Crazy debate between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones

[Adam1987]

I liked what Alex Jones was saying, or should I say yelling. However, to an outsider (somebody who doesnt know who either of these people are) he just ended up looking like a well informed redneck who lost his shit and made himself and his own argument lose merit.

Never try and argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Chris Odell (Datsusara)]

yep, even if Alex had something intelligent to say, which is rare in my opinion, he always fucks it up with his crazy BS attitude. i know i'm in the minority here as even Joe, Eddie and the great Bill Hicks love the guy.

[Adam1987]

Just doing some research on Alex Jones and things he has had to say about Australian issues in the past and to say he exaggerates and doesnt always understand the topical content, would be a massive understatement.

[derrick ikwueme]

35 vs 11,000 little '' factoids '' sorry but in the logical world facts actually meen something. we had 45 murders here with guns last year. thats a small city vs the whole uk. you would think a '' grown ass man '' would understand that. 1+1 =2 but in alex jones & mr. rogers world of make believe that shit equals whatever the hell you want it to be. alex jones, rush limbaugh, & anthony cumia are easily the 3 biggest retards in radio. 3 crazies 2 racist = 5 reasons to switch stations

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I really think jones has good intentions and some of the ideas he was promoting years ago seemed at least plausible. He really comes off bad in this. I haven't listened to him in about 4 years but hes usually more articulate than this.

turn down your volume before you click the link,
http://www.yooouuutuuube.com/v/?widt...direction=rand

[Aaron Gustaveson]

yep, even if Alex had something intelligent to say, which is rare in my opinion, he always fucks it up with his crazy BS attitude. i know i'm in the minority here as even Joe, Eddie and the great Bill Hicks love the guy.

Hey your the guy with the super pimp hemp gear! I just looked at your site and saw those hemp fight shorts. You should make a post when you get more in and give us all a discount.

[Eric Perez]

Most of the murders are gang related. Lets get rid of all the gang members not the guns. Gang members will start killing eachother with rocks after the guns are taken. Then what? Get rid of all the rocks? people are so dumb

[stevenbalmer]

Most of the murders are gang related. Lets get rid of all the gang members not the guns. Gang members will start killing eachother with rocks after the guns are taken. Then what? Get rid of all the rocks? people are so dumb

i agree with what you are saying but "LOL" at already criminal gang members turning in their guns if they became illegal

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Most of the murders are gang related. Lets get rid of all the gang members not the guns. Gang members will start killing eachother with rocks after the guns are taken. Then what? Get rid of all the rocks? people are so dumb

The majority but not an overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are related to gangs. This number has gotten worse as the number of guns on the streets have risen.

Killing each other with rocks? I think every sane person would rather be attacked with a rock. Hard to kill an innocent bystander with a rock, how about robbing a store with a rock? If rocks and guns had the same potential for killing then no one would care about gun control because they wouldn't be very dangerous.

Almost anything can be a weapon. true. You can kill with your bare hands, true.

Equating two things like a semi-auto handgun and a rock, based on their common but drastically unenlivenment potential to kill is a type of logical fallacy, I believe its called association fallacy though this is usually used in reference to people not items. The argument you illustrate is indeed a ridiculous argument with flawed logic, however it is fundamentally different from the argument made by proponents of gun control. A very simple minded person might read you rock example and think, "heck, hes right a rock can kill someone why make automatic weapon illegal" of course that person would be a complete idiot.

You see, the crux of the argument hinges not on the simple potential for an item to be used as a weapon but on the drastic difference in killing potential in term of speed, efficiency of effort and time and total killing capacity.

To make your argument reasonable you could think of a hypothetical situation were a single rock could kill many people with the same speed and efficiency as a handgun. For example a large boulder is suspended over a group of people and all you have to do to drop the boulder and kill them is pull and little trigger. Now this is not a good case for making boulders illegal but it is a good case for making traps capable of killing many people illegal and in fact they are. You still have ignore the time and effort in setting up the trap to make this at all a close comparison.

Basically, people are not concerned about certain types of guns simply because they have a potential to kill but because they have tremendous potential to kill with great ease.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

i agree with what you are saying but "LOL" at already criminal gang members turning in their guns if they became illegal

Removing something from society once it is made illegal does take some time. Fortunately only a reduction in guns is necessary to begin saving lives. No one expects all guns off the street over night nor would that be required for many lives to be saved.

"If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Seems like some good ol' simple folksy thinking at first read, maybe it is in fact. The intelligent person however immediately thinks of the implications of extending this "logic". In the case of any law, only outlaws will break that law. No shit, in the act of breaking the law you become an outlaw. Extending this flawed logic to any law would make to law seem pointless.