PDA

View Full Version : Alan gottlieb on Piers Morgan


db.40
12-12-2012, 6:39 PM
Anyone else see gottlieb defend 2A on piers? I usually hate watching this show because piers is rude and close minded. not only were the people he interviewed not sharing his gun hating rhetoric, but gottlieb owned him on his own show. He got so mad he yelled and told gottlieb to stop laughing. I hope someone puts up video of it. /rant

MattyB
12-12-2012, 6:43 PM
Anyone else see gottlieb defend 2A on piers? I usually hate watching this show because piers is rude and close minded. not only were the people he interviewed not sharing his gun hating rhetoric, but gottlieb owned him on his own show. He got so mad he yelled and told gottlieb to stop laughing. I hope someone puts up video of it. /rant

It will be replayed at 9pm PT on CNN tonight, plan on watching it, should be very entertaining from some of the tweets.

Ackrite
12-12-2012, 6:50 PM
That idiot usually gets owned on his own show whenever he discusses 2A. I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the MSNBC route and stops inviting pro-2A guests when he talks about guns from now on.

bwiese
12-12-2012, 6:52 PM
Isn't he kinda still having legal issues in UK over wiretapping-related matters?

db.40
12-12-2012, 6:54 PM
He tried to interview parents of a victim from the aurora shooting who, by the end of the interview, the husband said he owns guns and is getting a LTC. Talk about backfiring on piers...

HowardW56
12-12-2012, 6:55 PM
Gottlieb's arguements were sound, I don't care for his public speaking style. I think the stupid smile was foolish, it is a serious topic...

wildhawker
12-12-2012, 7:10 PM
Heh, needless to say we were having a good time with all this at the office. And at dinner, where Phil and I were tweeting some just to stir the pot a bit.

-Brandon

wash
12-12-2012, 7:28 PM
I look forward to watching this at 9:00.

As for Alan's speaking style, if anyone deserves to be smug, it's a gun rights advocate after reversing an unconstitutional law and the antis are truly laugh worthy.

TransplantTexan
12-12-2012, 7:56 PM
Just in case I set it up to record.

hornswaggled
12-12-2012, 8:01 PM
Man I hope SAF is grooming somebody for when Alan must retire someday. Brandon what are you doing in 10 years?

putput
12-12-2012, 8:25 PM
Pier Morgan asks "Why no one is having a conversation about guns?" as though we haven't had conversations, legislation, and court rulings since the founding of our nation.

I believe that what we saw tonight is why no one is having a conversation with HIM. That is, no one wants to be dismissed, talked over, and called a liar for 15 minutes because they're not saying what Piers wants to hear....

db.40
12-12-2012, 8:30 PM
When Piers tried to backpedal on his past tweet and Alan then held up a hard copy of it I literally laughed out loud. Piers got so mad.

RMP91
12-12-2012, 8:39 PM
When Piers tried to backpedal on his past tweet and Alan then held up a hard copy of it I literally laughed out loud. Piers got so mad.

Piers 'oughta cut his losses and just shut up about guns. He's not gonna get anywhere...

Public Opinion has solidly turned against the Bradies and the likes of Piers Morgan.

It may not seem like it right now with Obama recently being re-elected, but we're winning big time!

taperxz
12-12-2012, 8:42 PM
Heh, needless to say we were having a good time with all this at the office. And at dinner, where Phil and I were tweeting some just to stir the pot a bit.

-Brandon

YOU? Stir the pot? Last time you did that you got a certain CA senator to drop his idea in favor of chinese noodles.

tcrpe
12-12-2012, 8:44 PM
Isn't he kinda still having legal issues in UK over wiretapping-related matters?

Why, yes, he is.

He's a muck raking, privacy invading, wiretapping piece of Limey filth.

jdmcgee
12-12-2012, 8:45 PM
Also replayed at midnight.

wildhawker
12-12-2012, 8:45 PM
YOU? Stir the pot?

:43:

HqVBKO_QM3o

-Brandon

jdberger
12-12-2012, 9:14 PM
A conversation about guns? (http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/12/gun-control-ad-infinitum)

As should be laughably obvious by this point, gun control is something Americans almost never stop talking about. The trouble—from the liberal perspective—is that the discussion keeps going the wrong way. Despite the horror at Virginia Tech, in Tucson and Aurora and too many other places to list, Americans consistently decline to adopt sweeping gun-control measures. Just a week after the Tucson shooting, 69 percent of survey respondents still told CNN the episode had not changed their views on gun control.

Gun-rights advocates are being disingenuous when they say the aftermath of a shooting is not an appropriate time to talk about gun control. Nonsense—it’s the most appropriate time. Nobody ever says, “Let’s not talk about airline safety right now” after a plane crash.

But gun-control advocates are being just as disingenuous. When Egan and Williams gripe that you can’t talk about gun control, what they really mean is you can’t talk about it without other people talking back. And when other gun-control advocates say they want a “candid” debate about guns—or an “honest,” “sane,” “serious,” “fresh,” “mature,” or “new” debate—what they really mean is: a debate we actually win.

Clinton
12-12-2012, 9:28 PM
Watching it now. Where are they getting this "40%" number of gun sales without background checks? What gunshop doesn't do background checks?

Also, Alan needs to find a better spokesperson for the SAF.

Ackrite
12-12-2012, 9:32 PM
Watching it now. Where are they getting this "40%" number of gun sales without background checks? What gunshop doesn't do background checks?

I think it has to do with face to face private sales of private property that happen in most states. Or as they like to call it, the "Gun Show Loophole."

jdberger
12-12-2012, 9:33 PM
Watching it now. Where are they getting this "40%" number of gun sales without background checks? What gunshop doesn't do background checks?

Also, Alan needs to find a better spokesperson for the SAF. He sucks.

It's a Brady stat from a National Institute of Justice study done in 1994. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf See page 6. Please note that according to the study, the average firearm in circulation at that time was acquired in 1981 (before mandatory background checks).

