I can’t stand these so called “journalists” on their stupid talkshows on their biased news stations. Piers Morgan is one such example of a non-journalist. He’s a former tabloid editor whose home country created a petition to not have him back. His “news shows” consist of his opinions and often trivialize actual news information, as is the case here.
I came across a recent interview of Alex Jones, a sort of conspiracy theorist who drives the website infowars.com. Jones was a guest on Piers Morgan’s show. I highly encourage you to watch the entirety of this incredibly entertaining, bizarre — um — interview, if you will, below.
I realize that Jones is a nut and he’s hilariously mad in this interaction, but he brings up some very good points.
TV personalities like Morgan seem to be naturally good at a few things. The first is making their viewers agree with their viewpoints. The second, is making those who disagree look like the “bad guy” or the “wrong guy.” Another, is ignoring the big picture and using specific “factoids” to make an argument that doesn’t make logical sense. Lastly, they can ignore information like champions.
Now if you’ve seen the entire first video, you’ll understand that Jones looks like a crazy person with his “suicide mass murder pills” and whatnot. I’m not saying that I agree with everything he yells, or that he’s some type of visionary. All I’m suggesting is that when it comes to the big picture, he’s correct.
Jones says, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs.” I agree with him on this, with more of my own personal emphasis on the first aspect. Based on a previous post, my stance on this issue is fairly clear.
I’m not trying to say that our government is attempting to execute a mass disarmament of the American people. That would seem to be nearly impossible given the hundreds of millions of privately owned guns in the US currently. Rather, this seems like a convenient time for the government to begin banning firearms, which I don’t agree is the solution to American violence whatsoever.
Piers makes a point to ask Jones how many gun related murders the US had last year. Jones answers with “There were about 11,458, and about 74% of those were gang-related”. Morgan obviously asks this question first to set up his next question, which is about the gun murder number in Britain. The answer is 35.
While this may seem like an atrocious, despicable difference in quantity, Morgan’s question isn’t a statistically fair one. First and foremost, one has to discredit any comparative total crime number between the UK and the US because of population difference alone (about 63 million to 310 million respectively). Of course any total crimes number is probably going to be higher in the US because there are over 6 times as many people! I think it’s asinine that Morgan even used this “factoid” in the first place to help his argument. Instead, per capita or per 100,000 crime rates are much more beneficial. Given the per-capita numbers, the US still has a much higher gun murder rate than the UK.
The reason is because the UK passed the Firearms Act of 1997 which essentially banned most types of firearms from private ownership.
You’re probably thinking SEE ROB? Banning guns helps! Piers Morgan even asks (at 6:15) “Do you understand the difference between 11,000 and 35?” It creates peace and promotes not hurting one another!
Ehhhhh, not exactly…
While the US has a much higher gun murder rate per 100,000 than the UK, it has a MUCH LOWER overall violent crime rate. The UK’s violent crime rate is about FOUR TIMES LARGER than the United States’ violent crime rate. That’s absolutely crazy. (In case you’re wondering what is defined as a “violent crime,” the FBI says violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Just an FYI)
Therefore, when Jones accuses Morgan of using little “factoids,” I actually agree with him. Jones admits around 5:08 in the video that “England has a lot lower gun crime rate, because they took all the guns…” but then ruins his point to most people by ravenously rambling about “hoards” of hoodlums beating older women and such. Though not the most eloquent of explanations, I do, however, understand what he’s saying. Jones is trying to bring attention to the fact that banning guns hasn’t kept a gun-ban country from committing violent crimes, at a rate 4X higher than the US nonetheless!
As Jones continues, Morgan continues to pull on America’s heartstrings by repeating his “Do you understand the difference?” question about a statistic that’s flawed in the first place. It’s a tactic of propaganda and manipulation, not to mention the fact that he ignores the bigger issue, which Jones tries to point out. If you ban guns, even specific types of guns, what’s next? Are you going to ban kitchen knives or four foot rods? Pipes? Etc.? Where does it end? Where is the government-will-protect-you-from-yourself line drawn?
The fact of the matter is that semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in gun crimes, so Piers Morgan’s stance on banning them is completely misguided. However, he tries to drive his point home by bringing up the gun type in incredibly rare mass-shootings. Jones, in retort, is correct in that rifles are used in a small percentage of gun crimes. These FBI stats don’t show exactly how many are semi-auto rifles, but it’s safe to assume that the entirety of the rifle numbers isn’t semi-automatics. The reality of generally low rifle crime numbers says a lot about Piers’ stance on them.
Morgan also seems to perpetuate the idea that these types of rifles are fully automatic, which simply isn’t true. You can’t just hold a semi-automatic like a Tommy Gun and spray bullets everywhere. It fires on each pull of the trigger, so you kind of, uh, have to aim it every time you pull the trigger. In this sense, I could understand a hunter wanting to use them. Let’s say they miss on their initial shot. If they do, the hunted animal would be able to escape if they had to manually reload.
Finally, in the second half of the interview, Morgan brings up Sandy Hook and the type of gun used. He claims it was a semi-automatic, which is what several media sources wrongly reported initially. In actuality, four handguns were used:
(I honestly think there’s something fishy with the whole Sandy Hook thing in general, but that’s for another day.)
This is just another example of how media figureheads like Morgan perpetuate their own damn agenda, shuffling incorrect information and appallingly warped statistics to Americans. I can’t stand it, nor how this whole gun control debate is being handled.
Again, I’m not one of those “I’m gonna keep my damn guns!” people. I don’t own one, and I probably won’t ever own one. However, I’m terrified of so called “journalists” like Morgan toying with the logical thought processes of Americans. Just use your damn logic and understand the reality of situations before you come to a conclusion. I know an emotional, sweeping reaction is likely after an event like the Sandy Hook shooting. However, we can’t let these emotions affect our ability to see the big picture.