    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [June 4, 1999]
    [Pages 877-884]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 877]]

    Interview With Charles Gibson and Diane
    Sawyer and a Discussion With Students on ABC's
    ``Good Morning America''
    June 4, 1999

    Situation in the Balkans

        Mr. Gibson. We are here to talk about a subject which really is on
    everybody's mind and has been the topic of conversation ever since the
    Littleton shootings at Columbine High. But I can't ignore the fact,
    obviously, that there were events yesterday involving perhaps peace in
    Yugoslavia and Serbia with the Serbs. Does your gut tell you we have
    peace?
        The President. Well, I'm encouraged. I think that, first of all,
    President Ahtisaari of Finland and Mr.
    Chernomyrdin did a very good job. They
    got our positions very close together and then presented it to Mr.
    Milosevic, and they have accepted it.
        But over the last 6\1/2\ years, I've had a number of agreements with
    Mr. Milosevic, and the only one that has
    been kept is the Dayton agreement where we had forces on the ground. So
    I will feel much better about this when we have evidence that there is a
    real withdrawal of Serb forces and when we're moving in.
        Mr. Gibson. But the word is that they've accepted the terms that we
    sent in, so why keep bombing them in the interim? When a bully cries
    ``uncle,'' you let him up, let him go home. You don't keep hitting on
    him.
        The President. Well, you have been reporting about the nature of the
    continuing campaign. I think it's important that we continue the
    military action against the military targets until we have some evidence
    that there are more than words here. For 6\1/2\ years, we've had various
    agreements, but until we had the agreement ending the war in Bosnia at
    Dayton, the others weren't kept. And so I think that--and we've had the
    same problem in Kosovo. We want to know that the military forces are
    withdrawing, and we want to have the timetable for our people going in.
        Mr. Gibson. So what is the evidence that would bring about a pause
    in the bombing? Is it the beginning of the withdrawal of the troops,
    once you see X number out?
        The President. We want to see--we want to have a militarily
    verifiable withdrawal of the troops and an agreement about the
    introduction of the international force. That should come--or could come
    quite soon. The paper that Mr. Ahtisaari
    gave to the Serbs provided for military-to-military contacts. Those
    contacts are to occur very soon, in the next several hours, probably
    early tomorrow, their time. And then we could proceed pretty quickly.
        So, believe me, I'm anxious to end the bombing, but I want to know
    that our objectives have been achieved.

    War Crimes

        Mr. Gibson. A couple of very quick questions. Were war crimes--the
    war crimes against Mr. Milosevic discussed at all in the talks?
        The President. I don't believe they were.
        Mr. Gibson. His staying in office, were they discussed--was that
    discussed?
        The President. That's not part of the terms that NATO set out in the
    beginning.
        Mr. Gibson. So that question is simply left----
        The President. That question is left open. Now, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the International
    War Crimes Tribunal, which means that if he comes within the
    jurisdiction of any country that is cooperating with the United Nations,
    they would have an obligation to turn him over. But that was not a part
    of the terms necessary to secure return of the Kosovars and, therefore,
    we have to proceed with the conditions we set out----
        Mr. Gibson. And very quickly, will the troops, the peacekeeping
    forces, once they go in, be under unified command?
        The President. Yes. They have to be. We have to have an organized,
    unified way of dealing with this, because their lives will be at stake,
    too.

    Gun Control Legislation

        Mr. Gibson. All right. Let me turn to the situation of kids and
    guns. The House, in the next few weeks, is going to start debating a
    bill that includes some gun control measures that were passed by the
    Senate. And political points will be scored by both sides in that
    debate.

    [[Page 878]]

        But you and I know, don't we, really, that it's not going to make a
    damn bit of difference--only on the margins--in the way kids get guns.
        The President. Well, first of all, I don't necessarily agree with
    that. I think the Brady bill has made a real difference; having the
    background checks matters. We know that 250,000 people, from the time I
    signed the Brady bill in '94 until last year, were unable to get
    handguns. We know just since the insta-check went in last year, another
    36,000 people have been denied the right to get handguns. So closing the
    gun show loophole matters. Doing a background check for some other
    things I recommended, a background check for explosives as well--very
    important in the Littleton case--these things will matter.
        Now, does more need to be done? I think so. I think that more does
    need to be done. The Speaker of the House
    agreed that we ought to make it unlawful for people under 21 to have
    handguns, and I was encouraged by that. And that's, of course, something
    I'm supporting.
        Mr. Gibson. But even with the checks, what you can't get in the
    front door, so many people go around and get in the back door. Forty
    percent of the gun sales in this country are unregulated; nobody checks
    them. There are a group of kids that you're going to meet in the next
    half hour who are going to tell you, ``If I want to get a gun, I can go
    get one, and nobody's going to know about it, and I'll have it within a
    week.''
        The President. That's true, but the more we move to make such
    transactions and possession unlawful and the more we move against people
    who perpetrate them, the more success we will have.
        You know, it's funny, even the NRA says, ``Well, we ought to
    prosecute crimes.'' Well, we ought to make the right things crimes, and
    we ought to make it unlawful for children to possess these weapons. We
    ought to make it unlawful for people to sell them to them or to transfer
    to them, and we ought to close the loopholes in the law. And as we do
    that, we will make a difference.
        Also, keep in mind that the Littleton example is not the only
    example that we have to be mindful of. There are 13 children a day who
    are shot in America, who lose their lives, in ones and twos on the
    streets.
        Mr. Gibson. There's a Littleton every day.
        The President. So we have to make--anything we can do to keep guns
    out of the hands of criminals and kids, we ought to do.
        Mr. Gibson. But when you went to Littleton, a friend of yours who
    supports you on gun control said to me in the last 48 hours, ``The
    President''--because, as he said, Littleton has seared the national
    conscience--``the President had a chance to roar on gun control, and he
    meowed.'' And that was a friend of yours. There are very basic measures
    that could be taken that people agree on. We register every automobile
    in America----
        The President. Absolutely.
        Mr. Gibson. ----we don't register guns. That's a step that would
    make a difference.
        The President. Look, let's join the real world here. You want to
    have an honest conversation? Let's have an honest conversation. I am the
    first President who ever took on the NRA. I got my party in Congress to
    stand with me on the Brady bill, which has made a difference, on the
    assault weapons ban. We are now in the process of closing loopholes in
    the assault weapons ban.
        What happened to them when they did that? In 1994 we lost between 12
    and 20 members of the House of Representatives because they were
    targeted by the NRA for standing up for the lives of our children.
        Now, wait a minute--you talk about roaring and meowing--then I came
    forward with this legislation. Did this roar through the Senate? No. We
    passed a bill closing the gun show loophole by 51-50 because of the Vice
    President of the United States. Did the
    House of Representatives make a priority out of what was passed in the
    Senate and pass it right through? No. They went home before taking
    action. Why? To give the NRA time to lobby them, to water down what was
    passed.
        Now, I have made it perfectly clear that I want to get what was
    passed in the Senate passed in the House. Then we will come back and try
    to pass some more things, because Littleton did sear the conscience of
    the Nation. The question is not whether we have seared the conscience of
    the Nation; the question is whether, on gun issues, whether the people
    who now constitute the House and the Senate will pass what is sensible.
        And I intend to do that. But for you to say that I shouldn't take
    what I can get because--and instead I should ask for things that I am

    [[Page 879]]

