READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
On the heels of the latest gun-related tragedy, where on Saturday a 15-year-old New Mexico boy murdered his parents and three of his siblings, Piers Morgan welcomed back recurring guest Newt Gingrich Thursday. Gingrich, who joined the program live, brought along his signature brand of candor and insight on issues such as gun legislation and gun control.
"Dianne Feinstein is attacked by many Republicans as being somebody that wants to ban all guns," said Gingrich on the public impression of Sen. Feinstein's stance on guns. "Do you know how many different types of guns she has permitted to remain in legal circulation in America under any proposal?"
"If your primary concern is saving lives," continued Gingrich, "you'd have to look at pistols because pistols are the primary killers and they're the primary killers in big cities."
Also on the program, "Gun Girls" Celia Bigelow and Aubrey Blankenship spoke with Morgan from the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia.
Bigelow shared with Morgan why her weapon of choice for self defense was the AR-15 style assault rifle. "I want a gun that can hold a lot of ammo because if I'm faced with an intruder or multiple intruders that come into my home, I want to make sure I have enough ammo to get the job done, especially if they're armed."
"They [high capacity magazines] essentially serve as an insurance mechanism to make sure that I have enough rounds, that if multiple intruders come in and they're armed, I don't have to take the time to reload."
"This is the most popular rifle in the United States," said Blankenship. "There's three million people, as you know well, who own these. And they are 'called assault weapons.' However, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who own them do not consider them for the purpose of assault, but rather hunting."
Watch the clip, and listen to the interview, as Bigelow tells Morgan that "AR-15s in Virginia are actually not allowed to be used to hunt deer because they don't get the job done."
» Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
Wow. These girls do not have it together at all. "Deers?" Did I hear that correctly?
Forget the deer, they turned the AR-15 into a rabbit gun. LOL
Jackie, For you information, the .223 caliber is the same round used for a Ruger mini 14 Ranch rifle which is considered a varmint gun. You and Piers think the .223 round is a high powered round but it's not. Neither of you know anything about guns. You can certainly use an AR15 for shooting rabbits. Your insinuation that its good for nothing else other than killing people is false and besides the point. All of the points the girls made about why they like having an AR15 were correct and logical. What's your point? Piers obviously told them they were going to be asked about why they like AR15s and then tried to corner them unprepared to win the argument he couldn't win with Gingrich. However, the girls you accuse of being stupid, made Piers look like a fool. He was the one that was loosing his cool. When he couldn't make his point, he accused them of laughing about the murders when they were laughing at his pompous ass! I agree, he was funny in a pathetic way.
I need to address Jeff's comment where he said that everything those Gun Girls said about AR-15s was true. Plain and simple: anyone who states that an AR-15 is an appropriate gun for home self-defense is demonstrating utter ignorance in responsible gun use. You can immediately discount the gun training of anyone who makes the argument of using a weapon like that inside a home for self-defense. Appropriately trained marksmen know that you must at all times be able to account for where your bullets will land, when or if you miss your target. If you start shooting off an AR-15 in your home you are placing everyone in your home, and your neighboring homes at risk of being shot. It's a purely ridiculous and untrained assertion to use the AR-15 for that purpose. It would absolutely be my weapon of last choice in a home defense situation. And that's part of what I fear, all these outspoken but obviously untrained but supposedly 'responsible' gun owners who appear to not have any judgment when it comes to truly responsible gun use.
Janet- your arguments against using an AR-15 for home defense don't seem to match actual testing. You seem to be concerned about over-penetration of the rifle round into either rooms in the same house or nearby residences.
A comparison of .223 Rem from a 16" AR-15-type barrel vs. various "pistol calibers" (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, FMJ and JHP) failed to show that the .223 had any greater penetration of interior walls or neighboring residential buildings.
Don, I will read your article and I'll also take the time to see who is behind the article to ensure it's accurate. But.....are you saying that the penetration tests are the only thing that would come into play on your choice of a home defense weapon? Seriously now. The AR-15 is designed for and performs at it's best in a long-range situation when the shooter is highly practiced and able to adequately control it. It would absolutely NOT land on a list of weapons of choice for home defense.
Actually, the same traits that make an AR-15 / M16 / M4 style rifle good for the military's "CQC" (close quarters combat) make it good for home defense.
If such weapons are not good for CQC / CQB, why do our armed forces and local law enforcement agencies specifically train for those scenarios with those firearms? And if the rifles are good for CQC, why are they not good for home defense?
Here's why my AR-15 is a good choice for me for home defense: It's lightweight and maneuverable with very low recoil – making it much easier for my wife to use than my .40 S&W Glock 27 or my .45 ACP 1911. Its standard-capacity magazines are 30 rounds (compared to 9 rounds for the Glock or 8 rounds for the 1911) – reducing the likelihood that I have to reload while the bad guy(s) are still shooting. Finally, I'm comfortable with the rifle – within 50 yards, I am confident that I can put a round on the target; I cannot say the same for my pistols.
For me, the only downside to the AR-15 is that practice is currently much more expensive than my pistols or other rifles.
I agree a long gun is always easier to hit the target. I guess with 45gr hollow points it would not over penitrate and do a lot of damage. Is an easy weapon to handle.
The AR is actually safer to use in a house than a 12 guage and many pistol calibers. Tha AR fires high velocity ligh bullets that tend to fragment and break up on impact. In other words these light bullets don't over penetrate unlike buckshot from a 12 guage or heavier weight pistol bullets that can go through multiple walls of sheet rock endangering occupants in other rooms.
The military M-16 ammo is 77gr FMJ and rips through multiple people and walls. If they used a 45gr hollow point at 4000fps, you would have a better round, but that is against the rules.
And that's also why the military use the M4 for house clearing.
The ammunition the military uses is very high penetration. FMJ NATO rounds are not good for clearing a house.
I'm not advocating using military ammo, and wouldn't for home defense. In fact many civilian ranges won't let use military ammo in matches.
In fact Jackie, almost all 224 cal target and varmint bullets have thin jackets and fragment on impact,
NATO rounds don’t. I have pushed out a .224 60gr at 3200ft and broke ribs as going all the way through a deer and only leaving a 1” wound channel. NATO ammunition is very heavy everything. Even the case and primer is much heavier than commercial ammo. In fact, the NATO round is copper-glad steel jacket.
MidwayUSA is pleased to offer this military production overrun ammunition. Available for a limited time only, this NATO spec ammunition features a copper-clad steel jacket bullet with a lead core
Like you never ever misspeak? uh... Do you remember our president said "corpse-man"??
Forcing these ladies to say whether or not they would allow citizens to have fully automatic weapons is like asking if every country should have an atomic weapon. Better yet... Should every person with an opinion have a spot on CNN voice it? Should we give up the freedom of speech because Piers is a close minded person that insists that Americans should give up the rights that they came here for? Maybe Piers should bring on the B-B Boys next time and insist that they answer a question about nuclear proliferation and its affects on the people of Libya. Maybe that would feed his ego to the point that he could go back home with a bloated head and not worry about the freedoms of a bunch of decenters and non-imperials view as essential to liberty. If he views unrepresented taxation, socialism, and matriarchal society as the ideal government, he should just go back home and abandon a society built on freedom, the Bill of Rights, and balanced powers of government. We came here to escape tyranny and our forefathers established rights (The Bill of Rights) to ensure that we wouldn't be bullied by government. The right to bare arms was granted to guarantee that we would never be "overtaken" by empirical power of the moment.
OMG, so tired of the paranoid tyranny argument. The point is, your 2nd Amendment rights are not without limits. Neither are your 1st Amendment rights (i.e. free speech has limits such as libel, slander, copyright etc.). We have limits on gun ownership now – we are not allowed to own machine guns. Piers was spot on in asking that question. Because a lot of purely uneducated folks keep arguing that there shouldn't be any controls on guns. Wow! Then that means we should also all be allowed to have machine guns? You can't have it both ways. Either it's a total free for all on weapons of all kinds (and why stop with machine guns, how about Howitzers?), or – you have limits and we have to have reasonable discourse on what those limits should be. Piers (and I) are merely arguing that the limits need to slide back over to prohibiting assault rifles and high capacity clips. The Gun Girls didn't want to answer it because they knew it would point out the flaws in their argument.
Janet, Note my "Note for Piers Morgan" which cites the facts, without emotion, about the laws concerning machine guns. You are permitted to own a machine gun, so stop using this falsehood to justify your arguments.
"We have limits on gun ownership now – we are not allowed to own machine guns."
That is false. There is no federal law prohibiting the ownership of fully-automatic weapons ("machine guns"). A minority of states do prohibit it, but most do not.
You sound like a reasonable enough fellow but you are absolutely incorrect. I encourage you to prove your point and go try to buy a machine gun. Please report back to us your success, and how well you like your newfound friendship with the ATF!! If they were legal you'd see them in the firearm stores and at the gun shows. Fully automatic weapons have been banned for a very long time. I support that ban. And a point to be taken seriously is the ease with which an AR-15 can be modified into a fully automatic weapon. That's another reason to ban that weapon, and high capacity clips.
"Fully automatic weapons have been banned for a very long time."
You are mistaken. Google "BATFE NFA items". Look at the ATF.gov web site results and review the statutory process by which a private citizen can legally obtain a fully-automatic firearm (or any other "NFA item").
In most states, one can legally purchase a fully-automatic firearm, as long as it was manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986. One must fill out an ATF "Form 4" and pay a $200 tax.
The only problems with acquiring such items are a) cost (e.g. an M16 can cost $15,000), b) the $200 federal tax, and c) wait times (it can easily take 6 months for the ATF to approve the transfer).
Of course, some states prohibit such items. California is one example. Most states, however, do not, and the purchase, possession, and use of fully-automatic firearms is quite legal.
"And a point to be taken seriously is the ease with which an AR-15 can be modified into a fully automatic weapon."
