Get Off My Lawn - Gavin McInnes - April 22, 2018


Get Off My Lawn #119 | First Lady, First Mom


Episode Stats


Length

43 minutes

Words per minute

167.2433

Word count

7,250

Sentence count

505

Harmful content

Misogyny

10

sentences flagged

Hate speech

11

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

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. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:20.000 Live from New York.
00:00:22.000 It's Get Off My Ron with Gavin McInnes.
00:00:26.000 When the sun and the air All the shiny scratches come on earth and golden And sun and air But nothing Mmm.
00:00:44.000 one.
00:00:45.000 There's Morrissey.
00:00:48.000 I am human and I need to be loved just like everybody else does.
00:00:58.000 Boy, I would kill to get Morrissey on the show.
00:01:00.000 Wouldn't that be awesome?
00:01:01.000 That was the Smiths, Knowing You or something like that.
00:01:06.000 Just look up, I'm Human, I need to be loved, and it'll pop up.
00:01:09.000 How soon is now?
00:01:11.000 How soon is now.
00:01:12.000 Now, the Smiths were a big band in the 80s, and it was because of Morrissey.
00:01:17.000 And when he went solo, he did just as well.
00:01:19.000 He's still touring now.
00:01:21.000 But Morrissey is kind of right-wing.
00:01:24.000 He doesn't like Trump.
00:01:25.000 He's a vegetarian.
00:01:26.000 And when he plays Madison Square Garden down the street here, he won't allow you to sell hot dogs.
00:01:31.000 So he can be a little pedantic with his veganism.
00:01:35.000 But as far as multiculturalism, he's dead on.
00:01:38.000 And he doesn't like what's happening to Britain.
00:01:40.000 He 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.
00:01:57.000 And here's my favorite quote, although that's a good one.
00:02:00.000 Diverse opinion is banned in England, he said.
00:02:03.000 Debate is over.
00:02:05.000 The most offensive thing you can do in modern Britain is to have an opinion and to talk clearly.
00:02:13.000 Could you sum it up any better, Morrissey?
00:02:15.000 Could 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.
00:02:25.000 So true.
00:02:25.000 And of course, he's being pilloried as evil and everyone's freaking out, talking about how he's fallen rock bottom.
00:02:31.000 He's always had these views, by the way.
00:02:33.000 He's always been wrapping himself in the UK flag and the union jack, both literally and figuratively.
00:02:39.000 This is nothing new, but these kids today, they see Trump as a reality star because they don't know what he did in the 80s and 70s.
00:02:47.000 And every time I see this, if I see someone's a white supremacist or someone's gone off the deep end, I used to get excited.
00:02:52.000 Back in Vice days, when I was looking for freaks everywhere, I used to get excited and go, oh, good, we got a loony, a Nazi. 0.82
00:02:59.000 And then you go find them and you go, no, you're not a Nazi.
00:03:01.000 You're just a non-liberal.
00:03:05.000 And that happened also today.
00:03:06.000 Everyone's talking about this Richard Cohen guy who wrote an article for the Washington Post saying, look, I understand women have it hard.
00:03:12.000 Visible minorities have it hard.
00:03:14.000 But 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.
00:03:21.000 We don't need to see my logo all the time.
00:03:24.000 Privilege is real, but being a white man shouldn't disqualify me.
00:03:28.000 And 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.
00:03:37.000 He said he recoils when he sees that and says, that's just another way of saying that white and male is a disqualification.
00:03:46.000 Diversity in the workplace is an overdue goal, sure, but it can amount to a quota by another name.
00:03:52.000 Choose a woman because she's a woman and you've eliminated a man because he's a man. 0.98
00:03:55.000 Perfectly logical, but no one can shut up about this.
00:03:59.000 It's like the top Twitter moment today.
00:04:02.000 And Vox did a whole article about how he's become accustomed to privilege.
00:04:07.000 And when you are accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression.
00:04:13.000 Similarly, this is also linked to Morrissey, this woman, Kristen Hatton, she's a pro-life activist.
00:04:20.000 Her husband's a Marine.
00:04:22.000 She's kind of hipstery, has tattoos. 1.00
00:04:24.000 And she's been called anti-abortion leader, emerges as a white nationalist.
00:04:29.000 Now, 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.
00:04:36.000 And 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.
00:04:53.000 Isn't that kind of a major detail when you're exposing a white nationalist when they say, I'm not?
00:05:00.000 But of course, as Morrissey said here, diverse opinion is banned in England.
