Piers Morgan 100k

[nietzsche]

This dude is very important, all this is very important.

I can't understand those idiots that actually think and debate about gun laws, when it's stuff that this that should dictate our emotions and help us decide what should be done.

What do your dictated emotions tell you to do about gun murders in Mexico? Seems you have a bigger problem than us up here.
Fresh out of regulations to put on law abiding citizens?

yuh, doesn't mexico have more than double to almost triple the gun homicide totals than the US? Despite having roughly 1/3 the population???

Not a dig on Mexico at all, but absolutely a dig at all the hypocrite foreign phonies screaming about the US homocide rate. Why don't they care about Mexico, which has an exponentially larger problem than the USA?

Oh, because it's not politically convenient...

To both of you:

Did you undertand my post?

Read it again please.

Honestly, I did not even read your point, just added some thoughts. I thought you were being unserious.

Sorry

Actually...

I was being sarcastic. My bad. I forget people have the right to do what they please.

What I was trying to say is that this dude is unimportant. What is important is a real debate on how to control this shootings. UNderstand why they are happening and try to prevent them from the root.

Some might say that the problem is America's gun culture, and though I don't particularly find necessary for a lot of people to have guns, guns don't fire themselves, people with mental troubles fire those guns. I do however understand that it's part of America's ideal to have guns as a way to "keep the government in check".

But these are the points that should be debated: Is this ideal practical or just simbolic? Could it be that those who produce and sell firearms are behind a media campaign to make people believe people should have guns? Should firearms be harder to get? Is American sociaty alienating individuals to the point they have to do this? Can something be done to detect and prevent these behaviours?

I'm not going to say that in Mexico we are better because we are not, but we don't have these cases of one person going insane and deciding he's going to kill 20 kids before comitting suicide. Most killings are among rival gangs and you'd be surprised how many mothers and siblings and wifes say.. "he had it coming, it was the risk of the business he was in", or "it's better this way, he was not himself anymore, drugs changed him" or others saying "the best thing that could have happened to her family, now they don't have to worry about him". But I repeat, we are not better in Mexico and the problem with the illegal guns here starts basically with the fact that in the US it's very easy to acquire guns. Many of the guns sold in the border states come to Mexico.

And my particular point of view is that the availability of guns is not the problem, the problem is in the mind of the individual, but the availability of guns does help with these cases.

I think I read somewhere that in some state teachers will be trained to use firearms and might actually carry guns? Now that's retarded IMO.

A couple of years after 9/11 I was visiting New York with a friend and she wanted to go to a musuem that was relatively far from the touristic parts, and somehow we got lost in the subway and ended up in a rather ugly station in the Bronx. A guy approached us and showed us his badge, and undercover cop, he had been paying attention to us and saw our predicament, gave us directions and told the guy in the booth to let us re-enter for free. Unrelated but I realized in that moment that some things do work. I would've never thougt there was a cop in the train yet he was doing his work. This kind of stuff would be way more productive, and less expensive that training teachers to carry guns. Perhaps keeping an eye in kids that might be troublesome... not invading their privacy but counseling perhaps? An investigation into what circumstances make these individuals to do what they do.

[pimpdave]

Yeah, which goddamn post in this thread has the news that Piers Morgan is RETREATING (since this is war now) to England?

I'm just trying to figure out how to read your threads.


Also, how dare the Tea Party threaten a silly man on television!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=183061&start=135#p4006264

there you go buddy. Sorry for any inconvenience or trauma this may have caused

Haha, Piers Morgan is such a bitch. I think I would have started laughing at her the second she did the hand wave in my face bit, but then I also don't think I would have responded to a misspelling that way. I'd have made a joke out of it. I know this, because for chrissakes, that's something that's happened numerous times in my adult life, and I don't even have a stupid weird fuckwad name like "Piers".

I'm going to have to watch that season now. I bet it's trashy television at it's finest.

[Phatscotty]

America is splintered by another policy crisis -- the role of guns in society. CNN host Piers Morgan leads a crusade for gun control, describing gun supporters as "dangerous" and wanting to ban "assault weapons." Morgan, who CBS called "an imported TV personality," believes as many British do, that gun ownership should be restricted.

That anti-gun position has cascaded through the global media. The Guardian UK featured both British and American columnists calling for "the fierce urgency of now" on gun control. Russia Today claimed pro-gun supporters say they can "freely carry military-grade assault weapons." A Sydney Morning Herald columnist wrote he won't even let his boys "play with toy guns."

In news outlets around the world, editorials, news stories and columns demand American gun control. Our political debates have gone global and American conservatives are outnumbered in a way few even realize. Factor in the impact of worldwide social media and the Internet has given our home-grown liberals an incredible advantage and distorted what should be a uniquely American debate.

Before the rise of the Internet, the United States was mostly on its own for media. Fortress America spent far more time influencing the rest of the world than the reverse. That has changed, big time.

Foreign media outlets, such as Russia Today, Qatar's Al-Jazeera and even the BBC, are often state-owned and quite anti-American.

It's not surprising that other nations have their own media and media agenda. But thanks to Twitter, Facebook, tons of cable channels and other sites linking to these stories, such content now flows directly into American homes and politics. Both The Huffington Post on the left and the Drudge Report on the right regularly link to international outlets, even for stories about the United States.

For all the complaints about the leftward tilt in American journalism, it's nothing compared to news operations around the globe. Some of these outlets are blatant propaganda, yet called "news" out of ignorance. They aren't just predictably liberal. Many are further left than their liberal American counterparts -- pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-big government, pro-tax (especially pro-taxing the U.S.) and anti-U.S. military.

Their reporting bears little resemblance to journalism practiced here.Russia Todayis the voice for the Putin regime and its videos highlight any ills they can find in our nation. Their United States is filled with meth labs, murders and anti-government opponents. The Dec. 27 RT America podcast led with 10 minutes of America bashing over our relations with Bahrain. RT "journalists" criticized the U.S. for allegedly backing both the government of Bahrain and protesters, and included claims America "controls the Mideast."

Al-Jazeera, which describes itself as the "Voice of the South," more accurately reflects the views of the Arab street and its Qatar paymasters. It has 70 news bureaus worldwide and its impact is felt strongly in the Middle East. Its American coverage relies heavily on hard-left voices and liberal think tanks. In truth, few conservative experts want anything to do with an organization widely seen as pro-terror, anti-Israel and anti-American. A recent gun control debate on the network just featured three anti-gun voices including one from Mother Jones and another from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Predictably, international outlets offer foreign solutions for American problems, such as the gun bans in Britain and Australia. In turn, those policies then become talking points for U.S. media. A Dec. 21, 2012, NPR story was a prime example. Headlined "Australians Urge U.S. To Look At Their Gun Laws," it pushed the fantasy that there is "no contradiction with being both conservative and in favor of strict gun ownership laws."

All three U.S. broadcast networks repeated foreign talking points on gun control. CBS's Bob Schieffer and ABC's Pierre Thomas pointed to Australia, and NBC showed how Sarah Smith covered a similar shooting in Scotland in 1996, saying politicians had "no choice to give in to public sentiment" for gun control.

The goal of this global outcry is to claim public sentiment is strong for gun control. It may be, but most of that sentiment is from outside the U.S. and didn't get much say in our laws until now.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... a/1801475/