This quaint look, orange jumpsuit, orange hair. Every channel was there and it was an hour of nothing happening. He did not say anything. So when you think about why do we do that, i know why we do it, because people tune in. So they are giving people what they want to see. But i think thats the worst part of it. As far as encouraging others to kill, there is an element, but it is a small one. The bigger part of the problem is the offensiveness, the negativity of that. You have, for example, an Academy Awardwinning actress for playing a florida serial killer. Or years before, mark harmon who at that time was the leading man of hollywood and he played bundy. What right do murderers have to have some famous actor or actress play them in the movie. I do not mind of movies about crimes as long as the killer is like a very small part of it and you dont have a star play the role. Goahead. My question is along the same lines. He said not to make those who are committing mass shootings, can you argue that the way the media betrays the hype that they play around this stuff is somewhat positive it makes people aware, it makes people take initiative to change things, for example . Last year there was a video that went viral on youtube about the guy that was taking charge in uganda. And i had never heard about that. All of my friends were talking about it and nobody knew about this. And now all of these celebrities are starting charities and i know that there is controversy on where that money was going. But my point is there a way to make the shooters aware of what is going on . One of the positive things is all the people wanting to donate. A lot of good can come out of publicity. But you just have to take the killer out of the picture. Thats the problem. So i think giving a good example, i did a study with my colleague of People Magazine. We looked at every cover from the 70s up to a few years ago. When they first started, it was all about people who did good things. They had people and politicians who did the right thing. Medical discoveries, astronauts who did great things, here it is. And over time it started to get very negative. After a while, the majority of the covers were criminals, Jeffrey Dahmer was on the cover three times. He was also in the most intriguing 100 people of the century. He does not belong in a list like that. And one of the people went on a shooting rampage at an Elementary School in illinois. A guy named jamie wilson who was a fan who kept clippings about her and did exactly what she did when the police went to his apartment and searched it, they found People Magazine covers and all sorts of stuff like that. In more recent years people have changed. They curtail putting bad people on the cover. Sometimes they put the victims on the cover so that is a positive change. That is a situation where the media really has to has to take the initiative in the have to draw the line and say people might be more likely if they put the picture on the cover we can still write about the crime or the case. The cops and the heroes. The killer is in the story, but lets not make him the feature or focus. Hello, usually after a school setting, we hear from guncontrol advocates and experts in psychology in response to certain things. Very rarely does the media focus on educators. So im wondering what do you feel the goal of educators and School Professionals should be in situations like this. And then also coming up with a solution and what do you think it is likely to be. What kind of education . Schoolteachers . I really mean anyone involved in the profession. Okay, i think you do. Watching the news coverage, there were a number of individuals i saw, people involved with Teachers Unions and they do have a perspective. For example, the issue about arming teachers, its something that the teachers do not want. Just recently there was a hearing where some bigshot Teachers Union said they didnt want teachers to have guns. Its the people in the state capitals that think that it is a good idea. So youre actually right that sometimes those who are making the most noise know the least and those who know the most are silent. So i agree with you. I agree with most of your arguments tonight. One argument that i am concerned with, the discussion about concealed weapons is not being an effective deterrent. Two things come to mind. One is, as i recall from your article, a person in a situation like this would be so nervous and panic stricken it strikes me as that may be true the other hand, theres a probability of him being successful. And maybe he would argue that i would take that chance against a certainty there are multiple crimes with the possibility that maybe somebody among them that might carry a gun. And it might be effective. The second point is there are certain counties in this country which protect conceal and carry laws which people permit and a lot of people do in these areas, they carry concealed weapons. Im wondering if there has been any data or statistics done on the incidence of Violent Crimes or mass killings, in those areas that permit concealed weapons as opposed to an area like the district of colombia which have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. So can we see any kind of statistical relationship between the number of people in an area that would be carrying concealed weapons as opposed to an area like the district of colombia which no one is permitted to carry a concealed weapon . Okay, let me deal with the first one first. Lets fletcher lined. Okay. I had to deal with carry and conceal weapons in environments. Okay, there was a terrific show. It was either dateline or 2020. They took a bunch of students who had training in guns and basically gave them fake guns and at some point, someone was going to come in with a gun and start shooting. Not a real gun, of course and they would record a response and record what happened. A lot of people in the class would have been killed, not by the shooter, but by other people who also held up their guns. One of the problems is it is hard to tell the good guy from the bad guys. You have the bad guys, who was wearing blue jeans and all the good light who have blue jeans and backpacks and guns. I kind of worry when they are turning around. 