Piers Morgan Delivers One Final Blow To Gun Violence In Last Show
209 replies, posted
[QUOTE=IGotWorms;44407461]Who exactly is saying ban all guns? I've heard plenty of talk about gun reform but I haven't heard a single serious discussion about banning all guns. In fact I've only heard this "ban all guns" rhetoric from the pro-gun lobbyists who seem to think gun reform equals all guns being banned and the National Guard being mobilized to go door to door and take everyone's weapons which is just as laughable as the "over my dead body, I'll go out in a blaze of glory" crowd.
I haven't heard a single member of the House or Senate say that all guns should be banned.
So perhaps discussion about gun reform instead would be more appropriate than debating rhetorical points with phantoms.[/QUOTE]
Any form of gun control that is outside of say background checks, would lead to confiscation of certain items. Case and Point: Connecticut, New York, California, and otherwise the majority of the country where people are very much going "from my cold hands"
[QUOTE=IGotWorms;44407461]Who exactly is saying ban all guns? I've heard plenty of talk about gun reform but I haven't heard a single serious discussion about banning all guns. In fact I've only heard this "ban all guns" rhetoric from the pro-gun lobbyists who seem to think gun reform equals all guns being banned and the National Guard being mobilized to go door to door and take everyone's weapons which is just as laughable as the "over my dead body, I'll go out in a blaze of glory" crowd.
I haven't heard a single member of the House or Senate say that all guns should be banned.
So perhaps discussion about gun reform instead would be more appropriate than debating rhetorical points with phantoms.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;NeRR7MwllH8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeRR7MwllH8[/video]
Daine Feinstein does, and tried.
Rather than argue, I'd like to ask a question.
To those in the US; why do you own a gun? What does it offer you?
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44408583]Looks like 1776 has commenced again.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/dTmCqQd.jpg?1[/img]
I have been waiting to post this image all thread :v:
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;44407871]Rather than argue, I'd like to ask a question.
To those in the US; why do you own a gun? What does it offer you?[/QUOTE]
survival, security, reliability. there isn't a single person on this planet who wouldn't wish they'd have kept a gun in their house when a rapist/serial killer/burglar breaks in. why take the chance.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;44407871]Rather than argue, I'd like to ask a question.
To those in the US; why do you own a gun? What does it offer you?[/QUOTE]
As ilikecorn said: Police times are greater then 15 minutes, and they have no duty to protect you, and I am not exactly the strongest person, so I trust my life with efficiency.
When I start to live on my own, I intend on supplementing some of the costs for groceries by hunting and fishing, as well as maintaining a garden. I also enjoy owning pieces of history, and teaching others about them by doing "live history" classes, or rather just taking people to the range to shoot an M1 Garand instead of simply just telling them about it. The main reason is just because I like to go out into a field or into the desert, and shoot some random metal cans with a gun, it's just fun.
Don't think the solution to gun violence is forbidding the use/keeping of them.
Violence is violence no matter how you look at it and what medium is used to practice it.. it's a social problem.
I mean, carbines, high powered rifles, pistols etc are all legal here in Holland (with license ofcourse) and we barely have "gun violence" here. I am aware that we are like 1/1000th the size of the US but yar..
On a sidenote:
Last week a jewellery store got robbed here with 2 kids holding a guy at gunpoint, his wife was watching security camera's back home and observed the situation.. in a frenzy she shot both the robbers. This shit is soooo rare here.
Why?
[QUOTE=arthuro12;44409230]Don't think the solution to gun violence is forbidding the use/keeping of them.
Violence is violence no matter how you look at it and what medium is used to practice it.. it's a social problem.
I mean, carbines, high powered rifles, pistols etc are all legal here in Holland (with license ofcourse) and we barely have "gun violence" here. I am aware that we are like 1/1000th the size of the US but yar..
On a sidenote:
Last week a jewellery store got robbed here with 2 kids holding a guy at gunpoint, his wife was watching security camera's back home and observed the situation.. in a frenzy she shot both the robbers. This shit is soooo rare here.
Why?[/QUOTE]
because, as many people have tried to explain to piers morgan before, the U.S' problems with violence have very little to do with gun laws. piers seems to think that you can take a few gun laws from england and introduce them in the U.S and immediately the country's murder rates will be identical to england. holland doesn't have organized crime, holland has severely less poverty, holland has fewer violent criminals. that's why holland has less murders per capita.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;44404158]Does this mean he's coming back to england? I'd really rather this wasn't the case because he's truly one of the slimiest, most unpleasant figures on tv.[/QUOTE]
Doubt it, he would probably be arrested and questioned for all that phone hacking business
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;44407871]Rather than argue, I'd like to ask a question.