I can name exactly one incident in which an AR-15 was converted to full-auto and then used in a crime. Can you name more?
Here's a good FAQ regarding NFA items (including "machine guns"):
They will not approve you, an individual homeowner to have one. Be my guest and prove me wrong and as I said, enjoy the ATF scrutiny while you're at it. I would be absolutely fine if exactly the same restrictions are placed on assault rifles and high capacity magazines, because it wouldn't come with grandfathered rights like Feinstein's proposal has. So it would be more restrictive than what Feinstein is proposing. Perfect!!
Again, you're mistaken. I don't know where you're getting your information (other than the popular misconception that "machine guns are banned").
As I'm sure you're aware, our legal system is based on the premise that if something is not prohibited, it is legal. You made the claim above that machine guns are banned. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is accurate – a cite to some federal law would suffice.
You will not be able to provide such evidence because, in fact, no federal law "bans" the private ownership of fully automatic weapons. The National Firearms Act of 1968 (replaced the 1934 version) provides for the registration and taxation of such weapons – it does not ban them outright. Subsequent legislation (e.g. the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act) did create further restrictions, but still did not create an outright ban on the private ownership or transfer (purchase/sale) of fully automatic firearms – as long as the firearm was manufactured and registered on or before 19 May 1986.
Thousands of such firearms are transferred to private citizens every year. Heck, they're even legal in CT. Here's a good bit of info from CT's .gov page:
If private ownership of fully-automatic firearms was illegal, don't you think the Connecticut state government would say so on their web site? Do you think they'd describe the means by which an individual can legally obtain such firearms?
Again, I invite you to cite any federal law that flatly prohibits the private purchase, possession, or use of a fully-automatic weapon.
janet, his argument failed because they were actually making sense and proceeded to ask them a question not pertaining to the topic. you can infact own a fully automatic rifle if you have $20000+ laying around, but most people don't and just want a rifle for home defense. you cannot put a clip in a rifle because its a magazine that is used. a large number of people who have rifles for home defense are well trained and even trained by the military like me and as such are completely aware of the consequences of our actions in the course of defending ourselves and our families. the last thing i want to do is shoot someone, but if it comes down to it and i have to, i know that my pistol will be no where near as effective at stopping the threat as my rifle and if i need it i have much more ammo to work with. when non gun owners make a case against responsible gun owners it's typically completely uneducated and based off of what they see in movies or hear from the mouths of people like piers morgan who demonized the 2nd amendment and people who exercise their right.
Piers asked them to prove that someone has successfully defended their home with an AR15, insinuating that no one has. Here is proof Piers. http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/new-york-man-scares-off-intruders-with-ar-15/
I am sure this has all been said before. To anyone who cannot understand why these "gun-nuts" will simply not get on board with gun control: I encourage you to call the junk yard to have your Prius hauled away for scrap today, I promise you will be saving innocent lives. Just as Piers would say "What do you need it for?". Then when you get a chance go ahead and proudly post a "gun free home" sign outside of your home.
A Prius (or any car) has been used in a deliberately violent way how many times?
"violent way"...yes. otherwise we don't have 30,000 deaths each year. Intentional or unintentional, does it matter? If a person dies from a gun shot and a person dies from a car accident, ARE THEY NOT BOTH DEAD?
Yes cars are used for violence all the time. Ever hear of a get away driver or a drive by shooting? How about the story a few years back where an Arab father executed an honor killing of his own daughter, in the southwest (maybe Arizona)?
The assertion by Piers Morgan that these guns are made to commit murder is just abserd. Gun are literally designed to DEFEND human life.
You clowns must think people are stupid. Guns are meant to DEFEND human life? Good one! And to lean on the car thing with a straight face? Seriously, are you as dumb as you sound?
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.
For whatever reason, Cnn won't let me upload my perfectly polite reply, what a farce.
Here is something you all need to know before you go off at the mouth. . In a knee-jerk reaction to a pair of high-profile shootings, the British government enacted strict gun control at the national level. These anti gun laws went as far as to ban the .22 target pistols used by the British Olympic Pistol Team, forcing those athletes to go to Switzerland and France to practice their sport.
However, the gun ban laws didn’t stop criminals from acquiring and misusing guns. Instead, British criminals buy their guns the black market, or simply manufacture their own illegal guns. Crime statistics reflect this fact, showing a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the first two years after the gun ban took effect, and a doubling of gun-related crime in the first decade after the gun ban took effect.
It is also notable that even those British criminals who don’t have a gun are often quite capable of harming or killing their unarmed, physically weaker victims. In other words, a situation where neither the criminal nor the victim has a gun is often a situation in which the victim still loses. As an example, this elderly British man was tortured to death in his own home by unarmed criminals who incorrectly thought he had large amounts of cash they could steal.
Piers Morgan is not the one to lead the discussion. He comes from a culture that is used to being told what to do, or lose your head – and they have been told to give up their arms. He is very comfortable here, in America – because he knows he is free and safe to say what he wants, no matter how outrageous, due to the rights Americans have earned for us and for him.
It would be like one of us going to the UK, taking residence there, then deciding “You know, I really think that all of this Royal Family stuff is garbage! It is the biggest welfare scam of all of mankind and the Royal Families are responsible for countless murders, tortures and deaths of everyone, including children for years and years. I think that the UK should throw out the Royal Family, and make the UK safer for their citizens and for visitors, like me” How far would one of us get trying that?
Our fathers grew up differently, we were fired upon by the British at Lexington and Boston, and our response to that is who we are.
We have laws that apply to all of our citizens, not just the ones who are richer or smarter, or the ones who feel morally superior, such as Piers Morgan. That gift, the ability of our people to help share in the preservation of our laws, is something that foreigners do not understand. Yes, we scream and call each other names, as do all brothers and sisters in a family. That is how we speak to each other, whether in a town hall, or a court, or a chat room. So, for Piers to respond to a screamer with the notion that they represent some faction that is downstream from where our laws flow is just wrong, from either side of the equation.
I would encourage all of you to further educate yourselves not only on the true statistics regarding gun violence in this country, but also on where the assault rifles are ending up – outside this country – when we allow them in our country. There is a bigger picture to think of, and what I see is an awful lot of people who appear to argue for no control on guns, citing all kinds of reasons, without learning to think beyond what someone else wants you to think. I respect their opinions but honestly feel that what I see in most of those arguments are coming from people who are so utterly biased in their opinions, that they refuse to even consider what could or should be done. Bummer. This country needs more thoughtful people who don't listen to all the propoganda from the political teams, and from the industry lobbyists – and yes, I'm including the out of control NRA in that bucket. Sit back, listen, watch, make up your own mind and stop being the mouthpiece for things you haven't taken time to critically study and understand.
In Other thing you all need to know. . Recent statistics from Britain indicate that a citizen is attacked in their own home by a violent burglar once every 30 minutes. The British ban on self defense, and what all this means for law-abiding British citizens, can be seen below:
A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. . . According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. . . Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes. . . It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases. . . Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 – 20 per cent – of burglaries. . . Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder.
Lets not also forget the storms like Katrina where the Police left there post and armed thugs went on a rampage because when you dailed 911 No one was coming to your aid. . . Also riots are another reason because again when you call for help NO ONE IS COMING . . . FREEDON ISN'T FREE. . it comes with a high price. . So next time someone wants to express their freeedom and wants to burn a flag remember those who died defending it ! WITH A GUN . .
Thanks for the over the top patriotic flare. Personally I don't care if someone wants to burn a flag. I wouldn't ever do it, but I believe we have fought for the rights of people to be able to burn the flag if they are that upset. I just think it needs to be their own flag and not one that somebody else owns. Those of us who wish for a ban on assault rifles and high capacity clips are no less patriotic than you, and no less aware of guns being used by our military to defend our country. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be.
Hi Jaytazz, considering the number of burglaries in the UK there were a relatively tiny number of murders. Wonder why burglaries rarely result in deaths in UK. What's different? Would you rather live in a street that had 5 murders and 5 burglaries or a street that had nil murders and 5 burglaries? Or maybe you wouldn't care what the crime rate was as long as you could have your guns.
Have you taken the opportunity to post your "gun free home" sign yet?
Can't remember where but saw this posted somewhere "I 'need' my AR like Rosa Parks 'needed' to sit on that bus"
And what's with all these gun lovers laughing during serious interviews? It's almost like they know their explanations are ridiculous.
If anyone wanted to make the case that too many gun owners lack the sober capacity to fully appreciate the requirements for responsible gun ownership, all they would have to do is point to these two vapid young women, who could not refrain from grinning like village idiots throughout the interview.
If you can't follow along with whats happening in the interview, you certainly aren't intelligent enough to join the debate.
Why did you have to go haywire and throw out an insult like that. You should be able to debate with someone who disagrees with you without resorting to trying to purposefully insult them. It doesn't help you make your point on anything when you do that..
This from "Nacho Mama".
rdbecker the reason the girls were laughing was obvious to everyone except you: Piers was interrupting them so many times that it indeed became humorous (one of the girls even told Piers that when he asked). Because Piers was getting his ass kicked, he tried to make them look bad by asking why they were laughing at such a horrific incident, when that incident was not even mentioned. Of course when he interviews an elite liberal, you wont see those same interruptions.
Try and follow along; its not that difficult.
They were laughing because they were so enamored with themselves for being on TV. They look like they are just seeking media attention and I doubt they know bananas about guns. I wouldn't stand next to them on a firing range, they might shoot you while they're brushing their hair back or adjusting their makeup. Peirs needs better guests than that.
Our first Amendment gives you the right to air your opinion on Gun legislation. Our second amendment gives me the right to bear arms. You are in my opinion a rude, pompous, bully. You try to intimidate and belittle anyone who does not share your view. I am an avid viewer of CNN but I will no longer be watching you.
Piers and the girls are WRONG, Full auto weapons ARE NOT BANNED, Not in Virginia and most other states. Those that are it is a STATE ISSUE. Google NFA Firearms. You can own a tank, you can own a howitzer. Fully Legal ............
