Piers Morgan show getting canceled
- Thread starter coldbeer
- Start date
- Status
My relatives don't compete, same as most people there. In order to have a shotgun, they have to have it registered and a place to shoot it. I'm talking about England, not all UK. Your explanations tend to make one believe that all of the UK can have all the stuff you're talking about, but then you retract and caveat just N. Ireland. What, exactly, in England (not Scotland, Whales, N.Ireland, Isle of Man, etc..) does someone need to do to have a firearm (conventional, not black powder.. AK47 for example) in the home? I know it's not as easy as you make it out to be.
The only difference in the firearms laws in the England Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland is that in N Ireland handguns can be owned for target shooting and self defence, Handguns can also be owned in the Isle of Man. And as I said in all the UK WW1 and WW2, M/4-S and AK-S single shot only, can be owned for target shooting. You do need a firearms certificate.
Apply for a firearms certificate. You can't just go hunting on private land without permission , so the police will want to know where you are going to shoot it. You would be using the AK 47 for target shooting so you would need a range to shoot it at. It is obviously more difficult to get a firearm in the UK than America. You will find that Piers Morgan, probably doesn't know the firearms laws in the UK.
Last edited:
Manta I will run your response through my relative filter, and compare knowledge. I don't know anyone in England with an AK47 (or any operational gun) for target shooting, perhaps because it is about as hard to get all the permissions and cut through all the bureaucracy as it would be in any "may issue" license state here in the USA. I do know a fellow in Derby that does a lot of black powder shooting, and has many authentic antique firearms (for which I covet 
). If Piers goes back to the UK, I think someone needs to take him to a range and let him shoot. Most people turn 180 degrees when they see what it's all about. He's just a city kid (an annoying one), and doesn't know any better.
). If Piers goes back to the UK, I think someone needs to take him to a range and let him shoot. Most people turn 180 degrees when they see what it's all about. He's just a city kid (an annoying one), and doesn't know any better.
.I do not think its off topic, as we are talking about Piers Morgan. What annoyed most Americans was him preaching gun control to them. He was comparing American firearms laws with UK firearms laws, so talking about what the firearms laws are in the UK is on topic. I don't think that Morgan and a lot of Americans know what firearms you can and can't get in the UK.
It depends what you mean by right. If you apply for a firearm the police have to have a reason to refuse it. Mental health issues, violent criminal history for example. I am not saying that its as easy to get a firearm in the UK as America, just not as difficult as some seem portray , including Morgan.
It is a AK47 and AKM modified for single shot similar to a bolt action rifle. I never said they were semi-or full auto, are full auto firearms not difficult to get in America. ?
Last edited:
Andy Blozinski
New member
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show makes a habit of taking bad journalists to task. He was mocking Piers Morgan even before Morgan got on to CNN. That's pretty bad. Morgan was a weenie and his show tanked for it. I don't think you can ascribe his stance on gun control as his downfall when he just wasn't good in general.
Why & how PM got sacked.....
I agree.
I think by coming in as a replacement to Larry King, who sat in the seat for CNN for over 25 years, Morgan annoyed & alienated a lot of show biz types and media/entertainment industry execs.
He should have studied journalists/show hosts like the late David Frost & Charlie Rose who's been on PBS for many years.
Years ago, I heard a media saying that still holds true that I guess PM didn't learn: "Don't become the news!"
.
Clyde
I agree.
I think by coming in as a replacement to Larry King, who sat in the seat for CNN for over 25 years, Morgan annoyed & alienated a lot of show biz types and media/entertainment industry execs.
He should have studied journalists/show hosts like the late David Frost & Charlie Rose who's been on PBS for many years.
Years ago, I heard a media saying that still holds true that I guess PM didn't learn: "Don't become the news!"
