http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5A6sMO2Tc

Breitbart News author A.W.R. Hawkins defends the gun rights cause with respect, passion and logic. This is how we do it.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

73 COMMENTS

  1. I think I saw a thing on FB claiming that he who shall not be named misstated VA to have the highest murder rate.

    • They aren’t even close to the top. I believe they sit nicely in the middle. Louisiana holds the top spot there.

    • !00% agree. And I just love his remark at the end trying to get in the last word, “Tell that to the women who died at Sandy Hook.” Yep. Tell it to them. Oh wait. You can’t. Because they are dead. Because the women had absolutely no chance against the killer. Because the women were unarmed. Because the school was a gun-free zone. Because they had no guns.

    • Didn’t he mean “gun murders”? It seems to me they speak about two different things. Violent crime and as is typical for grabbers “gun crime”. It does not matter to them that violent crime in GB is through the roof, as long as guns are not used.
      And that last remark about women from Sandy Hook almost made me scream: “They have been slaughtered because nobody could defend them in gun free zone created by idiots like you!”

  2. Realistic facts don’t seem to matter much to Piers.
    I wonder how many people get stabbed “hacked” up in the middle of the day on camera in the US??
    How many get bludgeoned with clubs??
    Suicides, take away the gun and they will find some other instrument to use maybe a knife,,,,,,,,nah guns are faster.
    If ones going to do it do it right………………

      • The speaker mentioned sexual assaults. I’m amazed he didn’t talk about Sweden, which has a rape rate that’s about 6-8x ours. And very draconian gun laws.

        • Actually, Sweden has fairly lax gun laws — by European standards. While they might seem onerous, they’re about in the middle when compared to the various state laws in the U.S. and can’t really be called Draconian.

          Not that I think they’re great, mind you, but let’s save Draconian for cases such as the U.K. and Japan.

          As to rape, they’ve about 2.5 times the incidence as the U.S. and a higher rate of prosecution. Denmark, on the other hand… Ewww.

      • Yeah, it kinda bugged me that Hawkins didn’t counter Morgan’s absurd use of “gun crime” instead of “violent crime”.

        Wow, people with guns are more likely to attempt suicide by guns than people that don’t have guns? Another brilliant deduction, Sherlock. Let us adjourn to Baker Street for tea and medals.

        • Actually it’s a smart strategy. Piers only can steer the conversation by insulting the guest. By staying on point, Hawkins was able to convey a strong message to the audience, one that the gun grabbers can’t fight. In effect, he used Piers to get out real info on what gun control really does. I say Bravo, Mr Hawkins.

      • He also refuses to compare apples to apples. Higher total gun deaths does not equate to the UK, which is an island, the US is almost half a continent. At the end of the day he is just playing the devil’s advocate (pretty good at it), because his show has no ratings and the producers will take whatever viewers/buzz they can generate.

        It is similar to a “heel” in professional wrestling- he does everything you don’t like and pushes all the right buttons.

        I’m not sure how much time politicians have to watch T.V., but the way to change the climate isn’t by bitching about a new anchor, it is by contacting the politicians that you have direct influence over. Go make an appointment to meet with your reps face to face- that is what will ultimately have a lasting impression in their decisions.

        Maybe we should be like Australia and make voting mandatory, couldn’t be worse than what we have now.

      • Because if he starts talking about the alternative weapons used in their high violent crime rate, we start talking about being bludgeoned with hammers, which to almost anyone is viscerally a *worse* thought than being shot.

    • Japan and China have extremely draconian gun laws. And a suicide rate that far outstrips ours.

      • +1

        and although the actual number (what with the fact that most aren’t reported) will never be available, with their taboo’s about sex, i assume the rape rate is higher too. Just sayin’, we dont have a comic book called RAPEMAN.

      • Japan’s suicide rate outstrips the U.S. suicide and homicide rates put together. Yet suicides are somehow not considered to preclude Japan from being a model for a safe and peaceful society whereas suicides by firearm are counted as “gun violence” in the U.S.

