Hat tip The Blaze and Mediaite
I was never a fan of Larry King, but at least he had the ability to listen to guests. Piers Morgan, on the other hand, is an obnoxious bore who tries to browbeat guests with whom he disagrees. Watch here as he talks right over John Lott while debating gun laws. Morgan is right out of the Chris Matthews School of Interviewing. He asks a question and cuts off the answer with more questions.
“I disagree with you passionately, but I respect your right to have your opinion,” Morgan concluded.
You just can't express it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As has been extensively noted here and elsewhere, Piers Morgan is a stone fool when it comes to guns (and many other issues, for that matter), right up there with Pelosi, Feinstein, Durbin, Schumer, the “Brady Bunch”, et al, and Obama Himself, despite Siarlys’ long-ago description (and quite an inaccurate one, at that) of Him as a Second Amendment supporter (Siarlys, fooled you on that one too, didn‘t he, ??). John Lott, on the other hand, knows exactly what he is talking about.
There is simply not the slightest bit of evidence anywhere that I know of that the licensing/registration of guns (or any of the other currently proposed rectrictions by the usual suspects among the ranks of libs/Dems) have any positive effect at all on the reduction of gun crime/gun violence. The opposite is actually the case, as all the empirical evidence indicates that at least in the U.S., those communities with the most restrictive gun policies (Washington, DC, Chicago, sometimes NYC, etc.) have the highest rates of gun crime, while the more permissive jurisdictions have the lowest rates .
In fact, in virtually every locale in the U.S. where citizens have the right to have guns in their homes, and particularly as they have gained the right/privilege to be able to carry them concealed in their vehicles and on their bodies, a distinct pattern is observable. That pattern is that violent index crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) almost invariably decline, while property crimes (auto theft, burglary) most usually show some increase. This is exactly what should be expected, and denying (or worse, ignoring) that this occurs is not helpful.
It is the rare anti-gunner whose rhetoric relative to the dreaded semiautomatic military lookalike so-called “assault weapon” does not morph after a short time into simply, and quite inaccurately (and probably quite intentionally) calling them “automatic” weapons. Unfortunately, some on either side of this issue have a bad habit of stating that such weapons are “banned” to the public. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, law-abiding citizens may buy/possess fully-automatic weapons (“machine guns”, etc., and they are a LOT of sun to shoot) if they are prepared to go through the Federal licensing/registration/taxeing/transfer fee process, which is quite extensive. This has been the case for 70-80 years, I believe. In all that time, only a very small handful ( I believe less than 5 or so) of the many thousands of legally registered fully-automatic weapons have been used criminally.
There are those, of course, who maintain that the regulations/restrictions on these firearms prevent their criminal use. If that was true, then similar restrictions would work on other types of guns, which is not the case where it has been tried (see above). Accordingly, it must be that individuals who will legally abide by the tedious process to get a fully-automatic weapon are simply most unlikely to use it criminally. Which in turn demonstrates why it is not only wasted effort but unconstitutional to apply such measures
to other firearms.
Post a Comment