 Well, what I think is for inviting me is that it's nice to be here in Turkey for the first time. God's make it easier for bad things to happen, but they also make it easier for people to protect themselves from bad things to happen. And the concern that the United States money is what's in that effect. The net in the presence of God has saved lives, cost lives. What impact do they have on crimes that threaten people from everything from brain, robbery, and aggravated assault? When I've given talks in the United States around the world on the issue of guns, I think one comment that's been made to me very frequently is that guns are probably the one issue that facts don't matter. There's just such an emotional issue. And I think that's wrong. I think facts matter a lot in this case. But you have to think of facts much more broadly than simple numbers because guns are probably one issue that people feel are more informed about than almost any other issue. And that is because you can't pick up newspapers or listen to news reports and not very frequently hear about some story involving guns. And so people draw conclusions based on the information that they've received and they are constantly but part of the information on the issue of guns. The thing with guns, though, isn't so much that people aren't being informed. The concern that I often have addressing the issue is how balanced the information that they're receiving because I think while it's pretty easy for most people to think of stories about bad things that happen with guns. If there's a shooting in the United States, some kind of a multiple-phone shooting, very likely they can get worldwide attention. But it's probably relatively hard for most people to think of the times when people use guns to go and stop attacks. I'm going to contend a lot on the issue of the United States right now because, but I'll talk about some other comments, too. But I think one of the reasons for doing it is the United States is often held up. It's kind of a booster child that people point to for information about the costs that it's got by its kind of one extreme case in terms of gun ownership rates. So if you look around the world, like Switzerland, for example, probably because of gun ownership rates, it's about 20% higher than the United States. You have countries like Finland and Norway, which have gun ownership rates, not appreciably different than what you have in the United States. And there's some other countries in the world, Israel, for example, probably has a gun possession rate that's the highest in the world. With regard to the United States, I think a lot of people have at least a rough idea of some of the numbers involving crime and other bad things that happen with guns. But in recent years, you're probably talking about somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 murders that are committed each year with guns. There's something between about 650 and about 700 actual gun deaths that occur each year. And if you look at crimes that are committed generally with guns, there's about 250,000 gun crimes that are reported at least. If you look at surveys done by the Justice Department of the United States, you'll find that they indicate that about 450,000 times a year you have gun crimes. And the reason why we rely on surveys is that a lot of crimes simply aren't reported. If you look at something like rapes, for example, I don't even know about Catholic rapes or reports of police. If you look at something like larceny, which are involving things like stealing tape decks from an unintended car, you're talking about maybe only about 7%, maybe 8% of those crimes are reported. So we often rely on surveys to at least try to get a rough idea of how people for those crimes occur. So I think a lot of people may have some general idea of the harms committed with guns. My guess is they're a lot less familiar with the benefits that occur from that. So, for example, if you look at similar surveys in the United States of the guns gun uses, surveys indicate that people use guns defensively, but around 2 million times a year. So it's about four to five times more frequently that people use guns to stop crime than to admit them. But if you were to go and ask most people what the ratio would be, they'd type in anything. It's even more or less on the other direction in terms of the ratio of crimes committed with guns to crime stop. And I think a lot of that has to just do with the media coverage of the guns. So media coverage general, one thing that I try to do a few years ago was to go and look at the television news reports in the United States and the top under newspapers. And if you look at in 2001, for example, if you looked at all the news reports on gun crimes, ABC, NBC, and CBS, the three major news networks, you'd find about 190,000 words with news stories on gun crimes. But the average article was about 280 words a month. By contrast, there was not one single story during that entire year of a citizen using a gun to protect themselves, protect somebody else. You get newspaper coverage. It was almost as in Dallas. In New York Times, for example, they had about 51,000 words of news stories on gun crimes, just contemporaries gun crimes. So ignoring later stories about the criminal justice process, the trial, and other things. But just looking within a few days of the crime actually committing, being committed. By contrast, The