        • Suicide doesn’t really affect “peaceful and safe” unless ones method of choice is setting a building ablaze and staying inside.

          Not that Japan’s all that great on a number of fronts — especially rape, which is not legally recognized — but suicide doesn’t affect the livability of a society any more biting ones nails affects the national incidence of cannibalism.

    • It’s hard to tell his lies from his mistakes, with the way they’re so intermixed and common.

      • “Of course; by mistakes I meant those attributable to ignorance or his ice-temperature IQ.”

        I see it a bit differently. Honestly, I doubt Morgan cares about the issue of gun control only as much as it advances his career and increases the size of his bank account. He knows what topics play on the emotions of his viewership and he knows that false statements will bring in the opposing side to watch so they can yell and scream at the TV. He’s a tabloid journalists. He knows sensationalism sells and damn the facts, because false statements cause more buzz about the story.

  4. I take offense that Piers says “In America WE…” You dont belong here, and no one wants you here Piers. There is no “we” when you talk about America.

    • He must havebeen talking about himself and the turd in his pocket, no wait… That’s his career. Both stink like upper lip.

      • And that’s why he has to keep the gun control topic front and center for his show. The highest ratings he has ever achieved are all connected to his anti-gun topics. He has doubled down on the issue in order to have something to keep his ratings from slipping further into the drain.

  5. I got bored after the first minute. Same old argument over and over. And who gives a d@mn about “gun crime”?!? That is not a good question, Piers, it’s stupid. Violence is violence whether there’s a gun involved or not.

    Lets stick with empirics, not stories. The Ugandan disarmament caused the Ugandan tribes to attack each other more. No one seems to mention this, and it’s an important piece of evidence. Here’s the paper I found this result in: http://economics.mit.edu/files/8431

    It’s a job market paper from an MIT Econ grad student and is well done imo. I don’t think that we are so different from the Ugandans and the Kenyans. And if you believe that, then it’s easy to claim that guns deter violence everywhere.

  6. Gun control also has raciest roots in the USA. Along with putting the brit to shame, this was a good video.

  7. Of course in Pier’s little world, if you kill someone with a gun he/she will be much more dead than if you kill them with a meat cleaver. Ladies and gentlemen, the logic of the left.

    • No, the logic of gun control is that a cleaver isn’t a distance weapon unless you throw it — at which point you’re without that weapon.

      It’s absolutely correct, as far as it goes. What’s missing is the other half of the equation. It’s is like going into Iraq with a plan for conquest but none for control; not good.

      The other half is, of course, that an armed populace is a polite and safe populace. While people with guns can kill eople with sticks, they can also force good behavior from others with guns — and cleavers. Since more of us are good than bad, an armed society tends to work for the best.

      If all guns could be rendered inoperative, say by magic, then gun control would work. Since they cannot, and since the Almighty State cannot eliminate them, then we’d best each have one.

      The “logic of the left” has some basis in fact, you see; that’s the unfortunate part. Were it all wrong, it’d be easier to fix.

      It’s akin to the “logic of the right,” such as were there no pollution laws, companies would self-regulate because everyone including business owners has to breathe. The missing half of this equation is that some people will accept a toxic cloud if it means more money. Hell, if they smoke they might see no difference at all.

      Unfortunately, we’d all have to live with their effluents, hence pollution laws. Something big and powerful makes something else big and powerful behave — just like a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with one.

      Statists wish there to be only one form of power: the state. Unfortunately for the left, that’s where most of the statists are because a sensible “strength in numbers” belief that “government can and should do good works that are too big to otherwise get done” is easily perverted into “every big problem is the sole purview of government.”

      The left is not a cancer, as so many on the right believe, but it does suffer from cancer.

      I’d love to see all those on the Religious Right and the Statists on the left go off and make their own little totalitarian Theocratic “we know what’s best for you” Hell somewhere in the south Atlantic, but they’re too busy bludgeoning the rest of us with one another.

