What Colbert did at 3:41 was incredibly respectful. Granted they may not agree, but they respect each other and that's what a true respectful debate is about.
We can't ban all cars because of crashes. If you can't admit the problem is all cars we can't solve the problem. HAHAHAHAHAHA HEEEEHAWWW HOOO *wipes tear* HEEEEEHAAAWW 5 minutes later heh... heh... And that's all the time we have.
_"Strange that you can put someone on a no fly list without any evidence, but can't restrict -them- criminals from buying semi-automatic weapons."_There. I fixed it for you.
I am amazed at both Stephen and Bill's behavior. This is the kind of dialogue we need in this country. Opposing views talking calmly and rationally about serious topics. Some of what O Reilly said I agreed with as did the audience when they clapped. Stephen Colbert is amazing. It is true he is a comedian but he is also an intellectual we could use his voice in government.
Jon Stewart did something similar with O'Reilly back in the olden days. It's certainly nice to see someone given the opportunity to speak their mind, voice their opinions, have their turn to talk each time rather than being talked down or over, or otherwise silenced. Even if the other person has nothing at all worthwhile to say, letting them show that benefits us just as much as letting them show they have some decent ideas. There is no downside to letting them speak freely. Well, unless they know the self-destruct code for the building...
It certainly isn't just an American problem, but I hate when any kind of debating atmosphere in a show has a vocal audience. The audience is clearly there to see the host, so every debate is going to have a ridiculous "home tem advantage", making these kinds of shows the absolute worst shows to learn something new or hear a different perspective. Bill Maher has become the master of dodging a question by saying some kind of mic-drop one-liner and then riding the audience's cheers away from the question.
As an Australian, one of the things that I love about my country is the fact that many years before I was born, we banded together and threw aside political difference to look at a single tragedy and say "that can never happen again". We adopted common sense laws and got rid of the literal killing machines from our country to an extraordinary extent. And it never happened again. You can bring up all of the statistics that you want about how the gun murder rate has gone down 75% or whatever, but I honestly don't care. It never fucking happened again. That's what matters. So Mr. O'Riely, or really anybody who's pro-gun, next time you feel like championing us in this debate and congratulating our effective efforts, don't in the next breath devalue it by saying "oh but gun violence is going down here regardless". It isn't. Statistics mean nothing when fifty people die and the response is apathy. The problem is obvious, and the solution isn't to condescendingly pat us on the back.
Obviously by banning guns you do decrease the overall homicides from guns alone; however there is a bigger picture for this look the overall homicide rates for the UK and Australia which both banned guns around the same time. Even after 20 years of both laws passing there have been very little changes in homicide in both countries. Yes I know there has technically been a decrease in both countries, yet UK's didn't start to decrease until around 2010 and Australia's was already decreasing at a steady rate before the actual ban and even still is significantly different than what it was before the ban.
That Dude Kurt The answer is the same amount. We just might have less gun homicides and more vehicle, knife, axe, etc homicides. Criminals will always have automatic & semi automatic high powered rifles. You know how many criminals ride around Detroit with AK's in their cars? A lottt. Gun Control is a joke. Take it from someone who has worked with LE and has worked in the city for a year and a half. These guys have fully automatic weapons that are illegal. Criminals do not care about the law and it is difficult to determine a crazy from a non crazy. And even if we had stricter gun control crazy people like this would still get guns. The guy was a security guard and would have just had to explain he needed the weapons for his job. He had no criminal record and would have been able to carry out the shooting regardless.
Sure, because domestic abusers and violent radicals deserve to be able to buy semiautomatic rifles. That just makes all the sense, especially if this shooter, who just so happens to be a natural-born American citizen, is, in Bill O'Reilly's words, our "enemy" in this "Islamist jihadist war." Enemies in war deserve American arms, or else it just wouldn't be fair.
I'm curious where you reside?.. The US is a huge country and it could be argued passing federal laws would put large numbers of Americans safety in jeopardy.. There are many places in this country where guns are necessary... some they aren't.. Realize that this country is only 200 years old and many areas have been civilized far less then that and some still aren't.. There are places in this country where humans are still part of the food chain... I think there could be advancements but guns are necessary in the US.
I really hate how they nearly boo'd Reilly out, it's not conducive to anything to shut out people's opinions. I did, however really respect that Colbert told them to hear him out.
It also highlights the absolute continental division of the two major parties, which itself highlights the need for a #berniecraticparty #alwaysbernie #bernieisbest #givegunsarest #treatthementallyill #banassualtweapons #supportuniversalbackgroundchecks #trustvote
Agreed. O'Reilly's appearances are my favorite part of the Colbert show. I don't like him, and I disagree with most of his viewpoints, but I have a lot of respect for him coming on the show, knowing full well that the crowd is 100% against him, and being willing to respectfully debate with Colbert (with the occasional sarcastic jab between them).
O'Reilly has a lot to answer for in the past, but here he seems genuinely interested in improving our situation with guns. I like his point that no amendment somehow gives you the right to wave a gun around in a 7-11, so screw _those_ people, let 'em have 10 years.
It's a nice change. Declaring war on ISIS is silly though. ISIS is a criminal organization, not a country. The only "advantage" is that the government could suspend fundamental constitutional liberties. The government could then arrest you for saying anything and hold you for as long as they want without due process.
BO is so full of BS! Mass shootings up gone up in the last 20 years. Mando minimums don't work and cost tax payer more money. It all comes down to money for the gun industry/ prisons and standing ground on a political talking point.
Cultural libertarians get along just fine. New political alignments are appearing and the left and right are becoming arbitrary. The radical left is where the intolerance is and I admit this as a liberal in favour of gun control.
A conservative was talking about gun control. We can build on this. I think many can agree that an outright ban on guns isn't a solution, and I don't see anybody even suggesting this.
An outright ban is idiotic as all it would do is allow for backroom dealers to sneak guns in which would then be impossible to track (ie war on drugs), but there has to be some levels of restrictions because a person on a terrorist watchlist shouldnt be able to walk in and buy a assault rifle
He wanted the audience to hear what he had to say, because they simply groan just because it's Bill O'Reilly. If Colbert hated O'Reilly as much as his audience did, he wouldn't even be on the show.
He’s being his kind-hearted true self in a serious discussion, which contrasts with the egotistical confrontational hilarious character he portrayed for on the Daly Show (who sparred with O”Reilly with John Stewart, who was not entirely playing a role.Colbert can be snarky at times but it’s a decision and it doesn’t change people’s opinions. This is him being responsible and respectful. He won’t stand down if challenged, but he’s kind and calculated, which is rare and wonderful. Bill didn’t get all heated bc it wasn’t confrontational verbal judo with the king of debate, Stewart. . I suspect Stephen set the precedent for this tone and o’Reilly rose to the challenge knowing he wouldn’t be cornered. (Or Stephen put a half Valium in his green room water bottle.) whatever it was it was awesome, given the topic.
Thanks Colbert for providing an example on how two differing ideologies can come together on a middle ground idea. They disagree on things, but at least they are listening and trying to find common thoughts.
Very well put. The problem with idealogues, both on the left and the right, is that they show no consistency in logic and that they are unwilling to listen or work with the opposing side. Credit both Reagan and Clinton for being incredibly pragmatic and focused on accomplishing mutually held goals rather than pushing their own ideological agenda. I fault both W. Bush and Obama tremendously for being both too ideological to benefit their country. We have to try to understand that someone who disagrees with our viewpoints is not immoral, ignorant, or somehow malicious in intent, but instead are merely a difference of opinion and nothing more. Those who would focus on their OWN personal political agendas rather than the common good of America lead the country down a divisive state. Those who fight to represent their supporters, but fail to realize that their idea of a utopia is a havoc for at least 50 percent of the population. Instead of focusing on their ideologies, they should focus on finding common ground and moving forward for the country. This is best demonstrated in "politicians" such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. So radical in their ideology that they basically say "Only I know what's right for the people and FUCK the rest." That type of narcissism is dangerous in leadership. Henry David Thoreau once wrote, "He who is more right than his neighbor constitutes a majority of one." Meaning only the individual knows what's truly best for the individual. All governance is a form of oppression. Let our Congress, president and courts merely focus on promoting economic growth, balance our nation's budget, and to better educate and prepare our youth. The latter being most important, only in the next generation can our problems be solved. Change takes time.
* *, a good trick to stop liberal news sites from doing this, is to stop doing and saying insane things. "Why do the media only focus on my insane meltdowns?"
tidak, Colbert was just trying to get a reasonable conversation without sensationalism out of this bloviating air bag of narcissism. Stephen regarded this as his job to bring an honest discussion to his audience to see how one would engage an indoctrinated member of the opposite political persuasion.
+gabdominates well im just a guy who wants a solution to people being killed all the time, we have more gun deaths than any other country (I think) and if people against gun control say that its not the guns its the people, well okay, but what can we do about that? i agree people are shitty, but if we cant change that, can we atleast work on a better system for making it more difficult for pyschos to acquire them? no one wants to ban all guns, but is the system we have right now perfect? cant we control guns a little bit better? is that really so unreasonable? and if it is, whats the alternative solution? im dying to hear it, please
If one could only check the "stats" he presents... He's simply eloquent enough, and he makes one single good point, yes. But he convinces people even when he says crime is a crime, let's react to it with prison, not actually try to prevent it before people get killed...
+JeremyCuddles I agree. It was inappropriate because O'Reilly was trying to educate them and some douchebag was like "lel maybe colbert will like me if i clap lel xD"
+3 nazis walk into a B.A.R. Nah man. It takes balls to commit to a joke like that in that tense of a situation and I applaud that brave person. It is a comedy show after all, and it didn't take away from the great discussion they had.
+You Got To Feel The Bern "high capacity" and "powerful" are quite subjective terms. However, the weapons used in Orlando both contained standard capacity (i.e. manufacturer spec) magazines. you'll have to go back 100 years to find guns without expandable capacity.
Regardless of your political views, you have to give these men their props! They are doing what many in this great country refuse to do..... they’re having a conversation
I like it when Bill's on the program. I don't watch him at all otherwise, but it always seems to lead to sensible discussion that shares multiple perspectives on relevant issues..
Overly simplistic. Change to federal with mandatories... Great except all mass shooters are going to either kill themselves, go away for life, or be executed anyway. Bill mentioned it though, Australia has made progress with gun control and is worth taking a look at.
Warsilver That's the only part I disagree with o'liely. Certains things we can do like give a psychological test, ban automatic weapons and denied you the right to purchase a weapon if you're on the terrorists list like this scumbag(orlando shooter). We need to get money out of politricks as well. Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands. Though he probably doesn't care since he's getting donations from the NRA.
***** Point taken, but mass shootings can be prevented with better gun laws and mental healthcare. According to figures from the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs, mass shootings make up approximately 5% of all gun murders each year in the United States.
People with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. I'm totally behind better mental healthcare for the sake of simple compassion, and it would also make a huge difference for society in general, but it wouldn't make a difference for things like this.
O'reilly is much more reasonable on liberal media outlets, since he knows that's the only way he can convince us. The thing is, he's much more subtle with his misleading facts, like talking about the hundreds of millions of guns in America, and trying to pin all the blame on jihadists.
You don't ban cars because of hit and run drivers, but you DO prohibit tanks because there's absolutely no reason for a civilian to own one. You don't need an AR-15 for self-defense. You won't be a hero in a shooting situation by spraying the crowd in the direction of the attacker.
