Larry Pratt v Piers Morgan (Round 2)

[charlesmartel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rudA9LESQi0]Piers Morgan defeated by Larry Pratt in Gun Control debate ... AGAIN !!! ... Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]


Gun Owners of America makes the NRA look like pansies. Pratt doesn't give an inch. Total resistance!

 

[Garrett]

Fuck Piers Morgan. I'd love to play a game of chess with him.

"Piers, we're gonna have to take away your Queen so you can't properly defend yourself."

 

[eVandals]

He got owned again tonight against Ben Shapiro

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs&player_embedded]COMPLETE: Ben Shapiro CUTS Piers Morgan DOWN - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IceToEskimos]

Ben Shapiro kills it here.

 

[el toddler]

Holy shit, Ben Shapiro is good.

 

[Fatbat]

I've thoroughly enjoyed some of Morgan's past interviews with celebs, but these ongoing interviews about guns make him look like a complete douche, interrupting his guests, not letting them talk and putting word in their mouths. Fuck him.

 

[jryan21]

He's been trying to get people to say AR-15s are needed to protect against a government that is tyrannical, to make them look like extremists. The last guy framed it in a more realistic way (average viewers would find more reasonable), and he ended the interview pretty quickly.

 

[IceToEskimos]

He's been trying to get people to say AR-15s are needed to protect against a government that is tyrannical, to make them look like extremists. The last guy framed it in a more realistic way (average viewers would find more reasonable), and he ended the interview pretty quickly.

I like how the "how many more children have to die?" argument for restricting access to assault weapons is instantly silenced when you point out that the majority of kids that are killed by gunfire die as a result of gunshots inflicted by handguns.

It's a classic example of the left hiding behind dead children and using fear to try and limit liberties that come with uncomfortable burdens.

These people have nothing to say when you ask them why they aren't trying to limit access to handguns, which proves that they either they don't actually give a shit about kids being shot, or they don't give enough of a shit about the issue they seem to be so passionate about to actually take the time to figure out what sort of legislation would actually bring about the changes they claim to want.

 

[el toddler]

I like how the "how many more children have to die?" argument for restricting access to assault weapons is instantly silenced when you point out that the majority of kids that are killed by gunfire die as a result of gunshots inflicted by handguns.

It's a classic example of the left hiding behind dead children and using fear to try and limit liberties that come with uncomfortable burdens.

These people have nothing to say when you ask them why they aren't trying to limit access to handguns, which proves that they either they don't actually give a shit about kids being shot, or they don't give enough of a shit about the issue they seem to be so passionate about to actually take the time to figure out what sort of legislation would actually bring about the changes they claim to want.

AGREED 100%

 

[el toddler]

Piers Morgan is all over the map. I wish he would just go back to England.

 

[Fatbat]

^^ Exactly. When Shapiro brought that point up about handguns right at the beginning of the interview, Morgan dodged it and said "we'll come back to that", which they never really did. Shapiro should have held his ground and forced Morgan to answer the question.

Virginia Tech, which remains the deadliest school shooting in the US, was committed with two handguns. The vast majority of the shootings in the States happen with handguns.

So lets just say that the ban on assault rifles comes back into effect and ignore for a moment the millions already in circulation. What happens the next time there's a mass shooting involving handguns? You can be damn sure the likes of Morgan, who previously said he doesn't want to take away American's handguns, is going to be screaming to do exactly that.

 

[Rumblebuffin]

On behalf of the UK, I'd like to apologise for Piers Morgan. We knew he was shit back in the 80s and have been putting up with him ever since.

We have a hero called Ian Hislop who has been railing on PM for years. Check this:

and if Im being a massive Noob and not embeddin right, here's the link: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QfW58Efcck"]Room 101(Paul Merton Last Ever) Ian Hislop - Piers Morgan - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rodent]

Piers Morgan is all over the map. I wish he would just go back to England.

