New Trajectory

Guns and Schools Don’t Mix

2012-02-16T21:48:00.001-08:00

In 2007, about 3,000 children and teens died as a result of gun violencein the United States. That’s eight children a day. In fact, duringthe five years ending in 2009 (the last year for which data are available), over 15,000 children and teens in the U .S . died as a result of gun violence. These arechildren like the many you might see getting into school buses at the freezinghours of the morning.

Some gun lobbyists say that the answer to thesedeaths is more guns. They assert that bringing concealed weapons into an areawill increase the safety of that area. They couldn’t be more wrong. In 2005, a study in North Carolina determinedthat workplaces where guns were permitted were about five times as likely toexperience a homicide as workplaces where all weapons were prohibited. Thissuggests that rather than making a place more safe, allowing guns can make aplace more dangerous.

That’s why it’s vital to prohibit guns in schools in order tokeep our children safe. We currently have laws prohibiting people from bringingguns onto most federal properties, a reasonable prohibition meant to keep thoseareas safer from gun violence. It makes sense to extend that ban onto publicschool campuses.

For many years, Oregon’s public colleges haveprohibited guns on campus, including guns carried by concealed handgun license(CHL) holders. A gun organization sued, however, and last September the OregonCourt of Appeals invalidated the longstanding administrativerule, finding that it was preempted by a state statute. As a result, peoplewith CHLs can now carry loaded, hidden handguns on Oregon's public collegecampuses.

Some people are insisting that they are alsoentitled to bring their loaded, hidden handguns into high schools, middleschools, and elementary schools throughout Oregon. They have, for example,already strong-armed the Newberg School District into dropping its ban on gunsin schools.

In response, the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, an organization dedicatedto reducing gun violence through education and providing opportunities todispose of unwanted firearms, has created a petition asking for signatures from those who believe that concealed guns should not be allowed on school campuses. This petitionis important in helping to show that people in Oregon believe that schools areno place for guns. The more people who sign petitions like this one, the louderthe voices standing against gun violence can be heard.

(updated with minor changes 2/17/12)

One Month of Kid Shootings: January 2012 Statistics

2012-02-02T00:56:00.000-08:00

THIS IS A RE-POST FROM TODAY'S KID SHOOTINGS BLOG

In the first month of Kid Shootings, we have reported on 169 separate shootings and reports of gun crimes which involve children age 17 or under, from 37 states and D.C. The reports span the full range of types of shootings: homicides, attempted homicides, accidents, kidnappings, stray bullets, defensive shootings, law enforcement shootings, and one suicide. Most kids were victims. Some were shooters. Some just found the family gun and handled it without supervision. But there was one thing that nearly all of them had in common: children were in possession of or in the proximity of firearms, with tragic consequences. So many shootings could have been prevented if only the adults owners had unloaded and locked their firearms, or simply removed them from the home.

Caveat: The articles of gun crimes and shootings that we post mostly come from Google Alerts and keyword searches for very recent online news articles, and we have posted every single one that we could find, whatever the circumstances of it. But they don't represent every shooting out there. Some child-involved shootings and gun crimes simply don't get reported in the media, particularly suicides (which are, of course, very personal), accidental discharges which don't actually injure anyone, or incidents in small, rural areas. And not all that are reported online are filtered to us in a Google Alert. Every time we do a "deep dive" and investigate more thoroughly, other stories pop up, and we hear stories from local law enforcement officers, crime scene cleanup professionals, and school officials which never make it to the news.

Everyone can see the statistics, but the huge numbers fail to register in our minds. Just over 3,000 kids are killed by gunfire, according to one estimate, and 17,500 are injured. That's almost as many kids killed in just one year as the total number of American soldiers killed in combat in the entire Iraq war, and more than all allied forces (U.S. and allies) casualties in the entire war in Afghanistan. This is the real cost of our "freedom" to own guns and the lax gun regulation in America. But the huge numbers fail to register in our minds. We've grown numb to them, as a nation. This blog looks beyond the numbers to the individual cases.

When you read the individual stories, see the pictures of the kids, understand the circumstances, the problem of guns in our society becomes more clear. The rhetoric of the pro-gun lobby takes on a hollow sound. More concealed guns on the streets wouldn't have stopped most of these, if any. Opposing Child Access Prevention laws seems barbaric. And the idea of having more guns in more hands is a glaringly deadly proposal.

So what percentage of all shootings are reported by Kid Shootings? Let's look at one statistic: deaths by gunfire. One estimate is that just over 3000 kids are shot dead each year. That's 267 a month. Around 60 of those are suicides (based on the CDC report for 2006-2007), which aren't typically reported in the media. Here at Kid Shootings, we reported on 51 deaths of children by firearms. That's about 19% of all fatal shootings of kids (or about 25% of non-suicide shootings). So one assumption is that we are finding and publishing reports on around 19% of cases out there. I'm already shocked by the number we publish, but the full scale of the problem hits home when you realize that we are just scraping the surface.

Here are the statistics for our posts for January, 2012

Total number of gun crimes and shootings posted on: 169

Total number of children who were victims: 175 (see below; doesn't count intentional shooters)

Total children killed: 51

Total children injured: 100

Total non-injured (shot at but missed, kidnapped at gunpoint, etc): 24

Ages:

17: 36

16: 44

15: 26

14: 21

13: 11

12: 7

11: 5

10: 7

9: 4

8: 4

7: 4

6: 3

5: 4

4: 4

3: 7

2: 6

1: 2

0-1: 3

"teen": 17

"child": 15

Gender:

Boys: 164

Girls: 46

Unknown: 16

Status:

Victims: 146

Shooters: 40 (20 of which seemed intentional)

Types of shootings:

Homicide: 39

Attempted Homicide: 50

Accidental: 41

23 involved children "playing with" or handling unsecured guns

3 were from gun owners "cleaning a gun" when the gun discharged

2 were hunting accidents

Stray Bullets: 21 (5 were apparently from New Year's celebratory gunfire)

On School Grounds: 8

Clearly Gang-Related: 8

Drug-Related: 5

Defensive: 7

Law Enforcement: 3

Kidnapping: 2

Murder/Suicide: 1

Hostage: 2

Pellet / BB Gun-Related: 4 (3 of which on school grounds, 2 were fatal)

Toy Gun-Related: 1

These numbers, as troubling as they are, are the real cost of our lax gun regulations, and children pay the price for it.

What are YOU going to do to reduce kid shootings?

The Ten Most Shocking College Crimes of All Time

2012-01-20T15:10:00.000-08:00

You may recall about a month ago how there was another shooting on the grounds of Virginia Tech, where an apparently mentally-unstable student from Radford University, Ross Truet Ashley, age 22, shot and killed a VT police officer for no apparent reason before taking his own life. I posted on the incident HERE.

One of my readers alerted me to an article that she and her colleagues over at www.onlinecolleges.net put together: “The 10 Most Shocking College Crimes of All Time.”

Of those ten crimes, seven of them were mass shootings.

The gun lobby sees no problem with arming law-abiding college students on campus. How many of these criminals would have been previously law-abiding citizens prior to their shootings, as the most recent VT shooter had been? As far as I know, all of them were law-abiding citizens able to pass a background check, with the dubious exception of Cho (the first VT shooter, who passed his background check due to poor reporting by the state). Here in Oregon, if a would-be shooter were to arm himself to the teeth, but had a conceal carry permit, there would be no legal reason to stop them from walking into a classroom or anywhere else on campus – until they pull the trigger. Then it’s too late.

It’s also important to note that, despite the horrific nature of these mass shootings, very little has been done to prevent them in the future.

2011 in Review - Part II (what we've done)

2012-01-17T01:17:00.000-08:00

In Part I of this two-part posting, I detailed the gun-related crimes from the Eugene area. Now, let me turn to how our efforts were spent in 2011.

2011 was a very busy year for the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation. First off, we celebrated the one-year anniversary of this blog, New Trajectory, which has helped us reach additional audiences and understand the pro-gun side better.

We have organized three gun turn-ins in Portland over the past 13 months, cosponsored by Portland Mayor Sam Adams, the City of Portland, and the Portland Police Bureau. These events removed over 400 more guns from our community. In the words of Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk, referring to our 16 years of gun turn-ins: "The past successes of the Ceasefire Oregon Gun Turn-in are significant. Collecting over 7,500 firearms is not only commendable, but clearly marks Ceasefire Oregon as a success."

We hosted a dinner with distinguished guests in Portland, and we participated in the annual Safety Fair at the Portland Zoo. We also continued to distribute ASK brochures, which encourage parents to ask whether there are guns where their children play.

We've had a busy year ramping up our activities in the Eugene / Springfield area. Each of the last few years, shootings have been increasing, as I detailed in Part I of this two-part posting.

In May of 2011, Colin Goddard visited our area, giving presentations to local students and the public and showing a documentary about the shooting, entitled "Living for 32." Young, handsome, charismatic, and humble, Colin proved to be an excellent advocate for sensible gun laws in our country. Over the course of five days, Colin gave eight presentations to an estimated 877 people, including students at Thurston High School (site of the Kip Kinkel shootings), South Eugene High School, Oregon State University, and the University of Oregon, and in three cities (Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis). He also gave interviews with two radio stations, three TV stations, and three newspapers. Colin continues to tour America, speaking mainly at universities, but also giving presentations of the film and addressing Congress.

On Mother's Day, we were represented in the annual Million Mom March awareness walk in downtown Eugene. With over a hundred attendees, including Mayor Kitty Piercy (a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns), Colin Goddard from the Brady Campaign, and organizations such as Veteran's for Peace, speeches were made in honor of slain officer Chris Kilcullen, and then the marchers walked several miles along the Willamette River. There was excellent media coverage of this event.

In June, corresponding with National ASK Day, Ceasefire had a table at the famous Eugene Saturday Market to engage Market-goers.

In late August, Ceasefire had a "car" in the Peace Train, where a number of local Peace groups form a train of moving plywood "cars" behind a train "engine", each car decorated with the group's name and support for peace and non-violence, as part of the Eugene Celebration parade.

Finally, toward the end of the year, we had an information table set up at the Bijou Theatre's showing of The Interrupters.

in 2011, our legislative affiliate, Ceasefire Oregon, successfully opposed 25 dangerous bills introduced in the Oregon legislature which would have significantly weakened Oregon gun laws, some substantially.

Among the bills the gun lobby worked hardest to enact were bills that would have (1) permitted anyone with a concealed handgun license (CHL) from any state to carry loaded, concealed handguns in our state even if the person did not meet Oregon’s CHL requirements; (2) removed the Oregon State Police from conducting background checks for gun dealers, sending them directly to the FBI instead, and thus enabling Oregonians with serious mental health problems to nonetheless purchase guns (because their records aren’t in the FBI’s databases); and (3) required sheriffs to keep the names of CHL holders secret, thus ensuring that sheriffs could not be held accountable for their decisions regarding the granting of CHLs, precluding people with legitimate concerns about specific individuals from learning whether those people had CHLs, and preventing the media and other researchers from ascertaining exactly how many CHL holders commit crimes.

