Get To Know Piers Morgan

READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.

Thank You

Thank you for watching "Piers Morgan Live" over the years. See below for your favorite memories from 2011-2014.
March 20th, 2013
10:39 PM ET

Connecticut police chief on restricting gun magazine capacity: "Two seconds makes a difference, two seconds is an opportunity, two seconds is a chance"

Now more than three months since the tragic mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, and amidst nationwide debate regarding gun legislation, on Wednesday evening "Piers Morgan Live" hosted five police chiefs, and one sheriff, opening up his program to a healthy discussion on guns, and firearm legislation.

As magazine size continues to be one of the more controversial tenants of the overall debate, Redding's Douglas Fuchs – one of five Connecticut cops to join Piers Morgan in studio – insisted that limiting a guns capacity can allot police critical moments which can potentially save lives:

"Two seconds makes a difference, that two seconds is an opportunity, that two seconds is a chance," he said. "We know that in law enforcement. That protects civilians and it certainly protects our officers, and gives them a better or a fighting chance when in harms way."

Meanwhile, as Wednesday saw Colorado governor John Hickenlooper sign three new gun-control measures into law, Sheriff Ronald Bruce joined the program live via satellite, offering an explanation for why he's refusing to enforce his state's new legislation:

"I just don't agree with it," said the Hinsdale County Sheriff, specifically referencing a law that limits the amount of bullets permissible in a given weapon. "There's a major concern which I concur with, that this is – based on, looking at history for the last 100 years – is that proverbial foot of the door, that it's a 15-round magazine today, it's a 10-round magazine tomorrow, and a no magazine a year from now."

Shifting his attention back to his face to face round table, which featured the five men from Connecticut, Morgan asked Patrick Ridenhour to respond to his Colorado colleague:

"I say that it's our responsibility to enforce the law, whatever it is," said the police chief from Stratford. "It's not for us to really look at the reasons behind it. We have elected officials who give us laws, give us mandates to enforce. And that's what we're supposed to do."

Watch the clip, and listen to the interview, as six law enforcement officials, including five from the state that sadly calls the Newtown massacre home, further discuss and debate gun safety, and firearm law.
-–
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Twitter
» Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram

Post by:
Filed under: Guns in America
soundoff (167 Responses)
  1. Sue Hauman, Pittsburgh,PA

    As gruesome and painful as it would be for MOST ALL OF US, I truly believe that 100% of Congress and the Senate must LOOK AT the death photos of the children of Sandy Hook. Then I think Wayne LaPierre should be forced to look at these same photos, live and on Piers' show and then see if he can look into the camera's eye and STILL hold to his unbelievably STUPID, narrow-minded, unfeeling, inhuman, 'greedy old white man' mentality!

    March 20, 2013 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • brasstacs

      Sue... your suggestion of publishing those photos of the innocent at Sandy Hook for propaganda reasons for any one to see..even as you say just for the members of congress or the senate...and then for LaPerre is disgusting...and pointless to say the very least... and here's why...First of all none of those proposed bans would have prevented Sandy Hook or any other of those evil shootings..period,,2nd...As gruesome as it sounds any kind of gun would produce horrific looking wounds and not just the wounds from those semi automatic rifles what the gun grabbers incorrectly call "assault rifles" ..what are you proposing to ban all guns ??...And 3rd... the focus should be on the evil deranged killer Lanza and his sickness and how we can prevent another wacko from doing more evil,and not the method he used for his evil...It seems that you have been 'buying in" on to much liberal gun grabbing propaganda,and not the facts...Don't let people like revolting Michael Moore who could very well make a profit by getting involved in this and he doesn't even seem to care at all about the feelings of the victims families and Piers Morgan who has a background in tabloids and was once fired for faking photos of soldiers to make them look like they were abusing prisoners...The unscrupulous Morgan will do or say anything for ratings...don't be a sucker just sayin.

      March 20, 2013 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • sm

        Do you know how you sound 'B". what video game are you playing giving you such vigor hope to play armymen, cowboys and indians. Sorry but this is the dumbest thing thought out!

        March 21, 2013 at 12:31 am | Report abuse |
      • Joel

        We are not talking about "propaganda". We are talking about truth. Those beautiful innocent children were murdered. The weapon used was a military style death machine. Just like in a murder trial. Like a Jury....elected officials should be shown all the evidence of what these types of guns can do before they make any decisions. Regarding comments that any new laws wouldn't have made a difference had they been in place....that's nonsense. Had there been a law requiring in depth background checks it is quite reasonable to say Lanza's Mom wouldn't have been able to purchase the gun. Had there been a law that limited the size of clips Lanza would have had to pause to reload. According to law enforcement experts just one to two seconds could have meant lives saved. So, the propaganda claim is erroneous, and so is the "it would have made no difference" claim.

        March 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • James Cohen

        Have you thought of at the end of each one on your shows to ( like Erin Burnett idea ) of announcing each day how many gun deaths since Sandyhook ????

        April 7, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • sm

      Thats the smartest thing someone has said in the last two weeks. Limit the dam bullets! Sure you think semi0automatic guns shoot Bang One mississippi, bang two missiissippi ,bang . Its rata tat-ta -ta -ta dead before you can look at the shooter. are you that dense to think it wouldnt be like that, Really viewers next to comment. think this on out , put yourself in a senario situation. NO your not going to be the imaginary hero in this one. And the likely hood for that senario to work out for you to be the hero is nill!

      March 21, 2013 at 12:29 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • KP

        I would like for everyone to look at what we are discussing here.. I hear Piers Morgan saying that if we can save one life wouldn't it be worth it; I would say that we should be trying to save as many live as possible! No one is looking and saying why don't we put more laws around alcohol; as alcohol related deaths are over ten (10) fold what gun related deaths are?? I believe that no one wants to tackle this monster as most of the people are using alcohol.

        March 24, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • madamdeb

      I totally agree with you, Sue! That was the only way we finally ended up getting out of Vietnam. That was the way the US finally realized what Germany was doing to the Jews. We have to see it as well as hear it. This is absolutely necessary!

      March 21, 2013 at 12:51 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bobby J Stinebaugh, M.D.

      As effective as the actual pictures might be, I don't believe it is feasible because of privacy issues. I believe it would be almost as effective to have artistic depictions of generic faceless children with their heads blown off and their guts hanging out. Additionally, a scene showing 26 faceless children with various wounds inflicted should be acceptable and require no permissions. Finally, the only way to defeat the gun nuts is with money, ie Blumberg and others. A national campaign raising money block by block and sending it where it can be most effective defeating the Democrats who, because of their cowardice defy the will of the American people. Gabby Gifford and/or Blumberg could organize the effort.

      March 21, 2013 at 2:32 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • madamdeb

        You are right. The parents would have to give their consent. If some did, it might be possible to show individual children. It would be a start.

        March 21, 2013 at 2:42 am | Report abuse |
      • Kevin Patick

        A start at what? Handwringing, crying, and a shocking admission that this confirms what we already know – those children died horrible deaths?
        You may as well be dancing on their graves waving a "ban the magazines" poster. Do you even grasp in the slightest way how ghoulish your suggestion is? It is one small step removed from putting their heads on pikes to make your point. Please, return the discussion to rationality.

        March 21, 2013 at 9:38 am | Report abuse |
      • madamdeb

        Kevin Patrick – See my post above on Vietnam and Nazi Germany.

        March 21, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • p

        So, according to you everyone who owns a firearm is a "gun nut"? Fanatics always speak in derogatory absolutes. In that, your opinion means little.

        March 25, 2013 at 12:10 am | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      "greedy old white man" Sue? Like a typical liberal and typical supporter of gun control you are a racist and a bigot and it matters not that you direct your racism toward white people instead of black people.

      March 21, 2013 at 7:10 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Anthony F.

