White House Hangout with Vice President Joe Biden on Reducing Gun Violence

White House Hangout with Vice President Joe Biden on Reducing Gun Violence


Hari Sreenivasan:
Hi! I’m Hari Sreenivasan
from the PBS Newshour. Welcome to our Fireside
Hangout on Google+. This is one in a series of
conversations with senior White House officials. Google+ has been doing Hangouts
for a while now, including with the President after last year’s
State of the Union Address. But this is the first with
the Administration in its second term. Today we’re looking forward to
a good conversation with Vice President Joe Biden for a
discussion on a topic at the top of everyone’s mind …
reducing gun violence. The Vice President has been
leading a task force on gun violence which he says has met
with more than 200 groups of stakeholders and crafted a set
of policy proposals that the President announced last week. Some of these include
Executive Actions the President already signed. But the significant changes
are proposals which would require Congressional action. We’ll get to some of those
in this conversation. Mr. Vice president,
welcome to Google+. The Vice President:
Hari, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. And you’re absolutely right,
after what happened in Newtown and those 20 young children
massacred and the teachers as well, the President asked me to
go back because I had dealt with this issue in my career as
Former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee writing the Crime Bill
on the first Assault Weapons Ban and the increase in
background checks, et cetera. And he asked me to put together
a set of proposals that would ameliorate and hopefully
significantly reduce the amount of gun violence in America. And toward that end, I met with
228 groups from law enforcement officers, to pro gun groups,
including the NRA, to sportsman’s organizations,
educators, physicians, research people, and there actually is
the beginning of an emergence of a consensus of some of the
positive things we can do to impact on gun
violence in America. But I’m really anxious to hear
what everyone else has to say and to try to answer questions. Because the single best thing
we can do is have a national dialogue about this because, as
the President said, if we can do something that even if it only
impacts on saving one life of a child or an individual out
there, it’s worth doing. But I think we can do
a lot more than that. Hari Sreenivasan:
All right. Let me introduce our guests
at this virtual roundtable near your Fireside Chat. Guy Kawasaki, he is an author
and a technology expert living in Palo Alto, California. Guy Kawasaki:
Good morning. The Vice President:
Hey, Guy. Hari Sreenivasan:
Phil DeFranco who is a media
entrepreneur and popular host of the Phil DeFranco Show on
YouTube, which I’m sure you watch, Mr. Biden. The Vice President:
Well, actually,
I have seen that. I wish I had your hair! (laughter) Hari Sreenivasan:
Okay. Theresa Tillett. Theresa Tillett, a mother and
grandmother living in Hartford County, Connecticut. The Vice President:
How are you? Theresa Tillett:
Hi! The Vice President:
Good to see you. Hari Sreenivasan:
And Kimberly Blaine. She’s a popular blogger
and a therapist who leads several parenting
communities on Google+. She’s joining us from
Los Angeles, California. The Vice President:
Hello, Kimberly. Kimberly Blaine:
It’s an honor to meet you, sir. Hari Sreenivasan:
So, Mr. Vice President, they’ve
got questions of their own and they have been gathering
questions from large communities on Google+. And as a programming note to
our audience, none of these have been shared with the
Vice President ahead of time. And with that said, considering
Senator Feinstein is presenting new legislation on assault
weapons and ammunition magazines right now, I’m starting with
Phil DeFranco who has got a question about this. Phil DeFranco:
Yes, Mr. Vice President,
the 1994 violent criminal or Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act known as the Assault Weapons Ban,
expired because it was proven to be ineffective at
reducing violent crime. And according to FBI.gov’s
violent crime stats, assault weapons as defined by the bill
account for less than 1% of homicides annually. In fact, that’s less
than hammer murders. So my question is, what
reasonable measures can we implement that might reduce
the loss of life as opposed to repeating the same failed laws
of previous Administrations? The Vice President:
Well, let me set the record
straight in your question. It did not expire because
it proved ineffective. It expired because it had to
be reauthorized in ten years. When I originally wrote the
legislation in order to get it passed there was an agreement
that it would have a ten-year life and have to
be reauthorized. And the last
Administration chose not to seek reauthorization. That’s number 1. Number 2, it is true that the
vast majority of gun deaths in America are not a consequence
of the use of an assault weapon. But that begs the issue of
whether or not assault weapons have any real utility either,
