(courtesy twitchy.com)This isn’t the stupidest thing former CNN chat show host Piers Morgan has said on the subject of gun control. But it’s one of the dumbest pro-civilian disarmament pronouncements he’s ever made. Over at twitchy.com, the editors have republished some of the more pointed, pithy replies. Cuffy asks “If EVERYBODY had a unicorn, how many free Skittles would they sh*t?” Lachlan Markey asks . . .

“A math test for you, @piersmorgan: if EVERYBODY were immortal, how many people would die? If NOBODY were immortal, same question. See?”

Yes. Yes we do. We see a statist with utopian dreams promoting a dystopian future. In fact, everybody in America has a natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Nobody has the right to shoot anyone unless that person poses an imminent, credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

That was good enough for America’s founding fathers, who were concerned about the possibility of the same sort of government tyranny they fought to eliminate. It’s good enough for me. You? [h/t DrVino]

Recommended For You

76 Responses to Gun Tweet of the Day: Piers Morgan’s Utopian Math on Guns Edition

  1. If NOBODY had a gun, how many criminals would kill, rape, and steal using other tools?
    If EVERYBODY had a gun, same question.
    See?

    • This is indeed the correct question. Stated another way, “If nobody had a gun, how many people would die violent deaths anyway?” Why he seems to think that violent crime would suddenly cease to exist, despite the evidence to the contrary provided by his homeland, is incomprehensible.

        • he likes fantasy stuff, dragons and knights and stuff. It relates to his other fantasy stuff like gun control and a surveillance state. Me personally, I get my fantasy itch scratched with World of Warships and dreaming about guns I can’t legally own in CA.

      • Maybe the 800% uptick in home invasions and knife murders after the gun ban was too subtle for him to pick up on?..

      • It doesn’t matter; he didn’t die of a gunshot wound. His death was entirely natural and in accordance with cultural norms. Nothing to see here; only Gunzzzzzzz must be focused upon.

    • @JasonM: Exactly. PM asks the question in a way that tries to force the answer that he wants. And many people that are too stupid or too lazy to think about the question will give the answer he wants and expects. Problem is many of those people are voters who already think that guns are evil. So they tend to go along with his ruse. People that actually think about the question will come up with the responses we see on here. Which is really that the GUN is not the problem and often can be the solution to a violent attack by someone else with ANY weapon. But how do we get that message out there and especially to those that tend to side with the PMs of the world ? Like the liberals in Southern Commifornia, New York City, New Jersey and so on.

      • Galtha58: You are asking the right question. “But how do we get that message out there and especially to those that tend to side with the PMs of the world ? Like the liberals in Southern Commifornia, New York City, New Jersey and so on.”

        We have 40 States with Right-to-Carry; my State PA among them. I’m pretty satisfied with my State legislature; but recognize that my Senators and our Representatives are doing not-enough to actually move the ball in Congress. In our own Gun-Rights States we need to expand our numbers beyond the simple majority needed to get State legislation passed; we need to motivate our Federal legislators. (E.g., for National Reciprocity).

        There remain 5 – 10 Won’t-Issue States. As long as they remain Won’t-Issue gun politics in those States can’t change materially. The populations of those States are large and liberal. We can’t change their legislators; neither local nor Federal. However, if a significant MINORITY of their voters became pro-gun it would soften the national opposition to gun-rights. We need to FORCE National Reciprocity on these States; eventually turning them to Shall-Issue. In doing so we will make inroads and build a pro-gun constituency in these States.

        Why do the Progressives win on any issue while we conservatives and libertarians have a hard time attracting attention to our issues? The first insight should be obvious:
        – the Progressives are expert at rallying the uninformed crowds; while
        – we conservatives and libertarians suck at politics. We can’t get our s**it together.

        We refuse to rally-around what are obvious populist issues; instead, we all grind our own personal – and often petty – axes. A good example of this is the FFL BC.

        The account of the late Carol Browne of NJ is heart-wrenching. NJ demonstrates how prior restraint – if carried out long enough – will get you KILLED. In NJ it’s typical to wait 3 months for an FOID and pistol-purchase permit. She had 44 days from when she applied for a permit during which she was motivated to buy a gun and get trained. She was killed 44 days after she applied and long before NJ got her fingerprints back from the FBI.

        There have been several articles appearing in the news reporting Carol Browne’s tragic death at the hands of prior-restraint for a natural right. Why aren’t we making our case around Carol Browne – including the fact that NJ is a Won’t-Issue State?

        The answer is because we are all wrapped-up in our vehement opposition to the FFL BC. We expect the voters to sympathize with us because:
        – 90% of us have to wait 5 – 15 minutes for our NICS check to return.
        – 2% of us have to wait an hour
        – 2% of us have to come back the next day
        – 2% of us have to come back in 2 days
        – 2% of us have to come back in 3 days
        – 2% of us time-out after 3 days.

        Maybe 6% of us miss a day or two at the range! And we have to drive to the LGS a SECOND TIME! Oh, the agony of an extra trip to the gun shop!! As hard as we clutch OUR pearls, we don’t seem to attract any sympathy from the general voters. Of course, in all our self-rightousness, we are absolutely correct. Whether we wait 3 minutes or 3 days it’s prior-restraint on a “fundamental” right. There are so many thousands of us but just one Carol Browne who makes for a picture-perfect “poser child”. So, we cling to our personal complaints and ignore . . . . the one that would get people to focus on our issue.

        Do the Progressives do this? Or, do they pick any poster-child they can find – no matter how undeserving – and make their appeal around that “bloody shirt”?

        I am NOT making a case here in defense of any of the gun-control issues that are thorns-in-our-sides. There is very little that can be said in defense of most of the gun-controls. But a “shotgun” approach to opposing gun-controls is NOT NECESSARILY the politically effective strategy. There are MORE EFFECTIVE strategies out there compared to the ones we concentrate on. IF and WHEN we recognize this fact of political war then we will see our efforts bear fruit at an accelerating pace.

  2. Hey, Pierced Organ: If nobody had a gun, how many people would be hacked to pieces with machetes, stabbed to death with knives, stomped to death, beaten to death with fists, lead pipes and tire irons, or bored to death with your commentaries?

    See?

    • One can see the answer by visiting bestgore dot com
      One particular country stands out with respect to blunty and poky and sharp things….

    • This topic is throughly explored in the book titled “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. The answer is not pretty.

      Reality is that violent behavior has dropped precipitously over the millennia. Seems to have taken a sharp dive right about the time firearms were invented. Who woodda-thunk!

    • Lol Ralph: Do you think he really might have a pierced organ ? 😉 That is a great alias for his name. Maybe he will lay down, flip out his pierced organ and try to make his attacker run away if he is ever in a bad situation. If that does not work he can try peeing on himself for a backup.

    • Better question Ralph:

      Everyone has a firearm at a firing range. How many of those people die because of a gunshot wound that they didn’t inflict themselves? Answer: I can only recall three in the last few years. (And those three would be Chris Kyle, his buddy, and the dumbass trainer that put a full auto firearm in the hands of a 9 year old.)

      So, out of the 100s of thousands of people who are armed at gun ranges over the past few years, one dumbass died because he put a full auto firearm in the hands of a 9 year old girl. And some psycho killed two more. That is it. How many people die each year while downhill skiing? While hiking? While swimming? While boating? While playing basketball? A lot more than three over the past few years.

      Clearly, firearms in-and-of-themselves are nowhere near as dangerous as Piers Morgan would have us believe. Shall we go about banning skis, hiking shoes, swimsuits, boats, and basketballs?

    • It’s the most deadliest tool in the shed… Well maybe not as deadly as a car, or knives, or ice, or oh I don’t know maybe plastic bags? Piers is not great at logic nor is he well versed at verbal fencing. I literally have no idea why anyone would or could take him seriously.

  3. How’s that nobody having a gun working in Tunisia? How about Mexico? Russia? Is it curbing Japan’s suicide rate? Bueller? Bueller? No real correlation there Nigel.

  4. Answer to the first – everyone who resisted such a government.

    Answer to the second – everyone who attempted such a government.

  5. The argument is moot. If this discussion was happening when guns were first invented before sold, then the argument can at least be brought up. Guns have been around for hundreds of years though and there’s hundreds of millions of guns in our country alone. It’s a physical impossibility to have an actual gun free America.
    Because of that, no matter what laws are passed, no matter if guns were confiscated, criminals would still have guns. Law abiding citizens wouldn’t and gun violence would continue with no recourse.

    Such a stupid F’ing argument. Anyone who believes making guns illegal to own in America would stop gun violence is a complete moron.

  6. Hmmm… Here I am, I had always thought the Brits are intelligent people. I guess there are exceptions in every culture!!!!

  7. A ‘math’ test for you, America.
    If NOBODY had legs, how many people would run marathons?
    If EVERYBODY had legs, same question.
    See?

    By using the ‘transitive property,’ I can conclude that 100% of Americans with two legs run marathons!

    The single quotes, applied to Piers’ math, serve an important purpose. If you want a word to ‘sing’ with the sound of bullsh*t, wrap some apostrophes around that b*tch!

  8. Yep, that morgan sure is a sharp one. How about this. if you got all the legal guns from lawful citizens, how many people would have the luxury of defending themselves, you limy bastard?

    • How many tablespoons of gray matter would it take to get rid of the IDEA of a gun. That’s what it’ll take to get rid of guns [TERMS, J.M, Thomas R., 2012]

  9. Question 1 my answer is how many would be killed by other means, and with illegal guns?
    Question 2 After all the crazy’s and criminals are killed of, a lot less then would die under question 1.

  10. Now I’m no math major, but I don’t think he passed entry algebra with that equation.

    Isn’t there a reason he was asked to leave?

  11. If no humans had evil in their hearts no one would die except by accident or natural causes.
    See? It’s stupid and naïve, like you Piers.

  12. Actually, Pierce speaks the truth. For example, if there were no illegal drugs no one would die from illegal drug overdoses. When Pierce gets rid of illegal drugs I’ll be willing to listen further.

  13. “That was good enough for America’s founding fathers, who were concerned about the possibility of the same sort of government tyranny they fought to eliminate. It’s good enough for me. You? [h/t DrVino]”

    The Founding Fathers did not know, could not possibly have known, that their ‘idea’ would work [it was mostly an unlikely prospect, enlarge stemming from a position of desparation]. The Second Amendment was an acknowledgement of that fact, and an acqiesence to those that would come later that, should it not, people would have the means to throw off the bounds and have a vote in what comes next. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms will outlive even the IDEA OF America. And what will expire long before then is any sh_t-asses authority to regulate anything.

    • I agree. And yet, there is something still more fundamental in-play in the Declaration and Constitution.

      The founders’ political thinking finally reached the logical conclusion that sovereignty vested in the People; not in any ruler. Once you invert the pyramid then philosophically, everything changes.

      The English never quite reached the idea that it was constitutional to depose the king by killing him. Power flowed from the top. Initially, the king; and later, from Parliament. Yet, still, from the top.

      So, the English Bill of Rights made provision for a sort-of-a-right for commoners to have arms as allowed by Parliament. What these arms might be used for wasn’t really made clear; perhaps for self-defense or fowling or riding a farm of pests. But this sort-of-a-right would be defined and re-defined from the top by Parliament; only the king was put off-limits.

      Once you vest sovereignty in the People and endow them with inalienable rights as a philosophical precept, then everything changes. Once you conclude that the right-to-arms derives from the right-to-life endowed by God, it becomes unalienable. Then, you conclude that this right-to-arms is not to be infringed by government; i.e., not only is it God-given; it is also a Constitutional civil right. That puts it off-limits.

      Now, it no longer matters what purpose the People choose to put the right-to-arms. Perhaps they will use these arms to overturn tyranny. Alternatively, they might use them to defend their lives. Their purpose might be for mere amusement, such as marksmanship competition or collection of interesting artifacts.

      Even if a plausible argument might be adopted as a consensus that civilization had advanced beyond petty politics and the tyranny purpose had disappeared for all time, the other purposes would remain. Presumably, in such a Utopia, there would be no crime nor threat of terror nor of fauna. The lamb would lay down with the lion. And yet, there might remain just one marksman or one collector. Or yet some other purpose unimaginable to the founders. Even if there were a consensus that God were dead; there would remain a constitutional Civil Right to arms.

      The death of this right could only come at the hand of 38 States. Very likely, the Right to KBA will live as long as the Power of Congress to issue Letters of Marque.

  14. I don’t understand Brits. They come over here to escape (Once) Great Britain, and then try to turn this country into the same kind of hell-hole that they left. Rational thought is not their strong suit.

    Piers Morgan is a stuffed shirt. I understand that even the Brits were glad when he left.

  15. Russia doesn’t have handguns (in theory), but their murder rate is higher than the US. ( kitchen knives. who knew?)

    Jamaica has much stricter gun control – gun permits cost something like $6700 per year. Their murder rate is 10 times that of America.

    • Amazingly, Russia and Mexico are always somehow excluded from the equation when it comes to firearm homicides among industrial, developed nations.

      • That’s because the low-information liberals think of Mexico and Russia (and probably all of eastern Europe) as third-world countries. Classist, much?

  16. Dear Mr Morgan,
    The communist Chinese didn’t need guns to infiltrate the higher echelons of American government, but you already knew that, didn’t you?
    Aint ‘math’ great…

  17. Fallacy of false cause. Guns don’t “cause” violence. Furthermore, Morgan fails to show any relationship at all between deaths caused by guns and death caused by other means when guns are taken away. Morgan also decided that safety is more important than freedom which is not fact, but personal opinion. Morgan’s math only works in a completely controlled vacuum and does not Address the root cause of the violence, the alternatives one would use in lieu of a firearm, the consequences of banning guns, or evidence that reductions of freedom are the best moral decision.

  18. How about this for you, Piersy-boy?

    If NOBODY had a gun, how many women/disabled people/out-of-shape people/etc would be robbed, injured and killed by coordinated groups of thugs after their belongings or persons?

    If EVERYBODY had a gun, how many…

  19. Passing laws will never “make sure nobody has a gun” . What their pipe dream could do is make sure nobody LEGALLY has a gun, and that one word changes things a lot .

  20. isn’t he still wanted on charges for fraudulent newscasting in the UK? He’s a freaking criminal, he used to work for one of those ridelite type newspapers like the Enquirer. Got caught lying and is still wanted to my knowledge on those charges.

  21. Since gun ownership is a Constitutional Right in the USA, question one is invalid and can’t be ascertained.

    Since gun ownership is a Constitutional Right in the USA, question two can be theorized with a projection that when based on historical statistical facts would display even fewer firearm related violent occurrences.

    Who’s to say nearly everyone doesn’t have a firearm?

  22. I thought that NOBODY wants to take all our guns away. That’s what the gun controllers keep telling us.

    • Thank goodness there was only 600,000 killed by machete’s, just think of the carnage if they’d have had firearms.

  23. I’m British and I do not endorse these moronic statements.

    England has a problem with violence and there bend over and take it if your the victim attitude.

    at least here I can make violent douches think twice with my natural civil and constitutionally protected rights.

  24. Piers’ shtick doesn’t carry over to the twitters as well as it does live. There’s just no way the written word can convey the accurate degree of condescension and sanctimonious elitism that seeing his nose held high while lecturing you in the Queen’s English can. Thou art a stupid colonist wretch. See?

  25. If no one had a gun then the murder rate would go up. Instead of a significant number of young strong thugs dying at the hands of an old man or woman (and the deterrent factor of the same), it would be the old and the weak and the outnumbered who died. This country would become like parts of England, only worse with people cowering in fear and self defense outlawed. No sharp knives for you either, and oh no baseball bats like those pathetic people who ordered them from Amazon for defense in those riots a few years back.

    Victimized by thugs and politicians (who come to represent the thugs more and more each year) that is Morgans Utopia, but hey at least no one would get shot.

  26. Do we have to fight ANOTHER revolution? I thought winning the first one meant we didn’t have to listen to these British twits.

  27. How many Americans give a sh!t about Piers Morgan’s opinion?

    How many Americans would give a sh!t about his opinions if he actually KNEW what he’s opining on?

  28. I’d love it if all guns disappeared overnight. The key word is “all of them.”

    Because men of my size and strength would have no trouble in amassing great wealth, harems of hundreds of women, and my throne would sit atop a pile of varnished skulls 100′ high. Sounds like a good time… for me and other men of my ilk.

    Piers wouldn’t fare well in my utopia. He’d be worm chow about 10 minutes after I ran into him, and his demise wouldn’t even get me into the aerobic exercise zone.

    • Genghis Khan- “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

  29. If EVERYBODY had a television, how many would watch Piers Morgan?
    If NOBODY had a television, his ratings would be the same.
    See?

  30. Mr. Farago, Please don’t post any more articles about Piers Morgan, he is not news worthy and is no longer relative.

  31. Big talk for a man who is despised by his home country and got made to be a little bitch when Jeremy Clarkson punched his stupid face in.

  32. What an a-hole. I guess he has never read any history or seen any historical dramas.
    The invention of the firearm brought about a more civil society. The concealable firearm forced government to be more civil because they could no longer rely on being the only ones with power.
    Firearms prevent the tyranny of the physically strong as well.
    The UK created all sorts of new ways to not report the massive increase in violent crime after disarming the people.
    Mass murders are counted as a single murder but even then, only when the murderer is convicted. If the murderer is miraculously killed by the police of offs himself, the victims are not counted as murder victims.
    I suspect they treat all violent crime this way. Given that the typical clearance rate for homicide in US cities is <<40%, it is easy to assume that the UK murder rate is at least 2X the reported rate.
    With no guns at all, the violent crime rate and corruption rate would skyrocket back to pre-civilized society rates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *