READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Coming up this evening at 9, "Piers Morgan Tonight" continues the use of its platform as a means of shining more light on the issue of "Guns in America," airing a live broadcast, and welcoming Breitbart News editor, Ben Shapiro to the program for what promises to be an energized and insightful primetime interview.
On the heels of Monday evening's firey exchange between Piers Morgan and radio host Alex Jones, Shapiro joins the host to offer his perspective on firearm legislation, and to address what he's described as Morgan's "full-scale gun control agenda."
In a post on December 19, days after the Sandy Hook shooting massacre, in Newtown, Conn., Shapiro had the following to say on Brietbart.com:
Piers Morgan of CNN has been off the rails for days in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, pressing forward his full-scale gun control agenda by steamrolling guests who disagree with him, and acting as though they don't give a whit about the children murdered in Newtown, Connecticut.
Revisit Wednesday evening's discussion with the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, then tune in tonight at 9 as Morgan and his guests continue their focus on this polarizing and provocative topic.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
Guns DO NOT pull their own triggers, but EVIL – SICK people do pull triggers.....PROFILE the EVIL – SICK people and leave peace loving-peace keeping Americans alone....
Thank you, Piers, for keeping this issue on the map. If we cannot ban assault weapons and if we cannot have background checks, we cannot do anything. Dan
we have background checks and assault weapons have been banned since 1986 game over you won...
piers , you have been so respectful of these people on gun control and i don`t no how you do it. i have watched you for along time and i just wanted to say as a mother of three girls and grandmother to 5 grandchildren, one of special needs, these guys are so out of touch that it amazes me. you can`t get an answer out of them, it is frustrating to me i can`t imagine how it is for you. i just wanted to say that you have all my respect in the world for what you are trying to get out there. a big thank you...
Cars kill thousands every year. I can't figure out why no one wants to ban them. Or make it harder to get a license.
to each his own http://www.knobcreekrange.com/next-machine-gun-shoot-dates April-12-13-14-2013 Real Machine Guns, Shoot a full 30 round clip out of a 1927-A1 Thompson Submachinegun..an UZI 9mm Full Auto and 100% LEGAL in the state of Kentucky.
D Ellington. I guess everything is from your frame of experience in life. Oh, and Piers is certainly not kind to gun owners – except at some, dunno why the inconsistency… I also have 2 sons. They have been schooled in safe handling of large calibre guns. If not, one of them would have been dead already. I'm still numb from the experience. He was shot twice through his board shorts without it grazing his skin. But when he lifted the shotgun the THUGS made a huge run for it. My husband was by then already so beaten up they pulled triggers at his ears into the soil while he was dragged for about 100 metres. He had no skin left on his one side and he refused to show them where the key to our house was. But were it not for our guns (NOT to kill them – God forbid) but to get them away from us, we would all have been dead, the dogs too. A knife wouldn't have done it nor would a 911 (which we don't have here) 3 thugs were here fully armed. They poison our dogs. So you have kids and I have kids. My 2 kids have twice been saved because someone had a gun. My one son was extremely traumatically hijacked – they took off all his clothes during a winter evening. All the time holding a 9 ml next to his head. If a bypasser then had a gun my son would not have been so traumatised. If our guns were removed from us, we will not survive. WE have signs with huge letters on that we are now fully armed. And since then, we have not been bothered.
I think caution has to be taken that people with mental illness are not profiled as potential mass murderers. These mass murderers have not been diagnosed as mentally ill. They may have personality disorders that is a different from being mentally ill. They should be witch hunting the mentally EVIL.
Finally, someone calls right! Having been a trained caregiver for the mentally ill, I can honestly say that the majority of them can NEVER live in mainstream society! Unless u care for these people or u have a family member who is mentally ill, u have NO clue how violent and abusive they are! We have been phasing out state mental hospitals for decades, and are paying a huge price for doing so....funding for mental Heath issues is @ an all time low therefore many of the mentally ill are homeless or in jail! I challenge Piers Morgan to examine in depth the issues families and our society at large are not providing for these troubled people! Guns in the hands of the mentally delusional people is the tragedy here and until we understand that we must provide a controlled environment for these people, we will continue to see violent acts against the innocent increase and escalate ! Please Mr. Morgan if your concern for violence in America, then spend an equal amount of time on the mental health issues in our country! I challenge u to do so...email me...I was a full time caregiver for 2 years and no the real issues we face. Do it, NOW
I notice that some of the guests who oppose any restrictions on any banning or restriction on assault rifles they mention that we have a right to bear arms to protect against tyranny.
IF you look at the wording in the second amendment it 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."
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA". A key word is "REGULATED". The founding fathers had the foresight to realize that regulation was necessary.
Rod, just so you understand.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Regulated as it was used at the time also referred to being consistent or standardized, not necessarily the same as our modern understanding of the word which implies governmental or highly disciplined controls. Simply put, the intent may well be that the citizen be equipped in a manner consistent with other military forces, and that he is on a par with potential opponents.
You said, 'citizens must be equipped in a manner consistent with military forces'. In case of a tyranny, where the US military is the opponent, by that do you mean people should own a nuclear weapon since the military has one ? Well, having assault weapons is not being at par isn't it?
You have a lousy interpretation of the 2nd amendment!
Rommel, you have a lousy counter-argument. First, as your side so frequently says, the Founders couldn't have imagined nuclear weapons. They could however imagine a rifle that fired twenty rounds in five seconds. Congress ordered 100 of them in 1777. It was called the Belton Flintlock.
And as you say, an "assault rifle" is reasonably on par with what the military has. Considering the vast amount of firepower the military has at its disposal and considering that privately owned cannons were used in the Revolutionary war, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a semi-automatic rifle should be available to the law abiding.
Ben Shapiro schooled you in that debate and showed that you have no solutions other then a fantasy that all guns should just disappear.
YOU are an IDIOT. PERIOD!!!
That IDIOT remark was meant for YOU.
STEVE...who thinks that young punk taught Piers Morgan ANYTHING other than just how dumb he and all like him are. Please don't breed. More retarded people isn't going to help anyone.
Regarding the statement, to prevent the threat of future govt. tyranny
Maybe he's talking about future, as in possibly 100 or 200 years. Not in our lifetime. But if the gov. restricts our right to arm ourselves now then our future United States citizens cannot defend themselves against a possible future rogue government. Can you honestly say you know what our government will be like after we're all dead and gone? The United States might not exist. Who knows. Do I think it's possible now? No. I bet German citizens never thought there gov. Would slaughter there own citizens before it happened. That happened in the 1940's people. Not that long ago. Better to have and not need, then to need and not have.
they wrote the second amendment to ensure that in this new country be a free society AND
in a free society the people should not be afraid of their government,, their government should be afraid of the people.
Our military will NEVER fire on it's own people. people should be rising up. Look what our "leadership" has done to OUR country while they got rich. WASHINGTON NEEDS AN ENIMA
If you think Ben Schooled Piers then seek help, he was childish and pathetic and if you think that is a strong and logical voice then you are just as bad.
Piers, really.....you could not even let Shapiro speak? If you had given him respect to finish a sentence you might understand what he was saying. By the way, I am Republican, but my friends that are Democrats are loaded with guns...So left, right....we all want the same thing. You couldn't hear an explanation from Shapiro because you kept interrupting and found him intimidating.
Thank you Piers for your diligence. I am a registered Republican who grew up in the Baltimore City (Known for high murder rates) When I was 4, my brother and I was playing with my fathers gun. At the age of 12 my life was threatened by a gunman the same age as I. In 2005 I had a gun placed in my face in front of my mothers home after a church service. The response of most people who favor guns are living in fear. America is afraid.I have never owned a gun in my home and I support you 100%. My prayers are with you and my service if needed.
You grew up in a home where you weren't taught about responsible gun ownership, and you lived in Baltimore where despite strict gun laws there's still high crime? What does that have to do with being a Republican?
Maybe it's true what the left keeps saying about the intelligence of Republicans. Some of them anyway. Come on down to Virginia and we'll take you shooting. Afterwards we'll go for a walk in gun-totin' low crime Virginia.
Talking sense to Piers Morgan is pretty much a waste of time. He has no real interest in the truth, just rating based on ranting.
As an example, the repeated assertion that semi-auto rifles like the AR series can readily be made into full auto weapons. One, it's not true. Two, it violates existing Federal laws to even attempt such a reworking of the gun.
that Guy was a jerk and yes how dare him!!!!
I am a Canadian who does not own a gun and would not allow one in my house but I agree that Piers Morgan is a bully and a "suck up". I hardly ever watch because he makes me sick to my stomach.. It is so obvious with how he laughs at those he wants to suck up to then how rude he is to those who do not agree with him
Raena, you and the rest of the gun advocates who throw out some variation of the old cliche "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" are missing the point completely. Your basic logic is false. It's a flawed premise to compare guns to people. OF COURSE guns don't provide the motive for killing people. But here's some real logic you might consider: "People WITH guns kill people, people WITHOUT guns don't kill people." THAT is the REAL issue. Take away the assault rifle and it doesn't matter if the person is "good" or "evil" – no one gets hurt.
Also, the people who claim that guns in every household are the protection against tyranny are TOTALLY unrealistic and naive. You cannot protect society against a government takeover in this way. If ANY government wants to take over, all they have to do is to make private gun possession punishable by death. Trust me, the people would be turning their guns in immediately. Gun advocates point to Stalin and Hitler as examples of people who took over by prohibiting guns. Guess what, the Allies did exactly the same thing when they took over Europe in 1944/45. If you owned a handgun, you were shot. So you see, both the "good" guys and the "bad" guys used the same method. And anyone could do the same thing in the future. Gun ownership does NOT protect society from tyranny, at least not in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The people who throw out some variation of the old cliche "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" are missing the point completely. Your basic logic is false. It's a flawed premise to compare guns to people. OF COURSE guns don't provide the motive for killing people. But here's some real logic you might consider: "People WITH guns kill people, people WITHOUT guns don't kill people." THAT is the REAL issue. Take away the assault rifle and it doesn't matter if the person is "good" or "evil" – no one gets hurt.
"Take away the assault rifle and it doesn’t matter if the person is “good” or “evil” – no one gets hurt." WOW, I wish it was that simple.
Statistics on murders committed in England Wales Scotland and Ireland. Way more murders than what Pier Morgan has claimed. Notice that most homicides not committed by guns, Guns don't stop murders from being committed.
I'm tired of hearing the two side quarrel! Lets talk about cooperation to increase RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, providing help to the mentally ill, and ending the war on drugs. While the mass shootings are certainly tragic, there are more deaths by gun accidents and drug related homicides and suicides and the families of those killed also are suffering the loss of their loved one. Spend some air time on how to store guns safely and where to get training in using them. You will never get rid of the guns in the U.S. only drive them to illegal trade and we know how well that works with other prohibitions. Laws are useless unless the public supports them. There needs to be some compromise here. And the NRA should spend as much money promoting RESPONSIBLE gun use as they do promoting the RIGHT to own a gun.
Piers....li would like to thank u.....after watching your interviews about gun control I realized that I need to renew my NRA membership.....I haven't been a member in years and watching a foreigner attack the second amendment reminds me to join the fight....I am personally going to use my sales skills to recruit as many members to the NRA as possible.....thanks again mate!
Way to go Piers!! Way to remain calm and make him look like the jerk he is!!!
I second the congrats...
Pierce, keep up the great work! You are only one of a few hosts that have the guts to challenge these bullies. A ban on assault rifles is a first step to addressing the gun issue in America
Hang in their Piers....You are RIGHT!!!!!
Piers Morgan has made me a fan! I hope he keeps exposing the lunatics who think there is a UN conspiracy or that the government is out to get them. All most people want is control of automatic cartridges and semi-automatic guns. Then a lot of the "causes" can be sorted out later.
I'm born and breed US citizen in Canada for 30 years. The world of sanity is alive in Canada, and I hope, the United States.
Keep it up Piers.
Great job Piers!
This amendment is being completely misconstrued and abused! Can we sue the NRA? We sued the tobacco companies.
We are supposed to be a free country and we are being held hostage to these special interests! It is a crime plain and simple!
Except for rifles and shotguns...BAN ALL GUNS NOW!
The Sandy Hook 26 will always be remembered!
Bravo! What good would a few people with assault riffles do towards a tyrannical United States military? We spend more on defense that any other government in the world. Not just a little more, but a lot more. The excuse for having these weapons as a form of defense against a tyrannical government is absolutely absurd! Especially in this country.
Ask the Taliban.
The Taliban isn't wiped out yet because the 'democratic' US military is applying Geneva convention laws on war. They are fighting it conventionally. If the US turns into tyranny, all hell will break loose, heck we won't even be discussing about gun laws because by then it is already WWIII. And no amount of assault weapons and battalions of militia we be able to protect itself from the most powerful armed forces in the planet.
Bottom line, America will never become a tyranny and we don't need assault weapons.
Rommel, you may blindly assume as do many on the left that military members would mindlessly follow orders to kill their own countrymen for standing up for their civil rights, but that does not make it so.
Where on the political spectrum do most military members fall? Did you bother to find this out? How many military members own guns and are NRA members? How many military members get interested in guns after they leave the military?
How many would launch missiles and drop bombs on civilian populations? Some would, certainly, proving that lethal force can't be trusted exclusively to a few. Nowhere near all, and many would desert rather than do so.
Second that. It is admirable how calm you are and let these guys just spin their wheels.. Keep going
Piers is NOT being calm....he is showing as a fanatic. Do we need hi cap mags? No. If any bad guy can has a big mag, should I have a big mag? Yes. As long as I am a legal, non-felon, non-mental citizen I should have access to a 901 mag rifle to overcome the meanies that have a 900 mag rifle.
Good link. Thanks.
Piers, thank you so much for standing up to NRA.......thanks for having the "guts" to stand , and not cave to their bullying...You are more American than so many of our citizens. The gun situation in our country must change. God bless you.
I second this! Thank you, Piers, for not letting this issue go away - like the bullies wish it would. If you've only gotten Americans to keep thinking about this, you've already made a big difference. Thank you!
You are joking aren't you. Today school shooting proved It is not the guns. If you ban assault weapons the bad guys or going to use a shotgun. If you banned shotguns The bad guy is going to use the hunting rifle. If you band a hunting rifle They're going to use a knife. Get the picture If you wanna stop The school shootings stop blaming the guns we have 300,000,000 Guns but we don't have 300,000,000 murders
So let's do nothing. Sounds like a republican to me.
No, lets do anything so we can feel better about it. I think we all want something done, just something done that solve the problem.
You are thankfully right, there is not 3 million shootings each year.
In fact the number of shootings is very small indeed.
The probability of unnatural death being caused by driving is much much higher as others have posted, and something needs to be done about that to ... throughout the world. Fortunately the USA has a relatively good road safety record, But it does not have a relatively good record on voilent crime, so there is something to be done here, and that is the common interest of us all.
The statistics are stark,
2010/11 USA homicides 16,208 or 2290 per million of which fire arms were used 65% of the time.
2010/11 UK homicides 646 or 13 per million of which firearms were used 7% of the time.
2004/5 EU homicides ranged from 23.4 per million in Finland to 6.1 per million in Austria (sorry will try to get current data but it is likely to be lower)
(Citations can be provided).
One can see that the homicide rate in the USA is over 150 times more than the UK and even more than that comapred to the EU overall.
So it is clear that the USA has a sickness.
And sicknesses need to be cured.
It is a painful process, but hey who said ´no pain no gain´.
So lets get behind the agenda to cure this great country of the USA of its sickness.
The NRA gets money from Americans to represent us against people who are trying to take our second amendment rights. They are not crazy, they are not paid by big companies, they are funded by working, voting, law abiding citizens who want their voices herd and name calling doesn't make anyone better or prove their point any better.
Up here in Canada we have armouries. This is where Canadian military reserves are trained. The second amendment can be satisfied by building armoires for assault rifle owners to store their weapons, which they would be free to check out at any time
Armories with access controlled by the government. Thats a great idea....
That is actually a good idea. I live in a state and with a family that values hunting. We have shotguns in our home. However, there in nobody in my family who thinks assault weapons should be owned by anyone other than the military. NRA members should be required to go clean up the blood from the next massacre when it happens–which won't be long I'll bet. That might make a difference in their thinking, because trying to reason with these people is impossible as evidenced by some of the postings here.
yeah this is a great idea lets just turn our guns into the government like the canadians and we can go check them out like a library book when we want to go shooting.... Keep trusting your government canada we will continue not trusting ours ooh wait your puppet government controlled by the queen
Ariel again its not the point of what you or I like it is the point of our freedoms. Besides anyone can quickly reload a pump shotgun to the point that the magazine is not even used. Don't let them confuse you to think this is about the children because it's not it's about control and freedoms.
There aren't any armories up in Canada, that poster has been drinking cool aid.
Maybe tonight Piers Morgan could use real numbers and not just the few he continually recites.
A Few sick individuals who should not legally have guns are putting a stain on weapons in general but uniformed media figures paint the picture to be much worse that it really is. The FBI’s Uniformed Crime report is open to the public and the media using real numbers would be greatly appreciated. I do agree that these shootings are sad and should not happen however I think real numbers should be examined. Don’t just go after the weapon because it looks evil, ask someone who knows. I am a veteran from both Iraq & Afg, and now am a criminal justice major….I know what I’m talking about. Fact checkers all over the internet are shedding light on these numbers. Take a look for yourself if you don’t believe me.
I second that! Morgan continues to mislead and spin the numbers. While gun murders are low in Britain, the overall homicide rate, the statistic that really counts, is one of the highest in Western Europe. Many of Britain's Western European neighbors are some of the largest gun owning nations in the world. Switzerland, Germany and France rank 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively in terms of private gun ownership, and yet these countries have homicide rates that are 40% lower than gun free Britain.
Keep the talk going, changes have to be made and loopholes closed. Good healthy debate. Thanks
i am not against closing loopholes as long as they don't involve registration of guns and banning of guns. Banning magazines will not do any good at all go watch a youtube clip on how fast a trained shooter can change magazines it was not and will not be effective on anything. Gun free zones only work as increased crime areas. You want to stop these cowards shooting up schools take away gun free zones @ schools and have the people we trust to educate and protect our children given the tools todo so. I am not for forcing anyone to carry who doesn't want to i am for those who want to enabled to. Even carrying less than lethal options would be better then nothing...
Piers you have an open invitation to come shooting any time you want to you know my email address. :)
Again what "loopholes"??? You mean person to person sales? So now the government has the right to tell what I can do with my personal property? If you go to a gun show and want to buy a gun from a dealer they still have to do the background check. If you buy a gun on the internet the seller has to ship the gun to a FFL and again they have to do the background check. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE
And let the NRA operate the armouries
I am in full support of what you have to say, Mr. Morgan. Keep on keeping on!
Piers, I also thank you for the guts to stand up to these people who want to arm everyone. I agree with you completely on the assault weapons that have no place in society other than law enforcement & wars.
Having grown up on a farm, yes we had rifles & knew how to operate guns safely & use them with respect for all......
I also remember when I was in the 4th grade, over 50 years ago, that my perspective of guns changed a lot when our whole class attended a funeral for a classmate who had been shot by his brother in a hunting accident, we were all just kids & do not think of death at that age.
Just this weekend in Kansas City news, there was a shooting in a large steakhouse in Lenexa, Ks. A husband, who had a conceal & carry license, shot his wife in the leg while they were sitting in a booth for dinner. He supposedly reached into the pocket where the gun was & it discharge, hitting his wife.
