Where Did Piers Morgan Come From, Anyway?
The case highlighted the Mirror’s embrace of the wheeling, dealing, get-rich-quick mentality of the time. Britain was enjoying a boom, and bankers and financial traders were rocks stars rather than villains. One Labour minister famously quipped that his party was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” So was Morgan, and the once proudly socialist Mirror.
But — true to form — when both public and elite opinion later turned against the bankers, Morgan turned with it. He told a panel show in the wake of the financial crisis that he’d like to take bankers to Afghanistan “to show them a real day’s work.”
Ironically, Morgan’s attempt to move the Mirror back to the left and to pursue more serious journalism led to the end of his newspaper career. In 2003, with many Britons appearing to oppose the looming military action against Iraq, Morgan decided the paper should oppose an invasion in a bid to attract anti-war readers. Once the battle was joined, however, public opinion swung behind the endeavor, and within weeks the Mirror’s circulation plummeted to a historic low.
Morgan didn’t relent, and in 2004, desperate for a British Abu Ghraib story with which to undermine support for the war effort, the Mirror published photos purporting to show British soldiers torturing civilians in Iraq.
The photos were quickly exposed as crude fakes, and Morgan, who claimed the paper had been hoaxed, was fired.
While Morgan’s days in British newspapers are over, the phone-hacking scandal could come back to haunt him. He shrugged off allegations of hacking during an inquiry into the scandal, but in October four individuals launched court proceedings claiming their phones were hacked by papers including the Mirror during the time Morgan was editor.
Morgan chose to reinvent himself as a TV personality, intent on joining the ranks of celebrities he’d previously sent his reporters out to stalk and harass. After mixed success in Britain, Morgan got his big break in the U.S. in 2006 when he became a judge on America’s Got Talent.
When Morgan was chosen to replace Larry King at CNN, he saw the opportunity to make a name for himself in the U.S. as a journalist, and to add gravitas and respectability to the fortune and degree of fame he’d garnered from shows such as AGT and Celebrity Apprentice. And while Morgan is not at heart a liberal, he’s reinvented himself as one in the U.S. because he wants desperately to ingratiate himself with the country’s entertainment and media elites.
I think he crawled out of some London sewer pipc….where he was first conceived and birthed…and he’s been stinking up the joint ever since
Having seen the inane idolatry shown for Obama by numerous entertainers and journalists leads me to suspect that many of them do it beause they are told to do it by their employers. Piers Morgan’s history of working any side of the street that pays him, supports my suspicion.
Thanks, Mike. If Ben Shapiro did this bio on the air, it would have done more to shoot down any of Morgan’s arguments against guns, his credibility, and expose him for the fraud he is. You can’t argue with a liar; indeed can’t have a meaningful conversation unless you expose them.
Too bad that didn’t happen at the Senate hearings with pathological liar Hilary Clinton.
Indeed.
THIS is what Hillary Clinton is all about.
Thank you for sayibg what I have said since the manufactured outrage began. That is, stop paying attention to this fool, that’s all he wants. Stop watching, stop talking about him; he is meaningless. Ignore him and eventually someday he will go away.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say Morgan has based his career on Howard Beale (Peter Finch) in the movie Network (1976).
The problem is, when you consider Alex Jones, we may be entering a period in which every network wants their own “mad prophet of the airwaves”.
clear ether
eon
It is worth remembering what NETWORK was all about. See http://clarespark.com/2011/07/07/network-and-its-offspring/. There is an entire field of media studies that fails to teach anything at all about ideology and the need for an ethical search for the truth.
I can remember when “ethical” was a valid descriptive, and even LEGAL, term!
Impossible. The fictional Howard Beale was a genuine kook who really believed in what he was doing. So much so that he ended up being led astray by a canny network executive (Ned Beatty’s character) into shifting his position (against a merger of the company he works for and a Saudi conglomerate) and preaching against his own interests. He lost his audience and the network kinda, sorta arranged for a spectacular on-air assassination.