All those bills were defeated. The gun lobby, in fact, saw only one of its proposals enacted, provisions regarding the carrying of firearms on ATVs, motorcycles, and snowmobiles. Sadly, no sooner had that bill taken effect, when there was an accident where a rifle transported loaded and unsecured (as is now legal to do) was unintentionally discharged, wounding a hunter.

Formidable challenges to sensible gun regulation in Oregon in 2011 were also posed by the courts. Pushed by an extremist firearms group, a case reached the Oregon Court of Appeals, which overturned a long-standing policy by the state university system to prohibit guns on the property of Oregon universities. Bolstered by that decision, that extremist group is now bullying grade school systems to allow guns on their campuses. Threatening endless lawsuits if they didn't comply, they persuaded the Newberg school system to allow concealed weapons there, despite an initial resistance by their superintendent and school board. It is ridiculous that extremists are able to endanger our children in this manner.

In another strike against common sense, the Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that medical marijuana card holders could now be allowed to carry concealed weapons in public. "Guns for Stoners" makes no sense, given that there is no law in Oregon prohibiting the carrying of loaded weapons if under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It only becomes illegal when the trigger is pulled, but then it's too late. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so this is how it will stay unless the legislature steps in.

So, as you can see, 2011 was a year of great strides in getting our message out to the public and opposing dangerous legislation, but more needs done to protect us against those who wish to roll back protections for the public. We welcome any and all help you wish to give.

Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.

2012-01-15T14:18:00.000-08:00

Martin Luther King, Jr., is one of my heroes. I celebrate his legacy every year. My family has four different races represented in it: African-American, Caucasian, Native American, and Latino. So King's message of the peaceful coming together of all Americans is an important one for me, which I live every day.

From King's Nobel Prize acceptance speech (Dec 10, 1964):

Sooner or later, all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

For those pro-gun folks who read this, and point out that King had protected his family by requesting a conceal carry permit or having them in his house, I offer you this quote from him:

"How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? ... I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in my house. When I decided that I couldn’t keep a gun, I came face-to-face with the question of death and I dealt with it. From that point on, I no longer needed a gun nor have I been afraid. Had we become distracted by the question of my safety we would have lost the moral offensive and sunk to the level of our oppressors."

I also will add this quote by him:

"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."

Today's post over at Common Gunsense is an important one which pretty much says it all. Thank you, japete, for your post:
http://www.commongunsense.com/2012/01/we-remember-dr-martin-luther-kings.html?spref=tw

I urge my readers to pay tribute to King and his legacy of peace and non-violence in some manner this week. Do something uncharacteristically understandng to help your fellow man, volunteer for an organization that espouses non-violence, or attend an MLK celebration. Peace be with you.

(updated 1/16/12 with additional quotes)
(image taken from HERE)

The "Too Many Victims" Candlelight Vigils - Eugene

2012-01-10T00:57:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday, January 8, 2012, on the first anniversary of the Tucson shooting, there was an event held across the nation: 69 candlelight vigils in 22 states plus Washington, D.C. to memorialize those who have been killed and injured by gunfire.

One year ago, 6 people were killed, including a 9-year old girl and a federal judge, and 13 injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, when a mentally-ill shooter, who had legally purchased his guns, opened fire during an informal "meet your congressman" meeting at a shopping center. And yet, since then, nothing has been done to keep it from happening again. If anything, restrictions on guns have decreased, particularly in Arizona, where the shooting took place. A vigil was held there, too, led by Congresswoman Giffords.

Mayor Kitty Piercy, at left, holds a candle before speaking.

By the latest estimate, over 110,000 people in America are shot each year in homicides, suicides, and accidents. Around 30,000 of them are killed. As I blogged about recently, there have been 14 shootings in 2011 that I know of here in the Eugene/Springfield area of Oregon, not counting suicides, with 9 dead and 6 injured. There are TOO MANY VICTIMS. This isn't just a question of gun rights. It's an urgent public health crisis.

Visiting the homepage for the event, at www.toomanyvictims.org, you can read dozens of touching tributes to those who have been lost, and read the accounts of many of the vigils that were held. Each vigil was different. Some had marches. Others rang bells. Some were outdoors. Some were in churches. Different organizations took part in coordinating the events. But they all had one goal in common: advertising the fact that too many people die in American from gunfire and that attention needs to be given to commonsense solutions. It is not a coincidence that America leads the world in non-military civilian shooting deaths among industrialized nations, and that America also has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world (with 90 guns per 100 people, we far surpass the next highest, Yemen, which had 61 per 100).

Baldr Odinson describing the need for better background checks.

Even though temperatures were in the mid-30's, here in Eugene, Oregon, around 50 people attended our vigil on the steps of the old Federal Building. Betsy Steffenson, representing Million Mom March and the Peace Caucus of the Democratic Party of Lane County, spoke of the slaying of Officer Chris Kilcullin at the hands of a dangerously mentally ill shooter who bought her gun legally (just as the shooter in Tucson had) and the recent shooting of the Ranier ranger, Margaret Anderson. Denise Baker spoke next, representing Lane County Suicide Prevention Program. She described the suicide of her teenage daughter, Jennifer, who had been trained from a young age to respect and shoot guns, and about the need for safe storage of firearms in homes with children. I spoke next, representing Ceasefire Oregon, talking about the number of victims in Lane County and the nation and the need for better background checks, including for all private sales and for mental health reporting. Finally, Eugene mayor Kitty Piercy, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (along with about 600 other mayors), spoke of the need for civility in our public discourse and the disturbing availability of guns to those who would abuse them.

A moment of silence and candlelight in Eugene.

After the speeches, there was a moment of silence. This was followed by a somber reading of names of those who have been killed an injured in the Eugene area. Members of the audience were invited to add names of others who had not been included on the list. One came up and dedicated her candle to those who, though not shot, had been threatened by guns and raped or assaulted. Another name was for Stephen Ogg, a 20-year old who, just the week before, was killed in an accidental shooting by his juvenile brother, even though they had grown up with guns, lived on the grounds of the Emerald Empire Gun Club, and were custodians of the gun club. Family and friends of Stephen were in attendance at the ceremony, and had passed out orange ribbons with his name on them, which everyone wore. It was a very emotional moment when his name was read.

Finally, a bagpiper played Amazing Grace to close the ceremony. It is a poignant moment which will stay with me forever.

HERE is a link to a local news article and video, from KVAL news, which aired just after the ceremony concluded.

And what did the pro-gun extremists do to commemorate the Tucson shooting and shooting victims? Nothing at all. Instead, they made juvenile and insulting videos, like THIS one, and had a gun show, in Tucson, on the same day as the anniversary. Pitiful.

There are too many victims of gun violence every year in America. It's time to take steps to reduce these numbers. Together, we can make a new trajectory for our communities away from gun violence.

Images are courtesy of Jasmine Rose Penter, photographer and volunteer for Ceasefire Oregon.

A New Blog: Kid Shootings

2012-01-03T11:28:00.000-08:00

I am pleased to announce the creation of a new blog, called "Kid Shootings" :

http://kidshootings.blogspot.com

I am one of the co-authors on this new blog, which focuses on the widespread problem of children killed and injured by gunfire or getting their hands on guns without permission or adequate supervision.

Somewhere around 3,184 minors are killed each year, according to the most recent data available (2006), and another 17,451 or so are injured.

This means one young life lost every two hours and 45 minutes, almost nine every day, 61 every week.

Of these deaths, 2,225 were homicides, 763 were suicides and 196 were due to an accident or undetermined circumstances. Boys accounted for 2,815 of the deaths; girls for 369 deaths. More than five times as many children and teens,17,451, suffered non-fatal gun injuries.

But statistics hardly do justice for the victims. "Kid Shootings" was created to give a human face to the tragedies, to illustrate the widespread nature of the problem, and to dispel myths about children and guns which are perpetuated by the pro-gun side.

Peace, and Happy New Year's.

2011 in Review - Part I (gun-related crimes)

2011-12-31T22:41:00.000-08:00

2011 is out, and 2012 is in. Happy New Year's to you all. I hope it has been a safe one for everyone reading this.

2011 was pretty deadly here in the Eugene / Springfield area of Oregon. There have been 14 shootings reported in the media (though most suicides and accidents go unreported) in this small-town area. This is the highest number of shootings for at least the last four years in my area (since I've been keeping track), and probably much longer. 9 dead, 6 injured. That is only for my area, not for the rest of Oregon. It has been a particularly deadly year in southern Oregon and over in the Coos Bay area, as well as Portland, but I'm not going into those here.

There were 2 murder/suicides in that number (here and here) in the Eugene area. Questions still surround these, as there is no known motive for either of them, and no note.

For those of you convinced that drug dealers and gangs are responsible for most shootings, here in my area only 2 of the shootings are linked to them. Neither was fatal. These don't count the accidental shooting (of a friend mistaken as a robber) at a medical marijuana grower in Springfield, or a shooting at another medical marijuana grower in Eugene.

There were also a record number of armed robberies. A handful, 4 or 5, involved threats with knives. About that many had only a note and no weapon. But 27 armed robberies in my area had robbers who used guns. Nearly all were of businesses or banks. Luckily, none of them resulted in any injures. And in none of them did anyone try to resist by drawing their own concealed weapon. The bit of money the robbers were after is hardly worth a life-and-death shootout.

There were two shootings at homes that were ruled as defensive, "justified" shootings. One was a domestic dispute involving a property dispute between a man and his sister's partner, with questionable circumstances that led to the death of the brother (the shooter claimed he was attacked with a tire iron, but friends of the deceased claim the sister and her partner wanted the brother's land, and why did the partner walk out of the house to confront the deceased instead of calling the sheriff?). The other was where two suspects invaded a legal marijuana grower's property to steal marijuana. The homeowners pulled out a shotgun. Can you guess who got injured? Not the robbers.

The shooting that made the most headlines was the death of a traffic cop, Officer Chris Kilcullen, at the hands of a dangerously mentally ill woman, Cheryl Kidd, during a traffic stop in April. The shooter had been mentally ill for a long time, schizophrenic, and convinced that the police were out to shoot her. She was so dangerously ill that her doctor had sent her to the hospital a couple months before to be evaluated. Nonetheless, she had been able to legally purchase her gun at a local sporting goods store, clearing a background check. (Oregon only sent two records of mentally ill persons to the NICS background check system in all of 2011, despite a legal mandate). There is now a stretch of highway dedicated to Officer Kilcullen, but the best tribute would be to pass legislation to strengthen the background check system to prevent this from happening. So far, that hasn't been done.

