We are having some technical problems hopefully they will be taken care of soon. I hope you know who i am. From the Crime Research center chief economist at the Us Sentencing Commission like Wharton Business School university of chicago and stanford and yale. And those miss impressions of guns and normally i am a very empirical guy and with that stymied issue but there is a lot of issues we can talk about. And a couple of claims that we frequently hear about that the background check stop three three. 5 Million People and then to try to stop criminals or other people who may be dangerous. That the claims that are made simply are not correct. To say three. 5 Million People but to say there have been three and a half initial denials. Those who were a felon its another to stop because they have a name similar to a felon. And then to have 76048 cases referred for prosecution. But often you will hear to not enforce the law but in that rage prosecutions is true under clinton and under obama republicans attacked democrats democrats attack republicans for not enforcing the law but just because somebody has a similar name that doesnt mean you will have Enforcement Actions against them. With address and birth date aim to do all that information. And that is roughly phonetically similar names. And then to stop from buying a gun but the problem is the most Vulnerable People in society that are harmed the most as a result. Because primarily it is the minorities as a result of the process because people tend to have names, hispanics have name names. Blacks have names. 30 percent of black males in the United States are legally prohibited from owning guns will whose names are they are most likely to be confused with . Other lawabiding good black males who want to defend themselves. You can appeal when you have these mistakes most people will find it necessary to hire a lawyer to cost 10000 to go through the legal process. Through no fault of their own. So they are overwhelmingly being stopped that if anything that the people that are most like the that are victims of Violent Crime are blacks in high crime urban areas benefit the most and protect themselves berkowitz great if police were there all the time but the police themselves no they arrive on the crime scene after they occur and that occurs of what people should do. Hold on a second. Here we go. Now we are set. So let me just finish up. And there is no reason why it to do criminal background checks on employees all the time. With an error rate 100 if you ever want to debate somebody with these background checks and just ask them why it is we dont have the federal government to meet the same standards that they demand the private companies have to meet if they are roughly phonetically similar names then democrats would be screaming bloodied murder. If bad is good enough to require the why not require they have to do the same thing cracks but if you bring this up to gun control advocates a scream poison pill. I personally think the reason why they try so hard is because that there is three. 5 million dangerous or prohibited people have been stopped from buying good money guns and to say 35000. So these to make a mistake i will give you one example maybe one more egregious example that there is a man who is 65 his wife had gotten threats at her job and he decided as a gift he would buy her a handgun and went into a store and filled out the paperwork. It turns out that 43 years earlier he got in a fist fight with his brother and the neighbors called the police that he was arrested and he pleaded guilty to Domestic Violence which is a misdemeanor that is prohibited. And the prosecution argued certainly he did not forget he had a prohibition and that he should have understood that what he filled out the form to sign off the bottom everything was correct that he was not prohibited but sentenced to perjury and three years in jail. Those are not the types of people. Criminals me be stupid but they are not so stupid that they go to somebody who will do a background check who somebodys who spends two years in jail. So it would be nice if these things could be fixed or would be easy to fix but im told people in the guncontrol movement of the simple things they could get. And the fact they will fight against reasonable changes but now to make it more difficult for lawabiding citizens. So to go through those common claims. One of those is that the United States is unique of firearm homicide. So those in the New York Times that has got a lot of tent loan attention over time. I will try to speak louder. Them much higher than in other countries from the New York Times to have 11 countries with three per 100,000 people sweden switzerland and other countries there are a lot of issues with this. There are a lot more developed countries in the world that meet the standards there is an organization which is the club for developed countries rules based income in production so the blue lines the green is a median and the red is the United States. That is well below but they countries around the world have a higher homicide rate. Theres a couple of things to point out briefly. People think murderers and homicides are the same thing. They are not. And it makes the difference homicides are murderers and justifiable homicide justifiable homicide cases of the Police Officer is being a criminal or a civilian but the United States has a lot more justifiable homicides in other countries that would lower our ranking by 20 percent from what we have to make a significant difference the vast majority dont record murders but just homicides and that makes a difference. So not only homicide but if you look at the firearm homicides and how is it so much higher . If you look carefully you can see it there are a lot fewer names 45 percent of the countries dont report their homicides. Those that have the highest homicide rates so the reason why