You're absolutely right to point this out. Piers in his continued attempts to manipulate his guests tripped Newt Gingrich up on this point last night. Class 3 full auto machine guns are not banned in this country, there are nearly 500 thousand of them in private circulation. In fact it looked like the girl shooting on the left at the range was shooting a Class 3 gun. I guess the CNN producers thought this would be good for their continued manipulation of the facts.
CR, good point. As a law maker, he seemed a little dumb.
Yes I was surprised Gingrich didn't know about Class 3 guns; he's not a gun guy though so he wouldn't necessarily know. Newt is a rational thinker though; reason before passion should be the mantra of any good lawmaker, and Newt certainly has that quality.
Congratulations Mr. Gingrich, you've proved a point that Piers Morgan needs to get through his thick British skull. Handguns are the real problem, and banning them is ridiculous. So banning assault rfles when roughly 3% of gun murders are "assault weapons" and an AR-15 is a subset of that is absolute stupidity.
Better yet. As mentioned, they need to go to Chicago and use that as a test base to fixing the problem.
Your passion for gun control is amazing. At the same time Newt is right on the
money in saying hand guns kill the majority of the people in this country. If I
lost a loved one to a hand gun death or a semi- automatic weapon it would not
be less devastating. It would be the same for anyone else. Pierce saving 100 people
out of 12000 with this type of legislation is equivalent to setting up a road block
outside an Irish pub and stopping every 100th customer and saying we have solved the
drunk driving problem. By the way I am 100% Irish and grew up on the south side
of Chicago. Keep up the passion but please focus on the whole picture.
When Piers Morgan was editor of the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror, his paper led a relentless national campaign to confiscate and ban handguns from private individuals. Piers was just as passionate about banning handguns in Britain as he is now being about banning AR15 rifles here. The notion that he supports the right to self defense is pure bunk, and smacks of a double standard given what he did in Britain. Piers will be after handguns and shotguns next!
Gun related deaths = 10,000
Alcohol related deaths = 100,000
Piers Morgan = Poor journalist exploiting children. Be a real journalist Piers!
Guns are with intent and most Alcohol deaths are not. I hate those comparisons. If a bad guy wants to kill someone, he is going to grab a gun because it works well. Now, he might go have a beer afterward.
I think there is a level of intent when a person gets behind the wheel drunk.
I don't know if that is intent or just stupid.
What does intent have to do with it? Same result. What about laws already in place that these idiots don't obey? The number of law breakers that kill innocent clearly favor DUIs. As a journalist......why not try to knock off the #1 killer? Clearly agenda driven.
Of course it is pure agenda driven. I thought that went without saying.
If you read the 23 Executive Order items from Obama, you would see that a number of the items in there were aimed at tightening enforcement of existing gun laws. I think it is very telling that folks make the argument that existing laws need to be enforced, and then they criticize Obama's efforts to do exactly that. Me thinks that hard-nosed gun nuts are heavily associated with the Republican party and are not interested in any reasonable changes at all. It is easier to sit back and blame others than to actually do anything about it. Prevalent behavior in this gun debate.
Don't post figures like that without showing where you got them. Your numbers are wrong and you don't give your source. Good job of making a case that is simply false. Alcohol related deaths = all the folks dying from alcohol related illnesses i.e. they harmed themselves not others. Let's compare apples to apples. State your source and let folks figure out if it's right or wrong. What you stated is wrong in my opinion and my studies.
"Alcohol related deaths = .... they harmed themselves not others...."
Then take 50% off the gun deaths as they are suicides. They harmed themselves not others.
"...In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, .... Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide.."
"The US Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide."
"More than Half of Gun Deaths Are Suicides"
Piers asked Newt a question, here is the answer
The fact that AR15 is a military weapon cannot be refuted.
"United States Army Continental Army Command (CONARC) sought commercial assistance in the development of a 5.56mm military rifle. CONARC sponsored the development of a .22 military rifle and asked Winchester and Armalite to come up with designs for a high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle."
see this: http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/birth.html
Well the 308 Winchester and many other similar popular deer calbered rifles will go through a standard army helmet at 1000 yds!
Why does Piers continually claim that "assault weapons" have been used in the last 5 mass shootings? This a blatant lie. Motherjones.com (A very anti-gun website) has a chart that shows what Piers claims is entirely untrue. But this is to be expected from the anti-gun crowd, who continually twist facts and use hyperbole to push for a ban on guns that are used in less than 1% of all firearm homicides. I am left wondering what their real agenda is...
My 30.06 is a military weapon. My 45-70 is a military weapon. The AR was designed after teh 222 round which is not military at all.
Military weapons, designed to penetrate an army helmet at 500 meters, that are ultra light weight, high capacity, rapid fire, and jam resistant, even when buried in sand or water should not be legal to civilians. When civilians have access to these weapons, our theaters and elementary schools turn into front line combat zones. People out on a date or kindergarten children
"FTLOG!" are not equipped or intended to be on the receiving end of front line infantry weaponry.
Seth, you and other like you need to educate yourself on the differences between the civilian AR-15 and the M-16 & M-4 rifles that the military uses. And so you know, any hunting rifle will penetrate a helmet at 500 yds.
Sandy Hook is all the education anyone ever needs again on this issue.
Many popular deer caliber rifles, like the 308 Winchester, will go through a standard army helmet at a 1000 yards!
Hunting rifles are not equipped for 30 or 100 round magazines. Another key issue with AR-15 is that they can be modified fairly easily into fully automatic weapons. The Sandy Hook shooter was also using jungle taping to decrease his magazine load time. If he would have had a hunting rifle instead of the AR-15 I'm confident some of those children would still be alive. I think they should release the photos of the Sandy Hook deaths, because if this country had an opportunity to view what horrible damage the AR-15 with non-fragmenting rounds did to those poor little babies, the discussion of AR-15s in this country would take on a whole new slant.
The AR15 is not jam resistant, just where are you getting your silly information from?
That is a fact. That is why I wouldn't have one for self-defense. Murphy ’s Law would get you killed.
Sen. Feinstein does nothing for 4 years of Obama admin. and now after a horrific incident, she comes forward with her gun ban. Why didnt she introduce legislation soon after Obama was elected? Because she is a complete coward is why, too afraid to act on her feelings vs. cowering from the NRA. Shame on her, and same for Pres. Obama for doing nothing as well. Piers Morgan is the same kind of coward for not asking the Senator where has she been for the last 4 years, which is an honest question. But no; he doesnt want to make his liberal elite friends look bad.
Notice how Piers always asks whey someone NEEDS a certain type gun. What about I have one because I WANT one? I have 2 cars, and I really dont NEED both. But I WANT both, and I may WANT another one as well, so his question of why anyone NEEDS a certain type of gun is totally bogus. Liberal, arrogant elites like Piers (and most Dems.) always think its up to them to tell everyone else what they really need and what to do, based on their own ideals. What would you expect from an arrogant Brit?
And what if your next door neighbor wants to fill their garage to the ceiling with high explosives? Different people want all kinds of things. In a civilized society there must be sensible regulation and restriction for the safety of "all". It can't just be about what an individual wants.
Seth, Im assuming you know the difference between legal vs. illegal? Im sure in almost all communities, filling someones garage to the ceiling with high explosives is illegal, so your question is meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion.
Basically, I have no issue with anyone buying whatever they want as long as its LEGAL to do so. Thanks for the comment.
As Newt Gingrich was trying to say last night, but couldn't because Piers so rudely kept on interrupting him, that Fienstein bill is just the thin end of the wedge to more bans on other types of firearms. Americans don't like big Goverment interfering in their lives telling them what they can and can't own.
So we went from one extreme with Alex Jones' angry ranting, to the other extreme: a pair of smiling, giggling girls that want their AR15s and high-capacity magazines for 'protection'. How does the pro-gun lobby expect us to take these people seriously???
Piers is clearly dumbing down his guests because he can't debate people who are educated about gun rights. Watch the interviews with Ben Shapiro and Jesse Ventura. They both owned Piers.
Jesse Ventura??? You're proving my point!!!!! All the pro gun interviewees act like lunatics or airheads. Who can take them seriously?
Lisa, whats hard to take seriously is a coward like Sen. Feinstein, who intentionally waited 4 years and one horrific incident to finally act on her own principles. Also note she (and Piers and others) could not have cared less about all those kids being murdered in Chicago; I dont believe I heard a peep from either of them. Could it be those Chicago kids are mostly black and Hispanic, while the Conn. kids were all white? Naahh; guess not.
Ah, yes, the race card. Someone always conveniently pulls the race card to change the subject.
Lisa, that hardly changes the subject at all. Can you come up with any reason that Piers and Sen. Feinstein never mentioned or seemed to care about all those young Chicago kids being slaughtered? Didnt think so.
Senator Feinstein has been working on gun safety her entire career- the '94 assault ban was her work! Please don't demean people who are trying to make a difference in the quality of our lives. It's like folks who can't be bothered to vote but rant and rave any other chance they get- if you have an opinion, speak to it but the freedom we enjoy means others can do the same.
Senator Feinstein has been on a crusade to ban guns ever since the shooting in California of Mayor Milk by another politician. The murders had to do with office back stabbing, extreme stress and mental illness. The murder made Feinstein next in line for Mayor. She didn’t like the juries ruling on the case and publicly citizen it. The killer only served five years because the jury was sympathetic to the killer. Senator Feinstein attacked the law that the court used and then went after the guns. To this day, she is still trying to take the gun out of the hand of that killer. The case was not a gun case. It was a case about how people treat other people in the work place, extreme stress and mental health. Senator Feinstein didn’t try to address those issue. Oh, and this is the same case that the media called the Twinkie defense. I read the transcript of the confession. Twinkie was never mentioned.
i dont like piers, but i have gained so much respect for him since he began taking such a strong stance on gun control. i love seeing him take down gun nuts like alex jones.