No, we don't ban vehicles because of hit and run drivers. We greatly increase the cost of vehicles and proceed to make sure you can only buy certain varieties of vehicles, such as cars and trucks, because other varieties like tanks would be too deadly for civilian use. We require you get a license to operate a vehicle, which takes nearly forever and has varying levels of exams required. We also sometimes increase the amount of effort it takes to get a vehicle because it makes the roads safer.
+Twu Lekku Precisely. We also track sales and ownership, require safety features, require someone to pass a test proving they know the rules and can be responsible with it. How ridiculous is it in fact that being caught with a gun you don't have the paperwork to own carries less consequences than being caught with a stolen car, or pirating a movie?
AR15s are easy for anyone to use, you don't have to fumble to reload, have low recoil and the rounds break up in walls more readily than buckshot and pistol bullets. They are far far superior for defense.
I love Stephen Colbert, he actually shut his audience up to give bill a chance to speak... being able to have a civil conversation or debate is really important, I wish more people were like this
Tell that to Fox News, Shapiro, Coulter, etc. Stephen Colbert is a democrat and yet he was the way he was. I can't wait to see the same from the conservative side.
@@daltonyates758 I am right though. Hannity and Carlson do not even allow his guests from the other side to speak. It is not one sidedness. I really do want to see it from the conservative sides. Then only we can have some civility. It takes both to have a civil discussion. No interruptions whatsoever.
As shown from your replies ... not all Democrats have this decency. I would actually sadly have to say Democrats are undoubtedly bigger hypocrites. James Hatfield said it the best " everyone from California says you need to accept people that are different, as long as you are different in the same way we are "
If Stephen or pretty much anybody else wasn't there, O'reilly would still be blaming it on Jihadists. Its pretty much anyone with a gun can kill another person at any time. I'm glad Stephen corrected him.
The second amendment exists so that citizens are able to protect themselves in the event of government corruption. Our founding fathers laid the foundation for a second revolutionary war if it came down to it.
kilborn666 Wait? ...Sooo. There's no Government corruption going on right now? Yeah there probably isn't because we haven't been shooting at them lately. Also tootallification please tell me something everybody doesn't know... Except one thing I kind of mentioned it a few sentences ago but I'll say it again. You think that we are not slaves? Many people living off of minimum wage, Vets not getting any aid for their service, people being killed and nobody in power taking any action. No wait? I think they are praying for all those people. Yeah because that seems more appropriate than to at least move their damn fingers!!
That segment was mostly about drug possession. O'Reilly may very well disagree with mandatory minimums for possession of pot (I really have no idea), but he was talking here about gun violence.
+Hadas A he was talking about the mandatory sentences for drugs in which he tried to relate to guns which is complete bullshit, O'Reilly spews constant lies and propaganda and anyone who has him on their show and let's him spew his rubbish unabated automatically loses any credibility they've earned.
Mandatory minimums tend to be a terrible idea because it doesn't give the judge lee-way. Plus, they don't deter crime. A criminal robbing a store with gun isn't thinking about facing a judge and possibly getting 10 years. Also, Bill's point about drug offenses becoming mandatory minimum sentencing and crime decreasing hasn't been proven. Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes but mandatory minimums do stop repeat offenses from happening in short succession. Look at the Standford rapist. 6 months. That is short enough that he can easily rape again, without having learned much of a lesson.
Because they are so different regarding their political ideals. Colbert is a hippie in a suit with a sense of humor and Bill is pretty much as straight forward Republican as you can get. Is this your first time watching either of them? lol
Mandatory minimums can get extremely bad. Locking someone away for 10 years being caught with a bit of weed is ridiculous. AND the US ALONE makes up 25% of ALL prisoners in the FUCKING WORLD. EDIT: I know this isn't about weed but this is why many people are against mandatory minimums. The amount of prisoners the US has is INSANE also.
Yes they have to potential to get extremely bad but in their essence they ensure that a criminal can not coerce a jury into light sentences by pernicious means
A violent crime with a gun is not the same as smoking marijuana. We can reduce our prison population by not jailing kids for small misdemeanors, but something like an armed robbery should never be excused.
Not, really, he's cherry picking... in fact, the number of gun deaths are over 20 times higher in the US compared to Australia. Comparing them in relative terms does not do the truth justice in this instance. Compare the US to any other Western country, and you'll find that a US citizen is between five and thirty times more likely to be killed in gun violence than any other country's citizens.
I'm not a conservative, but I respect Bill's views and opinions in this video. His ability to take the crowd that's mainly leftists and persuade them to agree with his opinions is really remarkable! Very similar to what Pete Buttigieg did in 2020 when he went on Fox News with Chris Wallace and persuaded a conservative crowd to applaud his views on abortion, electoral college, Fox News audience, & women's rights. We need more people who can come from one side of the political spectrum and can relate to people from the other side and really help fix problems in this country.
SuperDeeDuper shout out for the shameless Secretary Pete plug,! Just keep in mind when it comes to someone of the ilk of Secretary (pst.Of Sexiness 😉 )Pete, we can speak out of turn and sell him short which is how you solicited youreelf a lil sparky When Sweet Pete isn’t reaching around aisles, spectrums and stalls to come to satisfactory consensus he’s eye to eye, toe toe to toe hammering out solutions with the most hardened republican's. Difference is Sweet Peter Buttijug has experience coming from both sides. He doesn’t roll up his sleeves fold his arms and breathe a lot of hot air. He reaches out to both sides of the aisle, double fisting D, while busting the balls of another guy on the floor while eating a 12” sausage until every one comes in, out, and together over Pete.
Colbert handles debates very well. He should do that more often. Also, every kind of weapon should be reserved to the military, the police, and Batman.
I remember watching Bill for a long time when he would interact with John Stewart and Steven before. It's fascinating how much he has changed, in comparison to today's interview he's so civil, he listens and lets people finish their sentences and agrees when a fair point is made. As does Steven, this brings me so much hope that in all this turmoil and all this hate, that America is ready for change. Not from the left or the right, but from the people willing to come to the middle and hear one another out as fellow Americans.
You can have a side and still be willing to listen, converse, change your mind and cooperate with people from the other side. Holding “moderate” opinions isn’t a prerequisite for being open-minded.
Bill does a lot better when he's not on Fox News. There's still a lot I don't agree with him on, but when he steps "out of character" he's surprisingly reasonable.
most people who rob stores or people are generally not preparing to die, bill said it was impossible to stop the terrorist aspect, his adding penalties was for domestic armed crimes
I thought Bill's proposal was the most reasonable thing I've ever heard from the right on the issue of gun control. Still not enough, but at least there is talk about it.
It has been amazing to watch the growth of Bill O'Reilly over the years. He has gone from an ignorant conservative hack to a moderate voice as he has educated himself. I don't always agree with him still but kudos to him.
I feel strange writing this out, but I actually agree with you here. Maybe it's the old conservative crazy and the new conservative crazy being juxtaposed.
O'Reilly is exactly right. Colbert and Hill, for example, offer placebos. O'Reilly offers realistic solutions addressing circumstances as they actually exist. Colbert and Hill the rest are politicians appealing to a base, saying the "right" things but providing real, concrete solutions.
Scott Starbuck Huh? Comedians don't take political positions in your world? Guy gets to say anything he wants without being questioned or taken to task? Is Bill Maher a comedian? SNL ensemble? Jon Stewart?
+TheGuyWith 9000 views and no videos Stephen asks him a Q, then interrupts and diverts the conversation to what his agenda was. Stephen is rebuffed about guns and makes no good points, so he tries to take the conversation back to what bill had originally started answering with (Islamic terrorism).
+Logan McAvoy I just really dislike it when anyone asks a Q then proceeds to interrupt and not listen to the answer. It is disrespectful (even if it is crazy Bill) and indicative of an agenda. Unbecoming of someone as intelligent as Stephen, and sadly very disingenuous.
If you think this bullshit is the truth then you are you are the fool. First of all, he was using a manipulative fact, just because the Gun violence has generally been lower doesn't make it better. We want no death at all. Australia has reported NO mass shooting after they confiscated most of their firearms. And secondly, he still said the same gun used in this shooting should still be made available to the public. Which is just making no sense.
Lol When he said, "Your gang is applauding things they shouldn't be." and then someone ironically applauded I lost it. Props to Stephen for being such a good interviewer.
We need more of this on TV. It reminds me of old journalism when they were serious, didn't pander, and you got to hear a complete thought. I gotta say, Bill makes a better guest than he does a host.
I think the vast majority of gun owners don't want to be held to ANY standard in order to continue to own and buy guns. I, on the other hand, feel that something is a true privilege if I have to prove I deserve it.
Docktor Jim self defense is not a privilege, it is a birthright. In the modern era firearms are the most adequate form of self defense. Constitution = protected birth rights not mandated privileges.
Aidan Millward youre absolutely delusional if you truly think the second amendment doesnt include the preservation of self, loved ones and protection of personal property. Thats the entire realm of a human being.. we would have no reason to have a constitution otherwise.
Paul DeVito III it doesn't say anything about personal protection in the 2nd amendment, it was written regarding the need to overthrow a dictator or another type of unjust government, hence the "well regulated militia being necessary for the preservation of a free state" part... you could argue that that would be self defense, but it's not against another person per se and not really what you're talking about I don't think... self defense is a seperate issue and is governed by seperate laws... That being said it's most definitely a "God given" right, but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with that. The thing is like 2 sentences, there really isn't even any room for interpretation when it says specifically why it's given... amendments can also be amended lol...reworded, added and taken away, reinterpreted etc... I don't see many people up in arms (pun not intended) that you can't own a rocket launcher even though it says "shall not be infringed" and banning certain types in infringing on that right, technically... just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it's set in stone, they were meant to be updated as time went on... sadly though, thanks to lobbyists it has never and probably will never happen in the US... to the extent it needs to be atleast.. I'd also like to say that if they took away all the guns, that isn't the same as taking away your right to defend yourself... those two are slightly related as you pointed out but they aren't the same...
Though Jimmy could have made his point without rudely & ironically using homophobic language, I agree with the apples to apples analogy. The federal prohibition on weed is *wrong* (IMO) because you criminalize behaviour & you can't stop it to any meaningful degree (you might actually put people more risk by doing do). But new ideas about and tighter laws on gun are necessary to save lives.
This entire video is a response to the Orlando shooting. Bill O'Reilly's proposed solution wouldn't address the issue of mass shootings because the shooters almost always take their own lives. The mandatory sentences would, in effect, be ineffectual.
Buck Starwell Don't say faggot shit and you don't get called a faggot. I really don't care about anyone's take on words. If they offend you that really sucks for you. Also rthmjohn you can never stop all these lunatics from pulling off mass murders. If they want to do it they will do it. If they kill themselves after the fact then I look at that as better than supporting them while they rot in prison. It would however deter/detain a lot of people that commit criminal offenses with a firearm. Those people are up to no good anyways.
Because the tool specifically exists to make killing easy and efficient. The only people that should have access to such things are organized military and law enforcement. The Orlando killer could not have injured/killed so many so easily if he didn't have access to such a tool.
They were both good and respectful even though one is so conservative and the other is so liberal. It's awesome to see people with differing opinions actually stay FOCUSSED ON THE ISSUE rather than name-calling. I personally agree with Bill more, but both of them brought up compelling arguments
Today. Neither Bill O'Reilly nor any other conservative would suggest that congress regulate what types of guns can be sold yet they applauded this idea just 6 years ago.
i m disappointed by colbert giving the person who bashed the LGBT for DECADES a platform for his obfuscation of reality. Bill O Reilly the Rebublican Goebbels gave people like Mateen the ideological justification in advance.
