Let’s take a deep breath, calm ourselves, and then look at violence in American schools. The facts are likely to surprise most readers. The in-school homicide rate is not rising and our schools are relatively safe places. Continue reading PREVENTING SCHOOL VIOLENCE
Category Archives: guns
THE HIGH SCHOOL SURVIVORS ARE RIGHT
The high school students who survived our most recent mass killing are right that it’s time for action. Now. We should begin with what we know will work and continue improving gradually. But we’re unprepared to unite behind any course of action because we remain woefully uninformed about gun violence. Let’s focus on it and begin fixing the problem. Continue reading THE HIGH SCHOOL SURVIVORS ARE RIGHT
What to do on the morning after?
The day after the election will be the first day of the rest of our lives. What should we expect of our elected officials? Will we help or undermine each other and elected leaders? If individuals, families and communities listen to each other’s ideas and agree on how to move forward together, we can invigorate the idea of “commonwealth”, a society that is organized to benefit all. Everybody wins. If, on the other hand, winners kick losers while they’re down in order to maintain dominance and if losers do all they can to stop winners from implementing their ideas then the republic will decline. Everybody loses.
It’s happened in great societies throughout history and it’s especially clear in the Bible’s Old Testament. When those in power dominate and abuse the powerless, everybody loses and the society fails. When the principle of commonwealth guides decisions, the society blossoms.
Poverty, income inequality and homelessness are at crisis levels in many places. Rural America has depended on agriculture and manufacturing to provide family incomes and property tax revenue for local governments. Both of those economic sectors now produce more goods with fewer people than ever before. At the same time that rural employment opportunities paying middle class wages have become scarce, the tax revenues of rural communities have stagnated. Budgets for public education, safety, and human services are under severe stress at a time when they are critical to redevelopment of communities. The plight of rural America has much in common with high poverty neighborhoods of urban America. Low incomes and insufficient resources have similar effects in both places.
Will legislatures reconsider how public services are funded and which tax revenues are available at local, state and federal levels? Will high poverty areas have funding for education, high-speed internet, water, sewer, quality of life, health and other priorities at a level that is proportionate to wealthy areas? If not, will their future be inter-generational poverty and emigration of successful residents to more desirable areas? Will legislators work at solving the underlying problems or will they pit urban vs rural and white vs black vs Hispanic for partisan gain?
What about the sanctity of human life? Will we expect our congress, legislatures and executives to behave as if “all lives matter”? Does someone who wants a gun have the right to own an assault rifle designed for mass killing? Does a woman have the right to remove a fetus from her body? In which decisions should government have a role?
Conflicts between personal and constitutional values will not be fully resolved but can we make progress for the common good? Could we agree to reduce the demand for abortion by providing free birth control, better access to pre-natal care, simple and inexpensive adoption procedures, and by solving our income inequality problems? Will we expect legislators to find ways to preserve gun ownership for self-defense and recreation while getting weapons designed for mass killing out of circulation and screening gun purchasers to rule out suspected terrorists and known criminals? Or will we reward leaders for continuing to insult each other?
The Republican controlled Senate has refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They hope to win the Presidential election and get a conservative-leaning nominee. Senators Richard Burr and Ted Cruz have made the radical statement that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will refuse to confirm nominees and let the court shrink. That abrogation of a senator’s constitutional responsibility would invite similar behavior from Democrats toward a Republican president. Will we insist that senators fulfill their constitutional duties?
Differences of race, wealth, religion and philosophy divide us on a long list of issues: immigration, transpacific partnership, climate change, war, taxes, LBGTQ rights, health care, and more.
We’re not all going to miraculously agree after the election. Continued success for our republic will require two things of us. First, we must look honestly at facts. Second, we must engage each other in ongoing conversation (listening more than arguing) about the principle of commonwealth – making decisions and laws that create opportunity and peace for all of us.
Our legislators are capable of that, but they will do it only if they know that we voters expect it, demand it, and that we’re doing it ourselves.
We can start on November 9.
RECONSIDERING GUN LAWS AND POLICE SAFETY
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING OF TAMIR RICE
Of all the highly publicized police shootings that we’ve experienced recently, the killing of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio troubles me the most. Many blame the child or the officers. But could it be that our laws, traditions and beliefs make such events almost inevitable?