we look relatively high is at the countries of the high homicide rates are not reporting those rates. So were not that were really higher but they are removing or providing the data for the other countries. Theres no reason to believe in terms of firearm homicides. So these are worse countries that dont report the data accurately. Well that is something that we see quite common in other countries. And with that higher homicide to and this is higher than what we have here. And one thing that is misleading that and it varies so dramatically across the United States but then they make up over 20 percent of the population. The murderer map with a graph set out in different towns, you will find half of them occurring now. They are very heavily concentrated in tiny areas. To have a relatively high murder rate and with mexico. And when they have extremely strict since 1972. With those caliber rifles. Just as a bring them from the rest of the world. So i want to talk a little bit about another number. And here you can see switzerland is 46. I would do this differently. The source for the data and if you go to the footnotes you will find they dont provide a source for about 85 percents of the countries and i do 5 percent give me your source without problems at the data and they refuse. So i dont believe these numbers but this is something you will see all the time in the media. And there are other problems at this but for example even those that they do have data for like switzerland but what they are looking at is private ownership of guns. But at this point it would require all males between the ages of 18 and 36 to have a military issued machine gun and in many cases a handgun. The ownership of guns or protection . If youre worried about people behaving responsibly or irresponsibly that should matter rather than the ownership. If you pick this for switzerland or israel they only have seven guns for every 100 people israel the majority that are owned by the government. You may be in possession of a gun over 40 years but the government technically owns it. If you were to fix that in terms of possession rates they are higher than what we had in the United States. And those similar types of claims what you will see the United States mix makes up over 40 percent of the population but all of those that are in the United States. So beyond the fact it is the nonexistent data but even countries they do have the data for let me give you a problem of the example of the surveys in can day one canada gun ownership in the early nineties he will find a and a half million canadians on a survey would say that when they started along the registry all of a sudden they can only find three. 5 million canadians who would say they own a gun. It could be you have those that sold their guns or you have them destroy their guns but if all this and they were selling them off what if it was his biased by the media or people trying to turn the men . In fact there was an increase in sales in that time so you could imagine once you have a registry and somebody is asking you may think it is from the government but if you were breaking the law to say yes, i have a gun and i behaving illegally, the real reason to believe this number is worthless it is tremendously exaggerating the us share. Put these numbers together so the one thing that i talk about firearm homicide rates ive also talked about gun ownership rates. What you really want to do is not looked at the number of guns for 100 people i argue that percentage of the population. I could have 1 percent of the population own 100 guns each if i am talking about selfdefense or people behaving improperly that is a lot more useful number so then it shows that here then you get that relationship out there all by themselves. Here is my own graph to show homicide rates of gun ownership. This doesnt include russia or brazil and heres what happens when you change the graph. But the question is what can the United States but if you asked the question i do have problems with the pistons you see these graphs i just want to let you know how sensitive those results are that in fact looking at all of the countries that have negative relationships that more guns are associated with a slightly lower homicide rate and previously. But now if you add in those even if you included the United States. And it is way out here and then to be there all by himself. Then they toe the line by themselves. I want you to know how sensitive these are and on that one observation how they are excluding those other observations. So if you were to go and look at all countries and not just developed countries but those that have the most guns have the lowest homicide rates. And look at it from firearm homicides or those with the biggest rates but we see this also in terms of shooting claims. And use those gun ownership rate numbers and the mass public shooting rate from the university of alabama meant to show this type of relationship. Have a couple problems with this. Then to start putting out these numbers in the New York Times they wouldnt give out the list of mass public shootings around the world. They claimed 31 percent and then over those next 47 years , 90 from the United States. But no, you bum one obama was constantly sending so anyway i ask he would refuse to give that information out for years. Finally a couple years ago i decided to bite the bullet at the Research Center you can often find the cases around the world of their website crime and research. Org. [laughter] we spent 70000 i dont know how to find those in africa are parts of south america and he never explained how we could get a complete list looking at that period of 47 years. And over 47 years. So with that sack lawn executive definition so actually it is less than 1 percent and then with four. 6 percent of the worlds population we are well below the world average there is a lot of countries