Saturday, March 29, 2014

Piers Morgan's CNN goodbye: The America gun sickness is epidemic

This past Friday, Piers Morgan signed off  on his last CNN program with a scathing indictment of the American gun culture, violence and obsession.

As a Brit, the way Americans -- average citizens, voters, politicians, NRA lobbyist and gun manufacturers -- casually shake off one mass shooting after another seems beyond maddening.

Piers Morgan:

The "Piers Morgan Live" host praised the U.S. as "a land of true opportunity," adding, "The vast majority of Americans I've met are decent, hardworking, thoroughly dependable people."
But he went on to say that an estimated 100,000 Americans per year are hit by gunfire, and argued, "I am so pro-American, I want more of you to stay alive."

Morgan expressed frustration with reaction to the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting and the Newtown, Conn., school shooting: "I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater and then just a few months later 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, that the absurd gun laws in this country would change, but nothing has happened." He added: "The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation's politicians into cowardly silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms."

Earlier this month, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre declared, "There is no greater freedom than to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns and handguns we want."
A study published in the American Journal of Public Health last year found that states with more gun ownership often had higher rates of gun-related murders.

Morgan argued Friday night: "More guns doesn't mean less crime, as the NRA repeatedly tries to tell you. It means more gun violence, more death and more profits for the gun manufacturers."

He concluded, "Now it's down to you. It is your country. These are your gun laws. And the senseless slaughter will only end when enough Americans stand together and cry, 'Enough!' I look forward to that day. I also look forward to seeing you all again soon. Thank you. And God bless America. Oh, and while I'm at it, God bless Great Britain too. Good night."  source

Hammer meet nail...


  1. I've always found a good bit of humor in Brits, Aussies, Canadians, etc, preaching to America about our gun-control issues. These nations have a few things in common: They're geographically out of most big-time drug trafficking zones. They're all fairly monochromatic (read: white) and singular cultured, only becoming "multicultural" through a series of legislation that treats different people differently. They're all fairly well contained by more encompassing governments not truly representative of the people. And they're all fairly small places per population compared to the US -- populations barely pushing past a couple or few of our states.

    And as far as I'm aware, these shootings in America tend to take place where guns are banned. Schools are gun-free zones. Guns are not allowed inside of movie theaters. Guns aren't allowed on campus.

    So it's not gun control Morgan wants. There was plenty of gun control in place. He wants guns to magically disappear, and the NRA is the perfect whipping post.

    Sure, they're gun-promoting profiteers. But blaming the NRA for gun violence is a cheap out. Folks like Morgan salivate over the possibility that the latest mass murderer was a proud NRA member with Heston posters and "Don't Tread On Me" bumper stickers.

    But do the Morgans of the world ever look at the who, what and why? Gang violence and drugs are the biggest two. Mentally disturbed people who got lost in the shuffle of bureaucracy is the typical common element of mass shootings.

    We're talking about well in excess of 300,000,000 people, thousands of gangs, billions upon billions of dollars wrapped up in an illegal drug industry, and a healthcare system that is now and will always be incapable of catching every lunatic in waiting.

    I realize it's speculation, but we don't become more like GB or AUS without guns. We become more like Iraq and India. More bombings.

    Removing guns doesn't get rid of gangs. Removing guns doesn't heal broken minds. Removing guns doesn't also remove drugs and turf battles.

    Does it lessen the violence? I don't know. Doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun-control legislation in the nation?

    Guns =/= violence. Guns = convenience for those committing violence. Pretending that violence goes away when guns go away is pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

    War on drugs = fail. But war on guns! Yeah, that'll do it.

  2. say: They're all fairly monochromatic (read: white) and singular cultured,

    How does this demographic factor in the gun control debate?

    Most of Eastern Europe is more monochromatic than the USA but they have much higher crime and violence rates:

    Take Russia for example:

    " The most recent homicide statistics for Russia show that there were 21,603 killings in 2009. According to the FBI, the United States had 13,636 homicides in 2009 with a population that is more than twice as large. More than 80 percent of those killings were gun-related"

    Second: Similar to blacks victim/black shooter, 90% of whited hand gun victims suffered at the hands of other whites.

  3. Notice Russia wasn't on my list of countries whose citizens love throwing America under the bus as a violent, gun-loving nation.

    What I see when a Morgan goes off on a mass shooter is an extrapolation that America's gun culture is a manifestation of old white men (NRA, Republicans, etc), while they intentionally skip over other factors that may and do contribute to violent segments of this nation: Gangs, drugs, bureaucracy, etc. And, let's be real. If the NRA's profiteering ass and the 2nd Amendment contribute to a "gun culture," then violent video games, violent movies, today's rap, etc, bury the NRA as an influence (but I don't buy the latter per se, so I don't buy the former).

    And I don't know what your "second" point has to do with anything. Notice I said monochromatic AND singular cultured. I wasn't trying to spin a race angle for a cause of violence. My only point there was that nations existing that are truly multicultural are typically more difficult to reign in with legislation.

    That's why some cowardly governments simply create different rule books for different cultures (religions, races, etc) in order to placate people, and then have the nerve to call that "multicultural."

    Keep it in context with the surrounding points; it's just a factor mentioned to illustrate why a nation like GB or AUS can control their guns better -- because they can control their populous better all around, or their populations are inherently better controlled by pure statistics. They don't have a 20th of the issues America has: Size, location, true multiculturalism, etc.

  4. We both can write and explain our POV until the end of time. To me it all boils down to two things:

    1. Can we keep WMD from people with serious mental health issues?
    2. Can we keep illegal WMD out of the hands of urban terrorist?

    If those two things can be accomplished our murder rate would drastically decline.

    And speaking about drug running, crime and guns, read this report in the San Jose Mercury by Gary Webb on how guns and crack were introduced to the inner city. Just google: Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion

    1. I've heard a lot of theories concerning the "introduction" of drugs and such into communities. Many of which border on we-didn't-land-on-the-moon conspiracies. I'm not familiar with Gary Webb, so I wouldn't malign his as such. However, even if true, what it does is remove personal responsibility from individuals and transform able-bodied, present-minded people into mere victims who can't think or do for themselves.

      Someone could air-drop 3 tons of crack into the public park. UPS can deliver 2 keys to the door. Uncle Sam, adorned in the suit, can bring a gift basket of drugs and guns to every doorstep in a 5-mile radius. Still an individual can choose NOT to use drugs. An individual can choose NOT to shoot a gun. I'm getting mental pangs here thinking about O'Reilly screaming that gambling needs to be controlled because people are too weak not to become compulsive gamblers. Not he himself, of course -- but people.

      We're probably of different minds on this, but I don't see these things existing as the problem. Being too readily available? Yeah, I can concede that that's an issue. But people using them is the main problem. Perhaps they were introduced with nefarious purpose. Okay -- and now what? We concede that people are victims, too pitiful to control themselves? Or we concede that personal responsibility must account? Not to present it as a false dichotomy, of course; there are many more questions to be asked.

      To #1: I'm on board with trying. Too many people fall through the cracks, to borrow a cliche.

      #2: I think you touched on it very precisely - "illegal." To that end, it's an incredibly hard fight that, when you get down to it, really has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with better role models, better upbringings, safer and more prosperous communities, etc.

      It's common to think of drugs and guns as special exemptions and not just two more things existing by a simple economic principle. Demand dictates the supply, not the other way around.

      As all of those things relate to the Morgans of the world, I doubt they want to hear them. He seems the type of throw a #BanGuns tag out on Twitter and call it a day. Why people pick them up is the angle to take to ensure fewer do. Bashing the NRA doesn't even come close to the target.