READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
In the sequel to an energized and combative conversation from three weeks prior, on Wednesday evening "Piers Morgan Tonight" welcomed Larry Pratt back to the program, for a second interview that was nearly as contentious as the first.
The Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Pratt once again joined host Piers Morgan to share his opinions and insight on the ongoing issue of firearms, and gun control, in the United States.
Standing firm with his consistent view that the American public needs less weapons in general – and should be banned from owning assault weapons in particular – Morgan aired a video clip of Stanley McChrystal, a retired Army General, echoing such a perspective.
Questioning how Pratt could disagree with the experience of someone like McChrystal, Morgan provided some additional background, and posed his question:
"The last four mass shootings in the last five months have all involved the AR-15 style - military style - assault rifle. Widely available as you know. Even in Connecticut which has supposedly quite tough gun control laws," stated the host. "Why do you feel so strongly that civilians, despite what we just heard from a leading general, should still be able to have access to these killing machines?"
Once having referred to Morgan as "morally obtuse," Pratt answered:
"Well, because the general and his troops are not going to be there to protect the average American, the military nor the police after social order implodes, after a hurricane, after an earthquake, during riots. And his experience, and I very much appreciate his service to the country and the military. But he is not dealing with what civilians have to put up with in the vacuum of somebody being around to protect them. We're on our own."
Continuing with the "Guns in America" subject matter, Morgan used his platform to later welcome Jessica Watts and Tom Teves, each a relative of someone killed during the mass-shooting in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater last July.
"I definitely think, Piers, that more guns are not the answer," said Watts, who lost her cousin Jonathan Blunk on July 20, 2012. "That puts that many more guns in the hands of people who've got mental illness and it becomes very much a fear factor for people nationwide."
Teves, meanwhile, lost his son Alex in the movie theater massacre, and on a day which marked the end of the preliminary hearing of shooting suspect James Holmes, Morgan asked him to respond to Pratt's earlier argument for lesser gun control, and more access to weapons:
"I struggle with it," he admitted. "A., I wonder what he'd think if he was in my shoes. Two, think about the scene – and we got a pretty good understanding of what the scene was like today – that night, and only the people that were in there can really know. And I think that we need to recognize that. But, there was smoke, people couldn't see, he had an automatic weapon, he had an automatic shotgun, he had two revolvers that didn't need to be reloaded so if somebody - they are not going to walk in with an assault weapon – so what are they going to do? They're going to stand up in the fog and shoot at him. He had ballistic equipment. Everybody including him around that person who shot at him would be dead. If there were ten people in there and people started running around you might have had 15 or 20 more people shot from friendly fire. I don't know that's the answer."
Watch the clips and listen to the interviews, as Morgan and his guests continue their discussion on guns in America.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
No one is really saying we need more guns. The only thing we want is no more of these shootings. If that means limiting the magazines then so be it, but it needs to be something that is proven to work.
Mr. Morgan is not apologizing for his a very unethical way how to conduct an interview with an American citizens. I am old, not even USA citizen and I had never owned a gun. NO, I cannot expect any other response from this arrogant man with a limited intellectual capability of the present century.
His problem is, that his mind is somewhere in the last century, when an English man came to
another country and dictated there his way, or highway – of course with guns.
He came to the USA as a host and acting like an old English colonialist – dictating, declaring his way as only the way and treating the US citizens like a slaves, or just a something
lover in the humanity than him – the colonialist. Than he even lies with his so called statistics.
Never mind, this is his colonialist way. If there is not a problem with guns, he would find something else to dictate his way. No, he is not serious journalist. He is a shame for
journalists and of course also for the English people. They are far ahead of his brain ability
and his acting. Therefore he is not welcomed also in England. I just feel a deep sorrow for this
Greg Hrab, Canada
There is one subject regarding gun control that I have not heard from anyone from either side. The 223 rounds that are used in some assault rifles are for killing people. The Dept. of Fish and Game can regulate what type of gun and ammuntion you can use to kill different types of game, but we allow military type ammunition to be sold to the public. Even if a gun law is passed banning assault type weapons, there are still the ones already on the street so how do you control them? By controlling the ammunition as military use only. Why aren't people more important than animals? Just a suggestion, I would love to know what you think of this idea. You are doing a great job with the NRA, the more they talk the more people realize they are not interested in the effects of the gun laws on safety.
