Anybody else notice how Piers never responds to points raised or points made, by the guest?This is based on my repeated viewings of the AJ interview, and half of this one with Larry Pratt.
"Anybody else notice how Piers never responds to points raised or points made, by the guest?">> Yep, especially with the gun debate. He comes "prepared" with his stats and then just rinses and repeats. Perfect example is when Piers thinks he has Pratt by asking him why none of the 62 mass murders were stopped by an armed citizen -- well, of course not, because in those incidents they never become mass shootings to add to that statistic! Piers is not the sharpest tool in the shed.The other thing with the Jones and Pratt interviews that Piers either can't or won't refute is when they keep reminding Piers that the UK is the most violent country in the EU and that violent crime skyrocketed after their gun ban. He just repeats the gun murder stat. So, he's either too dense or sociopathically insinuating some murder is more tolerable than others. By the way, Ben Swann's recent Reality Check on this subject blew me away esp the statistic comparing the violent crime rates between the UK and US, where the former is almost 10x higher per 100,000 people. Piers can't respond logically or reasonably, so he insistently relies on stirring emotions instead.
I can't hardley keep an open mind to even listen to his thoughts because I feel they are all self centered. I really do not think he cares about the children as much as he lets on he is trying to be somebody and get ratings so the money will make him feel like he is a big sucess. He is sickening to even look at because he is to worried about himself. Get someone in there than is a true journalist and host.
Pratt wins round 2, who won round 1?
Anybody know what in the hell Morgan was talking about when he stated something to the effect of "11 more laws have been passed to make gun ownership more accessible?" The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says gun ownership is an inalienable right. How exactly does passing more laws "enhance" that right? That's like saying you've passed 11 laws to make freedom of speech easier. Laws passed by government can only restrict freedom... not that I would expect Piers Morgan to understand this. Anyway, nice showing by Larry Pratt. I think this does much more for the liberty, and pro-2nd amendment movement than Alex Jones ranting and raving.
Awesome! I love watching Larry Pratt take him down with his style, but I still took more satisfaction at listening to Jones come in and flipping the table over. I like both styles but I like watching the table flippers more. Even if I would probably be more like Pratt if I was being interviewed.
Number of murders with a rifle of any kind in 2011 in the US: 323Number of murders in Chicago last year, where guns are banned: 532Case Closed.
Stupid misinterpretation of data.
States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.
Let's examine the facts and what truly is "stupid." 1. Fascist gun banners routinely argue, and have argued since I have been paying attention to the debate in the 90s, that more guns equals more crime, and changing the laws to ban guns would make crime go down while more guns in circulation or easing of laws would lead to explosions in crime.2. Gun banners routinely make the very basic mistake of correlation equaling causation attempt to correlate another nation's gun laws like Britain or Canada, and contrast the total murder rate with that of America - yet immediately start talking about other variables when an area like Chicago or DC that totally bans guns and has an astronomical crime rate is mentioned3. Record numbers of guns are being sold, yet the murder and violent crime rate in the US are down around 50% in the last 20 years4. At least 2.5 million self loading AR15 style rifles have been sold to the public since 1995, and yet last year the number of murders involving a rifle was 323 in a nation of 300 million plus - less than 2% of the total murder rate and lagging behind in the categories of stabbings, death via blunt object, and being beaten to death with fists 5. Chicago, which completely has banned private ownership of firearms for decades, had a murder rate of over 500 people with over 400 school kid aged children shot6. Handguns are involved in at least 16 times more murders than rifles, yet the answer from the gun banners seems to center around banning rifles!7. The same groups and people calling for new gun laws now were horribly wrong in a very embarrassing fashion at their predictions starting in the late 90s that states allowing conceal carry would see an explosion in violent crime and murder rates - yet the exact opposite happened. Similar predictions were made over the "AWB" - which never banned any rifles anyway - lapsing in 2004, and murder rates continue to plummet each year. Those same people and academics, who proved to be beyond embarrassingly wrong with their predictions on CCW and the AWB, are now saying that new laws are needed!8. Both sides of the debate ignore the elephant in the room: that most of the crime in this nation takes places in large inner city areas where gangs are fighting over drug turf, just like the last time prohibition was attempted in this country 9. The American public is against the radical agenda of people like Sarah Brady - which is why she had to change the name of "handgun control inc," who once advocated banning handguns, by about 80% to 20%. Even the so called "assault weapons ban" is opposed by the majority of the public according to gallup10. Almost all politicians and everyone in the DC media are completely clueless about basic firearm knowledge. Most falsely think the ar15 is a "high caliber" rifle - when the 223 caliber is so weak that it is banned in a number of states from being used to hunt game. Most think it is fully automatic, not aware that fully auto guns were banned in the 1930s and in 1986 with laws. Most continue to refer to a small caliber self loading rifle as an "assault rifle" or "weapon of war" when the very definition of an assault rifle is a smaller caliber that fires on automatic, not semi auto. The whole point of having a smaller caliber is to control it on burst firing - which is why an army would be crazy to have a small caliber rifle with semi auto only.Most simply cannot tell the difference between "clip" and "magazine" - sort of like mistaking a computer on the internet for a telegram.The best example is people like Carolyn McCarthy, who don't even know or understand what features she advocates banning bc they obtain their knowledge about firearms from hollywood as seen below in completely humiliating fashion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Corners that don't have electricity also have lower electricity-related deaths . . . what's missing in the data is the lives saved by electricity.Perhaps the gun banners should work on banning electricity and the use of fire next . . . would reduce CO2 emission too. LOL.