@ Pete "Seth, Im assuming you know the difference between legal vs. illegal? "
That's exactly the point Pete. What should and what shouldn't be legal. That's what we're trying to change! Assault Weapons should NOT be legal. No more than a garage full of explosives.
read this article: http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/birth.html
before you try to refute that he AR15 is a military rifle.
I would like to eloquently respond but the CNN mod police seem to be blocking my posts again!
But a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot is far more devastating at close range than an AR15. As Piers has heard on his show many people like to use an AR for home defense. Piers doesn't seem to have a problem with people owning handguns or shotguns for home defense so why not an AR. Loaded with light bullets the AR is a much safer firearm to use for this purpose because it doesn't over penetrate like a handgun or shotgun that fire much heavier bullets. If there is a risk of a bullet going through a wall and hitting an innocent bystander in another room the AR is a much safer choice.
I don't think so. 6 buckshot rounds versus 100 223 rounds before a reload. The military determined the AR15 superior for good reason.
The military put the AR-15 in the field when it failed numerous tests. There was politics in the choice in the begining. It is a better weapon now, but not for desert combat.
There is no better firearm for house clearing than a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot. You can ask the military and the police about that. However in an urban setting and for that purpose the M16 is the preferred choice because it doesn't over penetrate and risk killing or injuring innocent bystanders.
What is the argument here? Are you guys trying to argue if the AR-15 is military or not? Does it matter? Does it being military make it a better weapon than other weapons available to civilians? I say not.
Smart people, with the intent to create a weapon that would be the most efficient at killing humans came up with the AR15, after years of research and study.
There isn't a debate here. The sky is blue, the AR15 is a military weapon, simple facts.
The sky is cloudy and foggy in your case!
@cr ...are you sure it's me that's cloudy? ;)
With all due respect you are. You clearly know nothing about this subject apart from the garbage Piers has been spewing and feeding his audience with for the last few weeks.
That is pure bunk. A friend of mine legally owns a Class 3 full auto M16 which I have shot on many occasions. I also used to own and shoot an AR15 in state championship shooting matches, and while they may look and feel the same they function in a completely different way. Just where are you getting your information from?
A bushcrapper is a lot different than a Colt AR-15. The M-16 was built by Colt.
I get my info from observing reality. Standard military issue isn't a 12 gauge, it is a select fire AR15, aka M16. :)
Seth, you asked me to comment on my reaction if someone does something illegal, and I did. If AR's eventually are ruled illegal, I would feel the same way. But there will be so many loopholes (just like the '94 ban, which was a total joke) that it would be ineffective. I think AR's are used in 3% of the total murders, so any honest discussion of this would have to include the other 97% as well.
Life is too short to live in fear. Hypothetical propaganda designed to scare people into buying weapons, so that the designers could make a huge monetary profit is what started this mess.
It's gone too far. Reached a critical mass, like a self sustaining reaction gone awry.
"We", Americans need to stop this madness. Live, celebrate life, do what's best for humanity. It's as simple as a shift in perception.
What really "started this mess" was Bill Clinton. YUP, that's right, ole Slick Willy!
See, I've been in the business, and hobby for a LONG time. Back before Clinton banned assault weapons, they weren't really popular at all. They were actually looked down upon by most gun owners, and even the NRA. It was the act of banning them in 94 that made them popular. I remember a time Charlton Heston used to tell people that nobody needed an AK47.
Now, with all of these politicians, and pundits talking about removing the right of free citizens to have this stuff AGAIN, it has went into OVERDRIVE far worse than it was back in 94. Piers Morgan (alongside of President Obama, and Senator Diane Feinstein) is responsible for the recent fear, and making the gun manufacturers rich.
Piers, these two beautiful ladies wouldn't hurt but a flea.
I hope you're right because the cheerful, smiley way that one woman talked about ending people's lives (of course she uses the euphemism "getting the job done") is the single most disturbing thing I've seen on television in the last month, gun control debate be damned.
@cr "With all due respect you are. You clearly know nothing about this subject "
... you might be surprised who knows what. ;)
And I think you will be surprised by what I know too!
Yes Seth, beware. CR has scary superpowers. He knows what all gun owners in Australia think, without asking them.
@ros ryan, well I have lived there so I am probably better placed to know than someone who hasn't lived there.
Hi CR, mmmmm I'm guessing a big game poaching expedition with an NRA membership drive in Darwin so the cost could be written off.
Too funny, I'm not even a member of the NRA. I was living and working in the Top End, not on vacation!
Just 'Friends' maybe.
The gun shooting girls approve of girls being soldiers. Soldiers risk their lives for their fellow coutrymen. People with the self sacrificing mentality of soldiers might think of risking their lives, so as to reduce the possibility of a lot of children being killed.
Is not their a point when women are too brave to save their lives or purses if that means putting at risk the intergrity of their sons or daughters who might do something foolish if there is a gun around. Lord dont I hope my son does not becomes mass murderer and that nothing I do makes that more likely.
Also, arent there women who would rather not have a gun, though that might save them from an agression, if having one contributes to more people having guns and increases the likelyhood of someone somewhere getting shoot. That is my reason for not having a gun.
Also there is a complicated bit of morality that goes, I might think I am responsible but if I can think of many people and i am not talking of the type of mentally insane person who has voices tha tell them to kill people, who I dont think are reponsible, then I have to forgo doing this or that, because I cant say this alright for me but not for you, so I have to say, I wont do what this thing because if i did it i might encourage other less calm and thoughtful people to do the same, whose judgement might not be as good as mine and I dont think I ought to give an example that it might be better if not every one followed. As with all arguements there are moments when they cease to be valid but still they have to be part of the things that are weighed up when considering which arguement fits each thing, in such an weighty issue as this.
Hope I have made myself clear. I have no doubt I will think of a better way of saying this in a day or two, or mounth or two, I always get better at arguing any point when I get more used to that argument. rose macaskie madrid
I don't see Pier's argument regarding fully-automatic firearms as pertinent in a discussion of arbitrary magazine size bans, or bans on firearms based on their appearance. Taking the discussion to extremes to make a point is good showmanship but does not address the issues. Talking about fully-automatic weapons, or for that matter, bazookas and nuclear weapons is little more than sleight of hand to change the topic.
In the end, the proposed firearm and magazine bans will make great political and news headlines, and give a false feeling of accomplishment. But unfortunately, these laws will do nothing towards keeping our children safe. A person intent on destruction will always find a means to do so. I would sleep much better knowing that my children's school (or movie theater, or shopping mall) was protected by trained and armed guards rather than the arbitrary laws being proposed.
So piers you asked how many people have been saved by Ar15 during threats
I know you don't want to know this answer!
After some research I found got the answer 978,212 that's more saved then britains gun death rate of 971 You jack ass!
Hey here are the names of Celebs that are for a Gun Ban.
They have spoken out.
mckp.angelfire (dot com) antigun (dot) html
The reality is that all weapons have an origin in war. Period. What we're really debating is the "modernization" of firearms and where you draw the line between features that should be allowed in the general public and justified by the right provided for by the 2nd amendment. The question whether our founding fathers would support "assault" weapons as part of their vision for the 2nd amendment isn't relevant for this very reason.
So, my answer to the question on whether fully automatic weapons should be legal would be no. But I also don't agree with what I believe to be a misguided effort to ban "modern" rifles. In my opinion, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Because even though there's no question of the dramatic violence that took place in Newtown or Aurora, those tragedies are small fraction of gun-related deaths - and I don't believe an emotionally guided ban of modern firearms will make a difference.
I've watched your show for a long time, and I have to say this is really becoming what I view as a misguided rant. If you truly believe that this is the number one issue facing America today (as you say so often), then pick your battles and use your voice to make a real impact. The ongoing tragedy in Chicago; the glorified culture of gang violence promoted by so many artists in America; the complete lack of enforcement for existing laws - these are the real battles. Draw the spotlight on any of those key issues and I believe you actually could make a difference.
It's easy to campaign against an evil 'icon', but I believe you're doing the Nation a disservice because you're missing the forest for the trees.
Note to Piers Morgan. Fully automatic weapons, or if you prefer, machine guns are not banned. Private citizens can own them. The machine guns must be registered and their possession is regulated, but not banned by Federal law. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm
Mr. Furman, I want to thank you for opening that very door http://www.knobcreekrange.com/next-machine-guns-shoot-dates
April 11the 12th 13th 2013 at West Point , Kentucky,, ENJOY FOLKS,, And yes they will have everything from a 9mm full auto Uzi to an M2 Heavy Barrel fully automatic .50 caliber machine gun thats used by the U.S. Navy on the deck of their ships to shoot at enemy airplanes,,known as a P.T. Boat on TV MacHales Navy back in the 1960's
It's about race. Roughly one-half of the gun murders last year were committed among blacks, who comprise less than 15 percent of the national population. Most of those murders took place in cities, where hand guns can be bought or stolen on the streets. We're talking about thousands of urban murders each year. There are literally tens of millions of hand guns in this country, compared with about three million weapons that could be considered "assault" guns. Assault guns make up no more than one percent of the guns in this country. But, those terrible assault gun tragedies dominate the news and talk shows. They deserve to be highlighted and scrutinized, but the inner city killings are largely ignored by the majority population. Few of the people interviewed on television mention inner city killings. We could, as a society, take actions to reduce the chances of hand gun murders. As proposed with assault rifles, we could require registration of all hand gun transactions. But, it would be difficult to enforce. Using Australia as an example, law enforcement officers could buy millions and millions of hand guns from owners – no questions asked. Then, they would be destroyed. We could address the root causes of city crime and murders. We could renew President Johnson's "War on Poverty", including expanding "Head Start". We, as a society, could open opportunities for all citizens. I strongly support current efforts to register and moderate assault gun transactions. We must start somewhere. But, the Second Amendment was designed to help protect individual citizens from possible illegal and unwarrented actions of militias. It was to help protect citizens from further British invasions (remember the War of 1812?). Let's address the cloaked problem of hand gun murders and assaults.
