All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2019 - Get Off My Lawn - Gavin McInnes
55:55
S02E28 - TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, folks.
Welcome back to Get Off My Lawn.
I chose that song because apparently Ryan ain't working here no more.
He didn't show up for work today.
And the way I work as a boss is I'm sort of like baseball.
I give you 37 strikes and then you're out.
And today was 37.
And he's out.
He might have an incredible excuse.
He might show up drenched in blood tomorrow or tonight.
But that's not how it works here at McDonald's.
We need to flip the burgers now.
So we had to switch studios.
We've done the best we can to make this look like the original studio so you don't get disoriented by the thumbnail.
But I'm going to try to cram everything in into the next, I don't know, 45 minutes to an hour.
We'll see what we can get.
Tomorrow should go as planned.
We should be doing the vidcast version of the podcast.
And then Free Speech, the show, I think it's Michelle Malkin and Dr. Eric Michael Dyson.
And that will probably be uploaded Saturday night.
But tomorrow will be live.
Tomorrow will be live.
There will be call-ins.
Somehow, I'm going to figure it out.
So the three guests I want to cram into this show are James O'Keefe, John Lott, and John Matz.
Matzy?
At Parlay.
I think you're supposed to say Parlay.
I'm sophisticated.
I speak French.
So unlike the plebes who just spell everything literally, I use the French pronunciation.
John doesn't even use that.
I'm more sophisticated than the CEO of the company, which is amazing.
That's like there's a couple and you know how to fuck a guy's wife better than he does.
But it's not good to say that.
Don't convey that.
But if you think that, then just look at her when they're at like a family gathering and just sort of go.
And she'll sort of go, ho, and shudder.
Man, I haven't been attractive for so long.
I haven't been attractive since 1987.
So the whole idea of being remotely seductive has been out the window for a long ass time.
The reason I want to get those three guys in is because they're all in the news and they're all our bros.
It's funny, when we came up with this show, Free Speech, we said that'll sort of be the general gist, like free speech, but it'll be comedy and we won't, it's not like we'll be touching on free speech every episode.
It's not that big of a subject.
Yeah, it is.
This is like a show called World War II in 1943 in Dresden.
Shit is going down.
So the three things are John Lott, whom we'll get to shortly, 60 Minutes had a big thing on Sunday, obviously.
We'll get to that in a second.
Where Scott Pelley, who I hate, Scott Pelly is such a turd.
And they did this whole thing on AR-15s and how dangerous they are because the bullets go faster and they shot some gelatin.
And now we need to know all this because school shootings are a daily occurrence.
School shootings are going up.
So we'll bring in our resident gun expert, John, to say, are they really going up?
And is it really a big deal how fast, do these shells even go faster?
What part of that was true?
Remember, Scott Pelley did a thing with Mike Cernovich on 60 Minutes about fake news.
And he said, how will people differentiate between the New York Times, which isn't really real news, let's say Breitbart.
And then he had some weird newspaper like the Colorado Sentinel Fireball.
And you're like, Scott, no one's ever mentioned that other one before.
Your whole thesis for this whole episode is BS.
But Cernovich ate him alive.
And then I want to talk to James O'Keefe because James O'Keefe infiltrated Google.
And by the way, there's been some blowback we'll get to where they go, yeah, he infiltrated Google.
He's pretending to be someone he wasn't.
Yeah, retard.
That's what investigative journalism is.
You don't walk up to Google and say, hi, are you guys holding any secrets?
Are you banning any conservatives?
I'd love to know.
So I'm doing all this by the seat of my pants due to my incompetent employee or ex-employee who with his actions told me to take this job and shove it.
I ain't working here no more.
So I'll be texting all these people and trying to get them on as we go forward.
James O'Keefe's story, though, was that Google feels responsible for Trump winning 2016 and is determined to make him lose in 2020.
Huge, huge.
And that is tampering with the election.
They are colluding with the algorithms to ruin Trump in 2020.
It won't work, by the way.
But first, John Matze from Parlay.
Can you try to get him on the line?
So something came out, I think it was like yesterday, yeah, where you can pull this up now, where it was big league politics.
They said Apple has told John to stop having so much free speech or they're going to shut him down.
Meaning they won't allow him on the app.
Apple App Store rejects satirical Clinton.
Oh, no, that's different.
That's from last year where he had a Hillary game, an anti-Hillary game, and they banned it.
You can pull that back up.
Oh, this is the right one.
See, it's going to be a little seat of the pants here, guys.
Apple tells, we'll say Parlor because I'm speaking to you lower class people who don't speak French.
Apple tells Parlor to censor free speech or lose its app.
So Twitter has an app.
They censor conservatives.
They censor one half of the political spectrum.
Then people say, stop whining, make your own app.
Okay, fine.
That's kind of shitty that we're not allowed on that one, but fine.
Then there's a free speech app.
It's not a conservative app, per se.
It's a free speech app where he doesn't censor anyone.
Now, if people say the Holocaust didn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
I talked to him about that last episode or two episodes ago, if you recall.
And he said, yeah, that's an issue.
Super anti-Semites, super racist folks.
But they tend to get into violence pretty quick.
So they'll go, the Holocaust don't happen.
There's goddamn Jews, blah, blah, blah, kill the Jews.
Boom, you're gone.
Now you're violating the law.
So they follow FCC law.
So there's not really a problem with anti-Semites and racists.
But just the fact that there's an open discussion going on, big tech is pissed off.
And Apple tells them to stop.
So we realize this isn't about stopping hate.
This is proof that what it's really about is controlling the narrative.
Big tech is in bed with the DNC and the left, and they want to make sure that they are in charge of the narrative.
And if someone does their own thing, we'll know.
So not only is John being told, you have to develop your own app if you don't like Twitter, you have to develop your own phone now.
Apple contacted me over a week ago via telephone saying that we need to ban offensive content off parlor or they will take parlor off the app store.
We flat out refused and now we cannot push updates.
Let's talk to him about what offensive is defined as too.
Obviously by offensive they mean conservative.
Twitter is exempt from this clause as they generate more hatred than any platform in history.
Please share and leave Bill with the Apple Review Board a voicemail and then that is at 1-408-974-2992.
Can we get a hold of John?
Can we Skype him?
You got him?
I call him Jean at Parlais, but he's probably John at Parlor to you.
What are you doing?
You're upside down?
What's going on there?
Sorry, I'm on my phone.
Should I switch my laptop or?
No, that's fine.
But try to keep it stationary or we're going to have a seizure.
Or turn your phone sideways.
They're telling you to turn your phone sideways over here.
There we go.
There we go.
Hear me?
Yeah.
Oh, shit.
Wait, you're in charge of this new app that's going to destroy Twitter?
Yeah, and I can't keep a phone straight.
I'm going to use wine to hold you.
Well, you're so hot you can't keep me straight.
I'm gay.
Just looking at those gorgeous mile-high cheekbones.
Oh, my God.
So we're just, I got a message from a lawyer.
I don't know how much to say this morning, and he said, he said to me, why the hell wasn't John in court this morning?
And his quote was, he should have been in court this morning with an order to show case against Apple.
I don't know what that means.
I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know.
They talk a lot.
So I don't know.
They also charge a lot of money.
We have like two teams, and I avoid talking to them for that reason.
But I mean, realistically, I'd like to try to go to their headquarters and speak directly to senior management or ideally someone like Tim Cook directly about what happened yesterday because it's going to happen again.
And if it's happening to me and Barler, it's happening to a lot of other people.
This is not the first time they banned an app of mine.
Well, they banned.
We talked about that, your Hillary game.
Yeah, I mean, look, I try not to talk about it too much because I'm running a bipartisan company now.
My personal politics can't come into play.
But in the 2016, before the election, they didn't want my game going viral, which was where you manage Hillary Clinton's email server and you'd delete all the emails before the FBI could find them.
It's really corny.
It's cheesy.
We made it in an afternoon.
And it's all factual basis.
It's based off of Peter Schweitzer's research.
But they got rid of that because they thought it would be, you know, in my opinion, it's politically too effective.
Meanwhile, on the left, they let people dump dog dirt all over President Trump's face.
Yeah, my six-year-old, the other day, I grabbed his iPad, and there he is shooting at Trump with arrows, and there's blood everywhere.
I think it's called Bowmaster or something.
Yeah, that's allowed.
That's okay, as long as it's not conservative content.
Now, I mean, that's why they don't like Parler, which is funny because we're not conservative.
We are neutral.
I am neutral.
I don't care what you write.
You can be a whack job, leftist, right-leaning individual, or whatever you want.
You're allowed to speak.
That's your right.
You know, as long as you don't get violent, you don't do anything aggressive.
That's what I find so fascinating about this war on you is you didn't say give Nazis the right to talk or even give conservatives the right to talk.
You said, let's just have an open platform.
And by them protesting you, they're conceding that they're not against hate.
They're not against conservatives.
They're against them not being in control of the narrative.
Yeah, and I want to have a talk directly with their senior management because they have a monopoly on their app store.
Whether or not you think that the iPhone is a monopoly, their app store is a monopoly.
You cannot compete with the app store.
You can't make an alternative app store.
You can't host your app on your own website to download.
You have to get their explicit permission to put something on the iPhone.
That is anti-American and that's monopolistic.
Now, here's a really stupid question.
If you have an Android or something, do you go through their app store to get your apps?
You go through the Google App Store, but Google allows other app stores to exist.
Amazon has a Google App Store.
So could you put it on the Amazon App Store?
No, it's a Google App Store.
Yeah, and that's only for Google devices.
Apple is done.
Apple, you'd have to get their explicit permission to put an app on someone's iPhone.
That's it.
There's no way around that.
There's no way around that without prosecuting them legally.
Yes, basically.
I mean, if you want me to go down the nerd rabbit hole, you could.
Okay, so then I won't.
Maybe 0.25% of the population can get around that app store thing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So when they told you to remove your offensive content, was there any more explanation whatsoever or just the word offensive?
So there was no explanation at all.
I even was on the phone.
I wrote very detailed notes for my phone call with Bill last night.
I asked them, is there any explicit examples?
No.
Is there anything you can tell me to help me figure out what's going on?
No.
We're just in review.
This is very official, blah, blah, blah.
And I was like, oh, okay, it's so official that two hours later when the president's son tweets about it, you know, at 1.30 in the morning, by the way, I'm getting phone calls.
Is that official normal procedure for Apple?
You know, I remember Twitter about four years ago when the Nazis were in full swing.
And Ron Coleman, my lawyer, talks about this.
He says, I was kind of uncomfortable.
It was an uncomfortable place to be.
A lot of Holocaust stuff and didn't do nothing, racist cartoons and stuff.
They got rid of that tiny sliver that can, it's like a drop of black ink.
It can ruin the glass of water.
And then Twitter was pretty good for a while.
And then they thought, wait a minute, we can use that same justification to get rid of everyone we don't like and control the conversation.
But I've been on parlor for about a week or so now.
And I'm following as many people as I can.
And you never see any of that.
It's not even close to as bad as Twitter was a few years ago.
You definitely see a lot of conservatives.
And that's probably because it's my tweets or whatever.
But I haven't seen any racism, any N-words, any anti-Semitism.
I haven't personally seen any anti-Semitism on there other than a few select users who are obviously trolls and they gave up after a day because they weren't getting any traction.
I have seen a lot of anti-Islam stuff, but we also have a lot of pro-Islam stuff too and people defending it.
So you've got both sides.
I mean, that's the whole part of the debate.
But from my point of view, Twitter is what I would call a hate haven.
If you want the definition of hate and you want to figure out what hate is, just go on any one of Donald Trump's posts and don't read what he has to say.
Read what all of the angry, hateful, awful leftists who are working with Twitter to promote those comments are saying.
That is the definition of hate.
So if Apple's going to take a look at Parlor for some minor offenses by people's comments who have no votes, who are just talking about illegal immigration, et cetera, then you should take a look at Twitter and ban them before they ban us because they are a hate haven.
Yeah, I saw Dana Lash was trending on Twitter recently, and 100% of the comments, not one of them was kind, and they were all rotten hell, bitch, and we're so glad you're gone.
I know.
How awful is that?
No one should say that.
Poor lady.
And the worst part is, is Twitter doesn't, like, we publish it where you can sort it by like most liked comment, least liked comment, most recent, you know, the oldest.
Theirs is, we are going to tell you what we think that you want to see for the comments.
How non-transparent is it?
And when they're allying with these hateful people, doesn't that make Twitter more hateful because they're promoting the hateful comments?
Every time you're mad at someone, it's because they show something about you that you don't like.
And Twitter is mad at you because you've exposed them for what they are.
They are promoting hate, and they hate you because you show both sides.
That's not what they want.
No more both sides.
It allows people to think and make up their mind.
And my question is, why did Tim Cook get involved in this?
Did Jack Dorsey call him?
I don't know.
I don't want to start conspiracy theories.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think they're not.
No, we're conspiracy theorists over here.
Yeah, I think that's a valid theory.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't know.
You know, are these people looking out for each other?
I don't know.
There's too little transparency.
So questions need answers.
Well, I'm reminded of Steve Bannon when he said, you think they'd give it up without a fight?
You are stepping into the lion's den, my friend.
Yeah, how dare I be bipartisan?
How dare I be?
Really?
That is your sin.
That's what it comes down to.
All right, John, thanks for coming on the show, and let's check in on you on a regular basis.
Sounds like you have a legal defense fund in your future.
We might.
Let's see if they'll invite me to their headquarters to meet with them first.
All right, see you, man.
Bye.
Is he melting your mouth gorgeous or what?
Don't you wish it could be that hot?
My cousin's that hot.
He's half Mexican.
And we'll be at a thing, like a baseball game with the kids.
And I said this on an earlier show.
He'll just be surrounded with these horny housewives.
And I go, what's going on here?
You're like a bitch magnet.
And he goes, it's been like that my whole life.
And he's cordial.
You know, he's not going to cheat on his wife.
He's cordial, says hello, blah, blah, blah.
And then they slowly disperse.
It must be fun to be a hunk.
It must be fun to be a hot chick.
Can you imagine?
I just saw this woman on the street in New York here.
She had these like espadrilles super high up.
And her shirt was so, it was below her shorts, so it looked like she had no shorts on.
And then she had a little tie thing here with her big tits hanging out.
Perfect face.
Her hair up.
I should have taken a picture.
I apologize.
And I've developed this thing in New York now where like I used to go, ooh.
And now, and this is not voluntary, now I can't help but go, oh.
It sounds like someone's removing, like I ate a long string and it started coming out of my butt.
And someone's going, oh, here, let me get that.
And I'm like, ha.
That's the sound I make.
But then you think, imagine from her perspective, just standing there waiting for the light to cross and knowing that like seven people are going, oh my.
That's just one intersection.
Imagine you, as a guy, you're just like, oh, the light's red.
I guess I'll wait here.
And then you're looking around, you just see women going, oh.
I actually did a sketch like that on Funnier Die called, Are Women as Horny as Men?
Which you should probably pull up.
Because to act out a scenario like that is fucking hilarious.
We're not equal.
Women and men are different.
Look at a scrotum.
God already sent us a clue that we're not the fairer sex.
But we keep pretending.
Oh yeah, I love checking out men's butts.
Yeah, sure you do, ladies.
Such lies.
You know what women are attracted to?
An ambitious man with a car who wants to take care of them.
He could be fucking Danny DeVito for all they care.
don't even think they like Brad Pitt or who's that guy, the soccer guy, David Beckham.
I don't think they're...
I don't think men really enjoy cigars.
Just jump ahead, maybe a third.
Are you kidding me?
Women are.
No, a little more.
Oh, that's woman's pussies getting wet.
Just looking at my short shorts.
She dumped her boyfriend and deeply regretted it.
That's the boyfriend she dumped.
All right, we got the idea.
You can dig that up on your own.
I took a sialis that day because I knew it was going to be coming out.
But then it was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
This is getting a little too big.
So it was like, my grand on the bog, my nan on the bog, my nan on the bog, as Ali G would say.
I had to imagine my dad naked being attacked by dogs.
That's how you lose it immediately.
But then the next time you see your dad nude, I mean, like with his shirt off, you're like, I have a Pavlovian response.
It's ironic that I use dogs to not become aroused because now that I see my dad near dogs, I'm getting aroused.
It's Pavlovian.
And he's like, yo, right, pal.
And I go, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Imagine that dog went and bit you?
I'd kill it.
Why'd you mention that?
No reason.
I've just been having desires.
All right, let's see if we can get a hold of John Lott.
Did I give you his?
You got him?
Well, that's good.
I didn't remember sending it to you.
I'm just awesome, that's all.
And if he's not there, we'll do the 60-minute stuff.
Who he is?
And then we'll show the 60-minute stuff after.
John, are you there, sir?
How you doing?
Doing okay.
Sorry to hear about your engineer.
Yes, bad news.
I noticed you're jumping aboard the facial hair train.
Welcome aboard.
Okay.
Well, I mean, you set the trailblazing path behind the problem.
So, 60 minutes, the whole time, I wish I had like a John Lott bot.
And every time I see lies about guns, I can just sort of summon it like a bad signal.
And then you appear on the show and say, this is bullshit.
Right.
It's like Carl Pokington.
I have to say that was a really painful show to watch.
I mean, just the amount of misinformation that was there.
So there's three things they say on the show.
One, mass shootings are now de rigour.
They're part of our normal life.
It's just a given that they're not just on the increase.
They've sort of come up and now they plateaued at peak mass shooting.
Two, a big problem with these mass shootings is Air-15s have super bullets that go way faster than any other bullet.
And then three, this isn't really a third, but three, let's just accept this, and now we need triage kits everywhere we go because there's going to be bleeding kids everywhere.
So let's start with the first one.
Are mass shootings on the rise?
Well, I mean, there's been 2017 and 2018 were relatively high years for it.
You know, those two years, there surely has been an increase in relative to other years.
Overall, in terms of the number of shootings, even with those two years, it's pretty flat.
The big increase that you did see an increase, though, in terms of the number of deaths from these types of shootings.
A lot of that has to do with the Las Vegas attack that's there.
So, you know, obviously we've had a couple bad years, obviously horrible years in terms of the number of deaths that are there.
Whether that's an aberration, whether that's a trend, I suppose you have to wait a little bit longer.
So far this year, we've had three mass public shootings.
The number of deaths are down quite a bit from what it had been before.
So, you know, my own guess is that was probably a little bit of an aberration.
Well, they do this with climate change.
They take the past 10 years and they ignore 3.5 billion.
I looked at the charts you sent me, and I even looked at their charts, and there's so many strange spikes that drawing a graph is totally misleading.
It's like the number of times a watermelon has spontaneously exploded.
Well, yeah, there's been two in the past two years, but to draw a graph amongst these numbers, I guess it might be going up sort of.
Whether they say let's you have two years that are very bad, okay?
Whether that's and a lot of that has to do with a couple of attacks that are there.
Whether that's a trend or not, you know, I don't know.
You know, we'll have to see.
I mean, one thing I can't say is that virtually all these attacks keep on occurring in places where people aren't allowed to defend themselves.
You have the irony with the Virginia Beach attack.
You have another mass public shooting in a place where the victims were banned from having guns.
And the response from the Virginia Beach City Council is to say, well, we have to go and ban guns and still other areas.
Obviously, the killer in this case was banned from having guns in that area, and yet it didn't stop him.
One of the tragedies about this is that there was a woman there named Kate Nixon who was concerned about this guy.
Apparently had complained about him to no avail and had talked to her family about whether she should go and carry her permit-concealed handgun with her to work.
Virginia Beach was one of those municipalities in Virginia that didn't allow municipal employees to be able to have permit-concealed handguns.
And apparently she was going to take it that morning, had walked out to her car, but had decided at the last moment that she just couldn't go and break the rules that were there.
And so locked the gun in her house and went into work and was killed later that day.
Oh, my God.
Break the rules.
Get in trouble.
Well, I mean, no, I can understand why people, law-abiding citizens, don't want to break the rules.
Obviously, this killer, though, didn't face the same compulsion to obey the rules.
And in fact, the fact that he was willing to break it while everybody else obeyed the rule made it easier for him to go and kill lots of people than he would have been able to kill otherwise.
So the graph we just showed, there was 53, 71, 117, another one that was around 71.
There was four shootings from 2016 to now that make it look like it's going up.
You can't do that.
That's not how statistics work.
But what about school shootings?
Have you got a chart for school shootings in that link, guys?
The Cato Institute seemed to say that they were pretty steady.
But when I look at your research, it says, no, they're actually going down.
Right.
I mean, obviously, we've had the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas attack.
But even when you take that into account, when you look over time, there's been a general decline in deaths from school shootings.
So, I mean, you know, people are relatively safer in schools.
Now, that doesn't mean we can't do more.
And one of the things is to arm more teachers.
We have 20 states now that have teachers that can legally carry guns at schools.
You have some states where all the schools have teachers that carry guns, places like New Hampshire or Utah.
And you have other states like Texas, where you have over 300 school districts where teachers were carrying guns as the end of last year, where it's up to the individual school district or superintendent to decide whether or not the teachers are going to be able to go and carry.
Well, the myth is that Trump wants to arm teachers.
He never said just have a big bucket of guns in the front of the school where teachers could come.
He said, if you are allowed to have a gun, if you have a permit, then you should be able to use that permit on school grounds.
Sounds reasonable to me.
I mean, I think he was going to leave it up to the schools to decide whether or not to do that.
But he wasn't saying that all teachers should carry.
I'm not arguing that's the case.
Nobody is.
But no, I know, but it's a nice straw man to make it sound like you're going to do that.
Look, I think there's a huge benefit even from having a few teachers being able to go and carry at school.
So rather than a sign in front of the school that says the school is a gun-free zone, you have a sign that says, you know, some teachers at the school are armed and will use their guns to protect the students and themselves if necessary.
The odds are not in your favor if you come here.
And as you said on this show a million times, the number one reason for mass shootings is I'm suicidal.
I want to make the most impact.
I'd make the most impact at a place without guns.
The other symptoms like white supremacy or Christianity or Islam are not that big of a factor.
I mean, we've looked at the political motives for these killers, and, you know, very few of them have any type of political motivation one way or the other.
As you say, you have people who want to go and commit suicide, and they want to commit suicide in a way where they can go and say, see, we were here, that people will notice that they were here.
And the more people they kill, they know the more media attention they can get.
And these guys may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
They know if they go to a place, as you say, where victims aren't able to defend themselves and it takes some time for somebody to arrive on the scene to be able to go and defend those people, they're going to be able to kill more people and, in their mind, get more media attention than they could have otherwise gotten.
It's a macabre blaze of glory.
Okay, let's go to the second point.
The third point wasn't a third point.
I just like saying things in threes.
The second point was they were obsessed with the speed of the bullet of an AR-15.
They seem to have like a 30-odd 6 shell.
I have to admit, I hadn't heard that before.
That's a big danger, the speed of the bullet and the impact it makes.
Well, rifles, generally, the boats go faster out of rifles than they do out of handguns.
Even like a 22.
All rifles, the boats tend to go faster.
Oh, minor detail there, Scott Pelley.
Minor detail.
Right.
No, I mean, he makes it look like somehow these military-style rifles, these AR-15s, are, you know, somehow have some magical property that their bullets go much faster and do much more damage than any other rifle.
It's simply not true.
I mean, he could have used any rifle.
In fact, the cartridge for the 223 that the AR-15 uses is a fairly small rifle cartridge.
In fact, a lot of states won't even allow you to hunt deer with it because of the concern that it's more likely to wound rather than kill the deer.
So you have to use higher caliber rifles to go and hunt deer in those states.
It's so misleading.
They lied on that show.
That show said there's a secret military weapon.
They said the military has these M16s or whatever, and the civilians get the AR-15s.
The AR-15 is just your dad's deer rifle dressed up to look like a cool machine gun.
Right.
I mean, the key word is style when they say military style weapons.
As you say exactly, on the outside, it looks like an M16.
M16s have burst or automatic mode capabilities where they can essentially fire like a machine gun.
And, you know, but there's reasons why the military weapons are designed the way they are.
One of the reasons is, you know, lighter ammunition, people can go and carry more ammunition with them.
But one of the other reasons is that they're more likely to wound rather than kill your opponent.
And the benefit for a soldier of killing rather than wounding your opponent is it pins down the other troops that are there because they have to go and take care of the wounded opponent there.
So if they really want to go and kill people, they would use a higher caliber rifle than they're using.
Unbelievable.
You know, the propaganda that goes on now is so clearly partisan that that 60 minutes, which I assume, I don't know, a million, a couple million people watching.
Seven million.
It was the most watched show on Sunday.
How many?
Seven million.
Oh, my God.
It was the most watched show on Sunday on any TV show on Sunday.
And, you know, we're living in curious times.
How many people are going to say, wait a minute, isn't it the same speed of a bullet as a crappy 22 that you take deer hunting?
And isn't it impossible to gauge a pattern based on 2016 to 2019?
No one's going to say that.
Less than 1% of the population is going to look that up.
Well, they don't know it to begin with.
I mean, one of the other claims was that, you know, AR-15s, when they're used in these attacks, kill more people.
In fact, that's not true.
I mean, if you look at the mass public shootings since 1998, ones that used rifles on average killed about 13 people.
Ones that involved both rifles and handguns end up killing about 18 people in each attack.
So, you know, having multiple weapons there, a rifle and a handgun, end up killing more people than just these rifles alone.
So who knows?
But it's just...
They'll ban your dad's deer hunting rifle dressed up to look like a machine gun.
They'll ban the speed of the bullets somehow, and it won't affect mass shootings.
And this has already happened, right?
In Clinton days, we banned them.
Right.
Right.
No, I mean, there was an assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 through 2004.
You know, in fact, there have been lots of academic studies that have looked at that.
Even the Clinton administration paid for research on that.
And even the research that they found, they paid for, couldn't find an impact on mass public shootings or other types of crimes as a result of the ban that was in effect.
So about two-thirds of mass public shootings are handguns.
So the notion that somehow, if they want to go and ban all guns, we can talk about that.
But one of the things that doesn't get mentioned when we talk about gun bans is the fact that there have been a number of places around the world that have banned either all guns or all handguns.
And every single time that one of those bans has been implemented, murder rates have gone up.
Wrong.
Australia was very successful in 1996 after a mass shooting.
They had the smarts to buy back all the guns.
And mass shootings stopped.
There's been none since.
One, I was talking about murder rates generally, but the total number of people killed.
And what you found in Australia is that, first of all, they didn't ban guns.
They bought back about a third, less than a third of the legally owned guns.
But people could go and buy guns again after that.
And by 2010, the gun ownership rate in Australia, the percentage of the population with guns, was actually higher than it was before the buyback.
But there was no more mass shootings.
Well, recently there's been a couple attacks.
But look.
But also, that's mathematical illiteracy because they're saying that there was one attack and then another attack in 15 years and another attack.
And now in the past 10 years, there hasn't been.
We're talking about like four or five attacks.
They keep doing this with this statistics.
They'll take these very sporadic attacks and pretend there's a pattern to be formed.
Right.
So the other thing, the main things that they've focused on in Australia has been the claim that it's reduced gun murders, homicides, as well as firearm suicides.
The thing is, both of those were falling for about 15 years prior to the buyback.
They continue to fall after, but at a slower rate.
So, you know, you can think of it this way.
Let's say I'd had firearm homicides falling in a perfectly straight line, and then I had the buyback someplace in the middle.
It continued falling exactly the same rate.
I suppose most people would look at it and they'd say, well, you know, the after average is below the before average, but when I look at the perfectly straight line there, I'd say, it's pretty hard to see that the law had any impact.
Everybody in these discussions are just comparing the before and after average.
In fact, though, what you found is that it started falling at a slower rate right after the buyback occurred.
And, you know, what you should have seen if these arguments were right, we should have seen an immediate sharp drop.
And then as gun ownership rates went back up, you should have seen those rates going back up.
It doesn't follow the pattern at all that one would have thought if you had actually looked at the numbers there.
Well, the EPA does this too.
They go, look, the air is cleaner after we arrived.
Yeah, but it was a 45-degree line the whole time.
Your dot is just plunked in the middle.
Right.
No, it's true for lots of things.
You look at any type of accidental death.
Any type of accidental death is falling over time.
There are reasons for that that we can talk about.
But so you look at something like car deaths per million miles driven.
We basically have data from 1920.
It's falling virtually the entire time from 1920 on.
But the first federal laws regulations, the National Traffic Highway, I can't remember the exact name, in 1963 or four that was passed.
There are regulations going into effect in 1967.
In fact, when those regulations went into effect, the rate of decline slowed dramatically.
There's a simple reason for that.
You know, again, everybody just looks at the before and after average.
They could have picked any year.
They could have picked 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, well before any regulations, and the after average Would have been below the before average.
The reason why it slowed down is because companies continually have been putting in safety devices in their cars, you know, collapsible steering columns, shatterproof glass, other things.
But when the federal government and seatbelts, when the federal government got involved, the federal government just doesn't say put in airbags.
The federal government says you have to put in airbags and you have to make them in exactly this way and you have to go and install them in exactly this way.
And so what happened was automobile companies in the past would have put in airbags, but now they have to wait for the federal government to tell them exactly how to do it because if, you know, it's very costly for them to do all the machining and the tools and everything else.
And then when the federal government, you know, a couple years later would come back and say, this is exactly how we want you to do that, they'd have to rip up all their machinery and replace it.
And that's very costly.
So now they wait for the federal government to go and tell them exactly how to do it.
And government is really fast at doing lots of things.
Not as fast as companies when they have their money at stake.
Exactly.
And so it actually slowed down the process of having new life-saving devices put in cars.
Free market's always better than the government.
John, we're out of time.
Thank you so much for explaining the truth to people.
I just worry that the incurious are not going to get here.
Well, that's the reason why we have shows such as yours out there.
You know, I don't know.
I mean, I wish places like CBS, you know, 7 million people watching.
And it's just, you know, it's just propaganda.
Propaganda.
And my guess is that the entire gun control debate that we have right now would be dramatically different if only a couple things happened.
If once in a while, the media would mention we've had another mass public shooting in places where guns were banned.
And also on our website at crimeresearch.org, we have dozens of cases in recent years where people with concealed carry permits have stopped what police or sheriffs or prosecutors have said would have been mass public shootings.
Never mentioned.
And yet they don't get national news coverage.
Never.
All right, John, thanks for coming on the show.
I really appreciate it.
Let's check in with you soon.
Thank you.
Thanks, buddy.
A lot of info with John, but it's crucial.
And the reason I think that it's, I don't care how you feel about guns, the reason it's important to sit there and listen to John talk about 60 Minutes.
Have you got some of those 60 Minutes clips?
Is that it should make you question, well, wait a minute, what about the other stuff I'm hearing on the news?
It sounds so well-informed.
When I watched that episode of 60 Minutes, they seemed to know what they were talking about.
And I thought, wait a minute, is John Lott wrong?
I got to call him immediately.
And then you start to smell a rat because you go, wait a minute, I have a rifle.
I have that.
And they show this deadly shell that this AR-15s, these AR-15s have.
And you go, wait a minute, that's the shell I have for my stupid old man shotgun that I have.
My rifle, my Huntsman 30Od6.
That's got super bullets?
No, they're called rifle bullets.
Dumbass.
Can you pull that up?
The 60 minutes?
I've never had the experience.
Not with any kind of weapon like that.
I was looking at my phone.
I heard that and I was like, what do you mean you never had the experience?
It's called click the link and show the video.
It's not new, dude!
That's a cop.
Shattering concrete.
You can only imagine what it does to a human body.
The police estimate that he fired about 450 rounds.
Oh, I believe it.
I saw the damage it did.
I saw all the holes in the church.
From one side to the other.
The holes in the church.
The pews, the concrete, the carpet.
Now, I'm not trivializing these deaths.
Don't get me wrong.
But it's clearly not an informative news show.
It's clearly biased.
The holes in the church.
They love that quote when he said that, too.
They went, that's a winner.
Keep it.
Let's put that in the click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click intro.
They have a scene in it where they show gelatin.
Who's paying for all this, by the way?
They have these two big blocks that...
Look.
This is an AR-15 military gun.
It's three times faster and struck with more than twice the force.
Yeah, all rifles are!
The AR-15 bullet blasted a large cavity in the gel, unlike the bullet from the handgun.
Wow, there's a difference.
You can see right away.
Exactly.
Look at him.
There's fragments in here.
There's kind of took a curve and came out.
You can see a much larger area in terms of the fractures that are inside.
Now watch from above.
On top, the handgun.
I'm sorry to laugh, but the AR-15.
The melodrama is just so naive.
You know what Scott never shot a gun?
It's tumbling.
So what happens is this particular round is designed to tumble and break apart.
The 9mm handgun round has a larger bullet, but this AR-15 round has more gunpowder, accelerating its velocity.
Both the round and the rifle were designed in the 1950s for the military.
The result was the AR-16 for our troops and the AR-15 for civilians.
There's going to be a lot more damage to the tissue.
Okay, that's enough.
That's making me mad.
They weren't both designed in the 50s.
In the 50s, they designed a cool gun for war, and then gun companies noticed when you mimic that shape, you end up like you might as well say water pistols that are like that were both designed in the 50s by the military.
They're trying to mimic the cool military gun because it looks awesome.
We designed one gun for the military, the other gun to blow holes in a church with super bullets.
What are you trying to...
Like, what's your goal, Scott?
Is it to stop mass shootings?
Because if it was, you would have had someone like John Lott on the show.
All right, I'm sorry, we're almost out of time, and I'm still trying to get James O'Keefe on the show.
It's not looking good.
But let's just talk about James O'Keefe.
I sent you a bunch of stuff about him, and then if he magically appears, that'll be wonderful.
Let me see if he's emailed me.
I know it's not professional to be checking one's phone when you're doing a show, but I had my engineer vanish today.
So this is not your average show.
The show will go on, though, and tomorrow will be perfectly normal.
A live show.
I guess I got to figure out when I'm going to do it, right?
Maybe 2 p.m.
2 p.m.
We'll be taking calls.
It'll be a free audio podcast on iTunes, and it'll be a live vidcast on free speech.tv.
But yeah.
James O'Keefe sent people to infiltrate Google.
And he's got, there's some guy named Robbie Suove, Rico Suave.
Milo told me not to use that moniker because it's too flattering.
But Robbie Suve is, he's always on Tucker Carlson.
He wrote a book about mass hysteria with social justice warriors.
And I thought, this guy seems cool.
Then he puts out this tweet where he says, don't trust James O'Keefe.
I saw him at a rally.
There it is.
I once caught, I caught you, James.
I once caught James O'Keefe at a pro-Bernie rally pretending to be an irate supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Please do not take his deceptively edited videos seriously.
Why is Robbie Sauve, however you say his name, standing up for Google?
I want to back Google on this.
Big tech.
James O'Keefe is being too mean to big tech.
I wonder if he's fucking the girl in the video.
I wouldn't be surprised, huh?
That smells of sex.
It reeks of sex.
This tweet reeks of sex.
Because it was a chick in the video.
Do you have the video?
Sorry to.
I don't think I sent that to you.
She's got like beers behind her.
She's had a few.
And she's conceding that we were too free speech, we were too parlay, too parlor in 2016, and it helped Trump get elected.
We're never making that same mistake again.
No, sir.
Now we're altering the algorithms to make sure.
We're tampering with the election.
Trump said that.
Have you got that dialogue too?
I'm giving you a lot of workload.
And don't say that you have no experience with this again.
You have plenty of experience for crying out loud.
Don't put on a weird southern accent and say you've never done this before.
I got this little clip of the Jen Ganal.
Is Robbie Sovere fucking Jen Ganal?
'Cause he can do a lot better.
They're not objective piece.
They're not an objective source of information.
But then there are teams.
It's about ML Fairness.
ML Fairness?
Sadness.
You need to be sad.
We're also training our algorithms.
If 2016 happened again, would we...
She's a three.
It couldn't be different.
All right, that's enough.
No, the company, we showed that in the last show, the company that censors conservatives is called ML Fairness.
The Fairness Squad is responsible for shutting down free speech at Google.
Now, I know the Hitler thing, where they dub him losing his temper, has been done to death.
But it's been done so to death that it's like the stones in satisfaction.
And if some chick, like Alanis Morris said, is going to do an acoustic cover of it, it's now pleasant.
So this is, I know you're bored of these, but give me some time here.
This is the best Hitler overdub I've ever seen, and it involves what you just saw, that chick spilling the beans, that she did the that it was her fault.
I mean, sorry that she sent me a switch question.
You may have to kill me in this.
...for hide me.
With the attack of Steiners will that all in order come.
...my Führer, Steiner...
Steiner konnte nicht genügend Kräfte für einen Angriff massieren.
Der Angriff Steiner ist nicht erfolgt.
...
Das war ein Befehl!
Der Angriff Steiner, das war ein Befehl!
Wer schickt Sie?
Das hier ist Martin!
Sie ist mein Befehl zu widersetzen!
Oh, mein, ich wäre einfach gekommen.
Dann bin ich sehr an der Feriode!
Jeder hat mich verlogen, sogar die Aussage!
Die gesamte Generalität ist nicht zweiter als ein Haufen niederzweißiger, treuloser Feiglinge!
Mein Führer, ich kann nicht zulassen, dass die Soldaten die für Sie verblieben...
...die Statt Feiglinge verreicht ein Versager!
Mein Führer, was Sie da sagen, ist ungeheuerlich!
Die Generalität ist doch der Geschmacks des deutschen Volkes!
Sie ist ohne Ehre!
Sie nennen sich Generale, weil Sie Jahre auf Militärakademien zugebracht haben, nur um zu lernen, wie man Messer und Gabel hält!
Jahrelang hat das Militärmeleaktion nur behigert!
Es hat mit denen nur ein Widerstand in den Weg gelegt!
Ich hätte gut daran getan, von Jahren alle Höroffiziere liquidieren zu lassen, wie Stalin!
Ich war nie auf einer Akademie!
Und doch habe ich allein, allein auf mich gestellt, ganzer Rapper erobert!
Verräter!
Von allem Anfang an, wenn diese Verracken...
Nein, das sind auch...
Pretty good, huh?
I think we have to stop doing those now, folks who do the Hitler closed caption.
It's That was perfect.
And the thing I liked about it, too, is: am I the only one when I was seeing that woman with the beer bottles behind her blabber all of Google's secret?
You were thinking, ladies and their liquor, ladies and their power.
Why do you keep making them CEOs?
Is it a coincidence that the second that Vice Shane Smith, my old buddy, my childhood friend, stepped down and replaced his position with a broad, they started going, layoffs, layoffs, layoffs.
I need my weekends.
That's when I do my Game of Thrones on my Netflix.
If there's a problem, do not call me till Monday.
Okay.
But we're going under.
We're sinking.
Okay, we're out of time here.
We're in overtime.
I don't think we're going to get James on this show.
I'm texting him as he's doing other interviews.
He's obviously a hot topic because number one, did you see this?
Number one topic in Drudge.
It's funny how Robbie Sove, who seems to have a penchant for dogs, saying, don't listen to this.
He's pretending to be someone else.
That's what undercover journalism is, dude.
They're never going to tell you their secrets to your face.
And why is it the number one story on Drudge?
Insider reveals Google plan to prevent Trump's situation in 2020.
Oh, it's number two also.
Manipulating algorithm.
It's number three.
Wait a minute.
All of these stories are James.
Corporate media ignores YouTube polls video.
Yeah, YouTube had a video about it that they pulled.
I mean, there was a video, Project Veritas had a YouTube video that they pulled.
Google execs delete social media.
That's why I showed you that Hitler thing as long as I did.
I don't normally play videos out that long, but it's just so perfect.
And we'll end the show with Trump.
Let me just make triple sure I'm not getting Jamesy.
He's just going to say what we just said.
Let's end the show with that.
I sent you that thing of Trump.
I don't know what that's from, but someone sent me a transcript of Trump talking about all this.
And it was Trump saying, look, you're looking for collusion.
You're looking for Russia.
You're looking for someone tampering with our elections.
It's right next door.
It's right next door at Google and Parlor and Apple.
They're all big tech is in bed with the DNC, is in bed in Antifa, and they're playing dirty pool.
You saw what happened yesterday with Google.
Google was totally biased.
You know, like they talk about Russia because they have some bloggers.
I'm going to do my terrible Trump.
And by the way, frankly, some of those bloggers were going both ways.
They were for Clinton and for Trump.
That's true.
There was Russian interference, but it went both ways.
Well, somebody at Google said they want what happened in 2016 to happen in 2020.
They want it to happen again.
Let me tell you, they're trying to rig the election.
That's what we should be looking at.
Not the phony witch hunt.
That's the greatest political disgrace in history.
They should be sued.
This is the president of the United States.
Our stories are relevant, folks.
What's happening with the bias?
And now you see that with the executive yesterday from the Google, the hatred for Republicans.
It's not even like it's lean Democrat, the hatred.
And actually, I heard that during my election.
They were swamping.
And then what does he say?
Us with negative stuff.
We had James on a few days ago.
Told you it was a big story.
Now, frankly, the president's getting involved.
Keep drifting into Ronald Reagan when I try to do Trump.
Well.
All right, folks.
That's it.
That's the show.
I'll try to find out what happened with my incompetent sidekick.
▲
Export Selection