READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
As the gun debate continues to pace and polarize the national conversation, on Monday evening "Piers Morgan Tonight" took the show on the road setting up shop and broadcasting live out of a gun store in Katy, Texas.
Frequent detractors of Piers Morgan have often criticized his personal views - which call for an assault weapons ban - by saying the host does not have enough experience actually firing a weapon. Last night, Morgan shot quite a few holes through that theory, by going on camera and trying his hand with a series of powerful weapons.
Under the tutelage of Jeremy Alcede, the owner of Tactical Firearms, Morgan assumed a seated position, and test-fired a Browning M2 machine gun, a weapon that is perfectly legal to purchase in the United States.
Able to fire roughly 900 rounds per minute, Alcede sighted the gun as an investment which carries a rather hefty price tag:
"These run anywhere from 25- to 45-thousand dollars...depends on the make and model," he told Morgan.
After powering through a full collection of ammunition, and with smoke now circling within the walls of the gun range, Morgan looked up from his perch behind the weapon and asked simply:
"Why would any civilian want - need one of these?"
Meanwhile, with his work at the range complete, Morgan returned to his day job interviewing his guests as to why a civilian would need such a powerful weapon. Joining the host inside the store, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offered an explanation as to how it pertained to life in his state:
"The [Mexican] cartels and the drug dealers are crossing the border confronting ranchers on an ongoing basis in the state of Texas," said Abbott. "They deserve, under the Second Amendment, to have the ability to meet force with force, which is what the Second Amendment guarantees. So these ranchers need to be able to protect themselves."
Watch the clips, and listen to the interviews, as Morgan fires weapons and questions in one of the most pro-gun states in America.
» Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
You are doing extra ordinary job which will ultimately save a lot of people's lives. I am an immigrant in US and when I migrated I felt that my family and I were leaving in most secure nation in the world. With recent incidents and some of the extreme views on your shows, I feel unsecured. Please continue to fight for us
well you must not understand how the USA works. its about personal freedoms & people arent suppose to rely on the government for anything. we also vote for people who will represent our interests & do what we want.
also, you must not know about the facts & statistics that Piers ignores, like how many crimes are stopped every year by people carrying & having guns for protection.
Piers says politicians shouldnt do what the people want & instead make whatever laws they want. if you knew American history, you would know thats why we are all allowed to have any gun we want to stop politicians from doing whatever they want.
please reconsider living here if you dont want to live in a place that has personal freedoms & if you cant pay the price to have them & if you arent willing to make some sacrifices like we all have to do to have freedom.
I love the way you keep referring to 'personal freedoms.' How much personal freedom does this society have, if armed guards are necessary at schools? How can you talk of other people being unwilling to make 'sacrifices' in order to have guns. You call children being gunned down in a school a 'price to pay' for a society where guns are becoming as common as cell-phones? I say it is far too high a price and far too great a sacrifice.
So, northstar, what you are saying is that "people have to sacrifice" in order to pay for their freedom.
As long as they aren't gun owner.
Other people. Really ANY other people should suck it up and "pay the price" for freedom. Just not gun owners.
Got it. Thanks. Very helpful.
CNN told the owner it was going to be live but in fact was edited. Not very objective jounalism. The propaganda news.
MORGAN YOU ARE SOOOOO STUPID ///////
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN TO TALK ENGLISH ........
NOBODY CONTACTED ME ABOUT GUN CONTROL.((( TOTALLY AGAINST ANY ))
ALL THOSE NUMBERS YOU ARE COMING UP WITH === MUST BE FROM IDIOT DEMOCRATS ;;;;;
Because republicans don't bother with numbers? That seems like a mean thing to say. I have PERSONALLY witnessed republicans counting. I've even seen them counting in PUBLIC. Sometimes 2 or 3 together... just ... counting. Numbering stuff. They're actually very good at it!
But Piers is even worse at counting numbers. He uses Britain's gun ban and low gun murder rate as his poster child for strict gun laws. But what Piers doesn't say is that the violent crime rate in Britain is one of the highest in the western world and reported gun crime and gun injuries have doubled in a decade since the introduction of its sweeping gun ban. What's remarkable about the numbers is that the Swiss, Germans and French are the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest gun owing nations in the world, and yet these three countries have homicide rates that are 40% lower than gun free Britain.
From that same article – there were "9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08" in the UK. And, there were 550 murders (total - not gun related).
Meanwhile, in the US - " there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms". We have more gun-related murders in the us than they have in the uk ... By, like, 100x.
But – we are WAY better looking.
Whew... That was a lot harder than Cookie Monster makes it look on tv. Great article links, btw. Thank you.
I've never disputed this country has a high murder rate. But it's not about the number of guns we own it's about the inequalities and the moral decay that exists in our society that's driving our high murder rate. If it was about the number of guns, countries like Switzerland, Germany and France, who are some of the largest gun owing countries in the world, would have significantly higher murder rates than countries like gun free Britain.
Ok. But, seriously, 30 rounds in 19 seconds?
That's worth defending? I have 7-year-olds.
At least, with a handgun, there's a chance that someone could intervene. A chance. Kids still die, but maybe at least a few have a chance - right?
19 seconds. That doesn't freak you out just a little?
If you're the one with the handgun defending your children, do you still want that chance for someone to intervene? It works both ways. What about the one child's life that is lost because you didn't have adequate defensive tools? Do you want to see the light leave a child's eyes because you ran out of firepower or didn't have it at all?
I'm ok with the handgun... But that's an interesting hypothetical. If I have it right: I'm stuck defending the classroom against an armed assailant with nothing but a handgun, and I'm wishing I had my ar-15?
Not "I happen to have an ar-15, but a handgun would have done the job". An honest to god "only that ar will do the trick" type of situation.
I wonder why that story doesn't get more coverage. It must happen ALL THE TIME! Liberal media bias?
It doesn't have to be an AR-15, but an AR-15 is much more accurate than a handgun and you'd be a lot less likely to kill someone you didn't intend to kill. Let's say it's a handgun, though, where you are limited to 10 rounds. You know, to give the attacker a chance to intervene.
I have a 7 year old and a 9 year old. However, my concern, when it comes to their safety, is not guns, but to do with what they are exposed to on a daily basis in their young impressionable lives.
When it comes to guns I'm a realist. There are over 300 million guns in in this country, and 10s of millions of high capacity magazines that aren't going to disappear. The 1930s machine gun ban didn't lead to confiscation, there are still nearly half a million of these guns in private hands, so any ban on AR15 type rifles won't mean confiscation and their removal from circulation. Most of the guns in Swiss homes are automatic assault rifles, and the Swiss have one the lowest homicide rates in the world. If we want to get serious about our high murder rate we have to look elsewhere, other than guns, for answers.
I warched Piers last night when he was in Houston. I am appalled at how RUDE Piers was, interrupting every guest, not letting them speak. HOWEVER,PIERS would not let them interrupt him when he was speaking. What an idiot!! Apparently, he failed manners when he was in the U.K. CNN: Please ship him back to where he came from. We have enough idiots in America, we don't need another one! He is absolutely the RUDEST person I have ever seen. I will not continue to watch his program. Gives me indegestion! Adios.
Well, I suppose Piers has to consider his viewers, and to be honest I have never heard him interrupt anyone whilst they were saying anything intelligent. So many of the guests on his show can't answer a simple question, and they try to hide this by going off on some irrelevant tangent. Maybe if some of these guests tried to answer the question being put to them, rather than pushing their own agenda at every opportunity, they wouldn't be interrupted.
The pros (like nra spokespeople) actually get trained in how to evade an "actual" question and insert their talking points instead. The PR guys call the tactic "acknowledge, respond, pivot" ... If he didn't interrupt, he'd have a 30 min ad for the NRA and zero answers to questions!
piers always interrupts people who have a different view then him, thats probably why he isnt learning simple things like facts.
he also puts them down a lot & calls them things like stupid, & we all know people resort to that kind of thing when their argument is wrong & they have nothing to say.
piers is so quick to interrupt, half the time the guest answered the question right away but he didnt even hear them.
piers isnt trying to stop violence at all, more than once he has interrupted a guest when they started with ' what we can do to reduce violent crime is..... then he cuts them off & goes on a rant. pathetic
he also said politicians shouldnt be listening to the people they represent & instead make whatever laws they want. its ironic because thats exactly why we were given the 2nd ammendment to have any gun we want to stop politicians from doing whatever they want.
I agree with Mary on this, the last few week, Piers has been very considerate with his interviews
Brian, you have to remember Piers was sacked as editor of one if Britain's daily tabloids, The Daily Mirror, for publishing fake photographs of British troops abusing Iragi prisoners. So when it comes to telling the truth Piers doesn't have very much credibility.
Last night's show, with Piers Morgan on the target shooting range, demonstrated a few things:
1) The AR-15 is a very powerful gun that can fire at a very high rate, even in the hands of a complete novice like Piers.
2) The AR-15 also shoots very accurately, again even in the hands of a novice.
3) Firing in semi-auto is far more accurate than firing in full-auto, because the gun is steadier with much less muzzle drift.
4) The AR-15 can be easily modified with readily available parts that can be purchased legally, making it into a full-auto gun. In close quarters, in a densely occupied area, where a shooter wants to kill as many people as possible, and doesn't need to worry about aiming, this would be an even more formidable weapon! Having said that, the standard, unmodified AR-15 is still more than capable of inflicting a massive amount of bloodshed in a very short amount of time, especially if it's equipped with a high capacity ammunition magazine (which negates the need to stop and reload frequently).
I do believe that guns of this type and capability, regardless of what name you want to call them, should be reserved for the exclusive use of the military and law enforcement agencies! They should not be in the hands of civilians! There are plenty of other guns to choose from for hog hunting or self-defense.
That's your argument now. In a few year you'll be questioning why anyone needs a scoped bolt action hunting rifle. You'll be referring to them as "sniper rifles" and asking why anyone would need a weapon that is capable of killing someone out past 1,000 yards.
So are cars and what about planes. One plane killed more than one shooter at a school. Remember 911? So move to another country if you are scared! I use my guns for my sport and hunting. I target shoot and this gun makes that sport way more fun. If I had to stop and put each bullet in one at a time then it would not be as much fun. All guns are accurate and can be fired at different rates. The kill zone is still limited to the shooter. So stop the nut jobs not the law abiding citizens. Back to planes killing what should ObAmA do to stop that? Oh government made it harder to board a plane. So now I can not take my fingernail clippers on board. What a joke that is!
The difference between a car or a plane (both, btw, designed for the express purpose of transportation) vs. an assault rifle (designed for the express purpose of killing people) is obvious to most of us.
If Ford or GM designed commercials showing folks how fun it is to ram trucks into pedestrians; if Ford or GM designed car remodeling kits that helped you kill more pedestrians faster and 'with greater accuracy'; if Ford or GM built test tracks filled with little cardboard cutouts of humans beings so drivers could test their lethality behind the wheel ... If they came CLOSE to that kind of product liability, they'd be sued out of business!
I'm cool with your desire to defend your property from the long arm of uncle sam (and I have serious doubts about the federal governments ability to do ANYTHING well) - but please don't treat the rest of us like we're idiots. "Just like a car or a plane" ... seriously?
Wright, so you have to give up the fun of being able to fire a gun without reloading? Big whooping deal! Isn't it worth this tiny sacrifice to take these mass-killing machines out of circulation? You gun advocates who refuse to acknowledge there's a problem are behaving like spoiled children. You live in a society that has a horrific gun crime count. This is bigger than your individual right. It's about the rights of children in America to be able to grow up in a society where they don't have to fear being gunned down in a cinema or in a school.
I would also like to assert my right not to be run over by Wright.... in case he was thinking about it.
Doing statistical comparisons of gun related deaths to airplane accident deaths is a trivial exercise at best. It offers no means to resolve the issue at hand, because the two are totally unrelated.
When an airplane crashes, the FAA and the NTSB are on the scene shortly thereafter, to assess what went wrong and to make changes in procedures and equipment to minimize the chances of it happening again. Airplanes, as you may well know, are very complex machines and air traffic controlling is also complex. There are hundreds of possible things, or combinations of things, that can go wrong (mechanical and/or electrical malfunctions, pilot error, ATC error, etc.) that will lead to a possible crash. But if all we did after each airplane crash was to compare statistical data with other possible ways of getting killed, where would the aviation industry be today? It is because we take care to find out the causes of these crashes and to take the necessary measures afterwards, that has made the aviation industry as safe as it is today.
So stop these foolish comparisons, which get us nowhere, and focus on the issue at hand.
oh silly clyde, my car could just as easily run over kids waiting at the bus stop and kill them all. however, im a sane person and wont. should you take cars away from people too?
also, my rifles are used for the expressed purpose of eating not killing. so eat it
Sorry, Kevin. "Express Purpose" in the context of product liability means what did the manufacturer expect you to do with the product. What did they warrant it was good for.
In this case, the firm would have to argue that–while the design department did live tests in the field with soldiers, it was ACTUALLY designing a gun that would be really great for target shooting.
You can still use yours for whatever you'd like to use it for. BUT – if you use it to kill people, can Bushmaster REALLY claim to be shocked?
But so is a 12 guage shotgun loaded with 8 rounds of buckshot. You let lose with a short barreled one of those in a crowded room, with 9 pieces of buckshot per shell, and that"s 72 projectiles flying in all direction!
At one time in a America, people were allowed to own slaves, but that was abolished by President Lincoln and not without a lot of controversy either. But it was the right thing to do. After that, there was still racial segregation (apartheid) in America up until it was stopped in the 1960's (although many will argue that it still exists, to a somewhat lesser extent, today [unofficially of course]). That too was greatly opposed, but it was the right thing to do. Anyone disagree?
Now America has reached another major social issue which desperately needs fixing. Too many guns and virtually no control over who is getting their hands on them in the first place, no registration of gun owners (and no consequences for their irresponsibility), and no control over the resale of guns through private hands. This has to be tackled head on now. It can't wait! You may not like the solution to it, but you have to swallow that tough pill and do it.
The Second Amendment was written and enacted in 1778. It's high time Americans seriously took a good hard look at it. But we must interpret it's meaning from the context of that time period.
Firstly, what did they mean by "well regulated militia"? What was meant exactly by the term 'militia'? For example, here in Canada (my blessed nation), the militia is a corps of reservists who are called upon to assist our Canadian Armed Forces, when necessary (similar to your National Guard). They receive military training, just like the Armed Forces, and they fall under the command of the Armed Forces when operating in theater.
Secondly, what did they mean by "necessary to the defense of a free state"? "Free state" doesn't necessarily mean a particular state (i.e. Rhode Island or Texas). I think it means: state, as in The Secretary of State (of which there is only 1, not 50), or as in The State Department, or as in the seperation of church and state. In other words, the country as a whole!
Thirdly, what did they mean by "the right to bear arms"? Arms? What kind of arms? If it is to defend the nation, it could mean whatever is necessary, so long it is controlled by a WELL REGULATED militia. For regular civilians, that's an entirely different matter. Civilians should never be allowed to obtain weapons used by, or designed for, the military or law enforcement agencies. There simply is no need for civilians to have them.
Fourthly, what did they mean by "shall not be infringed"? Well, if their intent was to defend the country from any impending attack, then they needed a standing order, on the books, that stated that government will provide whatever is necessary to do the job, without any question. It was basically a non-debatable point.
At least, that is the way I read the Second Amendment!
So, now you need to either clarify what is meant by the wording of the Second Amendment or reword it to reflect today's reality. Amendments CAN be amended. We do it all the time under Robert's Rules of Order. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself recommended that the Second Amendment be reviewed on a regular basis so that it would stay current to the situation of the era as time progressed and technology progressed.
Remember that the 2nd Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights which addresses INDIVIDUAL Rights! It is foremost the right for all people to bear arms for there personal self defense beyond the narrow scope of the militia. A militia can be called on a local scale like in the old westerns when a posse was formed to go after bank robbers that just gunned down the sheriff.
But, Steven, nobody today is arguing to abolish the right to bear arms... we're just talking about reasonable limits. As was pointed out elsewhere in this very section: just because you have the right to bear arms doesnt mean you get to carry around an RPG or plant land mines in your front yard.
Makes sense, right? Somehow – gun advocacy seems to focus on an ALL OR NOTHING offer. That way – they can pretend that the second amendment applies because of some dubious "slippery slope" argument.
In fact - if we do actually deputize you to chase after bad guys (unlikely, but lets allow for the possibility), I'd like to think we'd STILL make you leave your tank and your attack helicopter at home.
"infringe" is a very specific word they chose to use. It means to "encroach", which means "to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another". It's like the old story about the best way to boil a frog. You can try to toss a frog into a boiling pot and he'll just jump out. Or you can put the frog in water with a reasonable temp and then just keep raising the temp until the frog is boiled.
There's nothing reasonable about banning one type of weapon that is rarely used in crime. It's quite the opposite. You whip up fear over one particular type of gun and prey on the emotions of people to get them banned. There's no reason in that.
Clyde, thank you for your own analysis of our 2nd amendment, but just in case you didn’t know, our CURRENT supreme court “seriously took a good hard look at it” in the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and has ruled that the amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
And if you live in Canada, why are you meddling with our affairs, which do not belong to you? Please don’t mind us. We’ll decide what’s best for us by ourselves. You just stay there and be happy...
Supreme court also said (in Heller, at least) that the second amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”
Same argument posed by BentleyND last night, but the same reality still applies...
I never said the limitations don’t exist. I was just correcting your interpretation of the 2nd amendment last night. It will be argued in the house by our lawmakers soon, so let’s hear their arguments, shall we?
Semi-automatic rifles are the most common type of rifle used by Americans. So what's your point?
Thats not true.... but even a really BASIC internet search turns up this interesting article:
"Among gun owners, 58 percent own pistols, 63 percent own shotguns and 59 percent own rifles." Your claim is that assault rifles make up the lion's share of that 59%? Really?
"What's your point" ... My point is, there is a big difference in lethality between a handgun and an ar-15. but you know that, right? You're just like repeating yourself?
Your own link shows that I am correct. The howstuffworks link show the 5 most popular guns:
1. The 1911 Pistol
2. S&W Model 10 Revolver
3. Bushmaster AR-15 rifle
4. Remington Model 870 Pump Action Shotgun
5. Thompson/Center Arms Encore Muzzleloading Rifle
I didn't say AR-15, btw. I said semi-automatic rifle. This would include the Mini-40, Mini-30, Remington 750, etc. If I said AR-15, I'd still be correct.
When I was asking you about your point, I was referring to your citing the comment in Heller about weapons needing to be in common use. Pointing that out doesn't say much because semi-automatic rifles are THE most common type of rifle that Americans own.
My Glock 17 at close range would be more lethal. An AR
In response to Bentley N.D.,
The reason we Canadians are concerned about this issue is because we are your 'next door neighbors' and one of America's biggest trading partners. We Canadians travel to the U.S. on a frequent basis for both business and vacations. We have retirees, we call them 'Snowbirds', who spend their winters in the southern states and return to Canada for the summer months. I know several of them personally and I don't want anything terrible to happen to them. But the way things seem to be going in America these days, it's like gambling with your life anytime you leave your house down there, because you simply don't know when or where the next crazy person with a grudge to bear will come flying out in front of you with his gun ablazing. Does that make it clear to you why we are concerned?
We have excellent gun control laws here in Canada, which America is free to adopt, if they so choose. We can have our shotguns and bolt action rifles for hunting. Civilians owning handguns is very rare and tightly restricted here. Same for anything semi-automatic. However, we do have some illegal guns being sneaked in by criminals, from the U.S., (remember 40% of all guns sales in America are through private, untraceable sales) and that's creating troubles in some of our larger cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, etc.). Thanks a lot America, as if we really need or want that here! If you guys had tighter control over your guns we wouldn't have that problem!
So yes! We are affected by what you guys decide. And, may I remind you, that the right to free speech doesn't end at your border! I will continue to have my say, so long as I am able!
You Canadians can also afford to spend more money on social programs because of your brutish big brother to the south. All of our NATO allies share the same benefit. You're most welcome.
Then I should complain about my mother-in-law’s bed, which is too soft and hurts my back every time I stay over there. I should demand that she buy a Temper-Pedic adjustable bed like the one I use at my home... But I won’t. That would be rude. I’m a “guest” at her house and it’s a “privilege”(not a right) for me to be able to visit there. I also think her house overall is too cluttered with old knickknacks and I often wish I could put everything away in the closet. But despite her uncomfortable bed and untidiness, I frequent there, because she is a lovely person and an excellent cook and I greatly enjoy her company. I “choose” to visit her and stay there for days. It’s not my house, why would I tell her to change her house “the way I like”, so that it’ll suit my taste... it’s “her” house. No one is making me stay there. If I didn’t like it, I don’t have to stay.
Unless you are a citizen of this country or at least legally living here, sorry sir, but you don’t really get to have a say in what we decide, but if you still want to give us your two cents, please study more about the issue first, it appeared to me that you were not aware of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment when you offered your analysis of it. Your free speech is welcome, but you have to expect our free speech coming right back at you too.
“it's like gambling with your life anytime you leave your house down there, because you simply don't know when or where the next crazy person with a grudge to bear will come flying out in front of you with his gun ablazing.”
This statement is so wrong.... This type of hysteria is the problem that prevents us from thinking logically...
Please read the article below and stop spreading the hysteria...
An expert criminologist, who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that chances of being killed in a mass shooting are probably “no greater than being struck by lightning”.
I've often heard people say "Oh, my back! It's KILLING ME!" But I always thought it was just a figure of speech. I didn't know that mattresses were actually lethal. And then you also have those pesky little knick-knacks to deal with. Sure they will drive you totally crazy, just like James Holmes or Adam Lanza. Ahh, but those guns, those sweet innocent guns. Sure we all know they are harmless, don't we? After all, guns don't kill people. It's people.....and mattresses.....and those pesky little knick-knacks!
So, tomorrow morning when you wake up, don't get up the wrong side of the bed and knock over the knick-knacks. Because your irate mother-in-law will come barging in with her AR-15... and only God knows what will happen next!
Okay Clyde, I was trying to explain the rudeness of meddling in a lighthearted way... but since you didn’t get it, how about this...
America greatly suffers from the drugs that are illegally brought from Mexico. I truly wish Mexico could have gotten rid of all the drug cartels yesterday. If I were to “impose” my idea on Mexicans, it will be “Let the good civilians in the country properly be armed and trained and take the cartels out.” ...But I won’t. That would be ignorant. Because I’m not conversant in their culture and how people are there. My vacationing in Cancun and Cabo Sun Lucas doesn’t make me an expert in Mexican politics. I don’t even know all about their laws and how they were made nor do I know how their Supreme Court has ruled on their gun-control.
I may give an ear to a foreigner “IF” he had lived here at least several years and extensively studied about the issue, but otherwise, our issues should be discussed among ourselves who know what we are talking about and dealing with.
So, what you are saying is, if my girlfriend and I (or any of my loved ones for that matter) were to travel to your country, we need not worry about going to a shopping mall, or a theater, etc., because you guys seem to have the gun control issue well in hand right now and you have a solution to any problems that may arise in the meantime. Hmmm! It doesn't appear that way to me, ol' chap! IF OUR LIVES ARE IN DANGER, WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED!!!! JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE THERE ON A PERMANENT BASIS SHOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!!!!
Furthermore, I don't own a gun, I don't have a need for one, nor do I want one. But if I go to the U.S., it seems like I would need to have one, because if I announce to all that I'm a Canadian, then everyone will know I'm unarmed and easy prey. If I see a bunch of you guys, all carrying guns, how am I supposed to know which one is the nut case and is likely to take his gun out and try to rob me or shoot me? Every day, it seems, we are hearing of another story of somebody gone mad on a killing spree. It is obviously easier to kill somebody with a gun than by any other means, because that's what guns are designed to do. They only have ONE purpose, TO KILL! So, it stands to reason, if you reduce the number of guns and put tight restrictions on certain types of guns, then the crime rate and these massacres should also be reduced. Isn't that obvious to you guys?
Somehow my post hasn't appeared... I’ll try again.
What I’m saying is, if you are that much concerned about being shot in the US, you don’t have to come here, just as I stopped going to Mexico for vacation. Please choose the destinations that you feel safe. I’m saying you are free to choose to come here or not!
As someone posted above, the chances of being killed in a mass-shooting are about the same or less than the chances of being struck by lightning. So, yes, if you are so afraid of lightning and don’t ever go out when it’s stormy, then you should not come to the US.
Besides, since gun-control laws don’t work on criminals and nut cases, if we remove the guns from good law-abiding owners, we may have a more increased chance of being victimized. You just don’t know about the reality of this country, because you haven’t lived here long enough to understand, nor studied our history well enough to embrace our culture and mentality. I know even Americans don’t see eye to eye on the gun-control issue and I will gladly have discussions with “my fellow Americans”.
Clyde, your description of ar15s (#1-3) made me realize even a girl like me could easily handle it... so I shall find a range to try one. I was originally thinking of getting a shot-gun for home defense, but thanks to you, I may upgrade my choice of weapon. Especially now that they are talking about banning it, I should get it while I can.
All of the hype has made them impossible to get now. People are hoarding them. Here's a link to my wife shooting one. This is her first time shooting a rifle of any kind. All of my AR rifles are equipped with reflex sights like the one she is using. They're great if you have problems using one eye to aim.
Ainsley, good choice! The AR with the right ammo is a much better and safer choice for home defense than a shotgun or handgun. If you stick light weight 55 grain hollow points the 223 doesn't over penetrate like buckshot or some of the heavier pistol bullets.
Thank you Jim and cr, for your expert advice on guns. You know, I never thought of owning a gun until this heated gun-control debate started. I’ve been reading this blog site about 2 weeks now and noticed pro-gun people tend to make more reasonable arguments with numbers and stats while anti-gun people’s arguments are mostly based on emotion... Thanks to you guys and other pro-gun posters here, I’ve come to respect the 2nd Amendment so much and I’d like to exercise it myself now. Perhaps I should thank Piers for counterproductively(for him) opening my eyes too...?
Never was a fan of the AR-15. The .223 cartridge is just a little too low of stopping power for my taste. I can see why others like it, but I'll stick with my 7.62x39mm Samozaryadnyj Karabin sistemy Simonova, 1945; the SKS-45.
There's something about Soviet firearms... I think it's the walnut and steel construction. They have never done me wrong. Although I suppose they are a little heavy for a first-timer. Honestly, though, try a few firearms. Learn what you like, and what feels comfortable.
You seem to have been the victim of misinformation. There is no way to easily convert an AR-15 to full auto, legally or illegally. There is a set of parts know as the fire control group, which determine whether or not the gun may fire in a fully automatic mode. These parts were regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1986, which banned automatic weapons. Manufacture of new automatic firearms or 'parts kits' capable of converting a semi-auto to full auto, for civilian use, were prohibited. any firearms or parts kits registered before the date the law took effect, were grandfathered. In order to purchase these items, one must pay a $200 transfer fee, and let ATF crawl up your butt with a borescope, before you are granted a license. The background check typically takes several months. Average price for a legal full auto fire control group is around $7500 – 8500, not counting the cost of the gun or additional parts and labor needed for installation. There is a finite number of transferable weapons and components, thus prices are constantly on the rise. I recall about a decade ago, the price for these parts was around $3000.
I would also like to point out the fact that a rifle is not really considered an ideal close quarters weapon, although many people do erroneously choose a weapon such as an AR-15 for home defense. In confined quarters, the muzzle blast from an AR-15 is rather disorienting. Ask anyone with military training about the most effective way to kill people in tight groups in close quarters and the overwhelming answer will be fragmentation grenades. Deactivated fragmentation grenades are widely available and can be reactivated quite easily using legal and readily available components by someone with a basic knowledge of how they work and some basic machining skills. Of course, doing so would be highly illegal, just like converting an AR-15 to full auto without approval of ATF, but when did that ever stop a criminal?
One last thought, if you're objective enough to still be reading:
Firearms cause 3.6 deaths per year per 100,000 residents. Cars kill 12.3 persons per year per 100,000 residents.
So why aren't you clamoring to ban sports cars??
If those weapons are in the hands of the military and law enforcement, but not in the hands of civilians, then how do the civilians defend themselves from corrupt law enforcement and government? That is the real purpose of the 2nd amendment.
It isn't about the "fun" of hunting, or anything else. Though, I will say that shooting a group of 13 Feral hogs would have been easier with larger magazines. We missed two of them. There are over 3 million of these hogs tearing up land, crops, and endangering people and animals in the state of Texas, alone. So, just as an example, like Atty. Abbott's example, it stands to show you that it takes better weapons to do some necessary tasks.
Guns do an excellent job of letting the weak and powerless carry the same weight as a physically stronger opponent. Whether you are talking about an older lady vs. a young attacker, a guy on his land vs. a pack of hogs, a rancher vs. a cartel, or a group of citizens vs. a corrupt government, the guns simply even the odds. I believe we should make a reasonable effort to prevent illegal gun purchases, illegal gun trafficing, and illegal gun possession. However, any further action to prevent law abiding citizens (the only ones who actually are hindered by laws) from owning and carrying guns will do nothing to make our world safer.
Piers, why don't you do an episode on why you were fired from The Daily Mirror? Or how about an episode on your involvement with the phone hacking scandal in the UK? Inquiring minds would love to know!
Hmm yes, because these issues are so much more important than the gun crisis that America is facing...
Thank god for Piers Morgan's show highlighting how ridiculous the NRA and people like Scottie Hughes and Dana Loesch are. I'm still waiting for him to be able to get a decent answer from any of them about why a civilian needs a semi-automatic. Not once has anyone been able to give a reason, unless it's because they fear a tyrannical government.
Well said Mary, pro-gun people always go down this path of attack, instead of talking about the real issue
BRAVO KATE , FINALLY THE TRUTH
You asked Ted Nugent a question on which countries had more guns per person per capita. You stated Yemen! What a bad example that is. So you compare law abiding gun owners to Terrorist! What an idiot you are. No wonder CNN is now known as the Communist News Network. Keep following OBAMA and you will see in due time what a nut job he really is. But then it will be to late to stop that change! So why not get real news and do what real news men use to do and gather the news. The national media is so Liberally biased that they don't even report the truth only the propaganda from a commie president! Leave us and our guns alone!
And where does one get this 'real news' from? People like Dana Loesch and Alex Jones?
There hasnt been another 911 since these controls came in, your arguement doesnt stack up
I think most of the gun control measures floating around (except meaningful background checks)will not make a dent in gun violence. Banning AR-15 is not going to solve any problem. There are other semi-autos which can fire same .223/5.56×45 round and cost less than half that of AR-15 and all these semi-autos are perfectly legal even in CA. To all those who think pistol grip is scary, its there because AR is a straight line direct impingement operating system and cannot have a traditional stock that you can hold and shoot. What will politicians do if there is another tragedy after assault weapons ban? start banning other semi-autos? handguns? scopes? shotguns? bolt-actions? Ammo? So this is technically start of drying up supply slowly and you know the rest.
Well said! The sheep following the sheep in wolf's clothing is what's happening. When he has the sheep where he wants them then it's to late! Some might get away but most will perish. That's the way these Liberal Progressives are. They move thru life with blinders on!
OK... How about a giant product liability lawsuit? How about we let washington remain the place where good ideas go to die, and we stack up a jury of 12 and the testimony of 28 families in CN against a year or two in Bushmaster profits?
They designed a product who's express purpose is to kill. They created marketing materials which encourage "enthusiasts" to shoot at paper cutouts of ... er... human beings. And then the company is "shocked and saddened" when their product is actually used for it's express purpose?
There is seriously no product liability lawyer in the company chasing this down? The AG in Connecticut is too fat+happy from his tobacco company windfall? Actually... I feel bad about saying that. I'm sure he/she is a very nice person - just maybe a little slow on the uptake.
you do realize that what you are suggesting is exactly what is causing kids to become such violent criminals? you are saying the criminal charge of murder is not enough & someone else should be held responsible?
you are telling people guns are meant for killing & thats the opposite of what they are for. they are to stop killing, thats why police carry them & every other law abiding citizen thats wants to carry.
im glad your in small minority & most people understand its about personal responsibilty when you are living in a country that is based on personal freedoms.
you think the government should decide what is best for people when its suppose to be the other way around.
its hard to believe some people are so backwards even when someone asks them what are you going to do if you are violently attacked? how can you stop the violent criminals ?
you cant do anything unless you have training & a gun & thats it.
do you think its wise to trust politicians & the government? thats the same mistake so many other countries have made throughout history. they always think times have changed, its a different world now, things are different.... big mistake to ever think that....
Yes. The criminal charge of murder is not enough. Even better – I'm saying that Bushmaster knew that the product they were producing was going to be used to kill people and they kept marketing and producing it anyway.
It's the other side of the law, Northstar: civil liability.
When your actions lead to the loss of life or property, and we (eg – your fellow citizens) can see that you acted willfully (knowing that your actions would result in the loss of life/property), then you should pay a fine. Not go to jail. Pay a fine.
Im simplifying, of course, but you seem to appreciate simplification.
Yes, AR-15s are weapons. They're designed to kill things. The expectation is that a consumer will not use it for illegal purposes. We can no more sue Bushmaster than we can sue General Motors because people speed in Corvettes or any other car that's able to exceed posted speed limits.
Alright. Civil Liability. I like that.
I demand civil liability from the government. For the lives lost and ruined by their repeated failures to establish a proper f***ing budget, create a truly f***ing sustainable energy policy, enact a f***ing drug policy that's not fundamentally flawed, enable a proper f***ing mental health system, and fix the f***ing public education system. These failures have lead to a culture that is rife with moronic, narcissistic, unemployed criminal leech nutcases who are so perpetually doped up they have no F***ING idea what to do with themselves so they decide to blow up a building.
What's that? I can't demand civil liability from the civil authority? Why not?
Because you have to have the government's permission to sue the government. Ironic, right?
Your proposed class action is probably bigger $$ than mine. But it's a fairly typical argument on this subject: "if you can't fix EVERYTHING, then you should fix NOTHING".
Banning semi-automatic rifles fixes nothing and probably breaks a lot more. Who's saying we should do nothing? I hear the NRA calling for armed security in schools? (doesn't help with malls and other public places, but it's a start that improves our children's security) I hear a lot of people saying they support improving our mental health laws. People want to improve the quality of the instant check system we have in place. That's not nothing. You seem to not be able to look beyond the evil black rifle that is involved in fewer deaths than cell phones. Why doesn't Piers spend weeks discussing the texting crisis? More kids are killed by that than rifles. Most of us older folks know that we can survive without the ability to text. ;-)
Wrong. I'm of the opinion that you don't make a kneejerk, emotional reaction to fix what is (pretty obviously) a symptom of a greater issue. Root cause is what I look for. Otherwise, you'll just keep treating symptom after symptom while the system rots from the root.
I wonder how all the restrictions of where people can smoke were ever implemented in this country where people are so intent on holding onto something that they know kills thousands... By insisting on owning a gun, you're increasing your risk of being killed by a gun. I wish all guns would be banned, and that the NRA would go broke.
See, that's the thing. Those restrictions are, partially, a network of local (mostly city) ordinances - but they're also driven in LARGE measure by companies who fear the almighty lawsuit! Nobody wants to be sued for killing Jr. with secondhand smoke while he was flying to visit grandma on a coast-to-coast trip.
I'm telling you. This is a giant class action waiting to happen.
I've owned handguns and rifles for over 25 years now. I haven't killed anything with them other than paper and cardboard. I have killed some animals with cars, though. The biggest being a deer. The second biggest was a goose. There's more of a car death crisis than gun crisis. Why aren't you calling for the banning of cars?
Car deaths again? Really? Again...
Do you know why anti-gun people dislike the gun/car analogy so much? ...because it WORKS and they don’t have a good argument to refute it.
Because it reveals the dead truth of their hypocrisy on how indifferent they are about car accident victims, because they don’t want any stricter traffic laws imposed on them, even to “save lives”. (Isn’t that what they say their mission is, to “save lives”?) But they only scream about gun-control where they don’t have to compromise their life style. But when it comes to road safety, they don’t want to talk about it, because THEY have to compromise their lifestyle and THEY DON’T WANT THAT. They love to point fingers at others, but they just don’t want fingers pointed at them, do they?
Actually - it's PAINFULLY clear that a car is designed for transit and a gun is designed for killing. It's PAINFULLY clear that the rest of the rational world gets that a car (or a library book or a pen or the palm of your hand - a really odd choice for a potential lethal weapon... but ok) are ALL different than a product that is designed to kill.
I think I hate "the gun/car analogy" because it relies on the assumption that the person you are conversing with is ... well... an IDIOT. Your theory is that we are trying to say "anything that CAN kill you should be banned" Nobody but you, so far, has made that argument.
It's a blatant sleight of hand ... "think my gun is dangerous, what about your CAR!" "QUICK RUN ... THERES A GUY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MALL WITH A CAR!!!"
It's obnoxious because it's infantile... facile...
Of course that doesn't mean is shouldn't convince you ;-). It just means that the only folks nodding their heads are the ones who would nod their heads no matter WHAT pro-gun argument you make.
It doesn't matter what something is designed for, but let's play that game. Guns are designed to fire a projectile at high velocity. There are plenty of lawful uses for a gun. Hunting, self-defense, target shooting, etc. Gun manufacturers sell guns to people for these lawful purposes. Car manufacturers sell cars to people for the lawful purpose of transit. There are different cars for different tasks. You've got your gas sipping, tiny car for commuting and your big scary truck for hauling stuff. Some people use their big scary truck for commuting, too, because they want to. With guns, you have your apparently acceptable revolver and your semi-automatic rifle with high capacity magazines.
Does it really matter what weapon of choice a mass killer uses? 27 dead people are still 27 dead people. They're dead because of a decision made by a human being. I know you feel that a person could kill more people with a semi-automatic rifle than in a pickup truck, but it all really depends on the plan created by the psycho. Your emotional bias makes you think there is a difference. There is not. Did you see the movie "Moneyball"? The question was whether it matters if a player gets on base by hitting the ball or being walked. The reality is that it doesn't matter. Emotionally you want to see the player to hit to get on base. In either case, the end result is the same. The fixation on the weapon is all emotional bias. Focusing on the person is not. Let's figure out how to identify psychos and how to prevent them from being in a position to misuse a tool to harm others.
Again, the “guns are deigned to kill” argument, as if other things if not designed to kill, it’s okay for them to kill people. It is illogical to fixate on guns when cars kill PAINFULLY WAY WAY more. I’m only saying that if we had more discussions about stricter traffic laws, we can save “many many many more” than banning AR-15s. Why is this logic infantile? You want to save lives, right? Or you just want to get rid of scary looking guns, because they scare you...
You are not scared of the fact that we lose roughly 90 LIVES EVERY SINGLE DAY in our country by car accidents... Yet you are scared the fact that so-called assault weapons have caused average 42 deaths a year? ( Sen.Feinstein. said 350 deaths have occurred since the ban was lifted in Sep.13, 2004)
And getting rid of those guns would only make the attackers choose different methods to carry out the atrocities, so how many do you really think we can save by banning them?
designed to kill or not designed to kill, does it matter? If a person killed by a gunshot and a person killed in a car accident, ARE THEY NOT BOTH DEAD?
okay, just for argument’s sake, let’s ban assault weapons... how many psychos are gonna say, “oh, gee, there are no AR15s... okay I’m gonna totally give up on mass killings now.” How likely do you think that would happen, honestly?!?
Unnecessary death is unnecessary death. I keep bringing it up because it's a good example of how a problem is treated rationally and how a problem is treated irrationally. If someone is killed by a car, you figure out what the driver did wrong and whether or not the driver should have been behind the wheel. When someone is killed by a gun, the gun's existence is the problem. That's truly an irrational response. Let's say that Adam Lanza drove his mom's pickup truck through a playground full of kindergartners. Would you be wanting to limit the size of vehicles that law abiding citizens can drive or would you be focusing on why he did it and how we could have stopped him from doing it?
Oh… the mighty "gun/car analogy"… any pro-gunner who brings it up in the gun-control debate does not seriously suggest that we ban cars (even they kill 30K ppl a year). If you honestly think that he does, well then Brian, I think you are the idiot one. We bring it up only to make a point as to how irrational/hysterical some people get when there’s a shooting incident, but not so much when there’s a car accident.
Well, I for one will be perfectly okay when I see a normal looking guy having a gun acting normally. But I will be afraid if I spot a car with a lunatic looking guy behind the wheel, and may scream "QUICK RUN ... THERES A GUY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MALL WITH A CAR, ACTING WEIRD!!!"
As an engineer, I've always been confused by that logic; the statement that a gun is designed to kill, but a car is not, so it's ok that cars are involved in the deaths of almost 4 times as many people as guns.
Is it just me, or does that seem like a pretty big f***ing design flaw? How is it that something designed from the ground up to "kill as efficiently as possible" only kills almost a quarter of the people as something that has been designed to be as safe as possible for everyone in and out of the vehicle?
I have enjoyed Piers' attempts to point out the ludicrousy of people needing automatic assault weapons to defend themselves against our government. As a prior avid hunter and gun owner I respect the rights of Americans to own guns as provided for in the 2nd Amendment.
What I think is missing in the current dialogue regarding the gun issue is a common sense approach to enforcing the right to carry conealed weapons laws that are already on the books in many States or putting them in place where they are currently non-existent. Without a proper permit to carry firearms in a conealed fashion there should be stiff fines and penalties imposed on those who violate the law.
People have a right to own an automobile ( the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness); however, they must obide by the rules of the road. They cannot legally drive drunk and are subject to ramdom checkpoints to check for DUI violations. Why don't we do the same in Chicago? Think that might take some illegal guns off the streets?
What is needed right now is some common sense compromises to take the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired. At the same time, I would be in favor of banning assault rifles or, as a minimum, high capacity magazines. Background checks for all gun sales is a no-brainer and should be passed and enforced.
Jesse H. James
South Pacific Developoment Group, LLC
I completely agree with you J.H. James! It's also very nice and refreshing to see a gun owner/hunter stand up for what is right. Nobody needs assault rifles. I encourage other gun owners to also speak out and bring some common sense to the table. I know that there are many gun owners who agree with this. I commend you!
well you seem very educated. you should be able to understand that we are allowed to have any gun we want because we have freedom. also, you should understand that we should have any gun we need to stop the government from doing things we dont want.
you should also be able to see that when piers is saying our politicians shouldnt listen to what the people want & instead do whatever they want, thats exactly why we have the right to have any gun we wantto stop that if needed.
i dont fear the nuclear bombs & missles that would destroy all the land & resources, but we should all be prepared for something like a police state or people being rounded up in camps just in case....
every country that was taken over thought times had changed, the world was different, thats the worst mistake you can make .
everyone wishes we didnt live in a world with some crazy people but we do. & they inflitrate governments all the time
J.H. maybe u should just give up all ur rights now, cause once it starts it wont stop. u can leave this country with peirce and go to his home country that will make u feel safer :) , and please tell us how many ppl u know who has (automatic) weapons? i dont know any but if they want to pay the money for it, they have the GOD BORN RIGHT to have them being an AMERICAN CITIZEN.
AS J.H stated "I would be in favor of banning assault rifles or, as a minimum, high capacity magazines". Background checks for all gun sales is a no-brainer and should be passed and enforced.
(" As a prior avid hunter and gun owner I respect the rights of Americans to own guns as provided for in the 2nd Amendment.")
then please mr J.H. tell us how u support our rights if u support them being taking? thats like saying i support ur freedom of religion as long as we pick the religion??? no -brainer.
as ben franklin stated "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
Do they also have the "god born" right to own tanks? dirty bombs (that's a bomb with radioactive material ... in case you were curious)? RPG's and biological weapons?
I'm assuming you're shaking your head (side-to-side) and not nodding (that's up-and-down), MoreGuns.
Just pointing out that the same argument you use ("once we ban one type of weapon, we won't stop until we're all in chains") works the other way, big man ("if you can't ban assault rifles, then you shouldn't ban RPG's ...they're both protected by the 2nd amendment").
That version of the argument is just missing a bumper-sticker friendly format.... "If there were no laws - there'd be no outlaws." Not as catchy as that other bumper sticker, but it's got a certain appeal, no?
What exactly is a God-born right anyway? Are you saying that God said you can have guns? Why is it that people are so keen to cling to the second amendment, created a couple of hundred years ago, as something that should not be altered, changed or even re-interpreted, yet we accept that the Bible is probably a little outdated in some of it's laws and so we don't follow them? The second amendment was just created by a group of lawmakers – no more, no less important than the lawmakers of America today. The distinction between them is that the 'founding fathers' had no conceivable idea of how out of control gun crime would become; present day lawmakers can assess the situation and see that change is needed. Stop looking at the past and focus on the future. I am sure that those founding fathers would be tearing the second amendment up from beyond the grave if they could see the mess it's gotten America into.