No, you are wrong. The 223 is to give the military a low recoil round that wounds people. That is why they use NATO rounds and not the rounds we use in a hunting situation. The 223 is a very lite high powered rifle. In fact, I don’t own a high powered rifle as lite as a 223. I do have a 22-250 and that is close to a 223, but still has more energy. The problem in this debate is failure to communicate accurate information. Information that groups like the NRA should be putting out there in place of all this stupid stuff they have been saying. My definition of an assault rifle is any weapon that can keep firing without a reload after a reasonable number of defensive rounds has been fired.
the 223 round is one of the most favored rounds of hunters, it is quite excellent for use on small game type creatures. it is not allowed in most states for anything larger than a coyote. Anything bigger it may not kill quickly. Bonnie, the reason the military likes 233/5.56 rounds is they don't kill quickly. i would support more mental health services involved in a gun purchase. I support every LAW WE NOW HAVE ON THE BOOKS.. ENFORCE THOSE.
Thanks..... It is good to read real ballistic facts about this demonized 223 round. If the laws are based on such un-educated information, we are all in big trouble.
RIGHT ON !!!
the .223 is concidered a hunting round, the 5.56mm nato is the military rnd. the .223 makes less pressure in the breach (chamber) then the 5.56mm..the 5.56 mm makes a lot more pressure in the chamber.. you can shoot a .223 in a 5.56mm chambered rifle but you should never shoot a 5.56mm in a .223 chambered rifle because it is not designed to handle the added pressure of the 5.56mm rnd.... now this is the gospel of the .223 rnd verses 5.56mm rnd. ( if you measure the diameter of both these rnd you will see there basically the same diameter)....
You are right. It was developed off the 222 hunting round. It is nothing more than a super fast 22 rifle.
The public is banned from purchasing Armored Piercing rounds for any firearm. I have one AR-15 in my collection. This rifle is not the military version. All military version are equip with full automatic. All my firearms only have the option of semi- automatic because full autos are banned to the public..
For that piers to call his guest a liar because his data is different than his was completely unprofessional and immature. Any good reporter would research both sets and find out where the discrepancy was before insulting a person. Then turned around and told this man he didn't like him very well. I've an idea for you piers. You surely are scared by our freedom circling this and if you don't like what we are allowed to have, take your brit ass back across the pond where you will be as safe as that government will let you.
One last comment. Responsible people are capable of many things. One of them is owning firearms. But since the people who are up to no good and find ways to obtain the same weapons the responsible can own, It seems we have to lose our rights to make sure the criminals can't arm themselves. Where is the logic in that?
Larry Pratt turn thy gun on thyself.
GUN CONTROL? Missing the whole point! Today 3 people under the age of 21 will die in car accidents, and 9 people over 21 will dies in car accidents in the good ole US of A !! 12 a day KILLED, MURDERED – by intoxicated driving!! 84 – that's EIGHTY FOUR
Yup, that is actually a lot bigger issue and we are ignoring it talking about guns which we all like to do.
Someone is ignoring the problem of drunk driving and drunk driving-related deaths? Have you been asleep for 50 years??
Laws about drunk driving have got increasingly tougher: longer sentences, especially for repeat offenders; more and longer driving bans; lower blood alcohol limits; and in some places, special rules for young drivers, and higher legal drinking ages.
People and businesses who serve intoxicated patrons are being held civilly liable for the harm and damage they cause when they get behind the wheel.
Police have implemented many programs to apprehend drunk drivers on the roads. Members of the public are sensitive to the problem and report drunk drivers to police.
Voluntary groups run programs to drive intoxicated people home. Television stations run public service announcements against drunk driving. Cities and states and provinces run public education campaigns about the harm caused by drunk driving and ways of avoiding it, like designated drivers, and businesses offer free non-alcoholic beverages to designated drivers.
Injuries and deaths associated with drunk driving have declined in the US - although other countries, which apply harsher rules, have seen a greater decline. The CDC says that drunk driving incidents declined by 30% in the last five years. Since 1982, fatalities associated with drunk driving have gone down by over 50% (even as the population, and especially traffic volumes, have increased).
How could anyone possibly say that anyone is "ignoring" the problem of drunk driving??
If only the problem of firearms violence got as much attention! If there were even public campaigns about locking up your guns as there are about handing over your car keys when you drink ... just imagine how many people, especially kids, might be alive today.
My point was that the number of deaths from drunk drivers is still higher than the gun violence. A ban on guns will not solve the problem that has created this media storm. It has very little to do with guns. Don’t get me wrong, we need to do something about gun violence or let’s just say violence in America.
There is a huge difference between car deaths and gun deaths. Usually, car deaths are not intentional. Gun deaths are almost always intentional.
Anti gunner's are deff getting and repeating made up stats, they hear and repeat, uneducated to say the least..
"Proven to work"? What more proof does anyone need but the firearms crime/injury/homicide numbers from every other similar country in the world. where there *are* limits like these?
Has anyone ever "proved" any law or social policy to work? Does any law or policy ever absolutely prevent everything it is intended to prevent? Of course not. We have laws against murder and theft, and still there are murders and thefts. But no one would argue that we do not have *fewer* of them than if there were no laws.
Laws against speeding don't stop people from speeding, or stop traffic fatalities from happening. But they do reduce overall speeds, and reduce the number of people driving at unsafe speeds, and reduce the speed at which many people drive - and reduce the number of traffic fatalities. When combined with more seatbelt use, less drunk driving, better vehicle construction, public awareness campaigns, and better trauma care, they reduce the number of traffic fatalities even more.
If you approach gun injury and death the way you approach traffic injury and death, it is obvious that no single measure will solve the problem (and nothing will ever eliminate the problem entirely) - but each measure can have some effect, even without the others. Reducing speed limits reduces traffic fatalities, even without raising seatbelt use and improving trauma care. So too with the many ways of limiting access to guns by people who should not have them, and limiting the damage they are able to do with them.
Banning these kinds of firearms, and high-capacity magazines, will *make it harder* for people to get them, and to commit mass murders with guns. And it will get increasingly harder over time.
Just as installing speed bumps and stop signs *makes it harder* for people to speed, even if they don't care what the law says, don't care about other people's safety and aren't afraid of getting caught - and so fewer people speed where those measures are in place together with speed limits.
There is nothing magical about guns that makes it harder to apply a policy to them than to anything else.
We don't turn a blind eye if unlicensed drivers drive on X Street, but ticket them if they drive on Y Street. So why allow people who can't pass a background check to buy guns privately or at gun shows without a background check? The law says they may not do that - but there is nothing to stop them if they don't care what the law says. Put a speed bump in their way: require a background check for all gun sales everywhere, not just from dealers. Law-abiding gun owners will not break the law by selling them guns without a background check.
Anyone who demands "proof" (and I don't mean Jackie who posted here) that banning high capacity magazines won't make it harder to commit mass murder, and that requiring background checks for all gun sales won't make it harder for criminals to get guns, must have some goal other than reducing mass murders and reducing the number of guns in criminals' hands.
84 a week! May I ask ? What is the federal government doing about killing 84 people a week? Any New restrictions? A new committee with Biden in charge? That would help !!!!
Pierce is lying about his statistics on violence in the US. Also the article stated that the shooter had automatic weapons. That is completely untrue also. The worst 2 mass shootings in the world were both done with handguns so an assault weapons ban is simply feel good legislation. One of those shootings was in Pierces beloved GB. Pierce is a hack and needs to be called on the carpet for his misrepresentation of the facts. Hack reporting that should not be tolerated in the US. Check the news source below that fact checked Pierce's lies. Pierces beloved Great Brittan that he touts as 57 gun murders does not make up for the fact that GB has more murders per capita than the US and the EU has said that GB is the second most violent country in the entire EU. Proof that if you take guns away sick people will just find other ways of killing each other. Stop trying to punish law abiding citizens and go after the real problem. Messed up people! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI
The fact that people feel comfortable telling or repeating lies in public about such important public issues bodes very badly for the future of your country.
"'GB has more murders per capita than the US"
This is such an outright, blatant, bald-faced lie that anyone who tells it or repeats it should be shunned and excluded from polite company for life.
The quibbles about rates are understandable in one way: official murder numbers for England/Wales, for example, are tabulated for the *fiscal year*, while popular sources often do a count of the number for a calendar year to report to their reader. I expect that Mr. Morgan's figures are the former, and some of the figures being bandied about, if they are at all real, are the latter.
The fact remains that there have been no more than 60 firearms homicides in England/Wales (with a population about 1/6 the population of the US) in ... well, pretty much ever.
And the fact is that total homicde rates for 2011 (it is too early to have firm figures for 2012 yet) look like this, for example:
The vast majority of homicides in the US *would not have happened* without firearms: you do kill someone at a distance by throwing a rock at them, you do not kill an innocent bystander or a child asleep in its bed by throwing a knife across a bar or through a wall, you do not kill your wife or girlfriend and then yourself by suffocating her and then jumping off a bridge, you do not turn an argument into a murder by punching someone.
Watch the video and follow their sources. Legit news source. You can say what you want the news source was backed by traceable fact sources. You live in your world I will live in the real one.
But two of the countries you have on your list, Germany and France, are the 4th and 5th largest gun owning nations in the world, and yet their overall homicide rates are significantly lower than Britain's. While Britain has a low gun murder rate, it's its total overall murder rate that needs to be considered. Looking at the total murder rate demonstrates the flaw in Morgan's argument, especially when you start making homicide rate comparison between some of Britain's large gun owning European neighbors, such as Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy and Spain, you will see that these all have lower murder rates than gun free Britain. If you subscribe to Morgan's notion that more guns mean more crime, then all of these large European countries should have substantially higher murder rates than Britain's, but they don't.
YES, peirs is using cnn air time to run his mouth with made up stats, people who know the real truth are blown away by this fact, and he just keeps on running his big arogent mouth..OH and ignorant mouth as well...
