Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Tragedies here for a debate Jeffrey Shapiro a former federal prosecutor would -- some of the -- -- gun control laws in the country.
And Michael -- -- former Homeland Security advisor for President Obama Michael I'll start with you.
You said this is another attempt to create a one size fits all solution to gun control what do you think should happen.
Think we are take the the approaches that we've used before hand frankly in 94 law.
That was out there for the assault weapon ban that was law and during that time.
And we didn't know she a lot of people saying -- I can't hunt -- assault weapon that was in this hue and cry in New York State that when I was let's -- in the senate there.
I voted for that film and then we still -- a long period of time it.
Went away now the question is what what do we bring.
Now and -- -- way.
Because people wanted to get rid of -- Jeff you.
Is that the right thing to do what do you think is the solution to the -- how do you prevent violence like what we saw in Newtown Connecticut.
Well Michael is talking about one of the things -- the assault weapons -- did into let me take somebody else -- didn't do was reduce the violence or gun violence or killings.
Reports by the Justice Department have confirmed that the crime bill particularly the assault weapons ban as we call from 1994.
Did very little if not nothing to reduce gun violence this country for the ten year period that was enacted.
I don't really see the point going down that road again.
I think the biggest mistake we can make right now since everyone is so emotional this country over the tragic shootings and say enough is make a decision before we know we're doing.
We need to have congressional hearings on this issue so we know the facts and we know the evidence in the legislators that are going to be the architects of these new laws.
Actually know the facts and we can make educated decisions.
What do you tell you you know -- I've looked at everything the president said today in I have to tell yet.
A lot of similar describing this is aggressive ice is sort -- -- tea and I'll tell you why.
Wasn't some of the language in some of these executive actions confirm -- director of the ATF does it I mean isn't the president gonna do that anyway.
Maximize enforcement ever efforts to prevent gun violence.
I think -- the end of the day what's interesting about the president's statements today.
If they didn't go to the heart of what liberals want I don't think and I'm surprised by -- -- you did talk about the fact that you go away and take the and magazines high capacity magazines down -- ten.
And -- in getting to it -- point.
They can perhaps did not have an impact on the statistics a crime but.
What would can you telling what the constitutional violation was.
If you say in a magazine you go from thirty rounds at ten there was it is there -- something that's a current event in terms of our -- Let's -- -- can answer that question.
Well I can it there is a constitutional violation in my opinion because when I was in the District of Columbia the US Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case.
That guns in common use should be allowed to be kept in people's homes for self defense and we all know.
That there are an overwhelming number of handguns -- carry more than ten rounds at a time those are guns that are in -- -- so to say that people don't have the right to how those gun to their homes for self defense.
In my opinion could very well be a constitutional violation of the Second Amendment.
Well it you know its interest seeing.
I'd Jeff we brightly when because of this op Ed that you wrote in the Wall Street Journal today describe an effort to get rid of guns in the District of Columbia -- this was.
This who is a very tough measure to try to reduce violence what happened.
Unfortunately gun violence actually increased it was counter intuitive and it's tragic and it's unfortunate.
But what we saw was -- an emboldened criminals because they realize that people couldn't defend themselves.
And all that gun bans -- traditionally done in places where we've had them is increased violent crime it's endangered civil liberties.
And it's created an undue burden on law enforcement to distract them from actually patrolling for actual violent crimes in progress they just don't work.
How that's not expect in New York -- the -- -- -- basically requires that you have concealed weapons.
But you've got to have that permits for that and the gun violence in New York State right now that's the lowest it's been in the nine of thirty years so -- -- -- -- spine that Jeff what do you make of that.
I would respond by saying that the New York police department is one of most effective police departments in the country and I would also say that they've done a lot of things in New York that is operation impact.
To re strategize deployment of police officers by putting them at high impact areas they even added.
Almost a thousand police officer sometime around 2007 as a part of operation impact so I don't think you can.
A lack of violence or reduction in violence in New York to a gun bans or restrictions I -- Contributed to -- good police work.
You know -- -- their you know part of the president's suggestions today.
Is is more police.
More cops on the street but I wouldn't take you to a different aspect of this whole conversation today.
And that's kids.
The president had kids with him when he made his his statement today children that he said and written in letters and then the NRA itself.
Putting out an ad that was unbelievable to me -- Talking about kids and violence you're seeing that footage right now and that essentially NRA saying that.
Why should the president's kids be protected by armed guards when our kids are not so very emotional pleas on both sides.
What do you make of LA again it's it's a well worn playbook whenever these shootings happened is those this response both sides.
He's hyperbole -- passion and that they -- really should be driven by -- statistics crime statistics and it's not whatever happened look at that doesn't make the news.
Jeff how did he responded that because I tell you it.
It seems like everybody's trying to manipulate my emotions here -- make me forget about the facts and what actually works what do you -- I think that it is incredibly.
Manipulative and tragic that anyone is using children as a part of this debate because we all know that guns can kill.
We all know that it can kill anyone whether it's an adult or child.
This is an important issue that involves our constitutional liberties and law enforcement in this country we shouldn't be trying to play people's emotions.
By putting elementary school children on stage with the president or vice president to make it appear as if anyone who opposes his legislation or is executive orders.
He is against children obviously everyone wants to protect children -- should not be part of this debate we should stick to the fact I.
The evidence I think we all agree on that we found one thing to agree on that's dead Jeffrey -- Michael thanks for coming in tonight appreciate your time.
Filter by section