Piers Morgan’s gun control endeavour

On December 14th of  2012, a terrible tragedy involving 20 innocent children and 6 adults occurred at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown Connecticut. My heart truly does go out to those affected. As a Canadian, I have a hard time fathoming the type of ludicrous ideals relating to guns that America SEEMS to hold dear (I say this because I surely would hope that a majority of the American population is not as ridiculous as Dana Loesch or Alex Jones). We here in Canada enjoy amongst the highest quality of life indexes, are fairly democratic and well governed (up for debate I suppose as is anything in politics) and to be honest I feel very comfortable walking around the dingiest alleys in Toronto unarmed. That being said, being armed isn’t an option for any legally abiding citizen, because we have common sense gun control. On that terrible day I had my eyes glued to CNN from the moment I heard it happened till I fell asleep, and for the first time in my life I watched an episode of Piers Morgan tonight. I was astound at the man’s outrage, his absolute thrashing of gun-nuts that had the gall to defend gun rights on the day of a horrendous mass shooting. He did a supremely commendable job of making his VERY valid point clear and giving gun activists just what they deserved. Since then I have been a huge fan of Piers, watching his show almost daily, and it perplexes me (once again as a Canadian) the gun culture that he exposes. At the end of the day, we here in Canada have the same movies, music, and violent video games as our neighbours in the states. What we aren’t too heavy on is powerful fear mongering money hungry gun lobbies -and this gun control debate is so clearly a cash grab for the NRA and it’s maniac administration.

As much as I admire Piers for being so courageous on live national T.V, I must admit sometimes he gets noticeably frustrated. I don’t blame him after spending hours debating ultra paranoid, ignorant, and seemingly senseless guests -any person with common sense would be. His major gripe is with AR-15 military style assault weapons. Furthermore he wishes to see a ban on high capacity magazines (by the way capable of holding up to 100 bullets) and universal background checks. Very very practical common sense -almost too liberal- controls for these killing machines. I will start off by listing off some rules we have here just north of the U.S. First of all carry and conceal? Don’t even think about it…you get caught with a handgun outside of a range, if you are not a cop or a brinks security guard chances are you are going to jail. An AR-15? STRICTLY prohibited. Most all weapons short of bolt action .22 small game rifles are to be registered, and background checks are required for all gun transactions. To acquire a gun you must obtain the possession-acquisition license for that class of firearm, and complete the required safety course in order to obtain that. A 28 day minimum waiting period is then imposed for first time buyers. All of this contributes to Canada being a MUCH more dangerous country than America right? …We have a gun murder rate much much much lower than our southern neighbours. In a lot of these debates I hear arguments about the violent crime rates, or the number of muggings that occur in countries with gun control, but to be blunt I would rather be beaten up and have my wallet stolen, than shot and potentially maimed or killed. That being said I don’t feel in danger of that occurring either. I’m sure just the number of gun murders in America alone far eclipses any of our crime statistics.

And this speaks to my first point. Even if I did have a gun with me and was being robbed, or mugged, or raped, I would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to actually pull it out and use it to end someone’s life. If someone wants my stuff and is willing to kill me if he doesn’t get it then hell, take it! I’m not going to KILL someone because they took my television or broke down my door. Dana Loesch- a conservative radio talk show host- was defending the AR-15 and it’s potential usefulness -when paired with a high capacity magazine-to a woman who might be attacked by multiple assailants at once. I just can’t picture a bunch of sweet old ladies carrying around rifles with drum magazines underneath their Sunday dress a la John Dillinger. The other day Piers had a couple girls from Virginia on (touted as the “gun girls”). Apart from providing almost no valid points lending to their view on the issue, they once again tried to raise the case for the usefulness of high capacity magazines. One of them had said that if multiple people attacked her house she would want the availability of at minimum a 30 round magazine. If enough people are attacking you that you NEED a 30 round magazine and an AR-15  chances are you are doomed regardless of how many bullets you have (you can’t shoot them all at once…one of them will pick you off). It’s just such an easily defeated scenario. I guess yeah sure if you are walking through the woods and a group of samurai warriors attacks you, you might be better off having a AR15 over a revolver .  What this all boils down to is two examples of extreme paranoia. If your area is THAT dangerous, then instead of buying a military style rifle and being prepared to use it to defend your land…just move!

