image stats
rating
3.43
votes
81
views
5318
uploader
Anonymous
comments
107
date added
2013-01-10
category
None Yet
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

Piers Morgan

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Piers Morgan

Comments for: Piers Morgan
Mach Report This Comment
Date: January 12, 2013 06:12PM

backspace "D"

youtube.com/watch?v=I8 D8b51EwrI



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2013 06:16PM by Mach.
LLL Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2013 12:22PM

[marketdailynews.com]

The following are 18 facts that prove that Piers Morgan is flat out lying about gun control…

#1 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

#2 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

#3 Piers Morgan continues to insist that there are more than 11,000 gun murders in the United States every year. But that is flat out wrong. According to the FBI, there were 8,583 gun murders in the United States during 2011. And as Ben Swann recently pointed out, 400 of those were justifiable homicides by law enforcement and 260 of those were justifiable homicides by private citizens.

#4 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28thin the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.

#5 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive.

#6 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about the other day, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“. If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.

#7 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years.

#8 Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.

#9 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

#10 Only about 3.5 percent of the gun murders in the United States are caused by rifles.

#11 According to Gallup, an all-time record 74 percent of all Americans are against a total handgun ban in the United States.

#12 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.

#13 When Piers Morgan claims that there are only 35 gun murders in the UK per year, he isn’t exactly being accurate. According to official statistics, there were59 gun murders in the UK in 2011. It is also important to keep in mind that gun crime was already super low even before the gun ban in the UK was instituted, and that a 2009 article in The Telegraph declared that gun crime had doubledover the past decade even though it is widely acknowledged that crime statistics in the UK are massively underreported.

#14 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

#15 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

#16 A 2009 article in The Telegraph had this stunning headline: “UK is violent crime capital of Europe“.

#17 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the truth is that the UK is a far more violent society than the United States is. In one recent year, there were2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

#18 According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.
Read more at [marketdailynews.com]
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2013 12:55PM

#1 The UK is just one country that can be compared to, and probably chosen to best suit your point of view.

#2 See #1 above,

#3 So nearly 8,000 gun murders is acceptable?

#4 If guns are used to stop crime the US should be lower than 28th.

#5 That doesn't prove causality. There were probably a lot of other factors involved as well.

#6 So what are the gun control laws like in Japan? Can't Chicago-ites get guns elsewhere and just drive them into the city?

#7 See #5 above.

#8 Where did this statistic come from? Are the guns actually used, or just carried to make them feel safer?

#9 So with those 80% did the offender also have a gun? If yes, your statistics are skewed, if no, the crime most likely could have also been prevented without the use of the gun.

#10 So other forms of guns, apart from rifles should be banned to prevent 96.5% of gun crimes.

#11 The majority might rule, but it doesn't mean they're right.

#12 See #5 above.

#13 Piers most likely is wrong in his stats, but 59 is still a low number for a population that size.

#14 See #1 above.

#15 See #1 above.

#16 Don't believe everything you read in the press.

#17 See #1 above. Also, you can't compare just one year, you would need to look at trends.

#18 Because the Gun Owners of America aren't going to be biased in the statistics they report. (Sarcasm font)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/01/2013 12:57PM by GAK67.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2013 12:58PM

stats of other countries are irrelevant to the U.S....period
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 14, 2013 11:06PM

To be honest, we don't give a rats ass about statistics anywhere but here and those directly point to armed citizens being less susceptible to becoming victims of violent crime ..... nuff said cool smiley

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 16, 2013 06:46AM

I wish someone would do a comparison of murders in the US during the old west as compared to today. I believe you would find there were less violent crimes if we exclude whites against Indians. I think it is because most people carried guns visible on their hips. If we were allowed to carry openly so criminals can see we are armed there would be less crime. The only thing that should be hidden from criminals should be your willingness to aide and protect your neighbor. Carrying guns openly should be better to law enforcement officers as well because they would be able to see the weapon clearly and understand that everyone they approach could be armed so they will take their precautions every time they stop someone. Removing guns from law abiding citizens only aides criminals because they will know their prey is unarmed and they are not. Use your brains people and ask yourself just who it is who obeys the laws, it is clearly not the criminals. If laws alone prevent crime then there would never be any criminals. If all guns were banned there would still be criminals with guns, it would just be more difficult to protect ourselves and families.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 16, 2013 12:00PM

[www.foxnews.com]
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2013 08:01AM

I don't oppose a background check at gun shows. I do however question what a private citizen is supposed to do if they decide to sell their legally owned guns. How is a private citizen supposed to do a background check when he wants to sell to another private citizen. As it is now at least in Arkansas one can sell their privately owned guns as long as they make sure they are selling to an Arkansas citizen and the buyer is at least 18 for long guns and 21 for for handguns. No body is talking about what the law will change as far as privately owned guns being sold through the newspaper or yard sales and such. Also how will the new laws change the way criminals sell guns to other criminals? It will not, plain and simple.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2013 10:59AM

It is possible for a private citizen to do background checks for a price, but I don't think that includes mental background. I guess you'd have to include that in the cost of the gun or the buyer should pay for it ahead of the purchase somehow. I am sure that detail will be worked out somehow. It is sad that it has to come to such things but seriously what else can we do? I am with Obama and others with regard to us doing everything we possibly can to help limit the gun violence in this country and I don't think it has to be an infringement on the 2nd amendment rights in doing so. The automatic knee-jerk responses by gun rights groups is unwarranted in my opinion. I don't think anyone in the government wants to take away the guns of good people but it would be irresponsible to not take action.

