Piers Morgan on gun crime for CNN

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by boomhower

That is going do absolutely nothing but create more victims. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the country. They aren't going to magically disappear. Who is going to turn their guns in? Law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care if they get caught with illegal guns, they do everyday as being in possession as a felon. Control laws don't work because the only ones that follow them are law abiding people. Criminals don't follow the law, that's why they are criminals. In the deadliest school massacre not a bullet was fired. No guns were needed in OKC. Mass murderers will do their evil deeds.

The government itself has put hundreds of these "evil" guns into the hands of criminals on American soil and now they want to take them away from law abiding citizens, that's pretty screwed up.

You cant deny that it would stop incidents like the Cinema shooting and Newtown, as those folks would have never had guns to use.

[Saladinos]

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

I understand your point, but it's not reality.

First off..... the 2nd amendment keeps law makers from baning all guns. But tougher restrictions as a whole is very nessasary and long over due.

Secondly...... Assault weapons are in a completely differ class than the average handgun. IMO they should even restrict certain handguns. No reason to have a .50 handgun or a 30+ round mag.

Resrictions on types of weapons is will prevent loss of lives regardless if it prevents incidents.

The 2nd amendment is about bearing arms. Guns are not explicitly mentioned.

There is no reason to think they are appropriate in today's world. If the 2nd amendment never existed, it wouldn't be enacted today. That's the sign that it needs to change - our laws need to be able to continually justify their existence. This one, in its current state and with its modern implications, can't.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by glocke12

oh sure, because having your ears, nose or fingers cut off by a madman with a knife is alot better than being able to defend against said madman with a gun...

The reason this madman used a knife was because he couldn't get a gun. If other people could have gotten guns there in then so could he. And then he wouldn't have just cut these kids up; he could have blown their brains out.

The defense argument is a crock. A concealed weapon alone is useless without proper training to react in such circumstances, which few people outside of military and law enforcement have.

[Apple OC]

I miss Larry King Live ... CNN screwed up bringing in PM ... even his voice has become annoying.

[million7]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Someone wouldn't come at you with a gun if they couldn't get one in the first place

You're assuming getting rid of guns get's them out of criminal hands. You're assuming that passing a law means everyone including criminals will abide by the law.

[TedM]

Originally Posted by million7

Criminals will find something else to kill, rob, rape people. Like knives.

BBC News Article
"In fact, the most common weapon used in a violent crime in England and Wales is not a gun - but a knife.

CRIME FIGURES IN FULL

Crime in England and Wales 2006-07

There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings.
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London recently conducted some deeper analysis of the available Home Office's statistics.
It concluded that between 22,000 and 57,900 young people could have been victims of knife crime in 2004. However, it says without better official data it is impossible to know for sure - and that we need that data to improve the public debate.
The Home Office has pledged to change the way crime figures are presented to help the public better understand the impact on their area. One of the key changes is going to be separate knife crimes figures from 2008."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

This is a great post. There is quite a bit of data from the UK in general we can see about crime and its relation with guns. Though the UK is a much safer place in general and has a much smaller population that the United States.

[million7]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

The logic seems to be "I own a gun to protect myself from others with a gun".

Ignoring the fact "if nobody owns a gun, nobody can shoot me".

That's a big IF.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Why the hell would ANYONE need a semi-automatic weapon for one thing?

Mrs Lanza for example. Six guns, in.c 4 assault rifles. Why would anyone - ANYONE need this?! Thats psychotic.[COLOR="#808080"]

I would say who are you to decide for someone what they need?
And even if you could tell someone what they need, who are you for them to listen to you?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by million7

You're assuming getting rid of guns get's them out of criminal hands. You're assuming that passing a law means everyone including criminals will abide by the law.

As you are failing to recognise that people are far less likely to arm themselves to commit proprrty crime if they are not expecting the opposition to be intent on blowing them away.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by million7

You're assuming getting rid of guns get's them out of criminal hands. You're assuming that passing a law means everyone including criminals will abide by the law.

You'd think that'd be correct. But it's really not.

Right now, in the US where do the criminals get their guns? Thats right - any shop.

Now, if all shops stopped selling them, the criminals would find it MUCH harder to get them - sure, it'll still be possible - but much harder.

Now, lets take this, and apply pure factual statistics to it.

For the year 2007, the United Stats of America had 2.95 homicides by firearm, per 100,000 people.

