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 29th, 2013
12:48 PM ET

"Piers Morgan Live, Rewind": Piers and his panel debate assault weapons, Richard Feldman says blame the gunmen, and Grover Norquist on less government definitions

Whether you fell asleep early, stayed out too late, or simply want to watch it again, we realize it's not always possible to get your entire "Piers Morgan Live" fix from television. As an answer to this, we offer the below labor of love – "Piers Morgan Live, Rewind" – dedicated and designed to getting you caught up and connected to the conversation.

  • Keeping up with Jones: Van Battles Dana Loesch

Amidst the release of new details from the December 14th mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Thursday evening Piers Morgan invited a trio. of insightful and energized guests to share their specific positions on gun legislation and assault weapons.

"There is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms. I do not own a military-style assault weapon just because of what - a firearm looks scary? Then you call it military assault?," wondered Dana Loesch. "Do you realize that one of my children has a BB gun that looks like an AR-15? Is that going to be considered a military style assault weapon? It sounds silly and uneducated."

After hearing Loesh surmise that something as seemingly harmless as a spoon could technically be considered an assault weapon, Van Jones jumped in with his objection:

"This is the conscious strategy on the part of the pro-gun folks to constantly bring things back around to things that don't make any sense," said the CNN contributor and former Barack Obama White House official. "You're talking about people stabbing people with spoons. If that was a problem we had in America, people stabbing people with spoons, we wouldn't be talking about this right now."

  • Loesching Out: Dana Misinterprets Morgan

  • As the segment continued, the intensity only raised, as Loesch attempted to turn the tables, and began asking questions of the host:

    "I'm just trying to establish where you draw the line. Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?" asked the Conservative radio personality, within the context of a debate on magazine capacity.

    "I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America," came the host's response.

    Misinterpreting Morgan's statement, Loesch drew an inaccurate conclusion:

    "So you do believe in disarmament, then," she declared. "Thank you. That's the answer that I wanted."

    But this was an assumption that Morgan was not going to let slide:

    "When did I say disarmament? Wait a minute. You talk about conflating the argument. Dana, when did I say disarmament?"

    • Feldman: Blame the gunmen, not the guns

    Meanwhile, prior to his energized discussion with the likes of Loesch and Jones, Morgan also engaged in a more civil conversation with Richard Feldman.

    The president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, Feldman looked to promote the theory that the guns themselves aren't to blame, but rather, those firing said guns:

    "If you double the number of guns owned by people who aren't misusing them, it's going to have no impact. And if you just add a few hundred guns in a community where the people are going to misuse them, you have terrible tragedies in ones and twos. If we focus clearly on the problem which is never the gun per se, but is always in whose hands are the guns," said the former NRA Operative. "You don't need a firearm to cause horrible tragedies. A gallon of gasoline can cost the lives of 100 people or more. We have seen it in Brazil. We saw it in the Bronx in the 1980's. The Happy Land fire, one gallon of gasoline, 87 people were killed. You don't need a gun if your intent is to cause mayhem.

    • Grover on Government: Norquist would like less

    Additionally, as part of the segments which featured Loesch and Jones, last night "Piers Morgan Live" also welcomed Grover Norquist.

    Generally joining the program for his financial and taxation expertise, in this instance the topic was same-sex marriage, and the right for the courts to intervene:

    "Once you get the government into defining something, they're going to mess it up. Marriage for a lot of people is a religious sacrament in any of the Abrahamic faiths," noted the "Americans for tax reform" president. "So I think there are a number of laws that the government's got itself into that we need to extricate it. If the government was less involved in marriage and defining it and regulating it, we might be better off, everybody."

    For the next edition of "Piers Morgan Live," watch CNN every night at 9.
    -
    » Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Twitter
    » Follow "Piers Morgan Live" on Instagram

    soundoff (78 Responses)
    1. Radional Liberal

      When is Mr. Morgan going to go after the thousands of daily abortion deaths with the same vigor?

      March 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • thaNorthStar.com

        piers could focus on the probs of his own country like :
        In Britain each year, an official estimate is made of the “excess winter mortality” – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country.

        its no joke either. he should get off his high horse . walk the walk if he cares about precious lives so much

        March 30, 2013 at 10:02 pm | Report abuse | Reply
        • Sam Matterson

          You are sooooo right!

          Piers Morgan is just an ignorant ass about how we live in the USA, doesn't he get it, that is why we want to be free, our rights, does he remember the history of the Revolution War, we were tired of the tyranny of the Government. Today, it is coming to that again, with Obama in office and trying to take our rights away and bankrupt this country at the same time.