In the schools here they do try to have police resource officers assigned to schools and that is a really good idea in a lot of ways. The problem is funding for it. Perhaps if legal provisions were made for armed volunteers to assist with those duties it would help. Volunteers are automatically screened with fingerprinting and background checks and I am sure that there are good people in communities that would come forward for it. Perhaps if the government(s) would at least offer mileage and a small per diem reimbursement it wouldn't hurt either. I see more of a problem in getting mental health screening done and done right. I imagine the ACLU or some other privacy dogs will start barking about that soon. I also think there should be a line drawn concerning mental health assessments and weed out the harmless people with mental heath issues. There are an awful lot of folks taking "mental health" drugs who wouldn't hurt a flea. They may not want guns but their right to should not be taken away just because they have a problem with depression, anxiety and such that benefits from medication.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17/01/2013 11:00AM by BlahX3.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 17, 2013 11:57AM

what it comes down to is billions and billions of dollars and absolutely nothing will be achieved. you cannot subvert, anticipate, intercept or otherwise these fruit loops...it's just not gonna happen.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 02:18AM

More background checks, more red tape in permitting or making/disallowing gun sales, more quantifying what is and is not an "assault weapon", more quantifying/limitations of what size magazine a gun is allowed to have, etc. will never stop gun violence caused by deranged people wanting to do harm to others, nor will it do anything to stem the sale of illegal weapons to anyone, except that it will increase the black market value of weapons.

All the above mentioned actions and regulations will only impact those wanting to purchase and own weapons legally and will have no significant impact on the real problem of sane or insane individuals committing what are already illegal acts of violence.

Ultimately all the new regulations/limitations are about adding more control of legal owners/purchasers and better tracking of THOSE people. To believe anything less is to view the world through the same misguided vision the fuckin lib-speak dumbasses altruistic rose colored lenses allow.

Even Obozo is crafty enough to understand he couldn't possibly take away peoples right to own guns in one fell swoop, that would be too obvious and bring about too impactful an out cry of negative public reaction,

Maybe this is a more reasonable analogy : How do you eat somethin as big as an elephant?

By takin one bite after another till it's gone drinking
smiley

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 06:51AM

If a crazy person drove a car into a playground and killed a bunch of kids would it be wise to make laws to have background checks to buy cars? If a dog got into a school and killed some kids would we make it harder to own dogs?

Even if we were to magically make guns disappear around the world, people would still kill other people, they would merely use other tools to do it. What are you going to do when suicide bombers come to this country? I have no doubt sooner or later it will happen here and we are not prepared for it.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 08:29AM

Do you believe your own crap jg? The difference is simple to understand, and I am sure has been pointed out to you. A gun is designed for targeted killing.

Your argument could be taken the other way. Should we give open access to rocket launchers, land mines, attack aircraft (manned or unmanned), plastique, etc? By your argument it doesn't matter if people have these and use them to kill others, because if they weren't available they would find some other method.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 08:36AM

yeah Yak, look how good gun free zones have worked. handjob
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 09:29AM

Gun free zones .... just like the school where the latest atrocity took place, as well as most other such events have taken place BTW, become something else .... a shooting gallery, where even registered, qualified, crack shot gun owners become nothing but mobile targets when they're disarmed.

The concept of "gun free zones" is ludicrous at best as this concept will never deter those intent on doing harm and perpetrating what they already know to be illegal attacks on others. One thing such perps are assured of though is that they'll be able to carry out such an attack without any chance of a victim being able to defend themselves.

Try staying on focus here Gak, no one is talking about allowing anyone access to anything but guns. Your off the wall BS about allowing folks to possess rockets launchers and plastique is so nonsensical it falls quite nicely under the category of inane, which is par for the course considering the whiny lib source eye rolling
smiley


smoking
smiley
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 10:28AM

i bet he's going to give some numbers from England or New Zealand now to "prove" something about the U.S. smiling
bouncing smiley
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 10:52AM

No one was talking about cars and dogs either.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 18, 2013 02:09PM

fd - statistics/numbers don't prove anything, They can suggest a correlation though. Even if I did give numbers from England or NZ they still wouldn't suggest a correlation with anything to do with the US.

