Piers Morgan and Alex Jones: Gun Control Debate

CNN's Piers Morgan was lambasted by an eccentric, crazy, NRA gun advocate, Alex Jones in a recent TV appearance. As I sat there listening, Alex Jones wants to deport Mr. Morgan for trying to take away the right to bear arms in this republic. The more America watched and listened to Jones' insanity, his threatening manner, his refusal to answer Morgan's simple questions, the more America knows there should be gun control, at least, more laws to regulate it.

Yes, I am sure there will be many that believe Jones is the gun lord or messiah that is controlled by the US Second Amendment. but his arguments for the need of more guns simply proves there should be more gun regulation especially the AR 15. Even a US Army general has stated that these weapons should not be available to anyone.

Alex Jones is listened to over a million of devout, fringe gun toting members, all who are ranting how great Jones was combating Piers Morgan, calling him a deluded foreigner. If Jone's had been a dog, he would have bitten Morgan.

The issue is about the AR 15, an automatic weapon like a M16. It is not about taking away a person's right to own a gun lawfully, a hand gun, not an automatic weapon. The NRA continues to mix these issues up on purpose. Alex owns 50 guns, no person should be allowed to own more than two. Even Gabriel Gifford, who was shot in Arizona and who owns a gun is screaming for more gun controls, more background checks, outlawing AR 15 rifles. She was nearly killed two years ago.

Alex Jones is overly passionate about his right to own guns and on the verge of being a lunatic. His mentality is exactly why Piers Morgan is correct. Why Congresswoman Gifford is correct and why General McCrystal is correct.

More by this Author


Comments 29 comments

ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

What is the purpose of gun control, and will it fair any better than Alcohol, Tobacco, Prostitution, Pornography, Marijuana, or Illegal drugs?


Curiad profile image

Curiad 3 years ago from Lake Charles, LA.

Hi Perry, I appreciate realistic argument on either side of an issue. As far as the statement "The issue is about the AR 15, an automatic weapon like a M16" this is simply incorrect. An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, it is a semi-automatic weapon. Also of course the general will speak out saying such things, he is part of the Government and subject to it.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Semi is still bad enough.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

For the record; Alex Jones does NOT represent anti gun control advocates. He's his own special kind of crazy.

To put it simply; gun control doesn't work. I don't know how many times we have to go through this before people learn the lesson. As a crime deterrent, gun control is ineffectual. When a "ground breaking" gun control law is signed into the books, the expected drop in crime NEVER happens, and frequently, crime actually goes UP. Whether that is a response to gun-control or just a coincidence, it paints a very clear picture that gun-control doesn't do what it's supporters are hoping it will do.

On the flip side of that we have areas where gun-control is especially lax or non-existent where crime is almost universally lower than other areas... not just crimes where firearms are used, but ALL crime.

Until gun-control advocates can explain why places like Kennesaw, GA aren't a hell where people are dropping like flies with gunshot wounds, I see no reason whatsoever to support any kind of gun-control except basic safety rules which every responsible gun owner follows.

And no.. I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I own a gun or have any intention of owning one in the future.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

I agree with most of what you said. But people like Jones really help push many to yell for stricter gun control.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

And I bet Piers planned it exactly that way. Alex's rep is well known. You only put that guy on your show for two reasons. Either you're just like him, or you're hoping you look good by comparison.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

It worked.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

More's the pity...


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Gun control is a red herring to reducing violent crime.

There is a root cause that doesn't involve the law abiding gun owner or the NRA.


Mike 3 years ago

@perrya

Please learn something about firearms before you publish this kind 0f article. I understand you publish in volume to try to make some money, but please do some research first.

I joined the NRA again today after letting my membership lapse for a few years. The possibility of Obama passing an executive order, bypassing congress, to restrict my civil liberties convinced me to join again. I can't think of a better way for Obama to further divide an already divided country.