I'm sorry you don't like Alan's style. He always has nice things to say about you....

DFence
12-12-2012, 9:36 PM
Watching it now. Where are they getting this "40%" number of gun sales without background checks? What gunshop doesn't do background checks?

Also, Alan needs to find a better spokesperson for the SAF. He sucks.

I was wondering the same thing. Where do they get this info or do they just make it up as they go? I was hoping Alan would have went towards sport shooting as well instead of just staying on the defense topic.

live2suck
12-12-2012, 9:46 PM
Apparently, according to Mr. Morgan, all young people, like myself, are deranged maniacs who purchase AR-15s solely for the purpose of mayhem and murder.

And to think, I bought one for the learning experience of assembling my own rifle. The side benefits of it being cheap to operate, and a great learning platform for marksmanship skills must be indicative of my forthcoming mania. Y'all better watch out! :tinfoil:

I did actually laugh out loud when Mr. Gottlieb held up the tweet and Piers completely reversed his statement on air.

Can he make any statements that aren't full of rhetoric, emotional appeals, straw arguments, and mudslinging; or is that some type of requirement for journalists*?

Edit: *talking heads (journalism would imply that he actually researched the topic he was purporting to discuss honesetly)

Clinton
12-12-2012, 9:48 PM
It's a Brady stat.

Alan always has nice things to say about you....

You're right. Uncalled for. Modified my post.

wash
12-12-2012, 9:54 PM
Wow, someone should ship his *** back to England.

Have the antis ever thought that by screaming and yelling about "assault weapons", they made them the weapon of choice for people who are going to go out and indiscriminately murder people?

The fact is that law abiding citizens carrying guns are a practical deterrent to these "active shooter" murder sprees. If an active shooter thought it was a 50-50 chance there was a gun every time he saw a woman carrying a medium to large size purse, they would not dare start shooting because all of these "active shooters" are cowardly at heart, that's why they target people who are disarmed.

It's hard to make that argument in an articulate manner when Piers keeps interrupting Alan but gives the VPC guy a clear platform to spew lies about gun owners and gun crime.

taperxz
12-12-2012, 10:05 PM
Piers needs to be a crusader for dental care in England and less concerned about the 2a rights of those that left England for a reason.

Drivedabizness
12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Piers needs to be a crusader for dental care in England and less concerned about the 2a rights of those that left England for a reason.

and also an onscreen advocate for rectal exams to fight colorectal cancer

sreiter
12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Piers - "why are these semi automatic rifle so easy to buy or STEAL"?

Whaaaa ?????? Guess thats his way of heading off the fact the shooter stole the gun and didnt buy it.

What i dont understand is why no one ever mentions the rate of fire is as fast as a handgun. As a matter of fact my tuned 1911 with a 2.5 lb trigger can shoot fast then my center fire semi auto.

gazzavc
12-12-2012, 10:12 PM
Piers needs to be a crusader for dental care in England and less concerned about the 2a rights of those that left England for a reason.

:tooth:

No, for that position we have Ricky Gervais...........

db.40
12-12-2012, 10:15 PM
Piers - "why are these semi automatic rifle so easy to buy or STEAL"?

Whaaaa ?????? Guess thats his way of heading off the fact the shooter stole the gun and didnt buy it.

What i dont understand is why no one ever mentions the rate of fire is as fast as a handgun. As a matter of fact my tuned 1911 with a 2.5 lb trigger can shoot fast then my center fire semi auto.

Alan tried after piers claimed "magazines that hold 100 rounds per minute", whatever that means.

Anchors
12-12-2012, 10:17 PM
We need video! I missed it again.

hornswaggled
12-12-2012, 10:22 PM
Piers must be a lousy shot for hating guns so much. Nobody share a foxhole with that guy.

Dreaded Claymore
12-12-2012, 10:27 PM
I hope this gets onto the Internet so I can watch it. It sounds like the funniest thing since that guy told McCarthy that no, a barrel shroud is not "the shoulder thing that goes up."

MattyB
12-12-2012, 10:31 PM
Why didn't Gottlieb use Chicago as the perfect reason as to why gun control isn't the answer?? That city and state has the most restrictive gun control restrictions in the country... Anyone have a guess how many people are being shot and killed by felons with weapons in that city???

The tag line should be CRIMINAL CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL

Ksmash01
12-12-2012, 11:03 PM
I have a few questions that stump "Antis" everytime when they mention banning anything:

1) Which bans have worked in the US? Drugs, Alcohol, pick one...
2) After said item was banned, did it prevent the crime that it was supposed to prevent?
3) What do you think will be accomplished by banning(insert type of firearm here)?

The first 2 are no brainers. The third one is usually answered with a statement that reflects them "feeling safer". I then ask them this question:

4) How my inability to own (insert type of firearm here) make you feel safer?

The answer to that is "Nobody can get them after they are banned."

And my response is "You mean like (insert type of banned drug here)."

Some actually think about it, and like the war on drugs (which needs to have a change of focus, IMO) the war on guns turns into a conversation about how our country deals with addiction and mental illness, which is what we should all be discussing.

FastFinger
12-12-2012, 11:42 PM
No access to CNN, sorry I missed the event. What did PM say that Gottlieb was able to refute with hard copy?

wash
12-12-2012, 11:48 PM
A twitter post by Piers saying something like the second amendment only protects the right to own muskets.

kf6tac
12-13-2012, 12:02 AM
If these numbers are correct (I don't know that the Daily Mail is particularly trustworthy), then Piers Morgan needs to shut up and take a long hard look at his homeland.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

DrVino
12-13-2012, 12:17 AM
Why didn't Gottlieb use Chicago as the perfect reason as to why gun control isn't the answer?? That city and state has the most restrictive gun control restrictions in the country... Anyone have a guess how many people are being shot and killed by felons with weapons in that city???

The tag line should be CRIMINAL CONTROL NOT GUN CONTROL

I think a better argument is Mexico. Their gun laws are very strict..... and of course nobody shoots anybody in Mexico....