europe, france, finland, norwayd with lots of minor countries with lower rates and these are the quotes. But i say this every time this just doesnt happen in other countries. And then we can show you but then with that data would refuse. That combine but also in the shooter cases. And you look at the number of People Killed per 100,000 men to have more People Killed and look at mass public shooting even the most extreme cases and then to mention but the point is how many guns americans own cracks look at places like the New York Times and now 30 percent of american households own a gun. And with that General Social survey. And with a producer of abc news. And then talking add an hour and a half but at least this will be too much of a problem in the future because fewer households are having guns. And so youre still relying on the General Social survey . Do you know that abc news said you have your own survey that does not show a drop but flat over time . She did not believe me. I said i can send you a copy of your own survey. So i did that and a couple days later abc news has a story on the evening news and Good Morning America and nightline and 2020 about this study they have done about the risk of guns in the home. The whole time saying it is falling only 30 percent of households own them. This is abc news own results. That looks pretty flat to me that is compared to what they were using but they didnt mention they have their own survey that has very different results. So just to give you an idea there is a General Social survey and with that social survey. And then theres a couple of issues with this so those that they have a gun or not. And those at the household has a gun. And then to answer the question and questioning that to the percent that they own a gun. And half the people in the survey then it takes two and a half percent just to give you a range. That General Social survey is the outlier. Is 46 or 47 percent and then to go pretty close to half of households say they own a gun. And then this even underestimates it. But married women will say much less likely than married men. Maybe hes not telling the wife about it. But my guess it could be true if you have a mass public shooting to be reticent where maybe they are just to tell people how they defend their families. There are good reasons to believe so why do they keep using time after time . So they want to make those gun owners feel more isolated but if you look at illinois one i went illinois you have to have a card to own a gun in illinois. There has been a huge increase over the last 15 years. And then it claims there has been about 30 percent drop of ownership over also looking at concealed carry permits and in 1998 there are 2 million in the United States. Now about 18 million in the constitutional carry state you dont have to have a permit to carry now you have 16 states that are constitutional carry. So people in those states dont need to get a permit to carry and in fact when the state no longer requires a permit then you can go outside your state for reciprocity then they level off or fall a little bit even though you know the number that has gone up. Changing from 2 million to 18 million really underestimates the role. Just gives you an idea of gun ownership rates have been changing a lot more than people think. This is a different question. So whether or not teachers should be . If you look at all adults slightly more are harmed 40 percent over 43. If you asked people schoolage kids their own kids and 59 percent support and what basically comes from those adults that dont have kids. One of the things we frequently hear is that concealed carry permits have very Interesting Data because what you find is and to be incredibly lawabiding. For people losing concealed carry permit from any violation and tens of thousands of percentage points. And the police are rarely convicted of firearms violations. One 20th the rate of the population those that are convicted of one tenth of Police Officers. And those permit holders and one of those claims what makes it so dangerous they are very successful and with that research that is done and the issue from the economist it is hard if you see gun control even with firearm suicide. Whether they want to be successful a woman may take six sleeping pills. So to be successful to commit suicide and then to say only 5 percent only 10 percent 97 percent of firearms are successful so thats how we should get rid of firearms but with that broader sense. And then one shot to the head is 98 percent explosives 97 percent. And then to have big problems with people going in front of trains. Going in front of trains. Successful. And over 93 percent successful there are lots of ways to commit suicide for those success rates. And if these other types of suicide are looking people than shooting yourself. That they had that gun buyback in 1986 in australia to reduce firearm homicides by about 50 percent. And then to do the buyback. People could go by guns again by 2010 the rates was clearly above what it was before the buyback. And over time that increased. And then to have the effect on crime and then to increase over time. That is for firearm suicide. You can see the death rates were falling but at a slower rate. If i take a perfectly Straight Line and then just compare the before and after averages . The after average. It did not vary at all. And if that line is perfectly straight is there some type of continuity i think it fell more slowly than it did before. This is what the New York Times pushes a lot the last couple weeks. From Nicholas Kristof where the death is falling over time. And if you can only regulate guns like you regulate cars. And as it continues to fall. And with that 1920 where we have the data and before any federal Regulation Companies competing against each other all of those that were put in cars before hand like the seatbelts