The idea of gun free zones is just stupid. They only way to enforce them would be to thoroughly search every person entering them every single time, and to make the perimeter completely secure. That is one of the reasons the gun laws in NZ are effective - we are an island nation with tight border controls. The same laws would not work in other places given the open borders between states in the US and between countries in the EU.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2013 06:12AM

My point is that it is not important what tool the killer used because anything could be used to do the same damage or more. What needs to be done is target protection and even that would be as difficult as removing all guns from existence. Until we can get every human in the world to stop killing other humans no amount of gun control laws will protect us. People need to be able to protect themselves and others because the police simply can't do it. The average response time for police here in my small town is 20 minutes and a lot can happen in those 20 minutes so one would need to be able to survive for those 20 minutes. Some places the response time can be over an hour and from what I hear some parts of New York city police never even respond to at all.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2013 08:54AM

Everyone knows what your point is. It is still a stupid analogy and when gun rights advocates use that crap it makes them look really stupid which hinders their cause. Use facts and smart information, not hypothetical bullshit and lame comparisons.

And of COURSE assault weapons make a difference, that is why they are used in war because they can be used to kill more people faster. Quit being stupid and start being honest. The desire to have assault weapons has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or anything sports like or even personal protection in the home or out and has everything to do with being paranoid about the government and wanting to have weapons to fight the government.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19/01/2013 09:06AM by BlahX3.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 19, 2013 10:13AM

this came from someone we al know here: [www.youtube.com]
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2013 06:51AM

Personally I have no need for assault weapons, I can do just as much with a handgun and if needed I can use my handgun to get a bigger gun. The problem I have is the government isn't qualified to determine even what an assault weapon is much less ban them. The government operates entirely on slippery slopes and do so intentionally. They ultimately want to remove all guns from all law abiding citizen and they are doing it a little at a time. When the guns are gone then we will have tyrannical rule by the government or a dictator. The one thing all countries who are dictator ruled have in common is that no private citizen has guns.

I don't need facts and figures, I have common sense and try to get others to use theirs.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 20, 2013 02:29PM

Common sense = self justification of your own beliefs.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 07:57AM

common sense is what you lose when you get a college degree.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 09:03AM

You cannot put a price on an innocent child's life. Americans have to get together on this or it's just going to keep getting worse. It is not the time for being stupid. No one wants to take guns away from Americans who are ok to have them. It is a responsibility of the government to address and do something about this problem. If it makes it a little more inconvenient for you to buy or sell a gun, so fucking what? Any improvement is going to help because it is increasingly obvious that it is out of control and that something must be done.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 10:21AM

How about addressing the all too obvious correlation between antidepressants and mass murders? It would be quite simple to implement a registry whereby HC professionals could add people on antidepressants to a no-buy list. This might actually do some good, but isn't even on the table eye rolling
smiley

As has been stated over and over, LEGAL gun owners are seldom the problem, so how on earth could adding new layers of laws that effect THIS group ever hope to stem the tide of people seeking to commit ILLEGAL acts who obviously have NO REGARD for what laws are passed anyway (*horse*)

This knee jerk type of liberal based call for new layers of gun laws that will never address the real issue is nothing more than a move towards the lib ant-gun agenda, nothing more, and surely, nothing less (*facepalm*)

smoking
smiley
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 10:29AM

If you paid as much attention to what is going on as you do to liberal-bashing and trying to sound all clever with words you would see that mental health screening is on the table and is an obviously important part of what is being considered.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 10:35AM

And if you trued using 1/2 the brain cells available to you to understand that LEGAL gun owners and their gun owning/buying practices have NEVER been the problem then perhaps you could grasp why NO NEW REGULATIONS on these transactions will EVER effect the issue at hand (*facepalm*)

smoking
smiley
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 10:45AM

You said to look into the connections between people taking anti-depressants and gun violence. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
oJo Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 02:04PM

[www.ssristories.com]
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 02:55PM

It's perfect for some of these guys. Full of distortion and exaggerations. Fossil will love it!
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 08:54PM

facts are facts, and normally make you look like a fool. smiling
bouncing smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 21, 2013 09:45PM

How many of these mass murders were by people who had done nothing illegal (ie. legal gun owners) up until the point they pulled the trigger to kill their first victim?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 12:01AM

google it
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 07:53AM

How many of the mass murders were committed by the legal owners of the guns?

Just because a small number of users of antidepressants committed these murders doesn't mean all people on antidepressants will break down and do the same. You may be shocked to find out just how many police and military are on these drugs and functioning just fine. The problem with using these drugs as a guide for not owning a gun would be figuring out who would be capable and who would not.

It seems it would be much easier to harden the targets than to try and make laws which will never have an impact on criminals or the mentally unbalanced anyway. Make it harder for a person with a gun to get into these places and use armed guards in the schools, some schools already do like NYC.

Laws do nothing to stop criminals from doing anything they want, the laws only allow the prosecution of these people when they're caught. How many people use seat belts or obey the speed limits all the time? Do those laws make everyone obey?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 03:38PM

nobody ever claimed that all anti depressants patients will flip out and murder people, JG. it is a mere fact of all of the psychotic murderers mentioned.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 06:57PM

Well that is all that site is about; the involvement of SSRI and SNRI medications in mass shootings and murders. I don't have a problem with the actual information it is based upon, but it is obvious the mission of the site is to put those drugs into a bad light and is written with prejudice, exaggeration and distortions in effort to prove their point. Also consider the sources for most of the incidents listed, the news media.

