READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
Coming up this evening at 9, Piers Morgan welcomes back one of his favorite recurring guests, as Newt Gingrich joins the program, bringing along his trademark blend of candor and commentary, politics and perspective.
For the former House Speaker, tonight's appearance marks another return to "Piers Morgan Tonight," as the one-time Republican presidential candidate has visited with Morgan numerous times in the past, touching upon everything from Barack Obama being "a left-wing radical," and Mitt Romney's role with Bain Capital.
As the "gun debate" continues to hold it's place as one of the nation's most polarizing and divisive issues, tonight Gingrich offers his insight on everything from the Constitution to the concept of allowing weapons in schools in hospitals.
Also joining the program this evening will be Conservative talk radio show host Dana Loesch and "The New York Times" columnist Charles Blow, as well as the "Gun Girls," Aubrey Blankenship and Celia Bigelow, who will be joining "Piers Morgan Tonight" live from the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Northern Virginia.
Tune in this evening at 9 as Gingrich, Loesch, and the rest of Thursday's collection of guests touch upon everything from gun legislation to females and firearms.
» Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
After Piers has offered his view for the last month and 1/2 on the need for banning "assault weapons" in the name of Sandy Hook, he should let everyone in America know that an Assult Weapon like the ones he has spoken about was never used there. Also, I think he should have 10 minutes dedicated to the differences between an assault rifle (that the military uses) and an semi-automatic rifle that looks like one the military uses.
I would like to know how many of these people that are committing these crimes are on medication? They will never talk about that though.
CNN would loose too many advertising dollars from big Pharma if Piers started talking about medication. Besides he's having too much fun blaming guns for all of the problems in the U.S. Send him back to the U.K. he needs to answer some questions about phone hacking! CNN needs to fire this guy!!! Bring back Larry...FIRE PIERS! Please.....
All types kill...automatic or semi-automatic...do you get it? So what's the your argument?
So do bats, knives, cell phones, cars, alcohol....
Are you saying we should get rid of all guns then? The AR-15 is no more of a killing machine then a semi-automatic .223 caliber hunting rifle
Of course they kill. What's YOUR point?
@Jaker... Dont be paranoid. We can stick you in a padded room where you are safe from all those evil weapons in the world.
The question by Mr Morgan is really not whether any weapon is needed....His premise is flawed!
1. No man, woman, or child NEEDS more than food and shelter, so lets take NEED off the table for the moment
2. Whether a gun fires 1 or a hundred bullets is superfluous. His issue isn't with the weapon, but it's style. He repeatedly says that again and again
3. He really does not care whether our stats or British stats are of any consequence....he's after shock value...do you realize how absurb you or your point sound?
4. After 12 videos that I have watched now on the gun debate, his major inconsistency is the same as Rush, Sean, and Bill....interrupt your guest until they get mad. It's nothing more than another form of verbal abuse, ie, never let your guest finish.
5. The debate has never been about assault weapons, because handguns are far more used in murders than rifles....it is about the American people and the absurdity of the 2nd Amendment...."Do you really think your government would...?" such a question can only lead to the rejoinder by him, "that is unbelievably stupid!"
Automatic weapons are not illegal in the United States. Class 3 firearms, namely machine guns, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns are all available legally under the National Firearms Act. Registration of said firearms with the BATFE is required, and included in the registration process is a background check.
If you're going to argue about "automatic weapons", at least get your facts straight.
Pierce, Why lie... every american can own a machine gun if they choose.
Yes the federal government allows LEGAL REGISTERED MACHINE GUNS. Whats even more interesting is this classification of gun has the cleanest record of all gun categories. ONLY TWO CRIMES (one done by a law enforcement officer) commited with this type of weapon SINCE 1934. What other gun category can claim that record?
When Piers asks "why do we need a gun with a magazine that can hold 30 rounds"? My answer is "I don't". But we don't need cell phones that can text, we don't need to sell beer in 6 packs either, maybe twinpack/ driver license, and we don't need cars that can go over 75 mph either. Piers I seen on the net that you lost your drivers license for excessive speeding in 2007...is that true? There are many deaths in car accidents associated with excessive speeding (probably more than assualt weapon with high cap. mags), maybe we should ban nice fancy sport cars. Why does anyone need a car that can go so fast?
Piers should shut the "F" up and answer the questions posed by Newt. Democrats always avoid the tough questions and redirect
Pretty funny watching Newt kick Pier's ass from the beginning to the end of that interview. It is amazing watching a polished debater like Newt slice and dice a guy like Piers on national TV, that interview was over for Piers before it even started, he didn't have a fighting chance. Piers should be embarrassed with that lame performance!!! Keep at it Piers, you will catch on to this talk show thing eventually!
Piers Morgan is the most RUDE interviewer I've even seen. He interrupts the guest just to hear his own voice I think. What a jerk he is.
I agree. I'm getting so sick of Piers "one sided views" and his constant talking over his guests that I am going to leave him off for a week or so and catch up on my sleep. It's a much better use of my time. God I miss Larry King....please bring him back. Larry always presented BOTH SIDES...not just his views. ARE YOU LISTENING PIERS?
Go back to Great Britain or where ever you are from...Piers. If you were not born in the U.S. you do not have any idea about owning/ using guns of any type. You are talking about automatic weapons, when you mean semi auto weapons. Gun ownership is not only a right here in the U.S. it is sort of a religion to hunt-target practice-reload ammo-experiment with armory in general. If you want to defend your home/family/ business you should be able to arm yourself with weapons the bad guys are going to use against you. Background check yes...both criminal and mental.
Piers is from a country that has a murder rate the USA can only wish they had, they have gun control and it is working ...stats don't lie and since the murder rate is so low you gotta wonder where all these murdering intruders are that the USA is so intent on basing their argument on. Out of the 20 last mass murders the USA had 11...the next country had 2 ...guess all those guns are working pretty well..where is Abe Lincoln when you need him.
A semi automatic ar 15 cannot fire 100 rounds per minute. It must be converted to an automatic to do that, making it illegal.100 rounds a minute is almost 2 shots per second A 2 or 3 burst kit will allow it to fire 100 rounds per min and requires a license to do it. Pierse is just spitting out unresearched rumors and is not telling it all.
Piers is operating under the moronic assumption that any magazine you stick in an AR can be emptied in under a minute. Geraldo, another big thinker, is using 4 rounds a second as his figure. If you're really fast, you can probably shoot at a rate of 45 to 60 rounds per minute, but there's a good chance that your rifle will jam while doing it. That happened to James Holmes.
How many delusions per minute did Adam Lanza, average? Was he a fully automatic psychopath, or just a semi automatic psychopath? Maybe we need a better regiment of assessing our youth, in high school, college, on disability, on welfare... inidividuals subject to high stress levels. Why is that people can legally own powerful assault rifles and never be subject to random inspections and regulation as to how they store these weapons? Let's get real – its not the guns, its the people. Take care of the people, and the crime lowers. it already has lowered, now we need to address particular American phenomenal mass murders, and WHY they are occurring at a high per capita rate then in other countries.
In five years, (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011) of FBI reporting on murder rates in the USA, (2012 isn't posted yet) there has been a STEADY DECLINE in the homicide rate. This information can be see on the FBI website at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 During each of those same years, gun ownership has INCREASED, and increases dramatically after each mass killing such as Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook. The City of Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America, and yet that City has the highest murder rate in the U.S. It is CLEAR from the government's own statistics that as long as legal gun ownership increases, the murder rate, (and violent crime rate in general) DECREASES. Why anyone would challenge those statistics is amazing to me, and can only be that irrational fear and ignorance is the driving force in the ANTI-GUN campaign. It makes statistical sense to let the people have all the guns, (and high capacity magazines) they want, it will DECREASE THE MURDER RATE in America.
I wish that when interviewing the guests who cite their desire to defend themselves with weapons that have large capacity cartridges in case more than one intruder comes into the house Piers would ask them if they have an intrusion alarm. It is highly unlikely an intruder will break in when you are home, and even more unlikely they would not run away if a large ear splitting alarm begins to sound. Seems like if they are that concerned that they would spend thousands on an assault rifle they would also get an alarm for 20 bucks a month.
Yes, and if you live 1/2-1 hour or more out of town, who will hear this alarm. City-slickers always have great ideas. I will keep my gun.
AR-15 style rifles are used to hunt in some states. Where I live in Indiana an AR in .223 caliber is great for coyotes or one in .458 socom or .450 bushmaster can be used for deer.
Why don't they make the parent accountable and pass a law they have to have a trigger lock on all of their guns? It seems wrong to leave a 15 year old to protect the family with a gun.Just saying
This is why. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/home-girl-12-shoots-intruder-article-1.1188229
Boy I really miss Larry King – a real journalist who allowed guests to express their views without talking over them to put forward his own agenda on the issue. In the hour long program, he's doing 58 minutes of the talking. I've had enough of Piers, will stop watching CNN altogether if they allow him to conitnue on this way. Go back to the UK Piers, where you can finally answer questions about your involvement in the phone hacking scandal.
This issue saved his career. He probably bought 20 AR15s because they are soon going to be worth more and he can sell them after he is done selling out reasonable debate on an important issue. Way to cash in Piers
Piers asks every pro gun person he interviews to tell him why we need military style assault weapons like the AR. Here is the repsonse that no one gives and I think it is the most befitting. We are Americans, since when do we do things based on need. ie.do we NEED a 4,000sq ft house NO do we NEED a $65,000 loaded Tahoe NO do we need eat that $50 dinner at outback NO DO we need 739 channels on our TV NO Do we NEED $200 pair of sneakers. I can go on and on but you get the picture. So no Piers I don't think Americans NEED a military assault style weapon we just want one. If this is not reason enough here is another scenerio..tell me jst one thing that the US government has stuck their nose in try control something and it has been sucessful? ie..To many people are geting killed by drunk drivers so the government makes drives under the influence illegal. How is that working? Too many health concerns and deaths because of OD on drugs. The government makes that illegal. How is that working? THe gevernment sets the speed limil of our roads. How is that working? Government control is not the answer. Banning assault weapons may prevent future shootings but there are still ALOT of military style assault weapons out there. And there is NO way you can get them off the street. I would like to see you try (just for one show) to look at other reasons these tragic shootings happen. ie..violent video games, lack of attention from the home life, lack of repect towards others, mental disorders(which I believe is a scapegoat), too much attention given by the media for doing the wrong things versus doing good things, selfish it is all about me mentality of this younger generation and so on so forth. I hate to see your ratings plummet and cause you to lose your primetime gig but you are doing it to yourself.
Well said! Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit at the front of the bus. Need is not the issue here.
Here is the deal folks, you can not fix the triggerman by regulating which guns he/she carries. Now I am a professional, but just to give you an idea; I can reload a pistol in a second or two and I am sure most gunmen can come pretty close (other weapons can cause mass-casualties). The law abiding citizens that own weapons make our country safer and virtually un-invadable by foreign lands. Most well established countries do not have the same sense of security. Freedom is a blessing and a gift that MANY more have died for. The path of banning certain guns will lead to ANOTHER troubled person grabbing a ANOTHER type of weapon and acheiving the same results. This will be covered by a show and politician set such as yours, until they are no longer there. Then what is next? You want to just rename the United States something else? With all do respect, why do I see coverage on only mass casualty instances and I never see coverage on the person who owns a weapon and shoots an armed robber? It happens quite often.
Dear Mr. Morgan:
You do realize that ownership of fully automatic machine guns are legal to own in several, not all, US states. You spent many minutes of your program beating your guests with the difference of owning a rifle that can shoot around 50-100 rounds per minutes semi-automatically with a fully auto weapon that can shoot at a much higher rates. Your starting point of the question was the assumption that fully auto weapons are banned in the US...NOT TRUE!
On the magazine capacity question, what is the difference in using one 20 round clip vice two 10 round clips taped together that can be quickly flipped end to end in a second or two?
I was thinking last night...35 years I have been fighting against the proliferation of guns and resulting deaths. In the 80's I was on the Board of Missourians against HANDGUN violence. Now that HANDGUNS seem to be "acceptable", we are fighting against MACHINE GUNS. What will it be next? GRENADE LAUNCHERS? When will more US citizens start fighting FOR our country's survival?
Piers, thank you so much for your active involvement with gun control. My Daughter has lived in London the past 16 years with her family due to the problem with guns in this country.
Well said ...it is so unfortunate that it seems the majority of comments are negative and full of critical comments to Piers rather than offering a solution to the problem . I am so sick of it ....No more children killed please.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no more mass murder? Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no illegal drug use? Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no gang activity? Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no crime? The fact is there WILL BE children killed whether with guns, or beatings by step parents, or illegal drugs, or gangs. We don't ban cars despite the thousands of people, (including children) killed each year. You people fear guns because you watch too much TV and only see guns used by criminals, or drug dealers. Legal ownership of guns does not cause children to die, but legal ownership of guns has SAVED countless children's lives. If one life can be saved by owning and using a gun to stop a criminal, isn't it worth owning one? OF COURSE, it is.
You should join your daughter in England. They are about to have a vote there. Scotland is trying to separate from England because the English treat them so bad. The vote is supposed to be in about a year.
What show were you watching? Piers was talking about assult style weapons( of which he still has no clue). When did machine guns come into play? That's most of the problem here is we have people like you that do not know what the difference is and think you are contributing to the debate. If you've been fighting 35 years and still don't know what the difference is and there is more out their like you no wonder America is doomed.
Are you kidding, your daughter moved to England to Get away from guns but your still live here.
Piers is lying about AR 15 you cannot shoot a semi auto 100 times a minute. People who are not educated about guns will believe him.