Thank you, Bill Sprecher
I think when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they were talking about one shot muzzle loaders, I think they had no idea guns would have the capability to shot 50 or more bullets in a matter of seconds. Why is not brought up in discussions on gun control?
Piers is completely ignoring 2 essential aspects of his argument. First, he and a number of others are on a crusade against "semi-automatic rifles". The definition of a semi-automatic rifle is a rifle that fires only one shot each time the trigger is pulled, therefore the rate of gun fire is driven by the speed at which the shooter can pull the trigger, not the gun itself. Secondly, the formal definition of an "assault weapon" in the former federal assault weapons ban is a weapon that shares COSMETIC similarities to an automatic weapon. Cosmetics aspects of a gun do not have any impact on the performance of the gun. This is such a superficial approach that will do absolutely no good in dealing with the aspect of providing a safer environment for our children and our society.
Still haven't gotten a straight foward response from NRAers about limits on arms. When I ask why they support limits on fully automatic guns, bazookas, grenade launches etc......they refer me to the difference between arm vs. armaments. Or they say, "thats asinine" or "think it through". In other words they can't respond. The definitions for "armaments" does not list what an armament is....just that it in implement for war preparation.
.So, why not bazookas for pleasue? Why not a grenade launcher for pleasure (in a safe place)? If guns/arms don't kill people....then why not concealable UZI's? Claymore mines on the perimiter of my fenceline? If that's not protecting my property then possessing an AR-15 isn't either.
Shhh! Don't give people ideas.
it is time to ban CNN and this Awful show. it is not a true real discussion with your overtallking and cutting off the people you have on the show. I sometimes wonder while watching this show why you even invite people on, it you only want to rant your political in the presidents pockets views and never let the others speak. INSTEAD OF BANNING SEMI AUTOMATIC weapons maybe the PEOPLE should speak up and BAN YOU
What's with all this talk about government tyranny? I am more worried about gun owners tyranny. They are mass murdering our children, and the solution they are proposing is to join their ranks?
Have you ever heard of World War Two?, how Hitler and Tojo came to power and oppressed their people, causing millions of innocent people to die?
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
No, not to the people who studied history.
Yes, I have heard of World War Two and I have heard of Hitler. The proximal threat to me, however, is the next mass shooting. I want the gun owner tyrants to stop using the distant threat of government tyranny to accept or ignore the proximal threat of the next mass shooting.
I think the proximal threat to you and me is much more likely to be involved in an automobile-related incident.
Such presumed proximal threat has little to do with whether the shooter has access to an AR-15. Against a pool of unarmed victims, he can do just as much damage, just as quickly, with just about any semi-automatic pistol (i.e. technology that has been around for over 100 years).
In such cases, there is nothing especially "deadly" about an AR-15 when compared to any other semi-auto firearm.
Also, a tyrannical act was committed by the US government to the American citizens, too.
Nikkei people were placed in detention camps during WW2.
And you know what? FDR did it with an executive order...
Wouldn't have made much of a difference if the Nikkei people had been armed with AR-15s, would it?
Yes. The government would not have even attempted it, if they didn't think they could manage this particular populace.
Piers Morgan never puts rational gun advocates on his show. He doesn't have a leg to stand on with ANYONE that has a lick of common sense. All of his notions about gun violence and gun ownership are purely made up by his staffers. I dare him to bring me on the show. By the time I am done with him he will be a life time member of the NRA and be shopping for his own fully tricked out AR-15 with, 100 round drum chalked full of zombie stoppers. The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Why does anyone need one of these weapons?
The AR-15 (or AR variant rifle) is a multi-purpose weapon. By multi-purpose, I mean it can be used for both self-defense, as well as, hunting. Anyone that says, you cannot use it for either purpose is just trying to push an agenda. Home defense? Government forces clear houses everyday using this style of rifle. Hunting? Look at the ballistics inside of the body. You can bring down moose with the 5.56/.223. If you think your round will do a "pass through" on the animal you are aiming at then, induce a "tumble" in the round just before impact. Operate within your skill level.
It is cheap (with base models around the price of a handgun), light weight, accurate and easy to use. It is the most popular weapon because millions of Americans have been trained to use it by the government, in the military or police force. (21.5 million Military veterans as of 2011) God only know how many current and former law enofrcement there are. It has nothing to do with potential mass murders "shopping" for the best way to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time, Piers. The most frequently stolen cars are the most popular cars on the market. Do you honestly think car thivies are looking for fuel effiency when they are cruising to boost a car?
I keep hearing the same question over and over. What do you need the AR-15 for? In addition to home defense and hunting, I think there is a high probability that natural disaster or civil unrest could leave me and my family in a vulnerable situation until, order can be restored. With the current events unfolding in Europe and talks of economic collapse, my question to you is why do you think you WON'T need one?
People in Europe are reporting that they are going days or weeks without any meat to eat. I have already told you that the AR can defend your home/business from looters in a riot and you can use it the next day to hunt with so, again why would you expect things to some how be different for you?
God, that "civil unset" scares me. I gotta go get one now. Thanks knuc, you've convinced me.
uh-oh... I meant "civil unrest" obviously.... now, gatta go get me an AR-15...
So according to the article of mass shooting they decreased after the peak in 1929... And automatic weapons were banned in 1934. Thay declined after American stood up and said enough?
Steph, Yea, I guess I should thank you for your effort in reducing the frequency of mass-shooting. Now I wish only someone could come up with an idea of reducing the frequency of us getting hit by lightning, so I can go out without “fear” when it’s raining. Because the chances of being killed in either situation are about the same, and I am sooooo scared of getting hit by lightning too, cuz according to the National Weather Service Storm Data, over the last 30 years the U.S. has averaged 54 reported lightning fatalities per year.
So, it’s safe to say lightning kills more than assault weapons do (which is about 42, see my below post if you care to) .... so, there’s nothing wrong with being scared of lightning more, right? Wait, I am scared of CARS the most!! I heard that they can kill 40,000 a year. I’d better stop driving! and stop walking where cars might run me over!! OMG, what am I gonna do?! They are everywhere!!
Use a shotgun instead. You don't need an AR-15 for any of these purposes.
Hogwash, I don't know where you got your supposed facts from, but you're wrong. 300 some million people in the U.S. are not sitting around worrying about riots. If you are, then maybe you should move to a different neighborhood or go talk to somebody about your fears. You hit me as the type of person who thought the world was going to come to an end based on the Mayan calendar, and everything was going to collapse at Y2k. There are way too many paranoid gun fanatics in this country.
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
... Now, who is really paranoid?
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. So, it’s been about 8.3 years since, right? According to Sen. Feinstein, 350 people have been killed after the ban was lifted, so let’s calculate, shall we?
350 / 8.3 = 42.17
So, the number of people we can ‘possibly’ save by banning so-called assault weapons, (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 it’s simply a mystery to me why people are so obsessed with banning assault weapons when WAAAY 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?
If 42 deaths are a good reason to deny responsible users from having certain tools, then we should perhaps ban Porsches, Ferraris, Corvettes, BMWs and others which have way exceeded capability of what we need. (‘cuz they only belong to race tracks and licensed racers) Though this is my assumption, all those sports cars combined may have killed more than 42 people in a year, and you think that’s because of the type of the CAR, and not that there was something wrong with the DRIVER, and you don’t think he could’ve done the same thing with a non-sports car??
Did it ever occur to you that you might be a victim of paranoia created by the media sensationalizing gun violence...??
Knuc you did prove a point you don't NEED a AR-15 you simply WANT one. It is not necessary to have this gun alternatives are available, you believe your individual right to own an AR-15 is more important. All the things you do with that gun can be done with other guns.... In Ireland it was recently decided to allow drinking and driving. It is not necessary to drink and drive, there are alternatives available. However, they believe the individual's right to drive drunk is more important than saving lives. Is that a rational decision? do not people have the right of liberty and pursuit of happiness? Want versus need? Safety of children versus individual wants? All important questions.
First and foremost we know gun control does work. Machine guns were banned because they were created and built for military use. Not one machine gun has been used in these recent mass shootings. Most likely because they are not generally accessible. Second, the Supreme Court has already ruled guns for self defense can not be banned, only weapons created for military and police, weapons of mass destruction capable of killing many people in less than one minute may be banned. We banned drinking and driving to save people. We did not ban driving.... only drinking and driving. Alcohol related accidents did decrease. I am asking for a ban on weapons of mass destruction. I am not asking for banning all weapons. Without access to these types of weapons a person could shoot in a crowd however, the likelihood of 32 people being shot some as many as 11 times in less than 1 minute is severely hampered.
What's with Morgan and the continual "a hundred bullets a minute" nonsense, as if that's some kind of metric for determining a dangerous and unusual weapon?
Just about every semi-automatic firearm ever made is more than capable of 100 rounds per minute. The limiting factor is the human operator: how fast can he pull the trigger and how fast can he swap magazines?
Using my 1911, a 100+ -year-old design with 8-round magazines, I can pull the trigger 3 times per second and swap magazines in less than 2 seconds, while hitting a 12" target 10 yards away. That's 102 rounds per minute.
Using Morgan's apparent standard (e.g. "civilians shouldn't have it if it can fire 100 rounds per minute"), we'd be reduced to revolvers and lever-action rifles, at best.
First of all you Dunce an A-r16 IS NOT an automatic weapon so get your stuff straight or SHUT UP
Why don't you just correct them instead of yelling at them?
