How Labour Will Change Britain After The...
News11 mins ago
Piers Moron Leaves !
43 Answers
Those damned yankies are pulling the plug on Piers Moron's telly show on CNN.
Got tired of hearing a Brit being superior over gun control apparently
A recent petition to deport him quickly gathered the needed 100 000 signatures and the White House huffily commented that the petition process was not to be used for entertainment or comic purposes.
Got tired of hearing a Brit being superior over gun control apparently
A recent petition to deport him quickly gathered the needed 100 000 signatures and the White House huffily commented that the petition process was not to be used for entertainment or comic purposes.
Answers
Peter Pedant You missed your chance of titling your question: 'End of the Piers show' That would've been awesome.
13:36 Mon 24th Feb 2014
@AoG "How long have you got? :0)
Regarding the EGov Petitions website, what would be the purpose of that?
Even our government can't deport a person without the 'say so' from our European masters"
Heh.
Look, I made the comment because you made this comment, in an earlier post;
"Oh if only we had the chance to petition our leader to deport someone, when a foreigner says something we don't like"
I was pointing out that, in fact, you can! The mechanism in the UK is the EGov Petitions process. It is just that, like in the USA, it is irrelevant, since "our leader" is powerless to arbitrarily deport anyone. But you could get some media headlines, and I am sure you could drum up support from within the AB community :)
"Even our government can't deport a person without the 'say so' from our European masters"
And this, I believe, is simply factually incorrect. The government cannot deport a person from our shores unless it is in compliance with UK law, some of which is made in recognition of international law and treaty obligations.
Regarding the EGov Petitions website, what would be the purpose of that?
Even our government can't deport a person without the 'say so' from our European masters"
Heh.
Look, I made the comment because you made this comment, in an earlier post;
"Oh if only we had the chance to petition our leader to deport someone, when a foreigner says something we don't like"
I was pointing out that, in fact, you can! The mechanism in the UK is the EGov Petitions process. It is just that, like in the USA, it is irrelevant, since "our leader" is powerless to arbitrarily deport anyone. But you could get some media headlines, and I am sure you could drum up support from within the AB community :)
"Even our government can't deport a person without the 'say so' from our European masters"
And this, I believe, is simply factually incorrect. The government cannot deport a person from our shores unless it is in compliance with UK law, some of which is made in recognition of international law and treaty obligations.
Hi, C, I can't remember which American cartoon it was...Family Guy, American Dad?..which presented the point of view that "the right to bear arms" actually meant inviolable permission to own the front legs of a bear!
My apologies, given your view expressed above, but I certainly feel that would make vastly more sense than the endless slaughter we see in the US of A as a result of the usual interpretation of the words.
My apologies, given your view expressed above, but I certainly feel that would make vastly more sense than the endless slaughter we see in the US of A as a result of the usual interpretation of the words.
QM - I think we have, along with our American friends, actually misunderstood The Constituion from the day it was written.
In fact, that day long ago was a beautifully hot and sunny day, and the worthies debating the document that would be sealed in history were most concerned that future generations should not be bound by their stuffy conventions of wearing frock coats in the insufferable heat.
It was therefore written into the document that everyone should enjoy the inaliable right to short sleeves - tee-shirts, bowling shirts, even no shirt at all - and in fact they wanted to ensure that every American, prsent and future, would never be prevented by statute or will, to -
bare arms.
Makes much more sense than this baffling frontier mentality that still pervades that wonderful country, and the large proportion of bone-headed trigger-happy ego-monsters who inhabit it.
In fact, that day long ago was a beautifully hot and sunny day, and the worthies debating the document that would be sealed in history were most concerned that future generations should not be bound by their stuffy conventions of wearing frock coats in the insufferable heat.
It was therefore written into the document that everyone should enjoy the inaliable right to short sleeves - tee-shirts, bowling shirts, even no shirt at all - and in fact they wanted to ensure that every American, prsent and future, would never be prevented by statute or will, to -
bare arms.
