Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama Talks Gun Control; Interview with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

Aired December 19, 2012 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Top of the hour. Good to see you. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

President Obama not too long ago throwing this surprise news conference. Two topics dominated. He answered several questions on the impending fiscal cliff, blasting Republicans in the process. But he began with a debate sweeping the country right now.

And that's what I want to talk about here, gun control. The president says the time is now. The time is now to reassess the nation's gun control laws after the senseless slaughtering of those 20 innocent children in Newtown, Connecticut, in that elementary school. He wants concrete proposals. He wants them quickly, in a month.

The vice president there, Joe Biden, he will be leading this interagency effort. The president says after the Newtown shootings, they have an obligation to try.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: While the president is working the national stage, there are many cities across the country who are pushing gun buybacks as a way to purge guns from the streets, as many as they can, and quickly. And local police officers, they offer these deals to those who own guns, turn in your gun, no question asked and you will get money, maybe a gift card usually worth a couple hundred dollars and then police, they go and destroy those guns.

I want to bring in Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. He joins me live.

Mr. Mayor, good to see you back here.

ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA (D), MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES: Good to see you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Let me begin with L.A. I know you're moving up the annual gun buyback from May to the day after Christmas. You're offering grocery store gift cards up to 200 bucks in exchange for these guns, again, no questions asked. Why do you think this works?

VILLARAIGOSA: Well, we worked with a group of mothers who had lost their children. We used to do this on Mother's Day. We're going to accelerate that a bit and do it the day after Christmas. It works because we're getting guns that could otherwise be stolen or used in a crime, used to hurt someone off the streets.

We have collected assault weapons, grenade launchers, guns of every sort, rifles, everything you can imagine over the years, about 8,000 of them. And we're going to do it again the day after Christmas. It is a way for people to get involved. People are asking me, what can I do? Obviously, we can support legislation to tighten our gun laws, both at the state and federal level.

But people want to do more than that. And this is an opportunity for people to do something themselves and be part of the solution.

BALDWIN: What about, Mayor Villaraigosa, you have the other side of this whole story -- I tweeted out I will be talking about gun buybacks and I just want to read this one tweet I got -- quote -- "Creative suggestion, good effort. I would not be willing though to sell my defense or my rights for 10 times the purchase price."

This is from someone who tweeted me. Many Americans, they won't give up their weapons, not to mention, look, if someone walks in and sells one, they can go buy another one. How effective is it really in reducing gun crime?

VILLARAIGOSA: It's a little bit at a time.

I can't tell you that -- we have too much gun violence in America. L.A. is safer than any time since 1952. Our homicides are down to levels since we haven't seen since 1967. And yet there were 300 approximately people who were killed as a result of gun violence last year.

That's 300 too many. And particularly -- you mentioned it. You opened up the program with the slaughtering of children. What we have seen in America continually again and again and again, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown...

BALDWIN: Aurora.

VILLARAIGOSA: ... is a level of violence that none of us should be able to accept.

BALDWIN: Let me throw this idea out there. There was this really interesting op-ed in "The Washington Post" by a writer by the name of Matt Miller, who talks about the idea of gun buybacks, how it could actually help the economy. But he recounts this horrendous mass killing. This was in the '90s, late '90s, in Tasmania, and so as a result of that, 35 people died. As a result of that, Australian politicians, they got together and so the whole government, they purchased and destroyed 700,000 weapons that -- he said that was about a fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms.

He said that would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today. Because of this senseless crime Friday morning in Newtown, do you think, Mr. Mayor, that a nationwide buyback would ever happen?

VILLARAIGOSA: I hope so, but that's not the only solution. I think the president said it. We got to do something about our cultural values that promote violence. We got to do -- make it as easy, as he said, to access mental health as it is to buy a gun. We got to toughen our gun laws, enact a federal assault weapons ban.