It's been a fun day of discussions but I gotta stop and get other stuff done. Here's a really good article that everyone should read, that may really surprise you about some serious reasons why we might want to consider banning assault rifles. We are essentially the suppliers for the drug cartels and more. Think about it: the gun manufacturers love it when Americans get all riled up about any restrictions on guns. They don't care about who gets killed or if the weapons end up in the Mexican drug cartel (which by the way is a real problem for the US). The manufacturers just want to make money. We are often played as pawns in a much bigger game with much higher stakes. So while you are ranting and raving about how badly you need to protect yourself against the tyranny of government, and how you can't have your 2nd Amendment rights trampled on (betting most people who make that statement have never even read the 2nd Amendment, let alone studied how it came about), you are being played as pawns in a much bigger game. And the gun lobby and the real big bad guys, just sit back and laugh as they watch America argue for what THEY want.
Hi Janet, You ruled this blog. You are brave and strong and clear and credible.
Actually she has been proven incredible (as in totally lacking credibility) on a number of points. The fact that you may support the same perspective that she does fails to validate her many half-truths and false statements. Sorry about that.
Have you ever hear the phase “closing the barn door after the cows go out”? That is what trying to restrict guns in America is like. We already have so many in our society and our culture is built around guns in many parts of the country. Some of that is good gun culture and from what I understand some of it is bad gun culture like in Chicago. Point is this new law from Senator Feinstein has so many holes and problems it is hard to know where to start. That is not going to fix the problem. The terrible tragedy that this whole debate is based on has very little to do with guns. Adam could have killed that many kids and more with just pistols. He quit when he was tired and ready to quit. There wasn’t anything keeping him from going to another room. He was sick, and most likely on medication that caused a mental break. We are a society of violence. We glorify it so that children act out like Adam. Watch a movie, play a video game, watch the news. Adam wanted recognition and the news in giving him that is creating more just like him. As long as we keep our kids in front of the TV and computer, this will get much worse. The preachers of violence are not the NRA. The preachers of violence aren’t the gun owners of America. The gun was the weapon used, but the violence was generated elsewhere. We can go on this crusade to ban technologies that kill, but as long as we leave technologies that create the desire, we have done nothing.
Hi Jackie, what's your source for that info? Did you speak with Adam before? Or do you have superpowers to fully comprehend the working of the mind of a mass murderer? Martin Bryant, mass murderer of 35 people in Port Arthur 1996, record of police interview. When asked why he bought his guns Martin said because he had the money and they were easy to get . " certainly, Shortcomings in treating mental illness And the harmful influence violent video games and movies may have played a role, but nothing trumps easy access to a gun" John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia in 1996 said when discussing the cause of the mass murder and the reason strict gun control laws were introduced, shortly after.
So why did he quit? He killed all he wanted to kill.
Hi Jackie, do you know how many people have died in Australia due to gun mass murders since gun laws of 1996? Zero.
So people quit killing each other?
Hi Jackie, the rate of overall homicides has dropped significantly and gun related suicides. I am sure you are happy to know these facts even though they dont support your arguments. people who could be dead are alive. Children are growing up . There are still violent movies and videos and people who have psychological problems but there are less deaths.
No, it is ok if your facts don’t support my argument. That is what this debate is about.
Hi Jackie, I've been reading back over some blogs over the weeks since Sandy Hook tragedy and I think there has been some progress made in this debate . Less threats and insults, some sensible suggestions, some agreements.
I think you are right. What gets the debate off track is when we talk about specific guns and the argument goes off on why this or that. There are answeres and everyone knows it isn't just guns, but you can't leave the issues with guns out of the converstaion. Guns are made to kill and technology has made them better than ever.
The rate of gun crime hasn't dropped in Britain. Reported gun crime and gun related injuries have nearly doubled in the decade since the handgun ban. Gun crime has become so rifle in the city of Manchester, the British tabloid media often refer to it as "Gunchester". Furthermore the rate of violent crime is now one of the highest in the Western World and is certainly the highest in EU.
So which is it. Higher or lower. Seems that Britain can't seem to get their facts straight.
UK gun crime doubles in a decade:
Good link. So where there is a will there is a way. The bad guys found a way to resply their guns leaving all the good people without.
UK named most violent country in the EU:
Why do we keep getting all these people saying there is zero gun crime, or even very low crime? Do the Brits have their head in the sand?
The gun homicide rate is low in Britain, but so is it low comparatively in many of Britain's large gun owning Western European neighbors. As I have said in other posts, the per capita homicide rates in these large gun owning European countries are 40% lower than Britain. The figures ros ryan quotes are total gun related death – homicides and suicides combined, hence the flip flop on the numbers. Suicide is not homicide.
Furthermore if ros ryan was so concerned about suicides he would be focusing his attention on banning handguns instead of AR15s.
That is a fact. I really don't understand how the AR got so dang popular. I never was a fan, but seems everyone wants one. Guess between the military and all the movies, it is viewed as the weapon of mass destruction.
They're great varmint rifles and very good competive target rifles.
I will give you that one. With civilian rounds the 223 is just as good as the 222 and almost as good as the 22-250. It will sure do a number on a coyote.
Reply for CR, my stats were from British crime survey which is more reputable than a headline in a daily paper. Hey remember when the American National Rifle Association claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws, based on highly unrepresentative statistics from newspaper articles and The federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the NRA to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.
The stats I pulled were from the Home Office, EU and UN. Furthermore despite what you say about the reported gun crime numbers and violent crime rate these number weren't just reported in just one newspaper but across every reputable broadsheet in the UK including the tabloids, not to mention Piers' own Daily Mirror, in addition to the TV news media. Furthermore, going to one of our earlier conversations the data is on the table with regard Britain's high homicide rate compared to its large gun owning neighbors.
Yeah, I figured they didn't solve crime over there like Peirs seem to imply.
As mentioned previously, the NRA have a vested interest in refuting evidence. Sensible People can pick facts from fiction
You're not suggesting the NRA's influence stretches across the pond and that they have the ability to influence the entire news media in Britain with their propaganda? Who's wearing the tin foil hat now?
LOL.... no I wasn't suggesting that at all.
Jackie, that was directed at ros, not you.
Sorry, got confussed.
I do wish the two young women on the show had been better informed. First off AR-15 rifles are frequently used for hunting predatores, like coyotes. The advantadge of a large capacity magazine being the ability to make rapid follow up shots to humaanely end the animal's suffering as quickly as possible. Secondly, there is no ban on US citizens owning fully automatic weapons, nor should there be. They are sold and transfered legally all the time under the National Firearms Act.
The conversations are incorrectly directed. The fight is erroneously on whether or not the AR type guns should be allowed. Frankly, even if banned, all prior purchases are still legal. So now what? Why don't we change the discussion? It seems that all of the prior purchases (most) were made under existing laws requiring a background check – so by law abiding citizens. Those who have committed the attrocities of late were not, but may have accessed guns of those who are. Back to my original question, why not change the discussion because new laws banning future sales are not going to fix the problem, which is the ease of access. Why dont we introduce some laws where the gun owner is held responsible for the crimes committed with their weapons, even if they werent the ones behind it? Seems to me that we may find ourselves not storing ARs under the bed or in the corner, but rather in a safe or with a trigger lock. Forget trying to outlaw them, but lets encourage more safe keeping by holding gun owners accountable.
I noticed that Senator Feinstein’s bill didn’t cover all assault weapons. I was a little hurt that my favorite and most reliable assault weapon wasn’t even on the list. What is up with that? Law enforcement is using the Springfield SOCOM in place of AR’s in some areas. Not on the list. The M1A is not on the list. The mini 14 is only on the list if it has the collapsible stock. I guess the standard stock mini 14 isn’t as dangerous?
Gun manufacturers should send Obama a Christmas card this year. He is the best gun sales person they could have gotten. Cabelas said they have people waiting at the door every morning to get the next shipment of any assault weapon they get in.
You can't think of any reason why anyone would own an assault rifle even for personal defense? Good enough for the government, good enough for gun owners.
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Homeland Security has already ordered over a billion rounds of pistol and rifle ammuniti0on. What does Janet Napolitano know that you don't know? Zombie Apocalypse? Oh right, Homeland Security is already conducting training exercises for zombies. Be careful where you travel, Janet has a personal drone just for you.
It is my understanding that credible media outlets have a policy to admit when they are wrong and further to issue formal retractions when what they have said has been proven to be demonstrably false and arguably said with malicious intent. Perhaps I may have missed it, or perhaps CNN and Piers Morgan in particular do not meet the standard of credible media, but I have yet to see either CNN or better yet a personal and prominent admission by Piers Morgan that his often repeated assertion that automatic weapons (machine guns) are generally banned in the USA, that is to say banned by Federal law, is an absolutely and maliciously perpetrated falsehood (or if you prefer simple English, a lie). This propaganda technique, from Hilter's own Mein Kampf, was often famously used by his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, who himself accused the British thusly, "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." So Piers, admit your ignorance, or malice, and retract your "big lie", or live up to that master liar Goebbels admiration for British skill in this area.
Peirs keeps on and on and on. Doesn’t he know that all of this is doing nothing but putting more guns on the street? So if he really believes that the answer isn’t more guns, why is he still going on and on about it when he knows what all this attentions is doing to the sales of guns? It’s about the money.
I would have voted for this man, even Morgan knew not to step to hard this time, he stayed with the white house talking points mostly. he didn't treat Newt the same as he does other, he didn‘t say this isn’t funny to newt. the government will let us have some freedom, how nice. we need to get Morgan off the air, he is the big reason why Obama in the white house. Or we need to get someone like Beck, back on the TV, the white house saw this and that is why Beck is off and Morgan is on. Ones they even fired someone out of fear they thought that Beck was going to talk about what happen. Write Fox the Five is sweet but it doesn’t have the power Beck had. We need Beck back. Some one to take on jerk like Morgan. Morgan gone Beck Back can I hear amen!
