I don't get about Alex Jones' rant (and his ideas) is the ineffectiveness of his proposition. (Also, ranting like that is not going to win converts to your cause, you've just publicized to the world what an ass you are).

Like others already mentioned: if the 2nd Amendment is about ensuring resistance against tyranny, then handguns and semi-automatic rifles are not the way forward. Any totalitarian army of highly specialized and trained soldiers can crush a rebellious population with handguns - unless, perhaps, there's a situation where the resistance can flee into rough territory (think of the FARC or Vietcong in the the jungle). But not in a post-industrialized, urban culture like the USA.

If Alex Jones had a real interest in encouraging people to resist tyranny, he'd be better off encouraging people to join unions, become politically involved and educate them about their civil liberties. History has shown that the revolutions with the greatest amount of success are those that are broadly-based across all of civil society, where there is ample ideological support (rather than facing off your army with your gun, it's more effective facing them off with your ideology!) and plenty of well-organized industrial action. Strikes, demonstrations, sit-ins, occupations. That's how resistance works. Not a bunch of 'Red Dawn' inspired kids with a gun.

Idiot.

[JesusFightClub]

YAY IT'S SOLDIER OF THE ONE! Where the fuck did you go? I missed you!

This is completely correct. Armed civilians can do bugger all against the forces of the State as individual actors (a mistake commonly made by numerous militant groups, and I think dissident republicans in Ireland make this mistake too). You can instil a campaign of fear if you want to plunk at the odd copper and utilise (poorly made) car bombs*. But that's as far as you can take it without any coherent backing, strategy or programme for winning over hearts and minds. You can scare people, but that will eventually be counterproductive.

*Incidentally, I'm a bit confused by this. The RIRA have some significant firepower and the CIRA aren't too shabby. There's been a lot of collaboration between dissidents and that seems to be on the rise, but at the same rate their success ratio seems to be going down. I'm thinking a shift in focus towards criminality (whether "preventing" or controlling it for their own gains) but I'm not seeing a clear line. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

[freejoytoo]

I seriously don't understand some of these people's thought processes. No one is acknowldedging that countries with tougher gun laws have lower gun crime statistics:

www.mormonmommywars.com/?p=2562

[Soldier of the One]

YAY IT'S SOLDIER OF THE ONE! Where the fuck did you go? I missed you!

This is completely correct. Armed civilians can do bugger all against the forces of the State as individual actors (a mistake commonly made by numerous militant groups, and I think dissident republicans in Ireland make this mistake too). You can instil a campaign of fear if you want to plunk at the odd copper and utilise (poorly made) car bombs*. But that's as far as you can take it without any coherent backing, strategy or programme for winning over hearts and minds. You can scare people, but that will eventually be counterproductive.

*Incidentally, I'm a bit confused by this. The RIRA have some significant firepower and the CIRA aren't too shabby. There's been a lot of collaboration between dissidents and that seems to be on the rise, but at the same rate their success ratio seems to be going down. I'm thinking a shift in focus towards criminality (whether "preventing" or controlling it for their own gains) but I'm not seeing a clear line. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

*Waves at JesusFightClub*

Oh, I just dropped off the map for a while. I'm more of an occasional poster, really :) Nice to see you again, have been thinking about you? Are you well?

Quite - I agree with your analysis, of course, and it's something that really bugs me about the 'Libertarian' crowd, a la Alex Jones. Do they really think they can face off the State? And unlimited gun access is a steep price to pay for a hypothetical totalitarian state. Meanwhile poor kids in poor areas are shooting each other (and themselves). What does 'freedom' mean if it comes at that price?

There are other ways to fight The System.

But I think there's another underlying factor here - gender. I don't see types like Alex Jones being the most enlightened when it comes to feminism or gender equality (or gay inclusion, for that matter). It all reeks too much of Angry White Male to me. Aaaaand that brings us almost full circle to our fundies. There are strange overlaps in the two movements.

