Rudy Giuliani weighs in on gun control debate
Former New York City mayor sounds off
- Duration 7:39
- Date Jan 20, 2013
Former New York City mayor sounds off
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well after a harsh backlash and -- -- chorus of outraged critics of the journal news as removing the names and addresses of gun owners from their website who live in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York.
The paper's president Janet -- has said the decision to remove those controversial information was not because of strong criticism she says quote.
The database has been public for 27 days and we believe those who -- should you have done so already.
The decision comes days after two houses was -- the maps were targeted by robbers.
Critics were upset that the publishing names put those people at risk.
The president gun control plant is one of the most polarizing debates in Washington and now one of the nation's most outspoken leaders in crime reduction is responding.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani tells me the -- and increasing safety and how Washington can find compromise.
Gun control laws.
When I was may remain pretty much the same old during the eight years.
A crime went down.
60% 56 -- a homicide 6065%.
And another -- comparison is New York has very few murders now Chicago has a lot of murders.
About per capita to three times more than New York.
They both have the same gun control laws they both strict on guns but one has a lot of murder.
When Israel and here's the answer the answer is proactive policing.
Meaning it doesn't matter what gun control -- you have on the books are you taking the guns out of the hands of the bad guys.
Gun control affects the good guys.
The bad guys are affected by gun control you tell them they can't have an assault weapon they say you know go to hell we're gonna have -- assault weapon.
You say -- in the magazine should only be seven they keep their -- So the only way to deal with the bad guys as you got to take the guns away from.
And we had every.
The strategy we could think of to find ways to seize guns from bad guys -- does mean a lot of searches and seizures.
It does mean some.
Uncomfortable intrusion sometimes what people would consider privacy rights I was with -- right to protect the public with pat -- month in that situation.
So you could to -- in that area but that's the reason why New York has so little.
And -- New York became the safest large city in America -- -- the crime capital of America it was the -- that system to measure crime very very.
And move your police to the right place at the right time and it was literally.
Taking the -- pulling them away from the bad guys so from your point of view how do you characterize what has been presented so far from the White House.
I think the president's program is false misleading and to some -- unconstitutional.
Wears it -- constitution.
Well I think that you know the the original assault weapons ban was passed before the Heller case before the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that -- a constitutional right to bear arms.
That includes the right to defend yourself.
So now if you or reducing significantly.
The ability of a legitimate person to defend themselves aren't you violating a constitutional right.
Now consider that there's somewhere between 270000300.
Million guns out there.
Of large percentage of the country are in the hands of bad guys.
So now you pass a law and you say that unity in in a a -- You have to have.
A magazine that carries only ten bullets right now carries fifty or -- -- I forget exactly but only ten.
So now all legitimate people have to comply with that even if that's possible to do they'll go down -- ten.
Every dead guy doesn't do every bad guy is no put 1615.
Or sixteen so now if you think of it this way.
We've got to stretch a million guns summer in the hands of good guys who follow the law some of the hands of bad guys who don't care about the law you just increase the firepower.
An advantage of the bad guys over the good guys including the police.
I don't know if the police are exempt from these laws or not I'm not sure I hope they are.
I'm not sure that the ex police officers many of whom are -- security jobs are exempt from these laws and then with regard to me personally.
Being able to defend myself you've just reduced significantly.
My ability to defend myself you've just given the bad guy a great advantage over me that he didn't have before.
Does that violate the constitutional right to bear arms -- says you cannot infringe.
I think it might I think that would be -- very very good argument second.
Everyone agrees that the definition of assault weapon is -- very hard to define an assault weapon when does something become an assault weapons.
First -- was notoriously ineffective because it defined assault weapon very vaguely you'd find it vaguely now.
With the new constitutional decision.
Then you have an argument that -- void for vagueness.
You can't write a big law that restricts a constitutional right.
You have to write a very specific law that is clear so I think this is filled with constitutional issues that didn't exist the first time they went through this.
I don't see any of these people who are.
Kind of just being very politically -- talking about this.
Let me just -- -- I've lived a few seconds left that wide disaster relief that polarization that's evident right now in Washington.
Over this issue.
Do you see any room for compromise -- I do but the president is approaching hitting.
Incorrectly -- Europe now I have -- -- this really surprise you to know that I would support.
An assault weapons ban I did in the past like I would before -- honestly expect that.
If it really wasn't an attempt to restrict.
The capacity of a Glock was Jeff goes a pistol not an assault weapon.
If it really wasn't trying to be so broad.
That it encompass the whole group of weapons some of which people need to defend themselves which have nothing to do with being assault weapons if they were honest about what they were doing.
And they were really talking about military style.
And they defined it narrowly.
I can't see any reason why you wouldn't pass that because there's no reason for president need to possess that to -- to defend themselves but they are doing that they're infringing on a person's right.
To defend themselves and second of being dishonest about the effect it -- -- having all those children around them.
What do you think about what what fine it's always nice to see children but this stuff he's talking about -- -- protect those children.
He's not talking about what we have a mental health.
He's not talking about what are we gonna do about these videos and horrible things that children are are are able to -- he's afraid to take it on Hollywood.
He's not talking about parental.
A decision maybe some of which have to be interfered with.
Maybe some of that a relation between a psychiatrist and a patient has to be interfered with in order to get -- people who are mentally ill that's also very uncomfortable and not easy.
All of that would have more to do protecting those children putting a cop in a school with a gun.
Maybe two or three cups in the school with a gun would have more to do with protecting those children if you get the Republicans.
Reasonable gun legislation.
Legislation regarding a mental health.
Legislation restricting somewhat the violent.
If you do a package and encompass the full range of things that might affect these children.
That I might be inclined to vote for that.
This is not the way Ronald Reagan did it's not the way Bill Clinton did not the -- Abraham Lincoln did not the way our successful presidents did.
They look to put together a package that gave you what you want it gave me what I wanted.
And then we met somewhere in the middle maybe the president took out a little more for himself than for the other side he's taken out everything from so.