First and foremost we know gun control does work. Machine guns were banned because they were created and built for military use. Not one machine gun has been used in these recent mass shootings. Most likely because they are not generally accessible. Second, the Supreme Court has already ruled guns for self defense can not be banned, only weapons created for military and police weapons of mass destruction capable of killing many people in less than one minute. We banned drinking and driving to save people. We did not ban driving.... only drinking and driving. Alcohol related accidents did decrease. I am asking for a ban on weapons of mass destruction. I am not asking for banning all weapons. Without access to these types of weapons a person could shoot in a crowd however, the likelihood of 32 people being shot some as many as 11 times in less than 1 minute, would be dang near impossible. Yes knives kill. However you can't kill 30 people in a minute with a knife. Yes baseball bats kill however, you can not kill 30 people in less than a minute with a bat.
Steph, with all due respect, you have missed some significant corrections to myths spread by Piers Morgan. Machine guns are absolutely not banned under Federal laws. They must be registered and their transfer is regulated, but they are not banned.
Hi David, with all due respect, minor technicality, open to interpretation. Steph made lots of valid points in support of gun control and you are nitpicking.
Perhaps, but one man's minor technicality is another man's fundamental issue, which by the way is very clearly defined in the law and, Piers Morgan notwithstanding, is not "open to interpretation". Is it only nitpicking when someone holds a contrary point of view, and when the poster holds a position with which you are inclined to agree, you will attribute it all to just semantics and just give them a pass on factually inaccurate statements? Like Bill Clinton's famous, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word is is?" I was merely politely pointing out to Steph an error that she made which has already been corrected numerous times and so should not continue to be perpetuated.
Hi David, looks like there are inconsistencies in laws from state to state.
I would not call them inconsistencies, perhaps differences among states, and in some cases stricter laws which apply in some jurisdictions in many areas, not only gun control. But since Piers is painting with a broad level, national brush, its best to keep the facts straight in these matters and not make blanket statements which may be accurate in certain situations, but are not true across the board.
"Hi David, looks like there are inconsistencies in laws from state to state."
That's true. Most states don't have any restrictions beyond the federal taxation / registration rules. A few states, though, prohibit fully-automatic weapons altogether. These are state rules, of course. There is no federal ban on the ownership of full-auto firearms.
To all you gun nuts....I wish that mother of that Lanza kid would come back and tell us what she thinks of guns now! After all it was her assualt weapon that killed her at the hands of her own son! I wonder if she would be in your camp this time around???
Cars do the same thing.
Piers Morgan needs to visit the atf web site. Or just go over to the atf office. Full auto aka machineguns are legal in America.
Hey Ros, You still haven’t given me a persuasive reason as to why I shouldn’t have my guns. I wanted to prove that you anti-gun folks don’t have a good answer for people like us, and Ros, you did a pretty good job proving just that. Yet you still try to take away guns, “the most useful tool for ensuring our survival” from us. How is this not morally wrong??
How dare you preach to me about personal responsibility... You know what, Ros? I AM TAKING RESPONSIBILITIES for what I’ve chosen, but YOU are the one getting in my way of doing that, by trying to take away my guns (or significantly reduce the capability of them)!!!!
Hi ichiro, well I dared ' preach ' to you because you specifically asked me for step by step instructions. You say you live in the house your father did and you've decided not to bother looking at ways to upgrade your external security even though you think you need protection from home invasion. That's a personal responsibility issue.
Yes, I asked for an instruction that “WORKS”. I’d have to spend as much as a hundred thousand dollars if I were to upgrade home security to the point it works against gangs. Like I said, I don’t have that kind of money, I’m merely scraping by in this bad economy. And I still need guns when I patrol my land. I’m doing just fine taking care of my responsibilities IF you guys don’t try to ban guns. You still don’t get my point, do ya?! Give me one good reason why I shouldn't have my guns.
there are more gun related deaths in societies which allow unregulated gun ownership of private citizens.
So, You don’t care if I, my wife or my kid die, so long as you guys can feel better about yourselves by fooling yourselves in thinking that you did something good for the society in your purely academic unrealistic minds, when in reality, you actually do quite a bit more harm disarming law abiding gun owners.
Oh, maybe to you guys, I’m not even part of “society”, you only care about your urban society, so making people like us collateral damage is no problem to you folks... Okay, I get it.
Hi ichiro, I don't know what society you think you are apart of as the scenario you gave me related to a home invasion and gangs, then you mentioned patrolling your boundaries. Generally, more people would be safer if there were less guns in the hands of private citizens. You and your family would be less likely to be killed by gangs. As far as I know the gun laws up for discussion are suggesting that If you have a valid reason for owning some guns you could register them and keep them.
Perhaps when Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" what he meant to say was "all men are created equal except for me because i need power over the slaves/ natives / peasants / gangs. "
What is the point in bringing up Thomas Jefferson in this conversation?? Sorry, Ros I don’t understand you.
So, you said “You and your family would be less likely to be killed by gangs.”
How is this possible when gangs are the only ones who have guns and the rest of us, private citizens, don’t??
Okay, so you are finally admitting that I should keep my guns. (What progress, phew!)
I’m okay with stricter registrations, but I have a beef with clip size limitation. Sometimes 10 bullets are not enough. Someone is gonna die because they didn’t have the 11th bullet. I have a big problem with that.
Lastly... I want you to think about this...
Cars are bad for society, since they kill a lot more than guns and will eventually kill this plant causing global warming too, that’s what the liberals are saying, right? So, the extreme environmentalists could say, “No more cars and we’ll have a safer and cleaner society” and also say, “It is your ‘personal responsibility’ to find a way to go to work, go to grocery stores, or visit your friends, without cars”. That’s how absurd you sound, okay?
Hi ichiro,, if you look back to the beginning of our conversation I know, it's a long way back, I never said you should give up your guns. I said you could sit and watch the door 24 hpd with your guns loaded just in case there was a home invasion, but don't shoot the pizza guy please. I, personally don't want to live like that so improving your external home security would make more sense to me. it's your choice, that's where personal responsibility comes in.
Well, Ros, I repeatedly asked you why I shouldn’t have guns and you didn’t say that I should UNTIL NOW. What’s up with that?!?
Oh, yeah, that “pizza guy” joke... I didn’t think you were serious giving me suggestions like that, which left me to believe that you were mocking me about wanting to have guns. That’s why I got so upset with you. It seemed to me you tried to insult me, because you did not give a damn about my situation.
And you’ve never admitted “Less guns makes for a safer society”(your words) is not always true to all situations. In other posts too, you went on and on and on how we should get rid of guns with no consideration of the fact “guns can also protect people”.
Hi Ichiro, these aren't simple problems and the answers aren't simple. I believe more people would be safer in the longer term with less guns in America. I don't think you or your family should be put at risk for others to achieve a safer lifestyle, do you think you are safe with the current situation? How many people died in America last year due to guns? I don't understand how your guns will protect you from a surprise attack, you would need to be vigilant 100% of the time and I don't think that's possible. If you have a valid reason to own guns – not a criminal reason, eg to control vermin in a rural area, then I support that owning registered firearms works well. In order to have a safer society in the longer term something has to change.
Yeah, that’s right. It’s not a simple issue, that’s why a simple slogan like “just get rid of guns” doesn’t work. And maybe in your mind most gun owners are trigger-happy, always looking for a chance to shoot? If so, that’s dead wrong, man. We don’t want to shoot unless we have to. I don’t want to take any human life unless I absolutely have to. One time when we had a burglar, I just pulled my gun and he ran away, and that was just enough. And most of the time, gangs knowing my having guns is a good enough deterrence. They are not looking for a shoot-out, they are looking for homes where they can easily steal from. They tend to avoid armed-homes because of it.
I guess I have to be vigilant 100% of the time, just as anyone should be vigilant 100% of the time when they’re driving. If I didn’t have my guns, I have to be twice as vigilant and still may not be able to protect my family. And Ros, it’s my choice and not yours, so let me worry about that.
“How many people died in America last year due to guns?”
... you keep saying that, but how many died from car accidents? I’ve been to more funerals for car accident victims than gun victims. And the families anguish is just the same. If you really wanna lessen the tragedies, why don’t you start screaming how dangerous driving is?
“I don't think you or your family should be put at risk for others to achieve a safer lifestyle”
Thank you for finally saying that. I do appreciate your recognition on this. So, please try to remember, there are people whose lives could be at more risk if they can’t have guns, next time you engage in a gun-control discussion.
Hi ichiro, as president Obama said, it's going to be a rocky road, and as I add, it's covered in nuts (mmm) but I predict the gun guys are 'gone with the wind'. There's a new and better way of thinking.
Pres. Obama likes his guns too.
“Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” Pres. Obama responded to the New Republic.
I'm expecting that any possible gun law reform in America is going to take awhile and go through a few stages. at some stage, hopefully after the number of guns in the hands of criminals is addressed, the issue of whether self defense is a valid reason for owning a gun may be the big question.
Yeah, okay, Ros, let me know when ALL the guns are out of criminals hands. (Not only in America, but in all Central and South American countries too, because criminals can come here from there, in case you haven’t thought that far yet.) Then I may rethink about owning guns.
Naaaa, I think I keep mine in case some nut comes at me with a knife or a bat. And in case I may have to fight against coyotes. And in case we have food shortage in the future and I may have to ‘harvest’ deer.
End of discussion.
Sounds like you are in love with your guns like Amy Winehouse loved her grog and like Michael Jackson loved his prescription drugs.(ref Stephen King). good luck with your choices.
Yeah, because guns are very useful and essential for our survival. So if one can’t live without cars, that means he is in love with his cars, too? Give me a break. Your logic has no legs.
Ros, Americans are not gonna give up their guns, so maybe it’s easier for you if you just move to the UK or Australia. And make sure to take Piers with you, please.
Much seems to be made of the fact that the civilian, SEMI-AUTOMATIC AR-15 pattern rifle has its design roots in the SELECT-FIRE Armalite AR-15, which was created for the military 50 years ago. Nobody seriously disputes that “military heritage”.
But then, so what? Lots of firearms sold today – as well as over the 100+ years – are based on designs originally and expressly created for military applications.