Morgan is apparently an utterly shameless, amoral hack who will say or do anything to get ahead. He seems to think that being an obnoxious clown prince of Gun Control will carve out a niche for himself. THAT is why he is unafraid of inviting formidable conservative guests on his show. He doesn’t CARE if they wipe the floor with his ass, just so long as it attracts eyeballs.
We’ll see how long this particular business model holds up…
I shut down a bar in Alexandria last night and the drunk next to me swore that Terry McAuliffe was hiring Piers Morgan as his campaign manager. Even in my stuporous condition I knew what my drinking buddy said made perfect sense. Go for it Terry. Youduhman. http://terrymcauliffe.com/
Man! That’s really hookin’ up!
Piss (sic) Morgan and Joe Biden came from the same experiment: Anal pregnancy.
My Gosh! We just gave someone like that 19 seats in the Knesset! Or is his real name Yair Lapid?
Who watches CNN? I wouldn’t know this guy if I fell over him.
I was kind of thinking that. Morgan’s presence has more to do with CNN and their lack of credibility.
McNally is right, conservative/libertarians shouldn’t give him (nor CNN of course) the time of day.
I’m not so sure. Ignoring Goebbels didn’t work out all that well. IMO each of these media mutts must be confronted…every single time.
Where did Piers come from? I’m thinking either a lab or Alpha Centuri.
Neither, he came from the ranks of journalists. That really tells you all you need to know.
Piers Morgan? I’d guess that he slithered out from under the nearest big rock.
As if we didn’t have enough of our own arrogant, condescending journalistic tw*ts, CNN had to go and out-source an American job.
Thanks for the excellent overview of Morgan’s professional career.
Well, he fits right in with the rest of American mainstream media, and he’s secured himself a nice spot at the bottom of the cesspool. Not sure if conservatives actually think Morgan is influencing the debate, but it sure is fun mocking him.
Regrettably, we no longer express our indignation with an application of Tar and Feathers.
The way to handle Piers MORON Morgan is to punch a hole in CNN’s boat. Demand that your elected representatives demand that regulators force the cable operators to provide what the customer requests. Instantly the inane channels, like CNN, will disappear! Cable providers and Liberals will resist, after all providers would have to charge less and the free ride for the Liberals would be over.
Incidentally, I have neither cable nor satellite as they have little to offer for the high price.
Piers Morgan is benefiting from the fact that Americans generally, and New Yorkers specifically, are suckers for anyone sporting an English accent.
He doesn’t even have a particularly refined accent, certainly not the Received Pronunciation. I could see him omitting the “h” phonic without much difficulty. Maybe that will be his next schtick — a streetwise chav wearing a Burberry cap?
Yeah, if he worked for the British tabloids, it would be hard to peg him as exactly a left-winger.
And we’re familiar with the social-climbing, self-promoting brand of nuisances who just go for the Main Chance and have no real convictions. (The name Huffington comes to mind.)
If I ever meet Jeremy Clarkson, I’m going to buy him a drink as thanks for smacking Piers Morgan in the mouth. Morgan still clings, Dan Rather-like, to the fake prisoner abuse photos – his standard of evidence being that they were indicative of a higher truth or some such nonsensical idea unknown to real journalists.
– oik, knows it and hates it.
“there are well-informed and serious people on the other side of the debate”
Like who? Any names?
I’ve been following this question for decades. I’ve read the books, followed the studies, tracked down the academic, medical, and legal papers, and I’m unaware of anyone who is either well-informed or serious in the gun control camp. Smug indignation, sophistry, and obvious lies are the only weapons they can muster, and those can’t equip one side if there is to be any useful debate.
“there are well-informed and serious people on the other side of the debate”
Like who? Any names?
This x 10^100. I have yet to be aware of any good-faith arguments being made for gun control anywhere in the current debate. Hell, prior to Sandy Hook, gun control was the single issue where the Left was actually in *retreat*, their wrongness being that deep.
Piers Morgan gives a bad name to craven opportunists.
“What ever you do, DON’T mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.”
Greetings:
“Brit” ??? I would have sworn that Mr. Morgan self-identified as an “Irish Catholic” on the “Charley Rose” program the other night.
