Return to Transcripts main page

CROSSFIRE

New Gun Laws Spark Backlash

Aired September 13, 2013 - 18:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NARRATOR (voice-over): Tonight on CROSSFIRE: Vote for gun control, lose your job. It just happened twice.

JOHN MORSE (D), COLORADO STATE SENATOR: If doing this costs me my political career, that's a very small price to pay.

NARRATOR: Recalls in Colorado, a veto fight in Missouri, is it the will of the voters or special interests butting in?

On the left, Van Jones. On the right, S.E. Cupp.

And in the CROSSFIRE, John Morse, who lost a recall election this week because of his gun vote, and Will Cain, a gun rights advocate. The fight over guns, is your state next?

Tonight on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

S.E. CUPP, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Welcome to CROSSFIRE. I'm S.E. Cupp on the right.

VAN JONES, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": And I'm Van Jones on the left.

Tonight, we're debating guns.

But I want to tell you right up front, both sides' arguments make zero sense to me. I go to a lot of funerals for the victims of gun violence, and everything the right is saying, guns for everybody, is going to make America less safe, but it's worse.

Everything the left is pushing, background checks for everybody, might make us maybe 1 percent more safe. Either way, I'm still going to too many funerals. And there's massive misunderstanding, massive 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.

CUPP: Well, when are the anti-gun groups going to learn symbolism does not make for good policy? And lawful gun 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.

JONES: Well, I mean, I think that may be true. But I also don't think that you should be too happy what happened.

We will get to it as we go forward.

CUPP: 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' rights. And in Colorado, voters recalled two state senators who helped pass new gun restrictions.

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 Cain.

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?

MORSE: Oh, no. The gun movement is alive and kicking. This was a specialized election with a very low turnout. It's time...

CUPP: Seventy percent is a pretty good turnout for a special election.

MORSE: Seventy percent?

CUPP: Yes.

MORSE: Yes, that would have been great. We didn't come anywhere close to that.

CUPP: Sure you did.

MORSE: No, we didn't.

CUPP: What was your turnout?

MORSE: Our turnout was less than 20 percent...

CUPP: Statewide?

MORSE: ... of the registered voters -- of the registered voters in my district.

CUPP: Oh, registered voters. OK. There you go.

MORSE: And even 28 percent of active voters. It was very low.

CUPP: 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?

MORSE: 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 easy for every lawful voter to cast a vote.

CUPP: In a special election in your district, even if they didn't live in your district?

MORSE: In every -- no, no, no, absolutely not. That's nonsense.

In every district that they live in. So, in this case, it was only the 144,000 people that live in my district, 83,000 registered, 60,000 active. They were the only ones that were eligible to vote in my district under the new law. But the new law says, when you're eligible to vote in your district for whatever, we're going to make it as easy for you to vote...

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: So, tell me, why did you lose? Why did you lose this recall election, in your mind?

MORSE: I lost because it was a specialized election in which they took out mail-in ballots. And our turnout was abysmal, frankly, on both sides.

CUPP: So it had nothing to do with your gun policies, do you think?

MORSE: Eighty percent 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.

CUPP: Right.

MORSE: The taxpayers aren't doing going to do it for you. You got to reload after you crank out 15 rounds. You got to...

JONES: It's all -- all good stuff.

I actually have a question for you.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: Let me ask you just one question, though. Here is the deal. I think the stuff he is talking about, people at home, I think, it's 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. So, it ends up the law is not going to get repealed. Aren't you guys going to overinterpret this and get super happy about it?

WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm shocked actually at both your question and the lessons that the senator seems incapable of learning. This could have been a therapy session tonight, Senator. This could have been kind of 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 that is, you're not listening.

Whether or not it's nationwide in states like Missouri, or the Senate, the U.S. congressional body voting down background checks, you're getting the same message from citizens over and over. And whether or not 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.

MORSE: But those are all just talking points.

The reality is, we didn't shut down debate. There was more debate on these bills than there was on the gun bills that were 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 a way that the citizens didn't get to speak.

