Stephen Colbert vs. Bill O'Reilly - a very frank and pretty focused conversation on guns and terror and ...

Last updated on 18th June 2016

Worth the twenty minutes watching time if you want to get a feel of two somewhat opposing sides of how to combat these issues (post Orlando mass shooting).

Part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66hfGaAVloU, around 10 mins, published Jun 14th 2016. [Interview seems to have been aired on TV on Jun 13th 2016.]

Around 1:38, O'Reilly says, "These people, --- Jihadists, have declared war on the United States and the West. That's what they have done. Now, they don't represent most of the Muslim world but there is enough of them to cause the world pain on a consistent basis. So that's the problem."

Stephen Colbert responds, "Well, you have framed the problem in that way. But it can be looked at in a different way. You can also say the problem is easy access to high capacity rapid firing weaponry. That's another way to frame the problem. And they don't have to - it doesn't have to be either or. As the president said in his address, they do not have to be either or. They can both be problems. Would you accept that they can both be part of the problem here?"

O'Reilly says, "I don't think the problem is defined (nearly?) at the Jihadist level by the American gun experience." [Ravi: I did not follow that clearly. But O'Reilly doesn't seem to agree with Colbert's framing of the problem.]
...
Around 4:05, O'Reilly says, "There are hundreds of millions of guns in the streets of .. America right now. Okay. Legal guns. And that's not gonna change. Because we have the second amendment protections. And our history is one of - that we use(d) weapons not only to get our freedom from Great Britain but to forge the West. And (where) there wasn't any control of the law."

O'Reilly & Colbert go on to talk about Australia where after a mass shooting twenty years ago, Australia banned all automatic weapons and most handguns. ... They reduced the country's weapons by more than half. The gun murder rate in this twenty year period (after the ban) has fallen 72 % in Australia. In the USA for roughly the same period of time, the gun murder rate has fallen 30 % and the shootings have fallen 60 %. "Nobody knows that. Okay" - O'Reilly.

O'Reilly goes on to say that mandatory sentences for criminals in the USA has led to the gun murder rate and shootings rate falling, and that these mandatory sentences are now on attack from the Left.

He says that Congress should debate what kind of rifles people should be able to buy - one should not be able to buy a bazooka. In 1996 they (US Congress) did stop many of the hi-tech rifles. "They banned them. That lapsed. You should look at that. All right." - O'Reilly.

O'Reilly says, on questioned by Colbert, that it is impossible to stop future Orlando type of tragedies. "You are always going to have your Timothy McVeighs, your Boston massacre bombers, your San Bernardino killers." He says that throughout history if one looks at it (such persons have been there).

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsvK2l3b_fE around 9 mins,  published Jun 14th 2016. [Interview seems to have been aired on TV on Jun 13th 2016].

This part of the video has very sensitive stuff related to O'Reilly's view that USA Congress should pass a declaration of war on ---- terrorist groups. I have skipped writing about these sensitive parts.

Later in this segment, O'Reilly is asked, "Are guns a problem here?" by Colbert. O'Reilly answers, "Guns are a problem in the hands of criminals and terrorists. But they afford the population a level of self-protection which is why the founders put it into the constitution."

Then there is a passionate exchange where O'Reilly says that the second amendment is not going to go away and that guns will be there (in the hands of USA citizens). He says that those who abuse guns must be punished. But agrees with Colbert that some guns should be restricted and says that it is possible to do so.

Colbert asks O'Reilly about how one kills ideas (like terrorist violence ideas against the USA). O'Reilly responds, "You don't. There are still Nazis running around. There are still communists running around (who) want to dominate. You don't. What you do is you take the playing field and destroy the people who are destroying your people. This is war. Accept it."
Colbert, "Do you think this is a hate crime? That he chose a gay club?"
O'Reilly "Everything --- does is a hate crime. The whole day." ... "He used the --- ideology to justify him killing gays because --- wants to kill gays. Just like Hitler wanted to kill gays. Same thing."
...
O'Reilly, "This guy is evil." ... "He is evil. So is the --- movement."
Colbert, "What is the proper response to evil?"
O'Reilly, "Destroy it. Confront it. You don't contain evil. Because you can't. You destroy evil. And -- is evil. This Mateen is evil. He is dead. Now we have to get the rest of them."
Colbert, "If you can contain evil, can it destroy itself?"
O'Reilly, "No. Unless you are Plato. Come on. This is life and death here, you know. I don't want to see anymore dead Americans in the streets. (We have) to put the fear of God in these people. And we have to do it soon."
Colbert, "Bill. Thank you."

[I thank Stephen Colbert (& his show, 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert') and Bill O'Reilly and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above part transcripts and paraphrased accounts of their video interview linked above on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]