    absolutely positive will be defeated in the Congress, is quite wrong.
    And to ignore the fact--and whoever you talked about that you don't want
    to out here--to ignore the fact that my administration and my party took
    on this issue when no one else would and paid a huge price for it and
    lost control of the House of Representatives in all probability because
    of it, and to pretend that this is an easy thing now because Littleton
    happened, is wrong. We are working very hard to pass sensible measures
    that will make a difference, that will save children's lives.
        You say they won't save all lives. You say there are stronger
    measures that could be taken. You are absolutely right. You have no
    evidence that they could pass in this Congress.
        Now, I will do my best to advocate more, but I am doing it--and I've
    made it clear--I want to do this in sequence. I want to pass what we've
    passed in the Senate in the House. Then I want us to come back with a
    second set of recommendations. I intend to keep working on this. I think
    this is going to take years. We have--the Congress is out of touch with
    the American people.
        Mr. Gibson. But let me come back to you on that. The polls--I
    believe--really, the polls have shown that this country would accept
    registration of firearms. And yet we don't do that, and we're not
    fighting about regulation of guns.
        The President. That's because----
        Mr. Gibson. You regulate every other consumer product in America.
        The President. But you want to have a candid conversation. The
    reason is, this Congress came to power after the 1994 elections because
    in critical races the people who voted for more modest things, like the
    Brady bill, which the polls showed the voters support, got beat. They
    got beat, Charlie.
        Mr. Gibson. But hasn't the NRA won the debate at that point? Once we
    say----
        The President. No.
        Mr. Gibson. ----it's politically impossible----
        The President. No.
        Mr. Gibson. ----we can't do it----
        The President. I didn't say it was----
        Mr. Gibson. ----we won't propose it, hasn't the NRA----
        The President. No.
        Mr. Gibson. ----basically framed the debate at that point?
        The President. No. I didn't say it was politically impossible. You
    say I should be recommending more; I ask you to look at the vote in the
    Senate, which historically has been more willing to deal with this than
    the House, and look at what we passed. We passed closing the gun show
    loophole which, I don't care what you say or my friend says or these
    kids say, is a big deal. We passed it by one vote--one vote.
        And you're saying, ``Well, why didn't you recommend something more
    sweeping?'' And I told you that I intend to recommend further measures,
    but I'd like to pass what we have passed through the Senate, because it
    makes a difference. The things that we passed in the Senate will make a
    difference.
        Should we do more? Should people ought to have to register guns like
    they register their cars? Do I think that? Of course, I do. Of course, I
    do. Now--but I tell you, the American people may have one opinion, but
    they elected the Congress and the Congress doesn't have that opinion.
        I'm going to do my best to move the Congress, and the people can
    move them, but we can only--how foolish would it be for me to be
    debating this issue when these things are before the Congress? They can
    save children's lives, and I should blow by them because they're not
    enough? I don't think so.
        Mr. Gibson. I want to take you to the other room. There are some
    young kids in there who want to ask you about other things, about the
    glamorization of violence in the media, those kinds of things--about
    parental responsibility. We'll get to all of that. Come on in the other
    room, we'll do that.
        The President. Good.
        Mr. Gibson. Let's go to Diane in the Roosevelt Room.

    Discussion With Students

    [Following a commercial break, Mr. Gibson and Ms. Sawyer introduced the
    first student, whose sister was wounded in gunfire in Evanston, IL, and
    he asked how effective gun control legislation would be in preventing
    such accidents.]

        The President. Well, I think, first of all, we can't say that any
    one law will make a difference. But I think if you look at the school
    shootings--and I think all of you know this, but we ought to say this to
    America--this is not just about school shootings, although they're very
    important, but 13 children are killed every

    [[Page 880]]

    day by guns on the streets, in the neighborhoods, and various
    circumstances.
        So I think there are basically three problems. You have more kids
    that are kind of at risk of violence. You have a culture that
    desensitizes and glorifies violence and desensitizes people to it. And
    it's way too easy to get guns.
        And so what I think we have to do is to work on all three things.
    And we've got to pass as much legislation as we can that makes it--keeps
    guns out of the wrong hands, and basically makes it harder for kids and
    harder for criminals to get guns. And this legislation will do that. It
    will help us close some of the loopholes; it will help us strengthen the
    background checks. It will also do something that was very important at
    Littleton and will become increasingly important with the Internet
    giving so much information to kids: it will put a lot of our background
    requirements for guns into explosives, too, which I think are very
    important. After the Littleton thing, I think we can all see that.
        But I can't guarantee that. There are over 200 million guns in
    American society now, in a country of about 260-plus million people. But
    we can make it a lot harder, and we can dramatically reduce the chances
    that such things will occur.

    [Ms. Sawyer introduced a video which demonstrated how easily a gun could
    be carried into schools. The discussion continued, and the First
    Lady responded to several questions.]

        The President. If I could just say one thing, to go back to put the
    two questions together, there are some schools, some high schools, which
    have hotlines which young people can call if other students bring guns
    to school, and they know two things if they call. They know, number one,
    that the children will not be outed, their identities won't be disclosed
    if they call, and, number two, that some authority will check on the
    presence of the gun in the school that day.
        So I think that's really important. If it's a problem in schools
    throughout the country, it's a specific thing that some schools have
    used with great success.
        Ms. Sawyer. Mr. President, if I could ask you, members of gun
    organizations say that the ability is there to do something about kids--
    6,000 kids in the last 2 years in schools found to have guns, but, in
    fact, only 13 were prosecuted for it. Do you think there should be more
    prosecutions, and do you agree?
        The President. I don't know. You know, I don't think--all those
    kids, the reason they know that and the only reason they know that is
    that since I've been President, we instituted a zero tolerance for guns
    in schools, so the kids were sent home if they had the guns.
        Now, it's up to the local prosecutors to decide whether to prosecute
    them. But you should know that the general argument that prosecutions
    are down is simply not true. And Federal prosecutions are up by 30
    percent, of serious crimes; and overall gun prosecutions, State and
    Federal, are up. And gun-related crimes are down.
        This is a special problem--problems of violence against children by
    guns is a special problem that, in my view, you can make the prosecution
    argument. We ought to make it harder to get guns. We ought to deal with
    the culture, and we ought to deal with the schools and the communities
    and help the parents and the kids do more.

