WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[FletchLives]

Just because an argument doesn't support your personal views doesn't make it ridiculous.

No talk radio for me. Hate it. Hate the liberal media of CNN, NBC, MSNBC etc. too. I have a brain of my own and can form my own opinions.

Even ignoring the holocaust, you have Cambodia, China, Rwanda, Iraq, Japan, US (vs. Native Americans), Congo, N. Korea. The numbers are virtually beyond comprehension.

Do I think large scale genocide will happen in my lifetime? (I'm 40) Nah. I'm lucky to be living during this time in this great country.

Do I feel it will be an immediate concern to citizens of this country or their descendants at some point in the future? Absolutely. And I'm not willing to sell out the rights of my grandchildren and their children for my own feel good pseudo-safety today.

And I swear I joined this darn site to talk Skins! lol

[Slateman]

Phase1:

Schools: Pepper spray and Tasers don't really cost that much and don't take the same amount of time to learn. It is non-lethal and if used improperly will not cause enough harm to worry about compared to a snub nose 38.

Homes: Start with an Ad campaign about turning in your guns for fair market value, In addition we will give you a Tasef/Pepperspray and classes on how to use them if you want.

Point out how defending yourself in your homes with a Gun has the same chances of you going to jail as the intruder.

Point out how defending yourself in your home with a Taser/Pspray is going to be 'allowed' even in the incidental death cases.

This also makes the Taser and PSpray companies more profitable.

Put out that you can carry a Taser with you in public without fear of arrest.

Start the campaign and fix 35+% of this on the cheap.

Phase 2: Phaser's

The best thing about our NASA is the things that come out of it. Lets put more money into Science and create our Stun phasers.

That'll fix your guns in schools and eliminate another 35% of the guns at homes.

That and I want a Phaser.

So much fail

Tasers and pepper spray have 5 times the failure rate of guns

Tasers and pepper spray have limited range and utilization. And if you use it once and miss, you're SOL with the taser.

Patently untrue about being more likely to go to jail. Especially in the home. Almost every state has a castle doctrine on the books. If you're in your home and they come in, it's on the prosecutor to prove that the person was not a threat and had surrendered himself.

I live in Virginia. I can carry a gun without fear of arrest. No problems.

Couldn't is a rather high burden.

Could you guarantee any restrictions on guns couldn't lead to more deaths?

Concealed carry seems to have reduced mass shootings and crime

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/122012-637844-mass-killers-deterred-by-gun-owners.htm

http://www.debate.org/debates/Conceal-carry-laws-reduce-crime/1/

There is no link between gun laws, whether permissive or highly restrictive, and crime rate.

As for mass/spree shootings, the only clear link we have is that when the people who were being shot at chose to act, instead of waiting for the police to intervene, the death counts were substantially lower. Whether they had a gun or not didn't matter.

[twa]

Really? Can you ask that?

I guess a Chernobyl shouldn't have changed Russia's nuclear policies and oversight or facility designs.

we could use the solution the rich do for their childrens security at school.... armed guards, usually police (or ex military)

come to think of it many parents also carry concealed

if it is good enough for them.....

[zoony]

Couldn't is a rather high burden.

Could you guarantee any restrictions on guns couldn't lead to more deaths?

Concealed carry seems to have reduced mass shootings and crime

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/122012-637844-mass-killers-deterred-by-gun-owners.htm

http://www.debate.org/debates/Conceal-carry-laws-reduce-crime/1/

So guarantees are now the litmus test for a proposed law's worth ? Interesting. Think you're being a bit inconsistent there. You could admit it or I could show you more specifically.

[twa]

So guarantees are now the litmus test for a proposed law's worth ? Interesting. Think you're being a bit inconsistent there. You could admit it or I could show you more specifically.

I am the one complaining about the request for a guarantee if you read it, but you can do as you wish

[AsburySkinsFan]

6,000,000 Jews WERE killed by the Nazis. These 6,000,000 Jews either did not own a gun to begin with, or were disarmed. This is historical fact, and perfect evidence of the "worst case scenario." AND In a conversation about gun control, human rights , and mass murder it is a very legitimate topic to bring up. People are kidding themselves if they don't believe anything like that could not be possible here.

Take a look at what happens to many cities and geographical areas after a large enough natural disaster hits. Chaos, large scale burglary and robbery, property destruction, ineffective law enforcement. Every man for himself.

Any monkey can play worst case scenario...but it takes true excellence in the craft to use for EVERY situation.

BTW, as long as we're talking facts England and Japan both have banned guns and they're not all NAZI tyrants. Personally, I believe it is a sign of intellectual laziness to blindly assume that no guns means we'll all soon find ourselves in the gas chambers. Because it simply isn't true! It is a paranoid lie that is told over and over again by intellectually lazy people to manipulate by fear other intellectually lazy people. The rest of us look around at the world and know that reality is different than that myth.