          Shame on Obama.....

          April 1, 2013 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
    2. Nae

      30,000-35,000 people DIE in car accidents EVERY YEAR and 2,000 of them are CHILDREN. If we send you thousands of pictures of the children whose innocent lives were lost in car accidents, will you host AT LEAST ONE SHOW addressing the road safety, IMPLORING the audience how we must do better?

      Oh wait, car accidents are not nearly as JUICY as gun violence, won’t help the RATINGS, so you won’t do it, will you?

      March 29, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • rpm

        Nae, what in the " H" is it with you and the cars, accidents, etc. NO COMPAIRISON! Weak, weak,weak. Please Get off It1. Driving is a privelidge, you want to go there. You are held responcible for your car and neglibance if such! How many people in this coutry think, Yeah, Im going to run over somebody today and kill them for fun, @ people in a tree year span. how many gun deaths are there? I'll remind you Nae 13,000!

        March 29, 2013 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse | Reply
        • Nae

          It is illogical to fixate on guns when cars kill PAINFULLY WAY WAY more. I’m only saying that if we had more discussions about stricter traffic laws instead, we can save “many many many more” than banning AR-15s. You really want to save lives, or you want to save ONLY gun victims?? Or you just want to get rid of scary looking guns, because they scare you...

          You are not scared of the fact that we lose roughly 90 LIVES EVERY SINGLE DAY in our country by car accidents... Yet you are scared of the fact that so-called assault weapons have caused average 42 deaths a year? (Sen.Feinstein. said 350 deaths have occurred since the ban was lifted on Sep.13, 2004)

          And getting rid of those guns would only make the attackers choose different methods to carry out the atrocities, so how many do you really think we can save by banning them? And don’t you think the ban will create a thriving Black Market? so only criminals will have them?

          March 29, 2013 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • Eugene

          rpm... the number “35000” is greater than the number “13000”... you understand that, don’t you? I hope?

          March 29, 2013 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
        • ThaNorthStar.com

          The only thing that car deaths & gun deaths have in common is in a free society some people cant handle the responsibilities that come with doing & having anything they want, so they misuse some products & other people can get hurt &/or killed. Thats the price we always have had to pay for freedom & its alway been -& always will be- worth the cost compared to the alternative.
          You just have to be prepared in case you encounter someone like that whether its a drunk driver, a speeder, someone who runs redlight, a criminal with a gun, or cops in CA looking for a murder suspect driving they same vehicle as you who will open fire on you for no reason, someone mentally disturbed with a weapon ect ect

          But only 323 people were killed with any type of rifle in 2011 while 496were killed by hammers/clubs according to the fbi in the entire country. so lets not go overboard here banning objects that dont murder anyone when its actually the intent of the person that is causing the deaths

          March 30, 2013 at 6:26 am | Report abuse |
      • daniel

        Lets do a little comparison here. Without even checking the numbers we can pretty much assume there are way more automobiles on the road than there are guns in homes. In addition, the amount of hourly USE the average automobile receives yearly is at least 10,000 times more use than the average gun sees. The main purpose of a car is to get from point A to point B. The main purpose of a gun is to violently put holes in things. If you handle an automobile according to its designed function, no one gets hurt. If you handle a gun according to its designed function, especially an assault weapon, someone almost always gets hurt. That's what its made for.

        March 30, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse | Reply
        • Nae

          Again, the “guns are deigned to kill and cars are not” argument, as if other things if not designed to kill, it’s okay for them to kill people. How does it matter if the killing was intentional or not?! Once you are dead, YOU ARE DEAD. Is one death any less dead than the other? Are you by any chance saying gun victims and car accident victims are different? If so, could you explain why and how they are different? A friend of mine’s 7 years old daughter was killed by a reckless driver and the family’s grief was unbearable for me to watch... so please explain why his daughter’s life is “different” from that of Sandy Hook victims... Your heart (so is mine) bleeds for the 20 children who died in the shooting, but you ignore the 2,000 children that die in automobile incidents every year? Because their deaths are “different” from gun victims’ and deserve less attention??

          “there are way more automobiles on the road than there are guns in homes. In addition, the amount of hourly USE the average automobile receives yearly is at least 10,000 times more use than the average gun sees. “
          -- YES, that is why we need more regulations and restrictions on driving!! You are making my argument for me.

          March 30, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • Tesla

          Actually, the numbers of guns in the U.S. and the number of passenger vehicles are about the same. Additionally, depending on how you define use, guns can see use almost as often as cars, by way of hunting, home defense, sport shooting, and pest control.