Then today on news here in KC, a 4 yr. old shot in head from an unattended hand gun that was left in chair.
This is not counting the other shootings & killings here in KC on a daily basis. Someone has to end these senseless deaths, & we all thank you for being so vocal about this..... TY, BARB
PS: This is just one city in the United States where this is a daily happening..........
Thanks, please continue to challenge.
Piers I am very impressed and grateful for the position you are taking on gun control. As far as I am concerned you espouse the qualities that make America great. Rather than suggesting you be deported, I recommend that you be granted citizenship.
I share your views on gun control. As a children's accident attorney I would like to see the gun safety laws changed now.
Your interview the morning on CBS's Morning Show was brilliant. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you for standing up for what is right regardless of the consequences. That's more than our elected officials are willing to do. We need to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. It's way past time.
ya we need to start more black market jobs cause obama sure aint doing anything
Q: What's the difference between confronting a crazed shooter and dealing with the NRA (et.al.)? A: With the shooter, a teacher can engage him in rational conversation and convince him to drop his firearm (re: Taft HS).
And what the difference between a crazed killer and some who doesn't know one single thing the true gun related stats on violence that goes on a internet blog makes ridiculous statements?
Nothing that are both cowards.
A whole lot of good it did Victoria Soto who stood up to the crazed gun man and was killed.
Keep it up Piers!!!
Melody in AZ
Piers, THANK YOU. Calm REASONED commentary. I shake my head in wonder that folks attack you ad hominen rather than deal with the issue of gun control. Would love to buy you a cup of coffee – or perhaps tea – thank you.
I know this comment will never be posted or read by anyone at CNN but I would challenge Mr. Morgan to read the news about a housewife in Loganville Georgia. Just for fun. spend 2 minutes to google the story and then comment on it on your show tonight. It would be very interesting to know what you would have done in the same situation. What would you have done seriously?? I enjoy your show and think you make good points but I want to know what you would have done. Google the story and then let us all know.
The interesting thing about this is she ran out of bullets and they guy still got up and drove off after being hit five times from the .38 special. What if there had been two guys?
If there were two guys then maybe they would have gotten to her and her kds, But they would have anyway if she didn't have gun. At least she had a chance and in this case it saved her life and her kids. Odds of this happening to anyone are so remote, but I'm glad her husband had the smarts to show her how and what to do.
Well, I was just thinking you made an argument for high capacity magazine in her case.
wrong! a .38 special is a revolver, it does not use a magazine. oops your bad....
Well I know that, but the point was that a six shot revolver doesn't have enough bullets to do the job in some cases. The idea I was trying to make is that it made a case for having a weapoin that can spit out more rounds. I owne a 38 special and it only holds five rounds, but I still like it.
buy a hand gun that has more rounds like a .45, it has 9rounds or better yet buy 2 then, you have 18 rounds in total.
the point im making is, majority of the left people are not advocating for banning of hand guns. piers and the rest are advocating for banning of assault weapons and high capacity mag.
I have a Springfield XDM 9mm 19+1. OK, here is the bad news. I am also advocating a ban on high capacity magazines. I believe that an assault weapon isn’t an AR-15 or a weapon with a detachable magazine. I believe an assault weapon is any weapon that can continue to fire rounds without a reload after a reasonable number of rounds have been spent to accomplish a reasonable defense.
Jackie you are right under the proposed ban your XD would be considered an "assault" weapon and would be registered
Assault weapon is a technical term and the definition depends on who you asked. Each state has its definition of assault weapon. Obviously Piers and the rest are advocating to reinstate the Assault weapons ban that expire in 2004 and AR15 is one of them.
Well, by your definition of assault weapon, your XDM qualifies to be one because by the time you have to reload, you have killed 20 people and accomplished your mission (if your a good shot).
I agree with you and I think most people will agree that it is an assault pistol. I believe a 19+1 handgun is overkill. It cam that way. I have no trouble surrendering my 19 round magazine for a 10 round. I might upgrade to a 45 acp at the same time.
This incident was a mother protecting herself and her 2 children from a home invader. Additionally, she had gone and practiced at a gun range. so NOT the same as someone buying a multi-bullet automatic weapon at a gun show and mowing down children in school.. Not even apples and oranges but cactus and octopus type of comparison – none. Or, to apply a sports analogy, defense vs offense , and please don't equate killing kids in school as a good offensive strategy, OK? Altho it is offensive.
Eve, please let us know at what gun show you can buy a "multi-bullet automatic weapon" without all the paperwork, fees and licenses needed to own one? They are already heavily regulated. If people would actually do some research and educate themselves, they would know these weapons that are being used are one fired bullet for each pull of the trigger. An automatic is pull the trigger once and keep firing bullets until you let go of the trigger or run out of bullets. If the media would understand that "assault weapons" have been strictly regulated since 1934. Just because a gun looks like a military rifle, it is not.
Funny how a retired general of the army talks about real assault rifles (M4 and M16) and says those should not be in the hands of civilians and the media turns that into an AR-15. They are two completely different weapons. I would love to see Piers fire 100 rounds out of an AR-15 in a minute to prove it can be done, since he keeps talking about anyone can do it with an AR-15. At the Aurora shooting, 76 shells were found, meaning 76 bullets were fired. On one 911 call, it was told that 30 rounds were fired in 27 seconds, do the math, that is not 100 rounds a minute. I did my time in the U.S. military and was trained with pistols, shotguns and rifles.
One more fact that Piers will not talk about, since it is not part of the agenda. “In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people,” Swann noted, showcasing that fewer guns is certainly not indicative of a lower crime rate (the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents). - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/local-tv-anchor-delivers-blistering-fact-check-of-piers-morgans-anti-gun-claims/
These numbers can also be looked up through the UK websites and the FBI websites.
Background checks are good, common sense things to do; but in the case of Newtown it would not have altered the facts. Gun owners need to be responsible for securing, that is lock and key, their guns. Everyone talks about the second amendment, but it wasn't until very recently under a very conservative court, that it was construed to mean anyone and everyone could have a gun. The part preceeding this refers to militia. Does anyone real think our forefathers would condone assault rfiles with mega magazines for use outside of the military?
Just saw Piers on CBS morning show. We don't get his CNN show here on free to air T.V. and I don't know if he has used the Australian statistics along with the British ones as a valid argument for the restricted sale and ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons by civilians. Our laws were introduced by a Conservative Prime Minister (surprise surprise) who is a close friend of George W. Bush soon after the murder of 35 people in a mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. The event in Tasmania raised the issue why there should be a valid reason for a member of the general public to own a military style weapon whether it is part of their rights or not. The following discussions found that a valid reason did not and should not exist. The statistics prove Australians, along with British citizens, are much safer than we were before these laws were enacted. There are still robberies and murders, but gun involvement is virtually non-existent and like Britain, there have been no gun massacres since then. Our laws do not deny people the right to own certain guns, but they must prove that they are responsible and worthy enough to do so. I'm sure a shotgun or bolt action rifle is defense enough against perceived threats to your home or property, even in America, and there is nothing sporting about letting off 20 or 30 rounds from an assault weapon to kill a deer or other animal you are hunting. Those of you whom are howling for Pier's deportation for exercising his universal and international right to free speech, and demanding that you should be able to freely exercise your 2nd amendment rights, demonstrate that you are hypocrites and have not thought your argument through (because it is a flawed argument). The scare campaign by the NRA seems to be working, but bravo to Piers for trying to keep the issue alive in the minds of Americans. Winston Churchill once said "You can always rely on Americans to do the right thing; Once they have exhausted all the other options". Keep going Piers, I believe there are at least 20 million people on the other side of the Pacific who agree with you...
You people and all your "Oh I Love You Mr. Morgan" comments make me ill. Noone is talking about everyone in America packing AR-15s to the movie theatre. We are talking about "having a chance". Those school teachers, the principal and those little kids--–didn't have a chance. Not even a chance to save one life that was lost. All huddled in a closet or the corner of classroom with a teacher hugging them for protection. They didn't have a chance. You people are out of your minds, thinking that one armed person in that school would not have made a difference. I know that when chips are down and you are in real trouble alone somewhere, You will change your mind.
Piers, I have enjoyed watching your show from the start untill now. I am sick of listening to you interrupt your guests when they defend America or the 2 amendment.Buy shouting out the statistics between England and America. We as a country were given the right to bare arms. Therefore if you feel that this is something you can not except buy all means go home to England.I love my counrty and will defend it to the core.
The loud mouth moron will continue to interrupt and state inaccurate statistics as we have seen it all before. He needs his American money and contracts.
Can one of the anti-gun people answer me this first if us the gun owners are so evil than why is it you are the ones asking for people to die? Second like I have said on other parts of this blog why is that the "how" someone died is so much more important? In Piers own country people are dying at much faster rate than here in the US but he and you don't seem to care unless its done by a gun. Is it the fact that you can't handle the true facts on the this subject so you have to act like Piers and go to insults? Yes we have had a lot of gun related deaths in this country as Piers loves to point out but he fails time and time again to break down those stats to reveal the truth about them. Of those 11000 deaths he fails to tell you that a large part of that is the police doing their job, or the fact that the evil "assault" rifle that he has all of you so scared of makes up less than one percent of all gun related deaths. Or the fact that a baseball bat is the number one weapon used to kill someone in the US. All I ask is instead blindly follow someone who just do some research on the subject before you asking people to die or even worst give up our freedoms.
Keep up the good work Piers. We can't be held hostage by these immature, bullying, gun people.
Owning a gun is a power trip for people who have not grown up.
John, Please google and read the story about the housewife in loganville georgia and then write back and tell me what you would have done. Just for fun, google the story and then reply back.
Well if that was him he couldn't write back since he would have been killed
John, you didn't reply back. Did you look up he story and I was hoping you had a better alternative for this housewife.
Well Done Piers. I recently lived in the UK for four years and was never afraid or worried about any stray bullets or gun nuts in any of the Cities. Thank you for all of your work and your mannerism in dealing with such a man as Alex Jones. I have never seen a more awful example of a fellow American then the terrible rude behavior displayed by Mr. Jones.
While gun murders are low in Britain, the overall homicide rate, the statistic that really counts, is one of the highest in Western Europe. Many of Britain's Western European neighbors are some of the largest gun owning nations in the world. Switzerland, Germany and France rank 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively in terms of private gun ownership, and yet these countries have homicide rates that are 40% lower than gun free Britain. If you subscribe to the notion that more guns mean more crime, then these large gun owning European countries should have significantly higher murder rates than Britain, but they don`t.
As a father, military veteran, and gun owner I've soul searched this issue for a long time. I think this gun mania is driven by the fear the public has for what many of them view as an untrustworthy government, and and the Obama administration's stated intention to restrict possession of military style semi-automatic firearms and high capacity magazines that fit them continues to fuel this fear and distrust. This specific issue should be addressed by VP Biden's panel. To address the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands, I agree that mental health assessments need to be incorporated into the background check process, with "at risk" persons (definition to be debated) prohibited from possessing or purchasing any firearm. As for the semi-automatic rifles at the center of the current debate I have a suggestion: if the shooting public demands to be armed as the military is armed, then each person wishing to own such a weapon and magazine should be mental health screened just as all military members are (but at their own expense), and then trained as all military members are in their responsible use and consequences of abuse (again, at their own expense). Failure to do so would be disqualifying for possession. Furthermore, like military weapons, for each such weapon to be legally possessed it must be locked up at all times when not in use, and accessible only to the rightful owner as a matter of law. Same goes for the magazines and ammunition. Standards for such safekeeping should be written into law, with violations punished with surrender of the weapons. Hold the owners responsible for unauthorized, incompetent, irresponsible, and/or unstable persons getting a hold of their weapons.
What good is a gun going to do locked in a safe, while I am out at the movies or visitng my childs school for PTA night? I grew up around guns and don't need someone telling me how to use one. And you are a military guy??
im just curious, do you bring an AR15 on your childs PTA meetings?
No I don't bring an AR-15 to PTA night but I carry a small 45 and if someone walks in and starts shooting up the place, I will at least have a chance and so will everyone else. I may go down trying but I have a chance.
piers is not advocating to give up your 45 (or any high caliber hand gun). he's advocating banning of assault weapons and high clip magazines. so what's the problem?
Which illustrates the level of his hypocrisy. He wants to raise this huge fuss about a firearm that's used in less than 2% of firearm crime, while inner city black kids have been killing each other off in record numbers in cities like Chicago. The bulk of our violent crime is right there, and he'll continue to ignore it, just like he did last night.
Piers doesn't give a crap about innocent lives, he cares about ratings and sensationalism, just like he did when he was editor of a crappy Brit paper which was only known for having a picture of a woman's boobs on page three. He's the furthest thing from a journalist and an embarrassment to the profession.
None of that is my business. But when he starts influencing public policy by pumping out weapons grade stupidity that is so void of any fact or logic that it can only be described as propaganda, THAT I have a problem with.
how would you implement the standards of safekeeping of firearms? would you go into every gun owners house in america and check if their guns are locked up?
Your comment was one of the best I seen here, as I feel the same way as you............If only some of these people would stop the stupidity and realize that we do have a problem with guns in the US............
I hope you contact someone other than here with your ideas, hopefully someone in the senate or congress or maybe Obama or Biden.......Very well said........Thanks
Nice job Piers.
You look more like an idiot everyday. Keep it up.
Spot of tea?
Ben--these people are morons. I am glad I have a gun.
Guns killed 12,000 people last year you say. What about banning alcohol. It caused 75,000 related deaths in the US alone. Maybe you should focus on that too or is that something you like so we wont go there?
There is a law that bans people from driving if under the influence of alcohol. currently, there is no law that bans psychos from obtaining a gun.
What do mean there is no law???? To buy a gun unlike what people like Piers what you to believe you have to go thru a background check that requires you to prove who you are with state issued ID. Please do some research before posting things that make you look like a fool. And before you sue the media new buzz word let me make this clear THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE!!!!
dude, there is no law that requires mental health screening for gun buyers. I beleive that you should be the one who needs to do some research.
You know I will say that you are correct that there is no process for a mental health person to buy a gun. But since the guy from sandy hook didn't buy a gun he killed his mother (which there is a law against that) than he stole her guns (again there is a law against that) and proceeded to kill lots of unarmed people (again against the law) more laws aren't going to do any good.
well, i guess if her mother does not have an AR15, then he wont be able to steal it and massacre 20 kids? you think?
Maybe if that is what the ban is trying to do. The gun ban does nothing to remove the guns and or magazines from the homes, it stops the new sell of them. So even if we passed this law a year ago wouldn't have stopped one thing. And like I have posted already on this blog than we"ll have the same thing that China had the same day of sandy hook with 22 kids were attacked with a crazed knife man. New laws won't work just that simple.
Stop being to focused on the how and start worrying about why
Alcohol deaths are self-inflicted. The children in Sandy Hook did not choose to be shot, No comparison. The debate is about AR-'15s & other similar murder weapons.
You are only kinda right, since there is a large number people who because a drunk driver killed them, but lets focus of the guns. I can't believe I have to say this again but "assault" rifles make up less than one percent of all gun related deaths in the US. But in the term of violent murders the UK is far worst that the US and in the US the baseball bat is the number one weapon used in a violent crime. Maybe you can tell me since no one else can why is the how more important than the why or who?
Im sorry Sandy but alcohol does take innocent lives. Just alittle reminder the innocent little girl who was killed by a drunk driver on a long island highway. Yes it was not a large number of children but it is multiple cases of children who do get affected by alcohol. Im not looking to ban alcohol but if Piers makes a statement and tries to drill home a statistic, he should break that statistic down. Dont threw a large number out and not define it. Is there a problem with guns yes there is. Should something be done, yes something should be done. Banning something will not stop someone intent on killing.
Actually Frank the number according to the MADD site is in 2010 211 children were killed by a drunk driver.
neither are the sober people killed by drunk drivers they are the same as sandy hook children
Sandy, If we make this a debate about ar-15's and other such weapons, we are going to be guilty of allowing the mass killing to continue. Sorry, but I don't want the future history to prove me right. We need to get this debate forcused on real solutions that are based on facts.
To Kantil. I am not sure of the deaths of children due to alcohol. Im just trying to bring out a point that people's action are caused by thier inner thoughts. Demented or not. I am not in favor of banning something that will not work. Lets ban propane tanks because that was the main method of causing mass murder in Columbine. Yes ultimately they used guns, but what if that tank went off. Lets ban fertilizer because thats what Timothy Mcviegh used. Lets focus on the reasoning. An idled gun will hurt no one. A gun does not load itself and go out and kill. I believe we are on the same page to a point.
Yes Frank you and I are on the same page just was giving you the facts, new laws won't save lives.
I was just using a statistic without breaking it down. Piers was throwing a number out to over emphasize his point.
Actually that is another one of Morgan`s inflated and misleading quotes. According to the most recent FBI stats the actual gun murder rate in this country was just under 8000. While this is not small, it`s substantially lower than the 11000 he has been quoting.
Piers Morgan has the British roots, and in Britain they have a form of government where the monarch can dismiss the government if the government goes evil, and the government can dismiss the monarch if the King or Queen gets evil, but here in the USA we have a government by and of and for the people, and so the people need to be armed just as our government is armed because that is our safety since we have no monarch or opposition to the status quo. In our democracy our government can vote to kill babies (abortions) and so it happens, it can vote on persecuting migrants who get classified as illegal, the USA can go into illegal wars based on a majority vote, we can torture prisoners and deny human rights, as a democracy can commit any form of atrocity based on a so called "majority" and our founders knew this as they gave us the 2nd amendment.
Lets put 30 people in a room and two of them are carrying. Bring in a crazed gunman in the back door and watch who hides behind who.
Thanks for doing this series ... a serious problem with no easy solutions.
I'm wondering, however, if our medical community might share in the responsibility for these tragedies.
How frequently do prescribed medications such as PAXIL, ZOLOFT, RITALIN and PROZAC apply to the perpetrators of these atrocities? Wouldn't that be an early indicator for potential suspects?
If marijuana was discovered by Phizer or Smith Kline, it would be an over the counter medication.
dude, marijuana is a plant. it is not a drug that is developed in a laboratory.
A plant that has been heavily genetically modified by breeding.
by which multi million drug company?
Great Topic on Guns and Gun Control in the good old USA, when you figure that the majority of killings of innocent people in the World are done with American made guns and weapons it's no wonder so many murders are done everyday in the United States. The 1776 Right to bear Arms, actually says 'A Regulated Militia" Regulated meaning controlled, and meant for a Militia not for the average American citizen to own anything more than a musket or shot gun but instead American Gun owners believe they should own M16, AR 47, Sniper Rifles, Glocks, what's next Tanks, Bazookas, Rocket Launchers?? Give me a break Alex Jones, Larry Pratt and Wayne La Pierre, I hope Americans get forced to give up their weapons, give them a freaking toaster to replace the guns and they can play with that instead. Like many war vets have told me it doesn't take a genius to fire a gun it takes an absolute MORON!!!
you are a idiot
Well said Garth. I also live in Canada and watching these NRA members whining about their guns is so pathetic. Especially since 20 first graders were killed and they can't even think how disrepectful their whining is to the memories of those kids. What is with Americans and their guns?? I think its a form of paranoia....what a dysfunctional country. Piers no matter how much abuse you take I commend you for taking a stand and trying to do something, you are braver than most.
I CAN NAME SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE DEPORTED INSTEAD OF PIERS MORGAN. HE'S NOT LIKED BECAUSE REVEALS THE TRUTH THAT IS NEVER HEARD. HE IS AN OPTIMIST IN MY OPINION AGAIN TO BE SAID THEIR ARE DANGEROUS PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE DEPORTED INSTEAD OF PIERS MORGAN. DEPORT HIM BECAUSE HOW HE JUDGED ON THE SHOW, THAT WAS HIS JOB DEPORT THE PRODUCERS.
He reports the truth? Read this and then say that again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm
Thanks for doing what you're doing but at this point I think you should go after the real problem. For Example: Grover Norquist is on the board of directors of the NRA. Bring people like him and all these good old boy Republican and Democratic Governors (Rick Perry) and Congressmen that are receiving campaign money. The gun fanatics are like sheep that are being played by big $$$$. It has always been that way. I bet if you really started digging into all the CEO's of gun manufactures and the NRA you would find all kinds of big names tied to this crazy stuff. All of these guys that you're talking now are all little rocks in a big, big pond. Thanks again and Good Luck!!!
There is no cospiracy here.... I do not Even own a gun..... I do care about an individuals right to choose.... I have thought about getting a gun for my wife and having herself get trained, just to know that if someone breaks into our house in the middle of the night... She will at least be able to try scaring them away with some shots as near as she can get.... It would certainly slow them down... Maybe allow her to go down the planned escape route we have...... It would hurt me a great deal if she were to be harmed and I had not done what I could to minimally protect her when I travel......
The hypocracy is i would bet that Piers is rather well protected..... By people carring guns.... If he is not.... And he then states that on his show.... He would then be laying open his family for harm due the idots out there that have ill intent....
what kind of gun are you planning to buy for your wife? a hand gun or an assault weapon?
I thank Mr. Morgan too, even though I'm pro-2nd amendment, because Piers is rallying Americans around the 2nd amendment in droves. A lot of Americans probably view Mr. Morgan as a foreigner meddling with the laws of another country. Not only is Mr. Morgan trying to disarm Americans, he also wants to stop his opponents from freely expressing their own views. If Mr Morgan wants to be the flag bearer for the gun control advocates, let him.
Your comment is absurd, and if you could make just one logical point supporting gun bans, some might listen to you. As it is, you are simply parroting your superiors in the same way Stalin's useful idiots did!
Keep up the good word!!!
I never write to comment on a journalist's work, but I feel I must commend you on your poise.
Putting a rabid schizoid 'gun nut' on show is worth a thousand words.
Putting a compulsive liar to shame is priceless!
I am also one of the people who used to like watching the Piers Morgan show. This is subject is only one more where Piers demonstrats the exact opposite of what it seems to me a reporter should do. I am more than tired of watching him berate and insult anyone who disagees with his views. The iriny here is that he actually accused several of his "oposing" guests of being sensationalistic when in fact it was he that was doing so.... Over and over again..... And in a rude way.
I am one 'former' viewer, now tired of listening to this .... Done... No more of this show.... That is what individual rights is all about... So although I am sure Piers will do just fine without my viewership... I am taking my views elsewhere.
By now I am sure that if Piers was to be reading this he would be laughing and ridiculing me, trying to diminish my view... Based on my lack of spell check on this iPad and thick fingers.... Hope you feel superior Piers.... You need to have self worth....
thinks banning certain weapons that can easily be used to commit mass murder is a good start & will help save lives.
A rant regarding the "agenda to attack the Second Amendment" should be seen for what it is and people need to understand exactly why pro-gun ownership groups always play that card.
This about an individuals right to choose how they protect themselves. In my experience, the most vial and angry people are liberals who have their rights removed.... I wish they could start to see that others can also have strong feelings about the rights they view as important.... Rights is the opportive word..... And respecting others....
Freedom vs. Hunting
I was told today that the U.S. Amendment is not about keeping hand guns for hunting, it's about protecting freedom.
Question for Piers
Does Piers Morgan know what that is supposed to be about, the U.S. 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to protect freedom?
Free Press vs. Guns
In Canada and British regimes we have the Free Press, the freedom of expression, to protect us from oppressors and subjugation through organized crime, corruption, homelessness, .. radar assaults and cancer, and don't need guns.
protect freedom from who?
I forgot isolation and censorship too.
Exactly Rommel, from who, I think people who worry about being disarmed and gradually sinking back to a medieval feudal system or etc, don't know anything about censorship.
Once the new gun laws are proven to be ineffective, will you admit you were wrong and then voluntarily leave this country for good.
Anything short of confiscating all guns will be ineffective. And we all know that's not going to happen.
Complete confiscation of all guns. Won't work either. The bad guys will still have guns . Like they do in Great Britain
True. Liberals will tell you " if abortions are made illegal, women will die getting abortions in some back room " or that " the war on drugs doesn't work so all drugs should be legal " but they don't use the same logic with guns. Gun control started with Democrats using laws to keep the guns out of the hands of African-Americans. The NRA actually helped African-Americans in the struggle for the right to bear arms. A little history democrats don't want to talk about.
Thank you Piers for being the public face and voice of reason on this issue. I do not understand how anyone who has children in thier lives can stand up for these evil instruments of killing. We all have loved ones why would anyone want these types of guns and ammunition on the streets. Our law enforcement also do not deserve to be put up against these terrible weapons while trying to protect us. I just cannot thank you enough for keeping this conversation going and maintaining a forum for all of us that support this level of sanity.
Sue a gun only function is to shoot a projectile, to kill someone requires thought, and feelings two thing that a firearm does not have. Evil is in the heart of the person not the tool, speaking as parent.
Anyone interested in Rage Shooting Factors for prevention this information can be found at the Psychological Harassment Information Association website, the Rage Shooting Factors page.
I carry a 9 millimeter. With 35 rounds. And I haven't killed a soul
And don't plan on it. Until somebody tried to kill me !!!!!!!
It makes me wonder why America is what it is.I think it a worry when you see young male and female Children/teenagers posing with their Xmas present.(A machine gun of course.) A couple of facts from `Business Insider` There are 15.000 more gun stores than grocery stores.There are as many gun dealers as gas stations.There are twice as many gun stores in America than McDonalds Restaurants. American gun companies made 5.5 million guns in 2010 and 95% sold to Americans.These 5 millions guns weren`t enough to satisfy American demand for guns so another 3.3 million were imported.I think it is time for those who don`t agree with Gun control to take a look at the figures and take their heads out of the sand and start to use common sense .In 1776 they didn`t write the 2nd amendment for semi automatics or bazookas.I would also like to say all pro gun people who start comparing gun control to road death or suicide etc etc or whatever else, stop CHANGING and face the truth.Because really the truth hurts.
No they didn't write the second amendment for "semi automatics or bazookas" they wrote in the term arms which was any style of weapon the enemy may have. If you really think that they wrote it with the short sightedness not to think that the "arms" would be approved on than it is you that has your head in something and it's not sand. They wrote it so the Militia (every able body person) could defend their lives from any tyrannical government foreign or domestic.
G`day cobber! You might want to listen to one of your fellow Australian`s, Steve Lee, who`s written a good tune on this subject!
I live in Virginia where gun laws are relaxed. And yet we have a lower murder rate. Today !!! Then it didn't 1994 and there's way more guns. And now we are open carry state And concealed weapons permit are easy to get . Yet we have fewer murders If you ban 1 type of gun. The bag I will use a nother type of gun. If you ban all guns the bad guy will use a knife. Do you get it yet Bad people are bad. Good people are good
They wont use a knife because they already use a baseball bat more that any other weapon
Just stop responding to Piers Morgan and boycott CNN completely. http://www.facebook.com/BoycottPiersMorganCNN
Oh Tom? Where's "Jerry"?
You're right!! I was just meaning That bad people use whatever they can get. I want to see I'm past at law stopping bad people from doing bad things. Then all the problem will be solved ??????
Thank you Piers for standing up and bringing out gun issue regardless of the consequences. A ban on assault rifles definitely a first step to addressing the gun issue in America... God Bless....!!!
And when do we start worrying about the baseball bat problem or the abortion problem that killed 1.2 million kids in 2002? Or the economic problem in this country so maybe just maybe the people will stop robbing or killing? When do we finally start to look at the problem of cities like Chicago and New York which have the highest murder rates and the strictest gun control, please thank of the children.
First step to what? Ban all guns? It doesn't stop the problem. I know a victim of Virginia Tech. And I know an individual that shot his girlfriend Then himself. It's not the gun it is the person?
If you gave an NRA member an atom bomb, he would take it home and put it in his gun safe. If you gave a hammer to Adam Lanza, he would take it to school, break a window with it, and then begin to pound in the heads of children with that hammer.
Thank you Piers, please push this envlope as far you can. we do not need 20 guns to defend ourshelf. I had a drug dealer living next to my house and i was thinking to get a gun to defend myself and my family. You have our support.
God bless you and bless our great nation.
I just watched your show with that nut job Alex whatever. I cannot for the life of me understand how such an ignorant human being can be a radio host and have any kind of following – says a lot about audiences out there. As an American, I want to apologize profusely to you for enduring such an embarrassing episode. You are a brilliant professional. I can't imagine the strength it must take to keep your composure and not punch the idiot in the mouth. I find slight consolation in knowing that you are well aware that this is a madman and I know there are many out there. There are also many balanced, half intelligent folks with some common sense who love this country and its values and most importantly understand the fundamental rights our founders were trying to protect in the 2nd amendment. Prayers that people power will someday outrun the NRA and IGNORANTS like Alex so that those powerful weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds and intended for military soldiers to kills as many enemies as possible in a war zone are never again accessible to our deranged. Yes we have crazy people problems too, but so do all those nations with dozens of people killed by guns including your own Britain. I believe in powerful transitions in humanity, in a paradigm change. History has proven that it's possible. I have to believe for the sake of our children. Please, please keep up the good work!
Piers, the argument that Americans need assault weapons to defend ourslevees against our government is not a good argument. I am not sure if these people have ever seen an F-22, F-35, Blackhawk, Apaches and Hellfire missiles to name a few, their assault rifles will not be able to defend themselves as them believe the second ammendment is designed to do.
You are right Jeff and that is exactly why we need to stop the gun "control" measures in this country thank you for proving my point.
actually, jeff wasn't proving your point. he said that the Militia's assault weapons have no chance in defeating the US military if in becomes a tyranny (which will never happen). so, we don't need assault weapons.
And one would think that ignorant goatherders dressed in manjammies and armed with rifles and fertilizer wouldn't stand a chance against the greatest military power on the planet, but that's not exactly the case.
Now tell an F-18 pilot to drop a JDAM on a house outside Tulsa Oklahoma because the guy inside it doesn't want to give up his guns.
I know that Rommel I was twisting his words around like certain news reports like to do (Piers)
No...you weren't, you were caught being stupid!
Thank you Jaker for proving once again the only way you can try to win this debate is to restore to insults. The second amendment says nothing about muskets it says arms, which was anything from a pistol to a cannon. Now I would love you hear how an ar platform is more powerful than a cannon. You keep saying that they would have never said that if they new of the semi auto rifle, based on what? Your personal fears? I guarantee you if you were able to hand George Washington a ar never mind the m4 he would have taken it in a heart beat.
Have you seen Afghanistan and Iraq Al Qaeda And the Taliban Are we doing pretty damn good. If you haven't heard When we leave in 2014 The Taliban will take back power So much for your arm forces
Keep up the good work, Piers. There are millions of us who support reasonable limitations on types of weapons, and on more proficient background checks for those who want to purchase weapons. We need your voice to continue to speak for us!
Hey Richard I have a better idea why don't you use your own voice? Again don't give up your freedoms even if I don't again with you the point is are a republic not a democracy. That everyone has a voice and right to their freedoms including the first and second amendment. Don't let someone else be our voice be your own, it is your right as a citizen of this country.
Hey kantill, Richard was using a figure of speech. "We need your voice to speak for us"- meaning: Piers has a platform with huge audience. He is an effective advocate for gun control.
Hey kantill, pls read the comment carefully and try to understand before making a counter argument. You sound ridiculous most of the time.
Well Rommel if I am so ridiculous than why can't you answer a simple question. Why is the how more important than the who or the why? I am only ridiculous because without using insults you can't win this debate. If this is about the children than why go after something that has killed the least amount of them?
it's called unconventional warfare. it has were pretty good for the Taliban and al Qaeda
Organized Crime Acts of Terror to Advocate a Defenseless Population
If some of these massacres are organized crime acts of terror to advocate a defenseless population what can be done to prevent them?
From what I understand organized crime is doing this to advocate a defenseless population like British regimes, which subjugate the population through organized crime.
There are hundreds of children killed each year by drunk drivers. Lets make drinking and driving illegal!!! What a minute it is! We should be just as concerned about reducing these deaths but I don't see anything on the news about this. The main concern should be the safety of our children not banning guns. What happens the next time some crazy goes into a school with a homemade bombstrapped to his chest that he learned how to make on the internet. How will no guns help this! More security at schools is the only real answer!
I wish Piers would take his head out of his a$% and shut up because he does not know what he is speaking about. Gun violence is not an epidemic like he and all the other bleeding heart liberals want you to believe. They want the guns taken away so we can be subjects like they have in England under the ruling of a king or queen. Their are over 12000 people killed by drunk drivers every year. When are we going to ban cars? Over 600 people killed with a hammer or blunt instrument. When are we banning hammers? 1200 people killed with knives. Knives should be banned too? Piers the non-citizen should go home since he doesn't like our laws and don't come back. As for the other idiots supporting you , why don't you take them back to England with you. We had to break away from England due to taxation and the laws there. That's why we kicked your ancestors asses and sent them packing. I will not become a subject of this government, which is getting out of control. I will not be dictated to by a non-citizen like you. If England is so great, why are you here? If it wasn't for the United States you would be speaking German by now. The only people who truly understand gun control are the criminals who will NEVER give up their guns.
What a stupid argument from a very stupid person...
Speaks about your values and character which is close to nothing.
I feel ashamed to have a fellow American like you...
Let me clarify.....Well said Tom Tanner
America110034 ..I am ashamed of you. Feel free to get on the plane with Peirs when he goes home!!!!
Get your facts straight mate. If it wasn't for British and Commonwealth troops, navies and air forces who fought the Axis on their own from 1939 – Late 1941 (until Pearl Harbor) and defended the British Isles and North Africa, so that America could join in and have a base to work from in order to later invade Europe, you would also be speaking German. America is not the only innovator of culture, new ideas and or systems which work to improve society. If anything it is way behind most other developed nations regarding health services, crime statistics, the gap between rich and poor and general quality of life etc. This might be attributed to the lack of flexibility in your political system and it's habit of clinging to ideas and ideals that are over 200 years old. Paranoid rantings about revolution and retaining rights because you don't trust the government sound like something out of an espionage novel. You sound like that idiot yelling at Piers in the interview about this being a repeat of 1776 etc. I'm sure Piers doesn't need the money so your portrayal of him as some kind of helpless broke refugee is ridiculous. He is showing Americans what free speech is all about and if you don't like it turn him off and if enough of you do, the sponsors will send him home anyway. Please read my earlier comment in this blog about our gun control experiences here, you might learn something.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but you are guilty of using imprecise language, and manipulating data to your own ends. Whether this is better than the outright lying of your opponents is debatable, but I believe you must hold yourself to the same standard that you hold your opponents in this debate.
Great Britain does have a far lower gun homicide rate- but it also has a far lower homicide rate period. And this has been historically true- in the 1960s, before either country had any form of gun control, Great Britain had a rate less than half that of the US. To say that the far lower homicide rate now is purely due to gun laws is disingenuous at best. It's true- but it misses the point: the US has always been a more violent country (and a more impoverished country). This isn't to say guns aren't a problem- but you have to be more honest: guns may make the problem worse, but we do not know for sure that the US murder rate wouldn't be significantly higher than the UK without guns.
With regards to the laws passed after the Dunblane massacre- you have to realize that there is no control group. It may well be that the rate would have fallen regardless of whether or not laws were passed. In the US, the assault weapons ban passed, and the gun crime rate dropped. Then it expired, and the rate still dropped. To argue somehow that the law in the UK was directly responsible is not scientifically accurate- it conflates correlation with causation. On the flip side, this fact is what keeps anyone from arguing that the skyrocketing numbers of gun sales over the past few years are responsible for the drop in America's gun crime rate.
Furthermore, when you throw around terms like "assault rifle" and "military-grade weapon", you have to realize those are arbitrary categories. True assault weapons and military grade weapons are automatic guns- firing multiple bullets with each trigger pull. They've been banned in the US since the 1960s. The current definition of assault weapon (used in the 1994 ban) is incredibly arbitrary: the rifle that was used at Sandy Hook would not have been an assault rifle if the manufacturer removed the pistol grip, a modification which would have had zero effect on the weapon's killing power. If you wish to truly make a difference, you must either ban all semi-automatic rifles (which are not military grade), or restrict semi-automatic weapons from reloading quickly, as California does.
I appreciate that you are pushing an agenda- though I disagree with some of it, I appreciate where you're coming from and believe in reasonable regulation. However, I believe you must not treat the American people like they are fools. When you over-simplify, you leave yourself open to counter-attacks by people who are blatantly lying.
A medical student and gun owner who does not feel any need to own an "assault rifle"
And the Pro-Gun people think that those against semi-automatics are fools...but you're wrong.
As the saying goes, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
So take a hint, NRA-ers!
let's pass a law making it illegal to be bad then all of our problems will be solved
I credit Piers for being more calm this time than when the NRA was on his show. Piers was unprofessional in his interaction with the representatives from the NRA. He has turned this gun control debate into his personal platform. I am trying to understand all sides of this extremely critical issue. Piers would simply not allow them to speak even when he asked them direct questions. Piers often refers to "you Americans" yet he enjoys a large salary and liberty living in this country. I want more information about all sides and less Piers! Lost a viewer
Well said Melanie, except the reason Pierce was kinder was he was being called a bully and he knows that is part of his being. Right up there with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O Reilly, and a radio announcer I listen to, Mike Rosen. They are all very good about not letting others make their point because their point is the only one.
Gun control? I am confounded why any law abiding American, whether you are NRA or CIA, GOP OR DEMOCRAT, JERSEY OR DIXIE, should have any consternation as a nation implementing National gun control registration protocols for purchasing and storing your guns.
One month waiting period while federal background check is preformed.
Eye or fingerprint scanner on all gun safes.
Thank god for pierce! Finally someone on tv who tells the truth and makes sense. If they deport you I hope that you just go up to Canada.
If guns in school are not necessary, why are there 11 armed guards on staff at the elite Sidwell School in Washington DC?
I thought that guns are illegal in DC, so why are armed guards needed for the kids of the elite of Washington?
I have a concealed permit. I don't have no waiting period Or background check Because I've already had it done
A gunman goes to a movie theater to kill people with assault rifles. There are 6 "responsible gun owners" in the theater. The gunman start shooting in the dark. Now all the "responsible gun owners" took out their assault rifles to protect themselves. But due to dark surrounds, screaming and the chaos, they do not know who is the real gunman and guess what... they shot each other and more innocent people to the death. Does that story ring a bell??
Welcome to the blood bath!!!! God bless America
No it's not called a bloodbath It's called you don't need to own a gun. Because you obviously have a mental problem You do not shoot Into a crowd In the dark
I guess you are the the only person in the world who carries a torch to watch a movie in a theater...
Or the gunman will first switch on the lights of the theater and and then start shooting...
What a Moron.....
Good if the gunman Turn the light on for me Then I can shoot him
We can't afford a gun buyback program. We can't pay the bills now. How many anti-gun people want to pay higher taxes to purchase these guns? A ban on magazines doesn't require a buyback program. Ban any clip over 5 rounds for a rifle and 10 rounds for a pistol. No one wants an AR-15 with a 5 round clip. Why is that? Because it is a close range rifle that is only cool when you have a 30 round clip on it. The magazine is the only thing that makes this weapon anything special.
I am a life long gun owner. It is a part of the way my family history. I happen to believe that I personally have no need
For a fully automatic weapon. I also have no need for a 30 shot clip, what I need least of all is a slimy Limey like Morgan
To have any say in the matter. Piers is a joke and is causing CNN to losenthe middle ground in this matter. Let Piers go back to England ( formerly Great Britain) and file reports on the "Royals". This moron and his ilk are exactly why we threw their asses out of this country to begin with.
Where is Ted Turner? What a shame that this creep has been given a voice at all in my country.
What a little punk that shapiro loser is.
iIs this guest on cocaine?
I think so. What is up with all the pro gun people. It is like they go out and look for the worse people they can find. Wait, the NRA was leaders of the NRA. As a gun owner I feel sick.
Piers is presenting the facts yes some time truth hurts injudicious
STOP demonizing people and trying to bolster your own opinion by saying Mark Kelly agrees with you. Mark Kelly does not demonize the people who have a different opinion from his on the issue of guns. You are looking more and more like a fool and to even infer that people who oppose your thinking must not have any feeling about the kids is Bull.
stop lying to your responsible members and try to scare them into believing they need a gun. As we we are living in the 1700's or in the old wild west. NO BODY needs an assault weapon. That is why we have a military.
No that's why have a militia which is every body person who is not in the military. It's you duty as an American citizen to stand at the ready. It's time for every anti gun person to go back to school and learn about your country but this time take some pride in it.
Kantill, it's time for you to go back to school and learn English grammar.
Only if you go back and take a history class. If this debate was about grammar and the lacking in the education system than maybe you could win, but it's not. If your only reason you can come up with is my grammar instead of real facts than again you'll lose this debate.
Just switched channel. can't listen to that guy.
That Shapiro fellow seems like a right bully himself; but in a leering, sneaky, sly way.
Oh & he's also an NRA parrot...when he opens his mouth re; "Gun Control"!
Now Shapiro, to the left, right, left, right, left, right, etc...
Pierce, I totally agree with you and Mark Kelly on all of your policy positions, especially banning assault weapons. But, why can you not hold an calm, peaceful, educated conversation with a person like Ben Shapiro? He is right. You are a bully. Biased television on either side creates serious problems, and watching you is just like watching Fox News for democrats (I'm a democrat, by the way). If you could hold a cool and collected discussion like Ben Shapiro, only positing your positions, you would be a far better advocate for what you are trying to achieve.
Maybe you should re-watch the interview to get the facts straight.
Kudos to Ben Shapiro for calling Pierce out on demonizing those he disagrees with and, for showing that Pierce knows nothing about guns and little about American culture. Pierce would like to claim the moral highground but is clearly out of his depth.
If someone's not willing to keep their weapon in the National Guard Armory why is that? If you are going to horde weapons so you could defend yourself from our nation why do you allow our military to be so big?
Since we cannot control the guns how about a BIG RED CIRCLE & X on images of such criminals for ever more. NO more fame No more glory. A STIGMA upon them. Like a no smoking sign or nuclear waste, banned for ever more. 3rd. leading cause of death for children! You provided laws for car seats when they died in cars. What you going to do? Have them fitted for bullet proof vests & helmets. It is like the Taliban of America. Our way or the highway. Who cares about the people! I AM FOR BANNING GUNS. This is NOT THE OLD WEST have we not progressed!
Shapiro can go 'expletive himself'.
Diane, how about you take a few breaths and calm down. The sooner you stop trying to control something that you can't control, the sooner we can start working on things that will actually save lives. Gun control doesn't do it. Every country in Europe has an illegal gun problem. Oh, except Switzerland.
I'm impressed with the way Piers sits back and lets his guests expose themselves for their lack of intelligence. Well done!
I believe we are begining to see the results of a very poorly funded education system. I do hope ya'll wake up, eh.
Your observations are correct!!
I'm DEpressed by the fact that "that's stupid" is so often considered a worthwhile retort, especially when Piers Morgan is anywhere around. I'd actually like to hear an intelligent criticism based on what was said. Thanks.
Shapiro – What a nerdy bully. He need to grow up.
It's interesting to me that the number of drunk driving deaths are nearly the same as gun related deaths. Yet no one is saying to ban alcohol because some people make a bad choice then drink & drive and people get killed.
As a fellow Jew – Ben Shapiro sickens me!!!! What an arrogant little man he is...GET HIM OFF THE AIR!
My best wishes to G. Gibson for a speedy recovery.
Good job Shapiro. You held your ground and spoke for a lot of us.
a very shaky ground I must say.
Eric, c'mon! goverment tiranny????? like you, him and the 50 other lunatics of the nra can take the most powerful military in the world.
Many of us are IN the most powerful military in the world.
wink wink nudge nudge.
I agree! I hope they have this guy on again, again and agian. So entertaining – PLUS we get to see how smart peoples r! Rite?
Another tyrannous, moronic, piece of idiocy is on tonight; he is so ridiculous, it's funny.
And there I was...thinking Iran was the problem country; US has more problems awaiting it from within, especially when you see the looney's that are on the loose there in Jones & Shapiro etc. With "friends like them, who needs enemies"?
Looks like Ben Shapiro got your number. If you cannot win intellectually you just bully your guests who advocate gun ownership.
You are a condescending, self-righteous, arrogant British twit.
Keep going you get more hysterical as each day passes.
Hard to hold a rational conversation with you on this topic because your position is this:
Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.
We get it Piers....move on with the show. While I understand that this is a very sensitive, important topic for our society I don't think making it the topic of your show EVERY DAY is going to change that. Bringing opponents on just for the sake of debate and/or providing us with your opinion is getting really boring and is starting to appear a bit self indulgent on your part. I support the notion of keeping this issue at the forefront of everyone's attention, but you're really just repeating yourself every night at this point. Not that informational anymore and the show has defintely lost its entertainment value. Get back to what you were hired to do – interview guests – not rant at them when their opinions don't match yours.
I enjoyed seeing Ben Shiparo hold this left wing extremist Morgan accountable for the outrageous behavior he exibits on the gun control debate.
Mr Shapiro just put Piers in his place. Piers was out-debated and his tactics revealed. Ouch!
Debate? What debate? Did I miss something? Oh, not to matter.
That Ben Shairo feller... raelly thmart isn e...
For a Master Bater, you sure are beating around the bush.
Come on, spit it out.
Beautiful job, Ben Shapiro. Note-perfect full-spectrum OWNING of Morgan. Disarmed every tactic, and still called 'intransigent' by Morgan the Ponce.
Thank you, Piers. Keep it up! Listened to Ben Shapiro (with his oddly righteous smirk), and when you pushed him to get specific he sounded paranoid about using AR-15s to protect citizens the government–like they all do. Most terrifying is that there are so many like him.
yep its crazy that so many of americans believe/fight for our bill of rights...
Piers...if you don't like our bill of rights move back to your native country...welcome to the US of A, we defend ourselves with guns...thats how we became free and the reason you came here ( because we are the land of the free)...the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Does anyone take this Shapiro guy seriously! A government that helps the homeless from hurricanes and other natural disasters is going to become a tyrannical government where its citizens attack their government with assult weapons. He is one of the people that is crazy enough that he should not have a gun!
jon they also support lazy people who don't want to work and live off your tax dollars...i guess your cool wiith losing more money out of your pay check
Shapiro is way out of line. A motor mouth for sure. A SWAT (sub the s with a T) for sure!
Listening to Mr. Shapiro I am amazed. If he thinks that ownership of AR15 guns is some type of protection against our own government, perhaps he should spend some time in a combat zone to see how he would stand his ground against fully armed soldiers, full battle tanks, body armor, predator drones, and apache gun ships. Even if a totally democratic government turns tyranical, the days of citizens turning on an organized government have gone by the way of the musket. Surely we need a more practical defense against tryanny.
So Jake, you are telling me that because they have weapons that are superior to ours, that you would just lay down like a b1tch and become a lap dog to the government? That my freind is NOT a true patriot
Piers, a new study done that I think you will find interesting... It specifically mentions gun violence. It's about the life expectancy of people in the U.S. under the age of 50. Of all developed nations, the U.S. is near the bottom
And to everyone bashing Piers... stop pretending you're soldiers, because you aren't. You do NOT need assault rifles. There's some sort of illness in the mind of all the people who THINK they NEED assault rifles. Why don't you for once think about the possibility of ACCIDENTS that can occur to more people being armed. Stop policing the nation. We have men and women in uniform to protect us. They are called police officers.
Piers – rather than argue the absurdity of a tyrannical US gov't, you should be arguing that if the US gov't goes rogue, a mob with AR-15s won't stop them. The fact is that in order to provide a realistic protection against government tyrann – a government with armed drones, helicopter gunships, tactile nukes and bunker buster bombs – guns, no matter how big, have become obsolete for their intended 2nd amendment purpose. Rather, the new 'Arms' that can truly protect against a tyrannical government are video/cellphones and access to the internet and cell networks. It is these types of 'arms' that toppled dictators in libya and egypt. Guns didn't help David Koresh- fight what he considered government tyranny. The effective response to real government tyranny at ohio state in the 60's was video – not an armed response. Take guns out of the 2nd amendment and let their regulation be at the state level.
Very well said – I personally see these are unjustified excuses for devices (with whatever technical label you want to give them) that should have appropriate limits and regulations in their distribution and usage and fundamentally the statistics show they don't – or at least they aren't enforced appropriately. There is too much misdirection and obstinacy. People may not like Piers and want to deport him, but this discussion needs to continue and honor thousands of victims. One more points the Arab Spring proves that tyrannical government isn't overthrown with firepower but with the will of the people. KEEP IT UP PIERS!
Chuck, do you know how many people died in the Arab Spring? It all started in Egypt, where neighborhoods banded together with guns, if they were lucky enough to have them, to protect their houses from roving gangs of criminals, crooked cops, and government thugs. Egypt alone gives multiple reasons why you don't put all your faith in the government to keep you safe.
When you get someone like Mr. Shapiro who defends the right of "responsible" Americans to own assault weapons like the AR 15, ask where he would draw the line.... Should those who can afford them be allowed to own SAMs (surface to air missiles) , how about battle tanks or fighter aircraft? The question is not about gun ownership, but where to draw the line!
Thank God for PIERS MORGAN !!!
Shapiro came off as extremely sinister – what was up with all that smirking. Imagine proclaiming his support for the second amendment and in the same breath saying we need assault weapons to protect ourselves from the same government that enforce these amendments. Ridiculous. Piers just keep these gun advocates talking and they will help us in our efforts to establish gun control.
I guess you haven't heard of "checks and balances".
watching "bowling for Columbine" opened a new view to the issue. Guns are not the problem. Canada has many many guns yet no such shootings. America's Media and News induces fears and hate to various races and issues and teaches that shooting will solve the problem. Israel has many guns held by many young people, soldiers, they also don't go around shooting innocent people just "because"
They have the right to the Second Amendment – What about the right to the Fourteenth Amendment for the 20 children that lost LIFE.
I'm getting tired of hearing about guns from someone who has never touched one.
Do you know that most hunting weapons used in the US are also semi-automatics?
How many of the 12,000 gun related deaths in the US in 2011 were caused by AR-15 weapons?
Piers, learn more about guns before you open your mouth.
I've been hearing for a while how assault weapons are needed in case the government turns against its citizens, but how does having a semi-automatic assault rifle protect anyone against a tank, fighter jet, cruise missile, or atomic bomb? Just look at Libya or Syria to see how well citizenry can resist a tyrant using semi-automatic assault weapons, it wasn't until international military forces stepped in and either armed the resistance with military hardware and no-fly-zones that things started to change positively for the rebels. This isn't 1776 or 1861 or 1898 when a citizen militia was a nearly even match with a military unit, today I'd take the 82nd Airborne over any collection of NRA members.
You know, I used to defend liberals to my conservative friends and say, "it's not that they really think that people in the military are mindless robots, they're just trying to make a point".
Thanks Joe, for making the point painfully obvious that the left thinks military members are mindless robots who will kick down their own neighbors doors and collect their guns.
By the way, most of the 82nd IS MADE UP OF NRA MEMBERS.
You missed the point, I have no problem with people owning a gun, just an assault weapon. I've owned and fired guns for sport for many years and can understand having a pistol or shotgun for home protection or a rifle for hunting but this argument that any group of private citizens could successfully overthrow the US government is insane. You would be better served marching peacefully down Pennsylvania Avenue than trying to launch an armed resistance.
eric- I and a whole lot more people out there don't think that way. We thank you. We just want our rights to protect our families like you protected us. Its not in case the government trys to take over. Its, wether I have that gun or not the bad guy will. I believe you know this to be true. The bad guy will always have that weapon, so we should be able to have it too.
Piers Morgan is doing a fantastic job of exposing the supporters of gun madness for what they are. This idea that the government will turn on us at any moment is purely crazy. We don't need AR-15s for that; we need people who are willing to take part in the political process and have reasonable political debates.
There are millions of us who support what Piers, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Gabby Giffords and lots of other Americans are trying to do to make all of us safer from gun violence.
I agree that we need better measures for controlling the sale of firearms in the United States. I disagree with the stance on banning "assault" rifles all together. That's an unfair label placed on weapons that are used, more often, in defense rather than to assault. I understand that as a journalist you are required to give your opinion on the matter; however, your own country is suffering from lawlessness and murder despite the banning of weapons. Are you intent on modeling our country after yours? In which case, do you prefer a predominantly Muslim society where the majority of true citizens reside abroad? I think that if we took your opinions to heart, we would see the United States of America spiraling downward into a society controlled by an extreme and very noisy minority.
Wow!!!! What an interview with Ben Sharpio!!! It was riveting! Piers, you nailed it. A big thanks to you for keeping the gun control issue alive.
Ask Shapiro what good an AR-15 will do against a tyrannical government if that government is the most powerful military in the world and has thousands of tanks, helicopters, planes, bombers, seal teams, artillery, aircraft carriers, drones and others weapons of mass destruction. If the US government really wanted to turn tyrannical, there is very little that the average Joe with his small calibre guns can do to fight a substantial and professional military. I think clinging to the assault weapons gives them a very false sense of security.
Frank, better yet you could ask the Taliban.
The Polish ended up using hammers, bricks, whatever they could get their hands on to fight back. Do you suggest we just say "We'll, if our government attacks us, we should just lay down." America wouldn't be free from British rule if our ancestors had done as you suggest. I think too many people slept through history class.
Congratulations how you handle some of the arrogant lying (yesterday) people you interview.
I fully agree with you viewpoints.
We need assault weapons to defend ourselves against our own government??????
Forget Mr. Shapiro
Evidence of lies please?
Thats whats in the second amendment. You should read your history.
What is Morgan's deal with sudafed? Is he a tweaker? He brings it up every night!
Piers – you are a true gentlemen amongst the many obvious raging angry lunatics that cannot seem to even hold a civil conversation. You are to be commended for your composure and continual efforts to bring this issue to the forefront. Viewers need only tune in for a moment to understand the basic problem with any of these people so overly passionate about an ASSAULT weapon or having any gun at their disposal.
Piers will you marry me?!
Good-–stay up there
Very nice Bo – very neighbourly comment.
Let's just hope you don't own any.
jacka$$. Deep down you know your a low life loser.
Karen, please forgive comments from whom I will assume is one of "our" less articulate associates.
Imagine if the government said "people are saying crazy stuff on the internet, so we're going to need you to register with the government as a blogger, prove you have a good reason to have one, and pass certain requirements annually to make sure you're passing government approved information."
Don't think it couldn't happen? The state of North Carolina of all places requires that anyone giving out dietary advice be a registered dietician. A guy who was able to go completely off of his diabetes meds and insulin and wanted to tell other people about how he did it on his blog ended up in court because he wasn't a registered dietician.
Now imagine that wanting to have a blog that wasn't government approved was considered radical and dangerous, even though you just wanted to talk about cats. That's how morally and personally offensive it is to us gun owners who have a safe full of guns that have never killed anything at all let alone a human being and to be told that we're a danger to society.
So people are going to lash out from time to time. It doesn't make it right, mind you. But everyone has "that guy" in their group.
By the way, did you know that not only do these "assault weapons" exist in Candada but that you guys can get a lot of guns that we can't? Our Canadian members of gun forums remind us of that fact quite frequently.
The answer to this and other 2nd amendment folks who believe they need an M16 or Ar15 to protect themselves from Government take over let me explain something to your stupid self. If in fact our Government was to take over this country they would do it in the same way we have taken over Iraq and Afghanistan first with air strikes from 30,000ft from F16's and FA18's as well as Tomahawk missiles through your bedroom window. The only thing that slowed us down taking over Iraq with a well equipped Army was getting fuel to the TANK's that would be next down the city streets. So does your dumb A really think that AR15 is going to stop that take over, if that's your argument. Evidently you have not even played your children's video games or you would have better knowledge of military tactics!!!!!
And there are millions of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are members of the NRA, many of whom are hardened combat veterans with more experience than any WWII vet.
Anyone who suggests that a counterinsurgency will be won with airstrikes and tanks has absolutely no understanding of asymmetrical warfare or military history in general.
Piers you showed up with six packets of sudafed. if you want to get something illegal all you have to do is ask the right people to get them for you. huh!
Congratulations CNN for putting Ben Shapiro on, a voice of reason with the courage and the IQ to stand up to Piers Morgan's bullying style of interviewing and call him on it. Shapiro was excellent – he should have had an hour.
2nd amendment folks like this not to smart young man who believe they need an M16 or Ar15 to protect themselves from Government take over let me explain something to your stupid self. If in fact our Government was to take over this country they would do it in the same way we have taken over Iraq and Afghanistan first with air strikes from 30,000ft from F16's and FA18's as well as Tomahawk missiles through your bedroom window. The only thing that slowed us down taking over Iraq with a well equipped Army was getting fuel to the TANK's that would be next down the city streets. So does your dumb A really think that AR15 is going to stop that take over, if that's your argument. Evidently you have not even played your children's video games or you would have better knowledge of military tactics!!!!!
Shapiro is a bully himself! No wonder he can write that book called "Bullies" . Must be a self reflection.
except that Shapiro is a little dweeb that is scared of his own shadow.
Thank you piers, And CNN for keeping it real!!! And to Ben Shapiro Thanks for the memory I will never forget this.. And GOD bless the U.S.A....
Well done Ben Shapiro. It amazes me how one sided CNN allows this to be. If you attack one side to get to the bottom of their views, why not equally attack the otherside to get the views? To be hostile to everyone on one side and friendly to everyone on the other is not good discussion. What happened to neutral moderators?