There were also a very few suicides reported (they only get reported if they are very public in some manner), a couple accidental shootings (one was of an off-duty police officer who, while at a shooting range, shot himself while trying to remove his loaded rifle from his car), and an assortment of non-fatal and general gun crimes of all types. In all, there were at least 55 gun-related crimes that were reported in the media for my area, that I am aware of. Who knows how many weren't reported in the media. I occasionally hear of one or two, and gun crimes are so commonplace that most are not reported in all media outlets, just one or two, so unless I read them all every day (which rarely happens), then sometimes they get past me.

In my next post I will focus on our efforts to reduce gun crimes in my area in 2011, and our successes and obstacles.

Have a safe and happy New Year. Together, we can work to create a new trajectory for our communities away from gun violence.

In Part II of this 2-part posting, I talk about our accomplishments and challenges from 2011, and how Ceasefire Oregon has worked to reduce gun violence in that year.

Image taken from here.

The Holidays Are About Peace And Goodwill, Not Guns

2011-12-24T22:29:00.000-08:00

I want to wish all of my readers a very peaceful and joy-filled Christmas and holiday season.

I celebrate Christmas. But regardless of which holiday you celebrate, the holiday season is about peace and goodwill toward our fellow citizens. It's about family values. It's about putting the worst of us behind us and going into the new year with a renewed sense of bettering ourselves and our communities. To that end we celebrate by enjoying a little light in the darkest time of year -- namely the light of our faith and our fellowship.

Do guns fit into that philosophy? Are lethal weapons part of the "goodwill toward Man?"

Earlier this month, the gun guys in Scottsdale reveled in their gun fetish as part of their season of joy by posing with their children and Santa ... and machine guns. See the picture, above. Said the owner:

"It's designed to be a holiday-themed event where people can express their passion for firearms and the holiday spirit."

Really? The "holiday spirit" involves deadly weapons to these people? Do they really celebrate the same holiday I do? It doesn't seem to resemble mine. And if you think violent movies and video games glorify guns and violence to our young children, just wait until they see Santa wielding his AR-15!

Listen to how Fox commentators try to justify it, saying it's a "reminder to visiting Europeans" not to invade us, and a threat to Occupy protesters that "the other side is better armed." Wow. And when one of the panel questions the involvement of children in this nonsense, watch how the gun apologists jump on him. Is this how we want our nation to see Christmas?

And gun sales are apparently up this Christmas season in Springfield, Missouri. From the article:

Firearms sales are always brisk this time of year at Gunsmoke Gun & Pawn.
"A lot of guys are buying themselves guns for Christmas," says manager Brandon Reynolds. "It's Christmas bonus season and people have a little extra disposable cash."
And giving firearms as gifts is becoming as popular as any flat screen TV or bicycle.
"We sell a lot of concealed carry weapons," adds Reynolds. "We do the classes here and they're full just about every Saturday."
Sales for concealed carry weapons -- or CCWs -- are on the rise, especially since August when the minimum age for a permit dropped from 23 to 21.

Nothing expresses your joy and love for your loved ones like lethal weapons, apparently. And how very relieving to know that people just out of their teens are now arming themselves on the streets of Missouri. They'll have great judgment for life-and-death situations, I'm sure.

We need to fight this deadly nonsense. Christmas is about understanding and peace, not about arming ourselves and our paranoia.

Here's one thing I'm grateful for today. Here in the Eugene/Springfield area of Oregon, there hasn't been anyone killed or injured by firearms since early November, as far as has been reported in the media. It must be some kind of a record. There's been at least ten armed robberies with guns since then (bringing the yearly total to something like 30 now), but at least no one was harmed. Let's hope the relative peace holds for a while longer. Other areas of Oregon haven't been so lucky.

From myself and Ceasefire Oregon, I wish all of you a peaceful and joyous holiday season. Put away your guns, eat some fruitcake, spend just a little bit of your time helping someone less fortunate, and try to recognize that even the worst people out there have at least a shred of decency worth appealing to. Merry Christmas, and may peace be with you.

ADDENDUM (12/30/11): Man who killed his entire family and himself after unwrapping presents, and dressed as Santa, was pre-meditated; distraught over financial issues:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/12/update-on-texas-santa-claus-mass.html

RELATED ARTICLE (12/31/11): "No Season of Peace from Gun Violence" by Dennis Henigan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/no-season-of-peace-from-g_b_1175297.html

Playing "Wyatt Earp" With Their Guns

2011-12-15T23:53:00.000-08:00

Time and again I see statements by pro-gun extremists and the NRA suggesting that, if there were just more guns on the streets, criminals would be too afraid to commit crimes for fear of being shot. But they don't just couch these statements in the language of self-defense. They talk about vigilantism. They talk about "helping" the police in times of crisis. Even though most gun carriers lack conflict mediation training, have no requirements for proficiency with firearms, and are accountable to no one beyond the law, they still propose that they play "Wyatt Earp."

I've been in a shooting. I know that the mind doesn't work the same way it does when you can focus at a shooting range or sit and imagine what you'd do in a conflict. Even highly-trained police only hit their target about 15% of the time in a firefight. Do you think the typical citizen with a gun can be even that accurate? Or make snap judgments about who's the guilty one and who isn't? Or decide when someone should live or die? I don't want to be anywhere near one of these yahoos when they decide to take the law into their own hands.

Here's one recent example where a man witnessed a purse robber, then took matters into his own hands to chase the guy down and then shoot him dead. Is the robbery of a purse from an old woman worth killing someone over? Is this sort of vigilante justice what we want in America?

Oh, sure, the gun guys deny wanting to play "Wyatt Earp." For instance, when I've brought this up before, one Anonymous commenter suggested:

[T]hose of us with CCPs do not want to be Wyatt Earp. If we did we go into Law Enforcement. My wife and I carry so as to protect ourselves. Period. My first thought if someone is shooting is to protect my family first and foremost. If we can leave and escape safely we will do so without drawing or shooting our weapons. However, if the threat is immediate and life threatening to my family or I than I will remove the threat.

Another, "18Echo", commented:

No one that is carrying openly or otherwise is "playing" at anything. Your statement is insulting. We all understand the potentially lethal ramifications of carrying a firearm. None of us are looking for a gunfight, as your Wyatt Earp comment implies nor are we looking to do the job of the police. In fact, all we want is to go about our lives in peace.

I hope they were telling the truth. Probably most who carry don't have the desire to "play police." But enough do that it worries me. Sorry, 18Echo, but you'll see how wrong you are when you read below.

This all came up again when the California Brady Campaign released an email alert about the Open Carry protesters there. As you'll see, these gun extremists have no problem picking a fight with otherwise peaceful people, in the hope of causing a riot and getting an excuse to "play Wyatt Earp":

Open Carriers to Bring Long Guns to Occupy Protest After Being Asked to Leave
--CA Brady Campaign Urges Families to Stay Away from Todos Santos Park in Concord on Saturday, December 17th

CONCORD--According to their website, Open Carriers plan to bring long guns to an Occupy Protest (where they had previously been asked to leave) scheduled at Concord’s Todos Santos Park on Saturday, December 17, from 12 – 1 pm. From the following statement on their website it appears they are attempting to police the protesters’ behavior. The California Brady Campaign is concerned that what was previously billed as a gathering of gun owners to make a political statement about their gun rights, is now becoming a vigilante activity of attending other groups’ events. This dangerous provocation could lead to clashes resulting in accidental or intentional shootings.

(From website): “Apparently the last time we showed up to the occupy movement for a moment "took away" from the message of the occupy movement and the leaders of occupy asked Concord PD to ask us to leave. Well officers said sorry that is also free speech. Maybe Open Carry can show that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our community in case of riots. We do not need civil unrest conducted in our communities which hurts small business even though we encourage free speech.”

After the State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a bill to ban the open carry of unloaded handguns in California, groups of Open Carriers have staged gatherings around the state displaying unloaded long guns and ammunition. Long guns, such as rifles and shotguns, are designed to be fired braced against the shoulder, in contrast to a handgun. The protests are directed at the signing of AB 144 (Portantino), which refers only to handguns.

Said Dr. Dallas Stout, President of the CA Brady Campaign: “This vigilante behavior is irresponsible and dangerous because they are putting the community at risk in protest of a law that was sponsored and championed by law enforcement. Especially after the recent massacres in Cupertino and Seal Beach, to have Open Carriers walking around with lethal long guns and live ammunition intimidates and scares people.”

The CA Brady Campaign is urging people for their own safety to stay away from any location where the Open Carry meet-ups are taking place; and urging business and restaurant owners to enact their private property rights and forbid any guns on their premises for the safety of their employees and customers. Upon learning of any Long Gun Open Carry meet-ups the CA Brady Campaign will send out a news release to warn the community in advance.

These pro-gun extremists call their group "Responsible Citizens of California," but picking a fight so they can shoot peaceful protesters hardly seems "responsible" to me. There is no doubt about it: these are armed bullies who wish to threaten and harm peaceful people, and they need to be called out on it. If they think they're helping their "cause", they are sorely wrong. It's easy for the rest of us to see their radical extremism on display.

And for the rest of the pro-gun crowd who has the daydream of playing "Wyatt Earp," think again. Keep your daydreams in your head. Leave your gun at home. Don't endanger the rest of us. America doesn't want vigilante justice.

UPDATE (12/16/11 ): These same Open Carry protesters showed up at a mall today and ate as a group at a BJ's restaurant which had already announced that they weren't welcomed (but didn't turn them away). Open Carry of handguns (but not long rifles) becomes illegal in California on Jan. 1: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19555955

The Virginia Tech Shooter -- The Sort Of Student The Extremists Want To Arm

2011-12-12T01:05:00.000-08:00

Last week was horrifying for the small town of Blacksburg, Virginia, and Virginia Tech University. Summoning visions of the massacre that took place there in 2007, initial reports described how a lone gunman shot a police officer on the grounds of the VT campus, and how another person had been shot and killed as well. It was thought the shooter was still at large. The campus locked down immediately. Given that I have a dear friend who works as staff there at VT, I paid close attention to the reports. Naturally I had fears of another mass shooting.

That was several days ago. Since then, the story has become clear. Ross Truet Ashley, age 22, apparently snapped. For reasons that are still unclear from media reports, last Wednesday he robbed the office of his landlord at gunpoint, demanded the keys of the landlord's Mercedes-Benz sport utility vehicle, then drove off in it. Almost 24 hours later, officer Deriek W. Crouse had pulled over a motorist on the grounds of Virginia Tech University. From out of nowhere, and for reasons unknown, Ashley abandoned his stolen vehicle, walked up and shot the officer, killing him. Ironically, the shooting happened across from the dormitory where the first shootings began in 2007. Ashley then ran off to the university greenhouses and made a quick change of clothes. Meanwhile, notices were already being sent to students, and the campus was locking down. Officers spotted Ashley in a parking complex, but by the time they caught up to him, he had shot and killed himself. They didn't initially identify him due to the change in clothing.

Obviously, the community was traumatized -- not just due to the horror of the event itself, but because this conjured memories of the 2007 shooting, where another mentally ill lone gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 students and faculty before taking his own life on the VT campus.

This case is particularly ironic, given that pro-gun groups have been holding rallies at area universities, trying to goad the universities into allowing concealed carry by their students, which the universities have a policy against. It's interesting to note, though, that the general public, outside of students, can carry there. These groups, particularly the radical Virginia Citizen's Defense League, held such a protest at VT on December 1. On Wednesday, Dec. 7, they held a rally at Radford University. The rally was going on when, almost within sight of the protest, Ashley robbed his landlord's office. Had Ashley known about the protest? Did he attend? It's unknown. The next day, as the shooting was taking place 2 hours away, the pro-gun extremists were holding another protest at James Madison University in Harrisonburg.

Even before the shooter had been identified or many facts were known, pro-gun extremists were commenting that this case proved that students should be allowed to carry guns on school grounds. Just like the protestors, they claimed on the comments sections of online news flashes that students should be allowed to protect themselves, that if they had a gun the shooter would be dead, that the universities were trampling the Second Amendment. All arguments about the dangers of guns or availability of guns to criminals were snidely brushed aside with language about patriotism and rights.

But let's take another look at what they claim. The pro-gun crowd likes to suggest that the sort of people who go on shooting sprees are criminals with previous records, obviously mentally ill, drug dealers, or gang members. Their vision of students who should be armed are students who have a clean record, who are well-adjusted, academically achieved, and well-liked -- law-abiding citizens who just want to feel secure.

Students just like Ross Truet Ashley.

You see, Ashley had no previous criminal record. He had shaved his head and was known to run rather than walk, but otherwise showed no clear signs of mental illness. He was a student, attending part-time at the business school at Radford University, 16 minutes away from VT. He was of legal age to purchase a firearm and have a concealed carry license. He is described as being friendly, nice, and quiet. He never talked about guns, drank, or used drugs (although he owned a gun and had visited a shooting range), wasn't a loner, and had been a star football player in high school. And he was academically achieved, having served on Student Government committees and been on the dean's list at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise in southwest Virginia in recent years. This is a young man who seemed to have everything going for him. It's unclear if he had a concealed carry license, but there was nothing stopping him from getting one.

Said his roommate from his years at U.Va-Wise:

"I was like, 'Oh, my God,'" he said. "This was my freshman roommate. This was the first person I met in college. This dude wore my clothes. This is freaking me out for real -- this is so crazy."

Vaughan said he was shocked by Ashley’s alleged actions.

“It’s unbelievable,” he said. “He doesn’t seem like the type who would do something like that. He was always eager to help and pretty much always in attendance [at SGA meetings]. He always had a smile on his face. I would never have imagined him doing anything like this.

Ashley was the model student for the campus conceal carry movement -- until he went on his murderous crime spree.

In the emotionally- and academically-charged and sometimes irresponsible environment that defines university life for young people, how then are we to trust that the average student carrying a gun is to be trusted? Does it make students safer somehow? The pro-gun extremists think it does. The vast majority of students and faculty at VT don't, and neither do any of the survivors of the 2007 shooting or their families.

The day after last week's shooting, Lori Haas, the mother of one of the first 2007 shooting survivors, Emily, had this to say:

Meanwhile, on the same day that we lost Officer Rouse [sic], a radical pro-gun group, the Virginian Citizens Defense League, or VCDL, was rallying on the James Madison University campus to force the school to allow guns in its classrooms and dormitories. When they’re not busy trying to arm our campuses, VCDL advocates for the eradication of Virginia’s state background check system.

Keep in mind that neither the Virginia Tech administration—nor a single victim or surviving family member of the 2007 massacre—supports these attacks on our gun laws. To the contrary, many of us are calling for tougher, universal background checks on all gun sales to halt the carnage before it ever begins.

Recently, my friend Colin Goddard—who like my daughter was shot on April 16, 2007, but survived—said something that stuck with me. Responding to those whose only solution to violence on campus is to arm themselves with concealed handguns, he said, “Shame on those unwilling to be their brothers’ keeper, but being all too eager to be his executioners."

Similar sentiments were shared by Omar Samaha, whose sister, Reema, was shot at VT in 2007. Samaha works hard to help prevent concealed carry on campuses.

And for those pro-gun folks who are still arguing that being armed on campus is going to save the lives of students, let me point out the following. Ashley's victim, Officer Crouse, was a Virginia Tech Police Emergency Response Team member, an Army veteran, was trained as a Crisis Intervention Officer, General Instructor, Firearms Instructor, Defensive Tactics instructor and most recently completed training for Advance Law Enforcement Rapid Response and Mechanical and Ballistic Instructor (source). And yet, despite all of Crouse's training and experience, the shooter still got the jump on him and murdered him. What are the chances, then, that the average student, barely trained in firearms or conflict engagement, could have any better luck? Is that chance worth all of the potential non-defensive shootings?

Universities are no place for guns. Keep 'em gun-free.

What If Gun Control Debates Were Applied To A 5th Grade Classroom Situation?

2011-12-05T22:43:00.000-08:00

And now, a script. I'm certain it will win a Tony Award. I present to you:
"Gum Control in Mrs. Cali's 5th Grade Class"

Mrs. Cali: Class, for some time it has been school policy to allow students to chew gum in classrooms. However, due to a number of recent incidents here, I have decided to forbid gum chewing in my classroom from this day forward.

Wayne: But, Mrs. Cali, that's unfair!

Mrs. Cali: Wayne, yesterday Tommy threw his gum into Bradi's hair, and I had to explain to her angry parents why it had happened. The day before that, I stepped in gum that a student had dropped to the floor. Also, a quick look last week turned up at least a couple dozen wads of gum that had been left stuck underneath your desks. This has gone too far, and I refuse to allow it further.

Rick (smacking on chewing gum): But, Mrs. Cali, I haven't been irresponsible with my gum. Why should I have to pay the consequences for other people's bad behavior? It's not fair!

Mrs. Cali: I'm sorry, Rick, but don't blame me. Blame those who abused their right to chew gum.

Wayne: I agree with Rick. You're treating us all like bad guys! When Tommy threw the gum, you sent him to the Principal's office. He got the punishment he deserved. But now you would have us all pay for his mistake! You should only punish the bad guys. Besides, the bad guys will still bring in gum and chew it when you aren't looking. When gum is outlawed only outlaws will chew gum.

Bradi: I'm glad for the decision, Mrs. Cali! Speaking as a victim of gum violence, I feel very uncomfortable allowing people to chew while I'm trying to learn. Every day in this school there are at least 32 incidents of gum violence. Kids like Tommy and Rick only care about themselves and don't think about others who could be victimized.

Rick: Bradi, don't you dare lump me in with bad kids like Tommy, just because I chew gum! I'm sorry you were a victim, but it shouldn't cause me to have to pay, too!

Wayne: Besides, Mrs. Cali, it's our right to have gum in school. Part Two of the Student Code of Conduct says so! Ever since the founding of this school.

Mrs. Cali: The Code says, "Students have the right to keep and bear snacks and candy." It didn't specify gum, in particular, and students didn't have today's modern, super-sticky gum back in those days or abuse their right to chew it nearly as often.

Wayne: Yes, but the Student Council recently ruled that Part Two applies to modern gum, and that every student has the right to have it.

Mrs. Cali: Sure, but they also said that individual classrooms could still determine how to regulate it. You are allowed to have gum in your personal locker and to chew it there, but when you step into my classroom, you're not allowed to chew it.

Rick: Well, Mr. Arizo allows it in his classroom, and students can chew it openly there without him saying anything. He's a big supporter of gum chewing. (Rick blows a bubble and pops it, loudly).

Bradi: Sure, but just last week, that crazy boy, Jared, threw gum in the hair of several students in Mr. Arizo's class! His class is one of the worst for gum throwing!

Mrs. Cali: Mr. Arizo is just going to have to clean up the mess himself. Here, I'm not going to tolerate it. As for the Student Council's recent ruling, let's note who else benefits: the concession stand. They get to sell more gum this way. It's not really about the students and their rights.

Rick: That's not what they said. They said it's about Part Two of the Code.

Mrs. Cali: What they say is different from what they think. Just follow the money.

Rick: You're blaming an inanimate object for the bad actions of people. You're just a chiclephobe! Gums don't mess people, people mess people!

Bradi: "Chiclephobe?" Why do you think she's afraid of gum?

Wayne: I and the other students who love gum know full well how anti-gum you guys are. You want to ban gum altogether and take it away from us!

Mrs. Cali: Don't be ridiculous. I never said anything about gum banning, and I'm not afraid of gum! I just want to control it and keep it from being abused.

Wayne: You just want to keep us from exercising our rights! It's discrimination against gum chewers, just like racism!

Rick (pointing at Mrs. Cali): Yeah! Gum-grabber!

Bradi: Stop making wild accusations and name-calling! You're just trying to hijack the debate! How many kids have to have gum in their hair before you admit controlling gum is necessary? You'd think different if you were the one hit by gum violence!

Rick: I wouldn't be the victim, cuz I'd hit them with my own gum first! If everyone chewed gum, the gum-throwers would be too afraid to start a fight.

Bradi: No, don't you see? With more gum chewing there would be more gum-throwing, too, just like in Mr. Arizo's class!

Mrs. Cali: Okay, class, settle down! Now, I'm prepared to compromise. If you want to chew gum, I'll give you a permission slip to do so in my room if I think you aren't the sort to abuse it. If you mis-behave, then I'll take away your permission slip. This is something that several other classrooms do.

Wayne: We shouldn't have to get a piece of paper to exercise our right! Besides, the bad guys won't bother with it and will still chew.

Rick: And who says you're the right person to judge us? It's too subjective!

Mrs. Cali: Rick, no one is a better judge of your behavior than me, in my classroom. And Wayne, this way I can keep track of who is exercising their right appropriately.

Rick: I'd feel very uncomfortable having the faculty keep track of me this way. They'd put me on some secret list and when they decide to ban gum they'll know to track me down, bust down the door of my locker and take all my gum away from me! They'll have to pry my gum from my cold, dead hands!

Mrs. Cali: Don't be so melodramatic and paranoid, Rick!

Wayne: If you issue a permission slip, that's one more I'll have to have, and I have to keep track of them all when I go from class to class. Plus their requirements differ widely. How many permission slips am I going to have to deal with? There should be only one permission slip required, and it should be as permissive as possible, like from Mr. Arizo.

Bradi: No way! A student like Tommy could get a slip from Mr. Arizo very easily, even though he's shown a tendency toward gum violence here in Mrs. Cali's class!