    [A student asked the President why it was not mandatory to have metal
    detectors and police in every school.]

        The President. Well, I think--let me say, generally we have not had
    a Federal law that requires schools to do metal detectors, but what we
    do is we provide funds every year to help schools buy the security
    equipment. And I believe--when I saw that young man there take the 12
    guns out of his clothing, I thought maybe we should do more in that
    regard.
        A lot of schools are, for obvious reasons, reluctant to have metal
    detectors. But I think that the schools that have them have not had
    these instances, basically because you can't get in--at least inside the
    school.

    [The discussion continued. A student from Heritage High School in
    Conyers, GA, told of an encounter in school in which Thomas J. Solomon,
    Jr., showed the student a gun. The
    student said he reported it to school authorities, who took some interim
    action but did not pursue the issue, and some weeks later Mr. Solomon
    allegedly shot six other students.]

        The President. What do you think they should have done?
        Student. I think they should have done a lot more than they did. I
    think at least if they

    [[Page 881]]

    didn't, they should have called his parents and maybe had them maybe
    even look for it. I was going to ask you what more could be done than
    what's already done about a suspected gun at school.
        The President. These are questions that have also been asked in
    Colorado because of what was in the website, the kids' website and other
    places. And I think it's important that people like you, as I said, have
    a way to make these reports, and then, you know, they're going to be
    systematically followed up on, either by the school or the law
    enforcement.
        I also think it's important that when a young person like that is
    obviously in trouble, you not only try to get the gun away, but you try
    to figure out what the real problem is and what kind of help the kids
    need. And then it's provided in some sort of systematic way. A lot of
    these kids, I am convinced, could be turned away from this before it's
    too late if they could have been identified early enough.
        And so I think we need a combination of, you know, go after the
    source of the--go after the guns and all that, and trying to deal with
    the kids. And I think--again I would say, I've been amazed in how many
    of these cases--I don't know what the facts are in Pearl or in Paducah.
    I do know in Springfield, Oregon, because I went out there to talk to
    the people there, that there are a lot of people who were really
    concerned about that young man before this happened.
        So I think--we're going to have a mental health conference with Mrs.
    Gore and the Vice President, Hillary and I are, in a few days, and we're
    going to talk about what more can be done when the kids know that
    somebody is in trouble, to go really help them before this happens. Just
    like you knew. There should have been someplace else you could go where
    you would know not only would they try to get the gun, but there would
    be somebody all over that kid, in a positive way, trying to figure out
    what the deal was and how to help him move away from it.

    [The discussion continued. A student noted that some youth were more
    sensitive to violence than others.]

        The President. But let's go back to what Missy said. I'm amazed that
    any of you said you were concerned about the video games, because most
    of the young people I've talked to, there's a lot of support for tougher
    gun control and for better security and for more support services, but a
    lot of young people I've talked to say--they say I'm an old fogey when I
    talk about the movies and the video games.
        But here's the point I want to make. I want to make the point Missy
    did. Most of the kids are fine and will be fine under any culture. It's
    true, they show them in Japan and Europe, and they don't have the
    killings. But what do we know about America? We know that in America,
    number one, we know more and do more of it in the aggregate. The average
    18-year-old has seen 40,000 murders, and 200,000 violent instances over
    the media, number one--more of it. Number two, in our country our folks
    work harder. They travel more. They spend less time at home--on average,
    22 hours a week--than they did 30 years ago. That's 2 years by the time
    you turn 18. Number three, it's easier to get guns.
        So if you have vulnerable kids, where the line between reality and
    fantasy blurs, they are more likely to be influenced by this. And that's
    something I'd ask the rest of you to be sensitive to, because way over
    90 percent of the kids are going to be fine, but it doesn't take many to
    change people's lives forever in a bad way.

    [The discussion continued.]

        The President. I'd like to ask a question. How many of you talked to
    your parents about this within 3 days of the Littleton shooting? I think
    that's very important, because one of the things that we don't know--you
    asked Hillary a hard question about the parents of the children
    involved; obviously, I don't know them; I've wondered so much--but I
    think it's important that we understand that a lot of children are
    strangers in their own homes, and that--including kids that will never
    commit crimes. And somehow, I think we've really got to do something to
    rekindle, to give both the kids and the parents the courage to start
    talking to each other again, because I think it would minimize the
    chances of those things occurring.