      Unfortunately, almost to a man we each of us seem to be missing an eye.

      • I disagree with you that if all guns could be rendered inoperative then gun control would “work”. In that situation most would be left at the mercy of whomever is stronger (be it physical strength, fighting ability, etc.) than them vs having a viable method to defend themself. As Piers loves to point out, Britain’s gun murders are around 35 per year…but their overall violent crime is through the roof.

        One thing I wish Mr Hawkins had asked when Morgan referred to Lanza’s mother against Hawkin’s female in he attic example is “Which situation happens far more often?”. Also ask “If you eliminate guns and the ‘gun crime’ goes down, but this allows other crime, including violent crime, to increase greatly would that be a good outcome?”

        Also start asking the anti-gunners what they would prefer to have with them if someone was breaking into their house- a baseball bat or a pistol? Then a pistol or an AR? When they inevitably say pistol ask them to explain why they would choose a pistol over a weapon they have assigned almost mythical power to.

        • By “work,” I meant only that noone would be injured by a gun — the Grabber Party line — although my Mosin would make a fine club or spear.

          By no means was I saying that things would be better; I firmly believe the bit about “Samuel Colt made them equal.”

      • As Tfunk said, if you could magically un-invent the firearm we’d go back to the world we had before firearms, one ruled by the strongest and most ruthless among us.

        As far as government and pollution, etc., I’ll concede that there is a role for government, it’s the bureaucracy that I have an issue with. The answer to poor air and water quality was to set up a massive bureaucracy that was unelected and unaccountable. Now the air and the water is clean, so what do you think the bureaucrats will do? Pack up shop and go home? No, they’re going to say it could be cleaner. They’re not acting in our interest, they’re acting in their own self interest. They’re protecting their own jobs. And they’re driving our jobs overseas where our products are made in factories that are just as dirty as ours were before the bureaucrats came along in the first place.

        • Or overland — Mexico is the dirtiest of the lot, as anyone in Mexicali N.M. can attest.

          Were we to put our dollars where our mouths are, we could fix that. Unfortunately, most of the money in this economy just shifts around from service drones to retailers to wholesalers to importers — each of whom use some service drones — while a small part lines a few pockets and some goes overseas.

          We could change that, but we’d have to learn again how to make things. Gone are the days when most stuff was made here and a bus driver could support a family of five.

          As to the rest of your post, sir, I’ve no argument with you — and please see my response to tfunk above.

  8. Why do people move to America then want to change it to be like the country they came from?
    Piers is all for disarming America like the UK.
    Why bother? It would be much easier to just go back to the UK if he doesn’t like guns.
    If the disarmed UK is so great WHY is he here?
    Maybe it has something to do with him being a wanted man in the UK, a fugitive from the law.

    It’s America, love it or leave it but don’t come here then attempt to change into the same crappy country you came from.

  9. Send that asshole back to England.What happened to the 120,000 signatures to petition getting his butt out of here.Oh that’s right that idiot in the White House,used his Executive Privilege ( again) to pardon the Bozo.

  10. Judging by the fact there are (currently) 13 comments on this post, it seems more people have now seen this on TTAG than CNN!

  12. Hawkins talks about violent crime, Morgan says gun crime.

    If Piers, the flummoxed boy’o, had a debate about violence in and of itself…. who am i kidding.

    “Ask the family’s of sandy hook victims… they’d have a different opinion.” Really? They would? They don’t think in retrospect that if just for that one instance had one of the now corpsified teachers had a gun, things wouldn’t be different?

    Well there’s a bunch of dudes chasing me with knives… wish I had a car, but they’re bad for the environment…yeah, this is for the best.

    Hey Piers, two fingers to the sky boy’o.

  13. Lunatic Brit. No fear of ‘Big Gov’ while at the same time empowering them even more and making the average citizen weaker. These libtards could one day kill us all.