Thats MASSIVE. That really is HUGE and it's shocking people dont get this part.

In comparison, in England and Wales combined, there were 0.07 homicides by firearm per 100,000.

In Japan there were 0.01.

The USA has the highest homicide rate by firearm (per 100,000) in the developed world. It's the only country in the developed world that allows everyone to own a firearm.

---
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
--


Now, let me ask this, and this is a loaded question:

Do all of you people who support the "right to own a gun" also support the legalisation of drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth etc)? Afterall, it should be your personal freedom to decide what chemicals or substances you put into your body right?

I look forward to reading the replies to this one.

----------

Originally Posted by million7

I would say who are you to decide for someone what they need?
And even if you could tell someone what they need, who are you for them to listen to you?

By your logic, the US has no place stopping the middle-east developing weapons of mass distruction. It's their right to do so. By your logic, I should be allowed to have a bomb 'just incase' I need it.

So you think its perfectly normal to own a stash of guns, some of which are semi-automatic?

What's even more disturbing is hearing the kind of crazy person that Mrs Lanza apparently was:

According to reports, Nancy Lanza was a so-called 'prepper', a part of the survivalist movement which urges individuals to prepare for the breakdown of society by training with weapons and hoarding food and other supplies.

<snip>
Mrs Lanza is thought to have trained her sons, Adam and Ryan to shoot, even taking them to local ranges.

Friends and family have portrayed Mrs Lanza as a paranoid ‘survivalist’ who believed the world was on the brink of violent collapse.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8422298.html

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

... some of which are semi-automatic?...

I'm curious (here as well as another thread I just posted in).

Could you please provide your definition or understanding of what a semi-automatic weapon is?

Thanks.

[copykris]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

THIS IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

it is when you're living your life in constant fear, as these gun lovin people do

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by copykris

it is when you're living your life in constant fear, as these gun lovin people do

Such stereotyping inaccuracy. I don't live my life in fear of fire, yet I pay premiums for fire insurance. I don't live my life in fear of automobile theft, yet I carry theft insurance. And so on ...

I do these things because I personally think they are prudent actions to take.

Owning firearms, in my personal opinion, not only provides me with an enjoyable sporting outlet (target shooting), but additonally strikes me as a prudent thing to do.

No fear in the picture.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Such stereotyping inaccuracy. I don't live my life in fear of fire, yet I pay premiums for fire insurance. I don't live my life in fear of automobile theft, yet I carry theft insurance. And so on ...

I do these things because I personally think they are prudent actions to take.

Owning firearms, in my personal opinion, not only provides me with an enjoyable sporting outlet (target shooting), but additonally strikes me as a prudent thing to do.

No fear in the picture.

If I was to personally think it's prudent to own a nuclear warhead, would that be ok?

[million7]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

You'd think that'd be correct. But it's really not.

Right now, in the US where do the criminals get their guns? Thats right - any shop.

Now, if all shops stopped selling them, the criminals would find it MUCH harder to get them - sure, it'll still be possible - but much harder.

Now, lets take this, and apply pure factual statistics to it.

For the year 2007, the United Stats of America had 2.95 homicides by firearm, per 100,000 people.

Thats MASSIVE. That really is HUGE and it's shocking people dont get this part.

In comparison, in England and Wales combined, there were 0.07 homicides by firearm per 100,000.

In Japan there were 0.01.

The USA has the highest homicide rate by firearm (per 100,000) in the developed world. It's the only country in the developed world that allows everyone to own a firearm.

---
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
--

Comparing Japan to the US isn't a good idea, they're culture and is different then ours.

And you're assuming that if you make it harder to get guns from the shop that criminals in america will stop and not try to find other ways to get them.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Now, let me ask this, and this is a loaded question:

Do all of you people who support the "right to own a gun" also support the legalisation of drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth etc)? Afterall, it should be your personal freedom to decide what chemicals or substances you put into your body right?

I look forward to reading the replies to this one.

I do agree with the right to put what ever you want into your own body, It's not my choice, what people do and don't do.

The problem is if you agree to the legalization of drugs, you should draw the parallel that you're not suppose to force people to do what you want them to do, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Originally Posted by rmwebs

By your logic, the US has no place stopping the middle-east developing weapons of mass distruction. It's their right to do so. By your logic, I should be allowed to have a bomb 'just incase' I need it.