          The comparison between guns and cars is extremely valid. The primary points I have heard in defense of cars is that they are not designed to kill people and that we already have laws in place to punish people who use them irresponsibly.

          First, the fact that they are not designed to kill and still kill more people than firearms of any kind, let alone "assault weapons," actually defeats the argument immediately. I have to be blunt about that.

          Second, the existing laws regarding vehicles are very similar to the existing laws regarding firearms, in that both will punish misdeeds, but trust operators to be responsible. Suggestions put forward for firearms laws would be on par with mandatory hardware limitations on vehicles, such as speed limiters, breathalyzer ignitions, Faraday cages to block cell phone use, and the complete banning of entire classifications of vehicles, such as sports cars and sport bikes.

          In fact, it would be something like the complete ban on alcohol years ago, when legal businesses were shut down, arbitrary limitations were put on every citizen, and alcohol still flowed freely due to a criminal black market that exists as soon as bans are placed on something.

          But what do I know? It's not like history supports me or anything.

          March 30, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Richard T

        Nae, guns are designed for either target practice and/or for killing. Cars are not designed for either.

        The types of weapons we are talking about here, and I really don't care what you call them, have the capability, with high capacity magazines, to shoot multiple bullets in a very short period of time, thereby injuring and/or killing many people in a very short period of time.....on purpose. I have heard doctors claim that if you are shot by a rifle or a pistol, you have a much better chance of survival than you do if you are shot from one of these other types of weapons.

        You can say that you'll die from gunshot wounds of any type of gun, but that isn't always true. Further, from the description of some of the dead being taken out of Sandy Hook, with flesh just ripped off of bodies, hanging down the sides of heads, etc., can you imagine the emotional damage inflicted upon those little kids who survived? I can well imagine that the while the emotional damage is very bad for even someone shot with a single bullet from a shotgun, it is far, far worse than the emotional damage caused by seeing someone ripped open, flesh hanging down their sides, by multiple bullets. And, because of the nature of these mass murders, there are multiple deaths of this nature that unfortunately, these poor little kids who survive have seen.

        March 31, 2013 at 1:42 am | Report abuse | Reply
        • Nae

          Again, why does intent matter so much?? The horrific end results are the same. Your loved one is gone!! And that happens WAY MORE OFTEN with cars than with guns!! Emotional damage? You think the families of car accident victims don’t suffer emotional damage when the small body of your child was run over by a 3,000lb metal object and got the little head crashed???

          Guns also PROTECT LIVES. I don’t own an AR-15 or anything of the kind, 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. If someone was attacked by multiple intruders all armed and he only had a gun with 10 bullets causing him to lose the fight and he and his family were killed, would you say “oh sorry, bad luck, at least his gun couldn’t be used by others to commit a mass killing, so it’s better that only a few people died instead.” ????? By the way, he may be protecting his CHILDREN too!! Why would you prefer a good civilian be under-armed against criminals, putting him at a disadvantage??

          And I think there’s a good possibility the sight of military style rifles 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 31, 2013 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
        • Tesla

          “Nae, guns are designed for either target practice and/or for killing. Cars are not designed for either.”

          This is important why? Death is death. The fact that one is “designed to kill,” and one is not does not negate this. We are simply talking about inconveniencing a privilege that you care about in the same terms you use to try to inconvenience a const!tutional right that we care about.

          “I have heard doctors claim that if you are shot by a rifle or a pistol, you have a much better chance of survival than you do if you are shot from one of these other types of weapons.”

          First, what doctors? I would like to know so I can never take medical advice from them. Second, you do realize you’re talking about a rifle or a pistol when you talk about “assault weapons,” correct? In fact, the chances of an unarmored human being living through getting shot by an AR-15 chambered in .223 is much higher than their chances of living through any pistol round more powerful than a 9mm, and is certainly higher than their chances of living through very common rifle rounds such as the .30-06, .30-30, .303, or .308. Just take a look at the Aurora shooting to prove that; 70 shot, 12 dead, most of those fatalities from the shotgun or handguns after the shooter’s magazine jammed? Boy, that AR-15 sure is lethal.

          “I can well imagine that the while the emotional damage is very bad for even someone shot with a single bullet from a shotgun, it is far, far worse than the emotional damage caused by seeing someone ripped open, flesh hanging down their sides, by multiple bullets.”

          You really don’t understand how common firearms work, do you? I hate to go all caps-lock on this, but A SHOTGUN USUALLY FIRES MULTIPLE PROJECTILES! Standard 12-gauge 00 buckshot shells carry 8-9 .32 caliber projectiles, each capable of causing grievous wounds. At close range, multiple projectiles can hit one target. The result on an unarmored target is ghastly. The result of multiple .223 impacts is actually much less so. It would seem that by your descriptions and actual ballistic data that the shotgun was more likely to be the weapon used during Sandy Hook.