I think one of the biggest hurdles in passing any legislation or administering policies regarding mental health screening is HIPPA.
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 07:21PM

taking anti-depressants isn't so bad, the problem is when you stop taking them...especially if you stop suddenly instead of tapering off.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 08:16PM

This is true PJ. There are some folks who do ok going cold turkey off of SSRI and SNRI meds but I think they are in the minority and it also depends on the specific medication. Some are much worse than others in that regard. Plus everybody is a bit different.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 22, 2013 11:22PM

I tried my hand at Prozac about 10yrs ago. After about a month and 1/2 I asked several friends and co-workers if I seemed any different and all basically replied that I was easier to get along with and more mellow .... so I stopped that shit right then and there!

If it takes a maintenance med for the rest of the world to better get along with me they can all get stuffed, or to use one of my favorite sayings "Fuck 'em and feed 'em fish heads" Dancing
Green Banana!

Oh, and I'm happy to say that no, even my instant cessation of this version of SSRI did not lead me to become a mass murderer, though I was back to my old hard hearted self in a matter of a few days rock on

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 23, 2013 07:05AM

"Guns are not the problem. On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment."

[gunowners.org]
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 23, 2013 01:42PM

Yeah, because that website isn't biased one way or the other (end sarcasm).
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 23, 2013 02:05PM

smiling
bouncing smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 06:31AM

What difference does their bias make? They do make some very good points. Being pro guns doesn't mean their facts are wrong. some people are so anti gun they don't even bother to read anything which contradicts the beliefs they hold.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 09:26AM

That's a pretty dumb question JG. Of course their bias makes a difference in how accurate and how the information is presented. They don't really cite any sources in a meaningful way. That and their bias negates it for value as far as I'm concerned.

Armed violence is a big problem no matter how you slice it and enumerate it. Talking the same old bullshit about it doesn't do a goddamned thing towards solutions either.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 11:35AM

better not ever arm cows, i'll bet they harbor some serious regret. handjob
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 01:17PM

jg - even my 10 year old son understands the difference between opinion and fact.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 01:37PM

you guys always talk down things presented as opinions, but never offer up your own claiming you have the facts. maybe you should present some facts discrediting his attempts? or is that too much to ask?
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 08:37PM

Libs never like facts, they get in the way of their emotive perspectives handjob

Or like my dear Mom was always fond of saying of them "Don't confuse them with the facts, their minds are already made up" (*horse*)

smoking
smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 24, 2013 11:17PM

Even when I state facts and back them up some (f_d) don't understand/comprehend/believe,

And I posted facts about gun control here:
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 12:19AM

Ok Gak, let's see if we can make this simple.

You and your girlfriend/shack job/wife are home chillin watchin a nice movie when badda-bing-badda-boom, 2 creeps kick in the front door and smack you silly with their fists/a piece of wood/crowbar and then tie you up. Then, with your head ringing and swimming you realize that while one of them is rummaging through your stuff the other's preparing to rape your squeeze right in front of you.

Luckily you manage to wriggle free without them noticing, do you:

A. Try to get a hold of a phone and call for help? The cops might get there just in time to help thug A wipe his slimy cock off after he's plowed your ol lady, and who knows, one or both of you might even still be alive by the time they get there too ,,, Yay!

B. Valiantly try to beat the odds and take on the 2 of them hoping you just "might" get lucky enough to get the job done and not get the livin shit beat out of you, or killed in the process?

C. Get to your trusty pistola and instantly put an end to this sick lil bullshit parade that's takin place in the comfort of your own home and then call the cops so they can mop up the leftovers of this disaster?

In your case, it's either A or B, which one would you choose confused
smiley

In my case I'll take C, C and C again, every fuckin time winking
smiley

smoking
smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 12:56AM

Ok Mrkim, let's see if I can put this simply for you. Thanks to the gun control laws meaning both that I don't have a 'pistola' and that the 2 thugs are extremely unlikely to have one either, A and B are potential options, whereas you are unlikely to get to your weapon as they'll either shoot you immediately, or when they see you have escaped from their poor rope skills.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 12:59AM

that's mighty nice of the crooks down there to not carry a gun. it's quite different in the real world. smiling
bouncing smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 01:48AM

What makes you think that where you are is any more real?

But, yes I know it is different in the US. If I lived there I'd probably have a gun too. That doesn't mean it has to be that way.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 04:15AM

Time to brush up on those reading and comprehension skillz Gak (*facepalm*)

In the given scenario (meant to suit your idyllic criminal MO, BTW), neither thug was armed with anything more heinous than a crow bar.

But, for myself, the pistola is sittin here on the table beside me so I'd be poppin off rounds before they made it across the living room rock on

smoking
smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 04:24AM

No kim I read it right, but the crims in your case know the home occupier, you in this case, is likely to have a gun and so are unlikely to turn up with just a crowbar, and are likely to turn up with a gun themselves.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 04:52AM

Oh yeah, now I get it. Since my scenario dudn meet your expected goal, you chose to rearrange the baseline, how convenient.