98 of the people out there who might have guns are trustworthy. We have three more questions and then we are wrapping up. You talked about this at the end of your speech. How did the United States deal with other countries . Is there something about our culture that allows them to encourage this behavior . The european countries, asian countries, you know, oster elliott. They have had mass murders two. We have a cornerstone market in the United States, not a monopoly, but more than our share and we also have more than our share with homicide generally. So really has to do with elevation with greater burden. And people who have said that guns are the problem. Im not sure that it is the problem. Our rate of homicide without guns, it is higher than most of the rates of homicide overall. It is not just the fact that we have Deadly Weapons accessible. You know, it is a very complicated issue as to why the United States is more violent and has a lot to do with demographic issues. Is her greatest let me say one more thing. We have seen it equips our community. 30 or 40 years ago if your neighbor was out of a job you would go over there with the tuna casserole and offer whatever you can do to help. Nowadays you dont even know who your neighbor is much less knows they are unemployed and that is the problem in the community. Lots of people feel isolated and lots of people are alone in the rest of us without reaching out to help them, we dont know them and they are strangers. I actually have the same question and she coordinated it better but im wondering in europe there are less guns and in fact to account for the lower rate of violence. Well, there are some countries where there are fewer guns and by the way they do, they still do have mass murders. They had won a year and a half ago. A taxi driver went on a spree killing but there are some countries in europe where lots of people hunt. So its a mixed bag. As you said before theres been a lot of talk in the media about assault weapons and what role they play in Violent Crimes. Personally im a bit unclear about what exactly an assault weapon is and how its different from a semiautomatic or other firearms and rote role it plays not just en masse shootings but Violent Crimes in general . An assault weapon is what you define as an assault weapon. Its not like an official category of assault weapons. If you look back at the assault weapon legislation we have in the 90s, they have had to do with a certain number of attachments. Magazine size and so forth. People basically think an assault weapon is something that looks like an assault weapon but there is no clear definition of one. Lets also understand that not in terms of mass murder but crimes in general a very small percentage of crimes are committed with assault weapons. With new assault weapons ban about 2 here that doesnt mean we should have it but let me say one more thing. If i have time. We are almost out of time. Sandy hook, awful. Its the worst you can imagine. In 1989 we had an Elementary School where five were killed and 29 were wounded. Stockton california. People dont remember it largely because the victims were poor and they were southeast asians. It wasnt quite like the uppermiddleclass community of newtown connecticut which is like anywhere in america but after that case president bush decided that the chinese made ak47s and we just cant have that ms. Country. What he did was he passed, enacted a ban on the importation of foreign made semiautomatic weapons. And you know what happened . They cheered, more business for them. At northeast university in the 70s i took to coop jobs over in ireland and england, and there were no guns in society over there when i was working on those jobs. So they lose it or nine people a month to violence that we lose 900 to 1000 people a month to violence in this country. Now i was just driving along the other day and listening to an interview with jack straw the former homeland secretary in britain on the same issue and i was reminded, he made a comment that the idea that someone in britain would carry a weapon for personal defense is inconceivable. A lot of our immigrants and i come from massachusetts, came from england. How can we be so different from britain is my question. Is not just the availability of weapons that be have, 300 million weapons in circulation and Great Britain ,com,com ma there are some weapons but very few. Its also the attitudes. I mean the passion americans have for guns and the Second Amendment is quite foreign to many people in europe that dont quite understand why my cold dead hands, fingers, what is the phrase . Just dont take away my guns and is the last thing i want to do. I think its not just the none but what guns mean to us. Too many americans. Its very different in other countries. They would never think of the idea of selfdefense because they dont have that fear. That is what im trying to deal with here and figure out. If we had a crime rate that was extremely low perhaps people would be less apt to feel the need to arm themselves. But i am not sure. It goes back to this idea of people dont have this attachment or affinity with all their neighbors. Even if we had a low crime rate