>> tonight, brink of war or bluster? north korea moves its missiles. washington calls it calm. who will blink first. remembering roger ebert. michael moore joins me to pay tribute to america's favorite critic who will always get two thumbs up from us. plus, guns, gays and pot. america's changing its mind about a number of things at the moment. will the gop? i'll ask newt gingrich where he stands. and the debate that may surprise you with outspoken unpredictable magic man, penn gillette, actor billy baldwin and conservative kelly ann conway. and what the hell's going on with justin bieber? we have advice for the teen idol from someone who has been through it before, lance bass. good evening.

this is "piers morgan live." a lot to get through tonight. we will start of course with the rising tensions in north korea. the eyes of the world are on that region tonight, looking at the demilitarized zone, no man's land between north and south korea. we learned today that the north may be planning to launch a mobile ballistic missile, possibly in a matter of days. that's according to a u.s. official who told cnn communications intercepts the plans. u.s. officials have seen movement in missile components over the last few days on north korea's east coast. those missiles could have a range of 2500 miles, enough to threaten south korea, japan and southeast asia. just how serious is the threat? joining me now is a man with strong feelings on all this, newt gingrich, the former presidential candidate, also robin wright of the u.s. institute of peace and former diplomatic correspondent. welcome to you both. robin, let me start with you. the question keeps being asked

how serious is this. we've had this kind of bellicose threatening from north korea as long as i've been alive. is it any more real now? is there a particular threat because we have a new young certainly unpredictable leader there, or is it just the same old stuff? >> i think you always have to worry about north korea. of all the countries on earth, it is probably the most unpredictable. it is the most isolated and it's hardest to deal with on a diplomatic framework. so its movements since december with the firing of a three-stage rocket with the third -- only the third time it's done a nuclear test in february, that you have to worry about any of the follow-up steps. and what is he trying to do. and the reality probably is kim jong-un is doing three things. one, he's flexing his military and political muscle at home, he's proving himself. the third in the political dynasty. he's also playing in the korean peninsula at a time when you

have a new leader, emerging in south korea who is also part of a political dynasty. and he's also jockeying in the international community. he wants something out of this. it's very unlikely that we'll see a major military confrontation, but does he engage in some kind of small, smaller scale provocation? that's quite possible. >> i mean, the real problem is it could just be a mistake. you get somebody who's young, inexperienced, wanting to impress, he does something a little bit outrageous and the wrong people react the wrong way. we could suddenly get a very serious escalation, couldn't we, robin? what happens then? >> well, it's always the wild card. and does he interpret what the united states has done as something that makes him worry even more and think he has to do even more, that we get this kind of gradual escalation, tit for tat, and it gets out of control. that's the real danger. that did not happen under his father and there is kind of a an assumption, i think, that a lot of this is bluster, that this is

trying to do things that have to do more with political, diplomatic and economic aspirations than it does with proving military superiority because the truth is that north korea is not superior militarily and the danger of any conflict with the united states is ridiculous. it doesn't have a missile that has the range to hit the united states and i think its range is actually smaller than you suggested. i think it's under 2,000, which would make it hard to even hit guam. >> robin wright, thank you very much indeed. let me bring in now former speaker newt gingrich. newt, you have seen this kind of stuff from north korea for a

thought has been how little this has to do with actually keeping kids safe. >> i mean, of all the facile arguments that wayne lapierre puts up against having any new gun control, the idea that criminals won't obey laws seems to me to be the most stupid, because if that was the criteria for any law in america, you wouldn't have any. you wouldn't have any drunk driving laws, you wouldn't have any, you know, under 21 ban on drinking or anything. you would just have the complete wild west, because criminals don't obey the law. am i wrong here? >> look, let's take the examples, and i hate to disappoint you, but let's take the examples of the recent cases. the young man in connecticut was using his mother's guns. explain to me how some kind of background check would have caught that. the young man in new mexico was, in fact, using his family's guns with his father's permission. so explain to me how a background check would have caught that. most of the young men in south side chicago which is the most dangerous place in america today, over 500 murders last year, they're not going to go get a background check. so i would start and say to you

there are steps you could take, when they had an operation trigger lock in richmond and they locked up felons, they brought down the murder rate very, very fast. i think it is possible to bring down violent crime very rapidly. ironically, this makes all the pro-gun control people go crazy, but the fact is in the states that have concealed carry, you increasingly have evidence that having honest citizens have the ability to protect themselves reduces the crime rate, it doesn't increase it, and it does it by a practical common sense standard which is criminals know it's a lot more dangerous to be a criminal. >> so are you against universal background checks? >> look, i think it depends what you mean by universal. >> call me old-fashioned, call me naive, but i don't understand why you can't have a system in america that has this appalling record of gun violence where we all know exactly who owns the guns and when there's a gun sale, we know who sold it and to

whom, because when you have 40% of all gun sales in america unchecked, they could be sold to anybody, complete nut cases, murderers, felons of any description, anybody. why would any rational person not want to know who is selling guns to who? >> first of all, under the current gun check system, we know that 70,000 convicted felons have tried to buy a gun. the obama administration has refused to prosecute them. so you have a system that actually picked up 70,000 people who are convicted felons trying to buy a gun inside the system. nothing was done. i understand there's this passion for somehow checking everybody every time. the question i would raise for you is you think any of the kids in south side chicago who are parts of teenaged gangs are going to go out and go through a gun check? >> but when you sell a car, newt, when you sell a car, you have to register it, you have to

know who has sold it and to who. why would a gun be deemed less significant for a background check than a car or registration? we register all sorts of things in this country. why not guns? they're the most dangerous thing out there. >> actually, i think cars kill an awful lot of people. but the objective fact is that in this country, if i were to buy a gun from one of my son-in-laws, do i go through a background check? what does that mean? >> yes. yes. you do. >> why? why? >> because i want to know, i want to know if you're a criminal, i want to know if you're mentally sound. sorry if again i sound naive but why the hell wouldn't i want to know that? >> okay. i think most americans would regard this conversation with amazement. this is a country -- >> i would want to know if you were mentally sound or a criminal when you buy a gun. why is that so crazy?

why am i the crazy guy here? >> no, you're the crazy guy here for a simple reason. we have a system already in existence. the system isn't working. we're finding 70,000 felons trying to buy guns. the government does nothing. what you're saying is let's expand the failed system. >> i agree with you about that. by the way, i'll go further. i think the president is full of hot air. he keeps going down to newtown and places like that, colorado, and saying all the right things, but at the same time, there's going to be no new assault weapons ban, there's going to be no ban on high capacity magazines and probably won't be background checks. the result after sandy hook will be zilch, absolutely nothing. just a lot of hot air. nra win again. >> in a lot of states, actually, they are moving towards protecting children by having people who are armed in schools and a lot of states are taking steps to move towards having honest people -- >> that's a great idea, isn't it? arm the teachers. 120,000 schools in america, arm a teacher in every one.

why do the nra want to do that? because it sells another 120,000 guns. then we have our kids going to school with guns everywhere. >> piers, even by your standard -- >> why are you laughing? that's what it means. >> that is an absurd comment. first of all -- >> why? >> -- the greatest gun salesman in american history is president barack obama. nobody has led to a greater increase in gun purchases than the obama administration. just look at the last five years. you have gun manufacturers working 24 hours a day, seven days a week to meet the demand. the fact is this president for some reason has spurred in the american people a desire to own a gun on a scale that the nra couldn't have dreamed of. i mean, he has been their most effective salesman. so let's be clear. they don't need to go out and hire people in order to buy guns. the question is, if you're in a world where somebody could walk in a school and kill an innocent child, shouldn't you have somebody who is decent and who is an honest citizen capable of

stopping that villain from doing something terrible? the nra released a report in the last day or two and they had people from newtown who were, in fact, supporting the idea that if you had had an armed person who was honest and a good citizen at that school, most of those children might today still be alive. >> okay. final question to you. u.s. catholic bishops today said that it's pro-life to ban assault weapons. you are a newly converted catholic. do you agree with the catholic bishops? >> well, i can assure you i'm going to read their reasoning and i'm going to try to understand why they took that position. i take the bishops when they take a stand very, very seriously. by the way -- >> let me explain to you. let me explain to you what they said. they said they want universal background checks, they want to limit civilian access to high capacity weapons and ammunition magazines, and to make gun trafficking a federal crime. all the things i've been calling for. these are our catholic bishops. i'm a catholic. you're a catholic.

do you agree with your own bishops? >> i think we could have a wonderful evening and we'll talk and compare notes on your position on right to life and my position on guns, and maybe during the course of the evening, we could have a catholic to catholic come-together and decide exactly how much each of us could support the bishops. it could be a wonderful show. >> let's have a catholic get-together. i like the idea of that, mr. speaker. nice to talk to you. >> good to be with you. coming up next, remembering roger ebert. director michael moore tells me how the great ebert changed his life.

>> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our

network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you

act right now. call the number on your screen now! roger and me is the right movie in the right place and the right time with the right sense of humor. >> big moment for young film maker, a thumbs up from roger ebert, america's favorite critic died today at the age of 70, just days after revealing his latest battle with cancer. this week, ebert wrote what would become his final words. i'll see you at the movies. joining me now on the phone is director michael moore, and the creator of "sneak previews" a show that introduced viewers to the team of siskel and ebert. welcome to you both. michael, a very sad day for

anyone that loves movies today. what was your reaction to the great roger ebert? >> well, it's very sad to hear of his passing, although he and others, myself included, knew that it was going to happen at some point. he had been battling various forms of cancer for a number of years, but he didn't give up. he kept working right to the end, and you know, he was such an incredible supporter of the underdog, the underdog film maker, the independent film maker, documentaries, foreign films. he and gene siskel brought the knowledge to the mainstream american public of films that otherwise people would have never heard of, and that was certainly the case for me. i really owe in some sense my career to him, because he was the very first person to write

about my very first movie. >> that's right. he said roger and me is the right movie in the right place at the right time with the right sense of humor. that was of course your brilliant expose of g.m. and its ceo, roger smith. great tributes today, one from steven spielberg who said roger loved movies, they were his life. his reviews went deeper than thumbs up or thumbs down. he wrote with passion through a real knowledge of film and film history and in doing so, he helped many movies find their audiences. robert redford said one of the great champions of freedom, of artistic expression and the power of independent films was still unknown and few would support it. president barack obama said michelle and i are saddened to hear about the passing of roger ebert. for a generation of americans roger was the movies. when he didn't like the film, he was honest. when he did, he was effusive, capturing the unique power of the movies to take us somewhere magical.

how important in the end was roger's thumb, because it became one of the most famous thumbs in critical history. he either gave you a thumbs up or gloriously, if you were a real triumph, two thumbs up, or a thumbs down and it could make or break a movie, couldn't it? >> yes. and -- but i think he was much more about the thumbs. that became an iconic thing for both of them, but he won the pulitzer prize. he was the first film critic ever to win the pulitzer prize for film criticism. he was a very smart man and he championed film makers that otherwise maybe wouldn't have had the backing. spike lee, all of his films, his early films. errol morris, the documentary film maker. ang lee. i can go down a whole list. myself included. he got behind our films and was an enthusiastic critic. when you say the word critic, it

implies that criticism is negative. well, the criticism can also be very positive and encouraging and supportive, and that's who he was to film makers like myself and these other film makers. >> first of all, my deep condolences at the loss of your great friend. you knew roger for over 30 years. it was your idea to put him together with siskel. how should we remember roger? how would he like to be remembered? >> i think that roger would like to be remembered as a real communicator about the power of movies to give people really insights into themselves. he loved to talk about the way a movie could take and catch you up, put you up on the screen, introduce you to lives, to characters, to ideas that you

never would have experienced in any other way, and that really, the whole idea of a movie, watching a movie, being a personally enriching experience, i think was at the heart of all of roger's communications about the movies. >> what was -- >> that's the way -- >> i'm sorry. i was going to say, what was amazing about roger was that he had this constant battle with cancer for the last decade of his life but it never stopped him. he carried on doing the reviews and right to the end, right to last week, he was still writing his blog. quite extraordinary. >> yes. he was. he was writing things and in fact, it was just a little over -- a couple weeks ago that he said to me writing, because of course, he couldn't speak, that he thought he was doing right now some of the best writing he had ever done in his life, in his blog. and i think that that was true. i think his book, his auto biography "life itself" was different from his criticism and was among the best things he had ever written also.

he did -- the thing about it, piers, is roger was a great talker. he was funny, he was witty, he was also a prodigious eater, wonderful, yet when he lost his ability to speak, he managed to overcome it i think partly because he was really and a lot of people don't know this about him, such an intellectual. he lived a life so much inside his own head. he loved ideas, he loved books, he liked philosophy, he liked thinking about things, so as long as he had books and he had movies and he could write, he had this urge to communicate, as long as he could do that, i think the disability was perhaps somewhat less painful for him, losing the ability to speak, than it would have been for other people because he had so many other things right down to tweeting and his blog and the internet and writing reviews. so he was able to be very much present despite the fact that he was really unable to speak. and a kind of interesting thing,

two years after roger lost his ability to speak, "forbes" magazine listed him among the top pundits in the united states. he loved that. this from a man who hadn't said a word in two years. >> amazing. wonderful statement from his wife. she says i'm devastated by the loss of my love, roger, my husband, my friend, my confidant and my oh, so brilliant partner. he fought a courageous fight, was the love of my life. the world has lost a visionary and a creative and generous spirit. he touched so many people all over the world. we had a lovely, lovely life together, more brilliant and epic than any movie. i want to echo what roger said in his last blog, i want to thank you for going on this journey with us. michael, how should we remember roger ebert and what advice should be given to other film critics who may be coming up on the blocks on how they should do this unique job he did? >> that's a very good question. film criticism these days i think has taken a very sad turn. it's all about, you know, the

rotten tomatoes score and in the old days, you had the family kaufmans and judith crist and others. i remember as a teenager reading these film critics and really starting to think about movies in a way i had never thought about them before sitting in, you know, the middle of michigan. and in fact, he had such a great sense of humor, too, that when i first met him, i had taken my film to the film festival. i was nobody, i was unknown, unemployed, and when i got to the festival i found out that they scheduled it against the opening night gala film in the opera house at the same time. i'm thinking nobody's going to come see my film. i saw roger ebert going into the opera house and i went up and introduced myself and said roger, i've got a film down the street here, and i don't think anybody's going to come see it. he said i'll see it sometime.

i know, but this is the first time i'm showing it, you should be there. and he said look, i said i'd be there. i pestered him for like another minute or two and he finally like i said i'd see it. good night. i'm thinking oh, geez, i just screwed myself with the most important film critic. 20 minutes later, like two minutes before the film's going to start, i look out the windows of the door, of the theater that i was in, little tiny theater and there's roger ebert walking up to the door to open the door. and he walks in. i'm like -- he looked at me and said don't say a word. he said there's something crazy in your eyes that told me i should be in this theater tonight watching this film. roger and me. >> fantastic. >> the next day, he wrote the first piece and told the world about it, and went on tv and said things like it was one of his favorite films of the last

decade, and i had a career after that of making movies. thanks to this man. i will miss him deeply. his wife is a wonderful person and i guess to answer your question for film criticism and for people who love the movies, get out of the house and get to a theater, and tell the theater owners and the people that you want to see stuff other than just the "transformers 7." you want to see foreign movies, you want to see nonfiction, you want to see what independent voices are saying. people are missing great films these days, in part because we no longer have siskel and ebert speaking to a mainstream audience about films they otherwise would know nothing about. that's a huge loss. i hope that somebody is willing to step in and fill roger's shoes. >> i completely agree. be very difficult shoes to fill but i hope they try. michael moore, thea flaum, thank you very much indeed. great tributes to roger ebert. when we come back, a debate you never expected. penn gillette versus billy baldwin.

the first and memorable quote from roger ebert who was as passionate about life as he was about the movies.

here to talk about all the big stories of the day, magic man penn gillette, and the talkative half of the duo penn and teller. also, author and activist billy baldwin and kelly ann conway. welcome to you all. a genuine all-star panel

tonight, i'm pleased to say. let's start with roger ebert. i guess you two probably came across him a few times, right? >> yeah, i bumped into him a couple times. i just wanted to talk to him about the fact he wrote beyond the valley of the dolls. i loved that movie. that is austin powers. just lose the laundry, this is my happening and it's freaking me out. just such a goofy, goofy movie. at the time i talked with him, i didn't care much about the criticism, i just wanted to know about beyond the valley of the dolls. >> billy, as a viewer, as somebody who liked movies, i would always look to see what roger ebert was giving it, always. it would have a real effect on me. what effect did it have on actors? >> well, i tell you, one time i was in a green room going on to oprah winfrey with universal executives in the green room, ronnie howard, kurt russell, robert deniro and they all started milling around him,

making sure -- i sat there on the couch and ron howard was like roger ebert, let's go. it was when gene siskel was still alive. one thing i appreciated about those guys, they never took it to the level. we discussed it in the green room ourselves. they never took it to the level of john simon and frank rich and really, if they didn't like a film, they told you why. if they liked a film, they told you why. there was never personal attacks about someone's career, the successes, the failures. they were overweight, the woman was unattractive. i always loved the fact that they stayed out of that. >> it was honorable critiquing. >> definitely. >> he will be very sorely missed. let's turn to the republican party. i'll start with you, kelly ann. a strange thing going on in america, where you see now a poll come out today saying the majority of americans are now in favor of legalizing marijuana, for example. a majority are in favor of same sex marriage. these are things that would have been pretty unthinkable even ten years ago. many in the republican party are trying to embrace this. many feel threatened by it. i interviewed michael reagan last night, who was absolutely

appalled by the whole prospect of same sex marriage. what will this do to the party? how do you come together in time for the next election in 2016 with any kind of united front, when these social issues appear to be ripping the party in two? >> i think it's an overstatement about it bifurcating the party, piers. i prefer to be in a party where diversity viewpoints on these issues are welcome rather than the party that seems to have this litmus test that you must feel a certain way. look at all the democratic senators who have come out in the last week or two in and around the supreme court arguments on gay marriage, sort of posting very quietly on facebook. they wouldn't dare come on your show and brag about their change of heart and their prayerful conversations. i think that's pretty cowardly. i appreciate the fact that i am a member of a party and a movement where these serious discussions are taking place and where we still have i think as the unifying factor, a respect for the democratic process. so for example, whether the supreme court finds a constitutional right to gay

marriage, if they don't, i think that you heard even with some of these skepticism of the liberal justices last week, that the democratic process state by state should take hold. i think that you will find a lot of federalism type of strains within the republican party which is why there's a resistance. let me just say on gay marriage and certainly on legalizing marijuana, there's a real libertarian strain in this country that's starting to get its due. i think people who call themselves liberal sometimes mean libertarian. many young people would consider themselves libertarian over conservative or liberal. i think this is the strength of say rand paul, when he talks about drones or talks about all these different issues from a libertarian bent. i think that's really what's going to happen in the coming years. >> okay. it seems to me what you've got is younger people don't understand the fuss about gay people. they don't care. predominantly. >> very, very interesting that you say that. that's exactly where i was going. i personally think election day republicans were taken to the wood shed.

i appreciate what kelly just said and i hope that there's a big enough big top in the republican party for that type of diversity and that type of debate. they haven't been successful at it in the recent past. they got taken to the wood shed, all of a sudden there's this mass movement to move to the center of the party. and two years ago, a pastor friend of mine said when i look out into the congregation into the eyes of these 8 and 10 and 12-year-old children and they all have classmates whose parents are lesbian parents or have homosexual parents, and they go on play dates and go on sleepovers every weekend and they come home and say dad, what's this debate about, why can't they be married. and that generation will be voting, it's been happening for the last ten years and that generation will be voting in ten years from now, i'm telling you, it's not even going to be an issue. there's people in the republican party that are moving to the middle, are out in front of that, they're visionaries because they see that coming. >> they can see the way the wind is blowing. i agree. hold your thought. let's take a quick break. i want to come back and ask you specifically about bill o'reilly.

even he is beginning to talk about same sex marriage but he's accusing some of the more hardcore conservatives of thumping the bible. which i think is an interesting point for you as an atheist. in . i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him.

[ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide.

and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

back now with penn gillette, billy baldwin and republican strategist kellyanne conway. you've had some time to think about this.

the thumping on the bible claim from bill o'reilly. interesting that bill o'reilly was saying that, saying look, these issues may not be religious masses. they need to be addressed in a different way, perhaps, by the conservatives. >> you know, you're always dealing with the god of the margins, you know, as compassion grows, as science grows, you just keep taking the bible less and less literally and that's good. and i think for all the sadness and all the persecution that gays have, and i know 50 years is a horrible amount of time if you're the victim, still changing these kind of views in a generation is something to celebrate and also, we have to remember that the politicians are in no way leading this. they are following. the people have accepted other people and the politicians are scrambling to catch up. and i love when the politicians are scrambling to catch up with compassion. >> i totally agree with you. let's turn to guns. i talked to newt gingrich earlier about this. it is a very volatile debate but it's a very disheartening one for those who want to see

something happen to try and reduce the volume of guns in america, and the answer appears to be it's not going to happen. only today, we heard about james holmes, the aurora shooter. new information coming out about him, including this devastating fact that his therapist reported him to university of colorado police on june 12th, 2012, saying that he was quote, a danger to the public due to homicidal statements. he sent threatening text messages. the same day she reported him to campus police, the shooting happened on july the 20th. so just over five weeks later. by then, he threatened his therapist, access to university was cut off, but after that, he ordered ten different deliveries of weapons via fed ex. the guy was able to do this perfectly legally. still, people like newt gingrich, a man i greatly respect as a politician telling me no, no, there's nothing we can do to stop this kind of thing. of course there damn well is. of course there is. there's the warning sign. >> he could have been stopped. >> how would you stop him?

>> james holmes could have been stopped had the police listened to his therapist who had actual knowledge he was a clear and present danger but that's different than the discussion you had with newt earlier. this particular shooter could have been stopped. it has nothing to do with extra laws on gun control. he could have been stopped before he went into that theater, he could have been stopped. people looked the other way. >> okay. put aside the fact that he was flagged up by the therapist. of course they should have done something about it and could have stopped it. how did he get 6,000 rounds of ammunition? how did he get all this fire power, all these guns and everything else perfectly legitimately in a civilized society? how are you going to stop that? how are you going to stop the next crazy shooter getting such easy access to this armory because i don't hear anything from most republicans about how you stop these people getting these weapons. >> this is like when they took flying lessons and didn't want to learn how to take off the plane or how to land. it didn't go through the chain of command. this was preventible, should not have happened and there should be regulations, laws on the books to try to prevent this from happening. >> tell me, how are you going to stop these people getting their hands on these weapons? because at the moment, the nra

are winning the war. they don't want to have any background checks, any assault weapons ban, any high capacity magazine ban. nothing. zilch. don't do anything. until the next one. >> you're making this about the nra versus the people, when actually -- >> that's what it is. >> hold on. president obama has made this his cause for three and a half months now and the trend lines and the polling, including cnn's polls, are going in the opposite direction. there's less support now for stronger gun control measures, i think in part because people start to realize that what is being proposed in most places would not have stopped most of these killers. however, listening to the therapist who reported he had homicidal tendencies and she cut off his access, listening to her would have saved lives of 12 people and the injuries of 58. >> well, yeah, okay. penn gillette, so would stopping him getting such easy access. he had a 100 bullet magazine in that movie theater and an assault rifle, and 6,000 rounds of ammo. how much more does somebody have to do before america goes no, we're going to stop these people getting such easy access to this kind of fire power? >> the vast majority of people who have mental illness problems never hurt anybody. the vast majority don't even

hurt themselves. the vast majority of people who have guns m it -- killed you're l the scale of shooting in am >> every time >> e argument, e >> you have been out in front of this. listen, in the 1980s, i testified -- in the '90s i testified for lieberman with hilary rosen and jack valente on violence in the media. the entertainment industry hid behind the first amendment to line their pockets with billions of dollars in profits and they stepped up. we have a rating system for television, a rating system for video games, rating system for movies and music. that's exactly what the gun industry and the nra are doing now. he had a 100 bullet magazine in that movie theater and an assault rifle, and 6,000 rounds of ammo. how much more does somebody have to do before america goes no, we're going to stop these people getting such easy access to this kind of fire power? >> the vast majority of people who have mental illness problems never hurt anybody. the vast majority don't even hurt themselves. the vast majority of people who have guns never hurt anybody. the problem is you're dealing with such tiny numbers of people and i'm not -- i don't in any way dismiss one death is too many, anything we can do to stop it -- >> what do you call tiny numbers? 100,000 americans a year get hit by gunfire. 30,000 get killed by guns. do you know how many have been killed by guns since sandy hook? >> absolutely. >> 3,240 i think it is. since sandy hook.

>> you're confusing two different things, though. you're lumping together the mass murderers which are very, very rare and -- >> mass shootings are escalating in a dramatic way since 2007. many more of them happening and the scale of them, massively higher. aurora was the single worst shooting involving one shooter and the number of people he hit in american history. sandy hook, the worst school shooting in american history. >> if you're going to talk about that, you can't bring in all the hand guns and all the -- >> i agree. >> that's a separate issue. >> i agree. >> every time you make this -- >> penn, you have to make it more difficult for these people. you have to stop the criminals getting the hand guns. you have to stop the mass shooters getting assault rifles. haven't you? >> every time you make this argument, every time you make it, what you do is you start with the mass murderers, then you will ask how many gun shootings there are, and those are two very, very different things. >> billy, i am angry about this because i see nothing happening. >> you have been out in front of this.

listen, in the 1980s, i testified -- in the '90s i testified for lieberman with hilary rosen and jack valente on violence in the media. the entertainment industry hid behind the first amendment to line their pockets with billions of dollars in profits and they stepped up. we have a rating system for television, a rating system for video games, rating system for movies and music. that's exactly what the gun industry and the nra are doing now. they're hiding behind the second amendment to line their pockets with profits. they're selling hundreds of millions of weapons worldwide and making billions of dollars in profits, and that's what it's all about. >> no evidence whatsoever. >> what are the senators hiding behind? >> i don't think it's a republican -- >> i totally agree with you. >> that's fine. [ speaking simultaneously ] >> there was no violence in entertainment, none, zero. there is the artistic depiction of violence. you cannot call --

>> you're missing the point of what i said. why would you not want -- we're changing the subject but why would you not -- they thought tipper gore was a crackpot. >> she was. >> no. why not give a parent all the tools you can to protect their child from music or a video game or television show -- >> giving tools is different from the phrase you used, hiding behind the first amendment. the first amendment is a wonderful thing. >> they were trying to say we don't want a rating system because -- >> the depiction of violence in art has not -- >> i have no problem with the violence being there. just rate it so i can make an educated decision. >> there is no violence in there. it's the depiction of violence. that can be done privately. it won't be done by tipper gore. >> we will hold it there, just take a quick break and come back for more. this is getting lively. wait for it... wait for it...

[ dog ] you know, i just don't think i should have to wait for it! who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, we won't make you wait for it. our efficient, online system

allows us to get you through your home loan process fast. which means you'll never have to beg for a quick closing. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. bonkers, look at me when i'm talking to you.

shaq 1, pain 0. [ male announcer ] new icy hot advanced patch with 50% more medicine. pain over. quiet at the commercial break where the debate continues in an even more aggressive matter. a lot of tweets coming in. here's what i ask of you the question. what is the difference, ideologically, between all the rules and regulations concerning buying alcohol? buying a car? selling a car to somebody else and so on and guns? why shouldn't guns be regulated

exactly the same way as cars, alcohol, tobacco? >> well, you're not talking about whether they should be regulated or not. >> we're not. 40% of all gun sales in america, nobody has a clue who's selling them to who. it's complete madness. >> but do you think that the shootings you're talking about, which are, as you've said, the majority are gang. the majority are handguns. do you believe those will be stopped by background checks? >> how could you have happen what happened at sandyhook and your answer is, according to kelly, kelly, i want to be fair, kelly, do any of the proposals you've heard about controlling gun violence in america, do you support anything that would actually reduce the number of guns in circulation? >> yes, absolutely. i support true background checks that allow us to know who has the gun, meaning without registering them. that doesn't work. michigan has had a law since 1927. you have to register -- you have

to have a permit for a handgun. and have you seen detroit lately? so i'm for true background checks and true knowing who has the gun if it's -- and knowing about that person who wants a gun. here's a great example, piers. you know, the hipaa laws and all of these privacy laws that medical conditions mean that i, as a gun seller, could do a background check on somebody who wants a gun, but there's no way that i have any access to know that that person is mentally ill, which has been the pattern with some of these most recent shooters that you point out. so, i, as a mother of children ages 8, 8, 5 and 3, you're damn right i want to know about people with guns out there. >> but, billy, i know there's a cultural thing in america. i know many people believe the second amendment entitles them to have any gun they like. i also know there are lots of gun control laws already in existence in america. i can't walk around with a machine gun. there are already bans on these things. i don't understand why given the

five mass shootings in america all involve these ar-15 assault rifles, why are they still available to any other deranged persons in america at places like walmart? why? >> this is the debate. when i talk to my friends that are anti-gun control, and i say do you want to keep guns out of the hands of felons? yes. we're 90% of the way there. now we have to define ak-47 and clips with 30 weapons and weapons that fire 20, 30 rounds at a burst. do you need that to protect your home and your family and your land? can you deal with that with a couple handguns, a couple high-powered hunting rifles. >> you have to -- mental health records being kept sealed is absolutely important. >> totally agree. it's a fascinating debate. it will keep going because, at the moment, the politicians are doing nothing. i find it skand lousz.

scandalous. anyway, thank you all very much. that was a great debate. we'll be back after the break.

actor jeremy piven is comparing his latest role to the new doubting abbey. it's his role in entraj. that will be tomorrow night, as well. so a good bag of big stars for