important. we just need everybody, all hands on deck to ensure that we are going to continue to be the leaders in the world. >> i think that is a wonderful way to wrap up. we have covered the gamut on education per duy talked about all the hot issues. -- on education. i think we accomplished governor hutchinson's mission to us which was to really talk about education and the ideas out there. thank you for your leadership each of you on the topic. join me in thanking the panel for sharing with us their accomplishments. [applause] clock p.m. eastern, her life,

career, and adversity on the court. at 9:00 p.m. east during supreme court justice alito shares shock and betrayal after the leak of the draft opinion to overturn roe v. wade. on saturday a hearing on the challenges of collecting sales taxes for out-of-state purchases before the senate finance committee area on saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern native american survivors of abuse at federal indian boarding schools testify at a house hearing. the abuse happened between 1819 to 1969. watch this thanksgiving weekend in primetime on c-span or online at c-span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more. including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment and that is why

charter invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-sn as a public service along wi these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast? this holiday season by listening to one of the many podcasts c-span offers. on q&a, listen to interesting interviews with authors writing books on history and subjects that matter. learn something new on book notes plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians. afterwards bring together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging conversations. and talk about the business of books with news about the

publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now at or where -- app or wherever you get your podcasts. fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators, and more on their latest books. this week, dals mavericks ceo shares her memoir "you have been chosen" about her life and career as the first black female ceo in the nba, interviewed by michael lee of the washington post. watch afterwards every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. senator chris murphy and former congressman will heard talked about gun control and how advocates on both sides of the issue can work together to

reduce gun violence, hosted by the common ground committee and bridget gw in september, this is about 90 minutes. ryone. and welcome to our program this evening "finding common ground on guns." i'm amy cohen. i'm the executive director of the honey w center for civic engagement and public service here at george washington university. we are the central hub for all things community and civic engagement and one of the co-sponsors for this evening's exciting conversation.

and i'm really happy to see you all. now i am delighted to introduce you to the president of the george washington university, dr. mark wrighton. president wrighton a highly distinguished career academically in chemistry and holds many academic and civic honors. he was the chancellor of washington university in st. louis for 24 years prior to joining us at g.w. in january of 2022. we're delighted to have him as our president and we are delighted to have him here this evening. president wrighton? [applause] >> thank you, amy, and good evening, everyone. amy, thank you for the leadership you are bringing to our university in terms of encouraging civic engagement and service efforts. i appreciate very much your special work. as president of the george

washington university, i'm pleased to welcome all of you to this dialogue on finding common ground on guns. this is an issue that has long been very important to me personally. i mentored together with my wife a young woman for about seven years. and she was murdered by gunfire in st. louis. this engaged me very deeply in terms of recognizing that we have a major problem in the united states. we have with us this evening important individuals who will participate tonight in this dialogue. senator chris murphy of connecticut, former congressman will hurd of texas, and i'm sure

we have students from both connecticut and texas. and we have with us also former cbs news correspondent and author jacqueline adams. i want to thank common ground, the bridgegw student group, and our nashman center for organizing this special event tonight. at the george washington university, we're committed to an academic mission of teaching, research, patient care and service. and that has long had a positive impact on our nation and the world. one important way to have this impact is by convening and participating in discussions on very difficult issues which is what we're doing here this evening. this dialogue will help to

inform the public and demonstrate the skill of respectful discourse and exchange of differing views on the critical issue of guns. many people recognize clearly that we have a problem. there are solutions to this problem. and at a dialogue like this this evening we can identify some of the best approaches to solving this critical problem. in addition to tonight's event, i also note another important effort our university is engaged in. and that is joining with other washington, d.c., area universities to address gun violence through research-based recommendations. similar to our goal this evening, through our efforts with other universities, we hope to use our knowledge and create new knowledge to address this

critical problem of public health due to gun violence. i hope that together through all of our efforts we will make good progress and more rapid progress. thank you for joining the event tonight. i hope you find it rewarding and illuminating. thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much, president wrighton. now i am delighted to introduce you to the other g.w. co-correspondencors for this event, leaders from bridgegw. these students were the impetus to bring this event here tonight. moltani from fairfax, virginia, a sophomore at elliott school of international affairs, and among many other activities, he serves in army rotc. sophie holtzman is also a

sophomore and studies journalism as well as international affairs. and she also has many extra-curricular and co-curricular activities that she's involved in and she's from villa hills, kentucky. i would like to introduce you to sophie and monraj. [applause] >> thank you, amy, for the introduction. good evening, everyone. and welcome to tonight's event on finding common ground on guns. featuring senators chris murphy of connecticut and former representative will hurd of texas. my name is monrag and president of bridgegw. >> i'm the co-vice president of bridgegw which is g.w.'s chapter of bridgegw the largest and fastest growing national student-led movement dedicated to promoting productive conversations across ideological lines on college campuses. >> tonight's conversation will bring together two politicians with distinct viewpoints for a passionate discussion on gun policy in light of our country's recent tragedies.

their ability to engage in political discourse and not toxicity represents the voyeur values we are bringing to george washington university. if you're tired of divisive politics on campus, and are looking for a space to talk about it, come join us at our next discussion ton october 12 in monroe 113 and follow us on graeme at bridgegw. >> our partners are the common ground committee and the nash nan center who share our commitment to bridging divides and enlightening public discourse two indes penceable elements of strengthening american democracy. thank you to our partners and thank you to you all for joining us of the please enjoy tonight's forum. [applause] >> our people expect their presence in the chong to find essential agreements on issues of great moment. the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the mission.