        First off I think either side (far right and far left) are both wrong and one-sided agendas!
        I, personally, am a registered democrat but consider myself a moderate democrat; 21 year military veteran, active member of NRA, gun owner, and father of two living in Connecticut about an hour and a half form Sandy Hook Elementary. I notably voted for Obama in both elections and I feel something has to be down about the current gun regulations federally and locally in CT BUT I think the state of CT is going crazy trying to eliminate everything! Gov Malloy is doing everything in his power to make guns illegal all together even though we are one of the strictest states currently.
        Furthermore the Colorado Sheriff has a point; Pierce mentioned 100 round magazines (that's overkill and an exaggerated) as the argument is for or against "30 Round" clips and as the sheriff stated once those are made illegal then whats next, 10 round clips? Secondly, the Redding CT Police Chief didn't state anything, Pierce was putting words into his mouth along with what he did say, YES, changing a clip will allow a 2-3 second advantage BUT what is the shooter pulls out another weapon.....then there's no advantage!
        DID ANYONE STOP AND THINK ABOUT ALL THE GUN-RELATED DEATHS FROM HANDGUNS? That is what really needs to be addressed not the elimination of anything specific. I, for one, enjoy shooting (not hunting) but simple target/range shooting and it is fun to shoot an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.....but so is shooting a WWII-era Springfield M1 Carbine or M1 Garand, why eliminate one type of firearm just because some deranged kid with a irresponsible mother enacted a tradegy. I cannot look at those pictures and justly support the far right agenda but on the same note it aggravates me knowing the democrats are using this to further their agenda!
        Moreso, WHY is the government putting this ahead of the economy, more lives are being lost due to that! What about tightening the current gun laws and regulations? What about reforming mental health issues? Why was this mother allowed to openly have guns in a house where there was a deranged child with a history of violence??? WHY? WHY? WHY? Stop doing nothing and making new laws and govern the ones that are out there!!!!!!!!!!!
        Depending on the way the state of CT and the country settle this is whether I lose faith in both parties......Independent voting is looking better all the time!

        March 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin Patrick

      Sue,
      What you are advocating is an emotional response to a situation which requires a rational one instead. We are trying to solve a problem of violence, not put a band-aid over bruised sensibilities.

      March 21, 2013 at 9:34 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • oneluvsurfer

      Sue,
      Your comment shows perfectly why we have the problem we have. Feel good changes do nothing when we need actual solutions. Did the gun jump into Adam's hand and go off by itself? Was the gun purchased legally? Have you seen what a shotgun does to a body? If giving up my guns was really the answer I would be the first one to do it. I can promise you that looking at the pictures would not change anyone's views that is looking for a rational answer. It amazes me how stupid all of you liberal people can be. If you want to save children's lives, start making a stand against the 1.2 million abortions that your party protects each year! Maybe the fix would be to test people on the ability to have rational thought and get rid of anyone that isn't capable..

      March 21, 2013 at 10:48 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

      I fully agree with you. This past weekend I was driving on USHWY 95 heading south bound to NYC approximately 2 miles outside of Bridgeport Connecticut and as I looked up to the left, I saw a very large billboard sign that made me weep. The sign can be seen from a long distance and it reads... "We Are Sandy Hook, We Choose Love." I would like Mr. LaPierre and some of the gun advocates across the country to take a ride south bound on USHWY 95 heading toward Bridgeport Connecticut. Its an errie feeling and a chilling reminder of what happened in that sleepy little town three months ago, a chilling scene that numbs the soul. I challenge any American to go for a ride and look at that sign. See if it odoesn't do something to you.

      March 21, 2013 at 11:14 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • oneluvsurfer

        You act as if gun owners don't have children and aren't equally disgusted. The difference is we are trying to actually find a solution, you just want the crying girl to get out of a speeding ticket..

        March 21, 2013 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Scare The Pilgrims

      Pittsburg is where the Henry Rifle Company's Receiver's are made for their lever action rifles, world famous guns. And Connecticut is famous for the Colt Firearms Plant In Hartford where its been for over 100 years, The Colt AR-15 is the original that Bushmaster and all other copies are made after. The Mossberg Gun Comapny is in New Haven CT where the Model 500 Pump Shotgun is made, the same model used by the Menendez Brothers to murder their parents, . And the Winchester Firearms Headquarters is in North Haven CT , all 3 of these companies have paid taxes to the state of CT for decades,,CNN will never ever tell you or anyone stuff like this.

      March 21, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gary

      Sue, protecting children is important but so are our rights. Firearms and their place in the 2nd amendment are not just about sporting, hunting and collecting. They are for an armed citizenry. Our forefathers gave ordinary citizens the ability to posses the same weapons that ordinary soldiers were issued, in order to help defend the country and to discourage tyranny from within. The weapons and equipment they are trying to ban are the same, standard issue weapons that the average infantry soldier uses. That is what the 2nd amendment is really about; the general population's ability to defend themselves against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic. This is not gun problem, this is a culture problem. Keep in mind that in Switzerland adult males are required to keep fully automatic weapons and ammunition in their homes and that they have extremely low rates of gun violence. If Adam Lanza did not have a gun then he would have built a bomb. Remember, Timothy McVeigh did not have a gun when he killed 168 people in Oklahoma, including 19 children.

      March 21, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Wondering

      Sue,

      Do you think we should show the Liberals pictures of abortions which their platform supports? I hear all the liberals crying about these children in Sandy Hook who did indeed die a horrific event, while they support abortion and the slaughter of thousands of innocent babies. Yet they believe the woman has the right to choose while a responsible gun owner should have their rights stripped. Hypocrisy is the true Liberal platform. And before all of you Liberals start chiming in about how you don't support abortion......doesn't matter, the platform you support does.

      March 21, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • oneluvsurfer

        Try 100,000 a year.

        March 21, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • here is good footage of unarmed people

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaCdKwFcHnw&w=640&h=390]

      March 21, 2013 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Chris

      While I understand your point I don't believe that showing photos of the dead will have long lasting results. This is a complex issue. The people in those positions could probably gain access to the photos if they really wanted to. I have a child and By no means Would I ever downplay what happened. You do need to realize that the same people your talking about hold various positions on multiple committees. Some have access to video images , pictures and other material of horrors that occur here and abroad that are just has sick and heartbreaking. The elected officials are going to do little if anything to make major changes in gun policy. Yes we do have a gun problem, but it is not that simple. This issue can not be dissolved down to a single point that ends with a fix. The control aspect of this issue needs to be one of the mental health and that should be better interconnected to the purchase of ammunition. We seem to have had little issue slapping requirements and laws into place to restrict, track and control over the counter cold medication yet we can't successfully implement a system of checks and balances for firearms and more specifically ammunition. There is simply too much money involved on the back side to implement major change in short order. These folks your referring to ride on waves of money and influence , that is how they got where they are today.

      March 23, 2013 at 12:06 am | Report abuse | Reply
  2. brasstacs

    All this talk about someone intervening in the 2 seconds when a shooter is changing magazines is pure speculation and BS...First of all wacko's almost always have more then one weapon,and even if they didn't it's highly doubtful that someone would stop a shooter in the 2 seconds for him to change magazines...case in point. according to witness's.In.the Aurora Colo shooting..Holmes magazine on his AR jammed right when begin using it ..he then discarded the rifle and started to use his shotgun and his 2 handguns ....It's also ridiculous to think that a wacko or a criminal will obey the law and use a low capacity magazine to comply with the law...These ridiculous laws will only effect law abiding citizens and will not in any way make the innocent any safer.In Colorado there are millions of 30 round AR Magazines that will always be there...and legal if a citizen owns these magazines before the new law takes effect...How are those laws supposed to be enforced...It's questions like this that liberals like Piers Morgan never talk about. It is hoped the good people of Colorado will vote those binging liberals out of office and those mindless laws will be put to the voters to decide in 2014... and I have no doubt that the voters would reverse those worthless laws.

    March 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • sm

      Keep dreaming B. The right with ther voting aginst family safety has just cost them the election for the next twelve years. You guys are doing us such a favor. Everyone is watching every vote. And the GOP is putting the sloagan in Gold letters that they hate middle america and their families safty. Hold on tight for the termoil coming the NRA and the GOP's way!

      March 21, 2013 at 12:40 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Will

        Wrong. Democrats have avoided the gun control issue for years for a reason. Many people voted democrat because they thought that Democrats had given up on the foolishness of gun bans. Well they are getting a wake up call now and will surely start voting Republican again in the future.

        March 21, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Anthony F.

        I'm one of those "democrats" who have traditionally voted for democrats until NOW! If the state and country go too far left and crazy trying to get rid of everything then I'm going republican! All this controversy has sparked me to rejoin NRA after 15-20 years of non-membership! I have agreed with Obama politics up until now, he is spending too much time and energy on saving 26 children and teachers whereas there are larger issues he is ignoring such as handgun violence, debt, and the economy! This will bankrupt the gun manufacturing industry and put thousands of people out of work which may even create newer problems!
        The far left wave better STOP because many of us moderate democrats will (and are) jump ship!