Wayne: I'm going to go to the Student Council and appeal your decision, Mrs. Cali! Gum chewing is a right and therefore shouldn't be regulated at all.

Bradi: They'd be insane to listen to you! Our school is far too lax about controlling gum. Other schools have almost no incidents of gum violence compared to us! Whether it's a right or not, it needs common sense regulation to reduce the rate of gum-throwing!

Mrs. Cali: Enough! For now my rule stands and ....

[Suddenly there is an argument outside the classroom door, then screaming as a boy throws gum into the hair of a girl. Students rush to the door to watch.]

Bradi: Oh! Will the madness never end? We have to do something!

Rick: If only the girl had had gum of her own to protect herself!

Wayne: It's her right to do so, you know!

Mrs. Cali: Okay, class, go back to your desks.... And Rick, spit out your gum!

Rick: (spits gum into the trash, then mutters) Gum-grabber!

[The End]

Responses To My Question About Pro-Gun Feelings About Background Checks For Private Sales

2011-12-04T11:12:00.001-08:00

A couple days ago, I asked those of you who are pro-gun and have sold guns privately how, without a background check, you made sure you weren't selling to someone who would fail a background check, and would it bother you to know that you might be an unknowing accessory to a shooting crime.

Thank you, to those who answered. I'm disappointed that only a few of you did so. A couple hundred of you chose not to answer. So I went to some of the pro-gun blogs to look at repostings of my question and the comments people left there, as well. Here are some links to those:

http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/12/02/you-ask-we-answer/

http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4736

http://www.dailypundit.com/2011/12/03/buying-and-selling-guns/

So, here is what you had to say:

The most common response was that you only sell to those you know or that carry a concealed carry license. Selling only to someone you know personally and who won't abuse their right is a responsible thing to do, and I approve. Using a concealed carry permit is a good second choice. You assume that, since they passed a background check to get the permit and haven't had it revoked that they are safe. Generally you're probably correct. The problem is that not all violent crimes result in the withdrawal of conceal carry permits, and those crimes vary widely from state to state, and I wonder about the comparative speed of reporting to the NICS background system compared to the speed of removal of the certificates from the offenders. Of course, you are also discounting the majority of gun owners, who don't have a CCL. Running a background check takes only 5 minutes in Oregon.

Another choice that a couple of you mentioned is that you would approve of a firearms owner identification card as a stand-in for background checks, like Illinois' FOID card. This is updated quicker than most CCLs and is controlled by law enforcement. I could go for this. This is something which I feel is very promising and is a fine compromise. Personally, the 5 minute background check is probably more reliable in my mind, but at least you wouldn't have to go to a FFL to be reasonably sure the person you are selling to is safe. Also, almost no states have such a card and would need to spend quite a bit of money to implement it. Now, the usual paranoia applied to some who felt unhappy with having government oversight at all, but this is true for CCL too. (to you guys, I think you need to get over your "tyranny paranoia", fellas.)

A couple of you suggested using other, publicly-available internet background check programs, of which there are several out there. Just be aware that they may have very different databases they pull from and might not include all of those reported to the federal background check system or be updated frequently. Fees will vary, too. But, it's better than nothing, right? I didn't get the feeling that anyone actually does this, including the couple who suggested it.

There's also the suggestion that the federal NICS background check system be available to anyone, online. I think there are some serious privacy issues there. I think many people would feel uncomfortable having their private background information available to just anyone. For now, I'd say let law enforcement have exclusive access.

A handful of you simply expressed scorn at having a background check at all (one wrote "Who fucking cares?", one suggested repealing as many rules as possible, and another said flatly "I assume all I sell to are honest."). To those few I say that you are playing a dangerous game with people's lives, for your own benefit.

Several of you who said you would only sell to those who show you a CCL card also suggested this is common practice. I hope so, but I know for a fact that many times (if not most times), private sales take place without one. Consider, for instance, online sites where private sellers offer their weapons online, for my city and region, for everything from hunting rifles to pistols to semi-auto assault rifles. Here's a sampling:

http://www.armslist.com/classifieds/eugene-oregon/guns

http://pnwguns.com/guns/

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/content/

Almost all of the listings for sales in those links are from private sellers, and not a single one I could find said in their add that they were screening the buyer in any way whatsoever.

My personal preference would be that the buyer and seller go through an FFL for the sale. In Oregon, this would require the filling out of a form, a small fee (I've heard a cost between $14-$20), and a 5-minute (literally, in nearly all cases) phone background check. It's a system that is already in place, unlike a FOID-like card, is updated much quicker, and is relatively speedy. If someone is already shelling out $200-$1000 for a firearm, I doubt that small fee would prevent the sale, nor a quick jaunt over to the nearest FFL.

So that's the legal issues, but many of you followed up your reply with a comment basically saying (and I'm paraphrasing), "I'm not legally bound to be concerned about how the buyer is going to use his weapon, and I don't have a moral obligation to be concerned, either." Some of you went on to compare the unknowing sale of a gun to a potential killer as being of no more concern than unknowingly selling a car to a drunk driver or gasoline to someone who would burn up victims tied to a mobile home or something. In other words, once the gun sale is done, you wash your hands of it and sleep with a good conscience, just as you would selling any other item.

Sorry, I'm not letting off the moral hook that easy. It's true you have no legal obligation. But when you sell a lethal weapon, don't you feel you should do all you can to prevent it from falling into criminal hands? When I sell a car, I get the buyer's license information. If they don't have a driver's license, I wouldn't sell. It's that simple (comparable to the CCL or FOID card check for guns). Of course, if someone has a driver's license it doesn't mean they're safe drivers, but at least I've done that small part. If I didn't do at least that amount of checking, I don't think I'd be able to sleep afterward. How could you? If there were a 5-minute background check system that would exclude sales to those who have a history of dangerous or impaired driving, you bet I'd be a supporter of it. Wouldn't you?

There is currently a bill in the U.S. Senate to tighten background checks, improve reporting to the NICS system, and to require a check for all private sales. I'm a supporter of this. Here's a good recent article on this:

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142369477/gun-violence-survivors-push-for-tighter-restrictions

Question for Pro-Gun Folks: Background Checks for Private Sales

2011-12-01T15:39:00.000-08:00

Here's a question for you pro-gun folks....

You know I'm a strong advocate for requiring an instant background check for all sales, including private sales. Currently, in most states (including Oregon, where I am), for a gun owner to sell a used gun, the sale can proceed without any oversight at all, unlike sales from licensed firearms dealers. There's no requirement for a background check, ID, paperwork, or any questions at all. It's just cash-and-carry. That means that anyone can buy the gun, including felons, dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, sexual predators, people with warrants out for their arrest, people convicted of a major assault, or any other class of people who would be excluded for a sale from a licensed firearms dealer, and they won't be caught, and the seller would probably never know the difference.

So here's my question to you pro-gun folks: When you sell a gun to a private buyer you don't know, how do you know the buyer doesn't fall into one of those categories? Do you care at all if you may be unknowingly abetting a shooting crime?

"The Interrupters"

2011-11-30T00:38:00.000-08:00

With the recent passing of Rob Ingram, now is a good time to mention a recent independent documentary that is showing at theaters around the country right now.

A couple weeks ago, the Bijou Arts Theaters here in Eugene, Oregon showed "The Interrupters." This is a documentary which focuses on the work of a non-profit group, Ceasefire Chicago (which isn't affiliated with Ceasefire Oregon, despite the name).

The goal of Ceasefire Chicago is to treat gang violence like a public health disease. Ex-gang members, who have done time and seen the errors of their ways, go out on the streets and find out where there are flare-ups in gang violence. They then insert themselves, acting to mediate the violence and bring understanding between the two sides, preventing further violence and saving lives. They don't ally themselves with one side or the other, and they don't work for the police. In this way they are trusted by the gang members they are trying to save. Further, they stay with the people they mediate, long-term, working to reduce the behaviors that led to the initial confrontation. These ex-gang members are called "Violence Interrupters."

The film follows a number of these Violence Interrupters as they go about their mediations, peering into their lives and what led them to this heroic work, and the way it is working. Rob Ingram, having been a gang member in his youth, and having turned around and then led Portland's Office of Youth Violence Prevention, was very much like one of these Violence Interrupters. It's a hard business, and success is never guaranteed.

I am very thankful to the Bijou Theater for showing "The Interrupters", for allowing me to briefly address one of the audiences, and allowing Ceasefire Oregon to have an information table in their lobby during the showings. I had some good conversations with viewers of the film, afterward, and we got at least one new volunteer. With the rise of gang activity and shootings in Eugene, gang violence is increasing a factor here as well. Members of Ceasefire Oregon are actively involved in the Portland Gang Taskforce meetings; we may well need to have a presence on such a team in Eugene.

The pro-gun side likes to blame America's distressing gun crime statistics on gangs and drug dealers, so maybe this program is something that they can see as a solution to the problem, particularly since it isn't a program that emphasizes disarming the gang members.

Of course, interrupting the violence is only one part of an overall package of things that need done to reduce gang shootings. We must also do what we can to limit the availability of guns to gangs and criminals in the first place (such as by requiring background checks for private sales and doing more to stop gun trafficking), more support for organizations that work to reduce urban poverty, unemployment, and under-education (such as the United Way), better funding of police forces, and perhaps stricter sentencing for violent criminals.

I urge you to see "The Interrupters" if you get a chance. More cities need to have such an organization.

Portland Loses A True Leader

2011-11-28T18:14:00.000-08:00

An important message from Ceasefire Oregon....

Dear Friends,

We are shocked and saddened to hear of the passing of Rob Ingram, director of Portland's Office of Youth Violence Prevention. Rob was a friend to Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, as well as a personal friend to many of our supporters and board members.

Rob Ingram was a gift to Portland. He reached out to young people to help them follow a path that would improve their lives. He listened to our youth. He listened to all of us. He was always ready to lend a hand to anyone who needed it.

I saw Rob every other Friday at the Gang Violence Task Force meeting. He always brought with him his indomitable energy, his endless patience, and his deepest compassion for all people in all walks of life.

His bright and ready smile will be missed forever.

He ended our meetings by saying, "Let's get to work!" I have a feeling that his true task has now just begun, so in his absence, let us now look to each other to lend a shoulder to our work and a hand to those in need.

We send our deepest sympathies to Rob's wife and five children. He spoke of them all with happiness and pride and a deep, unending love that made his eyes sparkle.

All of our lives are better now because of Rob Ingram.

Thank you, Rob. We all miss you.

Penny Okamoto

Executive Director

Ceasefire Oregon

A related article, from Oregon Public Broadcasting: http://news.opb.org/article/ingram-remembered-man-wit-and-wisdom-mayor/

Ceasefire Oregon strongly opposes the National Right-to-Carry-Act of 2011, H.R. 822.