>> never better than in those times of great challenge, when we came together not as democrats or republicans but as americans united in a common cause: >> because of the political divisions we see in our country today, i also think it is a countermodel for how people ought to make all kinds of decisions. >> we can decide to come together and make our country reflect the good inside out. >> together we shall write an american story, a story of decency and dick knit, love and healing, greatness and goodness, may this be the story that guides us. ♪

>> now please welcome bruce bond, co-founder and c.e.o. of common ground committee. [applause] >> welcome. thank you, president wrighton, monraj and sophie for the warm welcome and such a pleasure to be co-presenting tonight's event with our partners bridgegw and the nashman center and its executive director, amy cohen. and on beheavy of my colleagues at common ground committee, and our media partner "the christian science monitor," thank you all so much for coming. the video you just saw gives you a little insight into our organization. we are a non-partisan citizen-led nonprofit bringing light, not heat, to public discourse and working on the problems of incivility and polarization that threaten our nation.

this is our 18th public forum and tonight's topic is finding common ground on guns. and we encourage you to tweet tonight and if you look up here on the screen, you can see some of the hash tags who -- we encourage you to use and you can see them on our screen behind me. so with that, i would like to introduce you to our fabulous panelists tonight. first, i'm thrilled to welcome back our moderator jacqueline adams. jackie spent more than two decades as an yemm award winning cbs news correspondent, five of those years as the white house correspondent. she is the co-author of a blessing, women of color teaming up to lead, empower and thrive. please welcome jacqueline adams. [applause] and now let me introduce our

special guests, first, he is a former u.s. representative from texas who has been called the future of the g.o.p. by texas monthly and politico because he has put good policy over good politics. he's a cyber security executive and a former undercover officer for the c.i.a. for almost two decades, he has been involved in the most pressing national security issues challenging our country. he's also the author of "american reboot: an idealist guide to getting big things done." please welcome congressman will hurd. [applause] our next extraordinary guest hails from the other side of the aisle. he is the sitting junior senator from the state of connecticut. he has dedicated his career to public service as an advocate for the families that he

represents. he has been a strong voice in the senate on job creation, affordable health care, education, and a forward-looking foreign policy. but he may be best known nationally for his passion, for crafting laws like the recently passed bipartisan safer communities act aimed at saving lives from gun violence. please welcome senator chris murphy. [applause] thank you so much for being with us and with that jackie the floor is yours. jacqueline: thank you so much, bruce, for your kind introductions. it's my great pleasure to be back before a common ground committee audience and we're live. and we're in person here at this amazing jack morton auditorium at george washington university.

[applause] i'm delighted to share the stage with our esteemed and courageous panelists tonight. our topic is a difficult one, a complex one, finding common ground on guns. the topic is fraught with packs national views on both sides. law-abiding gun owners worry that there's too much focus on controlling guns. while others believe gun control is the best way to address and perhaps even reduce gun violence. our plan tonight is to discuss the politics of guns, the role of semiautomatic weapons in mass shootings, and we're going to have a lightning round discussion about an array of possible solutions. after that, we will take your questions from the audience. and we'll conclude with what we hope will uplift us, a discussion of ways to end polarization in our political discourse. our time is short. we've got a big agenda so let's

dive in. senator murphy, i have read that you have an f rating with the national rifle association. known as the n.r.a. and congressman hurd, you have an a rating. and you had that rating when you served in congress. however, you both share a dreiling tragic wristlet, mass shootings have hit very close to home for both of you and to remind everyone, senator murphy was a young u.s. congressman representing newtown, connecticut, when 20 first graders and six school employees were massacred, two more were injured at the sandy m.a.c. elementary school -- sandy hook elementary school on september 14 of 2012. the shooter had an assault-style rifle, two semiautomatic pistols, a shotgun as well as several hundred rounds of ammunition stored in high capacity magazines.

congressman hurd represented the quiet community of uvalde, texas, where 19 children and two teachers were killed and 17 were wounded by another gunman using a semiautomatic assault weapon and that happened this past may 22. in june, just after the uvalde murders, congressman hurd tallied the death toll nationwide in a "new york times" op-ed. you're going to see it. he wrote since 2009, 1,565 americans have been killed in mass shootings. that's more than the number of u.s. military personnel killed in hostile action in afghanistan over the same period. at the end of august, president biden gave a speech on reducing gun violence and he focused on the semiautomatic style weapons used in both of those school massacres. let's listen.

pres. biden: imagine being the parent, not just losing a child, but not being able to physically identify the child or the adult because they're literally blown apart. we equip our service members with the most lethal weapons on earth. to protect all of us. to protect americans. but we're requiring they receive significant training, extensive background checks, mental health assessments. they have to learn how to lock up and store their weapons responsibly or they get kicked out. but we let any stranger, an 18-year-old walk in, a 20-year-old walk in and buy an ar-15. that's why back in 1994 i took on the n.r.a. and passed the assault weapons ban. for 10 years, mass shootings

were down. 10 years in a row since i passed that legislation in 1994 as a senator. but 2004 republicans let that ban expire. what happened? mass shootings in america tripled. tripled. it's time to ban these. it's time to ban these weapons. we did it before. and we can do it again. jacqueline: sobering. before we address the issue of ar-15's and semiautomatic weapons, let's talk about the politics of guns. senator murphy, you've been fighting for gun violence legislation for a very long time. and following uvalde, you led the effort to write and pass the bipartisan safer communities act. and this is the first major federal legislation on gun control since 1994. how did you get a compromised

