READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
As the community of Newtown, Conn. begins the difficult process of moving on from the devastating school shooting, Piers Morgan spoke with Philip Van Cleave from the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The staunch gun ownership supporter was on the program to respond to remarks he made about the Bushmaster rifle, calling the gun (that was allegedly used by the gunman to kill 20 children between the ages of 6 and 7) the "Ferrari" of weapons.
Morgan took offense to the remarks and openly criticized Cleave. "It is a disgrace to America and to the American people that it's continued to happen," Morgan said. "And the reasons it happens, and I say this with respect to you, is your facetious attitude comparing it to cars."
Also on Monday night, Morgan welcomed family members and friends of those who perished in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting last July.
"I think it really takes somebody in our position, once we've lost somebody, once we've known somebody who's been injured, they've got lasting post traumatic stress syndrome, to really see the effects and damages it causes," said Jessica Watt whose cousin was killed by the Aurora shootings and whose husband survived the school shooting in Columbine.
"We need to make a change, we need to be holding our elected officials accountable, we need to make positive change," said Dave Hoover, uncle of victim AJ Boik. "If we don't do something about it and to throw our hands up and walk away from this issue is like saying 'it's okay that this happened.'"
Watch the clips, and listen to the interviews to hear the rest of the survivors' stories and perspective. Stay with "Piers Morgan Tonight" as we continue to discuss gun control.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
Are Americans really so naive that they believe movies and videogames are responsible for 'desensitizing' their population? Don't you think the continuous killing of men, women, and children across the globe by American bombs, bullets, guns, tanks, planes, missiles and drones might have something to do with it?
Violence begets violence. It's pretty simple. Praise killing on a State level and people will praise killing at every level. They will dehumanize their 'enemies' just like the State dehumanizes its enemies.
Stop wasting time talking about videogames and start talking about the real issue – an extremely violent culture (not in the virtual world, but in the real world) and the proliferation of weapons!
People should really think before they think...
Thank you Brian.
As we all weep for the lives lost in this tragedie at Sandy Hook Elementry School lets us all reflect what going on in other parts of the world to children just like our own very own in United States.
We do not hear Pierce Morgan, Anderson Cooper and any other read the name and ages of any of the little ones killed. Does any one know where these Drowns come from and who commands these flights? Lets us say a silent pray and reflect.
" In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats"
Barack Obama's tears for the children of Newtown are in stark contrast to his silence over the children murdered by his drones.
The Second Amendment provides certain protections, but not from being either stupid or ignorant in it’s support. The argument that “Guns do not kill people, People kill people” is one such example. The truth is that guns empower people to kill people. And do so under whatever protection the current laws interpreting Second Amendment protection provide.
Yes, guns empower people to kill people, but so does a machete. People are WEAPONS, everything else is just a tool. Guns are out there, its a Pandoras Box we cant close again so no need to have fantasies about it. Seems to me only one thing can prevent these incidents, massive gov control of every facet of peoples lives, severe restrictions on residents pesonal freedom and limitations of options, frequent random stops and searches by law enforcement and metal detectors at every doorstep. Is that a world you would like to live in ? There is no gun problem in the US, there is an IDIOT problem, and a good start would be to send that stuck up brit back where he belongs.
Machetes. What an interesting armament to bring forward as the future weapon of legal choice. The Second amendment does not preclude machetes. Actually, the Second amendment does not define arms in any terms does it.? So by definition, we could in the future, be forced to bear machetes and only machetes if legislation so provides within the right to bear arms. Why not continue the ruse and say that everyone who owns a handgun or rifle must be required by law to exchange it for a machete?
There are several obvious points of absurdity here that we should consider.
1) What is the legal difference between a machete and an Abrams tank?
The right to bear arms should be applied without resrtriction. Or shoudn’t it?
2) I don’t know how much experience you have Michael in hacking apart a person with a machete, but take it from us, it takes a lot of energy and mental focus. It’s the element of time and concentrated effort that makes machetes different from guns.
3) As former servicemen to the USA between 1959-1983 we do not know anyone who has served who believes that civilians should hold military weapons in private defense.
It is just the opposite. Everyone wants to leave that behind. So shooting is not a measure of patriotism. Unless you are on the frontline in combat zones or on the Olympic team.
4) The weapons themselves. They have destroyed more lives in America than can be counted. When was the last time you had to shoot your neighbor or your spouse. We have to understand that there is consequence even amongst the professional forces who use such weapons on the firing line. Today, suicide is the most frequent cause of death among Army forces, returning from Iraq surpassing combat deaths and motor vehicle accidents, according to Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff. So you have weapons that even in their most trained application cause violence beyond imagination. Long after that finger has left the trigger. So, how can a private civilian impact on this in reality? Tough going. There is allot of Hollywood style propaganda that supports protective/destructive violence as the only salvation provided to a very frightened civilian population that only wants to survive. As Americans in 2012, we ought to be able to trust and love each other first within the family and then to continue within society to remove the death culture and the guns that support it.
We were not brought up this way, nor served our Country, nor lived our lives, to let this go on and we sure as Hell are not going to allow our families to caught up in it any more.
Bob and Tom
I wanted to weigh in on your interview with Phillip Van Cleaves. I agree with what Piers had to say but just felt that he was just missing that one connection to make gun advocates see the reasons why Van Cleaves was so inappropriate. I have yet to hear a reason why semi-automatic weapons are neccesary for civilians and/or the hunting community. This is the first that I have heard anyone even attempt to defend these weapons and the reasponse is that they are fun and you should see the joy it brings to the faces of those that fire them. Van Cleaves is saying that the fun of a weapon is more important than the innocent lives of these children and those who cared for and educated them. Maybe he and those that are as ignorrant as he is would like to switch spots with those children that huddled together in fear on Friday morning. Then lets see how fun it is in his eyes.
Oh how true. You could not have said it better. He just flat sickened me in the interview last night. I do not think he is capable of empathy. How can you see what we have seen over the last several days and somehow not be affected. Just tragic:-(
Are we all so blind that we don't really see the problem here? If we put a ban on all cars, trucks, and vans, we would get rid of 95% of all DUI's. How many people are killed by drunk drivers each year?
We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem!
We can ban all guns in the U.S., and we will still have the the "bad guys" killing other people.
It is not about banning all guns. It is about getting rid of the ones that are unnecessary. If anyone can give me a reason why any civillian needs a gun that can unload 100 rounds at a time that has done more damage than good in our society, then maybe we can all look at this differently.
And we do understand that it is the people behind the guns that do these unthinkable acts. But cant we keep the carnage at a minimum by taking away these assault riffles? What purpose do they have on our streets in America?
Brittany; Can you tell me WHY anyone NEEDS a Cadillac or a Lincoln ? Surely, a full-size Chevy or Ford will get you down the road just as fast. Do YOU really NEED expensive shoes, or a Coach purse?, wouldn't a pair of Walmart specials fit your feet just as well? It is SO EASY to sit back and judge other people's acquisitions while making sure you get the things you want, irrespective of your actual needs NEEDS.
Brittany, I say the same to you as I say to Pierce Morgan. You should get educated on a topic before you speak (or write). AR15s typically use 30 round magazines or less. The shooter in Conn. was using 30 round magazines. So what if it were 10 round magazines? Do you realize how fast one can swap out a magazine? By the way, there are 100 round drum magazines for the AR, but no one who knows anything about such weapons would use them in a defense (or offense) situation as they are prone to jam.
Ken: This whole debate on gun control is really a mask for their true intent. The gun control nuts actually want to ban all guns from civilians. It's like the first step down a slipperly slope, or the nose of the camel thru the tent door. First they will ban the black semi-auto rifles (which they call assault rifles) and the high capacity magazines, then they will go after the "sniper rifles", which are common bolt action hunting rifles with telescopic sights. Shotguns which leave no ballistic traces, (riflings) and are capable of firing multiple projectiles will be next along with all handgun because they can be hidden under clothing. When they are done, there will be no 2nd Amendment, and the citizens will be at the mercy of the thugs, criminals and rulers like King George of England.
Len, I did not say that there were 100 round drums used in Conn. But they are available. (Ialso think that 30 round magazines and any weapon that can rapid fire with easy clip exchange are unneccesary for civilians). What I am asking is for an advocate for them to please explain why they are neccesary for civilians to have. I am trying to educate myself on this but no one that supports these weapons has been able to answer this simple question yet.
Brittany, you did say this " If anyone can give me a reason why any civillian needs a gun that can unload 100 rounds at a time that has done more damage than good in our society, then maybe we can all look at this differently." Note: 100 rounds at a time. I'll try to give you some reasons for owning an AR15, I don't think it matters whether the magazine is for 10, 20, 30 or 100 rounds..First off, you might want to talk to some people that lived through the aftermath of hurricane katrina, When defending your home and or life, you probably want to have as much firepower as a mob of looters and criminals do. Criminals don't care about the law, they have and will have these kind of weapons whether they are made illegal or not. I happen to live in Florida, where we are prone to such hurricanes. Then there are other reasons. For example, a Shotgun makes a wide blast and can hit unintended targets (people) easily, a "hunting rifle" Let's say for deer, typically a 30/30, 30.06 or .270 will shoot through your home's outer wall and the next door neighbor's and still be lethal. A 9mm from a handgun can go through wallboard and still be lethal (possibly hurting or killing an innocent like one of your own family in the next room. A .223 is typically not lethal after going through 2 layers of wallboard, a common wall. It is extremely accurate, more so than a handgun (although I have some of those too). This is why Police forces use them!. And for those of you that keep calling them Assault Rifles and or Military Grade, I'm sorry but you're just wrong. An Assault Rifle and or Military Grade would be fully automatic allowing one to spray fire with a single trigger pull, not semi automatic as in the civilian version. The answer isn't to ban the guns, it's to do more to make sure that people that shouldn't have guns don't get them or access to them. Here's my question; the kid in Conn, his mother knew he was a bit disturbed (being polite here), why weren't her guns locked up in a way that he couldn't get them? Responsible gun ownership is safe gun ownership.
Len, yes I did say that we have the capability of semi-automatics firing 100 rounds because we do. I did not say that it was used in this past weeks weeks events in Conn. But I'm not just standing up for one particular inferential. I am talking about capabilities.
And I do understand your fears of wanting to protect yourself in the face of chaos. But in many of those situations we have warnings of those natural fixated events. Would it be better to take our lied ones out of harms way or should we take the risk and stand our ground?
If we want to act as Militia when it comes to defending ourselves with these weapons, I feel that we should be liscenced and trained as extensively as military is before they see combat.
If we add going to allow the right of these more accurate ever advancing weapons into the hands of the general public and should have to jump through hoops to obtain them. Can I get you to agree on that?
And yes this mother was irresponsable in her behavior like so many others. Not everyone that has a gun is the bad guy, but not everyone is responsable enough to have one as Provence time and time again.
It is time for us all to sit around the table and come up with some solutions.
Brittany, you asked for reasons and you focused in the ones that felt you could easily debate. i.e. take my loved ones out of harms way. Which one doesn't or won't always have the opportunity to do as each situation can be quite unique. But, you ignored the other reasons. I gave you facts explaining why a civilian should own an AR15. If you read what I said it's telling you that for home defense it's an optimal weapon and is safer than a lot of of other guns to use in that kind of situation. So if you want them banned, you're legitimizing all those comments that say this a ruse, that anti-gunners really want to take all of our guns away. I was raised around guns, my father was ex NYP and a hunter. Up until a number of years ago I too didn't think the average citizen should have an AR15. Then along came Katrina in LA and I started thinking that I wanted something a little more than my handguns or .22 rifle in the house. I thought maybe a shotgun. Then I did my extensive research, some of which I shared with you and wound up realizing that an AR15 is a better choice. You just don't seem to want to address those facts. So, I guess you're really just anti-gun. Go ahead and take all the guns away and rely on the police to protect you and be there when you need them, because no matter what you do the criminals will have guns. So I hope you never suffer a home invasion!
Len, I am not trying to ignore your points or am I anti-gun. I am trying to converse with you to find a common ground on this issue. I understand your position on weapon accurancy and the pros and cons of them. What I am for is the reform of who and how we allaow people to own and carry them. I believe our police force and military should carry them with the world we leave in today. Do I find that unfortunate, yes, but I am not niece to think that we are safe enough to ban weapons.
A question I posed to you after you explained why you think that civilians have the right to own semi-automatic weapons is do you think they should have to be trained as our military is to obtain them. So in case we do need to use them in situations like Katrina, Sandy, LA riots, etc., we can be assured that they are being used correctly and for the right purpose.
Do you agree that we need reform over ownership laws?
Brittany, I'm okay with waiting periods and even the concept of training. But to ban AR15s and allow Hunting rifles makes no sense to me and it's a slippery slope. Just like the stupid laws they have in CA where you can own a .223 and have 10 round mags, but it can't have a pistol grip like an AR. What? It's banned because of the way it looks? I do think that the anti-gunners are using the deaths of these kids to advance their agenda, which is to ban guns. I'm done with the conversation. Maybe I'll go clean and lube my guns.
That is not true,. the goal is to destroy the right of the individual to self defense, just as they have done in Britian,Australia,Canada,Russia,China,Germany,France,etc etc etc .. here is a fact for you that you will never hear morgan stat. the United States is number 1 in gun ownership and number 28 in gun crime. the united states has 466 violent crimes to a 100thousand people. while in Britian they have more violent crime then south africa.. nearly 3000 per a 100 thousand.. how is banning guns going to help? and don't give me this ..2 steps forward 1 step back attempt to climb the mountain that is repealing the 2nd Amendment.. Feinstein admitted to wanting to ban all guns in 1995, morgan tweeted the 2nd amendment is about muskets and constantly says "An Americans right to own a gun" its not an American right its a HUMAN RIGHT.
So proud of Piers standing up so strongly to Van Cleaf yesterday. We need more people like Piers to put the gun fanatics in their place.
Piers did an excellent job last night we need more people like him bringing up the gun issue and making our lives safer.
We need more reports like Piers Morgan. Let us all support him by writing to CNN that we need more reports like Mr Morgan and Anderson Cooper. Let us not forget the killings of children by Drones in Pakistan, Afganistan and Gaza.
Its good to see piers morgan trying giving to these incredibly ignorant people a bit of common sense. They actually believe that more guns will make your country safer! This is without a doubt the most stupid thing I have ever heard. What is wrong with these people? How many more people have to be massacred before they get it? I live in Canada and this way of thinking is appalling to me. How do you go about your everyday lives knowing that so many of the people around you have guns that can kill you and your family in seconds. I can't imagine that your founding fathers ever meant that every citizen has the right to carry weapons that should only be used in a war. Actually America is in a war. Unfortunately the "enemy" seems to be innocent children, men and women just trying to live a decent life. Its well past time that your politicians put their citizens safety first and get rid of these guns and to hell with the NRA and other crazy organizations like them.
I am of the opinion that we should look at gun laws min America and their implementation but I am very uncomfortable with the Mr. Pires Morgans 's style of conducting his interviews on this subject. I can understand that Mr. Morgan is not a journalist but he is a commentator therefore he can be partisan but he needs to be courteous to the person who has an opposing view. He is very rude to the person who has an opposing view. I hope CNN management puts someone else to conduct interviews and dabates.
Bravo Piers for taking this position and challenging Phillip Van Cleaves' notion that guns aren't an element of concern in solving this terrible problem. This is a serious and complex problem that we MUST solve, and over-simplistic comparisons, like comparing guns to cars as suggested in a previous comment, simply aren't helpful to the discussion.
Comparing guns to killing people is the EXACT same thing as comparing cars killing people by drunk drivers. It is NOT a gun problem. It is a people problem. Do you honestly think that if we banned all guns, that criminals would not get their hands on illegal guns? Come on, be realistic. Look at Chicago. No guns are allowed but their murder rat,e by guns, is astonishingly high.
Comparing guns and cars as killers are not the exact same thing if you take into account the intention behind each crime. I am in no way an advocate for drunk driving, but the intentions of an impaired driver are in no way as maliciously thought out like the intentions of a mass murderer.
And we don't have to take cars of the street to help with drunk driving incedents. We can install cars with interlock systems which make you blow into a machine to even start your vehicle. Maybe we can make that more important than the TV's behind our seats.
What is wrong with any situation that we compare this to comes down to the basic fact that we the people, as a whole, do not have the morals or mentality to give up or comforts, fears, or are willing to look at things as a problem that can be curbed if we put in that hard work and go that extra mile for our fellow people.
But to say that we need to do nothing with gun control laws to try to prevent these situations from repeating is just ignorrant. There are other things that need to be reformed as well like getting these kids help before they act out. But you don't see their parents and teachers fighting this, you actually are seeing the opposite with them. I am always hearing about parents asking for more help but are told that nothing can be done until they have hurt themselves or someone else.
I am not saying that gun control when it comes to semi-automatic weapons is the only solution to this problem. It is simply the easiest and most obvious first step in fixing this. We need to get this ball rolling and we all need to be willing to adjust.
Pierce should get a standing ovation for his stand on the weapons in America. I will be tuning into Pierce as he is the force that is needed to bring this subject to the forefront. I thank you Pierce but more importantly, I am certain all those victims in heaven are thanking you to
First of all I want to say that my heart and prayers go out to the victims family's. Normally I don't watch shows like this because they just make me mad. I was flipping through the channels when I saw this interview and I just want to say I was disappointed in how the interview went. There are a lot of opinions on gun control so I want to post mine. As everyone has heard the saying before "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Sure guns make it easier for a person to kill someone but if there wasn't guns, killers will find some other way to do it. You can still buy gas to burn somebody with, there are knives, there are chemicals to make bombs that are sold in stores. So after they control guns and take them off the market to buy, are they going to take everything else off the market that can be used as a weapon? There is a perfect example that has been posted on Facebook about how a murderer will murder with or without a gun. TIMOTHY MEVEIGH didn't use a gun but he killed 168 people, he killed 19 people under the age of 6 and injured over 680 people. I know there is a lot of the devil's work that is being done everyday on earth and it is a REAL SHAME that people give in to him like they do. Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture than just guns. Again, my heart and prayers go out to the victims family's. I am SO SORRY FOR YOUR LOSSES.
Washington banned guns and the homicide rate increased by 55%. Chicago banned guns and it increased 44%. Banning or restricting guns wont stop criminals from getting them. Most of the guns used for crimes are either stolen or acquired illegaly. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. It's like the saying I've seen "Making guns illegal will take them off the streets? We should make cocaine and heroine illegal too! Oh wait...."
thank G for Piers.....hard to beleive that a brit is the only one standing up for american children when all the american leaders won't grow a pair of ballz and do something.....i guess were gonna have to get all the mothers to march on Penna ave. to get this done, i mean we stopped ciggerette smoking in public places, MADD brought drinking and driving bans....we can do this also....together...
Normally, I don't like Piers but he did pretty damn well yesterday. He also had statistics from the UK and Australia to back his points. And let's face it, since gun regulation was introduced in 1996 (Clinton era), homicides had dropped SIGNIFICANTLY
I don't get how any pro gun activist can argue against statistics like that..?
Where is this data? I'm curious of these stats that Piers is using. The study I posted below says the opposite.
"In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.19 Today, English news media headline violence in terms redolent of the doleful, melodramatic language that for so long characterized American news reports."
I suggest you read this Harvard Study that debunks the myth that less guns = less death.
This mantra gets used over and over by the anti-gun advocates, but from what I know the data does not back up that claim. If you are going to make those claims, the burden of evidence is on you.
Len, you and Phillip Cleave don't get it. Let's look at this fact that 20 children were killed with AR15s with 3 bullets in each of them. Doesn't that cross the line for you? What will if it doesn't? People like you Cleave are making a fool of yourselves and putting harm on America.
"People like you"? You don't even know me. I have a 5 year and 1 1/2 yr old sons. I was sick to my stomach when I read about the shooting on Friday. Those kids who dies were the age of my oldest son. So don't you dare pass judgement on me, when you don't even know me!
Why don't you read my other posts on here before making your claims. I AGREE that assault-weapons should not be in the hands of the general public. My disagreement with Piers is that he states (with no evidence) that because the UK banned guns, that is why there have been no more school shootings. Where is the evidence to support that claim? He also claims that the gun bans in the UK and Australia reduced deaths. Again, where is that data?
I'm also commenting on the fact that anti-gun advocates spend their time attacking gun ownership, as if that's the reason for the deaths, when there is no data to support that claim. There are a lot of factor at play here, including the fact that our mentally unstable population here in the US gets no help unless they've been thrown in jail. Yes, our gun laws can be better, which includes having more health records in the background check system. But we need smart gun laws not just knee-jerk reactions.
I am "harming America" because I'm using my head and not running on emotions? This is a complicated issue, that goes deeper than just banning guns. And we need to be focusing on other areas too, not just gun laws. So, I'm the "fool" for backing up my comments with facts?
Thank you, Piers, for exposing Philip Van Cleave and his beliefs re: guns for what they are. That is, ridiculous. Well done. I believe that 80%+ of the citizens of our nation agree with your views re: the need for more gun contols. Keep up the great work!
Your comment about not having a school shooting since the gun ban in England seems a bit disingenuous. That might be a true statement, but does that fact correlate to the the strict gun laws in England?
Isn't it interesting how many "pro-choice" advocates like Piers are suddenly pretending that they care about the lives of children.
Look at this rubbish!
Merry Christmas NRA, Gun owners and Manufacturers, you need to destroy this crap or be the first to get your mental health checked!
I too don't normally watch this show but was interested enough in the timely topic and watched it. I am now writing to commend Morgan for this excellent interview. It showed us the callowness, ignorance, and stupidity of arguments made by gun advocates. There is no reason for assault rifles to exist in civilian hands other than they are "fun" and are deemed "status" symbols-the so-called "Ferraris" of the gun world. Pathetic. Loser. Gun advocates just revealed themselves to all of us with that interview. Good going Mr. Morgan. Keep at it; you've got me watching.
Does Morgan ever allow anyone with an opinion different that his to speak for more than 10 seconds? I love how Morgan tried to tell him about how the average policeman is an "expert marksman" then he basically shut Morgan up by telling him he was a deputy sheriff.
When Piers first heard the news that 20 innocent children and 6 teachers had been murdered by some insane maniac armed with a semi-automatic rifle (what he incorrectly calls an assault rifle), I bet he jumped up and down began cheering and yelled out: "Good Show !!, Bravo !!, Now I can complete my agenda of disarming these Colonial dogs and finally get rid of that stupid 2nd Amendment." Then, I imagine he called Chuck Shummer, Dianne Fienstein, Chris Matthews and Mayor Bloomberg on a conference call and they had a party celebrating the fact that NOW they finally had a rally point that would be almost impossible to argue against.
Today, I'm sending a $100 donation to the NRA in the hope that they will be able to buy (bribe) a Senator or Representative to vote against the upcoming gun ban bills that DeDe and Chucky will be introducing. No one at the NRA or any gun owner wanted to see those kids killed, but Piers and his cronies have been waiting for such a horrible event to further their gun grab plans.
Is anyone out there that can answer my question yet on the need for semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?
I myself own a handgun and keep it at home for protection. I have been the victim of a car jacking and grew up in a rough part of town, so my gun ownership views stem from being a victim. With that said, I do agree that the common civilian does NOT need a military-grade weapon.
I used to work for a gun wholesaler and have friends and family who own assault rifles. Until the assault weapon ban was lifted, these same gun owners were just fine. They still had other non-military grade weapons they could shoot for sport.
I also DO NOT agree with the way Piers badgered the guest who was just answering the question posed to him. Piers and people on this thread portray his guest as some gun nut. I know plenty of gun enthusiasts who enjoy shooting their assault rifles, but are the nicest and most carting people I know. I enjoy going to the range and shooting my handgun every once in a while and have in the past shot an AR-15 and other assault rifles. But I do not own one, because I do not see the need to own one. Attacking gun enthusiasts over their hobby is wrong. I think the rage from the anti-gun advocates need to be directed toward our gun legislation and legislators, not innocent gun owners.
There are plenty of areas that our gun laws could be better. Lets have intelligent conversations about gun laws and gun safety, not knee-jerk reactions about banning guns, which has been proven to not reduce deaths.
I agree with you completely and sorry to hear about your past. You seem to be a fair person with morals. Not everyone is though like Russels comment above that is advocating corruption by donating to the NRA in hopes that his funds will buy or bribe the votes of our Senators and Representatives.
If we need to buy votes then it seems to me that something is wrong.
I do not agree with the badgering, but don't you think that Van Cleaves needed to say anything when asked these questions either. The timing of it makes it incesitive. Some may look at the response as he is more worried about the fun of this gun than the lives that were lost.
Thanks for your response.
I can see what you mean about how his comments were perceived. I understood what he meant. But it was probably due to me having shot an AR-15 in the past. But I can see how the timing of his comment is bad, in the light of what has happened.
I appreciate the reasonable discussion, as well. :)
My boyfriend and I had the same discussion last night. He said almost everything the same as you. He is retired Air Force. Our views were different but we talked civilly. My last comment of our conversation with him was the question"would you trade the fun of shooting your M16 for the life of a child?". He began to cry and shook his head in a new understanding.
We all need to give a little and agree that something has to change.
The argument that "if it saves the life of ONE CHILD, then shouldn't we ban all guns" can be turned around and phrased this way: "if you could save the life of one child by buying and learning how to use a firearm would you do it?" The argument that one child's life is worth anything that can be given is bogus. The Democrats in particular have a "Pro-Choice" platform in their party. This "pro-choice" actually means that if a woman wants to, she can conspire with her doctor to KILL the life of the child growing inside her. Is that child's life worth saving? Apparently NOT, and the Democrats are quick to claim the "right to kill" for women across this nation. Piers is one of those Pro-Choice people who claims to feel deeply about the 20 dead children, yet is unconcerned about the thousands of aborted fetuses he and his party condones killing each year. Perhaps, it's different when it's simply inconvenient for the mother to have a child.
Having two boys of my own. I would do anything to ensure their and other children's safety at school. If that means giving up a hobby... so be it. But like I've said, the moves we make moving forward, need to be well educated... not just driven on emotion.
Absolutely. Unfortunately it takes events like this to raise these issues. Now we just need both sides to put aside their egos, find some common ground, and make some changes that will be more safe for us all.
If you can point out where I said I have any of these needs that you are illuding to then I may take your comment to heart. While you were spending your money on bribes, I was spending the last few hundred dollars in my checking account on needed gifts for my local children's homes. Like coats, sweaters, hats, etc. But here is the difference between you and I. I would trade my life any day to save the life of a child. Where as you are not willing to even entertain the thought that by banning one class of guns can maybe save the life of one. Is that not worth it?
