miscommunication going on, and nobody's winning. so some people may feel good about this. i'm sure you do. but i'm hoping we get some solutions tonight. >> well, when are the anti-gun groups going to learn symbolism does not make for good policy. and lawful goon owners like myself are sick and tired of being the targets of restrictive gun policies that only we follow and criminals ignore. it isn't right. >> well, i mean, i think that may be true. but i also don't think that you should be too happy what happened. we'll get to it as we go forward. >> all right. two states made two huge news in the battle over gun rights this week. missouri's legislature came within one vote of essentially overturning federal gun laws. let's hear it for states laws. and in colorado voters recalled two state senators who helped pass gun restriction. one of them is soon to be former state senate president john morse. he just flew to washington to be with us. also here is gun rights advocate and cnn contributor will cane.

senator, first, our thoughts are with colorado and those floods. i'm sure yours are as well. but tell it to me straight. the gun movement dead? >> oh, no. the gun movement is alive and kicking. this was a specialized election with a very low turnout. it's time -- >> 70% is a pretty good turnout. >> 70%? >> yeah. >> that would have been great. we weren't even close to that. >> sure you did. >> no. >> what was your turnout? >> less than 20%. >> statewide? >> of registered voters in my district. and even 28% of active voters. it was very low. >> and in fact you passed legislation to try and open it up for everyone in the state to vote just in your district in this recall election? >> that's not true. we opened it up so that every registered voter can vote where they're legally allowed to register to make it easier for every lawful voter to cast a vote. >> in a special election in your

district, even if they didn't live in your district. >> absolutely not. that's nonsense. in every district they live in. so in this case, it was only the 144,000 people that live in my district, the 83,000 registered, 36,000 active. they were the only ones eligible to vote in my district under the new law. but the new law says when you're able to vote in your district, for whatever, we're going to make it as easy for you. >> why did you lose? >> i lost because it was a specialized election in which they took out mail-in ballots and our turnout was abysmal, which frankly, on both sides. >> so it had nothing to do with your gun policies, do you think? >> 80% of the people approve of what we did. i mean, the five things that we did, we said you have got to get a background check before you buy a gun. you got to pay for that background check yourself. the taxpayers aren't doing going to do it for you. you got to reload after you crank out 15 rounds. >> all good stuff. i actually have a question for you. let me ask you just one question, though. here is the deal. i think the stuff he is talking about i think is pretty popular.

a serious question for you. isn't there a danger that the gun lobby overinterprets this? there are 50 people who voted for this. the nra went out after five of them. they only got two. and the law is not going to get repealed. aren't you guys going to overinterpret this and get super happy about it? >> i'm shocked at your question and the lessons seemed incapable of learning. this could have been a therapy session, this could have been intervention why i lost my job. but you're committing the same sin today that you committed in colorado and democrats are committing nationwide, and you're not listening. whether or not it's nationwide in states like missouri, the senate, the u.s. congressional body voting down background checks, you're getting the same message from citizens over and over. whether you literally in colorado shutting down debate on the senate floor, not answering e-mails from your constituents, or draping yourself in emotion on the national level, your effect is always the same, shutting down debate. and you have been told specifically and the nation has been told stop, just stop and listen. >> but those are just talking

points. the reality is we didn't shut down. there was nor debate on these bills than the gun bills done 13 year ago after columbine when the republicans were in session. in fact, twice as much. we didn't shut down debate at all. we split the debate between an hour and a half on each side. each side got to manage their debate. the republicans decided to manage theirs in such way. >> but senator, you outspent the recall people 5-to-one. >> that's nonsense. >> and here is whitewater your colleague -- former colleague also voted out. she said two weeks ago, for mayors against illegal guns, the bloomberg group, if they lose even one of these seats, they might as well fold it up. how is this not a referendum on your gun legislation? >> because 80% of the people approve of what we have done. and what we have done is minimal and common sense. >> so you were blaming turnout. >> right. >> turnout alone for why you and your colleague were recalled from the state senate. >> i'm blaming turnout for why i was recalled from the state senate, absolutely. >> it's disappointing that we can't suggest the policy had

anything to do with this nor the missouri law nor the u.s. senate voting down background checks. >> i assume you're willing to take the consequences of your vote. >> absolutely. >> this is not the consequence? >> well, it's turning out to be the consequence. obviously we wanted to be able to beat this so it wasn't the consequence. we lost by 343 votes. they didn't even get as many votes as they had, quote, signature signers. >> you're making the case, as i hear it, that our side is not listening. but let's look at the actual poll numbers. the poll numbers, this stuff is massively popular. look at this, all across the country. in six -- no, nine states after those children were murdered, nine states, legislatures took action and there are no recalls and those bills are enforced. and even in colorado, this man is a hero. his bill that he went down for has already stopped a dozen -- >> he doesn't admit he went down for it. >> hold on. he took the hit. but can i just give him his credit, and you tell me where i'm wrong. this man passed a bill that

