Piers Morgan: murder is fine. Gun related murder is wrong...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by tdk84
The world has changed, more violently at that.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

That it has, which is why I support honest citizens having the means of self defense.

I dont quite agree its needed in the UK, but the US, yes they should be entitled, you have your traditions.

But don't you agree it should be harder to acquire, like I mentioned before the Japanese system is very good...

- Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.
- licensing procedure that requires a police background check, successful completion of a safety course, passing of shooting, written, and psychological tests, and police verification of secure storage, prior to approval being granted by the police to purchase a firearm.
- Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test.

I love how the congressman accuses the NRA of being mass-murder enablers with aggressive lobbying tactics. The lobbies and corruption that entrench the system are far more damaging & profound than what he asserts.

What about all the money involved in politics that gives enormous incentives to the war-monger crowd? They are the real mass-murder enablers. 20 children are killed in an isolated tragedy; in the midst of an armed nation with a gun-per-capita level that outranks any other country in the world by a long-shot. Outrage & intense debate ensues. Yet when hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent people are murdered overseas as a direct involvement of governmental agencies & a military under oath, nobody could give a rats ass.

This nationalistic nonsense --- where people only value the life of citizens, disregarding the existence of foreigners. It's utterly hypocritical. Illogical & apathetic. A diversion. The financial & political mafia are given a free pass because they're what "make the world turn." When making the world turn entails a psychopathic materialist agenda, surpassing any Orwellian nightmare, I'd rather discard of it. The way things are run now reek incomprehensibly.

Originally posted by sonnny1
The real problem is those wanting to commit MURDER will find a way to do it with ANY available tool in the shed.

now your making to much sense..

they do not want to hear that ..

Originally posted by tdk84

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by tdk84
The world has changed, more violently at that.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

That it has, which is why I support honest citizens having the means of self defense.

I dont quite agree its needed in the UK, but the US, yes they should be entitled, you have your traditions.

But don't you agree it should be harder to acquire, like I mentioned before the Japanese system is very good...

- Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.
- licensing procedure that requires a police background check, successful completion of a safety course, passing of shooting, written, and psychological tests, and police verification of secure storage, prior to approval being granted by the police to purchase a firearm.
- Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test.

Actually, I don't agree and I imagine we will end up agreeing to disagree on the subject, but here goes. Historically, in both out nations, when there was zero gun control, there was much less crime of all types. Therefore, the problem is not the object, but the person. In the US, the vast majority of violent crimes are done by recivitists who had commited violence before. Just addressing the problems in our judicial system would go much farther in reducing gun crime than disarming the people who are not the problem in the first place.

Secondly, from a civil rights aspect, I do not think it in keeping with the concept of individual liberty to ask permission of the state to exercise a civil liberty: be it free speech or firearm ownership. When society evolves to that point, continued evolution to a more totalitatian state will happen eventually.

The UK is a mess- I would love us to have more open gun laws, but we long through away the moral keys decades ago. Our crime rates would be incredible if it were not for CCTV, advanced DNA/forensics etc

Crime figures are massaged for the sake of "targets"


Sadly we are now a subservient people who look to the state to keep us safe and make us act "correctly", rather than looking to ourselves

You can learn NOTHING from us in the UK

Originally posted by tdk84

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by tdk84
The world has changed, more violently at that.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

That it has, which is why I support honest citizens having the means of self defense.

I dont quite agree its needed in the UK, but the US, yes they should be entitled, you have your traditions.

But don't you agree it should be harder to acquire, like I mentioned before the Japanese system is very good...

- Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.
- licensing procedure that requires a police background check, successful completion of a safety course, passing of shooting, written, and psychological tests, and police verification of secure storage, prior to approval being granted by the police to purchase a firearm.
- Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test.

Yeah that aint going to fly having the cops paying visits to American homes

That and can you imagine the costs/time being consumed paying visits to each and every gun owner in the U.S.? Might work in a country with a low gun owner population...What was Australia? 7% gun ownership before the bans? Its easier to control a population that low....