+prallund feucht At least Bill knows that liberals have a more convincing argument than his fellow conservatives. He claimed that all social conservatives do is rehash scripture to defend denial of equal rights for gay people. Yes, Bill O'Reilly said that, and he's actually not that bad when he's not on his show unlike his fellow hosts Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity and ex-host Mike Huckabee who actually believe what they're spewing out.
So he just tries to obfuscate? come on, that even increases the bigotry, especially considering your claim that he is conscious about the objective reality but refuses to change his narrative for personal gains. Actually that puts his bar below Hannity and Kelly which you claim are unconscious of their paradoxic reality
+prallund feucht Personally, I would have banned anyone associated with Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the presidential election, but it's not my show. Stephen has a job: to interview guests no matter how disliked they sometimes are by the audience. Bill has a job: to regurgitate Republican rhetoric and shout over anyone who opposes. Bigotry exists everywhere, but I don't see Stephen or Bill budging anywhere towards tolerance and acceptance anytime soon without affecting their jobs or careers.
Basically USA was founded by rebelling against their government (great britain) its part of their identity to have weapons incase that ever happens again
Profanityiscool: "From my understanding, Germany doesn't even really have gun laws. Yet they're doing pretty ok with their gun crimes." German gun laws are among the strictest in Europe. Like every other country in the world with strict gun control, the number of shootings they experience is minuscule compared to the number in the US. Gun laws demonstrably DO reduce gun violence.
The country was founded by slave owners who said all men are created equal, after booting the native American Indian out of here??? Insane and Irrational have been around for close to 3 centuries
In contrast, how many people have been saved with guns? During the same time, how many innocent lives have been taken by auto accidents? No one ever quotes statistics in an equal and fair manner.
Statistics consistently show that in households where guns are held the chance of gun violence/death is much higher. And you're right, far too many innocent people have died from auto accidents. So what did people do? They put seatbelts and airbags in cars. Strict drunk driving laws were enacted. The result? Countless lives were saved. People still die from car accidents, but because concerned people took action with common sense measures the roads are safer places.
Auto accidents have dramatically deceased since laws and safety regulations have been put in place. You're right, people don't present facts properly...
My question was not answered. How many lives have been saved with guns? How many lives have been taken with tools other than a gun? How many auto deaths in 2015?
RE: "Statistics consistently show that in households where guns are held the chance of gun violence/death is much higher." Statistics show, In households where guns are held, the chance of escaping criminal assault is much higher. Any law or regulation that impedes my right to defend myself and my family from the violent actions of criminals is accessory to the crime. Those who set up 'gun free zones' are just as responsible for the mass shootings in these areas as are the shooters.
"No one ever quotes statistics in an equal and fair manner." Because its a false equivalency. Cars are designed to get from point A to point B. Guns are designed to kill people. One statistic has no bearing whatsoever on the other.
No, his plan is to stop those who are committing mass shootings. That involves putting people in jail, but it's better than restricting law abiding citizens their rights to a very adequate means of self defense.
Tha's not true, most European countries are experiencing an increase in crime rates, and why are we even discussing the prison system, this is a videos about gun contro/assault weapons banning and Bill made absolutely no points about the prison system.
77 percent of criminals in the US are arrested again within 5 years of being released. Bill was arguing for a higher punishment to add deterrent and reduce the chances of two crimes being committed by a person instead of one. I don't know how many of the gun-related criminals are repeat offenders but I assume it's around 77% or even higher!
I don't agree with O'Reilly half the time, but he's a very smart guy. Sometimes he has some extreme views (I think a lot of it is an act). He's 100% right here, and everytime the audience erupts when Colbert says something anti-gun, but they're silent with O'Reilly calls this an act of war, terrorism, mentions muslim jihadists makes me sick.
I disagree with his "make the punishments worse" fix though. The more severe the act the less deterrence works. No one is doing risk analysis regarding 20 v 50 years in prison for example. Yes a $100 v $500 traffic ticket will make you think twice but beyond a point the only mental coping is that you can't be caught or it doesn't matter if you are.
I don't think deterrents were what he was going for. Think about it, the killers in the Orlando shooting, Boston bombing, etc. would have done anything to kill. Bill is talking about making all gun crime federal because it means there is a higher chance these small-time local criminals (still murders which makes them bad obviously) in federal jail before they go off killing multiple people. Get them for when they rob a store, are caught with an illegal gun, things of that nature to prevent future crimes. That is policy I could get behind, but it would never happen because the media doesn't compromise so Congress won't.
Probably doesn't help that this guy's network has also coined the term 'war on christmas'. Not to mention his boss Ailes was one of the original creators of the 'war on drugs'. Kinda makes the word useless
well yes, he is a smart guy and a lot of his extreme views are an act, that makes him a pretty bad person. He knows better but fear and hate mongers to further his own success... Inviting him and giving him credibility is horrible imo.
The 2nd Amendment was made in 1791, you could only shoot 3 bullets per a min with the best guns back then. Our guns have changed which means our laws need to as well.
Actually untrue. Many firearms of the day had larger capacities that you describe, such as he pepperbox pistol, or the puckle gun or the belton flintlock, all of which were around during the writing of the constitution. These firearms where not only known about by the founding fathers of the united states, but also have been said to fall under the second amendment. James Madison was once asked by some sailors who sent a letter to him, if the cannons they had on they're ship to protect themselves from pirates were legal. Madison's response was that they fall under the second amendment, and they had the right to have the canons on their ship for protection. this was no a military ship, it was a private merchant ship. So yes, they knew about firearms that could fire large amounts of ammunition quickly, and yes they do fall under the second amendment.
***** The point was there were many firearms of the day that the founding fathers new about that could fire large amounts of ammo in a quick fashion, and that according Madison, the second amendment even covered cannons. So to say that because technologies have changed and they didn't know about the advances we have is counter intuitive.
+No Google I don't want to use my real name so by that logic, then if the second amendment doesn't apply to semi automatic rifles today, then cellphones, tv and Internet don't apply to the first amendment today. See how stupid you all sound?
Having watched his debates with Jon Stewart and now Stephen Colbert, I have a lot of respect for Bill O'Reilly for being willing to have this discussion with someone that has the opposite view as him
I have my doubts too - about gun violence. Every time I check my guns I notice they never move an inch, and very quiet. But we have criminal violence, did you notice? We need Criminal Control.
When he says "Listen to what he has to say please" I was so proud of Colbert. I disagree with O'Reilly, I think we need better regulation on guns, but I totally agree that jihadism is a massive part of the problem that we're not allowed to talk about and differing opinions deserve to be respected.
If memory serves me, I'm pretty sure the majority of mass shootings in the last 10 years has been by American born citizens that do not believe/follow Islam.
You're right. It's SO easy to kill 50 people without an assault weapon or high capacity magazines. /s Please get in touch with reality. This man bought this gun legally just like others who have committed similar atrocities.
Levi Carlton There's no denying that a bunch of 30 round magazines makes it significantly easier for the shooter than a bunch of 15 round magazines. That said, it takes me less than 1 second to swap magazines (without modifications). Obviously you can carry twice as much ammo, but it really wouldn't stop or reduce the number of shootings/casualties. On a side note, what the government considers to be Assult Rifles are not the only firearms that can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. As for your "get in touch with reality" bit, I feel there needs to be better checks and regulations when buying a gun of any sort. Because a buddy of mine got into some legal trouble, he can't purchase a firearm in his state, but can in the sate he lives in now. That needs to be fixed. Gun shows and traders selling to anyone with cash is also wrong. I understand that there is a problem, but banning high cap mags and Assult Rifles is not the asnswer.
Chris Hollier You make some really good points. You're right looking at the per capita statistics is something I didn't take into consideration. What intrigues me is your last question. That would be a very interesting discussion. Is there a magic number like how 2 people beating someone is assault while 3 people beating someone is Mob Action. I'm going to have to look into that. Thanks for the food for thought.
if memory serves me mass shootings in the last 10 years here in australia.......is none.......we dont have assault rifles and we have very tough gun laws....just maybe just maybe that could be why
i gained even more respect for him, which I didn't think was possible. Stephen was trying to have a respectful and productive conversation with his guest, not to fight him. respectful and productive conversation is what we need more of right now, not more screaming pundits.
Anne Stoessel how was that productive? Stephen made Bill say the ar15 may be so dangerous that it should maybe be banned. well thats just common sense- is that really an accomplishment?
Bill was actually right about the drop in gun violence, "Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011."
I sort of find it interesting how Colbert shows more respect for Bill O' Reilly than he does for Bill Maher, even though he and O' Reilly disagree on more fronts. Maybe Colbert thinks it's important to listen to the other side of the argument and find some agreement between lines and finds it hard to talk to Bill Maher because he's stubborn with his views. I agree with Bill Maher on many things, but he definitely gets emotional when someone with a completely different view on things walks onto his show. That just makes conservative minded people angry and makes the bipartisan lines a whole lot thicker. Colbert knows how to get a good interview. It allows both sides to listen without getting too emotional. I dunno, just thinking out loud
Remember when we used to think O'Reilly was the craziest person in the right? Now he sounds like the voice of reason in the face of the new right wing. I don't know which of us (me or O'Reilly) has shifted more over the years, but today he sounds at least partly reasonable here.
Tyranusfan I was referring to how by the end of the interview he claims you can't get rid of mass murder, which is being weaselly because he's framing the argument as an absolute. No one is so naive as to think that such things can be stamped out entirely. The issue is how to diminish them which Colbert keeps trying to drag him back to.
I'm glad Colbert brings O'Reilly on like this. It gives him a chance to express important views instead of just yelling angrily. People don't listen to yelling, but for some reason, that concept is difficult to grasp.
+Sumair Bawa john oliver is kinda getting close to following the same path as that idiot piers morgan i prefer listening to stephen colbert and bill maher over john oliver
The simple fact is: if, as a nation, we want to keep our freedom to have guns then we are going to have to accept that these types of mass shootings are going to happen. Its a question of freedom vs. safety. Which are you willing to give up.
I'm willing to give up false dichotomies like that one. Surely you can think of a middle ground between "no guns for anyone" and "any guns for anyone"?
Jason Wood It is not a dichotomy. Its a spectrum. From no gun regulation to completely banning. The problem is it would have to be federal lest a state undermine the law of its neighbor. The more restrictions on guns the less likely that you will have mass shootings (see Australia). Therefore you have to choose: do you want more safety or more freedom (hence my original comment).
Richard Taylor That's just jingoism. Is it a curtailment of freedom that I'm not allowed to have C4 in the car? Is it a curtailment of my freedom that I can't own a working rocket launcher? Or put a missile defense system in my backyard? Well, technically it is. But only a ridiculous person would frame it in that way. The "freedom" to own and carry around an AR-15 is a meaningless freedom. It's not an important right in any way. A lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking it is, but it's not. So giving up the right to own assault weapons is a "tradeoff" of a meaningless "freedom" in exchange for actual safety. If someone can't do that math, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Discussions like this used to be so great, just open and honest discourse happening from both sides. Colbert would never in a million years invite someone like Tucker Carlson on today. Shows you how things have changed by the hands of the mainstream media.
O'reily is real. He doesn't care what's sensational, he doesn't care what people want him to say and he doesn't let others control him. I disagree with him a lot of the time, but mostly, he's a straight shooter who cares about his country. Can't fault him for that
I don't know. He did propose that congress should consider banning certain weapons at a federal level and imposing stiff prison sentences on perpetrators as preemptive and reactive measures ... which is the kind of discussion and compromise a lot of people would like to see. Kind of hard to look like a smug prick when you're too busy looking like a clueless one.