New York Times had one story of a retired police officer who had been used to stop a robbery, an armed robbery in a gas station in New York City. In fact, of the top three largest newspapers in the United States, USA Day, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, that was the single defensive gun use that was reported. If you look at the top 10 newspapers in the United States, about 75% of the defensive gun use stories that were reported were in two of the newspapers, the Dallas Point News and Houston product. And I think Texas, I'm sure people around the world have some image of the way the Texans are like. But I just follow up the crime reports there to find out if there was something in the water or something that caused them to report it differently. And what happened was those two newspapers just viewed themselves as the newspapers of records. When anybody got killed, whether it was a victim or a criminal, it would still get reported. Now it's true, if it was a victim being killed, it would be much more likely to be on the front page, it would be a long story. But you still have some are, even if it was 50 words of length, buried back in this paper if a criminal killed. And generally if you look at news coverage, the smaller the newspaper, rural newspapers were much more likely to carry stories of defensive gun uses. Even though the survey data that we have indicates that the vast majority of defensive gun uses occur with crimes, and that isn't in large urban areas. And it's precisely in those areas that you just don't see any news coverage of defensive uses or the extent you do, it's extremely rare. Now, if you look at this imbalance in the media, and I think a lot of it's really easy to explain. And that's if you were an editor of a newspaper and you had two stories that came across your desk. In one case, there was an innocent victim who had been killed. Or in another case, let's say you had a woman branched a gun that wouldn't be attacked or ran away. No shots were fired, no dead body on the ground, no crime action committed. You're not even completely sure what crime would have been. It'd be a pretty easy judgment. I think virtually everybody who has the case where you have a dead body on the ground, the innocent victim is being much more newsworthy than the same type of crime that you'll stop. And if you believe the survey, it's about 95% or so of the time that people use guns and festivals. You can't do that sufficiently. You don't stop the crime. So you don't even have to be killed. In fact, if you were going to house a prostitute or a pit, which are stopped by guns, do you have the people being killed? And maybe they're injured about seven or eight times more frequently, but it's still just a tiny fraction of what we're sent. If you look at the few news stories that are done on defensive gun uses, about 70% of the reporting involved cases where the criminal has been killed. Almost all the other 30% involved cases where the criminal has been wounded. So you would think every time somebody is being done defensively, it's a case where the criminal gets killed this time. But in fact, that's kind of what makes you newsworthy, even though it's extremely rare. But it's this newsworthiness that gives you kind of a misimpression of even what happens in the cases where people go and use guns and festivals. Now, we care about both types of stories. You care about cases where innocent victims get killed. You also care about cases where people use guns to protect themselves, at least from policy perspective. But it's even whatever we care about in terms of policy, it's very understandable to what's newsworthy, what's going to get covered and what's not going to get covered. As I said, I think most of us would come to those decisions ourselves and say, well, now that doesn't answer everything. Because while I think the vast majority of what's decided to be covered or not is pretty easy to explain just by the basis of what's newsworthy. I don't think it explains everything. Probably the most honest case involves these multiple victim hope shootings. Here you have cases that when they curve, they get not only national, but international coverage. And yet, when a multiple victim hope shooting in the United States involves a civilian using a gun to stop the crime, only about 1% or fewer of the news stories will actually mention that's how it got stopped. If you look at cases where let's say a police officer stops crime on the average, you'll see about 36% of the news stories will mention that a police officer used his gun to stop the crime. You know, so for example, relatively few people even in the United States know that about 25% of the public school shootings that have occurred have been stopped by citizens with guns while people with police wagons arrive. And the reason why they're unlikely to know that is simply because of what's being newsworthy and what's not. You know, so for example, if you take the first public school shootings that took place in October, early October 1997 by which two students will kill the promise to be high school. There's a system principal there at the school, John Lyric, who was a former Marine. He used to carry, he had a permit to carry a concealed handgun. And he would regularly carry his permit concealed handgun with him on the school campus up until the end of 1995 when the federal Safe Schools Zone Act was passed in the