.Clyde
Well, I think its safe to say that no one here, myself included, is sorry to see Piers Morgan's show go away. While I'm not particularly fond of any rabidly anti-gun mouthpiece, I have to admit that Morgan was particularly vexing. What really got under my skin wasn't just that he was anti-gun or that he was British, it was the fact that he was so condescending towards American gun owners. While I can respect people's right to an opinion, the way Morgan seemed to look down his nose at Americans because of the gun issue made me wish I could say to him "if the UK is such a paradise because of its strict gun laws, then why are you here instead of there?"
I make no secret of the fact that I disagree with the premise of the UK's gun laws and, quite honestly, I think that the people of the UK are ill-served by their current laws. At the end of the day, however, I recognize that it is the British people's business to regulate firearms in whatever manner they see fit and, if I don't like it, I don't have to live there. By the same token, however, I expect the people of the UK to show me the same respect and, while they may disagree with American gun laws, it is our business to regulate, or not regulate, firearms as we see fit. If the British people don't like American gun laws, they don't have to live here.
It is for this reason that I get very irritated when someone from the UK (or any other country for that matter) comes to the US and immediately starts telling all of us how much better their nation of origin was, particularly when they do so in a snide and insulting manner like Morgan did. I understand that there are many complex reasons why someone might move to a different country, but when one behaves like Piers Morgan has it gives the impression that such a person really has no use for their adopted home beyond all that American money (which no one seems to dislike). I suppose, in a nut shell, what really irritated me about Piers Morgan was that he pretended to be some sort of great, enlightened savior to we ignorant, backward Americans when all he really cared about was our money.
As far as Morgan's abysmal ratings, I think that its illustrative of the fact that he didn't really fit in with CNN's niche in the market. While it would be difficult to deny that CNN still has a distinct leftward slant, they don't seem to be as obviously biased as they used to be. 10-15 years ago, CNN didn't even seem to be concerned with hiding their bias which is most likely what allowed Fox News to overtake them in ratings (not that Fox doesn't have a distinct rightward slant, because they do). In recent years, it seems to me that CNN has attempted to move toward the center so that, like Fox News, their bias at least isn't so obvious. I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if Piers Morgan eventually found a home on MSNBC where blatant bias and low ratings seem to be of little consequence.
I make no secret of the fact that I disagree with the premise of the UK's gun laws and, quite honestly, I think that the people of the UK are ill-served by their current laws. At the end of the day, however, I recognize that it is the British people's business to regulate firearms in whatever manner they see fit and, if I don't like it, I don't have to live there. By the same token, however, I expect the people of the UK to show me the same respect and, while they may disagree with American gun laws, it is our business to regulate, or not regulate, firearms as we see fit. If the British people don't like American gun laws, they don't have to live here.
It is for this reason that I get very irritated when someone from the UK (or any other country for that matter) comes to the US and immediately starts telling all of us how much better their nation of origin was, particularly when they do so in a snide and insulting manner like Morgan did. I understand that there are many complex reasons why someone might move to a different country, but when one behaves like Piers Morgan has it gives the impression that such a person really has no use for their adopted home beyond all that American money (which no one seems to dislike). I suppose, in a nut shell, what really irritated me about Piers Morgan was that he pretended to be some sort of great, enlightened savior to we ignorant, backward Americans when all he really cared about was our money.
As far as Morgan's abysmal ratings, I think that its illustrative of the fact that he didn't really fit in with CNN's niche in the market. While it would be difficult to deny that CNN still has a distinct leftward slant, they don't seem to be as obviously biased as they used to be. 10-15 years ago, CNN didn't even seem to be concerned with hiding their bias which is most likely what allowed Fox News to overtake them in ratings (not that Fox doesn't have a distinct rightward slant, because they do). In recent years, it seems to me that CNN has attempted to move toward the center so that, like Fox News, their bias at least isn't so obvious. I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if Piers Morgan eventually found a home on MSNBC where blatant bias and low ratings seem to be of little consequence.
What you will find is that most UK citizens don't care one way are the other about American firearms laws. You will get some politicians and the like of Morgan shouting about it , and Using America as an example to push their own anti gun agenda. As I said before most people in the UK have no interest in firearms. Among women there is even less interest, for example in this part of the UK 98 % of firearms are owned by men, I wonder how that would compare with America. So I would not listen Morgans view and think that most people in the UK have the same view.
