READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
On Thursday evening, "Piers Morgan Tonight" welcomed Jimmy Carter for a face to face interview that ranged from film to firearm, Israel to Iran, and "Argo" to Obama.
Joining Piers Morgan in San Diego, the former President of the United States shared his stance on the ongoing gun debate, and the monopoly and power owned by the gun lobby:
"The main reason why the assault-weapons ban may not pass is the power of the NRA," stated the host. "In going after American politicians who then get cowed into silence. And I think it's just morally cowardly."
Agreeing with Morgan, Carter elaborated:
"And it happens not only at the federal level, but it also happens at every - at every state level and every municipal level. The NRA is there pressuring weak-needed - weak-kneed public officials to yield to their pressures, when they know what they're doing is wrong."
Himself a gun owner, and hunter, Carter owns rifles and shotguns. However, the nation's 39th commander in chief sees no need for assault weapons, and is discouraged by some of the fatal statistics plaguing the U.S.:
"I think it's ridiculous for our country to be in the forefront of killing people with guns. And when you see that there are maybe 20 or 30 people in Canada killed in a year and several thousand people killed here in the United States from guns, that shows that the NRA is wrong and that we should have some restraints."
As the fascinating sit-down conversation continued, Morgan moved the subject matter to the Middle East, asking the man credited for bringing peace to Israel and Egypt about the role of the U.S. today:
"Should America be a little bit more insular, be more selfish?" he wondered.
"I don't think so," said Carter. "I think we have to be involved in a global situation. We're not going to - any longer going to - be the preeminent unilateral superpower as we were before. But we have obligations overseas. I would like for instance, I already mentioned, I'd like to see the United States take the preeminent role in bringing peace to Israel finally."
Watch the clips, and listen to the interviews, as the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner details precisely where he feels Israel has gone wrong, and what he's referring to when he says "I think Israel is now moving toward a disaster for itself."
» Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
The NRA is so strong because they have so many members who are willing to pay to dues so these attempts to consolidate power by disarming the population will be defeated. If any in the gun control crowd (I assume most who visit this site are, by default) want perspective into how a rational gun owner (I'm talking about myself so there may be a little bias there) thinks and justifies owning a gun you need to read LTC (Ret) Dave Grossman's "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs."
NRA is financially strong because of the dirty money it receives from arms manufacturers. NRA is morally bankrupt.
Well said by 2 people 1 who is so old he should be in a nursing home,the other should go back to his own country.
Hay David, when it comes to wheeling out the old guys, NRA wins. Charlton Heston was well into his demented stage before he quit. Wayne Lapierre is demented too, but not age related.
I don't see a reason why people from other countries should not comment on gun controls here, as guns from America go overseas.
Hay Piers, continue please!
the reason Piers shouldnt comment on it is because he uses facts that arent true & arent facts at all.
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America.
According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.
Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.
I here President Carter has an opeming on one of his Peanut Farms Morgan–Take the job offered and dissapear or go back to England or where ever you are from. Believe me, you won't be missed. Quit messing in America's business.–
Elitist Jimmy Carter says does not have a need for a "Assault Rifle" (modern Sporting rifle)
He is right! He doesn't have a need for one because the secret service that is assigned to him for life carries these weapons for him on our tax dollar. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!
If he did not have 24-7 protection he might choose to practice his 2nd amendment right and protect himself and family on his own like the rest of America
If you don't have an intelligent response attack the messenger. Peace through superior fire power eh. I really feel safe when paranoid people who think the government is going to kill them want assault rifles. Keep up the lack of gun controls and you won't have to worry about the government. You will be killed by stray rounds from some nut with a gun enforcing his right to bear arms.
Intelligent? You dont have the slightest idea of why you a free in this Country, what proud citizens in this Country have sacrificed for hundreds of years. Have you ever picked up a history book? Maybe you should read up on the Jews being marched to the gas chambers following Gun Control. Many examples all over the World with the same outcome. To say this could never happen again in future history makes you a very ignorant, uneducated person.
Paranoid is to know people like you actually exist and vote like other uneducated Sheep and have eroded our Country into the liberal hand out, cell phone for welfare State we have become.
