[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 22 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[Pages 1033-1040]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Charles Gibson, Diane Sawyer, and a Discussion With 
Students on ``Good Morning America''

June 4, 1999

Situation in the Balkans

    Charlie 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 1034]]

    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 causing 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

[[Page 1035]]

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 
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

[At this point, the television stations took a commercial break. 
Following the break Mr.

[[Page 1036]]

Gibson and Ms. Sawyer introduced the first of the students whose sister 
was wounded in gunfire in Evanston, IL. The student thanked the 
President for working to pass gun-control legislation and asked how 
effective it would be in preventing accidents like the shooting of his 
sister.]

    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 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 then 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 wasn't 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

[[Page 1037]]

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.

[At this point, the discussion continued. A student from Heritage High 
School in Conyers, GA, told of an encounter with Thomas J. Solomon, Jr., 
in school in which Mr. Solomon showed the student a gun. The student 
later reported it to school authorities. Although school authorities 
took some interim action, they 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 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 kid's 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.

[At this point, the discussion continued. One student noted that, while 
youth were exposed to violence, some were more sensitive to it.]

    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

[[Page 1038]]

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.

[At this point, 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 bids 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, stated that a friend had told her that 
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 shooting and stated 
that other children played violent video games and listened to violent 
music without the same reaction. 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 student from Littleton, CO, responded that she did not believe that 
they were after any one specific but had just shot people in the 
lunchroom randomly. Ms. Sawyer then suggested that it might be helpful 
if politicians refused to take money from entertainment company's that 
put out violent movies or videos. ]

    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.

[[Page 1039]]

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

[At this point, the discussion continued. The next question directed to 
the President was by a student who asked what he thought 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 schools 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 
guns and semiautomatic rifles 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

[[Page 1040]]

prices were back down after the technology was developed.]

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

[She then stated that she thought it was important to raise the price of 
weapons as high as possible, as was being done with cigarettes, 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.

[At this point, the discussion continued. A student who had accidentally 
wounded his best friend asked the President if he 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 the President if some one told authorities about 
another student with a gun, how could they prevent 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 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 a handgun and an 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, he referred to President 
Martti Ahtisaari of Finland; Special Envoy and former Prime Minister 
Viktor Chernomyrdin of Russia; and President Slobodan Milosevic of the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). The transcript 
made available by the Office of the Press Secretary also included the 
remarks of the First Lady and the student participants.