        March 21, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • sm

        Thanks guys , we appreciate your vote for the new cause for Americas safty legislation

        March 22, 2013 at 12:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Bobby J Stinebaugh, M.D.

      I hope your two beautiful girls never experience the tragedy of Newtown and if they did, I doubt that you would be of the same frame of mind. As the Chief of Police of one of the CT towns said, the 2-3 seconds delay that changing a magazine give a law officer or a good guy with a gun in the area to disable the maniac. It also gives the victims a few seconds to run. I hope that your two beautiful girls have that opportunity. Apparently they won't if you vote your conviction.

      March 21, 2013 at 2:55 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Kevin Patrick

        Unfortunately the children were in a gun-free zone, and law enforcement was not anywhere near close enough to do that. It is poor reasoning to think it could have influenced the outcome.

        March 21, 2013 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
      • Eugene

        Gun-free zones are a really bad idea. It is much better if criminals have to think there is 50-50 chance that their target homes or buildings are possibly armed with even military style rifles. That notion itself will greatly deter criminals.

        March 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Anthony F.

        Honestly, that 2-3 seconds to change out magazines is totally IRRELEVANT! There were no police around to take the gunman down in Newtown or take advantage of a 2-3 second "advantage". The gunman was dead before they ever got there! So whether or not he had a 10 round or 100 round magazine is totally IRRELEVANT and wouldn't have helped at all in Newtown. I understand it may help in other scenarios but not here.
        What about drunk drivers? If they mow your kids down are we gonna eliminate alcohol? Or better yet....eliminate all cars! Again, I am for the better governing of our current laws!

        March 21, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gary

      Criminals would also just go to another state to get higher capacity magazines if they really wanted them. All these proposed bans degrade the true reasons for the second amendment, such as citizens being able to help defend the country if it were ever needed. These bans will create an ineffective citizen army. Can you imagine a militia trying to fight in a conflict while screwing around with bullet buttons and 10 round magazines? I keep hearing people say "these weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible". Yes, that's correct; enemy invaders or a mob of thugs running a home invasion on you.

      March 21, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  3. Stephanie

    Thank you Piers Morgan for keeping the gun control debate in the spotlight. I have listened to some of the arguments against gun control and cannot understand the rationale behind allowing assault rifles to be purchased by the general public. For what purpose does a citizen "need" this type of weapon? Hunting? Protection? Really?? Who is buying this argument? I'm pretty sure this type of weaponry was not what the guardians of our country had in mind when they passed the 2nd amendment. Where do you (or how CAN you) draw the line on what weaponry is allowable under the protected "right to bear arms"? I agree that a ban would not "solve" the problem of recent mass killings. (If "solving" is equated to totally eliminating.) To think that there is a simple solution is unrealistic. There are many other aspects to address–this is a multi faceted problem and dysfunction of our society. There are many other areas that need to be addressed. However, I do not understand how anyone can disagree with the idea that removing these war weapons from our everyday life would result in lowering the death toll in our country. It is one prong to fix. Just because it won't "solve the problem" does not mean it won't mitigate it. And it does not mean that it should not be approved as a first step in "solving" this problem. One less life lost would prove that it helped. My concern is that the NRA is creating more fear in the public and their only suggestion is to bear more arms! How self serving -but also a great marketing ploy. A very disappointing and disturbing win-win. Thanks for keeping the discussion alive.

    March 20, 2013 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Brad James

      well said

      March 21, 2013 at 1:24 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bobby J Stinebaugh, M.D.

      My problem with you and Brastacs is that you seem to think that you need big clips with 50-100 rounds to defend yourself. For myself I feel perfectly safe with my Remington shotgun with a six clip magazine. If I can't stop someone with that weapon, I don't believe a multiple round magazine in the hands of a scared amateur gun hand would be much better.

      March 21, 2013 at 3:04 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • jim

        I have several shotgun...just where do you find a shotgun with a six clip magazine? I really believe that you do not own a shotgun or any gun for that matter. You don't even know the name of the components of a gun.

        March 22, 2013 at 4:26 am | Report abuse |
      • Nae

        I don’t own an AR-15, but if someone wants to protect himself against gang bangers that may outgun him, it’s not my place to say that he can’t have it, just because I myself don’t need it. And I think there’s a good possibility the sight of those big guns can intimidate even armed criminals causing them to flee (you may not have to even fire a shot). That is a life saved! Wouldn’t it be a great defense mechanism for anyone, especially if you are a small-built woman or a senior person or physically disabled?

        March 28, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin Patrick

      The "need" argument is simply not a legitimate point. When did you become the guiding light whose place it is to determine other people's needs? And, please explain to everyone where and how the rights we are given are to be determined by your rationalization of what is needed or necessary, or even acceptable?
      And it must be pointed out again, for the sake of clarification, that the AR-15 is not an "assault" weapon, nor is it an instrument of war. The instruments of battle that our military wield are completely different and for the most part unavailable to the public.
      When the discussion begins to address the issues rationally and realistically more people will be willing to listen.

      March 21, 2013 at 9:51 am | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Chris Chaisson

    Bravo Piers Morgan for getting the Senators on record about gun control votes so we can see who is supporting the gun ban and who is not. So sad that Harry Reid isn't doing this...why can't he force a vote so we can see who has the audacity to vote against the kind of legislation that most people want. Keep up the great work! You are proving to be a better representative of the people than the sad specimens we've sent to the Congress and Senate. And...don't let the horror fade. That is exactly what has happened in the past. Giving voice to the police and parents and victims of gun violence and showing the senselessness of our existing gun laws and the gun lobby rhetoric is so important. THANKS for your work!

    March 21, 2013 at 12:13 am | Report abuse | Reply
  5. Ernie

    Firearm acquisition licence is a good solution like in Canada. Any police officer or trapper in the article cannot Change small magazine in 2 seconds at -45 in a wind . Ar 15 are used in the artic for human safety. Morgan can carry a heavy lever action 1800's gun himself, or take a horse to work..

    March 21, 2013 at 12:14 am | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Marc Landry

    It's all very simple. Require buyers of Assault Weapons to purchase an Insurance Policy on each one they own. Let the Insurance Companies do all the background checks and access the risk, and pay out if an Insured Weapon is proven to do harm.

    March 21, 2013 at 12:24 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • madamdeb

      I agree with you, Marc Landry. Just like cars. Licensed and insured. Why should there be a difference? Plus, a car has a very definitive purpose – to move us from place to place. What is the valid reason for handguns and assault rifles?

      March 21, 2013 at 12:38 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • brasstacs

        Owning and driving a car is a "privilege" Owning a gun is an American "right"..a big difference..

        March 21, 2013 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
      • madamdeb

        brasstacs – I've heard that phrase many times and it has never made any sense to me. A "right" can be taken away from you when you abuse it. If automobiles had existed when America was first founded and the British refused to allow the colonists to own them (because, say, they allowed people to gather together to form militias), don't you think the right to own an auto would be in one of the amendments? That is such a stupid statement. It means nothing today. Nothing.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:26 am | Report abuse |
      • Eugene

        “What is the valid reason for handguns and assault rifles?”

        When I hear something like that, I always scratch my head...
        Is preventing you or your loved ones from being killed by predators NOT A VALID ENOUGH REASON?????

        March 21, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kevin Patrick

        Please, regardless of opinion consider this. Lanza was rushed by the principal, and she was shot to death. Another teacher tried to shield the children with her own body, and died. Had either or both women possessed the ability to return fire that day, is it possible the story might have ended differently?
        Isn't there even a chance it would not have been as terrible as it was?
        Many believe so and act in accordance with their beliefs.
        If you believe hanging a "no guns" sign on the door will protect you, think again.

        March 21, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • sm

      Yes!!!1 Now this is progress and thinking outside the box. That isnt to hardnow is it right wings!

      March 21, 2013 at 12:43 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ichiro

      It is unconst’tutional to impose a financial toll on our fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

      March 21, 2013 at 2:23 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • madamdeb

        So you believe that news organizations don't have to buy insurance against accusations of libel or slander? Why do you think those laws even exist if you think all rights are free and clear? No right is without responsibilities. You're living in a dream world if you don't understand the law.