Do you really think the government will not abuse you, ever? Think again.
A tyrannical act was committed by the US government against the American citizens, indeed.
Many Nikkei Americans were placed in detention camps during WW2. Numbers 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.
Those people were wronged by the government because of their pacifistic nature and the lack of imagination in what governments can do.
Agree Dean, there's a lot attacking the messenger. Piers provides info so we can compare what's happening with guns in America to what happens overseas. We have a huge problem here with gun violence and solutions are available. Seems that lots of people care more about history instead of our children's safety and future.
Thanks Piers you do a great job.
Maybe instead of focusing on the tool (guns) we should focus instead on the act (violence) and seek ways to reduce THAT instead of trying to restrict access to the tool.
India, for example, in 2011 had over 34,000 murders; roughly twice as many homicides as occurred in the United States. Only 3300 of those murders were committed with a firearm. The point is, you aren't any less dead if you're killed with a knife or strangulation than you are if you're killed with a firearm. Restricting access to the tool (guns) simply means that those bent on taking the life of another will just find a different "tool" to use as India's experience so aptly shows.
By the same token, restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to have the means to defend themselves simply means that those who don't abide by the law will have an easier time committing homicides than would otherwise be the case if people continue to have the means to defend themselves. It is interesting to note that, if you look at the FBI's crime reports, both the number of gun homicides as well as the rate of gun homicides has been falling over the last two decades while the rate of gun ownership has skyrocketed.
It’s only been 70 years since WW2 ended. And already, many people have forgotten the important teachings from the most unfortunate event, for example, how Hitler so quickly came to power in a formerly “democratic” country and triggered a world war, and how over 60 MILLION people were killed in the atrocities of WW2.
i have been amazed by that myself.
people say the same things now to ban guns like they did in nazi germany. times had changed, the world is different now, public safety issue.
its truly scarey, nazi germany wasnt long ago, & also no matter what, there will always be power hungry money hungry people who want to take over countries & infiltrate the government & armed forces & use brainwashing to dumb people down to do what they want.
some people are actual ok with giving up our personal freedoms, its insanity!
“our children's safety and future” is the VERY reason why we the people need to be well-armed. Lives equal to 6,000 years’ of gun victims can be lost only in a few years if we couldn’t prevent another world war... That is why we the people must always watch what our government does and always have the power over the government (by physically outgunning them) and make sure that any power-hungry politicians with tyrannical tendencies know their wildest dreams wouldn’t ever come true (so they won’t even dare try) because the people have the power to fight against the corrupt government to the bitter end. And it is our moral obligation to pass this “power of the people” to the later generations as our Founding Fathers intended, to ensure that our great-great-great-grand-children will enjoy the freedom that we enjoy today.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
There it is, focusing on the past. The future power of the people is via access to information, knowledge and communication.
There it is, underrating history. Haven’t you ever heard “History repeats itself”?
how would you do that in a long term power outage?
“The future power of the people is via access to information, knowledge and communication.”
Des, the student led protests in 1989 that spread to over 400 cities in China HAD access to information, knowledge and communication but they were STILL brutally suppressed by force by the Chinese military at what became known as the Tiananmen Square massacre.
The pen is only mightier than the sword if your hand is still alive to wield it.
To quote Edmund Burke, “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” (Or perhaps you prefer instead the words of George Santayana nearly two hundred years later, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it")
We have laws to protect game animals, like only allowing 3 shells in the chamber of a shotgun. It"s shameful that we can"t protect our children against assault weapons.
A modern sport rifle ban is going to work as good as the GUN FREE ZONE signs are working.
How about enforcing current laws and upping the punishment for crimes commited with guns?
How about adding all the mental cases to a hospital instead of turning a blind eye like they dont exist.
