How do we stop mass shooters?
Would requiring background checks for private gun sales reduce gun violence?
Should new laws stop people flagged for unstable behavior from buying guns?
How does due process factor in?
Why don’t we just “do something”?
Earlier this week, CNN’s Chris Cuomo and National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke debated some of the most common questions and issues as the nation looks at gun control laws.
On today’s show, Glenn was pretty certain about who came out on top of the debate.
“[Cooke is] clear with logic. He’s doing math. Cuomo is doing Common Core math,” Glenn joked on today’s show while introducing the clip. Listen to the full segment (above) to hear the discussion (skip to 6:36 in the clip for Cooke and Cuomo’s debate).
Shooting survivors challenge NRA at CNN Town Hall https://t.co/RM0UZ9hgWw
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) February 22, 2018
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.
GLENN: I mean, it — let me play something — let me play Cuomo versus Charles Cook. Charles Cook, who is great. He’s on this network from time to time. And he was part of the real news.
He’s just a great thinker. Now, listen to him — he’s clear with logic. He’s doing math.
Cuomo is doing Common Core math. Listen to this.
VOICE: I don’t understand why there would be resistance to — you know, especially for lawful people. Why wouldn’t you have all sales applicable to a background check?
VOICE: Well, the first argument, and I think this is always a good thing to remember, when the government gets involved, whether it’s the War on Terror or drugs, is that, as I say, there isn’t a great deal of evidence that it works, or that sheriffs prioritize it in states that have them.
Second reason is that if it’s as it’s been suggested thus far, it would effectively create a gun registry. And gun registries are opposed I think for good reason, by those who have —
VOICE: But you already have it for the majority of sales. This would just be making it in all transactions. Why create a loophole, when you don’t need one? Its practical impact is something to consider. But as a prophylactic device, I just don’t understand a good argument against it.
VOICE: Well, I think as I say, a good argument against it is that recent studies conducted, it should be said, by gun control advocates and written up by gun control advocates, who have conceded that there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it does anything. And if we’re trying to improve the situation on the ground here, then that doesn’t seem —
GLENN: Now, listen to this logic from Chris.
VOICE: Well, and the argument for it would be, you might as well try whatever you can, because you have so many guns getting into the wrong sets of hands.
GLENN: It doesn’t work. But try it.
VOICE: Go ahead. Make your final point.
VOICE: Well, I think, that you see, I think that’s where we have to be careful here. Because there is this argument in the aftermath of mass shootings, and we saw a lot of it last night. In what I thought was an unhelpful town hall, held at the wrong time. We see a lot of this argument, you have to do something. But, of course, we don’t all agree we need to do anything. Marco Rubio came out last night against the idea of, say, arming teachers. It wouldn’t be a particularly convincing response to say, well, why doesn’t he just want to do something?
VOICE: He did say he would do certain things. He did —
VOICE: No, I agree. But just saying, why don’t we just do something, why don’t we try that, there’s nothing to lose? Is not a standard we apply across the board.
VOICE: Not arbitrary things.
VOICE: Why do you say arbitrary?
VOICE: Look, Charles, what I’m saying, we agree, you should do things that are calculated to make a real difference. You should base it on debate and data and research in the area —
GLENN: Research. What?
VOICE: There’s no question about that. There’s no reason just to throw out any kind of solution that won’t work. But, look, at the end of the day, it’s a debate worth having. We need all sides. And I appreciate you being here. Take it easy —
GLENN: He didn’t say anything.
PAT: You just lost the argument. Badly. Badly.
GLENN: You just lost the argument. We agree. We need to make sure we’re looking at research and data.
Right. I just told you the research and data says it does nothing.
GLENN: Right. But in the end — you know he wanted to say, but in the end, we do need to do something.
STU: Right. And, by the way, that something is the thing I want. No other thing. Because there’s lots of other things out there that I don’t think we should do. But the thing I want to do should be the something we should do.
GLENN: And I have to tell you, Charles, his response is, well, you know, the president said arm teachers. That’s doing something.
GLENN: And you could see Cuomo like immediately, his body language, it just shifted to dismiss. Arming teachers. Well, that’s just stupid.
Wait. Why don’t we try it. Let’s just do something.
PAT: Yeah. What the heck.
STU: Pat Gray Unleashed coming up on TheBlaze Radio and TV network. Just a moment. Well, we think the thing that you’re suggesting is stupid.
STU: That’s why we’re dismissing it. You know, it’s interesting. I keep hearing this about the teachers and arming the teachers.
And I’m not saying it’s my top policy prescription for this, but stop for a second. We keep hearing these same things come out of people’s mouths, even from teachers. They’re like, you know, teaching algebra. I don’t want to be defending kids — I don’t want to be pointing a Smith & Wesson while I’m — I’m teaching algebra. You’re not going to be pointing it, when you’re teaching algebra. You’re going to be pointing it when an active shooter is at your door.
STU: The same thing with the security situation with the deputy.
STU: He’s out there, and they’re like, this proves that the security at schools won’t work. The guy just stood outside and didn’t do anything. Well, first of all, yes, it is a requirement of the policy for the guy to go inside. Yes, granted. But, again, take everybody in that situation, you’re a minute and a half into that, you have a choice to make, would you rather have a security personnel that’s armed, walking up to the building, who may or may not come inside, or would you rather have nobody?
STU: Nobody with guns inside, nobody with guns —
GLENN: Let me just say this: Why did we not have a problem when the airlines trained everyone on the flight deck to use a gun after 9/11. Remember that? We’re going to have our pilots have guns.
Yep. And we had our Navy SEALs and all of the experts go in and train the people on the flight deck how to use a gun.
Then we hardened the door.
STU: Air marshals as well.
GLENN: And we put air marshals in. Somebody on the plane with a gun. Well, you don’t want a shoot-out in an airplane. Yeah, if it means we’re all going to do to die or he dies, yeah, I’m going to go for the shoot-out on the airplane.
STU: What you really don’t want is a one-person shoot-out. Those shoot-outs suck. Because there’s nothing you can do about it. When one person starts shooting, you want a two or three or four-person shoot-out. You want bullets flying both ways, once they start flying one way.
GLENN: It doesn’t seem to be a problem to arm our pilots. Why is it a problem, to arm and train some teachers?
I don’t see a problem with it.
STU: Look, it’s not going to solve every one of these.
STU: Security —
GLENN: It doesn’t get to the root of the problem.
STU: Everything worked when it came to this shooting, as far as security goes, until the guy stayed outside. And maybe sometimes people will fail. These are impossible situations to predict how you’re going to act. But, I mean, don’t you want the possibility of success? They’re rejecting the possibility of success for the possibility of failure.
GLENN: I would just like to say that the failure is not just on Scott Peterson, the sheriff’s deputy.
STU: Oh, no, no.
GLENN: But on the sheriff himself and whoever is training to — to not see this as a problem.