President Trump was asked earlier today in South Korea by a reporter from NBC if he would consider “extreme vetting” for prospective gun purchasers. He said that it wouldn’t have stopped the killer, but might have stopped the person who confronted the killer, from getting a gun.
Making some kind of political point, the reporter, dumbly, compared extreme vetting of foreigners trying to enter the country from places where terrorists run rampant to extreme vetting of people trying to exercise a constitutional right.
Here’s the exchange.
Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve talked about wanting to put extreme vetting on people trying to come into the United States, but I wonder if you would consider extreme vetting for people trying to buy a gun.
President Trump: Trying to what?
Reporter: Buy a gun.
Trump: Well, you’re bringing up a situation that probably shouldn’t be discussed too much right now. We could let a little time go by, but it’s okay. If you feel that that’s an appropriate question, even though we’re in the heart of South Korea, I will certainly answer your question.
If you did what you’re suggesting, there would have been no difference three days ago, and you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck go out and shoot him, and hit him and neutralize him. And I can only say this: If he didn’t have a gone, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead. So that’s the way I feel about it. Not going to help.
Reporter: And are you considering any kind of gun control policy going forward because —
Trump: I mean, you look at the city with the strongest gun laws in our nation, is Chicago, and Chicago is a disaster. It’s a total disaster. Just remember, if this man didn’t have a gun or rifle, you’d be talking about a much worse situation in the great state of Texas. Thank you.