Dunno how I could have ever expected less from a lib (*facepalm*)

smoking
smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 05:36AM

And I wouldn't expect a realistic scenario from a conservative red-neck out to push their own agenda.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 07:00AM

Ok how about this. 2 guys break in armed with pistols and one guy takes you upstairs to open your safe for him while the other guy stays downstairs with your wife and teenage daughter. While upstairs you manage somehow to overpower the first guy and knock him out. What do you do then?

A: Cower in the corner and call the police in hopes that they get there in time to rescue your wife and daughter, in which case turning it into a hostage situation?

B: Climb out the window and run to a neighbor to call the cops and hope for the best?

C: Make certain you beat the first guy to death then take his pistol, sneak downstairs get eyes on the second guy wait for a clean shot and empty the gun into him then call the cops and tell them there has been a breakin where you shot and killed them. Then go outside with your family to wait for the cops.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 09:25AM

Thinking in the same circles has not solved any problems. The continual same game clash between conservatives and liberals is a waste of time. Both sides do the same things, use the same tactics, which divert issues into bratty behavior and more accusations and name calling. Grow up. Man up. Open our minds and do some meaningful, progressive brain storming. No one has any answers yet but we won't find them through bickering and smart-assed quips.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 01:46PM

True dat Blah - sorry I let myself get drawn into that.

jg - it's a no brainer in that scenario. The difference though is that because of tight gun controls (and I don't mean just laws, but border security etc. as well) the crims that attempt to break into my house are extremely unlikely to be armed with guns, whereas the crims that break into your house are probably going to be armed with guns. I strongly believe that tight gun control can work. What I don't believe is that it would work in the US. It would need to be a federal thing for starters as any city, county or state that tried to implement it would be unsuccessful due to the free movement of people within the country.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 03:21PM

any subversion of the 2nd amendment will result in civil war, and gun control as you put it, means gun confiscation and can only mean that one thing. O'fuckhead's attempt to bypass the Constitution will a U.N. mandate, or whateverthefuck you wan't to call it, is high treason.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 05:59PM

Ah yes, all bow to the high-minded and oh-so-much-wiser than the rest of us ... Blah and Gak (*facepalm*)

Both of you fuckers talk in interminable circles about gun control as if locking down every gun on the planet is going to forever change everything for the better while just as continuously avoiding the undeniable fact that HUMANS have been killing other HUMANS before and since the advent of firearms and will continue to do so ... no matter how many new regulations and laws are implemented regarding firearms.

The part that both of you constantly deny in your emotionally laden arguments is that HUMANS are the problem, not weapons. Weapons are inanimate objects and incapable of any harm in of themselves. Only when you add HUMANS into the equation can any dastardly deed take place with a weapon.

One thing I'll sure have to give ya both is that if they ever start handing out crowns for mental masturbatory finesse it'll be hard to decide which should be crowned king handjob

smoking
smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25/01/2013 06:06PM by Mrkim.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 25, 2013 07:20PM

I have never said any of that nor anything that could be paraphrased into that.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically a liberal and you believe says that kind of stuff, is that what is wrong with your mind? Now who's mind is playing with itself here?

BTW, I was not talking about Gak and you arguing and name calling, I was talking about nearly EVERYONE doing that, most importantly lawmakers, politicians and lobbyists.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 26, 2013 05:37AM

Does anyone believe there are no criminals with guns in NZ? The gun laws only make guns more expensive for criminals in NZ and doesn't get them off the streets. Instead of enacting more gun laws just try to reduce crime. The lower the crime rate gets, the less people feel the need to arm themselves and there would be less guns being sold mean less guns being manufactured and less guns on the street. There is no overnight cure for what ails America and much of the world so guns restriction and new laws will never be the cure.

Should people living in the bush in Africa just go around destroying all animals who kill people? No they just build fences and things to keep the animals out. If one happens to get in they just deal with it and find out where it came in and fix it.

Why did the majority of people in the old west wear guns? Most people in the old west did not wear guns to go around killing other people. Most people wore guns as a form of protection against wild animals. The things you see in movies were born from the dime novels of the time and didn't really occur that often. Many people of the time were born and lived out their entire lives without ever seeing or hearing of a murder, which is why hanging were so popular back then. Back then there were no inexhaustible appeals to your case. You were tried then hung shortly afterward. I still think we should be able to wear guns visible which would reduce crime but add to that public executions in the form of hangings might make criminals think twice before committing the crime.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 26, 2013 06:44AM

kim - I have never denied that humans are the ones killing each other but you, and your pro gun buddies, seem to ignore the fact that guns make killing easier, that arming the populace starts an arms war between the criminals and the populace, and that as a general rule the countries with fewer guns have fewer homicides (and yes I know there are exceptions like Switzerland, but that doesn't diminish the point).

jg - I have never said that there are no guns in the hands of NZ criminals, and anybody who believes that is a fool. However, because guns are hard to obtain for the populace as a whole, and our police force is unarmed while on patrol (they have weapons available in a lock box in most patrol cars). the criminals, as a general rule, do not feel the need to arm themselves. Obtaining a gun as a criminal is also difficult (but not impossible) as there is a limited black market simply because there is not a large number of guns available.

