I think this interview is well worth watching. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a talking head insult anyone in quite the same way as Piers Morgan insulted Larry Pratt in this debate/interview; I just had to cheer him on. This is an extremely serious issue that many of us are quite passionate about.
We can’t just let this battle lie this time. Something needs to be done. I hope Americans are not going to sit back and not react while we continue to lose our rights to an education, recreational pursuits, shopping, and normal living activities because someone wants to have access to an AK-47. How did the criminals get the upper hand in this country? How are we allowing such a thing?
The gun murder rate in America is off the charts. When little children are being murdered in their very classrooms — innocent babies who are required by law to go to school, but are not safe there, we have to act! This just cannot continue. President Obama must reinstate the ban on assault weapons and create a more secure environment at every school entrance with metal detectors and ID check. And at the very least, we need metal detectors and security where people are congregating to enjoy themselves. The state of this country has changed, and we have to change along with it.
life of a female bible warrior 
merry christmas warrioress
By: zendictive on December 19, 2012
at 9:57 am
Although I largely agree with Piers Morgan here, he doesn’t properly rebut Pratt’s arguments, but resorts to ad hominen attacks instead. There is nothing cheer-worthy about calling someone a stupid man. Attack the argument, not the person.
Pratt’s claims need to be properly investigated and rebutted: he claims that areas in which guns are allowed have crime rates lower than in countries with strict gun control laws. This is undoubtedly utter crap, but it should be rebutted with the proper evidence, not by calling Pratt a stupid man.
By: Keith on December 19, 2012
at 10:10 am
This school as do many around the country had security at the top of their list. Doors were locked and people had to buzz in to be accepted in the building. He used the gun and blew the lock open and went in … I’m sure any gun could have done this .. the only thing that would have saved this school and the people inside would have been an armed guard at the door .. and he could have been shot from a distance and that would not even helped. New laws may make people feel more secure but in reality if a person wants a gun they will get it. The mistake here was the mother introducing her troubled son to guns and she paid for it with her life.
By: hpylady on December 19, 2012
at 2:48 pm
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.” Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland’s murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study’s authors write in the report:
If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that “gun don’t kill people, people do” – the study also shows that Russia’s murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation’s capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn’t already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.
Adrienne – the above study did happen. That being said, I agree assault weapons should be banned and certain automatic weapons. However, I am a gun owner and do have a license to carry a handgun. There is no reason for anyone to attack innocent people with a gun or a knife for that fact, however it does happen everyday somewhere in this country.
In our deflated economy what is the first things that get cut? Schools and police support. It is no wonder crime and murder is up. I expect it is going to get worse before it gets better. Ann and I both have concealed handgun licenses to protect ourselves and property. We both carry guns and are responsible about it. We both went through a complete federal background check, as does everybody who get a Texas handgun license does. I personally would like to see more licensed responsible citizens around me.
Like you, I want our children protected from sick people like the guy in Newtown. I would also like to see a faster response from the police department – why did it take ten minutes for the police to get there? The city only has 2000 people in it so it can’t be that big.
I wish you and your daughter a Merry Christmas.
Ed
By: efchristi on December 19, 2012
at 4:31 pm
Firearms are a double edge sword. They can protect, but they can also do a lot of harm. With regards to Piers Morgan, I have to agree with Keith, calling people stupid because you don’t agree with their opinion is not the answer. I think in this case, the mother of this young man should have known better than to have firearms in her home if she knew her son was unstable, but then again I suppose he could have gotten them from anywhere. But deeper than all of these issues there is one thing that stands clear and that is the lack of God in the lives of these young men and that is the root of the problem.
By: Diana (@AFragileClayJar) on December 19, 2012
at 7:21 pm
Keith, you are correct in that Piers did ad hom old Pratt — it’s true. No, we shouldn’t cheer him on, I suppose. Thank you for the rebuke, because you’re right that it is no way to debate; still, Pratt *was* being ridiculous and I don’t like his pov and disagree with it heartily — however….
Ed, you are also correct, (I hate when that happens 😉 )
My dear HpyLady, Pat), I was wondering how the killer got in the school; I hadn’t heard that yet.
Diana, I certainly do agree with you that these men need God in their lives more than anything we can do to the laws; still I would like to see these weapons banned, nevertheless.
I believe I’ve been posting in anger at the deaths of these poor little kids, and my own fears for my young teen daughter in a school which seems to be quite similar to the Conn. school — insecure and not safe.
Kayode Crown’s most recent post has got me thinking. I’ve reblogged it if you all care to have a look; it’s after this one.
Thanks for all of your comments and may God bless each one of you this Christmas. He is a wonderful God isn’t He? Love to all of you..
Adrienne
By: the warrioress on December 20, 2012
at 3:17 am
I kind of agree with Pratt. He argues his point with integrity here. Morgan seems to be in a rage and just attacks Pratt’s character.
I’m not for more guns or less. I’m for Chris Rock’s solution make bullets Extremely more expensive. Bullet control.
By: sacredstruggler on December 20, 2012
at 1:16 pm
Take the guns away from law abiding citizens and they still end up in the hand of criminals. You’re very naive to think banning them will stop the shootings. Ban knives and cars too…they kill people everyday. If they school gaurd and the teachers had concealed carry they could’ve easily stopped that kid before her was able to kill those poor kids.
By: 77x7 on January 2, 2013
at 10:30 pm