Mondays With Mike

You've Got to Be Taught

2010-12-21T16:04:00.004-05:00

As one media outlet after another conducts end-of-the-year reviews of the events of 2010—and images of extremists carrying loaded firearms to presidential speeches and children being terrorized by gunfire flash across my television screen—I am struck anew by the prescient words of Oscar Hammerstein in the 1945 musical "South Pacific":

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear
You've got to be taught
From year to year
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught
To be afraid
Of people whose eyes
Are oddly made
And people whose skin
Is a different shade
You've got to be carefully taught

You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are 6 or 7 or 8
To hate all the people
Your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught

Exciting research data on the Millennial Generation, however, gives me tremendous hope for the future. Perhaps we can all vow to be a little more tolerant, a little more open, and a little more peaceful in the New Year. Happy Holidays to all!

The Shot Ignored Around the World

2010-12-13T13:50:00.002-05:00

On November 29, at the close of a seemingly normal school day at Marinette High School in Wisconsin, 15 year-old Sam Hengel walked up to the front of his class, pulled out a semiautomatic handgun, and shot a hole in the room’s film projector. Hengel then held his teacher and 23 students hostage for approximately five hours before shooting himself when police entered the classroom. He succumbed to his self-inflicted injury the following morning. Authorities reported that the 9mm Luger High Point and .22-caliber Ruger semiautomatic handguns that Hengel brought to class with him that day were taken from a relative. Hengel’s duffel bag also held more than 200 rounds of ammunition. Grieving family and friends were baffled by the actions of the “model kid” they knew and loved.

Had this tragedy occurred in any other civilized country, it would have been breaking national news, with citizens glued to their television sets. Here in America, Sam Hengel’s death hardly made a blip on the media radar. The same disinterest was displayed recently when 19-year old Colton Tooley brought a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle onto the Texas University campus and ran amok before eventually committing suicide. In a country that loses more than 3,000 children and teens to gun violence ever year, these stories are, sadly, business as usual. Somehow, we’ve become tolerant of the fact that our nation makes deadly weapons readily accessible to young people.

To make matters worse, policy makers and jurists across the country are now considering measures that would put our teenagers at additional risk. First, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is pushing legislation in at least 10 states (Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia) that would force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses. Currently, only a limited number of schools in Utah, Colorado, Michigan and Virginia allow students and faculty to bring concealed handguns into classrooms, dormitories, libraries, etc. Both the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) strongly oppose the gun lobby’s campaign. IACLEA has said that it is “concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect.”

Additionally, the NRA has filed two lawsuits in federal court in Texas that seek to overturn longstanding laws that prohibit 18-20 year olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers and carrying these weapons in public. During the past three years, the NRA’s plaintiff in these cases, 18-year-old James A. D'Cruz, has posted a series of violent comments on his Facebook Wall, including, "I will stare into your eyes as I pull the trigger and laugh as you hit the ground with your last, pathetic breath,” and “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, that’s why I take their heads.” Such comments differ little, if at all, from comments we have seen in recent years from school shooters. The NRA apparently has no regard for this young man’s well-being, or for the well-being of any young people in his age range. Currently, Americans ages 18-20 account for approximately 5 percent of the population but nearly 20 percent of homicide and manslaughter arrests. Allowing this demographic to buy handguns from licensed firearm dealers will clearly benefit gun industry profits, but not human life.

There are real solutions available to prevent the deaths of teens like Sam Hengel and Colton Tooley. 27 states currently have Child Access Prevention laws in place that impose criminal liability on adults who negligently leave firearms accessible to children. A 2000 study by the U.S. Secret Service found that school shooters got their guns from relatives more than 65% of the time. Studies have shown that Child Access Prevention laws are effective in stopping children from gaining easy access to firearms. "Adolescents act impulsively, whether or not they have psychiatric problems," said the associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Matthew Miller. "It's up to parents—not children—to provide a safe environment."

We will have to overcome NRA opposition to such sensible policies to protect young people, but what else is new? First, however, we must acknowledge and overcome our current state of apathy about youth violence. We can’t save thousands of lives until we feel a sense of loss for an individual life like that of Sam Hengel.

A Day to Remember

2010-08-23T10:01:00.004-04:00

By now, many of you have undoubtedly heard about the “Restoring Honor” Rally that will be conducted by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the National Rifle Association on August 28 at the Lincoln Memorial. The date and location are significant. It was on August 28, 1963, that Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the memorial during the March on Washington. Beck claims the planning of the event was “divine providence” and says, “Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King ... Far too many have either gotten just lazy or they have purposely distorted Martin Luther King’s ideas.” Those familiar with Beck’s daily rants, however, would be hard-pressed to find any common ground between his beliefs/tactics and King’s.

I remember that unforgettable Wednesday in 1963 and how I dressed that morning in my only suit. Participants had been asked to dress as if they were going to church. I made my way down to the Washington Monument. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was to begin at the monument at 11:00 AM and travel the short distance to the Lincoln Memorial. The monument grounds were filled with thousands of cheerful people from all parts of the country and all walks of life. The atmosphere was like a joyous church picnic. The crowd waited patiently for the March leaders to emerge from a meeting with Members of Congress.

I found a place under some large trees on the north side of the Reflecting Pool and was brought to tears when the program was opened by Marion Anderson singing “The Star Spangled Banner.” It was a poignant reminder of the time—she had been forced to sing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial because the Daughters of the American Revolution would not let an African American perform in their auditorium. The program featured speeches from the “Big Six”—leaders of the six major civil rights organizations—interspersed with performances by leading musicians and Hollywood actors.

The most memorable and inspiring speech came near the end when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. electrified the nation with his prophetic “I Have a Dream” speech, which became the hallmark of the entire event. King explained that the March had come to Washington “to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense, we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ … So we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

To honor King’s vision for America, social activists and civil rights leaders will hold their own event on August 28. The National Action Network, the National Urban League, the Center for Nonviolent Social Change, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are just a few of the sponsors of the “Reclaim the Dream” Rally and March. The rally will take place at Dunbar High School (1301 New Jersey Avenue NW—Mount Vernon Square/7th Street/Convention Center Metro Stop on Green/Yellow Line) in the District of Columbia from 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM on Saturday, August 28. At 1:00 PM, participants will march from Dunbar High School to the site of the King Memorial on the National Mall.

Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network insists that the “Reclaim the Dream” event “is not a countermarch to Beck.” National Urban League president Marc Morial also emphasized this point, saying, “It is very important to convey a positive message that America belongs to everyone. Our rally is not an ‘us against them.’ We want no confrontation with Glenn Beck.” This is very much in keeping with Dr. King’s nonviolent teachings. When his home in Montgomery was bombed, King told supporters, “I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. Love them and let them know you love them.” We can only hope that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent will reflect on these words on August 28.

At the same time, however, Morial made it clear that those attempting to reclaim King’s dream do “want a confrontation with the ideas [Beck] espouses. His ideas seem to be ideas of intolerance.” Such an exchange can only be healthy for our country. We should keep in mind that Glenn Beck is the same man who told listeners on his March 2 radio show, “I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can. ‘Social justice’ and ‘economic justice,’ they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

On August 28, 1963, I was proud to be one of the 250,000 Americans that marched on Washington for the precise purpose of seeking social justice and economic justice. On that day, the nation was exposed to the vision of a brighter, more prosperous, more inclusive future for all Americans. We now have the opportunity to reclaim that dream for a new generation, in a time when it couldn’t be more relevant. If you still embrace the goals of social and economic justice, please come out and join me and thousands of others on August 28 as we rally and march to celebrate one of America’s greatest leaders and proponents of full democracy.

Remembering Dr. King

2010-01-19T10:02:00.000-05:00

As I paused yesterday to celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I recalled his own words spelling out how he would like to be remembered. In a 1968 sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Dr. King said:

Every now and then I guess we all think realistically about that day when we will be victimized with what is life's final common denominator — that something we call death. We all think about it. And every now and then I think about my own death, and I think about my own funeral. And I don't think of it in a morbid sense. Every now and then I ask myself, "What is it that I would want said?" And I leave the word to you this morning.

If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don't want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. Every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize, that isn't important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards, that's not important. Tell him not to mention where I went to school.

I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity...

Dr. King, I can assure you, I said all those things yesterday. And I’m sure I was joined by millions of others across the globe.

Seek the Path of Love

2009-12-21T10:00:00.000-05:00

As we prepare to say hello to a second decade of this new century, I am mindful of the wisdom of the ancient prayer we have come to know as "The Lord's Prayer." The prayer has been adapted by many cultures over the centuries. I am particularly taken by one rendition that comes out of Central America. I offer it as my wish to you for a Happy New Year.

Our Lord, whose Spirit is with us here on earth,
Even the hungry sing praise to your Holy Name.
They look to your "Kin-dom,"
a land rich with milk and honey.
Enable us to do your will,
to stand while others sit,
to speak when others remain silent.
We thank you for bread,
for the song of the bird,
for the miracle of the corn.
Forgive our silence in the face of injustices,
for burying our dreams,
for keeping our bread and wine to ourselves.
Help us to resist the temptations,
to turn our heads from hunger and injustice in resignation,
to close the doors of our hearts,
to take up the same arms as the oppressor.
Deliver us from all evil,
Enable us faithfully together,
to seek the path of love though it be only lightly trodden,
to persist despite hardships.
For it leads to your everlasting "Kin-dom."
Amen.

It is my hope for all of us that we may be enabled to stand while others sit, to speak when others remain silent, and to persist despite hardships.

Happy New Year!

Stress in the Workplace

2009-12-14T10:55:00.000-05:00

In Joshua Ferris’ national bestseller, Then We Came to the End, he details the foibles and tedium of modern office life through the story of a group of Chicago advertising employees attempting to find meaning and continued employment during the dot-com bust. The novel was a National Book Award finalist and deemed “One of the Ten Best Books of the Year” last year by at least seven top book reviews. It’s one of the funniest novels I have read in a long time.

In the midst of the humor, one episode in the book struck a chord with me. After one employee, Tom Mota, is fired, his fellow workers begin to wonder if Tom might return to the office seeking retribution. As Ferris describes it:

Tom subscribed to Guns and Ammo. He had a sizeable collection of firearms in his possession. Most of those guns, however, were collector’s items and probably couldn’t even fire anymore. Well, some of us thought, what’s stopping Tom from going out and buying new guns? How easy it is to visit a gun show and later find yourself in possession of the assault weapons ideal for a situation like the one we were envisioning...[or] after some less-than-truthful data entry, using a shady Internet dealer, he might be taking possession of those unsportsmanlike items from a UPS man even as our debate raged.

Ferris succinctly captures the real possibility of workplace violence and the touch of anxiety many workers feel. An average of 500 homicides occur in U.S. workplaces every year and a 2005 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns are permitted are five to seven times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns are prohibited. This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that, since 2005, the National Rifle Association has pressured at least 12 states to enact laws that restrict employers’ ability to exclude firearms from their premises.

Hopefully, our legislators will acquire the backbone necessary to stand up to the gun lobby at some point in the near future so future readers will see novels like Then We Came to the End as nothing more than fiction.

A Profile in Courage

2009-12-07T14:18:00.000-05:00

Over my many years in the gun control movement, I have been privileged to work with, for, and against many interesting people. One of the most interesting is a man named Bob Ricker who, sadly, was taken from us on Friday after a bout with cancer.

As a promising young lawyer, Ricker was hired in 1981 to be the Assistant General Counsel for the National Rifle Association (NRA). Ricker represented the NRA in many important federal and state legislative battles and gained a deep understanding of the political and legal process. Eventually, he became the executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council (ASSC), the gun industry’s leading trade organization at the time.

In this position, Ricker participated in a series of gun industry meetings between 1992 and 1997, during which manufacturers questioned whether they should take voluntary action to better control the distribution of guns. As Ricker later stated, gun makers had long known that “the diversion of firearms from legal channels of commerce to the black market” takes place “principally at the distributor/dealer level.” This is because corrupt dealers make it easy for criminals and juveniles to buy guns by allowing practices like “straw purchases,” in which an individual with a clean criminal record buys a gun(s) on behalf of someone who is prohibited under federal law from doing so (i.e., a convicted felon, domestic abuser, “mental defective,” drug addict, etc.).

During these industry meetings, Ricker heeded Ralph Waldo Emerson’s advice that, “A little integrity is better than any career.” At a time in life when men are supposed to be incapable of real change, he had the moral resolve to transform his thinking regarding the gun industry’s business practices. Ricker proposed strict standards and guidelines to his industry colleagues. Under his plan, firearm manufacturers would have been able to sell guns only to distributors and retailers who could demonstrate that they had a firm understanding of applicable laws, safety rules, and warning signs for illegal firearm trafficking. Dealers would have also been prohibited from selling multiple guns at one time to a single individual. His plan was rejected. As Ricker described it, “the prevailing view was that if the industry took action voluntarily, it would be an admission of responsibility for the problem.” Ultimately, the industry’s lawyers decided that even holding the meetings was “dangerous” and they were stopped altogether.

Ricker was not done, though. Following the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, he traveled to the White House on behalf of ASSC to meet with President Bill Clinton and see if something could be done to prevent future school shootings (the teenage killers had acquired their guns through unregulated private firearm sales). For an NRA run by “right-wing wackos,” this was the last straw. Ricker was forced to resign and the ASSC was disbanded in favor of the more conservative National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

In 2003, Ricker would go public with his concerns about the gun industry when he provided testimony in an affidavit for a lawsuit by 12 California cities and counties against the gun industry. A few months later, he appeared on “60 Minutes” to tell his full story. When he was asked why he would risk his reputation and the wrath of gun rights activists by coming forward, Ricker stated, “I don't want to have to come home some night from the office and have my wife tell me that, ‘Your son was shot in a drive-by shooting,’ or, ‘The neighbor's kids were killed.’ And these people who sit up there in their corporate offices, they know about the problem. They've known about it for a long time. And the time is up.”

In his final years, Ricker backed up those words. He worked with the Virginia Center for Public Safety as they campaigned to close the Gun Show Loophole in that state. He was also a co-founder of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a more moderate gun rights group that has been willing to acknowledge the legitimate public safety concerns aroused by gun violence in this country.

In the end, Ricker left quite a legacy of good works. But what I admire most about him is his courage to reexamine his beliefs and priorities. He risked—and lost—a lot of friendships in the pro-gun movement because of his determination to be a responsible citizen in our society. He was pilloried, mocked, and made an object of scorn for making this stand—but he never wavered. Even in his last months, Ricker was focused on making good public policy for the benefit of all.

Perhaps the best epitaph for Bob comes from Psalms 112 from the King James Bible:

1. Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who delights greatly in His commandments.

2. His descendants will be mighty on earth,
The generation of the upright will be blessed.

3. Wealth and riches will be in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever.

4. Unto the upright there arises light in the darkness,
He is gracious, and full of compassion, and righteous.

5. A good man deals graciously and lends,
He will guide his affairs with discretion.

6. Surely he will never be shaken,
The righteous will be in everlasting remembrance.

7. He will not be afraid of evil tidings,
His heart is steadfast, trusting in the LORD.

8. His heart is established,
He will not be afraid,
Until he sees his desire upon his enemies.

9. He has dispersed abroad,
He has given to the poor,
His righteousness endures forever,
His horn will be exalted with honor.

10. The wicked will see it and be grieved,
He will gnash his teeth and melt away,
The desire of the wicked shall perish.

Giving Thanks

2009-11-23T13:20:00.000-05:00

As we prepare this week to share a Thanksgiving meal with family and/or friends, I offer this Litany by Eugene Pickett, former President of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, to remind us of some of the things for which we can be grateful:

We Give Thanks This Day

We give thanks this day.

For the expanding grandeur of Creation, worlds known and unknown, galaxies beyond galaxies, filling us with awe and challenging our imaginations:

We give thanks this day.

For this fragile planet earth, its time and tides, its sunsets and seasons:

We give thanks this day.

For the joy of human life, its wonders and surprises, its hopes and achievements:

We give thanks this day.

For our human community, our common past and future hope, our oneness transcending all separation, our capacity to work for peace and justice in the midst of hostility and oppression:

We give thanks this day.

For high hopes and noble causes, for faith without fanaticism, for understanding of views not shared:

We give thanks this day.

For all who have labored and suffered for a fairer world; who have lived so that others might live in dignity and freedom:

We give thanks this day.

For human liberty and sacred ties; for opportunities to change and to grow, to affirm and to choose:

We give thanks this day. We pray that we may live not by our fears but by our hopes, not by our words but by our deeds.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

A Familiar Tragedy

2009-11-16T10:29:00.000-05:00

I am constantly amazed at how easy it is to overlook the obvious until somehow the facts connect to our own experiences. Eleven days ago, as I was recovering in the hospital from back surgery, I heard the news of the Fort Hood massacre. Naturally, most of the news coverage focused on the number of dead and only briefly mentioned that 31 people were wounded.

As I was attempting to cope with the pain of a highly-controlled, planned-in-advance surgery, I found myself thinking of the pain and agony of those 31 human beings who were dealing with the trauma of unexpected gunshot wounds. I was forced to reflect how often we concentrate on the death totals of gun violence in America and overlook the fact that every day in our country 215 people are shot with guns and survive. What about them? They deserve more from our society, both in terms of resources and support.