I was the author of California's -- along with Don Perata -- California's assault weapons ban. And that's great for California. But you can go buy a gun in Arizona. You can buy a gun in other states where it is more -- where it is easier to do so. We have strong purchasers, people who can legally buy a gun and they buy guns and assault weapons for people who can't.

We can toughen up our registry to make sure that we're cutting the loopholes. The person at Virginia who killed all of those students at Virginia Tech was someone who was mentally ill, who was never reported.

BALDWIN: Right. I was in Blacksburg. There are so many conversations to be had. We will wait and see what this interagency can do with Joe Biden at the helm here. I know the timetable is a month. We will see what can be done, what proposals can be on the table.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, thank you so, so much. I appreciate it.

VILLARAIGOSA: Thank you. Thank you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: I want to talk about now the scathing report out today blames systemic failures at the U.S. State Department for that deadly terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Now the fallout. We have now learned three State Department officials resigned today, all over this.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, they were killed in the attack back in September. Among this report's findings -- quote, unquote -- grossly inadequate security and the dismissal of repeated requests to beef up personnel. The panel also found a lack of transparency, responsiveness and leadership, both in Libya and in Washington.

And I want to bring in former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley just to talk a little bit more about this.

Mr. Crowley, welcome back.

I just want -- I want to begin with the three resignations we found out today. Does that surprise you?

P.J. CROWLEY, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS: It is a difficult report. And I'm sure no one feels worse than Eric Boswell, who I worked with at the State Department, and his two colleagues for what happened in Benghazi. And obviously they have taken their share of responsibility for it.

BALDWIN: But did it surprise you?

CROWLEY: It doesn't surprise me. This is something that is a shock to the State Department. Thankfully, these things don't happen every day. And this is the first time in roughly, you know, 25 years, but, obviously, the State Department and those responsible for the security of the secretary and everyone, all the posts around the world, take this very, very seriously.

BALDWIN: We know that, congressional hearings, begin tomorrow. I just want to play a little sound. This is what Senator John Kerry said about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The report specifically calls on resources. There is a need to put about $2.5 billion a year over a number of years into efforts to strengthen our security status in various critical places.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So what is this solution here? We were talking to our senior international correspondent who was talking again, what she saw on the ground.

The whistle had been blown in Benghazi, the rumblings existed that security was lackluster. Why didn't anyone do anything? Why did it take four lives lost?

CROWLEY: I think there are two perspectives here.

First is we put these diplomats in a very, very difficult situation. Libya is awash with weapons. And as the report detailed, there were a number of militias, some of them working with the State Department, but they had multiple agendas and may have been working against the State Department at the same time they're responsible for helping to secure this diplomatic post.

You can never get the threat and risk down to zero. That said, obviously, the State Department has a tradition of putting responsibility under the Vienna Convention on the host nation to provide the baseline of security and clearly Libya was not able to do that, and that came out in the report.

So what the secretary has put forward is that the State Department has to have greater resources and improve the baseline of security, particularly in some of these diplomatic posts in post-conflict zones where we cannot be assured that the host nation will provide a secure environment for our diplomats to do their work.

BALDWIN: But why weren't the resources there? If there were rumblings that there was a lack of security, where would they come from? Who pays for that?

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: I think there are two aspects.

The report obviously underscores that there was a misreading or an underestimation of the threat that these individuals were facing, a series of security incidents that the post and Washington did not adequately address. And so at the time the embassy or the consulate was attacked, there was just inadequate number of people on the ground to hold them off.

But the State Department's budget is, give or take, $50 billion. It is one-twelfth of that of the Pentagon, which does also put a great deal of emphasis on force protection, making sure that our soldiers are as secure as they can be in these difficult zones.

So, obviously, you know, there always will be some risk there. But the State Department has to add more people and do some additional construction to make the situation as secure as it can be.

BALDWIN: What about -- just one more question for you. There was no disciplinary action taken. We mentioned the three resignations coming down today, but do you think that someone very, very high up there should be held accountable and how high should the blame go?