The above comment is for Russell
The Anti-gun leftists are using these dead children to advance an agenda they've had for many, many years. Their goal is to ban all firearms from civilian hands, and get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Most of these, like Piers, have decided that their viewpoint is the only one that is valid, and cannot see the "NEED" for a semi-automatic while they ride around in cars driven by personal bodyguards who themselves are armed with high capacity magazine firearms.
The same Senators who will deprive the average citizen of firearm protection have a bevy of armed security around them 24/7 to protect their lives.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where there was no need for police (with guns), and military (with guns), and private security forces (with guns), but until then, the average law-abiding citizen should have the right and ability to carry whatever gun he wants to. There are already plenty of laws regulating and controlling firearms. In the case of the insane maniac who stole his mother's guns and killed the kids, this could have all been prevented if his mother would have locked-up her guns so her mentally-impaired son could not get to them. If he wouldn't have had access to the Bushmaster, would he have used a baseball bat and a handful of kitchen knives to do smash skulls and cut throats?, and would that have been better?
Wolf, been watching your reporting since the the 1st Gulf War. Great job so far on the school shooting coverage. But, yesterday Soledad went off reporting and giving her opinion about Gun Control, she needs to ask the questions and let the respondent answer, she was off base, again today this morning a CNN reporter again started asking about "Automatic Weapons and not Semi-Automatic Weapons, she reported the the shooter had "Automatic Weapons" referred to the weapon's magazines as "clips" most people who have an understanding about weapons know the magazine is not a clip. Please stay with the facts. It is very clear to me, the school should have provided an Armed Security Officer, like a retired Law Enforcement or Police Officer assigned to the schools. Why does it seem like the people in the area are shocked if a Police Officer is assigned to the school. In my area of the country we have had a Police Office/Law Enforcement Officer of some type in our schools and the metro area since the late 60s. It's a normal procure to have security at most schools, malls and movie theaters including special events, Why not protect your self from things you cannot control. The school district is responsible for this tragedy. Why are the dead teachers called heroes? They would have been better off alive to protect their students and assistance with the events as they happened, sound the alarm for lock down, contact 911, stay on the phone, also use a cell phone, relay info about the shooter? And of all people who should be trained to react the school nurse, why did the school nurse hide for 4 hours in a closet, instead of helping the wounded and dying, she wasn't protecting the students cowering in a closet for 4 hrs. Wouldn't it better if the school system would take responsibility and train the staff on how to react in an emergency and provide real protection an in house Police Officers for the school district along with harden entrances and interior doors? I am sorry for this horrific tragedy, but it could have been prevented with proper planning and training.
I agree with Charles. Thank you for standing up for our nation. We need better gun control and mental health access with integrated research and treatment. I feel we can have these important discussion but the bottom line is the NRA has the money and power and they are silent like before when the nation was in shock and spent millions or was it billions lobbying against gun control. The NRA needs to be called out on their stand, if they are not on board nothing will happen like before – money and power. May be we should ban lobbing to our politicians.
I just wish all these people shouting about AR15s would get educated before they shout! The amount of incorrect nonsense being spouted by the likes of Pierce Morgan is now going beyond the usual lies and falsehoods spewed by the anti-gun crowd. First of all the AR15 is NOT and Assault Rifle. AR does not stand for Assault Rife. It stands for the name of the company that originally designed it. I just heard that Pierce's show tonight will be dedicated to "why any civilian would need something like an AR15". I'd love to explain that and have that debate with Mr. Morgan, but I won't post the reasoning here as I don't want to help prepare him for the discussion tonight. I want him to make a fool of himself as he does every time he opens his mouth about guns and gun ownership. Oh heck, I'll give you one thing to consider Pierce... A 9mm bullet is still typically lethal after going through wallboard, a .223 is not! Get an education on the subject man and stop just spouting what you think you know!
Fireworks are fun too, but in my state it is illegal. Deer have rights. No hunting with semi-automatic. But you can hunt all the dears you want. These laws were not set for the people with common sense. They were set for idiots. As most laws are. Ever notice your lawn mower has a warning that says don't stick your hand under if it is running. Yet some do. So lets give those who do, a semi-automatic weapon just for the fun of it.
i thought piers was incredibly rude to van cleaves, who was simply trying to answer questions put to him and to explain his views. we are all allowed to have our own views in this country. piers was so disrespectful, trying to blame and humiliate the man.
why have him on the show and ask questions of him if you didn't want his responses.
beating up on him as an evil monster was ludicrous. you made him your scapegoat for all these mass shootings.
i am not a gun promoter, but piers was too rude and too "i care more than thou"
You are so wrong. Piers' approach is exactly what is needed here. That is why nothing changes here ever. This is exactly the right measure of passion and intensity that is needed. He obviously cares profoundly and is horrified by this, as we all should be. He simply has the guts to express himself the way we all should be doing. That is why things get done about these issues in other countries but not here. The gun nuts have controlled the tone and rules of the dialogue for so long it is about time others match their level of force. You are the one who needs to leave. We do have an epidemic here and it seems the only people capable from saving us from ourselves are people from other countries. I almost feel like the US is similar to one of those countries where the UN has to step in for humanitarian reasons and make decisions for the people and its government. That is how dysfunctional we have become, incapable of solving our own problems. Thanks to Piers for caring so much and being so passionate. It would be easy for him to just perform the standard interview and give lip service like everyone else does. Piers doesn't have to care, he could just take the money from CNN and go back to Britain some day as he watches the country further deteriorate. The sign of someone who cares is the amount of passion he displays. America needs a swift kick in pants to learn the right level and measure of outrage that it takes to move the masses and government and your kind of passion is desperately needed here.
Hey Pete: How does the ripping apart a living fetus in the womb by a doctor with a suction device differ so much with the killing of a child in school by someone with a rifle?
I'm thinking that the murder of thousands of children in the womb trumps the murder of 20. But perhaps you folks don't really care all that much about the 20 except to USE THEM to further the goal of abolishing the 2nd Amendment.
I appreciate Piers's passion, but he is no less passionate than the other side.. and sayng that his having "the guts to express himself" is why "things get done about issues in other countries and not here". A rather asinine comment. We have a congress full of people expressing themselves for personal motives. IT NOT ABOUT PIERS and its not about THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES" . Its is about intelilgent,articulate persuasive dialogue. I find the type of interview Piers indulged in acutually insulting to my intelligence and very self serving on his part. I have been encouraged in seeing other interviews that were much more persuasive to change minds and hearts than the self idulging one I witnessed tonight. Sorry Pete, whoever, you are.. you really missed it on this one. If the children were listening, I think they would agree.
sorry, pete, you are missing the point. vilifying and scapegoating others with different views, especially when you asked for those views, is not only rude, it undermines the whole discuaaion. i never posted anything online until i witnessed piers excoriating van cleaves. other people are plenty horrified by the slaughter of innocents, but piers' self-serving holier than thou scapegoating was and is shameful and very counterproductive.