2011-11-16T11:19:00.000-08:00

We've just learned that the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives for the "Packing Heat on Your Street" bill (H.R. 822) is happening today.

H.R. 822 is so extreme it would allow dangerous, violent people from outside your state to carry loaded guns in your state, and your state would be powerless to stop them.

This drastic proposed law, called the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” (H.R.822), would override state laws and put our communities and police officers at unnecessary risk.

States should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms inside their borders. State, local, and tribal governments must maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities.

IGNORING STATES’ NEEDS

State legislatures have decided their own standards for who can carry a loaded, concealed gun in their communities. For example:

38 states do not issue permits to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, like assault or sex crimes.
36 states do not issue permits to people under the age of 21.
35 states require gun safety training to prove competency with a firearm.

Today, each state has the right to make its own decision about whether to accept other states’ concealed weapon permits. Some states have decided to not allow concealed weapon permits from other states whose laws were deemed too lax to protect public safety.

Nevada does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by Utah and Florida.
New Mexico does not recognize carry permits issued by Utah.

This legislation would eliminate all of these standards, reducing concealed carry permitting to the weakest state law imposed by Congress as a federal mandate.

PUTTING POLICE AT RISK

Every sheriff and police officer in the country would have to honor concealed carry permits from all 50 states – if they could verify the validity of each state’s different type of permit.

More than 600 mayors, major national and local police organizations, and domestic violence prevention organizations oppose national concealed carry reciprocity. Congress rejected similar legislation in 2009.

THESE ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE H.R. 822:

-- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

If H.R. 822 were to become law, our state would no longer be able to make its own decisions about who can carry a hidden, loaded gun in public. Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers, criminals with violent arrest records, and people with absolutely no training could be granted a concealed gun permit in another state, and our state would have to honor it.

-- American Bar Association

The American Bar Association opposes federal legislation that would force states to recognize permits or licenses to carry concealed weapons issued in other states.

-- International Association of Chiefs of Police

“H.R. 822 would severely undermine state concealed carry licensing systems by allowing out of state visitors to carry concealed firearms even if those visitors have not met the standards for carrying a concealed weapon in the state they are visiting. For example, some states require a person to show that they know how to use a firearm or meet minimum training standards before obtaining a concealed carry license. These states would be forced to allow out of state visitors to carry concealed weapons even if they do not meet that state’s concealed licensing standards.”

-- Mayors Against Illegal Guns

This bill would override the laws of almost every state by forcing states to accept concealed handgun carry permits from every other state, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling. That policy would undercut states’ rights and create serious problems for law enforcement.

-- National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)

-- National Latino Peace Officers Association

-- Police Foundation

A RELATED ARTICLE from today's Register-Guard Newspaper: "Stearns’ bill would significantly increase the number of people carrying weapons, increasing the risk to ordinary citizens and police officers."
http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/27151034-47/states-carry-concealed-oregon-gun.html.csp

A RELATED BLOG POST from Mediamatters.org: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111160021

Oppose the the “National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” (HR 822)

2011-11-10T12:47:00.000-08:00

In an effort to push their "more guns in more places for more people" agenda, the pro-gun lobby is working hard to dangerously reduce restrictions on concealed gun permitting, nationwide. It's been a long-time scheme of theirs, and now is the moment when we need to act to prevent it.

Here is the official statement from Ceasefire Oregon on this dangerous bill:

http://www.ceasefireoregon.org/cfo/index.html

The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to pass the “National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” (HR 822). This bill would override the laws of Oregon by requiring us to accept concealed handgun permits from other states even if that out-of-state permit does not require the same safety standards that Oregon requires.

This bill would undercut Oregon's state rights, create serious problems for law enforcement, and weaken Oregon's standards for granting people a license to carry a concealed handgun legally on our streets.

Currently, Oregon's law holds concealed handgun license (CHL) holders to higher standards than many other states. Oregon's requirements include handgun competence, character references, and that the applicant be at least 21 years of age. Oregon prohibits concealed carrying by dangerous criminals, including those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor, such as assault, harassment or driving while intoxicated, in the four years prior to applying for a CHL. Oregon also prohibits people who have an outstanding warrant or are required to register as a sex offender from obtaining a CHL. Many other states do not have these requirements or prohibitions. If HR 822 passes, these dangerous people could legally carry a concealed handgun in Oregon.

HR 822 would create serious problems for law enforcement. It will be very difficult to determine the validity of permits from all states because no national database exists to quickly identify those who legitimately hold a concealed carry permit. Permits can be easily forged. In addition, this bill would enable criminal traffickers who have concealed carry permits from other states to cars full of loaded guns into states with higher standards, like Oregon.

Some argue that a national concealed carry permit would be just like a driver's license, but that is not true. To obtain a driver’s license, people have to pass a test, prove their competency behind the wheel, and get a photo ID card. They must also register and insure their car. H.R. 822 would impose no comparable safeguards.

Finally, there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home. In Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to defend themselves with a handgun in their own home. The Supreme Court specifically said that reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people are constitutional. Since Heller and McDonald, no federal court that has considered this issue has found a constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public.

During the 2011 Oregon legislative session, Ceasefire Oregon worked to stop a similar concealed carry reciprocity bill. The Oregon legislature recognized the danger of the bill and did not enact it. Now the NRA is trying to force reciprocity on all the states regardless of what each state has decided is best for its citizens.

You can find additional information about the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 at these websites:
http://www.ourlivesourlaws.org/
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1433/

This a link to a New York Times oped piece about the bill http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/opinion/bruni-have-glock-will-travel.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

New poll shows Americans want stronger gun laws. A new poll, taken Jan. 11–13, 2011, shows overwhelming support for several proposed laws to keep guns away from people who cannot lawfully own them. The poll shows that 86% of Americans, including 81% of gun owners, support requiring background checks for all gun sales. 94% of Americans favor requiring the reporting of lost and stolen weapons, a requirement that took effect in Portland this year. 58 percent of Americans support the banning of high-capacity ammunition magazines, while only 36% oppose such a ban. For more information, see the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website or this article by one of the pollsters.

Ceasefire Oregon works to reduce gun violence by advocating reasonable, effective gun laws. We educate the public and legislators about gun violence, lobby on behalf of bills that will help make our communities safer, and work to prevent the passage of bills that would make it easier for dangerous people to obtain and carry firearms.

We abhor the violence. Our thoughts are with everyone affected by all the shootings in Oregon and throughout the world.

About 30,000 people are killed by firearms in this country every year. More than twice as many are injured. This is a public health crisis of staggering proportions. Guns are too easily available to felons, fugitives, kids, and people with serious mental heath problems. To reduce gun violence, we must make it more difficult for people who cannot lawfully own guns to obtain them.

LINK TO THE BILL: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112hr822.pdf

Preventable Hunting Accidents In Oregon

2011-11-09T00:06:00.000-08:00

Here in western Oregon we are more than halfway through the hunting season, and the inevitable list of shooting accidents keep rolling in.

Now, I don't have a big beef with hunting. My dad was a hunter. A young friend of mine has shot two deer this year. If someone wants to go out in the woods and get their macho on from shooting animals to death for food, more power to them. It's a good survival skill, albeit one that isn't needed anymore in America. I'll get my food from the store, thank you. Year after year, more and more people agree with me, as hunting is on the decline in America.

One hopes that hunters are safe, obey the four rules, and identify their prey before shooting. Sadly, wherever there are guns there are gun deaths. Throw in testosterone-filled, trigger-happy men in an environment where ID of prey is more difficult, and you've got a recipe for tragedy.

Sadly, some hunters don't pay enough attention before they shoot. Recently, an active Marine was shot dead while hiking. The shooter mistook him for a bear. The hunter bears 100% of the responsibility for pulling the trigger, and since the hiker wasn't lumbering on all fours, it's pretty hard to mistake a man for a bear. Yet here we are. This doesn't stop pro-gun extremists from blaming the hiker, though (see comments on THIS article) because of his dark clothing. Interestingly, the shooter isn't facing charges. Shucks, just another senseless accident, apparently.

Tragedy can be mediated with commonsense regulation. Requirements for training in order to get a hunting license, for instance. Or the requirement for hunters to wear an orange vest.

Last year the Oregon legislature considered mandating the wearing of orange vests by hunters, as many states do, to reduce the chances of accidental shootings. Sadly, Oregon hunting organizations and pro-gun extremist groups fought the change. Never mind obvious safety concerns; their problem was with government telling them what to do. For example:

While the president of the Clatsop County chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association refuses to wear hunter orange, he is recommending that young hunters do.

"I wear blue," said Wendell Locke. "But I do recommend that the kids wear hunter orange so as they grow up they will be accustomed to it and will wear it the rest of their lives."

Locke, also the vice president of the Oregon Hunters Association, agrees that the bright orange colors are a good step in reducing shooting accidents among hunters, but he opposes the government regulating safety of the activity.

"You can't do anything anymore without the government telling you to do something," Locke said. "I just don't want to get involved with the government."

So, basically, even though he knows wearing orange makes sense to save his life and the lives of children, he's not going to wear it because "I just don't want to get involved with the government." Not much of an example to the youngsters, is he? Well, intelligence isn't a requirement for hunting, I guess.

The bill was passed, but the compromise was that only minors, aged 17 or younger, had to wear orange vests or hats. Free orange hats were even being passed out to them. Adults are free to get themselves killed.

Too bad adults weren't mandated. It might have kept one tragedy from happening. A father was trying to scare deer toward his son while they were hunting. The son, mistaking the father as a deer, shot his father through the chest, injuring him. Luckily he didn't die. The father wasn't wearing orange. His vest was brown.

This year, the Oregon legislature made it legal for hunters on ATVs and motorcycles to ride with a loaded, unlocked firearm while driving -- the only pro-gun measure to be passed this year in Oregon. Never mind the obvious danger of accidental discharge. The pro-gun extremists who pushed the bill scoffed at the idea that hunters could have accidents this way. Yet, today, just such an accident was reported. A son and father were elk hunting and had gotten their ATV stuck on a service road. As he got off his vehicle, the son's rifle discharged, shooting his father in the leg. Luckily no one was killed -- this time. How many more accidents are needed to reverse this dangerous legislation? How many need to die? It's not an issue with Second Amendment freedoms, it's about common sense and safety.

But common sense isn't needed for hunting. Consider the following case from Merlin, Oregon: A man sees a deer in his yard, so he gets his rifle and shoots at it. That's about as redneck as it gets, in my book. Never mind that he's in a residential area. He shot four times and killed the deer. Unfortunately, only 100 yards away, an 11 year-old was shot in the leg by one of the bullets while waiting for his school bus. Oops. Shucks, just another accident. Oh well. What can you do? Right? At least the boy wasn't critically injured. So far the shooter hasn't been charged.