Piers is really good about avoiding questions which in nature, back him into a corner. A good example of what I'm talking about is: 'why such an impulse to ban "AR, military style type weapons", when they count for such a small percentage of all murders in the United States?'
If banning particular firearms, or having more laws to regulate them, were the answer, wouldn't States California and Illinois have less gun violence versus having the highest murder rates in the country. A well armed society is a polite society.
I wish I could be on your show; I'd show you the same respect that you show your quests with whom you don't agree.
Apart from the fact that a hang gun is more than enough to defend yourself, who the hell needs a semi-automatic rifle ????, you forget one major point : in weapons magazines and others such as Soldier of Fortune, there are (or at least there were when I lived in the USA) small ads from companies (based in Nevada if my memory is still good) which propose to send you "with total discretion" the parts that you need to transform a semi-automatic to a fully automatic, and belive me, all those nutcases rifle owners know how to do it (I'm sure it's explained in the Internet or other sources). What else can you expect from a country where a small southern town has declared illegal NOT to have a gun in your home ???????
Well stated Mike,
I'd like to have Morgan shoot a 12 Gauge street sweeper shot gun or for that matter even a common Mossberg 12 gauge shot gun loaded with 9 to twelve rounds that have 6 to 21 individual Bucshot projectiles coming out of the barrel with semi-automatic fire. This Morgan is a example of a legal shotgun that you feel is the only thing for home defense. It would indeed be something to see you fire the shotgun like you did in demonstrating the AR15 and watch you fire off the shotgun cartridges including a few 1 ounce slugs and then listen to your comments.
Piers Morgan is a British Citizen. What gives him the right to make any comment on any thing that happens in this country. Big Question is why CNN allows a British National to have a news show in the US? I find that Piers Morgan and CNN is insulting this Country and it's people. Send him packing back to the UK.
So all American journalists and politicians, and the like, cannot comment on any other country's business, in the world. America has a huge influence on the rest of the world with words and actions.
piers morgan should be fired and sent back to england
I feel exactly the same.
Why is Newt "hasbeen" Gingrich even on TV...his argument is to be cautious about taking guns away is the start of something that is a right...tell that to the parents of students who are dead. It is a tragedy he is even on tv...take that freakin stealin loser off the air...gotta wonder when the country with the most killing in the civilized world will grow out of the 18th century. Newt talks of our founding fathers like he was there to know what they wanted...I am beginning to wish he was there so we would never have to listen to his wild west argument again.
Newt is the best Piers can get to come on his show. And that is a shame.
You are right Jim Piers Morgan is the most annoying news man on TV today. Can we deport him as an undesirable alien.
Piers Morgan is welcome to his opinion. He can even be a gun control advocate in his private time as much as he wants. I was under the mistaken impression that news was about reporting facts, not opinion, and that news was about balance. Piers Morgan is the rudest interviewer I have ever seen who claims to be a journalist, who hounds his "guests" and does not let them speak, even to answer his questions. "Who needs an AR-15?" particularly when repeated three or five times in a row, to interrupt "guests" should be off his list of questions.
he has no idea of what an assault weapon is
What was that gun you had on the show last night. The one that can shoot all the bullets. I want to get me one of those. Thanks for pointing it out.
Piers and everyone else knows that in the United States, within the context of gun regulation conversations, the term "assault rifle" is generic for the semi-automatic weapons that are designed to look like military issue. Employing the term "assault rifle" is just for political and dramatic effect. However, I'll bet that every owner of these semi-automatic assault-looking weapons, always refers to them as "assault rifles". No one says they just bought a $1500 imitation semi-automatic assault-like rifle. They say "man! you should see the cool assault rifle I just got! It spits out 30 rounds in 20 seconds!" So, get off your right-wing soap box, and just leave it alone. It's a gun that shoots lots of bullets really fast. You're not fooling anyone.
an assault weapon could be any kind of weapon
Well what-ever kind of weapon it means to you? It's still a "Deadly" weapon, especially as it's mostly humans (children included) that they're killing these past few months.
ek said: However, I'll bet that every owner of these semi-automatic assault-looking weapons, always refers to them as "assault rifles". No one says they just bought a $1500 imitation semi-automatic assault-like rifle. They say "man! you should see the cool assault rifle I just got! It spits out 30 rounds in 20 seconds!"
Reply: Utterly absurd. Only ignorant people call them "assault weapons". It is a propaganda term with no true meaning, which was made up by liberal politicians and the media to demonize gun that they think are particularly "scary" looking. Gun manufacturers don't use that laughable term, and neither do gun owners that know the first thing about firearms. So-called "assault weapons" are ordinary semi-automatic rifles, functionally no different than a Remington Woodsmaster. Unlike your fantasy-world version of gun owners, most real gun owners refer to their firearms with real terminology, such as make and/or model (e.g. "AR-15" or "Mini-14"), or if a more generic term is called for, e.g. "rifle".
Speaking of assault rifles...have you noticed how closely the term "assault" resembles "ass#ole"? I think that's fun.
Go Piers! You are on the correct side of history. Last week in our state a guy walks into JC Penny with an assault weapon on his back, a glock on his side and extra clips on his belt. He was trying to make a point that he can carry and not hurt people. The problem is that all of the people around him have no idea what his intent is. He's in plain clothes with threatening weapons. What are people suppose to do? If this catches on can you imagine the public safety disaster? All of the 911 calls. Guns in America are out of control!!!!!!
CNN's moderators seem to be blocking posts again!
and BTW to all those in doubt, the AR-15 was spec'd by the US military. It most certainly is a military weapon!
See the link below:
Tell that to the thousands of sportsmen who use AR15 as a target rifle in legitimate competive shooting matches!
Just because people target shoot with them doesn't change the fact that they are a military weapon. They're still high capacity weapons designed to for maximum destruction in minimal time.
But that's just it the 12 guage shotgun loaded with buckshot is far more devasting at close range than the AR15. Another Piers myth exposed!
You can say that about any gun
Yes...you can...so ban them all especially the AR15 killing machines!!!
The issue is not the power of the single shot. The issue is shots per minute.
A 12 guage with 8 rounds of buck shot loaded up the tube is far more devasting than an AR loaded with a 30 round magazine at close range. There's no comparison.
Seth are you trying to make yourself look stupid? Posting a wikipedia link as a reliable resourse is dumb. Whenever looking for reliable information, do not use this website. No college professor will accept any student using wikipedia as a source for a paper. The number one reason is because of its reliability. Anyone can put something on there.
@Matt, take a look at this: http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/birth.html
Who was behind the design of the AR15 if not the U.S. Military? ... please do tell.
Seth: For your information, the AR-15 was developed for CIVILIAN USE by Armalite Corporation which made use of aluminum castings, and lightweight "plastic" parts. After the rifle was sold FIRST to the civilian market, the designer Eugene Stoner decided to try to interest the military in the design, however it so radical and used a small .22 caliber bullet, that the Army at first was not interested, so Mr. Stoner sponsored a cookout at his ranch and invited a bunch of Air Force officers. During the cookout Mr. Stoner demonstrated the AR-15 with it's very small .22 caliber bullet, and an Air Force officer in charge of security at Air Bases in Vietnam decided that it would be a good weapon for use by Air Force Security guards. Only after it was proven to be lightweight, easy to use, and reliable did the Army show an interest. When first adopted by the DOD it was renamed the M-16, a select-fire sear and selector switch was added and it was sent to Vietnam with the Army special forces, but not the regular troops. The DOD changed the type of powder used in the cartridge, from a ball powder to a cheaper flake powder which burned very dirty causing jamming of the bolt and loss of life of our military personnel. A change order was submitted which added a forward assist to the bolt, a chrome lining in the barrel and a return to the ball powder which stopped the jamming. The M-16 was then reliable enough to make it the standard battle rifle, and the .30 caliber M-14 was replaced. Once again: the rifle was FIRST developed as a civilian, sporting, semi-auto rifle and not a military weapon. Thank you for your attention.
No, the AR-15 as we know it today, and as we have known it since the early 1960s, was "spec'd" by Colt for the civilian market. They started with the military M16 and removed the full-auto functionality, and also made a few changes so that the full-auto functionality couldn't be easily restored, and called it "AR-15 SP1". This was then approved by the ATF for civilian sale, and Colt started manufacturing and selling them to civilians. The military has never used the AR-15 as we know it today, it has always been a civilian rifle.
Your confusion stems from the fact that the original prototypes that the military tested in the 1950s, which were designed and manufactured by ArmaLite, were also called "AR-15". Those were not adopted by the military, never made it past the prototype stage, and ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. Colt continued to develop the design, finally sold the military on it (which they adopted under the designations "M16" and "M16A1") and then developed the civilian version ("AR-15 SP1"). "AR-15" has also become a genericized trademark used to refer to any of the civilian versions of the M16 that are made by any company (i.e., not just Colt).
You are incorrect. The M-16 is the military assult version of th AR-15
Where is the outrage and ban for the number 1 killer in the US? Between 29 and 31,000 a year over the last 20 have died as a result of a gun in the US.(murder, accident, suicide, law enforcement and self defense) Over 440,000 a year die from cigarettes and almost 50,000 die from second hand smoke, adults and children in the US. That does not include the millions that are hospitalized or become ill from smoking or second hand smoke.
I'm not concerned for my kids safety standing in front of someone at JCPenny who is smoking, but a guy with an AR15 a Glock and 200 rounds, that's troubling.
Likewise, if I had an AR15 and a Glock with 200 rounds of ammunition I wouldn't feel concerned for my kids safety.
Oh no...someone has a gun on them!
Seth, hope my kids and family don't have to depend on people like you to protect them from an active shooter if I'm not around. Don't think the police will be there right when you need them either. What would you do in that situation?
Nothing wrong with being prepared for the worst and hope for the best...I can understand one's fear and apprehension without understanding but the government should not be telling us who can have what kind of firearm if you are a law abiding citizen.
These hideous crimes are being committed with not always assault weapons and by mentally unstable people. In addition, these guns are stolen most of the time.
Bans have been proven to be in-affective and often result in more crime. Numbers and statistics don't lie.
Alcohol is as much if not more of a problem than smoking. Police dont get called to domestics because 'someone was smoking'. You have DUI/DWI. Drunk drivers kill not cigarette smoking drivers. They tried prohibition but it failed same as trying to ban the guns will fail.
@cr Really? 400 bullets flying everywhere!!! I would have my kids nowhere near that scene!
CNN's mods seem to be at it again! I've just tried eloquently reply to your post but it hasn't appeared!
Well I can see you all over the place; so stop complaining your post doesn't arrive!
PS. It could be due to the "Snow"
Welcome back! I was wondering what happened to you and your diatribe. What snow?
To answer your question if CNN's mods don't kill my post, it's called a deterrent, just like we use our nuclear weapons to deter rogue nuclear states not to reek havoc on us.
A non-authority person in plain close carrying a deadly weapon isn't a deterrent, they are a threat! No-one knows what their intentions are. And when it comes to life or death, you can't expect people at large to just trust that they don't mean harm. If you don't mean harm, don't carry deadly weapons into public areas. People will react, and mayhem will break loose.
I don't entirely agree with open carry, I can see that would be a concern. But I do believe people have a right to defend themselves against bad people, and that is what is so great about our country, unlike other nations like Britain, Piers' homeland where the police are given the sole monopoly of protecting victims of violent crime.
Can't wait to watch Piers tonight! He, Erin and Anderson are the best!
Nor can I. Looking forward to more BS from Piers!
Does it really matter the technical definition of these machine guns, they kill people, too many people. How many children have died from guns in America (probably accidentally in most cases) since Sandy Hook. Isn't that the real issue. I can walk down the street of Melboure, Australia knowing no one has a gun, apart from the police. It's good and a nice way to live.
Apart from the criminals! You should probably watch this music video by one of your fellow Australians then. It sums up quite nicely the sentiments of every gun owning Australian!
Yes, I'm sure there are some criminals with guns but the police deal with them. Gun ownersh is strictly controlled here and I think it makes for a safer society.
Well gun control hasn't made for a safer society in Pommy land!
While the police might be there, they're always 5 or 10 minutes to late. More concerning, in some remote outback areas especially in your big unpopulated country they may never arrive at all.
Hi CR, who are you to say that some music video sums up all Australian gun owners opinions. Do you speak on behalf of all Australian gun owners then? Also the unpopulated areas of Australia don't get much crime because there is no population, by definition. Just the kangaroos
Hi CR, pommy land has had a decrease in violent crime of 47% between 1995 and 2011, gun control was introduced in 1996. These stats are based on British Crime survey 2011. Sounds like a heaps safer society to me. Please provide your sources or perhaps you would prefer to apologize for your incorrect comment.
Yes I know a number of Australian's who shoot and have a very good idea as to how they feel. That video sums it up nicely. I used to live near Darwin so know full well what it's like to live in the outback and very remote location. The reason why there's little crime in these areas is because most of the people are gun owners. Strange coorelation that! I know where I lived, 200 klicks east of Darwin, we didn't have a phone so couldn't call the police, and even we had it would have taken them more than an hour, and probably longer depending on road conditions, to arrive.
With regard to violent crime in the UK, you are wrong I'm afraid. In all international crime surveys Britain ranks at top for violent crime in the western World. It was only a few years ago that the EU named Britain as the most violent country Europe, this news appeared in all the headlines across British papers and other news media. Just Google, UK named most violent country in the EU.
Not entirely sure where you are getting your information about the plummeting crime rates in the UK. Your argument is certainly not supported by the British media!
UK is the violent crime capital of Europe:
The crime rate maybe high because of high unemployment But when the violence is referred to by Piers then he refers to gun violence in the UK which is extremely low as very few folks have guns of any sort
Hi CR, having once lived in Australia doesn't give you the right to speak on behalf of Every gun owning Australian. Regarding UK stats, I gave my source. The comparison I gave was before and after gun control was introduced in UK. Your comparisons are for crime between different countries. Way too many variables in definitions and crime types compared between countries.
The stats I've given you were compiled and reported on 10 years after the gun ban. Violent crime in the UK has skyrocketed, if you care to read your newspapers, furthermore the rate of reported gun crime and gun related injuries has more than doubled since the ban. That's what all the fuss has been about in the UK.
I think if you asked the British public would they like to be able to own guns or the like, legally in the UK, then you would probably find out that the percentage would be less than 2-5%.
My country comparisons though are completely valid, because they demonstrate and debunk Piers' central argument that more guns mean more crime. So how is that the Swiss privately own nearly 8 times the number of guns as the British and yet Britain's murder rate is nearly 40% higher? The Swiss one of the lowest murder rates on the planet. Just how can that be with all the guns? A point Piers doesn't want to discuss!
Hi CR, the gun lobby are saying more guns = less violence and Piers is saying less guns= less gun related deaths.
Then explain why the Swiss, Germans, French, Italians and Spanish who all own substantially more guns, on a per capita basis, than the British, and who are some of the largest gun owning nations in the world all have substantially lower rates of violent crime and homicide rates than the British. This is not NRA bunk, I'm not even a member, these are actual stats from the EU and UN!
Hi CR, not sure if you are reading and understanding but will again attempt to explain. Piers argument relates to gun related deaths, not all homicides, not all violent crime just gun related deaths. Recent stats for the countries you mentioned for gun related deaths per 100,000 population are UK 0.25, Spain 0.63, Germany 1.1, Italy 1.28, France 3.0 Switzerland 3.84, USA 10.2.
USA has a very high rate in comparison to UK. The other countries you mentioned are also higher, but nowhere near as high as USA. A completely different comparison, not to be confused with the above stats, is comparison between violent crime stats before and after gun control was introduced into UK. This comparison is useful to demonstrate if there has been a blow out in other crimes as a result of the gun laws, eg gun related deaths reduced but knife related deaths increased. In 1995 there were approx 1010 violent crimes per 10000 adults and 2011 there were approx 540. These stats come from British Crime survey report on crime. It hasn't been suggested that a comparison between violent crime rates between counties is used because different countries class different crimes differently. Assault has differing definitions, sometimes including verbal aggression, sometimes physical abuse etc. There are lots of other variables which make the comparison of violent crime stats between countries invalid. Hope this helps you to understand USA has a big problem with guns.
I totally understand ros. But this is what you're not getting. Yes, the gun homicide rate is low in Britain because there are fewer guns, but the total homicide rate (gun and non gun committed murders) in Britain, on a per capita basis, is significantly higher than these large gun owning Western European countries. You need to check the source of your stats, because the gun murder rates you have quoted are all significantly higher than the total homicide rates. For instance the total homicide rate in Switzerland is 0.7 per 100,000 annually, however you state the Swiss have a gun murder rate of 3.84 per 100,000. How can the gun murder rate be higher than the total overall murder rate? The same is true for all the other countries you have listed except for Britain, which looks pretty close to its per capita gun homicide rate per 100k. Britain's total homicide rate (last published) is 1.3 per 100k. You state that the US has a gun homicide rate of 10.2 per 100k, which is more than 2 times its total recorded annual homicide rate. Do you understand what I am saying?
Hi CR, because homicide excludes suicide and gun related deaths includes suicide.
Hi CR, another important reason why a comparison between countries overall violent crime stats is invalid is because it doesn't measure the seriousness of the crime. A murder is counted the same as an assault. So, if a parent came to a school and punched 3 teachers it would be counted the same as if a gunman came to a school and shot dead 3 teachers. UK has it's share of violence but people are not getting killed as often as USA. Piers is trying to help USA, he's not the perfect person to be doing it. NRA has a vested interest in refuting evidence. Luckily sensible people see through the lies.
Ros ryan: Lies come from the government and Piers Morgan. Rifles with a bayonet lug or pistol grip, or flash suppressor are banned because they are more dangerous? Get truthful, they are banned because they LOOK MORE SCARY. LIES, LIES, LIES. To ban YOU don't know the difference..
Hi Russell, like I said. Sensible people. Stand over tactics of yelling and repeating yourself don't work so well in blog conversations as face to face. Not very scary at all, just a bit sad and desperate.
Hi Ros Ryan. Suicides aren't homicides, by combining gun related deaths from both groups as you have done with your figures conveniently hides the truth of my argument. Your point that less guns mean less gun related deaths (homicides and suicides combined) is somewhat true, but likewise more guns also don't necessarily mean more homicides as has been demonstrated with these Western European examples and Britain.
Coming from Melbourne I disagree. As a country we are ripe for overthrow. Read about Indonesians and the control and use of force in Irian Jaya. If invaded we have no means of internal resistance. Dont think America or the UK will come to help either. And DONT think the government will always be on your side. I'm with the 2nd amendment on this one. We THINK we are a democracy We THINK we are safe. But the thing about history is that it repeats and we are allowing ourselves to lulled into a false sense of security which is going to blow up in our faces
Finally, someone with a brain... Thanks, Adrienne.
Hi Adrienne, I prefer to live in a safer society now. Who knows what will or could happen, pretty sure that lots of private citizens owning multiple dangerous weapons doesn't add up to security.
Ros, If you could instruct me as to how I should protect my family including a 5-year-old if two Mexican gang members should bust into my house, I would truly appreciate it.
Please give me a step-by-step foolproof instruction of how I should hold them off until police arrive (sometimes it can take 30min. in my area), with only 10 bullets when they have more than 10 bullets in each gun (FYI: criminals don’t follow the law). If I can hold them off without a gun, that would be even SUPER. What's your advice for me??
This reply is for ichiro regarding your Mexican home invasion scenario. I suggest you invest in some external security so intruders can't get into your home. Or you could bug out to a bomb shelter somewhere and sit with your gun loaded watching the door 24 h pd. don't accidentally shoot the pizza guy though please. Another suggestion might be to visit your doctor and find out about paranoia and anxiety. But be aware that if you are told anything you don't want to know that's probably because there is a government conspiracy.
Ros, thanks for your replay, but what if I'm not rich like you and don't have that kind of money?
"paranoia and anxiety"? An acquiescence of mine was actually killed in a gang related shooting.
And Ros, you are really a classy guy, you know that? Throwing a “pizza guy” joke like that, when people are dealing with life-or-death situations. Really compassionate, THANKS FOR YOUR ADVICE!!!!
Reply for ichiro, I have seen your exact same question on several other blogs, trolling for a response? I'm not wealthy but if I was as concerned for my security as you indicated you were, then an investment in external security would be an obvious answer. Maybe you could sell some of your guns at a gun show To raise some funds – don't forget to unload them first. No joking, serious.
Ros, it’s because most anti-gun folks have no clue what people in different areas are going through and just scream about banning guns when those are “the least expensive and most potent” tools for us to protect our families. Why can’t I have the choice?? What’s wrong with wanting a reasonable answer from anti-gun folks about it? What’s wrong with making them consider the consequences in other people’s lives for what they are demanding?
Response for ichiro, as far as I know external home security is a reasonable answer to your home invasion scenario and not that costly. A lot better than a gun because you would need to constantly carry a gun with you to save you from a surprise invasion. I don't want to live like that.
Ros, if I were to sell my guns, I could probably get 700-800 bucks. Now tell me how do I build an impregnable fortress with that budget. Do you think carrying a gun with me all the time would be an inconvenience? What if I already do? And remember, I have to go to work. How do I protect myself while I’m outside? If I die, my wife and kid are gonna be in a big financial trouble. What are you gonna do about it then? You’d just say, “oops, sorry, bad luck”?? And turn your back and quickly forget the people who suffer because of the demand you guys made? If you don’t want to live like this, fine, I’m not asking you to. Don’t you think I would move to a nicer area if I could afford to? But then there are friends and relatives I don’t want to leave behind... And I want to maintain the land I inherited from my father if could. Why can’t you understand that?
Response for ichiro, responded in a new comment at the bottom of the blog.
Ichiro, I feel for you deeply, brother.
"The western defence? Is this really what you're talking about?? "How large do you think North America is?? How at large is the coruption?? How much can you trust the Muslim Obama?? Just where are you willing to draw the line, when you don't even know where it begins??"
"When Obama can prove there are no Muslims coming over the Mexican boarder, with sub-machine automatic weapons, then and only then, should anyone listen to him!"
"This is not about the NRA, this is about Muslims in America, and the Arab League's infiltration!"
Oh Griff..."Get a Life" & stop "Wishing for something that is in your wild imagination"!
Fort Dix, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the religious school in Oakland: what do they have in common? The massacres were committed with semi-automatic handguns. So why aren't the politicians trying to ban those? Why? Because they aren't as "flashy" or scary-looking as a rifle? C'mon, Piers! Why aren't you talking about this? How about some actual journalism as opposed to sound bites?
Of course Piers is not going to be calling for a handgun ban just yet. This is what's called divide and conquer, or the thin end of the wedge. In Britain they banned semiautomatic rifles first, and then about a decade later they banned handguns. When Piers was editor of the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror, his paper led a relentless national campaign to confiscate and ban the private ownership of handguns. The notion that Piers doesn't have problem with our second amendments rights is pure bunk and smacks of a double standard. Of course he wants to ban handguns also!
They will go after those next, if they get their way.
If, according to the FBI handguns kill more people, why the issue with "assault" weapons. Is it because the person with the "assault" weapon will kill more people at once?
To me it makes more sense to go after the people who have the illegal handguns, and not the people with any type of legal weapon.
i would like to know what rite i have to not be shot in my house by someone trying to defend themselfs in there house with a gun that can shot through 4 houses and kill someone 4 houses away . i could be eating dinner and get shot by someone trying to defend themselfs 4 houses down. ware are my rites
You don't get any rites (sic) until you learn how to spell. And I've never heard of any bullet traveling through FOUR houses. Stupid.
how many walls can an ar15 shot through then stupid
guns make little boys like you think your big
Piers has no clue about guns. Evident when he just called a gun a two two...clueless!! CNN is obviously being pressured by the left to keep this topic on the air. Why else would he keep parading gun ban Congress members on his show. Newt had a great point, how many shows has he opened with people who have used a gun to defend their home? Send him back across the pond!!
AR-15 can only shoot 50-60 rounds per minute and that is by a highly trained person – ship Piers Morgan and all anti-gunners with their miasma to Europe.
Piers, "Stay where you are" & continue with your great "Work"!
Pierce, the question that shouldmbemaskedmofmpoliticians that don't agree with the idea that high powered guns should be banned should be this: what has the NRA done for Newt lately, I.e., how much $$ has he received?
The fact is Guns from south walk to Chicago
Piers, how many bullets could the automatic rifles that were banned in the 1030s shoot per second? Given that that law seems unquestioned by the gun lobby, why not use that bullet rate as the benchmark for banning rapid-fire weapons, today? After all, you would not be banning anything that was not already deemed sufficiently dangerous to come under that accepted 1930s law.
Pierce, I dont disagree with you, but you should know machine guns are legal in the US. Anyone can own a heavy machine gun. If they buy the License, and complete the ATF paperwork... I could buy a 50cal machine gun anytime. Machine gun ownership is highly regulated. And I think there has been no crimes with heavy machine guns. Many many people own them. At the same time an American can get a piolts license at age 14 because we dont have very many 14 year old pilots doing bad things... The answer is probably to move the AR15 under the machine gun regs. (both you and Nute are wrong any american can own a 50cal heavy machine gun)
Wait until he finds out that silencers are also legal!
I am watching this as I type. I am a conservative who often now wonders why on God's earth is Newt Gingrich on show after show still? THIS man wanted to spend many-many billions of dollars on "moon-colonies", he's on his 3rd marriage, was basically kicked out of his seat in Washington in the past and carried TWO states in the primary, one being HIS OWN! I find him to be useless regarding ethics, sound judgment or morality he would say anything to remain in the limelight. He is a has-been who is finished and Gingrich and people like him, the fat (literally), old has-beens who are out of touch with middle America and common sense are destroying this party. The GOP clearly wants to continue to slide into an abyss and never regain the White House. How could we?
Maybe because he is an intelligent, college professor that ran the House with an iron hand when he was in Washington? Maybe because he would be doing a far better job than the politicians we have in office now? Which is worse, 3 divorces or hundreds of women Kennedy slept with, or Clinton's Monica, or whatever. It has nothing to do with anything. Has anyone in your friends or family ever had a divorce? It didn't matter if he was on the show or not. Piers never lets anyone talk that he disagrees with. Look at how rude he was to the two girls that came after Newt on the show.
To answer you question......why would anyone need an AR-15.
Read this post on gun control....which I dare you to read on air and argue the points it makes.
Go to the 1st link in the post.....to answer the question ....why would anyone need an AR-15
Right, but then again Mike Huckabee wrote a book on dieting and healthy eating as well, kind of lost credibility back then with me since the man is huge & a walking myocardial infarction.....
Yes, Mike Huckabee is overweight, but it is his right to be overweight if he wants to. I suppose in YOUR idea of freedom, the government should come in and put him on a diet against his will. And after that, the government can prohibit smoking as a "health hazard", but then, what would your Messiah, Barack Obama do. He is a heavy smoker, and that is shown to be more of a health hazard than overweight. You are such a complete hypocrite.
Thank you for taking gun issue and helping to people to understand we do not need these semi-automatic. hope your our politician get some common sense.
