READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
As we continue our debate on "Guns in America" and look ahead to President Barack Obama's second term in office, "Piers Morgan Tonight" will host a special live town hall-style show Tuesday, January 22.
If you are in the New York City area and are available from 6:30-10 p.m. ET Tuesday, January 22, we'd love for you to join us as we look ahead to Obama's second term in office and take a look at where the country stands today - on the economy, guns, immigration and much more.
For free tickets to attend the live studio audience of "Piers Morgan Tonight" please fill out this form.
Deadline to respond is Monday, January 21 at 11 a.m. ET. Must be 18 or older to attend.
» Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
Keep up the good work Pierce. I'm ashamed of the Americans who have no sane answer as to why they feel threatened by gun laws. I cannot commend you enough for not reaching across the table and hitting those nuts you have had on the show. I admire your courage. Sincerely, Paticia Farrell
"So Pierse this appeared in Englands 'Daily Express' within a few days of me bringing it up on Wolf Blitzers Situation room last week, Quote: Here's the Heading (first part) of my last Quote to you, from my English Tabloid; the
Daily Express. Quote:
'Britain should be ashamed' as doctors are blamed for ignoring dementia
DEMENTIA sufferers are going untreated because ?? Unquote So what help do you have to add?"
DEMENTIA sufferers are going untreated because doctors are refusing to carry out tests for the condition, says Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
good on ya Piers! keep up the good work, UP THE GUNNERS!
Piers Morgan, you act as if guns were the only ill in the United States. On the 16th there were already 454 people killed in the U.S. by "Drunk Drivers". Only 16 days into this new year. Many of the dead were childern. 15 to 17 thousand people are killed each year by "Drunk Drivers". You have run you mouth long and hard to "Ban" assult rifles. Do you not consider a 3,000 lb. car an "Assult Weapon?" Let's "Ban" Beer and Booze. Piers. Odds are some who yell "Ban" guns have driven drunk at one time or another.
KEEEP UP THE GOOD WORK ON GUN CONTROLL ,, AMERICA NEEDS A STRONG VOICE AS YOURS
GOD BLESS YOU
DIXIE, here is an idea why dont you keep your canadian ass and opinions to yourself we Americans dont care and dont want your opinions.
Your opponents in the gun laws debate are using the "Nirvana" fallacy. They claim that since the latest shootings could not have been prevented by the President's proposals then they should all be scrapped. They also draw you into worthless definition debates such as "what is an assault weapon?. They use faulty logic because the core question is "What kind of society would you prefer? One in which you need a gun to go safely out the front door or one where you know that guns are socially unacceptable and unlawful use is dealt with severely?". Many actions are needed and one single law will not prevent all gun tragedies.
GOD DAMN YOU DAMN REDCOAT YOU INVITE THESE GUEST ON YOUR SHOW YET YOU DONT EVEN ALLOW THEM TO FINISH THEIR POINTS, YOU ARE SO ONE SIDED AND TO BE FRANK WE DONT NEED YOUR REDCOAT ASS HERE IN THE US! GO HOME DAMN REDCOAT!
This if for Piers Morgan. I don't understand why you continue to interupt some of the visitors that you interview such as the gentleman from Chicago that appeared on your show tonight. You ask questions and then you don't give him a chance to answer or give his thoughts. I don't consider that an interview, it's just your thoughts, your opinions.
Lance Armstrong is a cheater, but Mark Sanford? We miss him in Washington? Both are cheaters, Piers. Character is Character.
I have watched CNN for many years, especially Larry Kings show, as I believe,he was the best in interviewing guests. Pierse is getting to be too muck like Bill O'Reilly arguing with, and over talking his guests. I was embarrassed for his guest Mr Elde,r as Pierse was rude, and refused to allow the gentleman finish a sentence, before getting his point across.
The company needs to replace Pierce. This is not the first time I changed stations in the middle of pierse's program. .
Piers Morgan, You nor CNN will take on the Beer and Booze makers. Unlike the gun makers they can buy CNN and use it for their pocket change. Thus the reason 15 to 17 thousand are killed in the US each year buy "DRUNK DRIVERS". Money talks and "DRUNK DRIVERS" will keep right on killing. Besides, the President likes his BEER and makes it in the White House. He does not like guns. Question; If a person dies from a gun shot and a person dies from a "DRUNK DRIVER" are they not both dead? In your eyes, Piers Morgan, only the one who dies from the gun shot counts. The one killed by the "DRUNK DRIVER" is only a statistic. Certainly not worths CNN's time. "DRUNK DRIVERS" are old hat, yesterdays news, been around forever. A "DRUNK DRIVER" can kill and within an hour everything is gone from the scene. No big drama for CNN to milk. No one including children for CNN to stick a microphone in their face to ask qustions. Just another mangled, bloody, dead body going to the funeral home.
One person is killed every half-hour due to drunk driving
• Each year approximately 16,000 are killed in alcohol related crashes
• Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic fatalities
• Every other minute a person is seriously injured in an alcohol related crash
Piers, take on the NRA and the gun makers as they are small fish and you know it. TV drama sells right Piers. And that's you and your show. "DRAMA". CNN would go down the tubes without it. To bad your TV crew could not get to some of these "DRUNK DRIVER" wrecks. Talking about "DRAMA". No bullet death compares.