IF IT WASN’T FOR THE 2ND AMEN. PIERS WOULD BE THE DUKE OF NEW JERSEY. NEVER TRUST A GUY WHOSE FIRST NAME TELLS YOU HE HANGS AROUND NAVY SHIPS.
Jeremy Clarkson beat him like a bass drum. CNN hired the wrong brit.
Morgan is infinitely annoying to conservatives, but not because he’s a doofus.
I think he is much more effective than people want to admit. As Rush says about the Marxist in Chief, “it’ not what he says, it’s how he says it”.
Morgan remains very calm at all times. He has his points memorized and he repeats them at appropriate time in the discussion. He is very good at making the other person seem argumentative while Piers always presents himself as the voice of reason, simply because he never gets excited and sticks to his script. He baits the other party into taking positions that Morgan declares are extreme. For example, it’s clear in his gun control discussions that he wants his opponents to declare that the government is the threat that guns are necessary to protect against. He wants this more than anything else, because he is going to them declare how unbelievable and extreme that is. Doesn’t matter that it is true on all counts. The truth doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not Piers ends up appearing as the reasonable party. He almost always does.
In the mid 2000′s, I saw an obscure associate professor who appeared on Fox use the same technique to defend Trutherism. Bill O’Reilly continually challenged the guy in his oh-so-charming way, but the guy never got shook up or nervous. At one point, O’Reilly said something like “do you know how extreme you sound?” The guy simply responded very calmly. “No, you are the one who is extreme “, and then recited a recap of his outrageous claims with his “evidence”. I’m sure he converted a lot of people to his point of view. To my knowledge, O’Reilly never had him on again. He was too good. Crazy, but effective.
Right you are.
Yours is a voice of reason here; I does not matter at all if the propagandist has a dirty past or any real convictions.
It only matters if his technique is effective and you described it perfectly.
The bible was written by humans the pro gun activist are wrong, speak to the mother of the children who died via gun, they know what is the type of gun that must be eliminate, the bible was done many many years ago and is not correct in several issue in today society
^^ Truly Yahoo worthy ^^
Uri, I don’t know which is worse: your command of the English language, or your thinking. both need work; go away and try again later.
First, let me address Uri’s statement above; the type of gun that must be eliminated is the gun in the hands of criminals. Criminals use all sorts of guns; it’s criminal intent that causes the deaths of people…including children.
And yes, Uri, humans wrote the Bible; God Dictated it; it is the code by which we must live. The first ‘gun control” law is the Commandment “Thou Shatl Not Kill”; is it not?
Secondly, being an old coot, I remember a professional wrestler named Gorgious George who deliberately dressed and behaved in the ring to get fans upset and angry. he had long blond hair when other wrestlers kept theirs short, baby blue wrestling boots…and used every fake foul he could on opponents. The crowd would boo and yell as George strutted around the ring, the other wrestler pretending to writh in agony and the ref counting meaninglessly.
Gorgious George was a psychiatrist who thought people needed the catharsis of a bad guy to hate…he played his character perfectly!
Piers Morgan may be doing the same thing, smarmy upper-class English accent, high-handed contempt of his guests…all that’s missing here may be the baby blue booties…
Piers Morgan is a smug git and probably is loving all this,however no one wants to address what he has been saying.
In the U.S the ‘shoot the messenger’ is ironic.So going after him follows the pattern of changing the subject.
He says ,he recognises America’s second amendment and gun culture and self defence.
He is addressing the mass murders and the weapon’s used,more background checks and federal money towards mental health issues.
He was editor of the Mirror when the horrific events in Dunblane occured in 1996.
A angry scout leader with numerous weapons slaughtered 17 5yr old’s in the school gym
The country united following this ,it was not political and wanted to do everything we could to prevent it happening again.If it does then we know that we at least made it harder and done everything in support of the families .So he his talking about that.
He is also saying the same as General Mcchrystal,Colon Powell ,many other’s including the victims and families of those killed,who are thanking him for addressing this,stating that in the U.S it is impossible to discuss this issue.
Which is bleeding obvious when you read the comments being made.
Mags,
The “issue” is not guns, its criminals.
Most any notable crime can be traced to one of the following.
A) The persistant lack of real punishment for PRIOR violent crimes
B) The closure of virtually all Mental Institutions.