  14. Piers Morgan…oh dear!! 🙁

    As a Brit i’m all too aware of this man’s poor, arrogant, egotistical and mis-informed journalistic style. We (in the UK) never liked him and after all the scandals and questions over ‘phone hacking’, he couldn’t get work in the UK so he jumped on a plane and headed your way. For some reason, there is a little less BS in the papers since he’s gone. Coincidence??

    Anyway, you really want to know whether the UK is safer following our pistols and ‘assault’ rifle bans?? Here is some history and facts for you regarding gun ownership in the UK.

    Following the Hungerford massacare in 1987, the UK government introduced under a knee-jerk reaction to public outrage (plus it was nearing an election) the Fireamrs act of 1988 that banned all forms of ‘assault’ type weapons; any automatic weapon (any caliber), any semi-automatic or pump-action rifle (other than a .22lr). This law also reduced the capacity of shotguns to a limit of 2+1.

    Then nearly 10 years later, following the 1997 Dunblane shooting in Scotland in where Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 young children and their teacher in a school, the UK government (again through knee-jerk reaction) decided to ban all pistols of any caliber, except for muzzle-loading pistols, those produced before 1917 and a few other exceptions.

    The 1997 pistol ban was as a result of what happened at Dunblane school. Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane shooter, was formally a scout leader, later disgraced and sacked by the the Scouts Association for sexual assault claims made against him. Shortly after his sacking, Hamilton was under a secret investigation by the police for suspicion of belonging to a pedophile ring. During the investigation some officers suggested to their seniors that Hamilton should have his firearms license and weapons revoked as he was a potential risk, especially to the children involved in the case. The Chief Police Officer responsible for the investigation declined to revoke his license for fear of ‘spooking’ and alerting him to the ensuing police investigation. Shortly after suggestion of revoking his license was dismissed, Hamilton marched into the Dunblane school and committed his horrendous act.
    To this day, the police have refused to formally acknowledge their decision not to revoke his license, as in doing so, they would surely be deemed partly responsible for not having acted sooner and done everything to prevent the murders. These murders were completely avoidable but due to police inaction, the crime was committed and the police wanted a scape-goat. It wasn’t the villain or the lack of police competence that was to blame but pistols. This is how it was spun in the media and, at a time leading up to the next general election due to take place in 1998, the then Labour party (a version of your Democrats) thought this would be a sure-fire winner to ensure victory in the next electoral campaign, as any defending of the pistol shooting community would have been political suicide. So that was it – pistols were banned from the UK.

    It’s also worth looking at the statistics for firearms related crime. What gets my blood boiling is that following the ‘1987 assault rifle ban’ and ‘1997 pistol ban’, these laws served to do absolutely nothing to stop gun crime in the UK whatsoever!
    On average, the number of homicides committed each year with rifles & shotguns (legal AND illegal), averages 8. This is pretty steady figure year on year, and has remained the same for the last 10 years (2001 – 2011).
    However, homicides committed with handguns (remember now, pistols are completely illegal as they were banned in 1997) account for somewhere in the region of 37 per year. Since 2001 to 2008, the rate of handgun related murders committed each year actually increased four times!

    So firearms related murders by rifle & shotguns have remained consistent (whether legal or illegal guns) BUT handguns (completely illegal) have accounted for an increase in the number of murders each year. This doesn’t seem to match what Piers Morgan siad…oh wait, it must be MY mistake because he IS a great, wonderful, respected and completely un-biased journalist isn’t he?!!?

    I’m a gun owner myself (2 rifles, 2 shotguns) and my local police firearms officer has said that ever since the pistol ban of 1997 they have seen a massive increase in illegal firearms, brought into the UK, specifically to arm inner-city gangs and criminals. Fewer legal licenses are being granted in the UK because of the ever tightening laws but illegal firearms, those responsible for the majority of gun related murders, are actually on the increase!
    My firearms officer is also a shooter (one of the few i’ve met who is) has a European firearms license which enables him to store a pistol in both Germany and France. With his license, he’s able to go on holiday to France or Germany, collect his pistols there and travel to the following countries to shoot; Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Austria, Swizerland, Italy, Czech Republic, Poland and more. Essentially, it’s only the UK where pistols aren’t permissible.
    Would you ever travel to France, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter, and worry about being shot anymore than you would being somewhere in the UK? I know I don’t. If anything, i’m more likely to get shot in Manchester, Birmingham or London than anywhere else in Europe. It’s a farce!