          The truth with Sandy hook is that the high mortality was due to the teachers huddling the children into a confined space and cowering. Due to the penetration capabilities of any one of the firearms Lanza used, one shot could strike multiple targets in those tight spaces. How could this have been prevented then? Teacher hides the children, waits by the closed, locked door. If Lanza tries to get in, pull the rifle from his hands in a straight, jerking motion, then club him in the face with it or turn it on him and fire.

          You can choose to disarm yourself and cower, hoping that someone will save you if your life is threatened by anybody. You will die on your knees. I will take my life into my own hands, thank you.

          March 31, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
    3. Jeff

      Piers just won't let this go. For months now he's been using the same old tired arguments about having no gun deaths if there were no guns and then trying to say he's not for disarmament. He can't have no gun deaths without eliminating all guns. Why can't he be honest about his solution and wishes.

      March 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Richard T

        It doesn't matter whether or not Piers wants a full outlaw of guns. He probably does, but I will point out that not even England has a full ban on guns. There are a small number of legal gun owners.

        But, it really doesn't matter. Piers' point is that he, and many others, want tigher gun regulations. Why does it hurt anyone if all gun sales have a background check? Why? Sure, you can say that criminals won't go through background checks, but the Chief of Police in Baltimore who gave congressional testimony stated that background checks do help prevent a large number of gun sales; if there were more gun background checks, such as for every gun sale, then even more people who should not have guns would be prevented from getting them. Yes, they may then illegally try to obtain them, but that's another issue. Not all of them will try, and, for those who do, law enforcement needs to go after them.

        March 31, 2013 at 1:46 am | Report abuse | Reply
    4. brasstacs

      It was fun to see Dana Loesch kick the pompous Piers Morgan's a$$..You go girl.

      March 29, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    5. Fossy

      Why do you even have her on the show..she is playing to the part....she is like a child with no reasonable arguments and just stamps her feet. She is hot! but thats not the point 🙂

      March 29, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tara

        Liberals say they value women's rights...yet you describe this woman in less than appropriate terms. Shame on you sir. Shame on you.

        March 29, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Report abuse | Reply
        • Ainsley

          agreed!!

          March 29, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • ttm

          Yeah, agree with you two Dana is a heartless " BUNT" get it!

          March 29, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Report abuse |
        • Ainsley

          I can't understand... you say you believe in God and treat people in such a rude manner...

          March 29, 2013 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • Richard T

          I don't care what Ms. Loesch looks like; in fact, I don't think she is "hot."

          But I do care what she says, and what she says is incredibly stupid. She is a loud-mouth tea party person who shouldn't be allowed on shows like Piers has. She is a know-nothing. She is a well known name-caller who just likes to stir up trouble.

          She is from St. Louis (where I am from) and hangs out with some guy going by the name of "Gateway Pundit," and Gateway Pundit is a well known liar.

          March 31, 2013 at 1:49 am | Report abuse |
      • Anthony V.

        She has made very many point which are true. If you want to ignore them like I say ignorance can be fixed but there is no fixing stupidity. Sir your pretty stupid to the point of saying go educate yourself would be waste of effort.

        March 30, 2013 at 5:28 am | Report abuse | Reply
    6. Katie

      Loved Van Jones point about the pro-gun agenda equating assault weapons to things that just don't make sense. As clever as things sound sometimes, you have to investigate the logic behind it and sometimes say, "Did you really just say that?"

      March 29, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • thaNorthStar.com

        it was over his head & over yours.

        she wasnt talking about things that dont make sense, if your referring to the sp–n comment. she didnt start speaking about sp–ns she only was making a comparison. the HE started going on about sp–ns after she made the comparison.

        the point is, anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon. most people dont use rifles or sp–ns or hammers/clubs to assault anybody .

        however, according to the fbi, there were 496 club/hammer deaths & 323 rifle deaths in 2011

        so thats the point she was making thats its ridiculous to call them assault rifles & it only confuses uneducated people & makes them think rifles are something to be scared of.