Of course the audience liked the gun control admission by Bill, but I'm sure once the marching orders come out from the progressive media these stiffer prison sentences for gun violations will be seen as "racist".
I'm strongly liberal in most ways, but I was really impressed by O'Reilly here. My ""side"" really has their heads up their asses on this issue. It's nice that they finally got us the right to marry, I guess. You know what's infinitely more important than marriage or bathrooms? Getting gunned down by religious zealots. But they're letting inclusiveness blind them. Many (not most, which is chilling) Muslims don't think I'm living in sin. The Left is spitting in their faces. It's bizarre.
Sometimes what Colbert does in his political ventures on this show makes me cringe, but he did a great job in carrying on Jon’s legacy here. He was so respectful of and yet so firmly tough on Bill O’Reily
Hats off for two guys who live on opposite ends of the spectrum having a rationale discussion and finding common ground but still disagree with each other at the same time. We SO need more of this!
Being an experienced debater, O'Reilly dissected every point of information of Colbert. And shocked the crowd. To any debater on this comment section, this how you debate. Calm and stern.
I'm surprised that I started bawling as soon as Reilly mentioned that lone to give blood. Even though it's been months, this still gets to me like an open wound 😢
I've been beating this drum for years: you want my gun? OK, but anyone caught with a gun gets life in prison, no "technical errors," no bullshit around it, you get caught with a gun, you go to jail for the rest of your life. Because if *I* can't have a gun to defend my home, *you* can't have one either.
PIlotrcm But when people in the media say "X thousands of people die from guns per year," in these discussions about mass shootings they neglect to mention that most of those deaths from guns are from pistols. They think if there's a ban on automatic weapons then these thousands of deaths will go away, but it's not true.
Well the rifles used in mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun deaths so... (also just make sure everyone knows this full-auto weapons are illegal, the gun used in orlando was semi-auto like the majority of pistols and other firearms) You're actually 5x more likely to be stabbed to death than you are to be shot by an Ar-15. These are FBI statistics not my opinion.
+PronounceGaming Exactly... The left has so little knowledge of guns. An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon and is more or less a .22 in a fancy dress. And like you said... An AR-15 has absolutely nothing to do with this instance. I'm glad Bill went on and educated this audience a little.
Extremely intelligent discussion; a prime example of how audience anonymity has the possibility to make a farce of a debate, but Colbert was on the button at 3:41 . Props to you sir. From a Brit.
It's important to remember why our founding fathers gave us a 2nd amendment. Thomas Jefferson points to two of the greatest reasons in the quotes below. First, it's not only a right, but a duty (like voting) for citizens to be armed because we must always be prepared to undertake an insurgency against the government if it ever becomes oppressive. Second, we should be armed because we are to be vigilant of the fact there are evil people in the world who refuse to restrain their immorality - we must be armed and on guard against such folk at all times. "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 Bonus quotes: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Wow actual research with references. Good on ya' if more did that, this internet thing may prove useful after all. respect, but disagree 2cnd refers to militia, with training and discipline
What makes you think these undereducated (fact, not condescension) people who lived in the late 18th century know better than we do today? Because they said something that doesn´t mean it´s true. OBVIOUSLY arming the people isn´t working.
Jefferson spent 7 years studying at college and became a lawyer. The man sold 6,000 of his personal books to the Library of Congress after the British burned it down - he loved reading. How much education do you have? The majority of our founding fathers were extremely educated men, more importantly, though - they were extremely intelligent men with a swath of wisdom living under the British Empire.
I´m not saying they didn´t spend years in college. As I said, I´m not trying to be condescending. But it´s a fact that we knew very little in the 18th century compared to what we know today. A 12 year old could blow their minds with what he knows about the world. So why base a modern constitution on something said 230 years ago?
I believe we should be armed, but to think that we should be armed to protect ourselves against the United States military in the 21st century is asinine. Our little rifles will do nothing to Abrams tanks, and drones. This part of the amendment is completely lost in time, but I understand why it was written in the era in which it was. A single shot musket was the height of technology.
5:40 The left is mostly upset about mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses, though yes, people rarely bring in that violent offenses also have them.
What Colbert did at 3:41 was incredibly respectful. Granted they may not agree, but they respect each other and that's what a true respectful debate is about.
We can't ban all cars because of crashes.
If you can't admit the problem is all cars we can't solve the problem.
HAHAHAHAHAHA HEEEEHAWWW HOOO *wipes tear* HEEEEEHAAAWW
5 minutes later
heh... heh...
And that's all the time we have.
How was it disrespectful of him to ask his audience to listen to what his guest has to say? Quite the opposite.
he said it was respectful!
+Imran Khanbhai Thank you sir.
Blue Haha, I must have misread. That makes sense then.
Strange that you can put someone on a no fly list without any evidence, but can't restrict them from buying semi-automatic weapons.
Thanks second amendment constitutional rights.
Yeah this terrorist was part of one of them "well regulated militias".
there was a bill on this that was shot down by 1 democrat and 53 republicans in the senate in december
_"Strange that you can put someone on a no fly list without any evidence, but can't restrict -them- criminals from buying semi-automatic weapons."_There. I fixed it for you.
oli godendrocyte What was the name and number of the bill? I might like to contact those Republicans
I am amazed at both Stephen and Bill's behavior. This is the kind of dialogue we need in this country. Opposing views talking calmly and rationally about serious topics. Some of what O Reilly said I agreed with as did the audience when they clapped. Stephen Colbert is amazing. It is true he is a comedian but he is also an intellectual we could use his voice in government.
Jon Stewart did something similar with O'Reilly back in the olden days. It's certainly nice to see someone given the opportunity to speak their mind, voice their opinions, have their turn to talk each time rather than being talked down or over, or otherwise silenced. Even if the other person has nothing at all worthwhile to say, letting them show that benefits us just as much as letting them show they have some decent ideas. There is no downside to letting them speak freely. Well, unless they know the self-destruct code for the building...
What is Colbert Amazing At ? Seriusly. Send me a video when he is Amazing
@@stevezisk3415 I think he is a brilliant comedian and sophisticated satirist
@@stevezisk3415 exactly. Colbert isn't even funny much less brilliant?
@@georgeadcock2347he’s both George
Really hate when American audiences won't shut up and let people talk.
Very much like the moment that Colbert told them to be quiet.
Do audiences of shows not from America not make noise? Or does nobody know because nobody watches those shows?
It certainly isn't just an American problem, but I hate when any kind of debating atmosphere in a show has a vocal audience. The audience is clearly there to see the host, so every debate is going to have a ridiculous "home tem advantage", making these kinds of shows the absolute worst shows to learn something new or hear a different perspective. Bill Maher has become the master of dodging a question by saying some kind of mic-drop one-liner and then riding the audience's cheers away from the question.
Maybe because those liners speak for themselves.
I was in the audience for that show
They're frivolous. They ohhh and ahhhh at every little thing
As an Australian, one of the things that I love about my country is the fact that many years before I was born, we banded together and threw aside political difference to look at a single tragedy and say "that can never happen again". We adopted common sense laws and got rid of the literal killing machines from our country to an extraordinary extent. And it never happened again. You can bring up all of the statistics that you want about how the gun murder rate has gone down 75% or whatever, but I honestly don't care. It never fucking happened again. That's what matters. So Mr. O'Riely, or really anybody who's pro-gun, next time you feel like championing us in this debate and congratulating our effective efforts, don't in the next breath devalue it by saying "oh but gun violence is going down here regardless". It isn't. Statistics mean nothing when fifty people die and the response is apathy. The problem is obvious, and the solution isn't to condescendingly pat us on the back.
Obviously by banning guns you do decrease the overall homicides from guns alone; however there is a bigger picture for this look the overall homicide rates for the UK and Australia which both banned guns around the same time. Even after 20 years of both laws passing there have been very little changes in homicide in both countries. Yes I know there has technically been a decrease in both countries, yet UK's didn't start to decrease until around 2010 and Australia's was already decreasing at a steady rate before the actual ban and even still is significantly different than what it was before the ban.
Amen!
@ That Dude Kurt: Well that's because we have Detroit. If you take Detroit out of the picture it would be around 200.
That Dude Kurt
The answer is the same amount. We just might have less gun homicides and more vehicle, knife, axe, etc homicides. Criminals will always have automatic & semi automatic high powered rifles. You know how many criminals ride around Detroit with AK's in their cars? A lottt. Gun Control is a joke. Take it from someone who has worked with LE and has worked in the city for a year and a half. These guys have fully automatic weapons that are illegal. Criminals do not care about the law and it is difficult to determine a crazy from a non crazy.
And even if we had stricter gun control crazy people like this would still get guns. The guy was a security guard and would have just had to explain he needed the weapons for his job. He had no criminal record and would have been able to carry out the shooting regardless.
Well said!
This is the most level headed I"ve seen O'Reilly. Good to see.
Daniel Robles Right now i'm seeing more corruption on a state level.
Sure, because domestic abusers and violent radicals deserve to be able to buy semiautomatic rifles. That just makes all the sense, especially if this shooter, who just so happens to be a natural-born American citizen, is, in Bill O'Reilly's words, our "enemy" in this "Islamist jihadist war." Enemies in war deserve American arms, or else it just wouldn't be fair.
truth. i usually disagree with him 100% but he had a few points.
I rarely agree with O'Reilly but he's speaking from common sense rather than propaganda and emotions..
I'm curious where you reside?.. The US is a huge country and it could be argued passing federal laws would put large numbers of Americans safety in jeopardy.. There are many places in this country where guns are necessary... some they aren't.. Realize that this country is only 200 years old and many areas have been civilized far less then that and some still aren't.. There are places in this country where humans are still part of the food chain... I think there could be advancements but guns are necessary in the US.
I for one really enjoy when Stephen interviews Bill. it's nice to hear them discuss issues and to hear their viewpoints
nvm, I hate how the audience claps at everything Stephen says. so damn annoying
I really hate how they nearly boo'd Reilly out, it's not conducive to anything to shut out people's opinions. I did, however really respect that Colbert told them to hear him out.
+Potatohead827 well of course they do, they're Colbert fans who came to his show because they like what he says. It's not complicated.
+corsoluvs WE'LL DO IT LIVE
I like the fact that they debate and discuss with respect, and the claps and boo's don't bother me.
Bill seems to act more civil on someone else's show. He's actually tolerable when he's not spouting bullshit on Fox news.
Bill is the man
bills a legend
@@captainmigs1655 nah.
@@ellllllo77 nope.
@@robertpresley1503 legend
I love when these two talk with each other. I really do. They keep each other honest as possible, and that's rare.
It also highlights the absolute continental division of the two major parties, which itself highlights the need for a #berniecraticparty #alwaysbernie #bernieisbest #givegunsarest #treatthementallyill #banassualtweapons #supportuniversalbackgroundchecks #trustvote
you forgot hashtabg banmuslimimmigration
their both bought and paid to say what they say
Agreed. O'Reilly's appearances are my favorite part of the Colbert show. I don't like him, and I disagree with most of his viewpoints, but I have a lot of respect for him coming on the show, knowing full well that the crowd is 100% against him, and being willing to respectfully debate with Colbert (with the occasional sarcastic jab between them).
+Austin Zappas you know Bernie supports assault weapons right?