The reason no one has used an AR-15 to shoot an intruder is because the potential robbers/criminals know better that to screw with a household that is well protected....
I'm sure that's the reason.
Piers , you are digging a deep hole for yourself on this gun control. You better get some education on guns before you start spouting off at the mouth about guns you know nothing about!!!! An AR-15 is nothing but a .22 cal. squirrel rifle that looks like an assault weapon!!!
Oh if only "Squirrels" could talk, they'd disagree with you!
P.S. But then most of them are shot as well as ???
The AR-15 is a civilian version of the military type, as stated in the owners manual it only shoots 12-15 rounds a minute, this is with a reliable magazine and a well trained shooter. The military version is fully automatic and shoots 100 rounds per minute, but this is already illegal to own. It is obvious that the media wants to misrepresent the difference to support their agenda.
If the 2nd amendment so infuriates Mr Morgan, he is free to leave and go back home. He refuses to let anyone with a difference of opinion speak. He's a grand standing buffoon.
Not everything the founding fathers did was perfect. They gave us the ability to change what started. Why is that so difficult for people. I think the founders would ban assault weapons.
I agree, founding fathers were not perfect. They didn't have superpowers to allow them to see 200 years into the future. Thomas Jefferson credited with writing 'all men are created equal' But he owned slaves all his life. They were just a bunch of blokes. They probably wrote the second amendment so they could keep their slaves under control.
In the footage on Piers show the two women shooting their AR-15's, notice how slow the rate of fire is! Piers needs to get his facts straight, however that does not sound good enough for his agenda!
piers keeps saying an ar15 was used in sandy hook... they showed an ar15 in the trunk of adam lanza's car. 4 hand guns were used in the shooting. the media is spinning this whole thing to allow guns. what happened was a terrible tragedy, but the facts are the facts.
not allow guns.... allow gun control!
Hi Paul, The officials say that a bushmaster .223 AR 15 was used. Who's spinning this? Yes facts are facts.
America highly respects the Second Amendment, however completely disregards the Fourteenth Amendment – Life and Liberties.
& what about the "Sixth Commandment"? Thou shalt not kill...aye, yous have all (the gun-lovers) forgotten about that one...& then you call yourselves "Christians"?
15 year old can’t get a driver license but he got access to gun
Some time Karma response ASAP
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.
That's a stupid argument...because armed personnel who you think will save you...will be "off with the "Fairies" every time a shooting occurs.
& if that was such a good idea, then why haven't they prevented such death yet...during all past gun massacres? I know the answer... no-ones ever around when you need them...for they're all off shooting "Squirrels" aren't they!
Dump your "Guns"...period.
WELL HERE WE ARE AGAIN, SAME OLD PIERS , INTERUPT , TALK OVER , ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR THEM , GET IN AS MANY BUZZWORDS AS POSSIBLE, KILLING MACHINES , HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES, MILITARY STYLE, ASSAULT RIFLE ,100 RNDS A MINUTE , ALL IN TRYING TO SWAY THE MASSES TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA, WHY BECAUSE HE IS NOTHING BUT A LYING SISSY BOY , THAT HAS NEVER TOUCHED A FIREARM AND IS SCARED OF THEM , AND WANTS TO SHOW US ALL THAT HE HAS POWER, B.S. GO BACK TO ENGLAND GO SOMEWHERE JUST GO, AND CNN PLEASE SEND HIM , WE WILL ALL DONATE FOR A ONE WAY PLANE TICKET.
Good interview. It doesn't take much to make an AR into a full auto. Old Newt just couldn't say it's all about money! Just like giving our updated F-16s away to Egypt.
It would cost around $10,000 to get an AR-15 machined (by a gunsmith its not an easy task) to be fully auto.
On top of that it would be a federal crime with a sentence of 10 years in federal prison and a $15,000 fine.
Anti-gunners dont have a clue what they are talking about
I have enjoyed his interviews with celebrity entertainers from time to time, but as a real "news" reporter he leaves ALOT to be desired. As with most media now a days they consistently ignore the facts and simply pick and choose what they use to represent the story in the way that they want.
Now we know why you lost!
Why the focus on the 2nd amendment? It speaks to arms capable of protecting us from government tyranny. Guns, no matter how big, are completely ineffective at protecting us against government tyranny. In today's world, it's the internet, cell phone cameras and the free media which protect us. Was the response to Kent State the arming of college students? No – the images of the national guard gunning down students was instantly transmitted and our outrage stopped it from happening again. Did all the guns in the world save David Koresh from what he considered government tyranny? Guns should not be considered a 2nd amendment right. Rather, they should be reasonably regulated at both the federal and state levels for self defense, hunting and sport purposes.
Organized Crime Acts of Terror
Q. Piers, how will this limit on ammunition clips, 10 bullets, prevent organized crime from targeting schools again to commit acts of terror, and more gun control?
Go Newt! It is a shame your responce time was limited to about 6 seconds when brining up a relivant point. It was a blessing you were permitted in that short time to drive your point home.
The answer to your question to Newt about how many how many people did the shooter at Newtown kill with an AR-15 is zero!!! The AR-15 was never used in the killings!! They found the AR-15 in the car and 4 handguns in the school. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
Stop using false information to progress your agenda.
you all are making a mistake, machine guns were not banned in the 1930's they were regulated. you can go buy a machine gun today. There expensive, and you would have to pay 200 dollars for the atf license. But you could have one today. So you guys are making a mistake. Automatic weapons are not banned..
Piers, I live in Chicago and agree that the police need to do more. But part of the answer to why Chicago's strict guns laws are not effective on the south and west side of Chicago where most of the gun violence occurs is because only a stones throw away is Indiana where the guns laws are lax. Over 55% of the guns used in shooting in Chicago come from Indiana. How can you have gun control in a city when that city's is bordered by a state that totally negates those laws? The border with Indiana is a sieve. Unless you have effective national gun control, you will never be able to have effective localized laws because the access to the weapons is way too easy.
If making things nationally illegal fixes problems then why do we have so many illegal drugs so readily available.....And If you would check your facts there are restrictions on Illinois residents legally purchasing firearms in indiana...
Drugs are readily available because they are illegally brought in from other countries by drug lords and much of it can be grown in your back yard or basement. It is much harder to bring in the guns because people can't smuggle in rifles and pistols in their stomachs, tires, seat cushions, etc. Guns are larger, made of metal and much easier to detect. Also, AR-15 can't be manufactured in your basement or backyard. Also, the facts are that a majority of the guns used in Chicago shooting are from Indiana, those are the facts. How hard is it for gang bangers and criminals to have people on the other side of the border buying the guns for them?
It would be nice to hear the other person's complete opinion without constant interruption from Pierce. If you don,t agree with Pierce you basically cant get your point across. This only serves as a negative against him in his quest to push his agenda. I agree with his stance, however, his bullying of his guest is rally annoying.....
A British bully in America, again. Does Morgan think that it is okay to bully two young AMerican women? Shame, shame CNN!
For someone so worried about manners and etiquette at least you could get his name right. Everyone on you side constantly thinks his name is Pierce, ... IT's PIERS! Shows how much you pay attention. That's why we have a problem in this country, because half the people are paying attention, and the rest just make stuff up.
I think they think Piers is Pierce Brosnan & think Pierce is Piers Morgan!
He's not Piers anything, he's just Piers clueless Morgan!
WOW!! thanks for the clarification. That changes everything!! Thanks Frank
Why are these two bimbo "Gun Girls" on tv.... can someone please go and kick their stupid red neck asses
YES...Those two girls make me sick....
Bryan Beyak why don't you go kick those twos girls ass, coward!
FORGET GUN CONTROL , LETS BAN PIERS MORGAN PLEASE , CAN I GET A AMEN ON THAT
AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!!
The sandy hook killer did not use an ar15. He had one and left it in his car. Piers has the facts wrong.
How do you know? Were you there when the shooting was happening?
No, you weren't!
Piers is a mentally-challenged person and I would NOT trust him with any type of firearm. He has found an issue that he can use to stay on TV and make an income, however his thread of "logic" is so weak that it cannot stand up to examination. The FACTS do not support any of his arguments and he speaks only through fear and ignorance. The statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting system clearly show that KNIVES are used 5 times more than all RIFLES. Blunt instruments such as hammers are used TWICE as much as all rifles. Hands, feet and fists are even used MORE to murder than ALL TYPES of RIFLES. Piers uses fear to promote his agenda and no one with intelligence pays any attention to his ravings.
AMEN Russell, I agree.
Why won't Mr Morgan let the people talk and make their point
Why do Americans need their guns? Americans shooting Americans, how stupid is that. Love your show Piers.
Tina: Why do women NEED an expensive COACH purse? Why do people NEED a Cadillac or Lincoln when a Chevy or Ford will go just as fast? Why does anyone NEED to play golf? The answer to these questions is that in the USA we can have possessions that we WANT and not just those that we NEED. If anyone tried to take away the things that you WANT, but don't NEED, I'll bet you would be on the other side of the fence. This is the USA and we have a thing called FREEDOM.
Doesn't sound very free to me...when you're all cowering around with guns trying to shoot each-other...I mean you'd make the Taliban feel jealous, if they ever heard of the goings on in your supposedly free America!
Just for everyones information it is legal to own a fully automatic weapon in most states. Piers you are very uninformed about firearms and should have your people do more research, before jumping on the left winged bandwagon. limit the amount of ammo i can hold in my magazine means that i just carry more magazines. gun control only effects individuals that abide by the law. You will not stop bad people from doing bad things. Since Piers believes that ar 15s are the most dangerous firearms, let me give you some facts. An ar15 shoots a bullet that is .223in in diameter and normally holds 30 rounds in the standard magazine that most Americans use in them. If going by the standard that every bullet kills someone( which is not the case) 1 ar15 with 1 magazine can kill 30 people. Now lets look at a 12gauge pump shotgun with 00 buckshot. 1 00 buck shell has 9 steal balls in it. Each steal ball measures .30in in diameter. Now you can hold 9 00 buckshot shells in your shot gun which means that you can shoot 81 steal balls in less than a min. If you say each one of those can kill someone. looking at those numbers you should really be trying to ban shotguns.
CNN please take Piers Morgan off the network and send him back to his own country IF they will take him back???
You leave first. Your part of the problem, not the solution. I can see the NRA has their drones out in force on all the comment boards. You people are not the majority get it!
They won't take him back. He was totally involved with phone hacking.. He is a very ignorant person
Piers is such an a$$..he will not let a gun rights guest get a word in. Thousands killed in OK city with fertilizer..lets get Piers going on banning fertilizer!!
Just watched tonight's show, and BOTH Piers and Newt were wrong!
It IS legal to own full automatic firearms in America! He needs a better fact
You are exactly correct. Kansas passed a CCW law and at the same time allowed the possession of Class III, (fully automatic) weapons. No Class III weapon holder has used his fully-automatic weapon to commit a crime. In Chicago where most all guns are banned, the murder rate is the highest in the nation.
Has everyone forgotten liberty?...Our forefathers had a far greater vision than anyone today in regards to understanding freedom. We as Americans have the right to bear arms. This is not britain, we are American. Let us not restrict our rights, but enable our freedoms!
Piers, in your interview with Newt Gingrich you keep saying fully automatic weapons are banned....Fully Automatic weapons are not banned....You can get a class 3 license from the ATF and LEGALLY buy fully automatic weapons......And you said that without access to "Assault Rifles" they would not have killed.....If someone is motivated to kill they will use whatever they can find.....And hey how about you let the people you are interviewing talk and make their points....and as for the difference between as you said multiple times...."Fully automatic weapons and an assualt weapon that can fire 100 rounds per minute" is that fully automatic weapons can fire over 1000 rounds per minute....
Why or why were those 2 Valley Girls on your show? They did nothing in furthering the discussion on Gun Control!!!
Freedom of speech CNN????
Question? If Newt Gingrich is a super American, believing Unequivocally in the patriotism of our country.... Then why do we need semi automatic weapons to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our government? Has Newt not been part of our government for many years? So Newt, what do you know about our government that you have been part of decades, that makes you believe we need semi automatice weapons to protect our liberty. If this is the case, then Newt you are part of the government we fear!
It's not a question of NEED, Cynthia. It's a question of freedom and individual liberty. Chicago has the highest murder rate in the USA and yet they have the strictest gun laws? Does that make any sense to you? When guns are banned, only criminals will have guns because criminals DON'T OBEY they law.
i SPORT SHOOT MY AR-15 AND DON'T CHOOSE TO CHAMBER EACH ROUND SEPERATELY. I WILL BET THAT MR. MORGAN IS IN FAVOR OF A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO KILL AN UN BORN BABY BUT IS VERY QUIET ABOUT THESE LIVES LOST
It is patently obvious that these networks find the people to have on the show that will not represent the other side of the argument very well, either a shouting nut job, or these two girls who never corrected him when he stated that these AR-15's can shoot 100 rounds a minute. Where is Ted Nugent when we need him. LOL
Gun 'rights' as a second amendment right are obsolete. No matter how many guns you have and no matter how big they are, if it's a fight with the government based on power – you loose. The real power is in my cell phone camera, the internet and the media. It toppled Kadaffi and Mubarak. Guns should be considered a privilege and reasonably regulated at both the state and federal levels for hunting, self defense and sport as appropriate to the region.
AFTER WATCHING PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT, I NOW UNDERSTAND FULLY , WHY WE FOUGHT THE BRITISH , WHAT A BUNCH OF IRRITATING PEOPLE.
Its simple, more guns, more accidental and intentional deaths in our society, If the gun owners and people of america value their guns more than the innocent lives of the children these guns are killing, then those gun owners and americans who value guns should bear the responsibility for those deaths.