DrVino
12-13-2012, 12:18 AM
a conversation about how our country deals with addiction and mental illness, which is what we should all be discussing.

Testify!

DrVino
12-13-2012, 12:19 AM
No access to CNN, sorry I missed the event. What did PM say that Gottlieb was able to refute with hard copy?

http://www.cnn.com/audio/radio/cnntv.html

24/7 live audio feed
May have to try different browsers, requires WMP plugin.

DrVino
12-13-2012, 12:38 AM
Alan tried after piers claimed "magazines that hold 100 rounds per minute", whatever that means.

That douche needs to go back to judging talent competitions....

five.five-six
12-13-2012, 12:49 AM
Isn't he kinda still having legal issues in UK over wiretapping-related matters?It was not wiretapping, Piers got caught hacking into private phone messages. Is that wiretaping?

LockJaw
12-13-2012, 12:52 AM
CNN just got a new News director. I wonder what he thinks of Piers Morgan? Seems to me getting rid of him should be high priority.

safewaysecurity
12-13-2012, 12:55 AM
It was not wiretapping, Piers got caught hacking into private phone messages. Is that wiretaping?

Wiretapping doesn't literally mean tapping into the wire. Heck here in the U.S in some states and juridictions they consider filming someone without their consent "wiretapping" at least if you are audio recording.

stingray4540
12-13-2012, 12:57 AM
Is there any online video? I missed it... :mad:

madjack956
12-13-2012, 12:57 AM
Just got done watching Piers Morgan and I got to ask where does that limey son of a streetwalker get off saying no one should be allowed to own an AR 15 in this country.

That pompous ***** really could do with a good kick in the teeth. And before anyone calls me a racist, Im part English.

jeffrice6
12-13-2012, 1:01 AM
Gottlieb did well, but Jesse Ventura really put Piers's D in the dirt! At least the Body was an in person interview so Piers couldn't just talk over him & shut him up..... God I hate that smug Brit pr!ck

MattyB
12-13-2012, 1:07 AM
Is there any online video? I missed it... :mad:

It wasnt the end all be all Uber smackdown regarding the 2A. It was a half hour worth of commentary that made me hit pause to smoke two cigarettes and yell at the TV the rest of the time.

Morgan spent most of the time talking over Alan while he was trying to speak, it was a bit humorous that Mr Brady Bunch got about 10 secs of speaking time of which he got an agreement from Gottlieb that more resources should be spent on making sure mentally ill and criminal people cant access firearms.

The big point lost that could have been made given the chance is that the Oregon POS STOLE the rifle from a guy he knew.

More or less you didnt miss a whole lot other than a half hour of liberal dribble that youll easily hear tomorrow as well.

battleship
12-13-2012, 1:55 AM
Morgans ignorance is so staggering he clearly knows nothing about firearms, show him a wooden stocked semi auto M1A in 308 and i doubt he would demonize that rifle like he attempts to do with a semi auto AR15 this is what bothers me so much about him, he is biased purely on the looks of a weapon, not its caliber or operation. You would think that he would be better educated on firearms as it seems to be a hot topic with him. he never wants to address criminals directly, yet the country he comes from is absolutely full of extremely violent criminals.
I wish he would just eff off back to England, and try and figure out why the U.K. is probably the most violent nation in Europe if not the western world.

I guess the fact that murdering people with knifes and hatchets, broken bottles, ropes is just not sensational enough as a criminal with a gun.

Mitch
12-13-2012, 8:34 AM
Isn't he kinda still having legal issues in UK over wiretapping-related matters?

They hate him in the UK, which is why he moved to the US.

There's an excellent UK satirical magazine that comes out biweekly called Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/). I used to read it when I lived there and subscribed to it for years even after moving back to the US. It's great. The principal targets of its barbs, aside from politicians, are print and broadcast journalists. Piers "Moron" Morgan was regular fodder for Private Eye's anonymous contributors. Honestly, you only had to read the magazine for a couple months to conclude this guy was a worthless idiot.

And this was back in the 1990s.

tcrpe
12-13-2012, 8:57 AM
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc23/tcrpe/1C9B503F-46A0-4741-85B1-462B30632B5B-2990-000003A91480C5B9.jpg

PackingHeatInSDCA
12-13-2012, 10:00 AM
great episode. caught Morgan in a lie regarding the tweet that he just could not back out of. This guy is so bias that he believes his own inaccuracies.

I'm a bit offended by CNN pushing this guy, who is not even a US citizen, to lecture us about our bill of rights - rights that were largely established because of the country he came from to begin with. Sad as it sounds, it would be better if another left winger like Maddow was saying this stuff. At least she is a US citizen (I assume). But to have this guy tell us what's best for us is down right offensive IMHO.

Seems to me if he wants to start editing the bill of rights by preaching that the founding fathers did not imagine modern weapons in the hands of the people (which is silly because the people had the same weapons as the army back then, same as today) then we should start with the first amendment. clearly - the founding fathers did not have any idea about the Internet, TV and most certainly not his show. So perhaps we should start by banning CNN because they are so bias it edges on propaganda, and then we can move on down the list.

Also a bit ironic that as he exercises his first amendment right to preach that the people should ban the second amendment....that whole practice is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to begin with!

IVC
12-13-2012, 10:13 AM
In the "five stages of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model)," Morgan is at stage 1=Denial, Media is at stage 2=Anger. Politicians are at stage 3=Bargaining, Bradys are at stage 4=Depression, and the lower courts are getting to the stage 5=Acceptance.

Give them time and space, since stage 5 is where all the roads lead.

Wherryj
12-13-2012, 11:19 AM
He tried to interview parents of a victim from the aurora shooting who, by the end of the interview, the husband said he owns guns and is getting a LTC. Talk about backfiring on piers...

Sort of like having invited Suzanna Hupp to your anti-2A rant, isn't it?