I was also struck by the irony that Fort Hood is located in Killeen, Texas. Killeen is where one of the deadliest rampage shootings in American history took place in 1991, when an unemployed ex-Navy enlistee crashed his pickup truck into a popular cafeteria, pulled out two handguns, and killed 23 people before taking his own life. That tragedy held the "record" for America's worst shooting massacre until 2007, when a Virginia Tech student shot and killed 32 students and faculty. In another tragic twist, it turns out the Fort Hood shooter was a graduate of Virginia Tech in 1997.

The state of Texas reacted to the 1991 shootings in Killeen by enacting a law freeing up gun owners to carry concealed handguns in public. At the behest of the National Rifle Association, many other states followed suit. Perhaps predictably, the reaction from the gun lobby was similar after the Fort Hood shootings. Describing military bases as “gun-free zones,” commentators like John Lott have blamed the tragedy on their strict rules concerning concealed, private handguns. “The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns,” says Lott.

Of course, there is an irony here as well. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter, held a concealed handgun permit in the state of Virginia. Furthermore, Virginia permits are recognized as valid in the state of Texas. Hasan, by Lott’s definition, was one of the “law-abiding citizens” who would have made his fellow service members safer by carrying a concealed handgun on military installations.

That type of “logic” is exactly what our service members don’t need, and hopefully it will be rejected by the U.S. Congress as it considers how to respond to the tragedy. For now, however, we should all turn our thoughts to the families who have lost loved ones, and to the 31 brave Americans who have long recovery processes ahead of them.

Meet the Boogeyman

2009-10-19T15:12:00.000-04:00

Recently, I got hold of a fundraising letter that Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) sent out on behalf of a new group calling itself the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). To give you a perspective on their ideology, NAGR Executive Director Dudley Brown calls the Brady Law (which requires federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers) “dangerous” and “extreme” in a video on their homepage.

But I digress... Here’s an excerpt from the letter:

Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.

Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we've never seen before. You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama's gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he's supported over the years. It's only the first step...but it's a HUGE step. H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner—for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system. But that's only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place! And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find yourself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.

And it gets worse too. The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

* Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.

* Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

* Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

It is certainly appropriate for this letter to hit mailboxes as Halloween approaches. Because here-in are three of the gun lobby’s biggest Boogeymen—Barack Obama, gun control and gun bans—all in one neat, scary package!

Never mind that the letter describes H.R. 45 as “Barack Obama’s gun control package,” even though it was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009, two weeks before the president was even inaugurated...

Never mind that H.R. 45 has no co-sponsors and has received no hearing in a House committee—meaning you’re more likely to see a pig fly than this bill passing Congress...

Never mind that H.R. 45, “Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,” is named after a young man who died heroically while shielding a young lady from gunfire on a Chicago bus; and fully supported by his surviving parents…...

Never mind that overwhelming majorities of Americans support licensing gun owners and registering firearms (79% and 77%, respectively)...

Never mind that virtually every other modern democracy licenses gun owners and registers firearms, and none of those reforms have led to “brutal dictators” or outright gun bans (although they have led to astronomically lower gun death rates than we have here in the U.S.)...

Never mind that a tougher screening process for gun purchasers might be a good idea in a country that routinely arms individuals who are clearly a threat to themselves and others…

I think you get the idea... While it is entertaining to see the lengths to which some groups will go to scare donors into sending cash, it is also an important reminder to all of us to check the facts whenever we receive alarming claims in fundraising appeals. It turns out that line between fantasy and reality isn’t so fine after all...

Wear Them Out

2009-10-12T10:10:00.000-04:00

I often find that true wisdom comes from simple stories, and one of the great story tellers was the one called Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the writer known as Luke, Jesus was traveling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee on a journey to Jerusalem. He stopped in a village and told his listeners a story about a widow and an unjust judge.

He said that in a certain town there was once a judge who cared nothing for God or man. There was a widow in that same town who constantly came before the judge demanding justice against her opponent.

For a long time the judge refused to grant the widow justice. But in the end he said to himself, “True, I don't fear God or care about men, but this widow is so great a nuisance that I will see her righted before she wears me out with her persistence.”

In this simple story there is a great political lesson that is often easy to overlook. The persistent widow is a reminder to those who seek justice that we should never lose heart. We must continue to press on, and will be rewarded if we do so.

We Like Our Lives

2009-10-05T13:42:00.000-04:00

In March of this year, the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” was put on indefinite hold in the House of Representatives when Democratic leaders couldn’t figure out how to move the bill without a harmful gun amendment attached. The bill would have granted D.C. residents voting representation in Congress for the first time ever (the United States is the only democracy on earth that denies residents of its capital such representation).

The gun amendment in question was drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV). It would repeal the District of Columbia’s new gun laws across the board and prohibit the D.C. Council from enacting any law in the future that would “unduly burden the ability of persons” to obtain and possess firearms (changes that were not called for in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court).

Earlier this year, Senator Ensign defended his amendment with noble-sounding references to “the Framers,” “the Constitution” and “Second Amendment rights.”

However, much has happened since then. In June, Senator Ensign admitted to an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer who was married to an employee in his D.C. office. The scandal led Ensign to resign his position as the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. The FBI has now opened an investigation into the matter that implicates another NRA Favorite Son, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Ensign has apparently become so radioactive that one Senate aide commented, “[he] doesn’t have a lot of friends up here right now.” That’s unfortunate, because in the wake of his gun amendment, Capitol Hill was the only place in the District of Columbia the Senator had friends to begin with.

Under the weight of this pressure, Ensign made some incredibly candid and revealing remarks last Tuesday during a Senate Finance Committee debate on health care legislation. Commenting on the fact that the U.S. has a poor record on preventable deaths compared to other industrialized nations, the Senator suggested those statistics were unfair because they include deaths from auto accidents and gun violence. “When you take into account cultural factors—the fact that we drive cars a lot more than any other country; we are much more mobile,” Ensign said. “If you take out accidental deaths due to car accidents, and you take out gun deaths—because we like our guns in the United States and there are a lot more guns deaths in the United States—you take out those two things, you adjust those, and we are actually better in terms of survival rates.” You can view a video of Senator Ensign’s remarks here.

There you have it, victims and survivors of gun violence in D.C.—you simply don’t count. And if you District residents don’t want to abolish your firearm laws and make it easier for lunatics to get guns, well tough luck, that’s just one “cultural factor” you’re going to have to get used to.

Hmmmm... Thanks, but no thanks. As a D.C. resident myself, I can assure both Senator Ensign and the NRA that you might like your guns, but we like our lives and loved ones even more.

Does it Apply?

2009-09-28T08:29:00.000-04:00

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned a handgun ban here in the federal enclave of Washington and ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership (the justices did leave room for firearms regulation, saying government could prohibit guns in "sensitive places" and forbid ownership by certain dangerous people, such as felons). But the court did not say whether the Second Amendment also applies to the states.

Last Thursday, an 11-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals grappled with this specific question. The case, Nordyke v. King, involves a dispute over a firearms ban at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in California. Some members of the divided panel argued that the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" is binding on states. Others argued that the Supreme Court has never overturned its earlier rulings that said the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. One judge suggested the court uphold the ordinance as a valid public safety measure while side-stepping the constitutional argument.

Sayre Weaver, attorney for Alameda County, presented the argument that the earlier Supreme Court decisions that set precedents on the scope of the Second Amendment remain binding and can be overturned only by the high court. The 9th Circuit issued an order after the argument that they are holding the Nordyke case pending disposition by the Supreme Court of another case, National Rifle Association v. Chicago, where the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Second Amendment is not incorporated at the state level.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept the Chicago case for consideration will be a key one and have a significant effect on gun-related litigation across the country.

A Little Less Comedy Tonight

2009-09-14T11:46:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest things about working for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has been the myriad of fascinating people that you meet and come to admire.

One such person is Larry Gelbart, the award-winning writer whose sly wit helped create such hits as Broadway's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum," the films "Tootsie" and "Oh, God!" and the hit television series "M-A-S-H". Mr. Gelbart died this past week at the age of 81.

During his long career as a comedy writer, Gelbart wrote for Bob Hope, Jack Paar, Red Buttons, Jack Carson, Eddie Cantor, Joan Davis and many others. In the 1950's he joined a legendary writing team that included Mel Brooks, Neil Simon and Carl Reiner writing for Sid Caesar's "Caesar's Hour."

Reiner, longtime friend and colleague, as quoted by AP writer Christy Lemire, called Gelbart "the Jonathan Swift of our day...It's a great, great, great, great, great, great loss. You can't put enough `greats' in front of it." Reiner directed "Oh, God!" from Gelbart's Oscar-nominated script. "The mores of our time were never more dissected and discussed. He had the ability to make an elaborate joke given nothing but one line."

Mr. Gelbart was a warm and generous human being. He will be greatly missed. There will be a little less comedy tonight.

Old and Wise

2009-09-07T13:48:00.000-04:00

As I reflected on the harsh political rhetoric of this past summer, I was reminded of the words of the ancient writer of the Epistle of James:

"You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger, for your anger does not produce righteousness. Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.

"But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they look like. But those who look to the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing.

"If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled is this: to care for the orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

[James 1:19-27, Inclusive Language translation]

In Search of That Better America

2009-08-31T19:24:00.000-04:00

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who passed away last Tuesday, was a stalwart force in national efforts to stop gun violence. Our country is better today for the work that the senator did to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. Senator Kennedy supported every major gun safety initiative since the Gun Control Act of 1968; including the Brady background check law, the ban on assault weapons, and ongoing efforts to close the gun show loophole. His wise counsel, gentle good humor, and steely resolve on these issues will remain in the hearts and minds of all those who work to reduce gun violence.

In addition, he had a tremendous impact on nearly every aspect of modern American political life. Some of his many legislative accomplishments were summed up in remarks at his "Celebration of Life" by Senator John Kerry, his colleague from Massachusetts:

“Ted Kennedy changed the course of history as only few others ever have. Without him, there might still be a military draft. The war in Vietnam might have lasted longer. There might have been delays in passing the Voting Rights Act or Medicare and Medicaid. Soviet Jewish Refuseniks might have been ignored—and who would have been there to help them as Ted did? Without him we might not have stood up against the apartheid government in South Africa. The barriers to fair immigration might be higher...

“Without Ted, 18-year-olds might not be able to vote. There might not be a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Meals on Wheels, student loans, increases in the minimum wage, equal funding for women’s college sports, health insurance portability, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the first billions for AIDS research, workplace safety, Americorps, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program...

“He stood against judges who would turn back the clock on constitutional rights. He stood against the war in Iraq. For nearly four decades, and all through his final days, he labored with all his might to make health care a right for all Americans."

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick added, "Ted Kennedy more often than not sailed into the political wind, in search of that better America. He did it with a grace and skill so typical of him and his family."

The Lion of the Senate understood that sometimes the toughest fights were the ones most worth fighting. In the future we can honor the memory of Ted Kennedy and the millions of victims of gun violence by sailing into the political wind and making Teddy's work our own.

What Do We Want Our Country to Look Like?

2009-08-24T13:43:00.000-04:00

This summer’s Congressional recess has been marred by many incidents that raise grave questions about the current political climate in America and what that portends for the future of the Republic. One of the more jarring elements has been the presence of guns at town hall meetings on health care reform. Last week, we even saw a man openly carry an assault weapon outside a public appearance of the President of the United States.

In an excellent article about this issue, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has asked some appropriate questions about this development. His first query: "What would conservatives have said if a group of loud scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?"

Dionne goes on to argue that the real question that must be addressed is what message the gun-toters are trying to send. As he sees it, “This is not about the politics of populism. It's about the politics of the jackboot. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.”

This dovetails nicely with an excellent blog recently published by our executive director, Josh Horwitz, at the Huffington Post. In that piece, entitled, “‘Resistance Efforts,’ Guns and the Constitution,” Josh states, “If we let "the guys with the guns make the rules" then the very fabric of our democracy is up for grabs.”

I couldn’t agree more. All Americans need to take a close look at what is happening at these health care reform events and wonder what they want this country to look like for their children...

This Sounds Familiar...

2009-08-17T10:52:00.000-04:00

Dr. Martin Luther King was a communist. The Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, had secret files to prove it. The entire "civil rights" movement was a Soviet Union-backed plot to lead induce race-mixing and thus weaken the fighting will of Americans. President John F. Kennedy was secretly set on disarming the United States. People who supported equal rights for non-whites were unstable, driven insane by mind-altering drugs and the devil's rock and roll music.

Listening to some of the charges being flung around in the current debate over health care reform, I can’t help but think that I’ve heard it all before. The charges above, of course, were some of those that we heard in America during the 1960s. People frightened by the changes taking place in our society were looking for a boogeyman and found it in the "Communist menace." Rightist politicians, organized hate groups, and some in the news media were quick to jump on the fear bandwagon. Civil rights supporters were shouted down in public meetings. Many universities were closed to certain speakers. Civil rights workers were openly harassed. Some were killed. Others were badly beaten or run out of town.

Despite these obstacles, dedicated civil rights activists—many of whom were students, both black and white—fanned out across the country to seek a change in the laws of the nation. Brave religious leaders stood up to speak truth to power. Advocates of reform organized and took action and eventually achieved great social change in America.

Now, once again, we seem to be on the threshold of major social change, and once again the threats, outlandish charges, and out-right thuggery are part of our public life this summer of discontent. Now there are new charges... President Obama isn't an American. He is part of a Muslim plot to destroy the country. The Democrats’ health care plan would create “death panels” to euthanize senior citizens, thereby reducing health care costs.

Again, the motivating factor is fear of change. I cannot help but believe that much of that fear is—just as in the 1960s—stoked by racial anxiety. It has finally sunk in that the election of Barack Obama is a reality and there is no going back to the “good old days.”

Another similarity is the stockpile of firearms in private hands. Only now the weapons are far more sophisticated and dangerous. I could not help but be alarmed by the New Hampshire man who recently showed up to a public forum held by the President of the United States with a 9mm handgun prominently strapped to his leg and a sign about letting the blood of “tyrants.” I am glad my colleague Josh Horwitz is keeping a close eye on such insurrectionist activity.

But there are two key differences between this upheaval and that of the 1960s. First, in the 1960s we did not have a 24/7 news coverage machine and the Internet to present unedited opinions instantly. Second, it seems that the majority of Americans are not buying into the scare tactics and will not stand (or fall) for such paranoia.

Ultimately, it is up to people of conscience to prevail against hate and intimidation and achieve the change we so desperately need. We can all have great confidence in our ability to reach this goal—those brave souls of the 1960s, who refused to bend against any opposition, proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Mightier Than the Sword

2009-07-27T12:01:00.000-04:00

The recent defeat in the U.S. Senate of the "Thune Amendment" was a rare victory for proponents of sensible gun legislation. If this amendment were signed into law, concealed handgun (CCW) permit holders from states with lax standards would be allowed to carry guns through and into other states with tough and more restrictive CCW laws.

Although we can celebrate the fact that the amendment fell two votes short of the 60 required for passage, we must be mindful that 58 Senators voted for this dangerous and unprecedented legislation. This underscores the disproportionate support that the gun lobby has in the Congress of the United States at this time.

Conventional political wisdom has it that Democrats are convinced that gun control is a losing issue. The converse of that argument is that the supporters of stronger gun regulation will not hold their elected officials responsible for ignoring or voting the wrong way on the issue. Some years ago, there were polls conducted which showed that for gun control advocates, the issue ranked #5 on a list of issues about which they cared the most. For gun rights advocates, however, the issue ranked in their top two. This “commitment factor” helps explain why many elected officials feel they can ignore the wishes of gun control advocates, who vastly outnumber pro-gun advocates.

Some Members of Congress have been recently asking, "What has happened to the voice of supporters of sensible gun legislation?” Editorials in newspapers across the country have wondered, "Where is the outrage at the recent spate of gun violence in this country?" In defeating the Thune Amendment, we stood together and began to answer those questions, but more needs to be done.

The Congress will soon be taking their August month-long recess. They will be heading home to take the temperature of the voting public in their respective districts and states. There are two things you can take for granted: 1) The economy and health care will be the top items on everyone's agenda, and; 2) The pro-gun lobby will be well organized to see that their voice is heard.

Will you be equally committed to sharing your concerns about—and support for—sensible gun legislation? If you do not speak up this August, the voice of the NRA and its ilk will be the only voices heard and the prospects for saving lives in the future will be diminished. Remember, 58 Senators voted for the Thune Amendment because they think you aren't paying attention, or just don't care. Let's tell them otherwise.

As a sage once put it, you should always carry a pen because you never know when you will meet someone with a sword.

A Modest Proposal

2009-07-20T10:22:00.000-04:00

Dear gun rights activists,

As you know the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups have been very successful in expanding the easy availability of firearms and curtailing restrictions on who can carry guns and where they can carry them. You are also aware that gun sellers are reporting great increases in the volume of their sales.

You may have seen the news reports recently that many hospitals, emergency rooms and trauma centers across the country are running low on—or are out of—critical blood supplies needed to treat the victims of gunshot wounds. A large number of these victims are teens and younger.

Might it not be a good PR gimmick for you and your fellow activists to organize blood donor drives to restore some of the much-needed blood bank base in our nation’s emergency and trauma units? After all, we all know that "freedom isn't free." Freedom requires responsibility and sacrifice.

By donating blood to ensure there is enough in supply, the life you save may be your own.

Donating blood is easy, painless, and only takes about an hour of your time. Read more about donating in the "Donating Blood" section of the Red Cross website and call your local blood center today to schedule an appointment to donate.

Nominating Dictators

2009-07-13T10:07:00.000-04:00

So what else is new?

Given the recent activities of many its Members, a May poll revealed that the Congress of the United States is held in low esteem by much of the public.

In Walt Whitman's political tract, "The Eighteenth Presidency," an attack on the dreadful state of American governance in 1856, he trained his sights on the "nominating dictators" of American political life. “Who are they?” he asked. The answer:

"Office-holders, office-seekers, robbers, pimps, exclusives, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men, post-masters, custom-house clerks, contractors, kept-editors, spaniels well-trained to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail-riflers, slave-catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the President, creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, blowers, electioneerers, body-snatchers, bawlers, bribers, compromisers, runaways, lobbyers, sponges, ruined sports, expelled gamblers, policy backers, monte-dealers, duelists, carriers of concealed weapons, blind men, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred inside with the vile disorder, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people's money and harlot's money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combings and born freedom sellers of the earth."

Americans have been having fun looking at their political leaders ever since. Long may we look with a critical eye at the shenanigans of the kept editors [Did someone say "fair and balanced"?] and lobbyists for carriers of concealed weapons.

Some Things Never Change

2009-07-06T13:51:00.000-04:00

Some years ago the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence used to issue an annual award to highlight the many ridiculous ways guns are misused in this country. We never wanted for candidates for this dubious honor.

In today's internet world, we have been taken over and expanded by the Darwin Awards. The stated mission of the Darwin Awards is "to salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it."

In case you missed them, here are some of the nominees making the rounds these days. These are supposedly true stories culled from daily newspapers:

An unidentified man, using a shotgun like a club to break a former girlfriend’s windshield, accidentally shot himself to death when the gun discharged, blowing a hole in his gut. (San Jose Mercury News)
Ken Charles Barger, 47, accidentally shot himself to death in December in Newton, North Carolina. Awakening to the sound of a ringing telephone beside his bed, he reached for the phone but grabbed instead a Smith & Wesson 38 Special, which discharged when he drew it to his ear. (Hickory Daily Record)
Just as squirrels bury their acorns to protect them from predators for later use, a man from Howard, Wisconsin, put his ammunition and three handguns in a safe place before he and his wife departed on vacation. He wanted to be sure they would be there when the couple returned. But just as squirrels frequently forget where they buried a particular acorn, the man forgot that his hiding place was the oven. When they returned from their trip, his wife turned on the oven to prepare dinner. Shortly afterward the couple had to duck behind the refrigerator as the bullets began to explode like popcorn. The husband used a fire extinguisher to put out the fire the bullets started in the oven. No humans were hurt, but the prognosis for the oven was grim. (Associated Press)

I know that gun violence is not a laughing matter, but sometimes I have to shake off the grim reality and marvel at the many ridiculous and deadly ways that guns are misused daily in our nation. And if humor can help people take notice of the importance of handling firearms safely in all situations, all the better.

In a Split Second

2009-06-29T13:55:00.000-04:00

I am constantly amazed at the number of people who blithely assume that their possession of a handgun—no matter what their level of training—would enable them to prevent or stop a gun-related crime without doing collateral damage. Such an assumption is often in direct contrast to the experience of well-trained, armed law enforcement officials.

On June 10, Bill Crummett, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), witnessed an armed crime unfolding as his car was stopped at a traffic light near the Capitol in Washington, D.C. As reported by Clarence Williams in the Washington Post, “Two pedestrians in a crosswalk pulled out semiautomatic handguns and opened fire on a third man, who was wounded and scrambled for cover behind a sports utility vehicle. The assailants then hid their weapons in their waistbands, leaving Crummett to make a split-second decision: Engage and risk a firefight or call for help.”

As Williams tells the story, “Crummett decided not to risk the chance of escalating a gun battle at an intersection crowded with commuters and pedestrians. Instead, he called D.C. police, gave them a description of the suspects and began a low-key pursuit until help arrived.” As a result of his actions, the guns used in the crime were recovered and one suspect was arrested later that day. No innocent bystanders were harmed at any time.

According to Agent Crummett: “There’s a couple of things that I could do at that moment. It was more dangerous for me to try take enforcement action…the smartest thing to do was to follow them.” Inspector Michael Reese with the D.C. Police agreed: “He could have opted to shoot, but he didn’t. I think he used good sound judgment. He let his expertise come into play.

I have heard far too many un-trained, would-be heroes confidently assert that they would pull their trusty piece and save the day in such a situation. Walter Mitty would be proud. In reality, reaching for your trusted piece will most likely result in increased tragedy. Owning a gun is a grave responsibility. Knowing when not to use one is imperative.

The Times on the Times

2009-06-22T10:56:00.000-04:00

On the west coast, Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times looked at a business that’s booming in tough economic times and wondered, "What’s Triggering Gun Sales?" Lopez visited several gun dealerships in the Los Angeles area to find out.

Three main reasons were put forward for gun purchases. First is the much ballyhooed fear promoted by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that President Obama is going to take away all guns. One dealer polished off the gun lobby’s old chestnut: "There are few things that stand between the people and tyranny. Once private gun ownership is eliminated, there's nothing to stop the government from doing what it wants to do."

The second reason has to do with fear of where the current Obama hatred might lead. As one dealer said, “If somebody shoots this guy, there's gonna be wars in the streets," adding that the violence would make the Rodney King rioting look like a picnic in the park, and some people are afraid to get stuck without enough bullets.

The third reason given was a real doozy: Some people "don't know whether [Obama’s] Muslim or Christian."

I loved Lopez’s response to these arguments. “If war broke out between the U.S. government and the Inland Empire, would it be that easy to choose sides? … Then again, if there are people in this country unstable enough to think Obama might lead a jihad, shouldn't I be prepared to protect myself from them?”

In another recent editorial, New York Times columnist John Herbert wrote, “Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams … As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns ... While the NRA is not advocating violence, it shouldn’t take more than a glance at the newspapers to understand why this is a message that the country could do without.”

Herbert pointed to the obvious irony that “gun control advocates are, frankly, disappointed in the president’s unwillingness to move ahead on even the mildest of gun control measures.” He wisely concluded that the first step to addressing the threat of insurrectionist violence in our country, “should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.”

It’s great to see some editorial sanity from both ends of the country.

Two Horrifying Days

2009-06-15T11:22:00.000-04:00

One horrifying day is seared in my memory—the day in 1962 I spent touring the remains of Auschwitz with a friend who had lost his wife, children and parents in that unspeakable death camp. I can not express the sense of evil that permeated those grounds. I was made acutely aware of the horror that can be unleashed by organized and armed hate groups.

The memory was brought vividly back to life by the tragic shooting at the U.S. Holocaust museum here in Washington, D.C. The perpetrator of the shooting left a note, “You want my weapons—this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie.”

According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the killer “held subscription and mail-order memberships in an assortment of far-right and anti-Semitic organizations, including the California-based Institute for Historic Review, the Adelaide Institute, a far-right Australian group, and, at one point, was nominated as a ‘white racialist treasure’ by a visitor to Stormfront, a neo-Nazi Web site based in Florida. In 2004, [he] spent several months in Hayden, Idaho, home base of the now-defunct Aryan Nations, a longtime breeding ground for white supremacists and domestic terrorists that included The Order, a supremacist group that carried out murders and armed robberies in the 1980s. One intelligence document shows that…FBI agents discovered an application form for Mr. von Brunn for an Aryan Nations splinter group known as Church of the Sons of Yaweh.”

More frightening to me are the comments made by other spewers of racial hatred in the wake of the shooting. A friend of von Brunn’s, White Separatist John de Nugent, said "James von Brunn is significant because he is somebody who simply acted on his belief. But I think there are millions of white people who are trending in this direction. If I were to advocate the violent overthrow of the country I think hundreds of people would join me right now."

The Holocaust Museum shooting—so closely following on the heels of the shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller in his church—reminds us of how much damage can be done to our democratic ideals by a dedicated group of hate-mongers who have easy, unregulated access to deadly firearms. The comments of people like John de Nugent make my blood run cold.

Two of my current and former colleagues at CSGV, Josh Horwitz and Casey Anderson, recently published an important book, Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea, that discusses in detail the harm that is being done to our fragile democracy by these armed insurrectionists.

Sound the Battle Cry of Radicalism

2009-06-08T10:23:00.000-04:00

At my age I probably should not be—but constantly am—amazed at the things some in the pro-gun lobby will say in order to get a mention in the news. In a desperate attempt to fire-up the faithful, groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA) have accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of being “an anti-gun radical” for joining a Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit opinion earlier this year that refused to incorporate the U.S. Supreme Court’s D.C. v. Heller decision on the Second Amendment at the state level.

In their shrill statement, the group charged that “Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision” in the opinion mentioned above in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo.

As if to emphasize how detached from reality that rant was, this past week a panel of conservative judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit, hearing a challenge to gun laws in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, came to the same conclusion as the Sotomayor panel. “We agree with Maloney” read the unanimous decision written by the circuit’s Chief Judge, Frank K. Easterbrook, one of the country’s leading conservative jurists. “The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the Second Amendment to the states,” Easterbrook wrote. He was joined in the decision by the well-known conservative jurist Richard A. Posner and a third Republican-appointed judge.

Now, I have no idea of how Judge Sotomayor actually feels about the gun rights/responsibility debate. I truly wish that I did. However, I do know that the gun lobby has no more information than I do. That does not prevent them, however, from making outlandish and defaming statements to play to the media and attempt to raise more funds from the faithful. Nor does it bode well for an honest debate on the issues. Once again, the gun lobby adheres to the admonition to not let the salt of truth ruin the flavor of a good press quote.

The Power of Doubt

2009-06-01T10:21:00.000-04:00

Recently, the National Rifle Association (NRA) held its annual convention in Phoenix, and I chanced upon an interesting quote from a Remington employee who ran a booth at the gun expo there. Speaking about the NRA’s view on President Obama, he said, “We have our doubts and doubt is that makes this organization thrive.”

Just three days later, NRA Board Member Ted Nugent published an editorial in the Waco Tribune that seemed to confirm this theory by elevating doubt (or “fear,” if you prefer) to a new level.

“Water is essential to life … A certain lunatic fringe is always conspiring to ban guns, something else we need to live,” Nugent said, without offering any concrete examples of such proposals (or perhaps Mr. Nugent simply believes an assault weapon is as essential to human life as oxygen).

But Nugent wasn’t done there... He then described the NRA’s annual convention as “a great celebration of good over evil,” thereby condemning not only gun violence prevention organizations, but also the thousands of victims and survivors of gun violence across the country who actively advocate for tougher gun laws. That includes survivors of the Virginia Tech shootings and family members of the victims in that tragedy, 50 of whom recently wrote the Richmond Times to urge legislators to close the Gun Show Loophole, a proposal the NRA adamantly opposes.

Nugent’s doubts also extended to our nation’s law enforcement officers. “All the evidence tells us that calling 9-1-1 is a joke,” he states. “We’ll tell authorities to bring a dustpan and a mop to clean up the dead monster we just shot.”

“Peace and love will get you killed,” Nugent concluded, not bothering to explain why the United States, with its weak gun laws, has higher rates of homicide than virtually every other industrialized democracy in the world.

Doubts? I have my own, particularly in regards to the mental health of the NRA’s celebrity spokesmen.

It's About Citizenship

2009-05-18T11:40:00.000-04:00

Many of you are aware that CSGV Executive Director Josh Horwitz has a book coming out this month, Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea, that “recasts the gun debate” by “demonstrating how reasonable gun control is essential to the survival of democracy and ordered liberty."

Josh is not the only person thinking about this topic in the wake of last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, however. Frequently, I will receive emails from a nonprofit organization, The Potowmack Institute, whose motto is, “It’s not about guns…it’s about citizenship.”

A recent missive from the Institute contained some very provocative ideas:

We are in the midst a crisis in gun violence and gun trafficking that is no longer simply national. It has become international … These crises can no longer be ignored … The [Senate] Judiciary Committee will have confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee. It is not usual to ask nominees questions on cases, but the Parker [v. District of Columbia]/Heller gun rights cases do offer possibilities on the most fundamental concepts…

The vital arguments [have been] ignored … The substantive discussion begins with something very simple: What James Madison was really describing in Federalist Paper No. 46 was not a civil right of private individuals. It ends with something equally simple. The Parker/Heller cases were a devastating defeat for gun rights ideologies [in part because those decisions affirmed that a wide range of gun control regulation is both constitutional and permissible and because they refused to adopt a strict scrutiny standard for future regulations]. If the gun lobby does not accept the opinions of the courts, the constitutional challenge to them is to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment. The cynical business of defeating legislation does not secure a constitutional right.

The hearings have to be directed toward the formulation of national policy. The only really important goal of national policy is to control the illegal traffic of guns between and among jurisdictions and now, between and among nations. That is empowerment policy for local jurisdictions. The Federal Government need do little more. That goal can only be accomplished by registration of ownership and reporting of private sales...

[The solution] is very simple: Resurrect the original militia concept and practices as manifest in the “Militia Act of 1792.” Registration for militia call-up—regardless that a call-up ever takes place—is a matter of military preparedness. It can have the added benefit of controlling the illegal traffic [in firearms]. We can call it the “Homeland Security Militia Reserve Act.”

The constitutional authority for such a national firearms policy is not the much overused Commerce Clause, but the militia clauses and the Second Amendment. Militia duty was conscript duty. Privately owned weapons were a public resource [used for] public duty. They were placed on inventories and reported to the president of the United States ... Can the Judiciary Committee conduct a badly needed national civics lesson? There are no libertarian individual rights in a conscript military organization. After the Parker/Heller opinions there can be no constitutional objections.

The gun rights ideologues would, I think, be very eager to get a hearing for their rights. The business of serious political leadership is to keep them honest and hold them accountable.

A policy that actually entails some real responsibilities for those who consistently clamor about their “rights”? Sounds like a great idea to me...

Wish I Had Said That

2009-05-11T15:11:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite sources of inspiration is the excellent magazine, “The Progressive Christian.” The April 2009 edition carried an excellent article by Charles Schuster, the following sections which I would like to share with you:

In the midst of a world economic crisis, it is important to revisit what has, truly, brought us through the fire, the flood, the terror, the famine, and the pestilence of the past. We have survived because we learned that we must care for each other rather than protect ourselves from each other. We have survived because we have learned to cooperate instead of compete. The human spirit has risen to its best when it has pondered the broad horizon and has been able to look past the tree that blocked us to see the forest that surrounded our ponderings ...

For those who want to purchase weapons of miniscule destruction, let us invite them to empty the bullets from their guns and assemble to fight the real enemies of the state that are found in the human heart, and to bear witness to the real cure for what ails us, which also is found in the human heart.

The time has come for religious people to be religious. The word religion is derived from a Latin word meaning “to bind together.” This is a time to bind together even as segments of our population want to separate us from each other.

This is a time for the fittest to lead in our survival, but fitness is not defined by power and might. It is defined by tenderness and compassion.

Amen, brother Schuster. I wish that I had said that myself...

April is the Cruelest Month

2009-04-27T11:16:00.000-04:00

I have reached the age where I sometimes have difficulty remembering what I did the day before yesterday. However, shootings over this past weekend at Hampton University and the University of Georgia have vividly brought me back to me the events of Tuesday, April 20, 1999, with precision.

I will never be able to erase the memories of visiting Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the day after the horrific mass shooting. The things that stick in my mind are the faces of the students and parents trying to make sense of the tragedy; the sight of all those crosses placed on a hill outside the school; and the school parking lot turned into a makeshift monument with flowers, cards, signs and teddy bears from across the nation. Another image that haunts me is the media circus that surrounded the school. An added insult was a few super-righteous religious zealots who seized upon Columbine to make a faux case for religious martyrdom.

Journalist Dave Cullen has just released a comprehensive account of the massacre. The book is simply titled, Columbine. You can read a review of the book by Gary Kris from the Washington Post.

Cullen claims to expose several myths about the Columbine tragedy, but one piece of reporting that was true was the ease with which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were able to acquire the guns used in the shootings. Harris and Klebold had young friends of theirs purchase these weapons at Denver-area gun shows from private sellers—cash and carry, no questions asked. One of these friends, Robyn Anderson, later said, "It was too easy. I wish it would have been more difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a criminal background check."

Colorado closed the Gun Show Loophole by referendum one year after the shootings, and for that we can credit the courageous work of many of the students and parents of the victims at Columbine. They banded together to take positive action to stem the easy availability of guns in our society and we should learn from their example. Now that federal legislation to close the loophole has been introduced in Congress by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), we have an opportunity to prevent thousands of criminals and other dangerous individuals from buying guns with no oversight whatsoever.

We should seize it, and ensure that we will have something positive to reflect upon as a country when the twentieth anniversary of Columbine is observed ten years from now.

April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain...
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

Playing with (FOX)fire

2009-04-20T11:03:00.001-04:00

The FOX television network and the Republican Party were major promoters of the “Tea Parties” that were held around the nation on April 15. These events, which were promoted as protests against tax policies, seem to have turned into a foul mix of anti-Obama and anti-government diatribes.

According to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, here in Washington, D.C., demonstrators carried signs with such slogans as “The Audacity of the Dope,” “One Big Awful Mistake America,” “Napolitano—Obama’s Gestapo Queen,” “Obama Bin Lyin” and “Hey Big Brother: Show us Your Real Birth Certificate.”

While such verbal assaults on the President and/or the government are fully within bounds of political dissent—and can even be clever—many of the things said at the various events bordered on incitement to insurrection. At a rally in Austin, Texas Governor Rick Perry suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would secede from the Union. Here in the District, radio talk show host Mike Church treated the crowd to a mock fascist salute and said that “It’s time to have a little revolution, I think. We don’t have to fire weapons. You should own them, you should have a lot of ammo to go with them, but you don’t have to shoot them.” “Unless we have to!” someone yelled back.

My esteemed colleague, CSGV Executive Director Josh Horwitz, is publishing an exciting new book on this topic next month, “Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea.” He also has a marvelous new blog on the Huffington Post, “Insurrection Goes ‘Mainstream.’”

The blog focuses on the role of national news media outlets in promoting insurrection. In addition to the endless promotion of the “Tea Parties” on all of FOX’s “Fair & Balanced” programs, Fox News personalities Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and Tobin Smith were among the featured speakers at various Tea Party sites. Smith even began his presentation at the District of Columbia event by saying “On behalf of the Fox News Channel, I want to say welcome to the Comedy Channel of America, Washington, D.C.” He ended his speech by exhorting the audience to “Keep watching FOX, will you?”

I cannot help but wonder if the Fox News Channel—in its relentless and forceful denigration of our current government—is not playing with fire.

Overlooking the Obvious

2009-04-13T11:38:00.000-04:00

The writer of the Book of Matthew in chapter 23, verse 25 scoffs at “You blind guides, that strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” It is certain that the writer did not have in mind today’s news and headline writers, but he certainly could have...

This past week the American news media ran stories about the latest installment of the annual Gallup crime poll. The survey in question was conducted last October—before the recent spate of mass shootings in America. The headlines and TV news intros all blared: “Gun Control Support at an All-Time Low.”

The poll results of 1,011 adults surveyed showed that 29% of Americans favor a law banning the possession of handguns by private citizens. Without explanation, the poll totally disregarded the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment prohibits such a ban, thereby taking it completely off the table as a policy option. Nonetheless the response to this now irrelevant question was touted by several media outlets as “proof” that Americans don’t support gun control.

A closer look at the Gallup poll, however, reveals something far different. The survey found that 49% of respondents said they want laws on firearms sales to be stricter than they are now. Only 8% said that gun laws should be made less strict.

Let’s look at that ratio again. 49% want stronger gun laws—8% want weaker laws. And again, this was before a horrific series of mass shootings that began in Alabama on March 10.

In what universe is that a ringing endorsement for the gun lobby’s position? Why not carry a headline that states the obvious fact that last fall only 8% of the population supported weakening the nation’s gun laws? Why not stories about how the Congress of the United States is supporting that small minority of 8% over the 49% who want tougher gun laws?

Additionally, a quick look at recent polls commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence demonstrates overwhelming majority support for new laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

This is a friendly reminder that the next time you read a story about the demise of the movement to reduce gun violence, be sure to read the whole story and not swallow the camel.

Does Anybody Hear?

2009-04-06T10:22:00.000-04:00

As we prepare for Passover and Holy Week, we are mindful of the fact that over the past month there have been seven horrendous, high-profile mass shootings in our nation. These seven shootings have resulted in the death of 53 people. This is on top of the “normal” grisly daily total of 82 gun deaths.

There are two constants in these killings. First, all of the shooters have been men who were laid off from their jobs. Second, all of them had easy access to guns.

There is a third constant that rarely gets discussed in the media. Every one of those 53 victims left behind family and friends who are deeply scarred by their deaths. Over the years, I have been shocked and saddened by the aftermath of shooting deaths. I have seen families torn apart by the shooting death of a child. Children traumatized by the shooting of a parent—perhaps for life. Entire schools and communities scarred by tragedies. The pain continues to ripple out like waves from a pebble thrown into still water.

You can see anguish when you speak to people who lost loved ones at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School or any of the myriad of other similar events. Just listen to the voices on the news of the people of Binghamton, New York, as they express shock over the senseless horror that just occurred in their midst.

Gun violence spreads a pall over our entire nation. I remember the anguished cry of one young survivor of a shooting who asked, “Does anybody hear my cry?”

Does Congress hear these anguished voices or see the outward ripple of violence? Or will our elected leaders continue to ignore the results of the easy availability of guns in this nation?

Lest We Forget

2009-03-30T10:36:00.000-04:00

My dear friends Jim and Sarah Brady have issued a call for Americans across the country to join them on Monday, March 30, at noon for a National Day of Prayer to End Gun Violence. They are asking for prayers “for a peaceable society where all children have the opportunity to grow and prosper, and where everyone can live without fear of being cut down by firearm violence.” 280 people are shot every day in the United States.

This day is of special significance as it is the day that Jim was wounded in the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan and it leads us into a month of anniversaries of gun violence that are all too familiar: April 4—Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinated; April 16—Virginia Tech tragedy; and April 20—shooting at Columbine High School. Because every day in America brings new tragedies, we must now, sadly, add another to this list: March 29—Massacre at nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina.

President Reagan’s experience with gun violence, while horrifying, was far from unique. In the brief history of our nation, we have had 44 Presidents. Four of them were assassinated with guns while in office; six others were the victims of attempted assassinations:

Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed on April 14, 1865.

James A. Garfield was shot and killed on July 2, 1881.

William McKinley was shot and killed on Sept. 6, 1901.

John F. Kennedy was shot and killed on Nov 22, 1963.

Ronald Reagan was shot and severely wounded on March 31, 1981.

Andrew Jackson was shot at in the Capitol building on January 30, 1835, but avoided injury.

Theodore Roosevelt was shot in 1912 while campaigning for president.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was shot at on February 15, 1933, in Miami, Florida, just three weeks before his inauguration.

Assassins attempted to shoot and kill Harry Truman on November 1, 1950 but were stopped in a gunfight outside the Blair House.

Not one, but two, disturbed individuals attempted to shoot and kill Gerald Ford during his brief time as president.

As Sarah Brady has said in issuing the call for a Day of Prayer: “In this new day of hope and optimism, let us acknowledge our individual and collective power to create change through prayer.” Let us all do our part at noon today, as we envision a better future for America, “a future where criminals and dangerous individuals attempt to obtain guns and find it difficult or impossible to do so.”

Hobson's Choice a Faustian Bargain

2009-03-23T10:36:00.000-04:00

Way back in June of 1783, nearly 400 soldiers of the Continental Army marched on the U.S. Congress in Philadelphia demanding back pay for their duty during the Revolution. The Congress called upon the Executive Council of Pennsylvania to stop the mutiny.

Pennsylvania's subsequent failure to protect the institutions of the national government, however, was a primary reason why the framers of the Constitution decided to create a federal district distinct from the states, where Congress could provide for its own security. The delegates therefore agreed in Article One, Section 8, of the United States Constitution to give the Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States."

In 1790, Congress created the District of Columbia to serve as the new federal capital. The small seat of government foreseen by the Congress has now grown into a major international city with more than half a million residents.

Unfortunately, the District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the United States where Americans fulfill all the responsibilities of citizenship but are denied equal rights. Americans living in Washington, D.C., have no voting representation in either chamber of Congress. They truly suffer from “Taxation Without Representation.”

Recently, Congress took up the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” (H.R.157/S.160), bipartisan legislation that would grant one voting Representative to District residents for the first time ever.

This act of democratic sanity somehow struck a chord of fear and opportunism in the National Rifle Association (NRA) leadership in Virginia. The NRA quickly convinced lawmakers to attach an amendment to the Voting Rights Act which would remove the city's firearm registration requirements, repeal the District's ban on assault weapons, and prohibit the D.C. Council from regulating firearms in the future. The Senate then passed the bill with the NRA amendment, prompting this response from D.C. Council Member Phil Mendelson: "The irony here is that on one hand they vote to give us voting representation, but on the other hand they strip any local representation in regards to our gun laws."

The bill is currently pending in the House of Representatives, where the Democratic Leadership is unwilling at this time to press for a vote, fearing that the NRA amendment will pass as well. Millions of D.C. residents are now facing a Hobson’s Choice: get one vote in the House of Representatives and sacrifice public safety in your city, or remain totally unrepresented in the People’s House. As an American citizen who has resided in the District of Columbia for the past 50 years, I deeply resent the attempt of a partisan right-wing political lobby to force such a choice on me and my fellow D.C. residents.

One thing is certain: the NRA’s “Ensign Amendment” is a clear and grave threat to public safety in the District of Columbia. Now is the time to fight back against the gun lobby’s cynical and cold-blooded ploy and stand together for the principle that is at the foundation of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act”: self-determination.

March Madness

2009-03-16T11:20:00.000-04:00

I can't help being struck by the irony of American college students being warned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to stay out of Mexico during Spring Break because of the danger of gun violence created by the assault weapons that are being trafficked south of the border from our own country. Authorities have confirmed that U.S. guns stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90% of Mexico’s crime guns. The American weapons of choice for Mexico’s drug cartels? 9mm pistols, .38 Super pistols, 5.7mm pistols, .45-caliber pistols, AR-15 type rifles, and AK-47 type rifles.

Just four days before the ATF travel alert, 22 Democrats joined Republicans in the U.S. Senate to approve a National Rifle Association-drafted amendment to the D.C. voting rights bill that would force the 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C. to legalize assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in the city. The bill, which is supposed to stand for the principle of self-determination, has since been stalled in the House of Representatives because Democratic leaders cannot figure out a way to overcome their own party’s supplication to the gun lobby.

Then, last Tuesday—in what can no longer be called a coincidence in our gun-obsessed and violence-ridden nation—a man who had failed in his dreams to become a U.S. Marine and police officer went on an assault weapons shooting spree in the Alabama countryside. Discharging more than 200 rounds from two assault rifles with high-capacity magazines that were taped together, Michael McClendon killed 10 people and then himself.

The term "March Madness" is taking on new meaning this year.

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat. “We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”

The Duty of Every Individual

2009-03-09T14:55:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Senate has always embraced tradition and precedent, and one of the chamber’s great traditions is to read George Washington’s Farewell Address every year on the birthday of our extraordinary first president. This year, the honor of reciting this wonderful speech went to newly-elected Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska.

Washington’s Address is a remarkable commentary on the virtues of our Constitutional Government which seems as relevant today as it was 212 years ago. In the speech, Washington makes clear our duties and responsibilities as American citizens:

“This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.”

Indeed, Washington advised American citizens that “your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”

Listening to the Address again, I couldn’t help but think of the current debate over gun control in America. One of the ideas that has gained great currency among right-wing commentators in our country is that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to stockpile firearms against our Government and take violent action should it become “tyrannical.” This disturbing argument was advanced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in its amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller (“The Framers sought to effectuate their purpose of guarding against federal overreaching by guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms … Arms dispersed among the people would prove far more difficult to confiscate”) and even gained currency with Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in the case (“When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny”).

I wonder if Justice Scalia has ever surfed the Internet. If he had, he might have seen comments like this one left on my blog by a pro-gun activist last week:

“The 2nd Amendment was written so that ‘the People’ will NOT be ‘outgunned’ by ANY military/police force, foreign or domestic … Military and police have access to weapons civilians are ‘forbidden’ to own i.e. machine guns etc. How is a civilian with a bolt action rifle or revolver or semi-auto handgun with a magazine restriction supposed to combat against someone else with better weapons and a larger magazine capacity?????”

What would Washington have thought of this insurrectionist chest-beating? Well, his reaction to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 provides us with clear answers to that question. The rebellion involved a series of violent attacks on excise agents that were launched by farmers in the western counties of Pennsylvania. The rebels were angered by a new federal tax that had been imposed on whiskey in 1791.

In a proclamation, President Washington described the rebels as “insurgents” and condemned their “overt acts of levying war against the United States.” Nearly 13,000 state militiamen were called up by the president, and they marched into Pennsylvania and quickly quelled the rebellion. The incident, however, was still on President Washington’s mind two years later in his Farewell Address:

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government ... All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Washington’s warning still rings in our ears today as the gun lobby continues to encourage Americans to arm themselves against our Government. Let us hope that our Members of Congress, who pay tribute to our great Founding Father annually, take his words to heart and explore the publicly-stated rationale for opposition to sensible gun laws in this country.

The Shimmering Mirage

2009-03-02T09:52:00.000-05:00

As I sit here and watch the snow that threatens to blanket much of the entire east coast of the country, my thoughts run to the words of the noted philosopher Howard Thurman from his book of meditations, Deep is the Hunger:

“All travelers somewhere along the way, find it necessary to check their course, to see how they are doing. We wait until we are sick, or shocked into stillness, before we do the commonplace thing of getting our bearings.”

This Sunday, the New York Times Magazine ran an article by Bathsheba Monk titled “My New Gun.” Ms. Monk, a writer and resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, described how—due to “the worsening financial news”—she has purchased a gun for “protection.” “You might as well get used to a .38 [caliber handgun]” a friend and gun enthusiast told her. “You want it to make a nice big hole.”

Ms. Monk wrote that a clerk at the gun store where she made her purchase told her that many handguns were out of stock. Background check records indicate that arms sales around the country have been increasing “in inverse proportion to the collapsing economy and in response to the unsubstantiated buzz that the new administration is going to tighten gun control.”

This chilling story brought to mind a poem by Australian poet/theologian, Bruce D. Prewer entitled “Thoughts in the Desert”:

“Those who dare to test their wits
In dry inhospitable territory,
Where no one is waiting
To receive them,
Return with
a word;

The dire danger to the adventurer
is not demoralizing gibber plains
nor ridge after ridge of sand,
but the distracting lure
of the shimmering mirage.

To distinguish reality from the illusion
And to keep one’s bearings and course
In spite of the mink’s treachery—
This is the ultimate test for the pilgrims
and prophets.

City prophets have a variation on this word:
Deserts take victims swiftly, savagely,
But urban mirages work slowly,
Day by day diverting prey
And destroying souls
still smiling.”

Missing Milk

2009-02-23T14:30:00.000-05:00

Watching Sean Penn and Dustin Lane Black receive Oscars last night for their work on the film “Milk” reminded me of the great toll gun violence has taken on our political life. I can still recall the shock and horror I felt when the news broke that Mayor George Moscone and city Supervisor Harvey Milk of San Francisco had been gunned down in City Hall by former Supervisor Dan White. Once again, a gun in the hands of a disgruntled, deranged man had changed the course of American history.

Shortly after the shooting, Acting Mayor Dianne Feinstein came to Washington to participate in a press conference with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. I will never forget sitting next to Mayor Feinstein and seeing the pain etched on her face as she recounted the tragic events surrounding her discovery of the bodies of her friends and colleagues in City Hall. She would channel her grief into determination and help forge one of the nation’s toughest local gun control ordinances in the Bay City. Today, Dianne Feinstein continues to fight for public safety in the United States Senate, where she has served with distinction for 16 years.

Our nation readily recalls the terrible assassinations of great political figures like Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. Let us hope the film “Milk” will awaken a new consciousness about Harvey Milk and what he meant not only to his city, but to our country.

These painful memories should also stir a renewed vigilance concerning contemporary threats on the life of our new President. Guns are still readily available to those suffering from mental illness in the United States, not only because of unregulated private sales, but also because the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database continues to lack millions of disqualifying records. Until positive action is taken to stem the easy availability of guns in our beloved nation, our leaders will remain in the crosshairs of those who would do them harm.

The Terrible Toll

2009-02-16T11:23:00.000-05:00

Over the years that I have been involved in the gun violence issue, there is one thing that has bothered me more than anything else. Every day, I am barraged with stories of the deadly cost of our national fascination with guns. The ones that tear at my heart the worst are those involving children. These stories come in every horrible form imaginable: children who accidentally kill themselves with guns they find in their homes, depressed fathers who shoot and kill their loved ones, and even children who murder their own parents with firearms.

The toll of children and teens lost to gunfire has been well chronicled by the Children’s Defense Fund—one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 58 children and teens every week; with more than five times that number suffering non-fatal firearm injuries. No other industrialized democracy in the world experiences anything like it; we are unique in putting our youth at such risk.

Fortunately, I have recently seen some hopeful signs that our elected officials are ready to do more to ensure the safety of children.

First there was the Obama Administration’s public declaration that they support making guns in this county childproof. For more information about these initiatives, visit the Million Mom March website.

Then there was the news that the District of Columbia will be including a Child Access Prevention statute in its newly revised gun laws. This provision will impose criminal liability on adults who negligently leave firearms accessible to children or otherwise allow children access to firearms.

Finally, after a series of shootings involving families with young children, the state legislature of Maryland is considering two bills which would give judges more authority to remove firearms when a victim seeks a protective order against a spouse.

Hopefully these measures will serve as an example to other states. No action, legislative or otherwise, is too ambitious when it comes to protecting our kids.

An Interesting Age

2009-02-09T11:09:00.000-05:00

In 1936, Sir Austin Chamberlain, brother of the British prime minister, wrote to a friend: "Many years ago, I learned from one of our diplomats in China that one of the principal Chinese curses heaped upon an enemy is, 'May you live in an interesting age.'"

Given the severity and depth of the economic crisis in which our country is enmeshed, it is safe to say that we are living in an interesting age. Our great depression is already having an impact on the crime rate in the nation. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) reports that certain crimes are up across the nation due to the financial crisis. At the same time, our state and local law enforcement agencies are facing severe budget cuts and hiring freezes. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey has pointed out to the Washington Post that “cities may have to curtail successful programs that have flooded crime ‘hot spots’ with officers.”

An added factor is the recent upturn in gun sales. As one Forth Worth firearms dealer described it: “The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point, people are buying ammunition, high capacity magazines, Glocks—it’s all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA), of course, is exacerbating these fears by telling gun owners that the Obama Administration plans to ban all firearms. In a recent editorial, NRA Board Member Ted Nugent described President Barack Obama as a “gun control zealot—typical of the loony, anti-freedom wing of the Democratic Party” and new Attorney General Eric Holder as a “Fedzilla ratfink” (no, I’m not making this up). In Nugent’s words, “they know the first thing that needs to be done to turn us from citizens to subjects is to disarm us.”

The Administration’s actual gun violence prevention plans are far more modest, and have been laid out publicly in their recent Urban Policy Agenda statement. The only ban being contemplated is a renewal of the widely popular 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons. The Administration will also undoubtedly be watching Congressional debate over a proposal to use a portion of Homeland Security grants to help state and local law enforcement agencies.

Reflecting back on Sir Austin Chamberlain’s words, let us pray that that the interesting days ahead turn out to be a blessing and not a curse. I have great confidence that the current crisis will provide our country’s leaders with tremendous opportunities to move forward and better the lives of all Americans.

Then What?

2009-02-02T10:17:00.000-05:00

And now for something completely different…

Because I love a good, old story, I share with you today an exchange that is said to have taken place between the Greek philosopher Diogenes (412-320 BCE) and Alexander the Great:

Alexander: Diogenes, you are a man of great repute, yet you are a man without purpose and mission! All you do is sit about all day, untroubled, unperturbed, indulging in conversation and the pleasures of moment to moment life!

Diogenes: So, what is so much better about the life of Alexander the Great?

Alexander: I am a conquerer of nations!

Diogenes: So, conquerer of nations, unlike my purposeless life, what are you going to do next?

Alexander: I am going to conquer Greece!

Diogenes: Yes…then what?

Alexander: Then I am going to conquer Asia Minor!

Diogenes: Alright…then what?

Alexander: THEN I am going to conquer the WORLD!

Diogenes: Alright, then what after that?

Alexander: THEN I will relax and enjoy life!

Diogenes: Why not save yourself the trouble?

There is another story that someone gave Diogenes a wonderful cloak. A competing philosopher ran up and stamped the hem of the cloak into the mud, saying, "I stamp on your pride."

Diogenes replied, "And how proud you are to have done it."

Yes We Can Save Lives

2009-01-26T17:38:00.000-05:00

Over the past several years, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has proposed a series of positive steps that could/should be taken by the government to help reduce gun violence in America. For the past eight years, these proposals received either indifference or outright opposition by the Bush Administration. Thus, it was greatly heartening to see that—in its first week in office—the Obama Administration set forth several of our policy goals as part of its comprehensive Urban Policy Agenda.

The document in question reads as follows:

“Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”

As refreshing as it is to see these meaningful goals put forward so boldly, we must remember that they cannot be achieved without support on Capitol Hill. Now is the time for each of us to step forward and let our elected Members of Congress know that there is strong public support for these measures, and a new administration eager to sign them into law. So pick up that phone, write that email, or pay that long overdue in-person visit to convey your concerns.

Can we do it? Can we finally put common sense laws on the books that will frustrate criminals who attempt to obtain firearms? To borrow a phrase from a campaign that preached hope and grassroots action ... Yes we can!

A New Era

2009-01-19T12:39:00.000-05:00

A new era will be ushered in Tuesday with the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th president. Meanwhile, all across our country today we are celebrating one of America's true heroes, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

As I prepare to participate in one of the National Day of Service projects, I am reminded of some of the words of Dr. King about the problem of gun violence in America. In explaining his philosophy, he once famously said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.” To Dr. King there was no such thing as “justified” violence.

I am also reminded of the last time I saw Dr. King. I was determined to get a photograph taken with him. I asked a stranger to use my camera and snap a picture as we talked. After anxiously waiting for the film to be processed, I was crest-fallen to find a great photo of Dr. King and my left hand. Now all I can say is “really, folks, that is my hand in the photograph.”

We at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence were blessed to have Coretta Scott King serve for many years as our Honorary Chairperson. Her advice was a tremendous asset to our work. In addition, we have been greatly assisted by the participation of Martin Luther King III.

I was greatly honored to be asked by Mrs. King to be a speaker at a King Birthday program in the King Center in Atlanta and later to be a speaker at a MLK Day program at the National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis. Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking at a King Day service held jointly by two churches—one a predominately African American congregation and the other a predominately white congregation.

On my way Sunday to the massive “We Are One” concert on the Mall, I was brought to tears by a bumper sticker that was being sold on the street: “Dr. King marched so that Obama could run!”

What a great week this will be.

Armed and Rudderless

2009-01-12T15:20:00.000-05:00

In the wake of less-than-stellar results in the November elections, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is in the process of selecting a leader for the future, with six men vying for leadership of the GOP. Last week, all six candidates appeared together in a debate at the National Press Club here in Washington.

The debate was moderated by the “radical rightist” Grover Norquist. You may remember Norquist as the man who said his goal for the U.S. government is “to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

In addition to being the head of a lobby group called Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is a prominent member of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors (along with Ted Nugent and other luminaries). So it comes as no surprise that one of the main questions he asked the candidates for RNC was about how many guns they own.

As reported in an entertaining “Washington Sketch” by Dana Milbank in the January 6, 2009 Washington Post, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan claimed four handguns and two rifles. Saul Anunzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, boasted of two guns. Ken Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio, reported that he has seven guns—adding, “and I’m good.” Chip Saltsman, former chair of the Tennessee GOP, responded, “In my closet at home, I’ve got two 12 gauges, a 20 gauge, three handguns and a .30-06. And I’ll take you on any time, Ken.”

The image of a six man shoot-out at the GOP Corral is admittedly an intriguing one.

Equally odd was the response when Norquist asked each candidate to name his favorite Republican president. The tally, reported Milbank, was Ronald Reagan 6, Abraham Lincoln 0. Perhaps this helps to explain why candidate Saltsman recently mailed GOP party members a CD containing the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro.” And why a minority of right wing gun owners continue to cling to the belief that the Second Amendment gives them the right to overthrow our democratic government by force.

You Are a Citizen

2009-01-05T10:52:00.000-05:00

As we enter the new calendar year and prepare for life under a new presidential administration, I am reminded of an admonition from the incisive journalist Molly Ivins. A few years ago, Molly wrote an essay exhorting Americans not to be cynical, to treasure the most magnificent political legacy any people has ever received.

In her words, we inherit certain powers and rights just by being born in this country:

"...For more than two hundred years people all over the world have been willing to die for a chance to live by these ideals. They died in South Africa, they died at Tiananmen Square ... You have more political power than 99% of all the people who have ever lived on this planet. You can not only vote, you can register other people to vote, round up your friends, get out and do political education, talk to people, laugh with people, call the radio, write the paper, write your elective representative, use your email list, put up signs, march, volunteer, and raise hell. All your lives, no matter what else you do...you have another job, another responsibility; you are a citizen. It is your obligation and requires attention and effort. And on top of that you should make it into a heck of a lot of fun."

Let us make one more New Year's resolution: to have a heck of a lot of fun pushing the Obama administration, the new Congress and our state legislators to seek creative solutions to the tired old problem of gun violence. It is our duty as citizens. Happy New era!

What's NOT in Santa's Bag

2008-12-22T11:14:00.000-05:00

I am a fan of old-time radio programs. Last night I was listening to the December 22, 1949, broadcast of the original “Dragnet” series. The story, based on a true event, was about a nine year-old boy who was given a rifle for Christmas. As he and his closest friend were playing with the gun, one of the boys tripped and fell. The gun went off and one of the boys was killed.

In the closing scene of the Dragnet episode, Sergeant Friday was asked, "What did we learn from this?" His stern reply: "You should never give a kid a gun for Christmas."

I couldn't help but reflect how many times I have heard or read similar stories. And I wonder how many times this holiday season that story will be repeated.

Here is my wish for you…that you and yours have a safe and happy holiday season…and may the coming New Year be one in which we can work together to rid our society of gun violence.

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, and a joyous Festivus for the rest of us.

Granny Get Your Gun

2008-12-15T11:05:00.000-05:00

Gun manufacturers are always looking for a sexy new product for the civilian market. Tom Diaz chronicled this phenomenon in his book Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America, noting that manufacturers increasingly market guns to consumers by emphasizing their capacity, lethality and concealability.

From time to time, you will see some bizarre ideas come out of the gun industry. I remember a belt buckle pistol which could shoot two small bullets at the touch of a button. Then there was a gun designed to look like a cell phone. But neither of those examples can touch the new “Palm Pistol” as a sheer head-scratcher.

The Palm Pistol has been described by its manufacturer, Constitution Arms, as "an ergonomically novel self defense handgun designed for seniors, disabled and others with limited manual dexterity.” Constitution Arms states that the single-shot 9mm weapon is “suited for home defense, concealed carry or as a backup gun. It is also ideal for [individuals] who may have limited strength or manual dexterity. Using the thumb instead of the index finger for firing, it significantly reduces muzzle drift, one of the principal causes of inaccurate targeting. Point and shoot couldn't be easier.”

A controversy recently erupted when Constitution Arms reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had formally designated the gun as a medical device. This gave rise to the suggestion that the Palm Pistol might be available by prescription and covered by Medicare.

Thankfully, none of this was based in truth. FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey recently made this clear, stating that her agency "has determined that the Palm Pistol, manufactured by Constitution Arms, is not a medical device under the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act.”

Matthew Carmel of Constitution Arms reacted angrily, saying, “I would assume it's due to political pressure … I find it quite ironic that certain elements of the political spectrum demand more protection for the weak, yet when someone steps up to the plate to provide that protection, to empower the weak from predators, they somehow cast a blind eye to their needs.”

Carmel certainly did step up to the plate. He stepped up and invented a gun with a hair trigger for older Americans with limited arm and wrist strength. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what could go wrong here. I can see an older gentleman responding to a noise at night, grabbing his Palm Pistol, and accidentally discharging it by clenching his fist when his cat runs out from behind a couch. Or perhaps, moving quickly through the house, his legs fail and he discharges the gun as he crashes to the ground. Or perhaps his four-year-old grandson visits one weekend, eager to show off his “limited manual dexterity.” And let’s not even get into the potential for suicide with this product…

In all likelihood, Carmel purposely put out fake information about the FDA approval to gain free advertising for his product. Tragically, the Palm Pistol will likely be on the market soon without ever being tested for consumer safety. Guns remain one of the only products in America not regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Cognitive Dissonance

2008-12-08T11:20:00.000-05:00

There is an interesting mental charade that goes on between scientific researchers on the one hand and, public policy makers and American gun owners on the other. It goes something like this. Highly trained social science and/or medical researchers conduct a massive, peer-reviewed study on the effects of gun laws on violent crime rates in America. They—not surprisingly—find that states with lax gun laws have higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that are used in crimes in other states.

The results of the study are released. The press downplays or completely ignores the study. The pro-gun lobby denounces the study as biased and inaccurate. The public policy makers—if they are even aware of the study—completely ignore the findings and continue to dodge the problem.

This past week, a 38-page study on “The Movement of Illegal Guns” was released by a group of more than 320 U.S. mayors and reported on by the Washington Post. Mayors Against Illegal Guns based the study on new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) data that had previously been withheld from the public.

The report finds that, “The stark differences in crime gun export rates appear to confirm the existence of an interstate illegal gun market, where a handful of states stand out as major sources for crime guns … States that export illegal guns at the highest rates have comparatively weak gun laws ... [These states] not only supply crime guns to other states, but they themselves also suffer higher rates of gun murders and fatal shootings of police officers than states with low crime gun export rates.”

The Post ran the story on page A-10 of the paper. It will be fascinating to see what kind of coverage—if any—the report will receive from the nation’s other news media now that it has been officially released. More important will be how public policy makers respond to the data.

If the past is prologue, the NRA will once again denounce the study as “biased,” elected officials will ignore it and the anti-regulation faction will engage in “cognitive dissonance” and become more dedicated to their pro-gun myths than before.

The only thing that can break this cycle is you. You can obtain a PDF copy of the report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns and see that it is widely covered by your local news outlets. You can make sure that it is brought to the attention of every one of your elected public officials. Do not let them ignore this important public safety data. You can make a difference when armed with the facts.

Question No. 59

2008-12-01T16:18:00.000-05:00

The intricate web of organizations that make up what is commonly called the “gun lobby” has relied for years on scare tactics to stir up their members and raise funds. One of the staples of the fear factory has been the claim that Democrats want to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms in the United States. This “Chicken Little” tactic was recently used by the National Rifle Association in the November elections. The NRA wasted $15 million trying to convince hunters and sportsmen that Senator Barack Obama planned to take their guns—and then watched him win a landslide victory over Senator John McCain, their candidate of choice. Maybe Wayne LaPierre & Co. simply forgot that bugaboo is no longer available for exploitation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. Justice Scalia made it patently clear that gun bans are unconstitutional and therefore impossible.

The gun lobby needed a new fear to exploit—and the latest “smoking gun” they have zeroed in on is a real beaut. In an attempt to again paint the Obama Administration as a threat to gun ownership, the current hue and cry is about a widely disseminated questionnaire for those applying for jobs in the new administration. Specifically, this question has drawn the pro-gunners ire:

“Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

The NRA has described the question as “chilling” and suggested it could be used to disqualify law-abiding individuals who use firearms for hunting or self-defense in the home. Republican Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina has also claimed (again without evidence) that the question was designed to “discriminate based on lawful activity.” Finally, Brendan Miniter of the Wall Street Journal argued that President-elect Obama has displayed “a typical ignorance of how gun ownership works in America.”

That’s funny. To hear the gun lobby tell it, I always thought gun ownership was about personal responsibility. It seems to me that the new administration’s questionnaire was simply trying to determine if applicants have exercised their Second Amendment rights in a responsible manner. Moreover, there is no evidence that gun ownership was being specifically targeted by the incoming administration. There were more than 60 questions on the questionnaire that sought to assess the overall character of applicants—including lobby ties, financial records, property ownership and the like. Given that these individuals seek to serve at the highest levels of government, that’s not only reasonable, but necessary—even in a pre-9/11 era.

I suspect the true reason the NRA got its tail feathers ruffled is because they seek to make private gun ownership in our country anonymous and unregulated. But responsibility and accountability go hand in hand—and no law-abiding citizen will ever have anything to fear from a little transparency when it comes to employment screening.

School Daze

2008-11-24T10:54:00.000-05:00

News this past weekend of a school shooting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, served to remind me of a couple of misconceptions about the nature of gun violence in our nation’s school systems.

As I travel around the country, I often hear people say that our nation’s schools are inherently dangerous because of gun violence. The truth is that our schools are far safer than the world outside. The most recent data from the Department of Justice (DOJ) shows that youth are over 50 times more likely to be murdered—and over 150 times more likely to commit suicide—when they are away from school than at school. Another DOJ study found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus.

Secondly, I hear the belief expressed that school gun violence is confined to schools in large inner cities. The sheer lunacy of this line of argument always makes me think of the Columbine High School shooting, which took place in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20, 1999. Two white students from this suburban school killed 15 students and a teacher and wounded 23 others before killing themselves.

This past year there have been major school shootings in Blacksburg, Virginia; Opelousas, Louisiana; Willoughby, Ohio; Phoenix , Arizona; Boca Raton, Florida; Omaha, Nebraska; Mobile, Alabama; and DeKalb, Illinois. A more complete listing of school shootings by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence illustrates the fact that the problem is not confined to major urban areas.

Despite that fact that our schools are some of the safest places in the country, we must continue to endeavor to keep them that way and improve existing security procedures. We must also be wary of a hard push by the gun lobby to put concealed handguns in our children’s classrooms. This disturbing development threatens to put our kids at greater risk and take the focus off the real problem—the incredibly easy access that children and the mentally unbalanced have to guns in our society.

The Last Thing They Want

2008-11-17T11:38:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it's easy to forget that the gun control debate is not restricted to the United States. I would like to share with you in its entirety a recent article written by Ralph Ahren from Israel's oldest daily newspaper, Haaretz:

Founder of Israeli NRA Seeks to Import American Gun Culture

While the gun lobby in the United States took a setback last week with the election of Barack Obama, who supports the ban of assault weapons, a group of Israeli-Americans are now trying to ease restrictions on gun ownership here in Israel. Modeled and named after the powerful but controversial Virginia-based National Rifle Association, it is unclear whether the Israeli NRA will be able to gather enough support to be in any way influential. Several experts have already voiced criticism of the group's agenda.

"You hear about mob shootings in Netanya, where innocent people get killed, you hear about people being attacked with knives, with guns, with bulldozers," said Joshua Moesch, who founded the group last week. "I think that having more responsible citizens out there with weapons is very important. The police can be the greatest in the world, but they can't be everywhere at the same time."

Under the banner of self defense, the Israeli NRA advocates "the right to carry a firearm for all law abiding, military-serving Israeli citizens," as well as the expansion of what is known as the Shai Dromi law, which allows anyone who kills or injures an intruder on his or her property to be absolved of criminal responsibility. Other group goals include gun safety, self-defense courses, promoting shooting as a sport and creating police athletic leagues.

Moesch's first step was to create a Facebook group and a Web site. The 29-year-old Beit Shemesh resident told Anglo File he wants to first see how much support he can expect from the Israeli public before taking further action. If his group sees "a reasonable showing," the next move would be to register as a nonprofit organization and lobby to members of Knesset, he said.

Moesch, who immigrated to Israel from Vermont about six years ago, rejects the anti-gun lobby argument that more weapons would lead to greater violence. He counters by saying that compulsory army service makes Israeli society well acquainted with firearms, giving most people "a certain respect for guns." He adds, "People know in most cases when to use and when not to use them. We don't see many cases of off-duty soldiers getting into a fight in a club or something, using their guns to sort it out."

Yet it remains doubtful whether pro-gun advocacy will become as important in Israel as it is in the U.S. "The general trend to transplant American ideas to other countries is often not successful or very useful," said Gerald Steinberg, chairman of political studies at Bar Ilan University and an expert on American culture. The arguments put forward by the Israeli NRA are not convincing, he told Anglo File.

"We don't need a situation where hundreds of people shoot in all kinds of different directions in the case of a terror attack. That's the job of the police or the army," Steinberg said. He said that if more people carried guns the chances of more people getting hurt would be greater than the chance of neutralizing an attacker more quickly. "The last thing we want in Israel is an American gun culture," he added. "Israel has enough dangers, and making it easier for people on the street to carry guns is not what we need."

The Latest Charade

2008-11-10T11:38:00.000-05:00

It seems that every election cycle there is an elaborate and almost comical charade that takes place. It goes something like this:

1) The National Rifle Association (NRA) alerts the media of a massive war chest to be spent to elect or defeat candidates based on their position on gun control.

2) Very small amounts of NRA monies are doled out to candidates in extremely safe seats.

3) Late in the election cycle, massive NRA funding is spent to defeat designated "gun grabbers." Wild and outrageous charges are hurled at these candidates.

4) Immediately after the election is concluded, the NRA claims a great victory, citing the percentage of winning candidates it has supported. This is duly reported in the press and touted in all the pro-gun publications. The elective power of the NRA becomes part of the “conventional wisdom.”

5) Later, careful analysis of the election results reveals that the majority of NRA-supported candidates would have won without the NRA. More importantly, in races where the NRA concentrates its attacks, their tactics are shown to have had no significant impact on the results. Unfortunately for the purveyors of conventional wisdom, the NRA claims of great victory have already been set in concrete. Future candidates are warned of the fearsome power of the big bad NRA.

Last Tuesday’s election once again followed the first half of the traditional pattern. During the summer, the NRA announced that it intended to spend $40 million in the elections—including an eye-popping $15 million campaign intended to defeat Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. The NRA backed some ‘A’-rated supporters in safe seats and launched outrageous attacks on other politicians, with Senator Obama their primary target.

But after Senator Obama’s landslide victory in the presidential election—and Democrats’ significant gains in both the House and Senate—the national media finally called attention to the NRA’s sleight of hand.

NBC’s Carrie Dann reported: “As the vote margins of the presidential race rolled in, the one-time wedge issue of the Second Amendment did not seem to pack the national-stage punch for which the influential gun lobby had aimed. Nationally, gun owners broke for McCain by almost the identical margin that they broke for Bush in 2004. But in the states where the NRA Political Victory Fund's toughest efforts against Obama were concentrated—gun-rich regions in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico—Obama’s victory was decisive. The Democratic nominee won those states by eight, 11, and 15 points, respectively. Of the 11 states where the NRA's anti-Obama ads were reportedly aired, McCain won only one: Texas. Down the ballot, the NRA backed all six of the Republican Senate candidates who lost to Democratic challengers. And in several high-profile House contests, NRA-backed candidates like Ed Tinsley, Bill Sali, Steve Chabot, and Phil English came up short … The influence of the once-dominant gun lobby appears to be up for debate...”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out some other salient facts about the election in a new report, noting that “The NRA spent over thirty-one times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore” and “The NRA spent over 90% of its independent expenditures on losing candidates.”

Only time will tell if the purveyors of common wisdom will finally absorb the truth of the effect of the NRA on national elections (or lack thereof). We should remain cognizant, however, that the NRA had $15 million to waste on this election. Pro-gun control forces did not. Now is the time for those who support sensible gun laws to put some of their money where their heart is—there is still important work to be done to reduce the 30,000 lives lost annually to gun violence in our country.

Beyond the Inner City

2008-11-03T11:08:00.000-05:00

There has always been one argument for not getting involved in the gun control issue that has confused and frustrated me. As I travel around the country, I often hear people say that gun violence is primarily an, “inner city, gang-related” problem.

This argument is deeply flawed on multiple fronts. First, it is factually incorrect. The FBI reported 14,860 total murders in 2005, only 850 of which were gang killings. That year, the ten states with the highest rates of gun death per capita in the U.S. were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Arizona, Mississippi, and West Virginia—all predominantly rural states.

Secondly, there is a racial bias that is inherently embedded in the argument—suggesting that black Americans are the main victims and perpetrators of gun violence—therefore whites need not take the issue seriously. Out of the 31,446 gun deaths that occurred in America in 2005, 21,958 of the victims were whites. In terms of gun homicide, 5,266 of 12,352 victims in 2005 were white. The Department of Justice reports that from 1976 to 2005, 86% of white murder victims were killed by whites. Finally, there were more than 17,000 gun suicides in the U.S. in 2005, and 15,681 of these victims were whites. That’s a great deal of white on white gun violence that some would like to sweep under the carpet.

The sheer lunacy of the “inner city argument” was highlighted for me last week with news of yet another heinous shooting. I was aghast when I learned that eight-year-old Christopher Bizilj had died while shooting a fully automatic Uzi at a gun show in Westfield, Massachusetts. Westfield has been described as “a small city with the close-knit feel of a rural New England town” with a population of approximately 40,000.

I still remember, too, a seminal event that pushed me to become involved in gun violence prevention. On August 1, 1966, a white student at the University of Texas at Austin shot and killed 14 people and wounded 31 others from the observation deck of the University's 32-story administrative building. The gunman went on this rampage shortly after murdering his wife and mother as they lay sleeping.

Such shootings are just one small indicator of the inclusive nature of gun violence in America. These deaths, injuries, physical and psychic trauma affect all of us—regardless of age, race, class or geography.

A Constitutional Right to Bully Women?

2008-10-27T11:23:00.000-04:00

There is a legislative battle going on in the state of Maryland which focuses on an aspect of gun violence which gets far too little attention: the use of firearms in domestic violence.

According to the Washington Post, the Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, recently indicated his interest in sponsoring two bills that failed by lopsided votes in a House committee during the previous legislative session. The effect of this legislative package would be to require individuals who are the subject of final protective orders limiting contact with an abused spouse or partner to surrender their firearms to local law enforcement.

Currently, judges are given the discretion to determine whether an individual should surrender his firearms or not—and these orders apply only to handguns.

Maryland gun rights advocates were successful in stalling the legislation earlier this year. Some of the explanations provided by members of Maryland’s House Judiciary Committee who voted against the bills were less than convincing. House Minority Whip Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington) “said he and other judiciary members were sensitive to concerns involving the constitutional rights to bear arms, as well as questions about how the legislation would affect police officers who carry guns on the job.”

Maryland legislators are concerned about the “constitutional rights” of men who bully and beat women in their communities? And Shank's latter point is equally odd given that the Maryland State Police support the legislation. Apparently, shame doesn’t come into play when the National Rifle Association is handing out ‘A’ grades.

The Violence Policy Center recently published a national report on domestic violence which found that 1,836 women were murdered by men in single victim/single offender incidents in 2006—five a day, every day. More than 12 times as many females were murdered by a man they knew than were killed by male strangers.

And it’s not just homicide. The Harvard School of Public Health has found that “hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women.”

Perhaps Gov. O’Malley’s intervention will spark greater consideration of this critical issue. Do you know what the laws of your state are regarding domestic violence and firearms? Have you ever discussed the issue with your state legislator(s)? Now would be a great time to start a dialogue with your elected representatives. They are asking for your vote; shouldn’t you ask them a couple of questions in return?

The Banality of Opposing Views

2008-10-20T11:59:00.000-04:00

Over the years I have been struck by how many times I have come to like and appreciate many of the most ardent opponents of sensible gun control. Despite our differences of opinion, our goals are the same—a safer and more decent nation. We simply disagree on how to reach those goals.

I remember one occasion when I was being interviewed on television in Chiloquin, Oregon, and a man rose up from the audience to rail at the moderator. He was upset that he had been prohibited from bringing his guns into the studio. When asked why he needed to have them there, the man replied: “So I can shoot that lying [expletive] Mike Beard.” Naturally, I talked with him after the show and got to speak with him on other occasions during my stay in Oregon. I came to really enjoy this feisty pro-gunner who used inflammatory rhetoric to make his point.

One of my favorite people in the pro-gun movement has always been Neal Knox, former executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. Neal is an unrepentant hard-liner on the gun issue. His website, “The Hard Corps,” expresses his positions clearly and with great bravado. When asked about Neal by a reporter on one occasion, I truthfully replied, “In political matters he is a mean S.O.B., but personally he is the kind of man you would like to have as a grandfather.” For several years after that remark I received a nice card from Neal on Father’s Day signed simply, “Your Grandfather.”

I was reminded of these past encounters by a great blog that appears elsewhere on this website this week by Ladd Everitt. Ladd wrote about a day he recently spent with Brian Borgelt, the former owner of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington. Bull’s Eye has been the source of many guns found on crime scenes in America—including the rifle that was used in the famous Beltway murder spree in 2002.

In Ladd’s blog, Borgelt comes across as someone with whom you could be friends in spite of his shady business practices. That human element—which is present even between individuals with huge divisions in ideology and philosophy—has been one of the pleasant surprises of my lifelong journey through this movement, and something I still cherish.

Hard Times, Hard Deaths

2008-10-13T10:31:00.000-04:00

Over the years, numerous rigorous academic studies have pointed out the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to a recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health: "Deciding whether to own a gun entails balancing potential benefits and risks. One of the risks for which the empirical evidence is strongest, and the risk whose death toll is greatest, is that of completed suicide."

As the current economic crisis deepens, Americans across the country will find themselves struggling with stress and depression. The media has yet to address how this situation will affect the suicide rate in America, and how guns will factor into that equation.

We should fear the spread of horrific events like the one that occurred last week in California. An unemployed financial advisor, distraught over money worries, killed himself and five family members at their upscale Los Angeles home with a handgun he had recently purchased.

Simultaneously, we are seeing alarming stories of an increase in sales of guns as a result of the economic downturn. If this is true, how much more tragedy will result? How many more lives will be lost due to the combination of impulsive behavior and the ready availability of firearms?

The NRA Cries Wolf...Again

2008-09-29T19:31:00.000-04:00

Over the years I have observed the underhanded and sleazy political campaign tactics of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). It has been my experience that their practices hew to a familiar pattern—wait until near the end of an election cycle, then attack those who support common sense gun laws with a series of unsubstantiated and false claims.

This election cycle, the NRA-ILA has announced that it will spend $40 million on campaign activities. $15 million of that amount will be used to portray Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama as a threat to individual gun ownership in the United States. The NRA-ILA is circulating fliers and mailers that claim to expose "Barack Obama's 10-Point Plan to Change the Second Amendment." This bogus "plan" is really an NRA invention that purposely distorts the Senator's voting record and public statements.

In addition, the NRA is running TV and radio ads that claim that Obama plans to "ban use of firearms for home self-defense," "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns," and "close 90% of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition" if elected. These accusations are a familiar mixture of misrepresentations, twisted language, fabrications, unsubstantiated conjecture and outright lies. To any informed voter, the NRA’s tactics are pure political satire worthy of Saturday Night Live. The ads themselves are so ridiculous that they would be funny were they not so dangerous.

You can check out the accuracy of the NRA’s claims about Senator Obama at the nonpartisan Annenberg Political Fact Check website. A recent editorial by American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) President Ray Schoenke also refutes the NRA’s Confiscation Myth.

Let us remember that just two election cycles ago it was Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain who was in the NRA’s crosshairs. In 2001, the NRA lambasted McCain as one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment. Now, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox brags about “over 20 years of high-profile agreements” with the Senator.

Like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” the NRA will continue to raise their confiscation fears as long as there is money to be raised and politicians to intimidate. The moral of that famous story is "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth.” At least Wayne LaPierre & Co. will never find themselves in that situation...

Viva El Sentido Común

2008-09-22T11:38:00.000-04:00

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was a founding member of the vibrant and creative International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). IANSA is a global movement against gun violence—a network of 800 civil society organizations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. IANSA seeks to make people safer from gun violence by securing stronger regulation on guns in society and better controls on arms exports. It represents the voice of civil society on the international stage (i.e., by participating in the current United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms) and draws on the practical experience of its members to campaign for policies that will protect human security.

Another member of IANSA is an exciting group in Brazil called Viva Rio. The country of Brazil has experienced debilitating levels of gun violence. In recent years, more than 100 Brazilians have died daily from gunfire, many of them young men from poor urban communities. Young men are more likely to be killed by firearms than all other external causes of death combined, including traffic accidents, illness, and other kinds of injuries.

In part due to the leadership of Viva Rio, in 2003 the government of Brazil enacted strong gun control measures. I was excited to read in the August 23-29, 2008 issue of The Economist an article reporting on the falling murder rate in Brazil—particularly in the country's largest city, Sao Paulo. The article cited gun control reform as one of the main reasons for the decline. A 2003 law restricted the right to carry guns. A subsequent amnesty and gun buyback program took half a million weapons off the streets.

Brazil is yet another example of a democracy that refuses to put up with the scourge of gun violence that is endemic to the United States. Many nations have found creative and effective ways to deal with the problem that we have chosen to ignore. Perhaps it is time to once again pull our heads out of the sand, look around at other nation's "best practices," and take some coordinated national action to Stop Gun Violence.

Beyond Right and Wrong

2008-09-15T13:12:00.000-04:00

This past weekend, I had the privilege of participating in the annual "9/11 Unity Walk." As the event’s website describes it: "Jolted by horrific acts of 9/11, discouraged by religious intolerance, yet inspired by the movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, religious leaders and lay people alike have embraced their differences in a dramatic display of unity, the Unity Walk. Since 2005, in Washington, DC, and, now, New York City, every church, synagogue, mosque and temple on Embassy Row and near Ground Zero opens their doors to each other, and symbolically, the world. The Unity Walk seeks to build bridges of understanding and respect in a post September 11th world.

The poet Rumi once said: "Out beyond right and wrong there is a field. I'll meet you there." It was very exciting to be among a throng of people of all different faiths and beliefs who were able to meet on that field and put aside our differences and walk hand in hand. As we concluded the walk at the memorial to Mahatma Gandhi, we were reminded by Arun Gandhi of his grandfather's plea: "Be the change you want to see in the world."

These are good lessons for us in the gun violence prevention movement. Once in a while, we should lay aside our minor differences of approach and come together for our common overall goal—to make this a safer country for all our people.

Seeking a Newer World

2008-09-08T09:08:00.000-04:00

This weekend, I participated in a memorial service for a great, dear friend, Frances B. Stevens, a gentleman of the South who became a fierce advocate of the civil rights of all people. His passing reminded me that it is up to us to work for a better world for those to follow.

In memory of Frances, I offer this selection from Ulysses written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson in 1833 after the death of his own dear friend. Frances Stevens was one who fit Tennyson's words: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

"The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

To Dream the Impossible Dream

2008-09-01T11:00:00.000-04:00

Forty-five years ago my wife-to-be and I stood amongst a huge multitude of people on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and heard a young black preacher spell out his dream of a future for America. It was a stirring vision of a society that, "one day," could become a reality.

At the time, his dream seemed like a beautiful but unreachable goal. However, last Thursday, exactly 45 years to the day, we sat in another crowd to witness a young African-American fulfill the promise of that long-ago dream. We heard Barack Obama spell out his own vision of the future of America. Like the dream of the preacher, it seems like an unreachable goal. But we now know that dreams can come true with lots of hard work, dedication and sacrifice on the part of the dreamers.

I was pleased to hear the Democratic candidate for President of the United States include the following in his vision of our future:

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

That is an important goal for a candidate running for public office in this day and age when gun violence has become an epidemic and most politicians are trying to ignore or run away from the issue of gun control.

A day later we were presented with a stark contrast when a self-proclaimed "lifetime member of the National Rifle Association" was chosen to be the candidate for Vice-President on the Republican ticket. It was a curious and disappointing choice for a presidential candidate who had hinted at his independence from the gun lobby when he recently reiterated support for closing the Gun Show Loophole.

In the days ahead, we will have an opportunity to find out who is the real John McCain: the maverick willing to buck special interests to better the lives of everyday Americans, or the politician eager to court right-wing favor even if it means betraying his principles?

Soon we will have a clear choice of visions. And then the future will be in our hands when we head to the polls in November...

No Hoorays for Hollywood

2008-08-25T12:02:00.000-04:00

I was disturbed to turn on the television this weekend and see trailers for two bid-budget—and extremely violent—films being released by Hollywood this month.

The first was for "Righteous Kill," which stars Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. The trailer certainly lives up to the film’s name, glamorizing the use of handguns and assault weapons and implying that some forms of homicide are both moral and acceptable:

Unknown: "Somebody shot another bad guy."
DeNiro: "We got to find out who did this."
Pacino: "Give him a medal."

In another segment, DeNiro quips, "Nothing wrong with a little shooting, as long as the right people get shot."

The "Bangkok Dangerous" trailer with Nicolas Cage is every bit as audacious in glamorizing murder. In it, hitman Cage boasts that “there is no right and wrong” and is shown shooting multiple people.

These films follow closely on the heels of others that have glamorized vigilantism and murder, including "The Brave One" with Jodie Foster, "Shoot 'Em Up" with Clive Owen, and "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie.

What is most baffling is that many of the same actors who are appearing in these movies have made strong statements about the need for tougher gun laws in the past. Cage was the lead in the thought-provoking film "Lord of War," which catalogued the tragedy wrought by the illicit international trade in small arms. DeNiro has been vilified by the gun rights community for his support for sensible gun laws. Foster stated that she was “absolutely” for gun control after “The Brave One” was released. It’s hard to see what is driving this apparent contradiction outside of a large paycheck.

One thing is for sure…when it comes to idolizing guns and glamorizing “justifiable” homicide, Hollywood can certainly give the gun lobby a run for its own money.

No Pain, No Gain

2008-08-18T10:26:00.000-04:00

Over the years, I have often been struck by the number of people who say they want to see something positive done about the problem of gun violence, but do not want to become involved in political action or vigorous public debate. They seem to think it somehow unseemly or impolite to engage on this serious issue in the political or public relations arena. This is a recipe for total failure.

The great 19th century American political philosopher, Frederick Douglass, accurately described the problem when he stated: "The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters." "Power concedes nothing without a demand," Douglass concluded. "It never did, and it never will."

Right now, the gun lobby holds a tremendous amount of power in this country, and legislators are doing its bidding because they are not hearing often enough from the majority of Americans who want sensible gun laws and safe communities. If we want something done about the problem of gun violence, we will have to get our hands dirty, get ourselves involved in the political struggles—local, state and federal—that can make a real difference. We have to write letters to the editor, attend local community meetings, meet with state legislators, participate in demonstrations, raise our voices. And yes, even be willing to face the nasty, vitriolic rants of those who disagree with us and want to intimidate us into remaining silent.

Otherwise, our fate has already been written by Douglass: "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

Leadership in Faith

2008-08-11T10:29:00.000-04:00

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is so named because we originally started as a coalition of national religious organizations working to prevent gun violence. The Coalition eventually grew to include all of the major Protestant, Catholic and Jewish organizations in the country. Over the years, we have added a wider range of civic and public safety organizations to the Coalition.

A few years ago, one member of our Board of Directors, who is a Presbyterian minister, wondered why there seemed to be a dichotomy between the actions of the national church groups and their local constituencies. He did a survey of local pastors. To no one's surprise, the survey revealed that although almost all the pastors agreed with the national denomination's positions on gun violence, they were loath to raise the subject at the local level because it "might anger" a few local members or raise hostility from local pro-gun groups.

I was recently heartened to learn of the action of the delegates to the 2008 session of the North Georgia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. They adopted a resolution which states, in part:

"Whereas bringing concealed weapons into the church sends a message that is at odds with what the church wants to communicate and violates the religious character of religious property, and;

Whereas the work of the church does not involve or require weapons;

Now be it resolved that the delegates to the 2008 session of the North Georgia Annual Conference oppose any attempts by the state legislature to allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in houses of worship;

And be it further resolved that we invite members of other churches and faiths in Georgia to join us in this effort."

Our thanks go out to the members of the North Georgia Annual Conference of the UMC who have chosen to take a public moral stance on this vital issue even though it may not be a popular position with every single parishioner in the local church pews.

The Trouble with Mary

2008-08-04T10:52:00.000-04:00

By now you will have heard the story of Mary Lou Sapone/Mary McFate, the woman who since the late 1990s has covertly infiltrated gun control groups for a private security firm hired by the National Rifle Association (NRA). I knew Mary McFate. I considered her an ally in the campaign to stop gun violence in this country. Like others in the movement, I felt deeply betrayed by her mendacity and duplicity.

I am particularly dismayed by the pain felt by many victims and survivors of gun violence who befriended Mary and poured out their own personal stories to her. At times, they relied on her for solace and for assistance. What they got was betrayal. To me, this is the greatest damage done by this spy in our midst.

I suppose that we should take comfort in the fact that the National Rifle Association was so frightened by our activities that they were willing to pay Sapone/McFate huge sums of money to spy on our organization and betray those who considered her a friend and co-worker. I can express shock that Mary McFate was the agent, but no shock that the NRA would stoop so low. This high-priced, unethical operation confirms the manner in which the NRA works. As Bryan Miller of States United to Prevent Gun Violence recently observed, the NRA has "no rules, no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they will do to protect the profits of the gun industry." In the words of James Jay Baker, who was executive director of the NRA's legislative arm when Mary was hired, "We got information from whatever sources we can." This incident is but one in a long list of dirty, underhanded activities undertaken by the NRA. Anti-gun violence advocates across the nation—indeed around the world—can bear witness to the varied and vicious skullduggery of this mouthpiece of the gun industry.

As sad as this incident is, we must not let it make us paranoid. It should not color our attitude toward the good people who step forward to become involved in the vital campaign to stop gun violence. Mary Lou Sapone will have to live with her betrayal; we do not have to bear that burden. We have the responsibility to past and potential victims of gun violence to do all within our power to reduce the death and destruction caused by our country's lax policies regarding firearms. Let us bury the memory of Mary with our re-dedicated activity.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

2008-07-28T13:29:00.000-04:00

Something strange seems to come over far-right Republican Members of Congress during election season. A case in point is seven-term Congressman Mark Souder from the state of Indiana. He is by all accounts an opponent of “Big Government” and federal interference in local matters. But in an election year when he is facing a stiff challenge from Democrat Mike Montagano, Souder has decided to spend his time pushing a bill that seeks to usurp the powers of the mayor, city council and residents of the District of Columbia.

H.R. 1399 would pre-empt the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and prevent the city from complying with the ruling by instituting a new registration system for handguns. Souder’s bill would allow individuals to possess unregistered firearms, repeal the District’s ban on assault weapons, and prohibit the city from taking any future action “to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.” Federal lawmakers are essentially being asked to impose on the city of Washington something they would never tolerate for their own home districts.

Given the state of the economy and the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, one would think our Congress has far more important things to do than serve as the city council for the District of Columbia. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains a lobbying power on Capitol Hill and it is eager to throw raw meat to its contributors as the November elections approach. According to The Hill newspaper, the NRA will be grading Members of Congress on whether they support a discharge petition to bring H.R. 1399 to the floor of the House. Conservatives looking for NRA money and support have been put on notice.

The District is vulnerable to such an attack, of course, because it continues to lack voting representation in Congress. Rep. Souder and many of the co-sponsors of H.R. 1399 are the same politicians that time and again have opposed the “District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act,” which would give the city a voting representative in their chamber for the first time ever. D.C.’s non-voting Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been perfectly clear regarding her opinion of Rep. Souder’s legislation, stating, “I've seen some outrageous attempts to violate home-rule, but this nakedly political and unnecessary NRA-driven attempt is a new low because, by acting now, they deny the District the decency and respect due any American jurisdiction going through the prescribed process for complying with [a decision by the Supreme Court].”

In a time when our country is facing real and pressing issues domestically and abroad, it’s not only D.C. that should be feeling outrage. Voters who want their elected officials to deal with the problems that actually affect them and their families might also want to keep their eye on what Rep. Souder and the NRA are trying to pull off in Congress.

Bach to the Future?

2008-07-22T10:13:00.000-04:00

This past Sunday, CBS' "Sixty Minutes" updated a fascinating segment titled "El Sistema: Changing Lives Through Music." Bob Simon reported on a groundbreaking musical education program in Venezuela. "The system" is all about saving hundreds of thousands of children—through music. In the words of its founder, Dr.José Antonio Abreu, "Essentially this is a social system that fights poverty. A child's physical poverty is overcome by the spiritual richness that music provides." In Simon's words, "music actually becomes the vehicle for social change."

The thousands of the kids in the program come from the poorest and most crime-ridden neighborhoods in Venezuela. They are given an early introduction to classical music and musicial instruments. Hundreds of youth orchestras are created as venues for them to learn and perform. "Music produces an irreversible transformation in a child. This doesn't mean he'll end up as a professional musician. He may become a doctor, or study law, or teach literature. What music gives him remains indelibly part of who he is forever," Dr. Abreu said.

Reporter Simon introduced, "Lennar Acosta, who '60 Minutes' first met eight years ago when he was serving time in a juvenile detention center in Caracas. He was 17, had a violent criminal background, and the scars to prove it. When the detention center started an orchestra, Lennar tried the clarinet.

"Ed Bradley asked him about it. 'Tell me what it was like the first time you picked it up to play it?' Bradley asked.

"'It's completely different than when you hold a gun,' Lennar replied.

"Asked if he thought his life was different because of the clarinet and the orchestra, Lennar told Bradley, 'Yeah, a lot. The music taught me how to treat people without violence.'"

At the end of the segment, Simon asked one of the organizers if he thinks the system could work in the United States. The response was, "Yeah, I mean, kids are kids. It doesn't matter where they come from. And if you can help a poor kid in here, you can help a poor kid everywhere. It doesn't matter the culture, it doesn't matter the race. I mean, it's music. Everybody loves music."

Can you envision a day when poor kids in the U.S. have easy access to clarinets and violins rather than Glocks and nines? Music, not murder or mayhem. What a wonderful use of our resources that would be.

"He's a nice guy, but..."

2008-07-14T11:45:00.000-04:00

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to deliver what came to be known as his "but speech" in which he would remind the audience that the word "but" was the one word that completely changes everything that goes before it. For example: “He's a nice guy, but…”

Recently, I read a couple of articles that made me recall that speech. The first appeared in the academic journal Psychological Science and detailed a study in which researchers from Knox College found that male college students who held a gun rather than a child's toy for 15 minutes had elevated levels of testosterone. These students would then add three times as much hot sauce to a glass of water that they knew another test student subsequently had to drink.

The same day, I read a story that appeared in both the Associated Press and the New York Times. It reported that a grand jury in Harris County, Texas, had concluded that a man who gunned down two illegal immigrants who were burglarizing his neighbor's house had used justifiable deadly force and should not be charged with murder.

The shooter, Joe Horn, a retired computer manager, called 911 during the incident and told the emergency operator he saw two men burglarizing his neighbor’s house who were “black.” The operator repeatedly told him to remain in his house and stay calm. Horn was informed that a unit was on the way in response and that there “ain't no property worth shooting somebody over.” Horn would not listen, however. He referred to Texas’ recently enacted Shoot First Law and told the operator “I’m not going to let them get away with this [EXPLETIVE DELETED] … I'm going to shoot. I’m going to shoot ... I’m going to kill them.” A detective had just arrived at the scene when Horn fired three blasts of buckshot from his 12-gauge shotgun into the backs of the unarmed Latino burglars, Hernando Torres and Diego Ortiz, killing them both.

I am sure there is no connection between these two stories, but...

Freedom vs. Responsibility

2008-07-07T13:34:00.000-04:00

Now that we have properly celebrated the Declaration of Independence and the birth of our freedom as a nation, perhaps it is time to begin a reflection on the obverse side of the same coin. As German theologian and Nazi resister Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "Responsibility and freedom are corresponding concepts. Factually, though not chronologically, responsibility presupposes freedom and freedom can consist only in responsibility. Responsibility is the freedom of men which is given only in the obligation to God and to our neighbour."

I have long believed that as an extension of the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor, the U.S. needs to build a Statue of Responsibility in San Francisco harbor. Our nation must maintain a very delicate balance between these two poles. Too much freedom and you have anarchy; too much regulation and you lose freedom. We do not live in isolation—we live in a greater community and we have the responsibility to consider the impact of our actions on our neighbors and the country as a whole.

This dichotomy has always fascinated me in regards to the gun safety debate. On the one hand we have zealots who proclaim that there are no acceptable restraints on their freedom to possess firearms. On the other hand we have zealots who believe that no one should be able to own firearms in any circumstance.

The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller has set the principle that there are legitimate restraints on the constitutional rights of individual citizens to own firearms. This is consistent with the view of our Founders that government regulation was an integral part of not only the Second Amendment, but ordered liberty in general. A tremendous opportunity is now open to us. We can enter into a genuine debate—unmarred by propaganda— over what legitimate restraints can and should be placed on firearm sales and ownership in order to keep America’s communities safe. It will be a delicate balance to attempt to achieve, but many of our country’s greatest accomplishments have involved this type of careful and thoughtful compromise.

Standing the Constitution on its Head

2008-06-30T18:28:00.000-04:00

I had thought that our system of government was broad and stable enough to stand up to the pressures of any one wing of political factions. Now I must admit that I am amazed at the damage that has been done to the American political system by a small group of dedicated Neo-Cons over the past seven years. Any positive image of the U.S. throughout most of the rest of the world has been thoroughly trashed. The ability of the government to react effectively to crises has been called into question. Our military has been over-burdened and stretched too thin by an expensive and unnecessary foreign military occupation. The executive power has been enhanced to the detriment of our other branches of government.

And now the Supreme Court has overturned over 100 years of judicial precedent and stood the Second Amendment to the Constitution on its head. The 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, written by Reagan appointee Justice Antonin Scalia, holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a well regulated militia.

As Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, recently wrote: “By deliberately omitting what test the Court is using to decide that [the District’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement] unreasonably burden this newly proclaimed individual right to possess firearms, the Court leaves legislators and lower courts adrift at a time when public health data clearly shows the harm associated with handguns far outweighs any benefit from their use for lawful self defense.”

The decision is a terrible one and complete misreads the Framer’s intent in drafting in the Second Amendment. It is relatively narrow in scope, however, and leaves many critical questions unanswered. More importantly, it does not prevent gun violence prevention organizations from actively pursuing a wide range of legislative initiatives to reduce gun violence. Here at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, we will still be able to pursue all of our goals: pushing to close the Gun Show Loophole, passing microstamping laws to assist law enforcement with crime-solving, and holding gun manufacturers and dealers accountable for their distribution practices.

We will see if the Heller decision ultimately stands the test of time. But it certainly will not stop the work of millions of Americans across our country who are deeply concerned about the 30,000+ lives lost annually to gun violence. We are resolved to fight for sensible controls on the design, manufacture, sale, and distribution of firearms in America and will not stop until the senseless bloodshed in our country ceases.

Are We Ready to Play?

2008-06-23T09:53:00.000-04:00

I keep on my desk the all-important reminder from Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Contemplating the sometimes daunting task before the gun violence prevention movement, I recently took a moment to look back over the progress of the past few years. I am struck by the many small, but significant, changes that our movement has brought about in our society. A recent, historic change was the enactment of innovative “microstamping” legislation in California. This opens an exciting new approach to crime-solving (which will bring justice and peace to victims of gun violence) that can be replicated across the country.

My reflection also prompted me to re-read a 2004 article entitled “The Optimism of Uncertainty” by historian, playwright, and social activist Howard Zinn. “Revolutionary change does not come,” wrote Zinn, “as one cataclysmic moment (beware of such moments!) but as an endless succession of surprises, moving zigzag toward a more decent society. We don’t have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.”

Together we have been engaged in a series of such small acts. There is much yet to be done and at times it is tempting to get discouraged. But as we look to the future, it is possible to agree with Howard Zinn: "I am totally confident not that the world will get better, but that we should not give up the game before all the cards have been played. The metaphor is deliberate; life is a gamble. Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning. To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world."

It may seem trite to say, but the coming election will bring us a different administration and a new Congress with which to work to bring about other possibilities to change our world. Are we ready to play?

An Honest Voice

2008-06-16T09:42:00.000-04:00

People across the country are grieving this week for the loss of one of the great figures in American media. On June 13, Tim Russert—the longstanding moderator on the popular NBC News program “Meet the Press”—was taken from us far too early at the age of 58, the victim of a heart attack.

None other than Walter Cronkite described Russert as “giant in our field — a standard-bearer of journalistic integrity and ethics” and this was certainly no exaggeration. Veteran CBS journalist Bob Schieffer, discussing Russert’s penchant for asking tough questions on “Meet the Press,” noted that he never asked them merely to catch his interview subjects off guard or embarrass them. The point of these questions was instead to divine what his interview subjects really meant; what they stood for when all the political nuance was stripped away. This is why Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein remembered Russert as someone who “was masterful at exposing hypocrisy … and sought a way to the truth, often unconventionally.”

For those of us in the gun violence prevention moment, a signature Russert moment occurred when he interviewed National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre on “Meet the Press” in March 2000. One week earlier, LaPierre had accused President Bill Clinton of tolerating killing and having “blood on his hands.” LaPierre’s “theory” was that the Clinton administration used gun deaths to further their political agenda.

Russert was relentless in his interview of LaPierre, asking him repeatedly if he would apologize for his comment or retract it. LaPierre refused to do either—in craven fashion, he would not even stand by his statement when pressed.

Undoubtedly, Russert was aware of the many steps President Clinton had taken during his two terms in the White House to prevent criminals and dangerous individuals from gaining access to firearms. This included his signing of the Brady Law (which stopped over 1.4 million prohibited purchasers from buying guns between 1994 and 2005) and the Assault Weapons Ban. Russert was likewise aware of the intense opposition of the NRA to this legislation—LaPierre & Co. fought the passage of the Brady Bill for seven hard years before attempting to take credit for it at the last minute.

In an era when our mainstream media is too hesitant to speak truth to power, the loss of Tim Russert will be sharply felt. We can all honor his memory, however, by holding our elected officials accountable and demanding serious discussion of the important issues that lie before us today.

An Effort to Understand

2008-06-09T10:35:00.000-04:00

There are many memorial dates that stand out on the gun violence prevention movement calendar. One of the most poignant to me is June 4. Last week, that date marked the 40th anniversary of the assassination of anti-war presidential candidate Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Kennedy’s shooting coming so close on the heels of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. left the country in great turmoil. President Lyndon Johnson appointed Milton S. Eisenhower to head a Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. One of the commission’s recommendations was to restrict the availability of handguns.

President Johnson urged Congress: “In the name of sanity…in the name of safety and in the name of an aroused nation…give America the gun control law it needs.” The centerpiece of his administration’s proposed legislation, introduced by Congressman Manny Celler (D-NY), was registration of all firearms and the licensing of gun owners.

The NRA launched an all-out war on the bill, saying that it would “sound the death knell for the shooting sport and eventually disarm the American public.” Following a rancorous five-day Senate debate in which Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) accused the NRA of “blackmail, intimidation and unscrupulous propaganda,” the Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968. By that point, the licensing and registration provisions had been stripped from the bill. In the end, the act banned the interstate shipment of firearms; prohibited the sale of guns to minors, drug addicts, mental incompetents and convicted felons; strengthened licensing and record-keeping requirements for gun dealers and collectors; increased penalties for those who use guns in the commission of a federal crime; and banned importation of foreign-made surplus firearms.

As limited as this law was, it was the first significant piece of federal gun control legislation passed by Congress in 30 years. Before long, the NRA would begin work on a well-financed campaign to repeal several of its provisions.

Years after the King-Kennedy assassinations, the widows of both men, Coretta Scott King and Ethel Kennedy, became National Co-Chairs of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Their strong, wise and compassionate advice and leadership were a great source of comfort as we worked on this vital issue.

But it is the words of Sen. Kennedy himself that echo in my mind as we mark his passing. On the night that Dr. King was killed, Sen. Kennedy addressed a crowd in Indianapolis and gave them the tragic news. He then said, "We can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love ... Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world."

This is still our goal and our responsibility.

Memorial Musings

2008-06-02T10:18:00.000-04:00

During the past 40 years that I have been involved in the gun violence prevention movement, I have witnessed many things that have perplexed me. Not the least of these is the way our media treat some victims of gun violence.

Imagine this scene: Your family is in a crowd of people hanging out with friends and family at a neighborhood park at night on a holiday. Suddenly, the crowd is sprayed with gun fire. Six adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 receive gunshot wounds to the chest, thigh, torso, abdomen, and foot. One child is even grazed on the forehead by a bullet.

Now picture these children as African-American.

Is your horror the same? It should be. In fact, this exact scene played out on May 26 and the mainstream media did not even report on it. Yet they somehow found the time to keep us abreast of the latest Hollywood gossip.

I venture to say that had these teens, these children, been white, this would have been headline news. Every major news outlet, AP reporter, and weekly magazine would have descended on the crime scene and reported on every single second of this tragedy.

Have we really become desensitized to the fact that young black men and women are being gunned down daily in their neighborhoods? Is this now an accepted “norm,” business as usual in a self-obsessed nation?

So I am asking the media, and the American public, to make all gun-related injuries and deaths a national priority. The day we start seeing any child affected by gun violence as one of our own—as an integral and precious part of our national fabric—is the day we can start taking a serious stand on the easy access that youth have to guns in America.

The alternative—to remain complacent and embrace an “everyone-for-him/herself” mentality—is too terrible to contemplate.

Teddy

2008-05-27T09:42:00.000-04:00

Like the rest of the nation, I was stunned and saddened by the recent news about Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy’s health. It seemed to knock the breath from our collective lungs here at the Coalition. But, in true Kennedy nature, Senator Kennedy is leading us through pain and grief yet again. With stoic pride and strength, he is showing us that patience and understanding are the ways to get through a rough time—not by reacting in anger.

The same was true when his brothers, President John F. Kennedy and presidential candidate Senator Robert Kennedy, were gunned down and murdered. Although racked with grief, he refused to respond to the tragedy by calling on his fellow Americans to take up arms against one another. Nor did he himself exhibit a need for retribution. In those dark moments, he remained calm and let go of his fear and anger. And it was faith and reason that brought him through.

As a college student, I had the opportunity to serve as an intern in the office of Senator John F. Kennedy. That was a unique experience I will always treasure. His assassination and the shootings of Senator Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were the major reasons for the founding of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Over the intervening years, it has been a great pleasure to work with Senator Ted Kennedy on a series of important gun control measures.

I have the utmost admiration for the senator for his years of leadership and counsel. Teddy and Vicki, you are in our thoughts, prayers and hearts. May peace be with you. We look forward to having you back in Washington soon.

When We Are Called

2008-05-19T09:54:00.001-04:00

A wise person once observed that there is a nexus between those who study because they suffer and those who suffer because they study.

It seems to me that the gun control movement is one of those places. Too many people come to the movement because they suffer as victims or survivors of gun tragedy. Others come to the movement because they have taken the time to study the issue and are outraged by what they find. Either way we enter, the pain becomes the same once we’re in.

In today’s political climate it is sometimes difficult to keep a positive attitude about the state of our movement. How do we carry on in the face of so much suffering? At such a time, I find myself turning to poetry and song. One song which has given me comfort is “When We Are Called to Sing Your Praise” (words by Mary Nelson Keithahn):

“When we are called to sing your praise with hearts so filled with pain
That we would rather sit and weep or stand up and complain,
Remind us, God, you understand the burdens that we bear;
You, too, have walked the shadowed way and known our deep despair.

When we are called to sing your praise and cannot find our voice,
Because our losses leave us now no reason to rejoice,
Remind us God, that you accept our sad laments in prayer;
You, too, have walked the shadowed way and known our deep despair.

When we are called to sing your praise and life ahead looks grim,
Still give us faith and hope enough to break forth in hymn,
A thankful hymn, great God of Love, that you are everywhere;
You walk the shadowed way with us and keep us in your care.”*

In those times when we must look inside for strength, I can only offer the hope that we can break forth in song and find that which is the source of our confidence.

The Little Leader

2008-05-12T10:05:00.000-04:00

In the play “Life of Galileo (Leben des Galilei)” by Bertolt Brecht, Gallileo is told by his daughter, Andrea, “Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero." Galileo responds, "No Andrea, unhappy is the land that needs a hero."

As we enter a summer certain to be filled with more horrific incidents of gun violence, our country is unhappily in need of heroes. The spring, however, seems to have already brought us one: Kai Leigh Harriott of Dorchester, Massachusetts.

Kai Leigh’s story was related by Marie Szaniszlo in the April 30 edition of the Boston Herald. Kai Leigh was just 3 years old in 2003 when she was struck on her front porch by a stray bullet which pierced her spine, leaving her paralyzed from the chest down.

The shooter was arrested and at his sentencing three years later, Kai Leigh turned her tear-stained face to the accused and told him that what he had done was wrong, but she forgave him.

Later, the convicted shooter videotaped an apology from behind bars urging other youth to learn from his mistakes. Viewing the tape, Kai Leigh (now age 7) said, “I would tell him thank you for making an apology because you can inspire so many people by telling them, ‘Don’t do bad things.’”

Kai Leigh’s spirit reminds me of the vision of the peaceable kingdom offered by the writer of the Book of Isaiah (chapter 11, verse 6 in the King James Bible):

“The wolf shall also dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.”

The Long Hot Summer Ahead

2008-05-05T10:07:00.000-04:00

It is still spring and yet the indications are already here that we will have a long and deadly summer. Youth homicides are already beginning to reach epidemic proportions in many cities across the country as the economy slumps further and temperatures turn upward. Mayors in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C. are calling for emergency actions to reduce teen gun violence.

A decade ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a study that pointed out U.S. children ages 14 and younger are 12 times more likely to die by gunfire than children in 25 other industrialized nations combined. Young Americans are more likely to die from gunfire than from all natural causes combined.

Why is this? Some would argue that there are cultural differences—that Americans gorge themselves on violent videogames and movies. I have traveled around many countries of the world and I know that youth the world over watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video and computer games. While there is no doubt that there are many factors involved in American gun violence, the single largest factor is the easy availability of guns. This is where the similarities between other nations and the U.S. disappear.

Within our own country there is a similar disparity. A Harvard University study demonstrated that children in the U.S. are more likely to be killed with guns in states where there is a high level of gun ownership as opposed to states with low levels of gun ownership. Dr. Matthew Miller, lead author of the study, said “In States with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in gun accidents. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting us. The differences in violent death rates to children are large, and are closely tied to levels of gun ownership. The differences can not be explained by poverty, education or urbanization.”

So as we enter the long and violent summer, we can look forward to our big city mayors calling for more action to restrict the easy access that children, criminals and other prohibited purchasers have to guns. Their pleas will be met with silence by our elected officials and candidates for political office. And most likely the tears of parents of dead teenagers will, once again, fail to be seen or heard by our government.

We are the only ones that can change this bleak prognosis and move our nation toward a more rational gun policy. Are you willing to get involved for the sake of our children?

Why I Don't Keep a Gun in the House

2008-04-28T08:30:00.000-04:00

You can look on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence website and find a myriad of reasons to not have a gun in the home. Most of the arguments are grounded in statistics and research, but one of my favorite reasons was cited by former U.S. Poet Laureate Billy Collins (2001-2003) in the following poem:

Another Reason Why I Don't Keep a Gun in the House

The neighbors’ dog will not stop barking.
He is barking the same high, rhythmic bark
that he barks every time they leave the house.
They must switch him on on their way out.

The neighbors' dog will not stop barking.
I close all the windows in the house
and put on a Beethoven symphony full blast
but I can still hear him muffled under the music,
barking, barking, barking,

and now I can see him sitting in the orchestra,
his head raised confidently as if Beethoven
had included a part for barking dog.

When the record finally ends he is still barking,
sitting there in the oboe section barking,
his eyes fixed on the conductor who is
entreating him with his baton

while the other musicians listen in respectful
silence to the famous barking dog solo,
that endless coda that first established
Beethoven as an innovative genius.

The Wrong Question

2008-04-21T09:26:00.000-04:00

Last week marked the first anniversary of the gun massacre at Virginia Tech. The remembrance was marked by more than 70 "Lie-Ins” across the nation, including one at the university, which also conducted a candlelight vigil and other commemorative events.

I could not help but be moved by the remarkable way the VA Tech community has responded to this great tragedy. I am also impressed that so many of the Hokies—students and parents—have become involved in the movement to stop gun violence.

As each of these shooting events takes place, the public response has for the most part become predictable. Most Americans are horrified and frustrated in equal parts. Certain politicians decry the violence, yet proclaim that guns have nothing to do with the problem. We all know that is not true. Guns have everything to do with it. There is no other consumer product used so frequently to deliberately kill our fellow citizens.

The pro-gun lobby is predictably using the recent school shootings as an opportunity to ask, “What if the teachers and students had been armed?” That is the wrong question.

The right question is, “What if the perpetrator had NOT been able to obtain those firearms?” How many lives would have been saved? Instead of asking what the U.S. would be like with more guns, shouldn’t we be asking what our country would be like with fewer guns? Guns do not solve problems, they create problems. A handgun is designed for the sole purpose of taking human life.

It is tragic that we have come to this; that we are obliged to be fearful of gun violence in our schools, our places of work and worship, our streets and highways. Our efforts must be dedicated to ending this shameful chapter in the life of the nation.

Conventional Wisdom

2008-04-14T09:16:00.000-04:00

Over the years, I have learned a couple of things about "Conventional Wisdom”: 1) It is conventional—not a lot of thought has gone into it, and; 2) It is seldom wisdom.

The current conventional wisdom on gun violence is that it is an intractable problem that cannot be solved and that no one in or running for public office is willing to deal creatively with the issue.

I am constantly dismayed that people who have witnessed dramatic changes in public policy—the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of apartheid and the creation of a new South Africa, the winding down of the nuclear arms race, the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc.—people who have seen these miracles in their own lifetime, will look at you dumbfounded when you say, “We can have a society free of gun violence.”

Where is our vision? What is our hope? We must confront and change the common wisdom that will lead us to despair and hopelessness. We can and must envision a nation in which we are not afraid of the gun lobbyists, a nation in which we have sensible gun laws; laws meant to protect us, to protect our communities, to protect our children.

We cannot achieve what we do not first dare to dream.

Style and Grace

2008-04-07T11:38:00.001-04:00

In my 40-year journey through the gun violence prevention movement, I have had the opportunity to meet—and at times to debate—many fascinating people. One of the most interesting individuals I’ve ever encountered was Charlton Heston, who served as President of the National Rifle Association (NRA) from 1998 to 2003.

I must admit that I was never a fan of Mr. Heston's wooden acting style, nor his stentorian delivery.
Neither could I find much value in the right-wing political philosophy he embraced later in his life. However, I found him to be a kind and humorous gentleman in person. Perhaps I was swayed by his referring to me as a "young man"; something I had not been called in years!

Heston was extremely successful at portraying some of the great characters of history on the silver screen. But perhaps the greatest character he was able to project was that of Chuck Heston, the larger-than-life, rugged American hero. His manner of sharing his final battle with Alzheimer's disease was a great testimony to the man, as was the forceful way in which he led the NRA. I will truly miss his style and grace.

The Choice

2008-03-31T09:23:00.000-04:00

This week will mark the 40^th anniversary of the tragic day when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was taken away from us by a sniper’s bullet. But the important lesson is not how he died.

In his life Dr. King taught us that great moral crises must be met with courage, principle and an uncompromising stand for what we know to be right. He taught us that violence, in whatever form, will never be more powerful than love. As he often said, “Violence creates more problems than it solves.” Dr. King also issued a warning: “I can still hear that voice crying through the vista of time, saying, ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.’ And there is still a voice saying to every potential Peter, ‘Put up your sword.’ History is replete with the bleached bones of nations, history is cluttered with the wreckage of communities that failed to follow this command.”

But today, in the streets and neighborhoods of America, King's important lesson is in danger of being lost. Across the nation, homicide has become the leading cause of death among young African-American men. A recent Department of Justice study (pdf) found that nearly half the people murdered in the U.S. each year are black, and three out of four of these homicides involve a firearm. Blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to be confronted with a gun during a crime.

I was deeply honored when Coretta Scott King agreed to join Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy as honorary co-chairs of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. They courageously served CSGV for many years. It was a great privilege to work with these two women, who knew only too personally the great pain that gun violence can inflict.

We must remind ourselves of the challenge that Dr. King left us: “We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. This may well be mankind’s last chance to choose between chaos or community.”

I hope that you will join the movement to make our communities, our schools, and our homes safe from gun violence. That would be a fitting way to honor the legacy of Coretta Scott King and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Frustration…and Faith

2008-03-23T21:28:00.000-04:00

It is no secret that the past seven years have brought many disappointments to those of us working to reduce gun violence. There have been a few important state victories in that time, but on the national level we have been faced with several setbacks. Now it seems that the Supreme Court will throw us another curve in June.

I am often asked: “You have been at this for over 30 years. What keeps you going?” I respond that I came to the cause out of anger. Anger at what was happening to my city, my country and my future. Anger at the deaths of thousands of children, wives and husbands and the failure of our leaders to take the problem of gun violence seriously.

I came because of anger. But, I have stayed because of faith. A faith that tells me that love is stronger than hate. A faith in our cause that gives substance to our hopes for a safer society and makes us certain of realities we cannot see.

In the dark times, I am upheld by the words of Rabbi Tarfon in the Pirke Avot: “The day is short, the task is great, the workers are sluggish and the wages are high and the Master of the house is pressing…” He also used to say: “You are not required to complete the work, but neither are you free to avoid it.”

I also feel compelled by the commandment of the writer of Ecclesiasticus (11:20-21): “Stand by your contract and give your mind to it; grow old at your work. Do not envy a rogue his success; trust the Lord and stick to your job.”

Well, at least I have followed the “grow old at your work” part!

What a Difference 2/9 Can Make

2008-03-18T13:55:00.000-04:00

This week marks an important step in the quest to determine the role the Second Amendment will play in the national campaign to reduce gun violence. On Tuesday, March 18, the nine members of the Roberts' Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller. The District’s strict gun laws, which have been in effect since 1976, were declared unconstitutional in a lower court decision the Supreme Court will be reviewing.

The ultimate decision of the Justices in the Heller case could determine the scope of gun control legislation across the nation. Or the Court might decide to limit its ruling in a very narrow manner. Either way, the issue will be decided by a minimum of five members of the Court. Two of those members, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., are relatively new appointees of President George W. Bush. Those two Justices have already had a significant impact on the activist role this Court has played in several major cases. What a difference two votes can make on a wide range of important issues!

The Supreme Court debate this week will be an interesting political side-show, but the final decision is not expected until near the end of the Court's term in late June. Whatever the decision of the Court in the Heller case, the real campaign to reduce gun violence can and will continue. No matter their interpretation of the Second Amendment, a wide array of legislative and social action strategies are, and will continue to be, open to the gun safety movement. We at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence renew our thirty-year pledge to you to utilize every possible action to bring an end to the epidemic of gun violence in this nation.