Makes much more sense than this baffling frontier mentality that still pervades that wonderful country, and the large proportion of bone-headed trigger-happy ego-monsters who inhabit it.
The problem with that post, Clanad, is that it assumes that necessarily there are good and bad guys and nothing in between. What about those guys who are usually good, but snap? Then, having a gun allows the snapper to do far more damage than otherwise. To say nothing of the many accidental deaths when someone is careless. I've been stupid enough with a knife before: the result is a permanent scar on my right thumb. (Note to self: whenever I feel tempted to say, "Hey, watch this!" stop what I am doing immediately!!) I don't want to think about the consequences of playing around with a gun instead.
There is a sad irony in the fact that the main reason the Newtown (?) killer's mother had all those guns in the first place was due to irrational fears of a government ready to attack its own citizens at any moment. She was so desperate to defend herself from that... and never saw the danger right under her own nose.
As long as Americans have these twin notions of a government only held at bay by the gun in their hands, and the idea of "bad guys" running around, they will never be able to do a thing about one of the biggest dangers to American lives at the moment. Not a single thing. And that is, frankly, scarier than any bad guy with a gun.
There is a sad irony in the fact that the main reason the Newtown (?) killer's mother had all those guns in the first place was due to irrational fears of a government ready to attack its own citizens at any moment. She was so desperate to defend herself from that... and never saw the danger right under her own nose.
As long as Americans have these twin notions of a government only held at bay by the gun in their hands, and the idea of "bad guys" running around, they will never be able to do a thing about one of the biggest dangers to American lives at the moment. Not a single thing. And that is, frankly, scarier than any bad guy with a gun.
-- answer removed --
He has long been referred to as Piers Moron though; I think it was Private Eye who first started calling him that, clearly as an insult but also to mock the tabloid newspapers efforts to turn a headline into some kind of a pun or play on words.
His full name, incidentally, is Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan, which is rather a mouthful ;)
His full name, incidentally, is Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan, which is rather a mouthful ;)
-- answer removed --
Clanad...I presume that you live in America ? The issue of gun control will never be resolved I fear and from what you have said we must be prepared for 1000's of unnecessary deaths to occur each year, some of them innocent children in your schools. So that its then...there is nothing we can do about is there ? What a depressing thought !
Fair enough jim360... except, where are the statistics? Here in the U.S., one can be issued, after application and background check by the FBI, a Conceal Carry permit authorizing the holder to do as the title suggests. To date, it's rare when a Conceal Carry holder is arrested for misuse of the firearm. It does happen, but conversely:
"According to a 2000 study by John Lott, PhD, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992."
Each month, several sources of news relate the numbers of home invasions, attempted assaults and other such crimes that are thwarted by such holders (full disclosure, I hold such a permit and use it regularly, but the average observer would be completely unaware).
Your observation about "playing around" with a gun presupposes the immaturity of those involved in such actions. Obviously, I can't attempt to defend people that misuse guns, or chainsaws, sharp objects or automobiles.
The truly "sad" irony of Newtown and most other such acts is that the one thing that cannot be assessed fully for gun ownership is the mental health of the one making application (go figure). This is especially true of the Newtown incident and the Colorado theatre killings. In both cases the perpetrators were both under medication and treatment for various mental problems but had never been committed to a mental instiution[i. The background check for such treatment is prohibited by National law supposedly passed for the protection of the patient.... doctor patient privacy and all that.
I would disagree that the proponents of gun ownership are paranoid about government being a menace... but, one need not go back in history very far to understand that oppressive government's first acts of controlling the populace is the taking of all guns. [i]Kristallnacht] in Germany is one such... but zillions of other examples can be presented. No... my need is to protect my family is paramount and I can't in good conscience delegate that to others.
