He shouldn’t have stopped laughing at the excited idiot.
This is what it could look like.
Notice how the lefties argue. I’ve been dissecting their debating arguing tactics a great deal lately. Notice the the points that they cue on – “asks question”, keeps talking so as to not allow a response “notices laugh” and still doesn’t allow a response, then “demagogues the laugh” by feigning righteous indignation, over & over, so the viewer comes away with nothing more than “The gun guys is laughing at the seriousness of the debate”.
Pay attention. They do this in all of their arguments. They insult, poke-fun, interrupt, divert attention, move the goalposts, and deride anything that comes out of their opponents mouth, all the while, parroting memes they’re memorized without ever actually thinking them through to their logical conclusion.
I’m going to write about this…
Check out the transcript of the whole interview at Newsbusters. You have a point on this. By the end, Piers Morgan insults his guest by calling him ‘Unbelievably Stupid,’ ‘Dangerous': ‘You Shame Your Country.’ This is happening more and more in these so called “mainstream” interviews, where the host is blatantly insulting the guest.
That’s why I’m hammering Facebook. To give some folks (who I know can’t articulate their position) the ability to easily & succinctly do so.
Thanks for your articulate lies … idiot.
Thank God that Larry Pratt is defending the right of the insane to carry assault rifles into elementry schools. If only every 6 year old had a semiautomatic weapon, we would all be as safe as Nancy Lanza. You are a Great American, Mr. Pratt. Don’t ever let the news tell you that you should start thinking for yourself.
Straw man. No one is suggesting that toddlers come to school armed.
Yeah, the gun grabbers love to shoot up straw men don’t they? Ironic that they have by far the most imaginary enemies
Heh. Newsbusters. Those old liars! I love how they take news and just all FOX it up.
Stupid is as stupid reads.
On the contrary my friend, Morgan shouldn’t have lost his rag on this debate – but he clearly won it. At some point with debates about emotive subjects such as this if someone is presenting circuitous, Orwellian arguments which make no sense in the way that the Gun Guy was, anyone with an ounce of morality is likely to crack.
More guns to solve gun crime, what a bizarre argument. Would more cars reduce traffic accidents? Would selling more fatty food make America less obese? Does snowmaking at ski resorts make less people ski?
In Aurora, there were 6 theatres showing Batman. The gunman chose the one theater that had a ban on concealed carry firearms.
Have you not noticed that the worst places in the US for gun violence, have the strictest gun control laws?
Here ya go…
Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade despite gun ban.
Or, “here ya go” http://tinyurl.com/ckeanwk
“Despite a surge in gun-related offenses in the early 2000s, the past seven years in the U.K. have seen successive drops in gun crimes”
“A widely cited 2010 study in the American Journal of Law & Economics showed that gun-related homicides in Australia dropped 59% between 1995 and 2006.”
Keep kidding yourselves if you want to people, its only schoolkids after all…
Also, thanks for using a news source that’s three years old and, next to its piece on UK gun crime posts pictures of a drunken Snookie and Miley Cyrus pinching a strippers bottom. Sign of a credible source.
The homicide rate in the UK is higher than the homicide rate in Iowa which is awash in guns. Furthermore, we have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms so, unlike in the UK, the government cannot ban handguns, for example.
In other words, I live in a place that has fewer murders, more guns and a constitutional right to keep and bear arms meaning the laws passed in the UK are illegal here. Your post is meaningless to me.
Homicide rates by state and country.
According to the data in the link, the homicide rate in Britain per 100,000 is 1.2 and in Iowa it is 1.1 but there are tons ‘o guns in Iowa.
No one in China is allowed to own guns, but amazingly (snark) 13,410 were killed by guns. I can’t imagine who did the shooting if the people aren’t allowed to own guns.
Firearms must’ve crept across the border and randomly killed people.
Michigan falls between Uruguay & Lithuania. The vast majority of our murders are committed by criminals (duh) with illegal weapons, thanks to Detroit & Flint. The rest of the state is quite civilized.
So long as the criminals have guns and a will to use them, I will have guns and a will to use them.
Almost 5% of America’s gun murders will come from Chicago, this year. Chicago has just-less-than 1% of the US total population, but nearly 5% of it’s gun murders.
It also has the strictest gun control laws in the entire nation!
Please, continue to enlighten me as to how much safer I will be when guns are outlawed. /sarc
But China has 1.6 billion people! The US has 300 million people.