What's more is that the very same people who call themselves patriots and who bleed with a religious nationalistic fervor are the same one's who say we should distrust the government. The dichotomy is appaulling to say the least.

---------- Post added December-23rd-2012 at 10:11 PM ----------

I am the one complaining about the request for a guarantee if you read it, but you can do as you wish

No, you have already eliminated the very idea of gun control as a legitimate path...so in that respect you're worse than those demanding guarrantees, because at least they pretend to be open to the option if there were guarrantees.

[alexey]

...

Even ignoring the holocaust, you have Cambodia, China, Rwanda, Iraq, Japan, US (vs. Native Americans), Congo, N. Korea. The numbers are virtually beyond comprehension.

Do I think large scale genocide will happen in my lifetime? (I'm 40) Nah. I'm lucky to be living during this time in this great country.

Do I feel it will be an immediate concern to citizens of this country or their descendants at some point in the future? Absolutely. And I'm not willing to sell out the rights of my grandchildren and their children for my own feel good pseudo-safety today.

...

You are offering a false choice.

Our safety comes from our military, our government, our values, and our democratic institutions.

If a dictatorship takes root in the USA and gains support of the US Military, what kind of difference would gun enthusiasts be able to make? Let's be honest now. Military has stuff like tanks and helicopters. Things changed a bit since 1791.

[Special K]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, I haven't been able to read every post in this extensive thread, but what are the downsides of placing national guard or military vets returning from war, looking for employment, at schools to provide security?

They have no link to violent behavior at all

Here are a couple studies that disagree with your assertion above...

1. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/12/5/353.short

(Meta-analytic review of scientific lit showing linkage between viewing violent video games and television)

2. http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs10/fa09/dis/02/extra/update_violence.pdf

(Review of studies suggesting correlation between aggressive behavior and chronic viewing of violent television and video games)

*Just a couple studies you can look up if you want and read the summaries in the abstracts. I'll be happy to provide more if you would like

As for "blaming" violent media/video games/television/etc., I don't think there is one person out there who SOLELY blames these as causative agents of mass murders. Instead, most rational people see that these activities potentially play a small role in facilitating an atmosphere conducive to development of violent thoughts and behavior. IMO, it is only the irrational person who does not see these as at least a minor piece of the puzzle in our society's affinity toward violence.

[PeterMP]

Couldn't is a rather high burden.

Could you guarantee any restrictions on guns couldn't lead to more deaths?

Concealed carry seems to have reduced mass shootings and crime

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/122012-637844-mass-killers-deterred-by-gun-owners.htm

http://www.debate.org/debates/Conceal-carry-laws-reduce-crime/1/

I also said evidence not guarantees. Not proof.

Your link falls into the same ideas as what I've already addressed. Sure mass murders, but what about every day murders.

I look at the gun laws and murders with guns at other western countries (incluiding mass murders), and I see that as evidence.

I see the inability so far of anybody to give me a time when a gun was used as self-defense when the presence of a weapon that could shoot a lot of bullets at a high muzzle velocity quickly as evidence that restricting such weapons/ammunition as evidence that we could restrict those weapons and not greatly cause more people to get killed from guns by not be able to protect themselves.

---------- Post added December-23rd-2012 at 10:57 PM ----------

forgive me if this has already been brought up, i haven't been able to read every post in this extensive thread, but what are the downsides of placing national guard or military vets returning from war, looking for employment, at schools to provide security?

ptsd?

**EDIT**

These are people that have been trained to kill people. That doesn't mean that they'd be good at protecting an elemantary school day-in-day-out.

[twa]

I see the inability so far of anybody to give me a time when a gun was used as self-defense when the presence of a weapon that could shoot a lot of bullets at a high muzzle velocity quickly as evidence that restricting such weapons/ammunition as evidence that we could restrict those weapons and not greatly cause more people to get killed from guns by not be able to protect themselves.

---------- Post added December-23rd-2012 at 10:57 PM ----------

ptsd?

**EDIT**

These are people that have been trained to kill people. That doesn't mean that they'd be good at protecting an elemantary school day-in-day-out.

I see the inability of those opposed to arming teachers or guards to provide evidence it endangers students.

the long history of private schools security as well as the history at public schools since Bill Clinton signed a bill boosting cops in schools seems on the surface evidence the fear of guns in the right hands is unfounded.

as far as military and PSTD, it exists in the civilian world as well.....and certainly should be screened for (both to get them help and protect others)

however the notion someone qualified to provide security in the military,when also screened and additionally trained is somehow incapable is laughable at best.....and obviously counter to police recruitment history.

