Crazy debate between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones

[Eric Perez]

You lost me at "the majority" Why do you choose to write a book on every post you make?

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]

You lost me at "the majority" Why do you choose to write a book on every post you make?

I try write more simple 4 u. Sorry a few paragraphs is overwhelming for you. Intelligent points are rarely made and never explained in a sentence. I do value being concise.

[Mitchell C]

Alex Jones is a nut, and a pretty dangerous guy.
I can understand advocating protecting yourself and such, but he strikes me as someone whom is looking forward to this sort of thing actually happening every time I hear him speak.
Which gets me worried, because people are impressionable and can do some pretty terrible things if they think it's for the right reasons.
But at least with him I get the impression that he is being honest in what he believes, regardless of it it's true or not.


As far as Piers goes, he's a total tool through and through, and a totally dishonest person.
He will advocate oppressing any group he is told to, and that's a fact.
Be it for religious or political reason, he'll do it if he's told to by the people whom sign his paychecks.
Just totally motivated by greed, just listen to him when he is covering some tragedy too, you wont even once get the impression of empathy from the guy.

[Unorthodox]

First real post of any conciquence and I'm about to stir the pot. I'm such a sod.

Right off the bat I'd like to say that I like Alex Jones. He has a great understanding of the world even if it is from a conspiracy point of view. He's a bit shouty for me, but hey, I'm just a mild mannered Brit. And as for Piers Morgan, if anyone needs proof that satan is truly among us, look no further.

Anyways, to my real points.

1) with the whole NWO thing, has anyone stopped to think that there is a possibility that Alex could be on their side?? As a few people have pointed out his behaviour on CNN has possibly damaged credibility of this conspiracy theory by coming across as a bit of a nut. What's the best place to hide someone to start discrediting the theories and make people not believe. In plain sight would be my guess. (Yes this is a very thin argument but stranger things have happened.)

2) does anyone REALLY think that it matters if the population is armed or not if the NWO decides to strike? Between the tanks, jets, drones, bombs, chemicals, bunkers etc (AKA technology) and the fighting fit, well equipped, well backed up killing machines with pretty much unlimited ammo (AKA military personnel) that any group of people would be able to stop anything happening armed or not. The element of suprise, training, tech and supplies would render any kind mallita pretty useless and little more than a minor inconvenience. Also throw in the fact that the NWO hierarchy would care little for the trials and tribulations of the military personnel fighting their wa!? They will be safe in their ivory towers with all the luxury they could want and far from problems.

Just a couple of thoughts for those of you with a better mind than mine to mull over.

Dave

[Joe Friday]

If this new so called "Assault Weapons" ban goes into affect in it's current state then there will be MAJOR non-compliance. They will not be able to properly enforce it. There will be an extremely large amount of blood shed. They will want the majority of these guns that's already in circulation to be registered under the National Firearms Act (which means registering them the same way you would a short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun or machine gun). The cost in doing that will be totally insane. Currently, anytime one wants to register a weapon as an NFA item it costs them a $200 tax stamp per firearm. This means that millions of guns would have to be registered. I don't see it as feasible. Who is going to pay for that??? The gun owners? I know for a fact a lot of them will not. I won't. I'd go broke if I had to do it. Even if the registration was "free" for the gun owners the cost would still be extremely high. Tax payer's dollars would then have to foot the bill.
This ban would cause tons of people to become felons... law abiding people.

Ok, let's say this ban goes through. Who is going to police it? Sure, lots of folks in Cali and other major cities and states that are anti-gun will support it. I'd also imagine some officers in the gun-friendly states will attempt to enforce it too, but a lot will turn a blind eye to it. Either way, there will be lots of death when people come to arrest folks for not having their arms registered.

I don't see it passing in it's current state. Now, maybe if they took out the part where they had to be registered then it would have a pretty good chance.

Registration very well may = Civil War

[Eric Perez]

I try write more simple 4 u? What does that even mean?

I try write more simple 4 u. Sorry a few paragraphs is overwhelming for you. Intelligent points are rarely made and never explained in a sentence. I do value being concise.

[derrick ikwueme]

There isn't gonna be any damn civil war, dumb rednecks will always be in a uproar over something. if you have a AR like myself and my friends then you'll be grandfathered in. and if you don't before the AR ban then boo fucking hoo for you

[jrodangus]

I try write more simple 4 u? What does that even mean?

Although he explained his point in an exhaustive manner, it is accurate. The threat to life and safety presented by any gun is exponentially greater than a rock.

As for who is getting killed in the majority of cases, I am against all murders that occur in my city regardless of who is getting murdered and by what means; even if gang members are the only causalities it remains unsettling that people are dying in my city's streets. Guns just so happen to kill people in a more efficient and disconnected way so they become the most obvious topic to start the debate about behaviour we no longer wish to tolerate.

Alex Jones' concerns about the NWO taking guns away is hypothetical, whereas people shooting other people to death is a certain issue. Alex's blanket and inflammatory statements are equally deplorable to the comments made by leftist/liberal groups (such as a complete ban on all guns) because these positions generate theatrical debate and serve only to divide a group that otherwised agreed on the orginal issue: what happened in Colorado and Connecticut was awful and we want it to stop.

[jrodangus]

The same argument and threat of civil war was put forward when the government enacted gun registration in Canada. Although there are issues with non-compliance in rural areas, the revolt never manifested. Sure people bitch about it but - for the most part - compliance is fairly high. And no, the NWO hasn't set-up shop and enslaved Canadians; however, this is likely on account of the fact that its kinda cold up here and who gives a shit about Canada, really?

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I try write more simple 4 u? What does that even mean?

exactly.