Please do some research on "Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs)". There have been about 13 non-NRA studies on DGUs that estimate between 800,000 and 2,500,000 (depending on what study you read) instances occur each year where someone has stopped a criminal act, either from commencing or completing, with the threat of or actual use of a gun.
Bring back Larry King! Piers has beaten a dead horse about gun control... doesn't he have anything else more constructive to talk about? If he needs advice on content please call Larry K for advice as his show is tumbling down the tubes
This is what Larry King said about Piers Morgan's show in an interview with HuffPost Live. Speaking to HuffPost Live's Marc Lamont Hill, King pointed out that he and his successor have two very different approaches to their shows.
"I never gave opinions," King said. "Piers gives his opinions. The show is a lot about him as much as the guests... He's so different from me."
"A lot of shows, they make it about the host and the guest becomes a prop to the host and I never liked that."
"It's not the quality that counts anymore," he continued. "It's how loud did you yell, how vituperative can you be."
LARRY, COME BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!
Piers Morgan is an idiot, he asks a question then tries to make the guest seem stupid if they don't agree with his opinion. Mass Murders are Mass Murders, regardless of the weapon used. Piers has somehow convinced himself that AR-15's are killing machines simply because they are AR-15s. A killer is a killer and there's NO test to determine who will kill next.
This guy is an idiot. An AR-15 can be a useful hunting rifle. Some people use this to hunt wild hogs, and I will tell you that if you miss with the first shot you will be happy that you have 29 more because you may use a few more then 5 if the hog charges you. Oh BTW go back to the UK if you don't like my rights that I have and have sworn to defend.
During the night's discussion, Piers Morgan has made several references to an AR-15 being able to fire 100 rounds in a minute. That would mean the trigger must be pulled every half second. How is that physically possible?
I am trained in rapid fire of the military's M-16 Carbine (AR-15 Military version), and in semi-auto I don't even think that I could accurately shot more the 30 rounds per min with even a magazine fed semi auto pistol. Even inaccurately I do not think that I could shoot more then 60 rounds, you have to change magazines and that takes time. If you ban these weapons, then what is next banning that will happen.
Why should people be allowed the own AR-15's?
Why should the U.S be allowed to own Nuclear weapons?
When Kansas passed the CCW law, which allowed Concealed Carry Weapons, the state also allowed the possession of Class III weapons. These are select-fire, or fully automatic firearms and they are now allowed, (they ARE NOT PROHIBITED), and there has NEVER been a case of a Class III weapons holder using his fully-automatic weapon to commit a crime. In Chicago, the most highly restricted city in America when it comes to guns, has the highest murder rate in America. Piers ignores this FACT and wants every city to be like Chicago, and if that ever happens, then every city in America will be rivaling Chicago as the Murder Capital of America.
Piers needs to return to England.
"No support for gun control accept for people like us..." Piers Morgan and his media associates....that says it all!
..except...(typing too fast)
Piers Morgan is rude and a bully!!!! He asks questions then won't allow anyone to answer. He needs to go back to Brittain where he belongs. When asking a question of a guest on his show, he won't allow an answer unless the answer is something he agrees with. You are very rude Piers and it is our second amendment right to own firearms.
Your side doesn't like it because he doesn't let people go off on a tangent and get away with not answering the questions. That is the purpose of an interview, to ask questions and have those questions answered and logically stay on topic. You prefer the media types that throw softballs all day long and never ever get to the truth or the heart of the matter.
frank plain and simple, you suck
Piers you are a joke!!!! you cant answer other people questions, but sure want your questions answered.....so should there be a ban on Diesel and Fertilizer that caused the Oklahoma bombing that killled kids, adults and so many people in less than one minute. I would like to know how he the kid used the AR-15 to shoots the people when the rifle was found in the vehicle and the 2 hand guns were found at the crime scene .......did the kid run back to the car and throw it in the car and tehn go back to the school and shoot himself?
Look up the TV Show, "Doomsday Preppers", then look at the number of people who believe in "the rapture", "end of days", and other prophecies, and you'll start to see where far too many Americans are. People believe that they need to defend themselves from the mass mob, everyone for themselves mentality which may happen if society were to break down.
The people who own these weapons should be the first ones suspected of being mentally unbalanced.
Have you ever heard of World War Two? And how Hitler and Tojo came to power and oppressed the people, causing millions of people to die?
Go back to your homeland and when you need the mighty USA to keep you from speaking German, don't worry. Rifleman will again come to your country's rescue
For someone who is not from this country he sure does use his position on national tv to spew his liberal agenda and use tragedies to support his political views.... CNN is getting as bad as Fox News...
Piers is an A-GRADE IDIOT. First...... AN AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. IT IS A SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLE. NO DIFFERENT THAN ANO OTHER RIFLE THAT SHOOTS THE SAME CALIBUR. SECOND....... NBC FINALLY came out and said point blank that the AR allegedly found at sandy hook was NOT used. Lanza USED 4 HANDGUNS. and the video of cops destroying evidence in the back of lanza's car by discharging rounds from the gun into the trunk CLEARLY shows that it isnt an AR. AR style rifles do not rack from the side. Look it up if you dont believe me. i should know. i own multiple. Built every single one from the ground up. His statement about firing X amount of rounds per minute shows exactly how little he TRULY knows about the entire topic. i can take my .40 cal pistol and run thru 100 rounds in one minute. Once again we are dealing with mainstream media propaganda being thrown in the american people's face. id love to see what piers would be thinking if he had a mugger pointing a barrel between his eyes. i bet the first thing would be "Man i wish i had a gun."
Well after this program tonight, I have to put Piers Morgan in the same "LOON" catagory as Sara Phalin!!!!!
Why do I own a weapon? Because it is my second amendment right to do so. It is no ones business what type of weapon I own. I am a law abiding citizen and passed the background check. Case closed. Piers why don't you go back to the UK if you don't like it here in the USA. We the people were given RIGHTS by the founders of our country, deal with it!
Good job Piers, keep the energy on this issue going. And for the xenophobes who are telling you to go back, we should be able to listen to individuals from other countries about what is wrong in our country. We are the embarrasment of the civilized world with respect to murders and gun violence. It is shameful that there are murders after murders every week, and when there is any talk about doing something, the ignorant cry "second amendment". The second amendment allows for government regulation "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" and has been interpreted as such by our Supreme Court numerous times.
Piers you keep asking why not ban these assault weapons? Because not everyone uses them to kill people. There are gun lovers out there and your focus is all wrong. You need to go talk to your bosses and tell them that the focus needs to be where it is needed the most... Mentally ill!! Let's stop and take care of the mentally ill and then there won't be killing of people. Ban or no ban if some sick freak wants to kill he will find a way. All this talk of guns and banning them there is not one mention of the real issue at hand.... The mentally ill people. Start there Piers and maybe there would be less gun violence.
I dont have a ar dont want one but if I want one its my right to
Piers's loaded question about the automatic weapons ban and the difference in that and a AR15 is a joke. Yet he will not dare take that one step to take it to the level that a pistol can do the same thing. Never mind the fact that he does not see the problem is the sick person behind the gun. Why do the actions of what we agree are a crazy person always effect the rights of the sane ones? How about answer that question Piers? It must be cause you do not trust anyone to have the mental restraint to own a weapon and not use it for bad. Get a clue and answer questions you are asked with out avoiding them. Try to stay on topic.
Why doesn't piers want to ban teenage drivers? Car accident is the main cause of death among teens. Or how about school sports? Or how about bicycles? Do we want to save lives or not?
You make a Great point at the start, there should at least be greater restrictions put on teen drivers, not only for thier own safety, but more for the rext of the public!
Thank God someone articulate with common sense is condemming assualt weapons. Do you know the difference between the Nazi's, the KKK, the Republican party, and the NRA? There isn't one! Check the NRA membership roles.....almost exclusively white!
Okay, so you are a racist yourself, against White!
Piers is just a bully. Talking over guests doesn't make for a good interview.
a great point made by Piers' guest – "the founding fathers had wanted slavery" this shows how ridiculous it is that we are not changing the second amendment
Will somebody please explain the difference between a semi-suto and a full-auto firearm to Pierce, since he won't shut up and let anyone speak. I have never seen anyone fire a semi-auto AR-15 100 times in less than a minute and since when is a 22cal bullet so devastating that it tears deer and people to bits. He speaks that our forefathers didn't mean for us to have AR-15's that they had muskets.....muskets were the best that were available at that time and we need the best that are available in our time, they also didn't have tv's, internet,microwaves,and cars do we need to go back to horse and buggy with no modern ammenities or does it just apply to firearms?
FYI Piers, automatic weapons are NOT Illegal to have in the United States. Get your facts straight. They can be purchased with a FFL. I'm curios to see what the murder rates and police officer deaths are in the UK where many firearms are banned. Maybe we should walk around with Billy clubs like their Bobbies... wake up this isn't the thirties. Cheers
And it's not 1791 either
Piers is a bully and a coward. he stands on the graves of dead children to voice his message. He wraps himelf in the gore and evil of the gun slayings to promote his anti american agenda. He ignores the truth and soes not allow it to be stated on his program. Ask me those questions instead of the 2 girls you lied to to get on your program. Do I think Americans should have access to automatic weapons? You, bet, in just the manner they do today as so many others have stated. Also, as otheres have stated, his numbers on the AR-15 effective fire rates are so off as to be laughable. Nonetheless, he misses the entire point as to why Americans want and should have access to guns of this nature. The 2nd amendment. I laughed when he sneered at Newt when he said our founding fathers weren't thinking about assault weapons when the wrote the Bill of Rights. Of course they weren't. What they were thinking of was allowing men of good consciance access to weapons of equal power to a tyrannical government. When Newt try to make the point, he quickly ran like a scared puppy from the topic. Why? Because he knows why the 2nd amendment is neccesasary to our personal freedoms, which do not fit his agenda of dominance.
While I agree with some changes on gun control. I cannot agree with banning AR-15 type firearms. The AR-15's mechanical operation is just like any semi automatic hunting rifle. Take away the 30 round clip (which I don't have a problem with) then the only other difference between an AR-15 and any semi auto pistol, shotgun or rifle is purely cosmetic.
Closing the gun show and private sale loophole and long term mental health care facilities will do much more than banning AR-15 type firearms. I also find your tactics on CNN offending. You bully everyone who debates you on gun control and do not let them speak. I am 61 years old and am a Midwestern farmer. I am also very well respected in my community and been around firearms since I was old enough to hunt with my father. One more thing on semi automatic firearms. I collect some firearms for an investment. I own a semi- auto Mauser Broom Handle that was made in 1914. Semiautomatic firearm's are nothing new.
I think Piers is so passionate about this because he is sick and tired of seeing children gunned down ..thats it....its really too bad that society cannot bring themselves to see that. He is proposing a solution that actually works...see the stats in England if you dont believe it...yet all people seem to care about is that he interupts his guests and wants to take your guns away..nothing will ever change unless someone takes charge and it is really a shame that all people do is ridicule someone who wants to do that without even mentioning their solution to this crisis.
Go back to where you came from. How you rudely interruped both Newt and those young ladies and never let them finish their answers. Your clueless!!!! And a boifide moron!! YOUR FIRED!!!!
Can you please tell that stupid limey to let people answer the questions even if they don't agree with him. Disgusting how he abused those two young girls. Why is he so ignorant? Oh yeah He is a limey
It's so sad a non american is speaking up for concerned american mothers. The 2nd amendment was created because they had cowboy and indians attacking people in those days, aren't we civilized now. I believe if you are not a police man you have no right to own a gun any gun. I know I know its your right! What about the poor babies at sandy hook elementary school, what about their right to live, to have a future, what about the rights of the poor mother to see there babies grow up and beccome a beautiful human being. Piers has no clue about guns because he is civilized, like many of us are.
I have been a long time watcher of Piers Morgan... but lately during his many gun interviews... he has commented on his guests starting to laugh. Piers immediately gets indignant and tells them that it is not a laughing matter.. but as the two girls on his show tonight said, they were NOT laughing at the fact of the 20 children being gunned down, but the fact that Piers asks a question... starts to get a reply... decides he doesn't like the reply.. and immediately interrupts.
I think a good host would ask the question, then ALLOW his guest to reply without being stepped on. I am in Canada, we don't have the 2nd Amendment to deal with... I just think that if a hosts ASKS a question... please allow the courtesy of allowing a response before you ask or comment on the guests reply BEFORE you ask another question. Just because its your show.. should not allow the host to be rude. OR.. am I missing something about common courtesy??
Why the heck did you not ask Newt why homicide ,and especially gun homicide, rates in the U.S. are many times greater than in other Western countries? You should have asked him whether the difference has anything to do with the easy availability of deadly weapons in our country, or whether Americans are simply more genetically or culturally disposed to violence and killing than Brits, Swedes, Canadians, etc. Can we Americans not learn anything from other countries? And you could also extend this line of questioning to health care (Americans have relatively low life expectancy, high infant mortality rates, etc. relative to other Western Countries) or other important issues. Come on, engage guys like Newt on lessons to be learned from other countries. America is a great country in many ways, but the idea of American Exceptionalism is an illusion, and only serves to prevent us from realizing the dream our Founders (imperfectly obviously) espoused.
Piers Morgan displayed yet again tonight in the interview with the two women who own assault-style weapons that he is nothing more than a bully and an ass. When did it become good journalism to talk over the person you are interviewing, interrupt them, try to throw them off topic, and just be generally rude? Those girls handled him pretty darn well, I think. You go, girls!!!