Kyle 3 years ago

Really, you want to talk about pro-gun entertainment talk show host Alex Jones looking bad. Here is a clip of anti-gun retard U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQYFjTRxH2g


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

well, gun lovers, there are extreme retards on both sides for sure. Many gun lovers want more controls to keep guns out of the lunatics, if that is really possible, but anything will help. Owning a revolver is fine for self defense but an AR 15, no. The video game industry is a great promoter of gun violence.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

"Owning a revolver is fine for self defense but an AR 15, no."

Except a revolver is used in tons more crimes than AR-15's are, so what exactly is a restriction on AR-15's doing? You want to say "You shouldn't own that." Then you have to make a case for the world being a better place if I don't own that. That hasn't been done. If the best argument you can come up with is "I don't see a reason why you should have one." then your argument fails. A COMPELLING reason for the restriction is what is needed, not a "Violence is bad, and I don't see the reason." That boils down to "I don't like it, so you have to do what I say."

Sorry. Not good enough.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

The AR15 is a weapon with a much larger ammo clip than any revolver, that makes it a rapid firing gun capable of killing more in the hands of idiots in a short period of time, as proven in all mass shootings. If they were not available to the public, the odds of mass shootings can be reduced.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

Drive a car through a crowded park and you have the potential to kill more people than an AR-15, but that doesn't happen. Potential doesn't interest me unless the danger is borne out through past events, and mass shootings by weapons like the AR-15 historically cause fewer deaths than those by handguns. The only thing statistically directly related to the number of people killed and the frequency of these "mass shootings" is the presence of a so-called "gun free" zone. You don't hear much about the mass shootings that involve an armed citizen who takes on the attacker, because they don't get elevated to the status of "mass shootings" After one or two people gets shot, so does the attacker. Frequently, NO one dies. The attacker gets wounded and flees the scene to be caught by the police later. Few, if any bystanders are hit by stray bullets, and those that do are usually shot by the attacker. The police and the courts close the book and send everyone home while they throw the attacker in jail. The thing that no one gets is that any one of those incidents could be another Sandy Hook except for the reaction of perhaps ONE armed citizen.

The AR-15 LOOKS dangerous and it's easier for people to be convinced it simply isn't needed in the hands of law-abiding citizens, so it's easy to demonize it. The facts are that it is no more dangerous than a handgun, and used less frequently in crimes and causes fewer deaths. With things like the Sandy Hook tragedy, it overloads our capacity for rational thought and it's easy to get distracted from the simple fact that the students and teachers there were completely defenseless. That is the single major reason why so many died. THAT is what we should be focusing on. Removing guns from law-abiding citizens does only one thing: it makes law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to the crazies out there. Gun-free zones just say "Come get us. We won't shoot back."


Kyle 3 years ago

Perrya,

My Ar-15s do not use clips. The only firearm I own that uses clips is my M1 Garand and it holds a maximum of eight rounds.


Paul 3 years ago

@Perrya

Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

I disagree.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

Perrya: You're entitled to disagree, but statistics on crime rates do not favor your position. They never have, and gun-control advocates consistently refuse to talk about that.

If you claim that something is a problem, and you enact legislation specifically to deal with that problem, and the problem remains the same or gets worse when your legislation takes effect, I believe that you should rethink your legislation, not try the same thing again.

The assault rifle ban didn't work. Even the people who put it together admit that. Now they're going to try it again. I can't see that as anything other than beating their head against a brick wall. It doesn't make sense. Even if you support gun-control there is no reason to believe that it will be any different this time around.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

You might be right, but we should give it a try, it cannot get worse.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

It can ALWAYS get worse, usually made worse by people saying it can't get any worse.


George 3 years ago

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

-- George Washington.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

What it comes down to is that gun-control advocates see guns as something akin to live grenades. While they understand they might be necessary... SOMETIMES, they think that they are inherently dangerous and don't want them anywhere near them or the people they love. If they happen to own a firearm, they naturally exempt the one they own, but don't understand why anyone would want or need things like AR-15, or any kind of military grade weapon.