Wherryj
12-13-2012, 11:21 AM
great episode. caught Morgan in a lie regarding the tweet that he just could not back out of. This guy is so bias that he believes his own inaccuracies.

I'm a bit offended by CNN pushing this guy, who is not even a US citizen, to lecture us about our bill of rights - rights that were largely established because of the country he came from to begin with. Sad as it sounds, it would be better if another left winger like Maddow was saying this stuff. At least she is a US citizen (I assume). But to have this guy tell us what's best for us is down right offensive IMHO.

Seems to me if he wants to start editing the bill of rights by preaching that the founding fathers did not imagine modern weapons in the hands of the people (which is silly because the people had the same weapons as the army back then, same as today) then we should start with the first amendment. clearly - the founding fathers did not have any idea about the Internet, TV and most certainly not his show. So perhaps we should start by banning CNN because they are so bias it edges on propaganda, and then we can move on down the list.

Also a bit ironic that as he exercises his first amendment right to preach that the people should ban the second amendment....that whole practice is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to begin with!

I like this viewpoint. In such an analogy, CNN is a veritable "1A weapon of mass destruction". It should be regulated by Geneva at the very least.

GOEX FFF
12-13-2012, 11:28 AM
Saw this last night. Piers is a BLOW HARD.

He wants to have a "discussion", then as Alan starts talking, not 10 words go by and Piers yells at him to "STOP TALKING, IT'S MY SHOW, STOP TALKING!"

What a total Douche.

HowardW56
12-13-2012, 11:43 AM
He tried to interview parents of a victim from the aurora shooting who, by the end of the interview, the husband said he owns guns and is getting a LTC. Talk about backfiring on piers...


That interview was a little odd, the husband/father went on about getting a LTC, but only wanting to carry in the car and that he would never shoot anyone ????

Why bother then????

TransplantTexan
12-13-2012, 12:19 PM
Couple of things that I took away from the episode.

1) Morgan said he is perfectly ok with someone being able to defend/protect themselves in their own home. He mentioned this several times. So does that mean when I step outside of my front door I should now be defenseless. If I can defend myself in my home, I should be able to defend myself period.

2) Morgan and crowd always harp on the AR-15/AK47 and why should anyone be allowed to own these types of firearms when they are only used in mass shootings. In almost all cases where I hear this, none of the 2A speakers ever brings up that the FBI crime stats for 2011 show that knives are used almost twice as often as rifles, shotguns and other (non-handguns) firearms and that "Personal Weapons" such as hands, fists and feet are used almost at the same rate as the so called assault weapons.

Also if more guns = more killings than why has gun crime gone down over the last 5 years, by an average of 4% per year, while the number of guns in the populace has gone up and more and more locations allow for CCW/LTC.

I know preaching to the choir - but can I get a Hallelujah!

db.40
12-13-2012, 2:02 PM
http://youtu.be/1HCE2DXXxWc

tcrpe
12-13-2012, 2:22 PM
Thanks for the video link . . . . . .

SilverBulletZ06
12-13-2012, 2:25 PM
TLDR; Piers wants to pull guns because sometimes bad people use them wrongly.

JTecalo
12-13-2012, 2:39 PM
have some compassion, morgan suffers from an incurable case of skullrectalitus. It is obvious it has affected any judgement he may have once possessed.

Left Coast Conservative
12-13-2012, 2:54 PM
Watching it now. Where are they getting this "40%" number of gun sales without background checks? What gunshop doesn't do background checks?

Also, Alan needs to find a better spokesperson for the SAF.

That must refer to private party transfers.

battleship
12-13-2012, 3:02 PM
As Morgan always seem to bang this gong, (why should anyone other than the Military or Police have this type of weapon), why are the answers given always to be anything other than its no different than any other type of semi auto rifle, why wont anyone get this across to him to shut him up. He always seems to put fourth that one needs a reason to own a weapon like this and civilians don't have a reason.
When there are multiple reasons to own one which don't include defending ones self with one. Law abiding citizens have many reasons to own them from simply liking them to collecting to enjoying shooting to hunting with them to customizing and building etc. Why does the argument always have to be about using one for defending oneself. Bottom line is law abiding gun owners own one or many because they like to and that should be a good enough reason to have one. Yet Morgan does not seem to compute this concept in his head and no one ever on his panel who is pro 2A brings this to light.

Californio
12-13-2012, 3:10 PM
We should have let the Huns have the whole bloody lot of them.

Anyone that needs a Queen and a Royal Court has a screw loose.

randomBytes
12-13-2012, 3:13 PM
If these numbers are correct (I don't know that the Daily Mail is particularly trustworthy), then Piers Morgan needs to shut up and take a long hard look at his homeland.


A 35% increase of an insignificant number is still insignificant.

It is more effective to talk about comparisons of hot burglaries and other violent attacks.

Piers is of course a twit, I don't understand why anyone would go on his show.
You only get to speak so long as you say what he wants to hear.
The show last night was the only instance I've seen, but I thought it pretty lame.

It would have been nice if Alan had had prepared answers for the questions one could expect of Piers.

emcon5
12-13-2012, 3:52 PM
That must refer to private party transfers.

But how is that a knowable number?

Pretty easy to know how many NICS checks have happened, but the total number of private paperless transfers is at best a wild guess.

artoaster
12-13-2012, 4:31 PM
Who started this "We need to have an open and honest conversation" stuff about guns?

The democrats, Brady, or ??

Fact is, you can't even begin to when the subject is guns.

The anti's need to understand that like drunk driving you would have to take steps to educate the public and understand and treat alcoholism much like understanding criminal behavior and treating mental illness in the case of gun violence instead of banning the automobile or the gun.

ford_nut
12-13-2012, 4:35 PM
I have a few questions that stump "Antis" everytime when they mention banning anything:

1) Which bans have worked in the US? Drugs, Alcohol, pick one...
2) After said item was banned, did it prevent the crime that it was supposed to prevent?
3) What do you think will be accomplished by banning(insert type of firearm here)?