I hate the term "Assault Weapon" to describe these rifles. A Semi-auto AR-15 is a precision rifle. The .223 ammo was first introduced as a civilian round for varmint hunting. ALL semi-auto weapons are equal with rate of fire. You pull the trigger, it fires one round. You must release the trigger and pull it again to fie another one. PM is lying when he says 4-6 rounds per minute as a rate of fire. PM showed what was claimed to be a semi-auto AR-15 firing, WRONG, it was a Class III select fire weapon, clearly firing in full auto mode, the video was mislabeled. No human could possibly pull the trigger repeatedly and get 4 rounds off in a second, let alone six! PM STOP SPREADING YOUR LIES TO AMERICA!
Wow another gun educated person seeing how incredibly stupid this man is.....way to go !!, this man needs to leave our country asap....nit wit twit describes him well
To be honest PM needs to move back to England. If you do not like the laws we have then move. Yes what happened was a serious tragedy, but know what you are talking about before trying to preach your message you sound like an idiot trying to get ratings. In England where people aren't allowed to have firearms like in the U.S the crime is huge because criminals have the guns not the citizens. Check the facts online, also look at the crime in Australia, same scenario. Don't dare come to this country get on tv and tell ua americans what is right and how it should be. Like I said you don't like it MOVE.
I was compelled to go to this page of CNN's as regardless if I/we like PM or not, don't you find it odd that he is the ONLY one who will confront this issue? I like that he is doing so. I know that the 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms, but give it some thought – that was written long before the current technology was in place. I say, keep your guns except for selling new assault weapons, and put the focus on controlling the sale of ammunition. My own sister has several guns and is opposite from me on this issue. I'm in AZ and she's in Texas. Our regions help define us; I personally do not want that much power in my hands and do not and will not own any guns. Anyway, keep at it Piers, and give them a run for thier money.
CORRECTION -That's 4-6 rounds per second, not minute that PM is lying about!!!!!!!!!!
The NRA needs to quit being so smug because they think this debate is already won in the house and senate. The NRA these terms “Assault rifle” and “Military style weapon”. These are real hot buttons and at some point the public view that is being lead down that path is going to change the house and senate. We need to talk about the 223 round and why the military is using that lite rifle load. We need to talk about high capacity magazines and what we can do to keep them out of the reach of children. The NRA needs to wake up and take this to a new level. We had a general on national television saying stupid stuff, but the NRA didn’t say a word about it. People took what he said as being from an expert. It didn’t matter if his comments were out of line and in error.
the 223 is basically concidered a hunting round it makes less pressure in the breach (chamber) then a 5.56mm nato round which makes more pressure. you can shoot a .223 in a 5.56mm but you should not shoot a 5.56mm in a .223 chambered rifle because there not designed for the added pressure of the 5.56mm nato..
It was always my understanding that a 223 was developed from the 222 hunting round. They just pushed it a little faster.
How about this: ban military style assault weapon at the same time allow teachers to carry light firearmas.
Please define a "military style assault weapon".
@jackie: any firearm with a detachable magazine
My browning X-bold 30.06 has a detachable magazine. It is a bolt action hunting rifle. Need a better way to define a military style assault weapon than just detachable magazine.
The full "technical" term of one is a weapon that has pistol grip and can except a magazines that has a select fire switch that can fire in a full auto and in single fire. Now the dangerous part of this gun ban is your rifle because it can except the magazine could be called an "assault" rifle or even worst since its a high powered rifle with a scope it could be called a "sniper" rifle. Again its not about what we like it's about freedom.
It is a hunting rifle so I guess it falls under being a "sniper" rifle. Last deer I shot was 526yds. Yep, guess I better put it back in the box and get ready to send it to the government.
an assult weapon is fully automatic, one pull and hold the trigger it will continue to fire round after round, the weapons they keep calling assult weapons only shoot one round for one trigger pull,,,,this nit wit keeps referring to semi auto's as full auto's...peirs is an IDIOT with a mouth and a tv show...PERIOD
I agree. He is part of the probelm.
"allow teachers to carry light firearmas"
(a) You know as well as everyone else that the vast majority of teachers will NOT carry firearms into their classroom. Most teachers in the US want to teach, not act as paramilitary guards. (And obviously, some teachers are as unsuitable for possessing firearms as anyone else in the public, and permitting them to bring firearms onto school property could create situations as dangerous as in any other workplace.) Simply "allowing" teaches to carry firearms would be ineffective at best and dangerous at worst.
(b) The presence of firearms in a location is NOT a deterrent to someone who decides to commit a mass murder (and all the talk about "gun-free zones" being targets is just nonsense) - most mass murderers intend to commit suicide and/or expect to be killed by police.