While I firmly believe that something must be done to stop gun violence in America, and I am in favor of gun control, Piers Morgan is doing more to hurt that cause than to promote it. I teach interviewing for a living, and Piers breaks every single rule of effective interviewing. He invites those of opposite opinions on the show and then he interrupts them and is rude to them. Why doesn't someone advise Piers to politely and calmly expose the flawed thinking of opponents, instead of shouting and interrupting them?
go join shapiro in the corner. You belong in the same corner of mor@ns
Looks like you should lead the way...oh wait, seems you are just a follower. Soak your head ALKP
ALKP...I know that right now the second amendment does't seem like a god given right to you but when you can't protect yourself from some with a gun that purchased it illegally thank your HUGE government for taking that right away from you...
Stupid people don't know the difference between your and you're!
I wanted to ask the young pro rights gun guy if his rational for assault weapons access is "a civilians right to protect themselves from government tyranny" does he really think that would stop our gone rogue government from killing him or his family if they wanted to? should civilians also have the right to posess nuclear weapons?? How far do we take this? It's got to stop at assault weapons! Ban them now!!
Why do you assume military members will kill Americans?
If you had your way America would be a British colony. If the people have these guns then they can hold out against a possible government oppression till help arrives. Your so wrapped up in being politically correct you don't read history. Piers Morgan and Bob Cosas should get a room...ha ha ha
I know damn well that politicians will send the military against civilians. My question is to all of those who seem to think that every single military member will pull the trigger on artillery, cruise missles, and nukes directed at their countrymen. While some of them undoubtedly would, many of them would pack a bag and head out into the hills instead.
If you believe the argument that citizens need assault weapons to defend themselves from a the government, you must believe that those same citizens should be able to own proper weapons for the task. That would include anti-tank weapons, anti-air weapons, rocket propelled grenades, etc. Where would you draw the line? I have not heard this line of reasoning addressed. I personally feel that the states (national guard, etc.) should have this right. They, in turn, could decide which weapons may be held by private citizens,
The Revolution was fought in part with private cannons. The Founders had no problems with this. If there's a line to be drawn it is at the level of artillery, not rifles.
Arms by definition include all weapons of war. So there are restrictions on the arms a person is allowed to have. No claymores, no hand grenades, no RPGs. To SATISFY the NRA’s argument as well as the “Right to bear arms” argument, a bolt action hunting rifle and a six shot revolver is all that is necessary for hunting animals and “protecting yourself” in your home. Putting an armed guard in schools is “begging the question”, a fallacious argument. What are the chances a guard will kill the bad guy in a firefight when it is handgun vs automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon? Shooting kids in schools in not a Hollywood movie where it is near impossible to kill the good guy.
You must not know that bolt action riffles are illegal for hunting in many states. Shotguns sporting slug barrels are the law during deer season in Iowa because they have a range of less than 100 yard, causing far fewer hunting acidents than riffles in farm states like Iowa. Shotguns are used to harvest 100,000 deer anually in Iowa alone. By the way, none of guns are registered and most hunters have several "hunting" guns.
Once again, get the facts, don't speak unless you know something about guns.
Piers, I saw some of your show on gun control. You were talking about putting armed guards in schools, where does it stop, stores, theaters, etc. is what you were saying with your guest. I never heard once from either one of you, allow teachers or the people in charge to be trained and armed if they so desire. That way the people in charge are the only ones who know who is armed creating a silent protection. There are schools that do this and they have no problems. You see, the kids that do these things know that there are armed people in that structure, but don't know who. Deterent. I would like to address one more thing I caught. You reemed that kid about which guns were used in all the shootings. Piers, Where every shooting took place, find out how many people in the whole school district have those type guns. Very few or none I would bet. The shooter is always going to have that gun wether it is legal to own or not. I'm sorry Piers but your not looking at the whole picture, your just looking at the negative. I was raised around "alot" of guns. I try to live by two things my dad tried to teach us as kids. Respect the guns and people. Try to live with common sense. I can shoot petty good also Piers, but I don't and probably never will own a gun unless my family does feel theaten. You should try to cover all thoughts on an issue, granted, you will have your bias, but cover everything, not just what you want to say. thanks
it is sad how quickly you silence people on your show that have opinions you do not want to hear. It is a sad thing to watch you evolving into such close minded host of current television.
Because he tries to shut them up before the truth gets out. Like Britain is ranked 5th in violence compared to the US 28th that comes from a E.U NATIONAL REPORT.... NO GUNS THERE PIERS SO WHATS UR EXCUSE NOW
Respect for human life is a huge problem. Respect in general is rare.
Piers did a good job respecting his guest even though it was not returned.
I believe in the second amendment as I do with all of them. Screaming fire in a theater. when there is none, causes an unprovoked and imminent danger. Possessing assault rifles cause an unprovoked and immininent danger. If they didn't, then why lock them up and have licenses and registratiions? It is time to stop the nonsense and protect lives.
Piers. I have been watching your show tonight. The young man speaking about gun control was out of control. He talked rapidly and he was not intelligible Why do such people end up on your show. He was a loss.
Now to the issue. I support your position. Guns are out of control in the US as you have tried to get across to a dense population of Americans. So why. Do I need an assault weapon? I do NOT. Keep it up Piers. Maybe Americans will get the point. But maybe not and that is sad.
Jon SHALLOP, PhD
Retired Prof sensor of May Clinic College of Medicine
Retired US Army. 28th Division PA National Guard and 101st Airborne
PS. I have been trained on assault weapons. I have been trained on M41 and M46 tanks.
We are out of control in the US.
Thanks for your efforts.
Well said...Jon...as for me, I think the "Asylums" in US are filled with the wrong people!
Of course you think he was a loss...you do not support his position. An educated man such as yourself should have been able to pull the salient points from both sides.
He did talk very rapidly. I think he was hopped up on speed or something. Obviously a little geek squad motor mouth who is scared of his own shadow.
They will not get the point. They will never get the point unfortunately. Talking to this segment of the population is a waste of time. America is gone a country that can no longer work together to solve problems. The divided bi-cameral system of government is too divided and uncooperative to function properly any more. The best hope for people who can is to simply get out for their own good. America will devour itself eventually until the states are split off again like the civil war.
What a disappointment the NRA and the pro-gun lobby have been in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. I had hoped and expected that as stakeholders in gun control, they would contribute well-reasoned arguments to the discussion. They have not. As evidenced by Shapiro, the only justification they can present for common people to own assault weapons is some paranoid fantasy about totalitarian government. Shapiro may also have opened a whole new can of worms by pointing out that handguns are responsible for most gun homicides in the US. He's right; the US administration should be looking at putting better controls on them, too. But, the Administration is offering to meet the pro-gun lobbies somewhere in the middle by proposing controls only on assault weapons. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Administration expanded their gun control measures to include handguns?
I have 2 assault weapons an ak47 and a sig556. I enjoy shooting, period. I don't even consider them for home defense. I have a shot gun for that. I should have the right to have these weapons if I want. I keep them in a safe and they are for me only. I think the real issue is mental health. Gun control only hurts law abiding citizens.
The Shapiro interview was one of the best I have viewed on your show. I, personally, think it was a open, honest and frank discussions on the issue.
A few things i was thinking of as we talk of guns and the health of peoples minds i began to think to combine both the gun issue and mental heath care into one thing. by improving mental health you can add in that background checks, a mental state eval from a true professional and required registration all a must this way you can slowly remove guns from those who are 'unstable'. and to those wanting to blame meds that are Seritonin reuptans...sorry bout spelling, those people should be being watched by the perscribing dr anyway, both the dr/patient are notified of the effects of meds anyway...also, extended clips, loopholes at gun shows must be banned. And regarding the second ammendment, the right to bare arms, as it states, it must be regulated, most forget this, and required registration should help with this, for all gun owners, no exceptions. the exams by drs, should be presented at time of purchase, it would help...just my thoughts just my opinion. and my belief as i use my 1st ammendment right.
Piers your the man!!! I have to give you a lot of credit, by how calm and cool that you remain while these tyrannical gun mongers are going off on you, but besides that has any one thought of looking at the Canadian firearms program. And how it could be a model for what people are looking for, because it works and works well. And after seeing everything that I have it just shows that the possession of their assault rifles is worth more then someone's life
so far the only person who made any sense was Mark Kelly..I was starting to wonder if there was anyone with any common sense ..Canada introduced stricter gun laws after a massacre at Mcgill University of 10 young engineering students,.we are not against guns we just make it harder for people to access them ...all my neighbors have guns but they are locked up and only used for hunting..common sense..I lived in the United States several times going back to the late 50's and when I would return home i would realize the fear and paranoia we lived in..the United States will never feel free as long as they continue to allow everyone and anyone the right to own guns.
I don't suppose it would have anything to do with our larger population, the fact that we have way more large cities, a massive inner city drugs/gangs/poverty/education problem, a media that pumps out violent movies, TV, and video games non-stop, and a level of diversity that makes Canada look like a clan rally?
Please butt out.
US has larger cities, oh that great argument. I live in Chicago. Chicago population: 2.6 million ... gun homicides in 2012: 550. Toronto, Canada population: 2.5 million ... gun homicides in 2012: 50. Guess that argument didn't work.
More Proof that Americans talk out of their a$$es. Have you ever seen the diversity in Toronto? It is the most multiracial, multi ethnic city on the planet. You also have no clue about the media in Canada. All the TV, movies and video games that we have in America are also abundantly available in Canada.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
We have 34 cities with populations above half a million. You have 11.
You have one city, your largest, that is ethnically diverse? Interesting point. I notice that you fail to mention how your ethnicities tend to be highly congregated together, the way Quebec is 66% Canadian and Prince Edward Island is 70% Irish and Scottish.
Here in America you don't have to go to the largest cities to find diversity. Even in small towns there are people from all over the world. Don't try to go head to head with America for diversity because I'm not saying you don't have ANY diversity, I'm saying we have more. And like I said, while most of those are good hard-working Americans, some of them are not.
Something as simple as legalizing drugs would make a huge difference, and a lot of Republicans are starting to come around on that issue. They won't come around on gun control because it doesn't make any damn sense. The crime is in the inner cities, and anyone giving the matter a cursory moment of honest analytical thought would see that way more good could be done by understanding why kids are killing each other instead of fighting law abiding citizens over taking away something that has to do with less than 2% of the problem.
Does anyone remember how America won its sovereignty?
Yes, by having the same weapons as the governments. So, unless you want the people to have jets, bombs, chems and nukes, the assault rifles won't mean a thing when doing a similar action.
Why do you think military members will kill their own neighbors? Are you aware that every unit in the military has people from all over the country? Pick a point on the map, and there's someone in that unit that has a family member there.
You guys aren't thinking this through.
Frank, Americans were far out armed. Eric, while most US military personnel, I believe, would not attack civilians, you can not deny that militaries through out history have attacked their own people. I somehow doubt that their militaries were manned solely by people without families.
I'm not being clear.
I'm saying that a tyrannical government does not automatically mean a complicit military. All those saying "you can't fight the military" don't understand that we ARE the military. Politicians can try to seize guns like they did in New Orleans, and at first they'll be successful. But when the shooting starts and people start to draw lines on the ground, people in the military are going to be having a lot of late night heated debates about what to do, and none of them are going to want to drop bombs on people's houses.
Cars don't kill people, people driving cars kill people, thats why they are forced to carry insurance. So why isn't insurance compulsory for gun owners, I am sure that if this was a policy, the insurance companies would require all gun owners to have competent background checks, medical and family background checks, and insurance conditions concerning proper gun storage, and premiums that would reflect the type of weapons being purchased. The recovery of these weapons is now an impossibility but at least this would be some type of monitoring. In Ontario Canada if you don't carry car insurance min fine of $5,000. Several thousand kids injured or killed from accidental shootings. who is paying the hospital bills for these tragedies ?
The probability of accidentially causing injury with a gun you own is nearly the same as being involved in a plane crash. where as the probability of car accident is much higher. Consequently, gun accident insurance would be relatively cheep if it existed.
Piers Morgan really bothers me and I think CNN should remove him from the air. I don't think he should be questioning Americans about American culture, laws, or life style. Who made hime the authority about our country? If he is so smart and yet he doesn't understand our country's gun culture, then why is he trying so hard to change our laws?
If he doesn't who will? Americans clearly cannot govern themselves. Americans cannot agree on anything. Total gridlock and that is the way it will be in perpetuity now. The place is a bubbling cauldron or paranoia, intolerance, belligerence and fear. Home of the brave ... I have never seen such a culture of fear. People live in fear of everything. They are easily frightened and rush out to do things that make themselves feel safer. You really cannot understand this until you have lived outside the country or more importantly, were born outside the country and can take the blinders off. Isn't it odd that almost everyone in America that finds the many situations in the US like gun violence, health care, vacation time, obesity, etc absurd comes from somewhere other than America. I think a large segment of Americans are quite reasonable and decent people but they have been beaten down into submission by belligerent and vitriolic society.
You might know what this phrase means, but tonight you had an old fashioned American ass whoopin'.
by who? that little dweeb from the geek squad. That little twerp is scared of his own shadow.
Piers to answer your question on why citizens need semi-auto or automatic weapons is simply because the 2nd amendment was created protect “WE THE PEOPLE” from the government if it ever were to go rouge. Not for bubba to murder innocent animals for sport. Eliminating or stripping our rights down of Americans rights to a pee-pee shooter and under the deceptiveness of; “Help, help. Help me from mental health people” is truly silly. See Britain didn’t commit itself truly from freedom of “The Monarchy” like France so it’s not a republic like this “America”. So, it’s not hard for people to scratch their heads at you and your silly point of viewsssssssssss.
With the latest shooting and so many people looking for answers on how we as a society can become a safer place by implementing tougher gun regulations, locking up the schools, posting armed guards, etc....I got to thinking. It is more than that. It is not about going on the defense. WE MUST GO ON THE OFFENSE! Here is what I suggest:
There is a time in every child's life when they transition from the naive innocence of toddlers, into a very aware, impressionable, insecure, teenager who is trying to figure out who they are and where they fit in. It is during these ages when kids start to learn about real life problems and come out of their safe bubble and face the challenges of life head on. This time is very scary to children and can push children down a road of happiness, joy, fun, and success...or toward a place of loneliness, sadness, anger, rejection, and hatred. It is during this time that we must pay close attention and help guide our children down the right path. Both parents and schools need to be involved. It is the single most important investment to our families and society we can make. Here is how:
During the ages of 10-16 – when a child is most impressionable, when life habits are formed, relationships are established, and self confidence is either formed or destroyed...I wish our schools could implement a program called "Empower" (or something like that). This program would require children to meet with a "Life Coach" once per week. The coach would work with kids on goal setting, building positive lifestyle habits, confidence, humility, self esteem, charity, and how to handle rejection, failure, pain, anger, bullying, etc. These coaches would send home assignments for the family to work on together that would involve the parents, allowing these lessons to be followed through in their homes. These coaches would not only make an impact on society, but they would also be able to keep an eye out for any children that have a mental illness or who need special attention with managing their anger or issues with classmates, teachers, parents or any authority figure. These coaches would help children to learn how to make smart choices, handle conflict, set goals and build confidence.
I am already preparing an outline to take to 3 local school PTO focus groups to get their feedback. We then plan to take this proposal to the OSU education and mental health departments to see what kind of curriculum could be formed to implement the certification of these type of Student Life Coaches. Once the program outline is complete, we hope to take a complete proposal to the Ohio Department of Education for permission to run a pilot program in 3-5 schools systems in Ohio who need help with troubled students. If successful, we hope to seek national funding. (Tony Robbins...we could really use your help!)
So personally, I do not believe in banning guns, but I would like to see automatic and semi-automatic guns no longer available to the general public. (Mass shootings cannot happen with a handgun) However I do not believe that schools need armed guards, just locked doors and proper entrance procedures. If any investment is going to be made in improving our society and keeping our families safe...I would rather the investment be made in helping our children to navigate life in a positive way. We need to play "offense", not "defense" instead creating more laws and regulations!
What do you think?
Look, I appreciate a thoughtful response, but you need to do a lot more research.
A mass shooting can't happen with handguns? REALLY? Dunblane Scotland? Virginia Tech? I mean the list is REALLY REALLY long!
This is part of the block to sensible debate. People don't understand the capabilities of different kinds of guns. Ask most gun owners what they would have if they could only have one gun and they will say shotgun, not AR, AK, 9mm or whatever. But, the fact is, all guns can kill. That is what they were ultimately designed for. The vast majority of gun owners are capable of knowing when and how to use them. A crazy person will kill with or without a gun.
And it only takes one accurate shot to stop the bad guy. I don"t care how many bullets he misses with, I only need one accurate hit and the fight is over.
Not at all true, Jackie. That is an EXTREMELY dangerous assumption. Read the story from Georgia about the woman who emptied a 38 into a guy who ended up walking away. That is very common.
There is a strong relationship between the volume of shots by police and the probability of killing the suspect. In 17 incidents in which police fired three times or less, only two persons died. In 12 incidents in which four or more shots were fired, nine persons died.
Most of the deaths resulted in “bunch shootings” involving two or more officers. There were seven of these, five of them ending in death.
Of 11 persons fatally shot by Portland police during the past four years, the average number of bullet strikes was 9.3.
– Portland police fired a total of 186 shots and scored 112 hits – missing 40 percent of their shots.
"The Oregonian Study"
The police officer’s potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant’s skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ….. 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ….. 28%
3 yards to 7 yards …. 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.
I saw the new report you did. I own a 38 special. She need more training with that firearm is all I can say. I have always dove hunted with a Remington 870 and almost never missed a shot. I one day purchased an 1100 semi-automatic for reason I really don’t know. The result was not what one would expect. I went from a pump to a semi-automatic in the same weapon and my accuracy took a nose dive yet the number of shells spent went through the roof. I have seen police and bad guy video where both emptied the gun and bullets everywhere without anyone getting hit. Think about that. One shot is all that was needed to put the suspect down, but blasting away was all anyone could think about. They forgot to keep the front sight in view and place the shot where it counts. I have studied many reports like you have shown and the flaw is that people don’t aim when they know that they have another shot right behind that one.
I'm glad you could decipher those poorly pasted studies of mine, and I'm even more glad that you're seriously studying use of force scenarios.
Here's my concern- as a former military medic with extensive combat trauma training and someone who works in law enforcement, I can tell you that the only way to guarantee a one shot stop is to penetrate the skull or spine. There are numerous instances from the LE world of suspects taking ten or fifteen rounds and continuing to advance on an officer. Many of them will even walk to the ambulance afterwards if given the opportunity. Even if you destroyed the heart completely, the brain will still have around ten seconds of brain function left before the lights go off. That is a long time during a murderous rampage.
Be careful and plan accordingly. I would keep those 19 round magazines. :)
Just a point, and I think your opinion is well founded. But, most handguns that are not revolvers are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means that one action of the trigger causes a single round to be fired. A handgun and a commercially available "semi-automatic assault rifle" in the right (or wrong) hands can be fired at almost the same rate. There are things that we need to think about as a society and I don't claim to know what they are.
Very good point John and Jeremy. I was only trying to say that if Sandy Hook shooter had a handgun with 7 to 20 rounds, then they might only be burying 8 to 10 bodies instead of 26. But my main point is that banning guns is a stupid idea and helping kids with self confidence, goal setting, pier pressure, etc is a smarter investment of time and energy. In the end our troubled youth can be helped to become better citizens who will be able to be trusted with guns as adults. Piers needs to get off the 2nd Amendment and leave the NRA alone!
The point was to say that banning guns and putting armed guards in every school and public place is a defensive move. A better approach is to go on offense and help our kids learn about life, navigate the challenges during those critical ages of 8 – 16, make smart decisions, and become more productive in society. Invest in our KIDS...and believe in our country and our people. Don't take away our right to bear arms.