New York Politicians are up in arms about two particular shootings involving AR-15′s
One was a CONVICTED MURDERER (he used a hammer to kill his grandmother) who was released and eventually shot some firemen in an “ambush”.
The Other (Sandy Hook)was a person who SHOULD have been institutionalized, and was roaming “free”
As an aside, Pior to Sandy Hook, Connecticut had a horrific home-invasion that resulted in the burning to death of two young girls and their mother. The police were notified of this Kidnapping BY ONE OF THE VICTIMS, and they sat outside the house for over an hour allowing the men to rape and set fire to their victims unimpeded.
Guns are a convenient placebo for failed politicians and ineffective police departments.
Note that PRIVATE CITIZENS in America confront and defeat with their own firearms, more criminal acts every year than all of Law Enforcenent combined.
Its about 2.5 MILLION times a year, or roughly 5 THOUSAND times a DAY. And never with a 50-70 shot debacle caused by the “suspicious movement” of an UNARMED person, as happens so often in LAW ENFORECEMENT circles.
Funny how that factoid never gets reported, as Media People sweep the country looking for the “gun story of the day” that fits their narrative.
Private citizens with arms are not the problem.
The Government is.
I am not giving my opinion of your gun issues,it is obviously up to American’s.
Also i am not a spokesman for Piers Morgan or arguing his views for him.
All i am saying he is just addressing the mass murders over the last 2 yrs using the same weapon.
He has said that he respects your right to self defence and is not saying all guns should be banned and has said the same as you about crime especially in Chicago .
So now you are doing the same,changing the subject
‘The “issue” is not guns, its criminals.’
He is not talking about that,it’s the mass murderers with mental health problems having access to numerous guns with ammo to kill as many people in a short time.
Personally i don’t think he should be telling you what to do.
However the character assassination and wanting to deport him makes him look professional.
Poster’s are claiming they don’t even watch him,but that doesn’t stop them making comments.
‘Funny how that factoid never gets reported’
Exactly,that is true when discussing Piers Morgan.By the way on behalf of the whole country we don’t know anybody else with the name Piers.
Piers Wedgwood comes to mind
Oh dear yes. The “Mothers of Dunblaine” got their satisfaction and firearms ownership, along with the right of self-defence was permanently ended in Merrie England.
Now thugs rule the streets and terrorize the under-policed countryside. Pre-teen delinquents rampage through the subways and buses. Town centers turn into drunken Hogarthian nightmare scenes on weekend evenings. “Hot burglaries” (known to us in the colonies as home invasions) are the national pastime. I’ve read in recent years just how “civilized” Great Britain has become (Mark Steyn, Theodore Dalrymple). But you lot still try to primp and preen and claim cultural superiority because your notoriously massaged crime statistics claim that there are still fewer “gun murders” in Old Blighty than over here. Even if otherwise, the Aul Sod has become the most overall violent, crime-ridden country in all of Europe.
It doesn’t matter what criminals actually DO as long as there are people like yourself who can convince themselves that all they have to do is pass a law banning guns to make you all warm and safe and snug in your beds. Never mind what happens in the real world.
Since most gun control advocates cite Piers Morgan’s favorite statistic about fewer gun homicides in the UK now and so many fewer than the US, I thought I’d go look up the actual stats on overall homicides (and crime in general) in the UK.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/
I assumed that overall murders would not have gone up, but they at least wouldn’t have gone down. Well, I was very wrong. Homicides in the UK consistently went up as gun control got more restrictive.
