Piers Morgan: No regrets over calling US gun lobby stupid

[Dutchy]

[...] If we locked the mentally ill up, they wouldn't have access to guns.

Kinda reminds me of 5:48 - 6:04.
Family Guy Episode:Boys Do Cry Part 3/3

[SugarD]

The man behind the deadly June 7 shooting rampage in Santa Monica tried to buy a gun two years ago, but the state rejected his purchase, police said Thursday.

Instead, John Zawahri began purchasing parts from stores around the country and ultimately assembled his own rifle in a configuration that made it an illegal assault rifle in California, according to police.

Zawahri killed five people — including his father and brother — before being fatally shot by police in the library of Santa Monica College.

...the semi-automatic weapon appears to have been built with parts that are legal to obtain, but put together make the rifle illegal in California.

Zawahri was carrying 1,300 rounds of ammunition in magazines that were capable of holding 30 rounds each.

Such high-capacity magazines are illegal to purchase, sell or transfer in California.

Source: http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/13/37712/santa-monica-gunman-s-weapon-assembled-in-bedroom/


Clearly guns aren't the issue, criminals are. This incident proves it.

Long story short, criminals don't follow laws. Restricting law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals from going on shooting sprees. If they followed the laws, they wouldn't be criminals to begin with...

To add to this, for further evidence:

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/10/California-10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

Check the list, and see #1. Guess which state it is. That's right.

All I have to say is that anyone who believes that the U.S. gun laws aren't restrictive enough clearly has no idea. There are much better ways to handle these problems than just by straight-up violating the U.S. Constitution. Hell, restricting mentally-ill patients and felons from purchasing guns was a great idea! Things such as that work just fine as they are not aimed towards grouping everyone as a criminal, and those who actually are criminals can't get past the law, even if they don't follow it. They must resort to other illegal methods, which can be further capped by better restrictions. Making laws that just prevent people from buying or owning certain weapon types/items isn't going to do a damn thing to stop criminals themselves. Weapons are available illegally no matter what you do. If you want to combat the shootings, find ways to prevent criminals from getting ILLEGAL weapons into the places where they are illegal, instead of trying to restrict legal weapons from people who abide by the law.

So overall, I have to agree. The U.S. gun lobbying is stupid, but this goes both ways. Yes, we want to prevent mass-shootings and protect innocent people, but we shouldn't also be treading all over people's rights to do so when there are much more logical and successful ways to solve the problem instead. Clearly the current methods aren't working, and are only making things worse for everyone...

[Mikal]

It would make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. :roll:

[SugarD]

It would make it harder for criminals to get hold of the guns. :roll:

How? Criminals don't follow the laws. Most of them also aren't going to buy guns legally because they want something that is not limited, and cannot be tracked. They will get them illegally, which the laws have no effect on whatsoever.

[Mikal]

How? Criminals don't follow the laws. Most of them also aren't going to buy guns legally because they want something that is not limited, and cannot be tracked. They will get them illegally, which the laws have no effect on whatsoever.

Are you real? IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS PEOPLE CAN SELL GUNS, IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS CRIMINALS CAN BUY THEM.

[SugarD]

Are you real? IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS PEOPLE CAN SELL GUNS, IF LESS PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, LESS CRIMINALS CAN BUY THEM.

Wrong. Guns are used and made regardless worldwide. Even if you get rid of them nationally, people can still get them into the country illegally. All you would be doing is increasing crime by getting rid of them.

Secondly, it is an impossible task to get rid of all the guns here, legal or illegal. They have been around for hundreds of years, with the U.S. Constitution based on allowing them. Trying to do so will only make the shootings worse, as it will leave only those who have them illegally with the power to use them.

Third, why would we do that? Our Constitution guarantees us the right to have them. As I said before, it's our legal right. Taking away our weapons to bypass that right is illegal. It also will not affect those who have them illegally. Criminals don't care about how legal or illegal something is, or how hard it is to get.

Take the American Alcohol Prohibition, for example. Speakeasies and bootleggers were selling more booze than before alcohol was made illegal. Outlawing it made it a worse mess than before the law was changed. It got so bad, the President had to change the law back to allow it. You can't say that criminals will follow the laws. If you truly think that, then something is seriously wrong. The core word of criminal is "crime".  A crime is an illegal act. Illegal acts do not follow the laws.