In these particular cases that really is the problem isn't it?
The only guests that Piers can have a civil conversation with are those that agree with his position. Dare any quest diisagree with him. They will constantly be interrupted and not allowed to finish their sentences. Instead of having a constructive conversation, Peirs tries to paint the guest in a corner, acts aggressive, put words in their mouth and treats people with little or no respect. Thats called "Bulllying" isn't it? Shipiro did a great job tonight. He remained calm while Piers lost his composure. I understand what Morgan is trying to accomplish but suggest he rethinks his strategy on how to accomplish it. He looked like a loud mouth Bully tonight.
Finally a voice of reason and a young man with the guts and IQ points to stand up to Piers and his intimidating and manipulative BS. I agree Shapiro was excellent – but you had to listen to what he was saying. I wish Shapiro had a full hour with PM. I am also wishing that George Will would get an invitation. I think CNN cherry picked Alex Jones – they knew how he would behave. It was a set-up. Morgan met his match in Shapiro – and you could tell he (Morgan) couldn't wait to get rid of him (Shapiro). PM fell back on his weak script, "What kind of weapon did this or that," questions intended to manipulate rather than illuminate.
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.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
You can't combat violence by trying to remove the tools of violence. Bare hands kill more people than assault rifles.
I'm curious, how many of you liberals in here think voter id laws suppress minorities right to vote?
I am watching this issue very closely, enough is enough, how many other children have to be buried before something is finally done? Thank you Piers for continuing to discuss this issue. I completely support your position and I wish with every ounce of my soul that you succeed. I have been a grade one teacher in Canada for 14 years and in the last four have been routinely practicing lockdown drills. I can't describe to you the pain I feel when I think about what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. My heart breaks again and again for the children and teachers who were murdered and I can't imagine how those families are coping. People all over the world are watching America, don't let us down!
Why are you doing lockdown drills with all those gun laws? Isn't Canada a crime free utopia? Are you saying that if we pass all the same laws as Canada we'll still have violence in our schools?
Maybe we should just get an armed guard instead and save some kids lives instead of this "process of elimination" nonsense.
NOONE is immune to severely mentally ill people from committing horrific acts of violence. Lockdown drills are a preventative and extremely SAD reality of the world we live in now. I am extremely thankful for the gun laws that we have and am sure that they have prevented massacres of people from occurring. It isn't the entire solution but its a damn good start! Armed guards?? Are you kidding me?? Invest in identifying these people before they commit crimes. Parents, health care officials, police officers.....need to share information and be proactive rather than reactive. Invest in education and put people in schools to mentor children who are at risk and develop programs to help them. Communicate with each other!!! Start talking about mental health BUT first keep weapons out of their hands!!
Lisa, you can't legislate the world into total safety. There is almost zero firearms ownership in China and they have still had at least one mass shooting with a military rifle (actual military rifle) and they frequently have guys run into schools and start stabbing kids. This happened six times in a seven month period in 2010. That's where you're headed if you focus on the tools of violence instead of the causes of violence.
Columbine happened because the armed guard was off site for lunch. This proves that armed guards are a deterrent, that's why Clinton suggested we do it nationwide. The shooting in California today happened on the one day the armed guard was snowed in and couldn't make it to schools.
I'm not sure if you saw it but you can find it on YouTube. ABC's "A Child's Solution to Gun Violence" was an interview with Brooklyn schoolchildren, about 8 or 9 years old. They were not only able to correctly articulate that guns aren't good or bad, but they also said that an armed guard in their school would make them feel SAFER. So for whose benefit are you keeping guns out of school? Theirs or yours?
Every vestige of civilization we have is because people with guns will enforce the law. Even in the UK, if the unarmed bobbies can't stop you, someone will be along shortly who will. Schools are no different, only in schools "someone will be along shortly" means dead children.
Please let us protect our children instead of encouraging Americans to chase an unachievable objective that wouldn't solve anything even if we managed to become gun free China. We can't keep guns out of this country. Outlaw them all and they'll just come in the way the drugs and illegal immigrants do. And this time only the criminals will have them.
Lisa, I feel sorry for those children too. What I want to point out is that they were completely defenseless, completely unprotected from a mad person. No one in their right mind should be naive to think that bad people, psychopaths, terrorists, drug dealers, etc., will obey laws that are there. The only people that obey weapon bans are the good guys, leaving the good guys defenseless. I believe also that gun free zones tell the bad guys that they have nothing to fear, that there is no one there to shoot back.
I thank you for your comments, discussion is what is going to create change. Perhaps I need to clarify my position. I am not against guns in the hands of responsible gun owners. My husband, father and many people I know own guns. They use them to hunt, target shoot and lastly for protection if needed. I believe people DO NOT need to own weapons that discharge enormous amounts of bullets per second. It is ridiculous. If you hunt for food, which we do, this type of gun would destroy the meat of the animal, and where is the thrill of the hunt in that?? Those types of guns may be fun for target shooting, so have secure, guarded places where people can do that. When you own a gun for protection, you had best be very well versed in how to use it and practice on a regular basis. A gun with even a few bullets should be enough if you know what you are doing. WHY do we need semi-automatic or automatic weapons out there just waiting for some deranged person to get their hands on it and commit horrific crimes? I don't believe for one second that your second amendment was meant to protect people who want to own these types of guns. People use it as an excuse and are not thinking logically and clearly. These kinds of guns are meant for the military period.
The problem is not only about guns, but it is a first step. Mental health issues and support for education is the next component. I believe I spoke about that already.
So in the meantime, while all these changes and reforms are occurring how do you protect schools? Staff and students should be trained in some form of self defense, bullet proof glass should be installed. panic buttons in classrooms that can be pressed to have doors lock immediately and rooms installed to get into within the classroom, panic rooms in hallways and bathrooms for students and staff, a safe perimeter around the school field well away from entrances and windows that can be monitored by security guards and dogs. So many dogs in shelters, why can't they be trained to protect schools. I own a large dog and I don't lock my door at night. Metal detectors, watch towers.... located in this safe perimeter. Let's get creative rather than automatically put a person with a gun at the door of the school, what if that person is mentally unstable?? What if they are not able to disarm an intruder, then what?? What if children are shot by friendly fire?? What if the guard is sick? Has to go to the bathroom? Maybe we need two guards...
To make schools COMPLETELY safe and secure is going to take billions of dollars. Are taxpayers going to do that? Here's an idea, how about we start with getting rid of the weapon in the first place? And yes, guns and knives will always exist, but I am sure my chances of surviving will be alot higher with a knife and a gun that discharges six bullets than with a gun that sprays multiple rounds per second!! Is this not common sense??
if someone accused me of "dancing on the graves of children" i would dismiss as a unintelligent person also. ben shapiro is one of the biggest jokes if seen on television in awhile, i see why the zimmerman camp supports him.
It doesn't have to be compelling, you didn't make a point. Why do you disagree with Ben Shapiro? Specifically?
Enjoyed watching Mr Morgan get his British crumpet's handed to him tonight. You can alway tell when a host is loosing control. They start asking another question as soon a the "guest" begins answering the previous question. Finally someone spoke the truth, I have my .40 S&M to protect me from home invasion, but I have my 5.56 Colt to protect me from my government. I will refuse to get into the cattle car voluntarily.
All due respect to the freedom of speech... But that was BS... You may not be able to buy 6 boxes of sudafed at a time but you can sure as hell buy meth made from it in every city in the world... I was raised in the mountains to respect weapons and all my kids are taught the same respect. The problem is that it isn't taught anymore by every american home. The point was for americans to be able to keep our government from becoming a dictatorship. Morgan is from a country that still has a dictator... If a city has a huge gang violence problem with armed thugs, the citizens should take control of their town. But hey... I'm sure if the government makes the assault weapons illegal that all the criminals will turn them in, right?!?
Somebody needs to tell this pipsqueak Shapiro, that if the United States government wants to come into his home and take him out, that is what is going to happen. No matter how well he is equiped, he and anybody who thinks they can hold back said government, will be leaving either with their hands in the air or laying at their side in a body bag! This guy needs a reality check.
I guess the boston tea party and the colonial wars that cut our direct ties to the king of England were for nothing since people like you don't believe in standing up for your freedom. I pity the sheep in our society. They will be okay when the law on the floor of the senate passes to do away with presidential term limits. King Obama, right?!?! Some people need to get educated. Do a simple google search for "FEMA purchases in 2012." Then see why the people need to be armed.
You are dillusional and paranoid like shapiro. It's funny that you two refer to me as sheep and cattle. Sacrifice is TRUE freedom. Those who hang on to their life will lose it. Those who give it freely will have it eternal. My question to you two is, How do you know you will have the guts to pull the trigger and end someones life? You talk tough! But you don't and won't know until that moment presents itself. I'm not afraid of my government. But I see your point. Why not go down in a blaze of glory, right? But here's another thought. This country is different. Our ancestors came to this country to escape the tiranical countries they were in. I just don't see that happening here.
Sounds like you're already afraid of your government. You're a lost cause, but some of us still have some fight in us. I'll watch from the tree line while you and those like you get into the cattle cars for you free trip to their "work camps".
You and Rick J. sound like you're hearing voices. Maybe you need to check yourselves into the nearest mental health clinic? You two and others like you prove we need mental health facilities to open up again. Or maybe you need big guns to compensate for something small? Feel tough, do ya? Words hurt more than bullets ever will.
Looks like I struck a nerve there Dave. Just like Mr Morgan, when you're loosing the debate resort to name calling and personal attacks, what are you 7, or just a Democrate?
Hear that knockin? Thats the government gonna take all your guns. Here they come. They're comin to get ya......... You're a paranoid idiot. Just call it like I see it.
That really isn’t funny. There are people in the government that would like to do just that. I don’t want to see a bunch of Waco, Tx. deals on the news. I believe what Alex Jones said. He is not going to surrender his weapons without a fight. I'm just taking his word on that.
I am a gun owner but I have always been against military assault weapons and high capacity clips. I was furious when President Bush did away with the assault weapons ban and allowed high capacity clips. President Obama was the first Democrat I ever voted for. The Republican stance on guns was one of the reasons I gave up on the Republicans. I am a retired teacher and I have decided that I will never shop at any store that sells assault weapons. I have a Sam's Discover Card and since I heard that Walmart is the leading seller of assault weapons I have not used my Discover Card or shopped at Walmart or Sam's Club. I will continue my boycott until Walmart stops selling military style assault weapons. Americans can make a difference. Join me.
Wal-Mart doesn't sell assault rifles. Get a clue. Looks like youve been getting your information from Piers...for someone who claims to be a "teacher" you should do some homework...
Wal-Mart sells AR-15's.
He's saying that AR-15s are not assault rifles. An assault rifle is specifically what you would call a machine gun. "Assault Weapon" is a term intentionally thought up by Josh Sugarman to make a semiautomatic rifle sound like a machine gun/"weapon of war". It looks scary. It's just a rifle. So we who own them and haven't killed scores of school children object to the characterization of AR-15s as "assault rifles". The term is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. Not on your part, of course, because that's what Josh Sugarman wanted.
I fully agree with what you just said.
Very lively discussion and very good TV with Piers and Ben Shapiro! It was great watching the two debate!
The argument that people need automatic or semi-automatic weapons to protect themselves againts a government that turns tyrant does not hold water. If an American government ever turns tyrant, any automatic or semi-automatic weapon aimed at it, will be met by such force that automatic or semi-automatic weapons will appear as mikey mouse pea shooter. A mililitia wanting to oppose a tyrant US government should wish for a coup d'état not for an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
Thanks for a great review this week
Why do you think the American military will respond with such overwhelming force against its own cities and citizens? Even Syria's not doing that, they all need someplace to live.
The US military is our sons and daughter. If the government asked them to turn on us, they better look down their six.
Beacuse this is what tyranny is no?
but I don't beleive the US government will turn to tyanny and turn agaisnt it's own people, I beleive mass killings are a much bigger threat to the American People than government tyranny.
Sons and dauthers do turn againts their own in a tyranny, so as I said previously, hope for a coup d'état not for an automatic weapon.
There is no doubt that in a fight for our freedom a lot of us would die. But I would rather die a patriots death than live with a chain around my neck. So, those of you who are afraid, please go to the rear with the old people and children. You'll just get in the way at the front.
lets see, here are some facts
1. 151 Victims of Mass Shootings in 2012 (11,493 people died from gun homicides)
2. In America on average, nearly 12,000 people die every year in DUI-related accidents.
3. Smoking kills on average, 1200 Americans every day (on average of 400k a year)
4. The highest speed limit in the USA is 75 mph (Texas just passed 85 mph on one stretch of freeway and is considering lowering it back to 75) press release says that in 2010, 10,530 people lost their lives in speeding-related non dui car accidents in the U.S.
well it looks like more people are killed from drunk driving and smoking cigs then guns so how come alcohol and cigs are not banned or made illegal?
so with the highest speed limit being 75 in usa why do they make cars able to go faster than that? how come cars or not banned on having the ability to go faster then the nations speed limit? why are they produced and products made that allow them to go in some cases 3 times the speed limit? how come this is allowed?
well i will tell you why - MONEY - the usa makes boatloads of money off of alcohol, cigs with taxes and traffic tickets - if this stuff kills the same amount or more people in the usa than guns why are they allowed? but yet they want to do away with guns, this above should be dealt away with also cause it kills just as many and more people. some will say well it doesnt kill in masses like guns, lol. does it matter on that in the end it kills just as many or more
pretty interesting read there - here is one part very interesting
The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
notice #3 - now this is the us government attorneys saying this
Our government provided training and weapons to al qaeda and other terrorists (will give them the benefit of the doubt in maybe they didnt know were terrorist at that time) - also a fact they gave 1000's (over 2000 that is known) of guns to drug cartels and when it came to light they claimed it was a failed botch to catch them - but yet this is same government that wants to take away weapons from its citizens while they arm the terrorist and cartels
Consequences of Gun Control:
PERPETRATOR or GOVERNMENT DOING the KILLING: Uganda 1955-1970
Victims: Christians, Political Rivals NUMBER Murdered (estimate): 300,000 INNOCENTS
Date of GUN CONTROL Law: 1955-1970
PERPETRATOR or GOVERNMENT DOING the KILLING: SOVIET UNION: 1929-1953
Victims: Anti-Communists; Anti-Stalinist’s:
NUMBER Murdered (estimate): 20,000,000 MILLION INNOCENTS
Date of GUN CONTROL Law: 1929
PERPETRATOR or GOVERNMENT DOING the KILLING: NAZI GERMANY & Occupied Europe 1933-1945
Victims: Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis: NUMBER Murdered (estimate): 13,000,000 MILLION INNOCENTS
Date of GUN CONTROL Law:1928-1938
we should remember history and learn from it
Don't forget the 7,000 guns the NRA collected and gave to the British to defend itself against Germany during wwII.
I understand exactly what Piers is saying and why. What scares me are the ones who actually believe our government is going to turn against us and there will be a rebellion and that is why they are buying all these automatic weapons. I would not be surprised if some groups of these nuts try to assassinate the president or parts of government so they can start an uprising.
As a military veteran I see no place in the civilian populace for a MILITARY!!!!! weapon of any kind. Have your hunting rifles and your hand guns and whatever else you want but not the military assault weapons.
People hear what they want to hear and this fear mongering that the right and the NRA is flaming the fires with is just plain scary.
Piers, I am proud of you for standing your ground and not letting that little weasel get the better of you. It's sad when someone from another country gets it and some of our own country's citizens do not.
I liked you before and I am now a dedicated true fan. Keep up the great work!!!!
okay what is the difference between a mini 14 ranch rifle (established hunting rifle) and an AR15 - there is no difference period besides looks - both shoot 223 or 7.62 both have high cap mags there isnt one bit of difference but looks - AR15 just looks meaner
Alex Jones lost the respect I had for him. He acted like a complete A$$ and wouldn't answer any of Piers Morgans questions. Alex claims to be an "Intelligent" person. He proved that claim to be a lie.
Looks like CNN won't post all comments. They are the ones standing on the backs of the innocent victims of a mentally unstable person. Piers is just an idiot puppet who tries to be the left's Bill OReilly...except Morgan doesn't do any homework. The fool Brit just called Sudafed "painkillers"!! The idiot bases an argument about assault rifle ownership on limited access to Sudafed...he doesnt even KNOW that the product contains the necessary precursor for methamphetamine, hence the limit on the product. Meth kills waaaay more people than assault rifles and yet people can still buy it. CNN = FAIL and Piers = LOSE. Shapiro owned you and anyone that would score their debate tonight any other way isn't able to separate emotion from reason...just the kind of person that SHOULDN'T own any type of weapon.
Agree. Meth kills a lot more people. I find it really odd that he brings up sudafed every night.
I noticed they won't post a comment of mine on what regulations (were they to be inevitable) I can support... as a gun owner
People, educate yourself before you make such idiotic statements. Go ask any law enforcement officer this one question. "If you had a service weapon that only had a clip that would hold 10 rounds, would that be adequate to protect themselves or do their job???". If the answer is no, then why in the hell do all the anti-gun advocates think it would be adequate to protect me and my family against the very same criminals??? Let alone that when the crap hits the fan, there is usually more than 1 cop that shows up. I wish this question would be asked by the media. Just look at how many police departments still carry revolvers.......they don't. They all have semi-automatic hand guns with High Capacity Magazines, Shotguns, and in many departments they have AR-15's. Just food for thought!!!! Don't take away guns from legal and responsible gun owners!!!! Everyone says "but you don't need an AR-15" Americans don't need huge SUV's, they dont need to drink alcohol, but these kill more people each day than all the so called Assault Weapons Massacres combined!!!
I disagree with you. The 45 acp is a very fine weapon and many police officers love it. It doesn't hold even 10 rounds.
The 1911 does not, correct. But there are doublestack 1911s that do as well as the Glock 21 and 30. If LEOs have their choice, they'll usually pick capacity.
My condolences go out to all the victims of these atrocities, my heart truely goes out to you all I always have you in my prayers. I have been seeing this and following this for awhile and I feel that every situation is different. There are pockets in the US need to have firearms and espcially "assault weapons". I live in deep South Texas on the US-Mexican border and the violence happening in Mexico is spillling over here a bit everyday, actually it is already here but it is hard to admit. The local ranchers who have their ranches right on the river are in danger of the violence across the border. They have upgraded their weaponary from small arms and shotguns to ARs and AK-47s. After some of them have been threatened by drug smugglers and illegals crossing the river onto the US side. We need them down here for protection. We also some police departments in dire straits from the ammo shortages because of the rush of the US gun owners buying up ammo, including yours truely. I am a business owner licensed carrier of a gun and also a proud member of the NRA. Before anybody passes judgement come down to the all border towns here in Texas and see what we go through. The local store robberies are be conducted with with shotguns and some with "assault rifles" . So we need are weapons down here be it a revovler, semi-auto handgun, lever action rifle, shot gun or "assault weapon". At my place of business we upgraded our security by having our arms on us and having some stashed around the business. We had an incidient there 2 yrs ago and are not taking chances anymore. Like I say for all the people who are ant-gun come down to all the border-towns form my neck of the woods all to California. Our world is different down here. Your friend #6
I also don't believe an Ar-15 will be of much use when a US tank blows your house apart at the end of civilization as we know it.
But all of you that think that baning this assault weapon will somehow save lives are a delusional as Piers.
Truth is that lots of common weapons (22 caliber riffle, Pump Shotguns, Semi-automatic Shotguns) are just as deadly when shooting high densities of unarmed people.
Reloading, not a problem. Anyone experinces with a weapon like this will tell you that a standard 22 riffle holds 19 hollow point shells, and shotgun holds five shells and can reloaded continuously.
People, learn the facts, don't talk stupidilty like Piers. If you never seen or touched a gun, you really need to get educated. Take a class. What you will learn is tha ALL guns are deadly.
So banning he AR-15, it will only make you feel better, but will do nothing to stop the bad guys from killing as many as they possible can with other weapons that are very common.
Very well said. But I still think I have the right to at least try to stop the tank with my weapon(s) of choice.
Well said. I don't even like the AR-15, but banning it only makes people feel good and does nothing to solve the probelm. It is just another semi-automatic weapon.
Shapiro absolutley owned the a-hol piers "no-man" morgan
Piers, I applaud your passion on this issue of "semi-automatic assault weapons." BUT, Im concerned that you do not have regard for the fact that most murders and most gun violence is attributed to handguns as was pointed out very correctly by Mr Shapiro. I understand that handguns haven't been utilized in "mass shootings" but over 500 dead in a year in Chicago and currently 2 a day pace with over 50 handguns confiscated already in the same city sounds like the nation is hemorrhaging deaths of young people. Further the fact that you disregarded Mr Shapiro's statements regarding this makes me feel that 500 young impoverished children/young adults may not be as important to you. Any innocent death is one that should be observed. And, whether or not you or I agree with it, Guns DONT kill people, PEOPLE kill people.
he tried to change the subject when Shapiro backed him into the corner with a check mate on that issue.
Absolutely. Piers, like many other people, does not realize that most guns bought are "semi automatic" (as Mr Shapiro pointed our) and many handguns can have "high capacity magazines." The media is off base, and Piers is right there with them.
Handguns have been used in mass shootings, just not the last few High profile ones. Oak Creek shooter used a handgun, the Arizona shooter used a handgun, the Binghamton, NY shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter used 2 (killed 32 people). And that is just going back to 2007, and I bet I am missing a few
I agree 100%. My point is that Piers and much of the media have tunnel-vision on this issue. A gun is a gun and its the people behind them that should be judged. Banning an assault-rifle over a pistol is not going to solve the problem. Neither is banning all guns. I don't have a solution but I think some of this information is crucial to understanding and making better efforts at doing the right thing.
Don't forget that there's been a handgun ban in Chicago since 1982, and an assault weapon ban for at least ten years.
Shapiro is one heck of an intelligent guy.. He absolutely took Piers down to China town.
Morgan is an idiot.. He will be off the air within 24 months. Terrible man, terrible show, terrible debater.
Finally someone holds Piers accountable. Ben Shapiro presents the most logical rational arguments and calls Piers out.
How much time has Piers devoted to services available to the mentally ill and the issues associated with keeping guns away from the criminals and the mentally ill..... nil!!!!!! Piers does not even understand the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons! He needs a gun safety course from the NRA to even understand the issue which he will never do unless challenged.. I respected Piers until this issue where he is NOT balanced and does leverage the CT shooting.
Piers Morgan is an unethical and dishonest person. He has no honor! I refuse to continue to watch CNN as long as he remains employed there. This is why he is no longer in England: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm
Dram shop laws for gun manufactures – We should pass legislation making gun manufacturers strictly liable for injury caused to an innocent party by the unlawful use of any assault weapon, including semi-automatic weapons that have been altered subsequent to manufacturing. At this point, injury in such case is indisputably foreseeable. That will eradicate the need to convince anyone that gun restrictions are necessary because gun manufacturers will be economically incentivized to lead the cause on their own. The profit from the sale of an assault weapon will far exceed the risk of liability.
lol - sure the same day beer and alcohol makers are held liable for drunks - or the car makers for making vehicles accessible to drunks
And we should make car manufacturers responsible for every injury in a car accident, right?
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!
Wow is right. First, Piers thank you for keeping it more civilized than some of your previous interviews. Though I do not believe you intended to be insulting, 'your little book' and throwing it on the table. Really? Definitely not appropriate. You may have as well have thrown down a US flag and called it 'your little cloth'.
Second, Mr. Shapiro was correct on many points. I believe the founding fathers were concerned about the government, hence the reason for inclusion of the 2nd amendment (we had just won our freedom). I am not really concerned about tyrannical government taking control today, but history is rife with occurrences of that. I keep my rifles for the enjoyment of shooting them.
Third, you took great exception to Mr. Shapiro's 'standing on the grave' comment, don't blame you. However, the way you feel/felt is exactly how many gun owners (myself included) felt when individuals in the media and gun control advocates were portraying gun owners as unfeeling, or uncaring about the children whenever we disagreed with the idea of gun control. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Just prior to your show, I watched Vice President Biden paint a mental image of dead children "riddled with bullets", repeating it again, driving home a picture in peoples mind. I understand he is was trying to emphasize the severity of what happened, however thought that type of graphic description was insensitive to any of the family and friends of those children (and the adults murdered).
Banning high capacity magazines. Would it do any good? Has anyone looked at how fast magazines can be changed out. Very quickly for a practiced individual.
Finally. We cannot stop illegal drugs from coming into this country. How on earth would we stop illegals guns or banned magazines from entering? Finishing on that note, it is only criminals dealing in the drug trade. Who do you thinking would be dealing in the 'banned weapons' trade? Some of the exact same people we do not want to have guns now...the criminals.
Does the irony of Fast and Furious come to mind or is that just a selective oversight?
how about these were citizens stopped killers
armed citizens actually saved the cop http://cdllife.com/2012/trucker-life/video-armed-citizen-stops-shooting-spree/
On Dec. 17, 1991, Thomas Glenn Terry, who was at the Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Ala., and carrying his .45 caliber handgun, confronted a trio of would-be robbers and possible assassins. In a firefight, he killed one and wounded a second. The armed robbers, one of whom was wanted for murder, had 20 customers and employees in a walk-in freezer.
On Oct. 1, 1997, in Pearl, Miss., Joel Myrick, the assistant principal of Pearl High School, ran to his car to retrieve his .45-caliber handgun and proceeded to confront Luke Woodham, who had killed his mother, then drove to the school to shoot others. When Myrick confronted Woodham, the carnage was stopped.
On April 24, 1998, at the Parker Middle School dance, held at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., restaurant owner James Strand confronted shooter Andrew Jerome Wurst, who had shot to death a teacher and wounded three other individuals. The confrontation prompted Wurst to stop his killings.
On Dec. 9, 2007, Jeanne Assam, an armed security guard, fired her weapon at Matthew Murray, who had murdered four people at the New Life Christian Church and the nearby Youth with a Mission in Colorado Springs. Murray, who by then had killed two and wounded four others, shot himself after being wounded by Assam, who shot him with her personal weapon.
On May 25, 2008, Ernesto Villagomez entered a bar and proceeded to gun down four people, killing two at the crowded Players Bar and Grill in Winnemucca, Nev. An armed patron at the bar drew his licensed handgun and fired at Villagomez, killing him and preventing further bloodshed.
On Dec. 11, 2012, Nick Melli, who was at the Clackamas Mall near Portland, Ore., drew his licensed pistol and aimed at Jacob Tyler Roberts, who had fired at least 20 rounds, killing two and injuring others. Upon seeing Melli aiming at him, Roberts stopped his killing spree and killed himself.
Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
Whatever you say about Piers, whether you agree with him or not, at least he's trying to actually do something to change the archaic thinking about guns in America. Coming from Canada you gun advocates sound like a bunch of hillbillies who need to move on from the "wild wild west" it's gone....let it go...you Americans are so self indulgent....learn about other countries and stop making fools of yourselves.
I'm a Law Enforcement Officer and after Piers interview with Mr Pratt I decided to do the research. I contacted friends at Wormwood Scrubbs prison system, others who work with men of violent crime in Britain add others. It was interesting, is in 2012, Britain had 1.2 million violent crimes. That's 2,038 per 100,000 citizens. Meanwhile, the US had 466 violent crimes per 100,000, France had 505/100k. It is true, Britain has the highest rate of violent crime. Another interesting point is Britain had 138,000 stabbings in 2010, that's 1 stabbing every 4 minutes: these are from British Gov stats. Switchblades were banned in 1959, more knife bans in later years. In 2012, there was a move to ban long kitchen knives. Piers should do better to report on these facts. Yes, we need enforcement of gun laws in the US, but for him to exclaim British crime is low is wrong
So Brits are four time more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an American? Maybe they should think about getting a gun to protect themselves?
This topic has been researched and commented on previously in Newspapers in both countries soon after Connecticut. Quoting British and American violent crime reports does not reflect the true comparative occurrences. Britain, Australia and Canada for example prosecute violent crime differently and more vigorously compared to the U.S. Some crimes deemed a misdemeanor in many U.S. states are punished via recorded convictions, fines and even incarceration in the above countries and other former British colonies using this system. In those stats are included domestic violence and common assaults such as nightclub fights (without knives or other weapons) etc. The likely-hood of getting attacked, beaten or blown away in any of these countries is way lower in public and way lower in your own home than in the U.S. Hospital admissions from assault data proves this. In fact many Australian Doctors do some training in U.S. teaching Hospitals to learn how to deal with gunshot wounds, because the incidence of gun shot wounds here is not high enough to provide adequate training in the rare case that they would need to treat it.
wow Piers has sunken to a new low, Thats all we need is this journalistic sod trying to profit from this horrible event. He is not qualified to moderate any discussion on gun control here in the states. He is a corporate shill trying to futhter his carrier using the american people in the process. The sooner this poor excuse for a journalist self deports the better. he is sicking with his obivious posturing , he needs a podium not a chair. I say go back to england and tap some more phone. off you go.
Lets not blame it on the guns its the society. We today society don't care about our children's health. If we did. This would not happen. For 300 yrs countries had guns and children didn't kill each other cause the society fit in to fix the Parents problem. But lets blame it on the society like the parents, teachers, aunts, uncles, most of all counselors cause they suppose to help the children find if they have problems at home, school, work, it also could be on relationships. Today our children watch violent movies and play violent games. Who is the blame now? That's the question we need to ask ourselves
I see Pierce ask Ben the question; why does anyone need an AR-15? Why does anyone need a car that can go 180 miles per hour? why does a single guy need a 15 bedroom home? How about because I want one. It doesn't matter why, the fact is if you have a car that can go more than the speed limit does that mean you should have it taken away and have to ride a bicycle? That is why we have to TRUST ADULTS to do the right thing. The back ground check, I agree with, but if I like to go out on the weekend once or twice a month and shoot at the range, it is not illegal and the government should have NO say in how I spend my weekend... I feel bad for these kids that are hurt and I would in no way say that some punk going into a school is a good thing. Where did he get the weapon, if he is a high school student, he didn't buy it himself. Where is the adult that should have been responsible for that weapon? Hold them accountable. Yes I know he killed his mom too. She knew her son had issues, she should have secured the weapon so he couldn't have access. I have a safe and my kids have no idea how to open it. Following this thought process an object that has no brain and has no way to make a decision is responsible for doing something wrong. Around the same time as the last school shooting a man in China slashed around 20 people with a knife. Should we outlaw knifes? Following the same thought process, yes we should. If you're thinking that is stupid, you're right.
#1 Tony Robbins was so right when he brought up the issue of testosterone tonight. There are too many young men reaching puberty who do not have a strong male figure in their life to help them understand & manage their raging hormones.
#2 All the background checks in the world won't help safeguard people if gun owners fail to secure their weapons. Where is their accountability?
#3 You might be amazed at how many men who are hard working & employed really believe in the possibility that they may need to protect themselves from their own government. My own son falls into that category.
I could not disagree more strongly about the testosterone. In fact, testosterone levels have gone down on average over the last fifty years.
I could not AGREE more about the role models. I'm not a big fan of the Republican "family" dogma, but as someone who has worked with inner city kids, those kids are all entirely on their own.
THIS is the great hypocrisy of the gun control movement claiming to give a crap about "gun violence". Take a subset of the population that is financially rewarded for having children out of wedlock and staying unemployed, and the only role models they have are misogynistic thugs who encourage kids to achieve status through violence.
Now take away the guns. So the hell what? What got better? First, you CAN'T take away the guns any more than you can take away the drugs, and second kids clearly don't need guns to kill each other. Focus on taking away the guns for thirty years and you'll have Chicago- record violence.
So no, they don't care about violence, they care about guns. Why that is...beats me.
You DO understand how the United States came into being, right?
By kicking limey butt? I kid, Brits. I kid.
I love how Americans "romanticize" history. Folklore is a wonderful tool for building patriotism etc, and the notion that the revolutionaries were a superior force to the British Army is wrong. They didn't do too badly for a bunch of "rabble" but I think the term "kicking butt" is way too colorful. A different historical (and perhaps more accurate) viewpoint on this subject paints a very different picture about reason the revolution eventually succeeded. The main reason for it's success, was that the Brit's gave up due to the logistical problems and expense of waging a war far from home.(Just like America gave up in Vietnam) The success of Benjamin Franklin as a diplomat also played a major part. In reality the Royal Navy could have blockaded all American ports and strangled all of the American colonies economies over time if it wished to do so, but it was far busier using these forces to oppress the rest of the world and gather the riches from other places. Perhaps this romanticism is what endears the Second Amendment so close to your hearts, clinging on to the past triumphs and well meaning words which in turn stifles any transition of your society into one comparable to that of other developed nations where residents can walk around free from the burden of having to carry a gun... Think about it...BTW In Australia we have a British Queen but she doesn't visit much, so she lets us make our own decisions such as restricting semi-auto weapons.... That is why 4 of the top ten livable cities in the world are in Australia. Don't forget the other 3 in Canada, 1 in New Zealand etc, the first American city on the list is Honolulu at number 26, so you get my drift don't you?
Oh COME ON! I said I was kidding, man. It's all water under the bridge. Tea in the harbor if you will. You guys are our best buds now, so don't let those knickers get unnecessarily twisted.
But to address your argument, it sounds an awful lot like an inferior fighting force that could be described as "rabble" armed with little more than rifles driving out the world's preeminent military power. Something I've seen described here repeatedly as impossible.
As for the rest of your rant about America, I won't ask to see where you got your list and who ranked them and what criteria made them "livable". I will just ask that you not make sweeping generalizations based on very little information.
We have a two thousand mile unsecured border with Mexico, we have twice as much coastline as the entire UK, we have 34 cities with over half a million people in them, we have six states including Connecticut that have no way to involuntarily hospitalize someone for mental health issues, and we have an inner city drug/gang/violence problem that accounts for the vast majority of our violent crime and no hope at all of anyone doing anything about it in the near future because people keep insisting on blaming guns for violence instead of working on actual workable solutions.
So perhaps it's a latent longing for the days of the Empire that makes certain Brits poke their noses into America's business. It doesn't really matter though. I've met a lot more of them that come here to stay because they like our gun laws.
Hey kantill, Richard was using a 'figure of speech'. We need your voice to speak for us- meaning: Piers has a platform with huge audience. He's an effective advocate for gun control laws.
Kantill, pls read on the comments carefully and understand before making a counter argument. You look silly most of the time.
Ben Shapiro needs resistance to tyranny againts their own government, what a joke the US now has drones we are all screwed. A miltary style gun wont save any of you fools, imagine what it will be like in a few hundred years. Ben Shapiro needs to get educated and anyone fooled into this way of thinking is dumb. Keep it up PM
Piers is incessant interrupter and mostly boring. In GC discussions, he throws a hissy fit, calling folks liars and loses all decorum when his guests are confident and prepared in sharing their opinions. We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs ties- our liberties shouldn't be held hostage by the actions of terrorists (crazy folks) or the fears of those would abdicate their rights.
Undeniably the USA does not have a good record on voilent crime, so there is something to be done here, and that is of common interest to us all.
The statistics are stark,
2010/11 USA homicides 16,208 or 2290 per million of which fire arms were used 65% of the time.
2010/11 UK homicides 646 or 13 per million of which firearms were used 7% of the time.
2004/5 EU homicides ranged from 23.4 per million in Finland to 6.1 per million in Austria (sorry will try to get current data but it is likely to be lower)
(Citations can be provided).
One can see that the gun homicide rate in the USA is over 150 times more than the UK and even more than that compared to the EU overall.
So it is clear that the USA has a sickness.
And sicknesses need to be cured.
It is a painful process, but hey who said ´no pain no gain´.
So why not get behind the agenda to cure this great country of the USA of its sickness.
January 11, 2013 at 5:06 am | Report abuse
Citations SHOULD have been provided rather than posting bogus numbers and promising to back them up later.
2010 was the lowest violent crime has been since 1972, and was yet another record year for gun sales. See if you can spot where the problem is.
Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 percent) were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.)
Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.4 percent were black, 47.0 percent were white, and 2.6 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 152 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)
Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 90.3 percent were males. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)
Of the offenders for whom race was known, 53.1 percent were black, 44.6 percent were white, and 2.3 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,224 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)
Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.5 percent) involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 68.5 percent of the firearms used in murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in 2010. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)
Blacks are 13% of American population, and most of them are decent, hardworking Americans. It is a TINY fraction of our population that is killing each other off in mutual combat in drug and gang related crime in the inner city that makes up the lions share of our crime rate, and it often happens in cities where handguns are ALREADY illegal.
Who has said one useful thing about addressing the above? "Assault weapons"? That's going to do absolutely nothing to save any meaningful number of lives.
Hi Eric, thanks for your rejoinder,
I wish the stats were bogus but they are not, please check out the following links:
Crime Rate by State, 2010 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html#ixzz2FEmwOKzi
UK Homicide stats http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science...statistics/crime/crime-statistics
From these stats it can be shown that propensity of homicides with firearms in the USA is 150 times higher than the UK.
It may be even more than 150 times higher than the EU average rate.
Now I know that it is not straight forward comparing one, or even 27 countries with the USA, but the order of magnitude of the difference should make people take serious notice.
Having identified a problem, the issue, as ever, is how to solve it, and there we have a dilmema
Protagonists of domestic fire arms genuinely believe them to be needed for ensuring their security.
Antogonists do not
Evidence from an extensive study done by the Amercan Health Association showed that the ten states with the highest rate of ownership of firearms also had the highest rate of gun crime and the ten states with the lowest gun ownership rate had the lowest rates of gun crime. I can let you have the citation here if you like but its easy enough to check it out. Also from my other blogs.
Now, where do we go from here?
In my studies I have tried very hard to find research which provides a convincing contrary argument, there are a lot of hyped statements, but nothing academic or professional. Maybe you may provide me with a reference or two please.
Eric you are man of facts, I can tell. Another very disturbing one is that in 2010 there were 37,000 suicides in the USA of which 65% used a firearms. This means that there are more suicides than homicides using firearms.
There are many studies on this one. Pschologists tend to concur that the easy availability of firearms in the house makes successful suicides more probable. I think that this is logical. Suicide rates in low gun owning states are also lower as well as homicides Eric.
So we have a double win win here, by reducing the rate of gun ownership in total, not just certain weapons, both homicide and suicide will reduce and all the good citizens of the USA will be less fearfull in this great society.
You may like to check out my research paper on the economics of US gun control, If you do I´d be happy to post the link.
No Douglas, first let me thank YOU for doing the work to not respond with “you’re stupid”. That is most appreciated. As I have become accustomed to such responses I will go ahead and apologize in advance if my responses are terse.
My very first issue with your claim is the source you referenced regarding US violent crime. That is a state by state listing. Did you add them all up? That seems like an awful lot of work for an internet argument and I admire the effort you must have put into it. I will offer the following website to make life easier for you.
This is the FBIs homicide data for 2010. It not only gives the number of homicides but breaks it down into the demographic data I posted above. It very clearly shows that the majority of the US violent crime problem is in the inner cities, among a small segment of the black population. This does not mean “it’s black people’s fault”, it means that an enormous amount of good could be done by focusing on one small area, which everyone should be able to agree is a worthwhile goal.
This is not being done. Instead, the media that remained relatively silent through all of 2012 as black kids killed each other off with anything they could get their hands on launches into a 24/7 media campaign the moment rich white kids are killed in a way that they can exploit to further an agenda.
As for the UK, I’m sure you’re aware that both countries collect data differently. US data does not include simple assaults, where UK data does. The US however counts every time charges are filed against a suspect for a crime even if the suspect is later found innocent, and the UK only counts convictions. Both differences make it very difficult to compare statistics as you correctly acknowledged.
However, per the Home Office and the FBI UCR-
In 2011 England and Wales had 762,515 violent crime offenses. In a population of 56 million that’s 1361 per 100,000. This is excluding Northern Ireland and Scotland, as they have a higher crime rate.
In 2011 the US had a violent crime rate of 386.3 per 100,000.
The magnitude of the difference should make people take notice. We have more gun crime, but the UK has more violent crime.
And it should be no surprise that we have more gun crime. We have more guns. We also have, at the very least, 55,000 times per year where a firearm is used to scare off a criminal. That’s from a well known anti-gun criminologist (Hemenway), while Clinton’s CDC came to the conclusion that there were half a million instances of guns being used defensively. This is not to be taken lightly. Even factoring in your erroneously high homicide rate plus all of the suicides, guns are still worth it by a wide margin.
It should be no surprise that those who are against private firearm ownership don’t think that firearms serve any useful purpose. I personally know many physicians and others in the medical industry like myself who not only believe in ownership but in carrying discreetly carried handguns in case someone decides to shoot up a hospital as has occasionally happened.
Your own state by state listing of crime data shows that Vermont has the lowest violent crime and lowest murder rate in these United States. If you were not aware, Vermont is one of two states that allows anyone who can own a handgun to carry it, without a permit.
My own state of Virginia has very permissive gun laws. Anyone who can own a handgun can OPENLY carry it, and every type of NFA firearm like machineguns and short barreled rifles and shotguns is legal to own with the right paperwork. Our crime rate is quite low, well below that of Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California.
Reblogged this on valores, principios, defectos y vicios humanos: el autoconocimiento no es el nirvana!.
You're a hack and wehen someone calls you on it you act like you are royalty and say "how dare you acuse me of...".
So let me get this straight, the evil rulers of the world would kill and enslave us all, if only Alex Jones did not have his assault weapons? The only thing from preventing world tyranny is a few hillbillies with guns. Take away those guns and we are slaves is basically his argument. Are assault weapons any deterrent whatsoever from a modern army, if it wished, to, say, invade Austin, TX? If not, then let's stop accepting this ridiculous reason to let citizens have assault weapons... to protect from tyrants.
So let me get this straight- it's such a laughably ridiculous argument that you couldn't come up with one single fact to refute it and instead relied on insults?
Way to go, I'm now convinced that the Founders had no idea what they were doing when they made the people part of our system of checks and balances and that all those examples of democracies that turned tyrannical and killed millions of innocent people were all one-time...er....six or eight time events.
So let me get this straight, you are formulating a solution to gun violence based on the assumption of America becoming a tyranny 50 to 100 yrs from now (according to shapiro)?
Check and balances is not acheived through having guns but rather by having a strong democratic form of government. Our forefathers thought of having strong Legislative, Judiciary and Executive branches working together and checking each other while building a strong country. I beg to disagree that they were thingking of guns in order to achieve the check and balances dynamics.That is elementary social studies my friend.
No,that's not remotely what I was saying. I was saying that hyperbole and insults does not an argument make.
But since you mentioned it, the solution to violence is not to take away all the guns, knives, and pointy sticks, but to understand the violence. This will not happen if you continuously fight an unending battle to gather up all the guns, knives, and sticks.
This would be far better accomplished by studying crime in the inner cities and passing laws that allow people to be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. I'm sure you're aware that Connecticut tried to pass one of those bills but the ACLU protested it and it ended up not passing This was in March of 2012.
Checks and balances requires a healthy democratic form of government, and an armed populace helps ensure that the government won't try to marginalize or oppress voters. We can do this all day.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)
I saw your counter argument on my comment about militia vs tyrant US on top of this thread. I'll just answer it here.
Correct me if I'm wrong but i believe it is your position that you disagree in banning assault weapons because the people might need them in the future in case America becomes a tyranny? if yes, then, you have made the first assumption. My assumption about the tyrant military turning against the citizens was only succeded by your assumption that America will become a tyranny. So, I am only the second offender on assuming. The saying is true on what people say about the word assume that it will make an ASS of U and ME. That is why assumptions are irrelevant and they are only taken into consideration if they are backed up with strong facts. Give me facts on why you believe that America will become a tyranny 50-100 yrs from now as Shapiro has eloquently stated.
2.The left people believe that the solution for gun violence is the banning of assault weapons. You and the right people disagree on it because you believe that America will become a tyranny 50-100 yrs fro now. So, let me re-phrase my question. Are you hindering a POSSIBLE solution to the gun violence based on the ASSUMPTION that america will become a tyranny?
Correction: *my assumption about the tyrant military turning against the citizens succeeded your assumption about America becoming a tyranny.
Because I believe in the 2nd amendment rights to bear arms for ones personal/property protection and hand guns would do that task. Assault/semi auto weapons are designed for mass killings.
Then why do police use them?
police use them to mass kill criminals if needed.
Find me just one example of one police officer "mass killing" criminals and I'll go away forever. No questions asked. Show me just one. No department, no agency, no law enforcement outfit anywhere in the country has a policy regarding "mass killing" of criminals. They use them because while they're not great, they work better than pistols and they can go through body armor. That's it.
Saying police need to kill large numbers of criminals shows that you're getting what you know about the subject from TV.
I omitted something. First, they're much more accurate than pistols, and second the bullet fragments quite easily compared to handgun rounds, so there's much less chance of overpenetration. The FBI actually recommends that its agents switch to handguns when shooting through walls or other concealment for this reason, so that the bullet won't break apart on its way through the drywall. The AR15 is uniquely suited to the urban environment because it is accurate and it is safe.
The high magazine capacity allows a young, old, weak, or physically handicapped shooter to effectively defend themselves without worrying too much about killing someone the next house over and without having to reload if there is a group of attackers. When it is suppressed it is an IDEAL home defense weapon.
Pls read my comment carefully. I wrote 'IF NEEDED'. It is a fact and common sense that our police force has to outgun the criminals when engaging them on a gunfight. Unfortunately, the criminals also have semi auto weapons which they buy from civilians because (guess what?) civilians are allowed to own them! If the gunfight resulted in 20 dead criminals, then I guess you can call that a mass killing!
BTW, don't leave. I enjoy debating with you. You're far better than Kantill
Responses aren't going through.
The sentence I wrote is a hypothetical statement. IF--->THEN
"Police use them to mass kill criminals if needed".
Citing 'Afirmatory Antecedent'- wherein an argument is valid because the antecedent is true then consequent is also true.
It is an accepted fact what Lanza did in Newton is a massacre.
Example 1: IF Lanza use AR15 to kill 26 people in Newtown, THEN it is called a massacre.
Example2: IF police use AR15 in a shoot out killing 26 criminals, THEN it is called a massacre.
Statement: True? Absolutely!
You cannot say that example1 is true and then say example2 is false bacause both statements have the same antecedent and precedent.
No need to site an exact occurrence of an incident in history where police had mass kill criminals to prove that my statement is true. All I need is simple logic.
It's idiots like you that I'm glad the American tax payers paid to train me to have the ability to put a round in your left ear from 800 yards... Go F yourself !
Piers claims to be asking for a legitimate reason why anyone needs an assault weapon and claims that no one has yet given him an answer to his question. Mr. Shapiro gave him a well defined and bonafide reason in his interview. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves against their own government gone astray or into tyranny. Piers flatly ignored his answer and continued with his claim that as yet, no one has offered an answer to his question. This simply reveals that Morgan does not truly seek the answer to his question, but seeks agreement with his position and seeks to debunk any other position.
Actually, David, the INTENT and text of the 2nd Amendment clearly states the right of a "well regulated militia" (well regulated by state government, according to historians), staffed by ordinary citizen members, to bear arms in defense against a potentially tyrannical government. It was not written to allow every gun enthusiast, parent, and anger-management candidate to be able to own or carry assault rifles or fully automatic weapons. Or muskets, for that matter.
You'll have to say which historians, because the ones that I've read have said that "regulated" means "made regular", as in "the (TN/KY/VA) Regulars".
If you read Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the very best we could do in making the militia "regular" would be to inspect them once or twice a year to make sure they had the required equipment which included a musket, bayonet, and 20 musket balls. The "regulation" was to make sure they were armed and equipped.
The nation heard the opinion of the NRA, which is fine. They are supposedly experts on weaponry. But why are we asking for their permission to improve our weapons laws? We don't need the NRA's permission to pass laws to help protect our nation's children from violence.
I can’t believe President Obama would turns his back on his own people using an executive order to disarm and leave the black folks of the southern nation unarmed. A disarmed black population in the southeast is like a shepherd leaving the sheep unattended and open to the slaughter of the wolfpack. Thus, after the disarmament, the search and destroy operations will begin. As the ugly head begins to rise, bans of night riders burning with hatred , beaten down by of a 150 years of federal occupation, descend on a herd of defenseless sheep. MY GOD MAN! what are you thinking? are you going to take us back to the days of jim crow?
This is just another excuse to put more black people in jail.
Wake up black people they are going for your guns. They want to disarm you. Your the target.
“We shall overcome”, is not going to get it ,in a technological world with flying robots in the sky and satellites tracking every human on earth. Chips inserted under your skin, and DNA blood test on arrest.
Stand now in peace or you will bleed in the tribulation
I am an 82 years old artist from New Brunswick, Canada and, all my life, I have always been very close to the great American way of life but always deplored the horrific tragedies related to gun use.
To show you how much I care, in 1972, that is 40 years ago, I created a small work of art concerning "The gun in America". This work was created with two Time Magazine's front cover collages, cast in transparent resin. One of the two torn covers is on Gun in America and the other of the famous Rowan and Martin comedy team. This was to symbolically show that the entertainment, social and political events distractions, can make us forget the tragedies related to the misuse of guns.
I tore parts of each covers to show that the problems of guns should not be set aside by entertainment and distractions of our society.
If it was a problem then, it shows that it is an ongoing and persistent problem that gets worst by the years.
In my opinion, less guns and control of mass murder weapons could be part of the solution and this, without impeding the right to have responsible use of guns!!!
I wish the stats in my ealier blog were bogus, but they are not, please check out the following links:
Having identified a problem, the issue, as ever, is how to solve it, and there we have a dilmema
Protagonists of domestic fire arms genuinely believe them to be needed for ensuring their security.
Antogonists do not
Evidence from an extensive study done by the American Health Association showed that the ten states with the highest rate of ownership of firearms also had the highest rate of gun crime and the ten states with the lowest gun ownership rate had the lowest rates of gun crime. I can let you have the citation here, but its easy enough to check it out. Also from my other blogs.
In my studies I have tried very hard to find research which provides a convincing contrary argument, there are a lot of hyped statements, but nothing academic or professional. Maybe readers may provide me with a reference or two please.
Another very disturbing statistic is that in 2010 there were 37,000 suicides in the USA of which 65% used a firearms. This means that there are more suicides than homicides using firearms.
There are many studies on this one. Pschologists tend to concur that the easy availability of firearms in the house makes successful suicides more probable. I think that this is logical. Suicide rates in low gun owning states are also lower as well as homicides.
So we have a double win win here, by reducing the rate of gun ownership in total, not just certain weapons, both homicide and suicide will reduce and the good citizens of the USA will be able to live less fearfully in this great society.
On a final point the economic cost of gun ownership in the USA has been estimate to be $150 billion pa, or $500
per weapon. This means that it would actually be feasible to pay an average of $500 for gun owners to relinquish their firearms. It is not going to happen of course. More likely the other strategy is to get gun owners to pay for the economic costs generated through higher licensing fees or special tax rate on gun sales.
If anyone would like to check out my research paper on the economics of US gun control, If you do I´d be happy to post the link.
The magnitude of the difference should make people take notice. We have more gun crime, but the UK has more violent crime.
Thank you Piers Morgan for your common sense.
Please tell Piers to check his "facts"
I wonder why the media in America is not reporting al this?
I thought the point was more about how gun ban affects gun murder rates, not which country has more crime rates. If one is to touch the issue of crime rates, shouldn't they consider all the possible reasons for high rates in crime? Each country goes through different policies, economies, issues at times and it's just out of point to attack Morgan's argument this way.
So the gun murder figure in UK is 59 not 35. But isn't that more closer than Pratt's 900 something? I see somebody not taking this into account. And I found this in Wiki: The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm PER 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0(over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21(3 times higher).
See how it is compared by per. And that is by UN statistics by the way. I think this kind of comparison was what Morgan and his guests should have used since US and UK have different gun policies.
PIERS, if anyone tried to occupy America they would see an insurgency 1 thousand times as harsh as Iraq was for the USA. No country would dare try to take our country, yet the UK or other whimps in Euroupe would be easy to overwhelm if America was not protecting these European countries. In fact Europe is allowed to have it's 32 hour work weeks and liberal "holidays " because Europe really does not fear invasion due to the protection afforded by USA.
Piers- you asked about the legitimate use of a so called "assault " weapon. The fact remains that real assault weapons are highly regulated and very rare. The weapons you wish to ban are just copies and semi automatic. The weapon used in New Town was a small. 243 caliber $1,000 rifle that most people would never buy. This perp was a rich, spoiled and disturbed young man. Only a true psychopath could carry out this mission. He did not buy these weapons. He obtained them by killing his mother. What new law will stop that?
I would also point out the homicide rate in America also includes suicide. This also skews statistics. Many of the violent use of gun are in very small areas of large cities. Chicago had a huge homicide rate This year, but if you plot the murders, they are in small neighborhoods
Hello from Canada!! Piers, I suggest interviewing someone from Canada on your show.....our gun laws etc....... Maybe show our friends to the South, that we, are doing quite well without owning handguns......Maybe that's why we are always smiling!!!!!
Guns are unnecessary in people's everyday life. Guns are made for killing. Put guns in the hands of everyone then what; would the good guys know the difference between the good and the bad guys ? or is it 'just have a shoot out and see who aims best'
Weapons are a deterrent to crime. Criminals think twice before approaching a woman crossing the Wal-Mart parking lot these days. A complete ban on firearms will increase violent crime rates and increase your chances of being a victim of violent crime. Now, if what I am saying is statistically true, would you still be all for a ban on all guns? The facts are out there. Don’t let CNN be your only source of information on a matter that will surely affect your life. Changes like this will have an effect and you really should make sure you know what that change is going to be.
Piers really is a con man. I enjoyed the thoroughly informative review of his and Alex Jones' 'debate' on the Smells Like Human Spirit Podcast this week – I recommend.
Alex kicked butt. But yet Piers is still looking to defend himself. Why? Let me say this. I own a AR-15 and proud of it. Why do I own one? Because I felt like purchasing one. Don't like it? That's your problem
• The pompous blowhards' name is Piers NOT Pierce. Get a clue.
• No one cares what you think if you live in Canada or anywhere else outside the USA. This issue is not relevant to you, you have no say in it anyway, so STFU.
• To all those tools making the stupid "you can't take on an Abrams tank or Battleship"argument, go back to sleep. Same goes for those kooks saying " I suppose you think owning a nuclear bomb or a Rocket launcher is fine". You are just pointing out how patently ridiculous and uninformed you are.
Good going Shapiro, you proved to people with any common sense that if you don't agree with PM, he cuts you off and doesn't let you finish. What do you expect from someone that will lie, hack, and post untruths about people just to have so called news, that's why he isn't working in his own country. It just shows the intellect of the people who think so highly of him. It's a known fact that drunk, and under the influence of drugs, is the #1 killer in the US, and let's not forget all the lives that were lost in the past 20yrs or so from drive by shootings. Why are we not doing more about these people; because there is more alcohol, and drug (i mean perscription pain, and mental) abuse, then there is gun abuse; maybe if people had to face life without these they'd see how idiotic, stupid, and what a moron(using PM words) he and they really sound. There does need to be stricter gun laws, but look at states that don't have the problems that other states do to find the right solution, without taking peoples rights away.
This is how you stop an Alex Jones hating sheep in their tracks : Say , " He may be the worst person on earth but he still informs better than any media source on the planet ! "
That sends them into a cognitive dissonant spin . Because which ever msm source they mention , you simply say "oh so your source X tells us about the history of war-lies , false flags , black ops , high level crime, strange "suicides" , govt lies , msm lies does it ? "
It's a logical argument slam-dunk every time . Try it !
piers, you are truly an idiot, the 2'nd ammendment makes the every day joe the first lineof defense, wether it is at home or any were else in any state of the unioun. it says a well regulated militia thats us!!! the regular joe is the front line of defense! not the COPS OR THE COUNTY SHERRIF OR THE MILITRY! WE ARE GUARANTEED THIS FISRT LINE OF DEFENSE. WETHER SOME OF US WANT TH!AT JOB OR NOT!.WE ARE HERE TO RUN THE UNITED STATES THEY ARE SUPPOSSED TO DO what we vote them to do! the cops work for us the sherrif works for us as does the fed. govt.!!! this gun ban will whittle at are other GOD given rights! if, they can take our gun rights as they are now they will take our other rights away, mark my words!!!!!! what you want us americans to be is like england and austrailia. also, only people like willie nelson are against ar 15 ak 47 ruger 10-22 and all the rest. the fed. govt. was behind the masacre in conn.juyst like it was in the oklahoma bombing and the trwin towers!!!!!! why in the hell don't you really do your homework?.and the sandy hook conspiraces. gun control of any kind will not stop public massacres. they will start using explosive strapped to their bodies just like they do in the east ! go home piers morgan
Piers ... what we need to do is get those who are so determined to retain rights of uncontrolled gun ownership to ADMIT that some innocents must, indeed, die ... yes DIE ... in order for these crazies to keep their guns! The President's statement that we must try whatever measure possible if it will save at least ONE innocent life, provides a perfect position from which to pursue this admission. Many gun advocates will express agreement with the President's statement, then turn around and disagree with actual proposals for change ... which is their twisted way of admitting that the death of some innocents is actually necessary to protect uncontrolled gun ownership! In other words, these crazies actually believe that some innocents are expendable ... it doesn't matter that they die, as long as unchallenged gun ownership (and SALES) is protected. I do believe that bringing this unspoken realization before the public will put stronger pressure
on gun advocates to see the light, and agree to change.
Just because you don’t agree you call him a stupid jew? Racist hypocrite!!
I don't think our buddy Tom is going to be passing a background check anytime soon.
All aboard the crazy train!
Notify me of new comments via email.