The first 2 are no brainers. The third one is usually answered with a statement that reflects them "feeling safer". I then ask them this question:

4) How my inability to own (insert type of firearm here) make you feel safer?

The answer to that is "Nobody can get them after they are banned."

And my response is "You mean like (insert type of banned drug here)."

Some actually think about it, and like the war on drugs (which needs to have a change of focus, IMO) the war on guns turns into a conversation about how our country deals with addiction and mental illness, which is what we should all be discussing.

Do I have permission to use this? :D Because this is awesome and I so want to use these questions ASAP

Ksmash01
12-13-2012, 5:16 PM
Do I have permission to use this? :D Because this is awesome and I so want to use these questions ASAP

Go for it.

Proliferate knowledge as you see fit. :D

For the record, I'm all for individual liberties, and don't believe in banning anything really. Focusing attention to remedy the problem(provided that it IS a problem) is always going to be my first option, and creating a (new) class of criminal isn't on the radar unless it is something the presents a clear and present danger to the normal operation of society(Meth Labs for instance).

The problem with crime is the fact that there are so many motivating factors that produce it. If we eradicated poverty, for example, that would only account for the crimes that involved currency and property, and there would still be crime(crimes of passion, hate crime, etc.)

The events like those that occurred recently(Jovan Belcher/ Aurora, Co) could possibly be minimized if people had a viable option to express their, possibly temporary, insanity without having to worry about the fallout that results when you DO seek help. I could go on and on, but blaming our problems on guns, drugs, or anything else is merely a scapegoat attempt to mask the imperfection that is the criminal element of human nature.

I wonder how much crime would drop if the people that were likely to commit a crime could go somewhere and get real help in our society. The reality is not all of us can, which keeps the revolving door of violence and crime open.

Firearms are neither the problem or the solution.

Tubbie
12-13-2012, 5:29 PM
Alan Gottlieb needs to brush up on his debate skills. The stuttering and the nervous laughter made him look unpolished and cornered.

And next time, if this little twerp Morgan ever utters a statement that he 'believes' in the Constitution's Second Amendment, call him a freaking LIAR. Stop answering his questions and hammer him on why he feels the need to say he 'believes' in the Second Amendment. If he says it's my show, walk off.

RMP91
12-13-2012, 5:34 PM
walk off.

That is a VERY bad idea... We've worked very hard to get this far, we don't want public opinion to plummet just because a pro-gun spokesman walked off the set of a widely watched talk show (albeit a very biased one).

DrVino
12-13-2012, 6:11 PM
I wonder how much crime would drop if the people that were likely to commit a crime could go somewhere and get real help in our society.

In my eyes, this is not the crux of the issue. It's not those that *know* they need help that are worrisome. It's those that refuse to accept treatment that are the greatest concern to me. Unfortunately, under our laws, involuntary holds are saved for special circumstances.
By law, nobody can force a mentally ill person to take and stay on their medication. Yes, a few exceptions do exist, but all you have to do is go down to the area preferred by homeless people in your area to see that what I'm referring to is the rule.

wheels
12-13-2012, 6:22 PM
That must refer to private party transfers.

They could also be adding in CWL holders buying weapons, since in Idaho they don't run a background check on a firearm purchase from an FFL if you have a CWL. Creative use of statistics.

Ksmash01
12-13-2012, 6:39 PM
In my eyes, this is not the crux of the issue. It's not those that *know* they need help that are worrisome. It's those that refuse to accept treatment that are the greatest concern to me. Unfortunately, under our laws, involuntary holds are saved for special circumstances.
By law, nobody can force a mentally ill person to take and stay on their medication. Yes, a few exceptions do exist, but all you have to do is go down to the area preferred by homeless people in your area to see that what I'm referring to is the rule.

Very true, but helping as many people as possible will have an effect.

And it's not so much that the people that "know" they have issues, but the people who know they have issues and don't know how to handle them.

HowardW56
12-13-2012, 7:07 PM
I saw this and had to share..........


http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/PiersMorganOwned_zpse959564d.png

Emdawg
12-13-2012, 7:15 PM
For our viewing pleasure.


1HCE2DXXxWc

Bhobbs
12-13-2012, 7:29 PM
Alan Gottlieb needs to brush up on his debate skills. The stuttering and the nervous laughter made him look unpolished and cornered.

And next time, if this little twerp Morgan ever utters a statement that he 'believes' in the Constitution's Second Amendment, call him a freaking LIAR. Stop answering his questions and hammer him on why he feels the need to say he 'believes' in the Second Amendment. If he says it's my show, walk off.

Bold part +1,000,000.

You can be absolutely right but if you can't get your point across well, then it's no good. The Brady guy stayed pretty level headed the whole time while Alan got a little too excited.

dave_cg
12-13-2012, 7:30 PM
In my eyes, this is not the crux of the issue. It's not those that *know* they need help that are worrisome. It's those that refuse to accept treatment that are the greatest concern to me. Unfortunately, under our laws, involuntary holds are saved for special circumstances.
By law, nobody can force a mentally ill person to take and stay on their medication. Yes, a few exceptions do exist, but all you have to do is go down to the area preferred by homeless people in your area to see that what I'm referring to is the rule.

Exactly. Those that refuse and those that just have a spell of bad luck.

I had an employee, a *great* employee, who was great as long as he was on his meds. He switched doctors, the doctor tuned his meds, and *wham* the guy comes unhinged. It's not his fault that his own body chemistry is his worst enemy -- and he did everything right. His doctor made a bad decision. He was on medical leave for 4 months until he got his ship upright and under sail again.

Mental illness is a real problem and I am sympathetic to those that are fighting those demons. If you see a man with a freshly broken arm, you call 911 and get the guy some help. Yet, somehow, it's OK to let people with mental health issues suffer without help. Sleeping under bridges and in cardboard boxes. Going hungry in a land of plenty.