United States banning guns within a thousand people school unless a state specifically passed legislation exactly in Herman Holder's field of duty. And when the attack occurred that day, he had been a good law-abiding citizen, locked his gun in his car, parked the car more than a quarter of a mile off school property. He had to run a half mile literally to go and get his gun, a half mile back. And yet he was still able to go and stop the attacker and hold him informed by range for about five and a half minutes before the police were able to drive him. The killer there was in the process of leaving the school there to go across down the street to the junior high and continues attack there when he was stopped. But if you go and do what's called a NASA search, everybody who's a lawyer here might be familiar with this. And that is the computerized database of news stories. What you'll find is that in the month after that attack about 687 separate news stories, not counting wire services that get printed over and over again. You'll find that of those 687 stories, only 19 mentioned the assistant principal anyway. Only 13 of the 19 mentioned the assistant principal had something to do with stopping the attack. And only 10 of the 13 mentioned the assistant principal used was done to stop the attack. Of those 10, eight of those were local newspapers here where the attack had occurred. Two of them were in national media. One was on ABC, the Over the Night news broadcast for DominX. It was at 4 a.m. and we had a second sign. And the next day, CNN had a sentence that they mentioned on their early prime and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. And you see similar types of things. The attacks in Edinburgh, Pennsylvania, C&T, California, Kentucky. Other cases where civilians used their guns to stop these attacks, where it was about 1% of the news stories mentioned. I'll give you another example. About five years ago now there was an attack at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. And there are three people killed in the attack. Two students there, when they heard the shots, ran into their cars, got their tools from their cars, came back. Their cars were parked on the school property because of their case expulsion if they had the guns on school property in the car. And they came back, when their guns were attacked or in the ground, he grabbed his gun. Another student tackled him. Three of them held him on the ground for 11 and a half minutes before the police were able to run. If you go into a NASA search on that again, you'll find it the one week after the attack by 218 separate stories. Of those 218 separate stories, only three mentioned that the students that used their guns stopped the attack. One of the things that interested me there, I've been on the radio with the National Radio and Talks for a long time, Larry Older. And I hadn't heard about this. And Larry had gotten one of the two students who used their guns to stop the attack and interviewed the same time. And the student was explaining how the day of the attack had been interviewed by reporters from like 50 different publications. And having access to this nexus and Westlaw search was very similar. He had gone and looked up his name just to see the news coverage, to see how they had quoted him. And he was just shocked by the fact that none of the people who had interviewed him seemed to have included him in the story. And I thought, my name, as you don't get, may be exaggerating a little bit on this. And so what I decided to do was call up 50 reporters whose stories that I hadn't found and looked at. And ask them a couple of questions. One of the questions was, did they know about the attack? Did they know about the students who stopped the attack? That's right. I'll do that. We'll talk to you about the students themselves and personally to our students. And the second thing that I wanted to know is, why didn't they mention this in their stories? You have something like the Washington Post, Marie Guad, a reporter there, who you don't want to say that the students had housed on the attacker in the daily news, said they had tackled him. The AP, which said they had some dune, the attack, all those are true statements. Though, if you think about this in terms of news for you guys, much more likely to grant or use attention to go and say the students had housed on the attacker, or to say the students went and got their guns and used them to stop the attack. My guess is, in terms of people's perceptions of what they regard as rare, particularly in Republicans' recovery, somebody reading that would say, you see this, the students got their guns. It would be much more likely that people would talk about it among themselves and register there than were the way it was before. So I asked the reporter, why isn't it that they didn't go and mention a stamp in their coverage? And Marie Guad, of course, for the Post, for example, was fairly typical, where she said, she had spaces, Frank, she only had 913 words to do the story, and said she simply didn't have enough space and had the story to go and mention the students that had gone and used their guns to stop the attack. So there are a lot of other examples of bias I can go and talk about with regard to the media there, and I'll get to more in that. But just to give you really quickly a couple other ideas about how people's perceptions about guns are affected, I'm sure for most people from international lines, you're even less likely, if that's possible, than Americans to know about these types of defensive gun uses, which would stop these crimes. You may remember about a lot of these attacks, but the notion that some of these attacks that you've heard about were actually stopped by citizens with guns is something you're completely unlikely to have heard about, I would guess. And there are many attacks which are stopped before anybody gets killed by citizens with guns. So where do you get local media attention in the United States? There are cases I can give you in the last year involving attacks that occurred on some streets or in parks or other places. You may have heard about one case that did get some news, but it was fairly misapported in terms of an attack at a church in Colorado where somebody who was referred to as a security guard had stopped this attack going and their two people had been killed. A woman there wasn't a security guard, she was someone who had gotten a permit to carry a concealed handgun to her ex-husband and threatened her. And she had gone and asked the minister whether it was okay for her to carry a permit concealed handgun referred to the service. And some of the other prisoners had heard about that also and the minister said, fine. And when the attack started, when the person came in, there was like 7,000 people inside the church there at the time, but she was able to kill the guy before he was able to go in and harm him, even though he had somebody like 1,000 rounds of ammunition when he engaged in the attack there. But just one other minor point, you know, people seem to think of these types of attacks as being uniquely in American experience, but yet Europe has had more than a chair of these types of attacks just like the last six years or so. Germany, for example, has been two most deadly high school attacks in the last six years. There was one attack in Germany and 17 people were killed, another one went 14 people were killed. Switzerland had a tanked can time zone in which the province was building in 14 people killed. You've had other attacks in France, if it's poor attacks in France in which more than seven people have been killed. And you can go down the list for these different countries. And, but let me just give you two other ways I think people get information, according to the views of this quickly. One is in terms of government studies that are not, in other words in terms of pulling. If you look at studies done by the federal government in the United States, there are literally hundreds of studies that come out in a period of a few years. I looked at all the federal government studies that came out over 15 years prior to writing my book, The Vice Constance. And one of the amazing things is that none of the studies I looked at, could you identify any attempt to try to go and measure the benefits of your glory? So, let me give you a simple example. Every year the federal government comes out looking for it on a top 10 government using fraud. Why not one, why not one time come out with a report on the top 10 gun Jews defensively by people protecting themselves? Almost every year the federal government comes out with a report on the costs in country from injuries caused by guns. Why not one time come out with a report that would go and measure injuries prevented from people being able to use guns defensively? Surely we understand the benefit from going and measuring the costs of these studies. It's relevant for going and deciding what type of legislation presidents are going to sign, or congresses are going to pass or state legislatures are going to end up. But it's kind of hard to figure out by only measuring the costs how that's what people are using. There's costs and benefits for all these things and it seems like you wanted to have some studies that would measure benefits. Give me an example. I looked again over a 15 year period of time. I cannot find one single poll that in any way allowed respondents to go and mention benefits from people using guns. So, for example, every year you'd have NBC News would have a poll that would go and ask people, do you think gun control would reduce crime a lot? Somewhat or just a little bit. Zombie had a poll that was a little bit more balanced. It would have to go and ask people, do you think gun control reduces crime a lot? Somewhat or has no benefit. Now, maybe it's just myself as an economist, but I think everything has cost some benefits. Let me give you a simple example that's there. And that is, you have something like waiting periods in the United States. Some states may require you to wait a couple of days before you can buy a gun. Some may be a week, some might be a month. And it's pretty obvious what the possible benefits are there. Somebody may have set the thought between when they think about getting a gun and they would have been in crime, you may have been waiting for days, maybe they'll change their mind and decide on food. They'd surely have a possible benefit that you'd want to take into account. But on the other hand, there could be real costs from having those types of restrictions. A woman may be threatened or stomp, may face serious dangers. And maybe you can go and wait a few days. Maybe the difference between whether or not she's going to be able to gun, to be able to go and defend herself or not. So you have