bill passed finally? sen. murphy: well, first of all, let me thank the common ground committee, g.w., all your partners for having will and i here today and been looking forward to this conversation. i hope it's useful for those of you in the audience. we did find common ground this summer on maybe the most complicated, most politically vexing issue out there, we'll get into the details of why compromise on the issue of guns is so difficult. but there is a white hot intensity in this country around the issue of guns. it's cultural. but it's also e. extension. -- e. tension. foren. their connection to a weapon is very bluff tied to their sense of devil and their sense of definition and meaning. for others, people's access to weapons is directly relevant to whether their kids are going to come home safe from a walk to school or to the local grocery

store. and so you don't get an issue more explosive and more meaningful than this one. the reason that we found common ground this summer is because the american public had enough of inaction. sandy hook shook this country to the core it's really been the cumulative impact of mass shooting after mass shooting as well as suicides and homicides continuing to spiral upward that brought the public to a point this summer where they just weren't willing to accept congress retreating to their corners. and so uvalde happened and a week later we went back to our districts, our states, for the memorial day recess. often big complicated things fall apart when congress leaves town. the opposite happened this time. members of the senate went holm and really saw a sense of panic and anxiety from families and kids and parents that they hadn't seen before.

and came back to washington with a real sense of purpose that there was going to be a political price to be paid for the first time maybe if there wasn't a bill produced that at least showed some progress on guns. it certainly helped that there wered a handful of us that had some trust built up and we had done a smaller bill on guns a few years back and lots of trust and relationships on the republican side. and so the relationships mattered. but that was secondary. what was most important is there was an imperative from the public to sort of push us to get beyond our politics and make some progress. and that set the ground for what was a 30-day period of negotiation and passage. really remarkable how little time was taken to pass a $15 billion bill with five major changes in gun laws. but from the point we negotiated to 30 days later we got something done that -- had never been achieved in at least the last 30 years because of the

difficulty of this issue. jacqueline: congressman hurd, you know how congress works and how difficult crafting a compromise like this is for any member of congress. what do you think -- what do you think finally drove the process forward this time? mr. hurd: well, it starts with chris and john cornyn having the tenacity to stick to this, right? if you looked at any of their -- either one of their twitter feeds during that process, they were getting attacked by their supporters and people on the extreme of their parties about john, you're doing too much, chris, you're not doing enough, right? but that relationship between the two of them was able -- was able to see this through. and that's -- that's a big component to this. but as chris said, public was tired. 50% of teenagers in the united states of america are afraid of

getting shot at school. that's nuts. that's not -- and i don't care what -- where you are on the political continuum, nobody should think that is ok. and so i think that is -- we have to remember that moment and people were influenced, we can go back a few years ago with ou, the shooter went into a church and again, senator cornyn worked on a piece of legislation that nix is in essence the criminal background check and there was a group of about six million records that weren't being included that were supposed to be included to prevent people from ultimately being able to purchase a weapon. that was being -- that wasn't

happening. even something like that which you think is pretty straightforward, updating a database, was a difficult issue. and i can go even further. this was after i believe this was -- this was after the a.m.e. shooting in charleston about having universal background checks. it was called h.r.8 back then. i was one of eight republicans -- jacqueline: we're going to talk about that. mr. hurd: so it's -- the public has to speak up. and i think chris is right. it's the consume la active effect -- cumulative effect. and where we need to get to is stop retreating to our corners and arguing the same positions we've been arguing and start with what -- what are those three or four things that we can agree on and how do we address those things to build upon the momentum that this legislation

that chris and cornyn did a couple of weeks ago. jacqueline: as i mentioned, the two of you are on opposite ends of the spectrums with your ratings with the n.r.a. and a lot of people talk about the power of the n.r.a. congressman hurd, how influential is the -- this organization? some say it's weakened slightly. but can you explain how it wields its power over legislation? over you guys? mr. hurd: so ultimately any kind of advocacy group you have email lists. you have people that are advocates and usually it's because they wield power in a primary. and i can -- you know, i talk a lot about the importance of voting in primaries, in the last non-presidential election, 2018, the number -- the average number of people that voted in a contested election primary election for a house seat, 58,000 people.

54,000 people. 54,000 people. that's crazy. that means 26,500 people decide who's going to be in the thousands seat. because 92% of those house seats are decided in a primary. what my old seat was decided in november, so you have 275,000 people that you have to address. so a group has influence in the primaries especially if you know the reliable primary voters. now, i will say there's other -- a group like moms demand action, all right? yes, i -- i got an a rating from n.r.a. and n.r.a. had supported me in some of my elections of the but also groups like moms demand action who were an advocacy group coming in and educating members on nuance, specific details of things that are happening in their district. and so i think that is an example of how these advocacy groups have influence. jacqueline: senator murphy, it

took decades for the legislation to pass. do you believe the n.r.a. played a role in the delay? sen. murphy: of course. i mean, >> the most impactful piece of legislation is universal background checks. that tells you if you take every weapon, you will get the biggest bang for your buck. it has always been supported. the only way you can explain that is the power of the nra. what the nra did that was so effective is it was able to essentially make its endorsement mean something more than a position on guns. the nra folded themselves into the fabric of the broader conservative movement and it

seems to me was a proxy for conservative guys.

