Monday, February 11, 2013

Anderson Cooper Townhall - Guns Under Fire


Published on Feb 1, 2013
Anderson Cooper Townhall debate, George Washington University, Washington DC, Jan 31, 2013

Guests with a wide range of opinions were invited to share their perspectives when Anderson Cooper convened a town hall in Washington to discuss the current and future state of gun laws in America.
Judging by the audience reaction at George Washington University, the conversation was impassioned but respectful. Although there were disagreements, everyone benefited from hearing both sides and getting to the crux of the issues.
The topics included personal safety, mental health, the culture of violence, politics, background checks, banning certain types of guns, second amendment rights, and much more. The program was enriched by the activists and experts, and also by people who told their personal stories.
The next day Anderson, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Jeffrey Toobin and producer Jack Gray met again via Google+ Hangout to answer your questions and address the points you made on social media.

Anderson Cooper Q & A after "Guns under fire" town hall
(4 people)
Anderson Cooper 360's profile photo
Sanjay Gupta's profile photoJack Gray's profile photoJeffrey Toobin's profile photo

Dale StantonFeb 2, 2013

How many murders happen at gun ranges?
How many people shoot other people at gun ranges?
How many gun crimes happen at gun ranges?
If guns and gun ownership are the problem, it must be rampant.
Gun possession is legal at gun ranges.
Cowards bent on killing attack those who can't resist. Doesn't matter if it's schools, theatres or churches. It's a fact of criminal life.

Criminals prey on those who (they think) can't defend themselves. They don't pick their victims by emotion. They use facts. Neither should their crimes be countered with emotion, rather with facts. It will only make it worse - as has been proven over the years. Making people helpless targets has never worked and never will. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity.

Ernest SzotsFeb 2, 2013 (edited)

Sure, while you and your friend Piers Morgan tout the lowered gun deaths, you do everything to avoid the fact that other violent crimes go up tremendously. Just like in Chicago, where they have some of the strictest gun laws and worst crime rates. Unlike places like Arizona, less gun laws, less crime. You talk about facts? Those are them. You, +Peter van der Linden, keep framing the argument as some hyper paranoid protection from tyranny issue because it's more favorable to you. Then have the nerve to project that onto Dale. Of course, these facts and the reports almost daily of good people defending themselves with guns from thugs are annoying little truths so you parade around using emotion, projection and deflection to make your argument. At this point I'm not even sure your not just a troll having a good time. A real argument on gun control is a lost cause when you look at the facts but your attempt is pathetic beyond words. I've destroyed your house of cards at every turn and all you do is come back with some more idiocy. This is why they say never argue with a fool. 

Sean CorradoFeb 2, 2013
+Peter van der Linden The argument that "reducing guns reduces gun violence" is an irrelevant conclusion. The argument should be: "Will reducing guns reduce violence (by gun or other means)?" Would reducing guns reduce murder (by guns or other means)? Also, would the tradeoff in reducing individual liberties be worth the result? What if the results were minimal. A pretty good video regarding crime statistics can be found on YouTube's Amidst the Noise channel (see "Choose Your Own Crime Stats"). It would seem that England/Wales has 3.5 times the violent crime rate than the U.S. but the U.S. has 3.5 times more murders than  England/Wales for that same period. Approximately 68% of all murders in 2011 were caused by a firearm of some sort. So, we could make the claim that if all guns were banned, we would have only had a murder rate of 1.5/100,000 (pretty comparable to England/Wales rate of 1.3/100,000). This would be faulty logic. I am pre-supposing that all the murders in England/Wales were committed without the use of firearms. Plus, that is also falling under the assumption that if guns were banned (let's say they didn't exist AT ALL), would that still reduce the U.S.'s murder rate to 1.5/100,000? I doubt it. Additionally, there are far more factors that affect the murder rate than just the availability of guns. Why, for example has the violent crime rate steadily dropped from 2001 to 2011 years while gun ownership during that same time has remained fairly constant, peaking at 50% in 1991 and bottoming at 40% in 1997 according to Gallup polling (

No comments:

Post a Comment