journal, we are joined by experts looking at u.s. gun policy, calls for gun control, and a school safety after the recent shootings in parkland, florida. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: the president and the executive director of the nra sent out tweets yesterday following a meeting they had about gun related issues, both expressing the meeting was positive and the nra executive --

no formal guest, we want to hear from you. in this first hour, here is the question we want you to answer, your question for washington about the gun debate. it could be what's happening in congress, what is happening in other places. what is the message you want to send? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 if you want to post on twitter, do so at our twitter feed @cspanwj and you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. the new york times highlights this morning the efforts of congress and what is happening there, especially of congress leaves for the week and what they did on gun issues. this is -- and others saying that senate was unable to untangle objections to a modest relatively noncontroversial bill

meant to improve the system for providing information of federal databases.check without much guidance from the white house, democrats and republican began laying out proposals in an effort to prevent tragedies such as the shooting in parkland, florida. it's far from clear how those measures will succeed without the president's backing. conservatives were apoplectic about mr. trump's departure from orthodoxy on guns -- firearms could be seized before are not -- owners could be judged unfit to possess them. that comment concerned me greatly, said a senator from montana. otherwise, a reliable trump ally. i disagree with the president on that issue and i think it's a fundamental constitutional fourth amendment issue. the story adding democrats in the senate on thursday announced their own efforts on the unrelated measures, saying they will focus on passing a bill that would require the national criminal background check system to apply to purchases made over

the internet or at gun shows. debate nota necessarily passage of a ban on assault style weapons. after a meeting with the president and the nra yesterday, both sending tweets about the meeting. great)ent saying "good ( meeting in the oval office today with the nra." the executive director of the we sending out this tweet -- all want safe schools, mental health reform, and to keep guns away from dangerous people. support strong due process and do not want gun control. we want to hear specifically from you on what your message would be to washington about the issue of guns and the gun

debate. you can address those directly from the white house. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. daniel starts this morning. he lives in washington, d.c., independent line. what would your message be? caller: good morning. a well-regulated militia is the subject of the second amendment. we need to go back to the second amendment. it does not include individual rights. ,t is a militia of the people not any one individual -- a community, a state, a nation, a community. the people who say they need to keep their guns toward off to radical government, i am wondering what they are doing every day before this conflagration to stop this

government from being tyrannical . they have set up their own construct because the boys want of toys and the genocide native americans, they had their own construct. slavery, they had a construct that is harming us to this day and they created a construct to arm themselves illegally. second a rent -- second amendment is for well-regulated militia. host: do you mean the second amendment has to be repealed, modified, what do you mean specifically? caller: the second amendment has to be read by people who can speak english. it says a well-regulated militia. host: you made that point. caller: for the security of the people -- the government will not infringe. it did not say they will not regulate. rightss no individual and there is no difference

between a 21-year-old shooting your family or a 40-year-old. it doesn't matter what age they are. pennsylvania. to brenda is next, democrats line. caller: first of all, i want to say i wholeheartedly agree with the previous caller, that i want to make one point and i would like everybody to listen to exactly what i am saying. people brutally tortured to try to keep our citizens safe. drone strikes are killing women and children trying to keep our citizens safe. host: to the message on the gun debate, brenda. to the port we are trying -- the point we are trying to talk about, what would you like the message to washington be? caller: banning assault style weapons is somehow a bridge too far to keep our citizens safe, yet we are doing these other things to keep our citizens

safe, yet banning assault weapons, that is a bridge too far? host: that is something you would support, then? caller: what? host: banning assault style weapons? caller: absolutely. host: aside from the idea about drone strikes, why do you believe in that? why would you like to see that type of ban? why would you like to see these type of weapons banned? caller: they are not necessary to protect yourself. you will not use an assault style weapon in your house to shoot a burglar. you would destroy your home or possibly hit your wife or kids. you will not use that style weapon on a burglar into your house. host: ok, dana is next. is from newhall, california on the line for republicans. caller: i would like to tell congress it is not a good idea

to arm teachers, which i know donald trump and the nra said they support. my mom is a junior high school teacher and i know she could her entire anyone in life if it ever came down to it and we have talked about it and she is not thrilled with the idea. i also don't think it's positive for children to be surrounded by a visibly armed presence in school, metal detectors. you cannot help children feel safe that reminding them there is something to be afraid of. in this instance, it seems to be coming down to a debate between school safety and second amendment rights and i don't think school safety should be compromised or looked at lightly because of second amendment rights. i think school safety needs to take precedence. that is my opinion. host: when you are these arguments about hardening schools themselves making it more difficult to have these type of events happen, what is acceptable in your mind? caller: that is a great

question. i definitely think mental health needs to be at stake. i think it's important that kids need to get even more involved in the conversation. kids should be surrounded by guns. i definitely think something more covert needs to take place. i think response teams would be , first responders getting involved with the community, faster reaction times , definitely patrolled units on campus that are trained, but nothing that visibly reminds the kids, there is a visible threat out there. you should be scared. host: that is dana in california offering her message to washington on the gun debate. bash website,he they have a look at the bills being discussed on capitol hill as a means to look at the

debate. one of those bills would be eight bill that would strengthen rules against -- would be a bill that would strengthen rules against background checks. it's a bipartisan support in both chambers of congress sponsored by john cornyn, chris murphy, chris saw -- diane feinstein, jeanne shaheen -- another bill being discussed goes back to 2013, it's the toomey-mansion proposal. after the sandy hook massacre, the legislators proposed an expansion of the current background check system from gun sales at gun shows. it was put up for a vote in 2013 and lost -- the department of justice puts out a form given to gun shop owners or anybody selling guns -- this is the federal form that is filled out when you go to

purchase a firearm. you some of the questions it asks. to of the question say are you the actual transferee, buyer of the firearms on the form? are you under indictment in any court of felony? have you ever been convicted in any court of felony? are you a felony of justice? are you an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance? have you ever been a good -- have you ever been adjudicated or committed to a menstrual institution -- mental institution? it goes on from there. this is one of the forms used in the process of buying a gun. if you are going to a gun shop, you would probably fill out a form for the stateside as well. that is information the federal government seeks. pittsburgh, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. god bless c-span and all of your

viewers. it's a beautiful thing. the children are our future. teaching them well and let them lead the way. there is no gun debate. they are military style weapons and that is where they belong. kind ofking about any military weapon. any kind of assault weapon belongs in the military and law enforcement. if you want to play with them, join the military and you can sleep with the damn thing. there will not be people carrying military style weapons in the united states of america. trust me. i'm going to get into politics and i am going to ban them. they are not for squirrel hunting or deer hunting. host: what makes you think there is going to be a change enough? caller: i am running for office, that is what is making the change. i am running for office in pennsylvania. we are the people. c-span is the people. all of your viewers, we are the people. host: let's go to harold in

minnesota, republican line. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for taking my call. i have just got a couple of comments. the first one is they are talking about raising the age to 21 to own a long gun. at age 17, my government hired me and taught me to kill people that they told me to. what about us? did we not have the intelligence to handle a firearm at age 17? the other thing, if you could, sir. i don't know if you can do this or not, i think it would be a great service if you could have a gun expert on the show and ane an m-4 assault rifle and ar-15.

have them caret down, show you the difference. of course, they would have to have a class three license, but if they could show the people not an assault rifle, it is a semi automatic weapon. if you can do that, that would be a huge -- host: that is harold in montana. c-span paid a visit out to chantilly, virginia, about an hours drive at the blue ridge arsenal gun shop/gun range and one of the things we had a chance to talk to them about was the ar-15 style weapon, particularly what are the elements of the weapon and what it does and what it is capable of doing. here is a bit of that explanation. this is mark warner from -- [video clip] >> this is an ar-15, correct? what does that even mean? means initial ar carmelite rifle -- armilite

rifle. it does not mean assault rifle or automatic rifle. armalite.t by receiver, grip, trigger package, barrel. , some gunsa safety have stocks that are adjustable. if you have a small shooter, you will adjust it for shorter. taller shooters will go for a little bit longer. the gun is set up so if i am shooter, iactical want a light grip for competitive shooting or defense shooting. a lot of guys who use these firearms will use a barrel for longer shots and more accuracy.

to me, it is a sporting rifle. host: it depends on what they -- >> it depends on what they need and they can customize it for those needs? >> correct. a lot of sports shooters have a bigger chamber to be able to go hunting. it is a practical, tactical, and fun rifle to use. >> how much interest you have in this rifle from customers? >> it goes up and down. there are months when it is up and much more, down. right now there seems to be a lot more inquiring based on recent events in the news. for me, i own a few of them i enjoy shooting. >> what is the cost of one of these? toanywhere from $699 up $5,000 depending on how you want them customize and built for you. >> we will talk and show you what we learned from our trip to the blue ridge arsenal in chantilly about this style of

weapon and other related issues, background checks and the like, including bump stocks. the new york times highlights one of the rifles the caller brought up, the difference andyen the military m-16 rifles.he m-4 some military versions have a full automatic feature which fires until the trigger is released or magazine is empty up ammunition. atlanta, georgia, james. democrats line. hello. caller: hello. let's go back to the beginning, the constitution, which is the most arbitrary document. you have a document here the second amendment -- where people can argue that nobody is right and nobody is wrong. the gun problem. the wrongare arguing issue.

they need to argue to legalize all weapons where everybody of a certain age can -- then you start taking the rights from people who don't deserve. the secondsane until they become insane or mentally ill. a lot of people don't have crimes until they commit suicide, kill their family, school, issues like this. we need to make people liable for these guns. they will be locked up and put in jail if these guns are not secured. theproblem all results from constitution of the united states. constitutions of other countries have not lasted more than 250 years. our use adjusting, then, either repealing the second amendment or changing the second amendment? caller: we need to have an argument about the constitution where it needs to be removed. it is obsolete. thank you.

host: from tennessee, and other games on our independent line. go ahead, we are talking about the message to washington. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have got this to say. politicians do not have to go to the funerals of family members, they do not care. , thesepeople rise up people, like the bible say, an for ar an eye and a tooth tooth. thank you. host: michael off of twitter says to repeal the second amendment,no, understand the context. it was not meant for civilians to get any gun they want. military weapons cannot be trusted in the hands of the general public. why can't they try and australian type ban for a year and see how it goes? your message to washington when

it comes on the gun debate. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002 connie from tennessee, democrats line. caller: hi. thank you. there are such high emotions about guns and i think if everybody would slow down, if in thek at gun deaths united states and compare them country,her civilized something has to be done. it isn't -- and something has to be done for mentally ill. i agree with the people who talked about the real reading of the second amendment. guns that need to ban can shoot targets in a hurry.

