Home / television
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts

Probably the weirdest interview that I have ever had

I have been interviewed by Howard Stern, and I thought that was pretty strange.  This interview was even more bizarre.  Mediaite has the entire 16 minute video available here.  How does Mediaite describe the interview:

Morgan kept grilling Lott over his premise that gun control will not help stem violence, and that having more guns out there will lead to less crime. Lott tried to rebut the points Dershowitz and Morgan were making, but Morgan repeatedly interrupted him to get Lott to answer his questions and telling Lott that he was spouting “nonsense.”
Lott tried to explain the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons to Morgan, while Morgan and Dershowitz argued that civilians should not be allowed access to guns with that speed and ammo capacity. Another point Lott tried to make during the interview was that while England has less gun deaths per year than the United States, they had much less before they implemented gun control. . . .
You can see what Piers' own viewers thought of the interview right here.  Their discussion of the interview is quite interesting.  Dershowitz's comments are reported to some degree at CNN available here.  It also has more viewers' thoughts on the interview.

Some notes on Colorado Shooting

Several important points
4 months of planning make it very difficult to stop this type of attack.
Gun-free zone yet again.
10 minutes between when attack starts and when police are able to arrive at the crime scene. Attack was already over when police arrived.
60 explosive devices in his apartment (30 homemade grenades) -- what would this guy have been able to do without any guns.
Side points
Large magazines like that in this shooting often jam -- large magazines require very strong springs, but over time the pressure from the bullets being held in the magazine cause the metal in the spring to suffer fatigue. When the spring loses its ability to push bullets into the chamber properly you get jams.
I have seen several concerns that if citizens had been allowed to carry permitted concealed handguns into the theater, there would be more casualties from the crossfire. There is one problem with this claim. Despite all the defensive gun uses that have stopped multiple victim public shootings, this possible scenario has never occurred.
Slightly longer discussion
As I have already noted, this horrible tragedy occurred in yet another gun-free zone. Don Kates notes: "it turns out that Century 16 Theaters no-gun policy also applies to its own security personnel, including the off-duty policy officer on the premises."
On Fox News at 5:34 PM EDT, the Aurora police chief said that the killer had been receiving "a high volume of deliveries at work and home over the past four months".
CBS notes that the attack erupted at 12:30 AM. Reuters has this timeline:
* Local police began receiving emergency calls at 12:39 a.m. Within a minute, hundreds of 911 calls had been placed. * Police arrived at the scene at 12:40 a.m. (0640 GMT) The suspect, Holmes, was taken into custody in the parking lot near the back door of the theater.
Police arrived very quickly once they called, but it appears that nine minutes elapsed between when the attack started and they were notified.
From a June 2010 piece entitled: Think Tough Gun Laws Keep Europeans Safe? Think Again...
It wasn't supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: "Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy." . . .
Take a simple example. Suppose your family is being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming them. Would you feel safer putting up a sign in front of your home with the message: "This Home is a Gun-Free Zone"? Probably not. The sign would only tell criminals that they would meet little resistance if they attacked. But in effect, we have put these signs on everything from schools to a couple of cities.

I meant to bring up Edinboro, PA as an example of a school shooting that had been stopped by a citizen with a gun.
Immediate calls went out for gun control.
The Hill Newspaper: "Gun control calls follow Colorado theater shootings, but few expect major changes"
Fox News: "Mass shooting prompts calls from Capitol Hill and beyond for tighter gun laws"
"We don't want sympathy. We want action," Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as Obama and Romney mourned the dead. "Everyone is scared of the NRA," [Ed Rendell] said on MSNBC. "Number one, there are some things worth losing for in politics and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for." . . .
The Guardian Newspaper in the UK -- Guns in America: beyond control: America has had more than its share of deadly shootings, but there is scant hope of a change to gun laws Of course, this claim is patently false.
As noted earlier, there are all sorts of calls for more gun control on twitter.
Editorials and op-eds are already calling for bans and registration. The Economist Magazine has this piece.

Discussing Stand Your Ground Laws on MSNBC this morning



Update:  Media Matters has gotten upset with the media for the third time in eight days because of coverage that I have received.  It appeared to me that Chuck Todd was alluding to Media Matters' attacks when he introduced me on the show, and I appreciate him having me on despite the fact that he must have known that they would attack his show also.

