READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
On Wednesday evening, "Piers Morgan Tonight" continued its focus on the issue of "Guns in America," inviting a former marine to explain why he objects to registering his personal weapons.
A veteran of Afghanistan, Joshua Boston recently drafted an open letter to Dianne Feinstein, the U.S. Senator from California, in which he says he will refuse to reveal what type of arms he owns, even if a ban on assault rifles is passed.
Joining host Piers Morgan for a live interview, Boston explained why he's against such a bill, making a case for the merits of owning assault weapons:
"The American people aren't as gun-happy and trigger-happy as they're being painted out to be by the media. They are smarter than that. They know when to hold their fire. They know when to fire," said Boston. "We can increase the chances of success for these people that get caught in situations for their survival by education. We've got to stop making this a taboo subject to everyone because it's scary. We can't give up our rights because we are afraid."
Citing concern for seeing his family disarmed, Tuesday's guest emphasized the value of guns for safety, maintaining that Americans should be permitted to own firearms as a fundamental means of protection:
"They should be able to carry such weapons, they should have that choice," said Boston, referring to those attending movies, or visiting shopping malls. "They shouldn't be denied that right to self-defense because of the actions of lunatics."
Watch the clip, and listen to the interview, as Boston makes his case for lesser gun control.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
One example about the gun control issue....... Take a look at Mexico, it has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Even with all of the gun laws there, the thugs in Mexico still purchase heavy machine guns from the black market. Needless to say, banning guns will only disarm law abiding citizens, not outlaws.
And a foreign government will supply the outlaws with all of the firearms they want.
Of the 11,000 deaths by gun that Piers brought up, OVER 600 were police officers shooting people. That is direct from the FBI. So basically, Piers is full of it.
THANK YOU SIR! Somebody here understands!
-your everyday friendly Canadian
That leaves 10,400 non-police related? Is that really such a big difference?
Black market. A T F 70,000 loss their lifes include federal state city municipal and army. And 25000 missing fighting to stop the drugs .to come in destroy th life of our young people even with all this it was a GDP grow of 4% . Why US do not confront a full scale drugs gun violence ,how is possible over 40 tons of cocaine a year cross the border in water in land as ex state COP in MEX MEX . I HAD capture two intruders with out gun in my home .
Yet another example of the total lack of intelligence on the part of the gun nuts.
Mexico is not the USA, Mexico is virtually a failed state with a totally corrupt government and police force. A country incapable of collecting taxes let alone enforcing gun laws. Mexico cannot even feed its own people or build a national infrastructure because of CORRUPTION.
However if the gun nuts think that countries like Mexico are a good comparison for the USA then this only reinforces their image of stupidity. Lets take Somalia. there are NO gun laws there and NO taxes so why don't you go and live there.
If you look at countries that are comparable to the USA such as, Canada, Britain, France, Germany Italy, Australia, New Zealand etc. etc. etc then you will find a VERY DIFFERENT situation. But those comparisons don't serve your purpose do they.
If you have nothing intelligent to say them just SHUT UP.
Mexico failed because its citizens were not allowed to defend themselves. As far as Britain, France and the rest? They are propped up by the US. If the US goes under, so will they. All it would take is for a ban on guns and then one power hungry president that uses " executive orders" indiscriminately.
yeah because the mexican citizens cannot protect themselves.. don't be fooled this is what elitistss like morgan want to happen here.. the "authorities/thugs" will be able to intimidate whomever they want when they are the only ones who can have the guns..
The US armed MEXICO, the US consumes the drugs Mexico makes. Please get your facts straight, Mexico would not be armed without the US
Your analogy is misguided. Mexico is not the United States. The police in mexico struggle to control the criminals, the criminals, in many parts of the country, run the show. That is not the case here. We are not overrun by drug cartels and I don't see any value in comparing our situations. Gun laws prevent *people* from acquiring guns. They do not stop all people, they stop some people. These laws would not prevent *every* criminal from getting a gun, they would help to prevent *some* criminals from getting guns and in many of our opinions, that's a good start. What you and your friends don't seem to understand is that most of us in this country see no valid reason for owning assault weapons. We're not criminalizing gun owners, we *literally* don't want to live our lives in the dystopia that you nutcases fantasize over.
First off I am a US Veteran. I swore an oath to protect this country from threats both foreign and DOMESTIC. I watched friends die to protect our freedoms and rights. We fought for these rights and freedoms. Its a shame to see my government try to take these rights and freedoms as though the sacrifices made were nothing.
The answer to the problem is education. Not only that but lets hold the actual owners of these guns responsible.
A kid takes his parents guns to school and shoots people. How did he get the gun? why did he have access to the gun? If we are going to charge the child then we should charge the parents for not taking the proper safety precautions. The parents are just as much to blame as the child. Do people not see this?
You are absolutely correct. Btw, thank you for your service, sir. Unfortunately people only react to these unfortunate acts done by crazies with pure emotion. I'm betting that the thought that many more died defending these rights than that are killed by the crazies produced by our society. It's sad, but people forget quickly and a lot of American have forgotten what exactly this country is all a out. Liberty and freedom for all, for we the people.
I agree with tighter gun show enforcement, and limiting magazines to 3-4 rounds. With a small magazine an assault rifle is just a fancy hunting rifle.
It wouldn't be an assault rifle with only 5 rounds. This demonizing specific guns is a lack of education about what makes them dangerous. I just hope we see laws that work and not another assault weapons ban like the last one.
All it takes is three or four rounds to keep people's heads down while you change out the magazine.
Yep, that is what they say. In the real world and under extreme pressure, it doesn't work so well. Changing the magazine out can turn into a disaster. In the Gifford shooting the suspect fumbled the magazine and a bystander picked it up. He was then out of bullets. No one was shooting back at him either.
If that is your logic, against 3 armed men, you are absolutely screwed. And how may magazines can you carry around?
Consider this: a standard 12 gauge shotgun holds 3 rounds, no extended magazine, no scary black plastic furniture, just a plain old hunting shotgun. Load it it up with 3 00 buck shot shells, often used for deer hunting, and you have 27 .32 caliber projectiles that can be fired faster than I can fire 30 rounds from my AR-15. Will you ban hunting shotguns now too? Banning the tool because it doesn't fit your idea of how it should look is ridiculous. The argument that no one NEEDS hi-cap magazines or military style weapons (not an assault weapon) is specious as well. You don't NEED a car that can exceed the speed limit yet you most likely drive one every day. Tens of thousands more people die every year by careless drivers than by scary black rifles. Will you outlaw cars? Thousands of people will die from tobacco and alcohol this year. Will you ban those things as well? Where will you stop? Or is it only ok to ban the things YOU don't like? Why do you get to judge what others can or want to do?
Take the plug out of the shotgun. Mine holds 5 rounds. I believe there is an issue with high capacity magazines. There is nothing wrong with an AR=15 that makes it more weapon than my 30.06 other than the extra feature of having a high capacity magazine. The assault weapons ban was a joke because it looked at the weapon and tried to ban anything that looked like it. Had very little to do with the operation or capability of the weapon. The 223 with high capacity magazines are the weapon of choice because they have no recoil and shoot lots of bullets. Combine that with the fact that most of these shooting are not using NATO rounds, it makes it a mass killing machine. We need to do something to keep these weapons out of the schools.
Of course banning high capacity magazines does not SOLVE the problem, banning assault rifles does NOT SOLVE the problem.
To solve the problem we need to re-educate the gun nuts and that is NOT possible. So what do we do? NOTHING will that solve anything. To do the right thing would start a war with the gun nuts screaming about their rights and making deadly threats. The problem is that the gun nuts won't accept even the most common sense restrictions. Remember the fight over trying to ban bullets that would go through body armour? who the hell needs those except crooks and the criminally insane and yet the NRA fought that common sense regulation to the death.
When is the NRA going to admit that more guns do NOT make us safer, we already have 300 Million. Will 500 million or 800 million make us more safe? Will 200 round magazines make us more safe? the answer is NO NO NO.
Will strict enforcement of background checks, strict enforcement of gun registration make us safer YES. All I hear is that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should be able to have guns, OK then these same people should not object if we ask them to be RESPONSIBLE for their guns. If a gun is in the house and another would be murderer uses it to commit a crime then the OWNER of the gun should be held responsible. If YOU are a law abiding citizen then you should absolutely be held responsible for any crimes committed with it. If you lock the gun away this should NOT be a problem, if you want to be totally safe then GET RID OF THE GUN.
What happens is that we get a police state and Piers goes back to Britan to laugh at us.
Piers Morgan is dangerous and CNN has blood on its hands of big pharma and he brings you this disgusting video to divide americans as he is divided in his weak mind. Selling children MILITARY SPEC ASSAULT 16Z BATTERY RUFFLES POTATO CHIPS".... Piers Morgan is actually WORSE than FRIGHTSTEIN... and HE'S the WOMAN!!!
Someone HUG Piers Morgan on live TV please, his confused red angry face making me sad :(
While I am clearly on the 'Protect the 2nd amendment' side of this argument, folks like you spewing the stuff you spew is NOT helping our case at all! Learn from how silly Alex Jones looked on the show 2 nights ago, understand that it HURTS our cause, and shut the heck up!
This guy has obviously had his ORGAN PIERCED, not the one between his legs but the one on his shoulders. Firstly I can not make any sense of this drivel can anyone else, what does "CNN has blood on its hands of big pharma" mean? This guy is obviously deranged I just hope he hasn't got a gun, But he may qualify as a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN and therefore be able to get a gun, this is not good for the public at large.
Remember that ADAM LANZA was a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN until he pulled the trigger, as is every criminal a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN until they commit a crime. If we adopt the logic of the gun nuts then there should be NO LAWS at all because we are all LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, every criminal and murderer started of as a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.
Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law in 1982 that requires the head of house hold to "maintain a firearm and ammunition". This town has the lowest crime rate of any in the US. A wise man always told me "if you want to be successful do what the successful people do". If we want to lower the crime rate take Kennesaw as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law
The bad guy comes to your door with gun in hand–you have to get up from in front of the TV and go get yours unless you wear it all the time. The bad guy wins–you lose.
I DO wear mine all the time. One never knows when it might come in handy.
I've been asked a few times if I'm "expecting trouble" because folks can see that I carry a gun (I'm an open carrier). I politely respond with, "No, but then no one at Rudy's Cafeterea, Columbine, VT, Ft Hood, Tucson, etc. were expecting trouble when all hell broke loose on them either." I'm not going to be caught unprepared!
You, my friend, are an idiot! You clearly either don't understand the mentality of the defensive minded individual and don't own a firearm yourself, or you are just an idiot. When someone rings your doorbell do you just skip up to the door and open it without first looking to see who it might be? I'm sure gun owners know what they are doing and have established their own operating procedure when someone comes to the door or around their house. Man...the ignorance spewed on these comment sections is viral.
Depends on how tactical you are.My gun is always in reach,sooooo what ?A cops gun is on him for what reason?It's not that hard to be tactical,actually kind of fun.Come to my house with a weapon and try to enter unlawfully,see if you have an easy time.
Typically the bad guy doesn't come when there is activity in the house. He waits until everyone is asleep and hopes they don't have a gun on their night stand.
The replies to this post are all the same a great example of why we need GUN CONTROL. None of you should be able to get within a hundred miles of a gun because you are all paranoid schizophrenics who are afraid of their own shadows, who see bogey men around every corner. The bad guys are you, not physically you but people with the same paranoia. What kind of a world do you live in? are you really expecting a serial murderer to knock on your front door? Do you know that actual events show that for every time someone "protects" themselves with a gun at least 10 other people will have their gun taken away from them and used against them. The biggest source of illegal gun are the guns stolen from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I know that these statistics are INCONVENIENT and it takes someone with INTELLIGENCE to understand. So I will put it simply, the chances of you actually protecting yourself are about ZERO the chance of your gun killing someone other than a bad guy is very high.
If you actually can tear yourself away from the sports channel or you can read something other than the sports pages and cartoons in the newspaper you might actually learn some facts about the real world NOT the frightening, fantasy world you so obviously live in
I know that your fancy statistics are nice, of course you did not cite them or anything so who knows if they are true. (That is how) But, in San Antonio, Texas on December 17, what would have been another Colorado theater massacre ended with only two people wounded despite the shooting spree the would be killer began. He was shot and subdued by an off-duty Bexar County Sherriff's Officer who worked at the theater and was carrying a concealed weapon. She was not acting in her capacity as a police officer, she was acting as a citizen protecting fellow citizens and herself. Was she paranoid to carry her weapon? She was off duty. There was absolutely no reason to carry the weapon. Is she of lesser intelligence because she was prepared for the worst. It would seem that these people that you speak of that have their guns turned on them are in most cases casual users of firearms and while they have a right to that weapon they abuse it to their own detriment. With that right comes a responsibility to understand and respect the tool that they have that others bled and died to procure for them. There is no folly in fear of one's government or of their fellow man. Nor is their disillusionment in the expectation of greatness from both. But a wise man will hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Usually with a gun in hand.
You are exactly opposite. You have a greater chance defending yourself with a gun and actually have less chance of being shot by one. The info is out there so go to FBI website and get the damn facts yourself so you can quit depending on news to give it to you.
At the start of todays show Piers stated what he believes about gun control. I agree with everything he says with the exception of specific guns. It really gets messy when you start trying to ban a specific gun. A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic. Put a 5 round clip in all rifles and the ar-15 is junk.
For once, I just want someone on the "anti-gun" side to spit out some stats. Like of all the guns in private ownership, how many are used in "mass shootings". Although "remove guns and you remove gun violence" would seem logically true, it is a carefully structured, misleading statement...as it does not address crime overall...especially since violent crime is down year over year since 1992. I say let people carry. the more people out there that carrry firearms the more criminals have to worry about where return fire will come from. If you think taking guns will stop "mass killings"...just remember Oklahoma City. 0ver 200 killed in a matter of seconds from a homemade explosive mix. Just look at the news from the middle east...take away one method to obtain high kill ratio, they will move to another MORE DEADLY tool.
Point well taken. It really is about crime rate and not the tools being used. Banning guns in the UK didn't solve the crime rate, in only changed the methods.
CNN YOUR HANDY CROOKS !!!
WHY IS YOUR CNN EDITOR CRYING?? IS SHE CRYING BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO UNITE NOT DIVIDE AND SHE SPREADS LIES?
– Stop misinformation of the public and have a ballistics expert on the air to explain the same four words Piers reads from his script
– The truth ASSAULTS CNN just like Piers is terrified of the words "Military, Weapon, Style, ARRRrrr, Battery"
– Victim, witness, and memorial posts do not belong on a website that sponsors the behaviors that have deceived the people and are on thousands of prescriptions THAT YOUR LIES all glorifying the Hollywood celebrity.
ALL Media is 100% guilty of this lining pockets with a very sensitive issue
– Provide ways for the community to conduct independent studies into all drug evidence of any crime to look
for patterns or clues to behavior.
There are gun owners supporting limiting access to high cycling/removable magazine firearms. There are a lot more of us than gun hardliners want to admit. Some of us are sharing our ideas on approaches to this at GO4GC on Facebook.
There is this talk show host by the name of Alex Jones. Alex is adamant about the second amendment and it's statement about the right to bear arms. Alex is a loud mouthed, over bearing American who cannot carry on a decent conversation. He is a bully commentator with little class. The problem with Alex is he wants to deport Pierce Morgan for his stand on Gun Control. Hey Alex while you are busy defending the second amendment how about the right we have as Americans and Canadians for free speech. Are you saying that overtime you have a disagreement with another person your answer is to run them out of the country? If this is the answer you would have been long gone years ago. You speak your mind and you have a huge platform to do it. How would you like your platform removed.
I am not a fan of Pierce Morgan but what I saw was a man trying to have a discussion and you Alex, screaming and acting like the image that most people in other countries have of Americans. I happen to agree with Pierce Morgan, we need stricter gun controls, we need to curb the violence. No one is saying turn in your hunting rifles or hand guns. What we are saying is please have some decent control of the weapons so more children and innocent people are not killed. 30,000 deaths by guns a year in America.
So Alex instead of kicking people out you disagree with why not try something new. Why not try to understand where they are coming from and when you have an opportunity to have a decent conversation try to show some respect. You are the school bully of talk radio. To call Pierce Morgan Trash is unacceptable and if you had one ounce of decency you would apologize. Hey, you found a secret, shock radio works. The concept that people in America are followers of you and are of the same mindset is very unsettling.
You are cut from the same cloth Alex as the folks from the Westboro Baptist Church, you just have a different agenda. (These are the hate mongers who says God hates America and Canada) To those who are upset with people who disagree with you about guns, you should be proud to live in a country that allows freedom of speech. It is a great gift, embrace it and you might just learn something.
I remember doing a show a few years ago where I interviewed Marc Emery a local pot advocate. I was so stuck on my view point that I did not hear a work Marc was saying. Marc is in jail now and some would say rightfully so. All I know is I could have conducted a better interview and I may have learned some things. I was rude and disrespectful to Marc and it did not accomplish anything.
What we need is constructive dialogue not shouting matches.
If Alex Jones is the spokesperson for those of you who have guns I feel sorry for you. He does not represent you in good light, not even a dim light. He is the image of the brash bully, the overbearing American that I am sure most people do not want to associate with, but, perhaps I am wrong. This is not about right wing or left wing this is about human decency and respect. Mr Jones these things are lacking in your talk format. I doubt that you will have chance to read this but if you do I am sure your rant will be hard hitting, it is all you know.
Alex Jones is no more a spokesman for the vast majority of gun owners in America than Piers Morgan is the spokesman for all the folks who don't own guns. Alex Jones makes good TV and that is why he is invited on the show not because he will give a coherent, reasonable face to gun ownership. It seems to me that CNN and the Piers Morgan show are more interested in portraying anyone who owns weapons as some kind of nut than having a truly rational discussion. When Piers calls AR-15 "essentially machineguns" and calls people who disagree with him "stupid", he lowers himself to same level as Alex Jones.
Still leaves over 10,000?
Treating gunshot wounds costs 2 BILLION dollars in this country every year. That's just wounds–not homicides and suicides.
IN CASE OF FIRE
If you can understand this sign which appears in many public places, maybe you can understand the Second Amendment which was passed only because we did not have a standing defense force until the Marine Corps was created and in which I served 4 years during the Korean conflict. (The US is 'at war' only when Congress passes a declaration of war against another nation. We are currently 'at war' with only one nation and I'll bet money not one member of Congress can name that nation. I can.) When put in a sentence, In Case of Fire, Break Glass has a COMMA after the word glass. In other words, you can only break the glass when there is a fire. The Second Amendment begins, "A well regulated militia, COMMA and every word that follows that comma depends on those four words. Yes, I'm well aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that ordinary citizens can own guns but that's because they're lawyers, not linguists. (I've taught our language since 1964.) If you think about it, 'smart lawyer' is an oxymoron. Lawyers draft laws that ordinary citizens are expected to comply with and then they argue over what the law means, including the lawyers on the Supreme Court.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
Just so we are fair when discussing this, it is important to acknowledge that there is much more to the amendment than comma placement. By understanding the definition and applicable language (as SCJ Scalia has pointed out) must be taken into reasonable account of meaning when it was written. At the time it was written, there was no "standing army"...so militia was meant to define an organized fighting force of citizens. Using that definition, along with the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" segment clearly defines the intent of the writers. Their intent was that every able bodied citizen (at that time men) should have the right to keep and bear arms should the need arise for them to organize again as a "militia" to maintain "the security of a free state". Leaving any language out about a where that threat to freedom might come from, the writers new (having experienced this for themselves) that their own government could at any time become opressive and tyranical. It is not by accident that this was written as the 2nd item in the bill of rights, only second to free speech and right to assemble peacefully.
Question for Piers Morgan?:
How did it feel last night to have someone yelling at you and disrespecting you the way you have all those other guest you had on your show about guns? No matter what you think about guns, the way you have treated your guest is as ridiculous as your guest was last night.
Well now, who will Pier's try to use to further his misaligned agenda? As intelligent as he tries to appear, why can he not understand that by focusing on one of the other many greater causes of death, he may actually save more lives? Because he is an idiot! Jerry,Jerry, Jerry! CNN fools!
PIERS, I BEG YOU TO DEBATE THIS GUN ISSUE WITH ME ON YOUR SHOW. DON'T LIMIT US TO A FEW MINUTES THOUGH, LET'S TAKE THE WHOLE HOUR.
The Best take on the Bullsh|t that is the NRA is here
Locke and unload: Why the NRA doesn't understand rights
It's the exact inability of guns to secure our freedom that establishes the foundation for our civil government.
Did you just cite Aljazeera as a credible outlet for information? Wow...
Having lived in a Middle Eastern country for 9 years and having spoken the language well enough to be told by a taxi driver that I had become a citizen, I think al Jazeera is a pretty good source of information. In some cases it's more reliable than some of what we get here. (I used to be a radio-tv news reporter.)
WE will not give our guns to a governent that uses the same gun to defend us. If you dont like our gun rights leave NOW. You have no right to tell us anything you LIberal PIGS.
The main point was never even brought up...! This is the point that Piers Morgan needs to bring up on his show if he wants to show he is loking at all points. "We protect our: banks; with our money, sporting events; with our selves and our entertainers, courtrooms; with our illegal citizens & lawyers (& whom would want to protect a lawer lol)...! Yet we don't protect our: schools; with our children...? So wake up and think about the priorities we are chosing...!
Great point!!! That literally is the #1 point that anyone can make.
Exactly! The president has Secret Service and armed guards at his daughters schools. Is one man's children better than another? I didn't say he shouldn't have them guarded because I know they would be a target, but it seems any of the schools are target not just theirs.
Piers, here is the issue. The issue is, how much would crime increase in the US if citizens don't have adequate ability to detour criminals and vandals? No one on the liberal side is saying that. Instead you are only comparing gun crime #'s in the US vs the UK. Of course the gun crime # will be higher in the US if there's more guns around. That's common sense. But what really matters is the total crime rate, and in the US, total crime rate has gone down while the UK's has gone up. That in itself proves the point that citizens having the right to bear arms detours criminals and lowers the total crime #. Look at Ohio and Texas, states with concealed carry laws. Total crime rates in those states is down including gun related crime. My point gets made over and over. I would love to debate this simple point with you objectively if you would invite a normal common man on the show.
Also, you will never keep guns off the black market or out of the hands of criminals. So what do you stand to gain by taking the guns from law abiding, background checked, Americans? You get Britain where citizens can't defend themselves. My fiance' was mugged and beat up last year and no one could do anything about it because not one person had any method of defending themselves in the group of girls she was with. Piers you are only looking at this issue from a small ignorant perspective.
"You get Britain where citizens can't defend themselves."
I used to see ads by Charles Atlas with a guy getting sand kicked in his face by some bully. He took Atlas' course became strong and kicked sand in the other guy's face...That is until a bigger bully would come along and kick sand in his face.
The point is that if more guns is the answer, how big or what type of gun do you need? That depends a lot on what the other guy is packing. Does he have a body armor? Does he know how to use a gun better than you? Are you prepared to take a human life (sounds easy but definitely not for everyone)? How well can you shoot a gun under extreme stress? So many questions about guns concerning defense.
More guns mean there is more chance your gun will face another and won't be big enough or you good enough or lucky enough shot. If we didn't have guns you might do the Charles Atlas thing. Will you be strong enough and good enough to defend yourself in a physical fight? Same question – depends a lot on what the other guy is packing, physically in this case. Maybe your finance should have become a martial arts expert before venturing into Britain where one can't have a gun but still could get mugged. That would have been a viable method for a defense, which is also available to any Brit. (I am sorry she did get mugged).
This is all to say that self-defense via any physical confrontation whether guns, knives, bats, or fist is a dangerous undertaking unless you absolutely know you have the upper hand or have absolutely no other choice. I've always managed to find other choices and that's worked so far for my 70 years. In spite of some "interesting" situations I've never found myself in a situation where I wished I'd had a gun. However. I'm sure there are others who would wish they had a gun in those same situations. Fortunately my outcomes said there was no need.
Right on Chuck! I am a Canadian and I agree with you 100%! We have very strict gun control laws here and it is safe to go anywhere without any fear of being shot at. A truly blessed place to live. Americans should try it sometime.
As for what Joshua Boston said on the show about the woman in Georgia, I have to say this. If she is allowed to own an AR-15 to defend herself, according to the current interpretation of the Second Amendment, then by the same token the criminal(s) who intrude on her are also allowed to have the same type of gun. Therefore this doesn't solve the problem, it just escalates it to a higher level.
As for background checks, how can we do that with absolute 100% certainty. May I remind you all that James Holmes, prior to the Aurora theater massacre, was a straight A student and was doing his Doctorate Degree in Neuroscience. Would anyone have thought that he would have become a mass murderer. I very much doubt it. As for the Newtown massacre, it wasn't the mentally ill gunman who purchased the guns, it was his mother, who was a school teacher herself. So, who would have seen that coming? Are we now to ask prospective gun owners what the mental health status is for all their family members or for others living in the same household?
One more thing. I don't think someone with a concealed handgun would have much effect on James Holmes. He was wearing bulletproof gear and helmet. Also, he had on a gas mask and fired tear gas into the audience prior to opening fire on them, resulting in the biggest mass shooting in U.S. history. It could have been worse, had his gun not overheated and jammed!
As long as man is violent and more powerful men try to take over other men and governments try to oppress populations then we need guns. Thomas Jefferson was a smart man that experienced and knew of these threats. We need and have a right to these guns.
You are 8.5 percent more likely to die from a blunt instrument, knives, or bare fist than from any rifle (FBI violent crimes index). If you want a real debate about guns ask someone who knows not crazed far right loudmouths. Ask someone who knows. I watched the "town hall debate" post Sandy Hook and Piers Morgan treated the pro-gun gentlemen like the loudmouth treated him last night. If you are serious about this debate find someone who will debate you or just let them talk.
I do not agree with you on the ban of ar15 style guns. What if we do ban them and the next shooting is with a shotgun or handgun? Are you going to request a ban on those when that happens? Maybe if more people were educated about guns along with safer background checks we could help the situation. If more people carried a gun maybe we could have saved some of the lives lost in these shootings. High capacity magazine ban is not the answer, people can die from single shot guns as well. More of the problem is the unstable younger people in america, are you going to ban them? No of course you wont. Maybe we should look into why the younger crowd have such a low outlook on life. The future holds no retirement or heck jobs for younger people, wouldn't that depress you? You are forgetting the main issue and its how do we fix the people issue not the tool used. We need better futures for our new generations. Why are they so depressed at early ages?
THNAK YOU CNN!!!! you are now offically banned from my home....I have watched since 1990 and often disagreed, but always came back......but now you have crossed the line with this PIG. I didnt see the interview lastnight but i saw tonights. You let this BRITT PIG tells a US soldier that he doesnt know what he talking about. With facts to back him up stating that gun restriction dont stop people attacking other people. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE DO!!!!!!!!!! and they kill with anything when they are set on killing.......GOODBYE CNN FOREVER>>>>>>BANNED
James, I'm almost in the same place. I've been an advocate of CNN for years now. I defended their 'left leaning' tendencies to countless friends and acquaintances who believed that Fox News was the 'truth'. In my opinion, it was always MSNBC on the "far-left", CNN in the "slightly left", and FOX on the "far-right". With this position you guys are taking as "journalists", CNN is moving further to the left. I've nearly had it and am about to give up on news altogether since apparently the news isn't "news" anymore. It's just opinions.
And in this case, it's the opinion of a non-American citizen regarding what Americans should do with their system of laws and governance. I'm not even sure why Piers has a 'horse in this race' short of trying to grab ratings.
TNAK you James White for highlighting that you are a Moran ! Murika !
Go watch Fox for its fair and balanced newscast...
People that are not Americans can hardly believe the stupidity of the arguments presented by the pro gun activists... There are too many guns out there, it's that simple. You people are not stable enough to be allowed to own guns.
The antigunners so often query, "Why does anyone need a semiautomatic weapon". But doesn't that question apply to so many other things? For example, alcohol has caused over 50,000 deaths worldwide so far this year. (http://www.worldometers.info/alcohol). However, no one asks, why does anyone need alcoholic beverages? There is no fundamental difference in instrumentalities that are used improperly to cause death and injury to innocent people. America is the only country thst entrusts its citizrns with the means to forcibly remove the government if it abuses the citizens. Sadly, the cost of such freedom is a less safe society. On the other hand, who would want to live in the safest societies like Stalinist Russia, Germany under Hitler or Iraq under Saddam?
If we were debating solely on need, I would posit that guns to defend ones home are FAR more necessary than alcoholic drinks for recreational purposes. Granted, alcohol alone does not kill – but drunk people driving kill... And all of the laws and lobbying groups (MADD) have not successfully stopped that.
Do you want to live in a safe society? If so, come up north of the border to Canada, my home, where there are very strict gun laws and it is safe to walk the streets. Please leave your guns at the border crossing. We don't want that here.
Who do you think you are kidding Clyde? We all know Canada has its own violant crime problems, and gun control isn't helping there either.
That is a fact. A friend in his late 60's went on vacation and was just south of the Canadian border. Some friends said lets drive up into Canada so they did. When asked if he had any weapons, he said he had a pistol in the glove box that he forgot about. He went to jail for the whole weekend.
100 more PATRIOTS just WOKE UP, keep it going, CNN editor is CRYING again...
CNN has abused every emotion and every angle, cheap reporting not a single expert on any of the serious subjects you refuse to debate and is, when do they start losing TRUST in the people??? Serious unanswered questions CNN!
One big fact Piers brought up was the amount of assault rifles in America a couple of million, but only a handful have been used in mass shootings. So why ban them? The amount that is used in mass shootings is less than 1%. Why then would you take them all? Motorcycle clubs have the 1% that are violent but we don’t ban all motorcycles. Just because you have a motorcycle doesn't mean that you will sell crack in a motorcycle gang. This is all crazy hype by people who are just not educated in weapons as a whole.
Exactly correct and well put. How is it that these righteous do gooders who have never had mud on their boots obtained a position where they feel the need to tell me or the remainder of America how they should feel or conduct themselves. Walk a mile in a normal person's boots and then discuss the blisters on your feet as we may share something in common other than the oxygen we consume. In order to positively appear stupid, speak publicly of a subject you know nothing about as Piers continues to do. Sherriff Joe in Arizona has it correct, if you want to stop violence you must defend against it not burry your head in the sand and assume the limited resources of our law enforcement officers will protect us all. The best defense is a defense not a written law the criminal will never read and surely not follow. Ignorance is the power of the wealthy and they fear the strength of the population so as to seize to limelight by capitalizing on unfortunate situations to promote their agenda. God Bless America because these fools will allow her to fall in time.
I truly don’t expect you to read nor respond to my questions, however you present yourself as being an educated gentleman who is knowledgeable of all things gun related. You continuously speak on a subject as well as your hand selected panel does of guns in which you have never handled nor had an understanding of. When was the last time you lived in an un-gated community, had your vehicle broken into or stolen or had your home broken in to. I am a 20 year retired Army Sergeant First Class and think General McChrystal’s statements were semi correct and 100% self serving. General McChrystal has likely not qualified nor carried an M-16 or M-4 carbine since his younger days as a Lieutenant. The muzzle velocity of a 5.56 mm round being 3300 fps is irrelevant as most high power guns are in the same ball park and just what would the intended result of a fired round be General McChrystal? A standard 270 caliber hunting round has a muzzle velocity of 3140 fps with double the round expansion on impact, this is simply a laughable argument to stripping the public of weapons which may be required to defend themselves against a threat “foreign or domestic!” General McChrystal should stop seizing the moment to obtain 15 minutes of fame to promote you new book ad address the facts. Piers, it’s obvious you are so limited in your thinking to actually venture outside your controlled environment to understand not only the weapons you despise but the American people as well. However, guns are a way of life for most of America and stripping American’s of their guns or rights to own them only provides the means for what most believe a tyrannical government to assert control over the population. If you are truly interested in saving lives, consider the estimated 15,000 lives that will be lost this upcoming year to drunk driving, the 3,000 lost lives to drowning rather than the unfortunate 210 lost lives in over 13 years due to mass attacks on the population. How many times must a person say, yell or write, the person is the killer the gun is only the method. I don’t see you advocating to remove fertilizer off the market, that is however the method of destruction in the OKC bombing nor do I see you attempting to have large capacity aircraft removed from the sky. Please address the issue, these people who are willing to kill don’t care about the law and will use whatever means necessary to obtain a lethal device. Think of the George Weller in California who drove his car through the open air market killing 10 people, what is your response to this….silence!
AMEN.... General McChrystal comments where very misleading and just wrong. I was in shock when he made the statements.
The ONLY reason politicians have any interest in new gun legislation is it will give them MORE power over YOUR lives! Course, any favoritism, payoffs or graft would not enter into the picture. Just remember that only one man has faced ANY prosecution in the "Fast and Furious" fiasco. The BATFE chief illegally used his office as his home FOUR TIMES on guns found at Mexican shoot-outs. He now in Washington, what a punishment!
This is why you can't trust anything that comes out of this lier's mouth. He's already proven he'll fabricate "news" to support his personal opinion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm
"Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake."
AHHHHAAAAAA!!!! I KNEW there had to be a reason why the greasy pig came over here! He got FIRED for LYING, CHEATING, FABRICATING EVIDENCE, TREASON, and a ton of other crimes against the Brits. Screwed his own people. Yup, a real stand up kinda guy you hacks at CNN hired! CNN, YOU ARE HEREBY BANNED FROM MY HOUSEHOLD TOO. May the list grown exponentially! A pox on CNN and it's Bloody Pig
Wow, thank you for sharing this. I had no idea the severity of his prior journalistic faux pas.
This is an incredibly complex issue.The death toll is rising from the East Coast to Colorado to the West from deranged individuals who find it too easy to get their hands on assauilt weapons, yet if we ban them outright, only outlaws will refuse to comply. There has to be an answer, but we haven't found it yet.
James, there is an answer, but the anti-gun crowd won't hear of it.
Get rid of the silly "Gun Free Zones" , and allow law abiding citizens to carry side arms anywhere and everywhere. We'll not likely hear of any more "mass shootings" again, because the armed law aboign citizens will be able to stop them.
Think about it folks, where do all of these mass shootings occur? At so-called GFZ's! These areas are not safe places to be. They are Victem Enhanced Killing Zones, where evryone is defenseless.
Two guys meet one day and have an argument. Who won the argument ?
The next day, the same two guys meet again and have another argument, only this time one of them has a gun. Who wins the argument this time?
Just because one guy is carrying a weapon doesn't mean he will bring it into the argument. If that was the case we would have a lot more shooting than we do.
After morgan treated the last six or so men who came on and did answer the questions that were asked of them. But was scream at cut off and called names. By morgan.
Morgan pick a man that was his same from the other side of this gun thing. To throw off the way he had acted as to say see its not me that is nuts its them.
So morgan put on a line of people for us look them up.
Nicholas Kristoff Mark Potok Allred a wack job, a young girl who clearly she got her job by who her father is. And a man that said to Morgan you should show up to that fight with that guy you had on and kill him they all laugh and the young girl said I love to see that! The only one on the show with any brains was Joshua Boston, which answer, and morgan did his best not to flip out only by saying off the wall things after he did answers Morgan. It was clean that the nuts don’t want us to have guns and it clearly why we need them. I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. This was said by George Mason look him up.
They will do there best to hurt us, they give our money to bad guys over seas, they make laws to keep us from being rich, they use the news, and movies, and Hollywood to make us sick. They take away all faith, hope, and morals. Break up the families. But don’t you let them. The mother that grab her gun and her two girls and when and hide and than shot the man in the faces is a big reason we need guns. But like Joshua said if there had been more than one man they be dead now. it’s the movies what movie was the number one box office hit? and why do you think that is. FCC do your job. If we stand together they will not win. Not even the Russia or Iran not even China. Why we took this country we can keep it too if we stand up and fight. Its our freedom its our rights.
The reason the US has a high gun murder rate is because of the drug related gang warfare in the inner cities. Often, in the cities that ALREADY have strict gun control (or outright gun bans) . Chicago and D.C. come to mind. The rest of the country has a HIGH rate of GUN OWNERSHIP and a LOW RATE OF GUN Murders. We don't have a gun problem, we have a GANG PROBLEM. This wonderful country IS NOT UNIFORM. That's extremely important to understand but I hardly ever hear it mentioned. Probably, because it's POLITICALLY INCORRECT to mention such a thing. A great many of the counties in this country have a ZERO murder rate, but a very high GUN OWNERSHIP RATE.
If Dianne Feinstein has her way (and God forbid!) the law will effect EXACTLY THE WRONG PEOPLE. Another thing I don't hear much about is that the Second Amendment points to a pre existing right, and proffers that the government will not infringe that right. We had the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE already. It is a God Given (or Natural) RIGHT. It is common sense that a person will sometimes need a weapon to exercise that right. OF COURSE it is a PERSONAL RIGHT. Does any one REALLY believe it's about the national guard? PLEASE!
Blaine, you forgot all of CA. LA, etc... with all of the gang-related crime and yet CA has some of the strictest gun laws and scores highest on the 'Brady Scale' of any state in our republic.
the key work is fear. the gun industry is the only moneymaker in this country, and their marketing efforts are surreal. each time there is a massacre, americans go and buy more guns...is the gun industry behind these acts. it is beginning to look like. most of the perpetrators are young loners addicted to video games...makes one wonder.
Young male loners at that.
There is more people in this country that chooses NOT to have a gun, than actual gun owners, AND they ought to become more vocal. The NRA is the barking dog for the gun industry, and its zombie membership and the evil gun soldiers that are robbing us from living in peace an quiet. The Second Amendment was written in an age of vastly different dynamics than those in play today. It is an outdated amendment that needs to be vastly clarified or repeal. No loss of life is worth that piece of paper.
Wait, WHAT? "No loss of life is worth that piece of paper" Are you kidding me? What do you think every major war since 1776 has been about? Please self-deport.
With all due respect, people have a right to protect themselves. The number of women with a concealed carry permit in Florida in 2011 was 146,000. You never read about women shooting up a school or mall, so why disarm them?
I have 2 assault rifles. If you break into my home, you may get my wife's pearls, but I doubt you will get my rifles. If I am at home, you will get no pearls, no rifles, and a very bad experience. My point is that I am a responsible citizen that owns fire arms and takes that ownership as a responsibility.
I didn't think much of your blow hard guest last night, but he made one point. I am not telling the government, particularly this government how many guns I own and what kind. Not going to happen. If something turns up missing, I will report it. Beyond that, it's really beyond the role of government,
Just my opinion.
Why aren't the homicide numbers into perspective?
ALL Rifles (not just assault rifles) = 453
Clubs, hammers, etc. = 674
Hands, fist, feet etc. = 869
Knives = 1,817
Does THAT look like we have a big problem with "assault rifles"? (these numbers represent a 40%+ DECREASE since our last weapons ban expired)
What about all the successful uses of these weapons? What about the crimes they stop and lives they save? Why isn't this reported?
Hey KWMerican you forgot to post the statistic about how many hand guns murder people in America, you know for perspective and all that. The number is 5825 according to the FBI statistics. Guns are the murder weapons for 69% of all murders in the U.S.
Finally found somebody dumb enough to take the bait!
Thank you Steve. You just made my point.
Be honest, why are we not focusing upon handguns? This topic is supposed to be so-called "assault rifles." Murders utilizing pistols DWARF those with so-called "assault rifles. Heck, far more people are SAVED by so-called "assault rifles" than are murdered by them, yet we're harping on the rifles and not pistols?
What's really happening? The anti-gun nuts remain silent on pistols, trying to pick off an easier target (rifles)...trying to eat the elephant one small bite at a time.
After rifles, it will be pistols of a certain type, then additional types, then all pistols, and so on and so on....
The same incremental game plan used in Australia and UK. I'm surely not going to get suckered into THAT game.
(stupid people who know they're stupid don't both me a bit, it's stupid people who think they're smart that scare the heck out of me)
I find the level of ignorance on the gun subject to be staggering. There is such a thing as a 10 round REVOLVER that fires a bullet of equal weight (approx. 40grain) to that which an AR-15 fires. If one limits the AR-15 to a 10 round magazine, there is absolutely no difference in rate of fire of the revolver and the AR-15. They both function very similarly as one trigger pull equals one bullet being fired. In the case of the revolver, the cylinder rotates another bullet into firing position. In the case of the AR-15, the spring loaded magazine does essentially the same thing. In light of this, the real issue is the magazine capacity, not the actualy semi-auto weapon itself, nor the bullet as most hunting rounds are far more powerful than the AR-15's .223
How dare they call for murdering Alex on national TV and they call Alex nuts. Alex never calls for violence Piers should be fired and his guests should be investigated. Imagine Alex calling for Piers to be shot, the police would be on him immediatley. This double standard has to stop these people are the crazies, not Alex
Yeah, I did a double take when I heard the murder of Alex Jones suggested by one of the panelists...
Totally crazy... I wonder, was any law actually broken with that comment? Conspiracy to commit perhaps?
I heard that too. Unbelievable to claim to be an advocate for gun control then suggest shooting someone. What a complete and total hypocrite.
The tool is our right, read the bill of rights it's to protect us against people like you
We cannot keep drugs out of the country what makes you thing we can keep guns out of the country via the black market. Guns are harder to detect than drugs and we FAIL miseribly on drugs.
While this is likely true, quit spamming it please. Once or twice per thread is enough.
Of those 10000 remaining most are gang related and illegal guns and of those most are handgun, a very small percentage are rifle related
Piers Morgan should stick to interviewing clowns like Alex Jones. When Morgan talks to a level headed person with some knowledge on the subject, Morgan gets out classed.
Piers – you made a faux pas last night when speaking with the marine. You and he were discussing the Feinstein proposal to prevent transfer of specific firearms and the marine had stated that he might want to transfer his firearm(s) to his children. At that point, the marine used the "automobile" comparison to which you responded (paraphrased) that he would have to 'fill out paperwork' to transfer the registration of his automobile, why not his guns?
The problem here is that Feinstein's proposed bill does not allow for the transfer of the firearm(s) irrespective of who you wish to transfer the firearms to. The comparison breaks down because it would be one of the only things you are simply not allowed to transfer from parent to child.
It gets better than that. So what happens to the weapon at that point?
I assume it'd have to be surrendered to or confiscated by "the government" (i.e. local police?). Ridiculous.
I used to believe in the 2nd amendment because I thought that crime would be reduced if law biding citizens owned guns. However, if you look at the cities with strong gun laws and restrictions, you will see that crime has come to a halt. Take Chicago, for instance, where there are strong gun restrictions. Chicago, as a result, has viritually no crime. It is a wonderful plce to raise a family! No gun violence whatsoever. Don't listen to the folks who cite numbers that there were 2,364 shooting incidents in 2012.
Just FYI, subtle sarcasm does not convey all that well on blogs/forums. While I agree with your position (if I am understanding it correctly), your post is likely somewhat confusing to your average dilettante.
All I can say after reading many of these comments about people being so terrified about the prospect of people bursting into their homes spraying bullets around from their semi/automatic weapons that they need even more powerful ones to defend themselves, who'd want to live in America?
I didn't think about it till now, but after sending all our kids overseas to witness and play a role into social chaos, it is no surprise they come back wanting to have a weapon by the bed. They know it can happen because they saw it.
With respect Jackie, America is not the world, despite what most Americans believe. There are many countries who watch how America makes mistakes especially with the terrible mess it has got into with gun ownership and gone the opposite way and ban them. Guess what? Very low gun violence. We can cheerfully live with that.
You have defeated your own argument. Ban – verb; to outlaw or make illegal. Law abiding citizens lack guns. Gun deaths still occur. Hence, criminals can still acquire guns. Law is pointless and oppressive to the citizenry.
Even more importantly, what are the rates of other violent crime in your nation? Are you aware that in many nations, if a gun is not discharged in the commision of a crime, it's not considered a gun crime? Many industrialized nations use this to deflate their gun violence numbers.
Do what? I am pro-gun, but I don't think we need high capacity magazines for protection. In fact, I can change out a magazine in a very short time, but I bet these crazy kids would have a problem doing the same task. That gives the opportunity for a law abiding citizen to neutralize the threat. If you was in the theater in Colorado and let’s say you ignored the signs and carried anyway. The odds of you neutralizing that threat would have been very slim.
You've obviously never been in a real-life use-of-force situation. I have.
It's scary. Changing magazines is the last thing you want to do. You just want to survive.
The two seconds to change a magazine is an eternity.
Both me and my son neutralized a threat. It's NOT such slim odds as you assert.
Dark theater against body armor that requires a head shot at maybe some distances. You are only going to get a few shots before he returns fire. Odds are not looking good in my book. I shoot and I shoot a lot. I am a very good shot with a pistol, but I see a problem defending against Mr. Homes. I would like laws that make it very hard for him to get that 100 round drum so it would give me a better chance for defense. Mr. Homes would not have got the second clip in his weapon and chambered a round before I got him. But he walked in a spayed 70 rounds without having to stop. Only reason he stopped was I heard it jammed.
You never know the background of someone in the audience. There's more experienced combat vets than you think these days who understand proper application of suppression fire to stop, redirect, or at least slow the momentum of an engagement.
It's all moot anyway...these tragic events keep happening in "Gun Free" areas.
Your right. As it stands now, we are at greater risk in a gun free area because these guys don't want anyone shooting back at them. It is also true that you are more likely to get struck by lightning than end up in any of these types of events. The media is also not without some of the blame.
I don't disagree we need to do something about the weapon we have on the street. I don't believe we can or need to ban guns. Guns serve an important role in personal safety in a violant society. America is a violant society even if you remove the guns.
Sadly and tragically in reality it would be impossible to ban all guns – it has gone too far. And it is unlikely banning those stupid semi & automatic weapons would be near impossible. People in America have taken all this "freedom" and "individual rights" all too seriously without thinking what it really means. To an outsider, Americans' view of freedom is more about selfish and self-entered desire to look after number one rather than community responsibilities. Consequently, the gap between the rich and the poor is ever widening and, just like countries like parts of South Africa, you end up being terrified someone support a drug habit or a person suffering self- destructive voices in their, wanting to take your stuff or your life – because they have easy access to powerful weapons. So, with such a 'violent society' I am pleased my forebears decided,not to emigrate to the American colonies when they decided to leave England.
Your right. It is a sad condition that America finds itself in and very little movement toward a solution.
That's what you don't understand. So many people in America already do.
That happened to us. The only thing that saved my 16 year old son was access to a semi-auto rifle to fight off the armed invader/murderer (not burglar). (Google "KHOU Teen who shot intruder in Spring Branch home: I was scared")
It also happened to a 15 year old boy down the road protecting himself and his 12 year old sister. (Google "Boy Uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader"
People are saved by these weapons all the time, numbers far greater than the Sandy Hook and Aurora victims.
The pro-ban people are emotionally driven and refuse to look at the other side. They seem perfectly ok with MY son being dead.
I find it interesting that FEMA and ready.gov all say not to count on the governement for imediate help. When things go bad, you are the first line of defense and the one that must take care of your family. I'm not much for the doomday prepper, but when a desaster hits and peoiple show up at the door to take what you have, the police are not going to protect you. Your on your own.
The 2nd Amendment, Batman Shooting & High Fructose Corn Syrup
Piers needs to go shoot an AR-15 with Joshua Boston.
edit: Piers needs to go target shoot an AR-15 with Joshua Boston.
Jesus says,love your enemies,if you obey Jesus as all Christians should,and love your enemies you are less likely to go to war against them,and wars kill the innocent too,and the Bible says God doesn't kill the innocent,that's the God of the Old Testament too.The Bible says God is love,and it's God's love that changes people,and gets them to repent of their sins,not hate,even as God's love on the Cross of Jesus Christ.So people who hate their enemies don't obey Jesus' teaching and love their enemies,like liberals,socialists,communists,etc,they teach hate your enemies,and it's no coincidence that they are often hawkish on wars.Many are confused and even deceived about this,and they confuse and deceive many others,and that's why many go to war against their enemies.Most secular and religious Media doesn't teach love your enemies the way Jesus did,but often teach the opposite,confusing,even deceiving people.
Guess you never heard of tuff love?
this is reality that morgan and cnn choose to ignore to stomp all over your rights. gotta laugh at the people following their false idols on cnn. what feels vs what is LOL!!! sorrry sheep what feels always looses! infowars dot com/ben-swann-destroys-piers-morgans-anti-gun-argument/ if your azz isnt already full from all the money being stuffed up it to lie, stuff this up there too morgan! and people wonder why alex jones gets angry, because hes beating his head against a wall of nazi bs'ers who constanlty call for more fake wars more dead kids more boogie men to scare people with while ignoring reality! thats called reality defiance disorder!
Why so afraid that u need a machine gun to protect u home , NRA are cobards. Guns in drugs are the reatl weapons of mass destruccion 11,000 plus 2 millions in prissions over 200 million drug users all levels and colors. Because we re all create free and equals eccept. When we invade and stole mexicos over half of his terr. After 20 years of his independent. While USA get help from French in 1776. Second ammendment must be change have to be done.
Holy lord, learn to grammar.
Also, identify criminal cases where a legally owned machine gun was used to commit a crime. I mean, a real machine gun. Heck, I'm an understanding guy. Why not identify criminal cases where a legally owned automatic weapon was used to commit a crime. That could be an assault rifle, a battle rifle, a submachine gun, a machine pistol, an automatic shotgun, a light machine gun, a general purpose machine gun, or a heavy machine gun.
It's ok. I'll wait. Remember though, it has to be an actual automatic weapon, not any of this cr4p that is being fed to you by Piers Morgan.
And there are 400,000 legally owned machine guns in America.Don't know of a single crime committed with one.
Thank you, Jackie.
Even I was surprised by that number. It was on the news at lunch today. That is a lot of machine guns. Forget the AR-15, I want one of those. LOL
Forget a full machine gun. Too unwieldy. However, I would not mind a pre-1986 Thompson, MP40, or PPSh-41. One of each please!
Well, if we are going to make a wish list. Give me one of thos P90's.
Piers Morgan does need to be deported. This guy needs to stay out of American politics. This is not England and if I remember correctly Jack The Ripper didn't have a gun and he killed many. Gingus Khan killed many without guns. the only thing that stopped him was the invention of guns by China.
Kind of amusing.
An American saying that someone from another country should not comment on their domestic affairs!
He pays no taxes here. He doesn't know America as we do and have our best interest in mond. he's here for the money. You'tre obviously a small minded liberal with no foresight.
What kind of "education" would have helped the movie theater or school children victims to survive those massacres? Is this guy thinking people can be educated on predicting the future? Or maybe educate them on how to have super powers like a comic book hero. What kind of fantasy is this guy living?
You are right. Once the event starts, the only education that is going to save you is the ability to run, shoot back, or both.
There are extremists on both sides and I know they make fascinating television with their extreme solutions ("ban all guns"....or...."arm everybody") but the solution is a combination of rational gun laws, more funding for mental health, and tougher sentencing for criminals who use a gun.
But, most of this costs money, and in this age of cut cut cut cut cut government spending, good luck.
Piers Morgan says what is everyone ion a theater had an ar-15. Probably nothing because everyone would be equalized.
Mor importantly, the kid wouldn't have been at the theater that allowed guns because while he wanted to shoot people, he obviously didn't want to get shot. He had so much body armor on I can't believe he didn't fall over from all the weight.
Think about what happens if someone yells "fire" in a dark crowded theatre. Now think about what would happen if one person starts shooting in a crowded theatre where everyone is armed. Where is the "bad guy?" You could have everyone simply shooting each other and we would quickly solve the problem of eliminating idiot Americans from the gene pool.
That was the same problem with arming teachers. When the police run it to shoot the person with a gun, how many teachers are going to get shot? Same problem with a conceal carry. If you use your weapon, you better make it quick, bet the job done, and put the weapon down before you become the target.
Everyone is allowed to carry a weapon (open or concealed) here in Alaska with no permit whatsoever. In a city of 300,000 residents (Anchorage) we have super-low crime and random violent crime is near zero.
After schools were armed in Israel during the 70's, there have been zero attacks.
This same "blood will flow in the streets" and "society will turn into the OK Corral" was the very same alarmism spouted in by those who were against conceal carry permits in Texas.
That was 20 years ago. None of those things came true. Violent crime decreased.
I grew up in Arizona and it is an open carry state. I agree that gun ownership reduces crime. Alaska really sounds good these days.
You and Jackie should not ever have a weapon your to stupid to figure out who the bad guy is when he comes in guns blazing well first off the guy shooting would obviously be the bad guy and the rest would turn see and return fire leaving the bad guy dead for jackie not so smart the teachers would have the person subdued or dead by the time the cops show up stop thinking out yourass
Sorry, just not buying your story. A gun fight is not so simple. Look at all the video where shots are exchanged between the bad guy and the police and no one gets hit. Look at the empire state building shooting and how many got hit by friendly fire. In a dark theater whit muzzle flashes going off all round, who do you shoot at? Remember, you may not see the guy that started the shooting.
I like that "Get To Know Piers Morgan" He's rude and arrogant. He's used to a class society and we don't have that in America. We've seen hin on the talent show and he's a arrogan fool. Get rid of him !
Joshua Brown makes the red herring statement that "Criminals" won't be disarmed. In virtually every mass shooting the shooter was not someone who was already "A Criminal" but just another deranged citizen with access to firearms either legally on their own or through someone close to them. So called "Criminals" are using firearms to obtain something by stealing or robbing, etc. and murder is usually not the goal but sometimes the by-product of what they are trying to get. Logically, less public access to high powered firearms will lead to less mass shootings.
The 2nd amendment right to bear arms does not mean that a person is allowed to own whatever weapon he/she wishes to have.
If you interpret it literally by having the views of a far right person, then, anyone is allowed to own a bazooka, grenade launcher or even c4 explosives.
and by your views we could own a slingshot....dont expect the people who live in a city to agree with people who have lives and live in the country...
By my view hand guns and hunting weapons are enough to protect ourselves and satisfy a hobby. Assault weapons are unacceptable. 1 child dying from an assault weapon is too much, what more if 20?
You carry the name of a hero who stood against a maniacal, genocidal tyrant and attempted to end his reign of terror, despite the potential risk to himself and his family. A man who tried to destroy one of the most horrible people in the history of the world, who defied the madman's orders of cruelty throughout a long and storied military career. A man acknowledged by ally and adversary alike as a courageous soldier and good man.
There are not just American examples of good men defying a tyrannical government. You wear one such man's name, and then forget why we truly must retain our right to bear arms.
Rest in peace, Desert Fox.
Tesla...someone who knows his history.
Hello to all, suggestion, It's not about guns Think money in all public issues especially when speaking about the media.. Ratings=advertising money. Piers Morgan is desperate for ratings. He has about half of what Larry King had. He is a loser with diminished audiences. He carries on about guns because that what the liberals are obsessed with. If they don't like guns, change the 2nd amendment with an amendment. And look at the mainstream media cable channels (generally very liberal orientation) vs. Fox and similar channels (usually conservative orientation). Seems like the more conservative stations out rate the typical liberal stations by significant numbers,..very significant. AND, it is reported that the conservative stations have more will educated audiences.
The grass is not greener on the other side: According to the European newspaper (The Independant), 1,000,000 stun guns have entered the UK. ranging in strength of 50,000-1,000,000 volts. The criminals choice of weapon is the stun gun. Firearms are not the only weapons that kill people in the UK, Tear gas and Tasers also kill. (Times). Three people were killed within 8 days in 2011, (The Times). The (Econimist) has reported that it is unlawful to swear at a police officer in UK, which you will be arrested and put in jail. How about 61 year old and blind Colin Farmer who was tasered by the police. Police tased Mr. Farmer because his white cane looked like a samurai, according to the police officer. Mr. Farmer is now sueing the police.
Wouldn't it be great if the media focused their attention on things that kill thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people a year? Instead of things that kill hundreds?
Do a Google search for the number of people killed in mass shootings each year. ...with assault weapons in general even.
But you'd think this was actually one of the major problems facing the country right now. Sad how easy it is whipping the sheeple into a frenzy.
Matt, you are so correct.
ALL Rifles (not just assault rifles)
Clubs, hammers, etc. = 674
Hands, fist, feet etc. = 869
Knives = 1,817
...and this is a 40% DECREASE in since the last weapons ban expired.
It's sad that so many people are totally unable to control their emotions.
Intelligent people focus upon facts.
Morgan throughout these shows has blatantly avoided the question about Britain's rising violent crime and murder rate. When asked he harks back to Britain's low gun murder rate as proof that strict gun laws and gun bans work, but he refuses to discuss the fact that Britain's murder rate is one of the highest in Western Europe. All of Britain's close European neighbors are some of the largest gun owning nations on the planet and yet they all have substantially lower murder rates. Furthermore, his claim that he doesn't want to take away Americans' handguns and deny them the right to self defense under the 2A, is bogus and a lie. There is no question that Morgan and the gun control advocates have orchestrated this message to lull many 2A advocates into a false sense of security. When Morgan was editor of one of Britain's tabloids, The Daily Mail, his paper led a relentless national media campaign to get handguns banned in that country. Without a doubt, Morgan's aim is total gun confiscation.
HEY CR, truer words were never spoken, if our second amendment rights are taken away, they will never be given back , and the old saying give an inch, and they will take a mile, is so true , the one guest last night after the ex marine , stated after assault weapons, we need to get the handguns next ,piers nodded in agreement. this man is pushing his own agenda, to flex whatever power he has over here thru tv. we all need to be careful here, or we will be answering the door and depositing our guns in the plastic drum, with piers grinning face on it.
So, if we have a ban on high capacity magazines, it will be the beginning of the end for the second amendment? The assault weapons ban didn’t do that. It didn’t take any guns off the street either. I am still trying to figure out what an assault weapon is? Seems all weapons are both defensive and assault. If it is based on the volume of rounds, then it is just assault magazines? Then again, according to one poster, I'm to stupid to own a gun.
As we have seen in Britain, gun bans are the thin end of the wedge to more and more controls. In Britain they first banned semiautomatics sporting rifles, and then 10 years later they banned handguns. Last year the Scottish Parliament brought into law the mandatory licensing and registration of all pellet guns. Yes pellet guns! History has taught us through Britain's wonderful example that licensing and registration of guns leads to eventual confiscation.
Furthermore, I am fed up with Morgan referring to his British army officer brother; as if somehow his brother’s advice makes him an expert, and reflects the view of everyone in the military that these types of firearms are not meant for the general public. Well I know a number of former British army officers who left Britain because of the restrictive gun laws, and moved to the US so they could continue with their sport.
I would hate to see our country go down that road.
Joshua Boston is a true advocate for the rights of American citizens. I applaud his willingness to not back off in the face of this ridiculous, sensationalized, fear-based issue.
Piers is falling back on the old sympathy acceptance of a 6 or 7 yr. old being afraid to go to school with the fear of being murdered. Piers overlooks the fact of the 6 or 7 year old being molested by a parent, friend or teacher, being killed in an automobile or school bus accident, being bullied (some to the point of death)...........all a higher rate of incidence than being killed by an automatic weapon. The shock factor is higher due to media coverage....over and over and over and over again. Look at the mileage Piers got from this. I bet he's proud of his ratings.
why dont we hang james holmes, and prosacute other violent offenders more sevearly, hopepuly that would detour people thinking this a little more but if somone is set on doing a bad thing they will do it, you cant control people
Piers Morgan is not going to get it. He can't win with these arguments that do nothing but strum the heart strings. He keeps arguing with people that have all the facts straight. Even Alex Jones beat him with facts. He would have been more believable if only he would have been more civil though. So far I don't see the argument with the far left other than they wish to control the population by taking away rights once they are unarmed.
While Piers does seem to be distorting the facts, I don’t think Alex Jones beat anyone. He failed to communicate those facts in a way that people heard them. Sure, he won in the minds of the people that already know some of the facts he had, but the whole 9/11 thing put him in the dirt.
Yes, every 6 or 7 year old should have the right to go to school without the fear of being murdered. So, you are telling me that by implementing these bans you can assure me that this will never happen? The same for innocent people in a movie theater. Tell me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if we ban guns this will never happen. If these people are soo sure that banning gun ownership is the answer, ask them to follow through with that but then they get to volunteer to walk the streets, unarmed, on a "public crime watch" in some of most dangerous neighborhoods. If guns are the root of all evil there should be no problem doing that. I mean guns are the problem, right? Banning them is going to stop the violence, right? So let them walk those streets, unarmed, throughout the night and let's test their confidence in the effectiveness of their ramblings.
Here is what I think is weak about the second amendment argument. The second amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Pro-gun wants to make this an all or nothing argument, if you ban assault rifles you are infringing on the peoples 2nd amendment right. The problem is, we already infringe on "the peoples" right to bear arms. There are a number of "arms" in the world that a U.S. citizen cannot own. No tanks or surface to air missiles or predator drones.
We even infringe on the "peoples right" by preventing certain individuals from possessing guns. Most if not all American would agree that criminals and individuals with mental issues should not have access to guns, but is that not an infringement on the right to bear arms. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should allow criminals and the mentally ill to have access to weapons, I am just pointing out that by preventing criminals and the mentally ill from possessing guns is a form of infringement on the right to bear arms. Even saying where you can and cannot carry a gun is a form of infringement.
What we have to do is put laws into effect that will minimize the infringement of the peoples right to bear arms while maximizing security in a free and democratic society. In my opinion we require tougher gun laws in order to prevent the massacre of innocent people (especially children).
I just want to make a comment about something I notice about your show. It seems that your show is a combination of 60 minutes with the Jerry Springer show, ( I do have more respect for the jerry springer show, at lease you know what you are getting up front), your insulting comments are meant to spark anger or cease a highly emotional environment, which will bring interested, and increase your rating. I do not know how serious you actually are about “Gun Control”, or other matters since your show is a new form of entertainment for the United States, not a serious fact finding news show. So what is next a bell rings and you and your guess actually start fighting “LIVE”. In the future, when I watch your show I will always pop a bag of popcorn, and “ENJOY THE SHOW”.
Restrict bullets. If you only want a gun to protect you and your family then the few you own should last a long time. Guns don"t kill people, bullets do.
If you keep a weapon for self-defense, you should practice with it. It's not unusual for serious shooter go go through several hundred rounds in a single range session.
Many pro-gun people have talked about cars and why don't we ban cars. That got me thinking. It got me thinking about what it takes to own a car in the United States and what it takes to own a gun. To own and drive a car you need insurance, a registered license and a driver's license. Why is it considered a crazy idea to suggest registration and licensing requirements. You should have to pass a firearms test before you can purchase and use one. In my mind that should include a written and demonstration test for each style of firearm you intend to possess. Once you pass the test you would have a license for a type of firearm that you could use. Registration of weapons. Forget just background checks, all firearms should have a registration requirement. You should have to register your gun in a national database with all other gun owners. You should have to notify authorities if your gun goes missing or is stolen. You should be held accountable when the gun is used in a crime. You shouldn't have access to "assault styled rifles", there should be limited access to hand guns. You should be required to store your gun in locked place, with a trigger lock on it. Transportation should require a trigger lock. Laws should have severe penalties including loss of right to use the gun for a period of time. It should be harder to possess guns then cars. A car's main purpose is transportation. A gun's main purpose is killing. Why is it harder to possess a car then a gun?
You know what is also funny I think Piers Morgan is being soft on Americans by saying just ban "assault rifles" and high round magazine clips. He quotes the UK stats and the law in place. He knows or ought to know that banning hand guns is just important to reducing the gun murder rate in the country if not more important. And yet he has not said ban hand guns. Man up Piers, tell these people that hand guns should be banned as well, and if not banned severe restrictions.
You could see Morgan starting to agree with his guest he had from the NY Times last night, who said they need to go after handguns also, but Morgan stopped him short. The reason why he stopped short is because it would destroy the illusion he and the gun control lobby have been trying convey that they are not going after peoples handguns. Revealing this goal at this stage would be damaging to their cause and drastically erode public support for their proposed sporting rifle and magazine ban. Just to remind you, when Morgan was editor of Britain's Daily Mirror tabloid, his paper waged a relentless national media campaign to ban the private ownership of handguns in Britain; so from this, we know what his real intentions are. You can rest assured that Morgan and the gun control lobby will be coming after handguns next. One ban at a time is their modus operandi.
Hand guns should be banned. I don't know Mr. Morgan's intentions any more than you do, but I doubt his intention is to fight about assault rifles, win and then turn around an fight about hand guns. Why not argue it all at once.
Actually I think Morgan's only intent was a stop the violence knee jerk reaction. Pierce started something he doesn't know how to stop and has to ride out the storm now. He forced his position on himself by opening his mouth before thinking about the ramifications. I don't think he seriously believes gun control or banning assault weapons will stop any criminal from acting out a crime. He pinned his argument on one or two incidents where a mentally unstable person had access to the weapon. How about prosecuting the mother who didn't have the weapon secured and locked. How about laws for the safe keeping of firearms. Why doesn't this factor in? All mine are locked and secured and I have a small night stand drawer safe with a 3 digit number I can push in 2 seconds and have one in my hand in 5 seconds. But no one else can get to it. The rest are in a gun safe in my closet bolted to the floor. Common sense, logic, education and safe handling of weapons is the way to go. Giving criminals a free pass and citizens living in fear = mistake.
Safe storage is obvious, but Morgan is after more, you just have to refer to his newspaper's relentless demands to ban and confiscate handguns in Britain to know his intent. In fact he declared his position at the start of his show last night: A complete ban on semiautomatic sporting rifles. The gun control lobby, and their new spokesperson, Piers Morgan, are after much much more, what they have started on is just the low hanging fruit. More will follow, divide and conquer is the game.
"Morgan is after more,...divide and conquer is the game."
Piers is misleading with his UK vs. USA gun death rate comparison. The UK has had a fairly steady rate prior to and after the ban. Also there was a gun massacre about ten years before the ban and again about ten years after. The ban really had no impact on gun deaths in the UK. He wants you to believe that the low rate is because of the ban. NOT SO!
He is being "reasonable" going after the AR/HiCap mags, once that's in place he will go after the handguns! The AR's have benn used in only a small percentage of gun deaths, it's the handguns that are responsible for most. That's because most gun related deaths are gang related and gangs primarily use handguns!
How, exactly, would registering firearms prevent gun violence? The same way that registering cars prevents fatal accidents and DUIs?
Registration helps solve crimes. It does very little to prevent them.
Try breaking into my home when I am there – I will prevent a crime.
When you consider that more than 90% of gun deaths each year are NOT committed with assault-type rifles, you have to wonder why the big push to ban this type of rifle and the associated magazines as a solution to the problem. I believe the government is more concerned with removing the greater fire power of an assault-type rifle from the hands of a potential citizen militia than they are about the small number of deaths cause by this type rifle. As pointed out by others, more children die an automobile accidents in vehicle that capable of speeds far greater than the maximum legal speed yet there is no outcry to put speed governors in automobiles.
this guy did AWESOME!!! New spokesperson for gun rights, imho
funny but being afraid is the reason the NRA tells people they need to have guns...fear that someone will kill you or break into your house or start killing in the store...it is all about being afraid because america is afraid of everything
People in Britain getting robbed and beat to death are afraid. Crime scares people and guns allows people a means of protection that works.
"People in Britain getting robbed and beat to death are afraid. "
Britain is a nation of victims. Started before WWII. Hasn't stopped since.
Now they want to share the joy?
Crazy people. If Piers ended up face to face with a bad guy with a knife, what you want to bed that he would wish he had a gun.
You confuse "afraid" with "prepared".
I am prepared, therefore I am not afraid. Get it?
I think he did a great job of presenting the point of view of the vast majority of gun owners. I don't know if Morgan was expecting another Alex Jones, but what he got was a smart young man. All the people clamoring for a gun ban should listen to this guy. He speaks the truth.
He seemed smart to you? Seemed to me like he was applying schoolyard logic and regurgitating NRA drivel. I didn't hear him say a single "smart" thing during the interview. This notion of a wild-west style society where scores of people are carrying guns is about the stupidest fight-fire-with-fire argument I've ever heard in my life. The problem with people like this is that their intelligence is too low to understand that the underlying problems are not addressed by such brute force idiocy.
Laws and Restrictions only keep the honesty people honest. Those that want to cause harm arent gonna be like ohh wait I cant do that thats illegal... Just like there are speed limits they are the law but does everyone follow them ...nope..
To those who think an assault weapon is going to somehow protect you against the United States Government. I think it's a bad argument based in fantasy and maybe some paranoia of extremist types. Any weapon you have won't even help you against your local Air Force National Guard much less the Combined Arms of The Pentagon and The Department of Defense, etc.. There may be other good reasons to have an 'Assault Weapon' but using it to fight the United States Government isn't one of them. .. You all have a good day , hooah
I would agree but for a few things.
1. Open warfare? Civilians lose. Guerilla warfare, similar to what goat farmers with 70 to 100 year old weapons have been using against our armed forces for the last decade or so? Much, much trickier.
2. Not sure if you know this, but the vast majority of our armed forces would stand with our citizens over our government, including high ranking officers. Look up the Oathkeepers or the Three Percenters.
An unarmed populace and an unmanned military make a modern tyrant's job easier.
First and foremost a gun is a deterrent, it is what a burglar thinks about when deciding to break in or not, it is also a equalizer, size and strength do not matter now, and I pose the question to all the non gun owners, in case of home invasion what is your plan for self defense , i have always wondered, what would you do. WE NEED OUR GUNS
They are going to call 911 and hope that the police catch the people that murdered them. Sorry, I just had to go to the extreme. I think most people don't think it could ever happen to them. No one going to the movies in Colorado that night expected that could ever happen. Luckily that is the case and we never end up in a situation like that. Of course, once it happens, you don’t care who is there as long as they make it stop. I bet we would all welcome Alex Jones to that party?
These anti-gun zealots are moochers who take, but don't give back...borrowing their sense of security from responsible people who do keep firearms in their homes...something that armed home invaders fear.
They need to put their money where their mouth is. Post a sign on their front lawn that reads "This is a Gun-Free Home."
If they're really adventurous, come down to Houston, Texas and post such a sign.
Let us know how it works out. Until then, they are sponges.
"They know when to hold their fire. They know when to fire."
True. When angry, they swear. When very angry, or despondent, or having a bad day, they fire.
I have had bad days, I get angry at times, I swear at times. I have hand guns and have for 30 years. I have never abused them in any way. Your analogy is incorrect. You would be amazed how many people have carry permits or not and carry weapons and have never used them in any illegal way. I have been in situations before that were a bit harry to say the least and I never pulled my weapon. I didn't feel my life or anyone else's was in imminent danger of death. If you are properly trained and understand how to handle a weapon it is not dangerous. Most accidental deaths from firearms are because those people are NOT properly trained in handling a weapon or should not have a weapon period. Murderers, criminals and gang bangers have no respect for life and will kill with or without guns. Guns just make it easier. Take guns away form citizens and those same criminals jobs just became MUCH MUCH MUCH !!!! easier.
I may get mad to super mad, but to take a life in the heat of rage?
Nope... would rather walk away them be in prison my whole life for a spur of the moment action.
If my life is in danger and I have no way out, you bet I will shoot.
Your remark seems based on what you would do, not the rest of us.
They are going to call 911 and hope that the police catch the people that murdered them. Sorry, I just had to go to the extreme. I think most people don't think it could ever happen to them. No one going to the movies in Colorado that night expected that could ever happen. Luckily that is the case and we never end up in a situation like that. Of course, once it happens, you don’t care who is there as long as they make it stop. I bet we would all welcome Alex Jones to that party?
Absolutely correct. Take 50 persons against guns and pro-gun-ban and put them in that same position. Then ask them if they would have rather had the ability to defend themselves or call 911. Great analogy. These people think if you ban guns the criminals are going to turn in their weapons. NOT going to happen. Tens of thousands of guns would become black market hot items instantly and criminals would be like ants on a picnic at a home near you.
Jackie and others,
Does anyone know about the new gun law signed by President Obama on October 2012 ?
I understand that it requires insurance companies to give discounts to gun owners because it is thought to improve security and reduce risk. The house holder has to put up a sign, like a dog warning sign, that informs that the householder is a gun owner that is prepared to use the weapon in self defence.
But there is a catch, the house holder opting for a self defence regime, opts out of civil protection by the police.
Is it really true?
check out the link...
In part this might be true, but the part about not receiving any backup from local police is crazy. The police will be headed your way the second the shooting starts because if you have not already called, your neighbors will be calling. Police are not going to stay out of any conflict where you are trying to protect yourself from the bad guy.
We can now carry in National Parks which is a great law. If for no other reason, I never liked the idea of going to a park that has grizzly bears and no way to defend.
Thank you Jackie for responding, it seems that few folk know about this new law. Why is that?
Given the belief that gun ownership improves protection, it might be reasonable to think that insurance companies already give discounts to gun owners because the risk of a property related or other crime may be less, but I cannot find any examples of insurance being discounted in this way. Similarly given the opposite view that gun owning increases risk, I cannot find any examples of premiums being increased. So where does this leave us? Insurance actuaries are nomally very smart, and it is safe to assume that if there was a real case one way or the other, the commercial guys in the insurance business will have picked it up. So who is asking these questions?
Good point and very true. If there was an issue that changed the odds very much, the insurance groups would be on it.
Thanks again for responding,
Let me understand this, If insurance companies do not factor in risk of gun ownership into their premiums either way then why is the debate is so polarised with each side claiming very explicitly of the benefits or otherwise of gun ownership.
Insurance companies know what it is about and are sensitive to anything that would give them a competetive edge. So if owning a gun significantly reduces the risk of crime, then the premiums would be lower to gun owners, but this is not the case. So claims that gun ownership really makes for better security and safety are not supported by Insurance companies.
I believe you are correct.
Leave it to a fellow defender of our freedom to put it into perspective. Thank you. If I wanted my government telling me what I have the right to own, I wouldn't have spent 20 years in the military. I would have moved to Great Britain and expatriated at 18.
I gave up some of my freedoms for the past 20 years to keep those our country was founded on, only to come home to fear mongering and scared people willing to give away the rights so many have died to defend.
All gun bans accomplish is to protect criminals. Not law abiding citizens. Criminals will obtain guns regardless. And if they know their targets do not have guns – all the more motivation to commit a crime. Gun Bans in the UK and Australia have not curved crime rates but instead those countries crime rates have increased. Maybe not by gun violence – but by other means. Research will prove these facts. When you take away the ability for a person to defend themselves or reduce their ability to do so – criminals take advantage of these opportunities. You can't stop someone from entering a movie theater through an unlocked door and shooting the audience. But you can make that same person think twice if there is the possibility the patrons of that theater are armed to protect themselves. Mentally sick persons will carry out their plans regardless of the consequences – but there ability to succeed is significantly reduced when the victims are able to defend themselves with appropriate force and means. Pepper spray is no match for a gun. Be serious.
The Marine on the video is correct – you can't solve this issue by being afraid. Taking away societies ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their home/families and property due to fear is crazy itself. Education and defense readiness make more sense. Keeping criminals off the streets. Tougher laws for illegal use/possession of guns or use in a crime. Tougher laws to obtain guns legally – and required safety courses and national registration of firearms. Tougher laws to obtain ammunition and ID verification to prove permits and safety curses have been completed and are up to date. There are many ways to make it extremely difficult to own guns and purchase ammunition if you do not follow the laws.
Publishing the names and address's of gun owners is just as crazy as protecting criminals. If you ban guns you are protecting criminals and giving them the advantage. I can't believe that all the people who are victims of violent crimes want to assist criminals and give them the advantage.
Time to ban all knives, swords, chains, rope, broken bottles, razor blades, chain saws, saws of any type, hammers, axe's, baseball bats, steel pipes, bows and arrows, wire, fishing line, rocks, paper, scissors etc..etc...
Trust me – criminals are watching all this and praying fear takes over common sense and logic.
If all the anti-gun crazy people want a nation with full gun control they need to move to a country like China so they can live the dream. I'm sure China would welcome fresh labor.
US drones kill thousands of innocent men, women and children. Where is the rally to ban drones? Is not life of a person all the same regardless of the country that person lives in? Apparently not and this needs to be addressed.
Dear VP Joe Biden, President Barack Obama, and Other Panel Members
I know that organized crime is committing acts of terror for the purpose of advocating a defenseless population, which is linked to subjugation through organized crime, corruption, abuse, and oppression. It takes time to show this to be true but there is progress on this issue and it can be found on the Psychological Harassment Information Association website, the Rage Shooting Factors page.
Please do not weaken the U.S. rights, the 2nd amendment, and give information a bit more time.
Who is this Lunatic conducting the interview. Did he really make the point that every American will carry around an AR-15 because of the second amendment? Then to follow that up by saying that the right of children "not to get murdered" is more important than the right to have a weapon? This is one of the most poorly conducted interviews I've seen. The gentleman made the point that all of these mass shootings occur where guns are already banned and that perhaps allowing teachers who are responsible enough to have a concealed weapons permit should be allowed to carry weapons to work to DEFEND our children? Agree or disagree this is certainly a better solution than the crazy NRA stance of perhaps we need more armed guards. I'm sorry CNN, the ball was really dropped on this interview. Please bring Joshua back for a more intelligent discussion about the best ways to prevent or reducej these types of tragedies from happening. Did he really say, "So your answer is to have everyone in the movie theater with an AR-15?" Does he even hear himself?
Has anyone noticed that we have all these women in America that carry guns and not one of them have gone off the deep end? Seems we have a young male outcast problem. We can take guns away from these kids and they will find a way. Maybe it is time to profile these kids and get them some help. Maybe we just ban all young outcast men?
That really highlights the fact that we have a societal problem, not a gun problem.
The need for guns is the result of the societal problems.
If we don't deal with these kids we are not going to solve a thing. We have the internet these days, and mixing up some fertilizer is a simple process. Hey, you can purchase fertilizer bomb on the internet and they send it via the US Postal Service. No big deal at all. They call them exploding targets, but you can order bulk ammonium nitrate from some of these same places and it is perfectly legal. Take away one tool and they will use another. Got to deal with the real problem at some point.
In a life or death situation, when seconds count, I would rather have a gun in my hand than a cop on the phone.
If we don't deal with these kids we are not going to solve a thing. We have the internet these days, and mixing up some fertilizer is a simple process. Hey, you can purchase fertilizer bomb on the internet and they send it via the US Postal Service. No big deal at all. They call them exploding targets, but you can order bulk ammonium nitrate from some of these same places and it is perfectly legal. Take away one tool and they will use another. Got to deal with the real problem at some point.
Sorry, that posted out of order.
Joshua Boston needs his own gun rights show, not Piers. Piers can't even get his numbers right.
why would you believe anything that Piers says
Reported BBC NEW on may 14 2004
Editor sacked over 'hoax' photos
The Mirror board said Morgan would be stepping down immediately
Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper
conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake.
In a statement the Mirror said it had fallen victim to a "calculated and
malicious hoax" and that it would be "inappropriate" for Morgan to
The Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR) said the Mirror had endangered British troops by running the pictures.
Roger Goodman, of the QLR, said the regiment now felt "vindicated".
Mr Goodman added: "It is just a great pity it has taken so long... and that so much damage has been done in the meantime."
The Daily Mirror... apologises unreservedly for publishing the pictures
and deeply regrets the reputational damage done to the QLR and the Army in
At a news conference in Preston on Friday afternoon, the regiment
demonstrated to reporters aspects of uniform and equipment which it said
proved the photographs were fake.
The regiment's Brigadier Geoff Sheldon said the vehicle featured in the
photographs had been located in a Territorial Army base in Lancashire
and had never been in Iraq.
He said the QLR's reputation had been damaged by the Mirror and asked
the newspaper to apologise because the evidence they were staged was
The Conservatives said they hoped lessons had been learned from the row.
Deputy leader and foreign affairs spokesman, Michael Ancram, said:
"Looking at the facts objectively, this is the right thing for Piers
Morgan to have done.
Why we DO need AR-15s:
@mattike.... ahhh because, not only is it our right, but criminals will not, not carry an AR-15 because its unlawful. yah Dip!!! you have an AR-15 and I have a .45 who's going to win this battle. Friggin Brainiac... Not to mantion the free american public is I believe the largest armed defense in the world. NO and i mean NO country would ever think of occupying the US because we the American public can protect ourselves!
Well I'm not really sure why u are attacking me because I agree with you. Obviously you did not read the post correctly or follow the link to column provided...ya dip
Don't anyone tell this Marine who fought in all these wars BECAUSE OF 911, what we freedoms we "gave up" with the Patriot Act. I suggest he not register his car, cancel his drivers license and don't insure his car or home or health - see what happens to him. There are laws against such stuff, but not for guns!!!
”To conquer a nation first disarm the citizens” I heard a quote like this... There trying to run the united states
What I think has become pretty clear is your not going to change anybody's mind once they have made their mind up, regardless of those silly facts
It is a sobering fact that twice as many folk have died in due to gun crimes in the USA than have been lost in combat in all the 76 US military campaigns since 1775. If war is about saving lives and ensuring the security of citizens, then a greater war is to be fought at home.
Could somebody tell me why some postings don't show up in the thread after it is sent? Some of my postings are getting through but others appear to be just dropped or lost into cyberspace. Has this happened to other people aswell?
I know that this is a bit late, but I noted in the string of comments that someone stated that Alaska had a very low crime rate and concluded that it was because of its liberal gun laws. The fact is that the State of Alaska has a violent crime rate of 638.8 per 100,000, (Refer to the crime Rate by state, 2010 US Statistical Office using the link below) This makes it the 49th most dangerous state in the country. The most secure state is Maine with 122 per 100,000. The average for the US is 490 per 100,000. Alaska also has the highest gun ownership rate in the Country of 56%. A study prepared for the American Health Association showed that the 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates had 2.8 times gun related homicides and suicides than the 10 states with the lowest gun ownership rate.
Great facts Douglas. But I'm a bit confused about one thing you said. When you say Alaska is the 49th most dangerous state, on a per capita basis, do you mean that there is only one other state which is more dangerous? If the numbers that you are posting are correct, this is so, and Alaska has the highest percentage of gun ownership (56%). Then where is the argument that more guns means less crime, as the NRA, and others of the same ilk, would like us to believe?!
It shoots a mighty big hole (pun fully intended) in that argument, doesn't it?
Thank you Clyde so much for responding.
The pun that you intended is regretfully true
The serious crime rate in Alaska is almost the highest in the land.
Do check these federal statistics for yourself on the link in my blog above.
I have been engaged in gun research since Sandy Hook
It was my peculiar way of trying to figure these things out.
It was a terrible terrible thing, and so close to Christmas.
I could not help thinking of the families over that period
But Clyde, I have honestly not come up with any serious academic research that proves the central hypothesis
that increased gun ownership reduces serious crime. States with the highest rate of gun ownership have the highest serious crime rates. (per capita basis) States with the lowest gun ownership rates have the lowest crime rates.
The official stats are there to be checked out... please.
Even insurance companies don´t support it, if they did they would surely discount premiums to gun owners because of the reduced risk of crime. But no examples of that have appeared either, see my earlier exchanges in this debate.
I do believe that all this is driven by fear.
We all know that fear makes for irrationalty.
Extreme fear makes for etremely irrational thinking.
The wierd thing is that fear has grown in the USA as crime rates have fallen.
Social studies have shown that too.
Most good folk do believe that serious crime has risen, where as the contrary is true.
Fear is a chronic disease in the USA. A study showed that folk beleived that the probability of serious crime being committed in their neighborhoods had increased. But in many areas the serious crime rate has fallen by as much as 30% over the last 10 years. The Police are doing a good job and they by and large also do not support the argument either and know that they have to change their poilicing to reduce fear. A handbook has even been written for them to do this in 2011 I tihnk.
But there appears an even more serious kind of hysteria, that is fear of Government itself.
Can one really imagine that the good, sensible people of the USA rising up in arms to attack their government.
If the answer to this is positive, then the need for Government to act now to reduce fear is vital.
The econmics of gun ownership do not stack either, if one takes all of the social costs into account.
I have estimated that it costs the tax payer about $150 billion per year includes loss of production due to premature death, emotional distress, police and gun administration, health care, judiciary, extra security, media as well as the cost of the equipment. Just imagine that the economic cost of gun ownership works out to be about $500 per weapon per year.
Hey it would pay to give gun owners money to hand in their weapons! Or a big tax break too!
Alternatively if you are a liberal economist, you would charge gun owners $500 per year
to recover the costs.
Douglas, I agree with everything you've said 100%! It is so good to read blog postings that have logic and reason. As they say, "Common sense doesn't seem so common these days", and that's a frightening thought.
I was watching news last night, they were talking about 'Gun Free Zones' such as Chicago and why they are not working. How can they, if all you have to do is go to a neighboring town or state and buy whatever you want in the way of guns! Can't those dumb-ass politicians see through that? Use common sense America. The only way for it to be effective is to have uniform laws controlling the sales of guns and ammo, right across the entire nation.
Also, regarding some states having assault weapons bans, like the one they had in California. There is a big gaping loop hole that does allow them if used for 'sporting purposes'. As if somebody is going to come in and say I'm going to use it in a school or theater when they buy one. C'mon! Give me a break! Make the wording strong and effective and, for God's sake, don't have an expiry date! Why these bans are allowed to expire is beyond me.
Thank you Douglas for providing clear objective and respectful record of facts.
Thank you so much for your affirmative comment.
The problem with debate driven by fear is that it can become irrational.
Statements of fact are made out of passion not reason which leads to frustration and impasse
Perhaps if you or others are interested in more information on the econmics of Gun Control in the USA
then have a look at this article.
Hi Douglas. Just finish your comprehensive and, I have to say, the most informative essay I have read on this decisive and tragic debate that is affecting social discourse. I want to thank you for the obvious time and skill you gave to this debate. I urge all readers to read Douglas's essay so that you too can be informed as much as I was.
Douglas, is it possible to obtain your email address so that we can "chat" further?
Hi Douglas. I read your article which I have to say provided me and many others no doubt with the soundest and clearly defined argument for gun control. The saddest and most depressing statistics was the number and consequent financial and human waste were the preventable suicides. Just so depressing. Thank you.
We need to understand why the NRA is so keen on 1) making sure that Americans are able to defend themselves 2) If there is tyranny then the citizens have arms to revolt. Are they really so concerned about us????? I do not think so – who gains by their actions. The gun manufacturers and the gun industry – they are the major contributers to the NRA. NRA would not exist without them!!!. Let us cut the chase!!.
It would be very telling if CNN could bring this issue to the forefront instead of just using this gun issue as a way of increasing ratings and providing infotainment
Please tell these NRA people that Taliban think very much like them. They also want to take the matters in their own hands against what they believe is unfair government. Please tell them that the Second Amendment did not mean this in any shape and form and the Founding Fathers didn't want this for the people.
Why are anti-gun control comments not being posted, while pro-gun control comments are being posted?
Also note that pro-gun control posts have links, but, anti-gun control posts can't seem to post links.
What's up with this?
I believe you have it backwards or you have placed the hyphen in the wrong place.
You are saying "anti-gun control" when you mean to say 'anti gun-control', likewise "pro-gun control" instead of 'pro gun-control'. Do you see the difference?
However, having said that, the answer to your question, if I understand you correctly, is; pro gun-control advocates deal with facts, not conjecture and hearsay. I challenge any anti gun-control advocate to provide conclusive proof to back up their claims. I'm dying to see them. C'mon! Bring it on!
Because I'VE been trying to post a link and other info that doesn't make it to this board.
Here in hawaii we have the strictist gun laws in the US but a friend of mine who is a felon because of a gun related affense and he has several rifles just a few days ago two cops were shot by a so called crazy man getting a gun is as simple as going to the grocery store even here in hawaii!
stop gun control they can't take our rights stand up we need to have a choice to self defence
Hey, one got through. Going to try another one that contradicts Douglas. Let's see if that one makes it.
Hmm. My post didn't get posted. I'm beginning to understand how Alice felt when she looked into the looking glass.
CNN = Wonderland
I guess he who controls the media controls the conversation.
Actually, I'm on the other side of the fence from you, on this issue, and some my postings got dropped or lost into cyberspace too! So, you're not alone. I don't know why it happens.
Mr. Morgan, YOU are the one who is creating "fear" in our children's minds that they may be murdered in a mass shooting at school. Statisticlly, that chance is VERY VERY RARE, just like dying in a plane crash. We have MUCH MUCH higher chance being killed in a car accident. Why aren't you having a show demanding stricter traffic laws???
You have made a very important and strong point, Irene. But the communist anti-gun crowd isn't interested in true statistical logic and rationale.
Logic dictates, that if gun owners were really as dangerous as the anti-gun crowd claims, there would be no anti-gun people in existance.
First of all, we are not talking about airplanes or automobiles here. So don't change the subject if you can't offer any further insight to the problem at hand.
Secondly, airplanes are very complex machines and any number of slight errors or combination of errors can bring about a catastrophic crash. Just watch the TV series 'Mayday' on the Discovery Channel, you'll see what I mean. When a airplane crashes, the FAA and the NTSB are quickly on the scene to figure out what went wrong, so that measures can be taken to prevent it from happening again.
Thirdly, for car crashes there are wide range things that can go wrong, but mostly it is human error and we don't seem to learn from our mistakes. The police are on the scene of every accident to determine the causes and they report their findings.
Fourthly, most important distinction of all is: Guns are designed for one purpose only, to kill !! That's all, nothing else!
Irene didn't change the subject, she put it in proper perspective. Something you apparently are not able to accept.
One thing you are correct about, though. Some among us (like you) are unable to learn from mistakes made. Restrictive gun laws don't work, so what makes you think more will do the trick? Are you one of the learning dissabled? You anti-gunn folks can't see (or don't want to) the real problem behind incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting – mentally ill people on psych drugs that tend to make them violant/suicidal and Gun Free Zones.
Guns are here to stay, there's no getting rid of them. Get use to it!
Damn straight, guns are here to stay. Also, guns are not just for killing, they are for protecting. In fact most of the time when used in a situation of self-defense the weapon is never discharged
A homicide is a homicide either way. If your child was not gun downed, but killed in an accident by an irresponsible driver, is it somehow more acceptable to you?? I thought the point was to lessen the number of people being killed by others’ actions.
Irene ended off with a request for a show on stricter traffic laws. If that's not changing the subject, then what is?
Furthermore, if you follow Irene's 'logic' then you could say: Why are we kicking up such a fuss every time a plane crashes? It happens so very rarely, no more than school shootings, all we are doing is scaring people for no good reason. We should be looking at all the other ways we could get killed, such as automobile accidents, instead.
If we took such a irresponsible course of action as that, where would the aviation industry be today?
You can look at all the FAA and NTSB reports you want, or review all automobile accident investigation reports you want, and I guarantee you, you won't find anything that pertains to these mass shootings! They are totally unrelated. It's like comparing a dozen eggs to a dozen rocks or a dozen coconuts. There is nothing in common except the numbers.
If you never took debating classes in school, I'm going to give you all a bit of advice. When you are in a debate and your opponent tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign that he/she is all out of facts and/or talking points to back up their argument. I have noticed that you pro-gun advocates have a propensity to do that quite often, which leads me to believe that none of your arguments hold any water. In fact, they leak like the proverbial basket!
Clyde, I don’t think I changed the subject, if the subject was “saving lives”. All I wanted to point out was, “why most anti-gun people are not nearly as concerned about traffic laws as about gun laws?” If their intention is to make our society safer, there are a number of things we can do, that are perhaps more effective than banning certain type of guns. How about punishing speeders, tailgaters and phone users just as harsh as DUI drivers, making all of them subject to instant license suspension or $1000 per ticket, for example. But I don’t see heated national discussions as to how we can make our roads safer. Of course gun violence is horrible and it should be much less, but sometimes I feel that people get too emotionally hyped over guns and make them out to be “the worst” problem in our society while forgetting there are bigger problems that kill a lot more. I don’t have a fear of being shot when I go out, because I think the chances are very rare, but I’m always afraid when I’m driving on a highway. All it takes is one irresponsible driver, and he doesn’t even have to be mentally unstable. BTW, I’m not a gun advocate. Neither I nor my husband own a gun, just so you know.
Irene, please accept my humble apology for lumping you in with the pro-gun advocates. I didn't mean to do that.
I know that there are many other problems in our society that need to be addressed (i.e. drunk driving, drug abuse, poverty, homelessness, workplace stress, industrial diseases, environmental pollution, etc.), but to resolve any one of these issues takes a focused approach. If we lose our focus it won't get done, I fear! That is my beef with your posting above. I hope you understand and are not offended.
By the way, I'm glad to hear that you and your husband are on my side of the fence, on this issue!
Clyde, Thank you for your apology. No, I’m not offended, it’s good that we speak our minds candidly, that way we can have a real conversation. Though I feel that we are looking at things from totally different perspectives, I understand each of us has our own unique thinking, and the diversity in opinions is what makes America great.
Yes, there are many problems in our society, and I know you don’t like me saying this, but fixating only on guns is not doing much service, in my humble opinion. Naturally, people, including myself, are emotionally stirred and distraught by the horrific image of massacre. It’s an honest human reaction. But I don’t like it at all when the media sensationalizes it and scares our children, creating a fear of going to school for they may get shot. Let us all calm down and rationally examine what would work better, more efficiently, for the public safety as a whole.
I still don’t understand why we are not having vigorous national discussions over how we can make our roads safer. For non-gun-owners, myself included, it is so easy to point our fingers at gun issues and demand stricter gun laws, because it won’t impact us. And yet we are unwilling to look at the fact that car accidents kill 30,000 people every year, so stricter traffic laws are imperative... Isn’t it because it does directly impact us and we don’t want lower speed limits or higher fines imposed on us? If so, I think that’s highly hypocritical and I don’t want to be a hypocrite, that’s why I post what I post, to bring the car issue to the attention of anti-gun people. Understanding the anti-gun people’s goal is “a safer society”, just as mine, I’d expect that they’d welcome my suggestion.
If anti-gun people were equally strongly pushing stricter traffic laws, then I won’t have a problem. I just don’t think it’s fair to demand law-abiding responsible gun owners to compromise their way of life, IF we are reluctant to be saddled with stricter traffic laws when we know that could save thousands of lives. “to resolve any one of these issues takes a focused approach”... Yes, I agree. So how about we focus on our problems in the order of which has higher causalities? Cars victimize three times as many as guns do... oh, and mental health issue, that’s another important one.
I’m not a gun advocate, but I have a tremendous respect for the Second Amendment. I don’t own a gun today because I don’t feel the need. But if I ever sense a threat, to my family or to myself, I will get one, train myself to be able to use it, and protect ourselves.
^ – this chick has a brain. Well said Irene.