Dont want to spend the money? People with this mentality are the issue. Not a lawful gun owner.
dont believe the hype of what these tv personalities & some politicians are telling you.
you can protect our children from 'assault' guns or any other gun that is used to assault people. you can get trained & a permit & carry a gun & its that easy.
the good news too that should make you feel a little better is that nobody really uses 'assault' rifles to assault anybody, there maybe 2 out of 300 million people that do? its basically nobody who does that . usually they are rifles that are used to stop assaults , anti-assault rifles i like to say, you can see here how they are used in most cases:
but even in cases like that, the rifle never even needs to be fired because its so intimidating & scarey that the violent ciminals will run away or do what you say until the police show up to arrest them (although its recommended you dont try to hold them until the police arrive because that could get a little sketchy & dangerous).
whibut either way its good because then nobody has to fire any weapons & the criminals will actually be caught.
Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen
The shootings had already happened, the gunmans gun jammed, the armed citizen took aim, the gunman ran away. We don't know if the gunman saw the armed citizen or if he just ran because his gun jammed.
The gunman was using a military style weapon. Control access or ban military style weapons and save lives and the armed citizen will not need to be put in a life and death position.
Oh, Ros! (or Dan, Bill, Paul, Bob, Des) NOT YOU AGAIN!!
I can tell that it’s you, no matter how many different names you may use.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2011 (the most recent complete data I could find), out of 12,664 murders committed in the United States, only 323 were committed by rifle (which would include the AR-15 and other military style long guns). Think about that. Out of nearly 300 million guns in the United States only 300 murders were committed by weapons like those under discussion.
Methinks you're focusing too much on your biases and not letting that wonderful organ between your ears do it's job.
We need to address, not the tool these nut cases are using, but the factors that allow them to commit mass murder in the first place. It starts by not depriving the rest of us from the ability to defend ourselves or our loved ones when someone like this crops up. It continues by looking for ways to identify these folks BEFORE they go on their killing sprees (like identifying those people who have mental illnesses that need to be monitored for violent tendencies). It continues by teaching the public to respect and understand firearms instead of fear-mongering the issue. In short, it simply means applying some common sense; i.e. if we make areas a "gun free" zone, only criminals who aren't going to follow the law anyway are going to have guns there. Better folks who are determined to kill others not know and have doubts about whether they'll run into armed resistance by someone determined to protect themselves, fellow citizens or those under their charge.
It's time to stop with the demagoguing the issue and have a rational discussion about this. With over 50 million gun owners and 300 Million guns in the United States, along with FALLING murder statistics, obviously the majority of American guns and gun owners are not going around committing mass murder. You need to look for other factors to identify this madmen other than your own misplaced bias about the tool being used.
As soon as someone starts firing in a shopping mall, military style rifles or hand guns, people there are already in “a life and death position.” I would very much prefer someone else (or myself) having a gun, to increase the possibility of taking down the gunman before he kills everybody.
I'd prefer if it was prevented by banning semi autos. Lets vote.
Ros or John or Trent or whatever.... You don’t even know most of the handguns in the US are semi-auto?? and even the president isn’t suggesting that we ban handguns, right?
And you are not an US voter, you said as Dan, that you are Australian, didn’t you? so why are you talking about voting here...???
Sounding a bit crazy there Ichiro.
Okay, Ros, I mean John, keep pretending that you don’t know what I’m talking about. Posters here who subscribe to the blog understand what I’m saying is true. Your cover is blown. Give it up.
Jimmy Carter’s ‘Killer Rabbit’ – 1979
While home fishing in Georgia during a summer when his popularity was at low tide, President Jimmy Carter’s small boat was “attacked” by a mysterious swimming rabbit, which the president warded off with a paddle. Once leaked into print by Brooks Jackson of the Associated Press, the bizarre story captured the press’s and the public’s imagination, becoming a metaphor for Carter’s hapless, enfeebled presidency. The incident encouraged Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s primary challenge to Carter’s renomination, and it became a symbolic preamble to Carter’s landslide loss in November 1980.
Yup .. old Jimmy .. what a manly man. LOL
George Bush, Tony Blair and the Century’s Greatest Crime
What US and Britain did to Iraq is nothing short of state terrorism
By Linda S Heard
“I think it's ridiculous for our country to be in the forefront of killing people with guns.”