From 1990 - 2009, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife received reports of 170 hunting related firearms incidents of which 32 resulted in fatalities. Over the past 20 years, Oregon has averaged 8.5 incidents per year and 1.6 fatalities per year. From 1990-1994 there were an average of 13.4 incidents and three fatalities per year. From 2005-2009 there was an average of 4 incidents and 0.4 fatalities per year. Looks like we'll be around the same percentages this year.

While you can't make hunters have common sense, you can at least reduce the chances of a mistake with mandated safety rules. It's in the hunters' best interest to support these rules, to improve their image and protect their lives and the lives of those around them.

I'm an outdoorsman, but I'm not going hiking anytime soon. Deer season ends November 30, and bear season ends December 31. I'll wait until the bullets stop flying.

UPDATE (11/14/11): Yet another accidental hunting shooting in Oregon reported today. Elk hunter shoots his friend, thinking him an elk. Of course, the friend wasn't wearing orange, and wasn't required to do so: http://www.kval.com/news/local/133813628.html

UPDATE (11/17/11): The bear hunter is found guilty and charged with criminally negligent homicide for shooting the hiker: http://www.kval.com/news/local/133927573.html

ADDENDUM (12/7/11): A pro-gun group tries to convince people that hunting is really, really, really safe, safer than bowling, golf, or cheerleading -- but laughably ignores information about hunting-related deaths, basically counting a hunting death and a sprained ankle in a sport as comparable "injuries": http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112060033

Anonymous Comments Will No Longer Be Allowed

2011-10-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

My last blog post was about bullies in the gun lobby and how their followers have taken up the same tactics. Sadly, this is something I see almost every day in the comments that come through. It's a sad side-effect that people who promote non-violence, like myself, have to deal with on a regular basis. It's not really surprising, I guess. You can't expect people to be peaceful and civil if they spend so much of their mental energy and time preparing to kill people (self-defense included).

Many of you on the pro-gun side who visit here say you value debate on issues, and yet so many of you post foul and threatening messages, especially as "anonymous". It's cowardly. Folks on the pro-control side don't post such horrible comments. Consider this small sampling, all posted as "anonymous" at New Trajectory. The top one came in this morning:

Anonymous:

"No possession of mine is worth the value of a human life, including scum-sucking dope-head career criminals."

Glad to hear that. There are many local people who already know who you are and where you live.

You wouldn't mind if they showed up and took all your shit, right?

Do you have any cute daughters?

Anonymous:

Should'nt be too hard tracking you down. I have some topics to discuss with you.

See you soon.

Knock knock

Anonymous:

Hey Fag-boy...

Do your children know what a faggot you are? Do they know you drink man-juice?

Do your kids know you butt-fuck corpses?

Take it all in stride fag-bot. CFO is not a legitimate threat. CFO is just you in your mom's basement jacking off into her underwear.

You sick little fuck is simply a source of entertainment for us, and deep down, you know it.

But if walking around town inside a cardboard box makes you feel better about yourself, knock yourself out fag-boy.

Anonymous:

Good thing you live in Oregon Baldi or we would have to beat you into submission, so you could be taught that our rights are not to be infringed.

Anonymous

Hey Baldr, should I refer to you as a fat fucking dick-head or a fat fucking douche-bag cunt???

I had allowed anonymous comments for those who did not have profiles that fit the options. But, clearly, those who would abuse that option have overwhelmed those who would not. So, from this point forward, no anonymous comments will be allowed. If you can't man-up enough to put your ID on a comment, then it isn't worth posting anyway.

Gun-Bullies Fear Peaceful Protest

2011-10-27T00:49:00.000-07:00

The CEO and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association is quoted as saying "The guys with the guns make the rules." It wasn't a statement about the philosophy of our Founding Fathers. It was a threat, leveled against our politicians and the American people. It was his way of claiming that the NRA and their followers had the political muscle and the lethal arms necessary to bully their way into our laws and push their extremist pro-gun propaganda.

And his followers took it to heart, just as they do the other bumpersticker slogans of the NRA.

I am reminded of this when I read a recent post over at the Common Gunsense blog, where the author illustrates how extremist gun guys gather at Tea Party rallies, brandish assault rifles and pistols, and claim dominance where they have none, while the police looked the other way and media glamorized their violent message. A conservative pundit claimed that gun control advocates "cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. (laughter) I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with." If these things aren't armed threats, I don't know what is. Could you imagine if people showed up at any other sort of event with weapons like that? A school play? A football game? A county fair? There would be outrage! And yet, for some bizarre reason, people are willing to accept it at political rallies.

Recently a gun guy with a concealed carry license infiltrated an Occupy Portland camp, and when the protestors objected to him filming inside their tents, he brandished his handgun at them in a direct threat of force, several times. Is this what the NRA CEO had in mind when he said "the guys with the guns make the rules?" Does this excuse the man from using his weapon to threaten people? A commenter at Common Gunsense seemed to think so, and even suggested the man should have baited the protesters into attacking him so he could shoot them.

Really, it boils down to the flawed "insurrectionist" interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA and their extremists think our Founding Fathers wrote the 2A not to provide for state-supervised militia armies, but rather to allow for common people to overthrow the government whenever they feel things aren't what they want! So they hide their fetish for guns behind this belief that only the threat of rebellion keeps our government from become a tyranny, or communism, or whatever. Like all bullies, they justify the use of fear and the threat of violence.

But our government isn't a tyranny, it's a democracy, and if a majority of citizens aren't pleased with their representatives, they get voted out. The Founding Fathers intended it to be a peaceful transition based on reason, not force, and actively put down rebellions in their time (like the Whiskey Rebellion).

Really, what the NRA and their extremist pals fear the most, like all bullies, is that peaceful protest and non-violent transition will negate the need for force and render moot their justifications for violent talk. Like the guy in Portland, they just can't handle the fact that peaceful protesters can change our government, making null and void the flawed insurrectionist argument. They mock our message of non-violence, try to smear it, and attempt to infiltrate it, but brandishing weapons and posting fake photos won't fool the American people into believing. Peace worked in the 70's with the hippie movement. It worked in India, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and other countries. It worked recently in Egypt and Tunisia. It's working in Jordan and Syria and Yemen. It works with every election in America. And it's working now with the Occupy movement. You don't need a gun to make a difference.

So, do "the guys with the guns make the rules?" No, not in a civilized nation, and we won't let them. We won't vote them into office. We won't listen to their lies. We'll call them out when they spout violence.

Another Successful Gun Turn-In

2011-10-24T23:50:00.000-07:00

One of the goals of the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation is to sponsor gun turn-ins, where members of the public can bring unwanted firearms to be disposed of voluntarily, no questions asked, and redeem the guns for $50 gift certificates to Fred Meyer grocery and department store. These are gun owners who, for whatever reason, no longer feel safe having a gun in their home. Older people who can no longer safely use their weapons, or whose spouses died and they don't feel comfortable using them. People who have family members who are depressed or violent. New parents with children. People with guns that are no longer in good shape. Or simply people who need that little bit of cash to get by. Whatever the case, they can hand over their guns for gift certificates and the police department will take possession of the guns and destroy them, all without adding to the flood of weapons in our community.

Last weekend was the second gun turn-in this year in Portland, with forty guns handed over (We collected 13 rifles, 6 shotguns, 21 handguns, 3 pellet guns, and some ammo). We were happy to have cooperation and funding from the city (Thank you, Mayor Adams!) and the Portland Police Department. Combined with the last two turn-ins in December 2010 and April 2011, that comes to over 400 guns. Over the last 16 years of gun turn-ins, 7,564 firearms have been removed from our streets and homes!

HERE is a link to an article in the Oregonian newspaper on this week's turn-in event.

Portland Police Officer James Escobar (right) and Reserve Officer John Kirby (center) process two rifles and two handguns turned over Saturday to Ceasefire Oregon, while Cadet Daniel Nguyen begins the paperwork. The owner of the four guns said he no longer felt comfortable having them in his house since becoming a father.

One of the patrons at this week's event, Ken Pyburn, turned in a couple .22's to pay for his Thanksgiving turkey. From the article:

The Portland resident also is not opposed to guns. Rather, as far as he's concerned, the .22-caliber handgun and a .22 rifle he donated are too small to be of much use.

"I'm an old Army guy, a military policeman," he said. "Believe me, I know what it takes in a self-defense situation."

But Pyburn has no use for the powerful National Rifle Association and its anti-gun control agenda. "I'm not anti-gun, but I am anti-NRA," he said. "There's no practical way to keep guns off the street without a national registration system."

(It's interesting to note that on the same page where this article was printed in the Oregonian were news briefs on shootings that had taken place the day before: a deadly hunting accident (where a man mistook a hiker for a bear), a gang shooting, a bus stop shooting, and a suicide by gun. There were a total of three gang shootings this past weekend in Portland. A few days before, there was also a man with a conceal carry permit brandishing a gun against protestors at the Occupy Portland gathering.)

Of course, like all the gun turn-ins, there are the pro-gun extremists who turn out at the entrance to the event to hassle anyone who attends, hollering at people who come to turn in their guns, offering to pay big money for their weapons. Some convince the patrons to sell them their guns. But the real reason the extremists are there, of course, is just to protest our attempts to remove weapons from the streets and from those who might abuse them. These are the people who want more guns for more people in more places, at any cost, and fight to remove commonsense controls. Their answer to gun violence is to add more guns to our community and oppose any measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, children, or the dangerously mentally ill.

Like myself and many who work to reduce gun-related violence, our organizers understand the value of removing guns from homes where they can be abused. Consider the facts:

Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, 1992, p. 467; Wiebe, p. 771).

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3 (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).

Again from the Oregonian article:

Back at the Ceasefire Oregon collection point, organizer Liz Julee expressed a much different sentiment. The native of western Kentucky said she's lost five family members over the years to gun violence. Four uncles and cousins were shot in various disputes, domestic squabbles or hunting accidents. Her clinically depressed mother used one of the family's hunting rifles to commit suicide.

"Her name was Helen Bridges, she was 48," Julee said. "I do this work in her honor."

If you have a gun in your home that you need to discard, you don't have to wait until the next gun turn-in. Most police departments will take them, free of charge (but without giving you a gift card, of course), and most of those departments destroy those weapons.

Sources for statistics:

Harvard School of Public Health: Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Homicide – Suicide – Accidents – Children and Women, Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, 2009, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Kellermann, Arthur L. et al., “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership,” New England Journal of Medicine, 327(7) (1992): 467-472.

Kellermann, Arthur L. MD, MPH, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 329(15) (1993): 1084-1091.

Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD. “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82.