    [A student from Littleton, CO, said that a friend told her Dylan
    Klebold's parents were concerned about him and planned to talk to him
    when he got home from school on the day of the Columbine High School
    shooting. She also noted that other children played violent video games
    and listened to violent music but did not become

    [[Page 882]]

    violent. She suggested that affection and acceptance had to be part of
    the solution.]

        The President. I agree. Can I ask you one question? I'd like to ask
    all of you a question about this. And again, all I know about this is
    what people like you have told me. That is, you know, Hillary and I, we
    watched the television, we talked to the families of the children that
    were killed when we went out there, and some of the young people who are
    still hurt. But I'd like for all of you to help us with this.
        All the reports say that one of the things that drove these two
    young guys over the
    edge was that they felt that they were totally disrespected in the
    school, that they felt that there were groups that looked down on them
    and badmouthed them and tried to humiliate them, and that as a
    consequence, they not only wanted to get back at the people they thought
    had dissed them, but they were looking for somebody to look down on. And
    that's one of the things that made the African-American young
    man a target.
        How many of these kids do you think are violent because they think
    their contemporaries, kids, treat them in a contemptible way?

    [The Littleton student responded that she did not believe the Columbine
    gunmen were after any specific person but shot people in the lunchroom
    randomly. Ms. Sawyer suggested that politicians should refuse to take
    money from entertainment companies that put out violent movies or video
    games.]

        The President. Well, would it have an impact? I don't think so,
    because then that would increase the relative influence of other
    people's contributions. I don't know. I think--let me just say this, our
    administration has taken on not only the gun issue, we have taken on the
    entertainment issue ever since '93. And I would like to point out
    something. Your network and others have adopted a TV rating system,
    supported the V-chip, which is coming in all the new televisions. The
    Internet people have helped us with screening technologies for parents,
    with closing loopholes in the rating systems for the games. I mean, I
    think there has been some progress here.
        I think the real problem we've got in the media is that this
    violence sells, and I think that the rating system for the movies and
    for television is a little porous there. Again, I think it's more the
    exposure of young people, before the lines between fantasy and reality
    are fully clarified. That's the one thing that I would say to the young
    man in the back that defended the ``Doom'' game.
        Look, I like to go to action movies. I love movies. But what happens
    is, if you look at the aggregate amount of violence--and it's not any
    one movie. It's the aggregate amount that young people see and, in video
    games, participate in--by the time they're grown, in their young years,
    when they're most vulnerable, they are desensitized to the consequences
    of violence. There are over 300 studies which show this. This is not a
    matter of debate.
        And I think the question is, what can we do to reduce the volume of
    violence to which our youngest people are exposed? And that's why we're
    doing what we can do on this, on the entertainment. But I will say this,
    the entertainment industry, at least in the beginning, has been more
    responsive to a lot of these things than the gun industry. Now the gun
    manufacturers are coming along, but I think the entertainment industry
    is going to have to do a lot more, a lot more.
        Mr. Gibson. But just a quick question. Sony makes the ``Doom''
    game--I don't mean to pick out that one game--but Sony is a huge
    contributor to the Democratic Party. So you have access to the president
    of Sony. If you picked up the phone and were talking to him, what would
    you say to him?
        The President. I would ask him to change the game. And I think that
    we need to take steps to make sure that younger people don't get it. I
    think people get this stuff too young.
        What you say, by the way, is right. Again I will say, most of the
    people that--you can show them things; they can play games or whatever;
    and they're not going to be affected. But what you have to be sensitive
    to is if you fill a society with this and you have more kids that are
    more vulnerable anyway because they have less supervision at home than
    in other societies and they have easier access to guns, then you have
    created a combustible mix which will lead you to more instances of young
    violence. That's the deal.
        That's why--that's the argument I make to the entertainment industry
    all the time; that's why they should do more. And that's why the gun
    people should do more. And that's why parents and communities should do
    more. It's

    [[Page 883]]

    why you should do more to try to help identify children like this.

    [The discussion continued. The next question directed to the President
    was from a student who asked about smart guns.]