        March 30, 2013 at 12:26 am | Report abuse | Reply
    7. Charles Domanski

      Mr. Morgan, I truly wonder why you left a perfectly safe and sane country to come over here to America and argue for taking guns away from everybody. If as you say, there are only about thirty five gun related deaths a year in the U.K. why would you put yourself in harms way by coming to a country that is so vastly more violent and murderous then your home country?? Do you, as I expect have a death wish? Or is it the fact that you make many times the money here as you did in Great Britain, and the real reason you are here is because you are a greedy old fool. I notice when you can't make a good comeback with a person you are discussing gun laws with you start calling them names and totally disregard all the facts that are presented to you. Personally, I think you are a phony pompous little man who can't take criticism. I am not a big fan of Jessie Ventura, but the applause he received when he asked who felt he made sensible arguments told the whole story. On his worst day, he make way more sense then you ever will. I really think you should go back to your home country and live your pathetic little useless life where you can feel safe, instead of staying here in the most violent country you know of and waiting for some crack head to take a shot at you. Be very careful, who ever it is that takes a shot at you might not miss. Then what would you do????

      March 30, 2013 at 12:17 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • cr

        But the overal homicide rate and violent crime rate in Britain are some of the highest in Western Europe. Despite the gun ban in Britain it's homicide rate is nearly 40% higher than some of its large gun owning European neighbors. On a per capita basis the Swiss privately own nearly 8 times as many guns as the Brits, and the French and Germans nearly 5 times as many. If guns were the problems these countries should have significantly higher homicide rates than the Brits, but they don't, they have some of the lowest rates in the world.

        March 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse | Reply
        • seth

          A gun is to a spear, like a pneumatic nail gun is to a hammer. It makes the job significantly easier, and it many situations it makes the job possible at all.

          Guns are a central part of the overall problem.

          In a society where violence is so prevalent, enabling people with high efficiency killing tools is nothing short of pure unadulterated stupidity.

          Buy reducing the sales of guns, you weaken the industry of death.

          Today is Easter Sunday, thinking of Christ and how he lived his life. Somehow I don't think he would suggest supporting the industry of death and destruction. It just doesn't seem Christ like at all.

          March 31, 2013 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
        • Eugene

          “In a society where violence is so prevalent, enabling people with high efficiency killing tools is nothing short of pure unadulterated stupidity.”

          Well, in a society where violence is prevalent, disarming good guys is sheer stupidity. Guns are not gonna disappear from this country even if we had a total ban on them. (you wanna bet?) Haven’t you ever heard of ‘the black market’?? Thus, it’s better good guys outgun bad guys. Not the other way around.

          You anti-gunners are the ones who are enabling criminals by making their prey less able to defend themselves. If you are a burglar or robber, wouldn’t you love it if all the homes were gun-free?

          April 1, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • cr

          Yes I have just got back from church. To suggest as you have been doing throughout your posts that gun owners and the gun industry as a whole are evil suggest you are not as Christian as you purport to be.

          March 31, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • Tesla

          In a society where violence is so prevalent that the police cannot respond in time to prevent criminal actions, which allowed the Supreme Court to rule that the police have no duty to protect citizens or prevent crimes, only execute the law after the fact, the importance of responsible citizens remaining armed is vital.

          In a society that questions why it took 14 hours for a congressman to get the current administration to "promise" that it would not use military force against it's own people (an administration that has already executed an American citizen, guaranteed the right to due process, with a drone strike on foreign soil), the importance of responsible citizens remaining armed with proper weapons is vital.

          I appreciate your outlook, and I do believe that pacifism is a noble goal, but pacifism is a practice of non-violence that is protected by the killing and dying of others. Therefore, I'm afraid I must disagree.

          March 31, 2013 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
        • Ainsley

          The industry of death...?????? Seth, are you serious?? Without our gun manufacturers, who is going to provide our law enforcement officers necessary weapons to protect all of us?? Are you saying America should stop making guns and just buy them from overseas?? Don’t you know what happens when we are dependent on other countries to supply products something as important as firearms??

          April 1, 2013 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
    8. thaNorthStar.com

      none of this matters because we are const_tutionally protected to bear arms. heller case said guns that arent unusual cant be banned & since there is about 4-10 million rifles they arent unusual.

      & it doesnt matter what the majority thinks (altho most people are against a ban)

      the bill of rights is there to protect the minority when the majority is trying to take away their rights. why would we need bill of rights or const_tution if we just going with what the majority wants regardless of who is being oppressed?

      piers should really get off this, he is looking as pathetic as obama is now.

      obama gets on tv trying to use this tragedy & saying its for the kids in newton but everybody knows the legislation wouldve had no effect is stopping newton.

      its 1 thing to lie about how bad the economy is, but when you lie about little kids deaths its disgusting/immoral on an entirely different level.