    Finally, to top off all the stupid gun laws, did you know that the Isle of Man, Jersey & Guernsey & Northern Ireland (all UK territory and subject to full British law) still permit handgun ownership and have refused to enforce the UK pistol ban. None of these places have experienced an increase in handgun related murders!
    The UK Olympic pistol shooting team can’t even practice in mainland Britain, they must travel either to the the places mentioned previously or abroad to France, Belgium, Holland or elsewhere. It’s bizarre.
    An article that makes a mockery of the situation the Olympic shooters are in, is great – here’s an excerpt: “Thanks for a Special Act of Parliament, UK pistol shooters have been permitted to use USA-made Trigger Trainers to practice for the 2012 London Olympic Games. However, they must still travel outside the UK to legally shoot their Olympic pistols”. Yeah, wow…great…thanks!
    http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/04/uk-olympic-pistol-shooters-allowed-to-practice-with-mock-pistols/

    We (in the UK) have to put up with really poor decision making from our Government; poor knee-jerk decisions that have simply given good, responsible, law abiding citizens an almost impossibly hard time over gun ownership while at the very same time, failing to reduce the increasing number of murders committed by thugs and criminals.
    If you’re a good guy and just wanna practice sport shooting – you better forget it because they don’t want you to! If however you’re a gang member, hey don’t worry about it at all because most UK police aren’t even armed and those that are probably have less fire power than you do, so they’ll just leave you alone as they don’t want the trouble.

    All I can say is that I wish I was able to live in the States and be treated like an adult and given the choice on whether I want to own a handgun or not. Unfortunately I live in a country that is full of bigots and those with no understanding of gun ownership but who are able to pass some laws without proper consideration or appreciation of the facts!

    My 2 pennies worth. Rant over 🙂

    KB

    • Apologies – the UK general election which led to the banning of pistols actually took place in May 1997, not 1998!
      KB

  15. I cannot stand it when drones like Piers quote things like crime/murder without converting to a per capita basis. Population of the UK is 64 M and the US is 313 M. The US is still higher even on per capita basis but the comparison isn’t as bad. Probably better he didn’t waste to e bringing it up.

  16. Talking about the “gun murder rate” in a country that bans guns is like talking about the car crash rate in a country that bans cars. It’s a pointless statistic.

    I wish that Mr. Hawkins had pointed out that Sandy Hook was a “gun-free zone” during this discussion.

  18. The basic argument of civilian disarmament gun control is:
    Some people have used firearms illegally to harm victims
    so we should prevent ALL people from owning firearms.
    Then no one will use firearms illegally to harm anyone.

    That argument sounds nice on paper. What about the criminal mind? Why would anyone expect criminals (who broke laws when they harmed their victims) to obey laws about firearms? Real life criminals who are willing to violently assault someone are more than willing to break laws about the ownership and possession of firearms. That is why gun control laws will never reduce violent criminal behavior.

    So what will gun control laws actually accomplish? The will insure that victims don’t stand a chance against violent criminals who are bigger, stronger, armed, and have the element of surprise. I cannot support such a policy. I don’t know how anyone else can support such a policy, either.

  20. I dont understand why they think criminals will worry about breaking gun laws. The laws they use the guns to break are much worse and carry harsher punishments then the gun laws so why would they be worried about a slap on the wrist when they just murdered someone. All they are doing is making it so they can add another charge to the list. Do they think they care if they add another year unto their life sentence. There can be no other reason other than to make the police and the government feel more powerful.