Piers Morgan, you are nothing more than a fear-mongering opportunist capitalizing on the tragedy of others. While you are obviously selective in the framing of your questions, you would NEVER entertain a debate on a level playing field. Tonight I noticed you asked the question, 'what is the difference between an automatic weapon and an AR-15 in terms of ability to mass murder?' Although your guests may have been camera shy, I am not. he difference is crystal clear, rounds per minute. The automatic weapon delivers rounds at a rate an order of magnitude more than a semi automatic weapon. That's a fact. Now, here is a question for you... What is the difference between the killing ability of an AR-15 and the bulk of semi-automatic handguns owned by the masses in America? The answer is "nothing". Do you not understand the firing ability of an AR-15 and the mass of handguns is equal? Do you not understand that whether a magazine holds 15 rounds or 30 rounds is irrelevant considering it takes exactly one second to change magazines? In one of your upcoming fear-mongering shows capitalizing on a tragedy and emotions surrounding it, please explain the difference between an AR-15's firing speed versus the masses handguns in the US. You wont find a distinguishable difference in capacity. What you'll find is a common denominator in all cases, a crazed law breaking human being firing it...
Piers, Do you know the difference between a AR-15 and a "Assult Weapon"? Maybe you should do some research, Look at the facts, actually fire a AR-15 and the military version and i'm sure you would instantly be able to know what the difference is. If you can't do at least that than I find your arguements invalid. In order to fire "100" rounds you need to be quick in magazine changes, and be able to deal with any malfunctions that do occur quickly, within a minute. Even the most practiced Military soldier has had to practice for years to get that down. And you telling me a deranged loonatic can do that with a Semi-automatic civilian model with just very little to no pratice. Get real you Fraud!
I really enjoy watching piers Morgan except on the subject of gun control ,one thing is he wil ask his guess a question whom he invites on his show but never allows them to answer the question no. 2 is its not a ban on automatic weapons its a ban on the semi automatic weapon the ar 15 is no more of a weapon than my 30-06 semi automatic hunting rifle , the difference is the capacity of the magazine, my 30-06 has a 4 shot magazine the ar 15 could be sold in the same fashion, therefore it's the magazine not the the rifle , the rifle is just a change in gun style, like anything else.
I know he doesn't care about the facts but I hope someone will tell Piers that a Thompson sub-machine gun (automatic weapon) can fire 800 to 1200 rounds per minutes
I agree with Piers in that I don't see anyone who needs an assault weapon in their home. I have no problem with people having guns to defend themselves in their home, but if you want to own an assault weapon, keep it at a shooting range where you can use it freely and whenever you want , but then keep it locked up there after you leave. In this way, it is not impinging on anyone's rights.
As far as the "gun girls" on the show talking about defending themselves; first off are they expecting an army of invaders to break in their house? And as far as hitting there talking about hitting their target, perhaps they need to practice more with regular guns if they can't hit their targets, instead of spraying bullets everywhere so they might kill innocent victims!
Most break ins are for money, jewelry etc, people don't break in for a mass shoot out, and if worse, a hand gun should suffice. Guns are bad toys that americans are obsessed with, and like children, hate to have anything taken away. It is a ridiculous argument that these guns are needed for protection. The second amendment was written when guns were only rifles and muskets, not the killing machines of today, the founding fathers I'm sure had no idea of the imaginative ways the industrialized world would turn out the killing weapons of today. It's embarrassing that people use the second amendment as an argument for the weapons of today.
I am a Canadian of 42 years, have never even known a soul who has a gun, lived in two of the countries largest cities, and never felt the need of owning one. We believe that only military and police need these silly and deadly toys to protect us. When I think of an intuder, as a family man, we take our chances, most thieves don't want to harm you, and those that might, well there would be a fight on their hands. Our chances are far more worth trying than the latter of arming civilians so they can shoot at any time they feel enraged or fed up, and the death toll much less. The background checks are also useless as most people can pass these, it does not guarantee that when that person is in a very stressful or stressed out situation that he/she is going to use it properly.
Last point, I get it, they are fun, went to vegas when I was 39, found a gun store that let us shoot guns of all types, biggest adrenalin rush of my life, could not believe the power and rush it gave, first time ever holding one aside from shooting one. I get the addiction and fun of shooting these weapons Ive only seen on TV. I realized americans' fascination of them, but get over it, no one needs to own them. Ban them all, and if not, no one needs more than a hand gun in their home, hopefully locked up.
Speak for yourself. I am a Canadian I own a 223. Love it.
but can you imagine if every Canadian had one or wanted one? Our death rates would skyrocket like theirs. Point is people are crazy, not everyone should have the right to own one, and definitely not needed to protect ourselves.
Legal "assault rifles" make up less than .5% of murders in Canada. Should be looking at what to do about the illegal ones.
I don't think you are Canadian living in Canada. I don't believe you can get an AR-15 in Canada.
well, you are as miss informed as this joke of a host. Canada allows you to have a civi version. Up to 10 rounds. As long as you have a restricted lisence and a att paper. Also know of 10 others in just my club than own one. Get your facts right
All you ban the gun nuts, How bout you post a sign in your yard saying this property has no guns. You're all cowards if you don't.
I'm sure the guy breaking into your house is going to honor your request when you say, "excuse me while I go unlock my weapon".
Piers it may be a good idea for you to go to a firearms instructor and learn how to properly use some of the firearms you are talking about. You may learn that the AR-15 is NOT an automatic weapon. Second, the AR-15 was NOT used in the horrendous tragedy in CT. Obviously, this is an emotionally charged issue, but the way you treat the guests on your show is rude. You do not give them a chance to properly answer your questions and your questions are worded in a way that promotes a skewed answer. If you do not like the answer, you just rudely speak over them to drown out the point they are trying to make. Most law abiding legal gun owners support a universal background check and would agree that the firearms are not the only issue here. The media has much more to do with this than they would to ever care to admit. The constant coverage of these types of killers is the notoriety they seek. The media are responsible for misrepresentation of facts, and seem to do anything for a story. We live in the information age but some information just should not be released and reported on incessantly. The incessant reporting of these killers promotes them. To me, the media is almost as responsible as the firearms used in these tragedies.
Piers, You have become a joke, a laughingstock, I had enjoyed watching you nightly and will continue to until this rant ends. You except for the comedic style you now use are unwatchable. I like those two gun girls laugh at your pompous interuptions and continual 1 word answer demands that you have based your point on. It makes you seem arogant to 100th degree and not a good debator. Quit beating the dead horse, even though your points have some merit, your delivery is horrible and for that you have lost my respect and viewership hense forward. Sad, because I was a loyal viewer and you've driven me away with your rants, and if you're as intelligant as you seem to pontificate, this arguement won't be one by what you see as a contribution. I often wonder if those close to you honestly tell you how you come off? It is not appealing, I'll miss your interview skills but would never be ever to have enough respext to watch you further. Good luck and Good Bye. Howard Evans. ( Sorry no spell check used, my first time voicing my opinion to a public personality, not my style. Sorry, but you've become a laughing stock with your style )
What an absolute IDIOT Piers is!! He has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to guns or ammo. Piers, I would love to see how many AR-15 rounds in a minute you can shoot. Do you still, after flapping your jaw about it for more than a month now, think an AR means Automatic Rifle? Get the facts and in the process, send Elway to Hunters Safety! After what he said about "machine guns", I would be scared to hunt in the same State he does. Our AR is a .22 caliber coyote rifle and I have to pull the trigger every time I shoot. One hundred rounds a minute....he'll no!!!
I wish Piers had a way to receive public contact. To answer a question for you Piers that everyone on your show was clearly scared to, I disagree with the ban on the manufacture of machine guns for civilian ownership. I do not disagree with the NFA necessarily but I do disagree with the ban on the manufacture of machine guns in 1984. The reason I disagree with the ban is that since 1984, only two legally owned machine guns have been used in a crime. One was used by a police officer and the second is rumored but not proven to have happened. As a result, there was no justification to ban their manufacture except that the government wants them taken away for political or personal preference.
Semi-auto rifles differ little in their ability to kill which I grant. You attacked your guests asking for details, well here are some details for you. The ar-15 used in CT would have been legal under the 1994 assault weapons ban. There are also still conflicting stories about whether or not that rifle was actually used in the shooting. Yet you support a similar ban. You mentioned the Aurora shooter. His "assault rifle" should have been illegal for him to own as he was clearly mentally ill and his mental health professional failed to address that fact. There is already a ban on individuals adjudicated mentally ill from owning any firearm. Also, he fired that rifle a limited number of times because it malfunctioned multiple times and most of the casualties (injured and killed) were as a result of a shotgun or handgun. Neither of which are affected by this legislation. I find it interesting that you would intentionally omit from your argument that mentally ill individuals are already banned from purchasing firearms of any type.
To answer another question, the arms we choose to bear is not a matter of what we "need" but what we choose. Do you "need" your fancy house, car, the ability to drink alchohol, talk with a particularly irritating arrogance, etc? No, you don't "need" any of those things. Cars and alcohol are used to murder more people every year than all guns combined. To be clear, since you apparently don't know this. ALL guns make up a smaller number of homicides than drunk drivers but I don't hear you calling to ban alcohol. The truth of your argument is that you're scared of guns. That is the only explanation for your call to ban a gun that is used in less than 100 homicides per year but not saying anything about significant other causes of homicide in this country. Why is one more important that another to you? You want to know why people oppose registration of guns or banning them? The machine gun ban is an example. When registrations go into place, the next step will be a ban. If we're all being honest, is YOUR eventual goal for all firearms which was the purpose your "I'm worried about assault weapons RIGHT NOW" comment. We're not as dumb as you think we are Piers.
Glad to see that censorship is alive and well here.
So when in 2020 the rogue US military attacks our homeland, threatening to take away our freedoms, the brave citizens and their AR-15's will stop the F16's, tanks and artillery (need I mention the rest of the most powerful war machine in the world). - Assault-style weapons to defend against a rogue government !? Anyone who propagates such nonsense needs to lay off the pills or snap out of some Hollywood induced stupor!! I say: RPGs for all!! (hey every kid in Afghanistan gets to have one, why not us?)
Pierce – do not be fooled – Learn the American History. Today's founding fathers are no different than the original founding fathers. The original founding fathers believed in slavery and today's founding fathers also believe in slavery. In fact, they are murdering people to keep slavery alive. Also, the old founding fathers invaded peoples homes by busting their doors open whereas today's founding fathers use modern techniques such as cable to invade people's lives and home. Additionally, the original founding murdered anyone that tried to challenge them and today's founding fathers do the same. 750,000 Americans lost their lives to fight for our freedom and today's founding fathers do not respect the lives lost, except hypocritically on Veterans Day.
I think that all 'normal' folks who own a hand gun or the like should join the NRA who should then voice their opinion. They then can vote for future policies etc. This would then get the extremist out of the NRA office so the 'normal' voice and opinion will be heard and acted upon. Time to take the NRA into the center of thinking rather than the extremist setting the agenda.
That is an excellent idea. Time for the normal middle to take back the agenda – to take back sanity.
Pierce i am a soldier who defended my country. I am a cop who proects the people. You are neither. This is not england. We don't want to be british. We are not "gun crazies". We fought for these rights. We protect these rights. This is our home. Stop insulting and badgering our people with the self righteous tone. You dont belong in that chair if you push do far to the extreme opposite of fox news just for the ratings. You should be ashamed of your interview with the gun girls. Try staying on the subject and letting the people finish their points and not amplifying your ideas. We arent british
For those who oppose to gun regulations, what are your limits or do you have any limits on what a citizen should be allowed to have to protect themselves? Should a citizen be aloud to have a loaded tank or a nuclear bomb just to protect themselves from government tyranny? What should be the limitations if you have you?
What ??? Goverment Tyranny ....you better get into your bomb shelter ...let me know and I will come and make sure you are locked in forever to save yourself from all that tyranny that is coming.
No right to carry in Britain Piers....
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2IxCl9Zbf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Unbelievable how you dont have a clue what you are talking about..England's murder rate is so low you would need a microscope to see the number....when are people going to wake up and see the root of the problem is that just because you are a model citizen there are probably another 10 people who are not and they have the same access to the guns that you own. Take them all away and problem is solved ....check the stats in England ....they are NOT made up.
Good point. You should go there or stay there and leave us stupid yanks to wipe ourselves out. We sure as hell don't need you here if you honestly believe the answer is that simple.
@ Bryan you mast have been cross eyed when you read the stats on England. Asa matter of fact they have the highest crime rate in Eurpoe
Jim..point taken ..UK had 722 Murders higher than Germany at 690, France at 682..wow yes very very high....however the USA had 14,748 ..geez only 14,000 more
Bryan: The USA has millions more people than the European countries you mention. Why not look at Switzerland for a common sense gun culture. This website shows how the Swiss government makes gun ownership work. We in the USA should be so lucky to have leaders this smart. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/#ixzz2I6LmejZq
Yes..you are right , the USA has 315 Million people compared to 210 Million of the 3 countrys mentioned ...about 2/3 but if you add all the murders together it comes to 2100 murders not 9000+ .if you break it down to simply England the USA has 5 times the population and 20 times the murders....do the math.
Maybe England has the highest crime rate in Europe but it far less by far than the US. Gun violence in the US is way out of proportion to any gun crime in any country throughout the world. The vast amount of violence in the other countries are injuries so, therefore, the amount of deaths are far less and certainly less death by guns.
Maybe we should not ban the guns but what about banning ammo! Does it mention have ammo in the 2nd amendment?
