Piers Morgan: No regrets over calling US gun lobby stupid

[SugarD]

I have yet to see a gun problem in my country, where small arms are strictly restricted to shooting clubs. A few minor incidents, but nothing serious like Columbine or people shooting at cops with AK's.

Are your police armed?

[Marcel]

Are your police armed?

They are. They shoot a few suspects a year, but most of them try to kill the police officers with meat cleavers, so yeah, they got it coming.

[Mikal]

Good luck with your gun problem too.

Funny man, thing is, we don't have a gun problem, sure there are a few minor incidents every once in awhile, but nothing at all like the USA, and crime as a whole is down in the UK, just because your country has a big problem you shouldn't try to share it round others to make it look normal.

I don't want our offices to carry guns on person, we have armed response units dedicated to responding with fire arms in situations where they are needed, such as the Woolwich incident, where both suspects were shot and survived, if it were the US both suspects would have been shot and would be dead, with no answers to why they did what they did, yes, the armed response units response was a tad slow, lesson learned, hopefully there is never an incident like this again, but if there is I assume their response time would be quicker, UK police officers have refused guns time and time again, and they probably will continue to, we only need specially trained units, which every force in the UK has.

Take your guns and put them where the sun don't shine, we don't want them and neither do our police.

[Dutchy]

I really hope your country's police force arms it's officers soon

Are your police armed?

I don't see the difference in deadly police response with this.

Or this.


Teamwork, insight, coordination... All that can make a Walther as useful as a fuckin minigun. If it's a guy you want dead, one bullet CAN do, not 500. To react to deadly aggression doesn't JUST require counter aggression, it takes contemplating, reviewing consequences and being critical about taking a shot. This doesn't just mean a difference between taking out a suspect and not taking out a suspect, it means taking out a suspect BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO, or not. If a guy is shooting innocents on sight or pulls an unexpected weapon to your face, whatever... What are you dumb? Blow the fuck away!

Officers enforcing the law carrying firearms does not in any way make the imume to bullets, nor does it make them gods with will over power and death. All it does is give them something to fall back on when all other has failed. Misunderstanding this creates a scenario not too long ago in my city where an officer shot a drunk kid after being notified about a possibility of him carrying a gun. He didn't. The kid made a weird gesture or movement, the cop reacted on instict and prehand information. Now a 17 year old boy is unrightfully dead because of faulty insight. Yay. For. Guns.

[[WS]Jacob]

I don't want our offices to carry guns on person, we have armed response units dedicated to responding with fire arms in situations where they are needed, such as the Woolwich incident, where both suspects were shot and survived, if it were the US both suspects would have been shot and would be dead, with no answers to why they did what they did, yes, the armed response units response was a tad slow, lesson learned, hopefully there is never an incident like this again, but if there is I assume their response time would be quicker, UK police officers have refused guns time and time again, and they probably will continue to, we only need specially trained units, which every force in the UK has.

The police response to Woolwich was about one to two minutes but those officers held back as they can't go into an area where there's guns reported without armed response first. Thankfully firearms incidents are rare around the country but when they are they are likely to be national news drawing in media attention. It is quite worrying though that in certain parts of the country you can be waiting for a ARV (armed response vehicle) for about 20-30 minutes, when every second counts at the scene.

[SugarD]

They are. They shoot a few suspects a year, but most of them try to kill the police officers with meat cleavers, so yeah, they got it coming.

Exactly why it's not an issue for you.

...we have armed response units dedicated to responding with fire arms in situations where they are needed...

And if someone pulls out a gun and shoots an officer who can't defend themselves, I'm sure the armed response teams set in place can't be there faster than the suspect's reaction time to prevent it. You're still missing the point as to why I'm saying they should be carrying them to begin with.

[Mikal]

Exactly why it's not an issue for you.
And if someone pulls out a gun and shoots an officer who can't defend themselves, I'm sure the armed response teams set in place can't be there faster than the suspect's reaction time to prevent it. You're still missing the point as to why I'm saying they should be carrying them to begin with.

If a suspect pulls his gun on that cop before the cop does, the cop is dead anyway, so what the hell does it matter? They shouldn't be, nobody should, you're from a country who's only bit of history is guns, so it's understandable as to why you want to keep them so badly.

[Dutchy]

If a suspect pulls his gun on that cop before the cop does, the cop is dead anyway, so what the hell does it matter? They shouldn't be, nobody should, you're from a country who's only bit of history is guns, so it's understandable as to why you want to keep them so badly.

Don't be so narrow minded, the US has a short but immense history, completely overhauling the international perspective, globally.
Guns are a part of their history because in their early days guns were a way of life, beside a weapon to eradicate, a weapon to protect and guide.