UK Murders 1946-1968
Average: 326 murders
Median: 325 murders
Low: 425, in 1961
High: 268, in 1968
Firearms Act 1968
Prior ten years, average: 308 murders
In 1968: 425 murders
Next ten years, average: 488 murders
Hungerford Massacre, 1987: 16 murders by semi-automatic rifle and pistol
Firearms Act of 1988: Expanded the 1968 law to cover more guns (looks like any rifles larger than .22 caliber)
Prior ten years, average: 609 murders
In 1988: 624 murders
Next ten years, average: 703 murders
Dunblane Massacre, 1996: 17 murders by semi-automatic pistol and revolver
Firearms Act of 1997: Banned private possession of pistols
Prior ten years, average: 685 murders
In 1997: 739 murders
Next ten years, average: 835 murders
Lowest number of murders in the next ten years: 750, in 1998
Over 800 murders per year from 2000-2005
Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006: Banned mail-order sale of air weapons
Prior ten years, average: 824 murders
In 2006: 764 murders
Years since, average: 667 murders
Cumbria Massacre, 2010: 12 murders by shotgun and .22 calibre bolt-action rifle
So, ten years after they ban pistols and shortly after they also ban mail-order sales of air-soft guns, murders finally go down. Somehow, I can’t imagine how anyone could say the decline in murders is due to the gun control laws.
One friend of mine cited the reduction in murders today in comparison to 1997 (forgetting that murders 1998-2007 were higher then 1997), so I looked at US murders in that period.
US murders
1997: 18,208
2004: 16,929 (down 7%)
2011: 14,612 (down 10%)
So, then I looked at the “Assault Weapons” Ban.
AWB, 1994
Prior ten years, average: 21,699 murders
In 1994: 23,330 murders
Next ten years, average: 17,243 murders
That looks like it was effective until you see
Average, post-AWB, 2005-2011: 15,989 murders
That is, the murders were going down before AWB and after it expired, they kept going down.
Rapes, robberies and assaults went up all those years in the UK as well, but arguments about reporting percentages can be made and people can wiggle. Dead bodies are stubborn things and no one can deny the number of murders.
Gun control in the UK has done nothing to reduce the number of people killed. It has allowed it to increase and changed what weapons are used in the murders.
Since most gun control advocates cite Piers Morgan’s favorite statistic about fewer gun homicides in the UK now and so many fewer than the US, I thought I’d go look up the actual stats on overall homicides (and crime in general) in the UK.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/
I assumed that overall murders would not have gone up, but they at least wouldn’t have gone down. Well, I was very wrong. Homicides in the UK consistently went up as gun control got more restrictive.
UK Murders 1946-1968
Average: 326 murders
Median: 325 murders
Low: 425, in 1961
High: 268, in 1968
Firearms Act 1968
Prior ten years, average: 308 murders
In 1968: 425 murders
Next ten years, average: 488 murders
Hungerford Massacre, 1987: 16 murders by semi-automatic rifle and pistol
Firearms Act of 1988: Expanded the 1968 law to cover more guns (looks like any rifles larger than .22 caliber)
Prior ten years, average: 609 murders
In 1988: 624 murders
Next ten years, average: 703 murders
Dunblane Massacre, 1996: 17 murders by semi-automatic pistol and revolver
Firearms Act of 1997: Banned private possession of pistols
Prior ten years, average: 685 murders
In 1997: 739 murders
Next ten years, average: 835 murders
Lowest number of murders in the next ten years: 750, in 1998
Over 800 murders per year from 2000-2005
Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006: Banned mail-order sale of air weapons
Prior ten years, average: 824 murders
In 2006: 764 murders
Years since, average: 667 murders
Cumbria Massacre, 2010: 12 murders by shotgun and .22 calibre bolt-action rifle
That looks like it was effective until you see
Average, post-AWB, 2005-2011: 15,989 murders
That is, the murders were going down before AWB and after it expired, they kept going down.
Rapes, robberies and assaults went up all those years in the UK as well, but arguments about reporting percentages can be made and people can wiggle. Dead bodies are stubborn things and no one can deny the number of murders.
Gun control in the UK has done nothing to reduce the number of people killed. It has allowed it to increase and changed what weapons are used in the murders.
‘Average, post-AWB, 2005-2011: 15,989 murders’
Where did you get that from?Please clarify,you have said it is undeniable.
Here is the Home Office most recent stats.Homicide which includes murder,manslaughter and infanticide is half of 2001/2
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjI0Eo6IUSaHdFdnd3NrTE81enhLNnlfa0VUdlpDcHc#gid=1
“…He has no discernible political philosophy. He’s an unprincipled, relentlessly self-promoting opportunist, a disgraced tabloid hack who doesn’t care whom he offends or how foolish he looks as long as he’s the center of attention.”