To those in the US; why do you own a gun? What does it offer you?[/QUOTE]
Several years ago I used an AR-15 to hold several armed people at bay until the police showed up ~20 minutes after I called to report people with sledge hammers and axes attempting to break into my neighbor's house.
We live in a suburb of Denver, it's not like we're rural.
It's a shame this odious arsehole is on team No Guns, does a lot of damage.
Wonder what this sliver of shit is going to do next. Hopefully, be banged up.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;44404158]Does this mean he's coming back to england? I'd really rather this wasn't the case because he's truly one of the slimiest, most unpleasant figures on tv.[/QUOTE]
As far as I can tell, I think Piers wants to come back to the UK as much as we want him here. Everytime he comes back he gets questioned by police.
[QUOTE=The DooD;44403256]I think despite all of Facepunchs differing opinions on gun control, we can hopefully at least all agree Piers Morgan is a cunt and no one wants him.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, what did Piers do to you guys?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;44411274]Yeah, what did Piers do to you guys?[/QUOTE]
Part of a massive phone hacking scandal if I recall. So, worse than saying "pls stop shooting each other, pls" by a significant margin.
However if we can't come to an agreement on who looks after him, remote islands are plentiful and free.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44411312]Part of a massive phone hacking scandal if I recall. So, worse than saying "pls stop shooting each other, pls" by a significant margin.
However if we can't come to an agreement on who looks after him, remote islands are plentiful and free.[/QUOTE]
Ship him off to Australia like the good old days.
Great, go back to shouting at Jeremy Clarkson.
I'm all for owning a gun and properly knowing how to use and maintain it. But so many people I've met own guns simply for the thrill, and while it's their right, it's also their responsibility to ensure it can't fall into the wrong hands like in the elementary school shooting. That was the mother's fault for having a Bushmaster left around her nutty son.
So how do you make sure people are responsible enough to own and secure the firepower they're allowed to own?
The people who have said, "Fire a gun once and you'll understand." Well, I've fired several guns, handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles but also a fully automatic MP5, and I can't understand why anyone would treat that kind of power lightly. It's downright frightening that people think of guns as toys. While I support proper gun ownership, I see and feel no need to own one and believe that once you pull a gun out to settle a dispute you've taken things to an unnecessary level.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44411515]I'm all for owning a gun and properly knowing how to use and maintain it. But so many people I've met own guns simply for the thrill, and while it's their right, it's also their responsibility to ensure it can't fall into the wrong hands like in the elementary school shooting. That was the mother's fault for having a Bushmaster left around her nutty son.
So how do you make sure people are responsible enough to own and secure the firepower they're allowed to own?
The people who have said, "Fire a gun once and you'll understand." Well, I've fired several guns, handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles but also a fully automatic MP5, and I can't understand why anyone would treat that kind of power lightly. It's downright frightening that people think of guns as toys. While I support proper gun ownership, I see and feel no need to own one and believe that once you pull a gun out to settle a dispute you've taken things to an unnecessary level.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't "the mother's fault for having a Bushmaster left around her nutty son." That was the mother's fault for BUYING guns for her nutty son.
When she knew he had some sort of mental issue, but never took him to a psychiatrist.
Personally, I think enhanced background checks, mandatory gun safety courses (and a yearly test, to make sure people remember the stuff they learn there), free trigger locks (if nothing else, it's a stop gap between buying a gun and buying a safe), mental health checks before you're qualified to own one, and a forfeiture of gun rights if you have a criminal record is probably the best way to go about it. Don't restrict the actual weapons one can buy, but make damn well sure they're not getting into the wrong hands.
I love my guns. They're great, but you've got to respect them. They stay in a lockbox unless I intend to shoot them, either at a range or our friends' farm. They're not a toy, not a status symbol, and not an argument. They're a weapon, and a weapon that is capable of killing someone instantly. You have to treat them like that.
[QUOTE=woolio1;44412764]That wasn't "the mother's fault for having a Bushmaster left around her nutty son." That was the mother's fault for BUYING guns for her nutty son.
When she knew he had some sort of mental issue, but never took him to a psychiatrist.
Personally, I think enhanced background checks, mandatory gun safety courses (and a yearly test, to make sure people remember the stuff they learn there), free trigger locks (if nothing else, it's a stop gap between buying a gun and buying a safe), mental health checks before you're qualified to own one, and a forfeiture of gun rights if you have a criminal record is probably the best way to go about it. Don't restrict the actual weapons one can buy, but make damn well sure they're not getting into the wrong hands.