A, in terms of any sporting or self-protection needs that —
look, as you know, the Supreme Court recently ruled that
it is an individual right to bear arms. An individual right. That used to be a debate;
it no longer is a debate. And I have had that
position my whole career. Number 2, they said, though,
that it is constitutional to put reasonable limitations
on who can own and what kind of arms can be owned. Now, one of the reasons why the
assault weapons ban makes sense, even though it accounts for a
small percentage of the murders or those who die as a
consequence of a weapon every year, is because police
organizations overwhelmingly support it because
they get outgunned. They are outgunned on the
street by the bad guys and the proliferation of these weapons. When in fact there were fewer
police being murdered, fewer police being victimized —
being outgunned when the assault weapons ban was
in fact was in existence. When it — and the number of
assaults on police officers and the deadly assaults on
them has gone up since the ban has been lifted. It is not an answer
to all the problems. But it’s a rational, in my view,
a rational limitation on what type of weapons should be owned. Could be owned. Phil DeFranco:
And, Mr. Biden, when you say the
rational, what would you say to people saying that some of this
legislation, especially against AR, when you mentioned the
police deaths, it’s creating policy based on outliers rather
than really hitting, though, the real issue,
whatever that is. The Vice President:
I tell you what, look, we do get
to the real issue and I assume, Philip, we’re going to get a
chance to talk about it in this chat, we do get to the real
issue which is the vast majority of gun deaths — and, by the
way, there have been over 1200 just, in America, just since
what happened up in Connecticut in Newtown, but the fact of the
matter is, it does negatively impact upon the physical
health and well-being of police officers and others. And it is in no way, no way
does it deny or trench upon a legitimate restriction
on the type of weapon that can be owned. And so and the courts
concluded that as well. So the idea that it
doesn’t solve every problem, although it only solves part of
a problem without trenching on anyone’s individual rights,
but because it doesn’t solve the whole problem you shouldn’t do
it, I don’t buy the logic of that. Hari Sreenivasan:
Mr. Vice President, there
have been several people online asking about the fact
that you are a gun owner. You own two shotguns. The Vice President:
Yes. Hari Sreenivasan:
What’s your interpretation
of the Second Amendment? The Vice President:
My interpretation of the Second
Amendment is an individual, it is an individual right, not a
corporate right, not related to a militia, you have an
individual right to own a weapon both for recreation,
for hunting, and also for yourself protection. You have an individual
right to do that. But just as you don’t have an
individual right to go out and buy an F-15 if you are a
billionaire with ordnance on it, just like you don’t have the
right to go buy an M-1 tank, just like you don’t have a right
to buy an automatic weapon, those judgments have been made
that there are no societal, reasonable societal
justification or constitutional justification for owning them. And so my view is that it
is totally a guarantee, not negotiable, that I am able to
own a weapon — (dog barking) — for sporting purposes as well
as my own protection, but there should be rational limits on the
type of weapon I can own that exceed the need that would
go beyond what I need for my protection or legitimate
sporting activities. Hari Sreenivasan:
All right. I want to turn
it over to Theresa Tillett. She is actually applying for a
permit for a gun ownership now. Theresa? Theresa Tillett:
Hi, Mr. Vice President. (dog barking) My question is there are many,
many gun-owning families that are feeling picked on and
they’re feeling that they’re being attacked and punished with
these new restrictions when, as you said, the majority of the
gun deaths and the shootings are being committed by
known criminals. (dog barking) When will the current criminal
laws be fully enforced? The Vice President:
Well, we are attempting to
fully enforce the current criminal laws. But let me say two
things, Theresa: Number 1, there is a legitimate,
respected, and I think as old as the country, culture of
gun ownership in America. My dad was a hunter. My dad had a gun case full of
some fairly valuable weapons. He had some hard times. He had to sell them
when I was a kid. I own two shotguns. My son owns shotguns. And, you know, where I come from
in Delaware, I’ll never forget going down to an area in
Southern Delaware to meet the one woman who was very involved
in the Democratic party and I will never forget her walking
out in the backyard, she was 72 years old and she said,
Joe, do you own a gun? And I said, only a shotgun. She says, well, come on,
let me show you mine. And she is out there and she is
firing a shotgun at her barn. And she is 72 years old and
said, my daddy give me this gun. It’s a legitimate and
respected tradition. And I think it
should be honored. And it is not the problem,
not the cause of the problems we have. With regard to the question of
employing and enforcing the laws now, we do that,
Theresa, in two ways. Right now there is no federal
law against gun trafficking. You’d think there would be. There is no federal law
against gun trafficking. There is no federal way
to impose restrictions on straw purchasers. You go out and file for a permit
or you go out and purchase a weapon, you do it legally. That’s why 98% or 90% of all
gun owners support tougher background checks. Because they know they’re legit. And they know they are illegit
people going out and getting those weapons. There’s a third thing. An awful lot of the gun violence
in America is a consequence of gang bangers, the drug trade,
stolen weapons, weapons that are, you know, in the black
market, and that’s why I continue to push for
a continuation of the so-called Biden Crime
Bill as relates to cops. We think we need another 15,000
law enforcement officers on the street nationwide because
in Connecticut, in Delaware, across the country, because of
tough economic times requiring to balance budgets in
states, they laid off law enforcement officers. So across the board we are
trying to enforce the existing laws we have and make reasonable
changes in those laws that keep — there is a fella that I met
with at these groups that I met with, he said, look, it’s not
about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people; it’s
about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people. Hari Sreenivasan:
Mr. Vice President, if this
assault weapons ban was to go into effect, it still does
nothing to address a grandfather clause, all the weapons that
already exist out there today. Is there a real possibility that
this just accelerates the black market or the secondary market
for the sale of these weapons? The Vice President:
No, I don’t think so. It’s hard to, it’s hard to
imagine how you could accelerate the sale more rapidly than
it’s already been accelerated. But the reason to do it
is just ask your local police department. The idea that there are a lot of
these weapons out there now and therefore you should do nothing
about putting more of them out there in the market because
they’re already there, that doesn’t seem logical to me, nor
does it seem logical to all the police agencies with
whom I dealt with. They just want to — they’d love
to be able to do something about the ones that are out there,
but realistically that’s not going to happen. But increasing the stock
that’s out there is not in anyone’s interest. And it does nothing to
violate anyone’s Second Amendment rights. Hari Sreenivasan:
All right. Several of the executive
actions as well as the Congressional suggestions have
to do with mental health and I want to turn to Kimberly Blaine
now who is speaking today as a parent and as a mental
health practitioner. Kimberly? Kimberly Blaine:
Yes, thank you. So good to meet
you, Vice President. The Vice President:
Nice to meet you, too, Kimberly. Kimberly Blaine:
This is an honor. You know, parents are absolutely
thrilled that you’re investing in strategies to
make schools safer. However, there is a great
concern that we’re leaping too quickly into a
one-size-fits-all by having more police on schools. We kind of, you know, believe
that prevention should be the main focus. You know, dealing with and
identifying at-risk children and youth. So what my question or question
to you is are you proposing sending more armed guards into
school or having schools hire more mental health
professionals? The Vice President:
Well, quite frankly, you
probably forgot more about this subject than most people
know based on your background. Let me say where we are: The first and most important
thing is to engage in trying to come up with ways to prevent,
prevent children who are at risk from falling into a circumstance
where their — whatever mental problems they may have, whatever
emotional problems they have, before they metastasize into
behavior that is antisocial. And so one of the things we’ve
done, we’re proposing, is a new project called “Project Aware”
where we are going in, just like you teach school teachers about
everything from CPR to basic first aid, we are able to go
in and with this proposal, and train school personnel to
identify aberrant behavior that warrants someone like you or
a professional looking at it. And so there is a mechanism by
which we are going to provide that kind of training for school
districts around the country and school teachers and
administrators if they want it. It’s called for, it’s a
$40 million proposal to begin this process. The second piece of this is,
there also is a requirement, once that conduct is observed
and it warrants a professional looking at it, to be able to
get to the parents or the legal guardian and say here are a
menu of people you can go to. This is where you can get help. This is how you
can get the help. Thirdly, because of what you
know the mental health parity that was passed in 2008 and
because of the Affordable Care Act, the combination of those
two things means that there is now affordable mental health
care that will be available to all Americans. You have thousands of young
children, as you know, aging out of Medicaid, for example, with
mental health facility — mental health assistance from professionals
who age out and all of a sudden they’re not covered. So the whole idea is
preventative here. Preventative. To identify before, before
the problem metastasizes. There’s a second piece. We are not calling for
armed guards in schools. We are not calling for — we
think it would be a terrible mistake to, my wife is a
full-time educator, full-time teacher, teaches a full load
right now, right now at a community college, but for
years in the public high school system, the last thing we
need to do is be arming school teachers and administrators. But we did have in the original
Biden Crime Bill that put a hundred thousand cops in the
street, the option for districts to choose a school
resource officer. That is, a sworn officer, a
uniformed officer, armed or unarmed, up to the school,
in the school where just like community policing worked
because people in the neighborhood get to know the law
enforcement officer, trust him and report to them, students
establish a relationship with the law enforcement officer to
say, by the way, John, I just want you to know, when I opened
my locker this morning the guy two lockers down, I saw the butt
of a gun in his, you know, in his locker, don’t tell anybody. There is a drug deal going
to go down after school. It worked. It worked to lessen
violence in the school. Now, we think it should
be made more flexible. So in the proposal that we’re
making to make a hundred — excuse me, a thousand of
these school resource officers available, we’re making it
flexible enough so your school district could say, by the way,
we’d like to compete for that money but we don’t want a law
enforcement officer in our school; we want to hire a school
psychologist with that money. So it’s totally up to the school
district as to how they want to use that money. But it’s not about
arming the schools. As the Mayor of Chicago said,
our schools by and large are relatively safe; it’s getting
to and from school where kids are the most unsafe. Least safe. Kimberly Blaine:
Thank you. The Vice President:
Thank you. Hari Sreenivasan:
Kimberly, the amount that
he mentioned, $40 million, does that seem like a drop
in the bucket to you? Does that seem enough? Kimberly Blaine:
Well, that’s just, I think,
a portion of the funding that they’re allocating toward us
because I see there is 150 million to hire psychologists — The Vice President:
Exactly. Kimberly Blaine:
— social workers. So but more that specific
program which is Project Aware — which by the way,
we are thrilled about this, so don’t get me wrong, this is
fantastic — but this does seem like a really huge nut to crack. As we said, we want
safety for the children. We want to be sure that
mental health issues are being addressed very early on
in the school system and that teachers are empowered to come
forth and say am I allowed to say who I am identifying in my
class that might need services. We want to be sure. And so I don’t know if 40
million is enough to train these teachers — The Vice President:
It’s not. Kimberly Blaine:
— but we hope it is. The Vice President:
By the way, it’s not. But like every other program
that I have been responsible for as a Senator and the Crime Bill,
you have got to demonstrate that it works and it’s useful. The whole idea is that local
communities at the end of the day would pick up
this responsibility. This cannot be just a
federal responsibility. These are local schools. This is a local requirement. That’s what the whole
cops bill was about. Initially people said
is there enough money. We’re not — you’re
not paying, Biden, for the hundred thousand cops. I said, no, we’re not. What we’re doing is we’re going
to give you 75% of the money for five years. You have got to
maintain effort here. You can’t reduce your police
force if you take this money. And then you’ve got to decide
as a community do you want to continue to fund these
law enforcement officers. Guess what? It worked! Violent crime was
reduced significantly. And so this is not a total
federal responsibility. The way the federal government
can lead is look at best practices, make them available
to schools and school districts and states, as well as provide
seed money to get this moving. But $40 million, the total
package is $55 million on top of the other money Kimberly talked
about, that’s not enough to take care of the 90,000 schools, but
it is a way to begin the process and demonstrate it works. Hari Sreenivasan:
Mr. Vice President, none
of this happens in a vacuum. This is a very political
time that we all live in. Guy Kawasaki is joining
us from California. He has been trying to
unpack some of this. Guy? Guy Kawasaki:
Yes, thank you. Good morning, Mr.
Vice President. The Vice President:
Good morning, Guy. Guy Kawasaki:
You know, what you say seems
logical and reasonable with respect for both sides of the
argument, Second Amendment and gun safety. Why is this so hard? I mean, how did it come to this
point where special interest seems to control Congress, you
know, even to the point of what research can be done? How did we get to this point? The Vice President:
Well, look — let me choose
my words here — both left and right sometimes — (laughter) — take absolutists positions. And yet the vast majority of the
American people agree on certain basic, basic principles relating
to public safety and gun safety. And what happens is, for
example, you’ll hear — and I met with the NRA, by the way —
you’ll hear the NRA say, well, that may not be so bad
but it’s a slippery slope. It’s a slippery slope. If you allow that to happen,
then next thing you know you’re going to call for
firearms registration. Gun registration. And you’re going to be able to
confiscate my weapon, et cetera. And so part of this is when the
original Crime Bill was passed in ’94, there was a great
concern and consensus about the rise of gratuitous violence in
America and so there was a human cry going up nationally. In a sense the Crime Bill worked
too well because what happened is violent crime
diminished significantly. And as a consequence of that,
those folks who represent a minority of the people who were
much more energized by their, from their perspective, were
able to come in and undo a lot of what had been
positively done. For example, as you point out,
Guy, there are provisions in the law that were added to what were
called riders to appropriations bills that were interpreted
as us saying the Centers for Disease Control can’t even keep
statistics on gun violence. Can’t even do research on this. Let me give you an example. When I first got to the
Senator — to the Senate as a 30-year-old kid, the
big issue was not about guns; it was about automobile
safety, highway fatalities. And some of the automobile
industry argued that the National Safety Counsel,
Highway Safety Counsel could not keep statistics. They were not able
to keep statistics. It was after Ralph Nader’s
book on “Safe At Any Speed.” And so when I got down
here as a 30-year-old kid, I was perplexed. How could that be? I figured out why they
didn’t want to do it. Once we’re able to start to keep
the statistics and the National Highway Safety Council got
engaged, they found out that the vast majority of people
driving an automobile who were killed in an accident were
killed because they were impaled by the steering column. There was a simple
answer to that. Say to the engineers build a
column that can in fact release. Guess what? It costs more money. Automobile makers
didn’t like it. But we passed it. Deaths went down dramatically. The same way passengers,
why were they dying. They weren’t getting thrown
through the front windshield, and that was the automobile guy
said just have a restraint on your lap. We said, no, you
need a seat belt. Because why? They found out a majority or a
significant percentage of the people being killed were hitting
their head, fracturing their skull on that bar that goes up
from the body of the roof or on the bar that goes inside. Guess what? Put on a restraint. Restraints cost more money. But once the research was
done, what’s happened? We build much safer automobiles. And one thing that bothers me is
there is part of the — part of the interest population,
interest group population group out there that
are afraid of facts. Let the facts lead where
they will and let the research be done. And that’s one of the things
the President and I believe very strongly, let the facts
work, including you’re out in California, including
with regard to the entertainment industry. There is no hard data as to
whether or not these excessively violent video games in fact
cause people to engage in behavior that is antisocial,
including using guns. There is one study done, I
think, I can’t — the American Academy of Pediatrics. They said if you watch three to
six hours, kids watching three to six hours of video games, and
a lot of kids do that, can lead to aggressive behavior. They didn’t make the next
connection saying that leads to violent behavior. But there is no studies done. So I recommended to
the President that we do significant research. Let CDC, let the National
Institutes of Health, let these people go out and look
at the pathology that is behind this if there is a pathology
related so gun violence. We shouldn’t be
afraid of the facts. Guy Kawasaki:
Okay. So as you say I am
a citizen of California. Dianne Feinstein is my Senator. The Vice President:
Yep. Guy Kawasaki:
You know, clearly the
representatives from my state are pro gun control. But what can a citizen of a
state who, like me, who the elected representatives are
already supporting gun control, what do you do — what can I do? Does Dianne Feinstein
need more support? Or do I write to
National, what do I do? The Vice President:
I, you know, I, and first
of all, I don’t view it as gun control. I view it as gun safety. It ranges from everything from
making sure you keep your weapon out of the reach of kids,
to making sure that we — that we’re able to make sure
bad guys don’t — they get in the registry so they
can’t buy a gun. But, look, as the President
said when he introduced the recommendation — he took the
recommendations that I sent to him and laid out what he thought
should be done, he said, look, this is up to the
American people. Let me give you an example. 98%, according to a New York
Times poll, 98% of the American people believe that there
should be tighter controls on who can own a gun. Who can. Keep the guns out of the hands
of felons and, you know, folks who are adjudicated mentally
incompetent to hold and own a gun, et cetera. But what happens is, as you
know in the political system, the elected officials
respond to intensity. And so if it’s number ten on
your list of things you want your congressman to do is to do
something about gun safety and it’s not going to
get you very far. And if the number, if it’s a
smaller group, it’s number 1 on their list to make sure there
is nothing done, guess who they hear from? And so make your voices heard. That’s one of the reasons I
wanted to be in this chat. There’s tens of thousands
of people listening to this. I don’t care which side
of the issue you’re on. Pick those things that you think
can have a positive impact. If you don’t agree with me
on assault weapons then you probably agree with me, not
then, you may agree with me on background checks,
making them universal. Make your voices heard. This outfit, this town listens
when people rise up and speak. Guy Kawasaki:
Thank you. Hari Sreenivasan:
Mr. Vice President, I know we
just have a couple of minutes left with you unless, of course,
you want to stay longer and we would be glad to have you. The Vice President:
I’m happy to stay a little
longer if you guys want me to. Hari Sreenivasan:
Okay, thank you. The Vice President:
I was told each of
you had two questions. I’m happy to do it. Hari Sreenivasan:
Absolutely. So Phil DeFranco, I know a lot
of your folks are talking about video games on
your board as well. Phil DeFranco:
Yeah, there was a big
conversation of video games, $10 million spent in to
either research of movies, video games’ violence. And I think there is
something there before that I did want to hit. You were talking about the
facts so I did go to FBI.gov which I have up. I think it is unbiased research. But it is shown that since the
assault weapon ban expired, while firearm sales have
increased, the number of murders have gone down. And you previously mentioned the
1200 firearm-related deaths but not assault rifles. So what would you say to the
people that say, yes, you are infringing on our rights, not
for sporting or for hunting, but in California everyone talks
about the big earthquake or some terrible natural disaster as a
last line of defense, what would you say to those people
who want those weapons? The Vice President:
Well, I would say there is an
awful, you know, guess what, a shotgun will keep you a lot
safer, a double barrel shotgun than the assault weapons in
somebody’s hands who doesn’t know how to use it. Even one who does
know how to use it. You know, it’s harder to use an
assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. Okay? So you want to keep people
away in an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells. Phil DeFranco:
Okay. The Vice President:
The number 1. But any way and with regard
to violent crime going down, I’m very proud it went down. It went down in large part the
reason it went down is we put a hundred thousand
cops on the street. But that didn’t mean the cops
were safer as a consequence of these guns. The cops were less safe the
more assault weapons were on the street. They don’t account for even,
not only in bulk, they account for a small percentage of
the gun crimes in America. More people, more people out
there get shot with a Glock that has, that has cartridges that
you can have magazines that can put, two, ten, eight, 12, 15,
30 shells in it, than from any assault weapon you see. I’m much less concerned, quite
frankly, about what you call an assault weapon than I am about
magazines and the number of rounds that can be
held in a magazine. But the point is that the fact
that violent crime is down and there has been a proliferation
of assault weapons quote-unquote as was defined up to now on the
street, does not suggest that taking the assault weapons off
the street would not in fact make it safer, particularly
for the folks who are mostly outgunned… cops. Phil DeFranco:
And you previously
mentioned the magazine sizes. The Vice President:
Yes. Phil DeFranco:
So I guess my question with that
is the gunman in Connecticut fired 150 rounds, meaning that
he had to swap out his 30 round magazines at least four times. The Vice President:
Yep. Phil DeFranco:
With how fast you can swap out a
magazine, do you think limiting the magazine size to
ten will have an impact? The Vice President:
Well, let’s assume — by the
way, your facts are correct, about 30 — he had
some magazines, I think, only had 20 shells, but
I’m not sure, 30 shells. So he had to swap out
four or five times. If there was, if it was ten
shells in there, he would have had to swap out 30 times or he
would have to swap out 25 times. And so what would happen is,
the response time in fact may have saved one kid’s life. Maybe if it took longer, maybe
one more kid would be alive. Let me give you an example. In the case of Gabby Giffords,
when the guy had to swap out a new magazine, he fumbled. He fumbled, and he was able —
and an older woman reached up and grabbed his hand
and they subdued him. All of them would have been dead
had he not had to change that magazine, had there been
30 clips in that magazine, or 40 clips in that magazine. The same way with Aurora,
a guy had a hundred shells in the magazine. Fortunately it jammed. It jammed enough that it gave
time for folks to get there and in fact save lives. So, look, I’m not making the
argument that this will end crime or this is — I make
the argument this way: There is no sporting need that
I’m aware of to have a magazine that holds 50 rounds. None that I’m aware of. And I’m a sportsman. Number 1. Number 2, there is no diminution
of your ability to physically protect yourself having ten
clips in a round — I mean having ten rounds in a clip
instead of 30 or 40 rounds. And what it does do — now, for
a professional, it only takes you, you go to the FBI, they’ll
show it takes a second and three quarters for a pro
to change the clip. But not these, not all
of these people are pros. And so if you just give another,
if it took another, you know, a minute and a half, two minutes,
who knows who else might have been alive. And those kids may be alive. Some of them. Hari Sreenivasan:
Mr. Vice President,
we’re out of time. Thank you, very much,
for your time — The Vice President:
Thank you. Hari Sreenivasan:
— and on behalf of all of us. The Vice President:
I appreciate it very much. Write your congressman, for or
against, write your congressman. (laughter) Hari Sreenivasan:
All right. Bye-bye. Guy Kawasaki:
Bye! The Vice President:
Thanks a lot, everybody!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *