Dave Kopel on Piers Morgan

Unfortunately, the clip doesn’t have much of Dave Kopel in it, but here’s some from the transcript. He goes below the belt on Morgan, which is richly deserved:

KOPEL: Well, of course it doesn’t mean what you just said. But we — I think Americans look at the experience of England where we — you went from a country with zero gun control laws in the early 20th century to now something that’s acknowledged as having the most severe gun laws in the western world.
And in that period, you went from a very, very low crime area to a place where the crime rate really went up by 50 times and now according to a joint study by the U.S. Department of Justice and the British Home Office, the UK has a higher violent crime rate, significantly, than the U.S.
MORGAN: Yes, but let jump in —
KOPEL: According to the United Nations —
MORGAN: Hang on, hang on, hang on.
KOPEL: — Scotland is the most violent country in the industrial world.
MORGAN: You used this — you used this with me last time.
KOPEL: You have more violence because you have no self-defense.
MORGAN: You used this with me last time. It’s completely untrue. The reality about the British gun situation is actually, particularly because of the new handgun rules brought in the mid-’90s after the Dunblane atrocity. In fact, gun crime and murders from guns are on a rapid decline throughout Britain. And, you know, I think —
KOPEL: We’re talking about total crime.
MORGAN: Wait a minute.
KOPEL: Totally destroyed our —
MORGAN: You also throw at me — you also throw at me Norway, and said, look, it even happens in Norway.
KOPEL: No, you’re confusing me with John (INAUDIBLE).
MORGAN: The reality about Norway is, Norway had a massacre. Most countries at some stage have a crazy person who commits an atrocity. But Norway in an average year, the last audited figures, I think, from 2005, it had five killings from guns. America last year, what, 11,000, 12,000? There is a massive difference here.
KOPEL: Well, Dan, I think, made a point that other countries with no guns have higher homicide rates than the United States. But the point is, you think — you’re fixated on guns. In America, we look at the harms of guns like them being on the wrong hands and also the benefits like crime deterrents.
The reason that Britain has a much higher burglary rate than the United States and the most British burglaries take place when the families are home is because Britain has outlawed self-defense with a firearm. Studies of American —
DERSHOWITZ: That is ridiculous.

Here’s the clip from CNN:

29 thoughts on “Dave Kopel on Piers Morgan”

  1. Obama must be wishing right now that all of this happened *after* the election!

  2. Goes to show, again, gun control advocates have no interest in saving lives. No matter how many people died, as long as it wasn’t due to guns, then it’s a peaceful loving nation. If a million lives were saved by guns but lost a dozen to mad men with guns, then it’s blood on the street.

    Ps. Had they apologize for fast and furious yet or it’s not gun crime as long as it was done by Obama.

    Oh my bad, Obama was never against guns because he never passed any law regarding them.

  3. You didn’t even highlight the best part! Alan Dershowitz made the car argument for us!

    “Very few people who speed 90 mph, kill people. Yet, most people who kill people while driving are speeding or drunk…”

    The hypocrites do not tend to realize, their supposedly “logical” analogies are so great, we’ve already made them and related them to enumerated, Constitutional rights.

  4. Piers Morgan is a citizen of England. Does it tick anyone else off that a foreign citizen comes to the US to work in journalism and then advocates for political positions (on sensitive issues) within OUR system of representative government … even while HE himself cannot vote and is not represented?

    If Piers Morgan wants to diminish the second amendment rights of US citizens, he can go the fuck back to England.

    1. Yes, it really does bother me that some Mary Poppins mother fucker from England keeps flapping his gums about A
      firearms policy in America. And it really goes up their ass sideways that we can own handguns and semi-auto rifles – I just can’t understand their fixation on OUR rights, as if it somehow affects them over there. Read the comments section on any British news story about shootings in America – they are absolutely beside themselves with shock and disbelief at our gun laws. I just can’t understand why they are so emotionally attached to a subject that doesn’t concern them in any way.

      I really wish these smug Harry Potter Brits would just keep their stupid pie holes shut and mind their own business.

    2. Not in principle; I doubt the US has the right answers to everything. In this case, though, he’s part of the “liberal” (as it’s defined over here) hive mind and not contributing to the discussion, especially when he lies about the facts in his homeland that destroy his position.