What they fail to realize (or refuse to listen to) is that firearms are NOT dangerous. You place a weapon on a table and there is no way it will accidentally discharge and hurt someone, even if loaded. It takes someone picking it up to do anything with it. The facts are that somewhere around 95-98% of the people likely to pick that firearm up will not hurt anyone with it, or if they hurt anyone, it will be a criminal trying to steal from them or kill them, or both. That is a much higher percentage than pretty much any other "dangerous" object we allow our citizens to own. So exactly WHY do firearms generate so much fear?

I don't get it. Perrya, you say you can't see why anyone would own an AR-15. Why should the fact that you don't understand why someone would want to own something have anything to do with whether it is safe to own or not? Does your lack of understanding somehow make others less responsible?

The other argument.. that guns are specifically designed for killing. Well yeah... so what? When the number of deaths firearms cause is less/per firearm produced than that caused per automobile produced, how does WHY a firearm is produced have any bearing on how dangerous it is. Dynamite was created to build railroads. Do you feel safer if your next door neighbor has a house full of dynamite rather than a house full of guns?

The only thing that matters is whether what people do with the firearms.

Fact #1: In general, the more firearms in the hands of citizens, the safer the neighborhoods they live in are. This is proven time and time again when people look at crime statistics. It doesn't matter the type of firearm. Ar-15's, revolvers, automatics, etc. More guns does NOT equal more deaths. That is backwards. More guns frequently means FEWER deaths.

Fact #2: According to police reports, criminal acts involving an armed citizen frequently end in the death or injury of the criminal and more than half the time the crime is not completed (robbery/mugging/whatever is stopped) and few, if any innocent bystanders are hurt, and when they are, the injuries are frequently caused by the criminal, not the armed citizen.

Fact #3: Gun-free zones ATTTRACT criminals. Countless interviews with known criminals about their choice in targets reveal that they go after those who they know are unarmed and/or unprepared to defend themselves. They AVOID houses they know have firearms in them and they avoid groups on the street and people who are obviously armed.

Given these facts: Far from being dangerous, neighborhoods with gun-owners are places where you should WANT to live. You should feel SAFER if you're out shopping and you see someone armed with a gun shopping along with everyone else A criminal will HIDE the fact that he's armed. You won't ever see the gun until he's ready to use it. It makes no sense to be afraid of an armed citizen.

And even if YOU don't like firearms, I resent you trying to make MY neighborhood more dangerous by removing firearms from those who may have them. You may be part of the reason my neighborhood is robbed and possibly the reason someone is killed. How dare you?


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Fear is propelling the gun buying craze. Fear that Obama may with an executive order ban guns or certain guns or ammo. This cannot happen without approval of congress (the house and the senate). then the fear that more mass murders will happen and the NRA propaganda that all should have a gun for self defense, yet, not every gun owner may have this in mind. yes, things can get worse,


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

The NRA is not saying that everyone should have a gun for self-defense. They are saying that self-defense is a personal responsibility and everyone should be ALLOWED to have a gun for self-defense. That is very different.

And for the record, an executive order can happen without the approval of congress. That is the whole point of an executive order. The order can then be REVIEWED by congress and could be challenged, but while that is going on, the executive order will be the law of the land.

That having been said, I doubt that Obama will issue an executive order for gun-control (ban/restriction). Even his own people would question that.


OldWitchcraft profile image

OldWitchcraft 3 years ago from The Atmosphere

I think there should be "television control" - it's obviously a dangerous weapon that causes mass brain damage.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

Only if you let it. I blame the dumbing down of the education system. We've raised whole generations to believe that we get truth from TV news programs. In reality, those 'reporters' probably wouldn't remember their own names if it wasn't on the teleprompter.

How about we make it illegal for a reporter or a politician to lie?


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

As to TV control- the viewer has all the power-switch the channel, turn it off-simple.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

... and the "simple" problem to dumbasses in congress is to not vote for them.... You've seen how hard THAT is for most people. It also makes it worse for both that the most popular sources of information on politics are on TV.

It's already been proven that of those who watch TV for their news, the people who are the most informed on politics are those that watch the Daily Show... A COMEDY/ENTERTAINMENT show is the best at informing the public about the issues?? If that doesn't prove something in our society is fundamentally broken, I don't know what will.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working