Where do Piers come off telling Americans what needs to be done over our rights and privileges? He is disgusting, using the tragedy in Sandy Hook to push his Liberal/Socialist agenda that wants to do away or at least cripple our Second Amendment rights. His diatribe against guns is not a position that a non-American has the right to take. He is a dastardly coward for using the death of these little innocent children to support his political views.
Refer to Pete's reply to Jenny above. I agree with you Pete. You said it well!
Last night, after the interview with survivors from the Aurora massacre, I couldn't help but reflect on what one of those survivors said. She said that her son owned an AR-15 assault rifle and after the Aurora massacre he sold it. Well that didn't get rid of it, did it? He just passed it on to somebody else. This powerful weapon is still out there, and in the hands of God knows whom? He should have turned it in to the ATF or the local police. But I guess he wanted to recoup some of what he paid for it. The government should have a buy back policy for gun owners who wish to relinquish their weapons, I think.
But it raises a very troubling question. How do we regulate and control the private sales, or trading, of weapons? Who does the background checks of the buyers in instances like this? I see huge potential for unscrupulous criminals to easily gain access to high powered guns via this route. It is simply terrifying to think about!
One more thing, why did the last ban on assault rifles expire after just ten years? There should be no expiry date on such a ban, in my humble opinion!
Unfortunately, there is currently no way to do background checks on private sales. One idea that has been mentioned, is that to sell a gun privately, you have to do it through an authorized dealer, who would run the background check. This along with the fact that guns can be sold at gun shows without background checks, is a glaring hole in our current system. Another area is that the background check system needs to have much more detailed records when it comes to mental health. The Virginia Tech shooter had many red flags in his medical records, including a doctor deeming the shooter an imminent threat to others. But somehow this was not in the background check system.
But as we all know, criminals do not play by the rules, and will get guns regardless. Even in our current system, do you really think criminals are buying guns legally? And even if someone sold a gun to another person, they better have that buyers proper name, otherwise the ATF will trace the gun back to the private seller if it ends up in a crime. The people committing the crimes are not the legal gun owners. Even if we took guns away from law abiding citizens, gun violence will not go down, because the criminals aren't buying legal guns anyway.
There are going to be irresponsible people out there. Why the CT shooter's mom taught her son how to shoot a gun, knowing his mental condition is beyond me. But that doesn't mean the shooter wouldn't have found another way to kill people.
Pete, I have read a number of posts that have offered a bevy of great ideas, great discussions, and views on both sides of the fence. I love this country, I love it's history, I love it's diversity, and I love compassion in a time of great tragedy!!!!! I am a gun owner, I am a hunter, and I am an every day carrier of a firearm . I love the idea of having a discussion on gun control issues, but what I dislike is when people , like Mr Morgan, bully their beliefs on people, it's called a discussion, where all parties speak!!! Just like your comments, using the term "gun nuts", you do nothing but invite anger and bad feelings from us "gun nuts" . Perhaps we can have a discussion on ignorance, you appear to be well versed on that. If you are that disappointed with your country, perhaps you think of residing elsewhere.
What a horrible interview. Piers Morgan is humiliating his guest, I don't agry with his ideas but he must not be humiliated like that by his host. By the way, he said that the US has the highest murder of the civilized world? What the hell means this argument? I live in Brazil and of course the murder rate with guns is higher than in the US, so we are not a civilized country?! What a crap interview! This is a typical argument of a Brittan that thinks he still lives in the Vitorian Times. I am offended by this rude jounalist called Piers Morgan.
Let's start a campaign to have CNN dump Piers.
Dear Piers Morgan – Your interview this evening with Mr. Pratt was extremely rude and disrespectful. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Mr. Pratt, your treatment of your guest was incredibly unprofessional. You asked him questions and then would not even allow him to speak. Why bother to have someone on your "talk show" if you won't allow him to "talk"? I have never posted a comment on any news blog, but felt outraged enough to do so. Not because I agree with Mr. Pratt, but because you were horribly rude to him and you did not act like a professional journalist.
Couldn't agree more. Morgan is very rude and too opinionated. He asks questions and then won't let his guests answer! He loves to sensationalize, a total bully! Go back to Britain!
Let's start a campaign to have CNN dump Piers. I hope they are reading the huge volume of these negative posts.
Piers Morgan is from the country that sent its law breaking citizens to the continent of America... Why is he here? No success in the UK? Do they feed the same drugs and video games the the rest of the worlds youth? Put his ass on the next ship back!
Piers, I am in agreement with your position on gun control, and I'm glad you had the man you had on tonight who couldn't with reason explain WHY he would not ban assault weapons. I agree with the rights to have a gun in one's home to be able to defend one's property and family, but I see no reason why anyone needs the type of guns used in these horrific shootings. I'm only a few miles from the shopping center here in Portland, Or. HOWEVER, having said that, I was so very disappointed in how you conducted yourself, calling your "guest" stupid and other names and humiliating him,while he came across calm and more level headed. I would venture to say that if you were in a room together, and a loaded gun sat between you.. it appeared that YOU would have been more out of control than this man. PLease Piers... if you are to represent sane solutions to this complex problem, if you can't do it without rage... let someone else do the interviewing. We need sacrifically calm and articulate representatives to bring this important and complex argument to the front. Get your act together, please. You have a platform of influence, don't mis use it, to vent your own anger. That's the same excuse the gun toting criminals use. Don't let us down again. If you must engage in this type of interviewing on such a critical subject just so your program can continue to be borderline "Springer"ish, and be called "unpredictable" ,"lively", "challenging", please stay away from this subject and pick less critical ones. You owe it to the dead children to handle these controversial interviews more responsibly.
Mr Morgan, thank you for taking a stand even if you are not of this barbaric country. The callousness of Philip Van Cleave just defies the word humanity.
I feel sad for you. You do not have a grasp on reality to be able to see the truth because everything is filtered through your lens of misconceptions. Philip Van Cleave was being no more callous than a person saying that swimming is fun after being asked, after reports of numerous drownings, "Why do people swim?" Piers's behavior was reprehensible and he should not be encouraged by foolish expressions of appreciation such as yours. However, you have the right to say whatever foolishness you wish but I have the right to tell you I think you are very wrong.
Piers-I don't think you want to see any guns in america as it is in Europe even though you say you believe people should be able to have them in their homes for self defense. You don't tell of all the assaults and home invasions there. You were rude and unprofessional to your guest tonight. You want peace in our time but there will always be evil and disturbed people who prey on the defenseless and outlaws will find a way to be armed.
