face-to-face with an accused killer. this is the public's first look. james holmes, his hair dyed red and orange, looking dazed and sitten unshaven and handcuffed beside one of the public defenders assigned to his case. he didn't speak. he didn't look at any of the family members. he never took their eyes off him. more family members watched in an overflow courtroom on closed circuit television. want to remind you of exactly what this young man is accused of doing. striding into the darkness of a movie theater jammed packed with people waiting for a midnight screening of "the dark knight rises." armed to the teeth. threw a gas can to the unsuspecting crowd. 58 people injured. 17 still in hospitals. the nation is left with the question, how could this happen? is there any way to make sure it doesn't happen again? joining me now, a man who says mitt romney and president obama have obligations to take a stand on gun control. new york mayor bloomberg. thank you for joining me. you've been very vocal since this appalling incident happened last friday. why is it that both the president and the man who wants to be president are sayingguns? >> well, the first thing is, do they have an obligation to say something about guns. and since 48,000 people will be murdered with guns in the four years, the next four-year presidential term, i would argue it's a substantial problem and that they have an obligation to tell the public before the public goes to the voting booth what they will do. specifically, not generally, but specifically. this is a problem we've had for many years. and so they must have thought about it. they have staffs that have thought about it. and they should be answering the question. then the question is, why do they not answer the question? and i think there is a perception in the political world that the nra has more power than the american people. i do not happen to believe that. >> every time one of these things happens, gabrielle gifford s last year. this shooting here. there's an outrage. and then very quickly it dissipates. the american people go back to their normal lives. and they don't demand action in a way i would expect them to. why do so many americans not feel angry enough to demand further gun control? >> well, i would take it one step further. i don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, we're going to go on strike. we're not going to protect you. unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe. after all, police officers want to go home to their families. and we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets. the only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest. that's true across this whole country. so we should -- at some point we have to understand this as our children or our grandchildren or us. but for the police officers, it's much more immediate. when you or i hear shots, we run away. they run towards it. >> this shoomt ershooter was able to buy four weapons. including an assault weapon. he then on the internet got 6,000 rounds of ammunition. including a magazine drum which has the ability to fire 100 bullets in one minute. and he used that on these innocent people in this movie theater. that gun, that weapon, would have been outlawed under the federal law as it stood till that was allow to elapse. is your target right now that these politicians to try to get them to specifically outlaw that kind of weapon first? is that a natural place to start with this debate? >> well, it's been a tradition of and it's enshrined in our constitution, the second amendment, the right to bear arms. the supreme court has held that that right, while it's a constitutional right that you and i have, the government also has the right to have reasonable restrictions. an assault weapon ban would be considered i think by the supreme court a reasonable restriction. not selling guns to minors or to people with criminal records or psychiatric problems or drug addiction problems would be reasonable restrictions. so you start out with that. that we can have guns but not every kind of gun. i think the first question you might want to ask, if you could get the two presidential candidates sitting here across from you, why governor romney, did you sign a bill outlawing the sale of assault weapons when you were governor of massachusetts, but today don't believe it's the right thing? what changed your mind? why, president obama, when you campaigned three years ago, you campaigned on a promise to try to enact legislation that would ban assault rifles, assault weapons. again, what changed your mind? why did you not, during the last three years, do anything? i think it's incumbent on them to explain what changed their mind. >> it is baffling. we've got a clip of mitt romney talking about this very issue. let's watch this. >> we do have tough gun laws in massachusetts. i support them. i won't chip away at them. i believe they help protect us and provide for our safety. >> we need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve current owners. we need a president who stand up for the rights of hunters and sportsmen. president obama has not. >> real sea change in his attitude there. not the first time. >> the second thing he said. i think everybody wants to preserve the right of people that want to use guns for sport. hunting or target practice. to have the right to do so. but that doesn't mean you have an assault weapon. that doesn't mean you have a rifle that's advertised as able to bring down a commercial airliner at a mile and a half. or bullets that are designed to go through bullet-resistant vests. those are very different things. i cannot explain why the governor's changed his mind. or, in all fairness, why the president has not, during his term in office, his first term in office, done what he -- >> when you went down to colorado, thought you made a very evocative speech. i thought he did all the right things. what he didn't do was say anytng about how he would personally try and ensure this couldn't be rerepeted. because the reality -- there could be another guy like this shooter right now legally buying exactly the same assault rifle, exactly the same magazine drum -- >> absolutely. >> that's to me the incomprehensible thing. >> okay. there are ways to get guns legally and then use them to murder people. most murders, however, are committed with people who don't have a right to have a gun. they obtain them without a background check. they would never have passed a packground check. and so i