release people from the forms to enter manufacturing and other sectors. that process was so unbelievably successful but if you think about what's the price of buying a cow, what we need to live and sometimes we lived too well, that number is getting closer to zero. so but the last thing i would be doing i think is driving people who are poor into food production and whatever. if you look at new york city, i don't know a lot about tucson, we support a lot of food pantries. most of the people coming to the soup kitchens and food pantries are not owing because they are hungry. they're going because they are poor. if they can get the food for free then that leases -- releases dollars for other

necessities they need to buy. is that the kind of intervention i would be sent into about local food production? awfully expensive and probably not economic, not the one i would devised. i have no idea about poor farmers. never heard of them before the question. i'm tempted to sort of challenge the notion on sort of come in an increasingly urbanized country, the relevance of the type of program. i think one of the biggest changes between 1930s and now, we are an urban country as opposed to a rural country. but i actually do think some of the ideas that i think, that i read about, and most extraordinary our counterintuitive ideas.

innovations, and i'm not say poor farming is arisen, on the surface sound odd, bizarre, but in the data, tremendous. one of the organizations i read about, a group called give directly which is built entire service overseas, built from the notion that it's actually makes a lot more sense. sets up a program to go to poor neighborhoods in places like kenya and uganda to get people cash it when i first heard about it, that's absurd your that's why we need rules, we need to tell people what to do with the money we're giving them. it turns out there's a lot of data, they've done a lot of control testing. in fact, people may come into situations and no one claims it's a recipe for every problem, that if you give people cash and you're able to track it and make sure it gets in hand, doesn't

get siphoned off along the way, there's actually much longer positive effects on poverty alleviation, at least in those parts of the third world. so i think sort of ideas that are subject to testing, empirical modeling and proof are the ideas we should be looking for these days. >> gentlemen, thank you for joining us into some. i know we kept you busy this weekend. [applause] and both of them will be out in sales and signing area one. if you want to engage in more conversation, and fro from their point if you buy the book, i'm sure they will sign it. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> if you go back and look at coolidge, he was a conservative

hero. is tax rate was a gold standard tax rate that we saw in the video, 25% is what he got, the top rate down to. he fought like crazy. it started remember with wilson in the '70s so that was an epic battle. when you go look at all the socialites said about coolidge in washington how cold he was come he would meet with them. you want to remember they were probably also from families that endorsed different policies. especially tr was let's get them, go active bully pulpit presidency and he was coolidge, prissy and cold and not giving up things. she said he looked as though he had been weaned on the pickle. he was from new england, farmers don't talk a lot or wave their arms about because a cow might take them. -- ktm. he was a shy person.

but also had a political purpose. he knew if he didn't talk a lot people wouldn't stop talking. and, of course, a presidential or political leader is constantly bombarded with requests. his silence was his way of not giving in to special interest. he had articulated that quite explicitly. >> amity shlaes wil we'll take r calls, e-mails and tweaks on taxes, depression era presidents and fiscal policy "in depth" live for three hours sunday at noon eastern on c-span2's book booktv. >> the problem is future peace. that is your job in germany. by your conduct and attitude while on guard inside german you can lay the groundwork of a piece that could last for ever, or just the opposite. you could lay the groundwork for a new war two. and just as american soldiers have to do this job 26 years

ago, so other american soldiers, your sons, might have to do it again another 20 odd years from now. germany today appears to be beaten. hitler out. >> swastikas gone. nazi propaganda, off the air. concentration camps empty. you will see ruins. you will see flowers. you'll see some mighty pretty scenery. don't let it fool you. you are in enemy country. be alert, suspicious of everyone, take no chances. you're up against something more than tourist scenery. you're up against german history. it isn't good. >> in the first of a five part look at hollywood directors who made films from one or two,

"reel america" features frank capra. will also include commentary from author and journalist mark harris sunday at 4 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> c-span to provide live coverage of just senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> author maya angelou digested at the age of 86 at her home in winston-salem, north carolina. she was the recipient of the pulitzer prize, national medal of arts, three grammy awards and the presidential medal of freedom. in 2002, she spoke at the "l.a.

times" book festival about her memoir, "a song flung up to heaven." this is an hour. >> our next author is a noted poet, writer, civil rights -- [cheers and applause] teacher, director who was raised in arkansas, learned early in life about the healing power of language, literature and recitation. [applause] more than 30 years ago she published "i know why the caged bird sings," the first in a series of memoirs that has become unique in american literature and that has established her as one of the geniuses of afro-american serial autobiography. she has been nominated for a pulitzer prize and a national book award. she's written three children's

books, five poetry selections, special post for the 50th anniversary of the united nations, and the memorable on the pulse of them in which she read for president bill clinton. [applause] >> her new book is called "a song flung up to heaven" and it opens a she's returning from africa to the u.s. to work with malcolm x. it moves through the shocking news of his assassination, the rods why it's fishing -- the watts riots. host of the nationally syndicated public radio program bookworm. ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to welcome your stage michael silverblatt and incomparable dr. maya angelou. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.

>> bravo. >> will be talking for around half an hour, after which there'll be a round 15 minutes for questions. if you have questions, there will be a mic in the aisle. i know it may be hard to find and i'll, which is just an indication of how important our guest is. dr. angelou, you said that what concerned you is autobiography is an artform, as a literary form. and i wondered what you meant by that? >> well, autobiography is my favorite form. on the other hand, i'm extremely fickle. so when we start like about poetry, i'm going to say that's

my favorite poem. and i mean it. [laughter] i learned from mr. frederick douglass, the importance of autobiography on memoir, because mr. douglas used the first person singular to talk about the third person, about we, about us. he was able to say i stood on the burning deck, i stood on a slave ship auction, i went, i broke my back, i took the lash. meaning that i as a human being can speak for human beings. and when i really begin working on caged bird, at first i thought i would write a book about what it was like to grow up as a black girl.

and i found it was a difficult to write it well that i had better in large my reason. so i chose to write it for black boys. it was so difficult i thought, i better get somebody else in here. so i decided to write it for white girls. [laughter] and then i thought i better get a big event so i decide to write it for white boys. and then for asians and spanish-speaking and native american, because it's difficult to grow up. it's almost impossible. most people don't. [laughter] they don't. they get older. they find parking spaces that on other credit cards ends say now i'm grown up, but that's not true. to growth is difficult because it means that one takes responsibility for the time one takes up in the space once

occupied. that's to grow up. and to keep laughing, spitting into the wind. i mean, indeed. so i thought i better write about what it's like. so i used the i, meaning we. this is what human beings go through. this is what knocks us down, makes us stumble, fall, fall, and somehow righteously rise. somehow rise. and everybody here, every human being anywhere has had a night of fear or terror or loss or pain or grief or disappointment, and yet miraculously each one who is awakened has awakened, risen, and then sing of the human beings and said, morning,

how all you? thanks, and you? [laughter] that's what we are like. that is what we are like, so that's why the form continues to draw me, pull me. and i did my best to have an impact on the form so that younger riders coming along writing autobiography might be encouraged to tell the truth. don't tell everything you know. but make sure what you do say is the truth. if it is a human truth, an african-american woman's human truth, it is an asian woman's human truth in shanghai or in tokyo, kyoto. it is an italian man's truth in rome. if i tell the truth, you see?

so that is intriguing. and then to write well, not to mention that. >> tell me, listening to your cadences as you speak, they are the cadences of a poet and also of a preacher. where did you learn to speak like that? >> i was amused for six years of my life. i was raped when i was seven, and i told the name of the rapist to the family. the man was put in jail for one day and released. and about four days later, the police came to my maternal grandmother's house and told her that the man had been found

dead, and it seemed he had been kicked to death. my seven year old logic told me that my voice had killed the man. and i had a dangerous weapon. and so it was better not to speak. i thought my voice might just go out and kill anybody, just anybody who heard it or heard of it. so i stopped speaking for six years. but i listened. i thought of my whole body as an ear. i thought i could just go in a room and absorb sounds, just by osmosis, take again. so i listened carefully, and because of that, it's my blessing to speak a number of languages. because i listened. i don't think anything

perfectly. and i was big no other language as well as english, because i learned it at the parents and knees, you know, on crawling on the floor. but i've spoken. i've been a translator in yugoslavia, and i took a course in cinematography in sweden, in swedish in the winter. wrong, wrong. [laughter] because i listened to the human voice. i have never heard a voice i didn't like. i've heard things the voice said, meaning content of the speech, but the voice, i love the way we sound. i love that.

[laughter] there's a language in south africa that three sounds monotone. one is x., one is q. one is c. i love that. how did you do that? [laughter] so there is about what my ear does for me is it picks out the melody. that's what greg minix do, minds, and people like, who can do voices and make you think. i mean, billy crystal, i mean, he becomes muhammad ali. custom listening so carefully,

you see? but the cadences and the rhyth rhythms. >> i love the southern black that this preacher's melody. i do love it. and i grew up on king james version of the bible. so when the black preachers say, now brothers and sisters -- [laughter] as the cockney said in london, it makes me, all over courier. [laughter] this is the first book, the new book, "a song flung up to heaven," that you wrote without having your brother their to read and talk to you about. what was it that he brought to the reading experience that was so valuable for you?

>> well, my brother bailey was the only genius my family -- by family came closer to making a genius than they may bailey. and i have a sister friend here who would back me up on it. i think well and i worked very hard, but bailey, at 16, i was 14, he introduced me to thomas wolfe, kenneth paxson, the poet. jonathan west -- what's his -- not jonathan swift. but he introduced me to modern writers, nathaniel west. philip wylie. at 16. we've just come from arkansas, from a village smaller than this

stage right here. [laughter] from a hamlet. we had just come. and how did this black boy from a little village in arkansas know about these writers, the poets? i can't comprehend that. i was so used to reading the books that were thrown away by the white school in arkansas. i was still liking the book to read. and now, dear reader -- [laughter] my brother was reading these. i would say go back to page 75. you see the point has been made. he introduced me to virginia woolf. he said now you see this, now see what she was saying here. and he loved me. he loved me. so it was my savior.

he was my savior, physical savior, human savior. i was six-foot at 14 and a half. my brother at his tallest was five for. and he was my big brother. i did make the mistake when we were teenagers, i was 14, and he came to my room. we moved back from the south to san francisco. he knocked at the door and asked me a question. i didn't like the way he asked me, so i spat on him. that boy whipped me down the hall, all down the back steps, all into the yard, and my hair was long and huge, and he took my hair and put it in the fishpond. he said, i am your big brother.

so i never again had trouble with short people. [laughter] i think i married a couple. [laughter] if it didn't bother the man, it certainly didn't bother me. [laughter] but he was all of that. he was just bright and funny and my supporter. with everything i've written comment he's like bob loomis, my editor for 33 years. we are an item in publishing because i wouldn't, i would go to university press is bob went there. well, bob loomis and bailey held my hand, figuratively, when i would try to enchant myself back to the time to remember it so

well that a 14 year old boy in the bronx could read it and say i was there. to write it so -- so i sometimes thought, suppose i get stuck back there, you know, in the memory, in the enchantment. the only person i knew who was bold enough and loved me enough to come and get me was my brother. and in writing this book which was the most difficult of all the books, it's the slimmest, too. it was the most difficult. my brother died. and i didn't know if i dared. running into a burning building, you know. but i did.

i have that memory and i have a poem in one of the books entitled ailey baldwin, when great trees fall. i use it a lot and it's used in a number of going home ceremonies, funeral ceremonies. it says in effect, at least i had him. he was here. and i'm better for it, and i can be because i had him. so that's a blessing. >> dr. angelou, as you read the autobiographies, book by book, i'm sure many of you have come and that's one of the great pleasures, what other writer can you think of who would attract a

crowd of this size, most of them have read not just some of the books but all of them, very impressive, one needs the cast of our century really. one meets james baldwin. one meets billie holliday. martin luther king, malcolm x -- >> frances williams, frances williams, and a favorite of my. she later and she took me into her home and she showed me her backyard feeder in the place she built writing workshop and she taught me what a person who believes in hard does for the community, that it is a community project. also, i'm thrilled to find paul marshall in the books who is one of my favorite writers. how important do you think it is for a young writer to be familiar with, to work with the minds of his or her time?

>> i think it's important. i think the writer must always be founded in the language in which he's working. so it is wise to have a foundation in the great writers of yesteryear. the writer should be familiar with the english writers, the writers who write in english, and with the translation, read the writers to write in english as a second language. i mean, in america the nigerian nobel prize winner wrote in a

second language. i would dance if my knee wasn't giving me trouble, a japanese writer. but read how the language sounds. listen to the language. read singer. listen to how the language can sound out of this year and out of that mouth -- out of this ear and out of that mouth. if one is reading say, roth, philip roth, or james baldwin, the melodies are a little different. so you should read, this is for the writer. i think the writer as often as

possible go into a room, close the door and read joan gideon. she writes english. make no mistake. she writes a beautiful english. read it out loud. read norman mailer a loud. read paul marshall a loud. just open your mouth and read it. it's very important i think. then, of course, affairs like this where readers and writers sit together. there may be a writer who doesn't know right now that he is a writer. he may be 40. he may be 16. she may be 50. she may be 20. she is a writer. she loves reading, but she has never tried writing. she maybe 60 or even 70.

hello. 70 something. [laughter] so yes, but make alliances with people who love the language. it's very important. who won't laugh at you because you said, good morning, yes, it's a fine day. wait, no, better word. it's splendid. well, wait a minute. [laughter] when you go to your -- to look up a better way of saying it. >> i've had the pleasure of having a writer who's been very influenced by you on my radio show bookworm, and that's your son. i was truly delighted because i don't know if you know standing at the scratch line but i truly think that it's one of the most enjoyable adventure novels.

>> my son wrote it. [laughter] >> it's quite an amazing book. he's not -- a huge imagination but i wonder, did you teaching? >> well, i talked him so much. i taught in poetry. and i taught him, i don't know how i knew it since he was born to me when i was very young, but i taught him that there was a place inside himself which he must keep pristine nobody had the right to into that place. it may be the place you go when you go to meet god at last. so that gave him a sense of independence, a sense of himself. and i raised him alone for the most part. so i had to give him

responsibilities, and i would tell him, we have $200 we these bills at the time, what do you think we should do? and i'd say you may go into your room and think about it. he would know that i'd left him no out, of course, but he would come back, mom, i'm ready to talk to. and i would explain, i want an answer thinking on this, a male thinking. he would then tell me, i think we should pay the rent. very good. [laughter] so he had a sense of himself. he belonged. he was not a tagalong. he belonged. he was a partner in his family. that did not always work so well for me in that at one time i married a south african freedom fighter who was an attorney in south africa who escaped, and

although he was an attorney, his father, when his father would call him, his father would say -- and he was a father. he would never say yes or yes or. so i married him and brought this 15 year old who is already ready to be, i don't know, he was already a 15 year old. and i brought him in, as my brother would say to him, guy, i want you to be in the house at 9:00. and guy would sit down and say why? but i had told them that he had the right to question. i had the responsibility to explain it to him. he didn' then had the right to o persuade me, but if he didn't, he had to go by my rule.

i had the last say. so i had raised him, so this south african man would ask them, what do you mean asking me? and then my son would ask, what do you mean, what do you mean? [laughter] oh, my lord. but i taught in poetry. so i'm sorry to say he said now nine operations, but eight operations on his back. in an accident he broke his neck. his neck was broken. last year he was in miami at the miami projects at miami -- at a florida -- what is the hospital? jackson memorial. and i had been there, his wife, his son had been there. and i've gone back to north carolina where i live.