        March 21, 2013 at 2:36 am | Report abuse |
      • Ichiro

        Really? I didn’t know the news organizations were mandated to buy insurance by law... Is that a Federal law? Could you give me the exact law? (point me to an appropriate government link since it looks like you understand the law.)

        So, you think that the individuals should also be mandated to have insurance for libel, slander or like in case you falsely scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater and cause panic and injuries to people?

        March 21, 2013 at 3:00 am | Report abuse |
      • sm

        Youre thoerys proven guns need to be regulated somewhat like automobiles, bank loans,Houseand morgages, votin guidelines ( sure their being smeared now buy the GOP and they are little cheaters: sore loseres (Gop wants to stack the deck, its true, Hey pennsylvannia) and lets see who else is trying to rig electoral college voting system in their State, Who are ya? maybe if you are scarred with the automatic fact you'll be sued along with prosecution with neglect with your fire arm, you probably wony mess up, Eh!

        March 22, 2013 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
      • Ichiro

        sm, read the whole conversation about the mandatory liability insurance me and three other posters discussed. The downside of it is not only being unconst’tutional. Marc finally understood and admitted to it. He may be on the other side of gun-control than I, but he has the intelligence to understand and honesty to acknowledge when he sees a valid point in opposing arguments. That’s how we have a good debate man, which you obviously are not capable of. Heck, you can’t even stay on the subject. What does this have to do with the election? And I don’t ever neglect my guns. I store them in my speed vaults when I’m not carrying. Have you ever parked your cars all night on the street and not in your garage? They could get stolen and used for a crime too.

        March 22, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin Patrick

      The principle you ascribe is not legal. It is a matter of settled law that you cannot charge a fee to exercise a right. The supreme court argued it many years ago and it has stood the test of time. Research the term: poll tax.

      March 21, 2013 at 10:33 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Marc Landry

        Poll Tax? Requiring Insurance Policy is not a Tax. Our Government only needs to pass one requirement. The Insurance Companies will do all the regulating. There are fees now associated with gun ownership, if you want to own a high powered firearm, you can purchase a policy along with your weapon.

        March 21, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Ichiro

      Do you think mandatory liability insurance would have prevented the Newtown massacre? I don’t think Adam’s mother would have had a trouble getting insurance.

      March 21, 2013 at 11:42 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Marc Landry

        Maybe not. Nothing we do as a nation will completely stop this. But it may slow it down. My idea is an alternative to a ban on assult weapons. It is just an aid in slowing down the frequency of these acts.

        March 21, 2013 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Ichiro

      Do you know one of the unintended consequences of imposing insurance on gun owners? People who really want to buy guns (or keep the guns they have) would willfully avoid going to see a doctor, even when they sense they may have some kind of mental problem, in fear of their doctor visits shown in their medical records become a hindrance to owning guns. Which means, your idea could prevent some people who need psychiatric treatment from receiving it, thus, create more unstable people with a gun who are “untreated”... what do you think of that?

      March 21, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • oneluvsurfer

        So how does giving money to a family stop more children from getting killed?? Maybe you didn't realize it but insurance doesn't cover criminal acts and it never will. Just another moronic, feel good, non-solution.

        March 21, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ichiro

        You are telling that to Marc and not me, right? I’m against imposing mandatory liability insurance on gun owners.

        March 21, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • oneluvsurfer

        Yes, to Marc. I just hit reply from the email I received and it placed the comment under the wrong person.

        March 21, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marc Landry

        Are you kidding me? You can't be serious with that comment. Maybe the Insurance company would require you to get a complete check-up prior to giving you the policy.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ichiro

        Do you propose “a complete check-up” is given only when you buy insurance? or annually when renewing? Is once a year good enough? (We don’t even do that when getting car insurance, do we? probably we should!! to stop people susceptible to road rage from driving!!) In between, if a gun owner suffers depression, he could decide not to see a doctor in fear of his insurance provider denying him or increasing his premium. So he may self-medicate or doesn’t treat his condition at all. How is that good for public safety? I’m against it, not because your idea isn’t fix-all, but it could possibly be counter-productive.

        March 21, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • oneluvsurfer

      So how does giving money to a family stop more children from getting killed?? Maybe you didn't realize it but insurance doesn't cover criminal acts and it never will. Homeowners insurance already covers any accidental actions that a person is liable for.. Just another moronic, feel good, non-solution.

      March 21, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Marc Landry

        Silly you don't see the point. I will restate it. It's not about the compensation. The Insurance Companies will do the background checks and access the risk. The same as when you purchase car insurance.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • oneluvsurfer

        You must think Insurers hold a crystal ball? They work off the law of LARGE numbers. Insurance can't asses someones possibility of performing a criminal act any more than law enforcement can. Mass shootings is such a small percentage that there isn't even any data to try and assess. You have no point. What are they going to assess? The fact that Adam came from a single mother family? That he didn't like to socialize with others? Just a heads up. I am an insurance agent.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marc Landry

        This is why congress can't get anything done. I never said that my idea is a fix-all, nore did I say it would have stopped Sandy Hook. I only have suggested that it's one way of controling the growing problem of high powered weapons in our country. Of course there are other courses of action that I would recommend take place. Including mandatory education, limits on clip size, and proper storage and security.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • oneluvsurfer

        I don't think you have a clue what your talking about. Be happy the 2nd amendment is protecting your first amendment right to freedom of ridiculous speech.

        March 21, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marc Landry

        I have to admit it seemed like a reasonable idea at the time. However it's just as complicated as any other idea suggested. Thanks for your comment

        March 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • oneluvsurfer

        The problem is there is no simple solution because human nature is the problem. I would like to see more assistance in the mental health area, I would like to see more gun owners locking their guns up if they currently aren't doing so. In the end though, the lack of respect for life in this world will never change. You can't create a law to make people rational and caring. Guns are a tool that creates an equal playing ground when someone wants to do harm to you or your family, and in reality a cop isn't usually there till after the crime. The gun keeps us free and the large majority are very respectful of the responsibility that comes along with owning the tool.

        March 21, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin Patrick

      Reading your first post one has to ask if you actually think it wise to insure a firearm against causing harm? Firearms do not cause anything. What would this insurance scheme accomplish? It is like betting that some tree or boulder will not commit a crime today. Pretty safe bet.
      Who, or what would be insured, and who, or what would be the beneficiary? And for what purpose?

      By the way, there have been many attempts to cause monetary stresses which dissuade others of, say, a certain group, from exercising their rights. All have been struck down in court. Call it a fee, tax, insurance, membership, donation, permission, price of admission...... it is all the same thing.

      March 21, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Marc Landry

        Just like any idea or suggestion given there are many people out there ready to pick it apart. I have not read one post that hasn't been ripped apart by the left or right. I have learned alot by posting an idea. I have learned that there is never going to be anything we can do as a nation about the senseless massacuring of our citizens until we all learn to Love and Respect each other. There will be no ideas that will come up that all people accept.

        March 21, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Scout

    Facts and logic don't mean much to Piers. Semi auto guns are not "assault weapons". This is all just another step down the road to a total gun ban proposed by the lap dog media. Nobody wants to have innocents killed, especially kids. The reality is that the laws/bans proposed by the hysterical left will achieve zero. Enforce the gun laws we have in place. Prosecute those that fail the background check and pass a mandatory life sentence to anyone committing a crime with gun. Leave the responsible gun owners alone.

    March 21, 2013 at 12:31 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • madamdeb

      Oh, who cares about the semantics? So it's not the right word. BFD. We're communicating the same thoughts. Stop trying to put a stop in the conversation over something so silly.

      March 21, 2013 at 12:35 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tesla

        Much as I agree with your statement (I find words only have power if you give them power), to the public at large, semantics is very important. Saying there's no difference between semi-automatic firearm (technical term) and an assault weapon (inflammatory term) is like saying calling any young women who recieves an abortion a baby murdering wh0re. It's not true, right? Every political statement is full of these; how many have you heard today?

        March 21, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • madamdeb

        Tesla – I'm listening to CNN right now and literally everyone is using the term "assault weapon." So I must defer to the journalism standards in use in most cases. Sorry.

        March 21, 2013 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • sm

      Yeah, there death machines!

      March 21, 2013 at 12:42 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tesla

        Death machines!

