Piers Morgan Debates Gun Control with Alex Jones on CNN

[TWOCHOICEStom]

If guns capable of killing tons of people in a very short space of time are made illegal, they be harder to get hold of and it will be more difficult for teenage looneys to shoot schoolkids. No debate to be had about violent crime in the UK IMO.

 

[Nibble]

"The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent."

Gun Controls Twisted Outcome - Reason.com

Had a look at theat website. Dear oh dear. Anyway, as usual you and they, have missed the point. No-one is arguing that the laws have changed, my point is that we weren't a nation of gun-owners in the first place. This article also assumes a lot. For a start it assumes the reason the government restricted gun ownership as they feared a revolution. Assumption. You're talking utter bobbins. I'm out.

 

[dingodan]

That made me chuckle..... Nice one.

Risk Of Violent Behavior With Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors And Antidepressants

Are antidepressants accomplices to school shootings? | Saybrook University

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I bet you have to trot this one out all the time!

 

[Deleted member 18477]

Alex Jones is a complete DOUCHEBAG.

this. the guy is a complete nutter!!

 

[drew]

Surely you can only compare crime figures if the basis of collecting those figures are the same in each country and that the types of crimes committed within each broad category are the same.

 

[dingodan]

Had a look at theat website. Dear oh dear. Anyway, as usual you and they, have missed the point. No-one is arguing that the laws have changed, my point is that we weren't a nation of gun-owners in the first place. This article also assumes a lot. For a start it assumes the reason the government restricted gun ownership as they feared a revolution. Assumption.

And what is wrong with the website? You want to make a fallacious argument too? You said we have always had tight gun controls. Here is the history to clarify for you.

You are right that we were not a "nation of gun owners". But you actually said, only farmers and nutters owned guns in the UK.

If some of my posts seem pedantic, stop saying stupid shit.

 

[dingodan]

I bet you have to trot this one out all the time!

Don't you understand? You made a fallacious argument.

I am trying to help you.

 

[Nibble]

And what is wrong with the website? You want to make a fallacious argument too? You said we have always had tight gun controls. Here is the history to clarify for you.

You are right that we were not a "nation of gun owners". But you actually said, only farmers and nutters owned guns in the UK.

If some of my posts seem pedantic, stop saying stupid shit.

This kind of evasive, smoke and mirrors response to a reasoned debate is exactly the reason I refuse to continue this cobblers.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Don't you understand? You made a fallacious argument.

I am trying to help you.

Oh dear, I thought you may have got it, but no. Too clever for your own good perhaps.

 

[dingodan]

This kind of evasive, smoke and mirrors response to a reasoned debate is exactly the reason I refuse to continue this cobblers.

evasive? smoke and mirrors?

You said "only farmers and nutters owned guns in the UK". Maybe you could have said, there are not a significant number of firearms owners in the UK and there were not even before gun laws came in. That would be reasoned. But you said - "only farmers and nutters owned guns". You chose to be lose with the truth to make a point, you abandoned reasoned debate in favor of making a brash, unreasonable and false statement.

So yes, lets not continue with this cobblers.

 

[Easy 10]

Risk Of Violent Behavior With Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors And Antidepressants

Are antidepressants accomplices to school shootings? | Saybrook University

Still missing the point by a country mile I see.

Nobody is disputing the existance of certain medications which can have further untoward side effects to mentally unstable individuals. The point is that in Yankee-Doodle-Land with its liberal gun laws, these "challenged" individuals have easy access to firearms and semi-automatic weapons. With which they can wreak devastating and catastrophic damage to many, many people in a short space of time.

And your simplistic solution to this is to arm EVERYONE to the teeth and turn the whole country into some kind of Wild West warzone.

You're a nutjob.

 

[Nibble]

As long as the NRA and conspiracy nutters have spokespersons such as Alex Jones no-one will want to talk reasonably to them about the issue. From that interview and the attitudes of the likes of Dingodan and The Truth one can tell that they lack the maturity to do their argiment any good.

 

[Dewe-Road-Gull]

A very high percentage of Americans are fu*king idiots.

 

[dingodan]

Still missing the point by a country mile I see.

Nobody is disputing the existance of certain medications which can have further untoward side effects to mentally unstable individuals. The point is that in Yankee-Doodle-Land with its liberal gun laws, these "challenged" individuals have easy access to firearms and semi-automatic weapons. With which they can wreak devastating and catastrophic damage to many, many people in a short space of time.

And your simplistic solution to this is to arm EVERYONE to the teeth and turn the whole country into some kind of Wild West warzone.

You're a nutjob.

Actually I was making the point that the question of the pills is no joke. It was being mocked as stupid, it shouldn't be.

"And your simplistic solution to this is to arm EVERYONE to the teeth and turn the whole country into some kind of Wild West warzone."



Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it.

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nibble]

Old Dingodan is learning a lot of new words today.

 

[GreersElbow]

Alex Jones is just some conspiracy nutjob, he is irrelevant.

 

[Easy 10]

Actually I was making the point that the question of the pills is no joke. It was being mocked as stupid, it shouldn't be.

"And your simplistic solution to this is to arm EVERYONE to the teeth and turn the whole country into some kind of Wild West warzone."



Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it.

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I was mocking Jones's assertion that the "suicide and mass murder pills" are the problem. Its a pathetic, ridiculous, paper-thin argument that just goes back to old favourite trotted out endlesslessby folk such as yourselves - "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

And I have no need to misrepresent your position. You've as good as said the holocaust would have been prevented if the Jews been all Rambo'd up. Dance around with your semantics all you like, but your numerous odd assertions and allignments with arguments such as "lets arm all the schoolteachers" only serves to drive home the point just how dangerously skewed your views and (sadly) those of so many of the pro-gun lobby are.

 

[Nibble]

Sorry Dingo, just a quick one before I go. You don't happen to have access to firearms do you?

 

[Manx Shearwater]

"Fwah fwah fwah. You see Piers, I can do ann english accent too..."

Remember in the school playground when someone was losing an argument big style they simply put on a funny accent and repeated what the other person said?

Mind you, he might just have been paying us all back for Hugh Laurie and Damien Lewis.