Btw it's funny how a lot of commodities in the US was, is and will be Made in China...

[Mikal]

Btw it's funny how a lot of commodities in the US was, is and will be Made in China...

What does that have to do with this? :trust:

[SugarD]

If a suspect pulls his gun on that cop before the cop does, the cop is dead anyway, so what the hell does it matter? They shouldn't be, nobody should, you're from a country who's only bit of history is guns, so it's understandable as to why you want to keep them so badly.

You clearly don't understand how firearms training works with Police. From day one, Officers are taught to pay extreme attention to details even out of their normal view, and to watch for things that most civilians wouldn't notice at all during their entire day of being around a single person. If they see a suspect pull out something that appears to be a gun, they are ready at all times to draw their weapon and then, and only then, make the decision to fire or not based upon whether the person in question is holding a gun or something else. Decent training provides them with this extreme attention to detail and lack of hesitation so they can make split-second decisions that most others cannot.

So tell me, would you rather be the unarmed cop who gets shot because you can't do anything at all, or would you rather be the armed one who stops the threat, killing or injuring them, and still have the chance to go home safe and cart the suspect off to the hospital?

To add to this, most Police never actually fire their gun in the line of duty in the U.S., so your views that they are murderous, gun-addicted militants is completely wrong. Many times they draw their weapons, but it is always for their safety, or the safety of someone else. By law, they are not allowed to do it to intimidate anyone. Your Police force could easily implement similar training and have their officers armed, just in case. The argument that someone could get shot for no reason is null by the fact that you need such heavy training and knowledge to use that weapon, just as any other they already carry. If your country has less guns, then it only means that officers will need to draw their own out much less often...but it doesn't mean their lives should be put at risk because one person decides to break the law and kill another. The same goes for Police in the United States.

If you check out this site:
http://www.odmp.org/

You can see a list of officers, by name and type of death, for every single year documented where one was downed. If you check it out, you will notice that shootings nationally are still pretty common, but are not very high in numbers. That means that officers still need to be able to defend themselves, (nationally), enough so that they aren't killed by another person with a firearm, but it's not so bad that cops are getting into daily shootouts. The idea here is that officers should have equal or greater firepower than criminals, not less.

Historically, look at the Los Angeles/Hollywood Bank Robbery from the 90's. SWAT, (a common, heavily armed response unit for Police), was not available at the time of most of the incident's events. Officers were being easily outgunned by guys wearing illegal armor, using illegal assault rifles, in the strictest state in the country, within the strictest city in the state. They were being shot down left and right because their simple little handguns could not fight back. It took the initiative of several officers to obtain assistance from a local gun store just to get their own non-assault rifles to even have a remote chance of fighting back and rescuing other trapped/injured civilians and officers with a heavily-armored bank car. By the time SWAT finally arrived, the suspects were already done and fleeing, and it took them moments to take out the armed robbers. Because of this incident, Police around the country, (and around the world in some places), now carry shotguns and tactical rifles in their cars. Many of them also now use them in felony traffic stops because of the extreme violence that some criminals have portrayed...and just about every time, it's with illegal weaponry.

Long story short, you can outlaw everything as much as you want. Criminals don't care. You make it hard enough to where they can't actually get it, and someone will just step in and create an underground sales place for it, as they have ever since gangs, mafias, and black markets began existing around the world thousands of years ago. Fighting it is pointless. The better step is to try to slow it down the best you can, while still making the fight for the innocent even so that they are not killed or hurt as a result of the stupidity of criminals. No matter how hard you try, guns will never go away, and they will eventually become common even in places which ban them. With the way world violence is increasing, and generational character is promoting it around the world, (not to mention the various wars, "ethnic cleansings", and religiously-motivated terrorist attacks), guns are not only here to stay, but they are going to increase. One day it may become another weapon that replaces it, but anyone who thinks the world will ever reach a utopia, 100% free of crime and weaponry, will be the last to survive the chaos.

[Mikal]

We don't have a pathetically out of control gun problem in my country, so we do not need guns and neither does every police officer.
Keep your guns if you want to, but if you have any more mass shootings, the blood of that incident is on the hands of all who defended keeping them.

[SugarD]

We don't have a pathetically out of control gun problem in my country, so we do not need guns and neither does every police officer.

As I said, it's only a matter of time.

[Salmonella]

As I said, it's only a matter of time.

Why?

What happened in America doesn't have to happen in the UK or anywhere else...

[SugarD]

Why?

What happened in America doesn't have to happen in the UK or anywhere else...

The U.S. is not the only country flooded with guns.

[Dutchy]

What does that have to do with this? :trust:

Btw

The U.S. is not the only country flooded with guns.

Nope, but more transparent than others.