Don't believe it'll work? Look at Arizona. They are right next to us, have the most lenient laws in the country, and allow people to open and concealed carry with or without any permits, their choice. They restrict practically nothing, and their shootings are incredibly low compared to California. California has the tightest laws in the entire country, of which almost anything is outlawed in some way or another, and they just added more restrictions. Less guns = less shootings, right? I'm not seeing it there...

Let me throw something else at ya:

If you wish to do the research to confirm this, go right ahead, but it is correct information. Enjoy.


Moral of the story: Guns aren't the problem. Criminals are. Anything can be a deadly weapon. It just depends on who's holding it. Remember that next time you eat dinner with a fork and knife.

Lobbying against guns: Stupid. Lobbying for guns: Stupid. Lobbying for making new laws that affect criminals and not law-abiding citizens: Smart.

[EliteTerm]

Add in the fact that United States alone has 80 million gun owners and over 300 million firearms. You've got states telling the Government to stay out of it, you've got Sheriffs and police organizations refusing to uphold new laws and starting class-act lawsuits with citizens (Colorado) to repeal restrictive laws.

You know things are serious when the police is actually telling you to get trained on firearms and own one because of budget cuts affecting officers from being able to respond to 911 quickly.

[SugarD]

You know things are serious when the police is actually telling you to get trained on firearms and own one because of budget cuts affecting officers from being able to respond to 911 quickly.

Old information now, but this shows a similar trend from the former Sacramento County Sheriff in California:

Earlier this year, Sheriff John McGinness said he would consider issuing more concealed weapons permits as the Sheriff’s Department faced steep budget cuts that would lay off hundreds of deputies. “I have to be open to the potential that there will be more people in need of the ability to protect themselves as individuals," he said in May.

Source: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/16063

The situation is much worse now, and as such, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department is actually on a six-month backlog of appointments just to allow people to attempt to get a CCW. They have been backlogged for over 3 years now. Most CCW's are now being approved. Even with a new Sheriff in town, the trend is continuing. Less cops = less safety, so people are going at it head-on to protect themselves.

[Mikal]

Ok, we get it, you guys are doomed.

[SugarD]

Ok, we get it, you guys are doomed.

Only if current practices continue.

[Mikal]

Only if current practices continue.

Well you seem to be obsessed with keeping your problem, guns, so how will anything change?

[SugarD]

Well you seem to be obsessed with keeping your problem, guns, so how will anything change?

Guns aren't the problem. Criminals are. Anything can be a deadly weapon. It just depends on who's holding it. Remember that next time you eat dinner with a fork and knife.

[Dutchy]

Look at it from this perspective..
> Criminal with firearm, endangering your life.
> Wat do? You live, by shooting him. He dies, you live.
> Defense, by offense.

How about instead of fighting fire with fire, fight fire with water?
Think yin-yang, what's the opposite of a gun? Something that doesn't kill. Guns aren't meant to defend, they're meant to kill.
It can still have the same short term effect as a gun, like temporarily disabling a suspect, no long term damage... Hey wait a sec.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon

Ohoh... Yea, 'murica, I don't think you want to start a war against your government..

Anyway

The sole reason for owning civil guns is to kill anyone that DESERVES it. But who deserves to die by your hand? People who broke a sentence in the lawbook? They have to plainly die for that? I mean, I know those laws are there to draw a line and create and maintain a uniform and prosperous mass-society, but... Killing people never solves anything, it might defuse a situation, end a string of events or even save lives, but... It never SOLVES anything in the long term, death is just... -1.

Also, US frontier; claim land; defend land (animals, natives, robbers); use your gun or lose your land, your entire existence and future; 2nd amendment essential.

Suburban US 200 years in the future.... No.

[SugarD]

Sometimes you don't have a choice. Put yourself in the shoes of a Police Officer. The suspect you are trying to apprehend has a gun. He shoots at you. You aren't going to sit back and just let him kill you because he "won" the shootout. You're going to shoot back and stop the threat.

One thing people don't understand is that owning a gun doesn't mean you shoot to kill. It means you shoot to stop the threat. You aren't trying to murder someone. You are trying to defend your own life from someone else who is trying to take it. People who get shot can still survive and go on to spend time in jail. People who misuse their self-defense in a Hollywood matter to kill an attacker after they are disarmed will also go to jail. It's not as simple as "you shoot me, so I kill you".

[Dutchy]

Yeah the police are there for those situations and no It's not as simple as always killing in self defense. But admit, guns are meant to kill, not to temporarily disable.. Especially assault rifles and shotguns.