So you think its perfectly normal to own a stash of guns, some of which are semi-automatic?

What's even more disturbing is hearing the kind of crazy person that Mrs Lanza apparently was:



THIS IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8422298.html

You're in the UK so the Prepping Culture not as big over there as in the US, so it will look kind of abnormal to you.

You have a right to call it abnormal but by "prepping" their not bothering you so I think they wouldn't like that you bother them by telling them to stop.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

You'd think that'd be correct. But it's really not.

Right now, in the US where do the criminals get their guns? Thats right - any shop.

Now, if all shops stopped selling them, the criminals would find it MUCH harder to get them - sure, it'll still be possible - but much harder.

Now, lets take this, and apply pure factual statistics to it.

For the year 2007, the United Stats of America had 2.95 homicides by firearm, per 100,000 people.

Thats MASSIVE. That really is HUGE and it's shocking people dont get this part.

In comparison, in England and Wales combined, there were 0.07 homicides by firearm per 100,000.

In Japan there were 0.01.

The USA has the highest homicide rate by firearm (per 100,000) in the developed world. It's the only country in the developed world that allows everyone to own a firearm.

---
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
--


Now, let me ask this, and this is a loaded question:

Do all of you people who support the "right to own a gun" also support the legalisation of drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth etc)? Afterall, it should be your personal freedom to decide what chemicals or substances you put into your body right?

I look forward to reading the replies to this one.

----------


By your logic, the US has no place stopping the middle-east developing weapons of mass distruction. It's their right to do so. By your logic, I should be allowed to have a bomb 'just incase' I need it.

So you think its perfectly normal to own a stash of guns, some of which are semi-automatic?

What's even more disturbing is hearing the kind of crazy person that Mrs Lanza apparently was:



THIS IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8422298.html

Criminals get there guns from the under world without serials or record..Mass murderers get their guns from store because they want to be remembered.

As a criminal I want to shoot you or shoot at you with gloves on and ditch the weapon and walk away with whatever bounty I acquired. A mass murderer wants to famous and be talked about..

[million7]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Mass murderers get their guns from store because they want to be remembered.

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

... A mass murderer wants to famous and be talked about..

Something I haven't heard come up in the debate yet. Very good points.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

If I was to personally think it's prudent to own a nuclear warhead, would that be ok?

Do you really, objectively, being intellectually honest, believe that is a valid comparison?

I am a 66 year old responsible, sane member of society. I have owned various firearms since the age of 27. I keep them secured in a manner which only allows me to access them. I have never been arrested. I have never been institutionalized. I have never, ever pointed a weapon at another human being, in threat or in jest. I have taken firearms training courses covering safety issues, legal issues, potential psychological issues (if one should ever shoot another human) and actual shooting techniques and methodologies.

I do not consider myself to be any kind of threat to anyone else, unless they should bring a threat of bodily harm or death to myself or my family.

No, I do not think it would be OK for you to possess a nuclear warhead, unless you could demonstrate to me comparable qualifications as I have presented here with firearms.

BTW, I'm still anxiously awaiting hearing your definition of a semi-automatic weapon.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Right now, in the US where do the criminals get their guns? Thats right - any shop.

Now, if all shops stopped selling them, the criminals would find it MUCH harder to get them - sure, it'll still be possible - but much harder.

The majority of guns used to commit crimes in the U.S. are not purchased over the counter and how hard in the U.S. is it to acquire weed or cocaine? If you want to disarm criminals you are going about it the wrong way. It's akin to making it harder to legally get a driver's license in an effort to cut down on car jackings.

If all you want to do is reduce the odds of another Sandy Hook or GA Tech shooting but don't care about taking meaningful measures to combat the daily gun violence in the U.S. your priorities are f'ed up in my opinion.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

The majority of guns used to commit crimes in the U.S. are not purchased over the counter and how hard in the U.S. is it to acquire weed or cocaine? If you want to disarm criminals you are going about it the wrong way. It's akin to making it harder to legally get a driver's license in an effort to cut down on car jackings.

The criminal may not have purchased the gun themselves, but all too often these guns are obtained over the counter.

Drugs and guns are not the same thing. Guns are harder to make and easier to track. And you don't get hooked on stronger weapons in jail as so often happens with drugs.

[million7]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

By your logic, the US has no place stopping the middle-east developing weapons of mass distruction. It's their right to do so. By your logic, I should be allowed to have a bomb 'just incase' I need it.

have a bomb have guns, but if you choose to stay alive after you kill people, murder is still a crime so you'll be subject to the law.