when he called me a couple of weeks later, he asked me, mom, do you remember the poem, invectives? i said, of course. but as soon as he asked me i remembered teaching it to him when he was about eight. and this little black kid walking around the house, how is it the night that covers me -- i was seeing that when he asked me would you recite it? i said yes. slice it out of the night that covers me, black as a pitch from pole to pole, i thank whatever god made me for my unconquerable soul. i did the whole poem. when i finished my mom said thanks, mama. you forgot a verse. [laughter] so i recited the verse he told me. and then he asked if we could

do, due to piece together. so i said yes. he said in my cadence. so i said yes. so we did the four versus. and he said, thanks, mom. they have just finished taking over 100 stitches out of my back. so he had that phone their, poetry, poetry. so i encourage, especially young people and especially middle-aged, well, old people -- [laughter] i encourage people memorize some poem, have it inside yourself so that in case your laptop isn't working, you can pull it up. you need to know, for instance, had an offensive malaise poem called protester.

picture this woman, white, little, very popular in the '20s and '30s, about to become a recluse she did become. she was trained to -- in north carolina we called it puny. [laughter] this woman wrote i shall die but that is all i will do for death. [laughter] with his horses hooves i hear him in the stall. he has business this morning, business in cuba, business and the balkans, but he must mountain by himself. i will not give him a leg up. i'm not being his employ. i will die, but that is all i will do for death. with his horses hooves on my chest, i will not tell him where the black boy lies hidden in the swamp. brothers and sisters, they keys

and the plans to the city are safe with me. threw me you will ever be overthrown for i shall die, but that's all i will do for death. look at that. you know you need it. [applause] >> a final question from me and then we will turn to our audience. this is the book in which the watts riots are remembered, and the poem you wrote is reprinted. we are now on the 10th anniversary of another riot, one that perhaps did not have the effect on the country and consciousness that the watts riots had. what do you feel about the movement now? >> well, it's hard to say the effect anything has on anything.

i mean, it may be long in its incubus, and it may be long in incubation, rather. i think the rodney king uprising, that that has had an effect. there are people who keep cameras with them in their cars now. people in new jersey, folks in arkansas, people in michigan, in arizona. it's a wonderful protection. people say, oh, i didn't mean that. i wasn't going to hit him.

[laughter] so i don't know. i just don't know. we don't live long. i mean, our lives are just that, you know, so short. we can't really see the effects of things. we are the newest group made. i mean, we just climbed out of the trees. some say we are still in the trees. but we are a coniferous group which has decided not to eat our brothers and sisters, who may be delicious, but accord them some rights and to try to love them, whatever that mystery is. so here we are, failing, falling, sometimes rising, going on from darkness into darkness. here we are, able to forgive ourselves sometimes, and forgive

others every now and again. here we are. still here. that's the important thing. still here, each of us, still having a chance to change, to be better. each one of us. that's amazing. yes, okay, so i sound like a preacher. i'm not preaching. but here we are still here. [laughter] i don't know the effect that one book can have, or one kind word can have to a stranger. in one of those fancy a stranger in the street who may not be our color, may not call god by the same name, may not eat the same food, but still see somebody and say morning, how are you? and keep going. you have no idea.

you have just stopped world war iii. true. you have no idea what that person might have been going to do. she may have been headed for columbine, and somebody said mourning, or i like that red jacket you were wearing, that's nice. you know, who gave me this jacket? i haven't heard from her. let me call her. so i dare not say the impact. there are some obvious impacts, but the real ones that happen in the heart, i can't measure that. >> maya angelou, thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] thank you, thank you, thank you. [applause] >> sit down.

thank you. thank you very much. spent now, will the person is the microphone make him or herself visible? how is this to work? who has the mic. >> it's over there. >> writer. oh, i see. there's a line over there. i'm sorry. there's a line there. all to come and a line here, too. let's start here. >> nice to meet you. >> good morning. >> i just want to know, how do you know when you finish a poem or any piece of art that you do? and that he ever thought back to what you've done and thought maybe it wasn't finished, but it was published already? >> all, yes, many times. i have 21 books. i have 21 books. in each one i could do better.

whenever i look at one, open one i think, what an awkward sentence. the poet must know herself, himself, when the poem is finished. it breathes a wonderful side somehow, like oooh. you could continue to write what you would ruin it. so you have to be into again with your language. be very in june. and read the poem aloud. that's my best right now on the moment. yes, ma'am. >> my name is barbara. dr. angelou, i don't think there's a more appropriate moment than now for the issue of for nelso nelson mandela. i wonder, would you recite that for a? >> for mr. mandela. do i have that?

i don't think it's in -- >> the piece about the light coming, who are you do not be all that you -- >> yes. no, i don't have it with me. and i'll be seeing him in a couple of weeks. we are ancient friends from 1960 do. thank you. i will certainly say, and i will say it there at a gathering like this. it will be in the festival in wales. he asked to speak 15 minutes and asked that i speak 45. [laughter] and out of respect for his age, i will. i will. >> so you will say there? >> i promise you and i will mention you, barbara. thank you. >> dr. angelou, i just want to tell you that i am so inspired by you. such an inspiring woman.

[applause] and i myself just want to know, where do you get your inspiration? >> thank you. ms. holland, you're a student at san diego? >> no. i just graduated from the university of michigan. >> bless your heart. thank you. i'm trying to be a christian. now, trying to be a christian is no small matter. i mean, i'm always amazed when people walk up to me and say, i'm a christian. i think, already? [laughter] i'm working at it is so hard. it's like trying to be a jew or a muslim or a buddhist. i use the teachings of the masters and mistresses, the

heroes and she rose of the world to encourage me. so i read everybody all the time, and i go into any church i want tocomment any temple i want to. i go in and sit and listen. [applause] for some inspiration. and then i talk to people like mr. silverblatt who love the language. i talk to folks who really appreciate human beings and being alive and being responsible. i just speak and listen and talk and talk as you notice. i talk and talk. i'm making up for those six years. [laughter] thank you. >> dr. angelou, my name is sue howard. i know the title of both caged bird and "a song flung up to

heaven," both come from the same poem. could you tell me the name of the poem and the poet's? >> yes. the poem was written in 1892 by paul dunbar, my favorite poet. he was an african-american poet, one of the greats of the 19th century. and the poem is called sympathy. i will say it is it's okay. >> please. >> i know what a caged bird feels, when the sun is bright on the upland slopes, when the wind blows soft through the springing grass, and the river floats like a sheet of glass. when the first bird sings outside, and the first abide

opens, and a faint perfume from its chalice steals, i know what the caged bird feels. i know why the caged bird beats its wings to its blood is red on the crowbars, for he must fly back to his perch and claim when she would be on the balis swing, and the blood still thrives in the old, old sky, it poses again with a keener sting. i know why he beats his wing, and "i know why the caged bird sings." when its wings are bruised and its bosom sore, it eats its bars and would be free. it's not a carol of joy or glee, but a prayer that it seems, from its hearts deep core, but they played that upward to heaven it

flings. "i know why the caged bird sings." thank you. [applause] thank you. spent hi. i'm just wondering whether to get the topics for your poems? i counted you think of them? >> well, you see -- thank you for that. the question is, how do i get the topic. something will happen just like you. i mean, you asking that question, puts my mind, sets my mind a racing. i wonder about you get what is it like to be 15, 14? >> thirteen. >> what is it like to be 13 in california, mail, dark glasses. what is it like to love poetry?

because obviously you do. and what does it feel like inside that person? there is a poem right there, you see? i would make it a. i would start to really feel inside you. and i would write something close to you. thank you. [applause] >> how did you get the inspiration to write your poems, and how did you start writing them? >> yes, thank you. i started writing when i was reading at about nine, eight or nine. some of the worst poetry east of the rockies i suppose. but i read and i loved what i was reading. i loved edgar allan poe. i love him so much i called him

eap to myself. i loved paul dunbar and james johnson. i adored georgia douglas johnson, 19th century black lady poet. and i love shakespeare your i didn't understand all that, i love shakespeare. i loved a dishonest. i memorized 60 of them. i love them. i was trying to communicate and i couldn't speak. i wouldn't speak. so the pen and i begin our almost 70 year, 65 year-old relationship. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, dr. angelou.