    1. Your perception of our arguments is incorrect. I invite you to stay, disagree where you would like, but all I ask is that you take our arguments seriously, and not merely dismiss them. You’re believing a number of stereotypes about gun owners that are both condescending, and entirely untrue.

      1. My “perception”? Its not a perception. Ive listed 10 common arguments or claims and shown LOGICALLY why they are false, misleading etc. Logic is MATH and math is absolute

        ..and the majority of sterotyping and vehemence comes from the Gun Lobby side.

        I invite YOU to choose ONE of the gun lobby sayings Ive listed or pick one of your own to argue it.

        1. Sorry, trash-talking little punk. What you’re doing isn’t logic. I won’t provide traffic to your 20 percenter site, but if your response to Mike is any indication, you have a lot to learn. We have already stated, many times, the answer to your questions.

          Also, when you capitalize as much as you do, it seems like you’re–to borrow a phrase from your side–overcompensating. If your point is worth making, it can be made in lower case.

          Finally, we don’t spell “you” with one letter here. This isn’t Twitter and it isn’t the 2 Live Crew fan club. The fact that you do illustrates your general level of maturity. I suspect that you think you are the “wave of the future” because (1) your buddies at Daily Kos all agree with you; and (2) because so far, you haven’t had your head bounced hard off the pavement by the owner of one of the cars you keyed. Hopefully that will change this election cycle.

        2. Oh, yeah, one other thing; I don’t think anyone here is from the gun lobby, aka the NSSF. You may be confusing the gun lobby with the NRA aka the gun owners’ lobby.

    2. I didn’t even get past the first item:

      10) “Guns dont kill people, people do”
      Uh huh. But people couldn’t do it without guns. A guy doesn’t walk into a movie theatre with his bare hands, knife or even an axe and get away with 12 deaths and 58 people badly injured in under 3 minutes (especially not in Aurora, CO with military service men in the audience).


      Those took me about 5 seconds to find online. Note that both mass-killings took place where guns are heavily restricted.

      To look at the effectiveness of gun control at preventing mass-shootings, we can look at Europe. The recent Norway example is one, and 3 of the worst school shootings happened in the last 10 years – in Germany, which also has very strict gun control laws. And we can look at Britain’s increased gun crime rate after their complete handgun ban to show how effective that strategy is.

      “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
      ― Milton Friedman

  5. This ones for Mike:
    This link u listed is a guy who did his OWN “scientific” study.
    Even if his study was to be considered facts his conclusion is the following:

    “given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?”

    His ENTIRE point and conlusion of all the great research he did is translated as this:


    I say great! Fine! Now please answer my questions:


    1. Any citizen that can be trusted in public without supervision of a custodian to distinguish right from wrong should be allowed to carry his or her own firearm(s) for personal defense should a deadly force situation arise.

    2. I can’t speak for the author, but I’ll give my own reponses:

      A: Any responsible law-abiding citizen who has a desire to protect themselves and their loved ones. This group already overlaps the group of people who choose to legally carry a firearm.

      Q: WHAT TOOLS?
      A: The perfect tool for self-defense, which is a concealable handgun.

      Now please answer my questions:


      I’d be interested to see your own analysis of the same data, or any data set that is objectively selected, if you think his data set isn’t objectively selected.

  6. In addition:
    What about all the other gun violence in the USA? considering his study is only about “rampages” and the USA is already the worlds most HEAVILY ARMED CIVILIAN POPULATION and one of the HIGHEST IN GUN VIOLENCE by anybodys figures.

    1. Almost all of the “gun violence”, other than rampage shootings, is ghetto gang-bangers shooting other ghetto gang-bangers. That doesn’t really count as far as I’m concerned. :)

      1. Law abiding people use guns to defend themselves against killers and crooks who will never obey any gun law, no matter how strict. Gun banners must be willing to look all the following people in the eye and say “In the name of public safety, we’d all be better off if you’d had no gun that day”:

        Armed Homeowner Kills Suspected Burglar CBS13 Nov. 8, 2008. http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=21380

        “WWII Vet Shoots Armed Intruder” http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/world-war-ii-veteran-jack-goodwin-shoots-burglar-15498122 #armedcitizen

        “Woman Shoots Thief, Sacramento Police Say,” Sacramento Bee Dec. 4, 2008 http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2008/12/woman-shoots-th.html

        “Intruder shot in Citrus Heights Home,” Sacramento Bee Feb. 28, 2011

        Rancho Cordova resident shoots would-be burglar, Sacramento Bee

        “Armed 65 year old woman stops two armed robbers in Garden Grove.”

