Idiots Advocate: Piers Morgan F*cks Up Another Gun Control Debate

2 days ago I posted a story about the CNN’s pommy agitator Piers Morgan and his train wreck of an interview with executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt. You have to hand it to him, at least the guy has consistency. Unfortunately for Morgan the good points end there, showing himself as an ill informed gun control spokesman (the idiots advocate -says Ted Nugent) in a foreign country that he doesn’t understand instead of being an impartial and balanced interviewer. Last year Morgan interviewed Ted Nugent, but had a much harder time talking him down as he did with Larry Pratt, getting shut down point by point. It was simple:

All Ted had to do was throw facts at him. The facts Piers coughed up were swiftly rebutted with correct information as opposed to the skewed angle Morgan was putting on it. The answer is still education and common sense, not gun control.

 

Over the past two weeks, CNN host Piers Morgan has inserted himself into the Newtown, Conn., tragedy by coming out vociferously against the legality of guns in the United States. Some are even started a petition on the White House website to deport Morgan.

The controversy is nothing new for Morgan. Back in May 2011 on his CNN program, he faced off against Ted Nugent on the issue, who had a some strong words for Morgan and others who want to disarm the public.

“Anybody that wants to disarm me can drop dead,” Nugent said on CNN’s May 18, 2011, “Piers Morgan Tonight.” “Anybody that wants to make me unarmed and helpless, people that want to literally create the proven places where more innocents are killed called gun-free zones, we’re going to beat you. We’re going to vote you out of office or suck on my machine gun.”

Morgan then thought he had a pearler of a comeback throwing some statistics at Nugent stating 80 people a day die from gunshots, only to have them shot down faster than a .338 lapua magnum round:

And 75 of them to 78 of them — statistics by the Uniform Crime Report by the FBI and the U.N. study on violent crime — 78 of those 80 are let out of their cages by corrupt judges and prosecutors who know the recidivism is out of control, know that they’ll commit the crimes again, and they let them walk through plea bargaining, early release and programs,” Nugent said. “Kiss my ass. Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate. Piers, choose one. Do you want a lot of crime? We have it — gun-free zones. You want less crime? We have that. More people with concealed weapons permit. Why do you guys resist that statistic?”

  • JC

    Meanwhile, the over 330 school kids shot in strongly gun controlled Chicago in the year ended June 2012 had no comment on this article.

    JC

    • Mr_V4

      How much effect is a city based law going to have when guns are available nationally?

  • Ronnie Chow

    I liken this whole debate to getting rid of penises because some males are rapists.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

      Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

    • Tony

      they wouldn’t would they?

  • Jean H

    Given that he’s neither dead or in jail, I think we can right off anything Nugent say’s as bluster and wind.

    • Travis Poulson

      You didn’t think that comment through before you typed, did you.

      • Jean H

        Yes you can, when they are made up.

        The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact.

        States in which households had higher rates of gun ownership also had higher rates of homicides. That’s another fact.

        Now don’t have a closed mind.

        • Kimbo

          …as a neutral bystander, a bit bemused, and not knowing whom to believe, I challenge you to produce the evidence to prove your claim,

          “The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact”.

          Links, studies, published and academically peer-reviewed details, right (write!) now, please.

          • Jean H

            http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/crime-vs-gun-ownership

            Those are the raw statistics on it. There is a surprising lack of studies on the subject, due in part to NRA opposition to any government funding for it.

            While those figures prove Nugent’s claims to be demonstrably false they do not of course itself present a causal relationship. One possible explanation is that where lawful gun ownership levels are higher it’s also a lot easier for criminals to obtain firearms as well, creating a catch 22 situation.

          • Kimbo

            No, your link does not prove your claim, “”The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact”.

            It can’t, when, as per a copy and paste from your link, the stats are: –

            “Violent crime rate per 100,000 divided by % of Households with Loaded Firearm”.

            …because as you rightly say, “they do not…present a causal relationship”.

            To suggest one, or more appropriately, establish a correlation, you first have to establish which states have the highest violent crime rate, THEN compare that ranking with the chart you have provided.

            Also, how can you provide meaningful statistics of the United States when California, and Illinois (Chicago!) aren’t included.