I love my guns. They're great, but you've got to respect them. They stay in a lockbox unless I intend to shoot them, either at a range or our friends' farm. They're not a toy, not a status symbol, and not an argument. They're a weapon, and a weapon that is capable of killing someone instantly. You have to treat them like that.[/QUOTE]
She never bought a gun explicitly for him. She had written out a check with which to purchase a gun to give to him as a Christmas gift, but yeah. And reportedly she had been working towards getting him checked out, but it's an arduous process to have to someone committed against their will.
[editline]31st March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;44411274]Yeah, what did Piers do to you guys?[/QUOTE]
He was involved with hacking into the voicemails of some missing teens to record the messages left to them, and then deleting them to make room for more. This obviously screwed the police investigation, as it a) gave hope that the missing teens might still be alive, and b) destroyed evidence in an investigation.
[QUOTE=woolio1;44412764]That wasn't "the mother's fault for having a Bushmaster left around her nutty son." That was the mother's fault for BUYING guns for her nutty son.
When she knew he had some sort of mental issue, but never took him to a psychiatrist.
Personally, I think enhanced background checks, mandatory gun safety courses (and a yearly test, to make sure people remember the stuff they learn there), free trigger locks (if nothing else, it's a stop gap between buying a gun and buying a safe), mental health checks before you're qualified to own one, and a forfeiture of gun rights if you have a criminal record is probably the best way to go about it. Don't restrict the actual weapons one can buy, but make damn well sure they're not getting into the wrong hands.
I love my guns. They're great, but you've got to respect them. They stay in a lockbox unless I intend to shoot them, either at a range or our friends' farm. They're not a toy, not a status symbol, and not an argument. They're a weapon, and a weapon that is capable of killing someone instantly. You have to treat them like that.[/QUOTE]
She never bought a gun for him. They were her guns that he stole.
Also, most of those would be unconstitutional. It would be like requiring a mandatory class to exercise your right to free speech, or right to vote. Trigger locks also come with the gun. They aren't just a trigger lock, but an entire action lock that puts a steel cable through the chamber so there is no possible way to fire the weapon. The best way to teach people gun safety is to have it as a mandatory class in high school where kids learn how to safely handle weapons.
I do think there are solutions out there, but I think people are too hung up on either being "ban (certain) guns" or "don't touch my guns" to find them. Personally, I would remove SBRs from class 3, remove silencers from class 3 and require a background check on them like for regular firearms, and promote a gun safe subsidy so more Americans can get a hold of safes to store their guns, ammo, and sensitive documents.
[QUOTE=darunner;44413225]
He was involved with hacking into the voicemails of some missing teens to record the messages left to them, and then deleting them to make room for more. This obviously screwed the police investigation, as it a) gave hope that the missing teens might still be alive, and b) destroyed evidence in an investigation.[/QUOTE]
Also, he consistently insults Jeremy Clarkson. Most recently for Jeremy Clarkson referring to the grade of a bridge they built in Thailand as the "slope," which Morgan misinterpreted as calling the man working on the bridge a "slope." Apparently, that was a racial slur against Thai people in the 50s and 60s.
[editline]31st March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44413539]She never bought a gun for him. They were her guns that he stole.
Also, most of those would be unconstitutional. It would be like requiring a mandatory class to exercise your right to free speech, or right to vote. Trigger locks also come with the gun. They aren't just a trigger lock, but an entire action lock that puts a steel cable through the chamber so there is no possible way to fire the weapon. The best way to teach people gun safety is to have it as a mandatory class in high school where kids learn how to safely handle weapons.
I do think there are solutions out there, but I think people are too hung up on either being "ban (certain) guns" or "don't touch my guns" to find them. Personally, I would remove SBRs from class 3, remove silencers from class 3 and require a background check on them like for regular firearms, and promote a gun safe subsidy so more Americans can get a hold of safes to store their guns, ammo, and sensitive documents.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure where you're seeing any unconstitutionality there, aside from just preventing people from owning guns... The Second Amendment is pretty straightforward, after all, which also means it doesn't specifically prohibit any of that. There's not a lot to read in "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."
However, the Second Amendment also only universally applies to the Federal Government. It doesn't technically extend to the states (The entire Bill of Rights only exercises [i]de jure[/i] power over the Federal government), although a series of Supreme Court decisions culminating in a landmark case a few years ago have extended its judicial power into the local government system. Chicago and other places are grandfathered in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.