Mikey, I think there are things that can be done about the situations you recall. One (it's under study even as we speak) is to arm selected, volunteer, trained teachers at schools. Another is to have police patrol the schools or be stationed there. Drastic measures to be sure, but the nature of modern life has shifted significantly... and not just here in the U.S. This is especially true in larger cities where drug related gangs have proliferated.
Would I wish that it weren't so? Of course! But to standby and not be prepared is the height of foolishness, in my opinion.
I fully expect to never need to use my firearm(s)... but even in stately Olde England do you not experience events or see them in the news that make you feel naked and helpless had you been involved? I suspect so, for the honest observer...
"According to a 2000 study by John Lott, PhD, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992."
Each month, several sources of news relate the numbers of home invasions, attempted assaults and other such crimes that are thwarted by such holders (full disclosure, I hold such a permit and use it regularly, but the average observer would be completely unaware).
Your observation about "playing around" with a gun presupposes the immaturity of those involved in such actions. Obviously, I can't attempt to defend people that misuse guns, or chainsaws, sharp objects or automobiles.
The truly "sad" irony of Newtown and most other such acts is that the one thing that cannot be assessed fully for gun ownership is the mental health of the one making application (go figure). This is especially true of the Newtown incident and the Colorado theatre killings. In both cases the perpetrators were both under medication and treatment for various mental problems but had never been committed to a mental instiution[i. The background check for such treatment is prohibited by National law supposedly passed for the protection of the patient.... doctor patient privacy and all that.
I would disagree that the proponents of gun ownership are paranoid about government being a menace... but, one need not go back in history very far to understand that oppressive government's first acts of controlling the populace is the taking of all guns. [i]Kristallnacht] in Germany is one such... but zillions of other examples can be presented. No... my need is to protect my family is paramount and I can't in good conscience delegate that to others.
Mikey, I think there are things that can be done about the situations you recall. One (it's under study even as we speak) is to arm selected, volunteer, trained teachers at schools. Another is to have police patrol the schools or be stationed there. Drastic measures to be sure, but the nature of modern life has shifted significantly... and not just here in the U.S. This is especially true in larger cities where drug related gangs have proliferated.
Would I wish that it weren't so? Of course! But to standby and not be prepared is the height of foolishness, in my opinion.
I fully expect to never need to use my firearm(s)... but even in stately Olde England do you not experience events or see them in the news that make you feel naked and helpless had you been involved? I suspect so, for the honest observer...
-- answer removed --
/but even in stately Olde England do you not experience events or see them in the news that make you feel naked and helpless had you been involved?/
No!
I live near a US cultural centre in France which has a stream of US citizens visiting during the summer months. They are all intelliigent and educated people who participate in the creative arts. We are involved with them because we form a bridge between them and the local community and share common interests with many of them. Almost without exception they are mortified by their countrymen's incomprehensible obsession with firearms and the US's status in the armed murder tables being as close as it is to Mexico and the central American drug cartel dominated countries.
No!
I live near a US cultural centre in France which has a stream of US citizens visiting during the summer months. They are all intelliigent and educated people who participate in the creative arts. We are involved with them because we form a bridge between them and the local community and share common interests with many of them. Almost without exception they are mortified by their countrymen's incomprehensible obsession with firearms and the US's status in the armed murder tables being as close as it is to Mexico and the central American drug cartel dominated countries.
I've already been in three (possibly more, if it comes to that) incidents where I've been the victim of physical assault. So at any rate I'm not speaking from a position of total naivety. In all cases I still would stand be the statement that having a gun wouldn't have made me any safer. Indeed, it might have been the opposite. I'm relatively timid anyway, so unless they were frightened off by the mere sight of the weapon (which is always a possibility) a likely scenario would be that they grabbed the gun off me and turned it on me. That, or they ended up dead. So, a situation which ended with a certain amount of psychological damage already could well have ended up with the same, plus perhaps one or more dead bodies. We'll never know, of course, but I'm unconvinced that it would have led to any changes for the better. And for that matter, any situation in which I had access to a gun, the people attacking me would have had the same amount of access and probably rather more inclination to get one, too...