both costs and benefits there. It's not obvious before you go and study what the benefits point to be. But in fact, if you look at all the academic research that's been done on that issue, there's not one single academic study that I know of by either criminologists or economists. If you can find a way in terms of associating with reductions in any type of violent crime, there are a number of studies that find that we encourage our associate with small increases in about two or three percent in terms of rate rates. Let me give you another example. It's probably more controversial. And then it started with the part of these multiple-video shoots that we're talking about. You know, I'm an academic, so I'm thinking I take what, like, about the You were in your family, was stalking, would you feel safe from putting aside in front of your house that said, this is always a good example? Would that make you feel a lot safer? In my guess, most people would think that's out of natural biases of your time. That there are a lot of other things that you should do. You're not going to turn the house into a police car. You're not going to turn the house into a police car. The house will be fixed and it's set right in the terminal. You can actually do more activities from there. One thing I want to mention, I was in a hurry about this, is that all the police is inaccessible. One week ago, one time, as they called her, we were crazy into her. And we were kept in this head on the street. And the police involved her, and we took her to the police car and went home and we could see her. But I was like, Omaha has eight major walls in this city. The two of them have signs of that they are currently still in the industry. They take them in there. One of those was where the attack occurred. Similar type of phenomenon in Salt Lake, similar type of case in Kansas City. One of the things that probably a lot of people don't know is the Columbine. Maybe there's one thing that was told before. There are 40 states in the United States that allow adults to go and carry permanent concealed handguns. Once you're a certain age, if you're 18 or 21, depending upon the state, once you pass from a background check, about half the state requires some type of training. And you pay a fee. But once you measure objective criteria, you can find her a permit that it's automatically granted. There are about 5 million Americans right now who are legally able to go and carry a permanent concealed handgun. And from most of the area and most of these 40 states, they have to do it. There are other age states that are more restrictive. It's much harder to get a permit if you can still do it. And there are only two states in the United States, Illinois and Wisconsin, that ban citizens from being able to carry permanent concealed handguns. So, you know, the interesting thing is how the land is our mentalness. The land is the universe of the child of an eye. But it's all the local vacant home shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999. And what we found is that the normal type of things that affect crime generally don't affect these local vacant home shootings. You know, higher arrest rates, higher conviction rates on all the prison sets, the death penalty. They need to affect murder rates generally, but they don't affect local vacant home shootings. And we think that there's a pretty simple explanation for that. And that is about 75% of the time people go and commit these crimes, they die at the scene. They're either killed by somebody else who brings a gun yet, or they commit suicide. In fact, in interviews of the 25% who live, it appears as if virtually all of those expected to commit suicide but weren't able to go and make themselves commit suicide. There's also a third area I'll just briefly mention. It's called police assistance suicide, where a lot of these killers themselves can't bring themselves and kill themselves. So what they do is they put the police in a situation where the police have to kill them. That's kind of great areas to know how to classify somebody's sentence. But the point is, is that these people go into these attacks with the notion that they're going to die. And so the thing with law enforcement generally is that it imposes penalties on the people after the fact. And so fact that you might have the death penalty for longer prison sentences or more likely prison sentences for these people. Why have these stopped murderers in general? For these guys, it's largely irrelevant because they're not expected to be around after an attack occurred. We also look at 13 different types of death penalty. And the only one that we were able to find at any impact on the rate at which these types of attacks occurred would be the passage of these right to carry laws. When states passed these laws, there was about a 60% drop in the rate at which multiple victim public shootings occurred. And to the extent to which these attacks still occurred, they both were well-meaning to the place in the areas where the permitting field and jobs weren't allowed. You know, it's pretty understandable why these types of attacks have recovered as they do, right? Because of the research that I've done, I've gotten to know a couple dozen people who have been present at these attacks. And the feelings, all other helplessness that these people feel when these attacks occurred just hold one woman who I've gotten to know