May – some bad new about MoreGuns and his views on whether or not the bible is "a little outdated" You thought he was crazy when you said the second amendment wasn't inspired by God?
Tanks are civilian legal. If the main gun is deactivated, any civilian can own a tank or armored vehicle without any special license. If it is street legal (many armored vehicles are) you can drive it to the grocery store.
The use of NBC weapons (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) is classified as a war crime. In reality, they are indiscriminate, and have a massive potential to spread to countless victims through contamination (I'm also including your dirty bomb idea here).
A rocket propelled grenade? Why not?
Hear me out. The modern colloquial definition of arms can be summed up as "infantry portable weapon systems, operable by one to three individuals." As the purpose of the Second Amendment is for the people to act a the final check against the government oppression, I see no reason why we should not be able to acquire and maintain these weapons.
As to the thought of if these weapons fall into the hands of the mentally ill, perhaps we should overhaul and rebuild our mental health system? Maybe work to remove the social stigma of a mental health condition? Perhaps then more people would come forward to recieve treatment. As for criminals; have any single one of the current laws stopped them? I'm pro-death penalty for murderers, and rapists, as well as multiple felon recidivists; even if we won't kill them, put them away, forever, in isolation. REMOVE THE PROBLEM. The problem is not an inanimate object.
While I would trust my fellow American to be safe with an RPG, I'm not sure that I could trust that the RPG would remain safe. Explosives tend to degrade and become unstable so it's possible for one to explode on its own. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are certain weapons that could go off on their own without human interaction. This is very unlikely with rifles and handguns.
So tanks, rpg's and land mines are all ok to own in your book. Sounds like a well-reasoned position.
With the exception of the landmine, yes. Landmines are an indiscriminate weapon that requires preparation. Someone intending you no harm could wander over it without your knowledge and be destroyed. That's not ok.
A tank is not a weapon if a truck is not a weapon. You can overload a truck and strap armor plating to it and move faster than the tank.
RPGs are a discriminate weapon. You need to plan your shot, check your range (40m arming distance necessary), and ensure you hit a hard enough (armored enough) target to ensure detonation. Besides, most RPGs utilize shaped charges and molten metal, producing a fairly small, but focused explosion designed specifically to punch a hole in tank armor and utilize the remaining armor as a pressure cooker. Translation: They're really effective against tanks. Not so much most other things.
Wrong. There is no right to own a car. It's a privilege, not a right.
Anyone can own a car, the privledge is in driving it!
Mr. James, if you are in favor of banning high capacity magazines, please answer this question.
How do I protect my family including a 5-year-old if multiple assailants should bust into my house? How do I hold them off until police arrive (sometimes it can take 30min. in my area), with only 10 bullets when they have more than 10 bullets in each gun?
How about working on improving your home security? You're seriously going to fire off a gun with your children in the house and think you're not going to hit one of your own family? In the middle of the night when these people break in, are you going to have time to get your gun out of the gun safe? Or are you going to keep it under your bed where your kids might get it? Owning a gun is no guarantee you're going to be able to defend yourself anyway. Especially if the intruders kill you first.
Do you live near the Mexican border? You don’t know what you are talking about unless you do. Please live in my area at least for a year first, before you judge me.
Owning a gun is no guarantee you're going to be able to defend yourself??
Not owning a gun guarantees that I cannot defend myself nor protect my family.
If there is a mob coming into your house and they have assault weaponsl I dont think you would stand a chance anyhow, you guys sound crazy, more guns will stop violence, more guns creates more violence
So, if I don’t stand a chance against mobs, then do nothing and see my wife and kid being killed? THAT sounds CRAZY to me.
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.
Hey now. I'm looking at improving my home security. I already own a Simonov Carbine. Now I'm looking at either a Saiga-12 or a nice .357 magnum revolver (not sure which model). Any thoughts?
During one of Piers' town meetings about gun control, one of his guests made what I thought was a very good point – he said that as a law-enforcer he had to undergo psychological testing in order to be able to carry a gun, yet a civilian just has to produce identification.
Why, in addition to background checks, isn't psychological testing conducted before permitting a civilian to have a gun? Not that I'm in favor of guns at all, but it would seem a logical thing to do.
I also think you should have to undergo responsibility training and testing to show that you are capable of handling a gun and keeping it safely locked away, much the same as drivers are tested before they can drive a car.
mary please. guns are used for protection. a small number of people use them to commit crimes.
all the real facts & statistics shows having a gun is good. there is no way to stop a group of violent criminals if you dont have more bullets then them.
there is no way to stop 1 violent criminal if you dont have a gun & training.
what you are saying is opposite of what is true & you are making it harder for people to stop violence. you are teaching kids guns are murder machines then wonder how to stop the violence?
please. we live in a country based on personal freedoms & not relying on the government. if you cant handle it then you can move to a country where the government will decide whats best for you. after awhile there, you will see how all those people are trying to move here & will think its crazy that you think people shouldnt have freedom to do what they want( if they arent harming others obviously)
No cop I know has had to undergo psychological testing in order to carry a gun, training in firearms proficiency and safety yes. maybe this particular officer had a prior mental issue!!!
actually my son is starting the local police academy, and yes he had to go through psychological evaluation prior to acceptance. AS for gun ownership, if this becomes too blatant of an issue, who sets the parameters of who is psychologically qualified to own a gun. This would be reminiscent of the post civil war days when you had to pass reading test or other test to vote. Simply a way to at that time stop the freedmen from being able to vote. So the government could write the psychological profile test in such a way, that nobody could be qualified to purchase or own firearm.
When someone is murdered because their self-defense weapon was empty before they could fight off the attacker or attackers, will you or Piers take responsibility for that? There are things that we Americans sometimes have to defend against that aren't other people. It could be wild animals like Grizzly bears, Polar bears, coyotes, mountain lions, wolves, wild dogs, etc. You never really know. There may be a natural disaster where the only law and order for a few days is you and your AR-15.
A friend of mine told me that he accidentally hit the alarm in his house and the police came. He said they looked scared because they didn't know what they were walking into. I asked him how long it took for them to arrive. He said it was just a few minutes. I then asked him how long it took him to arrive after hitting the alarm. The answer is obvious, of course. If he was armed and there were real criminals, it would be the criminals that need to be scared because it is they who would be walking into an unknowns situation. That could save his life, his family's life, and the life of those police officers. That's being vigilant, not a vigilante.
If it was my wife at home with my son and daughter, I'd want her to have the largest possible magazine that is available for her gun. When there's not a moment to spare, I can only expect that she could grab the gun with whatever magazine is in it. If my family was on a ranch or traveling through open country, I'd want them to have an AR-15 with as many high capacity magazines as they could carry. I wouldn't want them to come up short when they need it the most because Piers Morgan, the defense expert, determined what their need was.
hey ceo.....limitting the size of the ammo...hmmmm and what switch them out more often? one bullet or a hundred bullets...all still pretty capable
You are not living in a 3rd world country, you are living in a civilised country. You are watching too much TV if you think that the Army is going to take over USA, you sound crazy. The army has drones now so guns will do nothing for your protection
Do you really think the government will not abuse you, ever?
A tyrannical act was committed by the US government against the American citizens, indeed. Nikkei people were placed in detention camps during WW2. Many of them died in there under poor living condition, and several were killed by sentries.
And you know what? FDR did it with an executive order... how is this not a form of tyranny? It only takes one mistake by one president. No one can guarantee it won’t never ever happen again.
The government would not have even attempted it if they didn’t think they could easily manage this particular populace. Coming from a gun-free country, I assume the majority of them were not well-armed. They were wronged by the government because of their pacifistic nature and the lack of imagination in what governments can do.
You are aware of the logical fallacy of your statement, correct?
"The Army would not come and take us over."
This is probably true, due to the sheer number of Oathkeepers and Three Percenters in the Army. However, that wouldn't necessarily mean a corrupt government would not order the armed forces against their own populace.
"The Army has drones."
This is what is concerning.This means that it wouldn't be the Army turning against us. Just a small group of loyalist drone operators. We are creating an unarmed populace and an unmanned military. That is severely concerning.
Remember, the United States has already assassinated a U.S. citizen without trial through drone strike. He may have had "terrorist" influences, but he was still recognized as a citizen of the United States.
Piers how does it feel to get your butt handed to you by Mr. Ted Nugent. You finally have the stones to have a knowledgeable gun rights advocate on your program and he made you and your arguments look like a fool. A gun cannot harm anyone by its self....I'll repeat that so you can fully comprehend what I just said a Gun by its self cannot harm anyone. The problem is the person holding the gun. These mass killings were committed by criminals or by mentally unstable people NOT by the average gun owner like myself. One more thing Piers.....if you like the guns laws in England so much feel free to head back there anytime, no one is asking you to stay here in the U.S.
Nobody in the UK wants him back. Besides, if he were to step foot back in the UK, Jeremy Clarkson would probably clean his clock again.
I am.. Mr Morgan, please stay! Your show is vital to the debate about gun control in this country.
may please. guns are used for protection. a small number of people use them to commit crimes.
all the real facts & statistics shows having a gun is good. there is no way to stop a group of violent criminals if you dont have more bullets then them.
there is no way to stop 1 violent criminal if you dont have a gun & training.
what you are saying is opposite of what is true & you are making it harder for people to stop violence. you are teaching kids guns are murder machines then wonder how to stop the violence?
please. we live in a country based on personal freedoms & not relying on the government. if you cant handle it then you can move to a country where the government will decide whats best for you. after awhile there, you will see how all those people are trying to move here & will think its crazy that you think people shouldnt have freedom to do what they want( if they arent harming others obviously)
Northstar. As hard as this is for you to take: stopping violent criminals is not your responsibility. We have guys we pay to so that sort of thing. AND – we train them to do it with minimal damage to the rest of us.
Its not you against the word. You arent a member of the Justice League, and this isn't a comic book.
Patently false. Police execute the law. However, they are not a preventative measure, by definition. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you or prevent a crime being done to you. They can try their hardest, but if the odds are against them, or they can't get there in time, they have no duty to ensure you are safe. Multiple law enforcement personnel have stated that, due to overtaxed police forces, they have response times closing in on 20 minutes. These same law enforcement personnel have stated that the best option for people to guarantee their own safety is to own a firearm and be proficient in it's use.
I am not a vigilante. I am vigilant.
@Tesla – Actually, you have just become the DEFINITION of vigilante. Im not too excited about you and @Northstar patrolling my neighborhood with tanks and rpg's, but thanks SO MUCH for the offer.
Seriously – you have the "god born" right to ANY weapon you can lay your hands on just because you think that you might–one day–be called on to live you your adolescent fantasy? And Piers Morgan is the biased one? Honestly, it takes a lot to make Ted Nugent look intelligent, but you're making him sound like a rhodes scholar!
Glad we got the name calling out of the way.
As long as we're setting up strawmen to knock down, I'll go ahead and leave your neighborhood alone. You won't see me or any of my legally owned firearms there. ThaNorthStar and I will even make sure to let every other legal gun owner know that you don't want them around. Then we'll make sure to put up a big sign saying "Gun-Free Neighborhood: The Safest Community On Earth!"
Then we'll give it three months or so.
The pro-gun people always attack his nationality, it sounds so redneck
The anti-gun people always resort to name-calling.
WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
Great point Dana! Wouldn't it be fantastic if there were so few guns in circulation? Just think how much harder it would then be for people like Adam Lanza, or the 15 year old from New Mexico to get their hands on their parents' weapons to kill them and others.... Just imagine if people like Holmes couldn't legally buy an insane amount of ammo legally online.... ahh well, I can dream.
Actually, I realise that's not the point you were trying to make, but I couldn't resist. Just because a phrase sounds catchy, it doesn't mean it makes good common sense.
In any case, it doesn't sound as if anyone is suggesting a total ban on guns, only on certain types, so I'm not sure why you're saying that at all.
oh May wouldnt it be great if we all got superman outfits & we would all be safe?
wouldnt it be awesome if people got out of their dream world & start teaching kids things that are real, like there will always be people who wish to harm them & that you need a weapon & training if you want to defend yourself. right now the gun is best until a better weapon is invented.
you should really get with it because what you are doing is putting more people in harms way & you are ignoring the facts about how many lives are saved every where because someone was carrying a gun or had one in their home.
if people do just a couple simple things like not raise their kids to be maniacs or not let their maniac kid have access to weapons then that would be a great start.
you should really learn from history from all the places who started thinking like you & someone evil came in & took advantage of them because they were in la la land & didnt see it coming & didnt think it could happen to them
"If people would not let their maniac kids have access to weapons then that would be a great start"
Northstar! Im proud of you! You're advocating for gun control.
So – if you let your maniac kid have access to weapons (say, just for argument sake – an AR-15). What should I
Better – should I do anything BEFORE your maniac kid is pointing that weapon at me (or, worse, my kids)? I mean, I know you are going to argue I should shoot your maniac kid, but wait. What if I dont want to shoot your maniac kid. What if I'd rather stop him BEFORE he points an AR-15 at me?
One more northstar: what if I know, because Im not an idiot, that I can't really prevent your maniac kid from getting access to weapons. BUT – I'd really like to make sure that IF he does get access to weapons, they arent the kind that can take out an entire neighborhood before the police can even buckle their seatbelts.
Welcome to the other side Northstar! It's nice to have you here.
If you don't want anyone pointing an AR-15 at you or yours, perhaps we should overhaul and revamp our mental health and education systems to encourage treatment without social stigma attached to it, as well as heavily enforcing existing laws regarding violent felons, especially recidivists?
Unless you're engaged in a criminal action, there's no reason I, or any other law-abiding citizen is going to point a gun at you and yours.
Besides, as long as we're talking about equipment that could kill as many people as you're describing: Fertilizer and Diesel, Petrol Bombs, Bleachburn, and any car or truck built since the 1960s could do that as well. Any place that has defenseless people can be made a killing field.
@Tesla ... again. I love the logic.
So we should make all of those confidental medical records public, send the police out to confiscate your flame throwers and claymore's when your ritalin rx runs out and file all that paper "somewhere" (as long as, I presume, it's not with the evil government we all hate).... THAT is your "reasonable" best?
Also – what's the plural of Claymore ... it feels like you should know.
I understand your logic; truly, I do. It's tough to make the argument of publicizing mental health records, due to the violations of individual rights because of it. Likewise, the stripping of firearms away from people is a tough argument to make, once again due to the violations of individual rights because of it. Additionally, the publicizing of mental health records is already the law, as a history of mental health disorders will restrict your purchase of a firearm. Perhaps that law should be changed to protect the privacy of the individual, but then you remove more firearms restrictions in the process.
I don't think our current government is evil. I think it is stagnant, and a little bloated (and before the rage, this has been going on well before, as well as during, President Obama's tenure). There is corruption there. Hard to say how much, but it's definitely there. I also think that our politicians have separated themselves from the people, and continue to pass measures to separate themselves from the people (student loan forgiveness for the children of U.S. senators and representatives, lifetime pay for any amount of service time, armed guards and access to firearms for senators trying to remove them from the people). There is an air of aristocracy among them, and I feel they have lost touch with what they are supposed to represent. Additionally, with actions such as the Patriot Act, the NDAA, attempts at media and social control like SOPA and PIPA, the Fast and Furious debacle, and drone surveillance programs over rural areas(for poachers? really?), we have a government that I'm extremely hesistant to surrender my personal liberties to. Again, I don't think they're evil; but I do think some have the potential.
Also, plural is Claymores. Should be capitalized, as it is a proper name for a unique directional anti-personnel explosive device.
Thank you Piers for your continued leadership and passion on this issue. Please continue, and CNN please continue to be a brave light on this issue. You are on the side of the angels.
Well said Debbie Reaves...
Hear, hear! He is a courageous man.
cant we deport this douchbag yet ? the only thing he seems good at is insulting and interupting his guests! no woner englishters dont like him,he he
AMEN!!!!!!! If I could afford it, I would send Piers a one-way ticket to U.K. How can he swim across the pond, come to our country and try to convince us we don't get it yet?!
Again example of redneck pro-gun attacking his nationality, its pretty pathetic, the truth hurts so they have to go down this line of attack, children are more important that guns
Um, I'm not sure you realise this, but there are planes....
The sad thing is that many Americans are unable to see the terrible state of the country. They're like people in a toxic relationship, unable to see how bad the situation is, because they don't see it from the outside like other people do. How any American can just accept the high death rate from guns, whether it be from suicide, homicide, or accidental shooting as a side effect of their indisputable right to own a gun is beyond me.
I applaud CNN for taking Piers on to highlight the terrible crisis America is facing.
I accept 30,000 deaths per year in exchange for the conservative estimate of 800,000 times a gun is used to prevent a crime. I whole-heartedly accept 30,000 deaths per year in exchange for the more liberal estimate of 2,500,000 times a gun is used to prevent a crime.
Suicides will not be prevented by removing firearms. Anyone can get a sleep-aid medication and overdose if they like. There goes about a third of those numbers.
Criminal activity will not be prevented by removing firearms. Felons have already proven that they don't need the government's permission to acquire firearms. In fact, the government recently supplied Mexican cartels with true military-grade weaponry, so they seem to be ok with the idea anyway. So there goes about 80-85 percent of the remainder.
The vast majority of gun deaths will not be prevented by removing rights from the law-abiding; additionally, by doing so, you threaten to increase the frequency of violent crimes of all types against the law-abiding.
@Tesla – Making up numbers again? Im frightened of where that 2.5M number has been. Wash it off (and use soap AND water). Here's a number that's actually been researched... In case you're truly interested in facts and not just killing time deep in the comments section.
Much as I respect the outlook of an opinion piece, 100,000 is far too low. 2.5 million might be too high; the numbers might be fudged. But the most accurate conservative number is around 800,000 as I stated. The vast majority of crimes deterred by announcing you are armed or drawing your weapon are not reported. They technically can't be; purely preventative measures that keep any sort of crime from even occuring.
But ok. Let's even use that number of 100,000; and since we're nitpicking, drop the suicides off of the gun deaths numbers, since, as stated, people that are committed to killing themselves will do it regardless of gun availability. That puts us to about 20,000 dead (mostly from criminal on criminal violence) to 100,000 crimes prevented by law-abiding citizens. By a ratio of 5-to-1, the numbers are still in my favor.
Firearm suicides account for way more than one-third, more likely two-thirds, of the total firearm deaths, so after deducting those cases, here are the last five years of annual firearm homicides total in the US according to gunpolicy.org, so, the prevention : casualty ratio is more like 10-to-1.
And you know, how many firearm deaths of these are actually the perpetrators (“bad guys”) taken down by either the law enforcement officers or the lawful gun owners (“good guys”)... or the bad guys just killing each other... I wish someone had that data...
Why do people think mentally ill people are the only ones they should keep guns away from?Anybody,normal or not can snap anytime and start shooting when they get their hands on a gun or any deadly assault riffle,I've heard a lot of shootings going on whilst the gunmen were perfectly normal not mentally ill...
& thats why we have a 2nd ammendment so all the good people can carry guns & protect themselves if 1 person snaps.
we dont rely on the government for our personal protection. we can handle it ourselves & we are a free country
I think you live in a sad world, where you think everything is black and white and people are divided into 'good' and 'evil'. People are complicated. 'Good' (how I hate that word!) people can do bad things in the heat of the moment, and unfortunately when a gun is handy it can have disastrous consequences. Not only that, but it's too easy for guns to fall into the wrong hands.
Don't like guns then move back over the pond were you can feel all safe and comfy were taliban law is sure to come. My father was right you limey's are backwards and not worth fighting for in wwll everyone else yes but the Brits no.
I want to know why someone who is not a US citizen is trying to change our laws...if he wants to be in a country without guns then he should go home...2nd Amendment is about having weapons equal to the military to protect this country from tyrannic people or government not for hunting or fishing..
Have you ever noticed that the U.S. is often very outspoken about laws in other countries? What's wrong? Can't you handle it when the shoe is on the other foot? Can't bear to have common sense pointed out by an outsider?
Actually, the 2nd amendment is about the importance of a well regulated militia.... not about protecting you from tyranny.
No, really. It's true. Read it. Its only like 20 or 30 words long.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.
Did they say "weapons equal to the military" in either decision? Cause I'm thinkin about building a missile silo in my backyard.
Even Scalia said, in heller, that the second amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”
Isn't it cool that I went Scalia on ya? Didn't expect that, right?
Thomas Jefferson said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants".
Since TJ isnt Jesus, and we are talking about the second amendment, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that, while I agree with the big guy on that topic, it's an opinion - not a social contract.
He also said "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
Which I like.
I’m merely correcting what you said about the 2nd amendment, that “it’s not about protecting us from tyranny”, because IT IS.
He also said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
The Supreme Court says your wrong. They get to decide, not you.
Oh, Kristi. If only we could talk through this issue face-2-face. Oh well.... Great article on a competing news outlet on the current state of gun ban decisions from the Supreme Court.
The summary: we the people get to decide. Isn't that cool.
homeland security has recently purchased m4 type fully auto weapons and designated them [ personal defense weapons ] yet my semi-auto is now an assault weapon? kinda backwards huh. And I would ask this idiot the same question his guests are, Why do I an law abiding citizen have to give up my 2nd ammen. rights,I did not commit any crime!! been shootig same rifle for 35 yrs ,any of you ever shoot 100 rd of tracers at night ? ITS A BLAST. but now because of crimes of a few ,you would take that from me?any of you ever stand in harms way to uphold this right ? I have, yet there are those who would take this from me !! HOGWASH PEOPLE !
You should never have had the right in the first place, and if I was the family member of a victim from one of these mass shootings I'd launch a class action against the lawmakers who allowed these guns into the hands of civilians in the first place. The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to whatever weapon you want, any more than the first amendment allows you to yell 'bomb' on a plane.
maybe we should all sue you for not carrying a gun & allowing violent crime to happen instead of protecting your kids& family, country & community.
Kidding... Actually, that was probably in poor taste. The first amendment restriction is usually couched as yelling fire (or "bomb", if you're into that sorta thing) in a crowded theater (or, for Piers, theatre). Although it's probably wrong to yell it at 30K feet, too.
Okay, so maybe I didn't use the 'fire' analogy, but I believe I made my point!