In response to your statistics, that's an impressive rate of reduction caused by concealed carry, but surely it's overlooking the fact that the gun-related homicide rates in the US are vastly out of proportion with the population size compared to a country with strict gun control laws. An 8% reduction is all well and good, but it's still far too many and looks rather like an attempt to justify a position by pretending that it's OK to have disproportionately high murder rates so long as you are safer. When presented like that, how can the position make any sense? You have to be less safe to be more safe?! It does seem rather like that. For comparison, gun-related murder rates in the UK are something in the region of 40 times lower than in the US (says this source: http://
There are at least some gun advocates in the US who do go on about protecting themselves from the government. To be fair, I don't know how representative or not they are of the general population. Certainly they can be more vocal. One of them shouted rather loudly at Piers Morgan in an "interview" that got a great deal of coverage, and I don't think he's the only one who makes that point -- indeed, your dark reference to 1930s German policy is somewhat similar in message of not in tone. To the best of my knowledge, by contrast, the UK has both some of the tightest gun control laws in the world but also some of the least problems with military dictatorship, and frankly the UK of today is a far better comparison with what would follow any gun control push than the Germany of yesteryear, so any form of argument that "they can take our guns, and then they'll take our freedom" is surely teetering on the edge of paranoia.
I feel safer without a gun, personally. I can just about understand why someone would feel safer with one, but in practice it's an illusion. You become more dangerous to yourself with a gun, and more dangerous to others too. This should be reasonably obvious, I'd have thought -- the margins for error are far, far slimmer with a gun than without. We've seen far too many accidental gun deaths in the US. Says one source, 3,800 accidental deaths in the US in a period of five years, or a little over two a day. That's also 3,800 too many. http://
It is, as far as I can see, clear that gun ownership in general leads to people being less safe, not more, and the solution should surely therefore be to work to reduce the number of guns around, rather than to increase it.
In response to your statistics, that's an impressive rate of reduction caused by concealed carry, but surely it's overlooking the fact that the gun-related homicide rates in the US are vastly out of proportion with the population size compared to a country with strict gun control laws. An 8% reduction is all well and good, but it's still far too many and looks rather like an attempt to justify a position by pretending that it's OK to have disproportionately high murder rates so long as you are safer. When presented like that, how can the position make any sense? You have to be less safe to be more safe?! It does seem rather like that. For comparison, gun-related murder rates in the UK are something in the region of 40 times lower than in the US (says this source: http://
There are at least some gun advocates in the US who do go on about protecting themselves from the government. To be fair, I don't know how representative or not they are of the general population. Certainly they can be more vocal. One of them shouted rather loudly at Piers Morgan in an "interview" that got a great deal of coverage, and I don't think he's the only one who makes that point -- indeed, your dark reference to 1930s German policy is somewhat similar in message of not in tone. To the best of my knowledge, by contrast, the UK has both some of the tightest gun control laws in the world but also some of the least problems with military dictatorship, and frankly the UK of today is a far better comparison with what would follow any gun control push than the Germany of yesteryear, so any form of argument that "they can take our guns, and then they'll take our freedom" is surely teetering on the edge of paranoia.
I feel safer without a gun, personally. I can just about understand why someone would feel safer with one, but in practice it's an illusion. You become more dangerous to yourself with a gun, and more dangerous to others too. This should be reasonably obvious, I'd have thought -- the margins for error are far, far slimmer with a gun than without. We've seen far too many accidental gun deaths in the US. Says one source, 3,800 accidental deaths in the US in a period of five years, or a little over two a day. That's also 3,800 too many. http://
It is, as far as I can see, clear that gun ownership in general leads to people being less safe, not more, and the solution should surely therefore be to work to reduce the number of guns around, rather than to increase it.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
How Can The Truth Be Offensive?
News41 mins ago
Save The Children.c/D July 2024
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.