The crowd ruined it for me. I actually gained some respect for O'Reilly with this segment, he sounded knowledgeable despite the bias of the room
O'Reilly has a lot to answer for in the past, but here he seems genuinely interested in improving our situation with guns. I like his point that no amendment somehow gives you the right to wave a gun around in a 7-11, so screw _those_ people, let 'em have 10 years.
It's a nice change. Declaring war on ISIS is silly though. ISIS is a criminal organization, not a country. The only "advantage" is that the government could suspend fundamental constitutional liberties. The government could then arrest you for saying anything and hold you for as long as they want without due process.
+Guy Souriandt American propaganda 101: when you want the full support of Congress in dealing with shit, just say you're going to war with it.
BO is so full of BS! Mass shootings up gone up in the last 20 years. Mando minimums don't work and cost tax payer more money. It all comes down to money for the gun industry/ prisons and standing ground on a political talking point.
You're an idiot.
I love civil conversations between the left and right, it's nice when they can see each others points but still get along.
Yeah...but it's so insanely absurdly ridiculously rare.
Cultural libertarians get along just fine. New political alignments are appearing and the left and right are becoming arbitrary. The radical left is where the intolerance is and I admit this as a liberal in favour of gun control.
A conservative was talking about gun control. We can build on this. I think many can agree that an outright ban on guns isn't a solution, and I don't see anybody even suggesting this.
the crowd kinda ruins it with all the interruptions
An outright ban is idiotic as all it would do is allow for backroom dealers to sneak guns in which would then be impossible to track (ie war on drugs), but there has to be some levels of restrictions because a person on a terrorist watchlist shouldnt be able to walk in and buy a assault rifle
He wanted the audience to hear what he had to say, because they simply groan just because it's Bill O'Reilly. If Colbert hated O'Reilly as much as his audience did, he wouldn't even be on the show.
Taylor Craft ... Not true what so ever. He's had tons of guest he's clearly was not on a friendly terms with. Example: Trump.
He’s being his kind-hearted true self in a serious discussion, which contrasts with the egotistical confrontational hilarious character he portrayed for on the Daly Show (who sparred with O”Reilly with John Stewart, who was not entirely playing a role.Colbert can be snarky at times but it’s a decision and it doesn’t change people’s opinions. This is him being responsible and respectful. He won’t stand down if challenged, but he’s kind and calculated, which is rare and wonderful. Bill didn’t get all heated bc it wasn’t confrontational verbal judo with the king of debate, Stewart. . I suspect Stephen set the precedent for this tone and o’Reilly rose to the challenge knowing he wouldn’t be cornered. (Or Stephen put a half Valium in his green room water bottle.) whatever it was it was awesome, given the topic.
Thanks Colbert for providing an example on how two differing ideologies can come together on a middle ground idea. They disagree on things, but at least they are listening and trying to find common thoughts.
Well said. I agree
You are deluding yourselves. This conversation has accomplished nothing.
Very well put. The problem with idealogues, both on the left and the right, is that they show no consistency in logic and that they are unwilling to listen or work with the opposing side. Credit both Reagan and Clinton for being incredibly pragmatic and focused on accomplishing mutually held goals rather than pushing their own ideological agenda. I fault both W. Bush and Obama tremendously for being both too ideological to benefit their country.
We have to try to understand that someone who disagrees with our viewpoints is not immoral, ignorant, or somehow malicious in intent, but instead are merely a difference of opinion and nothing more. Those who would focus on their OWN personal political agendas rather than the common good of America lead the country down a divisive state. Those who fight to represent their supporters, but fail to realize that their idea of a utopia is a havoc for at least 50 percent of the population. Instead of focusing on their ideologies, they should focus on finding common ground and moving forward for the country. This is best demonstrated in "politicians" such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. So radical in their ideology that they basically say "Only I know what's right for the people and FUCK the rest." That type of narcissism is dangerous in leadership.
Henry David Thoreau once wrote, "He who is more right than his neighbor constitutes a majority of one." Meaning only the individual knows what's truly best for the individual. All governance is a form of oppression. Let our Congress, president and courts merely focus on promoting economic growth, balance our nation's budget, and to better educate and prepare our youth. The latter being most important, only in the next generation can our problems be solved. Change takes time.
+Jake DeVito you said more truth in one sentence than they did in this entire clip
+Jake DeVito Where did he say this "accomplished" anything? It's a fucking chat show.. ofcourse it didn't.
Bill O' Reilly isn't totally bananas in this video
It's weird to watch.
I was thinking more of a big douch
I was gonna say, he seems surprisingly restrained. I actually liked some of the things he said.
in general he's like this, but liberal news sites only show the insane clips usually.
he might be level headed, but remains completely incorrect
* *, a good trick to stop liberal news sites from doing this, is to stop doing and saying insane things. "Why do the media only focus on my insane meltdowns?"
Isn't this the kind of smart, civil Left-Right debate that we're SOO missing these days?
tidak, Colbert was just trying to get a reasonable conversation without sensationalism out of this bloviating air bag of narcissism. Stephen regarded this as his job to bring an honest discussion to his audience to see how one would engage an indoctrinated member of the opposite political persuasion.
well its hard when your president is hushing everyone who disagreed with him
Chen Liu hushing is a nice way to put it lol
it would have been nice if the audience could follow it because they kept ruining it.
Uhhh. This interview was conducted during these days.
i want to give my opinion but the debate is just so heated at this point and the internet just makes me angry
I feel your pain
I'm curious as hell (no sarcasm) What is your opinion?
+gabdominates well im just a guy who wants a solution to people being killed all the time, we have more gun deaths than any other country (I think) and if people against gun control say that its not the guns its the people, well okay, but what can we do about that? i agree people are shitty, but if we cant change that, can we atleast work on a better system for making it more difficult for pyschos to acquire them? no one wants to ban all guns, but is the system we have right now perfect? cant we control guns a little bit better? is that really so unreasonable? and if it is, whats the alternative solution? im dying to hear it, please
rorysmakingamovie I wish we could find that solution, too. :l The Senate is pissing me off, but I'm not sure I would do any better.
+rorysmakingamovie yeah because prohibition has worked well in the past, you aren't addressing the problem.
Never thought I'd say this, but I agreed with Bill on so many points he made.
yes
Bill is making a good point.
ditto
yeah. I'm agree. I'm very surprised
If one could only check the "stats" he presents... He's simply eloquent enough, and he makes one single good point, yes. But he convinces people even when he says crime is a crime, let's react to it with prison, not actually try to prevent it before people get killed...
I LOVE how someone in the audience started to applaud when Oreilly said "your crew's applauding things they shouldn't be applauded". 6:40
applauding*
Go to the right hand side, there are 3 little boxes. CLICK on the one that says EDIT.
Whoever did that is legitimately hilarious.
+JeremyCuddles I agree. It was inappropriate because O'Reilly was trying to educate them and some douchebag was like "lel maybe colbert will like me if i clap lel xD"
+3 nazis walk into a B.A.R.
Nah man. It takes balls to commit to a joke like that in that tense of a situation and I applaud that brave person. It is a comedy show after all, and it didn't take away from the great discussion they had.
I don't think many of the people who do these mass shootings care about how long they could go to jail...most do it intending to die in the end.
Finally somebody said it!
He wasn't talking about massacre in this context.
pretty cool that you've existed 3 blocks away from gun violence before. your opinion is more valid.
No, but the majority of criminals who commit violent gun crime do.
+You Got To Feel The Bern "high capacity" and "powerful" are quite subjective terms. However, the weapons used in Orlando both contained standard capacity (i.e. manufacturer spec) magazines. you'll have to go back 100 years to find guns without expandable capacity.
Regardless of your political views, you have to give these men their props! They are doing what many in this great country refuse to do..... they’re having a conversation
I like it when Bill's on the program. I don't watch him at all otherwise, but it always seems to lead to sensible discussion that shares multiple perspectives on relevant issues..
God Damn! I hate to agree with Bill O'leily but he's calm and on point.
Overly simplistic. Change to federal with mandatories... Great except all mass shooters are going to either kill themselves, go away for life, or be executed anyway. Bill mentioned it though, Australia has made progress with gun control and is worth taking a look at.
Warsilver That's the only part I disagree with o'liely. Certains things we can do like give a psychological test, ban automatic weapons and denied you the right to purchase a weapon if you're on the terrorists list like this scumbag(orlando shooter). We need to get money out of politricks as well. Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands. Though he probably doesn't care since he's getting donations from the NRA.
***** Point taken, but mass shootings can be prevented with better gun laws and mental healthcare. According to figures from the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs, mass shootings make up approximately 5% of all gun murders each year in the United States.
People with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. I'm totally behind better mental healthcare for the sake of simple compassion, and it would also make a huge difference for society in general, but it wouldn't make a difference for things like this.
O'reilly is much more reasonable on liberal media outlets, since he knows that's the only way he can convince us. The thing is, he's much more subtle with his misleading facts, like talking about the hundreds of millions of guns in America, and trying to pin all the blame on jihadists.
You don't ban cars because of hit and run drivers, but you DO prohibit tanks because there's absolutely no reason for a civilian to own one.
You don't need an AR-15 for self-defense. You won't be a hero in a shooting situation by spraying the crowd in the direction of the attacker.
No, we don't ban vehicles because of hit and run drivers.
We greatly increase the cost of vehicles and proceed to make sure you can only buy certain varieties of vehicles, such as cars and trucks, because other varieties like tanks would be too deadly for civilian use. We require you get a license to operate a vehicle, which takes nearly forever and has varying levels of exams required. We also sometimes increase the amount of effort it takes to get a vehicle because it makes the roads safer.
+Twu Lekku
Precisely.
We also track sales and ownership, require safety features, require someone to pass a test proving they know the rules and can be responsible with it.
How ridiculous is it in fact that being caught with a gun you don't have the paperwork to own carries less consequences than being caught with a stolen car, or pirating a movie?
AR15s are easy for anyone to use, you don't have to fumble to reload, have low recoil and the rounds break up in walls more readily than buckshot and pistol bullets. They are far far superior for defense.
He wasn't using an AR-15, he was using an MCX. I'm sure the people in that club didn't think they'd have to defend themselves either.
I use my car daily.... never needed a gun or know anyone who has... so silly comparison.
I love Stephen Colbert, he actually shut his audience up to give bill a chance to speak... being able to have a civil conversation or debate is really important, I wish more people were like this
You are right, Colbert did shush his audience. O Reilly is respectful to his guests as well.
Tell that to Fox News, Shapiro, Coulter, etc. Stephen Colbert is a democrat and yet he was the way he was. I can't wait to see the same from the conservative side.
@@divyangvaidya1999 lol... people like you are the problem. Please stop being one sided
@@daltonyates758 I am right though. Hannity and Carlson do not even allow his guests from the other side to speak. It is not one sidedness. I really do want to see it from the conservative sides. Then only we can have some civility. It takes both to have a civil discussion. No interruptions whatsoever.
As shown from your replies ... not all Democrats have this decency. I would actually sadly have to say Democrats are undoubtedly bigger hypocrites. James Hatfield said it the best " everyone from California says you need to accept people that are different, as long as you are different in the same way we are "
If Stephen or pretty much anybody else wasn't there, O'reilly would still be blaming it on Jihadists. Its pretty much anyone with a gun can kill another person at any time. I'm glad Stephen corrected him.
I am sorry all of you who are for the Second Amendment but the best thing to do is to STOP selling ANY guns to the anybody.