        Liberal Rush to Buy Guns. “People rush to gun stores during LA Riots” USA Today reported about during the LA riots “lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they’d never need.” Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.

        Concealed Carry Owner Stops Random Stabbings. A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store. http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx


      1. Because You Own a Fire Extinguisher. Bad things happen. You can still call 911, but when seconds count, you need to act quickly to save your life and the life of those you love.

      2. Because Shooting Is An Olympic Sport. Shooting is an Olympic sport and the United States holds more gold medals than any other nation.

      3. Because Most Americans Own Guns. You’ll be in good company as a gun owner; nearly fifty percent of households in the U.S. own a firearm.

      4. Because You Respect The U.S. Constitution. Sometimes you won’t like it when people exercise fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech. But that simply doesn’t matter: The Supreme Court ruled that every person has a constitutional right to own guns. So respecting the Constitution means respecting the right of others to exercise those constitutional rights.

      5. Because You Are More Likely to Die By Falling. There were 613 fatal firearms accidents in 2007, one-half of one percent of all fatal accidents. You’re more likely to die by driving, poisoning, drowning or falling than by a gun accident.

      6. Because Guns Stop Burglars. Last year, the CDC estimated that Americans used guns about 498,000 times to frighten away intruders attempting to break into homes.

      7. Because Gun Bans Increase Murder Rates. After D.C. banned handguns in 1984, the average murder rate jumped 73 percent while the U.S. murder rate fell 11 percent.

      8. Because Guns Don’t Cause Murder. A New York Times study of 1,662 murders in the city found that 90 percent of the killers had criminal records. Murderers are not ordinary, law abiding adults. Instead, virtually all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, and substance abuse.

      9. Because Gun Owners Win Political Battles. Gun rights groups have donated $22 million in political campaigns over the last decade, while gun control groups gave $1.8 million.

      10. Because Ignorance is Dangerous. At current homicide rates, 1 in 240 Americans will be murdered this year. You need to know how to operate a tool that will immediately stop a threat and save your life and the life of those in your household.

      11. Because Guns Don’t Make Countries More Dangerous. Switzerland has one of the world’s highest gun ownership rates and also one of the lowest homicide rates. In contrast, the countries with the world’s worst homicide rates—South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan—also prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Compare the 20 per 100,000 homicide rate in Russia, which bans guns, with the 2 per 100,000 rate in neighboring Poland. Compare gun-free Luxembourg’s 9 per 100,000 murder rate with Germany and France with rates of 0.93 and 1.65.

      12. Because Gun Control Laws Don’t Increase Safety. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences failed to identify even one gun control measure that had a statistically significant reduction in violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The Center for Disease Control reached the same conclusion in 2003.

  7. The US is far from the most violent country. This is simply not true. For instance, Russia has a much higher violent crime and murder rate despite strict gun control. There’s a post here if you search on “Guns Murder Internationally” which took the wealthy countries and tried to correlate with civilian gun ownership. It didn’t correlate.

    1. Mexico has strict gun control too. I’ve heard they have a bit of violent crime too. Eric Holder’s Justice Department forcing gun shops to sell guns to known straw purchasers who then brought the guns into Mexico may have contributed somewhat.

      1. Mexico also has very strict border control. Though it’s only enforced on their southern border.

        Yet they have the audacity to call us inhuman racists when we try to keep trash out of the street.

        Obama would do well there. El Hypocrite Presidente.

    2. Exactly. Switzerland has one of the world’s highest gun ownership rates and also one of the lowest homicide rates. In contrast, the countries with the world’s worst homicide rates—South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan—also prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Compare the 20 per 100,000 homicide rate in Russia, which bans guns, with the 2 per 100,000 rate in neighboring Poland. Compare gun-free Luxembourg’s 9 per 100,000 murder rate with Germany and France with rates of 0.93 and 1.65.

  8. Why I don’t watch any of these political yelling shows. Somebody starts to make a valid point and gets shouted down.

  9. We kicked the bloody British off our shores twice and crossed the Atlantic twice to save their sorry asses, in all four instances we, Americans, used guns to be victorious. Go figure. Morgan should go back to bloody Britain and hide in a corner somewhere with his head hung in shame.

Comments are closed.