READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
As part of a primetime, face-to-face interview that airs this evening at 9, Charlie Sheen opens up on a topic that much of America is discussing this week: Lance Armstrong and his recent admission of doping.
Himself a sports fan, who's portrayed many an athlete in film and television, Sheen tells the tale of meeting the infamous cyclist half a decade ago, in an encounter that didn't exactly leave fond memories:
"I met him once at a party and I'm assuming he was in a bad mood, because he wasn't the friendliest guy in the world," explains the former star of CBS's "Two and a Half Men."
"He was rude to you?" Morgan asks.
"I said, Mr. Armstrong, I'm sorry to bother you. I think he was talking to Sheryl Crow," the guest recalls. "I said I'm Charlie Sheen. I just want to shake your hand. And he said, 'Uh, that's nice.'"
The pair did shake hands, ultimately, but as the actor remembers it, the cyclist did so rather half-heartedly.
Roughly five or six years since their exchange, the man who made the character Ricky "Wild Thing" Vaughn famous in "Major League" – and admittedly used steroids to add some pop to his fastball as part of the role – is skeptical about the prospect of Armstrong being let off the hook by his fans:
"I think America is, uh, is very forgiving if ... the person hasn't been like you just described some of the behavior that that Lance pursued," he says. "The reason I've been forgiven for a lot of my stuff is because there's always been a feeling of honesty and the guy that at least was trying to do the right thing."
Watch the clip, and listen to the interview as Morgan and Sheen continue to discuss the saga behind the world's most-succesful ever cyclist. Also, review the host's personal feelings on Armstrong, as detailed in this "Only in America" segment from October. Then tune in at 9 for the full interview with Sheen, as he details his current relationship with his dad, actor Martin Sheen, as well as his former boss, CBS' Chuck Lorre.
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
When painted into a corner, one will lie and, also, tell the truth.
Life goes on.
Piers Morgan, Lets see, England "BAN" hand guns in 1996. Yet, Tomkins P. L. C., a British engineering and construction company own Smith & Wesson, the largest hand gun maker in the U.S., from 1987 until May of 2001. So, for 14 some odd years this British company made money off of guns sold here in the U.S. Guns your own government "BAN" were making money for the British. Guns, today you say no one should have and your government "BAN", were being made by Smith & Wesson here in the U.S. and profits sent back to the British. It was ok for these S&W guns to take the lives of Americans back then as the British were making money. However, S&W was sold to Saf-T-Hammer Corporation here in the U.S. And today we have a Brit, Piers Morgan, ranting on CNN about how evel guns are.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.
The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.
As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.
• Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.
• Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.
Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.
During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average.
Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.
Wow... you're going to Charlie Sheen for questions about Lance Armstrong's character???? Wow... if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black... I'm not sure what is. How would Charlie even know or remember????
LOL!!! If that is not pathetic, I don't know what pathetic is. Like Tom said it eloquently: An implicated journalist interviewing a shamed actor commenting on a drug using athlete.
Sheen is HIGH as a kite...Will Morgan address that???
Charlie Sheen told everyone what he did. Lance lied and stole. Two different people.
heres your piers!! n e w s m a x . c o m /US/piers-morgan-alex-jones/2013/01/18/id/471989 so you stood on dead kids for ratings then right?
Good interview. I liked that Piers asked some questions that differed from what every other talk show host was asking Charlie in the last few days on his press tour.
I am so glad I tuned into your interview with Charlie Sheen last night. It was thought provoking. I didn't even give a thought to the Lance Armstrong interview with Oprah until you brought up the subject with Charlie. Kudo's to Piers for an excellent and entertaining interview.
An implicated journalist interviewing a shamed actor commenting on a drug using athlete...great tv cnn...absolutely fantastic...get your act together...#liberal
I cant stand piers Morgan, he talks like he has sh.t in his mouth. If he don't like our rights on gun ownership then he can damming sure go back to where ever the hello he came from. Every time he comes on television I change the channell, I will not watch the idiot.
Sara falls within the category of which I call "rhetorical terrorists"; those who make statements with the intentions of causing fear within certain populations in order to achieve their own ends; even to the subversion of their own government.
are There Any Real Louis Vuitton Outlets LV Outlet Rating http://louisvuittonoutleto4.blogspot.com/2013/05/lv-outlet-rating.html
Notify me of new comments via email.