pretty well, my name is Susannah Hupp. She was president of the Loomis Keteria attack in 1993, in which up until the Virginia attack was the most deadly ultimate shooting attack in half six. She's a very attractive woman. She had had an ex-boyfriend who was giving her a lot of trouble. And she had talked to a friend of hers who was a district attorney in the United States about what she should do. And a district attorney said, don't get in the eye and carry with you. And that was illegal. I mean, it was illegal for her to do that. But she followed his advice and frappled his trust. And so for about half a year, she was regularly carried and probably could still hate them, frappled. But she just felt bad breaking the law. And so what happened was, one morning she went part of the shooting, had done in her purse and was walking into the Loomis Keteria restaurant in Killeen, Texas. And she remembered herself her promise about breaking the law that was there. And so she went back to her car, put her permit in sealed handgun in the car and locked it away. And then went back to the restaurant to go and join her parents. And 10 minutes later, this crazy guy from Maryland who played glass windows of the restaurant, this pickup truck, gets out and starts shooting people. She could see her caught through the broken glass window. But anybody who was trying to run out of the restaurant at the time would be killed by the attack. And nor did she live when she played with death. But her father, trying to stop the attack when the horse's back was turned, picked up a butter knife, tried to charge the guy, got with intent the door turned around and shot him. Her mom, she tried to over-mock, but losing, her mom lost control, ran over her dying husband there to kill her, came over and shot her one wife in the head. You see all this, but obviously she can stop because the gun was locked in her car. And I hear these tech stories all the time. So I understand the desire, you know, on the news where they do these attacks, yeah. But you just will not find news stories mentioning that these attacks time and time are occurring in these places where guns are banned. And it's just not true in the United States. So if you look at the attacks in Europe, you know, even Switzerland, the attacks that have occurred have taken place one in a parliament building where recently after 1999 they banned people being, or had some restrictions on where you would carry a pistol handguns in Switzerland. And in other places you see similar types of restrictions. And mine doesn't, a lot of them, they can be different. If even once in a while they would go and mention, oh, and by the way, there's been another attack that's occurred in places where permanent pistol handguns are allowed. Because if somewhere, I think we begin to register on people that there's some kind of a factor that's occurring. You know, one other issue, I can talk about the pistol handguns and hopefully we'll shoot for a while. I'll mention one other thing before I go on, and that is, it's interesting, when you read the diaries for notes that are left behind by the court in these cases, how much they're driven by the police. And they often talk about the fact that if they can go and kill more people than have been killed in these other attacks, that, you know, they'll get a lot of news coverage. It's kind of a way if somebody's going to commit suicide, to go commit suicide in a way that they kind of, you know, everybody knows who they are, if they commit suicide. It's also interesting how cognizant these people are about whether or not permanent pistol handguns are allowed in different areas. One thing that probably most of you don't know, I'm sure even obviously people from outside of the United States had a Columbine school attack that occurred in 1999. And, you know, probably a lot of times, probably a couple of times you don't know, one is that a lot of people, one of the attackers there, was writing to state legislators regularly, apparently, a lot of people didn't conceal handguns, it was one from the state legislature. You know, one thing that, of a such man in particular, was the state law that would have allowed permanent concealed handguns on school property. And the other thing that people don't know is the day of the attack was the same day that later that afternoon the Colorado state legislature was scheduled to have final votes on gases of the concealed handgun law that was before the state legislature. And, you know, you mentioned that to people, and I guess they're usually hardly able to assert that. Now, let me give you one other area that I think has had a big impact on gun ownership, and that is the perception that there's real risk of people having guns in the hall. In fact, a big push for some restrictions on guns in Switzerland, in part because of this, I don't know the Switzerland data as well. But it's been that same type of age in the United States. During the 1990s, you had a lot of public service ads put out by the Clinton administration, which would go and show the voices or pictures of young children between the ages of three and seven, never a voice or picture of a child over that age. And the impression was that there was an epidemic of actual gun tests that were occurring in the hall. And you can go and look at the data that's on the Centers for Disease Control website. They are amazing in the detailed data about the type of gun used in actual deaths, where the state had occurred, the age of the person who was killed. So you could find the number of five-year-olds killed in North Carolina in 1992 if you were interested by handle shots. In 2003, for example, there were 20 actual gun deaths of all the children under age 10. There were 53 actual gun deaths involved in children under age 15 in the United States. Obviously, there would be zero in any of these cases rather than 20 and 53. But I think even those numbers give people a misimpression of what's happening. Because what I did was I took each of those cases and did this next service that I mentioned before to get additional information outside of what they had in CDC. And what you find is about two-thirds of the time that children die from actual gun shots is not what people think where a child gets a hold of a gun accidentally fires it. About two-thirds of the time are adult males with violent criminal histories, criminal records, who are the ones who fired the guns and killed these children. They're not in law-abiding homes. In fact, maybe even in the kids when they fired or not in law-abiding homes. And in most of these cases, the adult males, it's illegal for them to even own a gun. They're the ones who are firing. So between 1995 and 2001, you have an average of about 80 cases a year where a child under 10 either actually shoots themselves to death or a child under 10. Just by way of comparison, you have an average of about 36 children over the age of five who ground in five-gallon plastic water buckets in the United States. Now, five-gallon plastic water buckets, particularly dangerous type of water bucket, because they tend to be relatively narrower at the top and have many more gallons of water there. And it's narrower when the child falls in and the toddler may be harder for them to extricate themselves. But it's heavy enough that it's not going to tip over if the child falls into it. But you can look at things like children dying in bathtubs. You have about 95 children a year under age five who ground in bathtubs in the United States. And all sorts of things. So I guess what I just argued with 40 million kids under age 10, it's pretty hard to think of almost any other item that's in American homes. When you have this high open-axial death rate that you have with guns or low open-axial death rates, you have with guns. But that's not people's perceptions. And I think a lot of it, again, has to do with media coverage. I often get calls from the media when states are thinking about passing laws that require people to lie with their guns. Okay. And what I started to do is to go and ask reporters some questions when they call me. So one of the questions is, you know, why do they think that these incredibly rare events get the news coverage that they do? And usually the response that I get is, well, because it's so rare. You know, a man bites a dog is much more of a news-origin' than a dog bites a man. And I tell them, I don't qualify them very convincing in this case because I can give them lots of very rare, very gruesome ways that kids die that are as rare as likely to run the quest for or as likely to be more rare than the next one comes to us. But the second question I ask them is, well, if that's true, what do you think the impression is that people who watch these news stories come away? Do they come away with the impression that this is covered because it's such an incredibly rare event? Or do they come away with the impression that this represents a real threat to children's safety? And my guess is, the most people that I've asked that to can see that it's the latter case, that in fact people are scared and they're not only gone but convinced that there's an epidemic of accidental gun deaths that are occurring that represents a real threat to children's safety. I can go on and give you more information on that, but let me just summarize with a couple of things. Police are extremely important in stopping crime. My research indicates to me that police are probably the single most important factor for stopping crime. But I think one of the things that they understand themselves is that they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crime scene. And that raises an important question. What do you advise someone to do when they're having to confront a criminal by themselves? And the simple and substantive passive behavior is actually fairly present. By far the safest course of action for people to take when they're confronted by a criminal is to have a crime. It's particularly true for people who are relatively weaker physically. Women and the elderly benefit much more from having done when they're attacked by a criminal than men do simply because there's such a large frame differential that exists between a male criminal attacker and a female victim. The other thing I just point out in summary is that there are basically two groups of people who benefit the most. One is people who are relatively weaker physically. But the other group are basically people who are most likely to be victims of crime. And that in the United States would be horrible acts to live in high crime urban areas. The fact, you know, two of the most vulnerable groups in society are most who benefit the most from having guts built on protecting themselves. And I appreciate your time. And, you know, tomorrow, we have to ask you any questions.