Statistics are pesky things when they don’t support your biases. Brazil, for example has 2/3 the population of the United States, 1/17th the number of guns owned by US citizens and yet they have three times the number of gun homicides we do. Note; that’s not three times the rate, but three times as many; 34,000 gun homicides in any given year vs. about 10,000 gun homicides in the US.
So how’s that about us being in the “forefront” of killing people with guns again Mr. President?
forefront means leading or most important position. Brazil isn't a member of the OECD and is a developing nation. US is classified as a developed nation, and is part of OECD (which is a group of countries who have agreed to work together to seek solutions to common problems, identify good practices, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies).
So I think it's accurate to say U.S. is in the forefront in killing people with guns.
“Brazil isn't a member of the OECD and is a developing nation. US is classified as a developed nation, and is part of OECD”
So Trent, you’re saying that when trying to compare gun homicide rates by country we’re not allowed to look at most of the countries of the world and only look at the 30+ OECD nations? In other words, as the principle claim by gun control advocates is that the mere presence of guns is a driving factor in gun deaths, you want to specifically ignore data that doesn’t support your position? If you wish to stack the deck, so be it, but the data still doesn’t support the claims of gun control advocates.
If we follow your restriction and limit the data ONLY to OECD countries, Mexico, which is an OECD nation has both a higher homicide rate (at 22.7/100,000) and a higher gun related homicide rate (at 10.0/100,000) than the United States (4.8/100,000 and 4.2/100,000 respectively). You also need to consider that if you simply restrict access to the tool (guns) that people who are bent on homicide will simply find another tool to use. You can see this dramatically illustrated by another OECD country, Estonia, which has an overall homicide rate of 5.2/100,000 (higher than the US), but a considerably lower gun related homicide rate of 0.3/100,000 (considerably lower than the US.)
The argument by gun control advocates also breaks down looking at things from the other direction. Switzerland, an OECD nation, has the 3rd highest rate of gun ownership in the world at 45.7 guns per 100 residents. Their gun homicide rate however is only 0.52/100,000. The same holds true for Finland, also an OECD nation, with the 4th highest rate of gun ownership at 45.3 guns per 100 population with a homicide rate of 0.26/100,000.
You also seem to have missed the principle point I was trying to make. It’s not the tool itself (guns) that we should be focusing on but the factors that contribute to the creation of someone who is homicidal as well as methods to discourage people like that from acting on their homicidal impulses. When you consider that, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, homicide rates have been falling since the mid-90s at the same time that gun ownership has been expanding, that mere fact alone would seem to indicate that restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to have access to the tools they need to defend themselves and their loved ones from those bent on violence would actually have the opposite effect that gun control advocates claim.
a nice thing about AR15s is that usually if a criminal, or group of criminals, armed or unarmed, breaks into your home or business, usually just the site of that will send them running & nobody will have to be shot.
Usually they dont even try to shoot their pistols when they see an intimidating gun like an AR15.
my permit to carry instructor also recommended a similiar thing when choosing a pistol to carry. he said its not good to have a gun that looks wimpy & doesnt look dangerous. if the criminal sees that type of pistol, they may need to be shot to be stopped. if you have a strong looking, intimidating pistol , most likely they will know you mean business & will not need to be shot & they will run away or follow your instructions until the police can arrive to arrest them.
(side note – thats 1 thing i always thought george zimmerman did wrong- guilty or not guilty- he didnt pull out his pistol & let the kid know he will shoot him if he attacks, he also let himself be attacked so badly that the gun couldve been grabbed from him at that point if trayvon martin was intending to harm him)
(side note – thats 1 thing for sure i always thought george zimmerman did wrong without me knowing the full deatils- guilty or not guilty- he didnt pull out his pistol & let trayvon martin know he will shoot him if he attacks, he says he was attacked so badly & the gun couldve been grabbed from him if what george zimmerman says is true)
but we are not trying to match firepower with criminals, or have hopefully just enough for most situations.
most cases when guns are used to stop criminals , no shots are even fired. if shots are fired, usually its never more than two shots.
but the criminals should be left to guessing how many rounds you have & not be for sure you only have 7.