there would be lots of people say is a need my gun because there a lot of people out there in america who i dont trust and i think thats probably different in european countries. Thank you for coming. Nice to see you. Elizabethtown college and the Peace College who are dedicated to peace and nonviolence as part of her mission as the president stated at the beginning of his comments, and i think we did a great job tonight gathering together as a Community Around a very difficult issue. Will you join me in thanking professor fox one more time . [applause] there is an informal reception. Please join me to my left and have a good evening. Former Prime Minister belgian discusses the Economic Future of the European Union. Mr. Verhofstadt addressed europes fiscal problems and called for a change to the governing system. He currently serves the harlemite. The daily news and Jupiter David from monitoring the discussion. Thank you very much. You said it shall be a short introduction but with a politician you never know how short the introduction can be. I will do my best and first of all ladies and gentlemen its not the first time i have come to washington to give an introduction about the e. U. Crisis, the crisis of the European Union and what can we learn from the United States . I think six years ago at that moment Prime Minister of belgium about the same topic though not such a Prestigious Institution as brookings. Today i am in quite a different context i should say because compared to six years ago the European Union is in the midst of a serious crisis and i shall not give you a whole overview of everything that has happened in the last few years in europe. You have certainly followed the greek crisis and the portuguese financial crisis and the irish crisis and also in the same year the problems in madrid spain, problems in italy. So we have to recognize that since the outbreak of the financial crisis of 2008 eight we are in the midst of a number of problems and the question that i want to raise with you this morning is what went wrong in the European Union and . What is the reason there is a crisis in the European Union and . It has happened in other parts of the world as well. Why what is happening exactly in the union . And what is going wrong . I put this question as a european to convince somebody is in a federal europe because as many of you will know, there were so many people in europe that believed it is the existence of the union itself that is the problem. And certainly not the solution to our crisis. They would draw the retreat behind the National Borders as was the case in the 19th century in the world of of oldstyle powers and oldstyle nationstates and affect many of these people dont understand that this world is not any longer exist and the 19th century is clearly behind us. I am always saying president obama cannot deal with Climate Change and trade with china and any single european country to achieve this on its own and moreover im always giving the example of what shell be at the g8 in 2040 or Something Like that, the g8 shall shall be thee usjapan china india brazil russia and ive given six names now and the last indonesia and mexico and one single european country. Nevertheless i think that the challenges are huge and the societies are at stake, our principles, a way of life that counts in this world of tomorrow and i think its certainly necessary that the two big continental locks europe and the u. S. Are working together. One seventh of the world population, still 50 of the worlds gdp and two continents that share the same freedom. But let me return to my initial question. What went really wrong in the European Union . Well, i think mainly finally talk about her problems we have to talk about the eurozone. Establishing this eurozone a number of fundamental mistakes. We created as you know a Monetary Union and at that moment an Economic Union, fiscal union at Banking Union and today well know its impossible that the single guarantee with 17 different governments and 17 different Economic Strategies that it simply cannot work. I am always saying maybe the state can exist without a currency and there are number of examples of that but there was never a currency and there is no currency in the World Without the state. The state authority on the economic financial and political conditions to sustain the currency. Nevertheless the european decisionmakers years ago talked exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. They talked that it was possible to introduce the euro without the necessary means and all these necessary means and dues should become spontaneously reality. In a nutshell they told that it was possible to have a single currency, the euro based on especially to specific rules, two basic rules. The first and you know them, no public debt higher than 60 and secondly no fiscal deficits higher than 3 . Dont get me wrong, these rules rules but the Founding Fathers of the eurozone made a mistake not to foresee in my opinion a Public Authority at the eurozone level to impose that. A Public AuthorityStrong Enough to prevent Member States from breaching them. A Public Authority with the necessary means to sanction them and to penalize the system. In my opinion certainly in politics a very naive opinion. That was not the only mistake. Every time the stock markets are going up, many in the European Union believe the crisis is over and i think its sufficient to see the effect in italy to realize this is completely wrong. Its enough that a single election goes badly for the markets to react immediately but the number of devastating consequences across the union. We have followed that 24 hours. 1 more than just before the election and with contagion