I don't agree with US foreign policy, they police the world far too much. If Countries in the Middle East want to develop weapons to protect themselves let them do it, who are we to tell a country how they can protect themselves?

I don't think most people believe the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction idea anymore.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by APlotdevice

The criminal may not have purchased the gun themselves, but all too often these guns are obtained over the counter.

From your link:

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market.

This touches on something I said in a previous post about giving the ATF the money and man power to enforce laws already on the books that concern FFLs and distribution.

Drugs and guns are not the same thing. Guns are harder to make and easier to track. And you don't get hooked on stronger weapons in jail as so often happens with drugs.

I'm taking about gun trafficking and drug trafficking, not addiction. You can put as many hurdles as you want on legit over the counter gun sales but if you don't address the upstream problems (as mentioned above) and don't address the underlying causes for demand on the street you will NOT be keeping firearms out of the hands of those that are most likely to commit crimes with firearms. For example, how much violence did Prohibition breed in the '20s? How much violence do you think the War on Drugs breeds today? Separate but related issues, IMO.

[boomhower]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

You cant deny that it would stop incidents like the Cinema shooting and Newtown, as those folks would have never had guns to use.

Yeah, actually I can. Let's say the last AWB was never repealed. It takes roughly two seconds for a trained person to reload a rifle. The body count would not have changed much. Yes, I realize some on the far left want to ban every semi-auto. Let's say you do. They could have used something other than firearms. To create a large body count in a confined space such as a school isn't difficult for a determined person with an internet connection.

Originally Posted by Saladinos

The 2nd amendment is about bearing arms. Guns are not explicitly mentioned.

There is no reason to think they are appropriate in today's world. If the 2nd amendment never existed, it wouldn't be enacted today. That's the sign that it needs to change - our laws need to be able to continually justify their existence. This one, in its current state and with its modern implications, can't.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the bill of rights you like. I don't know about you but I've never seen a militia armed with anything other than guns.

Originally Posted by skunk

As you are failing to recognise that people are far less likely to arm themselves to commit proprrty crime if they are not expecting the opposition to be intent on blowing them away.

What does property crime have to do with it? If you want my car go for it, I'm not going to shoot someone for stealing something. It is for self defense, not the defense of my property. Now car jacking me at gun point is a little different. Very few states authorize deadly force to prevent property crime, only one that comes to mind is Texas.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

You'd think that'd be correct. But it's really not.

Right now, in the US where do the criminals get their guns? Thats right - any shop.

Now, if all shops stopped selling them, the criminals would find it MUCH harder to get them - sure, it'll still be possible - but much harder.

Now, lets take this, and apply pure factual statistics to it.

For the year 2007, the United Stats of America had 2.95 homicides by firearm, per 100,000 people.

Thats MASSIVE. That really is HUGE and it's shocking people dont get this part.

In comparison, in England and Wales combined, there were 0.07 homicides by firearm per 100,000.

In Japan there were 0.01.

The USA has the highest homicide rate by firearm (per 100,000) in the developed world. It's the only country in the developed world that allows everyone to own a firearm.

The vast majority of these homicides is drug and gang related. Do these countries have the massive drug and gang problem like the US does?(Genuinely asking, I don't know but is an extremely valid question.
---
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
--


Now, let me ask this, and this is a loaded question:

Do all of you people who support the "right to own a gun" also support the legalisation of drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth etc)? Afterall, it should be your personal freedom to decide what chemicals or substances you put into your body right?

I look forward to reading the replies to this one.
Actually yes. First as I said above a large percentage of the murders in this country are because of illegal drugs. Second, if you want to get screwed up be my guest. But if it's legalized a massive reform of the entitlement system would have to be done. Your not getting disability because you fried yourself meth. If it's legalized property crimes would go up but murders would drop substantially. Third, absolutely massive amounts of money is spent fighting the never ending drug war. Move that cash to mental health.
----------


By your logic, the US has no place stopping the middle-east developing weapons of mass distruction. It's their right to do so. By your logic, I should be allowed to have a bomb 'just incase' I need it.

I'm still a bit on the fence on this one. Should a country have the right to defend itself? Yes. Should a country that has stated time and again that it would wipe another of the face of the map if it could? I don't think so. Along the same lines if someone goes out and says they want to shoot up a shopping mall they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.