  21. Well, there ya go… Piers Morgan doesn’t want women to have weapons to defend themselves. I am a huge supporter of the natural order of the universe, therefore, I propose we immediately pass legislation to make it illegal for women to own guns…. oh, and they have to wear burkhas too….

  22. Did I miss something…no one got “owned.” They both avoided each others questions. I understand the stating of fact to win an argument, but if someone asks a question…it should be answered and not to go on a tangent that has nothing to do with the question. Hawkins should of mentioned the soldier that was hacked to death in the UK and everyone around him did nothing. It is against the law in the UK to help out some one who is being attacked and to own guns. If the soldier would of owned a gun or any civilian, the outcome would of been different.

    They both have their opinions. P~ wants less guns in civilian hands. His country lost the war. That is why. Hawkins believes it is a war against women…which I do not agree with at all. It is a war against gun ownership. Once you take away the guns from people, there is no longer an equality.

    • Not that all women are completely helpless, but generally there is a significant difference in physical strength between men and women. Those who suffer the most from gun bans are women, elderly, disabled, etc. IOW, those who are less able to physically fight back against an attacker. That effectively returns us to the brutal days where the strong rule over the weak, simply because they can.

      Why The Gun Is Civilization

  23. As much of an idiot as Morgan is, I think we should be grateful that he allows somewhat even debate to occur.

  24. We could just as well argue it’s a war on the poor or the elderly. I thought we’d decided to leave it to the leftists to divide us all into bite sized groups?

    Keep in mind that progressives in no way believe in equality. The basic notion of their ideology; that they somehow know better how someone else ought to live negates any possibility of equality. Guns are not called the ‘Great Equalizer’ for nothing.

    Anything tending to make one less reliant on government is anathema to the left.

  25. Violent crime rate in England highest in the industrial world by far. No guns = more crime
    England has no guns thus we would expect very low gun crime. Just as we would expect an island with no cars to have very low car deaths.

  26. One thing I cannot understand at all – if we all dislike Piers Morgan as much as we say we do, why do we continue to endorse him?

    No, not by displaying his vids, but by clicking on them to view. Watching the YouTube vids shows CNN that we *ACTIVELY* choose to watch his programming, which is a better, more direct indicator of his popularity than Neilson ratings. So by increasing his YouTube view numbers, we’re actually enabling him and his virtual bully pulpit for 2A infringement propaganda.

    Want to really hurt his ratings (and ability to stay on the air)? DON’T click the link!

    Just an observation…

    • +1. Though TTAG is a business. Clicks all around, and if people are pissed off enough at Morgan to pay attention to him, everybody involved wins financially (including Morgan). I’m not upset by this, just the way it is.

  27. I have posted every single Piers Morgan gun control debate since Sandy Hook in Dec 2012 on my FaceBook page.

    This one is right up there with the one with weaselly faced kid from Breitbart News .. he was hilarious!! Called Piers a bully – multiple times!

  28. Ah yes, the apples to oranges comparison of gun deaths by country.
    Hey Piers, what is the population of the United Kingdom? 63,750,000.
    What is the population of the United States of America? 316.450,000.
    We have 5 times the population of the U.K., and America is not as
    homogeneous. To match the violent crimes by population, multiply 775
    by 5. You get 3,875 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000, compared to
    383 violent crimes in the U.S. per 100,000, with equal populations. Doh!

    The fact is, there is no other country with the same population; that has
    the same access to guns; that is also as young as a country, as the U.S.
    Basically, there’s no fair comparable of real estate on this planet.

  30. I am absolutely sick of Piers. He is like a cartoon anymore. It used to make me mad to listen to his civil disarmament rants until I realized, Fox has consistently more viewership than CNN.

  31. Does P.M. remind anyone of [Lewis Prothero] from the movie V for Vendetta ~ a totally Self Important News Anchor with no substance and a basic coward once confronted!

    Or is it just me?

  32. I can’t believe that so many otherwise intellent people actually waste their time watching that scumbag Piers.

Comments are closed.