Larry Pratt lost credibility becuase he couldn't simply say that maybe he was wrong with his numbers when refering to how many gun deaths there were in the UK in 2011. It's funny how silly these guys, everyone who mispeaks on the air, look when anyone and everyone can fact check their statements within seconds after they spew their lies. Do they not know that we can check? Idiots.
But what he said was true. http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-shamIt's not his fault if you don't know how to properly use google.
Where is the data that backs Pratt's claim that in 2011, gun murders in the UK were something like 900, rather than the 50 as reported by Morgan? I am generally interested, not trolling.
Geoff, I think Pratt may have been referring to ALL murders, not GUN murders. If I recall correctly, I think Pratt even made this point to Piers asking him why he was trying to differentiate between different causes of death (ie murder is murder regardless of weapon).
The statistics morass is so beside the point. While properly understood and compared stats, along with the use of intuitive logic that a 6 year old possess, far and away show that people with guns are better able to defend themselves against private criminals... it's already ceding the point to the totalitarians. Nobody asks WHY DO YOU NEED THAT FREE SPEECH? and then brings up irrelevancies about people saying rude things.Like the dude elsewhere on this thread said, the debate is this: "You can't have my guns. I keep them precisely because of aggressive pricks like the gun grabbers."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOjI6laKGYUThe Marine who wrote the open letter to Diane Feinstein refusing to comply to her gun ban. I personally liked where he brought up David Gregory setting the precedent for not obeying the law, and how angry and quickly the anchor talked over him. I also loved the shocked look on her face and laughter when she asked him if the law changes and he replied that unconstitutional laws are not laws. Brilliant!
Good old Piers Morgan, still as snide, slimy, shifty, bullying, rude and condescending as ever. I can truly say he hasn't been missed for a second since he went over to the US. Interesting little snippet from Stanley McChrystal. So he doesn't want his family around "assault weapons"? He had no qualms being a senior officer in operations which spread hundreds of thousands of them around Afghan and Iraqi families.
Why are people still debating this issue? It's rather simple: "You cannot have my guns. No, I don't care what meandering, flawed reasoning you've conjured to justify taking them. you do not understand RIGHTS. I have a right to own a weapon, specifically for protection from stupid people like yourself. If you do not want me to have them, come and take them. Molon Labe."By and large, the debate is over. The lines have been drawn. And frankly, I do not need to convince anyone of my rights. They exist. Period.
Ironically enough, the debate is over, but not in your favor. The Courts have ruled that Congress can assess 'reasonable restrictions' on gun ownership. It is not absolute. Just like the 1st amendment is not absolute.
You may have seen that the White House had responded to the petition to deport Morgan. Apparently someone at the White House has found their misplaced copy of the Bill of Rights. Morgan stays because we have the 1st Amendment. This new found respect for our rights surely means no more Patriot Act, no more NDAA! Hurrah, a great day.Bit of bad luck that they couldn't find their copy earlier for Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed for practicing his 1st Amendment rights. But Morgan can stay, thank heaven. Hey, does this mean constitutional rights apply only to NON-citizens?
Uh-oh.""Larry Pratt on Piers Morg..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Dean Coombes. "
Do we need to ban the first amendment and take away the power of the press just because a few journalists did things like the scandal Piers was involved in with the phone hacking?
Dunno. McCrystal sounds like a Brit general complaining that it wasn't fair that the American rifle was better than a Brit musket.
Could Piers Morgan be a bigger piece of elitist, useful idiot filth? Every time I envision Redcoat Officers I think of him.