me and my friends wonder if you could recite your poem, still our eyes. it's a very inspirational poem to us. it will give us what we need to continue on this quest of school. >> i will do it. i will do as the last thing i do, i promise you. thank you for asking. okay, yes, ma'am. yes, sir? >> i'm an eighth grade english teacher. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> and i teach poetry, and i just wanted some advice. i love poetry and i try to get that across to my students, but from one teacher to another, is there a way that -- i try to improve teaching poetry every year, and i never feel like i do it justice. do you have any words of? >> yes. first, the wanting to do it is a long way towards the success of

it, and even having it to do. that's a great blessing, thank you. there's some things, first i will say what not to do. some poets recite and there are tapes of them reciting, and some just really are pretty bad. [laughter] davis and ruby dee at the memorial for langston hughes said that they were the only members of an organization they founded taking langston hughes from doing his own poetry. [laughter] first, because he did it poorly, and also he would do it for free. and so they were making their living reciting his poetry. i would encourage you to listen to as many recorded tapes or cds as possible, and break the

poem down. that helps. i know the value of rhyme to poetry. it just works. if you can get them to appreciate the raven, all that excitement, and in rhyme and in time, then they might listen to and the belly, -- annabel lee. or they might listen to the bell, the wonderful, that i don't recite, but because you really need bells going off. that, i would encourage that. gets a modern poets. listen to some of the non-profane, non-vulgar rap songs. listen to them.

they know them. all your students do, i promise. i don't understand them but they will. okay? and continue, please. thank you. [applause] >> this will be the beginning of the signing, and dr. angelou has given her time very generously. she has agreed to recite the poem, and then we will move on to the signing. but i want to thank you, and i want to thank all of you for having come here. [applause] >> thank you. >> i want to kill the, i did not know how profound and significant a presence i would find you. it's been a pleasure to sit next to you. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> take one more question, please. >> let me try -- spent i'm sorry. i need to ask this. it's a ridiculous question. in this format, but i need to ask this. i also am an eighth grade english teacher. >> thank you. >> thank you. i worked in the inner city, and 80% of my students just are in different to learning in reality, and i know this is ridiculous to ask of this year, but do you have any advice for me? >> yes. thank you. thank you very much. it is a serious question. and i thank you very much. and i apologize to the black lady in -- where are you? stand up. yes, i'm going to take your question.

[applause] but let me finish this. it is important. i want you to read this new book of mine. well, let me tell you why. because i went to watts before the watts uprising, and i noticed then the lack of hope on people's faces. young men's faces in particular, and young women's faces, young black children. you see, if there is no hope, they say, they think of music of the school and get a job, but you can't get a job and you went to school. you say to be nice and i can fit in, but you've been nice and you don't fit in. you say don't use drugs and it will be better, but you are no better. you don't use drugs. you see?

what happens with the fundamental element is a hopelessness. if you as professor, as teacher, if you say, i understand this, now, there is a way out, the only way to freedom really is here. here. you can't go up to power and say to power on the simple face of it, give me some of yourself, can i do it? so you have to free the brain. you have to have as much information as possible. put it in here, all of it. all knowledge. please say this. all knowledge is spendable currency, depending upon the market. okay? thank you very much for the question. [applause] i have to take this.

i apologize to you. >> thank you so much for taking my question, dr. angelou. i just want to say that i, too, am from arkansas. my whole family is from arkansas, and they -- i have my aunt, my cousins, my grandfather were all in stamps, arkansas. we all read your book and we said, oh, we know that place. ..

>> for $15 a to an evangelical group. and they met five times a week. and they got very happy. [laughter] very. and there were people of substance and size, and they shouted the floor out about every two months. [laughter] but i thought it would do my grandmother's spirit well. [laughter] anyway, i'm hoping to put up a community center there on that site. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. i'm going to do the poem. [inaudible] okay. >> she's going to recite the poem. [laughter] >> i promised the young lady i'd do the poem.

this is for each one of us. you may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted lies. you may trod me in the very dirt, but still like dust can, i'll rise. does my sassiness upset you? why are you beset with gloom? just because i walk as if i have oil wells pumping in my living room? [laughter] sit down. [laughter] just like sun and like moon with the alternative city of -- certainty of tides, just like hope springing high, still i rise. did you want to see me broken, bowed head and lowered eyes, shoulders falling down like teardrops, weakened by my soulful cries? does my haughtiness upset you? don't take it so hard just

because i laugh as if i have gold mines digging in my own backyard. you can shoot me with your words, you can kick me with your lies, you can kill me with your hatefulness. but just like life, i'll rise. does my sexiness offend you? oh. does it come as a surprise that i dance? [laughter] as if i have diamonds at the meeting of my thighs. [laughter] out of the huts of history's shame, i rise. up from a past rooted in pain, i rise. a black ocean leaping and wide, welling and swelling, i bear in the tided. the tide. leaving behind life of terror and fear, i rise. into a day break miraculously clear, i rise.

bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, i am the hope and the dream of the slave. hey, so there i go rising. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, dr. angelou. thank you so much. of course, she will not be able to sign everyone's books. but we have an address where you can mail your books, she'll sign it and mail it back if you're interested. so, please, take out a pen, paper. i'll read that aloud.

[inaudible conversations] >> so if this is your mission, get your pen and paper ready. >> tonight on c-span2, more booktv in prime time with books about afghanistan. at 8:30, the author of the book, "war lords, strongman governors and the state this afghanistan." at 10:10, carlotta gall, and at 11:10, ann scott tyson. booktv in prime time here on c-span2. >> one of the stories that i, that resonated with me was the moment when they're dithering about whether or not they need to inject sea water into unit one.

and it's a matter of -- the clock is ticking, and they're just about down to the wire. and you she da, the plant superintendent -- who in the end would have to make the final call -- knows that it's desperate. they need to get water in there very quickly. and meanwhile, everybody wants a say. and the tepco officials and japanese government officials are all kind of hemming and hawing, and yushida gets an order from one of his supervisors at tepco that the government hasn't signed off on this, he's got to hold off. well, he's already started. and so he basically calls one of his staff people over and says, okay, i'm going to give an order, but ignore it. so he very loudly proclaims so everybody in tokyo can hear, we're going to, you know, halt the sea water injection when, in fact, they didn't. and to me, that was, that was a

human element in that story in which in japan where ignoring the rules and kind of acting on your own is not rewarded, here was a moment where a guy knew that if he didn't act, things would go even worse than they were going. >> more about the tsunami and resulting meltdown at the fukushima nuclear power plant saturday night at 10 eastern on "after words," part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime, and there's a schedule of each of our networks, so you can tune in when you want. play podcasts of recent shows there our signature programs like "after words," "the communicators" and "q&a a."

take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, android or blackberry. >> at this year's annapolis book festival, three authors of books about guns debated gun control laws. the panel includes emily miller, author of "emily gets her gun," daniel w. webster, editor of the book, "reducing gun violence in america," and craig whitney, author of "living with guns, a liberal's case for the second amendment." this is 50 minutes. >> american society. and we have quite an august panel of authors who come at in this important topic from very different perspectives. i'm a staff writer with bloomberg "businessweek" magazine and am the author of a book called "glock: the rise of america's gun," which is kind of a biography of the glock pistol and the man behind it.

sitting immediately to my left is my friend craig whitney who is a vietnam war veteran andk retired new york times correspondent and editor. craig is the author of "living i with guns: a liberal's case for the second amendment." and sitting to his left is daniel webster who is the leadet editor and contributor to a book called "reducing gun violence in america: incoming policy with evidence and analysis." daniel directs the johns hopkins center for gun policy and research. for gun policy and research. and farthest to my left is emily miller who is currently senior editor of the opinion pages at the washington times newspaper but will be starting this month as the chief investigate iive reporter at fox 5 news. congratulations on your new job, sounds very exciting.