The China murder rate includes all murder, not just those from guns. The US, on the other hand, had 12,000 gun-related murders last year.
Ergo the murder rate from guns is incomparably higher in the US than China. In other words your own facts argue against your own point.
Wow. You pick the one response that wasn’t a “point” but rather an observation directed to the comment above it. Then, you conveniently ignore the actual points made on the same thread. Quite the debater.
Comparing China and the US really is comparing apples and oranges. The sheer level of control a state has over its populace can indeed leave it virtually disarmed. The fact that China’s populace is poorer (per capita) also means they are less likely to be able to afford a black market weapon, and more likely to resort to bladed weapons.
China is also a rather homogeneous culture; such cultures–like the Scandinavian nations–are less apt to kill within their own “clan.”
Thus, the only point really notable to draw upon for insight is simply that even the strictest gun control laws cannot eliminate gun crime, as that’s all Notamobster was trying to demonstrate.
And that’s even before you consider the question of whether you are willing to live in an oppressive, statist environment in order to mostly eliminate this one threat–that being of gun crime (to say nothing of other crime).
Given that my life’s priorities are liberty and freedom, I’m not willing to trade them for the mirage of safety provided for by an all-powerful leviathan. That’s a little like “out of the frying pan and into the nuclear holocaust.”
Nobster. You are an idiot. But I’m sure you already know this.
I can’t see the name of the poster below nota’s post but it might as well be “I’m an Idiot” because Morgan didn’t come close to winning that argument. He trotted out all the libtard talking points that have little or no truth to them and then didn’t give Larry Pratt time to give his answer until Morgan had reiterated all his blather again. Pratt didn’t say the answer was more guns he said that the answer was to arm teachers and allow CCW in gun free zones where all the shootings have been taking place. These shooters may have emotional and psychological problems but they are not stupid enough to go where law abiding citizens may be armed. They go where everyone is unarmed and has no protection. Duh!!!!
Well said Nota.
Piers Morgan is an Fn joke, he asks a question dont allow a response and then gets on his high horse when he gets laughed at.
He noted that since all the anti-gun media stampede began this weekend, Americans are buying guns in record numbers and yet he still cant figure out why, even after being given a perfectly clear explanation of exactly why.
As for Leon,… how does Piers Morgan win this “debate”? He cant even get his stats right (the US is the most violent country in the world, or some bull crap) and is not really interested in learning why gun sales are soaring, but acting like he care more than anyone else about an act of mass murder.
Hey Morgan………..take your sorry ass green card and go back to England-istan and hide under your bed. Who are you to come over here and tell us what to do?
Salad, go eat yourself.
What were you watching. Larry Pratt proved what he was. Insane.
He is a ranting, neo-nazi who only can only hope never makes it to his 71st birthday. And you miscreants, for promoting such a human piece of shit, should be embarrassed.
I don’t know who Larry Pratt is. I don’t give a shit at the moment. All I will say is that he absolutely was right on point in the primary point of contention with regards to the Sandy Hook shooting–which is to say, more guns can and provably DOES thwart evil.
To wit: The Sandy Hook Elementary principal actually charged the shooter before being gunned down. Allow me to restate: She charged into a hail of gunfire, into the face of danger, unarmed, in order to do what she could to protect her students.
Now, given that, do you really think that a gun in her hands wouldn’t have done good? It is very reasonable to assess that the Sandy Hook shooting would NOT have reached the body count it did. She clearly showed that she had yards and yards of guts, to do what she did.
So yes, inexplicably–inexplicably only to you and your ilk, however, I’m afraid–guns can and frequently DO stop evil in its tracks. To dismiss that fact outright is actually unfathomable to me.
Welcome to the debate, Mitch. How about you try to refrain from insulting people and make a valid point, so we can have an adult conversation.
Yes, nobster, you are quite the adult in the room. Go ask your mother for some milk and cookies and go to bed. It is WAY oast your bedtime.
Three (3) reasons why any gun control with the Obama administration will NOT go anywhere and just fall off of the table. Is Barack Obama all hot air?
I don’t think that cherry picked facts from the US’s third least murderous state vs the UK. Or Chicago vs the rest of the mid-west or whatever it was, or China vs the US accurately display any picture of gun crime – I was not the one to raise any of these, I simply replied.
Nor did I hold up the UK as some sort of gun-crime utopia.