I will reiterate what I have said before - this approach works here with our unique circumstances. I am not advocating this approach for the US, or any other country.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 27, 2013 07:24AM

Making guns more difficult to obtain legally does nothing to make them more difficult to obtain illegally, it only makes it more difficult for a private citizen to protect themselves. There is no evidence that there would be an arms race between ordinary citizens and criminals, this only happens between countries. The vast majority of criminals are merely opportunists and are not part of an organized group (with the exception of gangs), so it is unlikely there would be an arms race. Gangs are a different matter and they should be dealt with by the military like we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, the police have neither the weapons nor the training to go against most gangs. That is a whole other can of worms and gang members should be just shot on site.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 27, 2013 10:24PM

Making guns more difficult to obtain legally does nothing to make them more difficult to obtain illegally, it only makes it more difficult for a private citizen to protect themselves. Really? Do some research and learn the truth. Stop stating things as facts that are only your opinion.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 05:53AM

Really, why don't you do some research and prove my statement isn't true while keeping in mind we are talking about the US and nowhere else.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 09:55AM

JG, you disqualify yourself by your own "rules". YOU are the one who started taking about gun control in other countries again.

It is incumbent upon the person stating something as "fact" to prove it is so, not the other way around. You never offer anything close to proof supporting your comments, which are clearly opinion and nothing more.

BTW, Gun control laws would have been an NRA nightmare in many old west towns, had the NRA been in existence then. Check your guns in with law enforcement upon entering the city, pick them up when you leave town.

Your gang member comments are bullshit and betrays your bigotry. Everyone one in this country is entitled to due process of law.

As PJ recently stated, "Everyone here know you're full of shit."
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 10:55AM

what's the matter? you guys cannot find stats to disprove JG? smiling
bouncing smiley
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 11:21AM

I am not taking up sides here Digger. I speak my mind for myself. I have said it plainly before and will repeat it, I support responsible gun ownership. If there are things that can be done to prevent the wrong people from getting their hands on guns then those things should be looked into in depth. We can't just do nothing anymore and watch the problem get worse every day. Something needs to be done. I don't know what but making the same tired arguments and accusations haven't done a damn thing to help the situation. All I have said is to stop the name calling and arguments that damage the cause for gun rights and deal with the problem in an intelligent manner. Everybody needs to stop thinking they know it all and start asking meaningful questions and thinking about it in meaningful ways. Everyone just stop being stupid about it.

Concerning JG's opinions, it is HIS responsibility to justify them and no one else's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28/01/2013 11:22AM by BlahX3.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 01:43PM

jg - no we are not just talking about the US. You may be so narrow minded to ignore the rest of the world, but if you are please have the courtesy to put that in your statement.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 02:17PM

You missed the rules laid down by the Good Ol' Dixie Boys Club:

Posted by: fossil_digger [x]
Date: January 14, 2013 12:58PM

stats of other countries are irrelevant to the U.S....period

Posted by: Mrkim [x]
Date: January 14, 2013 11:06PM

To be honest, we don't give a rats ass about statistics anywhere but here and those directly point to armed citizens being less susceptible to becoming victims of violent crime ..... nuff said


I mean wow. Not only do they speak for all "we" Americans but the "period" and the "nuff said" must make it official, huh?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 06:03PM

what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend, Blurf? (*facepalm*)
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 28, 2013 07:48PM

MARINE TELLS FEINSTEIN… SHOVE YOUR GUN BILL!
MARINE VET CPL. JOSHUA BOSTON has become an American hero almost overnight.
After posting an Open Letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN’s iReport Site last week letting Feinstein know that he would not submit to her draconian law denuding him of his Second Amendment rights, Boston’s letter has now gone viral.
The veteran Marine, Joshua Boston, who was deployed to Afghanistan 2004 through 2005, informed Feinstein that he will NOT register his weapons nor does he believe Feinstein (and her ilk) has the right to require him to do so since he is not Feinstein’s “peasant,” but rather, she is subject to him and to all American citizens. Bravo!
The “No Ma’am’ Letter Of Ex-Marine Joshua Boston Reads As Follows:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own.
Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

[www.realjewnews.com]
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 01:53AM

You evade things. You always do when someone points out your bullshit. It's getting pretty stale and one of the main reasons I don't discuss things with you as much. It is impossible to reason with an unreasonable person and when you feel put on the spot you resort to unreasonableness.

You don't make the rules here Fossil. I know it's a huge disappointment and a blow to your massive ego. Get over it.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 03:40AM

Our 2nd Amendment rights were infringed a long time ago.