CROWLEY: Well, look, three individuals, one of whom I know very, very well, have resigned today because they share -- they feel they are partially responsible for what happened here.

The real issue is what do we continue to do to make, you know, our diplomats' work as safe as it can be, understanding that we can't put all of our diplomats behind barriers or fortresses because then they can't do the diplomacy that ultimately serves U.S. interests?

Brooke, you have to remember here, 20 years ago, we were bombing Libya. I'm sorry -- 25 years ago -- 24 years ago, Libya took down at this very time of year Pan Am 103. So, these diplomats were in Libya helping to build a new Libya that is going to be a constructive player.

We won't know for about a dozen years whether their sacrifice, horrible as it is, gets the kind of return that we hope for, but this was important work, dangerous work, and we can never completely eliminate that risk.

BALDWIN: Yes, no one disagrees with you there and the important work and the dangerous work must continue.

P.J. Crowley, thank you so much. We really appreciate you coming on.

CROWLEY: A pleasure.

BALDWIN: A lot more news happening here on this Wednesday, including this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: (voice-over): Bracing for the blizzards. As folks get ready to head out for the holidays, current forecasts show a travel nightmare.

Plus, taking a look at Robert Bork's incredible place in history.

And:

PIERS MORGAN, HOST, "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT": You are a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense.

BALDWIN: Piers Morgan emotional over gun control. And, tonight, he's getting all sides together for answers. Piers joins me live.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: When first graders are slaughtered, we all want to blame something. Some people blame guns. Others like my next guest says guns are not necessarily the problem here. People are the problem. The media is the problem. Society is the problem.

Independence Institute research director David Kopel joins me from Denver, Colorado.

David, welcome to you.

We have heard all kinds of arguments last couple of days from the pro- gun side. Just briefly your op-ed, what was your unique message?

DAVID KOPEL, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER: Well, first of all, something that would -- however much people want to argue about the gun issue, we ought to come together and finally address mental health, which even while the government at all levels in this country has bloated over the last 50 years, the laws and the funding for mental health treatment for people who are dangerously, violently mental ill has been decimated.

And 50 years ago, somebody like the guy who perpetrated the Aurora theater murders would have been civilly committed and treated before he could kill so many people. So -- and a very large number of the people who commit these sensational things with the purpose of getting media attention for themselves are seriously and identifiably mentally ill beforehand. So, that is something that it's long past time we got serious about.

BALDWIN: Let me jump in on that, because there are a lot of numbers in your piece. And you basically look at, you know, what can account for the increase in these types of shootings.

You talk about the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. My question would be then, you reference the '60s. But how would locking people up today, how would that help, just tossing people in these institutions and then who pays for that?

KOPEL: Well, the taxpayers pay for it. We pay for the police. We pay for prisons. We pay for the medical examiner in Connecticut who had to do all those autopsies on those children.

And instead of paying for that, we could spend less on things like that if we would spend more up front on providing treatment and for the people who are dangerously, violently, identifiably mentally ill.

BALDWIN: I just want to read this blog, because I'm sure you have seen it, this is a stunning piece, it was written in "The Blue Review," talking about just mental -- mental illness, by this distraught mother.

And her name is Liza Long. She talks about her 13-year-old son, who, you know, has pulled a knife on her, has threatened to kill himself. And so she says, you know, antipsychotic drugs haven't worked on her son. There is no official diagnosis of mental illness, but, you know, she thinks he could be somewhere on this spectrum. And the social worker says the only real option for her son would be if he's charged with a crime and just has to -- you know, goes to prison.

Let me read you what this mother writes here -- quote -- "No one wants to send a 13-year-old genius who loves 'Harry Potter' and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society with its stigma on mental illness and its broken health care system does not provide us with other options."

We're talking about this 13-year-old here. What would you -- David, what would you tell this mother to do with her son?