i mean, people. we cannot experiment with this. host: would you extend that to handguns as well? statistically, there are more deaths to handguns versus rifles. caller: well, first of all, a handgun, if you are facing some but he with -- i am going to say weapon, byilitary the time they get their handgun out, it may be too late. nra has think that the got to stop controlling this i have a daughter and a son-in-law who have 6 children and they all belong to cannot go onwe

experimenting. we need to have better health coverage, better mental health coverage in this country, but we need to get rid of guns that have magazines and bump stocks. host: let's go to mechanicsville, virginia, independent line. stewart, you are next. caller: good morning. thank you god for the nra and the first gentleman should go back and read the second amendment. i think he is totally wrong on that. , with a safety in schools, to me, i think it's a given they should have metal detectors, maybe one or two doors with all other doors locked. they ought to have some sort of camera system. there ought to be two licensed officers at schools, especially some of the larger ones and you would have one officer watching

the cameras, all the hallways, all the doors. if a couple of teachers feel good about carrying a weapon, that is fine. maybe two of them, a coach or somebody and they ought to synchronize, have drills with the two officers that are in charge of the place and they need to synchronize if something was to happen. what would they do? most of these mass shootings, by the time police officer's get there, it's too late. host: is there a role for washington in this debate? things that you have heard and how far should they go? as schoolsro, as far go, i guess that is state to state. the federal government gets involved in a lot of things and maybe if the state puts up a certain amount of money to harden the schools, maybe the fed can match it, take some of

the expense off. children -- ihe think it is well worth the money. i would want something like that. host: that is stuart a mechanicsville, virginia. what we have asked you to tell us is the message you deliver to washington on the debate on guns. this is fill off of twitter -- phil on twitter saying federal law needs to go over state law and limit guns -- no guns should be on the street and we should end concealed carry nationally. you can agree or disagree with him on twitter. make your thoughts on the phone line. mike in pennsylvania, you are next up, republican line. theer: you are discussing wrong amendment and the wrong weapon. you have got to figure out why the kid was weaponize. the gun can do absolutely no harm in less there is a weapon

behind the gun. i think the problem is that kids at all ofou look these shooters and they have been bullied and picked on and they cannot get away from their bully like we did when we were kids. now they carry their bully home on the phone. when they go home they are going to look at their phone and look at their bully or are they going to play world of warcraft and dream about shooting all these people that have been picking on them? you have got to figure out why the kid was weaponize then i think you've got to discuss the first amendment and possibly keeping children away from facebook, snapchat, twitter, and all of that until they are 18 and can handle the bullying. host: mike from pennsylvania talks about children, particularly come and access to guns. that was one of the things that came up in the meeting the president had at the white house with legislators read one of

that debate with pat toomey in pennsylvania was the purchasing age for semi automatic guns. you can see this on c-span.org. here is a bit of that conversation. [video clip] >> in your bill, what are you doing about the 18 to 21? are you going to leave that? >> whatever you want to do, sir. >> we have a case right now where someone can buy a handgun at 21. this is not a popular thing to say in terms of the nra, but i am just going to have to say it anyway. think of it, you can buy a handgun -- you cannot buy one -- you have to wait until you are 21, but you can buy the kind of weapon used in a school shooting at 18. i think it is something you have to think about. what, i am going to give it a lot of consideration and i am the one bringing it up and a lot of people do not even want to bring it up because they are afraid to bring it up. you cannot buy a handgun at 18,

19, or 20, you have to wait until you are 21, but you have to use the gun -- the horrible weapon used in this shooting at 18. i would give very serious thought to it. i can say the nra is opposed to it. i am a fan of the nra, no bigger fan, i am a fan of the nra. these are great people. these are great patriots. they love our country. that doesn't mean we have to everything. it doesn't make sense that i have to wait to get a handgun until i am 21, but i can get this weapon when i am 18. i am just curious what you did in your bill. >> we did not address it, mr. president. it wasn't an issue five years ago. >> it is an issue right now. >> you are right. >> a lot of people are afraid of that issue, raising the age for that weapon to 21. >> my recommendation is the vast

majority of 18, 19, and 20-year-old in pennsylvania that have a rifle or a shotgun are not a threat to anyone. they are law-abiding citizens in a have it because they want to use it for hunting or target shooting and to deny them their second amendment right is not going to make anyone safer. that is my reservation about changing the age. >> i know where you are coming from and i understand. i think it's a position. if we are going to use the two of you as the base, i think you are going to have to iron out that -- i am asked that question more than any other question. are you under 21 or not? host: you can find more of that on c-span.org, that conversation that took place on wednesday at the white house between the president and legislators. maxine in michigan, independent line talking about your message to washington on the gun debate. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. is tosage to washington

remember germany and how almostwas able to kill 10 million people and they were not allowed to defend themselves because they had taken all the guns away to make a more perfect society in germany. our second amendment has protected us and kept us safe and do not touch it, in no way. the second amendment is our protection against a pro-government like hitler's had in germany and the people he killed that were not able to defend themselves, even the resistance had problems getting weapons. bombsad to use makeshift to try to protect themselves. i do not want to see that in america. we do not need another germany. host: let's hear from mike in

oklahoma, republican line. caller: good morning. it is good to have you on c-span. you are a fair and honest man. .his is my complaint the problem between all of this was the two senators yesterday, one from florida and one from new jersey. the senator from new jersey --ally missed the spoke misspoke on how you can buy a gun on the internet. he is not right in what he was saying. people listen to this and i think all you have to do is what a mouse andclick you can purchase a gun. that is not true. i do not like the half truths that are out there. i believe we need to have a full conversation on both sides of the issue. if we do, let's have the real truth come out, not just what he thinks is the truth. host: we will continue on your message to washington in the gun debate and you can continue to fall -- call on the phone lines

or our -- post on our twitter or facebook page. we will talk about what is happening on the state level. particularly in florida, the site of the last shooting and that is where james joins us. james, you have a story this morning about a plan being considered by legislators in florida that arming teachers. could you tell us about the background of this plan? guest: the background of the plan is -- good morning, but the plan comes from the florida being championed by richard corcoran. the idea is if a teacher undergoes training and certification from the local sheriff department under the authorization and control of the county sheriff, the teacher is allowed to carry a concealed weapon into the classroom. host: did this specifically, out

of the parkland shooting or is this up for consideration before that? guest: this idea originates with the parkland shooting. it's part of a school safety-gun control package that is being -- has been developed over the past 10 days or so. tallahassee was the site of a large demonstration, probably the biggest in eight years and led by the students of parkland. the legislative response is a 6-point plan that includes $400 million of school security. purchaseses the age to a rifle -- an assault weapon to 21 and there is a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases and to better arm or make the schools more secure, allow teachers to be the first line of defense. the speaker believes that the game changer. host: as far as reaction is

concerned, the headline to your story today says this plan has drawn backlash. who has been the strongest voice legislatively on that backlash? parents for- guest: the most part. parents and students and traditional supporters of public schools do not like the idea at all. yesterday's news conference -- what i thought was rather dramatic was the legislative black caucus held a news conference. democratic leader has a very compelling story and he is very articulate when he talks about what it is like an inner-city and the urban areas and there is a lot of concern among minority parents to sending their children to schools with more guns. there are studies that show that minority students are --ciplined, more severely disciplined more severely than white students and the idea of a

cultural bias figuring in and with the state's stand your ground law, there are black students that do not want to send their children to schools with armed teachers given the rachel situation. -- racial situation. host: what has governor scott said about the legislation? have we heard from education sources in florida? guest: the secretary of appointee.s a scott governor scott is very much against the plan. governor scott's idea is to fund the program that places a sheriff's deputy in every school. he would like to see a sheriff's deputy, a school resource officer for every 1000 students. the legislative black caucus is and the traditional supporters, all the special interest groups are opposed to arming the

teacher idea and they support the school resource officer idea that is being championed by governor rick scott. here is the thing. this is how it breaks down deliberately -- politically and how the debate will fall. there is this fear that the school marshall plan will make it through both houses, both chambers, but it is optional. folks want to make sure the school resource program is fully funded so that school districts will not be forced financially into the arm teacher program. did i make that clear? host: yeah. when it comes to the nra themselves, have they made comments about these proposals? guest: they hate them. the nra has called the legislative response political eyewash. they say that you are punishing law-abiding citizens for the act of one create individual.

--icultural commissioner raising the age for rifle purchases, the three-day waiting. . -- three-day waiting. . he points out the gunmen -- gunman in florida was not eligible for permits, why are we punishing innocent people? host: you talked about the how ittive process and plays out. is it effectively dead, then? guest: no. we are going to have an incredible battle today. when i went to that last night, the democrats in the senate had filed 52 amendments to be considered today. than 55e more amendments filed in the florida .ouse for the proposal

in both chambers, the bills are on second reading and they must be finished on second reading today. we are in for a long day at the florida capital. we are just at the beginning of a long gun discussion. this gun debate will play out through the november election. florida is having a very intense conversation about guns right now. host: apparently i read also that on sunday there is supposed to be some type of rally of pro-second amendment people in tallahassee? guest: yes. we love to talk in tallahassee. pro-second amendment folks are planning a rally. i am sure it will be well attended by both sides. host: james is the capital reporter for the tallahassee democrat talking about what is going on in tallahassee when it comes to the gun debate. you can read his work at the tallahassee democrat at tallahassee.com.

back to your calls. we are hearing from you about the message you would like to send to washington when it comes to the gun debate. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. franklin, florida, is next. independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am calling to find out now. was i joined the army, i 16 and told how to use it. i think it is a mental health issue going on. what are they going to do to train our 17-year-old soldiers in the united states forces and how are they going to determine whether or not it is sane enough to use a weapon in the united states forces? it is not a gun, it's a mental health issue and that is all i have to say. i think they will have to do a lot of thinking about that. host: you say it is a mental

health issue. does access to these weapons have any part in this discussion? guest: access -- caller: access as a second amendment right -- when you train a child how to use a gun at eight years old -- whatever they have to do, you train them and you keep them sane enough. mental to have more health protections for these kids. i think the videogame problem, that is the problem. these kids are learning how to kill people on video games and they are stuck in their phones. i think we have to really pay attention to the kids, paying attention to these video games, and disconnecting themselves with the american public. that is all i have to say, thank you. from sant up is dennis diego, democrats line. caller: good morning. this is dennis from san diego. my message to washington is

this, all teachers are protected by the teachers union. all school principals and school board members are protected by district attorneys that represent the schools. who protects the kids? every day in america, there are numerous threats that go unresolved in both public and private schools where students ,ntimidate, molest, kick slapped, punched, and shove other students and they get away with it. a lot of times, one of the major reasons they get away with it is because they are a member of the school football team and the school principal doesn't want to lose games, so he doesn't want to punish those people for bullying the other kids and assaulting them. that is the problem. fixhey can find a way to

the law and order within the that willry day, automatically wipe out chances of future massacres because wind children feel that there is no theice to the law within school community, some of them are going to strike out like that. columbine didn't teach these people anything. enough said and thank you. host: dennis in san diego talking to us. usa today gives historical context when it comes to the legislative efforts on the gun debate. past ise section prologue. the senate took up a host of hills after the shooting of 20 children and 6 staff members in sandy hook elementary school. they expected the massacre to be a tipping point. president obama through the power of the white house behind

restrictions. lawmakers called for banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines and targeting gun trafficking and purchasers. a partisan -- bipartisan proposal seemed to have the most momentum. it was the narrow proposal to expand background checks to -- gun private sales of shows. in april of 2015, all the bills were defeated and it was on wednesday of this week that the president suggested that president obama didn't fight hard enough and had no problem booking -- bucking the nra. that is some of the discussion you heard with that previous exchange. if you go to our website at c-span.org, you can see that meeting between the president and those legislators about the gun issue and everything else that happened in washington this week and in previous weeks when it comes to the gun issue. we invite you to go to c-span.org and see that for

yourself. jd is next in maryland, republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. last time we banned assault weapons was during the clinton administration and that created a monster by the name of timothy mcveigh. he did not fire a shot. he went down and bought fertilizer and nitrate, diesel fuel, he mixed it together. buildingp the federal in oklahoma. he never fired a shot. you cannot blame the mechanism. that is what the clintons created. do you see my point? keep the second amendment. host: florida, independent line, joanna. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. first, i would like to say lives

do not stop people from dust -- laws do not stop people from breaking laws. why are we cherry picking guns? teens are killed every day by texting and driving. yeare losing 5000 teens a to texting and phones. collegee school and kids, i would love them to have signs and slogans up for getting rid of the phones and texting because they kill more of our children then guns do. host: because we are debating , you talked about texting and every thing else and that is fine. specifically, though, what is the message to washington when it comes specifically to guns? guest: i believe trains, planes,

guns do not kill people. people kill people. the guns do not kill people. the guns do not kill the people, the people -- the gun is just sitting there, just like the phone is just sitting there. the gun is sitting there, the telephone is sitting there. a person must literally pick it up to use it. this the washington times morning has a piece looking at the influence of the nra when it comes to congress. they write this in a story this morning. james barney wrote this story. he writes measured by money and candidate. the nra ranks among the most successful lobbying groups. it candidates prevailed in 73.3% of the 2016 races where the nra sides. 94.4% of the organization's political money supported successful candidates.