Bryan Beyak: Why don't YOU check the FACTS here in the USA? Go to http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 and read the FBI's homicide statistics for the USA from 2007 thru 2011, (2012 hasn't been published yet). Five times more people were murdered with knives than ALL RIFLES. Blunt instruments, (hammers and clubs) were used TWICE as often as ALL RIFLES. Even Hands, Fists and Feet were used more than ALL RIFLES. Shotguns were used to murder as often as ALL RIFLES, but no one is suggesting banning shotguns. The "scary", black rifles that have lots of angles, and shapes are no more deadly than another semi-automatic rifle. Legal ownership of firearms should not be prohibited any more than the legal ownership of automobiles which kill more people each year than all guns.
From CNN....Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!
Then post my comment....Bryan I've replied to you but Mods must not be posting....
Go home to Great Britain, Piers!! We are sick of your interrupting people. I was just appalled at the way you interrupted those two women tonight. You are a jerk, and we just don't need your kind in this country. You are not American, so go home, idiot
Only ignorant fear mongers use a term like "assault weapon". It's nothing more than a buzz term used to label a gun that "looks scary". Morons...
Piers you don't care about keeping children safe from murder. If you did, you would be questioning people about abortion while rudely interrupting them as they tried to answer. Oh wait, it is a mother's right with her body (supposively what some beleive) but it is ok to put the 2nd amendment on the chopping block. I hope the next person who is invited on is wearing a Revolutionary War Bristish uniform while they go on. What is next? Taxing people impartially? Oh wait that has already been talked about
How many people have protected themselves with an AR 15 are ou kidding me! I think Piers had trouble reading the TelePrompTer he should have asked how many people that have comitted mass murder with an AR 15 suffered from mental illness? If 100 people are drunk in a bar and one person jumps in the car and kills someone should we close the bar ban liquor and make everyone ride bikes? Focus on the subject not the object and Americans might take you more seriously! liberalism is a disease do yourself a favor and don't catch it! Hey Piers can you have Larry Pratt on again I love it when the facts get in the way of your arguments
The press never report on many incidents where a gun owner repels an attack. Firstly these stories don't suit the liberal medias agenda, and secondly they don't sell newspapers and commercial airtime for the news networks like CNN as mass shootings tragedies do.
For all of you that think anyone against this time of ban is an nra drone, i have a couple questions. Why are you hopping on the left winged bandwagon? Please show me how gun control works. During our last assault weapons ban ( these three words btw are used to denote any weapon that is used in an assault. that can include a pencil if used in an assault) we had Columbine. ar15s are not the most common weapon used in mass shootings. Columbine used shotguns and a carbine in 9mm. virginia tech used 2 hand guns. Handguns kill more people than any other firearm. Most handguns dont carry more then 10-15 bullets. Piers also says that you can shoot 100 rounds a minute in an ar15. the ar 15 is semi automatic which means you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. This is the same as most handguns which means you can shoot a handgun just as many times as an ar15. I do fear the government taking away my ar15 because it is a start especially when there is no support to show that banning assault weapons cuts down on gun fatalities. Let us remember that a law only stops a person that abides by them. A pefect example of a law not stopping a crime is drunk driving. The risk of a dui does not stop people from drive while drunk. The truth of the matter is that you will not stop bad people from doing bad things. In fact the only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
The only people who can own a machine gun are police or FBI Government people. If civilians get caught with automatic weapons they go to prison. If a semi automatic can fire a 100 rounds a minute it has been modified and that is not legal either. m 14 and m15 are semi automatic. I agree permanently ban all law enforcement from owning such weapons. It is also illegal for miners to own weapons or to use them without adult supervision. All firearms should be locked up in a safe.Drugs and alcohol cause most of the problems .What about criminal control. People should not have to worry about defending themselves.Make the police and judges do their jobs. Where i go you can't hardly buy anything without a background check.
There are nealy 500 thousand fully automatic machine guns in private circulation in this country. These firearms are not banned in this country.
Piers you don't care about keeping children safe from murder. If you did, you would be questioning people about abortion while rudely interrupting them as they tried to answer. Oh wait, it is a mother's right with her body (supposively what some beleive) but it is ok to put the 2nd amendment on the chopping block. I hope the next person who is invited on is wearing a Revolutionary War British uniform while they go on. Look at them and you might see some sort of reflection. No offense to you sir. What is next? Taxing people partially? Oh wait that has already been talked about... How American though right?
Piers. I think you should do your show from Benghazi for the next few months or so.
You're an idiot.
But Piers fully automatic firearms aren't banned in this country. A friend of mine in Florida legally owns a Class 3, machine gun. There are nearly 500 thousand of these firearms in private circulation that are licensed by the ATF. You have to stop manipulating the facts.
There is another purpose that people favor assault weapons....about 2 months ago, I was at a family gathering and there was a discussion going on about guns....there was a lady involve in the discussion and she said it was very important to have a gun or guns and suggest to everyone to have a gun in order to go war someday in the future against the liberal US government, to take over the government. It then dawn on me that there is an element in society that is buying guns and assault weapons to take over the liberal US government........ something to consider why people are in favor of assault weapons.........Lou
There's a reason why you got Larry King's television spot. Amazing and heated interview with Newt Gingrich. I can tell you have a true love of American politics and do your diligence as a reporter very well. It was a little hard to follow everything though. Is there a place to find posted transcripts of your interviews?
I watch Piers almost every night and for the last 2 months he has been on this bandwagon on guns. Although this is an important issue, his bullying tactics with his guests are not only unprofessional but not helpful to debating the issues so that the audience can make their own decision. I agree with Piers on gun control, but if you continue with this type of journalism and center your program around just one issue, you will loose your audience...its time to move on regardless of your passion for gun control!
Thank you Piers for a job well done....
i just dont get it, they say they want these AR 15 for self defense in case of an intruder????? are THEY aware that the intruder would intrude with a AR15, AND BY THE TIME THEY GRAB THERE WEAPON THEY WILL BE DEAD MEAT, i rather an intruder with 6 bullets to give me a chance for getting away or grabbing my gun to defend my self
While I understand the rights of Americans to own semi-automatic guns, and that many are law-abiding citizens that would only use these weapons to defend their families, homes and property. People need to understand that laws (such as the second amendment) are always written and formed with the understanding of the times as well as the availability of technology in which they are created. If anyone has been to a revolutionary war reenactment, you can usually observe a live demonstration of the firing of a musket or pistol. It takes approximately 1 – 1.5 minutes to fire and reload one of these weapons; and that's if you are well versed in using them. The men who wrote the second amendment, did so with these types of weapons in mind. I understand that the AR-15 unmodified gun fires more around the 15-30 bullets/per minute range than the 100 or so being reported, but even considering that, jump forward to 2013, and the various types of home security systems, the availability of martial arts and self defense (even military-style) training that is available, self defense technology that most police use such as mace and taser weapons, I have to believe that our forefathers (were they here today) would absolutely agree that there is no need for semi-automatic weapons in the home.
i totally agree with you hundred percent, at the end of the day we all want to leave in a normal country not a war zone country, this is just insane
One thing I truly believe is in our forefather's faith and belief in future generations of voters and lawmakers to create and instill laws based on the technologies and available means of OUR times!
I give kudos to Piers for being so passionate and adamant about change, for the better. i really do. It shows he has heart and cares a lot, about this nation, despite his origin. Problem is, the whole issue has become "semi-autos, or not". When in reality what we need is an overhaul in psychotherapy for America. We live in such an incredibly stressful fast paced violence-glorifying, war mongering, climate changing, corporation crunching world, that far too many kids are growing up in complete dissolution from society. THAT is our problem.
“In June 2012, it was reported that Piers Morgan Tonight had the lowest ratings for a CNN primetime slot in 21 years.”
No wonder Piers is so desperate to hold on to the gun issue (‘cause it strongly appeals to emotion of both anti and pro-gun audience) to get higher ratings. He’s a hack!
If you don’t like him as I don’t, you should simply "STOP WATCHING" and his show will be "CANCELED".
Very proud of you Piers.You're doing a great job.
Firstly, an "assault" weapon is fully automatic. These AR-15's are civilian model "semi-automatics"...just like any other semi-autmatic weapon. Assault weapons (full-automatic)..hold the trigger down and fire till it's empty. Semi-Automatic...pull the trigger once, fire one bullet...regardless of rifle, shotgun or handgun. Secondly, if you successfully ban all guns, what's next?? Knives, clubs, bare hands, etc. Thirdly, I believe it's time for the media to accept a large portion of the blame. These gunmen have realized that all they have to do for their 15 minutes of fame is to open up on unsuspecting people with a gun and the media will immortalize them. Give the names of the victims, sure....but DO NOT give the name of the gunmen nor show his picture. Refer to him only as "perpetrator or criminal". Once these attention-hounds realize that they won't become famous, they'll slow down these massacres.
What is it going to take to get piers Morgan off the air.? I love CNN – I thought it represented honest journalism. But the rudeness of the king of British trash journalism is no Larry king. Even if you agree with him I end up where I can't stand the guy. I have tried but he reminds me of how thankful I am that we fought the British in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. He is turning me into a second amendment advocate weather I like it or not. Please send him back to England. I will not watch CNN my favorite channel until he is off he air.
Those clueless, vacuous women were two of the, forgive me, dumbest representations of their kind. I personally believe for the sake of public safety, that one should possess adequate brains before they even consider possessing guns. The "Gun Girls" shouldn't even be permitted to own a squirt gun, let alone a real one; an utterly unnerving thought.
I would like to see him interview the people who stayed in New Orleans during the hurricane, those who stood, armed, on their roof-top to keep away the thugs and thieves who were smashing in storefront windows and hauling all the goods away.
Try having a gunfight with 18 armed men who all have one sort of gun or another, even if they all had single-shot guns with only one round, that would be reason enough to have an AR-15 with at least one 30-round magazine (clip as the anti's call them).
I will reconsider my advocation to stronger gun control when someone can tell me how many incidents have been resolved by the presence or use of a firearm. I would also love to hear of the last time a group of 18 assailants, all of which just stood around like idiots with no weapons of their own, on American soil no less; were repelled or defeated by having the fire power of an assault type weapon.
The woman who had two toddlers and hid in a crawl space last week when a guy busted her door in and ended up finding her with her kids.
Four to six .38 Special bullets to the face, neck and torso and the guy wasn't going anywhere, except to the hospital (or morgue).
Had she not done that, her and her kids could have easily been dead.
Blair, Please do some research on "Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs)". There have been about 13 non-NRA studies on DGUs that estimate between 800,000 and 2,500,000 (depending on what study you read) instances occur each year where someone has stopped a criminal act, either from commencing or completing, with the threat of or actual use of a gun.
Anyone who claims never to hear how people defend themselves with firearms hundreds of thousands, even over a million times a year, simply reveals their own ignorance and unwillingness to do their own research. It does not make the news because self defense does not require killing or mass shooting. If a woman can scare off a home invader by simply pulling a gun, that is a win. It is the criminals who are intent on simply causing as much bloodshed as possible.
II don't get it. Everyone I hear talk about guns doesn't even know the gun laws. FULLY AUTOMATIC guns are legal to own in the country. You just need to get a stamp and pay a 200.00 tax.
Piers really thought out those questions because he respected Newt.
Newt knew where this was going when Piers asked the banning of Automatic weapons.
He didn't have an answer, other than "Propaganda" ? Wow, Newt is totally blinded.
Anyway, the 2nd talks about Arms, but it doesn't define them.
It doesn't mention what types of Arms(Firearms) can be used, or what types of Ammo can be used.
The Types of Ammo, and Types of Firearms are what Piers is debating.
Not a complete ban.
Everyone on the Anti Gun Control side, has to have the defend every gun just to defend the 2nd.
The 2nd talks about defence, not deadly force.
Last but not least. Define Ammo, Bullets.
Do they have to be a certain amount or composition to be used to defend?
I will turn the channel every time this unprofessional, rude, bullying, and ignorant stain appears on my television. Whoever thought it was a good idea to put this slimeball on American television should be sent to Benghazi along with Piers.
Morgan: If I were in your show I would laugh at you too. You look like an idiot with a red face and mouth keeping moving
and not letting your guests to speak. Considering your trouble in UK, you should be thankful that you are working in this
lawless nation ( in your opinion ). Last I heard UK is heading to a deep recession. I am still waiting for your answer to my question that is why you are working here .
I think the argument on assault type weapons is valid, in that the elimination of them wont necessarily cut down on mass type murders, but their elimination based on sheer firepower is a reasonable start. I don't think there is a cogent argument to be made against someone who refuses to see. I think Piers should simply put a ticker type running number at the bottom of his screen that shows the number of murders, injuries, robberies, suicides and assaults that have occurred since the Newtown tragedy.
You said it... "reasonable start". For the left this is just the beginning. Their thinking is... first let's take what they call assault weapons (which they are not). Then they go for 10 bullets per magazine.... then they go for all semi-automatic weapons... then they go for all guns but shot guns. That is how the insane left works.
If the left had an agenda to save children, they would get rid of the idiotic gun free school zone act. It is not about the children. They are happy the children died as it gins up their agenda.
You are absolutely right about the radical, left-wing liberals being happy about the tragedy at Sandy Hook. I can just imagine Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, and especially Piers Morgan jumping up and down with JOY and screaming: "Now we can use those dead white kids to rally the gun-banners together and get our gun grab agenda going again." Those people don't give a hoot about dead children other than using them as "tools" to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Piers Morgan has no manners. He is so rude to his guests if he doesn't agree with them. He interrupts them and refuses to let them make their point. He shouldn't have guests. He should just give HIS opinion each week. I am going to stop watching CNN because of Piers. Last night he treated the two young women on his show terrible! He is no Larry King!