[Special K]

ptsd?

**EDIT**

These are people that have been trained to kill people. That doesn't mean that they'd be good at protecting an elemantary school day-in-day-out.

Fair point about ptsd. Not sure if I buy that as the limiting factor...actually, I don't buy that. That is something mental screening could weed out IMO.

I guess I'm not understanding a major difference between national guard members and policemen. Both are trained to kill, granted, soldiers are trained differently. Nothing that school-environment specific training and mental health screening couldn't deal with though, as far as I know.

I guess I'm coming at this at the angle of knowing a lot of national guardsmen from Fort Carson who I think would be great at school protection as they have displayed to me, at least, a pretty high level of responsibility and seriousness when it comes to weapons (e.g. the ones I know don't mess or joke around with their weapons).

My former roommate was (and still is) National Guard and I think she would do very well. I suppose I'm a bit biased since she and many other troops I'm referring to are personal friends, but older ones, in their late 20's or early 30's seem to be a hell of a lot more responsible, disciplined, and capable than many civilians their age. There is no doubt I'd prefer them over a mall cop or regular security officer in a situation that involves a mass shooting...

[twa]

I also said evidence not guarantees. Not proof.

'evidence it couldn't' seems like a guarantee....at least to zoony

[alexey]

I was generally skeptical of claims that gun enthusiasts can help protect us from tyranny, but maybe there is something to it. No chance against the military, of course, but maybe there is something to it on a smaller scale - local situations, abuse by police, etc. Stuff Iike this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

(still not a fan of the way this point is usually brought up, with silly references to Nazis and all)

[ixcuincle]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, I haven't been able to read every post in this extensive thread, but what are the downsides of placing national guard or military vets returning from war, looking for employment, at schools to provide security?

Here are a couple studies that disagree with your assertion above...

1. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/12/5/353.short

(Meta-analytic review of scientific lit showing linkage between viewing violent video games and television)

2. http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs10/fa09/dis/02/extra/update_violence.pdf

(Review of studies suggesting correlation between aggressive behavior and chronic viewing of violent television and video games)

*Just a couple studies you can look up if you want and read the summaries in the abstracts. I'll be happy to provide more if you would like

As for "blaming" violent media/video games/television/etc., I don't think there is one person out there who SOLELY blames these as causative agents of mass murders. Instead, most rational people see that these activities potentially play a small role in facilitating an atmosphere conducive to development of violent thoughts and behavior. IMO, it is only the irrational person who does not see these as at least a minor piece of the puzzle in our society's affinity toward violence.

Correlation does not imply causation. And the NRA and Joe Manchin basically put the blame STRAIGHT on violent video games. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also believe the same.

They play no role. The world plays violent video games, yet most of the incidents are centralized in America. If it were a video game issue, wouldn't the rest of the world have rampant issues with violent games too?

[Koolblue13]

[Burgold]

Fair point about ptsd. Not sure if I buy that as the limiting factor...actually, I don't buy that. That is something mental screening could weed out IMO....

One of the reasons I don't like it is the gateway effect. Recent studies have shown that children are prescribed psychopharmocological agents as children are far more likely to use illegal drugs when they grow older. Part of that is because the authorities in their lives taught them that drugs are a good recourse. Their locus of control becomes externalized and they seek external solutions whenever things look bad.

Likewise, kids often look more at our actions than our words. How do our actions inform kids who suddenly see guns in their hallways and the figures of authority in the school armed? What idea does that reinforce in their mind and where could that gateway lead?

It's dangerous to teach kids that lesson. Mind you, having militias marching up and down the school hallways is probably a better solution than arming teachers, but it's still not a good choice especially, in a country where so many people are killed in gun accidents. Plus, the first time a militia man hesitates when a young kid is going crazy and then somehow gets that gun... guess what everyone is going to say?

[twa]

Correlation does not imply causation. And the NRA and Joe Manchin basically put the blame STRAIGHT on violent video games. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also believe the same.

They play no role. The world plays violent video games, yet most of the incidents are centralized in America. If it were a video game issue, wouldn't the rest of the world have rampant issues with violent games too?

what if we make it a trifecta?

psychiatric drugs + access to guns+ violent games/TV

does the rest of the world medicate and use drugs like us?

http://archive.truthout.org/1213091

On April 22, 2009, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported that in 2006 more money was spent on treating mental disorders in children aged 0 to 17 than for any other medical condition, with a total of $8.9 billion. By comparison, the cost of treating trauma-related disorders, including fractures, sprains, burns, and other physical injuries, was only $6.1 billion.

In 2008, psychiatric drug makers had overall sales in the US of $14.6 billion from antipsychotics, $9.6 billion off antidepressants, $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs and $4.8 billion in sales of ADHD drugs, for a grand total of $40.3 billion.

The path to child drugging in the US started with providing adolescents with stimulants for ADHD in the early 80s. That was followed by Prozac in the late 80s, and in the mid-90s drug companies started claiming that ADHD kids really had bipolar disorder, coinciding with the marketing of epilepsy drugs as "mood stablizers" and the arrival of the new atypical antipsychotics.

[Elessar78]

help me understand the logic of this...

As someone who works in advertising I'll say it's in the design of the media. You can go back to the purposes of communication: to entertain, to inform, to persuade. Now you'll have a mix of the three in any media, say for ads 20% entertainment, 10% information, and 70% persuasion. Movies and shows may skew in the opposite direction.

An ad is designed to persuade you, to take action. While a movie is about entertainment.

But for both, the bottom line question can be asked: "Are you stupid/gullible enough to buy something you don't need because of an ad or stupid enough to be influenced by movies?"

Sadly, the answer is yes. The majority of consumers worldwide seem to fall for advertising or else what's the point of it? But strangely enough, with globalization and American movies being everywhere and foreign movie makers not above serving up violent fare other DEVELOPED, INDUSTRIALIZED countries aren't killing people at the rate the US is.

[ixcuincle]

The notions of video games influencing behavior is totally ridiculous.

Anyway, a lot of people are signing a petition to get Piers Morgan deported. I am a known CNN homer and they are clearly the best news network right now on cable, but Piers Morgan is quickly becoming an irritant when he is preaching off his soapbox about gun control. I'm no gun advocate. But Piers has just this abrasive method of arguing with people he doesn't like. If you saw on his show, he was shouting down and demanding answers to questions during his interviews.

That being said, even if we don't agree with Piers and his over-the-top soapbox, we should be able to let him speak his mind

Can't deport him just because he's a pompous twit

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 10:35 AM ----------

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/525073_552507764777456_489045402_n.jpg

I don't know about you, but I don't rush to the store to buy Bud Light after I see a Bud Light ad. "Hey, it's Bud Light on TV! There must be no other types of alcohol in the world, I'll go out and get that generic watered-down beer to watch the game with the fellas"

Beer commercials piss me off in America, they're all for "light beers". How many of you drink light beers? We're men. We drink bourbon. We drink Maker's Mark

And as a counter-argument to your image

[twa]

No, you have already eliminated the very idea of gun control as a legitimate path...so in that respect you're worse than those demanding guarrantees, because at least they pretend to be open to the option if there were guarrantees.

I am very much a supporter of gun control,both in distribution and usage

I support background checks, waiting periods,strict controls on automatics and low light optics ect and don't oppose mag capacity limits(though I think that ineffective)

if only those opposed to arming trained ,screened employees were so open

[Jumbo]

Texas Shoots back (not about twa :pfft:)

http://news.msn.com/us/thousands-sign-us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan

Thousands sign US petition to deport Piers Morgan

Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.

Morgan has taken an aggressive stand for tighter U.S. gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. Last week, he called a gun advocate appearing on his "Piers Morgan Tonight" show an "unbelievably stupid man."

Now, gun rights activists are fighting back. A petition created Dec. 21 on the White House e-petition website by a user in Texas accuses Morgan of engaging in a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution" by targeting the Second Amendment. It demands he be deported immediately for "exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

I admit, I have only seen a few random and brief segments of Morgan's interviews, but from what I saw, he would be one of approximate 280,000,000 people in America I'd deport if possible. :evilg:

Merry Christmas!

[KDawg]

This happened this morning in a little town/village about 15 minutes from where I live, and it's on the front page of CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

CNN) -- At least two firefighters were shot and killed at the scene of a fire that engulfed multiple houses in upstate New York on Monday, police said.

Doctors treated two other firefighters for gunshot wounds, police in Webster, New York, told reporters.

Authorities believe one or more shooters took aim at the firefighters after they left their vehicles, Police Chief Gerald Pickering said.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo described it as a "horrific shooting" and a "senseless act of violence."

"Volunteer firefighters and police officers were injured and two were taken from us as they once again answered the call of duty," he said in a statement.

Click the link for more

I have a hard time blaming guns. It's people. These people who do this stuff are SICK.

Still waiting to find out if I knew anyone involved.

[70th Week]

KDawg, 4 were shot....2 dead. per Fox news.

[KDawg]

KDawg, 4 were shot....2 dead. per Fox news.

I know. All too well.

Best thing I've seen all day was this quote from the Webster police chief: ""The threat has been eliminated."

[endzone_dave]

So now we need armed guards at all of our schools AND armed guards protecting our firemen. Let not control guns more than we are now - what a wonderful world, thanks NRA.