There is confusion on this serious, ironic issue of gun control. Should I buy a gun because that is the industrial-military posture? Or because I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones? The Second Ammendment defines and protects all Americans? It turns out that the bad guys acquire firearms whether they stole them or bought them only to use them against us. I'm starting to believe that Mrs. Nancy Lanza, as a mother, aware of his son Adam's disadvantageous aspect, decided to get weapons so her son could fend off all those guys who abuse innocent people. The irony is that at the end the firearms were used against herself and 26 more persons. I dare to state that the only beneficiaries in all this turmoil are the manufacturers. Remember President Dwight D. Eisenhower's final speech: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Does anyone else find it strange that a British on an American program is badgering Americans with his disgust of American gun laws? I wonder if his anger is self-serving. Definitely seems sensationalizing and bullying from the pulpit.
A big turn off.
What is CNN trying to accomplish with an alien on American matters anyway?
I am not in favour of high powered assault weapons. However, I thought Piers Morgan was a total bully towards his guest. Why does he invite guests on his show only to try and belittle them! He is an idiot. He tries to agitate and is confrontational and does not let anyone else speak especially if they don't share the same opinion. Bring back Larry King!
I was so offended by the comments of your guest this evening. He obviously doesn't understand what schools are about. We are about teaching children to have good communication skills and being able to negotiate and compromise with one another. We are about teaching children patience and tolerance for each other. We are working toward helping all children become well adjusted contributing members of society. I don't know any teachers who would want to pack a gun on their hip and send a message to students that we solve our problems through violence. This is not the kind of world anyone wants to live in. If we resort to this, I would give up by job as an educator after 25 years of service to children. The answer to violence is not more violence! Lets create a civilized peaceful society!
We may not want our children to live in a world where violence must be met with overwhelming violence, but that is the world in which we live. There are a number of teachers to whom I have spoken who would like to have a conealed gun to protect their students. The animal in Newtown was only stopped when dangerous men with guns came to the door to visit extreme violence upon him. Then the coward decided that rather than face those dangerous men he would kill himself. What if there was a dangerous teacher in the school? What if there was one teacher willing to teach her students that she loved them so much she was willing to kill for them? I venture to guess that if Vicki Soto had access to a gun fewer students would have died.
A lot of these mass murders happen because the killers want fame. Every time these massacres happen, CNN rushes in making the killer famous, encouraging the next shooter. Before you badger someone who legally and safely owns guns, look at the blood on your own hands.
legally and safely? Untill you lose your temper or untill someone grabs them from you. You are living in a dream world if you think that your legal and 'safe' gun ownership will keep anybody safe. The statistics prove it.
What "statistics" are you referring to? Either you are assuming they would support you or your sources are wrong.
Piers, go back to England and face YOUR CRIMINAL CHARGES ! ! ! You are sooo rude to your gun advocate guests! You are UNprofessional, childish, and appear to be an idiot disguised as a moron ! ! ! Your interruptions while the guest is speaking is exceptionally annoying! CNN needs to get rid of you ! ! ! Go back to England and face your criminal charges ! ! ! We have NO respect for you and your name calling of your guests ! ! ! By the way the darling children tragically killed last Friday were 6 and 7 years old, NOT 5 years old as you misstated on air !!! You don't even have your facts correct! And You called Larry Prat an idiot – LOLOLOL ! ! ! You, Piers Morgan, are the worst commentator on all of TV, especially on CNN. I hope CNN fires you, and the sooner the better ! ! !
Dear CNN, I'm very dissapointed in your Piers Morgan. I've never seen an interviewer so one sided and rude as to call a guest an idiot. Totally bad form. All he is creating is more hatred. I think the main issue is the focus on mental health and the lack of mental health facilities,which in my state, has been cut over the past decades. In my opinion, in households with a mentally ill family member, mandatory regulations should be observed when firearms are in the household. Once you start downgrading the law abiding citizens, the criminals rise. Mr morgan showed imaturity and uncooperative debate. My thoughts and prayers for the familieswho have suffered dearly.
1st I believe movies and videogames had nothing to do with these murders..I have been thinking after watching Piers Morgan,,,about guns. I wonder If someone in charge of the school was able to have a secured weapon might she or he have been able to somehow take this guy down.??..by the time the police got their it was to late ..everyone in his line of fire was kiiled no one could in anyway defend themselves ..criminals kill people & sick manaics like this boy kill people
moral honest human beings don't kill people!
The bad guys get guns straw purchases, underground, .. NOTHING WILL EVER STOP THIS!.. u can ban all the guns you want However ,maybe? some one armed in the school male or female in charge with training might have been able to save some. people ? I just don't know>
I was robbed an almost killed...however, Had I had been armed in my store I might have used the gun..
So I don't who is right or wrong.,..But I believe if someone wants to commit these horrible crimes i doubt
they can be stopped... without being taken out! His mother may she RIP should have not had all these weapons in her home....So the real starts with her.. no doubt. I just hope somehow all the familys are able to go on with there lives and find some peace.... I agree Piers Morgan was really nasty ..and should allow his guests speak or why the hell have them on...I am not entirely against what the gun advocate had to say he had some points..!
It's people like Piers Morgan that prevent the conversation about gun control. He doesn't seem capable of having an adult, constructive dialog because he's always in pure attack mode. Logical people distance themselves from people like Piers. His style of conversing is a waste of time and unproductive,
This was the first and last time I will ever watch Piers Morgan. The funny thing is, I'm a gun owner and agree with Piers' position that people do not need military grade weapons. But the way Piers threw a tantrum and started spouting baseless claims about gun control, just shows me the lack of research by Piers and that he will say anything to try and prove a point. You might have thought you were giving the guest a lashing, but you just showed everyone how incapable you are of having an intelligent conversation. The guest was composed and treated you with respect, even in the face of your uncontrollable outrage. Maybe you should take notes...
To the TheKingStampede,
I'm glad you are a gun owner but you need to stand strong and resist any effort to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. I have been fighting the anti-gun left for the past 60 years so I know they are mercilessly persistent in pushing their agenda. They are liars to the core and when they say "Oh, we only want to do such and such." they cannot be believed for one instant. They are like this for everything. Just look at how they have duped conservatives over the years promising that they will reduce spending if they get tax increases. Besides, our Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in place not shooting clay pigeons or hunting deer but to allow a citizen to truly be a force to protect himself from anything. This country is coming closer and closer to the brink of financial ruin and when that happens you will be thankful that you have an assault rifle to defend your family against the pillaging mobs.
I agree with you that the AR-15 should not be banned. I think military-grade assault rifles should be banned, but the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. I do not think citizen should have military-grade weapons. The distinction needs to be made between military-grade weapons and civilian grade weapons, which the AR-15 falls into the civilian grade category.
I think Piers Morgan another anti-gun advocates need to get their terminology right.
America and her guns kickd a buch of fish and chip eating Limeys out of here twice now (granted they burned DC to the ground before we got to you the second time). Don't think we won't do it again. If we disgust yo so, go back and gossip about your royals.