is kind of hard down to nail down the exact number for any of these groups. that is a spokesman at the center for responsive politics. it was in november that open secrets issued a press release proclaiming nra spending had a surged $100 million amidst -- in its pro-certain -- pro trump push. salary, rent, insurance, equipment, political campaigns -- a bulletin last month showed 2016 presidential nominee hillary clinton collected more money than gun-control groups than president trump received from gun rights groups. the final tally wasn't anything close to $100 million according to federal documents. more available when you go to the washington times website. let's go to ed in california, democrats line. caller: good morning. just a couple quick comments.

i get tired of the second amendment folks preaching their lack of intellectual capacity. i a progressive and i like when the federal government gets involved to do good things and yet the second amendment people don't realize the reason they can claim the second amendment against federal regulation is amendments civil war allowed for the incorporation. it was the height of progressive activism to incorporate the amendments to the state. as long as they are consistent with the second amendment and they also want the fourth amendment, fifth amendment, the whole constitution to come in, so us progressives can get legislation to protect the where pharrell -- welfare of the rest of us. they claim the second amendment and don't even understand it. i think the place where this kicked up the gun was something

tactical. it wasn't just fish and hunting, it was tactical which gives me the under station it was a militarized store. what i would do with washington, let them have it. they said you can carry gun on -- guns on federal lands. some people want guns on college campuses. i think the second amendment applies to the federal government and therefore people visiting the capital, the white house, every public building where these full's work should work should bes able to carry guns like the black part -- black panther party did. then we will see that they do not actually want people carrying guns. host: a research center conducts polling on a regular amount of topics including issues of guns from their polling taking a look at american views on guns and gun ownership. this is from 2017. about four in 10 u.s. adults say

they live in a gun owning household. 42% said they live in a household with a gun and 40% saying they currently own a gun. 57% saying they live in a household with no gun. 11% of those saying they don't currently own a gun, but live with someone who does. another one of the data finds says that when it comes to gun owners citing protection as a major reason for owning a gun, they were asked the percentage of gun owners saying this is the major reason. 67% say they carry for protection. 38% sale is for hunting. 30% say it's for sport shooting. 13% say it's part of a gun collection and only 8% of respondents say they carry a gun for their job. in new york, thank you for joining us this morning, your message to washington on the gun debate? that we canlieve debate the whole gun thing,

second amendment -- we can debate that on the side. right now, we have got to protect our schools. we've got to get all these schools protected with people in uniform carrying a gun as necessary. the targets are very soft. the only places these guys go, these not jobs, are places they know they are not going to be confronted. the one in newtown, connecticut, that guy went to that school first -- he went to was his high school where he saw a state trooper sitting there and he left and went to the middle school. --st thing's first, we want need to protect our kids like we would our money or many of these office buildings that are protected. of all the things we should be protecting, i believe we should schools --ng -- that

the schools first and have a debate about guns afterward. that's a political debate on a different level. you are never going to put 350 million guns -- take them out of the system. it's like putting toothpaste back in the tube. but to make these targets that these guys go to, let's harden these targets up. host: the weapon itself is a matter of debate and it am your nation is a matter of debate. -- some of the information they statewideout regulations when it comes to the purchase of ammunition for weapons. they highlight some of the things that it 21 years old in california to purchase weapons for handguns. 18 for long guns. 18 for connecticut and delaware. as low as 16 when you go to states like idaho for all firearms. it is pretty much consistent through there. that is some of the data sets

available from the giffords law center when it comes to regulations and laws purchasing handguns -- purchasing ammunition. they also talk about state laws that apply to specific type of ammunition. one of the subset features is armor piercing ammunition. they say the following state in -- and d.c. band the transfer, commonly and or -- defined as ammunition made of specific materials designed to be fired in a handgun to penetrate metal or armor, including body armor commonly worn by police officers. alabama, california, connecticut, district of columbia, florida, and others. virginia do not put limits on how much ammunition you can buy. there are limits and other states. that is some of the data available from the giffords law center. michael in south carolina, you

are next up. independent line. caller: good morning. it's a pleasure to speak to you. i did not think i was going to get through. host: go ahead. thank you so much. i suppose, honestly, this is such a huge, broad topic. these people are so disingenuous generally, but i will try to say what i say from a perspective of love rather than condemnation. would bee message, it the most effective simplest thing has to be universal ground checks read every weapon, every time. these people talk about guns don't kill, people killed, the gun helps. at everygot to look weapon, every time. i could continue to go on with all these facets, but if you have a question, i would be happy to try and respond in an article -- in a logical way. host: one of the things i read

in the paper this morning, even on background checks, there's a huge debate on where to agree on that thing. what do you think? caller: i think the politicians -- it's incredible. we are taught in this country to try and do the best we can, to work in honest manners with integrity and decency and the reality is these people will not. if they gave a damn, they would have done something after sandy hook. i really am cynical about how i think they are going to try and address this. host: when it comes to background checks, this is a sample of what virginia -- on the stateside, requires you to fill out when you go to purchase a weapon or firearm in virginia. this is from the state police. here are some of the questions .hey asked section 7, have you been convicted of a felony, found guilty, or a juvenile delinquent? are you subject to a court

order, subject of harassing, threatening, or stalking your partner? have you been acquitted by reason of insanity or prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm? been a dutifully -- adjudicated legally incompetent or as a incapacitated person. it goes on from there. that is a sample from the firearm form for virginia. every state has a variation of this type of form. you can probably check it out online if you are registered in the state you live in. vonn in missouri, democrats line. you are next up. you, i appreciate it. i want to bring up something that i don't think i have ever heard anybody talk about and acceptbject is

protection, accept defense. for?at what guns are if they are, how can you tell somebody they do not have the right to defend themselves or defend their families? you pose that question to the people you talk to about this issue, what is their response like? caller: nobody seems to have the answer. i have not received an answer. i asked the question, how do you forfeit your right to defend yourself? if somebody tells you that, i am taking away your right, then if guns are for protection and defense, how do you defend and protect those people? you have got to do something. if they are indeed for self-defense and self protection

, come on now. thank you. host: from a viewer who responds to a caller on twitter this morning, this is the viewer saying cars just sit there, too, but they regulate racecars on racetracks. roads have speed limits, traffic signals, concrete barriers. people learn to drive under restricted licenses until they are tested. it is called the second amendment -- all in capitals with and i formation point -- point. exclamation the constitution is a living document meaning it can be modified again. you can add your voice to the conversation when you go to the c-span feed @cspanwj. ohio, jerry, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: thanks for calling. think: i don't inc. -- washington can write a bill that

one fits all. i live out here in april area -- a a rural area and i have semi automatic weapon, several of them. there were times i needed it when a pack of wild dogs attacked my animals. ar-15 and ie an don't want one. i have got semi automatic rifles in here. the thing about the shooting in florida, my goodness, that is horrible. that should never happen in america. the government has to look at themselves. the fbi dropped it twice, the sheriff's department down there, there's all kinds of things that will come out of that, i think. not by attacking weapons is correct. another thing i wanted to mention. they are talking about mental health. how about all these military

personnel that have ptsd? is that going to be considered a mental health problem? host: let's hear from destiny, upper marlboro, maryland. caller: i just want to say the nra and the congressman and senators they have bought, they have hijacked the second amendment. that doesn't give anybody the right or license to kill or build an arsenal. it is for a well regulated militia and we have one, it is called a military. it is combined of the five branches. army, navy, marine, air force, and national guard. if someone wants to handle up -- of mass destruction, they can join the military. there is no place for those types of weapons in our civilian population. -- i believe it was last week, they quoted a fact that the last 4 out of the

5 massacres that have occurred in this country, they involved ar-15's. we need to revisit the ban on all types of assault weapons and these killing machines. there's just no place for them and our population. we will not be safe as long as these killing machines are in our population. our firstishing off hour of three total taking your calls on the topic of the gun debate. no formal guests. we are just going to hear from you from the most part this morning about this issue. in our second hour we are going to change the question and the lines a bit. there is what we would like to hear from you in this second hour. do you support or oppose changes in gun laws? you can be specific is what you look to talk about when it comes to the actual changes you would like to see or oppose, but that

is the question. we have divided the lines differently. enforcement, and all others. that is how you can let us know. twitter, define how you fall into that category and we will read your tweets as well. we will try to get facebook postings for the topic, too. that is what we want to hear from you in the next hour. as you are calling income of the previous color mentioned the ar-15, it was our visit to the blue ridge arsenal in chantilly, virginia that one of the staff there gave us a demonstration of the ar-15 at a range to talk about how it works and what it does. here is a bit of that interview. [video clip] >> we are at the shooting range of the blue ridge arsenal. telephone you are going to be firing today -- tell us what you

are going to be firing today. >> [indiscernible] >> is this a semiautomatic weapon? >> yes. one trigger pull, one fire, one round. pedro: how long does it take to india magazine in some cases? .> in less than 10 seconds we are training for accuracy. pedro: how fast do bullets travel out of that? >> very fast. pedro: can you give us a demonstration of how it works? >> ok. [gunfire]

pedro: what do you think is the perception of these weapons versus the reality? -- i think the media that it is also for people at myself to enjoy shooting.

[inaudible] it seems to be the one gun people use for these mass crimes, but it isn't begun's fault that it isn't begun'-- it isn't the gun's fault. it is the individual behind it. whether you use a car or a box truck or box cutter or a knife, someone that was to hurt somebody is going to find a way of doing that. pedro: again, that is from the blue ridge arsenal in chantilly. folks hosted us yesterday and had us cannot and talk to us about the aspects of the gun debate. we will show you more of that is the morning goes on. in this second hour, do you support or oppose changes to gun laws? again, the line is different for this. gun owners, members of law enforcement, and all others. post on twitter and facebook, too.

let's start with fletcher, north carolina for our line for all others. this is gary from fletcher. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you pedro. something for the people who talk about high-capacity magazines, i think they think that if you have to change the magazine out you have time to rush the shooter or something, but if you have like five round magazines or whatever, you can change them in seconds. you can also just shoot four rounds and leave when in the chamber while you are shooting, and if someone runs up on you you can shoot them without a magazine in their, so that doesn't stop anything. these videogames, if they showed at salad bars people will be doing that.

as a whole it doesn't sound like you would support changes to gun laws. correct me if i'm wrong. caller: i don't think i would because if they hardened the windows and doors at the schools, what keeps them from being outside getting in a car and mowing them down in the parking lot? kids have to go inside and out in groups. it is not a videogame. people who don't own guns think that everything is going to happen in slow motion and you are going to be able to respond and put the bad guy down. that is not how it works. they are going to find these teachers dead with the pistols in their pockets with the safeties on. caller: ok. let's hear from michael, a gun owner in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: hello. i am calling to say my opinion

on their wanting to take the guns off of people and taking their gun rights away. you know, the thing about it is you have these people that have problems, health issues, mentally or what have it. they always make the comment, don't take a knife to a gunfight. well, if you take the guns away from these people that have issues or just anybody and everybody in general, people will just feel more free, well, they are not going to fear the gun no more if they are not out there on the street, so they are have a knife. they will think, there ain't no guns to fear so we will fight with knives. then what do you do? you take the knives away. then they coming with bats. is what people say. it is not the guns that kill people. it is people that kill people. that is my opinion on that. pedro: on facebook this morning

when we posted this question specifically on supporting or opposing changes in gun laws, timothy waller, "do we know if our current laws work? this last shooting managed to -- seems to be an enforcement failure rather than a failure to legislate." kevin saying, "i support school security come improving background checks, mental health support, but i do not support banning any weapons." that is the some of the postings on our facebook page and about 400 or so. you can add your thoughts at facebook.com/c-span. let's go to tony, capitol heights, maryland. life for others. good morning. caller: hello. it doesn't matter to me what congress decides to do or what

the deep state decides to do because congress never reads the bills anyway. they just get a bill from the rand corporation and send them into law. they could do whatever they want to do. caller: let's -- pedro: let's go to mike in alexandria, minnesota , a member of law-enforcement. caller: thanks for taking my call. legislation because i think the reporting of these individuals to the fbi database would take care of some of this stuff, but we have to get a little deeper. tens of thousands of people in 2016 tried to illegally by firearms that weren't editable best that weren't eligible and only 44 crew will work -- that weren't eligible and only 44 were prosecuted. i think it is at the state level. a lot of the talk is raising the age for rifles to 21. a lot of rural states, 18 to

21-year-olds by hunting rifles huntingguns -- buy rifles and shotguns and hunt. also the ar-15 is used in the western states to shoot coyotes, foxes, and other predators, and people hunt deer with limited capacity magazines. mike, can i ask you a couple of questions? what are the basic requirements to own a weapon in minnesota? or whatto own a handgun they call a modern sporting ak-47 which is the ar-15, , you have to get a permit to purchase, which means you have to go through either your city or county and undergo a background check. those are usually good for a year. you have to renew them every year. those usually are no charge.

when you go to a store or a gun show and there is a federal selling guns,ee you'll have to go through another background check, or if you go to a cabela's store or something that. you actually go through two background checks. the only thing is private sales aren't regulated. i can't say i go to a lot of gun shows. again, i live in a rural area. there's not a lot of gang members. is somebody looks -- i've seen it before, where kids have come up and try to buy guns from a private person, and they will ask for their drivers license -- if they are only 17 years old he will not make the sale. i think a lot of stuff can be taken care of at the state level. people inhe congress some of the states that are very vocal, their states have very

strict rules already like connecticut and maryland. it is very hard to buy handguns and assault weapons. pedro: that is mike in minnesota, a member of law enforcement, telling us about his state's issues and how the state handles firearm purchases. he mentioned gun shows. has washington times" today a chart that takes a look at gun shows and background check laws across the united states, mainly in the western states, applying to all firearms. largely across the united states, it is not required. in some states for handguns only. nicsntioned the fix legislation sponsored by john cornyn, working with other legislators on expanding the background check. earlier this week senator cornyn made the case for the legislation. here's part of that argument. [video clip] sen. cornyn: this murderers

conviction record were never uploaded in the fbi criminal background check system, so when he went to purchase firearms he lied about his record and there was nothing in the criminal background check system to show that he lied and denied him the opportunity to purchase the weapons. this failure to enforce our background check law allowed the suited to walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and illegally purchasing car -- purchase a firearm. this legislation would tighten the national criminal background check system. it is supported by people all across the political spectrum. it is even cosponsored by the democratic leader, senator schumer, and supported by every town for gun safety. it has brought together all sides of the gun debate, leaders on the republican side and democratic satellite.

just to make sure these laws are enforced, and that committal history information is uploaded into the database by state and federal authorities, for years our colleagues across the aisle said they want reform that will help stem the tide of gun violence perpetrated by dangerous criminals or it this is their chance. this is our chance. host: the senator before he made those comments reference to be shooting in sutherland springs, texas last year at one of those things that got him and other legislators together to make that bill or fight for that bill's passage. it stands as many other legislative efforts with no direct passage and site to

passage, but that is to some of the activity going on on capitol hill. you can support those changes to gun laws, maybe you oppose them, but we invite you in the rest of this hour to let us know. we've divided alliance for gun owners, members of law enforcement, and all others. we will go to a gun owner, janice and louisiana. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: everyone should be licensed, registered, and insured when buying a gun just like owning a car. shouldrgia governor rethink his punishment of delta airlines for doing the right thing. actually, the faa doesn't allow any guns to be brought on any airline. also am a no-win should be carrying guns into meetings -- also, no one should be carrying guns into meetings or other public places. all other airlines should step up and support united and delta. host: why the need for

insurance, and your mind? caller: because that would preclude people just willy-nilly buying guns. it would cost money to the individual. they might rethink. host: was here from another gun owner, brian, takoma park, maryland. hello. caller: hi. takoma park, d.c. host: apologies. caller: no problem. i just have shotguns, but i do support changing our laws as far as gunowners, and i would like why you wereedro, going to a gun range? in a very controlled environment, it makes guns look like they are safe, but i think if people actually solid guns do to the human body -- saw what guns do to the human body they

would change their minds about this. we've only seen the victims as far as pictures, but when you see what a gun does to a human being and what toll it takes, that's the problem. i think people would definitely -- like the vietnam war was ended because we saw what was happening. we are not really seeing the victims. we are not seeing the children. we are not seeing what is happening, how guns are going through them and bullets are ripping them up. that is what i am saying. i think we are not really seeing what is going on and we are talking at it from a clinical point. host: brian, the point you made tofar as you said you want see all gun laws change, where would you start? caller: i would start with having no automatic weapons as far as in your home, you could have something to protect yourself, but as far as these military assault one's i think they should all be banned. i think we should have some insurance.

people should be charged and have to pay because these people and have medical issues that are going to have to be addressed are going to be addressed by the taxpayer, so i think owners of these guns should have to pay and lose everything that they have. host: so you said you are a gun owner? caller: i had a shotgun in my house. host: what if the insurance the lady talked about became so much that it would stop you from the ownership of a gun? with that reconsider your position? caller: no. to be honest -- and i want to say this -- most people that own guns are cowards. that is the way i look at it. if you are so afraid that you have to have 25 guns in your house then there is something wrong with you, you know? i think what we are seeing is chickens coming home to roost, like malcolm x said. the violence we are sending out

is coming back, and we really need to stop and think. what we are doing is causing lives to be lost, and this argument of the second amendment doesn't hold water when children are dying. it just doesn't. host: let's go to paul in new york, our line for all others. caller: hi pedro. i couldn't agree more with the color that was just on, and -- the caller that was just on, and i am a non-governor. australia was on the -- non-gun owner. australia was on the right side. referendum? what is wrong with a referendum where we let the voters decide? host: so you said there is no reason to own that type of weapon. say you hear from a sports shooter who says it is a recreational activity purely. how would you respond that? caller: that is one weak argument.

someone's hobby is more important than all those kids' lives? give me a break. host: david, irvine, california, a gun owner. caller: i wanted to make a point. first of all, the problem with guns people say they are, but it isn't. when people go on these rampages and kill tons of people, they don't do anything to them. that guy that killed all those kids and everything, they are not going to do anything to him. he's going to get put in prison, and that the problem. when people do this and do mass shootings, they should be put to death. there shouldn't even be a trial for that sucker. they have all the rights. the people getting killed have no rights. and another thing, people want to get rid of all these guns. let me tell you something. it is better to have a gun than not to have a gun because if you're in a situation or you need a gun, you are going to wish you had one if you don't have one. host: do you believe in ownership of automatic style

weapons or semiautomatic weapons? caller: i think a person should be able to own any guns they want. have ason is if we nuclear war, which we are bound to have one, you're going to wish you had an automatic weapon. i am telling you, it could happen any day. you hear it on the news all the time. they are talking, let's have a nuclear war. trump is saying it all the time. nobody seems to care because they're getting their big tax breaks. host: let's go to -- actually, before that, some of the business news that has stemmed from this issue of the gun debate among some of highlighted in "the wall street journal" this morning. gun manufacturers within wesson, the paper reporting -- smith & wesson reported a 33% drop in quarterly sales and said consumer demand was expected to months, warning of weaker sales and profits.

that somealso adding chains, including dick's sporting goods, would stop selling semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, a big driver of the growth in recent years. outdoor --ief american outdoor chief executive said thursday he did not expect this to affect sales trends. this type of rival accounts for 12% of committee fails -- company sales. fred meyer, owned by kroger, says they will ban gun sales to anyone younger than 21 years old . ban comes amid the parkland charges. are saying thursday its decision in response to tragic event in portland and elsewhere,

and prodded the committee to take a hard look at our policies and procedures." also l.l. bean sending out a tweet saying it has a change in its policy when it sells firearms at its main store. the tweet saying that in the wake of the shooting they have reviewed their policy on firearm sales. "we will no longer be selling guns or ammunition to anyone under the age of 21." , larry on our line for others. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. , i knowlike to annotate this one thing you had brought salesman.to, gun you asked him to how fast can that bullet travel? -- but he never told

you how far that bullet can travel. these semiautomatic weapons are combat weapons. they have the maximum effective range, at least 350 yards. that is the length of three football fields. just imagine you go up to someone with a semiautomatic weapon close up and shoot them in the head, and that bullet can travel that far. that is serious damage, people. and they are shooting our children. they are shooting people in churches. hotels. host: with that in mind, any changes you would like to see? caller: i would like to see them ban that semiautomatic weapon. i would like to see them have law enforcement inside these schools, maybe in some of these

churches. to let the teachers have weapons, that is like letting the nra say let's send them our weapons, let's have more guns, instead of letting the people who's in charge of these weapons, the law enforcement who have trained, who know what to do about these weapons. they need to ban these semiautomatic weapons, pedro. host: ok. let's go to spring hill, florida. a gun owner, this is jeff. caller: thank you. i and a gun owner in full support of banning military grade weapons for citizens in this country to own. i have heard a lot of different comments today. some of them made a lot of sense to me. one is that we do have an armed militia within this country called the national guard. under localhould be control, not federal control,

that way the american citizens have a way of protecting themselves against an armed attack. there's only one reasonable defense for owning military grade weapons, and that is to protect yourself against your ,wn government, in which case if you have enough firepower to take on the united states military, your ar-15 is not going to help you. it is just going to make you dead. i don't want people to take away my right to defend my home and my property in my family, but i also think that if you have weapons of mass destruction, that is not defense. weapons of mass destruction are meant to kill massive people, and the average citizen does not need that, nor should they had it. host: i am curious to find out how your arguments play with other gun owners. caller: well, there's a lot of

people who seem to think and keep stating that you are not going to be allowed to have any kind of a weapon, and that is not so. that is not with these people are trying to do. they are trying to take weapons that can kill people in mass quantities away from the average person. let's face it, you not allowed to have a flamethrower. you're not allowed to own nuclear weapons or grenade launchers or all of the rest of these things that you need in order to defend yourself against a military operation against the citizens. as far as defending yourself against the average citizen or just a plain nut out there trying to do something, a standard normal weapon such as a shotgun, pistols, and the rest of these things are adequate in order to do that. what they should do is put entrances andn

exits so they can scan these people who come into schools to make sure they are not carrying drugs or weapons on them, and you can do that with dogs, with medical sectors -- metal detectors. you can also have weapons inside the school locked in a very good safe inside the principal's office. host: we will leave your thoughts there. appreciate the call. governor kasich making his case for changes in gun matters, saying he unveiled a package of proposed gun lobby reforms to bracket the sale of armor piercing ammunition and third-party strawman sales of guns people credited from having them. ohio would follow the lead of several other states in strengthening efforts from wadsworth meant to get done violence protection orders those deemed a danger to themselves and others and would crack down on local governments that failed to properly report data into the national background system checked by sellers. caller: hello.

i am not talking about taking away gun rights. may be personal property tax on each gun to pay for the medical sector, the dogs -- metal detector, the dogs, at schools and churches or whatever. a property tax on a car. i don't own a gun, don't want to, but maybe a personal property tax on each weapon to pay for everything and 80 raise the age to 21 from niagara falls come up destitute for automatic and maybe raise the age to 21 for automatic rifles. caller: i am a gun owner myself. i live in rural country. i don't oppose any changes. i do oppose what the color from louisiana said about everyone registering -- what the caller said aboutana

everyone registering their guns. form youal firearms fill out to purchase a gun is retained by the retailer for only 10 years. after 10 years they are destroyed. the reason they have that is so there's not a record of everybody. knowis how guns get, you -- everybody is worried about the federal coming down, then that is why they put that provision in that law so there is not going to be a permanent record of you having that gun, so the government can't come and figure out and come calling on you because they know every gun that you have. host: so scott, like i said, we show people -- we showed people the form before. you said you didn't of those changes other than that. white is that -- why is that?

don't: like i said, i want the government having a permanent record of every citizen that's got a gun. host: but as far as other changes people have proposed. is everything acceptable or are there limits aside from the registering part? caller: there's limits. in this particular case, and that's what got this whole thing stirred up, there were system failures. we don't hold people accountable for system failures. there's just no sense in it. i don't have any problem with strengthening gun laws. sales at gun shows, somebody is out there selling guns 10 a week and going around, they better have a federal firearms license to sell that gun and keep up with all the records just like the retailers do. host: ok. that is scott in south carolina. thishe first half-hour of

second hour, if you would support or oppose changes to gun laws. we've divided the lines differently for you. enforcement, and all others. that,l continue on with and if you want to continue to call in the second half hour, we invite you to do so and post on our social media sites as well. we talked plenty throughout the morning about statewide efforts when it comes to changes in gun laws. if you were paying attention to "the new york times," it was on tuesday that a story appeared in the paper talking about some of the rules changes and proposed changes across the united states. curator reporter for "the new york times" joins us now. one of the things you focused in on was rhode island. tell us what was happening there.

guest: sure. the governor of rhode island earlier this week signed an executive order on monday to establish a policy to take guns away who pose a danger to themselves or others. it is one of those so-called extreme risk or red flag laws or policies. it exists in five states already, including california and connecticut. earlier this week, the governor decided the one in place via executive order. rhode island has also joined connecticut, massachusetts, new jersey, and new york in a new coalition to combat gun violence. their goals are to create a multistate database that is supposed to trace and intercept gun crime when they are transported across state lines, so an effort to work together a little bit there. host: when it comes to rhode island come along was the reaction from other members of

the legislature and other concerned parties? guest: i think the reaction was largely positive, certainly among democrats. it is democratically controlled state. she has also called for an assault weapons ban in the state. huge opposition there. i think it is a big a lot of people in the state, certainly a lot of democrats in the state, feel comfortable with. host: we talked about florida earlier with the governor there. you also talked about vermont, particularly when it comes to extreme risk. give us a sense of what is going on there, especially between the governor himself and members of the house and senate. guest: sure. vermont is an interesting situation. it is always thought of as a very liberal, progressive state, and it is, but it is also one

that has some of the more lax gun laws in the nation. there is a culture of hunting and that sort of thing up there. governor phil scott, who is a republican, the day after a local paper he did not see a need for changing gun laws. he said he believed that the gun laws in the state were balanced. but just about a day later, law enforcement officers arrested a student at a high school accused of planning a mass shooting in his area, and governor scott says he was really "jolted" by said that as a result he had been asking himself if the state was doing to protect kids. he said he wanted to put everything on the table, so this week the state senate passed an extreme risk bill and also a

background check bill, and both of those are expected to go to the house. it is not clear quite exactly how fast that will happen, but it is really an about-face for vermont and for a governor who just a little over a week ago said that he didn't want to see change. now he seems to support these changes. host: if you go to the state of illinois, a consideration of their licensing when it comes to gun retailers was being considered. guest: yes. in the house in illinois this week, lawmakers passed a bill that would require anybody in the business of selling, leasing, or transferring firearm ownership to be licensed in the way that a beauty shop owner might be licensed or a car dealer, that sort of thing. that bill was actually approved by the senate last april. the house approved it this week,

so it will go to the governor, the republican governor. he has kind of a voided weighing , and specific proposals his spokesperson this week told "the chicago tribune" she declined to say specifically whether he supported the measure , but it should be on his desk, so we will see what happens. also in the house, lawmakers passed a bump stock ban, voted to raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons to 21, and passed a bill establishing a 72 hour waiting period for assault weapons buyers can receive firearms. quite a bit of movement in the statehouse in illinois this week. host: finally we go to texas, specifically after the shooting, its governor there reacting in certain ways. how do you react? guest: so after the shooting, governor greg abbott, a republican, sent a letter to the

texas education agency commissioner asking him to take steps ensuring all schools completed safety audits and had these multi-hazard emergency plans in place. host: that is just a rundown of some of the states and how they are considering gun laws. bidgood highlighting those pages of "the new york times." thank you for your time this morning. guest: absolutely. thank you so much for having me. host: we go back to your calls on supporting or opposing changes to gun laws. let's go to war and -- let's go to warren in washington dc, a number of law enforcement that's a member of law enforcement -- a number of law enforcement. caller: the average feet per second for an ar-15 is about

53,000 feet per second. say,do have, let's irregular officer on street carrying nine millimeter pistol. that troubled about 1200 feet per second. it seems like it is a drastic change in velocity and speed between the two rounds, but no human and move that fast. so we are trying to figure out a way to prevent individuals from getting fired on. i think what we can do possibly is, if the individual does not have a high school diploma or or completeding some type of formal education, we shouldn't be selling them firearms. the age isn't the issue. it is the amount of mental capacity. you can have a 18-year-old person that has a mental disability. or you just going to sell them a firearm, especially if they don't register it? they can just bypass any rules and regulations. it doesn't make sense. host: so you would wait until

their 21, or is there another aging your mind? caller: no, i am saying let's make sure the individual, how about you bring in your high school diploma? i know in d.c. you all these things, go for a process of , and wait two or three weeks before you pick up your firearm, but who's to say this is a planned two months down the road? another thing that happens is it is a mental issue. of law enforcement officers harmed ourselves with their service weapon, just like military professionals. they will kill themselves with their service pistols. but they go through the most strenuous background. that is not the background checks changing anything. it is not going to prevent anything. that may help out a little, but it is not going to happen enough. it is some that happens that day or the day before that makes a

reaction to someone else's action. host: what type of law enforcement do you do? caller: local. host: let's go to emporia, virginia, our line for others. hello. caller: hello. how are you? my thing is they should manufacture that ar-15 so it only holds six rounds. have long guns that they only hold about three to four rounds. if they were to manufacture the ar-15 style weapon so it will only hold four to six rounds, then you wouldn't have that problem. they can manufacture it so it won't take that 15 round magazine. that is where your problem lies. you don't hear anybody using to go in the door

and shooting. they should make the ar-15 hold three to six rounds to solve the dying problem. i am not saying that stop making it. like i say, you got some people that love to sport shoot. they should make it so i won't hold a 15 round magazine. if they would do that i think it would solve the problem. host: we are asking if you would support or oppose changes to gun laws. a gun owner in texas, pamela. your next. -- your next. caller: i don't oppose. i own a gun myself, and i don't want the second amendment taken away or anything like that or fixed or touched up. i think individual states should jump on and do their own things like they are doing now.

that is a good idea that states are coming on in setting their own ways. i do think the age limit should be 21, and i do think they need to let us know what the mental capacity is for these people that is doing these acts so that way we will know what to look for. i don't think every mental patient should have their gun taken away we don't really know what kind of mental capacity they even have. host: what do you own as far as weapons are concerned? caller: i just own a nine. host: how difficult is it to purchase a weapon in texas? ,aller: i have a license concealed carry. how: what i mean is difficult is it to not only can be concealed carry, but get approved to buy a weapon? caller: you take a class first and get the gun. it was nothing. i didn't even realize all this stuff existed. i got it way back when i was 27. i am almost 47 now.

host: on our line for others and rebecca is in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have a couple things here to say. i am for the gun laws 100%. last year my husband while we were still married came in while i was at church and did not know at the time that he was a literal psycho. he set my house on fire and killed my three cats. he used to have a felony on him, and he ended up torturing and mutilating one of my dog. he had a felony on him and it was brought down to a misdemeanor. some of these gun laws should have been changed years ago, and now he is able to have a gun. he's talking about mental changes and everything like that, it is not going to help. it might help some people, but not all these people.

some of these people can capacity toe a outsmart some of these doctors. it is not going to help everybody. it might help some, but it is not going to help everybody. when i was a kid, i had a felony on me. it was a stupid charge. but now, although it is off my record, i am not allowed to own a gun to be aboard to protect myself. i can't even lay down at night wondering if he is going to come back. , it is noty like me fair for somebody who's been able to change their life around and we can't protect ourselves, but yet some of these criminals can get out here and be able to do whatever they want to do and still get them. host: ok. let's go to james in virginia, a gun owner. we are adjusted in hearing if you oppose or support changes in gun laws. caller: i don't suppose changing the law would help anything. the people obeying the laws

already got a bunch of laws. the crooks are the ones that don't obey them to start with. they need some deterrent. if they were to instead of having them up for 25 years, they need to hang them up where they find them up so the next ones won't want that. the democrats are crying and whining over 15-year-olds getting killed, 16-year-olds getting killed, and they are getting 60 million babies killed. host: that is james in virginia adding his thoughts to this second our topic. one of the things we learned about while taking a trip to the blue ridge arsenal in chantilly, virginia was this idea of a bump stock. what it is, what it does, and its capacity. is a bit of that interview. [video clip] >> a bump stock is a device that was built to allow a shooter to shoot multiple rounds quicker

than you would do with a single trigger pull. that an old-school thing was done by putting your finger through the trigger guard, your belt loop, some company took that design and made into a stock. it really is and for accuracy. it is more just for recreational shooting. host: why do people get them? >> i got mine six years ago because it was cool and fun. it is not very accurate, but when you're outdoors shooting at targets, it is still a cool drill. host: walk us through how it works. >> they are set to be locked in place. if i choose to have a little fun with it, i can unlock it and it simply allows the stock to move freely. weapplying pressure on my can't to the firearm itself, it allows me to bump it like this. it simulates not really a full

auto, but helps you do semiautomatic a lot faster. host: so when this device is on a rifle, it is not classified as automatic? >> is not a full auto -- it is not a full auto. full auto as you pull the trigger once and it keeps firing. this is a rapidfire semiautomatic device. host: here is the ammunition. what type of this? >> this is 23 lr. some gun commit modified to shoot smaller or larger rounds -- some guns can be modified to shoot smaller or larger rounds. how often do you get asked about this device, and how many do you sell? >> up until recent events, they really died off into what happened in vegas. host: so when you tell people about this and walk them through it, tell us a little bit about the questions you ask of people

looking for this device. >> they haven't been looking for a dental recent, and the ones now sibley was it because they're afraid it is going to be banned. i own two of them and don't use mine anymore. host: that was a little bit about the ammunition. the website, the gifford lawson's website, it talks about ammunition laws state-by-state. in virginia, per se, it is unlimited purchase of ammunition. there are other laws specifically dealing with the type of ammunition you can buy. minnesota for all others, talking about this idea of supporting or opposing changes to gun laws. go ahead. caller: yes. i believe they should ban all guns on premises. when you go to a hospital, they have no guns on hospital property. when you go to government buildings, no guns. when you go to libraries. i feel they should be starting

that straight across, especially with schools, churches, any public place. all guns are banned on public places. it would make it a lot safer. i do not own a gun, and when i can see that the guns are not allowed in a public place, i feel a lot safer. i think we should ban all guns in public places, and no assault weapons. there is no reason for people to even own them. but if you have to own them, don't bring them out in public. plain and simple. host: george of twitter as this to the conversation. other is plenty to do than banning guns, and republicans better do it before the november election." in south dakota, a gun owner. we will hear from deb. caller: i just think we are better off before we put in a

,hole bunch of new laws to fix do some fixing with the ones that are there. obviously they were some breakdowns in reporting on the florida issue. there's been some other cases of that. i think before we go wholesale on all kinds of new laws, we should do that. i also think the states have more rights to legalize it. i am from a very rural state in a very early area -- very rural area. i have guns here, and part of it is for my security and protection. the soonest most law enforcement to get to my house would be about 15 minutes, maybe longer, so i do keep them for protection, and i am also a hunter. host: what type of guns, if i may ask? caller: i have a nine millimeter pistol and a lever action rifle and a semi-auto 22. host: maybe you've heard people talk about this idea of holding back or banning these

semiautomatic ar style weapons, whatever you would call them. what do you think you would think about that? caller: i think that should be a last resort. the bump stocks maybe, but a last resort on starting to ban particular rifles. i would preferred a look at the laws on the books. there are a lot of laws on the books. like that those and see how well we are following them. his 30's to between just to those, let's tweak the laws that are already there -- if there needs to be tweaks to those, let's tweak the laws that are already there. host: for the bump stocks, why would you be ok with that? still: i know it is considered a semiauto come of it does push the speed enough so it is really close to being automatic. it is like being automatic without having to be the word. that would be mildly reason for that. i am just leery about when you start banning one style of rifle how quickly you start banning a whole lot more.

it just makes me nervous, so i would rather just go with that. host: new market, tennessee. market is #is on our line for all others. good morning -- mark is on our line for all others. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a republican, but also an atheists, and i also believe in the right to life. people who want to repeal the second amendment or whatever, there's no way you can do that. it is a lengthy legislative process in order to get that done, and have to get 2/3 of the states to ratify that. what really bothers me is i see a lot of democrats on television talking about protecting children, but then when you look at planned parenthood they all support that. and planned parenthood murders innocent children every day. no one seems to care. no one seems to see that contrast. it just doesn't make any sense to me. host: back to the gun issue,

would you support efforts on the state level to make changes to laws? caller: i would, yes. certain safety regulations that have to be put in place. but i've never owned a gun in my life and never will. to me it is irrelevant. it is a nonissue. host: let's go to derek, chicago, all others. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am definitely for banning that ar-15. that weapon was developed for wartime. it is just that simple. ammo is meant to do the worst damage to a human body. once it strikes it does a lot of internal damage to a body. and bump stocks, i've shot one before. you almost can't tell the fully automatic from using that bump stock. that should not be allowed.

suppressors should not be allowed. a think we are taking the second amendment thing way too far. when you really look at it, the fact that that was done and the 1700s, you know, they were shooting muskets. i totally disagree. anything that is made for civilians shouldn't be allowed -- made for war civilians shouldn't be allowed to have. i own firearms, so i am not opposed to owning firearms for protection. as a matter of fact, i have concealed carry here in chicago. revolver, and that is good enough. i am 58 years old. 32's ands coming up, 38's was the most popular gun. that is what i have now whenever i carry. host: when it comes to the city

of chicago, how difficult is it to get not only a firearm, but a concealed carry permit? well, it is not hard to get it. they cost you about $500 or $600. what was the -- host: that's the cost. how much information do you have to give in order to get those things? caller: you have to give up a lot of information. it goes through the fbi and all of that. you will get notified somewhere. host: that is derek telling us of his experiences in chicago about guns. again come over the next couple of minutes, your thoughts on if you support or oppose changes to gun laws. from montana, a number of law enforcement, jim. caller: good morning. how are you?

host: i am fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i have a law enforcement so iround and i and a vet, probably have more experience with firearms than the majority of people. issue goes back to 1968 gun control law. i believe it is question nine that says specifically if you do have certain mental health conditions come you can't own a firearm. only about 27 states are in compliance with that right now today. in fact, virginia change their laws after the virginia tech shooting. if they had been in compliance, that man would have been stopped. have.d to enforce what we when i was in high school, students had firearms in their vehicles on school property.

they were in gun racks 20 feet from our gymnasium. we had disputes, fights. at no time did anybody walk out, grabbed a gun, and come in the school. so what has changed? we have semiautomatics. this is a society issue. , nothingaddress that is going to change. host: the color is right when it comes to the virginia question nine. it is, have you been acquitted on reasons of insanity or been prohibited from purchasing or transporting a firearm pursuant to the law? you can find it online if you want to read it for yourself. on the line for others, jim from new york. that was pretty good what you get going into the gun store, teaching people some stuff. it is a terrible situation, but i don't think it is an epidemic. if you think about all of the

schools across the country, these are isolated incidents. i am not googling it by any -poohing i am not pooh it by any means. it is not ok. don't you think the media salivates anytime this happens? do you have any comment on it? . they overdo it -- don't they overdo it? host: i leave the comments to the viewers. next we will hear from ralph in michigan. hello. caller: yes. this is a different story. i would like to know why nobody says anything about donald trump spending all this money going on vacations. host: that is not our topic. support or oppose changes to gun laws, what do you think? caller: i think they should have -- i will be honest with you -- they should have, when you buy a

gun, there should be insurance on it. cars kill, right? guns kill. you can only drive one car. you got to have insurance on it. host: ok. roff is the last call for the second hour special ralph is the last call for this second hour. on this day we've dealt with two hours of questions on gun and message to congress. in this last hour we are students you have seen in the media and other places. parkland, florida, but other places. maybe demonstrations you have been to yourself. reactions about the events in the larger issue of guns. we're interested in their impact on the gun debate, the boys they have, the impact they have made,

do you think it will have -- the voice they have, the impact they will it have long lasting change? this is your chance to talk about the student movement and its impact on the gun debate. two students and parents -- we have as the change. here is a part of it. --ese stoneman douglas survivors and he'd have emerged

as a rare, perhaps even unique voice in the gun debate. they're old enough to advocate for themselves, yet young enough to still embody a certain innocence. to retain a certain idealism about how the world should be. the come across is both fearless and fragile. and like all teenagers, they have no tolerance for bs. more specifically, parkland -- a highly educated, affluent, white-collar enclave -- tends to produce the kind of self-confident, socially aware, media savvy youth who believe they can change the world. these are teens who have been raised to know their value, to express their voices to be heard -- and who have the cultural resources to make it heard. the editors are riding this saying those teenagers' prominence in debate has hampered discussion. they belong in the coverage and the debate. the pain and feared they

feel are pertinent to the debate, driving home the truth that while any single student is unlikely to be a victim of a school shooting, such as vents are nevertheless monumentally dramatic for many of them. but we shouldn't confuse emotion policyuma for a argument. we should listen to student is described their fears and pains, but no 16-year-old should the considered a policy expert. television is turned almost exclusively to high school students for policy regulations, confirming the late alan bloom fro warning about the the placement of thought by passion -- bloom's warning about the replacement of the by passion. perhaps you saw this as they walked out of class, demonstrated. this is your chance to talk about this.

202-748-8003 for all others. we will start with kevin on the line for students and parents in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: yes, i see what the guy was saying that make sense. basically the kids are not taxpayers. their parents should have the comparability to understand what each kid is like, whitney think? i can't see why it should be a really big impact because their parents should be the ones knowing what to do. in the society, we are missing things here, big time. in the last to debate you had there -- not debate -- discussion, would it possibly be better for a psychologist to be

in the school and see each kid to know when a kid is a firecracker ready to go off? would that be a better way to look at its, to hit the root of the problem? going to hit the root of the problem. we are afraid to face the facts, i think. host: the student debate. louisiana, our line for others. contact the i did president by a male and explain to him metal detectors mandatory would knock out at least 85% of everything that comes in and give the students some kind of cushion of safety issue because those are hard to get by. i wrote the president in the email that should be mandatory. also, raising children in the home, raise around guns, you've got to draw the lines and where, you know?

host: what do think about the impact on the gun issue? they should, sir, not have the feasibility of saying what is wrong and right on gun control if it's not going to have a deterrent. they will have to have protest.ve lawmakers i live in louisiana. i go duck hunting. have a big problem. if you don't like guns, that is fine. foryou cannot blame the nra all this activity. if they are going to lobby you with money, they do not even want guns at all. they want to take away your guns. there will be a big mishap on that. host: in california, tony, and educator. hi, tony. caller: hi.

i'm so grateful to speak out on this issue. i am a counselor. ideal -- i deal with students. i have had incidents where i have felt unsafe because i did not know if a kid was going to come back and shoot me when he got expelled. i was three miles from a shooting, we were on lock down. deathcared to sometimes it schools. i do not want to arm teachers. it's ridiculous to think that teachers would be carrying weapons and schools. host: tony, what you think about the student voice on this debate and the impact it might have? caller: i love the students' voices and i disagree with the previous colors that say they should not have a voice because

they are not taxpayers. callers thatus they should not have a voice because they are not taxpayers. these kids are super thoughtful and they are excellent. these are excellent role models, these kids in florida. i am behind them 100%. i have a daughter who is 15. i want her to be safe in school. i don't want teachers to be armed. daughter speaks out, i do not force her to speak out, but i would be grateful she was involved in the discussion. host: what grade do you teach? caller: i'm a counselor, so i work at a high school. host: when it comes to things they happen saying since the events in florida, what are you i'm hearingler: they want something to be done, they want something to be done on the issue. they are tired of being an ra filling the pockets of

politicians -- the nra filling the pockets of politicians. our president is a beach ball. he goes back and forth between the inner array the people speaking out between guns -- between the nra and people speaking out about guns. whoever is the last person, that is what is in his mind. he does not have a leg to stand comes to any issue, especially guns, because he does not take a stand in his the people who have paid for him to be president of the united states. to illinois,'s go the line for students and parents. to c-span.d morning i would like to give my condolences to the families who lost kids in this massacre. and a gunral democrat owner. i have a gun collection. i have an ar-15 in that collection. i have shot that -- i've had five ore for probably

six years, probably shot it a dozen times. i use it for recreation. i don't think banning the assault weapon is the answer. the answer is -- what failed that school in florida was the local sheriff's department, the fbi, and we need to tighten the background checks, we need to tighten the mental health outcts of checking a person if they have something like that on their records. since you are a gun owner and you have a certain perspective, what goes through your mind when you see the students speaking out on television or going to rallies or things of that nature about this issue? how much attention to you pay to them? caller: i pay a lot of attention to them. i think it's good. they have that right to protest. they -- just like football players -- they have the right

to protest. i commend the kids for doing that. but -- to you thinkh sway they should have then and potentially changing legislation or legislators listening to them? how much voice should they have in this issued? -- in this issue? caller: i think they should have a voice. i don't think their boy should thehe ultimate voice, overall perspective, you know, because, i he to say it, they are kids. say give their voice validity, but i don't think it should be the role. -- the rule. let's go to baltimore, maryland. a gun owner, joe. hi. caller: i think the voice of the youngsters will have some influence on the argument whether you think they should or not because they are voicing their thoughts, and those who

make policy are listening to it and hearing it. on the other hand, i think this debate on guns is detracting -- debates they should be having. the argument on gun is a cloak that hides the politicians who have been kicking the can down the road. host: joe in baltimore, maryland giving his thoughts. gives ahington times" look at students and parents, how they personally are pushing for better security at schools. this is monroe, township, new jersey. crowded the school. the school has unarmed guards. the police chief opted to assign

armed police officers to patrol in each of the town fell eight schools. it's expected to cost three county $200,000 for the first eight months. and according to the police chief, he said a couple kids approached him -- parents a person about the idea and they are working to raise money for next her. state legislatures are also considering more measures. kentucky governor matt bevin said in a radio interview on thursday he expects to push for in state law and is leaning toward solutions that allow more guns in schools with beefed up training. asa hutchinsonor signed an executive order on thursday forming a commission. that is the parents' side of it. we are interested in hearing

from you about the student influence on the debate about guns. things you have read, seen on television, maybe protest in your hometown and the influence they are having. in pennsylvania, this is james. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you? host: doing fine. go ahead. caller: i am a gun owner. owns liberal democrat who guns. i just see every day what is going on and nobody is talking about the kids that are overdosing. where are these drug pushers, the pusher man -- nobody is saying that. i guarantee you these kids, as i , i understande you have the right to do that. kid during the

vietnam war, everyone was protesting. i was not with them. i backed next in. what a fool i was. -- i backed nixon. we have a police officer at the grade school in town. he comes out with all of the kids. he is a target. he should be concealed or something, maybe dress like the janitor. i don't know. but i think it would be easier to get him first and then get the kids. host: clayton from arkansas, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i support the kids. i don't agree with the guide -- i was a homeless liaison. i also worked with students, taught students, and they need their voice. their voice needs to be heard. when they are speaking about , sometimes what

influences the municipality in the government and the state are and it is how they affect the budgets. the students say enough is enough. they need to come together on these issues. whether it is the state and the or changing the responsibility to the next level. they need to focus. the president made the comment that we will arm the teachers. students do not want the teachers aren't. we had an incident just last week. he was a teacher. a plan to have a rally in washington, d.c..

initially it was going to take place on the mall. kristin moyer riding in "the washington post," riding -- a planned rally against mass shootings cap he held on the mall later this month because it complex with what is described as a talent show. a permit application filed last week by survivors indicated the march for our lives rally will be on march 24th. ae film permit was from student group at a local educational institution, but he would not name the institution because applications from educational institutions are withheld for privacy reasons. he says the redirected permit

application shows that the application is for a student project related to filming for a talent show. more on that in "the washington and twitter is putting out information about this march for lives. more details saying it will take place on march 24. it will start at noon on pennsylvania avenue near the capital building. we hope to see you all there. again, scheduled for march 24. sue. go ahead. you are next up from illinois. myler: yes, and once again, condolences to all of the families who have lost kids. i was a public health nurse for 25 years working in the neighborhoods. i think these kids are right on target. voice.ve a

i watch the interviews with troy msnbc. him as we see -- these kids are truly well-informed. they need to be heard by policymakers. i think they are asking for better enforcement of existing gun laws. where is the money for better enforcement. there also needs to be more support like for this young man who called and who is a school counselor. .hey need resources instead of expelling the most troubled kids, putting them out ,n the street with no resources there need to be resources for these troubled kids instead of expelling them, putting them

alternative resources and also kids who drop out. the actualback to students protesting in making their voices heard. there were a few who said we should consider their age. some kids in chicago -- they outcome any kids have witnessed violence. the majority of those kids will raise their hands. these kids are the actual victims. they have an important voice. they are not the policymakers. they will be future voters and policy makers need to pay attention to that, but we all need to listen. it's not just kids who are victims of these mass school shootings. in chicago, kids are dying on the streets every day. they too not feel safe to walk to school. so, we need better community policing. that is another important

element. seee kids also want to weapons of mass destruction. i do not support people's right to recreation with assault weapons. you know what? that is ridiculous. host: ok, let's go to bob in tyler, texas come alive for students and parents. go ahead, bob. yes, good morning. the problem is so big, we do not see the solution. i'm not for changing the laws, but following the ones we have. host: what about the student impact? that is what we are talking about this hour. caller: the students -- host: the impact on the students and the impact they are having on the debate over guns. caller: once again, they need the education to know the

history of our laws that are the solution, that if we just followed them and the constitution and the boats sworn to uphold the constitution -- sworn to -- oaths uphold the constitution, we would know what the solutions are. host: virginia, go ahead. caller: it's important that stand ups come in and against what their government is alone to happen. to bringd what changed this all about. i live in pennsylvania. i tell you what. if you grandeur kid -- if you ground your kid for a week, they can call the police and it is child abuse. host: let's go to jerry in columbia city, indiana. jerry, good morning. caller: good morning, how are

you doing? host: fine, thank you, go ahead. solution forg-term the guns is to have a title attached to the gun that is sold. the title is kept with the gun. go too far, but you -- we are focusing on the student movement and its impact on the gun debate, students on television or quoted in print. what impact should they have on this discussion you go caller: -- have on this

there are definitely ones that can speak as good as they do.

when everybody says they are going to make an impact and they are going to have their family, , take guns away, if they think that way, they are the same as the nra, if they think they are going to push people into doing something and threatened them and they are votedto get voted on -- out, that's not fair. but they definitely need to do something. i don't know why everybody is against this. got to protect them. it's not right, what happened and that is all i have to say. host: we been talking to various reporters the last couple hours when comes to different tangents with comes to the gun issue. joining us on the phone, a theessor, james alan fox on phones about it. they you andvey another colleague have done. professor fox, good morning.

guest: good morning. host: i will read the headlines release saying that school shootings are not more common than they used to be. can you tell us how you came to that conclusion? guest: i have been studying mass murder since the 1980's. that their warr murders in stockton, california. part of why people believe that schools are more at risk today the mediawere then is coverage. back in the late 1980's, you did not have cable news channels with 24 hour coverage. you did not have satellite the a coverage. back in the

trucks that would show images of families embracing and children crying beaming them right into making you feel like it is happening just down the street. the impression is there are more cases, but there are fewer actually. in the 1990's, the 1996-97 school year, there were forced -- there were four mass shootings. what happened in florida is horrible, tragic, tremendous impact on families, communities, the nation as a whole, but let's not overreact. we can react to it, but not overreact. professor fox, you mentioned 1990 six, upticks in 1997, 1998, 1999. i guess it stays the same during the 2000's, and then an uptick in 2012.

where did you compile your information for this? various sources. there has been a survey of school related homicides that goes back to the early 1990's. dozent, there were four homicides in schools each year. a lot of that was gang related. since that time, homicides and schools have dropped. one in 10w on average students killed in school. there will be a spike with parkland. million55 schoolchildren and over 100,000 schools. again, without minimizing the horror of what happened, the isbability of the risk extremely small. over response like arming the wrong move. turning our schools into

fortresses, surrounding her kids with constant reminders of this bull's-eye on their back, the wrong move. the right move -- more subtle things such as spending that kind of money on more guidance counselors, for example, in schools. teachers. host: how do we define mass shootings? or how do you define mass shootings in the survey? particular survey was homicides of students in schools. but if you go with mass shootings in schools, i would define it as at least four people injured and at least two do people killed, and there were more, again, and the 1990's the and in recent years. , youuld also point out hear statistics frequently that there is an average of one school shooting a week in the united states.

in the majority of cases, no one was killed. suicides, cases where someone was shot, but not killed. it's not a one a week phenomena in. week event that happens very infrequently. is therefessor fox, something about changes structurally that make school safer in your opinion? caller: we have had a general decline in violent crime in america. since the 1990's, the homicide and that has an impact not just in the schools, but the playground, the shopping malls, everywhere. it really has little to do with

the structure of schools. it has more to do with what is going on. you can find more graphs and charts about what has been happening since the 1990's. talk fox, joining us to about these things. he's the lipman professor of criminology and law and public policy. professor, thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. you take care. host: talk about these students and their t on the gun debate, the messaging they are sending to capitol health and the state level and what impact they will have on the debate overall. for students and 202-748-8001 four gun

for all-202-748-8003 others. what do you think about this debate? caller: about the protesting i have two things to say. how many students where their parents are gunowners and when they had the san bernardino where was obama? he was over in cuba and i did that.e any protests on and you know, i am tired of people calling in about the nra. sell that gone to the person that killed them, and besides that the sheriff's department, they should go protest the sheriff's department as far as i am concerned. ok, let's go to north

carolina, douglas, a gun owner. hello. caller: hello. host: you are on. go ahead. inler: just gun shooting florida, i think that that is good. i think the sheriff down there -- these kids should not be dead. the sheriff should be charged with the crime because he did not do his job. he's getting paid for that. so with these student movement you have seen come out of this, what do you think about what you've seen from student specifically on this issue? caller: well, the student is -- i used to be their age, and i understand them being tore up. i would be, toro. too.would be,

as far as this young boy that did this thing, still making a thatout of him -- i think ought to be cut out and these films of this shooting stuff on tv, that is what we need to get laws on, and when law enforcement does not do their job, that causes people to get killed. today is you are say looking at the safest schools in america. the page ofofile on usa today. these are just things about their safety program. in the event of an active hister, a teacher can press or her emergency fall but which sets off a schoolwide alarm. it notifies law enforcement. another device in classroom allows the teacher to tell law enforcement their classroom is safe, signaled the need for

medical aid or ask for help if they have seen the suspect, and with a live you up always, the county can see the shooter from movements and if necessary launch what they call hot zones. those are dispatchers that can spew smoke out of cannons and distract and limit the visibility of the suspect in hallways. .hose are some highlights you can read about this in the pages of "usa today." from new york, we will go to paul about the impact of students on the debate. go ahead. you so much for c-span. i do appreciate your programming. i listened to some of the information and it amazes me how ill-informed people are in this country when i hear the comments. it was good to hear professor fox described school shootings and put it in context. i think in terms of the kids and the students, i appreciate their passion. i think it's good to from them. they are expressing their fears and anxieties.

but i also think they are being by political agendas, particularly from the left in i think i would prefer to see more security in schools, not teachers carrying certainly better security. when i was a kid in high school back in the 1960's, i was a member of the rifle club. we had in our school and we were taught how to use a rifle and when i became a teacher in the city, new york city, we had a new york city police officer assigned to our building. that was his duty station. thein the issues back in 1960's and 1970's -- i'm sorry, back in the 1970's and 1980's, we had a lot of racial tension try tochers like myself quell those riots that actually happened in the cafeteria -- are: you think the students being exploited.

what leads you to believe that? presents theseia kids -- and again, i appreciate their passion. i appreciate their concerns. the media presents them to, i think, fulfill an agenda but ultimately they would like to , the media and government would like to see us all disarmed and that is the last thing i want to see. catherine is next up in concord, new hampshire. the line for others, catherine, go ahead. caller: i would like to say please do not step on the teen'' free speech. we always hear about free speech in this country and it is so important. if they are not allowed to speak freely now, then when they are nowhich many of them are and are going to be before the election, if they do not feel free to speak now, then as adult voters, they will not bother to .peak

how much impact do you think they will have on this debate? caller: i think they are having and i sure wish they will continue to have it. it took years to be the british out of the country. it took years for other movements -- wars, whatever you want to call them. i hope these kids, because they are the ones who are going to have to live in the world that in older people who are in congress are leaving to them. let them have speech. these formsw you all morning. one is the federal form used in the application for background checks. -- every statey is different on that front. but one of the things that we did learn about is about the

background check process, what goes into it, and how this one shop handled it. here is that interview. [video clip] there are two points of i.t.. if they want what we call an assault rifle, that will require for forms of id. is sold the old-school way, so we require that third form just to make ourselves comfortable. >> so one form goes to the state and another goes to the federal government? >> the only form that gives sent out is the one from richmond to the background check. these are in-house, indefinitely. host: i see a computer. what happens when you type this into the computer? >> we have the federal form, i go to my database and i input

there information in the database for approval. 20 seconds or as long as three or five days. there is a date limit on it. if we do not get an approval within seven days the store has the right to turn it over, but we don't do that. happens if you don't get an approval? a right tovidual has contact richmond for why they were not -- why they were denied. host: specifics do not come up on the screen? >> i do not know why they can have -- kid have a gun. they can inquire with me, but we do not do anything.

they have the right to, you know, inquire about it. they go from there. tot: have you ever refused sell somebody a gun? we willarly and continue to do so. if my coworkers and i feel uncomfortable, they are talking where things -- everyone has a buy a gun. but if you do not make us feel comfortable, we will not sell it to you. host: when that happens is that the confrontation? what usually happens? had anyve not confrontations in my time being your. usually they ask why. and they go somewhere else. host: we look at the impact that students may have on upcoming elections because of gun related issues. classmatesut that and teachers were gunned down in

classmates and his have launched a movement that reshaped the gun control debate meant most overnight and may and close the u.s. midterm elections. the debate has long polarize the united states between those defending gun ownership is a constitutional right and those amending measures to stop mass shootings. the students are now focusing on the november election. they want to influence not only those casting their first ballot this year but all voters who make choices along gun rights lines. they seem to have made more progress in a few days then advocacy, butgun have stumbled on opposition from congressional republicans to fiercely defend their constitutional rights to own guns. the students movement is forcing companies to cut funding to the to and pressuring lawmakers

stop taking money from politically influential gun rights groups. that is from readers about their influence on the debate. a gun owner in memphis, tennessee. jim is next. go ahead. caller: hello there, pedro. no offense, i can see the reason why your hair is great now. what i want to -- what your hair is grey now. what i want to talk about is donald trump with respect to the students. if donald trump does not help the united states of america, it will not be helped. there were know these cities that condone , sank cities, i didn't know -- the student input into this debate, what do you think about it? caller: i never did know until trop, he brought stuff that, you know, these professors in these

these kidse teaching what they want to know and it's mostly one-sided deal, and they've got them brainwashed and -- host: would you say the same thing about high school students speaking out on this? absolutely. i know teachers that have been told what to teach. they don't teach the history no more. they just teach what is right for the -- specifically, what is looking at this gun debate, you probably see a lot of students talking about it. how much influence should they have? they should have an impact. i think all people should have an impact if they can talk. but i don't think they should want open borders. that will come back to hurt them. host: ok. let's go to amy and texas, our line for others. go ahead. caller: hello. what i'm wondering is kids,

teenagers, they are very hyper emotional. emotionspracticing the . the shooters are mostly male. they go home and immerse themselves in computer games, and that is kind of what puts the whole idea of a gun in their head to begin with. it's like it is in their head, always floating around, but i don't hear anybody talking about the psychological effects of these things as far as the students and their impact. they should be listened to. i just don't think -- host: they should be listened to, but how much attention should be paid to them? listen to -- listened to, but not actually affect the

outcome. they are not old enough to understand the wider impact of decisions. i think some of the kids have strong feelings about them. others are just looking for a way to disrupt the school day. if you want to do this, it is fine after school, but walking out after class, i think, is just disrupting everything. thinkso, amy, do you students are having more impact on these shootings than those we have seen in the last years and decades? caller: yes, i do, only because it serves an agenda that has been going on for many, many years, and it seems like the sympathetic thing to do. council plus, iowa. an educator is next. john.

hello. -- council bluffs, iowa. of the i thing a lot kids bring this on themselves. they are not very responsible as far as i'm concerned. think a lot of this falls on what their teacher is teaching in their curriculum, and i think it's like the counselor. they were afraid of these kids. it used to be when you got in trouble at school, the teacher took you over into the corner and work to over a little bit and you knew better next time to get smart with them. anymore, is kids get smart with the congressmen, senators, go on the sunday morning talk shows, are led by the commentators, they are told what to say. are you saying they are having an impact on this debate? it'sr: well, it is but

going to last about as long as their attention span, because next week it will be the same thing. well, as far as the influence in changing legislation or policy, do you think it goes back farther? i don't think they are going to change nothing. i don't think nothing's going to change. i mean, everybody's got a right to own a gun and if you don't want a gun, don't buy one. host: go ahead. caller: if a teacher has got a they want tod , iry that gun to school don't think -- i don't see why not. , michigan, gun owner, hello. you are on. i am a gun owner.

i am not an nra member. i will not join the nra because i do not believe in joining any group that has lobbyists. i think lobbyists should be done away with. the students -- if you listen to the students and what they are saying, i think the anymore ish schools kids are not being educated, they are being indoctrinated. are all inke they unison, speaking with one voice and you don't see both sides from the students. you're only seeing one side and that is the side coming from the say that the and are a is ridiculous and to be beeatening politicians to actively threatening politicians that they are going to be out of office if they get donations from the nra, these kids are just bullying politicians and i

the teachers themselves to our indoctrinating these kids. host: we had a previous caller saying that he felt like these kids were being exploited. caller: they are. they are. how many kids have they interviewed on tv and it's partly the media because how many kids on tv have you seen that are pro-gun? and you can't tell me out of 3200 kids in that school they can't find anyone on the other side of the issue? on our line for others, st. paul, minnesota. ken, hello. , pedro.good morning i am on the side of the students. they are the ones going to school. that is the work place basically. look at all of these corporations and companies that have cut ties with the nra. and here in minnesota, the kids

basically forced the legislators to bring up two bills that the democrats have brought up a year ago and got no debate, and they finally got a debate on, so i really think the students are making an impact than they are voters of america. you say these kids are not taxpayers question mark a lot of these kids have jobs and they are taxpayers. host: the previous caller said span willt attention diminish, will move onto another topic and that will be the end of the influence on this topic. you don't agree with that? caller: no, i don't. they are very well situated to make a change. since, by, sandy hook, what is it going to take? there is even a shooting at a baseball practice and still nothing was done and

the president is blaming this on mental health, yet he reversed president obama's mental health bill. so, the president is allowing people with mental illnesses to get guns. and yet he is blaming mental illness on this very it does not make any sense to me. host: our students and parents lying? lewis from north carolina, hi. caller: hello. good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: fine. caller: you are good. it is time for young kids to speak up. most likely, the majority of them involved in the shooting and killing our young kids in harm's way, all of these assault weapons. and i wonder why the people just there are about why white males doing the mass killing echo and try to figure out what is up with the white males that you massive killing? we do all know that people of color kill, but these same way

they do a mass killing to make race mayat one other do in a year they do it in a months time. ast: back to the students for second -- will this be a long ranging impact do you think? what do you think has to happen as far as a real impact as far as what the students are saying about gun violence? to givethey're trying the congress on the house and senate the opportunity to do what they need to do, but i think they are going to continue and i pray to god they are going to continue and it's not about taking guns from people. talk about -- and i am a gun on her desk but the an array talks about when somebody talks about this, they are trying to take my guns. that is not it. we have guns on the street that shoot -- host: we believe it there. chris in ohio, you are the last call.

-- we will leave it there. caller: i want to make a correction. , and as had a gun owner gun shop that sold you a gun -- nobody can walk out on the street and by that particular gun. that there'll was less than 16 and a half inches -- that barrel was six -- was less than 16 and a half inches long. thatjust went to make correction. the particular gun he was showing you. host: ok. that is chris in ohio. and we have been looking at the issue of the gun debate and they have been giving comments. we appreciate all of the calls coming in. again, go to our website at c-span.org for the latest on what is going on in washington and the debate. -- lettinghanks to us go out to talk to these folks. also a things to just go metzger

and linley smith. -- jessica metzger. another edition of this program will come your way tomorrow at 7 a.m. we will see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> billy graham died last week at the age of 99. his funeral is today at noon eastern in a tent outside the billy graham in charlotte, north carolina. you can see that live. janice versus american federation of state, county, and municipal employees was argued monday and the supreme court releases the audio of the oral argument.

the question is whether americans have to compensate union for collective bargaining on employee wages and benefits. the supreme court argument is tonight on c-span starting at 8:00 eastern. in his state of the nation address, vladimir putin unveiled what he said was a nuclear powered missile with limited range. here is that part of the speech. >> after the united states with journal from the trading, have been -- treaty, we have been working to create new weaponry systems. this enables us to make a big step forward, creating new, strategic arms. u.s. global missile defense systems mainly against ballistic missiles, and ballistic missiles is at the core of our nuclear deterrent, just like what other nuclear powers.

this is why russia has been developing a very modest price wise but extremely effective system for defense, and all our icbms are equipped with such systems now. also, we have developed a new generation of missiles. currently, the defense ministry works together with companies in the industry and they were testing a new missile system that uses a heavy icbm. this new system will replace the old system that we have, and that was considered a highly accepted weapon. our foreign partners even used a different name for it.

it is a much more powerful system, with a payload of 200 tons. it is hard to be intercepted by a missile defense, because the range of this new missile and the number of warheads is higher. equipped with the high-yield assistance. biddingabilities for missile defense systems. usednew system can be under any condition. look and watch the video. >> also yesterday, president trump announced plans for new tariffs on steel and aluminum. this came at a meeting with u.s. steel and aluminum companies.