All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2017 - Get Off My Lawn - Gavin McInnes
42:57
Get Off My Lawn #25 | Church Massacre
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From New York, it's Get Off My Lawn with Kevin McGinnis.
She don't like her eggs all runny.
She thinks crossing her legs is funny.
She looks down and knows that money.
She gets it on like the Easter bunny.
She's my baby.
I'm her honey.
I'm never gonna let her go.
He ain't got late in a month of Sundays.
Caught him once and he was sniffing my undies.
He ain't too sharp, but he gets things done.
Drinks his beer like it's oxygen.
John Prine.
I forget what the name of that song is.
Despite ourselves or something.
Great.
In spite of ourselves.
In spite of ourselves.
I don't know.
I was watching, I was on some Instagram account called Dads of the 70s or something like that.
It made me pine for those times when your wife would say that you drink beer like it's oxygen and you're a pervert who doesn't get late enough as a compliment.
So today is going to be a very unique episode.
We're going to focus exclusively on the church massacre.
There's other things I want to get to.
I wanted to talk about the election here in New York that's going down tomorrow.
The odds are very, very, it's slightly possible that Nicole Moulitakis could win and change the city forever.
I don't know.
I don't think it will.
I was talking to a cop on the way and he goes, I don't want her to win.
I want Bernie to win.
I want socialists to win.
I want us to have to eat out of cardboard boxes so my kids don't have to go through this crap.
Let's just get it all out of our system.
I want the most lefty guy you got.
Okay.
But yeah, briefly, let's cover a couple of things.
Please vote for Nicole tomorrow.
And there's also this, it's amazing that this is news after we lost, what, 28 dead, 26 dead?
26 are dead so far.
But some still might die, including children.
Little kids were murdered by this man.
But before we get to that, one thing I have to talk about because I can't talk about it tomorrow is, so someone finds a picture of Trump feeding fish in a koi pond in Japan, right?
Photo of Donald Trump dumping fish in the koi pond during Japan visit draws Obama comparisons.
And he's just jumping it out.
What an idiot.
You're going to kill those fish.
Guess what?
I don't care about koi fish in Japan.
I'm going to probably eat some fish today.
I'm probably going to have fish tacos.
So don't tell me.
Sorry, tonight.
Don't tell me about how crude this, what he is, he, a cad?
This gauche cad.
Go down.
You can see there's just Instagram.
They're so happy.
And by the way, one of the reasons I love this story is it shows the innate classism that the left has.
Oh, Lord.
When he was in Japan, he didn't behave the way you're supposed to behave around an aristocrat.
Remember Obama bombing till he almost bombing, bowing until he almost kissed his toes?
They like that.
But then it turns out, that's what you're supposed to do at this koi pond.
It's a big pond, okay?
They can handle the food.
So you come out, you do a few spoonfuls, and then the president, is he the president or the prime minister?
The prime minister, Abe, freeing the Japanese slaves, the prime minister dumps his whole thing out.
So Trump goes, oh, okay, I guess we're dumping the whole thing out.
But the press are such a bunch of bitches that they have to focus on something they assume was gauche.
And even that wasn't true.
But no, today we're going to spend the whole show much, much longer than usual.
We're going to talk to John Lott for about half the show because it's important we debunk all these classic myths.
But I also want to talk to Sonny Johnson.
I was listening to her on Breitbart News the other day, and she said something fascinating.
She said, one, that if someone owns a gun, if someone gets arrested for having a gun in the hood, it's possible that they are an innocent person who just wants to protect his family.
And after that person pays his dues, then he should be able to own a gun to protect his family, or at least his wife should be able to.
He can't even be in a home where there's a gun anywhere.
And she used to be against that because she said I used to follow conservative talking points.
But I talked to this dad in the hood and I said, you know what?
I've changed my mind.
So I'm impressed by that for two reasons.
One, that it's a good point, that the right can be hypocritical sometimes.
We talk about rehabilitation, yet we don't allow this guy to have a gun in the hood when he deserves it and wants to protect his family.
And we're also, by the way, encouraging fracturing the black family because she can't have a gun in the home with him, so get rid of him.
That's what we're saying.
But secondly, what I really liked about it is you don't often see journalists saying, I'm going to change my mind about something.
And that's really what intelligence is.
That's how a scientist becomes a better scientist.
He goes through hypotheses and eventually gets to the truth.
We get stuck in this rut, both right and left.
We get stuck in this myopic rut of talking points where we only believe our way and refuse to hear anything else.
And Sonny is evolving, so we'll talk to her, but then we'll get ensconced in the lotster at crime research.org and talk about all these myths, like the myth Sean King was talking about here on my hordinateur, that if it's white, we don't call it terrorism, but if it's brown, we do.
Well, if it's a random black dude, no, we don't call it terrorism if you want to get into race, but this isn't about race, it's about terrorism.
And terrorism, for the millionth time, is you are doing an act of complete carnage.
You are committing a massacre to gain some sort of coercion.
It's got some sort of political means.
So if he said, I hate Christians and all Christians are going to die and we can't have Christianity anymore.
Yes, that's terrorism.
If he's just a lunatic jerk who happens to dislike Christians because he's an atheist, that's not terrorism.
He wasn't trying to achieve an end.
In New York on the West Side Highway, he was trying to achieve an end.
He was trying to promote Islam.
And there's plenty of statements out there.
You have all these people taking ownership for it.
You have a movement.
You have a book.
Not only do you have the Quran, but you have their propaganda saying rent a truck and go kill people.
It's good for jihad.
It's good for ISIS.
That is terrorism.
A lunatic in a bad mood is not terrorism.
We'll also talk about why he had this gun, background checks, all this other stuff.
And we'll look at the fact that this is someone with a potentially illegal gun who was stopped by citizens with legal guns.
So I hate to politicize it, but we still win if you want to get political.
I saw someone on Twitter talking about politicizing the shooting.
Can you pull that up?
It's kind of funny how the left will say about the Westside Highway, this wasn't terrorism.
This was just some lunatic.
But then they'll change their mind when it's this.
And then the right will do the opposite.
The right will say, this was terrorism, but the other thing isn't.
So we're both guilty of politicization, but sometimes politicization matters.
That's the funny thing that the left doesn't seem to understand.
And I'll repeat it again.
Dylan Roof, Batman shooting, Columbine, those are mental midget lunatic drug addict psychos on crazy medication.
That's not terrorism.
When jihadists do it, it's terrorism.
You know how I know?
Because they say so.
They say this is terrorism.
They scream, Alua Akbar.
That means God is great.
That means Allah is great, not the Christian God.
So there's reasons why jihadists commit terror.
There are not reasons why lunatic white people commit terror.
But anyway, let's focus on Sonny and John and have a definitive episode that really conquers the whole concept of gun control after these massacres and why it doesn't work.
Sonny Johnson, how are you, my dear?
I'm doing good.
How are you doing, Gavin?
I'm wonderful.
You know, I listened to your show yesterday, and it was right before we heard about the shooting.
And you were talking about something that I thought was fascinating for two reasons.
But you were talking about a guy in the hood who was arrested for illegal, owning an illegal firearm.
And he did his time two and a half years.
And then when he got out, he thought, why can't I be armed now?
And it changed your views on something.
Yeah, well, just at the time, I had just got into politics.
So one of the things that I had did was, you know, latched on to those conservative talking points.
So one of those talking points is that just follow the law, just obey the law, and everything will be fine.
Well, what if the fucking law suck?
What if the law prevents you from defending yourself?
What if it prevents you from defending your family?
Because the second part about that was when you have a felon, not only is the felon not allowed to own a gun, he's not allowed to live in a house with a gun.
So therefore, everybody by extension in his family is now defenseless.
And I think that that's a stupid ass law.
So how do you tell an American citizen, just follow the law and be a law-abiding citizen when that law disarms you from the very thing that we as conservatives and Republicans are supposed to be fighting for?
And that's gun laws in this case.
Yeah, because what you're doing is you're incentivizing that woman to get him out of there.
So if he's a reformed person, we're supposed to have rehabilitated him.
That's the deal.
It's two and a half years.
You're supposed to be better now.
His only crime was holding the gun.
He never, or owning the gun, I should say.
He had no actual crime with it.
No possession of drugs, no anything else.
It was just the possession of the firearm.
And that made it a felon, and he had to serve a mandatory time.
So if she was, by the law, she should get rid of him and become a single mom because her children would be safer because she could be armed.
So we're discouraging her from having a marriage, from having a stable relationship.
Because it is a disadvantage to her to have to love her husband, to have her husband in the house.
And at the same time, you are demasculating him because not only can he not be the protection force for his family, he can't even, because of him, his wife can't even take that role.
So you have this dysfunction within a family where it goes way beyond just gun laws.
It goes into the family relationship, that bond, who defends, who leads in a household.
And if you are a conservative household where the man takes charge and the man is the first line of defense, how is this law helping you in any way, shape, form, or fashion to strengthen your marriage?
So it goes just beyond the law itself.
It goes to the dysfunction it causes within the family unit.
So it's bigger than just, you know, every time something bad happens in the world, you want to ban guns.
It is taking away a man's natural instinct to think that he is supposed to defend and protect his family.
But what if we find out, so we have a criminal, we get him on a gun charge, he does his time, he gets out, then we give him a gun again, and he's not in a relationship, he's not a family man, and he shoots someone, and the family of the victim goes, what the hell are you doing?
You gave an ex-con a gun?
He's clearly showing he's a criminal.
Well, but then again, you look at who will make that argument.
And that would be people on the right who Would make that argument.
People on the left wouldn't make that argument.
People on the left would go back into why do you want to criminalize the black?
You know, they are the ones who pass these laws.
They are the ones that put these things into place.
When the men are caught in the net of it all, then they come to the defense of them.
Republicans and conservatives are supposed to be the ones that are fighting for these protections, for these rights that are mentioned in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
But when it comes to this question, did he have a right to defend himself?
Period.
Point blank.
In case of when he pulled out the gun, was it in defense of himself?
And a lot of times we don't even ask those questions because we immediately think, oh, he was a criminal before, so he's a criminal now.
And I thought we were supposed to live in this country where forgiveness is possible.
I thought we were supposed to be these Christians that understood that.
Are there some people that are not going to be repentant?
Are there some people that are not going to do the right thing?
Hell yes.
That's why I encourage more people to own guns.
So when that person decides they want to get out of pocket, it's always one of us with a concealed carry somewhere in the perimeter to stop them.
So it is not a means to say that just because this one incident happened, that all of these other people should not get their rights back.
I refuse to believe that.
Should you have to maybe go through a process to get your rights back?
If you want to give them back their right to vote, which a lot of these Democrat precincts do, then also give them back the right to bear arms.
Give them all their rights back and let them feel like they are a part of this country or stop pretending that we are the America we claim to be.
You know, one of my favorite parts of this whole story is that you changed your mind.
We are so dead set in our ways.
Both the right and the left had this myopic obsession with the talking points.
And it's so rare to hear someone say, wow, I never thought of that before.
I officially have changed my mind.
What did you, the way you phrased it was, I might change my mind tomorrow based on what I learned today.
What I said yesterday, I may not believe tomorrow because of what I learned today.
And you have to be in a process in this world where you are willing to learn.
None of us is above it.
None of us is right on every subject.
And when I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong because that's the only way I can grow and make sure next time that shit doesn't happen.
I'm a female.
I don't like being wrong.
So the only way I can correct that problem is that when I am, take responsibility for it, learn from it, teach myself something new, and go on and be a better person in the future.
And if more people were willing to do that, then we wouldn't have these same ugly, stupid ass conversations continuously.
We can actually move the football on some of these issues.
Yeah, I've always said you're not a real man until you change your mind about something major once a year.
And now I'm deciding you're not a real woman if you don't do that either.
We need to evolve.
That's why we have these talks.
That's why she say that.
And it also gives you a different perspective.
Like, we want to pretend that like race isn't real.
This shit is real.
I'm black.
You're white.
It's a fucking reality.
Does that make us any different or change anything about us human-wise?
No.
But the way the identity politics is set up in this country at this moment, we have to go with that realization that this is the fucking hand we've been dealt.
So let's go.
You know, let's go with that realization, work within those perimeters.
But if we do that and we can actually say, I don't know what the white people be thinking when they listen to country music, that's an honest assessment for me.
I don't understand.
I don't want to get into y'all who is better, Billy Joel or I don't like that conversation.
Can I be honest and say that?
And at the same time, you can tell me you don't like hip-hop, but you can't tell me everybody associated with it is a bad human being.
It doesn't deserve to be.
Like, get the f ⁇ out of here because I can say some of those same things about some of your white people, like those Antifa motherfuckers running around.
They don't look black to me.
So I can throw some questions out there to white people as well.
And if I judge you by Antifa, I would be wrong.
So stop judging hip-hop by just the bad things you see and the perspective that you're given.
Yeah, it all comes down to dealing with the hand you're dealt.
Sonny, thank you so much for coming on the show.
Let's have you back again soon.
Anytime, Gavin.
Bye.
John Lott, you must be a busy man today.
I've been up for a while this morning, that's for sure.
Even got to do Piers Morgan again, only this time from he's in the UK.
But it kind of brought up back memories from all the times I was on his show after the gun control push a few years ago when he was on CNN.
Well, I saw you guys were having a big fight on Twitter.
Really?
Okay, I don't know.
He never responds to the stuff on Twitter.
I guess I'll have to look to see what he had to say.
Well, he's saying what everyone's saying, which is a lot of shoulds.
And I agree with shoulds.
A psycho shouldn't have an AR-15.
The real question is when you get into the nuances of how you can prevent a should.
Right.
I mean, that's, I wish it was an easy solution to something like that.
What you find is that about half the mass public shooters during the Obama administration were actually seeing psychiatrists or psychologists before they engaged in their attacks.
And yet in not one single case did any of those mental health experts identify those individuals as either a danger to themselves or others.
In fact, there's a whole literature in academic psychology about their inability to go and identify these individuals before they engage in these attacks.
Part of the problem is just how incredibly rare these individuals are.
You know, on average, people with the mental illnesses are actually less violent than the general population, and they're also more likely to be victims of violent crime themselves.
And so, you know, you have to be a little bit careful in terms of trying to identify these individuals.
Now, what kind of gun did he have?
It was a Rutger, a Ruger AR rifle?
Correct.
And that was illegal for him to own?
Well, that's not clear.
In fact, often, as has been true for these cases, it looks like the initial media reports were wrong on it.
You know, this guy also had a job as a security guard, so it kind of raised some questions in my mind about whether or not the initial news reports were correct or not.
He wasn't dishonorably discharged from the military.
He was discharged for bad conduct, but that's not quite the same thing.
And these initial notions about him having been engaged in domestic violence, I've been reading some new media accounts which indicate that that may not be correct either.
So in any case, this individual bought a gun from a gun store.
It went through a background check.
The federal background check passed him.
If he had had a dishonorable discharge, as far as I know, those have always been accurate in the past.
The federal government links in with the military that type of information, so you would think it would have been caught.
And that's another reason why it indicated to me that maybe the initial news reports were wrong.
But even if he was dishonorably discharged, I'm dubious of the kind of parameters they have.
I've heard that you can get that for sleeping with someone on base, all kinds of other reasons.
It reminds me of these no-fly lists where it sounds reasonable, and then you find out half the people are there because they have funny names or some other stupid reason.
Right.
No, I mean, you're exactly right.
The no-fly list, the terror watch lists have morphed to be unrecognizable from what they originally intended to be.
Terror watch lists includes people simply now that the government wants to talk to.
During the Obama administration, the size of the list increased by over tenfold.
So, you know, you have real questions.
In fact, people want to have the terror watch list to go and ban people from being able to buy guns, but you look back and everybody who was on the terror watch list who bought a gun, there's not one single crime, apparently, that was committed by any of those types of individuals who bought that.
And so, you know, you got to be careful about these things.
As you say, they sound good.
And in addition, the media has made a lot about Republicans opposing Democrats push for terror watch lists to ban guns.
But in fact, the media has done a very poor job of explaining to people the debate.
The debate between the Republicans and Democrats was over what types of safeguards were there to protect people to make sure you didn't have the very types of mistakes that you were just referring to, where the Republicans wanted the government to have to go to court to show to a special judge what evidence that it had that this individual should have been included on this watch list.
And the Democrats wanting to have no review at all.
Wanted simply the bureaucrat.
You could have simply right now have one bureaucrat put somebody on the list and you're basically stuck on it then.
Right.
You know, we were talking to Sonny Johnson today about black in the hood and how, you know, someone who was caught with a firearm and did their time wants to protect his family.
Now the wife can't even have a gun in the home because he's now around a gun.
And it sounds like, once again, it's this tangled web we weave when we try to prevent these horrors.
Look, there's lots of costs to these gun control laws, and people ignore them.
And I think at real peril for the safety of a lot of the most victims in our society.
So for example, the big gun control measure that everybody keeps pushing after each of these mass public shootings, and they were pushing for it yesterday within hours before they had any idea what had happened, was these universal background checks, these background checks on private transfers.
Yet again, yesterday, it would have been irrelevant.
In fact, I can't think of one mass public shooting in the last couple decades at least that this law, had it been in effect, would have stopped.
But yet it keeps getting pushed.
And yet, it has real costs.
So, for example, in Washington, D.C., it costs $175 to privately transfer a gun because of the background checks on private transfers.
Now, there are other places in the country where it's cheaper.
In Oregon, it's $55.
But whether it's $55 or $175, that may not stop you or I from buying a gun.
But a poor person, poor black who lives in a high-crime urban area, having that type of tax, effectively, on being able to purchase a gun may make the difference between whether or not they're able to legally defend themselves and their families.
You look at the fact that virtually everybody who gets stopped by background checks is what they call a false positive.
During the campaign last year, Hillary Clinton would go and say that there's 3 million dangerous prohibited people that have been stopped from buying guns because of background checks.
Well, that's simply false.
What you should say is that there have been 3 million initial denials and that virtually all of those were false positives.
You know, it's something like 98, 99% of those were mistakes.
They had somebody simply because they had a similar name to a felon.
But stopping somebody just because they have a similar name isn't very useful.
In fact, the people who get stopped again are a lot of the most vulnerable people in our society.
People tend to have names similar to others in their racial groups.
So, for example, 40% of Vietnamese have the same last name in the United States.
Hispanics have names similar to other Hispanics.
Blacks tend to have names similar to other blacks.
30% of black males in the United States are legally prohibited from owning a gun because of past criminal Records.
Well, whose names are their names most likely to be confused with?
Other law-abiding good black males.
When you buy a gun, you fill out what's called a 4473.
You put your name down, your social security number, your height, your weight, your address, your social security number, your birthday.
You think the government's using all that information.
It's not.
What they basically use is phonetic, roughly, phonetically similar names and birthdays.
So if you have somebody whose name is John with an H or John without an H, as far as the federal government is concerned, those are the same names.
Or Smith with an I or Smith with a Y and an E, that's the same.
And so it's not too surprising that you can get millions of people over time, you know, just because you include the, you know, the birthday, you're going to get mistakes that are there.
Of course.
Okay, so we've established that background checks don't work, and that's a pipe dream.
The next big liberal argument that I'm sure you'll be dealing with all day today is why does such a gun exist?
I'm here in New York City.
I'm arguing with liberals all day, for the past 24 hours basically, and they all say, well, don't you agree that if this was just a, it wouldn't have killed as many people as.
But that's what it is, is a bang, bang, bang.
It's not a machine gun.
What people confuse, they hear the term military style.
Well, military style and military weapons are not the same thing.
Military style are essentially hunting rifles on the inside that on the outside look like military weapons.
Now, if they want to go and ban all semi-automatic hunting rifles, that at least would make logical sense.
But just to go and ban some guns, like we did with the federal assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, based on how they look on the outside, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I mean, you know, you had Senator Feinstein, when she put her assault weapons bill together, they were going through and looking at catalogs of guns and checking off names of guns based on how the guns look, whether they looked like a scary military weapon, not based on whether it actually functioned like a military weapon.
The thing is, these so-called assault weapons that they try to go and ban aren't, you know, no military in the world uses weapons like that.
The militaries around the world use real machine guns, or at least guns that can have a mode of operation where they operate like a machine gun.
And there are three types of guns.
You have manually loaded guns where you fire a bullet and you have to physically put another bullet in the chamber of a gun.
You have semi-automatic guns where one pull the trigger, one bullet comes out, it reloads itself, one pull the trigger, one bullet comes out.
And then you have machine guns, which one pull the trigger, as long as the trigger is depressed, bullets will keep flying out until they run out of bullets in the gun.
Look, civilians benefit from having semi-automatic guns.
I mean, you may not, if you have two people that you're firing at or you miss it the first shot, you might not have the luxury of time to physically reload the gun after you fire it.
And so, you know, I assume Democrats still don't want to make the argument other than a few bills that you see being proposed in California and Georgia and some other places to actually go and ban all semi-automatic guns in the United States.
Most guns in the United States are semi-automatics.
That's what he asked.
So we've got...
The individual who stopped the attack also had a semi-automatic.
The legal gun that stopped the potentially illegal gun.
So you've explained away the first two there, I think, pretty clearly.
And that only leaves the, but the is very hard to come by and not part of mass shootings.
Right.
Look, we have not in this country had a machine gun used in a mass public shooting, unlike a lot of Europe.
You look at France.
All the big attacks in France have involved machine guns.
All the ones in 2015, where they piled up 532 casualties in just one year, involved machine guns.
The attacks in Belgium, the attacks in Germany, other places in Europe have involved machine guns.
And yet, you're talking about countries such as France where even semi-automatic guns are banned, let alone machine guns.
You know, the problem that you face in much of the world is that you have a much worse rate of mass public shootings than you have in the United States in terms of casualties and even in terms of rates.
We don't hear about a lot of them, but you have really bad mass public shootings in the rest of the world.
And it just illustrates, despite extremely strict gun control laws, how difficult it is, how hard it is to stop determined people from getting the weapons that they want to have to go and kill other people.
Well, the general argument from the left and especially from Europeans is America has all the guns, America has all the gun violence.
Britain, Australia, we are these bastions of gun safety and gun-free zones, and we don't have your kind of deaths, which a lot of liberals say is upwards of 170 every couple days, 90 a day, I guess that is, roughly.
But those are all gangsters with illegal handguns and suicides.
I don't think it's a given that we have less.
Is it a given that we have less gun violence than Germany, Australia, and Britain?
We have more total gun violence, okay?
There are a couple things, as you were just pointing out, that need to be emphasized.
One is the United States has a bad drug gang problem.
And if you look at murders in the United States, over half the murders in the United States take place in just 2% of the counties.
And if you look at those counties and what's called a murder map, you're going to find that the majority of murders, even in that 2% of those counties, are in like eight to 10 blocks.
Wow.
You know, you basically have very tiny areas where you have a lot of drug gang violence that occurs.
But those are also illegal guns.
Right.
Well, sure.
Well, here's the notion, and that is, look how much money we've spent trying to stop these gangs from getting illegal drugs to go and sell.
Right.
Do you think we'll be any more successful in stopping those gangs from getting guns?
I mean, if I could click my fingers right now and cause all illegal drugs in the United States to disappear and all guns to disappear, how long do you think it'd be before illegal drugs started coming back into the United States?
Minutes.
Both guns and drugs would be minutes.
Right.
And how long do you think it would be before they'd bring in the weapons to protect that very valuable property?
It's not like they can go to the police and say, look, this other gang stole our drugs.
Can you help get them back?
I testified before the Mexican Senate last December.
They've been thinking about redoing some of their gun control laws.
Right now in Mexico, there's one gun store in the entire country.
It's run by the military.
The highest caliber gun that they can sell is a .22 caliber gun.
That's about the lowest caliber there is.
There's a few examples which are lower, but that's, for all practical purposes, that's the lowest.
You know, that's not the gun that the drug gangs use in Mexico.
No.
They use machine guns.
And they're not getting their guns from the United States.
They don't go to gun stores in the United States and buy machine guns.
They have bazookas.
Well, wait a minute.
They are getting some guns from the United States.
Remember Fast and Furious?
Thanks to Obama, they were getting plenty of guns from the United States.
Right.
It's pretty small, okay?
Now, you hear, for example, that they have found 90%.
The Obama administration used this number all the time.
They'd say 90% of crime guns in Mexico came from the United States.
That's not really what the number showed.
What they looked at is Mexico, out of all the guns that they confiscated, they checked 18% to see whether they were from the United States.
And the reason why they did that is the United States is pretty much the only country that has serial numbers put on the guns.
Oh, right, yes.
And so when they find a gun with a serial number, they say, well, this is probably from the United States.
We'll send it to the United States to check to see whether it's there.
And 90% of the 80, 18% came from the United States.
But you're basically talking about 16% or so of the guns, of all the crime guns confiscated in Mexico came from the United States.
That's a relatively small portion.
It's not the machine guns and other stuff that they have a lot of trouble with in Mexico.
The drug gangs, just as they go and bring in drugs from around the world into Mexico as kind of a stopping off point before they ship them to the United States, bring in weapons from around the world in order to protect that valuable property that they have.
Okay, last question.
It's kind of a dumb one.
But pretty much every family in America, every household has a fridge, rich or poor, welfare, abject poverty, they have a fridge.
Would America be better off?
Would crime go down overall if every household in America had at least one gun?
You know, I don't know.
I mean, what I can tell you is I can look at the range of data that we have in the United States, the variation that we have.
And I think it's pretty clear that the places in the United States that have increases in gun ownership have drops in violent crime rates.
You know, I'll give you one very simple example to illustrate this, and that is you see places that try to ban guns.
We've had Washington, D.C., Chicago in the United States have tried to ban guns.
You see other places in the world.
I can't find a single place in the world that's tried to ban guns, either all guns or all handguns, and seen murder rates fall.
I can't even find a place where murder rates have stayed the same.
Every single place that's tried to ban either all guns or all handguns has seen an increase in murder rates, often very large increases that occur after that.
You think out of randomness, you'd get one place where murder rates had either stayed the same or gone down.
And there's a pretty simple reason for that.
And that is when you pass a gun control law like that, it's primarily the most honest, good citizens who obey the law, not the criminals.
And to the extent that you disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals, you actually make it easier for criminals to go and commit crime.
And it's not just true for banning guns.
You have to be careful that many of the different types of gun control laws that you try to push don't unintentionally disarm the most law-abiding citizens relative to the criminals.
So when you go and you have these expensive background checks, well, guess what?
It's the law-abiding citizen who goes out of their way to go and have a background check done on a private transfer of a gun.
The criminals aren't going to go out of their way to pay $175 in Washington, D.C. to go and have a transfer of a gun that's there.
And so you make it so that it's poor people, the very people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime, poor blacks who are priced out of being able to own guns to be able to go and protect themselves and their families.
You know, once again, you have the left, the liberals, the socialists hurting the people they purport to help.
The more they try to meddle, the worse off it is for the so-called victims.
Right.
Look, it'd be great if the police could be there all the time.
My research shows that the police are the single most important factor for reducing crime.
But you go and you talk to the police, you go and look at surveys of the police.
The police know, understand that they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crimes occur.
And the question is: what should people do when they're having to defend themselves in that situation?
And the police themselves are probably the strongest supporters of private ownership of guns in the United States because they know firsthand how important it is to have a gun to protect themselves.
And they understand how important it is for private citizens to have that same option.
John, once again, the voice of reason in all this.
And it's funny how every time there's a shooting, we basically have to get you back on the show and say very similar things because the left just, they can't get unstuck from these same arguments again and again.
Why did he have that weapon?
Why don't we have a background check?
We should have not given him the weapon.
And it's like saying, you know, that rapist shouldn't have had a penis.
I agree with you, but there's no way to do it.
Look, there are a couple things here.
One is I wish some of the media would say, look, you want to push these universal background checks?
Please point to one mass public shooting that would have been stopped as a result of this rule.
Just one.
Okay.
And they just, the media doesn't ask that.
The second thing is, I have to say, the media has become much more biased on gun issues in the last year than I've ever seen them before.
I mean, it's much harder.
I get calls from people at CNN who will go and say things like, well, what would you argue on this?
And I'm assuming that they're going to go and have me on the show.
But no, what they want to do is they just want to know what topics I would raise and how I'd raise it.
So then when they have the panel of just four people who all agree with each other, they can throw that out and say, well, you know, people on the other side will say, X, what's your response?
And they mischaracterize it, and then they have a debate over nothing.
And it just, you know, it's just as strange.
I've never really seen it quite this lopsided before in terms of the discussions.
But, you know, CNN, MSNBC, they don't even bother.
It's not three to one on a panel.
It's four to zero now that they're having in these discussions.
Right.
Well, John, good luck.
You're going to be hit with an onslaught of interviews over the next 24 hours, and I hope some logic seeps through.
Well, thanks for having me on.
I'm glad you're out there.
Cheers, John.
And that's it for a very serious show after a very serious weekend.
I wanted to congratulate Shalene Flanagan for finally bringing the New York City Marathon back to an American winner after Kenyans dominated it for, I think, since 1977.
They've got thinner air up there in the African mountains, and they tend to kick our butts.
But now we've got an American winning it back, 36-year-old, I believe.
Congratulations to her.
And one thing I wanted to clarify about this whole debate.
If this shooter, if this Texas shooter was shooting these people to promote atheism and to discourage Christianity and discourage church worship, yes, it's an example of terrorism.
I doubt it was, but that would be an example.
However, that's not indicative of a pattern.
Atheist terrorism is not a pattern.
It's not a thing we see happening.
Jihadist terrorism, Islamic terrorism, is a pattern in America and in the Western world.
And in both cases, in all cases, the gun is not the problem.
The gun is the solution.
Tomorrow we got Nick Searcy on the show and a bunch of other fun stuff.
We're going to have a good time.
And one of the ways we're going to establish a good time is to make sure that the people who aren't into fun and aren't into censorship and aren't into rules and aren't into telling us what to do and preventing us from being armed, those people are going to be invited to get off my lawn.
▲
Export Selection