Saturday morning there were more random shots fired in my neighborhood, the second time in a week in my normally-quiet part of town. So it was with renewed interest that I listened to a debate between Ceasefire Oregon's executive director and the president of the extreme pro-gun Oregon Firearms Federation on Oregon Public Broadcasting this Tuesday.
On Tuesday morning, Oregon Public Broadcasting's radio show "Think Out Loud" featured an hour-long segment on "Guns In Our Lives." In case you missed it, you can find it at
THIS page, where you can hear the broadcast, download the .mp3 file, and read comments from listeners on both sides of the issue.
The show was roughly in two portions. The first portion had the host, Emily Harris, talking with a local gun dealer, Michael Knoetig, and Trisha Whitfield, from the ID Services of the Oregon State Police. The second part was much more interesting, but more on that later, including in a second, follow-up post.
Knoetig talked about his gun shop, his feelings about the importance of Conceal Carry, which his main focus is on for sales of weapons (he mainly just echoed the argument that society has bad people and the cops are too far away to help you, thus you should arm yourself at all times), and comparisons with his native Germany. Regarding Knoetig, I felt particularly drawn to two parts of the conversation. The first was about growing up with guns in Germany. Conceal Carry is not allowed there, gun regulation is very strict. Hunting is allowed, but is highly regulated. Knoetig would compete with target shooting as a teen, but the gun had to be unloaded until arriving at the event.
It is interesting to note that, as he mentions, the crime rate is lower in Germany.
According to 1998 data (the latest I can find that compares both Germany and us in the same year), Germany had a death by firearms rate of 1.57 per 100,000 population, compared to the U.S., which had a rate of 10.2. Murder rates in general, including non-firearms, is
five times greater in the U.S. than in Germany.
Another interesting point from Knoetig: In Oregon, there is NO requirement that the buyer of a gun have any training whatsoever, unless they are wishing for a conceal carry permit. That's right, like most states, you don't need even a minute of training, even safety training, to purchase a firearm in Oregon. When Emily Harris asked Knoetig how he reacted if a buyer seemed inexperienced, he merely answered that he encourages them to take one of his free classes. But he sells guns to them anyway. My thought: Why not? It's not HIS problem if they are endangering themselves and others, right? Who is he to question that right? He's only the source of deadly weapons, is all.
Trisha Whitfield from Oregon State Police next outlined the requirements for background checks. I can't say there were any real surprises. Basically when a gun is purchased, sellers like Knoetig have the buyer fill out a form. The form asks ID information like social security number, driver's license number, whether they've been convicted of any illegal activities, abuse drugs, arrested for DUI, and so forth, and a thumbprint. The form information is phoned into the Oregon State Police ID services unit, and the thumbprint is FAXED (and we know how reliably the resolution is for faxes!). The information is fed into the available databases, including NICS. 98% of calls are returned with an approval, delay, or deny within only 2-5 minutes. A few are delayed due to slowness in record retrieval or some mix-up (and can be delayed even for months). Denial could be due to actually admitting to abuses or crimes, or if the database indicated convictions or mental illness. Whitfield emphasized that the 2-5 minute review is based only on the databases they access, which may not be updated sufficiently, or the buyer's own self-reporting. In 7 months of business, Knoetig has never had a denial. No details were given about requirements for Conceal Carry, except that it is handled by the Sherriff's Association and can vary from county to county.
And then the show gets much more interesting: an interview with
Ceasefire Oregon's executive director, Penny Okamoto, and the president of the Oregon Firearms Federation, Kevin Starrett. Ceasefire Oregon works to prevent gun violence in Oregon through advocating for stricter legislation of firearms and community education about the dangers of firearms. OFF is a hard-line, pro-gun group that bills itself as "Oregon's only no compromise gun lobby" which seeks to fight or repeal existing gun control legislation, including opposition of criminal history background checks or the retention of records of those checks (
examples).
The host, Emily Harris, starts off the conversation by asking about each of their reactions to a shooting that occurred a few days before in Oregon City, where a 13-year-old boy shot and wounded his friend in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun in an apparent accident, after the gun had been left, loaded and unlocked, where the boys could access them after a duck hunt. The response, I feel, highlights what is one of the greatest differences between the pro-gun and pro-control sides:
Starrett: "My reaction was the same as when I hear about teenagers dying in terrible car wrecks or someone passing away in a house fire. It's a terrible thing." He mentions how it appeared to be an accidental discharge, then added, "It's a terrible thing when a person is hurt with a power tool." Then mentioned how his heart went out to the family.
Okamoto: "It was completely heartbreaking, especially because whenever you're dealing with guns, every shooting is preventable. I would have to say that this was in Oregon City. Had this been in Portland, Mayor Adams' ordinances ... are already in effect. The gun owner would have been charged [referring to the Child Access Prevention ordinance]. Ceasefire Oregon right now is working on a Preventing Access to Minors Bill that would be statewide." (CAP laws have
been proven successful in reducing deaths in other places).
This is a very telling comparison between the way the two sides see the same sort of tragedy. Note that Starrett's reaction indicates no difference in his mind between deaths from gun violence and deaths from fires or power tools, even when children are involved. Okamoto's reaction indicates that gun deaths are separate from the others. Regulation to make parents more responsible might have helped prevent the tragedy.
Emily Harris then goes on to mention one comment on their blog comparing gun deaths to deaths by cars, suggesting "car" and "gun" could be used interchangeably in conversation.
Starrett once again sees little difference: "I think there is an important parallel here. Cars kill far more people than guns do, and yet if on the many occasions, daily occasions, when we hear of people being killed in car accidents, many of which were caused by gross negligence by people or teenagers drinking or that kind of thing -- in the wake of a story like that, you would never invite a representative from AAA to come on and defend car ownership." Later adding, "You wouldn't see me coming and demanding that Penny give up her driver's license."
Okamoto responded, "It's a parallel that is pulled out only when it's useful. Guns are made to kill people. Cars are not. Cars are basically for transportation. Sometimes people do die in car accidents. One of the reasons that the number of people dying in car accidents has decreased is because so many people have worked on making cars safer and making people safer drivers. The gun lobby doesn't work on making guns safer. ... There's no license, no registration, no requirement for training [for guns]. Anyone can buy a gun from anyone in Oregon. You don't have to be a licensed firearms dealer." Then, as a further analogy, she adds, "And there's an interesting parallel that wishes to be made. If we put children in car seats when they're in cars, then why can't we have some type of law that prevents children from gaining access to weapons, or more preferably, makes gun owners more responsible. If you have a gun, you own it, and some child accesses it, you're responsible. You have to be a responsible gun owner."
I'm certainly with Okamoto on this one. Pro-gun extremists extol the virtues of their weapons for their ability to protect them against bad guys in their homes and on the streets. This is because guns offer better "stopping power" to kill an attacker quickly and efficiently. It's what handguns in particular are designed to do. That's why pro-gun folks carry guns instead of other weapons, like knives or bats. They are deadly. They are MADE to be deadly. And advertisements in gun magazines make no beans about it.
Yet any time the discussion turns to the deaths of innocents, suddenly they describe gun deaths as no different from any other sort of death, like from fires or power tools or car wrecks, and the guns themselves go from being described as deadly efficient weapons to some seemingly innocuous lump of metal which happens to be deadly in the wrong hands. It hearkens back to the tired, nonsensical slogan of the NRA, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," as if the gun or lax gun laws had nothing to do with it.
But we on the gun control side see gun deaths very differently. Every death is preventable. Unlike cars, which have regulations on both the vehicle manufacturers and the drivers to reduce deaths, as well as licensing and mandatory training, guns are loosely regulated, with few such demands for safety. Odd, given that death is their primary purpose. 100,000 people are shot each year, 33,000 of which die from their wounds.
3,000 of those deaths are children. Commonsense legislation, like strengthening background checks and child access prevention laws, can reduce deaths. Such things are actively opposed by organizations like OFF and the NRA.
My next post will discuss roughly the second half of the interview, including the discussion around one caller's experience of another child shooting involving her sons.