I am not anti-gun, I am anti-stupid.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 07:44AM

Blah said...If there are things that can be done to prevent the wrong people from getting their hands on guns then those things should be looked into in depth.

Later on you said discussions should be done in an intelligent manner.


Do we really think the government will do an in depth study let alone doing something about it in an intelligent manner? The government has already showed that they desire to remove all guns from all law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent crime. Any law enacted only works when people obey them and do nothing when criminals ignore them. Just think about it, we have speed laws and how many people do you see who obey them? Can you honestly say you have never broken the speed limit? If we choose which laws we obey and which ones we don't then how about the people who choose not to obey any laws, how will new laws prevent them from doing what they want to do?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 11:01AM

i present you facts and you do nothing more than call me names, childish, big ego etc. if you cannot refute my claims, then you have lost. thumping you regularly is getting mighty old.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 12:22PM

Posted by: fossil_digger [x]
Date: January 29, 2013 11:01AM

i present you facts and you do nothing more than call me names, childish, big ego etc. if you cannot refute my claims, then you have lost. thumping you regularly is getting mighty old.


You present facts at times but they have nothing specifically to do with what I said and are therefore useless for discussion purposes.

You are incorrect, I do very little name calling comparatively speaking. It is obvious that you have a big ego. That is not name calling, that is stating a fact.

I do many times refute your claims and you either ignore it or attempt to change the focus from what I said which was in direct response to what you said.

What have I lost? I am not in competition with you about anything. If you feel like you have "won" then good for you I guess. I don't care about that.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 01:42PM

I am not anti-gun, I am anti-stupid.

Your gang member comments are bullshit and betrays your bigotry. Everyone one in this country is entitled to due process of law.
As PJ recently stated, "Everyone here know you're full of shit."

That's a pretty dumb question JG. Of course their bias makes a difference in how accurate and how the information is presented. They don't really cite any sources in a meaningful way. That and their bias negates it for value as far as I'm concerned.

just a couple examples from this thread....only.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29/01/2013 01:47PM by fossil_digger.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 02:23PM

You claimed "you do nothing more than call me names..."

None of those unflattering statements you cite were directed at you. And who are you to talk anyway?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29/01/2013 02:25PM by BlahX3.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 04:22PM

i could dig some directed at me up with no problem, but fail to see the point, you consider facts and reality to be opinion if they differ from yours. Yak has the same affliction. maybe you 2 could pool some cash and get in on a budget support group?
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 05:14PM

Actually f_d, it is you who considers opinion to be facts.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 08:06PM

that is faaaaar from the truth
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 10:12PM

I rest my case.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 29, 2013 10:20PM

i was unaware of any evidence presented to the judge
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 08:00AM

How do new gun laws stop people from killing other people when the desire hits them or even stop them from using guns to do it?
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 11:31AM

JG, I don't know how new laws could do that unless perhaps in less restrictions of gun controls in some ways, or make the existing restrictions more focused where they will likely do more good. These are questions we don't have good answers for but that doesn't mean we should stop looking for them. As I have tried to say before which seems to be ignored here, I am NOT in favor of restrictive gun controls but am in favor of us stopping being stupid about the problem. We are wasting time tossing out the same old stale BS arguments and need to wise up somehow. No, guns in and of themselves are NOT necessarily the root of the problem but their availability to those with criminal intent and/or psychopathic problems sure seems to be a factor.

My OPINION is that there is probably enough good data available to determine to a significant degree who many at risk people are and do what is possible to prevent weapons from getting in their hands.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 12:03PM

Posted by: fossil_digger [x]
Date: January 29, 2013 04:22PM

i could dig some directed at me up with no problem, but fail to see the point, you consider facts and reality to be opinion if they differ from yours. Yak has the same affliction. maybe you 2 could pool some cash and get in on a budget support group?


If it is no problem then by all means do so. The point you fail to see is you making statements as facts without anything to back them up, including this particular accusation. When you are confronted with a challenge to back up your opinions with supporting facts you always cop out and divert the issue somehow.

You also have a habit of jumping to conclusions concerning what I and other people say here and try to distort them into meaning or implying something that was not intended at all and in some cases the exact opposite of what was meant. AND you resort to the name calling you complain of probably more than anyone else here except for possibly Kim.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 01:42PM

handjob
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 03:24PM

Oh sorry, I guess I shouldn't be calling folks libs all the time when they quite obviously are ... brain dead is so much more appropriate. Please forgive my faux pas (*facepalm*)

smoking
smiley
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 04:03PM

Posted by: fossil_digger [x]
Date: January 30, 2013 01:42PM

handjob


Typical crap instead of an intelligent response.
Posted by: Mrkim [x]
Date: January 30, 2013 03:24PM

Oh sorry, I guess I shouldn't be calling folks libs all the time when they quite obviously are ... brain dead is so much more appropriate. Please forgive my faux pas


Substituting one insult for another. Nothing has changed.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 30, 2013 04:26PM

handjob
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: January 31, 2013 07:04AM

The problem we have in this country is that the government seldom does what is needed to solve a problem. Where guns are concerned the government will only make laws where it impacts only law abiding citizens because it is easier and they seem to ultimately want to remove all guns from all citizens. If we let them do a little here and a little there then pretty soon the Bill Of Rights is gone and all of our rights along with it. Discussions need to be focused on how to prevent these mass shootings, not on how to remove the tool used in them, if these killings had been done with cars instead of guns we would not be trying to ban cars.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 31, 2013 11:29AM

I agree with you JG. Lose the car and similar analogies though. It doesn't help the argument in your favor, sorry, it just doesn't. There are too many ways to argue over that sort of thing and doing so doesn't really do anything towards find solutions. People end up arguing over that instead of focusing on the real issue.

