Piers Morgan VS. Alex Jones Full Interview on Gun Control - 1/7/13

Daithi 1

For anyone who hasn't seen it. It's hilarious :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjz2cvaUhw

~What happened next..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8apuYmtOok

Aquarius34

I couldn't watch that, both of them are awful. Pierce Morgan is a reptilian.

hooradiation

Alex Jones just made me feel sorry for Piers Morgan....

What a reprehensible bastard.

Daithi 1

Ah go on, it's funny.

Aquarius34

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Ah go on, it's funny.

I turned it off after 1 minute. Alex Jones is a raving lunatic and used by the elite to make conspiracies look phoney and keep people in fear. God his studios are getting fancier everytime I see him.

Jonny7

One intelligent guy. Laughing all the way to the bank.

Daithi 1

Heres another recent one with Piers and Pratt. Piers gets ripped a new a$$hole. This is what Jones should have behaved like. Bringing Jones on was damage repair for this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

narddog

Alex Jones is a bit loony tunes. He's a bit like the big mouth down in the pub, who just won't shut up. Somewhere in between the drivel, bile and stupid accents are legitimate concerns and ideas, but it's hard to take him seriously. Morgan is just a tool.

super_furry

Ah Alex Jones, a self-made millionare who made his money and continues to make it off the back of people who swallow his hysterical bull****.

Aquarius34

Though Id like to see Bill O Reilly and Piers go at it. Or Alex and Bill O Reilly. Oh that would be hilarious. To why, I don't know. Bill O Reilly is something else. He actually takes his time and breaks in his sentences for people to pick up on his tone of voice.just so you get sense of how condescending he is. Comical.

You have to laugh at these commentators, roaring and raving on day time T.V and that's all you can take it as. It's a good job I don't watch t.v because it would get boring watching this kind of shiit day in day out. Which is precisely why I turned off the T.V

weisses

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I couldn't watch that, both of them are awful. Pierce Morgan is a reptilian.

Post of the day

Aquarius34

weisses wrote: »

Post of the day

Most positive response of the day. It's hard to find an air of positivity and civility on here, whoof.

Brown Bomber

That was ****ing hilarious. I haven't seen anything by Jones in years but for my money he is almost certainly a) Selling his infowhores media product to the lowest common denominator or b) disinfo.

What it hammers home to me is the foundations of a lot of this "conspiracy theory" malarkey, that being right-wing, primarily southern patriot/constitutionalist/militia/Christian fundie types which branches out in part to white nationalist/Neo-Nazi and also Libertarian groups. It shames me to say it but it's the truth.

We've seen persistent memes - chemtrails, vaccines etc supposedly weapons of the elite to wipe out the underclass but I've never seen in my life a "conspiracy theory" that hypothesises that guns have intentionally been placed in the hands of the people so the dregs of society can eliminate each other.

I believe that this is because much of the "conspiracy" talking points are dictated by the American, patriot right.

It's not that I don't have some sympathy with what they are saying. They has been a militarisation of the police and a rapid erosion of civil liberties, but from my perspective I'd say **** that! take my civil liberties, take my guns just make sure nobody ever lines a class full of school children against a wall again and shoots them down again.

And while you are at it Mr President please fix your sick, soulless society where violence is glamourised, and consumerism and commercialism is all.

Aquarius34

Pierce Morgan became is ridiculously famous over there, He's almost as big as Bill O Reilly or Anderson Cooper. I don't watch T.V so I rarely hear about these folks but I've heard about him on numerous occasions in various conversations. with people. Like Alex Jones, they are all connected to the elite, and they are both used to spread all this dis info and distractions as a means to keep everyone's eye's off the ball!

Bruthal

Jones looks like he has the type of mentality which is ideal for gun ownership.

BorneTobyWilde

If Alex had a gun on him he would have pulled it
If mentally ill people should not have guns then Alex Jones needs to be looked
at, He is not all there, He had British accent at end,
Should be committed before he does harm

Brown Bomber

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Alex had a gun on him he would have pulled it
If mentally ill people should not have guns then Alex Jones needs to be looked
at, He is not all there, He had British accent at end,
Should be committed before he does harm

I am fairly confident it's an act. I believe Jones was intentionally boorish and unhinged.

FamousSeamus

Thought this was brilliant...'guns kill people' 'ya well great white sharks!!!'

Jones makes Morgan looks normal during this, I don't like Morgan but he came out looking ok after this!! Jones is your typical conspiricy theorist, random disjointed fact and when he's beginning to get caught out he resorts to mocking Pierces accent as if that proves him right!! I really want to see jones doing something like this again with some other tv host just to give me a chuckle!!

Tzar Chasm

jones embodies everything that is wrong with conspiracy theorists, he came to the debate armed wit relevant facts and statistics but instead of calmly responding to Morgan he tore off on a nonsequitor rant, he does more damage to the cause than anything else.

if jones had been capable of objectively arguing single points he could well have 'won' that debate, as he had facts to counter morgans appeal to emotion, instead he came across as a loud boorish xenophobe.

NIMAN

Morgan should have taken the big pudding up on the offer of going into the boxing ring together.

I'd say he is just a loud mouth bully, who would punch like a girl if he had to.

Aquarius34

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

jones embodies everything that is wrong with conspiracy theorists, he came to the debate armed wit relevant facts and statistics but instead of calmly responding to Morgan he tore off on a nonsequitor rant, he does more damage to the cause than anything else.

if jones had been capable of objectively arguing single points he could well have 'won' that debate, as he had facts to counter morgans appeal to emotion, instead he came across as a loud boorish xenophobe.

It's not just his rant. He shouts and screams on a T.V network all day, everyday and makes money from people calling in to listen to him rant, scream and shout all day. He's fat, he's obnoxious, he eat's unhealthily, talks when he's eating, isn't intelligent and does not act like anyone but himself.

He's is selective who he want's to talk too and what to talk about , I mean rant on.
I don't listen to him. Any conspiracy theorist that I know don't listen to him either. The only people who listen to him or people who have cable t.v and believe that the governments are indestructible and are mad like him. He gives the elite power by ranting the way he does. That is why the elite have him on air like a raving pansy on T.V. He is absolutely no threat to the system whatsoever.

Is that his studio?? it's like something you'd see out of a CBS news special.

Aquarius34

I have to reiterate, The elite are mad like him. Makes sense.

Daithi 1

Here's a reality check on Morgans stats and general gun/violent death rates US vs UK and the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEeuMjG-94A

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Here's a reality check on Morgans stats and general gun/violent death rates US vs UK and the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEeuMjG-94A

Opens with someone saying that Fox news has a commitment to balanced news...

Then the report says "that Britain banned guns about 15 years ago" really?, what reality did that happen in?, then they say that the figures that Fox quoted are not correct.


Ok so Fox news say that Britain did something that it never did at the same time as acknowledging the fact - quote "it is true that Britain has a lower gun homicide rate"

Followed by this mind boggling quote about why the gun homicide rate is lower in Britain than the US;

Quote from Fox News - "it should not be surprising that the gun homicide rate in a country that bans guns would be lower than a country where guns are not banned".

They then try to obfuscate the quoted statistics by... quoting statistics.

According to Fox news a country like Ireland should be free of any gun crime at all, remember access to guns does not cause gun crimes - something else does (not sure what, lets say movies or computer games, or annoying british TV presenters, thats an easy answer)

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

Opens with someone saying that Fox news has a commitment to balanced news...

Then the report says "that Britain banned guns about 15 years ago" really?, what reality did that happen in?, then they say that the figures that Fox quoted are not correct.


Ok so Fox news say that Britain did something that it never did at the same time as acknowledging the fact - quote "it is true that Britain has a lower gun homicide rate"

Followed by this mind boggling quote about why the gun homicide rate is lower in Britain than the US;

Quote from Fox News - "it should not be surprising that the gun homicide rate in a country that bans guns would be lower than a country where guns are not banned".

They then try to obfuscate the quoted statistics by... quoting statistics.

According to Fox news a country like Ireland should be free of any gun crime at all, remember access to guns does not cause gun crimes - something else does (not sure what, lets say movies or computer games, or annoying british TV presenters, thats an easy answer)

Isn't 1996-1998 around 15 years ago, nearlyish ? in this reality. ~Isnt it ?

Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times. During the latter half of the 20th century there were only two incidents in which people holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale, the Hungerford massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996; each led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use, and tightening of laws. The result has been among the strictest firearms laws in the world.[12] After Hungerford, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 criminalised most semi-automatic long-barrelled weapons; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.[13] After the second incident, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 criminalised private possession of most handguns having a calibre over .22; the Snowdrop Campaign continued to press for a wider ban, and in 1997 the incoming Labour government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which extended this to most handguns with a calibre of .22 (there are exceptions for some antique handguns and black-powder revolvers.) The Cumbria shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot and killed three people connected to himself, and 12 others in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. Bird held legal permits for three shotguns and a rifle.

Brown Bomber

I'd like for anyone to watch this video and then tell me that Jones isn't a fraud who cares about the 2nd amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uyIVzdvGi4

If I was part of the anti-gun lobby I'd definitely hire him.

Aquarius34

I can't watch him.

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Isn't 1996-1998 around 15 years ago, nearlyish ? in this reality. ~Isnt it ?

?

The UK never "banned all guns" if thats what you are implying, i'm not really sure what you post was intended to prove.

Important part from the Wiki page you pasted;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times"

Why do you think that is?

The lower number of weapons is the real answer.

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

?

The UK never "banned all guns" if thats what you are implying, i'm not really sure what you post was intended to prove.

Important part from the Wiki page you pasted;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times"

Why do you think that is?

The lower number of weapons is the real answer.

When he says "banned guns", I think we know deep down that he meant introduced new gun laws. He did mention 15 years ago... He should probably choose his wording more carefully though.

Few firearms rampages due do fewer guns makes obvious sense. Less drugs on the streets, less drug related deaths.. But if I'm angry enough to wanna shoot someone, but don't have a gun, I'll use another method of killing them.

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

When he says "banned guns", I think we know deep down that he meant introduced new gun laws. He did mention 15 years ago... He should probably choose his wording more carefully though.
QUOTE]

Its a broadcast news report I would expect accuracy.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Few firearms rampages due do fewer guns makes obvious sense.

Yes thats my point.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But if I'm angry enough to wanna shoot someone, but don't have a gun, I'll use another method of killing them.

Fine, if your going to get angry enogh to shoot someone then maybe thats the best reason for gun control.

The more people have guns the higher the chance of someone getting " angry enough to shoot someone" then shoot the next person and the next and so on.

Remove the guns from that equation and their is no honest way anyone could say that the number of possible deaths/injuries would be decreased.

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

Daithi 1 wrote: »

When he says "banned guns", I think we know deep down that he meant introduced new gun laws. He did mention 15 years ago... He should probably choose his wording more carefully though.
QUOTE]

Its a broadcast news report I would expect accuracy.



Yes thats my point.




Fine, if your going to get angry enogh to shoot someone then maybe thats the best reason for gun control.

The more people have guns the higher the chance of someone getting " angry enough to shoot someone" then shoot the next person and the next and so on.

Remove the guns from that equation and their is no honest way anyone could say that the number of possible deaths/injuries would be decreased.

It's not that straight forward though. They created 2nd amendment for a reason. That reason remains as much now as it did then.
Anyway, it's not angry people doing the killing, it's drugged up to the eyeball kids. They throw antoi depressants at everything over there to cover up other sh1t. They are avoiding the real issue, banning guns aint gonna some guns is not gonna solve it.

EDIT: I was thinking about massacres ^. I supposed most gun related deaths would be crime, revenge or gang. Same point though, criminals and gang members wont surrender their guns, therefore regular citizens will be more vulnerable.