can't give you a solution to all the problems, every bad person. whether they're bad people, have psychiatric problems. whether they get their guns legally or illegally. what i can tell you is how we can go and keep most of those guns out of the hands of most of the people that commit most of the murders. >> the argument i find really unsustainable is, look, this guy would have done it anyway. he'd have found a way to do this. you know what, terrorists will always try to find a way to do terror. >> what are we going to do, stop try to fight terrorists? >> you don't tackle them? of course you do. the interesting thing about america and guns -- i'm not american. i'm a resident here -- >> can you imagine if there was a disease that we caught all of a sudden, some epidemiologist found a plague that was going to kill 48,000 people in this country in the next four years. i suspect that would be number one story. i suspect that would be a lot of yelling and screaming and demanding and everybody would want to vote moneys and personnel to try to stop it. this is exactly the same thing. except we're not doing it. >> it is believed on both sides, the nra and the anti-gun lobby, there are nearly as many guns in america now as there are people. >> that's correct. and it's the only developed country in the world with remotely those kinds of numbers. guns just aren't a factor most place elses, most other places. i think it comes from the history of the country. of the citizen farmer who took up a rifle against the british. >> hold that thought, mr. mayor, because i want to get right into that when we come back after the break. exactly whether you agree with the interpretation of the constitution and the second amendment. whether it's being applied properly today. male spirit present.trong it's the priceline negotiator. >>what? >>sorry. he wants you to know about priceline's new express deals. it's a faster way to get a great hotel deal without bidding. pick one with a pool, a gym, a great guest rating. >>and save big. >>thanks negotiator. wherever you are. ya, no. he's over here. >>in the refrigerator? back now. more on our big story. new york city mayor michael bloomberg. the constitution is what everybody turns to on this issue. right to bear arms. it seems to me it's the most significant and expensive and potentially dangerous comma in the history of literature. does the right to bear arms allude to a militia or does it allude to an individual? what is your personal interpretation? what do you think the founding fathers intended? >> i wasn't there but we have a mechanism under our constitution that the founding fathers put in to answer exactly that question. it's called the supreme court. the judicial system up to the supreme court. and the supreme court has ruled that you have a right to bear arms but reasonable restrictions can be applied in term also of the kind of arms, the number of arm, who can buy them. and that sort of thing. and that's what really matters. it doesn't matter what you think or i think. it matters what the supreme court thinks and what the legislature does. and you come back to the history of the country. we started out with our muskets. and today here we are where some people think everybody should be armed. there was a congressman that i heard quoted. i didn't hear him directly. but he was quoted as saying, if we had armed everybody in that theater, then somebody would have pulled a gun and shot the young kid who killed 12 people and injured 50-odd. i don't know that you would want to or have your kids in that theater when everybody starts shoot. who know also who is the one that's going to get shot? pretty soon -- it's a circular firing squad. >> also, people who say that need to understand is how this shooter had protected himself. he had bought -- i think mostly on the internet -- a whole load of body armor gear. even if somebody had shot him, he wouldn't have been killed. he would have carried on. probably even more frenzied than they had been before. there's a basic misunderstanding i think of exactly what he had been able to purchase. for example, if i wanted to buy an assault weapon and a load of ammunition on the internet for example and lived in new york, even with the laws you have, and they're more stringent than many places in america, if you got anywhere stopping me? >> you can't stop everything but you can stop most of it. the federal government passed laws restricting the ability to buy certain kinds of weapons, assault weapons. expired, wasn't renewed. that you can't sell -- that people with minors can't buy. and drug addicts and psychiatric problems and criminals can't buy it. the trouble is is then the federal in the usual wink-wink of passing a law to satisfy one group but telling the other group don't worry about it, we'll make sure it doesn't get enforced, they didn't fund any of the enforcement and there's no database that you have to check against. or at least not a complete database. what we've got to do is say, look, we just cannot continue this kind of carnage. now, some day, there will be a shooting, which you would think would trigger in the american psyche this "i'm not going to take it anymore" attitude. >> i thought it would be this. >> wait a second. maybe if you shot a president. but ronald reagan when he shot of got shot didn't trigger it. maybe if you shot a congresswoman. no. maybe if you shot a bunch of students on campus. no. maybe a bunch of people in a movie theater. i don't know what it is. we obviously haven't gotten there yet. this cannot continue. these people who want to have more guns really are not just -- they don't understand what they're asking about. you are 22 times as likely to shoot a family member then somebody trying to break into your house if you have a gun. >> statistic. i read a piece in "the wall street journal" over the weekend. he said it's done in many cities. where you have effective enforcement against people carrying illegal weapons on the streets, guns particular, you will see gun crime come down. an undundeniable, inarguable fact. >> get guns out of of there and they can't use the guns. >> if political leaders in this country continue to say nothing about this, gun sales continue at the rate they've been increasing. we see more of these incidents. people will say, mayor bloomberg, it's time you ran for the highest office. it's time you took charge of this. >> i've got a job, thank you. i've got another 528 days i think it is left in my job. i enjoy it every day. >> so you'll have a vacancy. >> i'm not going to be president of the united states. i'm not going to run for the presidency. but i am an american. and i care very much about our country. i have children. and i care about them. presumably they will some day have -- give me grandchildren. and i care about them. i have a responsibility just like you do. just like everybody does in this country. to try to address the key issues. you and i can't solve the problem. but we can demand that those elected officials who are -- who want to be in charge have a solution to the problem. it's not always going to work. but i think -- the thing i find most reprehensible is they're not even willing to say "we have a problem and i have a solution." >> also, i just think the framing of the debate has to be we fully respect the right to bear arms. we respect the constitution. we respect the right of every american, as i do, to defend themselves in their homes. that's not what this is about. this is about stopping what happeneded in that movie theater happening again. >> you see across this country mayors in every city have to address the guns on the street issue. some more effectively than others. but mayors are about solutions. they aren't about talking. the public holds mayors accountable. if the trash isn't picked up. if the kids don't get an education. if streets are dangerous. you hold the mayor accountable. and so they've come up with a variety of solutions. and it would be laughable to say to a mayor, well what are you going to do, and him saying, well, i really feel your pain. that's not what they would say. they'd never get away with that. unfortunately, we don't hold other levels of government to that standard. this is not a there theoretical thing. these are human lives. we have children sitting on the steps of their house and a bullet whizzes by -- >> there was a 4-year-old in th bronx killed -- >> people say the time is not now to address this, we have to grieve. well, it's been 18 months since gabby giffords. it's been five years since virginia tech. it's been dozen years since columbine. what's the right time frame? now's maybe exactly the time to do it. and i think the president very eloquently expressed the country's grief and that is his job. and he did it very well. and people appreciated him. i'm sure, him coming and trying to offer comfort. but that's only half the job. the president, no matter who the next president is, also has to have a solution to this problem. it is prevention of the next disaster that we have to focus on. there's nothing we can do about what happened in the past. >> mayor bloomberg, thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> coming up, the right to bear arms. a great debate on what it means in america today. i'll ask experts on both sides of the question. what's with you? trouble with a car insurance claim. [ voice of dennis ] switch to allstate. their claim service is so good, now it's guaranteed. [ normal voice ] so i can trust 'em. unlike randy. are you in good hands? to your kids' wet skin. neutrogena® wet skin kids. ordinary sunblock drips and whitens. neutrogena® wet skin cuts through water. forms a broad spectrum barrier for full strength sun protection. wet skin. neutrogena®. how should america respond to this tragedy? and how should the country deal with gun violence and the right to bear arms? joining me now noted defense attorney alan dershowitz. and the author of "more guns, less crime." john aught, let me start with you. you heard what mayor bloomberg had to say. very strong about this issue. you clearly don't agree with him. why? >> well, my own thing is if you look at where these attacks have occurred, there's one common factor. that is, they keep on occurring time after time where guns were banned. people weren't allowed to go and take their permit concealed handguns into the movie theater. criminal penalties if you were to go and do that. i understand the desire to try to create these type of gun-free zones. the problem you face is who obeys these laws? colorado about 4% of the adult population has concealed handgun permits. none of those law abiding citizens broke the law and took their guns into the theater. the person who broke the law and took his guns into the theater was the one who wanted to go and commit this carnage. >> right, but let me stop you. what do you say to the families of those who lost people in this terrible atrocity? that a 24-year-old young man clearly very disturbed, no history of mental illness, no history of any criminality, is able to buy four weapons, magazine drum that could fire 100 bullets a minute. he also dresses himself in tactical vest, ballistic leggings, metal shin guards, armored boots. who's to stop this happening again tomorrow? if it's not going to be you or the politicians, how do you make these families feel any better about other families not having to go through this? that's what i don't get. who stops this happeninging? >> well, that's the reason i brought up the point. let's say you had a violent criminal, god forbid, stalking you and threatening you. you know, and threatening others that you love. would you put a sign in front of your home that said this home is a gun free zone? would that make you feel safer? >> your answer, your book is called "more guns, less crime." >> right. >> presumably you would accept if there were no guns at all in america there would be no gun crime, right? the. >> there would be no gun crime but there would be other types of crime. >> right, there would be no gun crime. >> by definition, if there are no guns. >> do you accept that america has the worst incidents of gun murders of what they call the civilized world? >> no, i don't think that's true. >> not true? >> no, factually, it's not true. >> but it is, isn't it? >> no, it's not. >> in england in 2011 -- well, let me just tell you. in england, for example, 39 resulted in fatal injury from the firearm offenses. in america, 8,775. how do you say you don't have a particular problem here? >> no, look, the murder rate right now -- or in the uk is low compar to the united states. it was even lower relative to the united states before we had any gun control laws. you go back to 1900 in england. look at london. >> i don't want to go back to 1900. >> no, i'm giving you an example. >> it's a ridiculous example. >> it's not. >> it is. it's the most ridiculous example. >> look, let me just finish. >> how many murders in 1900? >> two murders in london -- >> right, so i