I don’t even think that the number of guns in a country dictates the amount of gun crime. I just think that the situation here in the US is out of control – as recent events have shown us – we have the highest gun-crime rat in the western world by a country mile, its not even close, and, call me a old-fashioned (or completely rational, your choice) allow the wholesale marketing of assault rifles does not seem to have stemmed the rising tide of murders.
So maybe, just maybe, its time to try something else.
And arming teachers is a crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy idea.
If you were a teacher in that situation, what would you have done? Would you have wanted a firearm? I think it’s crazy, crazy, crazy, to NOT want a firearm in that situation, or want a competent adult to have one in that situation.
I don’t even think that the number of guns in a country dictates the amount of gun crime. I just think that the situation here in the US is out of control – as recent events have shown us
Out of control they may be–and I’m only allowing that point in a very tenuous manner indeed, for the sake of the argument; are we actually murdering more than we were 20 years ago, or are we simply able to sensationalize everything much more blatantly in the 24/7 news cycle now?
But if we are out of control, you pretty much skip right over the question of WHY we are out of control. Will gun control laws truly correct this lack of control? Recent experience with an assault weapons ban doesn’t seem to indicate that, you know. Empirical evidence from Chicago, DC and other places likewise don’t really indicate that, either.
Remember that a “gun ban” is not the same thing as “uninventing the gun.” A ban won’t actually erase weapons from existence, nor from the homes of Americans.
And again, this isn’t even remotely addressing the fact of what happens WHEN a society is disarmed. More specifically, what is allowed to occur more easily when a society is disarmed: the enslavement of the people.
Arming teachers may not be the answer, Leon, but taking away my larful right to defend my family isn’t, either. We have guards at banks and gold repositories, maybe that’s the answer to the school security issue.
Let’s try something different. I personally, feel that allowing teachers to be armed would work well. At the very least, it would minimize the number of victims and give the teachers a fighting chance.
Give me one instance where a armed inoccent bystander prevented a massacre. Oh. Wait. You cannot. Please push your lies elsewhere, we are tired of you. Please send an adult to help with this conversation, it is way past your bedtime.
The Oregon Mall shooting? Remember that, all of like 3 weeks ago? That was prevented from becoming a massacre by one such armed, innocent bystander.
And it’s not the only one. There are countless others.
Pearl High School
Appalacian Law School
New Life Church
Santa Clara Gunshop
Aniston Shoney’s Shooting
Golden Food Market Shooting Link
Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link
Trolley Square Shooting
Parker Middle School Dance Shooting
Destiny Christian Center Shooting
Tyler Courthouse Shooting
Plus how many untold thousands that don’t even start because the perp doesn’t want to risk being shot?
Prevent Tyranny at all costs:
I need to do this more often. It seems that a discussion of allowing firearms on school campuses shows us just how many trolls read the Revo.
Arguments like, “Nobster. You are an idiot. But I’m sure you already know this.” and, “And arming teachers is a crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy idea.” are childish and add nothing to any discussion.
I didn’t even bother commenting on those. I just rolled my eyes. Funny how he called Nota childish. Irony detector broke the needle on that one.
I always wonder what is the best way to handle a troll on the web? It is that balancing act, between ignoring an idiot and looking like you are scared to respond. Most of the time, I say starve the troll. Just don’t even act like they are there. But I like what R.D. has done in the past, change their name to something more appropriate. In this case, I think a name like “I support the rape of women, the murder of children, and the femization of men through disarmament” would be a good one.
Jim – I agree that calling me an idiot adds nothing to the discussion. It’s fun to see someone who can’t even articulate a thought, much less formulate an idea, call me an idiot. I always enjoy that.
Trent – I ignore most pure trolling (like bum rush up there), but those with a liberal bent and a penchant for debate? I engage them. I enjoy stomping a mudhole in their argument, and walking it dry.
It keeps the razor sharp. Plus, you never know when someone who believes one way, may be swayed by well-stated position. It’s happened to me more than once.
I’m convinced that most liberals believe the way they do, because they’ve never fully considered their beliefs. They begin with an idea, receive a confirmation (bias) from some liberal source and that’s all they need to support their belief structure. Many will go looking one day and if they come across someone who can make the case in a simple, logical way – can have their beliefs changed.
I wouldn’t do this if it were completely hopeless.
Yeah Nota, good debate with the other side should be encouraged and I love a good old fashion dust up with an intelligent liberal (Oxymoron I know). But this troll just wants to provoke, and it isn’t important enough for my time.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.