Dear Piers Morgan,
Maybe an adjustment in "Law" could help. Uphold the second amendment – however the weapons must not leave the property. Make penalties much tougher for carrying weapons in public places. You can have your guns but only to protect your home. I believe such a measure could reduce gun deaths considerably.
why do think that would help in any way. in places that have or had laws like that, the violent crime rates have spiked to the highest rates in the country.
right now its illegal for criminals to carry guns anyways so you must not understand.
the law abiding citizens who carry guns dont do anything except stopped violent crime.
if you havent looked up the facts , then just think about it,
im walking around with a gun because im licensed to ,
every day nothing happens & i carry it everywhere all the time & nobody knows i even have it.
then all of a sudden 1 day, im around a violent crime where people are being attacked violently by a criminal or group of criminals who are armed with guns or knives or bats or maybe even unarmed,
i could A stop the crime & stop people from being hurt & killed,
B or follow your advice & not be able to stop people from violently attacking me or the people around me & we all become victims & the criminals get away to do it again to other people.
Paul Wilson you said:
""Charlton Heston was well into his demented stage before he quit.""
I don't recall him telling YOU what you may or may not own.
"" I don't see a reason why people from other countries should not comment on gun controls here, as guns from America go overseas.""
Just the opposite, AK-47 is coming from China, Glock from Austria, CZ-75 from Czech Rep. etc....... Why don't you go preach to Beijing? Or at least do your home work.
Looks like there's limit to one post only here (?)
Peter, are you the moderator??
After reading through all the comments, I am sickened by all of you. I'm almost ashamed to call myself a gun owner if these are the people that I'm being associated with. Although I don't own an AR-15 type rifle, I will go to my grave defending the rights of others to do so.
AR-15's are not assault rifles. The definition of assault rifle from the Encyclopedia Britannica is "a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine". The AR-15 you by from your local sporting goods store or gun shop is not select fire. What most people don't know is that assault rifles as defined above are already highly regulated by the government, requiring thorough background checks and a $200 tax stamp, and even then are still illegal in some states.
On the topic of subjectively named high capacity magazines, I hope all of you realize that all the magazines that have been manufactured after the end of the 1994 assault weapons ban will be grandfathered in (meaning that they will still be legal to own if you already have them) if a new ban is passed. All the new proposed law will do is prevent the manufacture of new ones. And in my opinion, magazines are not even the issue.
What I see is a serious neglect of the real issues, which are safe storage and and unmonitored transfers of firearms of all types. People having firearms in unsecured locations (i.e. under the bed, in the closet, or otherwise not secured). This is how a disproportionate number of children are shot every year, and how Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook Elementary shooter) was able to obtain his mothers guns. And private sales of firearms (any transaction that does not involve a FFL dealer) do not require background checks. This is a serious gap in an otherwise safe system.
Hundred times more children are killed by cars than firearms Even 16 year olds are allowed to drive!!!
People are leaving cars in the streets and driveways. Instead locked in the garage, with locked steering wheel and gas locked separately. (the way we have to treat firearms)
Of course thousand times more kids are killed by drug overdose. Does Piers Morgan really care about lives? Or is he just neurotic hoplophobe?
Btw, no doctor so far was prosecuted for prescribing Prozac and other sheet, without warning parents and police. Mindboggling.
Peter, you said:
"""Maybe an adjustment in "Law" could help. Uphold the second amendment – however the weapons must not leave the property""". Make penalties much tougher for carrying weapons in public places. You can have your guns but only
If the criminals would abide by that law they would abide by much stricter ones, like for example making murders
illegal. Did you really think that through?? Aren't drugs already illegal?? So how do they get even into prisons??
Who will abide by the law? Lawabiding citizen only. Do you worry about lawabiding citizen?
Btw, how would you deliver that moose or deer to one's backyard? How will, for example, our pistol Olympic Medalist Linda Thom train? Shooting in a basement? And why?
Piers Morgan, do you have the balls to debate this Bohunk?
Piers Morgan doesn't understand we are free not because we claim freedom but because we practice it.
Notify me of new comments via email.