I don't particularly like Mr Morgan and don't really give a monkey's uncle what you do in the states but regarding the first interview, as a UK resident I can tell you that we have about 500 murders a year which is a murder rate 4 times lower than the US and about 50 of these are shootings.


We are higher on violent crime but on the whole I would rather be 4 times as likely to be mugged than 4 times as likely to be shot and killed.

 

[emp]

They do bring up a good point, and that is mental illness (one common thread here, and a very likely source for these things)

The problem becomes even bigger then, though.

Different than some might think, mental illnesses are not a lifetime stable event.

Around 10% (yeah, you can read that again) of the population experience a schizophrenic episode in their life.

Manic depression, Depression, paranoid delusions, etc, etc...

Would have to be added to the list.

Also the general, more vague idea of "unstable" or "irresponsible".

Fun fact:
A lot of men in jail for violent crimes have been assessed in a study and found to be suffering from a borderline personality disorder.
http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/borderline-personality-disorder-distinct-317030982

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

This is extremely disputed, hard to diagnose and has a lot of overlap with culturally accepted tendencies in some circles
(as in Alex Jones fits the bill quite well)

So..
Who'd like to be screened annually?

And what will you do when the shrink labels you unstable?
Give up your weapons until the next appointment?

And - do we give weapons back to people once diagnosed like this?

The other question is that of a criminal background.

What do we include in that?

Only violent offenses? Might be too late at that point.
Drug use? (Helloooo, marijuana users)
DUI?
Theft?

Where do you draw the line?

::emp::

 

[emp]

I like how the "how many more children have to die?" argument for restricting access to assault weapons is instantly silenced when you point out that the majority of kids that are killed by gunfire die as a result of gunshots inflicted by handguns.

It's a classic example of the left hiding behind dead children and using fear to try and limit liberties that come with uncomfortable burdens.

These people have nothing to say when you ask them why they aren't trying to limit access to handguns, which proves that they either they don't actually give a shit about kids being shot, or they don't give enough of a shit about the issue they seem to be so passionate about to actually take the time to figure out what sort of legislation would actually bring about the changes they claim to want.

So - you would be fine with gun control on handguns?

::emp::

 

[IceToEskimos]

So - you would be fine with gun control on handguns?

::emp::

No, not at all. I'm just pointing out how convoluted the thinking of many anti-gun types can be. They claim to want to restrict ownership of one type of weapon, to prevent one type of incident...yet, they choose the wrong weapon, and the wrong incident. It's laughable.

I wouldn't agree with them if they called for a ban on handguns, but at least their argument would be cogent.

 

[dmnEPC]

Why has media continue to talk about banning Assault Rifles? But then at the same time the white house does not know what they are going to do yet, they are entertaining all ideas. The white house has made no indication they want to ban assault rifles. Why do they keep bringing this up? To further an agenda? Or to soften the blow?

 

[jryan21]

One CEO says he's willing to go to outrageous lengths to protect his right to use a gun.

James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills, claimed in a video posted on YouTube and Facebook that he would "start killing people" if President Barack Obama decides to take executive action to pass further gun control policies, Raw Story reports.

In a frenetic address to the camera, Yeager puts a call out to other gun rights advocates to "load your damn mags" and "get ready to fight" in what he claims will turn into a "civil war" if gun control measures in the country get any stricter.

Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Measure (VIDEO)


Here's another of his videos:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UuyjecAhx0"]Assault Weapon Ban...My Line in the Sand - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI"]Pack Your Bags Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SgtSlaughter]

Thats how we roll in Tennessee. I'm with that dude.

 

[infoslob]

I don't particularly like Mr Morgan and don't really give a monkey's uncle what you do in the states but regarding the first interview, as a UK resident I can tell you that we have about 500 murders a year which is a murder rate 4 times lower than the US and about 50 of these are shootings.

We are higher on violent crime but on the whole I would rather be 4 times as likely to be mugged than 4 times as likely to be shot and killed.

I don't doubt you live in fear of being mugged.



Rule, Britannia!