Gavin McInnes talks about Morrissey and why he's a white nationalist and why diversity in the workplace is a bad thing. Plus, a pro-abortion leader who calls herself a "white nationalist" and her husband is a Marine.
Transcript
Transcripts from "Get Off My Lawn - Gavin McInnes" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. You can also explore and interact with the transcripts here.
00:01:26.000And when he plays Madison Square Garden down the street here, he won't allow you to sell hot dogs.
00:01:31.000So he can be a little pedantic with his veganism.
00:01:35.000But as far as multiculturalism, he's dead on.
00:01:38.000And he doesn't like what's happening to Britain.
00:01:40.000He did an interview with Spin, I think, that was published on his website where he said, halal meat is evil, Khan is a fool, and basically attacked the whole notion of multiculturalism, where he said, if you try to make everything multicultural, you end up with no culture at all.
00:01:57.000And here's my favorite quote, although that's a good one.
00:02:00.000Diverse opinion is banned in England, he said.
00:02:05.000The most offensive thing you can do in modern Britain is to have an opinion and to talk clearly.
00:02:13.000Could you sum it up any better, Morrissey?
00:02:15.000Could you possibly have said a more succinct sentence that just sums up this whole show, my whole life, my whole career is in that sentence.
00:03:06.000Everyone's talking about this Richard Cohen guy who wrote an article for the Washington Post saying, look, I understand women have it hard.
00:03:14.000But this idea of hiring just because they're women and just because they're black, Dave, you should leave it up there when I'm talking about the guy.
00:03:21.000We don't need to see my logo all the time.
00:03:24.000Privilege is real, but being a white man shouldn't disqualify me.
00:03:28.000And he says, talks about the New York Times op-ed where the Metropolitan Museum of Art should not have appointed, quote unquote, yet another white male director.
00:03:37.000He said he recoils when he sees that and says, that's just another way of saying that white and male is a disqualification.
00:03:46.000Diversity in the workplace is an overdue goal, sure, but it can amount to a quota by another name.
00:03:52.000Choose a woman because she's a woman and you've eliminated a man because he's a man.
00:03:55.000Perfectly logical, but no one can shut up about this.
00:03:59.000It's like the top Twitter moment today.
00:04:02.000And Vox did a whole article about how he's become accustomed to privilege.
00:04:07.000And when you are accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression.
00:04:13.000Similarly, this is also linked to Morrissey, this woman, Kristen Hatton, she's a pro-life activist.
00:04:24.000And she's been called anti-abortion leader, emerges as a white nationalist.
00:04:29.000Now, my brain, when I read that, went back to Vice Days and I went, ooh, juicy, we got a weirdo here, someone colorful, someone exciting.
00:04:36.000And then you read it, and there's a rather consequential sentence in this takedown of this white nationalist, and that is, she does not identify as a white nationalist or a white supremacist.
00:04:53.000Isn't that kind of a major detail when you're exposing a white nationalist when they say, I'm not?
00:05:00.000But of course, as Morrissey said here, diverse opinion is banned in England.
00:06:24.000He used to be Clinton's Secretary of Labor.
00:06:27.000And he, I think he sums up Everything I'm talking about right now, and in general, which is the left's purposely disingenuous modus operandi, where they lie.
00:06:39.000They lie, they're lazy, they make up stuff, they play dirty pool.
00:06:43.000And that's why I want us to do the same.
00:06:45.000So I'm going to take a video he did with John Lott, and we're going to go through piece by piece, because this video has about 2 million views, and it's about how guns are evil.
00:06:54.000And John and I are going to break it apart piece by piece and show you why it's false.
00:07:00.000Because it's worth just stopping, time out, and analyzing exactly what they're saying so we can sort of be refreshed and be reminded of how dirty they are.
00:07:12.000And by the way, what's my solution to all this?
00:10:29.000He did an article called, I did a book, sorry, called Locked in the Cabinet.
00:10:35.000And someone at Chicago Tribune went through it, and it was just chalk-a-block, not of exaggerations, but of out-and-out lies.
00:10:47.000He says that he was berated by a frothing Republican committee chairman.
00:10:51.000And then this journalist, Jonathan Rauch, who went through the whole book, says that he talked to the congressman, and the guy was very courteous.
00:11:00.000Oh, he checked the transcripts of this conversation and found that the congressman was very courteous and even found the sentences that Reich attributes to him, and they weren't as Reich portrayed them.
00:11:10.000Reich, again, Reich recalls giving a speech to a cigar-smoking all-male audience of National Association of Manufacturers, which jeered and cursed him.
00:11:21.000And then the journalist Rauch, I know it's getting confusing, discovered that a third of the attendees were women, and there was no smoking in there, and then the comments that Reich attributes to questionnaires were never made.
00:11:34.000He lies about a portrait of Francis Perkins he took out of a closet and put on the wall.
00:11:37.000Anyway, this is who we are up against.
00:11:40.000And when you see a video from one of these guys, know that you're being bombarded with lies.
00:11:45.000And I'm going to prove that on today's episode.
00:11:48.000Now, there's one tiny thing here that I was even shocked by and that John Lott, he's not shocked by, but it's difficult to explain.
00:11:57.00092% of Americans are for background checks.
00:12:01.000That sounds crazy to you and me, but here's the clincher.
00:12:05.000When the Gallup poll asks that, they say, do you want the police to have resources to stop mass shooters?
00:12:13.000That's really what they're getting at here.
00:12:17.000Sorry, the exact question is, please tell me whether you favor or oppose each of the following approaches to prevent mass shootings at schools.
00:12:25.000So really what they're saying in the question is, if the police hear about this cruise guy and he sounds like he's going to be a threat, may we just check his background?
00:12:33.000So of course 92% say yes, because that's the way the question is phrased.
00:12:37.000However, in reality, when it comes down to voting, it takes tens and tens of millions of dollars to try to get people to get even close to 50% wanting background checks.
00:12:59.000Let's get to this totally disingenuous piece of propaganda.
00:13:04.000And I'm devoting my entire show to it because I think it shows you the kind of radical liars, the kind of frauds that we are up against, and what a total waste of time it is to debate them.
00:13:18.000We have to start playing dirty, we have to follow rules for radicals.
00:13:21.000We have to follow Sololinsky because these people don't play fair.
00:13:25.000Let's take the low road with Robert Reich and John Lott.
00:13:35.000I love talking to the primary academic, the leading source of information when it comes to gun laws because we get drowned in all of this rhetoric and lies, and it gets overwhelming.
00:13:49.000You see the NRA side, it sounds good, and then you see the Vox.com or the Robert Rice side in this case, and you go, wow, that sounds good.
00:13:58.000So I want to go through this left-wing video with you so we can refute it easily.
00:14:04.000Well, I mean, it's just amazing to me that they don't seem to have any standards in terms of what's true or not when they put these things out, but I'm happy to go through it with you.
00:14:46.000Consider the federal assault weapons ban.
00:14:49.000After it became law in 1994, gun massacres, defined as instances of gun violence in which six or more people were shot and killed, fell by 37%.
00:15:01.000The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43%.
00:15:05.000All right, that sounds problematic right there.
00:15:08.000Because he said gun, not assault weapon.
00:15:12.000Well, I mean, that's one of the big problems that they have there, that the number of attacks with assault weapons is actually a small fraction of these mass public shootings.
00:15:21.000And there's no change that occurred over that period of time, either before, during, or after the assault weapons ban.
00:15:29.000But, you know, you look at, there's lots of academic studies by criminologists and economists that have looked at this.
00:15:35.000What they try to do is to see whether there's a change in mass public shootings in the states where the federal law made a difference relative to the ones where it didn't.
00:15:44.000And they just don't find any evidence of the types of claims even with regard to mass shootings.
00:15:49.000And there's lots of studies, even ones paid by the Clinton administration, weren't able to find this benefit that he's claiming.
00:15:55.000Well, this is a common trick with the left, too.
00:15:57.000They'll say the Air Quality Act was enacted in this year and the quality of air went up.
00:16:03.000But then Stossel pulls back on the map and you see, wait a minute, it was going at 45 degrees 50 years before this.
00:16:12.000No, I mean, and that's going to be important for one of the other discussions that he brings up with regard to the Australia laws, where firearm homicides and firearm suicides were falling for 15 years prior to the buyback that they had in 96 and 97.
00:16:30.000And it continued falling afterwards, but actually at a slower rate.
00:16:34.000So if you just look at the after average and the before average, the after average is lower.
00:16:39.000But anybody who actually looks at the year-to-year changes will say, well, this doesn't seem to have improved it.
00:17:12.000You know, if you look at assault weapons, you don't see the change.
00:17:16.000And if you try to compare the states where the law made a difference, getting rid of the law made a difference versus the ones where it didn't, you just don't.
00:17:25.000Even looking at total mass public shootings, you don't see the change that he's talking about.
00:17:30.000Also, he's throwing around the number 200%, 47%.
00:17:33.000We're talking about three mass killings, two mass killings.
00:17:37.000So it's not like you went from 300 mass killings to 600 mass killings.
00:17:45.000Well, actually, he's dealing with an even smaller number than what's normally dealt with.
00:17:48.000The traditional FBI definition of mass public shootings is four or more killed.
00:17:54.000And he's using a number of six or more killed.
00:17:57.000And just, it may not seem like it, but when you go, each additional person that you require to be killed has a big reduction in the number of these mass public shootings.
00:18:05.000You have a lot of, let's say, four or more killed, four people killed, because six, you've lost a lot of cases there.
00:18:20.000I mean, I haven't memorized the six or more definition, but it's less than what we would normally have for quite a bit less than the four or more that's here's a million-dollar question.
00:18:32.000You probably won't be able to answer it just today briefly, but the real question I always ask when I watch this is you're clearly being manipulative with the stats saying 200% based on a couple cases.
00:18:43.000Are you doing that maliciously or are you naive?
00:18:50.000You know, it's hard to get into anybody's mind about what's going on here.
00:18:54.000All I can tell you is the amount of just purely, obviously false information here is just overwhelming.
00:19:01.000That's not in this video, but in the Vox one that you mentioned or the New York Times.
00:19:07.000It seems the thing is I've talked to some of these people and I've explained to the problems that they've had with this stuff and it doesn't change their behavior at all.
00:19:18.000And the thing that's interesting is they don't address the problems that are raised.
00:19:33.000Well, I mean, I could just tell people conclusions for stuff, but I don't think that's the way you learn or understand the debate because then you just have each side going and yelling, well, here's my conclusion.
00:20:21.000All right, let's go to number two here.
00:20:23.000Burr intended to permit mass slaughter.
00:20:26.000When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the framers' goal was to permit a well-regulated militia, not to enable Americans to terrorize their communities.
00:22:12.000But even by his laws, even by his thing, a well-regulated militia, I live in New York City where I'm looking at five years for a paintball gun, a BB gun, a rifle, any kind of gun, and I'm doomed.
00:22:24.000How am I supposed to form a well-regulated militia?
00:22:26.000I couldn't even get a black powder gun in Manhattan without going straight to jail.
00:22:31.000Yeah, well, even the term well-regulated meant something quite different 240 years ago than it means now.
00:22:39.000Well-regulated just meant disciplined, just meant that people were being careful and doing what they were doing.
00:23:09.000More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide.
00:23:15.000In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory Okay, we got two things going on here.
00:23:20.000So before we get to Australia, he says that more guns Scientific American says more guns have been linked to more crime, thereby contradicting your book.
00:23:35.000I actually had a letter to Scientific American just pointing out that she only seemed to pick studies that were on the other side of the issue.
00:23:45.000I mean, I can tell you dozens of studies just in terms of right-to-carry laws that show that passage of right-to-carry laws reduced violent crime rates.
00:23:55.000She didn't seem to be able to go and deal with anything past the first edition of More Guns Less Crime in 1998, even though I gave her lists of dozens of authors, academic peer-reviewed studies that have been done.
00:24:10.000And she couldn't even deal with the second and third editions of More Guns Less Crime.
00:24:15.000Did she claim to refute the first edition?
00:24:20.000Well, she just said she cited a couple people who had been critical of it after the first edition and then didn't even bother to deal with any of the responses that I had to those authors or that others have had to those authors pointing out mistakes that they have made in their arguments.
00:24:37.000So it's just, look, I can find even more studies on the other side and people can go to our website at crimeresearch.org where we list out and have links to the academic studies so they can go and look at them.
00:24:52.000And the types of studies that she's referring to anyway are public health type studies, which are typically very poorly done.
00:25:02.000I mean, my book, The War on Guns, basically goes through and talks about what's involved with these studies.
00:25:10.000And you and I could spend an hour or two talking about them.
00:25:12.000But if you look at studies by criminologists and economists, people who deal with crime type issues and deal with them.
00:25:22.000The type of problem with the public health research.
00:25:24.000Probably the most famous claim from the public health research is that owning a gun in the home is more likely to result in the death of you or somebody else that you know than it is to result in the death of an attacker.
00:25:40.000What they do is they'll look at people who died in or near residence over the course of a year and ask the relatives of the deceased whether or not a gun was owned in the home.
00:25:50.000And then they'll just assume that if you died from a gunshot and a gun was owned in the home, that it was that gun that was used in the death.
00:25:59.000In fact, If you look at the first study that was done there, they had 444 homicides.
00:26:05.000Only eight of those were due to the weapon that was in the home.
00:26:09.000The other 436 of them were actually due to a weapon brought in from outside the home.
00:26:22.000And so, you know, just fixing that one issue there reverses the claim.
00:26:29.000And there's so many other things that I could go through there.
00:26:33.000I can give you one other issue with it if you want.
00:26:38.000So what they'll do is they do that survey, and then they'll have a control group of people who are the same age, sex, and race who live within a mile of the deceased and ask them whether they own a gun.
00:26:51.000And then they run a regression on whether you die on whether you own a gun.
00:26:54.000Let's do the same thing for hospital care.
00:26:57.000Let's find people who died in the city over the course of the last year.
00:27:01.000Ask their relatives whether they've been to the hospital.
00:27:03.000And then we'll have a control group of people who are the same age, sex, and race who live within a mile of the deceased and ask them whether they've been to the hospital.
00:27:12.000And then we go and look to see whether people who went to the hospital were more likely to die than those who didn't go to the hospital.
00:27:18.000My guess is you'd find a very strong relationship between people going to the hospital being more likely to die than those that didn't need to go to the hospital.
00:27:44.000It's like saying, look, there's a reason why some of these people own guns.
00:27:48.000Some of them may have been gang members.
00:27:51.000Some of them may have had their house broken into multiple times.
00:27:54.000Just saying that they live within a mile of the other people and are the same age, sex, and race isn't going to control or account for whether or not they were at risk.
00:28:04.000And so it's true maybe that people who are gang members have a higher chance of dying.
00:28:10.000And if they didn't have a gun, they'd have an even higher chance of dying.
00:28:30.000For a buyback program to reduce the number of guns in private ownership, their firearm homicide rate fell 42% in the seven years that followed.
00:31:41.000And when you look at surveys that ask people about specific bills like the Manchin-Toome bill that came up in 2013, rather than just these general, vague statements, most people were happy that they didn't pass it and that they thought the Senate should move on and deal with other legislation rather than that background check bill.
00:32:06.000So it's sort of like the climate deniers thing, where they say, do you believe in climate change?
00:32:11.000They find a group that does, and then they re-ask the question with that isolated group and they get a 96.
00:32:17.000You could ask this gun control question on the upper west side of New York City and you'd get great numbers.
00:32:24.000Well, I don't know if that's the case.
00:32:26.000I mean, I assume Gallup is trying to get a nationally representative Sample of people.
00:32:31.000The question is: how is the question phrased?
00:32:35.000And is there a difference between when they actually put a bill out there and people look at the actual language, how they want to try to do these things?
00:32:43.000I mean, this is Bloomberg's initiatives.
00:32:45.000You've got to write them exactly the way you wanted to have it.
00:32:48.000If there was 96% support, he wouldn't have to outspend his opponents six to one.
00:33:09.000But it's just, you know, here's the problem with all these types of rules, whether it be universal background checks or these waiting periods, is that they have real costs.
00:33:23.000In Washington, D.C., where these politicians are, it costs $125 to privately transfer a gun because of the background check on private transfers.
00:33:32.000In New York City, it's even more in virtually all the places you can go to do it.
00:33:36.000You can find it as cheap as $55 in Oregon, but whether it's $55 or $125 or $150, those are real costs.
00:33:46.000The question is, who are you keeping from buying guns?
00:33:49.000And my research indicates it's basically poor minorities who live in high-crime urban areas, the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crime, who benefit the most from being able to go and protect themselves.
00:34:00.000And having that type of cost is like a real tax on making it so those very law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves.
00:34:08.000There's also this issue of what we call false positives.
00:34:12.000We'll frequently hear in the media, 3 million dangerous, prohibited people have been stopped from buying guns because of background checks.
00:34:26.000That when you actually go and look at that, virtually all of those denials are false positives, that they stop a law-abiding citizen who simply had a name similar to a thing from being able to buy a gun.
00:34:40.000And the people who are hurt again are the most vulnerable people.
00:35:24.000And you and I could go into a long discussion with it.
00:35:26.000But the point is, you know, in the background checks, I mean, the waiting periods, what about a woman who's being stalked or threatened?
00:35:33.000Should she have to wait 30 days to be able to go and get a gun, to be able to go and protect herself?
00:35:38.000I mean, you got to have some notion of costs and benefits here, and that's completely lost in a lot of the discussion that gun control advocates have.
00:36:19.000So accepting his $55 million number, people can go to places like opensecrets.org and see how much Bloomberg spends on these things.
00:36:31.000So in 2016, Bloomberg spent $24 million on congressional and Senate races, basically, in the country.
00:36:40.000He spent almost $30 million on these two initiatives in Maine and Nevada that we just talked about.
00:36:49.000So just on federal races and two initiatives, Bloomberg basically spent almost $55 million, you know, over $50 million just on those two types of things.
00:37:00.000Same as the NRA, that's one guy and two cases.
00:37:07.000Bloomberg spent apparently even more money on state legislative races across the country than he spent on federal congressional and senate races.
00:37:17.000So that's a lot more money than the, that's another $20 million, probably more than the NRA spent.
00:37:24.000Well, I was sure I looked up the lobbies, specifically on Capitol Hill, and I was comparing it to the teachers' unions, and there's quite a huge vacillation with these.
00:37:33.000But the biggest I saw the NRA get up to was $5 million on a big year, and it seemed like the teachers' unions were $10 million.
00:37:41.000I'll have to double verify that, but it seemed like their biggest numbers were twice the NRA.
00:37:46.000Yeah, no, I mean, the NRA is nowhere near the biggest in terms of spending on lobbying federally.
00:37:53.000But look, I mean, Bloomberg spends a huge amount of money lobbying federally.
00:37:57.000Bloomberg does stuff like helping fly around kids around the country for the March for Our Lives rally that we just had and providing background support for them in many different ways.
00:38:09.000And so, you know, he does lots of things.
00:38:12.000Every town gets like $50 million a year from him.
00:38:16.000He spends hundreds of millions of dollars on research.
00:38:19.000And so if Robert Reich wants to go and argue that somehow the NRA, Republicans are beholden to the NRA, then the Democrats are really beholden to Michael Bloomberg.
00:38:33.000And if that's the type of argument that he wants to make, that somehow we shouldn't vote for people that get large amounts of money from any group, then he really should be going after Bloomberg.
00:38:42.000And that should be explaining a lot more.
00:38:44.000The point is, the money that the NRA gives, I think, is largely given to people who believe the same things that they do, as opposed to just kind of buying their votes.
00:38:56.000And I assume the same thing's true with Bloomberg.
00:38:58.000He gives it to people who really want to go and disarm law-abiding citizens in many different ways.
00:39:05.000And, you know, he's not buying their vote.
00:39:08.000I think he's just trying to give it to true believers.
00:39:10.000And I think that's probably true in both the cases.
00:39:13.000It's a common myth that I think Robert Reich must know if he's been working on Capitol Hill.
00:39:18.000But it's a common myth that the right has all the money and all the donors and the left are just these hard scrubble, you know, black people and farmers trying to get through the day.
00:39:27.000The money is much bigger on the damn side as far as contributions go than it is on the right.
00:40:04.000What we do is I show some polls that actually indicate that young people are more kind of conservative, libertarian types on gun issues than older people are.
00:40:16.000You know, this somehow thing that we should take our marching orders from young people.
00:40:21.000If that's the case, then we should be even more skeptical of gun control on average.
00:40:26.000You know, I'm not saying you may have people at Parkland, but even there, there were a number of students who haven't gotten the airtime that some of them have, they've gotten from there, who are opposed to having these additional restrictions and are in favor of things like arming teachers.
00:40:44.000You know, and yet their arguments in favor of things like arming teachers and staff haven't gotten to play as a solution to these problems.
00:40:54.000Well, John, we've actually run out of time, and I think it's interesting that we just took a two and a half minute video from the left, and it's got almost 2 million views, and barely touched the surface on all the mistakes, lies, and misdirects that are in that video, and we filled up an entire show.
00:41:14.000I'm sorry to subject you to this, because to be honest, sometimes you do sound like a beaten man.
00:41:22.000Well, it's just, you know, there's just so much of the stuff coming out.
00:41:29.000And it's kind of like, well, if they just keep on repeating these false claims often enough, then they'll win the debate.
00:41:37.000And the media isn't open to debate now in many of the cases.
00:41:42.000I mean, I'm glad you're there, but, you know, usually in the past, you know, you go back five years ago after Sandy Hook or whatever, I'd be on lots of different TV programs or what have you.
00:41:55.000In recent times, they don't have the other viewpoint.
00:41:59.000I'll get calls from a producer at CNN who will simply ask me questions about what my views are, thinking maybe they're just doing a pre-screening for having me on a show.
00:42:09.000And instead, it just turns out that they just want to know what arguments I would make so they can give them to their panel, where everybody agrees with everybody else, so they can have some kind of bastardized form of my point that it would be making, and then everybody could say why it's wrong with nobody there trying to go and defend the argument that's there.
00:42:30.000I mean, it's not something to go and help educate people.
00:42:34.000It's more as if the media is just part of this campaign now on this.
00:42:39.000Yeah, we got 60 Minutes at Morley Safer in Vietnam showing his villages being burned down.
00:42:45.000Then he was the first journalist to report from China, from behind communist lines.
00:42:50.000And then you cut to the other week where we had Anderson Cooper talking to Stormy Daniels about whether Trump used a condom or not.