CUPP: But, Senator -- but, Senator, you outspent the pro-recall people more than 5-to-1.

MORSE: That's nonsense.

CUPP: And here is what your colleague Angela Giron said, soon- to-be-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?

MORSE: Because 80 percent of the people approve of what we have done. And what we have done is minimal and common sense.

CUPP: So you are blaming turnout, turnout alone...

MORSE: Right.

CUPP: ... for why you and your colleague were recalled from the state Senate?

MORSE: I'm blaming turnout for why I was recalled from the state Senate, absolutely.

CAIN: It's disappointing that we can't suggest the policy had anything to do with this...

JONES: Well, hold on a second. CAIN: ... nor the Missouri law, nor the U.S. Senate voting down background checks over and over.

CUPP: I also thought you said you were willing to take the consequences of your actions on those votes.

MORSE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

CUPP: This is not the consequence?

MORSE: Oh, it's -- well, it's turning out to be the consequence. Obviously, we wanted to be able to beat this so that it wasn't the consequence. We lost by 343 votes.

They didn't even get as many votes as they had -- quote, unquote -- "signature signers."

JONES: Hey, let's -- 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's 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...

CUPP: He doesn't admit he went down for it.

JONES: Oh, 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 in some ways.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: You're engineering these, kind of cherry-picking these districts, aren't you?

CAIN: No, Van. 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 now, where a state has specifically rejected any attempts at federal gun control. And Senator Morse is the example of having lost after, as you say, taking the a heroic stand. We can debate the policy and the merits of what he put together, but it seems pretty clear to me. The message right now seems pretty clear to me. Because you have one poll that says 90 percent, I don't think that has anything to do, it has no way compared to three continuous election results over and over.

JONES: Well, wait. The NRA has got like 1 percent success in 2012? Like, the NRA is not -- is not popular on a big scale. They can cherry-pick their focus.

CUPP: I think President Obama would disagree with you that they have had one success.

JONES: No, one...

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: President Obama called for a vote in Congress, and didn't get the vote he wanted.

JONES: Fair enough. But I mean 1 percent of the candidates -- thank you for helping -- 1 percent of candidates that they endorsed in 2012 won, 1 percent. They had the worst outcome.

CAIN: Van, if your goal is to suggest that the gun control movement 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 this nation have proliferated. No state right now denies conceal carry permits. And what has happened over violence over that same time frame? You talked about your friends dying when we started the show, Van?

Would I would say to you is fewer of your friends dying. Violence has cratered over the last 20 years, gun violence, violence, mass shootings down over 50 percent, all at the same time...

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: ... guns are increasing.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: No one is happy. No one is happy.

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: I think that's a logical conclusion from what I just said.

(CROSSTALK)

MORSE: In my community, it's up. And, in fact, in my community, I have the census track that has the most gun deaths over the last 10 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. CUPP: But you have tightened gun laws. How can that be?

MORSE: We -- they have been tightened barely for a month-and-a- half. This was over the last 10 years.

You know, I have spent years on the street as a paramedic treating these folks, spent years on the street as a police officer investigating these folks.

CUPP: Right.

MORSE: And I have been shot at myself. Who else has been shot at? Have you? And it's terrifying.

JONES: Terrifying.

Because, you know, the weird thing about is like that it actually -- you feel it. It goes by. It's physical.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: I'm just wondering, though, what requiring lawful gun owners, really the only people who submit to background checks, to give up their home and -- address and phone number and where they will be at this place and time would have saved you from getting shot at, or any other criminal from shooting someone else.

MORSE: Last year, we had...

CUPP: Criminals don't submit to background checks.

MORSE: Last year -- last year -- 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. But, as Van suggested...

CUPP: Ultimately, you had -- ultimately, you had 1.7 percent rejected.

(CROSSTALK)

MORSE: But it only takes one person. And there were thousands of people, and there have been over two dozen since the first...

CUPP: Right, so the rest of lawful gun owners should be burdened to catch the one person.

MORSE: I'm a lawful -- absolutely.

CUPP: OK.

MORSE: I'm a lawful gun owner as well. And, yes, get a background check. Not that big a deal. Doesn't take that much time. It doesn't cost that much money. CUPP: It is a big deal.

MORSE: And it keeps the community safe.

CUPP: It doesn't. It's a false sense of security.

MORSE: No. It's not.

CUPP: And a lot of these background checks, the failures are not prosecuted.

Vice President Joe Biden said just last year, we do not have the resources to prosecute everyone who fails a background check.

CAIN: That's right.

CUPP: So why have it?

MORSE: 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. I think the horse is out of the barn.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: ... give you a chance to respond to it. I want to give you a chance to respond to it.

I said you're happy with 11,000 people. Let me reframe that, and then we will 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?

CAIN: 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 that violence, gun violence and mass shootings are down at the same time gun ownership has proliferated.

Why? If we all can agree we want to reduce gun violence, why would you focus on this? You're simply avoiding the problem.

CUPP: Next, we will ask our former police chief why his law, if it's so great, is getting challenged by nearly all of the sheriffs in his state.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUPP: Welcome back. I'm S.E. Cupp, and I'm a gun owner.

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 gun owners, 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.

MORSE: And, certainly, it is arbitrary.

It was just -- the thought was that -- it was negotiated. It started at 10. It actually wasn't my bill, just for the record.

CUPP: OK. You co-sponsored it.

MORSE: But it was negotiated up to 15 to try -- yes, I eventually co-sponsored it.

CUPP: Right.

MORSE: That's right.

It was negotiated up to 15 in an effort to get the gun manufacturer Magpul that was in the state...

CUPP: Yes.

MORSE: ... and objecting, to get them on board. That didn't work. And so actually we gave up five rounds.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: And, incidentally, Magpul has left the state.

MORSE: No.

CUPP: They are moving to...

MORSE: No.

CUPP: They are relocating to Wyoming and taking $85 million with them that they were going to give to the state.

MORSE: Are they? Are they?

(CROSSTALK)

MORSE: They haven't yet.

CUPP: 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. MORSE: They can't. They're not designed to be accommodated.

CUPP: But they can be. So this essentially is a ban on all magazines.

JONES: Is that your fear, is that...

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: It's a slippery slope. We have talked about this. This is what gun owners fear.

CAIN: Can I say, that's an incredible admission, Senator, that you just made, that it's an absolutely arbitrary distinction, arbitrary number that you essentially 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 to define them. We will pick the number of bullets you get to have in your magazine.

MORSE: The trick is how many rounds...

CAIN: This -- this -- and what you're doing, though, just to be clear, because we have to factor in the cost where you pick your arbitrary laws. It's our freedoms. It's our rights. It's our constitutionally guaranteed rights that actually defend this country.

(CROSSTALK)

MORSE: It's your rights and my rights. It's my rights not to get shot. And it's your right to have a gun. And that's the balance 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...

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: You have research to suggest the difference between 14 and 15 reduces gun violence?

MORSE: No, no, no. What I have research to suggest is that when you crank out 15 rounds, when we have had these mass shootings, two of which have occurred in Colorado, it's better when you have fewer rounds and you have to reload more frequently.

CAIN: Can I tell you honestly, I feel like -- and, Van, you can answer this if you want. But if we get to a point of honesty in this debate, it is an actually achievable and laudable goal.

And when you suggest that picking arbitrary numbers and arbitrary 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? MORSE: No.

JONES: No.

MORSE: My ultimate goal is to reduce gun violence.

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: Then why pick -- why pick arbitrary numbers?

JONES: But we all know that the legislative process is imperfect and messy. And somebody has to figure out what these limits are. And who we trust to do that is America's government. And...

CUPP: I don't.

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: Well, and that -- 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 have, and just, since we all know each other and we work here together...

CAIN: Fire away.

JONES: Good.

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: Why isn't what he saying perfectly good sense?

What is wrong with limiting the number? Here I am. I don't -- 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 old bunch of bullets and fire them at me. And if he had fewer bullets, maybe I could get away. What is wrong with that argument? Help me.

CAIN: Because, Van, I'm -- at the risk of being repetitive, you have picked -- you have picked a goal. OK, you have identified your goal.

You would like to have less gun violence and, in your words, a big crazy guy grabs a bunch of bullets. OK?

JONES: Yes.

CAIN: But, in order to achieve that goal, you have identified a couple of arbitrary laws you want to put into place.

JONES: But any law...

CAIN: And you know -- you somehow feel like a bunch of -- and no disrespect -- a bunch of legislators, a bunch of elected officials...

JONES: Well, who do you want to do it?

CAIN: ... somehow put their heads together and made the scientific determination, when I shared with you in our previous block the science is in. The facts is in -- the facts are in.

JONES: OK.

CAIN: Gun violence is down.

JONES: OK. I'm really asking you to help me.

CAIN: And our attempts -- our attempts at his arbitrary laws fail.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: You don't like arbitrariness.

CAIN: I think laws should achieve goals.

JONES: I have a question.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: In fact, 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?

JONES: Oh, now Obama's CDC is irrefutable? Now you're...

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: We have a 10-year experiment with the assault weapons ban.

MORSE: In Tucson...

CUPP: We have study after study after study.

MORSE: 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 have got to reload.

(CROSSTALK) CAIN: I understand your desire to 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 sharing with you. And it's not just us. This isn't talking points, as you said earlier.

This is the CDC. This is the National Institute for Justice. You must reconcile your laws with the goal you want to achieve and balance that against our rights. You're failing. You're failing.

MORSE: No, we're not, because your right was determined when we could shoot one shot at a time, and now you can shoot 15. I haven't infringed on your rights. I haven't come anywhere close.

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: You're suggesting my rights were crystallized in 1776 and haven't advanced?

MORSE: Yes.

CAIN: So I shouldn't be able to have free speech on Twitter?

JONES: No, no, no. Well...

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: Let me say -- let's -- a few more questions.

Honestly, first of all, I appreciate your passion and your insight.

But let's just accept that America's government is going to set some laws and some limits. We may not like the legislative process or the sausage-making. We can talk about. But that -- the alternative is to let everybody do whatever they want to. And I think we don't like that world either.

So, let me ask you a question. Where do you draw the line? We have had this conversation before. Is it OK for Americans, if we have the right to bear arms, and we're supposed to bear arms because we want to be able to defend our liberties and protect ourselves from tyranny, the tyranny of America's government, can we have rocket launchers?

CAIN: So, that's good, Van.

JONES: Or...

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: And this can be productive, because what it does is it ties together this entire debate. JONES: Yes.

CAIN: The burden on me as an American citizen in a free society is not to prove to you where my limits are. You, as the person hoping to restrict my rights, must -- must satisfy that burden.

JONES: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: It is not my job -- it is not my job to tell you why I want to drink a big soda. It is not my job to tell you why I want a fast car. It is your job to tell me why I can't have these things.

(CROSSTALK)

JONES: Well, how about this? I don't think you should have a tank. Do you agree?

CAIN: Yes, I agree.

JONES: I don't think you should have a missile, a rocket launcher? Do you agree?

CAIN: I agree.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: I'm glad we just solved -- solved the problem that no one is having, an argument that no one is having.

JONES: No. No. And -- 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 if -- 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 weapons, don't you?

CAIN: No. Look, I understand this point in the argument.

And this is when Piers Morgan and everybody pumps their fists and you get the conservative to say, oh, he thinks this is an opposition against tyranny, and I get to be the crazy guy.

But the truth is, I don't think tyranny is quaint. I don't think it's paranoid. And I think history backs me up. Whether or not you look at this century or the previous century in Germany, Japan or Italy, or you look at the...

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Or the last three weeks.

CAIN: The last three weeks in Syria, tyranny isn't quaint. It is not passe. It is not paranoid.

And these guns are designed to protect you. Your question about how far can I go, that has to be balanced. You're right, Van. And the truth is, you guys -- and you have some time left -- you have the burden to prove why you must take something away, and you're continually failing.

MORSE: Where is your right to have me shot?

CAIN: That's silly.

MORSE: It's not silly.

CUPP: That's a criminal. There is no right.

CAIN: I don't have a right...

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: He doesn't have -- that's illegal.

MORSE: But the reality is, the more bullets you have, the more guns you have, the more powerful guns you have. Just as Van suggested, some crazy guy gets to arm himself and come into a movie theater.

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: I asked you earlier to be honest, didn't I?

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: No one's right is to illegally use the gun, Senator. He has a right to own it. He has a right to possess it.

(CROSSTALK)

MORSE: Right. But, again...

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: By your logic, by your logic now -- and I you asked earlier to be honest.

JONES: We are being honest.

CAIN: I said, please be honest about your position. Is it to ultimately do away with all guns?

MORSE: No.

CAIN: Because, if, as you said, you have a right to be not shot...

MORSE: Right.

CAIN: ... to avoid being shot...

MORSE: Right.

CAIN: ... that ultimately leads you to that conclusion, doesn't it?

MORSE: Well, that would be the easiest way, I agree. But I'm not suggesting we have no guns. I'm suggesting that there ought to be...

(CROSSTALK)

CAIN: That would be an honest position and a truthful debate, then, because the things you're proposing don't solve any of your problems.

MORSE: Yes, they do.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Senator, let me ask you this.

Van brought up the culture and this sort of language barrier. And I think he is absolutely right that there is a sense in this debate that the people on the left or the people against guns think I'm crazy. And I think you don't understand me. And I think you're crazy.

And I'm wondering if you think that some of these -- these legislative efforts help contribute to that cultural divide. For example, I think a lot of these legislative efforts lead, for instance, to newspapers feeling as if it is appropriate to publish my address and name because I'm a gun owner.

JONES: That's terrible.

CUPP: That's happened in more than one instance.

JONES: That's disgusting.

CUPP: I think that is a witch-hunt and probably leading to more division on this issue than less.

MORSE: And please understand, I, too, am a gun owner.

CUPP: Yes, I understand.

MORSE: So I don't disagree with you that I don't think your name and address needs to printed in the newspaper. As an elected official, of course, mine is. As county employees, ours is. You know, our names and our salaries are published. So we don't have the same right privacy that you do.

CUPP: Right.

MORSE: But I understand that I'm not asking -- and we did not do anything in Colorado concerning publishing people's names that own guns.

CUPP: Well, no one has, but it still -- still do. Newspapers feel like they do because they feel like government demonizes gun owners. They feel like they're getting that message from somewhere.

JONES: Well, look, I'm going to have to stop it right there.

And I think what you're talking about is very, very scary. I wouldn't want anybody's name to be in the newspaper because they're exercising their rights and don't want to take your guns away.

We have got to have you back.

We have got to have you back.

I want to thank John Morse. I want to thank Will Cain.

And, next, we're going to cease-fire and we're going to show you there's one thing that we do agree that would help everyone and put a stop to some of these funerals.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JONES: Tonight on CROSSFIRE, we have been debating guns.

Now we're going to call a cease-fire. Here's where I think we both agree.

You know, I think that the problem of gun violence is real and that kids that I have worked 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 to look up to. We have got to talk more about that kind of stuff, too.

CUPP: Agreed.

I would throw mental health in there, economic factors, education factors. But I absolutely, 100 percent agree with you that gun violence is a real problem. And I wish we would talk more about it.

Your opinion matters, too. Go to Facebook and Twitter to weigh in on our "Fireback" question: Would banning high-capacity magazines reduce gun violence? Right now, 24 percent of you say yes; 76 percent say no.

JONES: Well, the debate continues online at CNN.com/CROSSFIRE, as well as on Facebook and Twitter.

On the left, I'm Van Jones.

CUPP: From the right, I'm S.E. Cupp.

Join us Monday for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.