(c) A teacher carrying a firearm in a school would have to have it on their person at all times, including travelling to and from the school, while using the washroom, etc. Would teachers have to use the toilet in pairs? Who would guard their students then? More impotantly, the teacher would be vulnerable to students or others who wanted their firearm: they would become targets themselves. Guns, not gun-free zones, are what most criminals want.
(d) If teachers - or, as some have suggested, principals/administrators (as some suggested would have prevented deaths in Newtown) - were to have access to firearms kept locked up on school property, the firearms would have to be stored there permanently, or removed during non-school hours. Guns stored on school premises at night, or being transported by school personnel, would be targets for thieves / put the personnel at risk.
(e) The presence of someone with a gun does NOT *prevent* incidents like these. It could possibly reduce the number of injuries and fatalities - if the person with the gun were in the right place at the right time, had no doubt about the nature of the situation, had a clear shot, had the necessary competence and calmness to take the shot, etc.
Gun nut fantasies are not useful contributions to public policy discussions.
thats the point.. Teachers largely will opt not to carry firearms..but they are legally allowed if they chose to (progun partially happy), assault weapon are banned (antigun partially happy).... could be an area of compromise that could lead to quick action...The hope is future school shooting will have relatively less fatality.
@Piers More Gun: what nonsense.
The goal here is not to make "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" happy. The goal is not compromise. It is effectiveness.
It is to reduce mass murders.
(I have no idea why anyone would be "pro" or "anti" guns. They are just objects. Personally, I am "pro" making it very difficult for people at risk of causing harm to get their hands on guns.)
I don't agree. I think this is just politics gone crazy and has very little to do with preventing these mass shootings. I can only hope that the Whitehouse is really looking into solutions to the problem.
I am a gun owner and I am responsible. I keep my firearms in a safe, locked at all times. I am not an NRA member nor will I ever be. These crazy arguments coming from the conspiracy theorists are the same ones I heard back in the 90's from the NRA. I have friends that used to give me literature from the NRA saying that the government wants to steal your guns like Hitler and Stalin did, and it was going to happen soon if they didn't get more members to stop this tyrannical government. Wouldn't it be nice if the NRA would teach responsible gun ownership without the fear of everything that goes bump in the night. The NRA should be about educating responsible gun owners about safety, but they are a political organization with some crazy beliefs and very crazy members.
I'd love to see a concealed weapons ban for MOST people. If you think the government is out to get your guns or that everyone walking down the street in a hoodie looks like a criminal then you shouldn't have one. You can take a class at our local flea market to get your CWP.... very scary.
Depends on the state. I am a combat vet who has also been in civilian law enforcement for years and now has a TS from the gov yet I can't get a CC permit in my state because it is a may issue state. Yet we have some of the worst fans and hun crimes in the country. I can't have a CC to protect my family but that has not stopped the ganbangers and wackos from killing people in the tens of hundreds each year here in NJ. If I do apply and get turned down which I would I will then have to answer that I have been turned down for a permit if I wish to purchase a firearm thus making it impossible to purchase another firearm with the current background check system. I am all for sensible gun laws. I don't have a problem making all firearms sales get a mandatory background check. I would be for mental health evals if it was done in away that states like mine did not just use them as a means to not allow you to purchase a firearm. I have already passed many background checks for everything I have achieved in life but there is a big fear that NJ would use stricter gun laws as a means to deny someone like me the ability to legally purchase a firearm. As it is it takes almost 4 months to purchase a handgun in NJ. None of these strict laws have helped save lives in NJ and they have put those that follow the laws like I do at risk of being a victim instead of a survivor.
Piers, your arguments are pathetic and weak, quit interupting guests and lying about stats. Have you ever even shot a gun? There are no 'assault weapons' in public hands, only if they pay a very expensive tax stamp, and they are very low numbers. A 'fully automatic weapon' costs in the tens of thousands of dollars at the least. A 'fully automatic assault weapon' that you keep harping about is only on the battlefield in the hands of military men and women. The only weapons that are available are semi-automatic weapons. Educate yourself, your ad hominem arguments would be easy to rip apart in a debate. Most of the congress have concealed carry permits which I'm sure you know, but fail to tell your audience. Are you brittish or english? Violent crime goes up when guns are taken from the people. Check the real stats and stop the strawman arguements. You are morally obtuse. You are well educated, but you raise your voice when you are caught and try to switch the game up. You commit logical fallacies right on air constantly. Learn what an 'assault weapon' really is tart.
Keep up the good work Piers – shining a light on some of these CRAZY gun advocates and the number of guns (including assault weapons) circulating in the USA makes me as a Canadian afraid to visit that country. INSANE is an understatement of how much the Americans love their guns. You would think that a person would want to spend quality time with their family rather than out on some rifle range target practising on a target in the shape of a human being. Can't figure that out.
It seems to me there are three reasons to have an AR-15 at home: to help counter a massive invasion by an armed foreign power, for protection during a riot or other major upheaval, and to defend against a tyrannical United States government that begins to oppress the people with fascist methods. I think most reasonable people would agree that first and last of these scenarios are extremely unlikely and the second is rare. (Even during such a disruption of order as a riot or other failure of infrastructure, the power of an AR-15 would not be necessary for most situations.) The real issue in the minds of AR-15 proponents, I suspect, is their fear that the US government actually will come after them in force, à la Randy Weaver, which will certainly happen in a few cases (justifiably, it is to be hoped) but is in my view otherwise and largely a paranoid belief.
I think there is really only one good reason to impose a federal ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines (assuming other guns are not to be affected): to reduce—by 10-20%?—the number of victims in future attacks by mentally disturbed young males. Isn’t that reason enough?
I am going to agree with you. I think we need a ban on high capacity magazines. I don't think the AR-15 even enters into the issue after you do that. It doesn’t require some major buyback program that we can’t afford. It takes the current magazines off the street or at least in all the cases we have seen, the people that owned them would have surrendered them. We need to reach out to these kids that are outcast and bullied in schools.
Jackie I really don't like them either but for the same reasons most likely. We as gun owners need to realize that it's not about what we "like" it's about our freedoms. It takes less than two seconds for anyone to swap out the magazines so to say that you can only have a ten round magazine wont stop a person carrying ten magazines. I know I have said this before but for some reason I feel I have to keep saying this, they make up less than one percent of all gun deaths in the US. Another thing I don't see people talking about the last three mass shootings of the other common item is the fact that all three people where on drugs that says they can cause suicidal thoughts, depression and violent thoughts. Now I am not saying that everyone who is on these drugs are the next person who will kill someone but the same can be said about the "assault" rifle.
.kantill, Point well made. The magazine change out can be a task under pressure. That is why they always have that as part of most shooting sports as well as on that top shot show. Those guys where very familiar with their weapon and still had issues during the reloads at time. The Gifford shooter dropped the magazine during the reload and a bystander picked it up and he was disarmed. He had already shot 33. The idea of fewer rounds in the clip means more opportunity to disarm the suspect. Every time he has to reload, he has to drop, install and rechamber a round. While we might be able to do that very fast under some pressure, I don’t think these guys we have been seeing in these shootings will have that mastered. I don't want to give up any rights, but limitations are a way of life. We already limit the fully automatic weapons and silencers. Put the high capacity magazines under the same guide lines. What ya think?
For the sandy hook shooting it took over twenty minutes for the police to get there so I don't think he was under that much pressure. The funny thing is you keep calling them a "high" capacity but the standard capacity to the AR platform. It isn't a add on option. Since you asked no I don't agree with any of it and I'll tell you why. Again looking at sandy hook the guy killed his mother (against the law) stole her guns (against the law) proceeded to kill lots of unarmed people (again against the law), can you guess the common thread? Can you guess the other common thread to the sandy hook and the other mass shootings? The gun men where on drugs that have been known to cause violent thoughts and suicidal thoughts.
I understand the guy was breaking the law long before he entered the school. I know the AR has a standard size magazine. During the assault weapons ban the standard was 10 rounds and now the Springfield xdm 9MM standard magazine is 19 rounds. We don't know what would happen at Sandy Hook if he had to change magazines. Maybe one of those teachers would have reached him on a reload. We just don't know. We do know it takes time a skill changing out magazines and in all of these cases would have given people a chance to take action. As it was in Colorado, he had so much suppression fire, that there was no way to approach. I know I am suggesting a limitation and a big issue to force people to surrender magazines. I really do believe it would make a difference. You don’t have to ban an AR-15 or even go down that slippery slope because no one really wants one with a five round clip.
@kantill: "Again looking at sandy hook the guy killed his mother (against the law) stole her guns (against the law) proceeded to kill lots of unarmed people (again against the law), can you guess the common thread?"
Uh, it's pretty obvious, isn't it?
No guns, no improper gun storage, no gun theft, no gun murders. Huh.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As it stands, I really think we are going to see a ban on the AR-15. I think we are going to see a ban that allows what is currently in the market to remain there and I think the ban on high capacity magazines will be the same as the last assault weapons ban. All the anti-gun people will go home and sleep well. Only problem is the Sandy Hook shooting would have still happened if we never terminated the last assault weapons ban just like this knew one is going to be. It was a pre-ban gun. This is all just politics and no one is really going to do anything that will stop these shootings. So the people that are running out and buying all these guns before this new ban starts are the smart one.
No the answer is look at who and why. His mother was trying to get him committed before the shooting but because the mental health system in this country so jacked she couldn't. If he didn't have access to a gun he could have easily killed those kids with other weapons, evil is evil. Just like China, China you can't own a gun yet 22 kids the same day as sandy hook and they have a history of this type violence. UK according you and Piers the greatest place on earth has people dying by the thousands but as long its not by a gun you don't CARE. Chicago, New York and LA all have the most murders including gun related but again have the strictest gun control laws. When are you anti-gun people going to face the facts not emotions? If you want to save people than look at the real issues in this country not what scares you.
First off I am not anti-gun. Second, I agree with you that we need to get these kids help. Columbine was all about bullying. Teachers just watched it and did nothing until it blew up in their face. No justification, but it really wasn’t the gun.
The problem with your numbers is the fact the "assault" rifle makes up less than one percent of all gun deaths in the US. If this was really to save lives than it would be about taking away the guns and magazines not leave them in the population. This is about control not gun but people. And the reason I can say this is if we where really trying to save a life we would ban baseball bats, cars, alcohol and I could on and on because all of these kill people every day much more than guns. Again all I ask of anyone is to do their own research before believing people like Piers, they are not to keep you or your children safe. Since they ARMED body guards for themselves and their families.
On another issue, the question of why anyone would randomly murder small children, it occurs to me that the (deranged) reason for Adam Lanza’s attack may have been that he believed something a sane person would not: that, for example, the children were possessed by the devil or by evil aliens from outer space, or perhaps more likely, that his own life was so miserable that he believed he was sparing the children the (to him) insufferable wretchedness of being alive.
Piers Morgan is doing nothing to help the discussion on gun control in our country. He's rude to his guests, calling them names and editorializing at the end of each interview and, he uses hyperbole when discussing the issues. A couple of weeks ago he referred to a semi-automatic as a "machine gun". I understand why many are calling for his deportation!!
Tragically and repeatedly mental illness has been the major contributor in 4 out of 4 shootings that have been some of the worse violent crimes involving firearms.
2007 Virginia Tech, The shooter, Cho, had been medically adjudicated as mentally ill in 2005. Obviously, he still was able to purchase the handguns used to kill those students.
33 killed, 17 wounded
Only handguns used, a .22 Caliber Walther and a 9mm Glock
2011 Gabrielle Giffords Tuscon, AZ The shooter Loughner had a history of behavioral problems due to mental illness and wouldn't take his medications, even though mentally ill he is in prison for 7 life terms.
6 killed and 13 wounded
9mm Glock Handguns used
2012 Aurora Co Theatre Shootong. The shooter Holmes was being treated for mental illness by a College Psychiatrist, unfortunately after his Psychiatrist notified law enforcement that he was a danger to himself and others, it was treated as a low priority and he then acted out killing 19 people and wounding 59.
He used a AR-15 which jammed, Remington 12 gauge Shotgun and a 9mm Glock killed and wounded most of the victims.
2012 Newtown School Massacre – Adam Lanza had some mental disorder illness and 27 people were killed.
The shooter used a AR-15 but was carrying a 10mm and 9mm Glock Pistols
4 horrific event with over 80 people killed and over 100 people injured that essentially most likely could or and should have been stopped. Gun control had nothing to do with this, masculinity had nothing to do with this, Essentially these murderers all had known mental health issues/disorders only to fall through the system or lack of system and kill.
Mr. Morgan thinks these "Assault weapons" are the problem. So when we take assault weapons from the mentally ill they will use handguns and shotguns, right? I'd rather be shot by the AR-15 with its full metal non expanding bullet than a handgun with hollow point expanding to twice its size bullet or buckshot from a 12 gauge.
Every time someone on his show has tried to bring up this fact he starts to yell and insult them. Again people please do not listen to him and spend just a little time on google and with some level heads and common sense we can "do" something but its giving up your freedoms.
but its NOT giving up your freedoms.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
I know most of NRA members and NRA probably never heard of this guy.
Here is an idea, put in place a law controling the number of bullets a gun owner can purchase, licence the gun and the owner, attach that licence to the drive's licence of the person or another form of identification, utilizing a centralized data base, set a limit on how many bullets the owner for that licence can purchase. All retailers including on-line sellers, would have to log into the data base with the client ID code to fill an order, if they are at the limit the retailer would not be able to process an order. I know nothing about guns but I am sure that all bullet production has to be batched and numbered, the batch number would be attached to the order. Each gun would have a seperate licence under a master client ID, this would allow control of just switching guns to buy more bullets. Register, licence, ID, audit the sellers and control the bullet consumption.
Ever heard of 'Big Brother' and total control. Law abiding, intelligent individuals can control their own actions.
Really, did you read 1984 and decide it was real? Real people died for no reason in a safe city (aurora) and in school. Do we feel it freedom when it takes the lives of innocent children. Bad things happen, sure, don't we feel as responsible adults/parents/professionals/citizens/war vets that maybe its our duty to make killing more difficult.
First of all thank you for the debate you allow to happen through your show. I believe the real question is what kind of society we want? Do we want a society where every single citizen has to be armed to feel safe, or to do everything we can to have a safer place where each person can walk free without being armed. How tepid to think that more you arm people safer it is, just because then you will have an escalation of fire power, a hand gun against an assault weapon, then everybody should have an assault weapon, then what next? You can see how stupid this is, but our guess is not stupid at all, our guess is very smart to encourage people having gun, just because it is about MONEY! What all the debates, people don't highlight the real issue which allow lobbies to act and the reasons for them to protect gun usage, it is not 2nd amendment it is about MONEY, and politicians who are under the pressure of groups such as NRA are not worth to be elected because they are corrupted by such groups to help them to be elected. One word, all this is dirty, and children pay the price, but it is fine, just let do some business.
Piers you need to target the ammo! Take away the bullets, they are not protected by the second ammendment.
After all that is what killed!
You arguments make no sense what so ever. You can not compare two unequal units to make a valid argument. US population is about 315 million, where the UK is 63 million. 315,000,000 / 63,000,000 = 5 The US has about 5 times as many people as the UK. Its no wonder the total violent crime here in the US is higher than the UK, just about anything you can think of will occur in higher amounts due to the 5 times higher population. You need to use comparable units to make an argument, Try violent crime per 100,000 and then tell me who has more crime, the US or UK? Go to the FBI crime stats and see how the violent crime rate is decreasing? How is that possible with the highest gun sales on record in the pass few years. How is it possible to have a higher crime rate when the 1994 assault weapons ban went into effect? I'll tell you why, its because criminals are afraid of getting shot with superior firepower when raiding a house. If I'm not mistake, the UK crime rate is on the rise. That's because criminals know UK families are for the most part defenseless because of the UK's bans. More guns in good hands does in FACT equal less crime. Proven with actual scientific evidence and proper scientifically comparable units.
Do you feel safer on the south side of Chicago or Boulder, Co? Where are there more weapons? How would you like to walk the streets in East St
Louis late at night? Plenty of guns in those parts of town, but i tend to.feel less safe. You cant drive 25 in a school zone for childrens safety, but the NRA feels weapons are school appropriate. When did common sense leave this debate? Btw, roy v
Wade can arguably be the biggest reason for the reduction in crime...just going by the stats ya know
Why is it PM did not bring up the average of 3000 gun CRIMES in London alone every year from 2006-2011. How is it these occur if guns are banned?
Let's hear from the country that piers claims is safer now with gun control enacted. What do they want to tell us? Besides "don't let him come back here"... http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=related&v=n9ZvwPmjJu4
Mr. Morgan, you should keep in mind that if it wasn't for us yanks and our assault weapons, you would be speaking German today. Go Home where there are no weapons at all, you'll be safe there.
how can these retarted dunb idiots like larry pratt and co be the executive members of any organisation???? I am glad i dont live in US, go aussie go!!!!!! I suppose if u guys can have some1 like sarah palin as a governor( and nominee for Vice President), bloody stupid !!!!
I don't own any guns and will not own any guns. As much as the folks who feel they have a right to their guns - well, consider also that I ALSO have a right to feel safe and getting these weapons and ammunition under control is a priority. While mental illness plays a part, there are also plenty of racist yahoos out there just waiting for their turn. Evolve people! I am just 2 miles away from the Tucson Tragedy site; I could not believe that it happened. And it just keeps happening...
All Americans are nuts. If you know history , you would understand how outdated your second amendment is today
PM, you have tried a new act since returning from Christmas break...you are quiet, calm, and 'civil', but alas it is an act. Before your vacation, you called people idiots and such, but now you are condescending and arrogant. Your 'reporting' is one sided, and frankly, worrisome. All of this pontificating is a publicity stunt...Mr. Morgan, let the government officials handle the affairs of OUR country. Your ranting is not helping, but is truly causing unrest in OUR country. If you want change in OUR country, become a citizen, cast a ballot, and even run for office. In the meantime, give it a rest...you are out of your league.
Don't you people realize that the whole world is laughing at you?
You have lost your mind. To take that position is to allow yourself to be a victimized by anyone that can overpower you. You would suggest that people just call 911 and wait for the police?
November 23, 2012 I learned after calling and speaking with Gregory Medek and his wife Rena in Aurora Colorado that their daughter Micayla's coffin was empty. Rena wanted to know "Where are they?" so I assume other people reported to have been killed are missing and the Aurora police are hiding that information. Micayla's funeral was attended by 1200 people including police chief Dan Oats and Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Notify me of new comments via email.