PatrickC

You probably should check out more of his work then, since all the answers to your questions lie within them.. Most of the questions relating to this particular subject are dealt with in his most recent work over the past year.

Thanks for the link. Fascinating, as Larry suggested, Piers was remarkably more calm in this interview (for good reason of course).. He used a skewed statistic to try and trip Larry on. btw the only criticism that he could find of course, knowing full well that his audience are unlikely to check Larry's data. The rest was just an attempt to frame Larry as a callous uncaring individual. It was also interesting that he used the clip of AJ which will be considered his nuttiest moment. He also brought on family of some of the victims of the cinema shootings who were clearly in favour of Piers views on guns. This is Piers at his best of course, using well oiled emotional pleas. This show was all about saving Piers (unconscious) fragile opinion of himself. A narcissist, I rest my case..

I certainly have more sympathy with AJ than I do Piers.. But I think it's reasonable to assume that AJ is seen as a nutjob by the majority. Some of that will be to do with their own ignorance of the issues, as much as it has to do with AJ's behaviour. It's not a moral issue, but ranting at people is never helpful. Within a culture where appearences are often seen as more important than content, a good argument can be lost on other people when delivered in this manner. Piers is only to aware of this, since he did as much himself when he interviewed Larry.

By movement I guess you mean the liberty one... I have no idea really.. However, I do think AJ often reacts to these people like a frightened child. Facing a sadist like Piers no doubt triggers that reaction in him. Interesting that Piers did a second interview with Larry. I've yet to see that myself. Some might call that being a glutton for punishment. My point was that the gun debate for Piers is a point of pride. If I may, this debate is not about guns for Piers. As he was so eloquently ponied by Larry that he needed some way to save face and reputation, whilst still pretending that he was all for listening to his opponents. I'm guessing that the AJ interview will be seen more often than the Larry ones. Certainly the MSM has been very critical/mocking about AJ's delivery. By comparison very little has been said of the Larry interviews. Some might say of course they would be more critical of AJ. But really this is about Piers manipulating a more favourable outcome for himself. Piers is using all the guile, deflection and cleverness of a successful politician. It's not about truth or guns, it's about power and influence. Piers is your archetype narcissist. In this regard I have some sympathy for AJ, since for him (unlike Piers) this is a very important issue.

Totally predictable of AJ of course... Piers has a surprisingly good knack at gauging the feel of the average person, which is why he was a successful newspaper editor of course. I'm guessing he's had a Max Clifford makeover in the past 5 years mind, since boldly taking on the 'opinionated' news media of the US. There is something distinctly likeable about him to the average indoctrinated slave. Battling for the little guy is how many folk feel about him. A charming sophist statist. However, unlike the UK where his particular brand of left of centre politics is much more popular. He's hit a real road block in public opinion over an issue which would be considered as a no brainer in England, over gun regulation. He got such a pasting in his debate with Larry Pratt. It was the first time that I saw Piers visibly shaken by his losing the debate, that he burst into a series of ad hominem attack. He was as embarrassing as AJ frankly and I believe Piers knew he'd made a pratt of himself. AJ was a patsy for saving Piers reputation. Brilliantly planned and executed. Reputation restored!

I'll attempt to answer one of these questions, since if you listen to the first 50 or so podcasts you will get a lot of answers for most of your questions. This falls similarly within the same territory as business cartels. The idea that businesses collude to hike prices as a means to price gorge the marketplace. This is highly unlikely since it would only take one of those businesses to drop their prices by a fraction for them to feast out on the massive amount of custom that would come their way. Until the other members of the cartel realised this would likely start a price war frenzy as all members dropped the agreement like a hot potato. Similarly DRO's that colluded with each other to create a powerful DRO would be at risk from just one of the members dipping out of the group and making the process known publically. That DRO would mop up with the extra business they would score as a result. Given that customers of DRO's are likely to be very wary of a DRO attempting to become a govt. DRO's are likely to bend of backwards with independent adjudicator’s and overseers to make sure they are not building up an arsenal of weapons. Of course no one can say never, but rather than looking how a possible solution might work (which we can never be sure of). It is best to look to the moral argument. We currently have what you could say is a DRO overlord already, suggesting the DRO model might be faulty, at this time is to forget the current system that already exists.

What would be the best response to someone who asked you for directions to your partner so they could kill them?

Hi there, Yes, you have my sympathies. The trouble with using hand slaps and the like with a 14 month old are not always quite so obvious in this culture. Hand slaps and spanking on an infant and even up to 11 or 12 can be quite effective as a quick fix remedy for the parent. However, just because they have the desired effect at the time doesn’t mean the parent isn't storing up problems with (and for) that child later in life, particularly in their teens. Physical punishment is lazy parenting and it shows a distinct lack of empathy for that child. The slap communicates, 'just do as I say'! That said, there are certain things I would look for first, as a form of elimination. Does the infant like the food, is it too warm, not warm enough. Has it been preheated perhaps, adding staleness to the flavour. Understanding a toddler’s preference for food might seem tricky at first. But given their cognitive dysfunction at that age, hardly surprising they might throw away food they dislike, that's being pushed into their mouths. Infants are always trying to communicate something when they throw things like food. With toys it might be other things. Perhaps they need some attention from the adult. Maybe they have seen this behaviour in other adults or older children. It's about an unmet need for which they are having difficulty communicating.. Next time I would gently tell your mom. 'wait, perhaps the food isn't quite right' or some such statement. Try to get your mom to understand the cognitive dysfunction a toddler faces at that age. Very often adults just haven't considered this at all and are surprised by how ignorant they were. Anyway, hope that helps and best of luck.

Marvellous old chap.. Well earned indeed!