Interestingly, I have already dealt with many of the comments in this newest comment from Media Matters in my previous posts (here and here), but just as Media Matters won't allow me to put up responses on their website in the comment sections, they won't acknowledge my responses to their claims that I post on my website.  It is interested to see how fearful Media Matters is of letting their audience know that there are responses to their claims.

In any case, let's take the new claim that they made after my appearance.

Even more astonishingly, Lott then claimed that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin's death.
What I will say is that no matter whose story is right, the Stand Your Ground law isn't relevant to the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. If George Zimmerman is right and the wounds on the back of his head that he was on the ground, Trayvon Martin was on top of him beating him, there was no place for him to retreat. And so the old defense, even if you had the rule that you have to retreat as far as possible, he still would have been able to act in self-defense there. And if the other side is right that somehow George Zimmerman provoked the attack, attacked Martin to begin with, then he wouldn't be able to rely on the Stand Your Ground law to protect him in that case either.
Lott is really burying his head in the sand on this one. The Sanford Police Department cited the "Stand Your Ground" law as the reason that Zimmerman was not initially arrested. Before he became George Zimmerman's lawyer, attorney Mark O'Mara appeared on a Florida local news program and suggested that Zimmerman's actions may have been legally excusable under "Stand Your Ground." Controversy surrounding the law has even led Republican governor Rick Scott to convene a taskforce to address concerns related to the 2005 legislation.
Lott is correct that Zimmerman may unsuccessfully assert "Stand Your Ground" at trial. Or it is possible that Zimmerman will not use the defense at all. Or that he will use it and prevail. Only time will tell. But to claim that "Kill At Will" has not been "relevant" to the Trayvon Martin controversy is an act of willful blindness that serves to draw attention away from the legitimate debate surrounding the self-defense law.
Building on this point, Lott then claims that "the Stand Your Ground law doesn't allow you to provoke an attack, doesn't allow you to throw the first punch, it doesn't allow you to go and shoot someone in the back. You have to pass this reasonable person test that you're in direct threat, serious injury or death was going to occur." By suggesting that all shooters claiming immunity under "Stand Your Ground" face a thorough review into their actions, Lott is ignoring the fact that some of these shootings, even those that occur under dubious circumstances, are resolved without the shooter ever having to face a jury of his peers.
The quote that Media Matters reports from the interview gets most of my point across.  What Media Matters doesn't understand is that the Stand Your Ground law covers self-defense of all types and what I was referring to was what had changed in the Stand Your Ground law relative to what was in the original law that required retreat when possible.  The point is clear that the Stand Your Ground law added nothing new that allowed Zimmerman to claim self-defense that he couldn't already claim under the old law.  Yet, instead of dealing with the logic of this point, Media Matters just asserts its point.
"More Guns, Less Crime? Author Makes Case In Fresno"

"More Guns, Less Crime? Author Makes Case In Fresno"

The crowd was well over 125 people (I stopped counting at 125 and I hadn't gotten to a lot of the audience).  Some news coverage of my talk in Fresno:

Posted: Apr 19, 2012 11:31 PM PDTUpdated: Apr 19, 2012 11:31 PM PDTBy Monty Torres - emailFRESNO, Calif. (KMPH) -
     More guns less crime?
     The author of a controversial book by that title laid out his findings in Fresno Thursday.
     John Lott spoke before a sizable crowd at Fresno State, Thursday.
     In researching his book, "More Guns Less Crime," Lott says he analyzed crime data for every county in the United States between 1977 and 2005.
     What he found, he says, is that gun bans don't work, but gun ownership does.
     "Can they name one place in the world where we've had a gun ban and murder rates have gone down?  I can't find such a place.  Every place that's had a gun ban has seen murder rates go up at least some and most quite a bit.
     Lott also says American burglars spend twice as long as British burglars casing a house before breaking in because, they say, they're afraid of getting shot. . . .

"Gang of Six Not Ready For Prime Time?"




Appearance on Fox News Live to discuss Operation Fast and Furious




Appearance on Canada's Sun TV "The Source with Ezra Levant"

You watch the interview here.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)