The second amendment exists so that citizens are able to protect themselves in the event of government corruption. Our founding fathers laid the foundation for a second revolutionary war if it came down to it.
kilborn666 Wait? ...Sooo. There's no Government corruption going on right now? Yeah there probably isn't because we haven't been shooting at them lately. Also tootallification please tell me something everybody doesn't know... Except one thing I kind of mentioned it a few sentences ago but I'll say it again. You think that we are not slaves? Many people living off of minimum wage, Vets not getting any aid for their service, people being killed and nobody in power taking any action. No wait? I think they are praying for all those people. Yeah because that seems more appropriate than to at least move their damn fingers!!
and how does giving up guns do for any of those problems?
+tootallification You wouldn't have any more of these mass shootings HAPPEN!! I mean what are they going to do use a knife?
Looks like O'Reilly didn't catch the John Oliver segment on mandatory minimums
That segment was mostly about drug possession. O'Reilly may very well disagree with mandatory minimums for possession of pot (I really have no idea), but he was talking here about gun violence.
+Hadas A he was talking about the mandatory sentences for drugs in which he tried to relate to guns which is complete bullshit, O'Reilly spews constant lies and propaganda and anyone who has him on their show and let's him spew his rubbish unabated automatically loses any credibility they've earned.
Mandatory minimums tend to be a terrible idea because it doesn't give the judge lee-way. Plus, they don't deter crime. A criminal robbing a store with gun isn't thinking about facing a judge and possibly getting 10 years. Also, Bill's point about drug offenses becoming mandatory minimum sentencing and crime decreasing hasn't been proven. Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes but mandatory minimums do stop repeat offenses from happening in short succession. Look at the Standford rapist. 6 months. That is short enough that he can easily rape again, without having learned much of a lesson.
He said mandatory minimums for certain crimes, not non-violent drug offenses.
what a bizarre convo, to be more in agreement with Bill this time rather than colbert. interesting dialogue
why is that odd?
Because they are so different regarding their political ideals. Colbert is a hippie in a suit with a sense of humor and Bill is pretty much as straight forward Republican as you can get. Is this your first time watching either of them? lol
John D No, but with the way things are going it surprises me that many people keep believing the liberal narrative.
+John D He's a Libertarian, not very Republican.
Same, I know right?
Mandatory minimums can get extremely bad. Locking someone away for 10 years being caught with a bit of weed is ridiculous. AND the US ALONE makes up 25% of ALL prisoners in the FUCKING WORLD.
EDIT: I know this isn't about weed but this is why many people are against mandatory minimums. The amount of prisoners the US has is INSANE also.
Although he isn't talking about weed but a more serious matter, I think your right
Yes they have to potential to get extremely bad but in their essence they ensure that a criminal can not coerce a jury into light sentences by pernicious means
A violent crime with a gun is not the same as smoking marijuana. We can reduce our prison population by not jailing kids for small misdemeanors, but something like an armed robbery should never be excused.
right, because marijuana laws are relevant.
mantadory minimums for guns*
Holy shit...O'Reilly is actually making some sense here
I don't know, they applauded for many of the things he said. I don't think they are that numb-minded.
Not, really, he's cherry picking... in fact, the number of gun deaths are over 20 times higher in the US compared to Australia. Comparing them in relative terms does not do the truth justice in this instance. Compare the US to any other Western country, and you'll find that a US citizen is between five and thirty times more likely to be killed in gun violence than any other country's citizens.
20 times higher in number or as a percentage of the population?
Liam Dillon As a percentage of the population. 1.4 per million in AU, 29.7 per million in the US.
***** What are you even talking about man...
I have listened to O'Really? before, many times. This is one of the few times I agree with most of what he said.
top kek
This is what he always says on his program.
Then you're just as much a pinhead as he is.
Along with a ton of other asinine stupid shit.
Lol, stop trolling.
I'm not a conservative, but I respect Bill's views and opinions in this video. His ability to take the crowd that's mainly leftists and persuade them to agree with his opinions is really remarkable!
Very similar to what Pete Buttigieg did in 2020 when he went on Fox News with Chris Wallace and persuaded a conservative crowd to applaud his views on abortion, electoral college, Fox News audience, & women's rights.
We need more people who can come from one side of the political spectrum and can relate to people from the other side and really help fix problems in this country.
SuperDeeDuper shout out for the shameless Secretary Pete plug,!
Just keep in mind when it comes to someone of the ilk of Secretary (pst.Of Sexiness 😉 )Pete, we can speak out of turn and sell him short which is how you solicited youreelf a lil sparky
When Sweet Pete isn’t reaching around aisles, spectrums and stalls to come to satisfactory consensus he’s eye to eye, toe toe to toe hammering out solutions with the most hardened republican's.
Difference is Sweet Peter Buttijug has experience coming from both sides. He doesn’t roll up his sleeves fold his arms and breathe a lot of hot air.
He reaches out to both sides of the aisle, double fisting D, while busting the balls of another guy on the floor while eating a 12” sausage until every one comes in, out, and together over Pete.
Just ask Lindsey Graham who wont stop riding Pete until he gives him a hard time at the same time as the others
Colbert handles debates very well. He should do that more often. Also, every kind of weapon should be reserved to the military, the police, and Batman.
no, just batman, he's the hero we deserve.
But not the one we need.
TlalocW right now.
*Cue dramatic music as camera pans up off Gordon, and we get a tight shot of a stoic-looking Batman looking down over Gotham from a tall building*
so we'll hunt him.
I remember watching Bill for a long time when he would interact with John Stewart and Steven before. It's fascinating how much he has changed, in comparison to today's interview he's so civil, he listens and lets people finish their sentences and agrees when a fair point is made. As does Steven, this brings me so much hope that in all this turmoil and all this hate, that America is ready for change. Not from the left or the right, but from the people willing to come to the middle and hear one another out as fellow Americans.
You can have a side and still be willing to listen, converse, change your mind and cooperate with people from the other side. Holding “moderate” opinions isn’t a prerequisite for being open-minded.
I can't stand Bill O'Reilly but he actually makes sense here
That's because you actually listened to what he was trying to say. Probably because Colbert told you to.
Well, yea, it was kinda hard for them to have a discussion with the crowd cheering/booing constantly
Adding penalties to a crime where the perpetrator plans to die at the scene of the crime makes sense?
Bill does a lot better when he's not on Fox News. There's still a lot I don't agree with him on, but when he steps "out of character" he's surprisingly reasonable.
most people who rob stores or people are generally not preparing to die, bill said it was impossible to stop the terrorist aspect, his adding penalties was for domestic armed crimes
3:41 And that right there is what makes Colbert such a force in late night. Could you ever imagine Fallon doing something like that?
I thought Bill's proposal was the most reasonable thing I've ever heard from the right on the issue of gun control. Still not enough, but at least there is talk about it.
Mr. O'Reilly was on point 💯🇺🇸
It has been amazing to watch the growth of Bill O'Reilly over the years. He has gone from an ignorant conservative hack to a moderate voice as he has educated himself. I don't always agree with him still but kudos to him.
His relationship with John Stewart and Colbert i think opened his eyes a bit
Well that comment aged nicely..
@@idalarsen2540 you beat me to it 😂
@@idalarsen2540😂😂😂
You know what? Oreilly actually makes some sense here.
I know, unbelievable. I can't stand the guy but in this particular segment, he seems to be making sense. oh god what's next......
...perhaps he has an alter ego: FOX O'Reilly and SANE O'Reilly.
He seems less "Shouty McYellerson" than usual.
I feel strange writing this out, but I actually agree with you here. Maybe it's the old conservative crazy and the new conservative crazy being juxtaposed.
Yeah, it's called common sense.
O'Reilly is exactly right. Colbert and Hill, for example, offer placebos. O'Reilly offers realistic solutions addressing circumstances as they actually exist. Colbert and Hill the rest are politicians appealing to a base, saying the "right" things but providing real, concrete solutions.
Sorry: "not providing...".
Colbert is a comedian, if you think of him as anything more you may have a problem.
Scott Starbuck Huh? Comedians don't take political positions in your world? Guy gets to say anything he wants without being questioned or taken to task? Is Bill Maher a comedian? SNL ensemble? Jon Stewart?
+Billy H. No, I just don't expect comedians to provide solutions to our countries problems.
Hey. I liked your graduation speech. Good job.
I generally dislike bill, but he making Stephen look like a fool.
How?
+TheGuyWith 9000 views and no videos Stephen asks him a Q, then interrupts and diverts the conversation to what his agenda was. Stephen is rebuffed about guns and makes no good points, so he tries to take the conversation back to what bill had originally started answering with (Islamic terrorism).
+MoreAmerican I think it was fairly level, Bill studied his points while Stephen was going off of his head.
+Logan McAvoy
I just really dislike it when anyone asks a Q then proceeds to interrupt and not listen to the answer. It is disrespectful (even if it is crazy Bill) and indicative of an agenda. Unbecoming of someone as intelligent as Stephen, and sadly very disingenuous.
If you think this bullshit is the truth then you are you are the fool.
First of all, he was using a manipulative fact, just because the Gun violence has generally been lower doesn't make it better. We want no death at all. Australia has reported NO mass shooting after they confiscated most of their firearms.
And secondly, he still said the same gun used in this shooting should still be made available to the public. Which is just making no sense.
If Bill starts out with "This isn't a tragedy" you don't take his words with a grain of salt. You take it with a goddamn metric ton of Salt.
so because I don't agree with him on his idea of a tragedy, I should doubt everything he has to say? totally makes sense
that's when I felt like he should just shut up
My respect to Bill O'Reilly is off the charts!
From the lower end.
I’ve said the same when Bill debates my man Chris Cuomo as well.
Lol When he said, "Your gang is applauding things they shouldn't be." and then someone ironically applauded I lost it. Props to Stephen for being such a good interviewer.
We need more of this on TV. It reminds me of old journalism when they were serious, didn't pander, and you got to hear a complete thought. I gotta say, Bill makes a better guest than he does a host.
doesn't the word 'amendment' mean change...
i think it has changed. it doesn't mean "get rid of"
Doesn't France have one of the strictest gun law in EU? Remember what happened to Paris?
Typical liberal logics.
How many shootings have there been in Paris? Compare that to the US. You're welcome.
fact. law doesn't matter, these are preexisting natural rights. LET THEM TRY AND TAKE THEM
Jyvn Timblique slavery was not a recognized natural right. Are you people this ignorant. And it was not in the bill of rights
My favorite two words in the second amendment is "well regulated"
I think the vast majority of gun owners don't want to be held to ANY standard in order to continue to own and buy guns. I, on the other hand, feel that something is a true privilege if I have to prove I deserve it.
Pretty sure the second amendment says right to bear arms as well regulated militia and nothing else. Says nothing about personals protection.
Docktor Jim self defense is not a privilege, it is a birthright. In the modern era firearms are the most adequate form of self defense. Constitution = protected birth rights not mandated privileges.
Aidan Millward youre absolutely delusional if you truly think the second amendment doesnt include the preservation of self, loved ones and protection of personal property. Thats the entire realm of a human being.. we would have no reason to have a constitution otherwise.
Paul DeVito III it doesn't say anything about personal protection in the 2nd amendment, it was written regarding the need to overthrow a dictator or another type of unjust government, hence the "well regulated militia being necessary for the preservation of a free state" part... you could argue that that would be self defense, but it's not against another person per se and not really what you're talking about I don't think... self defense is a seperate issue and is governed by seperate laws... That being said it's most definitely a "God given" right, but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with that.
The thing is like 2 sentences, there really isn't even any room for interpretation when it says specifically why it's given... amendments can also be amended lol...reworded, added and taken away, reinterpreted etc...
I don't see many people up in arms (pun not intended) that you can't own a rocket launcher even though it says "shall not be infringed" and banning certain types in infringing on that right, technically... just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it's set in stone, they were meant to be updated as time went on... sadly though, thanks to lobbyists it has never and probably will never happen in the US... to the extent it needs to be atleast..
I'd also like to say that if they took away all the guns, that isn't the same as taking away your right to defend yourself... those two are slightly related as you pointed out but they aren't the same...
That federal crime on firearm offenses is great idea!
Possession of marijuana is also a federal crime. You truly believe that deters people from using it?
+Levi Carlton lol, uh yeah it does.
Though Jimmy could have made his point without rudely & ironically using homophobic language, I agree with the apples to apples analogy. The federal prohibition on weed is *wrong* (IMO) because you criminalize behaviour & you can't stop it to any meaningful degree (you might actually put people more risk by doing do). But new ideas about and tighter laws on gun are necessary to save lives.
This entire video is a response to the Orlando shooting. Bill O'Reilly's proposed solution wouldn't address the issue of mass shootings because the shooters almost always take their own lives. The mandatory sentences would, in effect, be ineffectual.
Buck Starwell Don't say faggot shit and you don't get called a faggot. I really don't care about anyone's take on words. If they offend you that really sucks for you.
Also rthmjohn you can never stop all these lunatics from pulling off mass murders. If they want to do it they will do it. If they kill themselves after the fact then I look at that as better than supporting them while they rot in prison. It would however deter/detain a lot of people that commit criminal offenses with a firearm. Those people are up to no good anyways.
I love seeing these two discuss these topics they should do this weekly
Omg Stephen, don't tempt me to agree with Bill. Why blame the tool when messed up people are the problem?!
Messed up people with tools. Here in the UK, a terrorist tried to do a MASS STABBING on a subway. It didn't go very well.
Because we let him get the tool when he was investigated twice by the FBI for ties to ISIS.
Because the tool specifically exists to make killing easy and efficient. The only people that should have access to such things are organized military and law enforcement.
The Orlando killer could not have injured/killed so many so easily if he didn't have access to such a tool.
Aren't guns banned in France too? Hows that working out for them? The UK is lucky to have a giant mote.
Dont give them acces to the tool, just ban the fucking guns
“Has any airline ever done that?”
“No of course not!”
“Then why would you even argue that?”
Dead
I'm mostly liberal but this is a topic I'm on the fence about, I love hearing these kind of conversations. Good points on both sides
I know this comment is old AF but you need to look up comic Jim Jeffries set on gun laws. Makes it very clear.
@@Hey_Jamie didn’t think too many people have seen that ❤️
Props to Stephen for actually letting bill talk and not make it a big argument for big claps from the audience.
They were both good and respectful even though one is so conservative and the other is so liberal. It's awesome to see people with differing opinions actually stay FOCUSSED ON THE ISSUE rather than name-calling. I personally agree with Bill more, but both of them brought up compelling arguments
Today.
Neither Bill O'Reilly nor any other conservative would suggest that congress regulate what types of guns can be sold yet they applauded this idea just 6 years ago.
lol, Bill said your crew is applauding stuff they shouldn't be applauding(someone starts clapping)
I'm kind of disappointed in how the audience only applauded to Colbert in the beginning and not for Bill, because they're both right.
I bet they were in shock.
i m disappointed by colbert giving the person who bashed the LGBT for DECADES a platform for his obfuscation of reality. Bill O Reilly the Rebublican Goebbels gave people like Mateen the ideological justification in advance.
+prallund feucht At least Bill knows that liberals have a more convincing argument than his fellow conservatives. He claimed that all social conservatives do is rehash scripture to defend denial of equal rights for gay people.
Yes, Bill O'Reilly said that, and he's actually not that bad when he's not on his show unlike his fellow hosts Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity and ex-host Mike Huckabee who actually believe what they're spewing out.
So he just tries to obfuscate? come on, that even increases the bigotry, especially considering your claim that he is conscious about the objective reality but refuses to change his narrative for personal gains. Actually that puts his bar below Hannity and Kelly which you claim are unconscious of their paradoxic reality
+prallund feucht Personally, I would have banned anyone associated with Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the presidential election, but it's not my show.
Stephen has a job: to interview guests no matter how disliked they sometimes are by the audience. Bill has a job: to regurgitate Republican rhetoric and shout over anyone who opposes.
Bigotry exists everywhere, but I don't see Stephen or Bill budging anywhere towards tolerance and acceptance anytime soon without affecting their jobs or careers.
I will never understand the relation Americans have to guns. It's insane & irrational.
Jenny Schulmerich where are you from?
Basically USA was founded by rebelling against their government (great britain) its part of their identity to have weapons incase that ever happens again
Profanityiscool: "From my understanding, Germany doesn't even really have gun laws. Yet they're doing pretty ok with their gun crimes."
German gun laws are among the strictest in Europe. Like every other country in the world with strict gun control, the number of shootings they experience is minuscule compared to the number in the US. Gun laws demonstrably DO reduce gun violence.
It’s the exact reason why America hasn’t been over thrown by communism
The country was founded by slave owners who said all men are created equal, after booting the native American Indian out of here??? Insane and Irrational have been around for close to 3 centuries
I like rooting for Bill O Reilly because he's always the underdog in these talk shows for young people.
In contrast, how many people have been saved with guns? During the same time, how many innocent lives have been taken by auto accidents? No one ever quotes statistics in an equal and fair manner.
Statistics consistently show that in households where guns are held the chance of gun violence/death is much higher. And you're right, far too many innocent people have died from auto accidents. So what did people do? They put seatbelts and airbags in cars. Strict drunk driving laws were enacted. The result? Countless lives were saved. People still die from car accidents, but because concerned people took action with common sense measures the roads are safer places.
Auto accidents have dramatically deceased since laws and safety regulations have been put in place. You're right, people don't present facts properly...
My question was not answered. How many lives have been saved with guns? How many lives have been taken with tools other than a gun? How many auto deaths in 2015?
RE: "Statistics consistently show that in households where guns are held the chance of gun violence/death is much higher."
Statistics show, In households where guns are held, the chance of escaping criminal assault is much higher. Any law or regulation that impedes my right to defend myself and my family from the violent actions of criminals is accessory to the crime. Those who set up 'gun free zones' are just as responsible for the mass shootings in these areas as are the shooters.
"No one ever quotes statistics in an equal and fair manner."
Because its a false equivalency. Cars are designed to get from point A to point B. Guns are designed to kill people. One statistic has no bearing whatsoever on the other.
So his idea for reducing gun crimes is, keep up the record prison population that the US has?
No, his plan is to stop those who are committing mass shootings. That involves putting people in jail, but it's better than restricting law abiding citizens their rights to a very adequate means of self defense.
Joe Tamburro Yeah, somehow other countries have managed to make crime go down without having 25% of the world's prison population.
Tha's not true, most European countries are experiencing an increase in crime rates, and why are we even discussing the prison system, this is a videos about gun contro/assault weapons banning and Bill made absolutely no points about the prison system.
Joe Tamburro Bill-O brought it up.
77 percent of criminals in the US are arrested again within 5 years of being released. Bill was arguing for a higher punishment to add deterrent and reduce the chances of two crimes being committed by a person instead of one. I don't know how many of the gun-related criminals are repeat offenders but I assume it's around 77% or even higher!
I don't agree with O'Reilly half the time, but he's a very smart guy. Sometimes he has some extreme views (I think a lot of it is an act). He's 100% right here, and everytime the audience erupts when Colbert says something anti-gun, but they're silent with O'Reilly calls this an act of war, terrorism, mentions muslim jihadists makes me sick.
I disagree with his "make the punishments worse" fix though. The more severe the act the less deterrence works. No one is doing risk analysis regarding 20 v 50 years in prison for example. Yes a $100 v $500 traffic ticket will make you think twice but beyond a point the only mental coping is that you can't be caught or it doesn't matter if you are.
I don't think deterrents were what he was going for. Think about it, the killers in the Orlando shooting, Boston bombing, etc. would have done anything to kill. Bill is talking about making all gun crime federal because it means there is a higher chance these small-time local criminals (still murders which makes them bad obviously) in federal jail before they go off killing multiple people. Get them for when they rob a store, are caught with an illegal gun, things of that nature to prevent future crimes. That is policy I could get behind, but it would never happen because the media doesn't compromise so Congress won't.
Probably doesn't help that this guy's network has also coined the term 'war on christmas'. Not to mention his boss Ailes was one of the original creators of the 'war on drugs'. Kinda makes the word useless
It's almost like the people who choose to see Colbert live would have a bias over what he says vs the guy the only just found out was there.
well yes, he is a smart guy and a lot of his extreme views are an act, that makes him a pretty bad person. He knows better but fear and hate mongers to further his own success...
Inviting him and giving him credibility is horrible imo.
Not banning automatic weapons and criminalizing gun violence serves both NRA and private prisons. Both cause money to tax payers.
just when I thought I couldn't despise O'Reilly more..
The 2nd Amendment was made in 1791, you could only shoot 3 bullets per a min with the best guns back then. Our guns have changed which means our laws need to as well.
Actually untrue. Many firearms of the day had larger capacities that you describe, such as he pepperbox pistol, or the puckle gun or the belton flintlock, all of which were around during the writing of the constitution. These firearms where not only known about by the founding fathers of the united states, but also have been said to fall under the second amendment. James Madison was once asked by some sailors who sent a letter to him, if the cannons they had on they're ship to protect themselves from pirates were legal. Madison's response was that they fall under the second amendment, and they had the right to have the canons on their ship for protection. this was no a military ship, it was a private merchant ship. So yes, they knew about firearms that could fire large amounts of ammunition quickly, and yes they do fall under the second amendment.
Just because technologies change, doesn't mean our rights do.
+Blake Bullen so, does that mean we should only have freedom of speech in person or on paper newspapers and not on the Internet, etc.?
***** The point was there were many firearms of the day that the founding fathers new about that could fire large amounts of ammo in a quick fashion, and that according Madison, the second amendment even covered cannons. So to say that because technologies have changed and they didn't know about the advances we have is counter intuitive.
+No Google I don't want to use my real name so by that logic, then if the second amendment doesn't apply to semi automatic rifles today, then cellphones, tv and Internet don't apply to the first amendment today. See how stupid you all sound?
Having watched his debates with Jon Stewart and now Stephen Colbert, I have a lot of respect for Bill O'Reilly for being willing to have this discussion with someone that has the opposite view as him
It's nice that he is actually speaking instead of shouting over people.
I truly doubt O'Reilly's sincerity.
I have my doubts too - about gun violence. Every time I check my guns I notice they never move an inch, and very quiet. But we have criminal violence, did you notice? We need Criminal Control.
When he says "Listen to what he has to say please" I was so proud of Colbert. I disagree with O'Reilly, I think we need better regulation on guns, but I totally agree that jihadism is a massive part of the problem that we're not allowed to talk about and differing opinions deserve to be respected.
Banning "assault rifles" or high capacity magazines won't change a thing.
If memory serves me, I'm pretty sure the majority of mass shootings in the last 10 years has been by American born citizens that do not believe/follow Islam.
You're right. It's SO easy to kill 50 people without an assault weapon or high capacity magazines. /s
Please get in touch with reality. This man bought this gun legally just like others who have committed similar atrocities.
Levi Carlton There's no denying that a bunch of 30 round magazines makes it significantly easier for the shooter than a bunch of 15 round magazines. That said, it takes me less than 1 second to swap magazines (without modifications). Obviously you can carry twice as much ammo, but it really wouldn't stop or reduce the number of shootings/casualties. On a side note, what the government considers to be Assult Rifles are not the only firearms that can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. As for your "get in touch with reality" bit, I feel there needs to be better checks and regulations when buying a gun of any sort. Because a buddy of mine got into some legal trouble, he can't purchase a firearm in his state, but can in the sate he lives in now. That needs to be fixed. Gun shows and traders selling to anyone with cash is also wrong. I understand that there is a problem, but banning high cap mags and Assult Rifles is not the asnswer.
Chris Hollier You make some really good points. You're right looking at the per capita statistics is something I didn't take into consideration. What intrigues me is your last question. That would be a very interesting discussion. Is there a magic number like how 2 people beating someone is assault while 3 people beating someone is Mob Action. I'm going to have to look into that. Thanks for the food for thought.
if memory serves me mass shootings in the last 10 years here in australia.......is none.......we dont have assault rifles and we have very tough gun laws....just maybe just maybe that could be why
anyone else just lost a shitload of respect for colbert?
Why did you lose respect for him?
brian watts
why didnt you?
i gained even more respect for him, which I didn't think was possible. Stephen was trying to have a respectful and productive conversation with his guest, not to fight him. respectful and productive conversation is what we need more of right now, not more screaming pundits.
Anne Stoessel
how was that productive? Stephen made Bill say the ar15 may be so dangerous that it should maybe be banned. well thats just common sense- is that really an accomplishment?
Never had any respect for Colbert. He was Jon Stewart's shoe shine boy.
Bill was actually right about the drop in gun violence, "Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011."
I sort of find it interesting how Colbert shows more respect for Bill O' Reilly than he does for Bill Maher, even though he and O' Reilly disagree on more fronts. Maybe Colbert thinks it's important to listen to the other side of the argument and find some agreement between lines and finds it hard to talk to Bill Maher because he's stubborn with his views. I agree with Bill Maher on many things, but he definitely gets emotional when someone with a completely different view on things walks onto his show. That just makes conservative minded people angry and makes the bipartisan lines a whole lot thicker. Colbert knows how to get a good interview. It allows both sides to listen without getting too emotional.
I dunno, just thinking out loud
pgily and if maher starts a debate with someone he finds ”smarter” he ridicules the person
Remember when we used to think O'Reilly was the craziest person in the right? Now he sounds like the voice of reason in the face of the new right wing. I don't know which of us (me or O'Reilly) has shifted more over the years, but today he sounds at least partly reasonable here.
Opens with Australian gun control. Forgets how effective it's been at minimizing mass shootings by the end. Bill is a cherry picker extraordinaire.
Did he? He mentioned how much the shootings have gone down in Australian since the ban. Doesn't sound like cherry picking.
Tyranusfan I was referring to how by the end of the interview he claims you can't get rid of mass murder, which is being weaselly because he's framing the argument as an absolute. No one is so naive as to think that such things can be stamped out entirely. The issue is how to diminish them which Colbert keeps trying to drag him back to.
I'm glad Colbert brings O'Reilly on like this. It gives him a chance to express important views instead of just yelling angrily. People don't listen to yelling, but for some reason, that concept is difficult to grasp.
Colbert still doesn't get it, but I have more respect for him than a complete fool like say, John Oliver.
Context or specific reason against john Oliver?
I bet it's a baseless argument. If he had a reason he would have elaborated on why he hates Oliver
+Sumair Bawa john oliver is kinda getting close to following the same path as that idiot piers morgan
i prefer listening to stephen colbert and bill maher over john oliver
The simple fact is: if, as a nation, we want to keep our freedom to have guns then we are going to have to accept that these types of mass shootings are going to happen. Its a question of freedom vs. safety. Which are you willing to give up.
I'm willing to give up false dichotomies like that one. Surely you can think of a middle ground between "no guns for anyone" and "any guns for anyone"?
Jason Wood It is not a dichotomy. Its a spectrum. From no gun regulation to completely banning. The problem is it would have to be federal lest a state undermine the law of its neighbor.
The more restrictions on guns the less likely that you will have mass shootings (see Australia). Therefore you have to choose: do you want more safety or more freedom (hence my original comment).
I would feel fine if everyone had a pistol and nobody had AR-15's.
Well, there would certainly be a lot fewer shootings! I'm not sure you're smart enough to have access to the internet.
Richard Taylor That's just jingoism. Is it a curtailment of freedom that I'm not allowed to have C4 in the car? Is it a curtailment of my freedom that I can't own a working rocket launcher? Or put a missile defense system in my backyard? Well, technically it is. But only a ridiculous person would frame it in that way. The "freedom" to own and carry around an AR-15 is a meaningless freedom. It's not an important right in any way. A lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking it is, but it's not. So giving up the right to own assault weapons is a "tradeoff" of a meaningless "freedom" in exchange for actual safety. If someone can't do that math, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
3:38
Thank you Stephen, there's a reason I respect you so much more than Jon Stewart and John Oliver.
Discussions like this used to be so great, just open and honest discourse happening from both sides. Colbert would never in a million years invite someone like Tucker Carlson on today. Shows you how things have changed by the hands of the mainstream media.
I'm a liberal but there's something about O'Reilly that I like. I don't know what it is, I disagree with him most of the time.
He's logical and listens to people.
Lisa D.
Next joke.
he isnt logical. he remains calm tho, which is what i like, but his opinion is mostly based on bullshit like right now...
you possibly take to his sexual deviance
O'reily is real. He doesn't care what's sensational, he doesn't care what people want him to say and he doesn't let others control him. I disagree with him a lot of the time, but mostly, he's a straight shooter who cares about his country. Can't fault him for that
that part where he said the audience was applauding stuff when they shouldn't be and someone clapped is. hilarious
You could hear the pain of logic bouncing inside the liberal brains of the audience. Pesky facts get in the way of emotion every time.
I don't know. He did propose that congress should consider banning certain weapons at a federal level and imposing stiff prison sentences on perpetrators as preemptive and reactive measures ... which is the kind of discussion and compromise a lot of people would like to see. Kind of hard to look like a smug prick when you're too busy looking like a clueless one.
Of course the audience liked the gun control admission by Bill, but I'm sure once the marching orders come out from the progressive media these stiffer prison sentences for gun violations will be seen as "racist".
What ?
J Co You stupid lib.
I'm strongly liberal in most ways, but I was really impressed by O'Reilly here. My ""side"" really has their heads up their asses on this issue.
It's nice that they finally got us the right to marry, I guess. You know what's infinitely more important than marriage or bathrooms? Getting gunned down by religious zealots. But they're letting inclusiveness blind them.
Many (not most, which is chilling) Muslims don't think I'm living in sin. The Left is spitting in their faces. It's bizarre.
Sometimes what Colbert does in his political ventures on this show makes me cringe, but he did a great job in carrying on Jon’s legacy here.
He was so respectful of and yet so firmly tough on Bill O’Reily
I love when he comes on. they've really learned to talk to each other throughout the years
@tolfdier - They've always respected each other. Not sure what you mean "throughout the years"
“The Bureau does a very good job” that hasn’t aged well
Hats off for two guys who live on opposite ends of the spectrum having a rationale discussion and finding common ground but still disagree with each other at the same time. We SO need more of this!
Being an experienced debater, O'Reilly dissected every point of information of Colbert. And shocked the crowd. To any debater on this comment section, this how you debate. Calm and stern.
good lord did bill o'riely flip flop there hehe (I'm a Brit by the way)
Yup. That's what many politicians over here do. Flip flop on major issues.
+49timma Bill isn't politician is he?? (I'm British too btw)
+Zachary McGeachy he's not but he represents alot of the ideals that are heal by the older conservative politicians in the USA
+49timma Over here? It works that way all around the world.
+Lucid5HTP my bad, you are in fact right.
O'reilly isn't always wrong
I'm surprised that I started bawling as soon as Reilly mentioned that lone to give blood. Even though it's been months, this still gets to me like an open wound 😢
I've been beating this drum for years: you want my gun? OK, but anyone caught with a gun gets life in prison, no "technical errors," no bullshit around it, you get caught with a gun, you go to jail for the rest of your life.
Because if *I* can't have a gun to defend my home, *you* can't have one either.
Love O'Reilly's Double Chin. He's trying to look like his old Boss, Rupert Murdoch.
Is it bad that during this very compelling debate, I can't stop looking at O'Reilly's neck?
ThinPillow 23 needs another 1/2 inch for that collar size
Most of the gun deaths in America are from pistols, so they should probably stop citing such gun deaths in relation to automatic weapons.
Not in the case of mass shootings
PIlotrcm But when people in the media say "X thousands of people die from guns per year," in these discussions about mass shootings they neglect to mention that most of those deaths from guns are from pistols. They think if there's a ban on automatic weapons then these thousands of deaths will go away, but it's not true.
Well the rifles used in mass shootings account for less than 1% of all gun deaths so... (also just make sure everyone knows this full-auto weapons are illegal, the gun used in orlando was semi-auto like the majority of pistols and other firearms) You're actually 5x more likely to be stabbed to death than you are to be shot by an Ar-15. These are FBI statistics not my opinion.
Paul Sheeley He used a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm Glock 17 handgun.
+PronounceGaming Exactly... The left has so little knowledge of guns. An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon and is more or less a .22 in a fancy dress. And like you said... An AR-15 has absolutely nothing to do with this instance. I'm glad Bill went on and educated this audience a little.
Extremely intelligent discussion; a prime example of how audience anonymity has the possibility to make a farce of a debate, but Colbert was on the button at 3:41 . Props to you sir.
From a Brit.
It's important to remember why our founding fathers gave us a 2nd amendment. Thomas Jefferson points to two of the greatest reasons in the quotes below. First, it's not only a right, but a duty (like voting) for citizens to be armed because we must always be prepared to undertake an insurgency against the government if it ever becomes oppressive. Second, we should be armed because we are to be vigilant of the fact there are evil people in the world who refuse to restrain their immorality - we must be armed and on guard against such folk at all times.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Bonus quotes:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Wow actual research with references. Good on ya'
if more did that, this internet thing may prove useful after all.
respect, but disagree
2cnd refers to militia, with training and discipline
What makes you think these undereducated (fact, not condescension) people who lived in the late 18th century know better than we do today? Because they said something that doesn´t mean it´s true. OBVIOUSLY arming the people isn´t working.
Jefferson spent 7 years studying at college and became a lawyer. The man sold 6,000 of his personal books to the Library of Congress after the British burned it down - he loved reading. How much education do you have?
The majority of our founding fathers were extremely educated men, more importantly, though - they were extremely intelligent men with a swath of wisdom living under the British Empire.
I´m not saying they didn´t spend years in college. As I said, I´m not trying to be condescending.
But it´s a fact that we knew very little in the 18th century compared to what we know today. A 12 year old could blow their minds with what he knows about the world. So why base a modern constitution on something said 230 years ago?
I believe we should be armed, but to think that we should be armed to protect ourselves against the United States military in the 21st century is asinine.
Our little rifles will do nothing to Abrams tanks, and drones. This part of the amendment is completely lost in time, but I understand why it was written in the era in which it was. A single shot musket was the height of technology.
5:40 The left is mostly upset about mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses, though yes, people rarely bring in that violent offenses also have them.
O'Reilly should come on The Late Show WAY more often
Colbert showed O'Reily some class act respect here. Good to see a mutual conversation can still be held
Wow, got a lot of respect for them both here. Can't beleive he actually quieted his own audience..