Pond James Pond
New member
Isn't that doing exactly what P.M. is being villified for? You may not live in the UK, but you are putting this view on the internet for UK readers to see, and you are clearly not ashamed to do so.
Could they not say "Mind your own business"? Would that stop you?
If you lived in the UK or were placed there for work would you never mention the gun laws, ever?
Again, I am bemused as to why this is a "British" thing.
What? Because of one guy?!
Did he come with a mandate from the UK population to speak on their behalf? Should I take any American I meet as a spokesman for you? That nutjob P.M. interviewed who had a meltdown on air, for example?
Let's not forget he was being paid to take this stance by his network.
His US network.
If his views were going to loose him his job I guarantee he would have kept his jowly mouth shut so he certainly got a mandate from someone, and they work for CNN.
Don't you think Americans do the same? Do you think all Americans remain respectfully mute when they live in another country? Considering Americans are known for their forthrightness, I think that would be a naive assumption.
Secondly P.M. is entitled to an opinion. He may like living in America, he may like America. That does not mean he must automatically love everything about it, nor that he should remain silent.
In any case the above point and your own objections to his remarks and nationality are irrelevant unless you honestly think that his broadcast views were not, prior to being aired, wholly vetted and approved by the editors of the show.
As I pointed out above: He was hired by a US company and authorised by US execs to make the sorts of statements and adopt the stance he did.
My guess is they thought he'd make great ratings, would stir up controversy and garner yet more ratings and act as a convenient lightning rod for the fallout from this divisive issue. Boy, were they right on that last one!
So do you plan to be mad at the puppet or the master?
I must say some of the posts on here do remind me of the very mantra used to discredit the arguments of the anti-gun lobby:
Emotion over-riding rational thought.
Last edited:
I doubt they gave him a rhetorical agenda. If they managed their people that much, they wouldn't be attracting good talent. We probably won't know what kind of counseling or editorial oversight went on internally, but it's not inconceivable that he pretty much followed his own principles.
Alec Baldwin....
I think the recent spats with celebs & "newscasters" like Alec Baldwin and Keith Oberman(check spelling) show that even cable networks like MSNBC & CNBC get irate with the talent(by talent I mean the on air personalities).
Oberman didn't ring a lot of bells with his tirades. Actor Alec Baldwin pounded around on cable news too put quickly got yanked.
I doubt Morgan will be on any new basic cable networks for a long time, if ever again. He may go into some soft news/puff piece type entertainment stuff but not like his CNN format.
I think the recent spats with celebs & "newscasters" like Alec Baldwin and Keith Oberman(check spelling) show that even cable networks like MSNBC & CNBC get irate with the talent(by talent I mean the on air personalities).
Oberman didn't ring a lot of bells with his tirades. Actor Alec Baldwin pounded around on cable news too put quickly got yanked.
I doubt Morgan will be on any new basic cable networks for a long time, if ever again. He may go into some soft news/puff piece type entertainment stuff but not like his CNN format.
Pond James Pond
New member
The "talent" is not doing this for free. I am pretty sure the bucks on offer would be enough to encourage most in this business to "tow a given party line" whether that be by toning down or toning up their pitch on air.
P.M. aptly demonstrated what he was willing to do or allow for the financial gains to his organisation when editor of the Daily Mirror in the UK.
Not inconceivable, but is it likely?
These networks rely on ratings for their financial viability because they are a big driver of advertising contracts and we all know how P.M. made space for them after each and every inconvenient interviewee response.
I find it hard to swallow that he had free reign on such topics. I think, whilst he might not have been scripted, his tack would have been reviewed and pre-approved.
These networks do not strike me as the places to allow near full autonomy and self regulation to their presenters: too great a risk of law-suits, if nothing else.
He might have been the one running with the ball, but I bet there was always a "pre-match meeting" where he'd have to justify the tactics of the day.
- Status