After Katrina my neighborhood was a mess. People roaming around looting homes and threating violence on people who stayed behind to protect their property. My AR15 and my 30 round clips was all it took to keep the trouble away from my family and my property. The people who had no such protection had to flee for the gangs had weapons and used them. I Faced these threats head on and they backed down. Your solution for me was to be another victim of these thieves and not defend my self with what gun I needed to take care of this situation. Go back to England you twit and leave us the hell alone. Until you have to face this kind of threat , you have no idea what it is like . There was no police to help us, we were on our own for 8 weeks and thank god for my gun and my ammo and 30 round clips, I needed them. Unlike the people who lived in Orleans parish, our guns and our 2nd amendment rights were not infringed upon and we were able to protect ourselves in this parish. This is our right , not our privalige provided by government.
whats the point in banning legal guns when there are so many illegal unregistered guns floating around.....i dont care what they say though, it will be a cold day in hell before i willingly give my guns up. .my gun is to protect my family if someone trys to break in and God himself could not get me to sacrifice the safety of my family for anything
Even if we can't have guns, the bad guys will still be able to get guns. Banning guns just leaves us defenseless.
And if you're worried about your kids, teach them how to safely use a gun and teach them when not to even pick up the gun.
High power rifles that allow someone to execute others is not an issue of rights. It is an issue of whether we are willing to take on our responsibility to protect people. Will we not make any attempt to save people, simply because a 200 year old Bill of Rights says that we all should have the right to carry a gun? Will we stand on a platform of stupidity, and ignore those who are vulnerable? I suggest that Americans can own a gun if they chose, but that it can not represent technology that is any newer than 1965.
1965 is an excellent cut-off date. Given the AR-15 was introduced to civilian sales by Colt in 1963, that pretty much makes all the "evil" black rifles good in your opinion?! ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
Being that the M-16 was first issued to U.S. troops in the spring of 1964 I agree with your statement.
Hi there, I found your site by way of Google while searching for a related subject,
your web site got here up, it appears great. I have bookmarked it in my
Hi there, just changed into alert to your weblog thru Google, and located that it's truly informative.
I am going to be careful for brussels. I'll appreciate when you proceed this in
future. Many folks can be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Why not compare are selves with Mexico? We border it. They are humans you racist.
What alternatives would you suggest that can be employed equally by the young, strong and fit as well as the handicapped, aged or infirm? The gun is the only self defense tool that can be used by virtually anyone equivalently regardless of strength, agility or age. Feel free to prove me wrong.
MikeS – Stun Gun, Taser, pepper spray...etc to name a few. And if anybody, regardless of physical condition or age couldn't manage to operate those examples that I just mentioned, they probably are not able to operate a gun as well. Now, I admit gun might be the most effective, but I still stand by my point – gun is NOT the only tool for self defence.
On tonights show piers said that there was no statistic that said gun crime in the U.S. Has gone down, that is compltetly False, The FBI Statistics are here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime This is what Alex tried to hand to Piers but Piers, would not tale them from Alex. The Statistics show a steady decline in overall Violent crime in America since 1992 and an even more of a decline since the implementation of concealed carry. For him to say otherwise is a bold faced lie. And People please get your terminology correct the weapons on the chopping block are semi-automatic rifles, one squeeze one round. An "Assault Rifle" is what our current military use which are select fire rifles, they can fire semi and three round burst as the military found long ago that full auto was a waste of ammunition. No amount of legislation will ever stop a criminal from committing an act of violence, it never has, the only thing a new law of any kind will do is make the law abiding into instant felons. A magazine that holds 5 rounds will do the same amount of dammage as a 30 round magazine will, you will just need more of them, Like Cho did when he did Virginia Tech, it only takes a few seconds to change out mags and 30 10 round mags is still 300 rounds no matter how you slice it so, that argument does not hold water either. You can make what ever argument that you want, but you cannot make up your own facts and the facts are that more guns equal less crime. Look at Chicago and D.C. as examples of this and then go back and look at every where there is concealed carry the crime rates are lower by the FBI statistics and those are the Facts.
On tonights show piers said that there was no statistic that said gun crime in the U.S. Has gone down, that is completely False, The FBI Statistics are here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime This is what Alex tried to hand to Piers but Piers, would not tale them from Alex. The Statistics show a steady decline in overall Violent crime in America since 1992 and an even more of a decline since the implementation of concealed carry. For him to say otherwise is a bold faced lie. And People please get your terminology correct the weapons on the chopping block are semi-automatic rifles, one squeeze one round. An "Assault Rifle" is what our current military use which are select fire rifles, they can fire semi and three round burst as the military found long ago that full auto was a waste of ammunition. No amount of legislation will ever stop a criminal from committing an act of violence, it never has, the only thing a new law of any kind will do is make the law abiding into instant felons. A magazine that holds 5 rounds will do the same amount of damage as a 30 round magazine will, you will just need more of them, Like Cho did when he did Virginia Tech, it only takes a few seconds to change out mags and 30 10 round mags is still 300 rounds no matter how you slice it, so that argument does not hold water either. You can make what ever argument that you want, but you cannot make up your own facts and the facts are that more guns equal less crime. Look at Chicago and D.C. as examples of this and then go back and look at every where there is concealed carry the crime rates are lower by the FBI statistics and those are the Facts.
AY, those are completely ineffective against an attacker with a gun, marginally effective against attackers with other weapons, in the case of the taser have no second shot capability, in the case of the stun gun requires the victim be within arms reach of the attacker, with regard to the pepper spray have results that vary from person to person. My 105lb 70 year old mother with a gun is the equal of any assailant with a gun and has the advantage over any 230lb thug with a knife or club. Actually, my 70yr old mother target shoots with her Smith & Wesson model 66 for fun so she's probably far superior to an assailant with a gun who is unlikely to have ever practiced or taken a class in their life.
@AY, you are incoherent. And like most liberals, you don't like comparisons that demolish your point, so you ignore them. Don't be ignorant. Pay attention to the example of Mexico. Or is it just too inconvenient for you?
MikeS – Take Empire state building shooting for example – All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence. Now these are TRAINED professionals. Just because your 105lbs 70 year old grandma can hold a gun doesn't mean she will be able to react and shoot at the target.
Can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Real simple – Sam Colt made all men EQUAL!
AY, "Trained" is a very subjective term in regard to MOST police departments. Most police officers have VERY limited training with their sidearms and the NYPD specifically are required to "qualify" with their sidearm only 1 time every year and the qualification test is VERY simple on a static (non-moving) target and they have to achieve a 70%! hit ratio! The vast majority of police officers almost NEVER touch their sidearms outside of the annual qualification test. They are "trained" to write reports, write tickets, investigate crimes and avoid department liability. My mother has been to several professional self-defense classes and practices her marksmanship several times EVERY month. Not 30 shots on 1 day of the year where she has to get at least 21 out of 30 shots on a non-moving paper target at close range.
AY, Criminals will never adhere to any gun ban. They don't obey current gun laws. I'm not going to try to defend myself against an armed intruder, with a stun gun or pepper spray, that may likely be armed with a gun. Have you never heard the rule, "Never take a knife to a gunfight"?
Ay – are you serious? Do you watch the news other than CNN? When people break into your home, criminals...either very strong or very desperate, are at an advantage. Firearms are the great equalizer and frankly, more feared than any other weapon by criminals. I ran two guys that broke into my place in a morning when I was not supposed to be there, by my girlfriend was. What were they doing there? Asking her if she wants to buy cookies? I chased them out of the house with a 30.06. They ran away and I fixed the door. Never saw them again...I never called the police. I do not live in fear...
Mexico is a poor comparison because they're unable to enforce their laws. Just like an assault rifle ban in Somalia is worthless at the moment. However, a country like the United States should and do have the resources to enforce tougher gun laws if they were passed. Take for example, Western Europe is able to enforce their laws and there is certainly much less gun crime there.
If fear for your own safety is the main reason to own guns, why is it that no one asks why people feel unsafe? Why is our society so much more violent than in most other first world countries? If you were walking alone at night in Tokyo or Oslo, you'd probably feel much safer without a weapon. Instead of debating guns, why not debate what you can do at a societal level to take away the motives for people to commit crimes?
By the way, all you gun advocates don't do yourselves any favors by throwing around personal insults.
the tool is our right Read the Bill of Rights and then tell us that we don't need the tool
The primary reason for citizens to own military-style fire arms is so that they can defend themselves against their own government. The text of the 2nd Amendment ITSELF gives this justification. It reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Emphasis added). In other words, the right of the people to own firearms is so that they can defend themselves against GOVERNMENT TYRANNY and stay free – not so they can go hunting or defend themselves against the occasional criminal (although those are added benefits). When guns are taken away from citizens the people suffer greatly because they can no longer defend themselves when their government goes too far. Let’s not forget that Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, and Turkey (among others) murdered millions of their own citizens after disarming them. And for those of you wondering: a "well regulated militia" was understood in 1790 to mean properly equipped citizens with privately owned firearms – not to be confused with the National Guard we have today which is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system. Unlike the National Guard, the militia cannot be sent overseas. Also, for those of you that claim that citizens with assault rifles could never defeat our military: you forget that our military contains many freedom loving individuals who would not follow unreasonable orders, who would defect, and who would join the movement to maintain our freedoms if there was a power grab by the federal government.
Voting is how we elect our representatives. When our representatives do not protect our rights then it falls to the citizens to fight for our rights ourselves. Also, what good is voting if the votes are not properly counted? Any individual could single handedly stand up against the armed forces – they just would be unlikely to be successful. But you are misinterpreting what I said. My point is that there wouldn’t just be one individual if there was a power grab by the federal government – there would be many including individuals already in the military. So it wouldn’t just be assault rifles against the entire military – it would be freedom loving citizens and freedom loving portions of the military against the portions of the military loyal to the federal government. Don’t get me wrong – it would be chaotic and messy. Look at what is going in on in Syria for a current example of what it is like when citizens have to fight their own government for their rights.
First of all. He may be talking about banning guns and not banning self defense, but how do you defend yourself against a thug with a gun and you as a law abiding citizen don't have a gun. There is a reason why guns are considered the great equalizer. They can turn the weak into the strong. Not only that Piers Morgan keeps avoiding the fact that the Second amendment is there to protect us from the government and not from each other. What are you going to do if all of a sudden we get a real communist into our office who turns out to be no different than hitler or stallin? Are you just going to curl up in a ball and wait and hope they don't come take you away to some camp? You might not think its going to ever happen here but thats exactly what the people of Germany said too before the soldiers started going door to door.
Having the right to defend my life without the tool is an idiotic though.Only a liberal would come up with that.You have the right to a free press but you can't actually buy a paper or write a letter to one or publish?????
Charles- I like your post to the FBI violent crime statistics online. I had a look. Did you look at Table 20. Forget violent crime look at murders in the United States. Piers should be countering these pro-gun people with these statistics. Unfortunately, the pro-gun people are winning the battle by providing misinformation. Violent crime may be down in the US, which it is also down in the UK. But look at murders in the U.S. and the weapons used to kill. In 2011 there were 12,664 murders in the U.S. Of those murders 8,583 were committed with a firearm. That means that 68% of all murders were committed with a firearm. According to the statistics "assault rifles" may not be the biggest problem. In mass shootings they are definitely the weapon of choice. But statistically the number one murder weapon in the U.S. is the hand gun with 5,823 murders caused by them. The statistics seem to be clear the majority of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, and most of the time with a hand gun.
Said the man who brought a knife to a gun-fight..
"Never bring a knife to a gunfight"...Your suggestion would match weapons of choice vs. 'good intentions'. Who'd win that confrontation. Don't give up your CHOICE to bear arms...
You are absolutely insane to think that he is using the second amendment to warp things. I AM CANADIAN and i understand full well that you idiots screwed up the gun problem by putting too many out there, MORE LAWS WILL NOT FIX THIS, and the oly way to defend yourselves is to use weapons. What Piers and those who agree with him are suggesting is that we all bring knives to gunfights. We all know how those end up. And the numbers Piers and the gut he was debating with on the 9th? Crap both of them. I found a murder counter run by a local UK newspaper as the first thing that showed up on google, and the number was around 550. Both are wrong, but Piers's numbers are a hell of a lot farther off. Not to mention the total violent crime rate overall is worse. Insane, come to your senses people. Your everyday, friendly Canadian.
That is where you are wrong – the second amendment is the RIGHT TO OWN and BARE arms –
That is the tool –
So are you saying that take away the tool – a person can still use ???? What?
Banning guns will only allow criminals to have them – there is little defense against someone with a gun that is intent on hurting you.
Do you realize how ridiculous you seem with the last point you just made? He's not taking away your rights, he's just taking away your tool......?????
Our tool IS our rights.
You, sir; are a dope!
AY: you are a baffoon! Our 2nd Amendment doesn't give us a right to protect ourselves. It protects us from the government denying our right to keep and bear arms. Banning our "arms" takes away our rights whether or not you agree with that fact.
LOL are you really that stupid... He wants to ban guns, and not take away our right to bear arms? What do you think that means?
I am not a gun advocate but your point made me raise an eyebrow. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear and it is definitely not suggesting that people have the "right to bear arms" and meaning that they can defend themselves with their fists. You might want to read the actual wording.
For those that think guns are the number one reason people die in this country, here are some facts:
31,593 people died from gun violence
Heart disease: 597,689
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
When are we going to outlaw the above?
Military style weapon? My 30.06 is a military style weapon. My 45-70 was used by the military a long time ago. Voting is how we defend against our government. Freedom of speech and democracy is how we defend against our government. Does our government step out of line? Sure they do and it comes back to haunt them. The idea that a person can single handedly stand up against the armed forces is crazy. You are going to need a lot more than an AR-15.
I agree with you, however you forgot one I thought should be mentioned:
Notify me of new comments via email.