Rice had not violated any law. He had a toy gun that is designed to shoot plastic pellets. They are promoted and sold specifically for people who want to play combat and gunfight games. The guns and ammunition are available online from mainline retailers including Amazon, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart. People play gunfight games in forests, parks and at businesses organized for the purpose.
Someone called 911 to report a person with a gun in his hand near a recreation center. The caller wanted police to check the situation and added that the person might be a child and the gun might be a toy. As police approached, the toy gun was in the open and visible. Then Rice appeared to put it into the front of his pants. It was no more “concealed” than if he had placed it into a holster. His actions with the toy were legal. Had he been an adult, he could legally have done the same thing with a real gun because Ohio is an open carry state.
Video from a nearby camera shows that less than two seconds elapsed between the time the patrol car stopped and the time that Tamir Rice was shot. Rice had not violated any law and was not threatening anyone at the time police arrived. They had the 
opportunity to communicate with him from a distance over their loudspeaker and to approach him slowly. Instead they drove the patrol car close to him at speed and stopped abruptly – enough to frighten anyone. By using less intimidating procedure, police might have avoided the problem, but they squandered that opportunity and rushed to confrontation. The case went to a Grand Jury which did not indict either officer.
From the police perspective, two officers were dispatched to look into a situation where someone was reported to be pointing a gun at people. The officer who killed Rice says that Rice appeared to be handling the gun in a threatening way. He says that he feared for his own safety and shot Rice to protect himself and his partner. Despite video evidence that the atmosphere of threat and fear was created by the police themselves, the grand jury agreed that the officer had cause for fear and therefore was justified in shooting Tamir Rice .
Police were legally justified in shooting and killing a person who had committed no crime because they perceived that individual’s actions as threats to their safety. That interpretation of law has been upheld in many places and at many times including this case where a child was treated in a threatening manner by police and then killed by them because they perceived his behavior as threatening.
The Rice family did not feel that justice had been served. After the Grand Jury returned no indictment, they sued the City of Cleveland. Recently the City agreed to pay $6 million in damages but did not formally admit any fault or liability by the city or its officers. Even though there was no criminal prosecution, the City’s attorneys obviously thought it likely that a jury would find the killing unjustified. The historical significance of this case is demonstrated by the Smithsonian Museum’s interest in preserving the recreation center gazebo where in occurred.
If police fear for their safety because you appear to have a gun in your hand, does that justify them shooting you? And if not, how does the officer protect himself from criminals? Is it time to examine and reconsider laws that allow open carry of firearms? Or is it time for police to stop bothering people who openly carry guns? Should parents continue to teach children, especially black children, to fear police? Or should it be illegal for police to intimidate people and then shoot them, as they did with Tamir Rice?
The answers to those questions may be complex but I’m confident of one thing. Reconsideration of our laws is long overdue.
GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT READERS THINK
In my last column I asked readers what they want from American gun laws. This column reports back what they said. It isn’t a statistically reliable survey with a controlled sample but 90 readers responded and there is enough self-reported diversity among them to serve as a basis for more conversation on the subject. For detailed responses including all of the reader comments CLICK HERE.
I asked readers to classify themselves into one of five groups:
Very Conservative = leaning toward tea party or conservative evangelical viewpoints.
Conservative = social conservative and generally Republican.
Unaffiliated = not conservative or liberal or partisan.
Liberal = social liberal and generally Democratic.
Very Liberal = social liberal leaning toward European Socialist viewpoint.
Those are the categories that you will see in charts below. Green numbers indicate areas of agreement. Orange indicates disagreement with the other groups. It should be noted that the low response rate in the “very conservative” group means that their data are the least reliable.
Table 1 shows high levels of agreement among the groups about who should NOT have guns.
| What criteria should a person meet before they are allowed to purchase a gun? Check all that apply. | TOTAL
PERCENT |
Very Conservative percent | Conservative percent | Unaffiliated percent | Liberal percent | Very Liberal percent |
| No criteria. It should be legal for anyone to purchase a gun. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Only adults age 18 or older should be allowed to purchase guns. | 83 | 75 | 83 | 79 | 95 | 93 |
| People with felony criminal records should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. | 87 | 100 | 92 | 90 | 91 | 93 |
| People who have been involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. | 89 | 100 | 83 | 90 | 91 | 93 |
| Only People who have completed safety training should be allowed to purchase and own guns. | 69 | 25 | 58 | 62 | 86 | 93 |
Table 2 shows strong support for background checks before purchases in the form of either universal checks or renewable licenses.