So you think its perfectly normal to own a stash of guns, some of which are semi-automatic?
Absolutely. Let me ask you this, what does quantity matter? You can only carry so many. Whether you have one rifle or a 100 you can only carry one at a time. It just "looks" bad to anti's. The AR-15 for instance is the most modular rifle in the world. I could have five different AR's used for different tasks and you couldn't tell they were all AR's unless I told you. People hear the term "assault rifle" and freak out. An just for the record and AR-15 and AK-47's you can buy ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS!!! Assault weapons are either fully automatic or burst capable. Semi-automatic guns are not assault rifles. It's just attention grabbing by the media that obviously works very very well since no one seems to know or care to look up what an assault rifle actually is. Assault rifles are already heavily regulated and haven't been produced in over 20 years for civilian purchase.
What's even more disturbing is hearing the kind of crazy person that Mrs Lanza apparently was:



THIS IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8422298.html

Is it normal to be a prepper? Not to the extremes some take it to. Is it insane? Nah. I know folks who do it and it's as much a hobby as it is actually preparing for something. Most of the hardcore are the tin foil hat types who aren't normal plain and simple. That man was not normal obviously.(I refuse to type his name as that's what his whole goal was, to be remembered. I fully believe some of these mass murders would not have happened if it was sensationalized in the media as it is. If there's no publicity of the killers name he won't be remembered and most of their motivation is gone.

[k995]

Originally Posted by boomhower

Yeah, actually I can. Let's say the last AWB was never repealed. It takes roughly two seconds for a trained person to reload a rifle. The body count would not have changed much. Yes, I realize some on the far left want to ban every semi-auto. Let's say you do. They could have used something other than firearms. To create a large body count in a confined space such as a school isn't difficult for a determined person with an internet connection.

But it is harder and easier to detect. With this logic you can allow an M60

You can't pick and choose what parts of the bill of rights you like. I don't know about you but I've never seen a militia armed with anything other than guns.

Its an amendment , change it it shouldnt be a static document time moves on.

[keekl]

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

I understand your point, but it's not reality.

First off..... the 2nd amendment keeps law makers from baning all guns. But tougher restrictions as a whole is very nessasary and long over due.

Secondly...... Assault weapons are in a completely differ class than the average handgun. IMO they should even restrict certain handguns. No reason to have a .50 handgun or a 30+ round mag.

Resrictions on types of weapons is will prevent loss of lives regardless if it prevents incidents.

I bought an "Assault Weapon" during the 10 year Clinton Executive Order "Assault Weapon Ban"; it didn't have a bayonet lug nor flash suppressor but it went "bang" everytime I pulled the trigger. There were cosmetic changes yet it was still available. Guns and magazines were certainly more expensive yet still available.

Folks wanting regulations seem to miss the point~there are already millions on the street and in homes. Even if another firearm wasn't manufactured there are plenty to go around...so anything short of a forced turn-in/confiscation is little more than a "feel good" gesture from the gov't.

And a confiscation would be a very bad idea...the British found out the hard way at Lexington and Concord when they came to confiscate arms from the colonists.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by keekl

I bought an "Assault Weapon" during the 10 year Clinton Executive Order "Assault Weapon Ban"; it didn't have a bayonet lug nor flash suppressor but it went "bang" everytime I pulled the trigger. There were cosmetic changes yet it was still available. Guns and magazines were certainly more expensive yet still available.

Folks wanting regulations seem to miss the point~there are already millions on the street and in homes. Even if another firearm wasn't manufactured there are plenty to go around...so anything short of a forced turn-in/confiscation is little more than a "feel good" gesture from the gov't.

And a confiscation would be a very bad idea...the British found out the hard way at Lexington and Concord when they came to confiscate arms from the colonists.

He didn't say ban - he said restrict. By this he means make it harder to get hold of them in the future.

There is no need or just cause for an 'average joe' to be in possession of a gun intended to fight wars. No justification for it at all.

Whilst a ban will never, ever happen, laws can and should be put into place to prevent people hoarding stashes of weapons and ammo, as well as mandatory licensing of each and every firearm you own.

(and for what its worth to the silly political people here, I dont consider myself to be political in any way - I despise politics. I'm posting as a person who feels its common sense not to put guns in the hands of an nutter, and at the end of the day I would hope that we all one one thing: Peace)