[OkToBeTakei]

I seriously don't understand some of these people's thought processes. No one is acknowldedging that countries with tougher gun laws have lower gun crime statistics:

http://www.mormonmommywars.com/?p=2562

Precisely. It's like OH Yeah statistics blah blah. BUT OUR RIGHTS!!!!!

[marmalade]

Alex Jones is a great argument FOR gun control. Who wants him to have a gun?

The Queen of the Hive for the win! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Kitty]

If you're okay with random psychos bursting into schools and shooting innocent children, with people bringing guns to school and shooting their own classmates and teachers, with over 9,000 homicides by firearms per year, and thousands of people accidentally killing themselves and others with guns, all because you have this stupid, fucked up, ridiculous belief that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns to rise up against a government they don't like... You should not own a gun. Period. And I'll echo the statements previous posters have made about armed Average Joes and Janes being unable to defend themselves against armed soldiers, if for some reason a future United States president decided to commit political suicide by basically declaring war on the populace and managed to convince thousands to millions of people that this was a good idea.

That being said, I don't think making guns harder to get is the magical fix to everybody's problems. Something needs to be done about mental healthcare. And we really, really need to address our violence-saturated culture. I think that would go much further. Lanza and Holmes did not single- handedly cause all of 2012's gun deaths. There are more people out there who are not psychotic or even mentally ill at all causing those deaths.

[JenniferJuniper]

That being said, I don't think making guns harder to get is the magical fix to everybody's problems. Something needs to be done about mental healthcare. And we really, really need to address our violence-saturated culture. I think that would go much further. Lanza and Holmes did not single- handedly cause all of 2012's gun deaths. There are more people out there who are not psychotic or even mentally ill at all causing those deaths.

I don't think it's a completely magic fix, but for example, it is a massive pain in the ass to get even a basic gun license in Massachusetts, the state puts all kinds of restrictions and controls on gun sellers, and assault weapons are banned. (Thanks, Mitt Romney!) I don't think it's a coincidence that MA usually ranks as number 49 or 50 with regard to gun death rates in the country.

With that said, I agree that the pathetic state of mental health care in the US is something that must be addressed. Yet another reason why we are in dire need of a true Universal Health Care system in this country.

[OkToBeTakei]

I seriously give up.

Look at those statistics. Do none of those countries have Mental Health issues? We have many here. No guns easily though.

0.07% per 100,000 of population gun deaths UK. 2.97% of gun deaths USA. What part of that does not scream out?

[Kitty]

I don't think it's a completely magic fix, but for example, it is a massive pain in the ass to get even a basic gun license in Massachusetts, the state puts all kinds of restrictions and controls on gun sellers, and assault weapons are banned. (Thanks, Mitt Romney!) I don't think it's a coincidence that MA usually ranks as number 49 or 50 with regard to gun death rates in the country.

With that said, I agree that the pathetic state of mental health care in the US is something that must be addressed. Yet another reason why we are in dire need of a true Universal Health Care system in this country.

I say that because the US is awful at doing anything about illegal drugs, and government and police forces will likely have a very hard time of keeping illegal guns of the streets too. Sure, making a gun harder to get legally will go a ways to reduce gun violence by keeping the gun out of the hands of some paranoid or delusional nut job. But the top three black markets in the world are drugs, sex, and weapons. And Americans sure love their weapons...

I hope I'm wrong about all that. But yes, definitely, we need universal healthcare and I think the Newtown shootings are a good argument for cheap (preferably free) mental health care.

[Coconut Flan]

Universal healthcare won't stop the Gothards and other loons from trying to sell the line that mental healthcare is bogus or of the devil or that it can be prayed away. It has to be not only available but encouraged.

[JenniferJuniper]

Universal healthcare won't stop the Gothards and other loons from trying to sell the line that mental healthcare is bogus or of the devil or that it can be prayed away. It has to be not only available but encouraged.

Gothards aren't particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things.