Although Piers Morgan lost his job at CNN, and justifiably so, there are some who will continue to give him a microphone and allow him to satisfy his self-important attempt to be relevant. Unfortunately, most often, those who permit him the opportunity fawn over his every word. This is another of those times and I simply could not let it pass without rebuttal. The first 40 seconds is a caller berating Morgan, with some colorful language that some might wish to skip over.

So, let's, once again, pick apart Piers Morgan's weak approach to criticizing that which he does not understand. 

". . . nuclear scientist who thinks it's a good idea to take a loaded gun into Walmart and let her two-year old son pull it out and use it."

This is simply a plea to emotion, absent any factual basis. The key words here are "good idea," "let," and "use it." It's blatantly obvious NO sane person would ever think it a "good idea."  NO sane person would "let" (as in condone) a 2-year old do that. NO 2-year old is capable "using" a firearm. If one does access a firearm, it results in misuse. Incidents like these are rare, regardless of what Morgan would like you to believe. As a percentage of all U.S. deaths, accidental discharge of a firearm comprises 0.03%, at 851 total. The leading cause of accidental death, automobile accidents, comprises 1.38%, at 34,677. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

"To me, there's no hunter in all of America who needs a magazine of more than 10 bullets to shoot a deer, for example."

The 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and never did. The right to defend one's life and property is natural to man's existence. It preexists any government and any constitution. The 2nd merely reaffirms to government that it must recognize this and keep its hands off. Invoking hunting in any fashion is a straw man.

Morgan recites a list of things which are prohibited in the U.S.; Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs, 6 packets of Sudafed, most of the French cheeses. He's correct. Those things should not be prohibited and neither should magazine capacities. However, if he wants to rely on the Constitution to protect his 1st Amendment rights (also natural rights), then he cannot ignore the words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd. Doing so is disingenuous, an affliction common to Piers Morgan and other anti-gun progressives. For example, did you notice Bloomberg's recent call for minorities to be denied gun ownership? Gun control has its roots in Jim Crow laws, with many states implementing laws designed to prevent blacks from obtaining guns. Eugenics is also a progressive philosophy and what better way to reduce the numbers of "inferior" black people than to deny them the ability to defend themselves?

Notice that Morgan completely shut down and ignored the caller's argument that a person is more likely to be shot in states with stricter gun laws. Instead, he presented his straw man about where criminals get their guns, that fails to address the facts. To his straw man, all the guns originating in states with less strict gun laws are not leaving the state, to those with stricter laws. So, by his logic, the states with less strict laws should still have an exponentially higher firearm crime rate. They do not. 

The drunk driving fatalities justification:

1. The per se blood/alcohol count is at its lowest point ever (.08), yet since the mid 90's there has been a net increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

2. Morgan's use of DWI fatality statistics erroneously equates correlation with causation. It fails to recognize that the trend in reduced DWI-related fatalities closely correlates to the reduction in all traffic fatalities; a fact most likely attributable to increases in vehicle safety equipment. 

The top chart depicts the numbers of DWI-related fatalities per 100 million miles. The lower chart, all traffic-related fatalities.

Sure, to the ill-informed and gullible, Morgan's "points" appear valid, but just a small amount of logic, topical education, and research invalidates them all.