Then he’s the perfect CNN “host”. Can you say What’s-Her-Name–the Faux Latina provateur? Guess IF I watched CNN, I’d recall her name, but can only recall her snarky expression/remarks. Some “news” channel.
OH! I just remembered! Soledad O’Brien! O,Brien…a way Latino name!! My memory is that as a “Latina” O’Brien was waived into the Ivy League. What a waste of time/money/academic space. Alas.
There are plenty of unemployed smug and ignorant journalists who are US citizens. Why did this guy get a visa to work here?
He’s depriving some undeserving American of a job. That’s the real scandal.
First off my apologies to the author – I didn’t read anything after the third paragraph. I’m just not interested in reading anything more – or wasting time on – this self-promoting idiot. I’m guessing he’s trying to drum up interest in that quaint little show he has on that fast-fading network called CNN. If Morgan thinks he can draw in viewers by calling ‘guests’ idiots and fools he – and CNN – are sorely missing what viewers tune in for.
Look, Morgan is a prick, he is a shit of a human being and that is why Britain hates him. Britain also agrees with him on Guns. In 1996 a school in scotland was attacked by a gun wielding mentally disturbed person and children were murdered. After that britain banned private hand guns and military weapons, since then there have been no school shootings and the gun crime rate is orders of magnitude lower than the US (over 100 times lower per capita).
It’s about time Morgan did some good and pointed out that societies with liberal gun laws have 100 times more gun violence than societies with restrictive gun laws.
Though if Morgan does get expelled some britons (presumably Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson) will lobby to get the law changed since there is somebody worth shooting. They hate him, but they agree with him.
Hey Gudmunder, what population statistics are you using? There are over 315,000,000 people living in the USA and, last I checked, about 60,000,000 people living in England. That is a five fold increase in numbers and you would have to multiply the British murder rate by 5 in order to try to make a comparison such as the one you cite as being 100 times. Do you not understand what the definition of a “rate” is, or do you multiply the wrong country’s population to get your bogus number. My reckoning is that the murder rate is about four times as high in the USA and that it was about 30 times as high in the USA before any gun control laws went into effect in England. Now four times as high is a bad statistic for the US to have to admit, but I would say the trends are very positive for us. Now go back to your bloody Socialist State and take Piers Morgan with you. CNN demonstrates itself to be a journalistic joke for even hiring that guy.
“the gun crime rate is orders of magnitude lower than the US”
No, it’s not. And it was even lower when anyone in Britain could buy any gun they wanted over the counter, no questions asked.
In the US – population 311.5 million – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 , a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.
In the UK – population 56.1 million – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm
Firearm offences continue to make up a small proportion of overall recorded crime. In 2010/11,
firearms were used in 0.3 per cent of all police recorded offences, or around three in every thousand
offences. This figure falls to under two in every thousand offences when air weapons are excluded.
In 2010/11, firearms were used in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, a decrease of 13
per cent compared with the previous year, when 12,976 offences were recorded. This compares with
an overall decrease of four per cent of all offences recorded by the police over the same period. There
was a 15 per cent fall in air weapon offences and a 13 per cent fall in non-air weapon offences over
the last year
Britain has never had a “gun culture” like that of the United States, but there were about 200,000 legally-registered handguns in Britain before the ban, most owned by sports shooters
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-2003-2012
“Britain has never had a “gun culture” like that of the United States”
If you actually live in Britain, you might want to learn something about your country’s history.
A century ago anyone could buy any gun they wanted over the counter in the UK, anyone with ten shillings to spare could buy a license from the post office to allow them to carry it, and the right to bear arms was considered one of the most important rights of Britons (where do you think the US Constitution got it from?). Suits often came with ‘pistol pockets’ to carry them, and the police, when faced with violent criminals, were often assisted by armed passers by, or loaned guns by them. The government wanted to see a gun in every cottage to protect the country against an invasion from the continent.
Then in 1920, after most members of the ‘gun culture’ had been killed on the muddy fields of France during WWI, the government passed the first gun registration law, because it would reduce gun crime, and assured the law-abiding that it would never affect them. Of course, within days the police were using the law to deny guns to the law-abiding, and by the end of the century gun crime was much higher than it had been when there were no anti-gun laws at all.