KOPEL: I would -- well, I would say that what she wrote about -- and good for her for having the courage to go and do that -- is similar to what a lot of people have written to me privately in e-mails, is they have a relative or someone else close in their lives who is violent and dangerous, and really worried.

BALDWIN: What do you do with that relative?

KOPEL: And they go to the authorities now. And they say there is nothing we will do until this person commits a crime and then after he commits the crime, then we will prosecute him and put him in prison.

BALDWIN: That's not good enough.

(CROSSTALK)

KOPEL: We need to have -- of course that's not good enough. What we need to do -- studies have shown if you look at the state-to-state variation in homicide rates, about a third of the variation among the states is between the states that have the stronger laws for civil commitment for the violently mentally ill vs. the states that have the weakest laws.

So we could all across the country strengthen those laws following the stronger models of the states like Wisconsin and, in addition, pay what we need to in taxes to provide the resources for the treatment and care.

(CROSSTALK)

KOPEL: It is crazy that we don't do that, pay for it now and we end up paying much more in so many ways later.

BALDWIN: OK. So there has to be a solution. You say the taxpayer would be forking over the money.

I have to ask you about something else you said in your piece. I know other people have said that when you talk about the uptick in shootings like this, you blame the media. You write that cable TV greatly magnifies the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve.

I was in Newtown for a couple of days. I covered this story. Multiple people are there. What then is another option? To ignore it, not cover it at all?

KOPEL: Well, I think TV does that in some cases. Like, when if a guy at a football game runs on the field naked, the cameras have a policy of not covering him, because they know they're doing it for publicity. And certainly on something like this, it is not a story you can avoid.

BALDWIN: It is not. It is not.

(CROSSTALK)

KOPEL: Of course not. But if you look at how the cable TV, including CNN, among others, covered Columbine, they made these heinous evil people into national celebrities.

And how much time do you spend showing the picture of the guy who did it and how much time...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: It is journalism. It is journalism. We tell the stories and we focus now -- we talk about all these victims. I have spent several days talking about these horrible, sad, sad young victims there in Newtown. But...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: ... part of the story.

KOPEL: I used to be the media critic for "The Rocky Mountain News." So I know that journalists, when they want to cover things in a responsible way, can.

For example, there is someone who is a sexual assault -- a victim of a sexual assault, generally you don't mention that person's name, even though that's part of the news and might be of great interest to the viewers. Certainly, media can voluntarily tone down how much attention they give to the -- how much -- often the picture of the murderer is shown on television.

BALDWIN: Absolutely.

KOPEL: How often his name is mentioned.

You can cover the story, and you can pay more attention to the good people like the heroic teachers who tried to save their kids, to the victims and try to minimize how much fame the killers get because we absolutely know from the studies of them that this fame that they get by doing these awful crimes is one of their primary motivations.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: David Kopel, I appreciate your opinion and your perspective. People come to us for facts, for the stories and we hope that we present them in a fair manner, fair manner here at CNN. I appreciate you very much for coming on though and talking to me about it.

We do have to talk Washington. Still no deal, no dice here on that looming fiscal cliff. House Speaker John Boehner, President Obama both clear, one very succinct message, one of these men today here basically saying, take my deal -- what they said today next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Want to show you some pictures we are just getting in here.

This is just -- this is just in out of Florida. You see this is a plane, this yellow thing is a plane on a beach. We're told this is Lido Beach. If you know Lido Beach, this is the Tampa Bay area. The pilot rescued, thankfully. You see the waves washing ashore. So the plane right there sort of in the sand, and crews are on the scene right now. Plane -- there is a better picture for you so you can see.

This is a smaller sort of type plane, Lido Beach in Florida. We have got all kinds of answers. We will try to get some of them answered for you here on CNN.