[applause] emily is the author of the book, "emily gets her gun," which is about the current national political debate over gun control. she was awarded the clark -- [inaudible] award for investigative reporting from the institute on political journalism in 2012. a baltimore native, she is a cum laude graduate of georgetown university's school of foreign service. so that's, that's a lot of credentials for a saturday morning. and i think the way i would like to handle this is i'm going to pose some very open-ended questions, spark -- in my usual, very literal-minded way -- by the titles of these three books. and be i'll ask each author to address the question for a couple of hadn'ts and then ask the other two authors to address think comments they'd like to make to those, and we'll just kind of go down the line like that be and then try to reserve some time for questions from the

audience which, particularly on a topic like this, is usually a very fruitful exercise. so, craig, let's start with you, and why don't you give us the short version of "the liberal's case for the second amendment." >> the second amendment that does not create, did not create a new right to have and own and use guns. it recognized one that existed already and had existed since jamestown. and it was a right in common law. the colonists needed guns to hunt and to defend themselves against attack, and the purpose be of the second amendment was to reassure people after the few constitution was drafted -- after the new constitution was drafted and while it was being considered for ratification by the 13 states, it was designed to reassure people that the new federal government it created could not be, veer off into a

tyrannical direction even if it established a standing army, because the states would have the right to keep up their militias. and how could you have a state militia if you didn't have people you could call on to serve in it who knew how to use guns and had them? it has never been, however, a bar, the second amendment. there was nothing in it that barred state, local regulation of the right to have guns in the interest of public safety. in fact, in 1792, the year after it was voted on, the federal government established in the militia act a requirement that the militias report the names and weapons held by the people whose names were listed to a federal authority.

the requirement was observed only kind of sparsely and, of course, the militias gradually withered away and became transformed into what we know today as the national guard. but to make a long story short, yes, it is a right. it's not an absolute right, and it can be regulated. regulations can differ state by state, city by city, but they are not barred, per se, by the first amendment -- second amendment. >> an excellent historical foundation. daniel, would you want to elaborate with some thoughts about what the second amendment means in this century? >> well, first of all, i'm going to confess i'm not a second amendment scholar. in our book, which i'm an editor of, we do have a chapter looking at constitutional issues and the second amendment. the book that we put out, reducing gun violence in america, we brought together top scholars to look at what we thought were the post critical

policy questions as well as the constitutional analysis and what the public views are as it relates to gun violence and policies to address the problem. i guess the theme i would say throughout this book is that there's evidence that there are certain people who are too dangerous to have guns. that's, perhaps, obvious. secondly, there's evidence that when such individuals are legally prohibited, there are several studies to show that that reduces violence. third, that common sense measures to try to keep guns from dangerous people that are prescribed by law from having guns such as universal background check systems,

handgun purchaser licensing systems, inadequate regulation and oversight of retail firearms sellers reduce the diversion of guns to criminals and prohibited people. and that although if you just, you know, turn on cnn, any, you know, news channel when guns are discussed, it seems as though there's an enormous acquisition division in our country -- division in our country can. but our polling data suggests that isn't really reality. that we found that when you -- when we ask polling questions of, i believe, 31 separate gun policies. in just about any policy that was framed around keeping guns from dangerous people, there was not only very high support for

those policies, there was in most cases no statistical difference between support among gun owners and people who don't own guns, nor was there actually even differences along party lines. so i think we spend way, way too much time talking about the things we disagree about most when there's a lot that can be done that works, that is constitutional that would lead to fewer gun deaths in america. so i think that's my summary of what's in my book. >> all right. emily, maybe you could take us back to the second amendment just for -- >> sure. >> -- a moment and tell us, craig spoke about a liberal, a self-described liberal's view of the second amendment. emily, what does the second amendment mean to you as a gun owner, and why does it have so

much punch and meaning to so many people in this country? >> well, the second amendment, obviously, our founding fathers found the right to self-defense to be such an important human right, and that's what i would just -- my friend craig and i agree on a lot, but i would disagree on the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms originated in the colonies so much as it originates from god giving us a human right to defend ourselves. and the founding fathers few that that right was important just like we have the human right to, for freedom of speech. and we have the human right to a jury by our peers. and the second amendment is our right to defend ourselves. and this, for me, was a very personal issue. i was dog sitting for friends and went to take the dog for a walk, and in the ten minutes or so that i was out of the house, a man came in and was robbing it. and so when i walked back in the house, he was in it robbing it.

and then he left, he took my wallet. he didn't hurt me physically, and i followed him to try to get a picture for the police which was not a very smart idea on my -- unarmed. but in doing so, at the end of the driveway, at the end of this cul-de-sac i found two pickup trucks and about 15 of his buddies standing on the street staring at me. and as i turned the corner and saw this, they started running -- one of them started running at me. and as i was going to sleep that night, i -- for the first time if by life, i thought what if they come back? i'm in this house by myself. if they want to rape me, if they want to murder me and the police said these are definitely drug dealers or drug addicts that come into the city from virginia, they had virginia plate, and on the way out wanted to get some quick cash. and for the first time in my life, i thought if i just had a gun by my night table, i could

defend be myself. and for me, that's when the whole concept behind the second amendment, the right to self-defense, became real. and it is my right. and then i went to get a gun in d.c. since it has been legal since the heller decision in 2008 by the supreme court, and it ended up taking me four months to legally register a gun. i'm a law-abiding person, i have no criminal record, i have no intent in hurting anyone, i just want a gun to defend myself. and i saw all these rules -- all these laws that are put in place and all these regulations to stop law-abiding people like me from getting guns. of course, the criminals in d.c., as homicides are up this year, violent crime is up again in d.c., the criminals are getting guns. it's the law-abiding people who are going through these registration processes. and the more i looked into it and more i've written about it and gotten to understand this issue a lot better, i think the most important issue to point out is that as daniel said, which i do agree with, there are dangerous people we don't want to have guns.

i don't want those drug dealers to have guns who were in that house. i don't want felons to have guns, i don't want the dangerously mentally ill to have guns, drug dealers, i don't want illegal aliens, all these groups that are already prohibited, i don't want them to have guns, but no gun control law has ever reduced crime. no gun control law. ask so the laws that are in place, the laws barring the dangerous people from getting guns are good on the penalty side so we can put them in jail, but bad guys who want to get guns will get guns. there's nothing that they steal them. they don't do like i do which is go to police station, get fingerprinted, take a written test, take a five-hour class. they don't do that. and so i don't believe that there's any need to further infringe on this human right that we have to self-defense which is the right to keep and bear arms because we already have laws in place. in fact, they're working. so in the past 20 years, the firearm homicide rate is down

50%. nonfatal shootings are down 70%. so the laws that we have in place, and they fall every year if you just look at the fbi statistics, every year murders by gun are going down, violent crime is going down. so the laws that are if place are good. i believe that the more people who are armed, the more it is a deterrent for further crime, and that's the way that we can stop the fact that there is gun homicides, the fact that there still is about 9,000 people killed by homicide every year with guns, although a quarter of them are felony type. we do that by more people, good people having guns. we've seen even just -- seen even law enforcement's now coming, 90% of law enforcement support more people having carry rights because it's a defense. you saw the detroit police chief come out and saying having more people with gun permits, carry permits is a deterrent to crime. they're starting to recognize that. and so i think that summarizes where i come from in this book

and where i come from personally on this issue. >> very good, okay. daniel, you study, among other things, the regulation of the acquisition of firearms, the regulation of the possession of firearms. emily made a rather blunt assertion that no gun control law has ever had any effect on crime. maybe you could take that one concise assertion and tell us about the research you've done and the research other people have done to address that assertion. >> sure. thank you, paul. first of all, i just want to agree with, i think, one underlying premise of what emily's experience was which is it's ridiculous that you have to go through something for four months to get a gun, okay? >> but you testified for those laws. i was in the room. in fact, you testified -- >> emily, emily, let's let daniel --