Agreed .....they need to put him on a sinking ship back to England or wherever he came from.....he has no rights to be objecting....hes an unwanted guest in this country....down with Piers Morgan

reply to post by Urantia1111

Agreed he may have a right to be here....though he has no right to attempt at change in our laws and hes been harping gun control non stop since Sandy Hook....he needs to go....and from what I hear they have quite a few petitions attempting to remove him from this country. He just dont know when to stop and move on.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Dude just called his facts lies (middle guy to the guy in grey suit). What world is he living in and PM won't even let anyone speak for crying out loud. I have to stop watching this #, it enrages me.

reply to post by tdk84


The scary part is he would not have a pulpit if there were no congregation. There are many like him too. It is more a sad testament to the lack of critical thinking of the viewing American public than anything that spills out of these douche bags' mouths.

Hes not completely off track here.

Guns are too easy! Go kill someone with a spoon! Or a rubber ducky. If you actually can kill someone using a rubber ducky I would think it was quite an accomplishment.

"Male Caucasian mid 30s found murdered with multiple spoon wounds - although around 385 spoon wounds were found on the victim's body making it the worse case of assault with a spoon in history, only 32 were actually considered lethal - police also implied that a rubber ducky was used in a vicious way for multiple concussions 13 may yet to be proven fatal. Forensics are now trying to determine if the killing blow was delivered by the spoon or the rubber ducky - more news at 11, 7 men killed and several injured with what it seems to be a chocolate bar."

That would be a title!

And it would give you an entry to a guiness record if you could make a "Random Name City spoon massacre - 138 killed by man armed with spoon takes the world by storm"

reply to post by gladtobehere


I couldn't finish watching....I got to the point where Piers was talking over his own guest and got sick of the screen play dramatics to drown out any opinion other than his own or those that reinforce his opinion.

Steve made a good point about the fact you cannot un-invent the gun and its here to stay and legislation to do so its an exercise in futility. Piers won't hear this and neither will the others. They are dead set focused with blinders on towards one objective...disarming the populace.

It matters to them not that the majority of gun owners are good people...it goes in one ear and out the other...to them anyone and everyone is a potential suspect that should be screened the second their born...

It matters to them not that the statistics and real life evidence of gun control DOES NOT CREATE THE WORLD THEY DESIRE....they want everywhere to be like Chicago and DC, Europe etc...and when you point their face at the fact that isn't solving the problem they glaze over that point as if they never heard it...

It matters to them not that all these shootings are happening in the types of environments THEY THEMSELVES lobbied for and got....gun free zones...

it matters to them not that since the 70's gun laws have increased dramatically and so have these "mass" shootings...they are blind to the futility of their senseless solutions that have absolutely NO basis for credibility.

in the end nothing matters to them other than their futile little effort to rid the world of guns...despite reality they steam on with their fingers in their ears yelling and screaming "BAN GUNS BAN GUNS"...its childish.

They lack problem solving skills. In their world banning stuff works even if it doesn't work...

There is no solution to crime people...every single one of you need to get that crap right out of your head...its not happening ever....ever...there is no utopia there is are rainbow crapping unicorns (except in Australia from what I hear) and the reality of the world you live in is that we are all mortal beings and are capable of killing and being killed an no Emperor, King, Social System, Government, Law, Legislation, or Rule will ever....EVER change that fact of reality.

So now that we have accepted our mortality like adults....maybe we can grab a pair and empower ourselves to take responsibility for our own lives and our families lives...

One huge step is SELF DEFENSE...handing over responsibility of your life to the government or anyone in uniform is not only LAZY but its irresponsible. It breeds weakness and dependence on strangers and this country from everything I have been told since I was born....isn't about being weak...and its sure as hell isn't about being dependent on ANYONE...

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Hes not completely off track here.

Guns are too easy! Go kill someone with a spoon! Or a rubber ducky. If you actually can kill someone using a rubber ducky I would think it was quite an accomplishment.

"Male Caucasian mid 30s found murdered with multiple spoon wounds - although around 385 spoon wounds were found on the victim's body making it the worse case of assault with a spoon in history, only 32 were actually considered lethal - police also implied that a rubber ducky was used in a vicious way for multiple concussions 13 may yet to be proven fatal. Forensics are now trying to determine if the killing blow was delivered by the spoon or the rubber ducky - more news at 11, 7 men killed and several injured with what it seems to be a chocolate bar."

That would be a title!

And it would give you an entry to a guiness record if you could make a "Random Name City spoon massacre - 138 killed by man armed with spoon takes the world by storm"

none of this addresses the fact you can't un-invent the gun...do you think laws and regulations can make guns disintegrate? And even if it reduced crime would you even notice? Do you think that banning guns will mean you won't ever hear of another Sandy Hook?

No one is denying that guns kill easily...people are merely denying that you can rid the world of them (especially people intent on killing) as well as good honest people...and somehow...this makes everyone more safe and capable of taking care of themselves....

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Actually, I don't agree and I imagine we will end up agreeing to disagree on the subject, but here goes. Historically, in both out nations, when there was zero gun control, there was much less crime of all types.

The world was a different place though. Mob mentality, friendlier, community etc

[Therefore, the problem is not the object, but the person. In the US, the vast majority of violent crimes are done by recivitists who had commited violence before. Just addressing the problems in our judicial system would go much farther in reducing gun crime than disarming the people who are not the problem in the first place.

I agree, this must be a problem world over. Soft policing as a result of overfilled prisons? Better education, services, activities etc

But have you not also contradicted yourself here? You have just agreed to stricter guns laws have you not?

Secondly, from a civil rights aspect, I do not think it in keeping with the concept of individual liberty to ask permission of the state to exercise a civil liberty: be it free speech or firearm ownership. When society evolves to that point, continued evolution to a more totalitatian state will happen eventually.

Its not so much to do with permission, but qualification. The mind boggles at the objection to fully train people the use of weapons. Almost every avenue of life involves tests, training and qualifications, even when joining the police and armed services users would have to go through stringent physical, safety and physiological testing.

Like I mentioned before its harder to pass a driving test then to get your hands on a gun.

As a lot of you pointed out the Japanese system is probably beyond your country due to the fact of expense and size. But surely a "guns schools" could be setup like a driving schools? privatising the action and reducing burden on the police/state.

Again I don't understand the objection to stricter gun laws, were not talking about disarming people, keep the guns, just make damn sure the people know how to use them, are checked and tested.


*edit*

I've been thinking about this more... why do people go to driving schools? Safety right? make sure they don't go around knocking people down, killing themselves and others, educating the rights and wrongs, drinking, servicing etc. This is a device built for transport.

Then on the other hand you have guns, built as a weapon, and how can you get one....

Originally posted by tdk84
I've been thinking about this more... why do people go to driving schools? Safety right? make sure they don't go around knocking people down, killing themselves and others, educating the rights and wrongs, drinking, servicing etc. This is a device built for transport.

Then on the other hand you have guns, built as a weapon, and how can you get one....

edit on 4-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

But Driving schools/tests doesnt really stop bad drivers though. You still have people that drive drunk,too fast, run lights etc etc.

Luckly for me I have a father that taught me to respect guns. He taught me how to shoot and how to be safe with them. I remember when he trapped a fox that was killing our chickens and made me watch as he shot it.He made sure I realized that if used incorrectly, it could result in death.

If they had a test for us to take before we could buy a gun, how would it go? Would it be a 1 time test? Or do I need to pay visits every so often and pay fees like I do at the DMV to contunie driving? I wouldnt want to go through the hassle....Its my 2nd amendment right anyways... I shouldnt need to jump through hoops endlessly to continue to own one


*EDIT*

Im not 100% against the idea of some sort of training class...I just dont want it to be a hassle for the rest of my life

reply to post by tdk84


I don't see where I agreed to any sort of increased gun laws, so you may have to spell it out for me.

When you get a license signed by an authority, it is permission. Qualifications would not involved getting permission for every object you own. You don't get a driver's license every time you purchase a car.

As for driver's licenses, in the US you only need a DL, registration, car insurance if you drive on public roads. Although not practical for most, I know many farmers who have unlicensed trucks that they only use to do chores on the farm. I'd have no problem treating guns like cars because it would mean I could own and use guns on private property without background checks or registration or fees or purchase permission but if I had a license, I could carry one in public in every state of the union. It would actually be an improvement.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Just to add a bit of balance to the claim that Britain has more violent crime than South Africa, the USA and is one of the most violent places in the EU.