already a dozen people who did not -- were not supposed to get guns were caught trying to get guns. those people do not have guns. it only took one of them to get a gun and do something horrible. he saved their lives. and the country loves what he did. why are we wrong? why are we not listening? it sounds like you guys aren't listening. >> you're engineering, cherry picking these districts, aren't you? >> no, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. you have lost at the national level in the senate. you have lost in missouri where the state has rejected any attempts at federal gun control. and senator morse is the example of having lost as you say taking the a heroic stand. well can debate the policy and the merits, but it seems pretty clear to me. the message seems pretty clear to me because you have one poll that says 90%. i don't think that has anything to do. it has no way compared to three continuous election results over and over. >> the nra has got like 1% success in 2012? like the nra is not -- is not popular on a big scale. >> i think obama might disagree

with you that they have had one success. president obama called for a vote in congress and didn't get the vote he wanted. >> fair enough. but 1% of the candidates, thank you for helping, 1% of candidates they endorsed in 2012 won. the worst outcome. >> if your goal is to suggest that the gun control m. is actually on the march, that it's winning, i suggest you take a longer look at statistics and trends. over the last 20 years, concealed carry permits across the nation have proliferated. no state right now denials conceal carry permits. what has happened to violence over that same time frame. you talked about your friends dying when we started the show. would i would say is fewer of your friends dying. violence has cratered. gun violence, violence, mass shootings down over 50%. >> no one is happy. no one is happy. >> i think that's a logical conclusion from what i just said. >> in my community, it's up. and in in fact in my community, i have the census track that has the most gun deaths over the last ten years of any census track in the entire state of colorado. we're higher than denver, we're

higher than pueblo. it's right on the street. >> how can that be? >> they've been tightened barely for a month and a half. this was over the last ten years. you know, i've spent years on the street as a paramedic treating these folks. spent years on the street as a police officer investigating these folks, and i've been shot at myself. who else has been shot at. have you? and it's tear fight. >> because the weird thing about it, actually, you feel it. it goes by. it's physical. >> i'm wondering, though -- what requiring lawful gunowners, really the only people who submit to background checks to give up their home address and phone number and where they'll be at this place and time would have save you'd from getting shot at, or any other criminal from shooting someone else. criminals don't submit to background checks. >> yes, they do. last year we had thousands of people actually rejected. and we were shocked by that, truthfully, when we look at the statistics. because we know this is a needle in the haystack.

>> ultimately you had 1.7% rejected. >> but there have been thousands. >> but homeowners should be burdened. >> absolutely. i'm a lawful gunowner as well. and yeah, get a background check. not that big a deal. it doesn't take that much time. it doesn't cost that much. and it keeps the community safe. >> it doesn't. it's a false sense of security. >> no. >> and a lot of these background checks, the failures are not prosecuted. joe biden said just last year we do not have the resources to prosecute everyone who fails a background check. >> that's right. >> so why have it? >> because we don't have the resources to stop every speeder either, but we still speeding ought to be against the law and at times we respond to things where there has been a horrible accident because of speeding. and you're right. the horse is out of the barn. >> give you a chance to respond to it. i said you're happy with 11,000 people. let me refrain that, and then we'll go to break. there are still 11,000 people who are dying. do you see anything that we should be doing differently that would change that?

>> no. i think it would be foolish to pursue gun control policies when i provide you statistics, facts, put them in front of you and show you violence, gun violence and mass shootings are down at the same time gun ownership has proliferated. why? if we all agree we want to reduce gun violence, why should you focus on this? you're simply avoiding the problem. >> next, we'll ask our former police chief if his law if it's so great is getting challenged by nearly all of the sheriffs in his state. stay tuned. [ male announcer ] this store knows how to handle a saturday crowd. ♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves. all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked.

and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the inter♪et of everything.