00:05:04.000 The debate is over.
00:05:05.000 The most offensive thing you can do is to have an opinion or talk clearly.
00:05:08.000 She just said, I admit to being a racist by today's standards, which by the way, you know what that really means, right?
00:05:14.000 It means I'm not scared of the word anymore.
00:05:15.000 So go ahead, scream it at me.
00:05:18.000 It doesn't mean, we found a racist, we got one.
00:05:20.000 It means, stop with that witch hunt. 0.94
00:05:22.000 It's boring to me.
00:05:24.000 But I also think almost everyone is a racist by today's standards.
00:05:27.000 It's racist to live in a majority white neighborhood. 0.87
00:05:29.000 It's racist to send your kids to majority white schools. 0.85
00:05:32.000 When I was a kid, racism meant hatred for another race and or acting on that hatred.
00:05:38.000 Now you're a racist if you touch a black person's hair because you think it's pretty.
00:05:43.000 It's so true. 0.84
00:05:45.000 So you didn't find me Nazi like you promised in your headline, as per us.
00:05:52.000 This guy, Richard Cohen, wrote a very benign article about prejudice.
00:05:56.000 She's just saying rational stuff about white farmers in South Africa, basically, and Israel.
00:06:02.000 And Morrissey is just saying, I'd like to debate.
00:06:06.000 I'd like an open forum.
00:06:08.000 Please.
00:06:09.000 No way.
00:06:12.000 We have a very special show for you today.
00:06:14.000 So there's this guy, Richard Reich, and Robert Reich, sorry.
00:06:18.000 It's spelled Reich. 0.51
00:06:22.000 Very tiny, tiny man, 4'10 man.
00:06:24.000 He used to be Clinton's Secretary of Labor.
00:06:27.000 And 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.
00:06:39.000 They lie, they're lazy, they make up stuff, they play dirty pool.
00:06:43.000 And that's why I want us to do the same.
00:06:45.000 So 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.
00:06:54.000 And John and I are going to break it apart piece by piece and show you why it's false.
00:07:00.000 Because 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.
00:07:12.000 And by the way, what's my solution to all this?
00:07:14.000 We play dirty.
00:07:15.000 For example, first lady, first mom.
00:07:19.000 She passed away.
00:07:20.000 That's George Bush Sr.'s wife, Barbara Bush, 1925 to 2018, 92-year-old. 0.63
00:07:26.000 I know she doesn't look great there.
00:07:27.000 You're not going to look great when you're 92.
00:07:28.000 She was a very attractive young lady.
00:07:31.000 But a professor was very rude about her death.
00:07:36.000 What did that woman say? 1.00
00:07:37.000 Outrageous California prof calls Barbara Bush amazing racist and says she's happy the witch is dead. 0.94
00:07:44.000 She says, what does she say?
00:07:46.000 Go down to her quote.
00:07:47.000 Barbara Bush was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal.
00:07:53.000 F-word out of here with your nice words.
00:07:56.000 I want her fired for that. 1.00
00:07:59.000 I want her to lose her job. 1.00
00:08:01.000 Now, Roger Stone said something similar.
00:08:05.000 Roger Stone called her a nasty drunk. 0.92
00:08:09.000 He also said that if you burned her body, it would burn for three days because it would be so saturated in alcohol.
00:08:16.000 And he calls her the head of the Bush crime family.
00:08:20.000 I don't want Roger Stone fired.
00:08:22.000 I want us to ignore the hypocrisy of that.
00:08:26.000 I want us to ignore...
00:08:32.000 That's called dirty pool. 1.00
00:08:34.000 That's called rules for radicals.
00:08:36.000 I'm not fair anymore.
00:08:37.000 I'm done with fair.
00:08:38.000 I'm done with the high road.
00:08:40.000 We take the low road now.
00:08:41.000 We are dirty fighters.
00:08:43.000 We go for the nuts.
00:08:44.000 We bite your eyes.
00:08:46.000 And that's what Robert Reich does on a regular basis.
00:08:51.000 Remember the Milo riots?
00:08:53.000 You know what he said about that?
00:08:54.000 He said at Berkeley that Milo and Breitbart worked together for made-for-TV images of a riot.
00:09:05.000 His proof, of course, is that it looked very aesthetic.
00:09:08.000 Remember when you had like trans rights or real rights, that woman person, trans woman with the shield and all that stuff? 0.97
00:09:15.000 That was all orchestrated by Milo.
00:09:17.000 All these incredibly talented actors in really elaborate costumes.
00:09:21.000 That was all Milo.
00:09:22.000 This is Robert Reich's brain.
00:09:24.000 I don't know if he believes it or not.
00:09:25.000 That's a very good question.
00:09:26.000 But that's an absurd belief of Robert Reich, but doesn't discredit him.
00:09:31.000 He also pushes for a minimum wage, $15.
00:09:35.000 Everyone gets a minimum wage.
00:09:36.000 This is one of the less leading economists.
00:09:40.000 He says, even if $15 an hour for minimum wage risks job losses, it's still the right thing to do.
00:09:46.000 And what's his proof?
00:09:48.000 Another time, he said that Henry Ford raised the salary of his workers so they could buy his cars.
00:09:55.000 And he was paying them three times what anyone else would pay.
00:10:00.000 Hey, Reich, it's an assembly line.
00:10:03.000 It pumps out thousands of cars a day.
00:10:06.000 You think the workers can afford to buy them all?
00:10:10.000 Every worker there would be good in two days of production.
00:10:13.000 And now what?
00:10:14.000 Now who's buying the cars?
00:10:16.000 You thick head?
00:10:17.000 Thick head, that's my new insult.
00:10:19.000 You thick-headed dunce, that would have been better.
00:10:22.000 Forbes gave him an F for that ridiculous mistake.
00:10:26.000 But here's a more interesting one.
00:10:28.000 I think this sums him up.
00:10:29.000 He did an article called, I did a book, sorry, called Locked in the Cabinet.
00:10:35.000 And someone at Chicago Tribune went through it, and it was just chalk-a-block, not of exaggerations, but of out-and-out lies.
00:10:47.000 He says that he was berated by a frothing Republican committee chairman.
00:10:51.000 And then this journalist, Jonathan Rauch, who went through the whole book, says that he talked to the congressman, and the guy was very courteous.
00:11:00.000 Oh, 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.
00:11:10.000 Reich, again, Reich recalls giving a speech to a cigar-smoking all-male audience of National Association of Manufacturers, which jeered and cursed him.
00:11:21.000 And 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.
00:11:34.000 He lies about a portrait of Francis Perkins he took out of a closet and put on the wall.
00:11:37.000 Anyway, this is who we are up against.
00:11:40.000 And when you see a video from one of these guys, know that you're being bombarded with lies.
00:11:45.000 And I'm going to prove that on today's episode.
00:11:48.000 Now, 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.
00:11:57.000 92% of Americans are for background checks.
00:12:01.000 That sounds crazy to you and me, but here's the clincher.
00:12:05.000 When the Gallup poll asks that, they say, do you want the police to have resources to stop mass shooters?
00:12:13.000 That's really what they're getting at here.
00:12:17.000 Sorry, the exact question is, please tell me whether you favor or oppose each of the following approaches to prevent mass shootings at schools.
00:12:25.000 So 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?
00:12:33.000 So of course 92% say yes, because that's the way the question is phrased.
00:12:37.000 However, 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.
00:12:49.000 So don't be deceived by that.
00:12:50.000 The rest of the video, by the way, it's incredibly obvious where he lied, how he's wrong, how he's being deceitful.
00:12:57.000 All right, we're out of time.
00:12:59.000 Let's get to this totally disingenuous piece of propaganda.
00:13:04.000 And 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.
00:13:18.000 We have to start playing dirty, we have to follow rules for radicals.
00:13:21.000 We have to follow Sololinsky because these people don't play fair.
00:13:25.000 Let's take the low road with Robert Reich and John Lott.
00:13:30.000 John, are you there?
00:13:32.000 I certainly am.
00:13:33.000 How are you doing?
00:13:34.000 Wonderful.
00:13:35.000 I 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.
00:13:49.000 You 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.
00:13:58.000 So I want to go through this left-wing video with you so we can refute it easily.
00:14:04.000 Well, 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.
00:14:04.000 Right.
00:14:14.000 All right.
00:14:15.000 So let's just do brief talking points on why these facts are wrong so we can keep the whole thing short.
00:14:21.000 And the truly curious can go to crime research.org.
00:14:25.000 Sure.
00:14:26.000 All right, let's start.
00:14:27.000 Here we go.
00:14:30.000 Five points to counter the evil NRA.
00:14:35.000 The next time you hear someone repeating pro-gun NRA propaganda, you can respond with these five points.
00:14:43.000 Number one, gun laws save lives. 0.99
00:14:46.000 Consider the federal assault weapons ban.
00:14:49.000 After 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%.
00:15:01.000 The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43%.
00:15:05.000 All right, that sounds problematic right there.
00:15:08.000 Because he said gun, not assault weapon.
00:15:11.000 Right.
00:15:12.000 Well, 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.
00:15:21.000 And there's no change that occurred over that period of time, either before, during, or after the assault weapons ban.
00:15:29.000 But, you know, you look at, there's lots of academic studies by criminologists and economists that have looked at this.
00:15:35.000 What 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.
00:15:44.000 And they just don't find any evidence of the types of claims even with regard to mass shootings.
00:15:49.000 And there's lots of studies, even ones paid by the Clinton administration, weren't able to find this benefit that he's claiming.
00:15:55.000 Well, this is a common trick with the left, too.
00:15:57.000 They'll say the Air Quality Act was enacted in this year and the quality of air went up.
00:16:03.000 But then Stossel pulls back on the map and you see, wait a minute, it was going at 45 degrees 50 years before this.
00:16:11.000 Right.
00:16:12.000 No, 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.
00:16:30.000 And it continued falling afterwards, but actually at a slower rate.
00:16:34.000 So if you just look at the after average and the before average, the after average is lower.
00:16:39.000 But anybody who actually looks at the year-to-year changes will say, well, this doesn't seem to have improved it.
00:16:45.000 There was no big sudden drop.
00:16:47.000 It didn't start falling at a faster rate.
00:16:49.000 The opposite was true.
00:16:51.000 Okay, let's get back to this tiny man, Robert Reich.
00:16:55.000 But when Republicans in Congress let the ban lapse in 2004, gun massacres more than doubled.
00:17:04.000 Number two: The Second Amendment was never Is that him making the same mistake, just saying guns?
00:17:10.000 Exact same point.
00:17:12.000 You know, if you look at assault weapons, you don't see the change.
00:17:16.000 And 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.
00:17:25.000 Even looking at total mass public shootings, you don't see the change that he's talking about.
00:17:30.000 Also, he's throwing around the number 200%, 47%.
00:17:33.000 We're talking about three mass killings, two mass killings.
00:17:37.000 So it's not like you went from 300 mass killings to 600 mass killings.
00:17:42.000 You'd go from, say, two to four.
00:17:44.000 Right.
00:17:45.000 Well, actually, he's dealing with an even smaller number than what's normally dealt with.
00:17:48.000 The traditional FBI definition of mass public shootings is four or more killed.
00:17:54.000 And he's using a number of six or more killed.
00:17:57.000 And 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.
00:18:05.000 You have a lot of, let's say, four or more killed, four people killed, because six, you've lost a lot of cases there.
00:18:12.000 So six or more killed.
00:18:13.000 I mean, I know from reading the newspaper my whole life, it's like two a year.
00:18:18.000 Right, it's not very many.
00:18:20.000 I 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.
00:18:32.000 You 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.
00:18:43.000 Are you doing that maliciously or are you naive?
00:18:50.000 You know, it's hard to get into anybody's mind about what's going on here.
00:18:54.000 All I can tell you is the amount of just purely, obviously false information here is just overwhelming.
00:19:01.000 That's not in this video, but in the Vox one that you mentioned or the New York Times.
00:19:07.000 It 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.
00:19:18.000 And the thing that's interesting is they don't address the problems that are raised.
00:19:22.000 They just try to ignore them.
00:19:25.000 That's what's different about you.
00:19:26.000 You will say, other people will say this, but that's because of that.
00:19:29.000 They Don't have that sort of a fair balance.
00:19:32.000 Right.
00:19:33.000 Well, 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.
00:19:45.000 What good does that do most people?
00:19:47.000 You know, they don't just place to their pre-existing biases.
00:19:51.000 You have to understand how these claims are created and what's behind them.
00:19:55.000 I'm done with good.
00:19:56.000 I want to start winning.
00:19:58.000 Let's play Dirty Pool.
00:19:59.000 This guy is, Forbes calls him economically illiterate.
00:20:02.000 He's been caught making up stories about his career, completely fictional events like Jason Blair level.
00:20:09.000 He's playing Dirty Pool.
00:20:10.000 You have to fight fire with fire.
00:20:12.000 All right, let's go to...
00:20:21.000 All right, let's go to number two here.
00:20:23.000 Burr intended to permit mass slaughter.
00:20:26.000 When 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.
00:20:36.000 Number three, more guns.
00:20:38.000 Whoa, whoa, who you can't just throw that out there and then jump to number three.
00:20:43.000 Here's a common myth that you keep hearing about the Founding Fathers.
00:20:47.000 They seem to think all you had was this black powder gun.
00:20:50.000 It's the only thing anyone could conceive, and there'd been no evolution of guns.
00:20:55.000 But we had all kinds of automatic weapons back then, did we not?
00:20:59.000 Sure.
00:20:59.000 Well, I mean, there was something called the pocket gun, which was kind of a machine gun type.
00:21:04.000 It was more of a gatling gun type weapon.
00:21:09.000 You know, so who knows?
00:21:11.000 I mean, people, it really doesn't matter to them what type of guns.
00:21:15.000 Just listen to him talk about what the Second Amendment is.
00:21:18.000 I need to say I'm an economist.
00:21:20.000 I've taught in law schools, but I'm not a lawyer.
00:21:24.000 But the basic points that he's bringing up are pretty easy and simple to deal with.
00:21:30.000 The Second Amendment uses the term the right of the people.
00:21:34.000 And that's in other amendments, and it's also in the body.
00:21:38.000 And each time it's used, it's meant to talk about individual rights.
00:21:44.000 But look, to me, the ultimate question here isn't what the Second Amendment means.
00:21:49.000 It's whether or not guns make people safer or not.
00:21:53.000 Or these gun control regulations, do they unintentionally disarm the most vulnerable people in our society?
00:22:00.000 Those are the issues that I think need to be addressed here.
00:22:06.000 And that's what got me interested in this debate, and that's why I deal with it.
00:22:10.000 I don't deal with sex guns. 0.97
00:22:12.000 But 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.
00:22:24.000 How am I supposed to form a well-regulated militia?
00:22:26.000 I couldn't even get a black powder gun in Manhattan without going straight to jail.
00:22:31.000 Yeah, well, even the term well-regulated meant something quite different 240 years ago than it means now.
00:22:39.000 Well-regulated just meant disciplined, just meant that people were being careful and doing what they were doing.
00:22:48.000 Right, right.
00:22:49.000 So it doesn't mean regulated in terms of regulations as we use the term now.
00:22:55.000 I love how he says it wasn't intended for individuals to terrorize citizens.
00:23:02.000 I can agree on that.
00:23:03.000 Yeah, we're on the same page, Tiny Rice.
00:23:06.000 Have not and will not make us safer.
00:23:09.000 More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide.
00:23:15.000 In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory Okay, we got two things going on here.
00:23:20.000 So 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.
00:23:31.000 Right.
00:23:32.000 Well, I dealt with that author.
00:23:35.000 I 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.
00:23:45.000 I 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.
00:23:55.000 She 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.
00:24:10.000 And she couldn't even deal with the second and third editions of More Guns Less Crime.
00:24:15.000 Did she claim to refute the first edition?
00:24:20.000 Well, 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.
00:24:37.000 So 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.
00:24:52.000 And the types of studies that she's referring to anyway are public health type studies, which are typically very poorly done.
00:25:02.000 I mean, my book, The War on Guns, basically goes through and talks about what's involved with these studies.
00:25:10.000 And you and I could spend an hour or two talking about them.
00:25:12.000 But if you look at studies by criminologists and economists, people who deal with crime type issues and deal with them.
00:25:20.000 I can give you one quick example.
00:25:22.000 Okay.
00:25:22.000 The type of problem with the public health research.
00:25:24.000 Probably 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.
00:25:40.000 What 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.
00:25:50.000 And 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.
00:25:59.000 In fact, If you look at the first study that was done there, they had 444 homicides.
00:26:05.000 Only eight of those were due to the weapon that was in the home.
00:26:09.000 The other 436 of them were actually due to a weapon brought in from outside the home.
00:26:17.000 That's like under 2%.
00:26:20.000 Yeah, it's pretty small.
00:26:22.000 Right.
00:26:22.000 And so, you know, just fixing that one issue there reverses the claim.
00:26:29.000 And there's so many other things that I could go through there.
00:26:33.000 I can give you one other issue with it if you want.
00:26:38.000 So 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.
00:26:51.000 And then they run a regression on whether you die on whether you own a gun.
00:26:54.000 Let's do the same thing for hospital care.
00:26:57.000 Let's find people who died in the city over the course of the last year.
00:27:01.000 Ask their relatives whether they've been to the hospital.
00:27:03.000 And 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.
00:27:12.000 And 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.
00:27:18.000 My 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.
00:27:26.000 But that doesn't tell you.
00:27:28.000 It just tells you that sick people go to the hospital and healthy people don't go to the hospital.
00:27:33.000 So sick people are more likely to die even though they've been to the hospital than healthy people.
00:27:39.000 Are we going to go around and try to ban hospitals based on that?
00:27:42.000 It makes no sense.
00:27:44.000 It's like saying, look, there's a reason why some of these people own guns.
00:27:48.000 Some of them may have been gang members.
00:27:51.000 Some of them may have had their house broken into multiple times.
00:27:54.000 Just 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.
00:28:04.000 And so it's true maybe that people who are gang members have a higher chance of dying.
00:28:10.000 And if they didn't have a gun, they'd have an even higher chance of dying.
00:28:13.000 Exactly.
00:28:14.000 Yeah.
00:28:14.000 And so, you know, there's so many problems with it.
00:28:19.000 Okay.
00:28:20.000 I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're running out of time here.
00:28:23.000 We're only halfway through.
00:28:24.000 I'm going to present you one that I know is going to annoy you, but I'm a sadist.
00:28:28.000 I'm going to subject you to this one.
00:28:30.000 For a buyback program to reduce the number of guns in private ownership, their firearm homicide rate fell 42% in the seven years that followed.
00:28:40.000 Number four, the vast majority.
00:28:42.000 Okay.
00:28:43.000 Australia, they've had a buyback thing and they had crime go down.
00:28:47.000 Yeah, well, that's what we referred to earlier.
00:28:50.000 I mean, it's really a ridiculous claim.
00:28:53.000 You have to take into account that firearm homicides were falling for 15 years prior to the buyback.
00:29:00.000 The buyback reduced the number of legally owned guns from about 3 million to something a little bit above 2 million guns that were there.
00:29:11.000 But afterwards, people could go and buy guns again.
00:29:15.000 So they re-bought guns after giving up their guns.
00:29:18.000 Right.
00:29:19.000 And the gun ownership rate by 2010 was back to where it was prior to the buyback.
00:29:25.000 So even if they were right, what you should have seen is a big, sharp drop and then an increase over time.
00:29:31.000 That's not what you see.
00:29:32.000 It was falling before.
00:29:34.000 It fell at a slower rate afterwards.
00:29:36.000 And he's just, when he's talking about 42%, he's just taking the average before and the average after.
00:29:43.000 But if it's falling over the whole period, let's say it was a perfectly straight line.
00:29:47.000 You wouldn't say that just looking at the before and after average would prove that it had an impact.
00:29:53.000 You couldn't even see any change.
00:29:54.000 No, that's totally disingenuous.
00:29:56.000 In fact, if it's consistent, you say there was zero change.
00:30:00.000 Right, exactly.
00:30:01.000 But the fact is, it fell at a slower rate afterwards.
00:30:05.000 And so, you know, it's kind of the opposite of what they would claim if you look at it carefully.
00:30:10.000 It's just reading a graph wrong.
00:30:12.000 All right, let's jump to number four here.
00:30:13.000 Stronger gun safety laws.
00:30:16.000 According to Gallup, 96% of Americans support universal background checks.
00:30:21.000 75% support a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales.
00:30:26.000 And 70% favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police.
00:30:33.000 Even the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common sense gun safety laws.
00:30:39.000 Wait a minute.
00:30:40.000 Okay, that last line is irrelevant because common sense is subjective, but those numbers seemed really high.
00:30:46.000 Right.
00:30:47.000 So here's the deal.
00:30:48.000 Are there polls like the Gale poll that show those types of numbers?
00:30:53.000 Yeah, there are.
00:30:54.000 But the question becomes, are these questions being asked in a useful way?
00:31:00.000 And one of the ways you can look at that is to see Bloomberg had initiatives on this universal background check in 2016.
00:31:08.000 He spent like almost $30 million trying to pass a background check, universal background check initiative in Maine and Nevada.
00:31:17.000 He lost by four percentage points in Maine, and essentially it was a tie in Nevada.
00:31:24.000 And so he had huge amounts of money, outspending his opponents by like six to one in Maine, and it got less than 50%.
00:31:33.000 So when people have actually had to vote on this, it's nowhere near 96% over there.
00:31:39.000 It's never even been closed.
00:31:41.000 And 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.
00:32:06.000 So it's sort of like the climate deniers thing, where they say, do you believe in climate change?
00:32:11.000 They find a group that does, and then they re-ask the question with that isolated group and they get a 96.
00:32:17.000 You could ask this gun control question on the upper west side of New York City and you'd get great numbers.
00:32:24.000 Well, I don't know if that's the case.
00:32:26.000 I mean, I assume Gallup is trying to get a nationally representative Sample of people.
00:32:31.000 The question is: how is the question phrased?
00:32:35.000 And 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?
00:32:43.000 I mean, this is Bloomberg's initiatives.
00:32:45.000 You've got to write them exactly the way you wanted to have it.
00:32:48.000 If there was 96% support, he wouldn't have to outspend his opponents six to one.
00:32:53.000 I see, yeah.
00:32:54.000 It's the lose.
00:32:55.000 30 days.
00:32:57.000 30 days is very rare.
00:32:59.000 You hear that outside of, you know, New York City and Los Angeles.
00:33:04.000 That may be for machine guns.
00:33:06.000 It's not even 30 days in California.
00:33:08.000 It's 10 days.
00:33:09.000 But 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.
00:33:20.000 So you take the background checks.
00:33:23.000 In Washington, D.C., where these politicians are, it costs $125 to privately transfer a gun because of the background check on private transfers.
00:33:32.000 In New York City, it's even more in virtually all the places you can go to do it.
00:33:36.000 You can find it as cheap as $55 in Oregon, but whether it's $55 or $125 or $150, those are real costs.
00:33:46.000 The question is, who are you keeping from buying guns?
00:33:49.000 And 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.
00:34:00.000 And having that type of cost is like a real tax on making it so those very law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves.
00:34:08.000 There's also this issue of what we call false positives.
00:34:12.000 We'll frequently hear in the media, 3 million dangerous, prohibited people have been stopped from buying guns because of background checks.
00:34:19.000 It makes it seem great.
00:34:20.000 I mean, who'd want 3 million dangerous people walking around with guns?
00:34:24.000 But the problem is it's just a lie.
00:34:26.000 That 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.
00:34:40.000 And the people who are hurt again are the most vulnerable people.
00:34:44.000 They're basically poor blacks. 1.00
00:34:46.000 Black males. 0.93
00:34:48.000 Isaac Jackson.
00:34:50.000 Right.
00:34:50.000 The thing is, people tend to have names similar to others in their racial groups.
00:34:55.000 Hispanics have names similar to other Hispanics.
00:34:58.000 Blacks tend to have names similar to other blacks.
00:35:02.000 30% of black males are legally prohibited from owning guns because of past criminal history.
00:35:08.000 Well, who do you think their names are most likely to be confused with?
00:35:11.000 Other black males.
00:35:13.000 And so you have this very high false positive rate among people, minorities. 1.00
00:35:20.000 Why should we have a system like that?
00:35:23.000 There's no reason why we shouldn't.
00:35:24.000 And you and I could go into a long discussion with it.
00:35:26.000 But the point is, you know, in the background checks, I mean, the waiting periods, what about a woman who's being stalked or threatened?
00:35:33.000 Should she have to wait 30 days to be able to go and get a gun, to be able to go and protect herself?
00:35:38.000 I 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.
00:35:49.000 All right, number five.
00:35:50.000 You ready?
00:35:51.000 Sure.
00:35:52.000 Number five, the National Rifle Association is a special interest with a stranglehold on the Republican Party.
00:35:59.000 In 2016, the group spent a record $55 million on elections.
00:36:05.000 Their real goal is to protect a few big gun manufacturers who want to enlarge their profits.
00:36:13.000 America is better than the NRA.
00:36:16.000 America is the.
00:36:17.000 Yes.
00:36:18.000 Okay.
00:36:19.000 So accepting his $55 million number, people can go to places like opensecrets.org and see how much Bloomberg spends on these things.
00:36:31.000 So in 2016, Bloomberg spent $24 million on congressional and Senate races, basically, in the country.
00:36:40.000 He spent almost $30 million on these two initiatives in Maine and Nevada that we just talked about.
00:36:49.000 So 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.
00:37:00.000 Same as the NRA, that's one guy and two cases.
00:37:04.000 Right.
00:37:04.000 And that ignores all the state races.
00:37:07.000 Bloomberg spent apparently even more money on state legislative races across the country than he spent on federal congressional and senate races.
00:37:17.000 So that's a lot more money than the, that's another $20 million, probably more than the NRA spent.
00:37:24.000 Well, 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.
00:37:33.000 But 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.
00:37:41.000 I'll have to double verify that, but it seemed like their biggest numbers were twice the NRA.
00:37:46.000 Yeah, no, I mean, the NRA is nowhere near the biggest in terms of spending on lobbying federally.
00:37:53.000 But look, I mean, Bloomberg spends a huge amount of money lobbying federally.
00:37:57.000 Bloomberg 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.
00:38:09.000 And so, you know, he does lots of things.
00:38:12.000 Every town gets like $50 million a year from him.
00:38:16.000 He spends hundreds of millions of dollars on research.
00:38:19.000 And 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.
00:38:33.000 And 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.
00:38:42.000 And that should be explaining a lot more.
00:38:44.000 The 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.
00:38:56.000 And I assume the same thing's true with Bloomberg.
00:38:58.000 He gives it to people who really want to go and disarm law-abiding citizens in many different ways.
00:39:05.000 And, you know, he's not buying their vote.
00:39:08.000 I think he's just trying to give it to true believers.
00:39:10.000 And I think that's probably true in both the cases.
00:39:13.000 It's a common myth that I think Robert Reich must know if he's been working on Capitol Hill.
00:39:18.000 But 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.
00:39:27.000 The money is much bigger on the damn side as far as contributions go than it is on the right.
00:39:33.000 All the top donors are Democrats.
00:39:36.000 A lot of them are, for sure.
00:39:38.000 All right, let's end this and see if it's just rhetoric and he brings up any points.
00:39:42.000 He's still got 30 seconds to blab on here.
00:39:45.000 Let's see what he does.
00:39:47.000 the young people from Parkland, Florida, who are telling legislators to act like adults.
00:39:52.000 It's time all of us listen.
00:39:56.000 This is credits.
00:40:00.000 You know, I'll just say this.
00:40:02.000 People go to our website.
00:40:04.000 What 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.
00:40:16.000 You know, this somehow thing that we should take our marching orders from young people.
00:40:21.000 If that's the case, then we should be even more skeptical of gun control on average.
00:40:26.000 You 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.
00:40:44.000 You 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.
00:40:54.000 Well, 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.
00:41:14.000 I'm sorry to subject you to this, because to be honest, sometimes you do sound like a beaten man.
00:41:22.000 Well, it's just, you know, there's just so much of the stuff coming out.
00:41:29.000 And it's kind of like, well, if they just keep on repeating these false claims often enough, then they'll win the debate.
00:41:37.000 And the media isn't open to debate now in many of the cases.
00:41:42.000 I 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.
00:41:55.000 In recent times, they don't have the other viewpoint.
00:41:59.000 I'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.
00:42:09.000 And 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.
00:42:30.000 I mean, it's not something to go and help educate people.
00:42:34.000 It's more as if the media is just part of this campaign now on this.
00:42:39.000 Yeah, we got 60 Minutes at Morley Safer in Vietnam showing his villages being burned down.
00:42:45.000 Then he was the first journalist to report from China, from behind communist lines.
00:42:50.000 And then you cut to the other week where we had Anderson Cooper talking to Stormy Daniels about whether Trump used a condom or not.
00:42:58.000 It's all TMZ now.
00:43:00.000 Right.
00:43:01.000 Well, I'm glad there are places like you that can at least try to go into what's kind of behind the arguments.
00:43:09.000 So I appreciate you having me up.
00:43:10.000 Well, we appreciate you doing all the hard work, and we can just glean the fame.
00:43:15.000 I end all my shows with the name of my show.
00:43:18.000 John, can you just say, get off my lawn?
00:43:21.000 Okay.