| How should gun purchasers demonstrate compliance with your criteria? Choose one best answer. | TOTAL
PERCENT |
Very Conservative percent | Conservative percent | Unaffiliated percent | Liberal percent | Very Liberal percent |
| Just sign a form. We’ll take your word for it. | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Background checks should be done for purchases from licensed dealers but sales at gun shows should be exempt (current system) | 11 | 50 | 17 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| Purchasers must submit a valid ID and there must be an instant background check conducted for every gun purchase. | 67 | 50 | 58 | 59 | 91 | 77 |
| Gun owners should have one background check then receive a multi-year renewable license so they don’t need a new background check for every purchase. | 21 | 0 | 17 | 30 | 9 | 23 |
Table 3 shows a substantial amount of agreement on banning certain types of guns and ammunition but that does not include hand guns with large magazines. Many unaffiliated respondents agree with liberals about banning rifles with large magazines.
| Are there any kinds of guns or ammunition that individuals should not be allowed to possess? Check all that apply. | TOTAL
PERCENT |
Very Conservative percent | Conservative percent | Unaffiliated percent | Liberal percent | Very Liberal percent |
| Machine Guns | 92 | 50 | 83 | 92 | 95 | 100 |
| Rapid fire rifles (like assault rifles) capable of large numbers of shots before reloading | 77 | 50 | 33 | 64 | 100 | 100 |
| Rapid fire hand guns capable of large numbers of shots before reloading | 63 | 0 | 33 | 40 | 95 | 86 |
| Guns disguised to look like something else such as a cane or umbrella. | 85 | 50 | 75 | 76 | 95 | 93 |
| Guns designed to be invisible to metal detectors and other security systems (such as plastic guns) | 94 | 100 | 92 | 84 | 100 | 100 |
| Ammunition designed to pierce body armor (cop killer bullets) | 86 | 50 | 83 | 80 | 95 | 93 |
Table 4 shows strong agreement to ban guns from commercial flights. Unaffiliated and Liberals would also ban them at schools and airports but conservatives are divided about that.
| Are there places where civilians should not be allowed to carry guns? Check all that apply | TOTAL
PERCENT |
Very Conservative percent | Conservative percent | Unaffiliated percent | Liberal percent | Very Liberal percent |
| Airports | 77 | 50 | 55 | 76 | 90 | 92 |
| Commercial airline flights | 96 | 100 | 91 | 95 | 100 | 100 |
| Public Schools and their extracurricular events | 82 | 50 | 55 | 76 | 95 | 100 |
| Bars | 76 | 100 | 55 | 67 | 86 | 92 |
| Public College Campuses | 68 | 0 | 27 | 57 | 86 | 92 |
Table 5 shows strong agreement to ban shooting near schools and where bullets cross the property of owners who have not given permission. Unaffiliateds and liberals tend to oppose shooting near homes, public buildings and businesses of people who have not given permission. Conservatives said it should be permitted near homes.
| What restrictions should there be on where people can shoot guns? Check all that apply. | TOTAL
PERCENT |
Very Conservative percent | Conservative percent | Unaffiliated percent | Liberal percent | Very Liberal percent |
| Not within a specified distance from a school | 95 | 100 | 92 | 93 | 100 | 93 |
| Not allowed if bullets cross property where shooter does not have the owner’s permission. | 87 | 0 | 67 | 89 | 100 | 100 |
| Not allowed within a specified distance from any residence where the owner has not given permission | 73 | 0 | 28 | 63 | 91 | 100 |
| Not allowed within a specified distance from public buildings, parks or businesses | 80 | 50 | 67 | 67 | 100 | 100 |
| Limited to designated areas of national and state forests. | 51 | 0 | 17 | 48 | 73 | 71 |
| Not allowed within a specified distance from highways. | 65 | 25 | 25 | 52 | 95 | 86 |
There are many areas of agreement across the political spectrum about the content of gun laws but no apparent agreement about which legislative body should make the laws.