>> you got to, but -- >> i know. but when it's factual. >> okay. >> that's actually what i'm trying to do is actually get to the facts. i will give you a free copy of my book where there will be several studies in there cited that shows that gun control laws have reduced violence. >> why don't you give us an example or two. >> of course, sure. yeah. there are now three published studies, and i'm a co-author on one, showing that laws that prohibit those who are under restraining orders for domestic violence are prohibited from having firearms. there are now three published articles showing that those have led to significant reductions in intimate partner homicides. very strong studies, every single one of them. >> how many of those studies were not -- were funded -- >> emily -- >> -- by bloomberg? >> none of them were funded by i -- >> emily, i want to, we're not going to -- this is not sort of

a cable tv back and forth. we're going to each go one at a time, and i'll use my moderator's privilege -- >> okay -- >> excuse me. these are all scientifically peer-reviewed articles. you can say -- >> [inaudible] >> no, they are not. they are not funded by the bloomberg. i mean, you want to make this about michael bloomberg, or do you want to make this about facts? >> facts. >> we're talking about facts. i can back up everything that's in my book and anything that i've published. >> okay. >> now, so that's one such example. i just published a study within the past month be showing that missouri had a licensing system for those who wanted to purchase handguns in that state. the you wanted to purchase a handgun, your first step was go to the local sheriff's office, they would do a thorough background check. it did not take four months -- >> this study was from 1996. just point that out. >> what? >> wasn't your missouri study 1996? >> no, no. the study just came out a month

ago. >> i know. but when did the laws changed? >> the law changed in 2007. let me finish. >> well, you -- [inaudible] >> all right. folks, i'm actually going to say something very strongly here. let's let each person talk. the point here is not to have a quick back and forth among the panelists, but to actually let the panelists express coherent thoughts and then have the next person respond in kind, okay? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so just to finish what i was saying, we just published a study, missouri had a law requiring licensing for those purchasing handguns. it was not a long, elaborate system, but it did require you to apply directly at your local sheriff's office, and it was good for 30 days, and it was a way to insure that all handgun transactions there was a background check. it repealed that law in 2007.

we just published a study that showed that it significantly led to increased rates of homicides. it only affected homicides with guns. it affected homicides throughout the state, and we ruled out just about every competing hypothesis that we could think of that might have explained such a sudden increase in homicides that also corresponded with a doubling of the diversion of guns to criminals. so there's just two examples. i could go on more, but we don't have enough time. but i'm happy to talk about any study that you'd like. >> all right. craig, could you address this from your perspective, your reading of all this and your familiarity with the debate about whether particular gun regulations do or do not have some potential to reduce crime? >> i think if you look at the

overall violent crime statistics in this country, they have, violent crime has significantly gone down in recent decades even in places like compared to 25 years ago like washington and chicago which are relatively higher rates than, say, new york city. so the gun laws are part of the legal is -- legal system that has to be kept in mind when you try to figure out why have the rates gone down. there are lots of other reasons too. gun control laws alone can't solve our gun violence problem, but good ones based on common sense, common ground -- if you find the common ground between the people who value their gun rights and the people who are more concerned about public safety, there is common ground that can be found -- >> well, we've actually heard common ground despite the tension on this panel this morning.

i i mean, emily quite emphatically said that she's, opposes -- as i think the other three panelists do -- the idea that convicted felons should acquire guns. people who have been shown to be dangerously mentally ill and so forth, those rules can only be enforced if there's a law and then someone enforces the law. on the other hand, there certainly is a, an issue for proponents of stiffer gun control because, as we point out, violent crime in this country has gone down steadily after rising from the early '60s through the early '90s, it has then come down for the last 0 years, and it's very, very hard to associate that in any cause and effect way with gun control laws. 30 years. and you can take a sample such as my hometown, new york, where the gun control laws have remained, essentially, the same. but for the last 30 years, you know, gun violence has decreased radically. so clearly, it wasn't any change in the gun control laws that had

anything to do with that decrease in crime. emily, let's come to you now and give you a chance to expand on something in your book. the subtitle, the main title of your book is "emily gets her gun," and you gave a very eloquent and poignant description of what prompted you to obtain a firearm. the subtitle of your book is "but obama wants to take yours," as in obama wants to take your gun. maybe you could elaborate on that subtitle and tell us what you mean and what evidence there is to show that obama wants to take my gun or the gun owned by someone in the audience? >> request well, in 1996 president obama said that in a questionnaire when he was first running for office if he wanted to ban all handguns, and he said, yes. and he expanded on that four years ago. four years later when he was running for state office and said it might not be feasible,

he would, in principle, still support banning all handguns. then as recently as 2012 after the horrendous tragedy in newtown, president obama and mike bloomberg who funds the bloomberg school which daniel works for came out within that same day those poor children were killed and said we should start banning rifles. so when they start talking about banning rifles, banning handguns, that's taking people's guns away. now, they're not talking about taking the criminals' guns away because it's already illegal for the criminals to have guns. it's already illegal for the felons and the drug addicts and the bad guys to have guns. the reason that any of us get guns, the good guys, is to defend ourselves. it's not to hurt anyone. we're not homicidal maniacs, we're the good guys. so we want to get guns to defend ourselves, and when obama, the president of the united states, and at the time -- but now he's

being funded by new york city mayor michael bloomberg who's poured -- >> i notice you mention michael bloomberg over and over again, i think your point has been established. >> but my point about bloomberg is not that -- it changed the dynamic of this debate because there's never been so much money poured into it. mike bloomberg is spending, i think last year alone, $30 million to this gun policy institute you run just in the last year. it has changed the debate because he's running ads for people in the house and senate purely on politics. so i don't think president obama's agenda, because it's not supported -- i mean, the overwhelming majority of americans, in fact, it's up 9% in the past eight months, do not support more gun control laws. 60 some percent do not support it. so the president's objective and, quite frankly, his successes in passing gun control laws in eight states in the last year is 100% due to all the money that'sing being put into politics by mike bloomberg. and he has said alone this year

he's going to spend $25 million in the 2014 races. he's outspending the nra ten, twentyfold to. so that's why this is an important factor because it's not the will of the people. and if you look in any poll, you will never find a poll that shows the majority of people favor more restrictions on their second amendment rights. >> that's a very interesting way to frame it. >> we going to go back and forth only when it's my turn? >> no. i asked you to make a statement, you just made an extended statement, and now the other two members of the panel will make shorter statements responding to yours which all can be done in a very civil way. daniel. >> surement -- sure. there's been a whole lot of money on this gun issue spent for a very long time, far more on the gun, pro-gun lobby side than on the other side. i'll just make that point. i think it's very misleading to ask a poll question do you think

we should have more restrictions on, you know, fill in the blank on anything we don't like to be restricted, writing anything there again. that's not really the question. the question is, what policies do people favor to make us saferment -- safer. okay? and i'm not about banning guns. i'm about, again, looking for what was just mentioned, what craig mentioned about there's a lot of common ground that there's certain people who shouldn't have guns, there are some basic, common sense ways to address that. we ought to do it. and you characterize the situation if a very simplistic way, emily, as if there's one category of individuals. we know they're all evil, they will never obey any law.

there's another set of individuals who will never do anything wrong with a gun, and the world doesn't look that way, i'm sorry. second -- and the final point i'll make is this notion that it's hopeless to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. i'll grant you, sure, there are some people where that probably is the case. because of their makeup, because of the resources they might have, they will probably successfully be able to get a gun and do bad things with it. but again, the world is not so clean. there's a lot of people with the sufficient barriers where a gun is not readily available to them means the difference between life and death. it's not going to solve all gun violence. nothing will. okay? and then as far as the big reductions that we've seen this new york city, no, there were no new gun laws passed, but did new york use and take advantage of

their gun laws to reduce homicides substantially? most definitely. >> craig, thoughts. >> the nra, which i'm a member of, has -- >> me too, by the way. >> -- has certainly outspent mayor bloomberg in -- and it's been more effective than mayor bloomberg's side has. and look what happened in the senate in washington a year ago, you know? all those gun control measures that various senators proposed -- not obama, but senators. he supported them, yes. they failed to win, to overcome the 60-vote hurdle that they had faced with a filibuster. some of them got a majority of senators in favor but not 60. but i think that the basic thrust of the most powerful of the measures that were proposed

was wrong. it was to ban new sale as of the so-called assault rifles because an assault rifle had been used in newtown. if you look at the mass shootings that we've add in our country in recent years -- that we've had in our country in recent years, the common thread among them is not so much assault rifles as the mental illness that wasn't diagnosed and treated. and i think we have a dismal mental health treatment system in the united states. we basically dismantled it because of the excesses and abuses of mental hospitals back in the '60s. we didn't can replace it with anything -- we didn't replace it with anything. and that, improving diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, would do more to reduce mass shootings, i think, than any gun control measure would. >> the problem of mass shootings certainly is a very distinct one, and i think indisputably is

linked to mental health issues and does not lend itself to being addressed by the kind of society-wide issues about the sale of guns demonstrated, i think, in the most direct way in that almost all of these mass shooters are able to obtain the weapons that they use legally, and so further enforcement of those laws wouldn't stop those issues. we've been talking for about 30 minutes now, and i'll bet that there are some people in the audience who would like to ask questions. and so i'd like to move to that portion of the program and ask anyone who has a question, i guess there's a microphone set up there, to stand up and ask us a question. and the way we'll do this is we'll let each of the panelists con ceasely -- concisely address whatever question is raised. audience? here come a couple of people.

>> hi, is it -- >> yes. >> okay. first of all, i'd like to the thank each of you for coming out today. this is a really valuable discussion. and i had a similar awakening, but it was a little bit -- [inaudible] anyway, my mother was shot in a robbery when i was 16 years old, so i was afraid of guns. and then what opened my eyes was when the supreme court said that the police are not duty bound to protect me in the ruling in the warren case. so that was actually -- and thin i discovered all the hurdles i had to go through to make a purchase as well. and i got involved last year. and so what i'd like to talk about are the assault weapons ban and the magazine size limitations because i really tonight think they do anything. specifically, if you look at what happened in the shooting just this week, he had to do a

mag rebode load. so -- reload. so how did that actually help? and in most of these mass shootings, they have to do a mag reload. so i don't think there's any substantial evidence that those help. >> all right, so thank you very much. maybe framing that as a question we'll put it this way: would a ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles that can be equipped with large capacity magazines have a significant effect on crime? and why don't we just go down the line and each introduce that -- answer that as a question. your thoughts. >> it would not have a significant effect on crime. assault rifles don't figure importantly in violent street crime, you know, street shootings, assaults. it arguably could have more of an effect on mass shootings, but as i said, i think other measures would have more of an effect than a ban on assault

rifles for extended magazines. >> daniel. >> yeah. i agree with craig that in terms of thinking about assault weapon ban or restrictions on magazine capacity in terms of a broader approach to reduce violent crime and gun violence, you're probably not going to see that. because, again, they principally are relevant more in a mass shooting context. you can look at a variety of mass shootings and in some cases like the recent one that you pointed out there was a ability to reload. you can also look at mass shooting context in which when a person was reloading is when people escaped or the person was incapacitated. one that comes to mind is the one in tucson when jared loughner was tackled when he was going to reload. but he already had a large capacity magazine and was able

to kill and injury a very large number of people. there is a direct correlation between the ammunition capacity that the shooters have and how many people will get shot in these incidents. so i think ammunition capacity is relevant in mass shootings, not in whether they occur or not, but how many people are shot. that's my own view. >> okay. maybe we'll leave it there, give emily a chance to can chime in. >> i'm so sorry about your mother. that's horrible, i'm so sorry about that. no, i don't -- look, of the 9,000 or so gun murders, about 300 are rifles of any sort. dianne feinstein, who is the one who backed the assault weapons ban last year, puts the number of people who are killed by assault weapons, and to clarify

for people who aren't familiar with them, what we in the media or others call assault weapon is not an automatic gun, it's a rifle that has certain physical ergonomic type characteristics whether it's a collapsing stock or a pistol grip. so it's just the style. it's not the caliber, it's not the speed. that's the only thing that defines politically assault weapon versus rifle. but again, you know, even dianne feinstein, and this is her bill, said it's about 30 some people a year. i don't know where she gets those numbers, because law enforcement doesn't characterize styles. whether it affects crime, you just ask the cops. and the police, one, did a survey last year, 15,000 current and retired law enforcement, and 96% said assault weapons ban will not affect crime. 92% said changing the magazine capacity will not affect crime. so let's look at the guys who are on the street, who are dealing with crime and ask them how to handle it. >> all right. next question. >> i agree with what emily said about the bad guys who have guns

have stolen them or presumably bought them from somebody else who stole them, but wouldn't those guns have come from households of people who acquired them legally and they were stolen from somebody who got it legally? so wouldn't reducing the amount of legally-owned guns also reduce the amount of illegal guns on the street? >> all right. there's an interesting question. let's just boil it down to that last sentence with a question mark at the end. wouldn't reducing the overall supply of guns -- which just as an aside is generally estimated today at 300 million firearms in private hands in the united states -- that's not including the police, not including the military in civilian hands, would reducing that overall supply, 300 million, would that reduce the number of guns on the black market which are being used in crime? >> i think clearly, yes. but are we ever going to reduce the number of, you know, significantly below where it is now? not all stolen or illegal guns,

not all illegal guns are stolen. a lot of them are acquired illegally in the first place through the black market. >> right. >> yeah. just to puck up on what craig -- pick up on what craig just said, i think it's not in line with the facts that the overwhelming majority of guns on the illicit market are stolen. prisoner surveys when you ask them how they got their gun, 10% said they stole it, there are others who got it on the black market. we don't know exactly, again, the path that those guns took. >> but we know also that some firearms are purchased illegally in straw purchases from legitimate retail outlets, so there's a variety of paths that guns take from the factory into the hands of the criminal. >> precisely. and i published several studies that show that proper regulations on gun sales prevent that diversion into that illicit market where criminals get guns. but to the very specific point

of more gun ownership meaning more guns get funneled to the illicit market, there is a positive correlation that you can see in a number of studies that back up your general point, but i agree with craig that that's probably not how we're going to make a big impact on crime, you know? we're generally going to reduce gun ownership. that's not politically possible, it's not the sort of the way to go. i would love it if there were more efforts to focus on securing firearms within homes to reduce death. i think there's a lot to be gained from proper and safe storage of firearms. >> emily, your thoughts. >> yeah. well, i generally -- i don't like to talk about hypotheticals. violent crime is such a complicated issue, it's not about guns. experts put about 12 factors

related to violent crime everything or from environment, employment, drugs, density of population. so hypotheticals are tough. though if we just look at current rates, the gun ownership, civilian gun ownership in this country is the highest it's ever been. almost 50% of households in this country have a gun in the home. so gun ownership's going like this. at the same time, as i said earlier, okay, i depress -- did i say -- i guess. did i say something funny? >> yeah. you said something blatantly false. >> false or funny? >> false. >> that i'll ignore. and gun crime if you look at the fbi numbers have gone down 50%, as i said earlier. so gun ownership is on the rise and has been significantly, it's the highest it's ever been. gun crime is at the lowest rates it's been in 20 years. so it's the opposite of what you asked before if less guns would equal less gun with crime, there's no reason to believe

that is the case. >> all right. so a lot of these things are subject to dispute, but let's get a few more questions on the table. >> just a little background, i'm retired, i was a 30-year federal law enforcement officer, 13 years as a firearms instructor, and i am a gun owner. and i know this is an emotional issue, but i do not see where when we talk about gun registration or background checks that that is, as some people say, an attempt to take my gun away. i think it's a very logical, as you said, there are 300 million guns in this country, and there are more being bought every day. so we're never going to get rid of them. so we have to take steps to try to control and background checks and registration seems to me to be good steps. the other problem i have as a former federal law enforcement officer are the stand your ground laws and the laws on concealed weapons. as a law enforcement officer, i

wouldn't have wanted to have gone into that movie theater in colorado and saw 40 or 50 people pulling guns and not knowing who was the bad guy or who was the good guy. i think the problem is and as a firearms instructor i know even federal law enforcement agents, local law enforcement agents aren't the best shots. we go out quarterly and work hard to get them up to speed. if you just give an individual a handgun and there's no requirement to know how to use it properly, there's a lot of danger in that. and there's a lot of accidental shootings and a lot of suicides and a lot of unnecessary homicides. so that's -- if you could comment on that. >> all right, very -- you should probably be on this panel, and we should be asking you questions. [laughter] because you probably know more about firearms and their use than anybody else in this room. let me pluck out from that series of very helpful observations one topic and turn it into a question which is what do we think about the advisability of the so-called stand your ground laws?

craig? >> i think any law that makes it easier to kill people is a bad one. leave it at that. >> very concisely put. i love that. >> yeah. i would agree with craig's point. there are at least two studies now showing that stand your ground laws have led to increased rates in homicide in the study that i mentioned before in missouri's law. we did examine stand your ground. we showed increases associated with the laws but not statistically significant. but generally, it doesn't seem to me to be wise public policy. >> i should have -- before i get to emily, i probably should have described exactly what stand your ground laws are. they're a variation on, you know, the traditional notion that one is allowed to defend one's self and traditionally there's also a concept in the law that if you're in your own home, you can use deadly force to defend yourself in the face

of a threat of deadly force. and the stand your ground laws expand on that concept and say that if you reasonably perceive a deadly threat anywhere outside your home, you are within your rights to use deadly force in response to that. these laws have been passed in a number of states and have led in several particular instances to highly controversial cases. i don't want to go into the details of those now, but, emily, i suspect you may have a contrasting view of the stand your ground laws and the trend in that direction. >> yeah. i just think when you described the law, you left out two important facts. one is if you're going to use stand your ground as a defense, you have to have not initiated the crime. and number two, you can't reasonably get away. so you have to be under attack. the other person had has to have attacked you, and you can't get away, and then you can use deadly force. and the reason these laws have

come into -- >> no, that's not right. >> yes, it is. >> no. the whole point is you do not have to retreat. >> no. the law -- well -- >> the traditional understanding is you have an obligation to retreat. >> no, no. >> and what the stand your ground laws do, what they codify is that you do not have to retreat. that if you are innocently standing at the gas station and someone approaches you and presents what could reasonably be interpreted as a deadly threat, rather than turn around and run away, you can take your legally-owned handgun out and shoot that person and try to kill them. that's what stand your ground -- >> no, that's not -- >> thus the title, stand your ground. >> well, i know you're the moderator, so -- [laughter] let me also clarify, again, it's a legal term that means when you are then prosecuted, this is after the fact when it goes to court or goes to the police station, if you could not get away without getting extreme bodily harm or killed, then you

have the right to shoot back. you do not -- if you could, if you're in your car and the windows are closed and you can hit the gas pedal or if you can slam the door and get away, that's a different story because nobody wants to shoot someone just for the heck of it. this is about, and what this is is not -- there's nothing new here in the law which is why the castle doctrine which is inside your home, stand your ground is outside your home, it's the same concept that's been around from the middle ages. a man's home is their castle. and the reason the law has spread through the country in the last ten years or so is because people assumed that they were allowed to shoot back in situations when they were attacked and they couldn't get away. but what would happen is people were being prosecuted. in fact, there's a case of a man who's in jail in georgia. he was on his property, a man ran up with a gun aimed at him. he shot him back, and he's in jail because they did not have, they don't have stand your

ground there. that's what the difference is, but next person. >> i do have a question directed for mr. webster, but a couple of things have come up i'd like to address. i'm an advocate for conceal-carry as well as open-carry, but i am equally an advocate for adequate training which is what our former federal friend over here had brought up. >> right. >> i don't like the idea of anyone carrying without training. so the scenario of 30 or 40 people in the theater not knowing who's the good guy, who's the bad guy. if the solid training programs are followed, that's not an issue. and i would also like to point out that every one of these mass shootings have happened in gun of free zones -- gun-free zones, so there was no opportunity for anyone to end the threat early. yes, it's unfortunate that someone goes off, someone else dies. but if we have the opportunity through relaxed carry laws,

these threats can be stopped quicker. >> i just get you to clarify, on the one hand you said you're uncomfortable with the movie theater scenario with lots of people shooting and not -- >> untrained people. >> i see. >> there are numerous training venues out there whether it's through nra or other organizations. >> sure, sure. >> many of whom are here locally. >> gotcha. so what question would you like -- >> well, mr. webster seems to be relying a lot on polls and surveys and studies, but you've contradicted yourself several times today. i'd just like to have you answer to one of them. you say that in your polling you've purposefully worded questions in order to get a supporting response. >> no, i did not say that. >> i'd like to finish, please. i have notes, i can read from them, if you'd like. and when you were addressing emily shortly thereafter, you said that when polls are done in support of gun rights, it's not

a good thing to word the questions in particular way. i'd like you to answer to that, please. >> let's keep it brief because, basically, saying that you -- >> okay. so i did not word any of our survey items to get a particular response. they were worded to address a policy, what the policy did and what its purpose was. so i'll end it at that. >> okay. next question. >> i'm the maryland state leader for the well armed woman, and i believe in the training as well. and my big question to, you know, all the politicians, all the people and even you four up there is really -- can excluding emily, because i know she knows -- but really, do you really think, do we really think that criminals are going to obey the laws? laws are good. laws do help. but criminals do not obey laws. so my question is simple, and i know you've all heard it a million time, do criminals obey

laws? they do not. >> sure. i'd love to take that one. >> actually i've been told we only have three minutes left, so let's each address the question, one minute apiece. here we go. >> well, i've heard that speeders don't obey the speed limit, so i think we should do away with speed limits. i mean, that logic that why have a law because someone's going to break it, i just don't buy. >> that's not what she said. >> that's precisely what she said. you said criminals don't obey gun laws, so why should we have them? no. the laws -- >> what she was saying -- >> all right, all right. >> let me just finish my sentence. >> two more sentences from daniel, and then we'll move on. >> sure. the policies are designed to hold people accountable so they don't put guns in the hands of prohibited people. so if there's no accountability, it will be very easy for them to get a gun. if -- >> all right, emily, we really

only have a couple minutes. i'm sorry. emily, why don't you go ahead -- >> i think what you're saying is because daniel advocates for more gun control, more gun laws aren't going to reduce the 9,000 deaths because the guys -- they're not like me, they're not going to the police station, registering. bad guys, if they want to shoot you, if they want to have a life of crime, they're not going to go and register a gun because you give up your fingerprint, you give up your home address, they do a background check. and just to clarify earlier the person who was talking about background checks, we have a federal system, the fbi runs it. if you go to a dealer and buy a gun -- it happened for me and, i'm guess, i'm sure for everybody else op this panel who has a gun, they do a background check to see if you're a felon, to see if you're dangerously ill. we have a system in place. the problem is like we said we've got straw trafficking and other ways, the bad guys just know how to avoid those systems. >> all right. and, craig will wrap it up for us. >> criminals don't obey laws, and the nra has always vigorous

lis supported prosecuting them to the maximum extent and so do i. >> there you go. how about a good round of applause for our panel. [applause] thank you. that was good. >> okay. oh, right, yes. the authors will be very grateful if you follow us on, down the yellow brick road here where we'll be signing copies of our books. >> today homeland security secretary jeh johnson will be on capitol hill to testify at a

hearing of the house judiciary committee. the broad-ranging hearing is expected to coffer such topics as counterterrorism efforts, border security and immigration. live coverage begins at 10:30 eastern time here on c-span2. >> if you go back and look at coolidge, he was a conservative hero, and then his tax rate was a gold standard tax rate that we saw in the video, 25% was what he got the top rate down to. and he fought like crazy. it started, remember, with wilson in the '70s, so that was an epic battle. and when you go look at what all the socialites said about coolidge in washington, how cold he was. you want to remember they were probably also from families that endorsed different policies. especially t.r. was a let's get 'em, go, active bully pulpit presidency, and here was cool

age, prison city, and cold. prissy and cold. coolidge's science was cultural. he was from new england. farmers don't talk a lot or wave their arms about because a cow might kick them, as you know if you've lived -- and it was temperamental, of temperament. he was a shy person. but it also had a political purpose. he knew that if he didn't talk a lot, people would stop talking. and, of course, a president or a political leader is constantly bombarded with requests. and his silence was his way of not giving in to special interests, and he articulated that quite explicitly. >> author and columnist amity shlaes will take your calls, e-mails, and tweets on taxes and current fiscal policies, "in depth," live for three hours sunday at noon eastern on ..