The Colt Single Action Army (i.e. the "Peacemaker") was originally designed for the US military in 1872 and was adopted as the standard service revolver. It was produced by Colt for decades. Several knock-offs have been (and are currently) produced. It has been and remains a popular revolver among civilians.
The M1911 semi-automatic pistol was designed for the US military and was the standard service sidearm for over 70 years. Some US military personnel still use it; for example, in 2012, the Marine Corps awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt for the M1911A1. The design has influenced many (if not most) current semi-auto pistols. It and its descendants are still manufactured by Colt and several other companies. The 1911 – and all the semi-auto pistols that have been based on it over the last 100 years – are some of the most popular firearms ever made, for both civilian and military uses.
It’s worth noting that the “civilian versions” of the two handguns mentioned above are functionally identical to their military counterparts. They’re not just “military style”; they’re flat-out “military”. When did the US military ever adopt the semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard service rifle?
Does the above military history mean that I cannot have my Ruger Blackhawk or my Smith & Wession SW1911? Both of those guns are *directly* based on Colt's "for the military" designs. As noted above, they are functionally identical to the original, standard military service weapons. They're not neutered versions of the real military firearms, as is the case with the semi-auto AR-15.
It's likely impossible to tabulate such numbers, but I would wager that, outside of military usage, semi-auto derivatives of the original Armalite AR-15 rifle have been used to kill or injure far fewer people in the last 50 years than either:
* Colt SAA revolvers (and everything based on them) in the last 140 years
* Colt 1911 pistols (and everything based on them) in the last 100 years. Heck, the last 10 years.
According to the FBI's UCR, rifles of *any type* were used in 323 murders in 2011, while handguns were used in 6220 murders. How many of those rifles were semi-autos based on the AR-15? How many of those handguns were semi-autos derived from the Colt M1911 or revolvers based on the Colt SAA?
Why does a firearm's "military heritage" matter in the least?
He did the dead with a semi-automatic rifle not an automatic or machine gun. There is a difference. Yes you can still buy pre-ban fully automatic (machine guns) weapons. A few weeks ago I located a web site that sited only 2 crimes have been committed with fully automatic fire arms since the ban. One was obtained illegally (stolen) by a police officer to kill an informant. How much irony is there in that? The fact that Piers got his facts wrong by (because there is a huge difference between automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons) asking the women if automatic weapons should be banned. Now I firmly believe that Adam Lanza could have inflicted that same amount of damage with revolvers that he did with the semiautomatic pistols, and I’m even going to take is a step further and say that if he didn’t even use guns that he could have done the same with a sward in each had. Remember he killed 26 people in a short time which is about the size of one class room. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and affected a 16 block radius. The fact of the matter is you can’t control people, especially people who are bent on killing a lot of people and making a name for themselves. Banning guns and disarming the public weather it’s one type or all of them you’re not going to stop it from happening. A criminal is not going to stop using a gun to commit a crime just because you made it illegal for them have the gun in the first place.
Anybody who got at least a "C" in high school chemistry, or who knows how to use Google, can go to Home Depot and buy all the materials to make pipe bombs (hint: the important ones are are in the garden department).
After a quick mental inventory of what I have in my house and garage, I know I can make about 20 pounds of "explosive" material (mostly black powder). I don't have the necessary containers (e.g. steel pipe).
Really, people, it's not magic. The technology has been around for, at the least, several hundred years. Same with firearms.
The above shall not be interpreted to imply that I have any desire or inclination to create destructive devices.
I was merely pointing out that common household items (including items commonly found in the garden department of major home-improvement stores) are the primary ingredients in "gunpowder" – there are only 3 simple ingredients and they haven't changed since the Chinese invented the stuff hundreds of years ago.
Private citizens do make their own black powder all the time, and it's perfectly legal. They make it for their black powder firearms, for fireworks, etc. It's simple, it's fun, and it's safe.
It seems as though you have been repeatedly and intelligently disputed by facts by many, most importantly Don S. You, on the other hand, only shoot from the hip with no facts, links or proper terminology to explain your position/opinions or understanding of certain firearms. However, you are quick to tell everyone else to become more educated? This truly scares me.
It's conceivable that Janet lives in a state where fully-automatic weapons ARE effectively banned. For example, California. In such states, it's [nearly] impossible for a private citizen to obtain a full-auto firearm – even though federal law doesn't prohibit it.
Those of us in the other (non-"banning") 40 or so states know that it's actually quite easy to purchase a fully-automatic firearm (aka "a machine gun"). We just need money and time. We have to pay a seller several thousand dollars for a pre-1986, registered firearm and we have to wait for the ATF to issue the tax stamp. (Note: this is not a "discretionary" decision by the ATF – if you pay the $200 fee and pass the background check, they must approve Form 4; in general, if you can legally purchase a handgun from a FFL, the ATF ***will*** approve your transfer application.)
It's curious that the staff that run the Piers Morgan Blog wouldn't included the next part of the interview where Piers asks the girls whether they can name a single instance where an AR-15 was used in self defense against intruders. They, in fact, could give an instance of a boy in Houston using an AR-15 to successfully defend his 12 year old sibling and himself from two intruders.
They were both wrong about fully automatic weapons. You can buy them but you must have a specific federal firearms license that is very expensive. Not to mention the cost of the firearm (M-2 .50 cal is in the range of $25k) and they are expensive to shoot. For people that think AR stands for assualt that is wrong as well. It actuall stands for Armalite and the model is 15. They sold the design to Colt who m add it fully automatic and sold it to the US Military. The .223 cal bullet is used because it is not designed for killing bit for wounding. If you shoot an enemy and they are dead, your opposing force will step over them and continue their assualt. If you sound them, you have effectivly take 3 people out of the battle, the one wounded and two to carry him off. A lot of people around the country spouting off when they really don't know what they are talking about. Piers Morgan is one of them.
http://www.knobcreekgunsales.com/info Full-Auto firearms for sale and the West Point Ky. Machine Gun shoot open to the public is at http://www.knobcreekrange.com/next-machine-gun-shoot-dates April-12-13-14-2013 & Oct.-11-12-13-2013
also April-11-12-13-2014 and Oct. 10-11-12-2014 < Last shoot just before the election of all those republicans who are going to replace all the anti-gun ownership democrats who will be shown the door just like 1994 I Have Spoken.
Solution: Make it illegal to use certain kinds of guns to commit murder. Wow, it seem so simple.
Piers Morgan is looking for ratings, he will do anything for watchers, guns happen to be a hot button , go to the range and you can spend hours shooting the bull about guns. Piers does not have anything relevent to add to the discussion.I don't own 223 semiautomatic rifle but I would like to own one ,someday . Pistols l
Kill most of the people. But that isn't an easy mark like the military war gun oh my toto.
Well I see from today's show that Piers still hasn't got the message. He is still lying about machine gun ownership.
Brilliant comment from Mr. Blow this evening. Less guns sold or in the possession of civilians because that reduces the pool of guns which can get into criminal hands. Sounds reasonable until you expand the logic to say, let have less money or fewer cars because then there is less money or fewer cars to steal. Duh!!! Great suggestion.
U.S. Gun Debate, Mobbing and Organized Crime
Q. Piers, how long do you think it will be before the mob abuses another citizen, tries to corner him through homelessness, and manipulates him to "hit back at society" through a rage shooting or massacre to advocate gun control?
Q. Piers, how long before the mob targets another citizen, abuses him with energy assault weapons, powerful radar aimed at inflicting deadly cancers through bone marrow damage, cell damage, inflammation, lung scars, etc. and manipulate him into killing another Federal judge and Senator to advocate gun control?
Q. Piers, how long before the mob targets another citizen, convinces him that people are on the Hook in New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy and ignored while they suffer in the cold, and that if he commits a massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary with his brothers license from New Jersey it will make this injustice visible, to advocate gun control?
"The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step," said the former Speaker of the House. "We actually think the Second Amendment is central to our liberties, .. "
Piers, I think he's on to the British.
British regimes subjugate the population by first disarming them, and through corruption and organized crime. They use homelessness and an assault weapon to do it, cancer causing powerful radar assault weapons, their "mob" and secret police. It is hidden through homelessness, censorship, and sickness, deadly cancers.
They are using organized crime to commit acts of terror to advocate gun control, I know.
U.S. vs. U.K. (Canada)
The 2nd Amendment is about a well armed population deters dictatorships and tyranny. (freedom)
The U.K. advocates a defenseless population and uses a cancer causing assault weapon on targeted citizens, censorship, and homelessness. (hidden dictatorship and tyranny)
Killing millions of Jews Germany, gassing Kurds Iraq, energy assaults weapons, powerful radar to inflict deadly cancers in Canada and British regimes.
Enhorabuena por tu ortografia. Un beso!
Does Piers think that if there's a ban on the AR15, then the "deranged young men" wouldn't still be able to get their hands on one???
Doesn't anyone remember the Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles? I pray to God that I have an AR15 readily available if something like that ever happens again. Be like those store owners, sit on my roof, and protect myself and my family. This world's gone crazy - let's keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Those that don't obey the law will get them if they want them.
Hey There. I found your blog the use of msn. That is a really well written article.
I will be sure to bookmark it and rrturn to learn extra of
your usefcul info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly return.
That is a great tip particularlpy to those fresh to the blogosphere.
Short but very precise info… Appreciate your sharing this one.
A must read post!
Hello to every one, it's in fact a pleasant for me too
go to see this web page, it includes priceless Information.
Hi to every one, the contents existing at this website are in fact rearkable for people experience, well, keep up
the nice work fellows.
Remarmable things here. I am vwry satisfied to peer your post.
Thank you a lot and I am looking ahead to contact you.
Wiill you please drop me a e-mail?
@Admin, Is this a WordPress website? I am trying to figure out wether to use WordPress or Joomla. What would you recommend?
Notify me of new comments via email.