| Who should make the laws that govern guns and gun ownership? | TOTAL
PERCENT |
Very Conservative percent | Conservative percent | Unaffiliated percent | Liberal percent | Very Liberal percent |
| Congress should make national laws and states can add to them. | 66 | 50 | 9 | 59 | 86 | 100 |
| There should be no national laws. States should do this. | 26 | 25 | 64 | 37 | 9 | 0 |
| There should not be any laws limiting gun ownership in any way. | 5 | 25 | 18 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Cities and counties should be permitted to create additional restrictions as needed. | 59 | 0 | 45 | 44 | 77 | 85 |
Those who believe cable news channels won’t hear it reported, but this survey demonstrates many areas of agreement on actions that might reduce gun deaths. If we listen and respect each other’s opinions, we might be able to move forward with ideas that have broad support rather than allowing areas of disagreement to paralyze us. Perhaps the most disturbing disagreement is not about what our laws should be; instead it is about which legislative body should make the laws.
My hope is that this column will encourage conversations among friends and families about gun laws; and that those conversations will lead to mutual understanding. My belief is that most of our legislators do not want to lead on this subject. They are waiting for us voters to make up our minds. The survey says that we have already done that on some subjects. If that is true, we should let lawmakers in on the secret.
GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
My thinking would be described by many people as “liberal”; yet I’m happy to have many friends who are very conservative. We’re friends, but when we talk about public policy we often preach our ideas without really listening to each other.
As I watched the CNN town hall meeting “Guns in America” I saw a remarkable opportunity squandered. Anderson Cooper of CNN did a good job asking hard questions. So did some of the invited guests. President Obama responded clearly but he didn’t take time (or have time during the program) to really draw out opponents of his policies and understand their concerns. He preached. So did many of the questioners who were more concerned with getting their points across than with understanding the President’s thinking. It did not appear that anyone learned something new or changed their minds in any way.
Watching that meeting prompted me to write this experimental column. I hope to use it to listen rather than to be heard. I’m inviting all who are interested in the debate about gun ownership to think it through and then clearly state what you want from our gun related laws. I’ve designed a short survey that also allows comments in your own words. You can access it HERE or at the end of this column. I will compile responses and report them in a future post – one that I hope will enlighten us all about how others see this issue.
Here is some background information on the subject: Our Constitution provides a right to keep and bear “arms”. It doesn’t mention guns. Our three major national laws governing arms were passed in 1934, 1968, and 1993. The first law severely restricted private ownership of machine guns, sawed off shotguns and various kinds of guns that were designed to be disguised as canes or other devices. It was passed in response to violent organized crime during the prohibition era. The 1968 law prohibited gun possession by various kinds of criminals and other individuals thought to be dangerous. It also regulated gun commerce and importing “Saturday night specials”. The “background check” system that is operated by the FBI originated with the 1993 “Brady Bill”. The combined laws also ban ownership of “destructive devices” like chemical weapons, grenades, and bombs. The FBI has a good summary of current rules on its website.
Current enforcement practices allow many purchases at gun shows and from private individuals without background checks. One of the President’s proposals is to require background checks on all purchases. Under some circumstances, the law allows corporations and organizations to own otherwise banned weapons like machine guns. That exception was intended for purposes like corporate security at nuclear power plants but its use has expanded significantly. President Obama has proposed re-examining that program.
The context of the current American debate about guns is important. Gun related deaths have declined but our conversation about them is increasingly heated and emotional. In 2013 there were 33,169 gun deaths in the US. Suicides accounted for 21,175; homicides 11,208; accidents 505 and 281 unknown intent. Gun homicides accounted for 67% of all American murders. They peaked at over 18,000 in 1993, dropped rapidly until 1999 and have begun to gradually increase in the 21st century. Most of the shooters are young – under age 25.
In the US, we have about 3.5 gun homicides per 100,000 population each year. The other nations closest to that rate are Nicaragua and Barbados. There are a lot of nations that American tourists might consider dangerous who are doing much better than us: Chile – 1.02, Greece and Kyrgyzstan – 0 .53, Azerbaijan – 0.27. Our closest neighbors show an extreme contrast: Mexico – 14.2 and Canada – 0.51.
These deaths are not confined to someone else’s neighborhood. There have been shootings and deaths across our nation, ranging from terrorist attacks to invasions of public schools to drive by shootings. We can accept it and take our chances or we can try to improve.
What do you think we should do? Please take five minutes to complete the survey. Perhaps we can have more intelligent conversations if we know each other’s opinions.
CLICK HERE TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY (PLEASE)