You did. I was just giving you a hard time.
well the whole fire in the theater thing is a great example of how lost this country is getting. instead of teaching people if someone yells fire, you should all look around & calmly exit if there is a real fire, instead they just ban it. people can really handle these little simple things without banning everything
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not banned. It's an often used example of limiting the first amendment. This is only to say that your speech is not protected if you seek to do harm with it by causing people to panic and injure themselves. You can yell fire if there really is a fire. So let's compare this to the 2nd Amendment. They types of limitations that people want to put on the right to bear arms is comparable to requiring everyone who goes into a theater to wear a gag for fear that they may yell fire. It involves prior restraint on the vast majority of people who wouldn't yell fire. We should just just punish someone when they cause harm with their speech just like punishing only those who cause harm with firearms.
We enact laws to prevent violence before it happens all the time. And there are things that are so dangerous that owning them is irresponsible. Because the risk of harm outweighs the benefit of ownership (or of "freedom"). Nuclear bombs. Tanks. We won't let you put land mines in your front yard... At least Im pretty sure that's illegal. I haven't actually checked (yet).
Do you own a car or a swimming pool? Cars kill more people each year than guns. Pools definitely kill more children than AR-15s do. No one actually needs a swimming pool. We have public pools with professional lifeguards.
Both valid points. BUT – swimming pools weren't designed with the express purpose of drowning people. And we dont take our cars to driving ranges and practice mowing down paper cutouts of people. The guys who make cars haven't hired designers them to make you more lethal.
And no, for the record, I don't advocate outlawing swimming pools. And, you're way too smart to make that argument. You know that we aren't talking about "either we ban EVERYTHING or we ban NOTHING" - we're talking about nudging the line left or right.
You are quoting Thomas Jefferson, so I know that you know the difference between horseshoes and hand grenades (even though they may share some similarities).
You're correct, swimming pools weren't designed to kill people yet there are fewer pools than rifles and they kill more people.than rifles. That tells me that there's a serious design flaw and pools should be banned. Not all pools. Just private, backyard pools. Let's start there for now.
So, your logic is, it is not a problem when certain things kill people just so long as those things are not designed to kill.... mmm....
Sort of. My logic is "people die, and it's tragic, and we can't do anything about it most of the time" BUT – if you design a product that is meant to kill, and then hand it to someone and say "don't kill anyone with this ... wink wink" In that specific situation, you share some responsibility.
AND – speeding is too far removed from the train of events to be reasonably considered culpable in a car-related death. IF they designed the car to burst into a giant ball of flame once it hit 100mph, THEN I think they'd be liable.
Seems crazy, but that's what GM would have to do in order to design cars with the express purpose of killing people. Fear of lawsuits has led them in the opposite direction: things like airbags and shatter-proof glass. Its not just Bushmaster that shares some liability here. It's Walmart, Joe's Gun Shack.... the whole industry is exposed.
I care more about how often and how many they kill, and not so much about if it was intentional or not, is my logic wrong? And I also think guns are designed to protect ourselves from those who try to harm us.
Do you really believe that someone wouldn't be a killer if they just didn't have a gun? The thought has never crossed their mind to kill someone until they had a gun? Or the thought never crossed their mind until they had a gun with a 30 round magazine? Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a rented van, fertilizer and fuel oil. Psycho killers will find a way to do their psycho killing. We didn't ban panel vans because of the OKC bombing. 19 kids under the age of 6 were killed, btw.
Guns, just as everything else, have a lawful purpose. Killing in self-defense is a lawful purpose. Guns, just as everything else, can be misused. Let's focus on stopping the misuse on all of these things and stop focusing on the thing. It's not the thing making the decision to do the killing.
OK. Last point on this, I promise.
Remember that this thread (this one little thread) isn't about banning guns. Its about suing the manufacturer of that specific model. Im not saying "its dangerous so ban it" here. Im saying "if it's you KNEW that it would kill people, and you sold it anyway - then you bear some civil liability for the outcome."
And, yes, there have been product liability lawsuits related to swimming pools. There were high-dives at the public pool when I was a kid. There aren't anymore. Nobody passed an ordinance banning high dives. They just sobered up and realized that the lawsuit risk was too high.
Car manufacturers know that there's a good chance that their car will be used to kill someone. How is that any different than a gun?
I take my kids to a specific pool because it does have a 3-meter board. There's an aquatic center near O'Hare airport that has diving platforms.
face it, most anything can be used as a weapon. You can take a bic pen and shove it through someones eye, an ice pick to the neck just below the skull, the palm of your hand you can shove the nose into someones brain. Where do you stop and start.
I wish people like would get there heads out of there a$$es about guns and what a assault rifle actually are, and the Ar-15, Ar-10, the FAL and many others that are Semi Auto are NOT assault rifles and are no more dangerous then a Ruger 10-22
that most kids start out on.. PLUS the Media needs to report the truth not this propaganda.. the Newtown shooting WAS NOT DONE WITH THE AR-15.. IT WOULD BE KIND OF HARD FOR A GUN TO SHOOT THAT MANY PEOPLE FROM THE TRUNK OF THE GUYS CAR!!!! THE 4 HAND GUNS THAT HE BROUGHT IN THE SCHOOL IS WHAT KILLED THE INNOCENT CHILDREN.. PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEW YOUR NON SENSE..
WAS A FAN BUT NO LONGER!!! GO BACK TO ENGLAND IF ITS SO GREAT..
Sorry, accidently published from my phone. The non scary and tiny Ruger 10/22 rifle can shoot faster than the semi auto AR-15. I see reporters on CNN for example that say a few hundred rounds of ammo is for an army and not necessary. Professional weapon classes that people take for safety and fun, require students to bring 500 or more rounds of ammo to shoot up in a day or two. It is so easy for people to blame the beautiful AR as the problem but i blame schools and parents. The schools can identify children with mental problems a lot of the times and could provide help for them. If the schools are bad then children will not learn anything, drop out of 7th grade and reproduce. They become bad parents because they never learned in future nutrition classes that babies should not be fed energy drinks and fast food on their 2nd day out of the mom.
Piers you are like a dog with a bone. Every night for at least 9 weeks your program has been about guns. I would be willing to bet because of your shows the gun shops are getting rich. REALLY, at some point you have to let this go. I have seen you act just as crazy as that Alex character. Come on you should be better than that. I have every show since your first interview with Oprah, but if you do not get off this kick and move on I will stop watching and I am sure that I will not be the only one.
Keep it up Piers, dont make this someone issue some elses problem, like everyone else has in the past
How can you suggest that it's time to drop this topic and move on?
What can be more important than in trying to convince Americans to create a safer world for their children? Isn't that pretty much the whole point of living? To leave the world and the world of those around you in a better state than it was before? We should all be involved in making sure change is made.
Well said Mary G
As a mature adult with two children, I've learned that one will have a much easier job making their children safe for the world rather than trying to make the world safe for children. Adam Lanza's mother clearly failed in this regard.
Piers great then why don't you take your
Go back to the UK if you don't like America
I love how this cite censors comments
I wish they would censor your comments LOL. You sound like a redneck, why attack his nationality??? he has never said he doesnt like america, I think the truth hurts and this is the only way pro-gun people can handle the truth
Yet oddly enough, the comments section still shows very strong opinions from both sides of the debate. I think we can get a sense of what your comments must have been for them to have been censored. Perhaps come up with something intelligent and they may allow them? Just trying to be helpful.
Once again you have demonstrated your lack of objectivity as a journalist. Your interview with Mr. Zimmerman supports that lack. The FACTS are: when the Dispatcher tells Jorge that he need not look for Trey, Jorge responds with an ok, and continues to tell the Dispatcher to tell the POLICE that he will meet them at the mailboxes – and that he was going there at that minute. He also added that the Dispatcher could call him back when the police arrived at the scene and he would give them directions to the mailboxes. That is FACT!!!!! The Dispatch recording tells us that. ALSO, you should have by now if you have any journalistic integrity left – looked at the condo map. Trey's dad's girlfriend's condo was in the opposite direction of where Jorge had parked to wait for the police arrive.
You are guilty of ignoring the facts in order to promote your personal agenda.
That you talked over Mr. Zimmerman as he was trying to school you with the facts supports your failure as a journalist. Shame on you.
The only reason for an individual to own an assault weapon is the ego.
I think you hit the nail on the head, its just like people who own pitbull dogs they think they are cool having a tough dog, but these dogs were breed to be dangerous and to fight to the death, now we have breed a generation who think hey have the right to own assault weapons so any nutcase can go on a killing spree.
Wrong. American Pit Bull Terriers were originally bred as hunting, herding, and companion dogs, combining the gameness, speed and agility of terriers with the strength and athleticism of bulldogs. According to the United Kennel Club, "This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. The APBT is a powerful and often times fearless dog with a high drive to please his master. Unfortunately, unfit owners at times have misused the APBT's trusting nature, training PitBull's for aggression and the results can be adverse. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work."
It seems by the description of the breed, misuse by human handlers are what cause the problem, not the breed itself. Hmmm... that's odd.... where have I heard a statement like that before?
By your logic, since the vast majority of violent crimes in the U.S. are committed by African Americans, we should just ban black people, just to be safe. F***er.
In Houston, yesterday a man killed his wife. He stabbed her according to the coroner in excess of 190 times. He also critically injured his stepson by beating him with a frying pan. Sir...the violence must stop. We need a national registry on knives and frying pans. I truly believe that all violence would stop if Wal-Mart is required to do a universal back ground check on all persons buying kitchen utensils. Oh yeah, and do not forget the lady who pushed the man in front of the train and killed him a few weeks back. Why we need to have trains registered! The point is, until we can change the hearts of men, violence will always be with us. We now teach in schools that man comes from primordial ooze, that through evolution we are just here as an accident of nature. We now teach everyone that it is a choice not a life when it comes to abortion. We now play video games where you win by the having the highest body count. Movies show mass slaughters of people. We have dehumanized life, removed its value. What do we expect the outcome to be? As for assault weapons, if somebody is trying to hurt my family, I will defend them to the fullest of my abilities, because I still hold value to their lives.
From the article: "Under the tutelage of Jeremy Alcede, the owner of Tactical Firearms, Morgan assumed a seated position, and test-fired a Browning M2 machine gun, a weapon that is perfectly legal to purchase in the United States...
Morgan looked up from his perch behind the weapon and asked simply:
'Why would any civilian want – need one of these?' "
That's the kind of very misleading statement (whether made out of ignorance or mendacity is beside the point) that characterizes most "mainstream" media reporting on firearms and a large part of why I don't believe half of what they say on the subject.
They at least touched on the fact that a Ma Deuce will cost you $45,000 or more, but they completely failed to mention the fact that fully automatic weapons like Browning shown – while TECHNICALLY legal to own – require a much more thorough background check, a $200 per transfer tax, a special license and must be registered.
They failed to mention the fact that the manufacture and sale of NEW fully-automatic weapons to civilians has been illegal since 1986, which effectively fixed the supply at the few hundred thousand already-registered examples. That's why the price is so high and the M4 carbine that costs the government <$1000 would cost a civilian (IF he/she could get his/her hands on one) $15,000 and up – USED.
They completely failed to mention that the *cheapest* ammunition available for the weapon Morgan was shown firing starts at about $5 per bullet, so Morgan also burned up a few grand in ammo during his photo op. (All paid for by CNN, of course.)
But they want you to think that anbody can walk into a gun show with $45K and walk out with a full-auto heavy machine gun. Uh-huh.
PS – They also failed to mention only two recorded instances of murder committed with a legally-owned, fully-automatic weapon and ONE of those was committed by a police officer – and police agencies are not subject to the ban on fully-automatic weapons.
Are those really illegal now? You cant get one? I didnt know that. When did that happen?
Mr. Morgan, Depending on what study you read, the statistics on Defensive Gun Uses show that between 800,000 and 2,500,000 are saved by having a gun each year. And I’m sure there are many more “unreported cases” as well. Defensive Gun Uses must be given due consideration when we talk about gun-control.
Irene, I think that is an estimate on crimes being prevented, not necessarily murders, probably more burglaries. In how many of these cases was it vital that a semi-automatic was on hand? Because that is what Piers is really talking about – taking these guns capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds out of circulation. Time and time again he says he respects the right for people to own a handgun.
So, Mr.Morgan and your argument is “handguns are acceptable for a civilian to own for self-defense”, but you say it’s not vital that a semi-automatic was on hand at the time of a crime…. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought most of the handguns in the US are semi-automatic… so which handguns are you suggesting that we should use?
I understand the Defensive Gun Uses statistics do not mean that guns have prevented that many murders, but you can’t say that all the crimes prevented were all non-life-threatening cases either. Even if 1% of the perpetrators had the potential of becoming violent or panicked (and commit a crime of passion), that’s 8,000 lives and/or injuries spared by having a gun… To me, your argument is not good enough for us to dismiss the benefit of Defensive Gun Uses.
morgan wants us to make the room save for the child that is out of control, so taking away our guns seem right to him. But its been showen over and over again its not the gun. its the mental ill person that needs to be taken out of the room. we keep hearing it over and over again ever time someone gets killed by another mad man we should have done more we seen how clearly he was out of control but they do nothing like the nut that kidnap the five year old boy, the mall shooter and the other they are clearly out of control but no one does any thing.
If I lived in a country with 300,000,000 million guns I would also want a gun and a very big gun. I don't so I don't need a gun.
You do great work. Keep it up! But please don't waste your time bringing Ted Nugent on your show anymore. He is an extremist on guns and in so many other ways. Why don't you do a show on how he basically paid the parents of a 16 or 17 year old girl off so he could screw her when he was much older than him back in the 70's? He is a totally screw job plus his so called music sucks.
In direct response to this video, yes, a civilian can own this weapon, however, the major part that was left out was this. In order to own one of these weapons, you need to have a class 3 FFL which is a federal firearms license class 3 which includes destructive devices. The majority of these licenses are held by people who own large firearms shops that also do maintenance work on firearms for the MILITARY. The military does contract its weapons work, beyond the unit armor level to civilian contractors. Those contractors are required to have a class 3 license. Cabelas and Bass pro do not have a class 3 license. To purchase a M2, you are looking at at least a year of background investigation, you must have an establishment, meaning a store front, not a house, 3000 dollar application fee for the license, 200 dollars for the ATF tax stamp for the weapon, 45,000 to purchase the weapon, and at last check, it was 69.99 for 10 rounds of .50 BMG ammo. In Piers' little firing stint that he did here, the cost of ammo was probably close to 5-600 dollars. The majority of weapons like this that are in civilian hands are kept at high profile ranges where individuals can pay to shoot a fully automatic weapon under direct supervision. This type of selective media coverage is just an outright lie to the American public. In response to the mass shootings, a weapon like this would NEVER be used. The M2 weighs over 150 pounds, and that is without the tripod. There is no way that anyone other than a collector could ever afford something of this magnitude.
I have guns because I cant carry a cop in my back pocket... Lets shrink up the police..
This interview took place under false pretenses. The owner of this gun store was contacted and asked to do an interview with Mr. Morgan, and to allow Mr. Morgan to see the other side of the gun debate, to allow for education on guns, and to learn about responsible, law abiding gun owners. Instead, Mr Morgan came with one goal in mind, to make guns, and their law abiding owners look dangerous in the eyes of his followers. He edited and clipped, when he had promised the show would be aired live. He contorted statements to suit his whims. Mr. Morgan has poor moral standards and is not a man of his word. I do not know his true reason for his hatred of guns but going after owners that abide by the law is just not right.
Gun deaths in US per annum: 3.6 per 100,000
Car deaths in US per annum: 12.3 per 100, 000
For some reason, no one ever puts things in perspective like this.
You would think the antis would be clamoring to ban sports cars and sportbikes way before they would be talking gun control.
I'm not saying there aren't some irrational people on the pro side, but no one can rationally argue against cold, hard facts that prove cars kill almost four times as many people as guns in the US.
Piers Morgan loves to hold up the UK as a shining example of how gun control works. I lived in the UK when the Handgun ban went into effect in 1997 and afterwards, gun crime actually trended upwards. Fact is, they had been registering guns for a better part of a century and after rounding up all the legally owned handguns, quite a lot of them somehow ended up not being able to be accounted for. In other words, many of those confiscated guns ended up on the black market. Also, they are unable to stop trafficking of guns into the country. The guns are there, they just don't get used very often. When the bobby on the beat is unarmed and there is a mandatory 5 year sentence for possession of a handgun, baseball bats, swords and knives are the weapons of choice for most criminals and guns are largely relegated to criminal gangs. Murders and other violent crime are shockingly prevalent – hardly the picture held up by Morgan.
When I lived in the UK I found a good percentage of people who believed the US would have been better off staying British. I believe Mr Morgan falls into this category. What I don't understand is if the UK is so much better, what is he doing here?
I submit for your consideration, the theory that Morgan is simply an unscrupulous journalist, here to make a buck stirring the pot and dazzling us with his 'fancy accent'. I'm hardly impressed
Piers Morgan was fired from the Daily Mail for authorizing the publishing of fake photographs to discredit British Army operations in Iraq. It would seem he believes the end justifies the means.
I totally agree with you, Matthew. Morgan is the worst kind of journalist (if we can even call him a journalist.)
This isn't the first time Morgan, who loves to sensationalize and embellish, has been at the center of a journalistic ethics controversy. He was sacked from his position as editor of the Tabloid paper, Daily Mirror, in 2004 for faking pictures of British soldiers in Iraq allegedly abusing a prisoner – photos that British Ministry of Defense officials said needlessly endangered the lives of British troops deployed at the time.
You continue to ask the question "why does anyone need an assault weapon?" So let me issue a challenge to simplify the answer. I challenge you to a fight, at a random time and place, but you are banned from using fists. You may only slap, and you must obide by the rules of boxing. I, on the other hand, may punch, bite, claw, gouge, kick, or choke...anything I want. You have my e-mail address if you care to accept this challenge.
I hope this illustrates clearly why law-abiding citizens in an armed society might need a more capable weapon, and why tying the hands of these same citizens is ludicrous.
I live five minutes away from the gun store Piers visited, and the owner (Jeremy Alcede) is a great guy to do business with. Alcede said, following the interview, that he was extremely disappointed with Piers. Alcede appeared on Alex Jones' talk show shortly afterwards to summarize what happened. You can find the video on Youtube, but here are some things that Alcede said.
Piers and his crew lied to Alcede that the interview was to be aired live. Instead, it was tape-recorded and spliced for content. Piers took a 40-minute long range session and cut it to a 11-minute show on the air. Piers fired over $1000 dollars worth of ammunition out of close to a dozen different firearms, yet all he did was focus on the AR-15. Alcede himself concedes that he looks like an idiot on the show. His statements are spliced to the point where they are completely misinterpreted and his points are not clearly conveyed. Alcede is getting ready to pull all security camera footage and making his own fill segment to spread on Youtube to show CNN's lies.
Do it. Please. I know it won't be enough proof for most people, but if he can convince some people that Piers Morgan is a lying, exploitative jacka**, then maybe we'll stop hearing from him.
The 2nd Admendment is meant to protect individuals from the tyranny of government. Federal, State and Local officials need to have a healthy fear of the citizens so they respect our rights. We also have the need to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm and use guns against unarmed individuals. However when people have committed crimes or been identified as mentally unstable the public should be protected from those individuals having weapons and ammunition.
I do believe that we will maintain our 2nd Admendment rights with a registry of people who are unable to purchase guns or ammunition based on criminal history and mental illness.
what is piers doing to reduce gun violence?
he hasnt done one thing but obsess about a gun that is basically never used in crime.
he should be doing something to reduce all violence but he is going on national tv saying our politicians shouldnt listen to the people they represent & teaching kids that guns are murder machines.
that is horrible stuff & really makes it harder for the good people who are really working to make a difference.
my name is piers morgan and im a total tool
Can't believe people would still consider this guy a legitimate transmitter of news.
It’s come out that an AR-15 was indeed, not the weapon used at Sandy Hook tragedy, yet Morgan continues to relay the message to the public.
Perhaps someone should inform P. Morgan that an AR-15 type rifle WAS NOT used at Newtown. Says NBC news, the Washington Post, eyewitnesses, and what I recall from the saturation coverage. One was found in the trunk of the shooter's car, unfired. His favorite demonized firearm, which he shot recently IS NOT a machine gun, its a self-loading mechanism, been around since the 1890's. Machine guns fire until ammo runs out or you release the trigger. But enough of technical details, you must ask Morgan, Feinstein, Obama, Soros, Blomberg,etc., if they believe a person has a right to defend his home and family. Of course the answer is NO, because that represents political power NOT coming from the top, but from the people themselves ! An unarmed person is a subject, an armed person is a citizen.
What besides asking people why they "need" such and such weapon Piers has not done a thing to reduce crazy people killing others. Taking away the guns from everyone else is not the answer. Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Same reason they need an automobile that can exceed the maximum speed limit by double. Same reason they have two homes, or more than one car. It's because they feel they need or WANT one. Who is Piers or anyone else to decide what anyone else needs when it comes to personal protection, or just freedom and the pursuit of happiness? He can take his anti-american anti-freedom anti 2nd amendment power hungry control freak limy a$$ back home for all I care. Oh, wait a minute, he can't do that either. He is a criminal on the run hiding out in America because he can't mind his own business over there either.
Piers Morgan your not even American Citizen, telliing us how to live like the U.K.
And last 2 months there been a 70% rise of buying guns in America.. Good luck trying to take American Citizens
Hi Piers, good show on monday, just a note and i think most folks are safe, because just go out and try to buy or
order some bullets, all the stores and the big outdoor suppliers are out and it looks like remington and federal
are not manufacturing now, last note here in Colorado, is that washington DC has ordered all that can be made.
also, the economy will decide who can shoot or own, 3 times the retail price is a bit dum, from just a month ago. or 4x,
so what can be said, ban the guns or no bullets, the do it yourself, can go back to 1850, which is not that long ago,
single shot and black powder, and trade at the river crossing, one needs a bit of gold in the pouch, or a horse, a goat
cow, chicken, some tangible value, for the goods to make it across the Missippippi, to a future, better or
different, or maybe it is the present. History, can be interesting, and just a note on guns, -gatling- not to long
after, the 1850, check out, Dr. Richard J. Gatling, 11-4-1862, the United States has a bit of tradittion or nack of
trying to be the lead, in guns, the history in domination of worldly goods, and I am a user of these products,
I try to be as neutral as possible in these matters,– it is quite sadding, when badness happens in the domestic,
world, close to home, so to speak, one studies, and educate an understanding. Learning I hope, it is not a kind of
conflict – – – thanks , just my take, signed , T Hunter.
Notify me of new comments via email.