      March 30, 2013 at 12:33 am | Report abuse | Reply
    9. thaNorthStar.com

      while everyone is wasting time bothering responsible law abiding guns owners,
      the track data from Syracuse university for 2012 enforcement of federal guns laws found out of 90 jurisdictions in the USA ,Chicago ranks 90th. Yea dead last. that’s people who shouldn’t have guns like felons & gangsters who are found carrying a gun but aren’t prosecuted. They also have the highest gun murder rates in the country. (side note: they have the most restrictive guns laws in the country in regards to letting law abiding have guns for self-defense)

      do something to stop that & you will see gun murders go down right away , it’s very sad that you all don’t care about real solutions that can be done right now.

      Facts are facts.

      Too bad some people chose to listen to people like diane fienstein who goes around saying there is no evidence that rifles have ever been used in self-defense & there are no reasons someone would need more than 10 bullets for self-defense in any situation. She is lying to you.

      March 30, 2013 at 1:07 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Chuck

        Why does New Orleans have [by far] the highest gun murder rate with lax gun laws?

        April 2, 2013 at 12:59 am | Report abuse | Reply
    10. publius11689

      Piers if you put me on your show I would be happy to debate this with you. I'm not a pundit, but you can have all the progressives and/or self avowed communists you want. I will still make you all look like fools.

      March 30, 2013 at 4:06 am | Report abuse | Reply
    11. brasstacs

      publius...I .would pay to see that, and I would be on your side cheering all the way..The truth is the gun grabbers have to use deceit and false propaganda for their gun grabbing agenda...And the facts and the truth will win every time.

      March 30, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • publius11689

        Yes I know. All you have to do is point out that semi-automatic rifles are not assault weapons and force him to answer the question is there more or less violent crime in areas with stricter gun control laws. Of course he will say, "Yes, there are fewer gun deaths.". At which point I will point out I didn't ask about gun deaths I asked about violent crimes. He will then either A. Tell a bold face lie on national television.(which he very occasionally does anyway) or B. Make his whole point moot.

        March 31, 2013 at 4:54 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • publius11689

        Also as was previously stated I could also just point out that there were 496 murders from blunt objects and only 323 from rifles. Are we to ban hammers now too?

        March 31, 2013 at 5:02 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • publius11689

        The thing is God made man and Samuel Colt made them equal. The thugs out there who will take advantage of the weak are discouraged when they have the thought in the back of their head that, no matter how big or strong they are, a gun will even the odds REAL quick.

        March 31, 2013 at 5:10 am | Report abuse | Reply
    12. dagwud

      Earlier in the discussion (not included in the clip above) Piers argued that the US has "18,000 gun suicides a year" and that countries like the UK have "negligible gun deaths."

      Possibly true. However, as for suicides, the UK has 11.8/100,000 population. The US has 12/100,000. That suggests that the "pretty strict gun control laws" aren't having much effect on the suicides.

      March 30, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Ichiro

        You're right dagwud, Guns are not the cause of suicide.
        J@p@n is virtually a gun-free country. However, in 2009, the number of suicides rose 2 percent to 32,845 exceeding 30,000 for the twelfth straight year and equating to nearly 26 suicides per 100,000 people. Go figure.

        March 30, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse | Reply
        • cr

          Despite having no guns, J@p@n has the 2nd highest suicide rate on the planet.

          March 31, 2013 at 9:22 am | Report abuse |
      • seth

        Suicide Rate/100k Fact Check:
        UK: 13.9
        USA: 22.2

        To say that removing a gun from a suicidal person in the heat of the moment wont reduce the act is incorrect. Less guns=less suicides.

        http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/

        March 31, 2013 at 11:14 am | Report abuse | Reply
        • Ichiro

          Then explain the high suicide rate in J@pan.

          March 31, 2013 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
        • cr

          And countries like South Korea that tops the highest suicide rate in the world.

          March 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
        • dagwud

          Seth, I think you've misunderstood the WHO data, possibly because the page to which you linked isn't particularly clear.

          (17.7 suicides / 100,000 men) + (4.5 suicides / 100,000 women) = 22.2 suicides / 200,000 people = 11.1 suicides / 100,000 people.

          The WHO provides more information on a page other than the one to which you linked that summarizes US suicide rates since 1950. This page also confirms my understanding of the statistics. (1)

          The page to which you link compares 2009 UK data with 2005 US data. 2010 CDC data, which is the most recent available for the US, provides the following equation for a 2010 population of 247.5 million people over age 15.

          38,364 suicides / (247,519,000 / 100,000) = 38,364 / 2,475 "100ks" = 15.5 suicides / 100,000 people. (2)(3)

          Meanwhile, 2010 data for the UK from the Office of National Statistics provides the following information for the UK population over age 15.

          (17.0 suicides / 100,000 men) + (5.3 suicides / 100,000 women) = 22.3 suicides / 200,000 people = 11.15 suicides / 100,000 people. (4)

          I recognize that the above data contradicts my previous comment. I suspect that this is due to authors I used not recognizing that different statistics represent different portions of the population (e.g., "everybody" versus "everybody over 15"). Reports of many US statistics likely don't pay attention to that distinction and divide by the entire 308M people.

          Looking at these governmentaly provided statistics for 2010, the US suicide rate is 4.35 suicides/100K/year higher than the UK rate. So, yes, the UK rate is "better" than the US rate, but my question is whether restrictive gun laws really having much effect on suicide rates.

          Canada has more restrictive gun laws than the US, too, but their overall suicide rate is higher than the US, as are the rates in Sweden, Finland and Denmark. So the argument "less guns = less suicides" is not strongly supported by your data.

          Certainly, "removing a gun from a suicidal person in the heat of the moment" will directly affect that person. But that is direct "intervention" while my point is about "prevention" through gun restrictions.

          SOURCES:

          (1) http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf
          (2) http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide_datasheet_2012-a.pdf
          (3) https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0007.pdf
          (4) http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/suicides-in-the-united-kingdom/2010/stb-statistical-bulletin.html

          March 31, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • dagwud

          PS: My calculation for the US suicide rate of 15.5 is likely high, since the US data does not explicitly identify if the 38,364 suicides includes mortality for those under age 15. If it does clarify TOS, then I missed it in my reading.

          If the data is inclusive of child suicides, which I've come to think is the case, then the US rate would be 12.42 suicides per 100,000 population.

          This is one of the challenges with comparing international statistics. Different countries report differently on the same topic.

          March 31, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
        • dagwud

          Errata in previous comment – the suicide rate in Canada is NOT higher than that in the US. I misread a data table.

          April 1, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    13. Scare The Pilgrims

      FOR BEGINNERS: How To Start Handgun Self-Defense Trainng. 1. Get a stake 2×2 wooden 4 feet long. 2. Drive it in the ground with a rock
      3. put a 10" inch diameter Paper Plate on the top of the wooden stake with a thumbtack. 4. step back 10 feet from the stake. 5. Put a loaded revolver in your hand. 6 Stand relaxed, its just a paper plate, it won't shoot back. 7. Point the revolver at the paper plate like Clint Eastwood pointed his revolver at the fence post in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales. 8 . Shoot the revolver at the paper plate center like Clint Eastwood in the movie Dirty Harry when he shot that child killer on the football field flipping the maggot head over heels ( I love that one : ) ......... Now ,,If you didn't get scared of the gun , stop watching CNN and buy the book "In The Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob and live a normal life like Dana Loesch, because she is going to be around when Piers Morgan is long gone. FOR BEGINNERS

      March 30, 2013 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • seth

        I think I will pattern my life after the likes of Christ and Gandhi, rather than the outlaw Josey Wales.

        March 31, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse | Reply
        • Ichiro

          Then you think all the police officers and soldiers are just as wrong as gun owners for wanting to protect innocent lives, if necessary with a weapon?

          March 31, 2013 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
        • seth

          Soldiers and officers are professionals, operating in a well defined, well regulated context as deemed necessary by the majority of the people.

          Saying that ordinary people are just as equipped as soldiers is like saying an ordinary person with a knife should be able to perform surgery.

          Soldiers and officers are not the problem. The problem is everyone else, all of the non-professionals who think they are just as qualified.

          March 31, 2013 at 11:03 am | Report abuse |
        • Ichiro

          There are many police officers and sheriffs throughout the country who think armed good citizens are beneficial in reducing crimes and take a stand in support of the Second Amendment.

          March 31, 2013 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
        • Eugene

          “The problem is everyone else, all of the non-professionals who think they are just as qualified.”

          Well, then, the DMV should require all of us to be Jeff Gordon or Danica Patrick.

          March 31, 2013 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • Tesla

          "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." -Mahatma Gandhi

          March 31, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
    14. Richard T

      Piers, you really ought to keep these extremely stupid people off of your program. Ms. Loesch is a no nothing. She only exists to cause trouble. She just doesn't get it. As bad as it is, 7 deaths are far better than 30.

      I really cannot stand incredibly ignorant, loud mouth teaparty people like Ms. Loesch.

      So, please, Piers, do not invite her back into your program. If she is still some sort of employee of CNN, she needs to be fired.