Once upon a time it was too easy to get someone in this country committed, that needed to be fixed. But we've gone too far in the other way, and we have a lot of problems because of that. I think we as gun owners need to be advocates for sensible mental health laws that respect the patient's rights but at the same time get them the help they need and keep them from getting their hands on firearms.

BRoss
12-13-2012, 7:48 PM
Bold part +1,000,000.

You can be absolutely right but if you can't get your point across well, then it's no good. The Brady guy stayed pretty level headed the whole time while Alan got a little too excited.


To be fair, Piers wasn't constantly interrupting the Brady guy and then telling him to stop talking every time he tried to get a word out. It was basically two on one.

Mr.Sandman
12-13-2012, 8:13 PM
To be fair, Piers wasn't constantly interrupting the Brady guy and then telling him to stop talking every time he tried to get a word out. It was basically two on one.

Pretty much. What can one do to refrain from laughing when they are invited on a show to talk and all they keep hearing is: stop talking, this is my show.

Bhobbs
12-13-2012, 8:23 PM
To be fair, Piers wasn't constantly interrupting the Brady guy and then telling him to stop talking every time he tried to get a word out. It was basically two on one.

True but that is to be expected when you go on a show like that. You think they are going to give you a fair shot at proving them wrong?

BRoss
12-13-2012, 8:39 PM
True but that is to be expected when you go on a show like that. You think they are going to give you a fair shot at proving them wrong?

My point was more that it's unfair to compare the Brady dude's performance to Alan's and suggest he was better given the circumstances or use it as a grading rubric for Alan's debate skills in general.

jeffrice6
12-13-2012, 8:59 PM
I saw this and had to share..........


http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/PiersMorganOwned_zpse959564d.png

Outstanding!

DrVino
12-13-2012, 9:14 PM
Morgan finally got someone to agree with him.
Rudy Giuliani just told him he believes in removing guns from society.........

safewaysecurity
12-13-2012, 9:19 PM
Alan is not the best at representing our side in these arguments. John Lott and Alan Gura are much better imo. When he asks about "need" he should have responded that we have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

Bhobbs
12-13-2012, 9:42 PM
My point was more that it's unfair to compare the Brady dude's performance to Alan's and suggest he was better given the circumstances or use it as a grading rubric for Alan's debate skills in general.

I don't think it is unfair because he is representing our side on a national scale. If you are undecided or slightly one way or the other, Alan may seem aggressive and angry while the Brady guy seemed calm. I agree with everything Alan said but his presentation can use some work.

Rocksteady1
12-13-2012, 11:06 PM
Alan gottlieb is not a very good debater. Just calling as I see it. Sure piers Morgan was a A hole but gottlieb didn't show me anything. Brady guy just looked creepy.

SilverBulletZ06
12-13-2012, 11:16 PM
I don't think it is unfair because he is representing our side on a national scale. If you are undecided or slightly one way or the other, Alan may seem aggressive and angry while the Brady guy seemed calm. I agree with everything Alan said but his presentation can use some work.

Both SAF and NRA need spokesmen who are well versed in both the politics and the legalities.

wash
12-13-2012, 11:18 PM
For all the people complaining about Alan's debating skill, if you were in the same position "debating" a professional A-hole with a Brady bunch tag team, you would have failed miserably, they would have used your words against you and made you look like a fool. That is what they do.

Alan did fine and 99.9% of us would have done worse.

Alan might not be the greatest advocate but he has practice which is more than that 99.9%.

If you want to complain about something, complain about the media giving antis a voice to vilify law abiding gun owners every time some criminal lunatic kills someone with a gun.

jdberger
12-13-2012, 11:48 PM
That must refer to private party transfers.

But how is that a knowable number?

Pretty easy to know how many NICS checks have happened, but the total number of private paperless transfers is at best a wild guess.

They could also be adding in CWL holders buying weapons, since in Idaho they don't run a background check on a firearm purchase from an FFL if you have a CWL. Creative use of statistics.

I've already explained the numbers here in post 21 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9908710&postcount=21).

nicki
12-13-2012, 11:53 PM
First of all Alan Gottlieb is trully one of our champions, he is a humble soft spoken man, a person of utmost integrity.

That being said, Alan was trying as much as possible to have an intelligent, intellectual conversation with a "emotional fool".

IMHO, there is no point in arguing numbers, facts and logic because Piers just went onto an emotional diatribe.

Piers Morgan is burning through all the gun spokespersons and eventually will get to a point to where few from our side will be willing to be on his show.

I have watched Piers and I am going to be bold to say that I would shred him to pieces using emotional based anti-prohibitionist arguements against him.

There is a you tube clip from the movie "Hostel 2" showing exactly what I would do to Piers, it is graphic so I won't post the link, but I will give a hint, it is called the 'cutting scene".;)

Personally I would love the opportunity to go head to head with Piers because he is such a pompous ***, I would relish it. ;)

Gene, Bill Weise, JD Berger and a few others also could shred Piers equally well, we have a good crew here who are flesh eaters.;)

As far as Dan Gross, he is so passive, I would just run over him with my reasonable proposals that would reduce gun violence. If he didn't agree with me, he would effectively self label himself as a "racist".:eek:

Nicki

jdberger
12-14-2012, 12:04 AM
Morgan finally got someone to agree with him.
Rudy Giuliani just told him he believes in removing guns from society.........

That reminds me of something...






..oh yeah, Rudy Giuliani can blow me...

He doesn't think civilians should have guns...

He wants to ban artwork that he doesn't like...

In the aftermath of a tragedy, he wanted to remain in power despite rules requiring him to step down....

Rudy Giuliani walks in the fabled footsteps of Il Duce... (or Douche')

tyrist
12-14-2012, 12:15 AM
If 5 heavily armed men were attempting a home invasion on me and my family I feel i would Need a General Electric M134 minigun (hell I would take anything that would guarantee victory). Unfortunately I have to settle for an AR 15.

I just hate hearing that need argument because it so greatly fails to account for numerous scenarios it's like they believe you could only be accosted by single aggressor without a shoulder arm.

Swiss
12-14-2012, 12:24 AM
+1 for Gottlieb being a nice guy in the wrong place. Need a shark up there to counter guys like Morgan

Mulay El Raisuli
12-14-2012, 5:54 AM
http://youtu.be/1HCE2DXXxWc


Thank you. Being able to see the 'tool' in action is nice.


Bold part +1,000,000.

You can be absolutely right but if you can't get your point across well, then it's no good. The Brady guy stayed pretty level headed the whole time while Alan got a little too excited.


As pointed out by someone else, that happens you're outnumbered by loud-mouthed fools.

But there is a solution.


First of all Alan Gottlieb is trully one of our champions, he is a humble soft spoken man, a person of utmost integrity.

That being said, Alan was trying as much as possible to have an intelligent, intellectual conversation with a "emotional fool".

IMHO, there is no point in arguing numbers, facts and logic because Piers just went onto an emotional diatribe.

Piers Morgan is burning through all the gun spokespersons and eventually will get to a point to where few from our side will be willing to be on his show.

I have watched Piers and I am going to be bold to say that I would shred him to pieces using emotional based anti-prohibitionist arguements against him.

There is a you tube clip from the movie "Hostel 2" showing exactly what I would do to Piers, it is graphic so I won't post the link, but I will give a hint, it is called the 'cutting scene".;)

Personally I would love the opportunity to go head to head with Piers because he is such a pompous ***, I would relish it. ;)

Gene, Bill Weise, JD Berger and a few others also could shred Piers equally well, we have a good crew here who are flesh eaters.;)

As far as Dan Gross, he is so passive, I would just run over him with my reasonable proposals that would reduce gun violence. If he didn't agree with me, he would effectively self label himself as a "racist".:eek:

Nicki


So, how do we get you the chance?


In the "five stages of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model)," Morgan is at stage 1=Denial, Media is at stage 2=Anger. Politicians are at stage 3=Bargaining, Bradys are at stage 4=Depression, and the lower courts are getting to the stage 5=Acceptance.

Give them time and space, since stage 5 is where all the roads lead.


While I agree completely, I don't want to give them time or space. Like Queen, I want it all & I want it now. I,E., I want to have Nicki on stage ripping "the emotional fool" a new one just as soon as that can be arranged.


The Raisuli

SanPedroShooter
12-14-2012, 6:10 AM
I would have lost my temper.

Good for Alan for not doing that.

Mitch
12-14-2012, 6:55 AM
+1 for Gottlieb being a nice guy in the wrong place. Need a shark up there to counter guys like Morgan

Paging Brandon. Please report to the Green Room for your makeup.

CBruce
12-14-2012, 8:51 AM
Couple of things that I took away from the episode.

1) Morgan said he is perfectly ok with someone being able to defend/protect themselves in their own home. He mentioned this several times. So does that mean when I step outside of my front door I should now be defenseless. If I can defend myself in my home, I should be able to defend myself period.

2) Morgan and crowd always harp on the AR-15/AK47 and why should anyone be allowed to own these types of firearms when they are only used in mass shootings. In almost all cases where I hear this, none of the 2A speakers ever brings up that the FBI crime stats for 2011 show that knives are used almost twice as often as rifles, shotguns and other (non-handguns) firearms and that "Personal Weapons" such as hands, fists and feet are used almost at the same rate as the so called assault weapons.

Also if more guns = more killings than why has gun crime gone down over the last 5 years, by an average of 4% per year, while the number of guns in the populace has gone up and more and more locations allow for CCW/LTC.

I know preaching to the choir - but can I get a Hallelujah!

I don't believe that this is an accurate assumption. I started researching every "rampage killing" in the US, and two things stood out for me. One, the most devestating acts of mass murder, the ones with the highest numbers of casualties, where committed without firearms at all. Even discounting terrorist attacks like 9/11 or the OKC bombing, there have been mass killings where people used explosives or fire to devastating effect.

Two, those that did involve firearms, so-called "assault weapons" were occasionally used, but no more often than handguns.

So while "assault weapons" are more often involved in mass shootings here in the US compared to crime and homicide, but not predominantly so, and not to more devastating effect

All of his is moot to me, because the real machine of mass destruction is the automobile. Despite being privately owned in similiar numbers as firearms, its responsible for many, many more casualties. People often say that the automobile isn't designed to kill, but if that's the case, why is it so much better at doing it through accidents alone than guns are through deliberate action? Why do we seemingly care more modifying society and restricting personal libertities when it involves murder rather than an accident. If guns are too dangerous for private citizens to own, then surely something thst kills far more people is even worse.

bbsmth
12-14-2012, 9:24 AM
Why do we seemingly care more modifying society and restricting personal libertities when it involves murder rather than an accident.

It's because there is no guiding principle in the anti-gun rhetoric. Guns are special, and evil, and therefore, guns are special and evil. The "logic" can't be distilled down to a universal principle that can be used on anything else.

Mitch
12-14-2012, 9:45 AM
It's because there is no guiding principle in the anti-gun rhetoric. Guns are special, and evil, and therefore, guns are special and evil. The "logic" can't be distilled down to a universal principle that can be used on anything else.

Hardly anyone cares about guns. The real answer to CBruce's question is that restricting the use of the automobile affects virtually everyone, whereas restricting guns only affects people who desire guns (that is, Other People). No one wants to restrict their own activities; everyone, however (including quite a few members of this forum), are only too happy to propose restricting the activities of others

It's really that simple.

A favorite argument of mine for folks who insist the sheer numbers of dead demand that we Do Something About Guns: If it's really about saving lives, why not institute a nationwide 35 MPH speed limit? That will save, at a stroke, at least 25,000-30,000 lives per year. Of course, all kinds of practical objections will be raised (almost all of which can be condensed down to, "But I don't want to have to drive 35 MPH everywhere!"); all of which can be easily dismissed by the simple fact that America fought and won a global war on two fronts with a national 35 MPH speed limit, so it could not have had that bad of an effect on national productivity. It might be mildly inconvenient for folks, but consider the lives that would be saved. A bargain, in my view.