>> we can say it's the only thing driving the issue. a reliance on one would take away from how complicated this is and the need to educate members and for people to be active about these types of issues. >> as you said, senator murphy, the nra became embedded in a menu of cultural issues. this increased its power, perhaps. >> it existed in a vacuum, right? there was not an anti-gun violence movement in the country prior to sandy hook. the brady campaign held that torch.

it was not a substantial political force in the nation. to vote against guns, they were exclusively voters coming out against no new come laws. after sandy hook, we have the birth of the modern anti-gun violence movement,, by the time 2022 slows around, that movement is mobilizing just as many voters. the nra's power was not just a function on message, there was no counterweight in the political ecosystem. >> we have a poll showing how attitudes of changed on the issue of gun control versus gun rights. americans are divided by party.

you can see on this chart that over the last decade, the two parties have become even more divided on the question to protect the rights on americans to own guns. as we said, this is a controversial point but rupp -- what rights you believe are afforded through the second amendment? >> this is a really important question. i believe the second amendment protects the rights of private gun ownership. there are plenty of constitutional scholars the do not agree with that, who think the second amendment is the ability to muster a militia. i think it's politically important for my side to make clear we do not think the

constitution allows for the broad abolition of weapons or confiscation of weapons, and i think we were more forthright in that position to make it harder for the other side to suggest everything i am for is the camel nose under the tent to take all of your weapons away. it absolutely allows for the regulation for certain people to be prohibited from buying weapons. the reading of the era of gun regulation at the time of adoption of the second amendment backs that view. >> same question. how do you interpret the second amendment, and is there common ground? >> there is not much disagreement.

if you have asked about gun violence, you would probably get a different response. if you ask questions, sometimes the words we use trigger people for people to go into their quarters. that's what we have to change some of the language for the final thing we ultimately agree upon. something as simple as getting a long gun or rifle, 21. same to purchase a handgun. 82% of americans agree with that.

when you start with that issue we can agree on to ultimately fix the problem. >> that is kind of a strange question to ask. prefer the sun being up or down? that's a silly question because the sun is always up and down. this idea that you have to choose i think most americans would say we could protect people's rights and the two are not mutually exclusive. it is deceiving to say that -- >> i agree.

political scientists want to create discord and disconnect. >> they have succeeded. let's move on. we are meeting in an academic institution, you are beginning to identify some common grounds. according to every town research, even though mass shootings are rare, over 95% of american k-12 schools go through active shooter drills. students tell us they are living in fear. the violence project has created a profile of the typical mass shooting.

there is a lot of data about the impact of multiple trauma that are gen z having experience from their age 17 to 24. the trauma has been exasperated by social media, a pulser has described a great many gen z young men as feeling anxious, hopeless and depressed. how can we identify these mass shooters and can we stop them in advance? how far should we prevent them from getting these guns in the

first place? >> it's hard. you go back and look at many of these cases, but i like about the violence project, anybody else who has looked at every mass shooting event, analyze and they talk to all of the people who have committed a mass murder event, some were about to but stopped. let's start with the people who have collected the data and see what they have found. identifying and understanding childhood trauma is a hard problem.

when you have something that happened in love lives, somebody said something, there was always an inciting incident and oftentimes they talk about it on social media, and people have ignored it. if tonight, someone said something that they would commit harm, would we know what to do? do you call parents, do you call the police? do you give it to the fbi? being able to identify that is what is going to be -- how we

can do that. that is what we are ultimately identifying, how do we prevent people from getting weapons in the first place, let's start with raising the age to 21. we don't have to accept this continuing to happen. it's going to require a difficult conversation in multiple areas of our society and we can't just say there is one magical solution that's going to solve problems. >> this issue was addressed in the new bill. what portions do you think will

address those who fit the profile? >> to an extent, i agree we should raise the age, but i would get rid of the weapon altogether. video games and movies, i think there is a perverse, false courage with having access to an ar-15. there is an element of our bill which seeks to provide some new tools to make sure the folks that fit this profile don't have access to weapons. we have a waiting period on purchases for individuals under 21 making threats to do damage

to others, you can take these weapons away. i will offer a bit of caution about putting too many eggs in the basket. profiling can go right or wrong. if you are talking about a profile that involves mental illness or histories of trauma you are looking for needles in the haystack by putting too much faith in your ability to profile, your maybe discriminating against pushing kids out of mainstream education that may be acting strange but not a threat to anyone. i support this work, but i think sometimes it's a substitute for

the more politically difficult things like making sure these weapons don't get into the hands of civilians. >> that is a subject. >> the debate around red flag laws and what does that mean, i spent a lot of time working with companies in artificial intelligence. someone in the crowd will know the reference of minority report , pre-prom. the capability exists. do we trust -- i agree this is a difficult situation and the difficulty of dealing with the mental health issues. >> let's talk about weapons.

the call to ban a range of firearms including ar-15. the vice president said that the earlier assault weapons ban reduce gun violence by only 6%. the 6% number encompassed her entire neighborhood in her small kentucky town. would you consider backing a renewed ban on assault weapons? how do you define assault weapons? >> this is one of those areas, and i am not here to defend this. i am here to try and find common ground on these issues.