I hope the government will promote more meaningful research into the problem and come up with some ideas that can help without chipping away at our rights any more than has already been done. I do think better screening of gun purchasers could help but I'm not even sure about that.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: January 31, 2013 11:58AM

For once I can agree with jgoins, but it's not just the government in the US that is ineffectual at solving real problems. Given the number of guns already in the US any sort of ban on ownership will most likely push many of those guns onto the black market and into the hands of criminals, or at least those prepared to defy such a ban.

Part of the discussion on how to prevent these mass killings has to be around the tools used though. The simple truth is that the majority of mass killings in the US are done with firearms, not with cars, knives, or any other tool you want to use as an example. There are reasons for this. My guess is that it's because firearms are effective at doing what they are designed for, relatively easy to obtain and relatively cheap.

Banning firearms in the US will both not work, and not be accepted, so are there other things that can be done that will work and be accepted? I know jg thinks open carry is the answer. I don't, but thankfully it is not my decision, nor his alone, to make.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31/01/2013 12:00PM by GAK67.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: January 31, 2013 12:33PM

Open carry would be a deterrent however the regulation problems would not be solved with it. There is still the issue of keeping the guns out of the hands of those who will abuse them. I don't think that no regulation at all is viable for that reason alone. I see that some compromise is going to be necessary but all people involved need to be willing to be open to compromise and they don't appear to be so at this time. They are too busy making silly arguments back and forth and not focusing on the real issues. In order to compromise all parties need to start from a common ground point. I don't see that happening, not yet.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: January 31, 2013 09:53PM

on the contrary, this is a majority rules subject as far as how much of the 2nd amendment (as well as the rest of our rights) we are willing to give up to "feel" safe, it is more all of our decisions. our elected officials swore an oath to uphold the Constitution protecting everyone's rights, not their opinions or interpretations of the Constitution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31/01/2013 09:54PM by fossil_digger.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 01, 2013 06:41AM

My car analogy was just an extreme example to show the ineffectualness of dealing with the problem from the weapon stand point. Discussions and laws should be done to make it more difficult for people with ill-intent on getting access to our children.

Booze has been the cause of almost as much death as guns but the government will not do anything that will jeopardize their martini lunches to do anything about it. Guns on the other hand is an issue the government can sink their teeth in because of their desire to control every aspect of our lives while reducing the possibility of armed citizens revolting against a tyrannical government. Many laws have been written already with the intention of simply controlling the people.
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: February 01, 2013 08:55AM

Three reasons NOT to use the car analogy:

1. Motor vehicles are not intended to be used as weapons.
2. Motor vehicles are highly regulated by laws in every state.
3. It is not a right to drive, it is a privilege.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: February 01, 2013 10:43AM

best reason to use a "car" like analogy

1. it irritates the fuck out of gun control fucks.
2. it cracks me up.
3. car bombs
4. criminals stealing cars and driving through the closed convenience store doors to steal the ATM
5. road rage involving cars as weapons.

and still my favorite
6. it irritates the fuck out of gun control fucks.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 02, 2013 07:07AM

Well guns are highly regulated in every state as well. Just because something is intended as a weapon people think it should be banned or heavily regulated? Why not work on removing the need for weapons by trying to remove the desire to kill other people or take things which belong to others? Until we can get rid of people's base desires we will always need weapons for protection.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: February 02, 2013 09:38AM

[bible.cc]
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: February 02, 2013 10:18AM

It is part of the human condition to be subject to base desires. Removing them doesn't seem to be an option other than by incapacitating parts of the brain. Controlling them is possible, by that I mean on a personal level. For those who cannot or will not control their own base desires there are laws imposed upon them. Unfortunately for those who can and do exercise self-control the laws are imposed upon us as well.

F_D, I am glad you find some use for some of what is in the Bible. Even if it may be meant ironically, poignantly and/or humorously. Some of it seems meaningful I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2013 02:23PM by BlahX3.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 03, 2013 07:08AM

For those who cannot or will not control their own base desires there are laws imposed upon them. Unfortunately for those who can and do exercise self-control the laws are imposed upon us as well.

There is the problem, if criminals don't care about the laws then why would new gun laws make any difference to them? We already have plenty of laws in existence which can be used to prosecute the people when they are caught. Any new laws will not allow us to capture them any easier, New laws will only restrict us even more and not have any affect on the criminals or the insane nut jobs.