Watching Alex Jones doesn't make me say "look at this crazy man; his opinion must be wrong too." Watching Alex Jones makes me think what I stated "What a god damn lunatic." His opinions happen to be wrong, and it shows because if he did have any valid points he would be able to engage in debate without shouting over the other person.
Alex mainly starts shouting over Piers when Piers tries to get him to repeat talking points off of a cue card. Alex is a stupid person to have on to debate this and that's why they chose to put him on (I think understanding that alone should be enough to think further into what the role of liberal media is). Personally, I think you hear "35 deaths in UK" and the case is closed, no other reasoning or logic will ever change your mind about the role of guns because of one single fact. That's certainly true for Piers himself.
I don't think CNN classifies as "liberal media" and I don't even like Piers Morgan (don't assume I don't think critically about the media - and that I am some liberal robot). I believe the U.S. needs stricter gun control laws because they have over 90 guns for every 100 individuals in the country. The next closest countries have approximately 50 guns for every 100 individuals (Yemen and Serbia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co... Point 1: there are lots of weapons other than guns that can kill people, but guns make it easier to kill a mass of people and it makes it easier for people to distance themselves from the brutality of taking someone else's life (when compared to knives for example). Point 2: This is not 1776; and right-wing Americans completely misunderstand the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that guns are necessary for a well regulated militia. At the time America was expanding into new territory and conflict between Americans and Native American was common. Also, America had just gone through a war against an imperial power that was viewed by Americans as tyrannical. Therefore, they needed their populace to be armed (justly or unjustly that is a different conversation). I think the Times of India said it best: "For those griping about the American right to bear arms, wake up. This is the 21st century and America's a settled state, not the rough-edged, wide open spaces of the 1780s when the Constitution was framed and everything, from land to liberty, was based on violent contests. Bearing arms then might have made sense — doing so today is swallowing the nonsense posed as liberty by commercial lobbies. Some argue weapons empower victims against aggressors. If so, should second-graders pack pistols in their schoolbags? Such shaky logic simply intensifies dangerous situations." For a full article on how the world sees America's gun laws: http://theweek.com/article/index/237955/the-connecticut-scho... Point 3: there is a strong undeniable correlation between gun control laws and gun-related deaths throughout the world. There are no gun-related deaths in Japan because no one has a gun. Also, because there are no guns, that doesn't mean people in Japan just start stabbing each other with knives. It is harder to kill on mass scale without a gun. And, I would contend, it would take a lot more guts to actually walk up and stab someone than it would to pull a trigger at someone from a distance. Finally, the reason this is such an important issue for me and the reason why I think pro-guns advocates don't have a point is because they desperately trying to save a multi-billion dollar industry and the expense of people's lives.
What would you say about the point made about the drug war in Mexico? Tens of thousands dead - a helpless population; not to mention the fact that a the vast number of American gun deaths are directly manifested from the same drug war. Look at the death rates by guns from the era of alcohol prohibition. A gun ban then wouldn't have solved any problems then either since the root of the issues surrounding them had nothing to do with the guns themselves. Also, just touching on your point of "corporate interest", I find it hard to believe that ten of millions of people are conspiring to "save an industry" and I find that type of logic to degrade your only real argument that guns kill people easily: so ban them.If so, should second-graders pack pistols in their schoolbags?
I don't think any source that uses this type of statement should be taken seriously, let alone to create a balanced view of the situation. It's almost completely irrelevant, I've never heard anyone credible even come close to arguing with a statement like that and I would have the same opinion of them as I do anyways who uses it as a "legitimate" counter-argument. I'm really not trying to be offensive towards you when I say that - it's a realistic reaction in my opinion.
More guns will definitely do little to help the situation. We have to agree on that? I think people are starting to get fed up with Gun advocates not admitting a clear problem e.g. NRA supporting armed soldiers in school. However, it does get annoying when anti-gun people start to be over-sensitive or suddenly start blaming situations solely on guns. The "second grader" argument is definitely not sound. They call that reductio ad absurdum. The mexican drug war and prohibition cannot be used to negate the efficacy in a gun ban; having guns or not having guns do not change the situation, and those should be dealt by with the police. The problems with guns are what we see right now: reckless mass shootings and gang violence as a result of easy access of guns,even the very potent ones. advancedapes brings up some good points regarding the constitution and current countries that have low gun violence. There definitely needs to be more conversation toward progress. We shouldn't seek to ban guns, but at least make efforts toward better regulation. I think that's where the debate needs to go in order for progress and change to be made. It's irresponsible to not see something wrong with the influx of mass shootings and the danger of guns in the hands of the often irrational(humans).
guns in the hands of the often irrational(humans)
Like Alex mentions in the video, there is no mention of the hardcore drugs these people were on. I've not heard one reporter ask a question even related to this other than inserting "there needs to be more done for mental health". If you look at average amount of people that die in the US every day from guns it's still higher than any of these so called "mass shootings". 115,000 (whatever number he cites) that die from medical malpractise is a real issue worth working on far before gun control.The mexican drug war and prohibition cannot be used to negate the efficacy in a gun ban;
So you're saying more than 57,000 people would have died if the Mexican people were allowed to defend themselves?
I don't think adding more guns to the drug war would help. If anything, more deaths may occur.The situation is totally different though and unfair the parallel. And speculation is pointless. True, I will agree that there are many other issues that should be addressed. You definitely won't see me out in the streets protesting against guns or doing any activism(but I cannot blame those who have been victims to gun violence, which isn't limited to mass shootings, but gang violence and reckless murders too). I do firmly believe though that there can be constructive conversation--not the one showed in the video--and improvements regarding gun regulation.
Well let's not speculate then: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-media-isnt-being-honest-...