England is about to have trouble with Scotland because the English treat them so bad. Maybe Americans should go help Scotland with their coming revolution.
Piers is the best thing that can happen to the PRO-GUN movement in the U.S.. As long as he stays on the TV and continues to talk over, and interrupt his guests and refuses to let them speak, the more people are turned off to his demands for gun control. His opinions are based on ignorance and lies, and he knows that if his guests are allowed to finish speaking, Piers' opinions will be seen for what they are: BOVINE SCAT, or (bull crap).
I cannot begin to describe how much respect I have lost for CNN as a network when I first watched Piers Morgan. So many points I have wanted to make but I realize it is futile as he will not concede a single one, if it does not jive with his OPINION, regardless of the points validity. Go home Piers.
Mr. Morgan, You are allowed to express your opinion on Gun control because we have the first amendment in this country. I am allowed to bear arms because of our second amendment. You are a rude,pompous, bully and you try to intimidate anyone who does not share your opinion. I will continue to watch CNN because I enjoy Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper but as soon as you come on I will change the channel.
The interview would have gone better if Morgan was wearing a British officers Red Coat from the revolutionary war. He treats his guests like peasants with his high and so called mighty calling. After swearing at him I flipped channels never wanting to view this joke again.
This site suddenly became the queen of negativity. Do not be surprised because Newt is so insecure that he has his cronies follow him in everything.
I agree with piers morgan in his fight for gun control; I suggest Pier not to be pushing in his interview, I saw the interview with de girls, he could be more polite and let the person express his own opinion. In the chain of death, guns are the most important issue, specially the automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. In a civilized world, people does not need a gun (except the gun in your house). 100 years ago you carry a gun because of a bear, a wolve or a bandit, etc, but today?? Imagined if terrorist took control not the guns but the people that carry that guns, it could be disastrous for America. England improve their security via web cams, dogs carrying web cams, etc to protect their citizens.
Response for ichiro, I relplied to your scenario about a home invasion. I gave you a couple of suggestions, sounds like you've already made your decision. Loud external alarm systems are not very expensive to install. Your scenario didn't include you going to work. That's a different scenario. You've probably already made up your mind on that scenario as well so Not a lot of point in discussion. Hence my comments regarding trolling.
Yea, because your suggestions are not gonna protect my family. If I thought they would, I’d gladly do that. It just proves that you’ve never really thought about the situations of people like us before you started spewing anti-gun narratives. What does “Loud external alarm systems” do for me when I don’t have a gun even if I’m alerted of intruders? Do you think gang members are gonna simply run away hearing the sound when they know police are gonna take 20min. to arrive so they have time to steal from me? So I’m simply asking you, let me have my guns!
Hi chiro, are you familiar with the concept of personal responsibility? That's the concept which means people take responsibility for the outcomes of their own actions. You choose where you live, you choose how to spend your time and money, you decide whether to go to a doctor and accept a diagnosis and treatment, or you don't. It's up to you to solve your problems. Not me. Good luck with your choices.
You know what Ros, I don't need your lecture. I've chosen to protect my family and my land the best way I can. I'm only asking you anti-gun folks, please don't make things difficult for me with your thoughtless anti-gun propaganda!!
Hi chiro, the facts speak for themselves, No propaganda is needed. Less guns makes for a safer society.
NOT FOR ME!!!
neither for people living in this area, WE NEED GUNS to protect ourselves!!!
Who benefited most from the Sandy Hook tragedy? The Anti-Gun movement because the deaths of 20 white children gave them a rallying point to further their agenda. Obama didn't shed a tear for the hundreds of black children murdered in Chicago's streets last year, but fakes a tear over the little white kids because it sells better to the ignorant left.
I've been trying to respond to our earlier discussion but it looks like the mods have shut down any further responses.
Good !! Enough of Ros Ryan's Rants.
I just added up the comments IN FAVOR of Piers, and then AGAINST Piers, as well as NEUTRAL comments where a point could not be determined.
The results: 67 IN FAVOR of Piers, and 200 AGAINST Piers.
60 where no point could be determined either for or against him.
That is 3 to 1 AGAINST Piers and his Anti-Gun agenda.
The count for and against Piers cited above, aside from being inaccurate, skews the way it does because most intelligent people who aren't afraid of their own shadows and who aren't ignorant enough to be played by the gun lobby and political opportunists like Gingrich don't feel the need to enter absurd conversations like this one. I join it for one reason – to thank Mr. Morgan for his eloquent and courageous voice in this sickening debate. I don't know how he does it but he remains the one truly indefatigable crusader for reason, decency and our children on TV or anywhere. Thank you sir. You shall remain my most admired media professional always.
Oh, yeah? Please read this and see if you can still admire him.
This is what Piers has done in the past. Here’s the evidence that Piers is the worst kind of hack.
Especially what he did to the British soldiers is unforgivable.
OLD AMERICAN MISTAKES / TRAGEDY'S – THE WITCH HUNTS OF SALEM-DIANNE FEINSTEIN IS RIGHT NOW ON CNN CANDY CROWELY- AND SHE IS TALKING THE TALK; If You Fear Inanimate Objects as Evil you have a mental illness called;
HOPLOPHOBIA,,. SEE> answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120220164515AAaOA6Q ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AND > SALEM WITCH HUNT TRIALS > Law2.umkc.edy/Faulty/projects/trials/salem/ASAL_DE.htm
Why is this a problem? Why is it so incredibly difficult for NRA radicals to be reasonable? All we want is some sensible action so that guns can't get into the hands of dangerous people. All we want is to reduce the astounding lethality of certain automatic weapons. All I want is to be able to look my grand children in the eye and say I did my best to see to it that you could grow up in a safer world. Armed guards in schools – fine. Increased safeguards integrated into our mental health capabilities – fine. So why can't you guys understand my concern that a terrorist can walk into a gun show today and walk out with whatever he or she wants? Americans kill 33 Americans every day 365 days a year. 20 precious children have been slaughtered. Even if only a symbolic gesture... how can you sleep at night having done nothing at all. WHY ARE YOU SO INCREDIBLY FRIGHTENED! Where is your courage to do what you know is right.
The guns which Dianne Feinstein's bill would BAN are only used in LESS THAN 100 MURDERS per year. Sure, that's 100 murders that might not happen, but are you SO blind as to believe the the killers wouldn't simply choose a DIFFERENT WEAPON. An equal number of people are murdered with shotguns that WOULD NOT BE BANNED under her bill. KNIVES are used 5 times MORE than all types of rifles, not just the ones which will be banned. CLUBS AND BLUNT INSTRUMENTS are used TWICE AS MANY TIMES as all rifles. Look at the FBI's Homicide statistics at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 - and then see for yourself that HANDS, FISTS, and FEET are used MORE than the "assault rifles" that are covered in the proposed ban. DO SOME common sense research and see that PROHIBITION never works to solve the problem it is intended to fix. Bans only work on law-abiding people. Criminals and nutcases DON'T OBEY the law.
My countryman, thanks for your thoughts and reply. I agree with you that we can never and will never completely stop criminals and gun violence. But this is a question of lethality and frequency more than anything else. It is also a chance for all of us, as a nation of predominantly law abiding citizens – like yourself – to send a message to our children and to generations to come that here, in this moment, and at this difficult time – we did something. We tried. We made an effort in a number of ways – this being just one of them, to put sport and gun company profits second to the safety of our children. If it saves a single life – it will be worthwhile. I am confounded that responsible gun owners everywhere don't see and support this line of thinking. I know they have children, I'm an average Joe and they can't be that different from me. I don't understand why this would not be desired by a true sportsman or gun enthusiast – unless their real intention was to lobby for and maintain profit growth for company's that profit from the sale of guns. What is your background my fellow American? Do you have children or grand children. Is there no place in the middle where we can have a meeting of the minds? Must I be wrong in order for you to be right? Will we ever be able to agree on anything. May God help this troubled nation.
And when our children or our children's children are living under a tyrant that they can't do anything about, what will we say then? Our intent was good? We did it for the children?
You seem to be blinded by the idea that his is about profit. It is not. It's about the power possessed by the people becoming weaker and weaker while the government gets stronger and stronger.
I think a lot of us are willing to do what we can to make background checks more thorough and don't mind closing the gun show loophole. What we won't put up with is silly bans and a national registration system.
I am extremely disappointed in my governments devotion to their financial benefactors. The "Citizens United" decision destroyed all that was left of government of the people. We are certainly no longer a democracy or a market driven economy and the problem does seem essentially intractable. Because the same guys in congress – on both sides of the aisle – who would be needed to stop all the money that corrupts our system more and more every day, are the same guys that are fully supported by that money. And whose fault is that? Winston Churchill once said: "The people will get the government the people deserve." Truer words were never spoken. We allowed this. We sent crooks and thieves to Washington and allowed the creation of a system that gives us the best congress and government money can buy. I share your disgust – but I also take the blame. This was our country and we destroyed it with hatred, greed, guns and self centered, ego driven excess and our kids will suffer the most for our sins. My parents fought in WWII and gave me freedom and hope. I read these notes and it truly sickens me when I think of what our children shall inherit from the likes of you and I.
YES, I totally agree with you, newamericanhope. WE, the people have caused the problems with our government because we not only tolerate the greed, corruption and vice that runs rampant in Washington, we actually encourage it, and continue to elect the worst representatives possible.
Today, I watched President Obama FINALLY ADMIT that the scary, black, assault rifle that he and everyone on the Anti-Gun bus wants to BAN was NOT ACTUALLY USED IN THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTINGS.
All the bad press which has been transmitted about how an "assault rifle" was used to kill the 20 children and 6 adults was actually not true. It doesn't really matter now, because people like Piers Morgan, Dianne Feinstein and Mayor Bloomberg would be loathe to admit that they were duped by the media. Still, it's good to hear the truth for a change.
"Today, I watched President Obama FINALLY ADMIT that the scary, black, assault rifle that he and everyone on the Anti-Gun bus wants to BAN was NOT ACTUALLY USED IN THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTINGS."
When and where did he admit this?
I saw him on TV tonight (Monday, 1/28) around 8:00 PM Central Time.
He was sitting at a desk, possibly responding to questions about gun control.
Sorry I can't be more specific about where he was. I was really amazed that anyone working toward the assault rifle ban would admit that an assault rifle wasn't a weapon that Lanza used.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. So, it’s been about 8.3 years since. According to Sen. Feinstein, 350 people have been killed after the ban was lifted, which means the annual casualties of those weapons are 350 / 8.3 = 42.17.
So, the number of people we can ‘possibly’ save by banning them, (as long as attackers totally get discouraged in committing a mass killing simply because they can’t use those guns, and don’t use other guns or methods instead), is “average 42 per year”.
Now, please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not at all saying the lives of 42 people are not valuable, but, is it the wise course of action for us to be obsessed with banning those guns, when way more than 42 people are killed from other causes every year. Are their lives somehow worth less to you than the lives of gun victims? I think not.
If 42 deaths are a good reason to deny responsible users from having certain tools, then we should perhaps ban sports cars that have way exceeded capability of what we need. Though this is my assumption, all the sports cars combined may have killed more than 42 people in a year, and if you think that’s because of the type of the CAR, and not that there was something wrong with the DRIVER, and if you don’t think he could’ve done the same thing with a non-sports car, you may be a little misguided by your emotion.
Yes, we need to do something, but not if it doesn't work. I’m afraid to say, but “good intention” is not good enough. We have to do something that “works”. I personally believe we should focus more on mental illness issue and violent movies and video games our young minds are exposed to as if they are a natural part of our culture. Those Hollywood people should put their profits second to the safety of our children. Shouldn't we ban the usage of imagery of powerful weapons in the entertainment industry, if we can save one troubled youth from delusion?
To newamericanhope: Jim Berg and Nae are essentially correct and I thank them for their comments. I believe you are sincere, (unlike Piers Morgan who is just a hack) in your desire to make the U.S. a saver place, but I repeat my request to look at the FBI's website on homicide statistics cited in my previous post. In EVERY year from 2007 thru 2011 the homicide rate has steadily DECREASED while at the SAME TIME gun ownership has INCREASED. If guns were the problem, then the statistics would show the opposite, but the facts are clear: AS GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASES, THE HOMICIDE RATE DECREASES. This is not a statistical fluke, it is a logical trend. Over the last five year period, murders have decreased while gun ownership has increased. You seem to be saying that the gun, the oddly-shaped, black rifle is somehow evil, and that it possesses a soul and and it must be removed from the hands of sportsmen who want to own them. Personally, I do not own one of these rifles, and have no desire to, but that is my personal choice, just as it is your choice not to own one. But to attempt to prohibit something that is not the problem, is not the answer. PLEASE, look at the statistics. The military-looking rifles are no more lethal than a shotgun which VP Biden encourages everyone to "go out and buy". I see that you have an agenda, and you blame anyone you can so you can fulfill that agenda. You blame the gun. You blame the NRA. You blame the gun maker. You blame the gun dealer. You blame the legal gun owner. You blame capitalism. This whole debate is really not about guns. It is about whether you feel that it is up to the government to protect you and keep you safe, or is it up to the individual person to protect themselves and keep themselves safe. I have never seen anything that the government could do better than the individual could do for himself. We now have socialized medicine, (Obamacare) and what is the result? Higher costs for medical services and medications. We have the Social Security System which is failing and will be totally bankrupt in less than 10 years. We have a government that hasn't passed a Federal Budget in over 4 years. We have corruption and inefficiency at all levels of government. We need LESS government and less intrusion into private lives.
585097 629737You ought to join in a contest for starters with the highest quality blogs online. I will recommend this page! 642140
Notify me of new comments via email.