when you go back to the assault weapons ban, it was not all assault weapons. it was certain types. it was everything made after a certain date. it was also included in a piece of legislation that increased incarceration of black men and made things more difficult. on this one piece, you had three former presidents including ronald reagan involved in the advocacy. the environment was different. i go back to the difficulty of trying to achieve this, there are other things we should be focusing on in order to start building that momentum to get up

to an issue of talking specifically about the weapon. 50 years ago in texas, there were a lot of people getting injured in hunting accidents. the details of this ultimately matter. again, you go back to 2004 department of justice has a think tank and you still fault the number of casualties killed in these events actually increased and did not decrease. again, the details of this matter but there are other steps

we should be doing before addressing this issue. >> senator? >> i appreciate the way he approaches this issue. it's a fundamentally different moment. there is a whole mess load of weapons out there. this is a pretty rare weapon back in 1994. the gun industry was not relying on the sale of weapons. to me it's a clear-cut case. we always make a distinction what weapons are owned by civilians. these weapons are admittedly hard to define. these weapons were designed to kill as many human beings as quickly as possible. it's a combination of the speed and velocity of the bullet leaving the gun along with the

ease of the weapon to shoot multiple rounds, sometimes, you don't need it to hunt, you don't need it to protect your home. i believe many of these last two -- mass shooters would not carry out the crime if they do not have access to that weapon, there would be more kids alive if the shooter walked into schools or movie theaters with a handful of pistols or handguns instead of an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine attached to it. i agree, it's a difficult political moment and it makes it harder because this weapon is

ubiquitous, even though you would not be passing legislation that takes it out of the hands of individuals, you have public demand. the political consciousness is out there the way it was not in the 1990's. i believe the data. i believe the psychology. to me, these weapons should not be back in the hands of law enforcement. >> one more school-related question. should teachers be allowed to arm themselves? >> i have been trained in tactical situations. it's hard. it's not something i don't think

you should force a teacher to do this. i could think of a situation in which a teacher was armed if there is proper training, because again, to be able to perform, it takes a whole lot of training. that is where it is difficult. one of the frustrating parts about uvalde was there was 300 people with guns. that did not prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. these are people trained and part of law enforcement. i think this notion that more guns in the classroom is going to prevent it, i think that's a fallacy. >> you hinted earlier at a

corollary issue. how do you protect public spaces other than schools? theaters, concert venues and shopping malls? >> admittedly, i still think of this issue through the prism of school safety because i have two kids in public schools, and is much as i want those kids to be safe, i also don't want them to go to school in a prison. that's not good for their educational or emotional health. i don't believe the solution is to turn public spaces into armed camps. movie theaters guarded by guys with guns. >> magnetometers. >> ultimately, what we know is these weapons are so powerful that we gather in public spaces so often that if a mad man to

shoot into a crowd, there is very little way for us to create a society in which we are fully protected from that by metal detectors, walls, and i also think that the data tells us that more guns is not equal public safety. to me, putting more guns in movie theaters, schools or office buildings, maybe it makes some people feel safer, i don't think you should discount that because ultimately you're trying to make people feel better about their daily existence, but i don't think the data will ever back up that loading up a place with weapons leads to a place being more safe. >> here is one area where there could be improvement.

if you already have private security, let's take the pulse nightclub shooting. the attack cycle of a place like this has been since the dawn of time. at some point, someone has to case a location. it's not always the case, but the pulse nightclub is an example. there was private security. were they doing suspicious activity reports, would you be able to connect the private security of a nightclub, an office building? the answer is no. how do you work at a local law enforcement where you have those resources that have been used but are not being used in an

efficient way? instead of notarizing all of our locations, are they being deployed the right way and do they have implement committee with local law enforcement when they see something they are able to connect the dots. >> i wish i did not have to move us along, we have about eight minutes before we want to take questions. we have been thinking about them. you should think about standing up soon and being prepared to get in line. set the stage for our last segment. let's take a look at another chart, a pie chart by pew research. it illustrates the type by percentage of gun deaths in

america. suicide accounts for 54% and murders account for 43%. there are a great many gun reform and gun safety proposals aimed at reducing the numbers of these deaths. we could do a lightning round, we can get a yes or no answer, admittedly they are complex questions. raising the minimum age to buy guns? is there an argument against that? >> should be 21. you are one of the republicans to vote on a bill to require universal background checks. >> this is an example where when you actually read the

legislation, it does not do what some folks say it's going to do. if not an attempt to take weapons and the rhetoric gets out there about what this thing does versus what it does not do. this is an issue where mom who demand action came in and explained to me some of the holes, and how this could have prevented different attacks, and they armed me with information. the only republican in texas was expecting a little bit of heat. >> did you get it? >>. is what was fascinating. not as much as i expected. part of it is, when you explain

to people what it does, everyone should go through a check. when you talk to people who have guns that use them for sporting, these are law-abiding people and the simple majority of them -- you talk to them, every big weapon they had to go to a background check. you have to go through a database. >> senator? >> there is nothing as popular as universal background checks. it pulls somewhere between 80% and 97%, literally, kittens,

grandma, apple pie do not pull 97%. you talk about common ground, here it is. americans have made up their mind. you should have to prove you are not a serious

there's nothing else in american politics as popular as universal background checks. it's somewhere between 8%8 and 97% like literally kittens, grandma, apple pie. they don't pole 97%. so you talk about the common ground, here it is.

americans have made up their mind. they think if you are going to buy a gun you should have to prove that you are not as serious criminal or you are not seriously mentally ill. this is the craziest thing. only inside washington is it still controversial and again that speaks to this legacy power of interest that still remains. to go th >> are always doing background checks because of the transaction. it should be enforced. click the problem is those same people spent a big part of the last 30 years tying the hands of law enforcement, they wanted to go enforce those laws. deep in the statute books are all these restrictions on law enforcement. you can visit a gun store more than once a year to check in to see whether they are selling guns illegally. was the very few that are actually deliberately selling outside the system, once they get that for system, they know they're getting another one. all the records have to be paper. they are not elect to computerize their records just to make it really difficult.

