Piers Morgan appeared on “The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special” this past weekend to talk about a wide range of topics, including gun control.
For all intents and purposes, Morgan hasn’t changed his tune. The British television host still believes that America should radically reform its gun laws and enact misguided policies like universal background checks and bans on black rifles and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
What has changed is Morgan’s tone. He seems to be less combative than he used to be on this topic, at least when talking with Shapiro in the video embedded above.
SEE ALSO: Piers Morgan to Trump on ARs: ‘Grow a pair, and ban them’
You may recall the first time these two sat down to debate the 2A. It was back in 2013 in the wake of the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Morgan was still employed at CNN, serving as host of “Piers Morgan Live,” and Shapiro was, then, the Editor at Large for Breitbart.com.
It was quite the clash. Morgan’s aggressiveness was no match for Shapiro’s wit. From the very beginning of that interview, it was evident that Morgan was crossing swords with someone who was not only not going to back down but was also going to call Morgan out for his pugnacity.
“You have been a bully on this issue… I watch your show, and I’ve seen it repeatedly, what you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, saying they don’t seem to care enough about the dead kids,” Shapiro said.
It was classic. The video went viral and, one can argue, it helped to solidify Shapiro, who now runs The Daily Wire, as a force to be reckoned with.
Anyway, back to the Sunday Special, Morgan once again made a case for banning ARs, suggesting that because they are the “preferred weapon” of active shooters they need to be outlawed. I’m tired of anti-gunners perpetuating this myth!
Handguns are the “preferred weapon,” if one wants to use that language. Handguns were used by active shooters in more than 50 percent of the cases from 2000 to 2015, according to the FBI. Rifles, of any type, were only used in 27 percent of the events.
Suppose Morgan gets what he wants and all ARs are banned and confiscated. Will mass shootings stop? Nope.
An honest debate begins with understanding the facts. Morgan claims to be informed but the more he talks the more it becomes apparent that he is driven by emotion rather than reason and the facts.
No gun ban is going to stop mass killings. Because mass killings aren’t dependent upon any one particular platform or weapon type. To eradicate mass killings we have to eradicate mass killers. It’s a people problem. Not a gun problem.
You’ll see in the video that Morgan can wrap his mind around that fundamental truth. He starts talking about the spike in knife violence across the pond and how the Britsh government needs to ratchet up “draconian” knife control to curb the attacks.
Yet, he can’t see the glaring flaw with this ban-happy approach, that even if all knives were prohibited and confiscated, criminals would fashion their own sharp implements or use baseball bats or table legs or whathaveyou to perpetrate violence.
Well said I agree 110%
One issue I take with the graph/statistics on firearm is Its description is implying that only one type of weapon is being used in each attack with pistols being the most powerful weapon used in shootings while it’s title is Active shooter events by weapon type. This adds up to 100% which is not possible since many of the major events had multiple types of guns in use. Either the title and description need to match that this graph represents the primary weapon that was the means of death/ injury or represent where the weapons were present as part of the attackers arsenal thus adding to more than 100% to indicate multiple weapons present in the attack.
Also, as far as I have seen there is no definition of what represents a mass shooting. Is that 2 or more people like the conservative tallies seen too indicate or is it a larger number. It would be nice to use the same measuring stick
I’ve watched Mr Morgan in several gun debates. His biggest problem is operating on a false premise.
He wants to compare smoking in public and the health concerns that generates to carrying guns in public places. The answer is simple, when you bring a lit cigarette near others, it physically infringes upon their health. Simply carrying a gun next to someone does not endanger their health anymore than carrying a pack of unlit cigarettes into a public place. Cigarettes compared to guns is apples and oranges.
You’re not banning people from carrying cigarettes, just from lighting them and thats the only comparison you can make, you have to take out a cigarette and light it up to be dangerous and you have to take out you gun and “light it up” for it to be dangerous. There’s no comparison.
There’s also no room for dumb reasoning and clumping all statistics of violence into one, gun violence, when much of that violence includes bad guys being shot by cops, by homeowners defending their lives, suicide, etc.
There’s also no logic whatsoever in the premise of “banning all guns.” To ban guns is useless unless you have a way to then remove all guns. Thats a physical impossibility, therefore, you can not remove gun violence. If you can’t stop gun violence by making guns illegal, then, logically, you must find an alternate deterent to gun violence (gosh i hate that phrase) and the only way to deter gun violence without removing all guns is to arm everyone. If you suspect that everyone is armed, your surely going to think twice and three times before trying to pick a fight, kidnap, raped or otherwise terrorize another person because you very well may be shot for your effort. And that’s exactly the thinking of the forefathers, right up to places like Kennesaw, Georgia where everyone is *required* to be armed and where, subsequently, they have the least amount of gun violence per capita, per year.
Until anyi-gunnersstop attempts to legislate solely on emotional response and work with logic instead of against it, we’re banging our heads against the wall.
The examples Morgan uses are laughable. This moron has no clue about the difference between a real select fire military weapon and the semi automatic rifles that are legal for any U.S. citizen to own that RESEMBLE military firearms.
Comparing cigarette smoking to gun violence or the serious error in good judgement allowing a 9 year old to attempt to fire a submachine gun a with a 900 round cyclic rate is pure stupidity and has nothing to do with gun rights.
Hey Piers, here’s the bottom line: your former countrymen from the 1700s knew back then that the government cannot be trusted to act in the interest of it’s citizens. Only the citizen can do that. To say that passing a new law will somehow magically make up for the short comings of existing laws is not only delusional but infringes upon the rights guaranteed to Americans by the constitution. Stop trying to punish the majority for the murderous acts of a few!! They are the only ones who must suffer the consequences of their cowardly actions.
The Democrat party, plain and simply, wants to disarm America using any method, legal or not. Their single desire is to completely and totally control the population of this country. An armed society is comprised of citizens. A disarmed society is comprised of subjects. I refuse to be owned by a bunch of commies, elitists, and control freaks. Molon Labe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t agree with Mr. Morgan, but I will give him kudos for being willing to sit down with Ben and talk. What did not come up is a little inconvenience called the constitution. Complicates the hell out of things like confiscation. His idea that a “buy back” is somehow going to be effective is somewhat deluded. And it IS fundamentally confiscation because not everyone is going to comply without the use of force.
There are also other areas that cause a lot more carnage that I don’t hear anyone talking about. And these areas a something we could actually do something about. Medical mistakes, teenage driving deaths, the list goes on. But because guns are scary, we need to DO something about 400 deaths a year from a rifle. I am not saying it isn’t horrific, it is. But there is a lot of “low hanging fruit” that is being ignored is deference to this this unproductive debate.
None of the people agitating for AR bans is actually interested in reducing shootings. The “tells”: None of them has EVER asked “what weapon are used?”, None has EVER asked “How did they get that weapon?”, and none has EVER taken the whole number of killings, and asked “What can be done to reduce the total number of killings?” Instead we get ignorance and grandstanding on the bodies of children, and laws proposed that make an already illegal act illegaller.
The never ending push to ban “assault rifles” and magazines over 10 round capacity. What I don’t get, is if the anti’s want to ban high capacity magazines, then why ban the guns? If they get their way and only 10 round magazines are allowed, that should be the problem. Not the guns. Am I right? Or wrong?
Piers must own stock in knife manufacturers and acid producers. Those two items are the methods of choice for murder in jolly old England.
Didn’t we get rid of the Brits 200+yrs ago.Why are they still sticking their noses in our business and telling us to give up our guns?Morgan needs to stay on his side of the pond and shut the fuck up!!!
ok, now that’s funny and so true!