Yes, I know. This guy just won’t go away. But I guess in order for Piers Morgan to stay relevant he has to make outrageous comments like the tweet he made after the Fort Hood shooting on Wednesday.
The tweet really shows how irrational his argument is and how ignorant of the facts he is as well.
‘If only there’d been a good guy with a gun…’ – such crap. This #FortHood soldier/shooter WAS a good guy. Until he turned bad, with a gun.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 3, 2014
Ok, first of all, does Morgan realize that when the gunman began shooting there was NO good guy with a gun to stop him? Does he realize how long it took for the military police to show up and put an end to the rampage?
Would he have rather had the military police NOT show up at all since they came carrying guns, which is the problem in all of this, right? You can’t say “Oh guns are the problem, guns are the problem” and then commend the guys with guns who stopped the shooter.
The problem in this argument is that it takes the responsibility away from the person pulling the trigger and blames the tool, the same tool that Morgan wants banned from the every law abiding citizen in America, and he is not ashamed to admit that.
The problem was that there was NOT a good guy with a gun to stop the shooter because of a 1993 gun ban signed by Bill Clinton which disarmed our military on their own bases. His tweet really makes the argument for us. And even a survivor of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings who was shot 7 times in that case came out and said that more guns on base would solve the problem not less guns. You can see that video here.
The second part of Morgan’s tweet says that the shooter was a good guy with a gun who turned bad. This argument is used in every mass shooting when an anti-gunner wants to ban all guns. They say that we never know who will turn bad next so we have to just take guns away from every American who is not in the military.
After every mass shooting you will hear news reports that the shooter seemed normal, stable, and no one expected anything like this. But this just strengthens the argument for less restrictions on concealed carry laws. Why let innocent people be disarmed in active shooter situations when we can never prevent every single mad man from carrying out an attack.
But again, in order to believe this argument it requires a complete avoidance of the facts. This man had a “medical history that indicates an unstable psychiatric or psychological condition” according to one Lt. General as quoted below as well. In essence you can say that anyone who would carry out an act like this has some medical issues, but this man had a clear medical history that officials are saying led to the attack.
If the shooter did not have any mental issues he would not have carried out these shootings. Even Morgan would agree on that. But why does he insist on blaming the gun even though tens of millions of American who own guns shoot NO ONE every single day? Because it fits his agenda to see Americans disarmed of their 2nd amendment rights.
According to CNN, psychiatric issues were the fundamental underlying cause:
A day after a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, left three soldiers dead and 16 wounded, a key question looms over the investigation: Why?
Authorities are still piecing together the answer, but seem to be homing in on at least one thing that might have made Spc. Ivan Lopez pull the trigger.
“We have very strong evidence that he had a medical history that indicates an unstable psychiatric or psychological condition. (We’re) going through all records to ensure that is, in fact, is correct. But we believe that to be the fundamental underlying causal factor,” Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, the post’s commanding general, told reporters Thursday.
The incident began Wednesday at about 4 p.m., when Lopez, 34, went from one building at the sprawling Texas military base to a second, firing his .45-caliber handgun.