And speaking of unwarranted paranoia, you have half of the gun advocates using potential government tyranny as a keystone to their debates. With good reason, I mean look at the tyrannical governments of countries with gun control like Britain, Japan, and here in Canada. It’s an absurd notion! I hope to God no one in America takes people like Alex Jones and more recently Newt Gingrich seriously when they raise this point. Alex Jones was probably one of the best advocates for gun control thus far. I love when Piers finally got a sentence in, he had asked “how many guns do you own” and this delusional, obviously deranged man responded that he had fifty guns. Fifty! The man only has two hands what in the world would he do with the other forty eight guns! Barack Obama can hardly get ANYTHING passed, what in the world makes anyone think he would ever have the power or desire to conquer his own people. Not to mention that the military would have to be willing to carry out such an event at the VERY least. Now lets say by some chance this hypothetical scenario does occur. Good thing there are three million AR-15s in America because the best defence against an Apache attack helicopter or a F-18 fighter jet is a .223 calibre bullet fired from your AR15 rifle…stupidity at it’s finest. If you want to argue that the constitution gives you the right to possess the same level of armament as the military, then never mind assault rifles, how DARE the government impose a ban on you owning a surface to air missile battery or an aircraft carrier! They’ve already won!

You have these people who claim that these AR15s and other similar weapons are the difference between freedom and enslavement for when Barack Obama wages war against them…or Queen Elizabeth decides she wants the thirteen colonies back. The SAME people will tell you that this weapon is just short of a toy. That it’s simply a pimped out hunting rifle that fires a harmless .22 calibre shell. In fact according to the “gun girls” it’s illegal to hunt with them in Virginia because they don’t “get the job done” on deer! Well first of all make up your mind: is it a kick-ass freedom tool or is it a glorified pellet gun incapable of killing a deer (and presumably having a hard time getting through a human). Secondly regardless of whether the .223 cartridge is as destructive as the 7.62 and 5.56 cartridges used in the military or not, it was still plenty powerful to kill 26 innocent human beings in Newtown. It was James Holmes -who packed one hundred of them legally into a single magazine – who wreaked unimaginable horror with this weapon and this bullet at a movie theater in Aurora Colorado. The reason why the AR 15 is being targeted is because it has no necessity in a civilized society. You cannot easily slap a 100 round drum magazine on an M1 Garand or other semi-automatic hunting rifle(actually it’s probably not even possible). A hunting rifle is cumbersome and has to be shoulder bolstered to be particularly accurate or useful, whereas an AR15 is modelled after a weapon meant for close quarters combat and thus is light, easy to handle, has a pistol grip, and most disturbingly can hold MUCH more ammunition than an M1 Garand. You cannot equate the two.

For the very least I cannot understand why the NRA does not back universal background checks. So what if the government knows who owns what gun, that can only make it safer. There isn’t much to say on this point because it is just so obvious that the only reason not to impose universal background checks is because it means some people may not be able to BUY gun$.  The right wing is way out of line on this one. I’m not bashing all conservative ideals, I am fairly conservative myself. Of course Piers treats anyone who doesn’t agree with him as an imbecile, how can you argue with ELEVEN THOUSAND GUN MURDERS, right there in the capital of the free world. Getting rid of certain weapons may not solve the problem but it is worth a try. If you want to fire your AR15 because it’s fun sure go for it…at a SHOOTING RANGE (did you know if you take a restricted firearm out of a shooting range without notifying authorities first in Canada you face harsh penalties?). If you can prevent even one of these mass shootings from occurring then why not TRY. To be honest I think American schools may actually require armed guards, but if that is the case it NEEDS to be coupled with sensible gun control. Summoning platoons of armed volunteer security forces like NRA’s whack-job Wayne Lapierre has proposed is far from ideal. Having a partially trained, potentially obese armed security guard at each and every school in the country only means that’s one more person for a deranged gunman to mow down. What if there are two gunmen? how about three? or five? What if the guard falls asleep? What if there is an exchange of gunfire and a child gets hit? What if the guard goes rogue? Where do you draw the line. For people who like to encourage others to think beyond reality into a dystopian hypothetical realm of “what ifs”, they seem to be reluctant to apply the same logic to their own convoluted ideas. Gun-nuts seem to be so ignorant to reality its deplorable. It gets to the point where you find it hard to believe that a civilized society could be this paranoid, and maybe there is a not-so-hidden agenda ($$$!). This isn’t about politics…it’s about blatant stupidity.

For the record, Japan with a population a bit more than half that of America, and a  higher population density, has on average less than 30 gun murders a year. Last year America had over 11,000. I leave you with this article that I found absolutely hilarious. An article cited on the NRA’s twitter feed claiming the drawbacks of background checks  -including the tremendous inconvenience they are, and even the horrible thought of having to get a background check on your best friend before lending him your gun…oh BOO HOO   http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/#axzz2J8JmBhe1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: