Speaker 1: All right. Let's go next to
Adrian from San Francisco, where I just returned from. Adrian from San
Francisco. Welcome. What's on your mind today? Speaker 2: Good morning, David. How are you?
Speaker 1: I'm doing well. Speaker 2: David, I wanted
to ask you about Gavin Newsom's proposal for a constitutional amendment for gun control. And I
wanted to talk specifically about the third point, which is he wanted to ban assault weapons. I was
curious what your general perception of a proposal like that would be, number one in terms of policy,
but two, just in terms of public sentiment. Speaker 1: Okay. So the third, let's see,
I'm looking at the list here of. So raise the federal minimum age for firearms from 18 to 21.
Mandate universal background checks. Institute a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases.
And I think this is the one you're talking about, barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that
serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. You're
talking about that last one, right? Speaker 2: That's right. Thanks
for the correction. Speaker 1: So, listen, he
doesn't include that. I can see in this proposal the exact weapons that would be part of that. Now,
this is often a sticking point for the for the right wing gun people. They go, you know,
these Democrats want to ban assault weapons. They can't even define it. They don't know what it is.
I can I can modify a gun so that it technically is legal, but then I make it function in the same
way. Ba ba ba ba ba. I think that sort of misses the forest for the trees. First the question is,
can the government legally limit the choices people have when it comes to arms? And I believe
everyone says the answer is yes. When you go to shoulder mounted RPGs, nuclear weapons, grenades,
all these different things, almost everyone goes, well, no. Yeah. Okay. So the government can do
some limits. Once you've conceded that, then it's a matter of where you draw the line and
people can disagree about where to draw the line. But there's a lot of places you could
draw the line that wouldn't violate the Second Amendment in any way. You then get to. Okay,
well, is this particular gun an assault weapon or not? That can be figured out. And for me,
it's not the main sticking point. For me, the big picture is there are some firearms that
truly serve no purpose other than to kill a ton of people as possible in a short amount of time. And
it's totally reasonable and logical to decide. As a society you can have a Second Amendment,
you have the right to own guns, you can buy guns, etc., but not any gun. Here are some guns we are
going to put on a list. I think that that's fine and you don't have to know every gun that would
be on the list for it to be a valid position. Speaker 2: Yeah. David, I think that's fair. I
mean, and total agreement that when Republicans want to get finicky on the ontology of what
classifies as an assault weapon, yeah, it's totally just to obfuscate. That's
entirely their goal. Right. But I guess, you know, from my very peripheral understanding,
like the vast majority of mass shootings are caused by pistols or handguns. So things that
we would not typically nominate or denominate as assault weapons or a AR 15 or things like that.
Yeah. So I guess from a public policy perspective, it seems almost like and I don't want to accuse
Gavin of something he's not doing, but it seems a little bit like a publicity stunt are giving in
to sort of public fears and perceptions of which types of guns are scary as opposed to the type of
guns which are actually most commonly used. Speaker 1: Here's my shot on this,
Adrian. And you're making a lot of really good points. I believe that when we talk
about gun violence in the United States, we have three problems. We have suicide. We have
what we might call. It's so it's so tough because mass shooting, I believe,
is defined as three people killed or injured. So like if one person is killed and two are injured,
that's technically a mass shooting. And then you have like these sort of nationally newsworthy
mass shootings, the ones with eight victims, 12 victims, etc.. You are correct that statistically
a much larger share of even what we call mass shootings are committed with handguns and not
the assault weapons. But from what I recall, it's still around 20 or 25% of mass shootings
where there is an assault, what we might call an assault weapon, a semi-automatic rifle,
assault weapon type type gun involved, we can fact check it. Okay. Well, let's put that aside for a
second. I think there's a couple different things going on. Number one, no single provision will
solve the gun violence problem. So the waiting period might do more for the handgun violence,
the limiting the weapons that are available or requiring a different type of background check
or whatever. Each of these is going to touch to different degrees, different types of shootings.
And I still think we need to take an all of the above approach. You can always say this one
provision would only deal with 12% of shootings. Okay. If you've got ten or 12 provisions, each of
which will deal with some percentage of shootings, you're still making a lot of headway. But let me
say one other thing, Adrian, and then I'll get your thoughts. There is also a reality that the
environment in the United States, because of gun culture, which includes the school shootings, the
mall shootings, the theater shootings, all this different stuff contributes to a really disgusting
and negative environment. And I would argue that on that basis, even if the semiautomatic rifles
are only 19 or 22% of the mass shootings, they generate such terror that it is still
worth doing what we can to focus on them while we also deal with the handguns and the other stuff.
Speaker 2: I certainly appreciate your very utilitarian line of thinking. I think that's
the most that's the de rigueur for public policy. I guess one sort of point I wonder is, you know,
every time there is a media, a hustle bustle about banning a AR 15 or assault weapons. I think a
lot of people go out and buy them. And so do you think that in doing some sort of publicity stunt,
because let's be honest, there's no way something like this will ever reach a constitutional
amendment. Yeah. Do you think sort of this sort of publicity statement, you know, actually encourages
more people to purchase these weapons? Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it does. But
there's sort of a there's a double edged sword to that. If there aren't a lot of shootings,
then the gun industry and the gun people go, it's thanks to all the people that bought guns. You
should go out and buy guns. And if there are a lot of shootings, then the gun people go, Hey, it's
really dangerous out there. You should go and buy guns either way. There's a large contingent of the
gun people that are going to say buying guns and more guns is the solution. So I don't know that we
necessarily want to guide ourselves by that. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's fair. I can't I
can't disagree with that. Well, thank you, David. I really appreciate the conversation.
Speaker 1: All right, Adrian from San Francisco with a great series of questions. Let's take
a very quick break and then we'll come right back and speak to more people If
you're waiting to talk to me. Don't go anywhere, because we'll be right back.