it takes days to get the weapon, trace it back to see where it was originally sold. a lot of the people that say we don't need any new laws, we did need to enforce the old laws, it is really enforce -- hard to enforce the existing laws because of a lot of the handcuffs that congress put on the atf and the enforcement back in the heyday of the nra. >> that is an element that i have not been aware of. >> i have not read anything about that. >> all right. it is time for those in the audience to ask your questions. please line up behind one or two of these microphones. thank you. i thought i was going to squeeze in one of my questions but why don't we start over here. >> so this one is more so in particular for senator murphy. one thing, could you identify

yourself and what year you are? >> i'm studying political science. so you know, you mentioned certain firearms are not so relevant for self protection or activities like hunting that very well may be true, but what about the fundamental part of the constitution which is the second amendment, because if there's an argument going around that there are certain types of weaponry that could emerge. the second amendment isn't a protection of the right of individuals to rise up against their government infected is the opposite. >> the second amendment isn't a protection of the right of individuals to rise up against their government infected is the opposite. the second amendment was designed to be able to muster a militia so as to put down the

rebellion against the united states government. in fact that was one of the first militias that was formed after the passage of the constitution was the militia that george washington and alexander hamilton raised to put down a rebellion in rural pennsylvania so this idea that the founding fathers were preserving the right of individuals to rise up against them is not based in reality the idea was to to be able to have a militia capability with armed citizens that could join the militia to be able to protect and preserve the republic that they decided to put together at the time of the founding of the country. i think the founders could be pretty surprised to find out that they were protecting the right of the revolution against george washington.

>> not to go back all the way to the beginning, but we've known mass shootings and gun violence have gone for a while. what made it different? >> great question. >> i think you faulty estate in the national conversation because of all the failures of law enforcement. i think you faulty estate in the national conversation because of all the failures of law enforcement. my fear was a bunch of kids were killed and no one's going to care the next day. the reason it stayed in the public consciousness is because every second or third day we learned something like how many people were there? what happened?

the police didn't respond or the student happen were kids were calling and saying they were still in there and the police didn't save us. so the outrage continued to bubble and in this state into consciousness for a lot longer than i think people were. that is what made it different in my opinion. we came very close to an agreement with president trump and republicans so as time went on and the movement got stronger

, we got closer and closer. to give a below the curtain view the trust built up between members having the conversation may be enough to fruition, but close to it. when you faulty, when it happened it was particularly cataclysmic that it wasbut itwas also at a moment when enough was enough and i think all of that explains why this summer was different. the 11-year-old girl that covered herself in the blood of her colleagues and played dead, that's horrific in these kind of stories. you kept it going where people were saying enough is enough. we have to get that on -- get

beyond that. so i think all of those things have that affect. >> i am a freshman and studying political science, so i have two quick questions. first, i think the conversation around assault weapons is important, but also the vast majority of gun violence is done by weapons that are not assault weapons. i'm curious if your proposal dealing with that and senator murphy when we talk about this question of the voter priority , you will see a lot of times they are talking about and saying they support universal background checks. a lot of them do not vote for the candidates that support universal background checks. how do you make them more of the driving issue for voters? >> two important points, right? that is really quite a he percent to 90% of americans don't get their way, because it's an issue they sort of lower down on the priority list that -- list. that is changing. so in the 2018 election for instance it's the number one

issue for republicans and democrats in the midterm. it was not number one in 2020, but it was higher than it had ever been before and i do think that is changing and in part because of the movement. you are also right that while we do spend a majority of the public conversation around mass shooting, that isn't the real reality of gun violence in the nation on a daily basis and that is why i spend most of my time working on universal background checks because universal background checks is the quickest way to stem domestic violence, homicide, suicide and sort of the average everyday gun violence in our cities because more background checks means less trafficking of illegal weapons into cities. it's not a panacea or anecdote, but to me that policy gets you the biggest downward pressure on the shootings that is still what ends up killing 99% of gun violence victims in the country.

>> we haven't even touched domestic violence into the problem you have at local levels with the resources to prosecute on these kind of things is outrageous in my hometown of san antonio, there's so much domestic violence the first offense is basically you are given nolo contendere, which is insane in my opinion so the problem that requires many different efforts to address it. let's figure out the one that could have the biggest address , this issue of universal background checks, age to be able to do that and how to get more people to follow through on public desires vote primary. vote in primaries. it is that simple. we've got to vote primaries in 2020. some folks were ranting about

this earlier. in 2026, 20 4% eligible to vote voted in the general election but only 24% voted in the primary. if you don't like your options in november it's because we didn't take the options to get a better option in the primary. that's where a small handful of people, we are not talking about, translating into a ten to -- 10% to 12% change in primary elections. more people have to vote in primaries. some people don't do it because they feel like i don't have enough information. guess what? you are as smart as the people involved in these parties. get involved in primaries and find those people that are like-minded and if we do that i think we will see a change in the kind of decisions in washington, d.c. >> thank you. >> i'm alex rothstein, a political major at gw. i was born in chicago and grew

up by highland park and the question is more about your thoughts on the variability between states on their own gun laws, because in chicago and all over illinois over half the shootings committed with guns are purchased outside of the states. so just because illinois might have strong gun laws, you can go to indiana, wisconsin, missouri, iowa and bypass those laws. >> this income state laws make a difference. the gun homicide rate and forward it is 4% higher than the homicide rate in connecticut and i know the people in florida are different people but not that different. [laughter] laws make a difference, so stay positive make a difference. and if you just look at the rate of gun violence in the country, the highest are those that the guns are used to commit crimes in new york city for instance, none of them are bought in new york state.

90% or maybe 80% of the guns used for crimes in new york come from someplace other than connecticut, new jersey or new york. they are brought up from states where they are loose gun laws so the criminal can by weapons at a gun show or online, traffic them to new york or connecticut and sell them out of the back of the truck, so that's why you need these to be national. but state laws the evidence tells us the state laws absolutely do have an impact. >> sir? >> thank you for coming here. my name is parker. i am a freshman here and also a survivor of the highland park mass shooting this july 4th. one of the things that concerns me the most i've been seeing is

this increased american fetishization of gun ownership . i'm sure you solve a congressperson who had their christmas photo holding up their assault weapons. i see photos of people where there walls are covered in guns. why do you think america has become so obsessed with gun ownership after the assault weapons ban where people are stockpiling guns? and what do you think that says about the gun lobbying organizations like the nra? and us as a country? >> so, i just got back from the u.k., and this was the number one question i got asked by people, about the culture of guns and such and i would say what is driving a lot of the political conversation on this is that this is an issue that creates contrast. and how do you win election?

you create contrast. and how do you gain followers on social media? you create contrast, right? so some of that is driving an issue, i don't want to say it is almost black-and-white, and the ability to do that and stoke your own supporters and troll the opposition, i think that fuels some of that chest beating that you see when it comes around. >> yeah, i think that is a big piece of this. it is sort of an existential threat that liberals feel from conservatives and conservatives feel from liberals. and one of the ways, i think, to sort of stick it to the left and , right? right? is gun ownership. i think there's also a

connection that's been made between certain important cultural valleys and the ownership of a weapon and the way to express the way you prioritize freedom and liberty is to exercise your second amendment rights. and then i think a lot of this just has to do with good old-fashioned marketing. i think the gun industry has done a fantastic job of marketing these weapons as a means of self identification and that's been true since the beginning of the modern gun industry. samuel colt, hartford, connecticut, was marketing guns as the means for you identify yourself with the pioneering spirit that westward expansion. and so, the industry has done i think a wonderful job of marketing and starting the marketing really early on so as a kid in this country you get an awful lot of exposure to the

fetishization of weapons that you speak of. so part of it is political and part of it is cultural. >> that doesn't exist everywhere. look, i from south texas and am represent a part of the state that had more cows than people. this is something you don't see that in people that are the responsible gun owners. right? it's something you didn't educate your children on and something you take seriously, and if you abuse that tool so in a a lot of parts of texas that i represented, you didn't see that chest beating. it does not exist in some of those communities. i just put that out there as it's not reflective of everybody who is a responsible gun owner. >> thank you. >> there are two online in front

of us and we only have eight more minutes. >> we will answer quick. >> he is looking at me? >> i should be looking at you. >> ok. [laughter] >> why don't we have the next two people come up and take the next two questions. why don't you start? >> hi. i am a freshman at gw. i'm from connecticut. thank you both for coming out of talking about such a contentious topic. my question goes more to the united states repertoire on our image, because currently if we look at a lot of social media platforms such as facebook, instagram, tiktok, they have become a laughing stock about the inaction of the political leaders that they take on gun rights. rbc, mass shootings, school shootings and this common theme we have to worry more about

being shot than passing a test. so how do you think about rebuilding our image especially our politicians image? this goes to the united states repertoire as a superpower. >> congressman hurd recognized me from the preevent. i am a freshman studying political science. my question is with the increase in improvised weapons and the ability for them to be made cheaply and efficiently like we saw with the assassination and the recent shooting of the conscription officer and in russia, both with improvised firearms in the rising 3d gun parts, is gun-control even feasible? do we need to machine control, 3d printing control, does japan need metal pipe, like how far do we have to take this? >> i want to try to answer

these. >> i think the only answer your question is we have to show the world we are serious about this. i think this summer's piece of legislation was incredibly important in showing the world that we are not standing pat and doing nothing but i wholeheartedly agree with you. it is a blemish on our image. in fact, i would argue there are very few other things that cause such a disconnect between the united states and the rest of the world in particular our allies as does our fascination with weapons and ability to get our head wrapped around it , so we need to do what we did more of the summer. people can make them in their homes. let's start by making it illegal buying the components in building them. but start by regulating those guns. -- let's start by regulating those guns.

just because it's going to be easier to manufacture a gun doesn't mean that we are helpless to make sure folks are using that as a mechanism to trade in guns criminally are not held responsible for when they ultimately end up on the open market. >> yes, our values matter. we have to show that. that is something we talked earlier about, the erosion of trust in the institutions. we are starting to see the rest of the world's trust in us eroded as well, and these things matter. access to weapon is a part of this problem. it's not the only party and that is where some of these issues have to be tackled because of the complications that you've outlined a freshman studying -- outline. >> thank you. >> we have time for one more. yeah? >> i am a freshman studying economics and journalism. this entire discussion we talked

about mass shootings in schools and my question to you is why do we let these national tragedies consume a disproportionate amount of our conversations, when gun violence is occurring every single day in the inner cities. we have everyone here speaking on behalf of the kids. who is speaking on behalf of the poor young black men dying in chicago every day? >> yeah, i mean, the reality is people like me work every day in this movement, desperately try to raise the daily carnage of gun violence, but we are ultimately captured by an american public that decides to pay attention only at these moments of mass shootings. and so, that is when all the media attention is created. that is when a national conversation happens. and that is tragic. that is unacceptable to me. but i also understand it. right? there's something descriptive

more psychologically disruptive about a mass shooting when a person decides to walk in a place and murder 20 or 30 people. that makes me question something about yourself and the brained inside all of his. so yes, we have got to sort of turned this narrative away from just a conversation surrounding mass shootings. but i also understand why americans plug into that conversation in a way that is sometimes harder for them to do when it is suicides of the violence that happens in our cities every day. not that it is a justification, but trying to put myself in the shoes of americans. >> speaking on behalf of those folks, courageous people like you making sure that people pay attention to this. crime matters and has an impact on all of our communities. and with this, when you look at the first restriction of gun rights in the modern era it actually happened in california by a bunch of republicans

because the black panthers were carrying and trying to protect the community because they were not getting the protection they sell for. and the california legislature was upset with that and at the time the governor of california was ronald reagan. that was the first step with people trying to protect themselves because of crime and other issues. but look, advocates like you are an important. it's not only making sure people are paying attention this. what are the things we should be doing in order to prevent those things you were highlighting? >> we could go on for another hour. i just want to apologize to everyone who is still online but unfortunately, that is all the time we have for question and answer tonight. so, before we end, i would like to ask both of our speakers for

thoughts, hopefully inspiring final thoughts. why do you do it? why do national politics? what drives you? what about public service is worthwhile? and also what advice can you give to these amazing, brilliant soulful students so they can go forward and do what you do to defend democracy? senator? >> well, listen my life obviously changed that morning in sandy hook, connecticut. i was at that fire house and i , there are many days which i didn't see and haven't heard the things i heard that day. and i'm deeply embarrassed that i only woke up to this epidemic when it happened in a schoolhouse in sandy hook. it was happening just up the street from where i grew up outside of hartford, connecticut for a decade, and i did not join

this movement until it happened in newtown, so i am trying to make up for lost time but my inspiration comes from the victims, from the mothers and the fathers. i can't imagine being able to get out of that if my child was shot at school or on the streets of our neighborhood, and yet all across this country, there are literally tens of thousands of parents and brothers and sisters who not only find the means to get out of bed every day, but then marched down to the state capital or town hall or washington, d.c. and demand things change, not so that their child can come back to life. it is too late for him, but to make sure that it doesn't happen to somebody else. so whether it is the kids from parkland, the survivors from highland park, or the moms and dads from new britain and new haven and hartford, bridgeport, that is my inspiration.

i am an interloper. it has not touched me personally. my only job is to try to channel this combination of grief and advocacy my inspiration is into something productive. as i tell my friends all the time, i think this will go down as one of the great social movements in the history of the nation. [applause] and all i know is that all of those whom we read about in the history books failed a bunch of times before they change the world, but they were so righteous that they did not let those obstacles get in their way, so my inspiration is driven by what we call the mothers of this movement, and my hope is based upon the history books, which tell you that when your cause is right and you choose not to give up in this country, in a democracy, you eventually prevail.

>> i had an experience in my senior year in college that i wish i didn't have come the year 12 students were killed from a collapse of bonfire. it was an event that we do at a&m and i always thought and still think about those 12 people every day, what would they be doing if they were here today? and then that's extended to the people in charleston that were praying and killed. what kind of impact with a still be having on their communities right now? and i think of 19 young kids at the beginning of their life, where would they be when they were my age? right? and, and, and for me the way to try to honor these people is to try to think about what they

would do. make sure that when i talk to these moms that have to deal with this i can be honest and look them in the eye. and, and, what should you all do about this? model the behavior you want to see. if you're not happy with the way things are, are you behaving the same way some of these people you don't like her behaving? you all have the capacity and what i enjoy about being in places like this is i get renewed and inspired. i am not reading the newspaper about the decline in universities because i see these questions and people that care, so get out there. it is going to be hard. you will have some losses but think about all the people that would love to be in your position and what would they do if they were in your shoes. >> thank you, senator murphy. thank you, congressman. thank you, everyone. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] [applause] >> we've had an eye-opening , evocative experience, and we are not quite done yet. bruce has some parting thoughts for us. >> jackie, thank you very much. what an incredible conversation we had here today. extraordinarily enlightening and on an extremely complicated issue, and certainly lived up to the motto of bringing light, not heat to public discourse. and after listening to the conversation tonight, i hope the discussion between these amazing panelists have given you a sense of hope that we can bridge our divides, that you've given inspiration to perhaps engage in your own conversations with more

civility and within, towards productive outcome in the you gained a deep enough understanding of this very complicated gun issue. we value your input so i'm going to ask if you would please take the survey. it is not up now, but there will be a qr code that you can use to access it. we also encourage you to form your own discussion groups after this forum. we will be producing a conversation guide and there will be questions that will spark based on the points of common ground found this evening. you can find the guide on the website by friday evening. so, i also want to add based on the some of the things we heard tonight that participating in our democracy is crucial so please mark your calendars november 8 and go out and vote, please.

so, on behalf of the common ground committee, thank you all. >>, now. [applause] -- come on now. [applause] >> thank you for that. our deepest gratitude for our partners this evening, amy cohen the students at bridge dw, amy cohen, the executive: director of the nationals center, and the george washington university. thank you all for being with us tonight. you have enlightened us, inspired us, and you have given so. thank you. [applause]

supreme court justice samuel alito shares his feelings of shock and betrayal after the leak of the draft opinion he authored to overturn roe v. wade. then a hearing on the challenges collecting sales taxes for out-of-state purchases before the senate finance committee and on saturday, native american survivors of abuse at federal indian boarding schools testifying at a house hearing. the abuse happened at most of the 408 boarding schools run by the united states. watch this thanksgiving weekend in prime time on c-span or online at c-span.org. quick c-span's washington journal, every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the