      March 31, 2013 at 1:35 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Randy

        Piers, you really should quit your own program, you are just too stupid to have one.
        I really can't stand anit-Americans like Richard T. (your name is so fitting)

        March 31, 2013 at 3:39 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tn$

        Richard do you even know people can print their own 30 round magazines at home from 3d printers?
        I suggest you & everybody else go back to teaching people & kids how to handle the responsibilities of freedoms, & morals, bcz just banning everything hasnt worked & wont work.

        Are you 1 of the people who think its better to make yelling fire in a movie illegal instead of teaching people not to panic if someone yells fire in a movie?

        April 1, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    15. seth

      Automobiles are a necessity or modern life, guns are not. As stated all over this post, autos are designed to help people be more productive and save time. Guns are designed to kill.

      You drive a car to visit a loved one, or to go to work to make a living, you drive a car to "live" in modern times. You load a gun and pull the trigger to destroy something, to take life.

      Besides people die from old age very minute of everyday, this means guns are ok. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      Happy Easter🙂

      I wonder how many guns Christ would own?

      March 31, 2013 at 9:39 am | Report abuse | Reply
      • Ichiro

        “You drive a car to visit a loved one, or to go to work to make a living, you drive a car to "live" in modern times.”

        Yeah, but if you can’t protect yourself against criminals and get killed, none of those matters. Some people use a gun to be able to “live”.

        March 31, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Ichiro

        And I personally believe Jesus would fire M-16 if he had one, if he could destroy the demons who are about to devour innocent children with it.

        March 31, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Irene

        “I wonder how many guns Christ would own?”

        I’d think that answer may be “TWO.”

        Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." So they said, "LORD, LOOK, HERE ARE TWO SWORDS." And He said to them, "It is enough." Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

        March 31, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tesla

        You don't need to drive a car that can go over 85 miles per hour (highest speed limit in the U.S.). You don't need a car with more than 100 horsepower. You don't need a car that sacrifices fuel economy for performance. You don't need a car at all; public transport systems can be upgraded and you can work within their schedule, even if they are 20 minutes late, preventing you from visiting your friend in the hospital before they die due to their injuries sustained while being attacked by 4 criminals, each larger than them, over $50 in their wallet and an iPhone.

        Most importantly, you don't need a car because they are a privilege. However, firearms are a const!tutional right, and until the second amendment is repealed per standard procedure and law, it will remain a right.

        March 31, 2013 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Cathy Cato

        Deaths from old age are not avoidable or preventable. We are talking here about the preventable needless deaths that we can do something about to reduce the occurrence. Can you think a little deeper, please?

        April 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    16. seth

      ...ps Wondering if Dana Loesch and Ann Coulter are actually the same person with different wigs? Crazy times, .... crazy times.

      March 31, 2013 at 9:43 am | Report abuse | Reply
    17. Ichiro

      This is what won’t happen in my neighborhood.

      UK gun free zone, no guns allowed:
      "A 16-year-old boy stabbed to death with swords just 100 yards from his home begged for his life as a gang set on him like a “pack of dogs”, eye-witnesses have claimed."
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9831819/Sword-gang-were-like-a-pack-of-dogs-as-they-stabbed-16-year-old-to-death-in-central-London.html

      Both of my next door neighbors own guns. One is a former military officer, one is an avid hunter. If something like the above happens, my neighbors and I will definitely step in and save the boy. So, why having armed good citizens isn’t good for the society?

      March 31, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • cr

        And also the terrible murders of kids as young as a 11 years old being gunned down on the streets of Manchester and Liverpool.

        March 31, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Tedd

        All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

        April 1, 2013 at 10:50 am | Report abuse | Reply
    18. 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 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 31, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    19. JON E

      one viewing of this wanna be entertainer was more than enough CNN. Done. Do all your entetrainers and news reporters lie regularly
      or just to make a show?

      March 31, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    20. sm

      To Eugene ; ANY GUN DEATH IS A GUN DEATH ONE TO MANY< PERIOD!

      April 1, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse | Reply
      • Eugene

        SO IS ANY CAR ACCIDENT DEATH.

        April 1, 2013 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    21. oneluvsurfer

      Dana is one of my new favorite conservatives!!

      April 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    22. Galen Young

      Thank you for talking in depth about the NRA. I almost forgot the send in my monthly donation.
      Thank you again! Ta Ta, things to do.
      Galen Young

      April 2, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    23. Kelli

      I was so glad to hear the Piers will be leaving the country because the gun laws did not pass . Or is he NOT a man of his word?

      April 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm | 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.