        ...that cause far fewer deaths than cars, alcohol, prescription drugs, and doctors.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of banning any of those. Just saying, every gun in America, on average, kills about .0000983 people per year (using educated guesses of about 30,470 gun deaths and about 310,000,000 non-military firearms). Every doctor in America, on average, kills about .295 people per year (using 195,000 malpractice deaths against 661,400 doctors).

        Here's the thing: people don't blame the scalpel, or the forceps, or the syringes. They blame the doctor. But somehow, the tool gets blamed when it comes to guns, and nothing else. Would someone like to tell me why?

        March 21, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • sm

        You didnt think about that last conversation about , you could be out with your family ( just as much as me and the rest of america) and be desimated by coinsedance or be affraid to let your kids go twenty five yards from your house. you dont read the issues and the people who vote on the issues when you go to the polls do ya! I feell it in my gut you vote just like you parents, or your bad boyfriend. this generation dosent know what the Reagan administration did, and the way the real world is going now, No research of any kind! so be it!

        March 22, 2013 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Bobby J Stinebaugh, M.D.

      I am a gun owner and used to be a member of the NRA, before they became a front organization for gun manufactures. It pains me to hear concerned individuals like yourself to believe that is nothing that can be done. Surely you can accept the proposition that more complete background checks and requirements to report gun transfers would have some effect. Currently at a gun show I can buy just about anything in any numbers and transfer to local gangs or to cartels in Mexico and not suffer any consequences or follow up trail. We (you and me and all of our fellow citizens) are responsible for much of the violence in this country and the vast majority of the mayhem in Mexico. I hope that you feel ashamed as I do instead of being proud of your ability to do so.

      March 21, 2013 at 2:43 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Anthony F.

        De[pending on what state you are in, YOU can buy almost anything BUT when you sell it to gangs or drug cartels then YOU are responsible!
        You can do the same at a gun shop, once you buy something in any amount you can transfer or sell it to whomever you like. That's where the "responsible" gun owner has an obligation to govern where it goes! The government cannot prevent every person from transferring their legally purchased firearms to whomever they wish, it simply cannot be controlled. That's why gun owners need to control their own firearms and where they go!

        March 21, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • oneluvsurfer

        The government can't even stop, lets say, the government from transferring guns to Mexican cartels.

        March 21, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • jim

        Hey Doc...you are wrong when you say American arms are responsible for the mayhem in Mexico. Most of the firearms used in Mexico come from overseas not the US. The majority of the semi auto and fully auto weapons in use in Mexico are the AK47 and AK47 variants. These are not made in the US. It goes without saying Fast and Furious did ship arms to Mexico and I am sure there were purchases of US made weapons by the cartel. It is a matter of economics...an AR15 runs between 600 on up...AK47 variants can be bought overseas for 200 hundred on up.

        March 22, 2013 at 4:41 am | Report abuse |
  8. madamdeb

    Re: The "slippery slope" argument. I also have a slippery slope fear: Today it's okay to have AR-15 assault weapons, tomorrow it's machine guns. What has stopped the gun lovers from taking more and more with each passing year? And shouldn't they have a reason to want larger capacity weapons?

    Saying "shall not be infringed" is not enough. Is the word "regulated" not also in the amendment? When we have less regulation, we see the mass murders of children. What would we see if we had a bit more regulation? Why not give that a try?

    March 21, 2013 at 12:33 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • brasstacs

      That's ridiculous Chicago has the most gun control and regulations in the country and is one of the deadliest places in the country...last year alone they had over 500 shooting deaths and that was more the Afghanistan...how's all that gun control working out there ??

      March 21, 2013 at 12:41 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • madamdeb

        Chicago's gun control has to do with who can have a gun. The gun control most of us are proposing is to stop it at the manufacturer. Do not allow them to be built and sold in this country, except for military purposes.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:04 am | Report abuse |
      • cr

        Interesting none of the community leaders, former gang members or victims of violence interviewed in this rather revealing news piece on the gun violence in Chicago thinks new guns or gun bans will have any impact on the killings. The resounding answer to the problem in Chicago according those interviewed, is that it's about jobs and providing hope in an increasingly unequal society.

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3eOfU6WaHA&w=640&h=390]

        March 21, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • cr

        Then explain to me madamdeb, why the Swiss who are ranked as the 3rd largest gun owning nation on the planet, have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world? Most Swiss homes own an assault rifle.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • madamdeb

        cr – It's my understanding the the Swiss keep their military weapons at home for the same reason early Americans did. They form the militia. I also understand that all ammo is kept in an armory in each town. So you can have 200 guns, but they're no good without the ammol

        March 21, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • cr

        Madamdeb while that might be so about their military issue rifles it is not true about their own personal firearms. Shooting is a nationally celebrated sport in Switzerland with shooting match events being televised on national TV. Furthermore, two of Switzerland's neighbors, Germany and France are ranked 4th and 5th globally in terms of firearms ownership and they too have equally low homicides rates as the Swiss. The same can also be said for Italy and Spain two other large gun owning European nations with low homicide rates. If we subscribe to Piers' notion that more guns mean more homicides then these countries should have some of the highest rates on the planet, but they don't they have some of lowest.

        March 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • J Shapiro

        Cr, what about the gun related suicide rate in Switzerland? Isn't it the highest in Europe, though not as high as US.

        March 22, 2013 at 6:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Kevin Patrick

      Good point, madamdeb. If the slippery slope goes both ways from where the issue stands it clearly illustrates the point that we are already at the apex. In a free society this is as good as it gets – you enjoy freedom because it is granted to everyone, and that includes those that may misuse it.
      Claiming a right to limit the freedom of others opens the door to allowing them to limit yours. Freedom works only in an open and reciprocal manner. The success depends on honor, respect, and individual responsibility. This is a problem of culture and not a problem of hardware.

      March 21, 2013 at 10:19 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Anthony F.

      @madam: Connecticut is one of the strictest states for gun ownership, assault weapons and non-assault weapons that are legal in many states are illegal here BUT its all about money! CT actually allows machine guns as long as you pay the high price for one and the even higher price of registration, somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousands of dollars to have a 5 year CT Machine Gun Special registration such as a fully automatic AK-47 or fully automatic Thompson "Tommy Gun" as long as you pay the big bucks its all legal! NOW here is what is the scam: semi-automatic AK-47s (modified for use in approx 30-40 other states) that only fire single shots are NOT legal in Connecticut! Same goes for Thompson M1 "Tommy Guns", the fully automatic ones are legal with special registrations that cost thousands but the simply, safer, cheaper single shot ones of the same brand name are ILLEGAL! Just for reference purposes in CT a gun owner needs a background check (or at most a 2 week wait) to own a modified single shot newer version of an AK-47 known as AK-74 which costs a few hundred dollars; the AK-47 modified as a single shot for other states is illegal in CT but not the AK-74 BUT if you have unlimited money you can purchase a pre-ban AK-47 thats modified for FULLY AUTOMATIC at a cost of $2000-3000 plus $3000-5000 for the permits/registration! Now how is that fair, thats money talking......and democratic CT knows it but they dont care as long as they get the big money for these guns they allow it!
      It doesnt seem fair but thats the law, if youre a law-abiding citizen with deeper pockets then you can afford the expensive fully automatic machine guns!!!!
      So yes to answer your question......states already do allow machine guns but most people cannot afford them!

      March 21, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • madamdeb

        Thanks for that info, Anthony. I had no idea those weapons were legal in any state. That's an eye-opener.

        March 21, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tesla

      You have a very short term view if you think that gun rights have been expanding historically. The second amendment is a neutered shell of what it once was. Today we celebrate being able to keep a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine, when it used to be possible to own a .45 ACP caliber, fully automatic submachine gun with a 100 round magazine. The criminal element ruined that for us; the Thompson submachine gun was viewed as a gangster gun, and was banned from private ownership.

      Of course, crime had spiraled out of control due to a black market created by the banning of alcohol, which led to the creation of the American Mafia, which has led to a history of corrupt politicians and policemen we are still mired in.

      Also, "regulated," as it was used during colonial times, would be used instead of "disciplined" or "trained." It was stating that the militia should be well trained, and that anyone should be able to have a firearm as long as they're well trained in it's use.

      March 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • sm

        Precious, Our forefathers wouls "S–T" if they knew what we have done to the country and the 2nd amendments. Heads would Roll!

        March 22, 2013 at 12:31 am | Report abuse |
    • jim

      The word "regulated" refered to the supply of ammunition for the rifles in use at the time. The Supreme court recognizes that the word "regulated" in use on the 1700's meant to supply powder and bullets.

      March 22, 2013 at 4:44 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • jim

        Let me correct that last post. The term well regulated militia refered to the citizens being armed with rifles and ammo. This is what the word "regulated" meant when the Consitution was written. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure the citizens were equally armed as the government.

        March 22, 2013 at 4:48 am | Report abuse |
  9. Hilda

    All Piers has to do is to cross reference the names of the Congress and the Senators who vote no to Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Bill with the stocks they, their family members and friends own. This will absolutely tell the reason for the No vote.

    March 21, 2013 at 12:39 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • madamdeb

      Piers doesn't have to do that. You can go to House.Gov and Senate.Gov and see which representatives have voted for or against weapons control. Or you can have an email sent each time there is a major vote and see how your reps voted with MegaVote.Com.

      March 21, 2013 at 1:19 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Bobby J Stinebaugh, M.D.

        It is not the stock that they own, but the amount of money that the NRA gives to their campaign. The only to combat this evil is to have pro gun control lobbies spend as much or more money to defeat the cowards who are afraid to carry out the mandate of the people. This mainly applies to Democrats, but should be used against Republican gun nuts also.

        March 21, 2013 at 3:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Tesla

      Can we also reveal how many hired guns each person who votes in favor of this ban has around them at any given time? Or maybe we can reveal how Diane Feinstein has placed herself outside of her state laws by owning a concealed carry permit and handgun?

      March 21, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • jim

        California does allow CCW but it is difficult to obtain. Feinstein, as I understand from one of her speeches, no longer has a CCW.

        ALso..Gifford's husband recently obtained a CCW permit.

        March 22, 2013 at 4:52 am | Report abuse |
  10. sheeple

    Go Ron Bruce!!!

    March 21, 2013 at 1:22 am | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Brandy M

    OK, here is how i feel, The government, the police, the civilians, everyone needs to look at the gun control, in many different aspects. I have 2 little beautiful girls, if anything ever happened to them i dont know what i would do, BUT, trying to say that banning guns, or even the capacity of the clips will make this country any safer , does not make sense, really think about it, Is it legal to kill people? was it legal to take a gun into the schools or the movie theater? NO do you think that the people that do these things care about the laws? NO so what makes you think that the people that do these things will care about the new laws you people try to pass? all these laws will do is make the law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves from the criminals that wont listen and that still have 30, 50, 75 and 100 round clips. i agree that it should be harder for mentally ill people to obtain weaponry, but if you agree with piers morgan that you are like him, Mentally Disabled

    March 21, 2013 at 1:33 am | Report abuse | Reply
  12. Penny Howe

    why do you insist on perpetuating the thought that the Sandyhook shooter used an AR15 He only used hand guns to kill those children so don't blame the AR15 for that slaying.
    and in Washington state there is always a background check and waiting period for hand guns,but should be for all guns ..
    I think everyone should have to take a gun handling course and background check before they can purchase a gun....

    March 21, 2013 at 3:18 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • madamdeb

      What are you saying? Of course he used the AR-15. How can you be so obtuse? Please do not comment unless you know the basic facts about the issue.

      March 21, 2013 at 3:31 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Anthony F.

        He had an AR-15 but didn't use it! He might have in a few more minutes but his killing spree was carried out by handguns! Again, why is everyone overlooking handguns? Everyone is on a "witch hunt" for AR-15s but allowing hand guns to slip by! Its this kind of misguided information that always gets both sides into trouble!

        March 21, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • FromCT

      Way to say it Penny, you are 100% correct in your statement. The fact of the matter is that the long rifle didn't do the killing that we are being told it did, ask the first responders yourselves when you come to Connecticut. Hand Gun shells found at the scene of the crime to kill those innocent kids and teachers, but most wouldn't know this because the records are now sealed and it's now months behind us with reporters like PM misinforming and skewing the truth to the public. You've all been duped by once again, believing a corrupt media. This is nothing more than a grab for your rights piece by piece. Laws won't change a thing, listen to the parents who have spoken up about this from Connecticut, Colorado, etc. The only thing that will heal the problem is fixing the moral collapse of our society, which is in a drug induced coma listening to all the inaccurate news coverage from both left and right, different teams but the same hidden agenda.

      I also happen to strongly agree with Penny on background checks, that is as long as media doesn't expose your information to the masses like they did in Westchester County New York. I guess the human species will never learn from past experience. Give up your control, give up your rights to a greedy and corrupt Government and eventually it will work against you. The gears are already turning unfortunately.

      March 21, 2013 at 3:40 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Anthony F.

        Well said "Penny" and "FromCT"!

        I agree totally, the far right and far left are both the problem and everyone in the middle suffers!!!!!!!

        March 21, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joel

        Correct me if I am wrong. I believe the record shows that Lanza used the AR15 to kill others,then killed himself with a handgun. The Aurora shooter used an AR15.

        March 22, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • madamdeb

      Most of us have been following this story and the first reports have been corrected over and over again. He killed those kids with the AR-15. He then shot himself with the handgun. The long rifle was in the trunk the whole time. Here's the police report:

      Seized inside the school:
      #1. Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine
      #2. Glock 10 mm handgun
      #3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

      Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:
      #4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

      The shooter used the Bushmaster .223 to murder 20 children and six adults inside the school; he used a handgun to take his own life inside the school. No other weapons were used in this crime. This case remains under investigation.
      Lt. J. Paul Vance

      http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

      March 21, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • J Shapiro

        Well said madamdeb,
        and the actual truth too instead of NRA's lies.

        March 22, 2013 at 6:35 am | Report abuse |
      • Ichiro

        Hey, Ros! still not convinced that guns can be good?

        March 22, 2013 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
      • FromCT

        I said it before and I'll say it again, you can't believe everything you read on a website, especially one with a .gov extension. Ask the first responders about the casings they found there that day, not Lt. Vance who couldn't even give us a straight answer as to whether or not there are cameras in the school. Asked if there were security cameras in the school. I believe the simple question was "were their cameras in the school" and his answer was "I'm unaware of whether or not there were cameras in the school". Poof, just like that no one ever asked again or brought this up.

        It's a yes or a no question, not a non committal answer. That's like saying do you have a red car? Gee, I'm not sure, I'll have to check my garage.

        March 22, 2013 at 10:55 am | Report abuse |
      • madamdeb

        In response to fromCT: I guess I don't understand your point. Doesn't the Bushmaster leave bullet casings? Secondly, not to sound too snarky, but I tend to believe the official report from the state agency over someone I don't even know on a comment board. And, in 20 or more years of Internet use, .gov sites have been very useful and always provide the most recent information available.

        March 22, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • FromCT

        Yes, but there is a difference between 223 casings and 9mm casings, that's my point. 223 bullets will completely penetrate whereas 9mm will not contrary to what the coroner has told everyone. Believe what you want and whatever you read. I never said you had to believe me, I just live in the adjoining town and know many folks from the immediate area and have neighbors who work at the school system, keep believing what the media and gov feeds you, why not, the rest of the country seems to swallow the same exact pill.

        March 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • madamdeb

        What would be the reason for lying about the guns that killed those kids? And whatever he used for the massacre, at least one kid had 11 bullet holes in him/her. That's some powerful and fast hardware, whatever it was.

        March 22, 2013 at 8:40 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Kevin

    So...we're gonna ban clips that carry more than fifteen rounds because it'll give someone who is being shot at a split second to karate chop the bad guy!?! That's the dumbest, most unrealistic, Hollywood dreamt scenerio that could happen in the furture of which I have ever heard. Piers...you're an idiot.

    March 21, 2013 at 3:35 am | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Lee

    After Mr. Morgan finished his dialogue with the policemen, that hack (Piers) concluded by saying "Shame on America." Let me just say that if the anti-gun crowd could focus on making laws against criminals and not against the law-abiding citizens of America. they might get somewhere.

    March 21, 2013 at 4:31 am | Report abuse | Reply
  15. max

    its the little things that say a lot right. lets show dead kids he calls for, and each of the men were let talk, tell he got to the one that said its the movies, its the games, the kids see to much they feel nothing and he is cut off. and he moves on to give the other person more time to talk. let take away guns but banding blood killing movies no way Morgan would be never say that what a chicken he is to up set his little money hunger low life hollywood jerks.

    March 21, 2013 at 4:37 am | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Jon

    The killer practiced tactical reloads and learned to transition to a handgun he didn't even fire all of the rounds out of the magazine before he reloaded 2 seconds would not have made a difference and these cops know it. shame on them. they are ignoring the facts it is different because every situation is fluid the level of training this killer had he was focus on creating maximum damage. How would two seconds make a difference for unarmed school children and teachers with no weapons? There were no cops there and when they got there he killed himself.

    March 21, 2013 at 8:51 am | Report abuse | Reply
  17. Weapon of War Owner/Protector

    So, Piers, it's ok for law enforcement to use weapons of war against U.S. citizens? This is ok with you, huh? When the officer said he didn't believe citizens should own assault weapons, because they were weapons of war, I didn't see you inquire about when he'd be getting rid of his weapon of war? You know nearly every cop in a cruiser has an assault weapon, usually an AR-15, sitting right next to him. If I have to give up mine, are they giving up theirs, too? Or, will the country just become one big Police State? Good cops, go bad too, so perhaps they should have their guns banned too, since we'll never know which cop is going to go coocoo next! It would be worth it if it saved 1 life, right? Isn't this another unarguable fact? Remember that term? You tried to cram it down everyone's frickin' throat over the 2 seconds it takes to change out a magazine.... come on! Retard!... never go full retard!.. oops, too late for you! So listen up, if you're so worried and frightened by citizens of this country owning guns, then you'd better learn to get used to this idea, real quick, or better yet, instead of all your silly little threats about deporting yourself, why don't you actually do it! Get out! Because, Americans are never going to give up their guns! Ever! This country will revolt, first! I honestly think we're only 1 shot away from it right now. Are you prepared for it? Better start, because it's coming to a town near you! You'd never guess who owns a firearm, or 10! The neighbor next door, the perfectly normal looking guy down the street, are probably all packing heat and their weapons of war are all loaded up and ready to go at the very first sign of trouble. Time to high tail it out of town, Piers! I promise you, we'll sure have one huge goodbye party for you when you leave... this will be a party the whole country will never forget! Maybe we'll have a block party, too!.. and no, you're not invited!!

    March 21, 2013 at 10:19 am | Report abuse | Reply
  18. cr

    I think I prefer the notion of elected law enforcement officials, like the Colorado Sheriff interviewed last nigh, who serve to protect and uphold the const*tution, rather than those who are appointed to serve by politicians, and paid to enforce the laws made by their paymasters. I'm rather alarmed by the comment made by one of the CT's police chiefs last night that he would uphold whatever law is passed. Isn't this open to an eventual abuse of power? Conversely, elected police officials offer a final check against power abusing politicians.

    March 21, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Scare The Pilgrims

      ^5 been said many times, the captured war criminals of Nazi Germany plead they were just doing their jobs and they were put to death by the winners of the war stating we are doing ours. It hit me the same way. Sheriffs are who I call , not 911 that brings city police to my farm. 20 years of peace & not 1 call so far.

      March 21, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Ol' MacDonald

        Scare The Pilgrims has a farm,ee-i,ee-i,oh!

        March 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • cr

        There's something to be said for elected Sheriffs. Here's one speaking out about the stricter laws in NYS.

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRhuIxDkeKU&w=640&h=390]

        March 21, 2013 at 9:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • sm

        Cr, No you didnt put a vid of HANNITY "the witless' no no nooo. dude you and him are sooooooooo LAME. Ive lost all respect for you ( never had any for you anyway,HA!) watch FOX its a sinking ship!!!! especially mar 20, and 21st you all go go to demand and laugh!

        March 22, 2013 at 12:36 am | Report abuse |
  19. oneluvsurfer

    If MOST ALL OF US thought that Congress and the House should look at death photos, wouldn't the assault weapons ban have made it to the floor and have been passed?? Democratic Harry Reid recognized that most people aren't agreeing with the minority of idiots out there and didn't even bring it to the floor for a vote.

    March 21, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kevin Patrick

      Harry agrees with the minority of idiots wholeheartedly. He and his fellow idiots feel a ban will stop crimes from happening again. That is why he dropped the hot potato of a gun ban. He knows the majority would have killed the bill.

      March 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • oneluvsurfer

        He does agree with them. My point was, someone who agrees with the ban yet wouldn't put it even on the floor because he recognizes the majority doesn't agree with it.

        March 21, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Scare The Pilgrims

    Somewhere over the rainbow,,,,,,,,, Floating around on his little pink cloud,,,,,is the Ultimate Gun Banner .....

    March 21, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Scare The Pilgrims

    The Data Banks required to successfully perform Universal Background checks would take at least 18 months to construct and make active. We will be invaded by China by then demanding the Trillions we owe their country.

    March 21, 2013 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  22. Cris

    How come gun haters do not hate cars also and want them banned. PLEASE take a look at deaths by auto acc. for small kids or older kids compared to gun deaths, the differance is almost unbievable, but we (gun owners) never hear a word from you about car control no less auto ban. I know it sounds like a stupid statement but it is no less the same thing, death of children, which is your beef. Or you do not fight to get full roll cages, 4 point harnesses. You think a death by auto is just an accident and have to learn to live with that right. The problem I have with ALL OF THIS is where does it stop. Sometimes I just wonder to myself why don't the people who want total gun control just move to where they can live where someone tells them what they can own and what type of car they have to drive. MOST of all, WHY do we not have the right to vote on passing of gun laws, that one realy gets me. This is among one of the biggest rights fight in American history I think, but just my opinion. ONE last thing,,,,,,
    PIERCE MORGAN, he belongs to CNN, yes belongs, from what I can find on him he IS NOT a U.S. citizen and should not be able to use CNN to fight so hard on something and use CNN to push his own desires like he does. Reporting or making statements backed by CNN is fine, but read the fine print, THESE OPINIONS ARE NOT THOSE OF CNN. In closing, I am 100 percent in favor of sending Morgan back to where he is not wanted, and his fellow news person have said so, read about him, send him back to U.K.

    March 21, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  23. FM

    you 'd*mbmot*erfu*ker' Pierce Morgan: I'd like to see you with your "2 second chance "to try to disarm a criminal before he reloads and blow your ugly 'fa6-a*s-away'. I'll tell you what I'll give you 10 seconds, how is that? My point is , if you are unarmed and criminal holds a gun, he can take his sweet time and reload. From 10-20 feet away he would reload before you could take 2 steps toward him ....

    March 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  24. Cris

    I like the comment someone made that, IF YOU had no guns and someone shows up to your house with a gun to take your life or a loved one what is the first thing you do? Call the police so they can come with there guns with LOTS of bullets, someone exsplane to me how that makes things better for an unarmed or unprepared law biding citizen, think about that one you gun and magazine haters. YESSSS send Morgan HOME to U.K.

    March 21, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Give Us A Kiss

      Hi Cris,I know you inherited our language, it's not your own,so I'll respectfully point out 'exsplane' is spelt 'explain'.

      Yours Pedantically,Bonnie Prince Charlie.

      March 21, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tom K

        Don’t you have a better thing to do than pointing out a typo? Don’t tell me you have never ever misspelled a word... we all have. Your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation. It just makes you look silly.

        March 21, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse |
  25. shepherdgregory

    Dear Tom,

    Please have a gander at couple of longer comments under section on not releasing photos(seen a casket,full-size photo,
    from a Connecticut mortuary.Heartbreaking.Another 19 of them–Scotland's had this twice:1695 and 1996).

    March 21, 2013 at 8:50 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tom K

      Are you talking to me?
      If so, which comments are you suggesting that I read?

      March 22, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • shepherdgregory

        Dear Tom K,

        Two towards the very bottom,main one response to talking German[W W 2 stuff:sinking of Bismarck,bombing raids on Scotland].Cheers.

        March 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tom K

        Okay, those comments were in a different thread, I had a bit of a hard time finding them.
        Anyway, I wasn’t implicating that you can’t engage in an intellectual conversation – I really don’t care if you posted other comments that explained Einstein’s general theory of relativity – it still does not reverse your immature behavior of mocking someone for just misspelling a word. I just thought that was a 5th grader thing to do (unless someone misspells the same word for the 10th time, and I may correct him too, but no need for extra ridiculing), and doesn’t advance the debate in a positive way. That’s all I wanted to say. Peace, bro.

        March 22, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • shepherdgregory

        Thanks for getting back,Tom.