But let's talk about that fiscal cliff, less than two weeks away, still no deal to avert the series of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that will affect every one of us come the 1st of the year. Earlier today, the president standing by his most recent offer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: At some point, there's got to be, I think, a recognition on the part of my Republican friends that, you know, take the deal. You know, they will be able to claim that they have worked with me over the last two years to reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package.

We will have stabilized it for 10 years. That is a significant achievement for them. They should be proud of it. They keep on finding ways to say no as opposed to finding ways to say yes.

I don't know how much of that just has to do with, you know -- it is very hard for them to say yes to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: That was the president earlier today, the daily briefing.

And then there was this moment, very quick moment. This was House Speaker John Boehner's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Good afternoon, everyone.

Republicans continue to work toward avoiding the fiscal cliff. The president's offer of $1.3 trillion in revenues and $850 billion in spending reductions fails to meet the test that the president promised the American people, a balanced approach.

And I hope the president will get serious soon about providing and working with us on a balanced approach. Tomorrow, the House will pass legislation to make permanent tax relief for nearly every American, 99.81 percent of the American people.

And then the president will have a decision to make. He can call on the Senate Democrats to pass that bill or he can be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Wolf Blitzer, let me bring you in, in Washington.

We were here live when we took that Boehner news conference. I was sort of surprised. It was all of 56 seconds. I think it might have been the quickest news conference ever on Capitol Hill. But, clearly, the message was there, according to Boehner, that the president's offer is not balanced. What do you make of all of this back and forth, back and forth, 13 days to go?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Well, as far as extending the Bush tax cuts for almost everyone, almost everyone, you know, they are about $600,000 apart. The president wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone earning under $400,000 a year. That's his latest proposal.

BALDWIN: Well, he threw out the number $700,000 today at that news conference.

BLITZER: Yes, he was throwing out a bunch of numbers.

But basically his last proposal was $400,000. Originally, remember, it was he ran on the $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for individuals. But now he's gone up to $400,000. Boehner wants it for a million. No one earning under a million dollars a year should get a tax increase. Let the Bush tax rates stay in effect for everyone earning under a million dollars.

That's more than 99, almost 99.5 percent of all the earners, of the workers out there, if you will. So, they're still apart on that. I don't think it is unbridgeable. I have been in Washington for a while. I think if you get that close to working out at least a short term plan B between these two sides, you can come up with a number that they both should be able to appreciate and at the same time not force millions and millions of people who earn under, whether it's $400,000, $700,000 or a million dollars a year, they're not going to get a tax hike.

BALDWIN: OK.

BLITZER: Especially, everyone is concerned about the 98 percent under $250,000. You don't want their taxes to go up starting January 1st. You want that continuity, that assurance that the tax rates are going to stay the same.

So, on that Plan B, I don't think that it's unbridgeable -- you know, maybe the House will pass what Boehner wants tomorrow. The Democrats will vote against it. It won't go anywhere in the Senate. White House has already said the president would veto it. But they should be able to come up with something.

And you know what was really imnpressive, to you and to me, Brooke, because we were both there in Newtown: the president made the point -- and I took notes as he was saying it -- he said, you know, especially at a time like this, in the past week, we've seen what's going on. Let's keep all of this in perspective. Let's work out a deal --

BALDWIN: About what's important.

BLITZER: -- especially before Christmas and New Years so people can get on with their lives.

It shouldn't be -- it should be relatively --

BALDWIN: I know.

BLITZER: -- doable, if you will. It's not that hard.

BALDWIN: Perspective. Perspective, as the president points out. We'll see what happens, coming up here, thirteen days.

Wiolf Blitzer, thank you. We'll look for you at the top of the hour --

BLITZER: Thank you.

BALDWIN: -- on THE SITUATION ROOM. Thank you, sir.

And for me, coming up, the story of this five-year-old -- five-year- old, dodging bullets, escaping a shooter who had no specific target. I'm not talking about Friday morning. I'm actually talking about an event that happened more than ten years ago. That child sruvivor now has grown up, and he has some advice for the families in Newtown.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)