Firstly, the way crime is reported and recorded in the UK is completely different to every other country on earth.

Say a group of young lads have a fight outside a pub where no one is really hurt but the police are called. 10 people get arrested and are charged with a number of different offences, each one of those arrested may be recorded multiple times in each of the trials or crime reports.

So instead of it being one instance of a violent crime it can be recorded as up to 20 or 30 violent crimes if each person has done more than 1 thing. One incident is 30 violent crimes, a mental way to keep track of what is really happening.

Also, things such as affray (throwing a snowball at a parked car with someone sat inside it could fall under this) is recorded as a violent crime in the uk.

Just thought I'd add a bit of balance to these absurd claims that a lack of guns has turned britain into some type of mad max style waste land with feral youths smashing people through phone boxes for simply walking past them at the wrong time of day.

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
The UK is a mess- I would love us to have more open gun laws, but we long through away the moral keys decades ago. Our crime rates would be incredible if it were not for CCTV, advanced DNA/forensics etc

Crime figures are massaged for the sake of "targets"


Sadly we are now a subservient people who look to the state to keep us safe and make us act "correctly", rather than looking to ourselves

You can learn NOTHING from us in the UK

Have you ever been to a third world country? We are dam lucky to be in the UK.
Remember we voted our government in and yes I'm happy If they do their job and help keep us safe.
State? swap that for society, we all have to live with each other and need rules to keep everyone safe.
CCTV? most CCTV is in the hands of private people, and I'm glad we have advanced DNA testing etc.

reply to post by gladtobehere


While I'm against the disarmament of civilians to empower and secure national governances and refute the idea that weapons are a security problem that is insulated from the need to have a better educated and civil society. To me it is simple all weapons would cease to have any importance in all hands not only civilians but in governmental agencies as well any shift of balance is a loss of power to the side of the social structure that relinquishes it.

Having said that I also do not see any logic in defending that gun control will not curb civilian deaths by other civilians, guns after all are optimized weapons in contrast to other less technological advanced tools. Then there is the question that removing guns does not in fact disarm civilians it only moves the capacity of creating the weapons to those in upper strata of society that will have the know how and resources to create them (or buy them in the black market) and escape government control.

We can even examine examples of failed attempts to execute gun control, look at Brazil it has not worked there. The problem we should address is uplifting society in general, a fairer and pacified society will have less chances to use guns to commit unlawful murders.

This has many parallelisms to the nuclear arms race and the logic behind nuclear proliferation.

reply to post by NavyDoc

I don't see where I agreed to any sort of increased gun laws, so you may have to spell it out for me.

I think he (or she) confused your use of the phrase "judicial system" with the legislative body...At least that is how I took it.

As for driver's licenses, in the US you only need a DL, registration, car insurance if you drive on public roads. Although not practical for most, I know many farmers who have unlicensed trucks that they only use to do chores on the farm. I'd have no problem treating guns like cars because it would mean I could own and use guns on private property without background checks or registration or fees or purchase permission but if I had a license, I could carry one in public in every state of the union. It would actually be an improvement.

Correct.
I would like to see a well thought out National Concealed Weapons program. But, coupled with a return of Constitutional carry. I would also like to see an overhaul of the NFA, and once a person qualifies for the NCWP, this should satisfy the requirements to own class III, SBR and other modified weapons.

Owning a firearm, should not be restricted except for certain circumstances. The problem arises, when out-of-touch politicians, are put in charge of determining those circumstances.

It seems to me, that the difference between those opposed to "gun control" and those for it, is NOT a difference in political ideologies. What it is, is much more on a moral level...

It isn't that the anti-gun folks are afraid of people with guns, as that they are afraid of what they have done to people who might use a gun against them, in response to those things! As in, the paranoia, of constantly looking over their shoulder, as a result of their intrusions and outright wrong-doings, against their neighbors or the populace!

This explains why they feel the need to have armed security, while still wanting to disarm the masses! It's not about hypocrisy, as much as it is about, the unrecognized guilt and remorse that prompts them to address their own needs for self-preservation. While not giving a crap about ours!

But then again, the pro-gun folks, don't make a habit of going around and pissing people off, do they?