        My reason for reproaching him was he was the umpteenth person to request he goes home,and I can understand that seeing as his reputation precedes him with me,and he does rub people up the wrong way(can't watch the show as in UK,but a lot of folk say he talks over them):I wonder if the xenophobia stops him from reading the comments sections(I suspect he doesn't);at the very least it has the effect of everything we say thrown back at us,and we've been here before–Dunblane's a nightmare.

        March 22, 2013 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
  26. thaNorthStar.com

    so 2 secs makes a difference- so lets give the disadvanatge to the lawful guns owners who will be the only ones who follow that stupid law thats also illegal per the const+tution

    March 21, 2013 at 11:43 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  27. Ichiro

    Just for argument’s sake, let’s assume " 2 seconds makes a difference”. Doesn’t it go both ways? If a grandma (120 lb, 80 years old) runs out of ammo after firing 7 shots missing a few times, an only lightly wounded assailant with a knife (200 lb, 20 years old) can take advantage of the 2 seconds and overpower and kill her while she was trying to reload... Remember, the home invasion in Georgia, after receiving 5 shots, the criminal managed to flee the house in a vehicle. What if there were two intruders, the woman and her 9-year-old twins could have not survived the attack!

    March 22, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tom K

      Or what if the criminal had a gun also? If we couldn’t successfully incapacitate an armed attacker or attackers with the number of the bullets that the government thinks we should have, we could end up dead!! Are all those antigun politicians really that stupid and never thought of that possibility???

      March 22, 2013 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  28. Joel

    Thank you for your diligence on this gun safety issue, Piers Morgan. I feel you're doing a great service to our country as well as the world to spearhead the issue on television.
    I just wanted to come to the board on behalf of my mom, brother, and myself and say that as an American, I'm extremely offended watching these American gun lobbyists and the like coming on TV and insulting you to your face as well into the public's eye for being British, as if that's a bad thing. There is an obsessive talking point that is frankly disgusting and smells of small-minded racism that is decidedly anti-British, and obviously the point of it is to attempt to dilute what you're trying to say. Makes me sick to my stomach. But I appreciate how you respond with grace and don't play into that hate tactic. Thanks in advance for keeping the conversation going. We can't let that so-called Connecticut Effect die out like they are insidiously hoping for, not this time. Kind regards.

    March 23, 2013 at 3:41 am | Report abuse | Reply
  29. Irene

    How could anyone who is FOR “saving lives” be anti-gun? (To me, anti-gun means anti-self-defense.) More people are saved every year by the usage of a gun than victimized. 800,000 vs 10,000... Isn’t it clear when you compare the numbers?

    Here’s an article that was introduced by another thoughtful pro-gun poster in another thread that I think everyone can learn something from. This psychiatrist’s analysis on anti-gun mentality is intriguing. She rephrases the term gun-control, “victim disarmament.” And yes, that’s what our governments (both at local and federal levels) are trying to do, which is very unnerving to law-abiding citizens!

    Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

    March 23, 2013 at 10:13 am | Report abuse | Reply
  30. Thomas L Heath

    What do a fork, a car and a gun, have in common? It takes a person to operate all three. You don't blame the fork for obesity problems. It takes a person. You don't blame the car for drunk driving. It takes a person. So why blame the gun for gun violence? It takes a person.

    March 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mary Ann

      A fork is for eating, a car is for transportation, an AR-15 is specifically designed for killing.

      March 27, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tom K

        an AR-15 is specifically designed for effectively incapacitating multiple attackers and saving your life and others’. It all depends on who uses the gun just like anything else.

        March 27, 2013 at 8:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Eugene
        March 27, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Joe Brown

    Does "cm" stand for small mind? There is 100 million gun owners in this county, which way do you think they are going to vote? I have voted for Dems my whole life but that will be changing next November, they make me sick now! So cm we will see who gets voted in but it's the Dems that are running scared!

    March 23, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  32. Scare The Pilgrims

    "How To Street Fight With A Pistol" by Wayne R. Lippert , learn to use barricade cover, What barricade cover stops bullets, 50 pgs. Learn to shoot in the dark. Can handle this extreme high stress. 280 pgs. 440 photos.
    Fair Winds Inc. Box 2987 , Ferndale , WA 98248 1-360-384- 0954 COMBAT HANDGUNS June issue 1983
    I'm older than you Piers, My father joined the U.S. Army at age 16 Piers. I'm that mans 1st born son Piers. So what is all this nonsensical garbage about Americans are too untrained to shoot and fight ??????????????????????

    March 23, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • shepherdgregory

      STP,Best Sobriquet Ever,have a look at the section after the grieving father spoke to Your Bosom Buddy,I've got a lot to say
      about you,and there's a reponse [Bald Eagle Turning Into Firebird] to a post from Piers–yes,the Man Himself–near the top.

      March 24, 2013 at 1:10 am | Report abuse | Reply
  33. Bill

    screw all the Cops!
    The law is the 2nd amendment and that says it alllllllllllllllll
    All American who own guns.....its time to defend ur 2nd an call ur reps.....and also time to vote these people out an time to send this british nazi home back to his own homeland and let us the True American defend his 2nd

    March 23, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  34. John

    he dosent have to like guns if he dosen't want to thats his choice. He better hope criminals dont watch his show and find out where he lives. Easy picking for them, since they know they wont get shot breaking in. Good luck buddy! Keep your guns loaded people. its going to be a tough fight.

    March 24, 2013 at 4:24 am | Report abuse | Reply
  35. Tom K

    I’ll answer Senator Dianne Feinstein’s question, “Do you need a bazooka?”

    Yes, ma’am, we do. IF the Mexican cartels ever start invading American ranchers’ land with bazookas and we couldn’t afford to station a military unit to protect each and single one of our ranchers, we should give them a bazooka and train them on it. It’s all about being on a par with the criminals who attack us, so we can successfully fight against them.

    March 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joel Stark

      Amazingly crazy scenarios used to justify no new gun control measures. Sanity and clear thought would make one realize that the chances of Mexican cartels invading US ranches with bazookas...and our own military and law enforcement not acting to protect ranchers are zero. Has it happened? No. I'm worried monsters from the planet Neptune will infiltrate our cities and can only be stopped by shoulder fired missiles.

      Seriously, Ranchers living near the Mexican border with no law enforcement in close proximity need protection. They should be able to own guns. Sportsmen,Hunters, people that feel they need a gun for protection should be able to own guns. I hear few that dispute that. I don't see any legislation on the horizon banning all guns. That said, stricter background checks, banning of assault type weapons, etc. should be issues most can find compromise on. I know, when the Martians land and take over they will use those foot in the door laws to take all of our guns away :)

      March 24, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tom K

        “Sanity and clear thought would make one realize that the chances of Mexican cartels invading US ranches with bazookas...”
        That’s my point exactly! So why in the world did Feinstein ask such a silly question?? You should doubt her sanity. And her proposal for a so-called assault weapons ban will take away high-cap rifles from ranchers. How is that morally right when we know those cartels have the likes of AR15s.

        “law enforcement not acting to protect ranchers are zero”
        Oh, I know law enforcement will act, but are their actions always 100% effective? Do they always come before it’s too late? .....I didn't think so. How can you support a ban that makes law-abiding good citizens vulnerable and gives the advantage only to criminals?

        March 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tom K

        BTW, IF monsters from the planet Neptune EVER start invading our airspace, we should all have RPGs. :)

        March 24, 2013 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
  36. Jody Deaderick

    Piers,
    Please ask these people that insist they have the 2nd amendment right to own a guns about my RIGHT to NOT own a gun and still feel safe in my country.
    I have an 88 year old Mother that says she doesn't want a gun, she weights 90 lbs. and wouldn't know how to use it anyway! Are we getting pressured by these people to get a gun to live in this country?

    March 29, 2013 at 1:42 am | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ichiro

      No one is telling you that you have to have a gun, right?
      Also, what if Amish people say they have a right not to get hit by a car or breathe clean air?
      And what if people who never fly say they have a right not to be fearful of another terrorist attack?
      Should we all stop driving and flying??

      March 29, 2013 at 2:18 am | Report abuse | Reply
  37. nmb

    We must stop the arming of the citizens of this country. Eventually...it will all be turned against law and order. It's
    already starting. Read the news!!! Yes...I am afraid.

    April 9, 2013 at 7:38 am | Report abuse | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.