I would love to know what makes Morgan such a gun expert. He needs to get back on track of interviewing celebs or go back to
I am a big fan of yours, love your interviews. But last night and and previous nights covering the gun control issue have left me disgusted in your behavior. While I agree with some of your arguments on gun control, your treatment of your "guests" is way out of line. CNN please talk with Piers if he cannot conduct himself in a professional manner he must be replaced.
P/M should be ashamed as to his insulting outbursts toward his guests who have a different opinion to him. Yes we need gun control but to call his guests STUPID and IDIOTS is not in keeping with the professional standards I have become to value CNN for. These comments would be more suited to Fox News or Glen Beck.
P/M outbursts cause the message to be diluted.
Shame on P/M and CNN you owe us an apology for the outbursts and take P/M off the TV for a while so we can forget and maybe he could reflect on the better values of his country and be more courteous and not exposed us to the crass side of his English background
We can't expect too much from Piers after all, prior to CNN, he was a judge on the Brit show, X Factor. What sort of credentials are those for a journalist? He obviously does not understand the concept of journalistic objectivity, presenting both sides of the issue so that the viewer can be informed and thereby reach reach a conclusion. By berating and insulting his guest, Piers has shown his lack of education and understanding of the issue. Go back to the UK, Piers. We don't need another prissy, opinionated Brit over here.
I confess that I switched off half way through as I tire of Piers Morgan's debating style – raised voice and not allowing his opponent an opportunity to speak. It is tantamount to verbal bullying. As it happens, I am inclined to agree with Piers.
Way to go Piers!! You said, what many people want to say! It is absolutely ludicrous that there is even the thought that we need to arm teachers in order to create a 'safer' environment. This is America for crying out loud, not Yemen, not Iraq, not Syria! Stricter gun control, and taking high powered assault rifles off the street is the only answer to avoid regular reoccurences of this unspeakable tragedy. I cannot fanthom the thought that someone feels the need to carry a gun while out and about. Does it make you feel safer? superior? invincible? As for Piers, not giving his guest enough chance to speak.. maybe he should but clearly he was emotional, as are a whole lot of other people. I cried many tears for those poor familes in Newtown. Something like that, especially when you are a parent yourself, breaks your heart and soul into a million pieces. I hope politicians grow some balls and deal with this out of control cultural madness.
You wrote " I cannot fanthom the thought that someone feels the need to carry a gun while out and about. Does it make you feel safer? superior? invincible?" So you find it necessary to belittle those who you cannot understand? Well, let me tell you why this respectable citizen feels the need to carry a gun. I abide by the law, but more and more there are those around me who want to take advantage of honest people. As the economy continues into the dumpster, thuggery will become commonplace so you better rethink your position on carrying a gun. The feeling I have when carrying my .30 caliber, snub nose, Smith and Wesson is one of being prepared and it has nothing to do with "feeling superior".
All of the suggestions are well taken. My only take is to do something immediately without up staging the
2nd Amendment, lock up the bullets, keep magazines under lock and key, never transport guns in population of
One or more persons present. Hunters transport guns with locks in place. No bullets sold on same day as
Weapon sale. Dealers may not sell ammo with weapons sale. May only transport one bullet per weapon.
No unauthorized guns in population of schools, churches, synagogues, gov't buildings, police stn's, loaded or
Unloaded. Police inquiry of guns at every family dispute. No guns transported across state lines. Just to add
A few suggestions. Thank you.
What you have just described is the basic dismantling of the Second Amendment. I'll have to push the "b-r-a-a-a-a-c-k" button on that one, friend.
SHAME on CNN for their editing of comments.A good friend made a comment yesterday (Carl S), where by he told me his comment never made it here.
He noted how he was and his family was forced to move due to a predator that took advantage of his wife's severe postpartum depression
This man continued to stalk their family and terrorize them and it was a gun that deterred them from further harm (his daughter was harmed and to this day struggles),
Your disgusting liberal editors did not allow his post which he shared with me (via Word Doc) which made several other clear points.
Piers clearly is a man with issues of honesty and integrity and simply does not know how to mourn, rather he need to name call and make false accusations. He also lacks the wisdom to realize that we simply have evil in this world and always have
Having worked in the gun industry for 6 years and have seen almost every gun made, I think the discussion here needs to be centered around the proper terminology.
People are saying the AR-15 is an assault rifle, which is NOT TRUE. The AR-15 may LOOK like a military grade weapon (M-16, M-4) on the outside, but it does not work like one. The interior parts are different from it's military-grade counterparts. According to the assault weapon ban (even when in place), the AR-15 did not fall in the assault weapon category. An assault weapon is an automatic weapon with automatic fire and/or multiple round burst firing capabilities. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon and does not fall into this category. Anti-gun advocates are labeling the AR-15 as an assault rifle, which is technically not true, even by the standards of the Assault Weapons Ban:
With that said, I do think civilians do not need military-grade weapons, which are different than AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. There is no need to hunt with an automatics weapon. There is also no need to hunt with an AR-15. Those are not hunting rifles.
For everyone attacking the Republicans over gun laws… You need to point the finger at Democrats too. They've been in power and have not even brought the assault weapons ban back to the floor for a vote. So, before you start pointing your finger at Republicans, there is enough blame to go around.
This is correct. an AR15 is NOT an Assault Rifle! Many people think the AR stands for Assault Rifle. It does not. It stands for the name of the company that originally designed it, Armalite. The Military version was then called the M16. Just like a Beretta 92 is an M9 in the military. Some people do hunt with an AR15, there is even hunting ammunition made in the .223 caliber. The caliber is also deemed one of the safest that can be used indoors for home defense. This is because a .223 or 5.56 Nato round (non penetrator) is not typically lethal after going through an interior wall.
You are correct. Some people do use AR-15s for hunting, but in my opinion there are better rifles that are designed specifically for hunting.
It's funny when I hear people say they do not need a AR-15 for home defense, when the AR-15 is a perfect close quarters weapon. It also depends on the type of round. Even with a handgun, you want to use a hollow point bullet, so it does not go through the intruder or even walls.
The Right to be Armed is a Human Right. Piers Morgan is a Jester from the Dark Ages.. he calls Britian Civilized, he calls Australia Civilized, he calls Canada Civilized, he calls Jamiaca uncivilized, he calls Mexico uncivilized .. he is an Elisted who beleives Self Defense belongs to the State, that the Queen can have Cannons but the Peasents only get Pitchforks.. Pierce Morgan is the Guy who hanged children in the 1600s when the British Peasents rose up against a despot and secured the right to be armed. Britian is not a Civilized Country ..its a Dark Ages Monarchy ..and Piers Morgan should go back there.. and enjoy his Subjugation to the state.
Notify me of new comments via email.