Tag Archives: gun laws

All Posts, guns, justice

RECONSIDERING GUN LAWS AND POLICE SAFETY

3 Comments

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 imagesopportunity 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.

All Posts, Congress, guns, north carolina, randolph county north carolina

GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT READERS THINK

3 Comments

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.