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


Uploaded by whitehouse on 24.01.2013

Transcript:
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!