            Without that, all one can do is muse, according to ones prejudices, e.g., “One possible explanation is that where lawful gun ownership levels are higher it’s also a lot easier for criminals to obtain firearms as well, creating a catch 22 situation”.

            Which is just an exact reversal of the gun lobby’s argument, that gun restrictions make crime easier for criminals, because the law-abiding don’t break the law”. Your initial post offered the hope of empirical data that would help this debate move beyond ideology, and into the realm of established fact.

            So far, you’ve just provided smoke and mirrors to try and camouflage ideology.

            Got any more supposed date, including, most crucially, a ranking of “Violent crime rate per 100,000″/state?

          • Jean H

            Perhaps you should also establish a correlation before making assumptions. I’m not making any statement that gun control reduces crime, just pointing out the fallacy in Nugents claims. And if you click on the table format you can quite easily see a correlation between high levels of gun ownership and violent crime, state by state (The exceptions may be down to a lack of data).

            This isn’t rocket science we are talking about.

            An actual study that finds the same conclusions

            http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

          • Kimbo

            “Perhaps you should also establish a correlation before making assumptions. I’m not making any statement that gun control reduces crime, just pointing out the fallacy in Nugents claims”.

            Hmm. now let’s see…

            “The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact”.

            …sure seems to count as a statement. Correlation established. Accusation of assumption dismissed (see how the empirical evidence thing works?).

            Next, yes, I checked the table, and as I suspected, despite Mississippi, Montana, and Wyoming having the 46th, 47th, and 48th respective LOWEST rates of “Violent crime rate per 100,000 divided by % of Households with Loaded Firearm”, they have amongst the HIGHEST percentages of households with a loaded firearm (11.1, 11.1, and 9.4). Compare those percentages with the state with the WORST rate on the chart (Massachusetts), which only has ONE TENTH (1.0!) the level of households with a loaded gun, and we are well on the way to disregarding your statement (NOT my assumption!),

            “”The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact”.

            Now, when you come with rhetorical smoke and mirrors, like,

            “This isn’t rocket science we are talking about”

            …then it’s usually a dead giveaway that you’ve now thrown any attempt at proving your statement (NOT my assumption!) empirically, and you are now at the level of ideology.

            And just as you used a poor measuring tool, your latest link looks like very poor stuff, when the crucial measuring tool (“Do Sales of Guns & Ammo Accurately Estimate Gun Ownership?”) is hardly an agreed source of reliable data. Don’t believe me? Then look again at the rhetoric the researcher uses: –

            “Guns & Ammo is the nation’s fourth largest firearms magazine”. (What? Not the first, second, or third?!)

            “More important, Guns & Ammo is focused relatively more on handguns than these other three magazines. Because handguns are the weapon of choice in the vast majority of firearms related crimes and are more likely to be purchased for self-defense purposes than rifles or shotguns, this magazine is a more appropriate”. (Oh, ok, so you get to choose your measuring tool because it is more likely to prove what you want?! If so, then don’t misrepresent your reseach as “More Guns, More Crime”, but instead, call it “More HAND Guns, More Crime”. But then why should I trust a researcher who skews the data search data right from the beginning?!)

            “implying (ALERT!!) that sales rates of Guns & Ammo accurately proxy for the rate of gun ownership in an area”.

            And then there is this:

            “It is worth noting that the Guns & Ammo sales rate does not explain all of the variation in specification 4, presumably (ALERT!!) because the sample size within each state-year cell of the GSS is small and because the magazine sales rate is an imperfect (ALERT!!) proxy for the rate of gun ownership”

            Translation: when it suits Guns & Ammo magazine is a useful measuring tool, but when it doesn’t suit Guns & Ammo magazine is not a useful measuring tool. The fact that the researcher cites no prior research to establish the veracity and reliability of the magazine is pretty much a give away that peer review on this crucial element has not been established.

          • fozzie2

            “…as a neutral bystander, a bit bemused, and not knowing whom to
            believe, I challenge you to produce the evidence to prove your claim,”

            wow all of the diatribe above negates that claim Kimbo – time for a cold shower I suggest…..

          • Kimbo

            actually, fozzie2, you sanctimonious, insulting bastard, I personally suspect increased supply of guns probably equates to increased crime.

            Nevertheless I know genuine appeals to empirical data, and self-satisfied bullshit parading as fact (case in point, your post) when I see it.

            Now, kindly f*&% off, because your patronising and inaccurate post, has pissed me off. Not to mention the fact that you are a lazy c*%$, because if you weren’t, you would at least have gone to the trouble to refute my “diatribe” with some facts.

          • fozzie2

            I rest my case!!

          • Kimbo

            Piss off, troll!

          • axeman
          • Travis Poulson

            Maybe floozy should read the above debate, and see how it works. It immediately got dumbed down the second she/he/it decided to start typing.

            Completely and utterly fucking useless troll. Have a look at my comments above floozy2, have a look at kimbo’s comments. Hell, even look at the opposing opinion of Jean H. Now have a look at your own you useless incompetent troll, no brains, no debate, not even half a redundant clue.

            Nothing.

          • Kimbo

            Oh, yes, and your statement “The exceptions may be down to a lack of data” is not “fact” (which you promised us, and which I asked of you) – it is opinion, and worse, probably a rationalisation away of data which is directly contrary to your statement (NOT my assumption) that

            “The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact”.

            You promised us more. So far you have disappointed.

            Got anything else?

          • Kimbo

            And to clarify:

            according to the chart Montana, Wyoming, and Mississippi have the lowest rates of “Violent crime rate per 100,000 divided by % of Households with Loaded Firearm”.

            But that doesn’t mean they don’t have some of the highest rates of gun ownership. Now, I’m not an expert on the social patterns of the USA, but I do know enough to suspect that ‘frontier’ states like Montana and Wyoming would most likely have much higher rates of hunters compared to Manhattan, and Mississippi has a long history and affinity of what you would call “gun culture”, including the Confederacy, ‘good old boys’ in pick up trucks compulsorily accessorised with a gun rack, and it is also a natural state for hunting.

            So let’s assume (until you provide evidence to the contrary – because you first made the claim) that Montana, Wyoming, and Mississippi actually have some of the highest rates of gun ownership, yet they actually have some of the lowest rates of violent crime when the two factors are compared. That is the direct opposite of your argument.

            You got anything else?

            Got anything else?

        • Travis Poulson

          “The states with the highest gun ownership have the highest rates of violent crime. That’s a fact.”

          That’s bullshit, not a fact. That has been exposed in all the gun debates already, so keep up and drop the pro gun control propaganda because it’s bullshit. And it’s bullshit because whenever those facts get brought up, gun control advocates such as Piers Morgan fail to rebut every time. The stats back it up.

          Plenty of evidence is there in States like Chicago that have banned handguns, murders dropped slightly for a couple of years before going back up, and peaking well above what they were before bans.
          http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago_handguns-full.png

          At the time handguns were banned in Chicago in 1981 the portion of murders with handguns were at 43%, in 1997 they were nearly at 80%.

          That’s after 16 years of gun control, the outright banning of handguns. How many more facts do you want? I don’t see you providing any, just your opinion that you claim as fact.

          • Travis Poulson

            And here’s some more fact: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago_handguns-full.png

            In 1987 Florida’s right to carry law becomes effective, at the time just over 11 people murdered per 100,00 people. in 2008, after 9 years of the right to carry laws, that murder rate dropped to just over 6 per 100,000 people.

            ‘Spose this is all made up too, right?

          • Travis Poulson

            here’s another for Texas: a downward trend in murders http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/texas-full.png

            Here’s one for Michigan: a downward trend http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/michigan-full.png

            And here’s an interesting graph displaying fatal accidents in the US in 2007, have a good look at that:

          • bobby

            The comment about the portion of murders by handgun rising from 1981 to 1997 is possibly a pointless statistic unless it shows something compared to national/state averages.

            It may sound terrible but perhaps the nation average has gone from 43% to 90% – which would make Chicago better off since gun controls were tightened, not worse off (comparatively speaking) as the numbers imply when framed as they are above.

            Posts below noted – but, again, are they representative of the whole picture or just the ones which suit the argument of the people who produced the stats? American stats collators are even more sneaky than the Labour party.

        • axeman
108%