I completely agree with you!!
Piers Morgan. That jewish young man, talking about how people should have a right to bear arms because, he argues, had the jews had arms, Hitler would have found it harder to kill them, he said you were a bully for getting cross with people who had a different opinion than you. He has written a book on bullies. He is not very good on his bully subject much as he should be an expert. You cant call a person who gets cross with you on one or two topics bullies, bullies are people who temorize other people so as to enslave them, get a handle on them. on an everyday basis, not so as to win one argument but so as to have a victim or slave around them permanently on hand. You can, without being a bully, lose it occasionally with people and on other occasions not do so without being a bully as a bully is somone who establishes, usually using many techniques power over the other in a long term sense, You can even shut peoples mouth on a regualar basis without being a bully. There are people who talk to me who are not really having their say but rather trying to get a fast one past me and with such people it is better to never let them have their say. You were not a bully for shouting on this topic just an irrate person.
Another thing about people shouting at you is, are they doing it to make you into a better person to make you try harder, though somtimes that effort to improve you might might rather cower you. Did they shout at you to make you reach your full potential or are they trying to persuade you to be stupider and more servil, to make you accept in all things an unecessarily low position, in one case they are trying on a bit of bullying and in the other positive criticism.
People need to distinguish between different types of cross behavior because, if not, they find it hard to know if somone is being a useful trainer and they should try to take the criticism and should not try to put a stop to it or if they are trying to merely use them even to the person they critices own disadvantage.
Also if we are to fight bullying and it seems to be at the heart of various evils, child suicides and less childish ones, and maybe is what drives some of the mass murderers and anyway is cruel, then we have to make these sorts of distinctions, after all if a child complains of bullying they will like as not be told they have to learn to accept criticism without anyone thinking, are they suffering from useful criticism or a bit of spitful anhiliation?
One thing bullies are good at is calling their victims bullies, like, you have shouted at me you are a bully, not that such a claim necessarily means that they are playing this game. Accusing your victims of bullying is always a good way of anhilating others and those who have to deal with bullies need to be good at answering such accusation, as i said above need to be goodat explaining what is ocasional criticism and what is an atempt at reducing the other because they want to use them or have someone who they can be mean to a mark for their spite. Bullies are usually very good at arguing and mostly because they confuse degree or refuse to talk of it, which allows refuse to go into details that would allow distinctions that move from broad strokes to somthing more precise. They say. to use the example used above, that a person who has shoutd once is a bully when really to make such a claim you have to see a person pick on one or two people and victimise them on a regualr basis always forcing them to step down often irrespective of whether or not the bully really cares about the theme they pretend to defend as their only goal is to squash the other, to make them to step down in all arguements, till they learn not to even try expressing their opiion with him.
The man that you talked to called Prat menaced you twice in the last interveiw with him, the menaces were not sure far but what sounded to me like veiled menaces. Menaces are often given in such a way as to leave one unsure if they are menaces or not. He asked you if you had body guards and he said that if you got attacked with a man with a gun you would be very glad if you were carrying one too, which bit of reasoning he accompanied with a long hard stare that all smelt to me like a bit of menace, there is a real bully for you.
It is a hard to argue topic. President Carter says, in a CNN human rights day statements of the value of the human voice, that it is hard to be criticised but it is healthy. True and not true, the poor or the black community or women have always lived under some social criticism so ingrained in our society that they hardly seem criticisms, a feeling that they would have got there where the most potent rich white males get if they were really worth it, when in fact pulling oneself up by ones boot straps is, in many situations, near impossible. Calling them lazy, feckless frivolous and such, is one of the things that holds them down and that criticism does not get anyone anywhere, it just attacks the confidence of large sections of society so that they all need some positive thinking technics applied to them. rose macaskie madrid.
Car accidents victimize over 30,000 people every year (3 times as many as guns do) and many of the victims are children too. Perhaps we should lower speed limits by half and quadruple fines, ban eating behind the wheel, make anyone who knowingly lets drunk people drive be criminally charged, punish phone users just as harsh as DUI drivers, etc…
If anti-gun people were equally vehemently pushing stricter traffic laws, then I won’t have a problem. I just don’t think it’s fair to demand law-abiding responsible gun owners to compromise their way of life, IF we are reluctant to be saddled with stricter traffic laws when we know that could save thousands of lives. Do you know how hypocritical that is?
It doesn't make me feel any better if my child was not gunned down, but killed by a irresponsible driver. The latter possibility is 3 times higher, I, for one, want to see something gets done about it. Why on earth aren't we having heated national discussions over it? Why isn't Mr. Morgan hosting shows after shows after shows inviting traffic experts and talking about it? I’m merely pointing out the strangeness of human nature. The fact is, when a smaller number of people are killed here and there sporadically, and when those incidents don’t come with horrific imagery, somehow we don’t care that much.
I’m not a gun enthusiast. On the contrary, I've never fired a gun in my entire life. But I have a tremendous respect for the Second Amendment. I've never owned a gun because I haven’t felt the need. But if I ever sense a threat, to my family or to myself, I will get one, train myself to be able to use it well, and protect ourselves and that’s MY RIGHT in America.
Notify me of new comments via email.