Oh, and, last I looked, Americans stabbed each other more often than Britons killed each other in total. Britain is a serious outlier in murder rates and a lousy place to try to use as proof of anything.
I was referring to the gun culture at the time of Dunblane in 1996 which led to the handgun ban.There wasn’t wide ownership and all the country where united about it.
The number was 200,000.
If you want to go back a hundred years that’s fine but it brings nothing of value to the debate.
Also the phrase ‘gun culture’now in the U.K refers to gun use and ownership by criminals.
‘Oh, and, last I looked, Americans stabbed each other more often than Britons killed each other in total.’
I’m not sure what you are trying to say.If it is admitting that by Americans stabbing eachother you are not killing eachother,then that’s the point,you have more chance of surviving then being shot.
These are our murder rates,
549 homicides (includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide) were reported in the year ending September 2012, a considerable drop on the previous year’s total of 607. Homicides are now down to around half of the figure for 2001/2.
Fact’s are facts
He is the best thing to happen to The States in a very long time. I believe he will be responsible for the gun solution that is coming in the country. Machine guns never should have been allowed in any country and I don’t care what someone said 222 years ago. The world has changed. The States thinks their country has a violent history? They’re not the only ones. Look at England, Germany, Cambodia, Russia. All much worse at points in time.
What we need are a bunch of British buffoons telling us how to interpret our Constitution. Try minding your own damned business for a change.
‘What we need are a bunch of British buffoons telling us how to interpret our Constitution.
Then you should be thanking us for Piers Morgan a British buffoon telling you how to interpret your Constitution.
‘Try minding your own damned business for a change.’
You have just made me spit my tea out.American’s financially and politically supported the I.R.A during it’s long terrorist campaign,what business was that of the U.S?
Nobody around here ever gave more than a tinker’s damn about the IRA, but don’t let that stop you from spitting out your tea.
The American government declared the IRA a terrorist group, making it illegal for any US citizen to aid it materially or monetarily. The fact that some did so anyway tends to underscore the idea that criminals do not obey laws.
Jim,yes we know that.You wonder why there is anti-Americanism.The IRA nearly killed Thatcher but managed to kill MP’S ,judges,prison officers,members of the Royal Family.Bombed church services on Remembrance Sunday killing old soldiers,pubs,clubs.military bands,military ceremonial horses i will be here all day ,it doesn’t sound very ‘shoulder to shoulder’ against terrorism does it.
I’ll send your regards to the families of the British soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in support of our ‘closet allie’ that you all don’t give a tinkers damn about.
Miss Anthony,The IRA was taken off the terrorist list to allow fundraising.Even gave visa’s to known I.R.A members against the British governments wishes.
Gave political status for wanted and even escaped convicted terrorist’s.Invited them to the Whitehouse,even named streets after members.
Peter King still supports them,no one seems to care.
The funding didn’t come from criminals,google NORAID.They would claim the money raised was going to maintaining the graves of the dead,support the families of those I.R.A men killed or in prison
I don’t know how anyone can support these action’s
Only a matter of time before someone punches Morgan in the face, hopefully on his own show. That will be the day millions say he had it coming, and if he doesn’t like it go back to the UK.
So it’s ok for a Brit to give their opinion as long as you agree with him.Say Mike McNally who wrote this and other articles,he’s ok,but disagree and he should be punched in the face.
God Bless America.
So it’s ok for a Brit to give their opinion as long as you agree with him.Say Mike McNally who wrote this and other articles,he’s ok,but disagree and he should be punched in the face.
We remain unconvinced that Piers Morgan had nothing to do with phone hacking back at the newspapers where he worked considering the belligerent intrusive manner in which he interviews people today. He’s just as much a pill today as he was then.
Everyone that has worked with him was indicted. He very cheekily made it a point to teach Charlotte Church just how easyily phones are hacked by journalists. I never forgot that video since I first saw it back in November of last year but I had seen it years previous when it was first recorded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNuiClg_Vc