CBruce's point underscores the hypocrisy of the public safety argument for gun control: we as a society happily tolerate mass carnage on our highways. Why the hand-wringing over legal access to firearms, which accounts for far, far less injury and death?

Tubbie
12-14-2012, 11:07 AM
That is a VERY bad idea... We've worked very hard to get this far, we don't want public opinion to plummet just because a pro-gun spokesman walked off the set of a widely watched talk show (albeit a very biased one).

Alan Gottlieb is a hero. The work he has done for the Second Amendment is nothing less than commendable for ALL Americans, yes, even for the lefties who are too stupid to understand. With that said, Alan shouldn't behave like a 'nice' guy when he's bullied by this twerp Morgan. When Morgan kept interrupting, Alan should have firmly asked him to stop and let him finish his statement (i.e. "Why did you ask me to come on your show and not let me speak my point? Are you still mad about the tea in the harbor thingie?). Perception is everything. When Morgan kept badgering Alan and Alan didn't reprimand him on it, it made our side looked disheveled and weak. Sure, it's a two-to-one fight and you're expected to get shouted down but Alan should have just simply said, "Look, with you interrupting me every 5 seconds like a two year old, we apparently won't be able to have a grown up discussion about this matter. Thanks for having me on your show. Good-bye."

bbogert
12-15-2012, 10:06 AM
I don't think it is unfair because he is representing our side on a national scale. If you are undecided or slightly one way or the other, Alan may seem aggressive and angry while the Brady guy seemed calm. I agree with everything Alan said but his presentation can use some work.

+ 1

louisianagirl
12-16-2012, 12:17 AM
gottlieb is not the best spokesperson for the 2nd amendment.

Jack L
12-16-2012, 9:40 AM
Anyone else see gottlieb defend 2A on piers? I usually hate watching this show because piers is rude and close minded. not only were the people he interviewed not sharing his gun hating rhetoric, but gottlieb owned him on his own show. He got so mad he yelled and told gottlieb to stop laughing. I hope someone puts up video of it. /rant

Piers Morgan is a dumb a**. He needs a ticket back to England. A few days ago a senator pointed out on his program the USA citizens have firearms because his country tried to rule us and kill those that had thoughts of self rule and freedom. I can't can't stand listening to him talk.

Vlad 11
12-16-2012, 1:01 PM
I'm done with Piers Stefan O'Meara Pughe-Morgan.

He is a smarmy smug pompous ***** blowhard. Did i mention diarrhea of the mouth emoting, arrogant d-bag grave dancer.

How does an idiot phone hacking non-US citizen get in a position to force his opinion on our core unalienable rights?

wjc
12-16-2012, 2:43 PM
I'm done with Piers Stefan O'Meara Pughe-Morgan.

He is a smarmy smug pompous ***** blowhard. Did i mention diarrhea of the mouth emoting, arrogant d-bag grave dancer.

How does an idiot phone hacking non-US citizen get in a position to force his opinion on our core unalienable rights?

Ratings...unfortunately.

He probably makes his employers a lot of money and has the soapbox to stir up controversy so they can make more money.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 2:50 PM
gottlieb is not the best spokesperson for the 2nd amendment.

I recommend him over Piers Morgan.

db.40
12-18-2012, 6:24 PM
I didn't think piers could get owned much worse, especially after all the anti-gun emotion following sandy hook, but the GOA president was just on and embarrassed piers SO BAD. Piers had no argument and just resorted to name calling.

Swiss
12-18-2012, 6:30 PM
Link?

I didn't think piers could get owned much worse, especially after all the anti-gun emotion following sandy hook, but the GOA president was just on and embarrassed piers SO BAD. Piers had no argument and just resorted to name calling.

db.40
12-18-2012, 6:36 PM
It just aired on TV so I don't know if its up yet but I'll be looking for it

Scuba Steve33
12-18-2012, 7:43 PM
Morgan keeps stating only police and military need ARs. Why is no one asking him why they need them?

firstsoundhere
12-18-2012, 8:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HCE2DXXxWc

Kamo850
12-19-2012, 12:09 AM
A twitter post by Piers saying something like the second amendment only protects the right to own muskets.

Like how the first amendment only protects hand set printing presses.:facepalm:

db.40
12-19-2012, 7:07 AM
Correction it was Larry Pratt, exec. Dir. Of the GOA:

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=178550

Apocalypsenerd
12-19-2012, 8:05 AM
In both interviews Piers exhibited what is often coined as "reasonable discussion" by the anti-gun crowd. They ask questions and when they get answers they don't like they follow one of two responses: 1) In regards to legitimate science in relation to guns, they claim it is not true or they don't believe it and 2) They attempt to scream over the person they are having the discussion with.

It seems to be part of the "be reasonable, do it my way" mindset. It's only reasonable if you agree with them.

press1280
12-19-2012, 11:41 AM
Larry Pratt did well, but one thing both he and Gottleib missed is that Morgan keeps trumpeting the "gun murder" rate, while if they challenged him on the overall violent crime rate, then Morgan's argument crumbles.

krucam
12-19-2012, 12:17 PM
Larry Pratt did well, but one thing both he and Gottleib missed is that Morgan keeps trumpeting the "gun murder" rate, while if they challenged him on the overall violent crime rate, then Morgan's argument crumbles.

Yep, to say the US has a higher GUN murder rate when compared to the UK and Australia and Germany, it is a stacked argument.

Violent Crime statistics needs to be the barometer used.

tcrpe
12-19-2012, 12:18 PM
Yep, to say the US has a higher GUN murder rate when compared to the UK and Australia and Germany, it is a stacked argument.

Violent Crime statistics needs to be the barometer used.


Besides, the US has different demographics . . . . .