(train horn) vo: wherever our trains go, the economy comes to life. norfolk southern. one line, infinite possibilities. side-by-side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. that's one smart board -- what else does it do, reverse gravity? [ laughs ] split atoms? [ flo chuckles ] [ whirring ] hey, how's that atom-splitting thing going? oh! a smarter way to shop around -- now that's progressive. call or click today.

humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

welcome back. i'm s.e. cupp, and i'm a gunowner. it's been a good week for people like me, but it didn't come without a fight. missouri's legislature came within one vote of making it a crime to enforce background checks, publish the names and addresses of gunowners, something i find incredibly offensive, and enforce federal gun laws. colorado voters recalled two state senators who helped pass burdensome new gun laws. one of them is sitting right here. john morse joins us along with gun rights advocate will cain. senator morse, your bill, the bill that we're talking about that passed limits magazine capacities to 15 rounds and bans magazines that are easily convertible, yes? why 15?

that sounds pretty arbitrary to me. >> and certainly it is arbitrary. it was just the thought that it was negotiated. it started at 10. it wasn't my bill just for the record. >> okay. >> you cosponsored. >> but we negotiated up to 15. yes, i eventually co-sponsored. it was negotiated up to 15 in an effort to get the gun manufacturer mag poll that was in the state to get them on board that didn't work. and so actually we gave up five rounds. >> and they have left the state. >> no. >> they are relocating to wyoming and taking $85 million with them. >> are they? >> they are. and that's unfortunately happening all over the country with other gun manufacturers. but as a former cop, you know as well as i do that most magazines can be converted to accommodate for 15 rounds. >> they can't. they're not designed to be accommodated. >> but they can be. so this essentially is a ban on all magazines. >> that's your fear -- >> it's a slippery slope. we've talked about this. this is what gunowners fear.

>> can i say that's an incredible admission, senator, that you just made, that it's an arbitrary distinction. arbitrary number that you pulled out of your hat. it is whimsical. it is tyrannical in fact to go around making laws based upon arbitrary numbers, arbitrary definitions. assault weapons will be defined how we want the define them. we'll pick the number of bullets you get to have in your magazine. just to be clear, we have to factor in the cost when you pick the arbitrary laws. it's our freedoms. it's our constitutionally guaranteed rights that actually defend this country. >> it's your rights and my rights. it's my right not to get shot. and it's your right to have a gun. and that's the bans that we need to do. because it's how many rounds are going to get cranked out before you have to reload. and the answer turned out to be 15. that means we have 15 people shot before you -- >> the difference between 14 and 15 reduces gun violence? >> no. no, no. what i have research is when we have had the mass shootings, two of which occurred in colorado,

it's better when you have fewer rounds and you have to reload frequently. >> van, you can answer this if you want. if we get to a point of honesty, it is an achievable and laudable goal. when you suggest picking arbitrary numbers and definitions of guns, i feel like you're not being honest about your ultimate goal if the ultimate goal to reduce gun violence, is your ultimate goal to do away with guns? >> no. my ultimate goal is to reduce gun violence. >> then why pick arbitrary numbers? >> we all know the legislative process is imperfect and messy. and somebody has to figure out what the limits are. who we trust to do that is america's government. >> i don't. >> this is what is -- i think we have an opportunity to do something kind of special here, because we can yell and go back and forth. i think we're in some kind of a culture war where we're almost incomprehensible to each other. i just want to ask you some questions, i know liberals, and we all know each other and work here together. >> fire away. >> good. >> why isn't what he saying

perfectly good sense? what is wrong with limiting the number -- here i am. i'm not a gun person. i think to myself, i don't want somebody who is a nut and a lazy crazy nut to just be able to go get a big ole bunch of bullets and fire them at me. if he had fewer bullets, maybe i can get away. what is wrong with that argument? help me. >> because, van, at the risk of being repetitive, you have picked a goal. okay, you have identified your goal. you would like to have less gun violence. your words, a big crazy guy grabs a bunch of bullets. but in order to achieve that goal, you have identified a couple of arbitrary laws you want to put in to place. >> but any law -- >> you somehow feel like a bunch of -- no disrespect, a bunch of legislators, a bunch of elected officials somehow put their heads together and made the scientific determination. the science is in. the facts are in. gun violence is down. our attempts at arbitrary laws -- >> you don't like arbitrariness. >> i got a question. >> let me talk to you about the science. the cdc issued a report

commissioned by president obama just earlier this year, and it found some very inconvenient facts. armed citizens are less likely harmed by attackers. effectiveness of gun control laws is mixed. gun buybacks don't work. shouldn't we be looking at irrefutable evidence, irrefutable evidence. >> now obama's cdc is irrefutable? >> we have a ten-year experiment with the assault weapons ban. >> that was in tucson. >> in the tucson shooting, a 63-year-old woman whom i have met stopped the shooter from reloading. obviously, horrible things had already been done, but additional horrible things were not done because he needed to reload. so reloading after 15 rounds to me is -- that's a big number. i mean, a revolver is going to have six shots in it before you've got to reload. >> internalize it to make it something that appeals to you. but when you anecdotalize, when

you use incidents like arizona or sandy hook or in your own state, aurora, you have to balance that anecdote against the statistical evidence that s.e. and i are sitting here share wug i don't. it isn't just us. this is the cdc. this is the national institute for justice. you must reconcile your laws with the goal you want the to achieve and balance that against our your right was determined when we could shoot one at a time and now you can shoot 15. i haven't infringed on your rights. >> i'm guessing my rights were crystallize in the 1776 and they haven't advanced? >> a few more questions. i appreciate your passion and your insight. let's just accept that america's government is going to set some laws and some limits. we may not like it but the alternative is to let everybody do whatever they want to. we don't lake that either. where do you draw the line?

we had this conversation before. is it okay for americans, if we have the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from the tyranny of america's government. can we have rocket launchers? >> that's good. this can be productive. it ties together this entire debate. the burden on me as an american citizen in a free society is not to prove to you where may limits are. you as person hoping to restrict may rights must satisfy that burden. it is not may job to tell youy want to drink a big soda or have a fast car. it is your job to tell me why i can't have these things. >> i don't think you should have a tank. do you agree? >> yes, i do. >> i'm glad we just solved problems that no one is having. >> but it's important because a lot of the argument that you make is that you need to be able to have weapons to defend yourself from the tyranny of america' government. and i think that having a handgun, according to what you

want to do, is an unbelievably small response to the american government military. so you have to then admit that at least saying that you want your guns to protect yourself from the american tyranny is not well served by handguns. you need bigger women. >> i understand this point of the argument. they pitch their fist and you get that to say it is against tyranny. i don't think tyranny is paranoid. and i think history backs me up. whether you look at this century or the previous century with germany, japan or italy. tyranny isn't quaint, it is not passe, it is not paranoid. your questions about how far can i go? that has to be balanced. you're right. the truth is you guys, you've got some time left. you have the burden to prove why you must take something away and you're continually failing. >> where is your right to have me shot? >> that's a criminal. there is no right. that's illegal. >> but the reality is the more

bullets you have, the more powerful guns you have. some crazy guy gets toorl himself and come into a movie theater. >> i you asked to be honest. >> no one is talking about illegally use a gun. >> by your logic, i you asked to be honest. i said please be honest about your position. is it to ultimately do away with all guns? >> that would be the easiest way. i'm not suggesting there are no guns. >> van brought up the culture and this sort of language barrier. and i think he is right that there is a sense in this debate that the people on the left or the people against gun think i'm crazy.

it they need to newspapers feeling it is appropriate to publish may address and name because i'm a gun owner. that's happened in more than one instance. i think that is a witch hunt and probably aheading to more division on this issue than less. >> please understand, i, too, am a gun owner so i don't disagree with you. i don't think your name and address kneads to be in the newspaper. as an elected official, of course, main is. as county employees, you know our names and salaries are published. so we don't have theprivacy. and we did not do anything in colorado concerning publishing people's names. >> no one has but still do. newspapers appeal the that they do because they feel that

government demonizes gun owners. >> i'm going to have to stop it there. i think what you're talking about is very, very scary. i wouldn't want anyone's name to be in the newspaper because they're exercising their rights. we have to have you back. next, we'll cease fire and show you one thing we do agree that would help put a stop to the funerals. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] some things are designed to draw crowds. ♪ ♪ others are designed to leave them behind. ♪ the all-new 2014 lexus is. it's your move.

hearty cheeseburger. creamy thai style chicken with rice. mexican-style chicken tortilla. if you think campbell's 26 new soups sound good, imagine how they taste. m'm! m'm! good!

tonight we've been debating guns. now we're going to call a cease fire. here's where i think we both agree. i think that the problem of gun violence is real. kids that i work with at least, when they put a gun down, it is because they have something else to pick up like a job or a role model. we have to talk more about that too. >> agreed. i would throw mental health in there, economic factors, education factors but i 100% agree with you. gun violence is a really problem and i wish we would talk more about it. your opinion matters too. would banning high capacity magazines reduce gun violence? right now 24% of you say yes. 76% say no. >> the debate continues online at cnn.com/crossfire. on the left, i'm dan jones. >> from the right, i'm s.e.

cupp. erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. breaking news. another person confirmed dead in colorado. floods continue to surge and there's no end in sight. snth and syria may be moving its chemical weapons stockpile. and the newly wed who pushed a groom off a cliff to his death in court today. at the end of the hearing, she was free. we'll tell you why. let's go "outfront." >> good evening. we have just learned that a fourth person is confirmed dead as a result of the flooding in colorado. the body of a woman swept away from a car has now been recovered, according to boulder county sheriff. i