        The President. First of all, I think it's very important. I think
    that one of the things we've been trying to do and that the gun
    manufacturers--and I want to say something positive about the people
    that are trying to help. The gun manufacturers, most of them, have
    agreed to work with us and now support legislation to require child
    trigger locks, which will be somewhat helpful. Now, older children can
    figure out how to undo them, but still they'll have a lot of accidental
    deaths, and they're important.
        Pretty soon, you will have technology available which you can put
    into the guns that will raise the costs some in the beginning, like all
    technology does--but like all technology, the costs will come down
    quickly--which will mean that only people who have the right
    fingerprints can fire the gun. And that will be a huge thing.
        Then, we'll have to do a lot of gun buy-back programs and other
    things in communities that will increase safety, and it's important.

    [A student who was cocaptain of her school's rifle team stated that the
    first thing she learned was safety.]

        The President. It's one thing that I would like to see, actually,
    the NRA do. When I was Governor of my State, I worked with them, and
    they did a lot of very good work on hunter education programs just like
    you're talking about, and nobody should have a gun that hasn't been
    trained to use it. You can't get a driver's license unless you can drive
    a car, and I completely agree with you about that.

    [A student asked if the President could explain what purpose automatic
    and semiautomatic guns served.]

        The President. No, but I tried to ban them all in 1994, and we were
    able to ban 19 kinds of assault weapons. But the people who were against
    what I was trying to do were able to keep some loopholes in the law, one
    of which we're closing now, to have these big magazines in the guns, you
    know, the big clips. And a lot of the imported weapons are still legal.
    So I spent the last 5 years trying to get rid of all them. I think they
    should all be rendered illegal. They also grandfathered in those that
    were in existence before '94, but I think all of them ought to be taken
    off the markets. That's what I think. And I'm going to try to keep
    making progress with Congress to do that.

    [A student stated that it sounded like the President thought it would be
    good if gun prices went down after smart technology was developed.]

        The President. No, it's a good thing they'll go up.

    [She then said it was important to raise the price of weapons as high as
    possible, to keep them out of children's hands.]

        The President. I agree with you. I didn't mean to--I was just
    pointing out that when we try to get these things through Congress as
    requirements, that's one of the things that will always be said. But I
    think it ought to be--I think this identification thing Jonathan
    mentioned can make a big difference.

    [The discussion continued. A student who had accidentally wounded his
    best friend asked if the President believed that background checks could
    really keep guns out of the wrong hands.]

        The President. Yes, but it can't prevent all of them.That is, it--we
    have actual numbers on it. We know how many people we've prevented from
    getting handguns, because they had criminal records, since we've put it
    in. But there are so many guns that it doesn't prevent everybody from
    getting it.
        And one of the real problems is, when children are in places where
    they have easy access to guns, then you can have what happened--you're a
    brave guy to be here. Where's your friend? Which one's your friend? You
    want to say something about this?

    [A student asked how someone who told authorities about another student
    with a gun could avoid becoming a victim.]

        The President. See, I went to T.C. Williams High School, right
    across the river here, where I don't think they have medical--excuse
    me--metal detectors.
        Mr. Gibson. It's early. [Laughter]
        The President. It's early. But they have this hotline, they have the
    student hotline. And if a student there knows that somebody has a gun
    who shouldn't, they know two things if they

    [[Page 884]]

    call, and both things are important. One is, they know they won't be
    identified; and two is, they know there will be some responsible person
    to actually follow up on it. So I think that is something that other
    schools should consider doing.

    [A student asked the President if he thought there was a difference
    between owning a hunting rifle or owning a handgun or assault rifle.]

        The President. Well, first of all, a lot of avid sports people would
    tell you that they do some of that with handguns, too. But generally,
    yes, I think there's a big difference between assault weapons and other
    weapons. Some people claim they use them for sporting purposes, but no
    one needs them. And there is a difference between handguns and other
    weapons, because handguns are used more, they're easier to conceal, and
    they're more likely to be used for illegal purposes and less likely to
    be used for legal purposes. Therefore, I think it is legitimate to have
    higher standards on owning them and greater requirements on background
    checks and greater requirements on whether they should be registered or
    not. That's what I believe.

    Note: The interview began at approximately 7:05 a.m. in the Cabinet Room
    at the White House, moving later to the Roosevelt Room for the
    discussion with students. In his remarks, the President referred to
    President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland; Special Envoy and former Prime
    Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin of Russia; President Slobodan Milosevic of
    the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); Columbine
    High School gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris; and Columbine shooting
    victim Isaiah Shoels. The transcript released by the Office of the Press
    Secretary also included the remarks of the First Lady and the student
    participants.