Pro-Gun Extremist Hero Jailed For Gun Crime

2011-10-16T01:19:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I got another anonymous threat posted as a comment to this blog, this time threatening to hunt me down at home. Yawn. This dufus didn't even know what city I live in. To Mr. Anonymous, please note that, like all comments sent to me, I now have your IP address. This is yet another example to me that people who spend their time and mental energy preparing themselves to kill people are all too often only a shade away from being criminals themselves.

The pro-gun crowd likes to pretend that only hardened criminals and gangbangers are shooting up our communities, insisting that those who have concealed weapons permits don't murder people. They portray themselves as absolutely law-abiding, patriotic, and only interested in self-protection.

And yet, all the time, I see reports of previously law-abiding gun owners who commit gun-related crimes, including murder, with those guns they supposedly purchased for self protection. This includes concealed carry permit holders.

According to the Violence Policy Center, more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. "They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events," says the center's Kristin Rand. "The idea that you're making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts."

It doesn't help the pro-gun extremists' case when one of their own is arrested for a gun crime. Representative Curry Todd was arrested this week for driving drunk while carrying a loaded handgun in his car. This is particularly interesting since Todd was the sponsor of a bill to allow concealed carry guns in bars in Tennessee. He swore that those who have concealed firearms would never be the sort to get drunk while carrying. 'Cuz, you know, people wouldn't drink in bars! What could possibly go wrong when you combine guns and alcohol in bars?

Adam Dread, a Nashville attorney who formed a coalition to fight Todd on the law, called the arrest "poetic justice."

"He spent all his time arguing that as a permit holder that we don't violate the law, we're responsible and of course we would never drink when we had our guns, and then be arrested for the very thing that he was out there clamoring about is a little bit of poetic justice if you will," Dread said in an interview on NewsChannel5.com.

And, gee, wouldn't you know that Todd is also the chairman of the newly-formed House Firearms Taskforce? He promptly resigned from that position. Apparently the taskforce has now been cancelled. Hmm.

"This is only the latest example of the dangers of guns carried in public and underscores the futility of trying to predict who will act responsibly and who will ultimately endanger public safety,” says Kristen Rand of the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center.

If one of the heroes of the pro-gun movement can't keep himself clean of gun crimes, what does it say for the others?

Image taken from HERE.

Accessories for the Gun Fetishist

2011-10-10T23:07:00.000-07:00

Back in July I posted a blog entitled "You're Probably A Pro-Gun Extremist If ...." which listed some very good indicators that you may fall into that category. I consider it a public service. To treat a problem you first have to realize you have a problem, right?

Well, another sign that you may be a pro-gun extremist is if you have paraphernalia proudly displayed around your home which advertises your fetish for guns. No, I'm not talking about NRA hats or bumper stickers, or that nicely displayed collection of antique six-shooters, or the new laser sight you bought. I'm talking about everyday items that now have to have a gun theme, items which proudly proclaim, "Guns are in my everyday thoughts! Come to my home, where everything should be gun-related!"

For instance, lighting. Here's a great gallery of lamps which feature guns as the stand. Name your category, they have it: Tommy guns, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, assault rifles. Some are chrome, others golden. One even states at the base, "Happiness is a hot gun." Ah, nothing says "cozy home furnishings" more than that! And here's a gun lamp that goes even further. Just aim the gun and pull the trigger and the lamp turns off, knocking the shade askew. Yay! Now you can live out a snippet of your home invasion fantasy every time you fall asleep. Sweet dreams!

And you can wake up to your home defense fantasies, too, with a shooting alarm clock! In fact, there are TWO to choose from. One is sorta old fashioned, with a gun that is actually attached to the clock. But more impressive is this newer one with a pop-up target, which has "bang" sounds, a countdown for shooting, and a voice that tells you how excellent your shooting was. Heck, nothing is better to wake up to than gunfire, right?

Once you're awake, it's time to get dressed. Put on your Ted Nugent shirt and NRA cap... but wait! What about the shoes, ladies? Why, now you can get stylish with these pumps that feature handguns as the high heels! There's plenty of styles to choose from. And where will you hide your concealed firearm? Putting it in your purse is so passé. How about in your bra? Yes, with the Flashbang holster, you can put your small semi-auto handgun in the front between your breasts. With a hand up your shirt and a quick-release, you can be defending yourself in style! As they say, "Nothing comes between a woman and her gun!" And for those who fumble, it doubles as a do-it-yourself mastectomy kit, too!

Now it's time to step out for a quick smoke. No self-respecting gun owning smoker would be without a gun lighter, right? Aw, aren't they cute? Now you can light up while, at the same time, proclaiming your love of fire AND firearms! Shucks, why not go all out and get one that looks like the real thing? What's the harm in it? Of course people DIE because they mistake real guns for lighters. Like this case, or this one, or this one. Eh, who cares? It's not illegal or immoral for such things to be made. We've got our rights, you know! And you're smokin' in style, too!

But even if you shoot yourself to death with your real-gun-you-thought-was-a-lighter, you can even express your gun fetish after your death! You could, for instance, have a coffin made out of smashed guns. But I think a more touching expression of your gun fetish would be to pack your ashes into live bullets. Yes, that's right, for one low, low price of $850 you can have your ashes put into 250 shotgun shells. Said one of the turkey-hunting inventors about what his friends could do with his ashes and what they would think, "He could rest in peace, knowing that one more turkey, the last thing he saw, was Clem screaming at him at 900 feet per second." Or you could go with 100 high-caliber rounds, or pistol rounds, etc. Heck, they could have a 21-gun salute at your memorial service and have people shoot you sky-high. Glamorize guns even after you die! Nothing says you love Second Amendment rights, to whatever extreme, more than the combined smell of gunpowder and human remains.

Oregon Should Ban Guns On Public College Campuses

2011-10-07T11:00:00.000-07:00

Continuing on the topic introduced in a previous post....

This op-ed by Ceasefire Oregon was published on October 4, 2011,
without footnotes, on page B7 of The Oregonian and at

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/student_safety_oregon_should_b.html

We have added the footnotes below.

Oregon should ban guns on public college campuses

A long-standing ban on guns on Oregon public college campuses was overturned by the Oregon Court of Appeals on September 28. The court held that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education lacked the necessary legal authority to regulate firearms on Oregon college campuses. The court’s decision was on a narrow and technical legal issue, but it left more than 90,000 students suddenly vulnerable to an influx of firearms on campus.

Guns on college campuses pose a significant risk to college students. Research shows that gun-owning college students are more likely than other students to engage in risky behavior (including binge drinking), use cocaine or crack, be arrested for a DUI, vandalize property, and get in trouble with police.¹ Rather than offering a measure of protection, gun ownership among students is associated with behaviors that are likely to put the owners and others at risk for injury. A drunken college party is a risky place; a drunken college party with a loaded gun is much more dangerous.

Suicide is another major risk that guns pose to college students. Over 1,000 college students commit suicide each year, and an additional 24,000 attempts are made.² Last spring, the University of Oregon’s Daily Emerald reported that 55 percent of college students consider committing suicide. (“Learning to Cope,” Oregon Daily Emerald, April 22, 2011.)

Restricting access to lethal means significantly reduces the risk of impulsive suicide.³ Nine out of ten people who survive a suicide attempt will not die by suicide later in life.⁴ But if a gun is used in a suicide attempt, more than 90 percent of the time it is fatal, compared with a 3 percent fatality rate for suicide attempts by drug overdose.⁵ Some campus gun owners may be well-trained and responsible, but a friend or roommate’s gun can be as lethal as one’s own. Keeping guns off campus gives students time to reconsider.

Personal weapons do not provide meaningful protection against the horrific school shootings that have grabbed headlines in recent years. Reacting under the extreme stress of a school shooting, the civilian shooter poses a grave threat to students and staff, who can be caught in the crossfire. Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20 percent of the time.⁶ In a survey of over 400 campus police chiefs, 86 percent of them disagreed or strongly disagreed that "allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus would prevent some or all campus killings."⁷ That opinion is shared by Colin Goddard, a student survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, who experienced firsthand the chaos of a campus shooting.⁸

Gov. John Kitzhaber and the Oregon Legislature need to act immediately to ban guns in Oregon public schools. Guns on campuses pose an elevated and unacceptable risk to students and staff at all educational levels.

UPDATE (10/14/11): An article from Lane Community College's newspaper, The Torch, with a comparable argument: http://www.lcctorch.com/2011/10/13/firearms-have-no-place-on-campus-period/

UPDATE (11/8/11): The Oregon University system chooses not to appeal the ruling for now: http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/11/oregon_university_system_will_1.html

Footnotes:

1. Miller, Matthew, David Hemenway, and Henry Wechsler, “Guns and Gun Threats at College,” Journal of American College Health 51(57) (September 2002):62–64; Miller, et al., “Guns at College,” Journal of American College Health 48(7) (1999).

2. Cintron, Miriam, “College Campuses Grapple with Escalating Suicide Rates,” Nearwestgazette.com (on file with Brady Center).

3. Lewiecki, E. Michael and Miller, Sara A., “Time to Reconsider,” Journal of the American Medical Association 305 (11) (March 16, 2011).

4. Owens D, Horrocks J, and House A. “Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm: systematic review,” British Journal of Psychiatry 2002; 181:193–199, at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/index.html#Owens.

5. Miller, Matthew, et al., “Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States,” Journal of Trauma (April 2007):1029.

6. Morrison, Gregory B., “Deadly Force Programs Among Larger U.S. Police Departments,” Police Quarterly 9 (2006):331–332.

7. Thompson, Amy, James H. Price, Adam Mrdjenovich, Jagdish Khubchandani, “Reducing Firearm-Related Violence on College Campuses—Police Chiefs’ Perceptions and Practices,” Journal of American College Health 58(3) 2009:247–254.

8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KDW4g_MvMo.

Ceasefire Oregon works to reduce gun violence. For more information, please visit our website, www.ceasefireoregon.org, or contact us at 503.220.1669 or info@ceasefireoregon.org.

Three Judicial Rulings On Firearms Issues Tuesday

2011-10-05T00:39:00.000-07:00

Normally I try to be focused on one topic in my blog posts, but it's been a busy 24 hours for commonsense judicial rulings regarding gun regulation. Namely, there have been three judiciary decisions of note.

FIRST: A win for our side. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles in D.C., and a ban on high-capacity ammo magazines. As stated in the ruling (LINK) (each paragraph below is taken from different parts of the document):

We hold the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements.

The Committee on Public Safety received evidence that assault weapons are not useful for the purposes of sporting or self-defense, but rather are “military-style” weapons designed for offensive use. See generally Testimony of Brian J. Siebel, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Oct. 1, 2008). The Committee concluded assault weapons “have no legitimate use as self-defense weapons, and would in fact increase the danger to law-abiding users and innocent bystanders if kept in the home or used in self-defense situations."

The District likewise contends magazines holding more than ten rounds are disproportionately involved in the murder of law enforcement officers and in mass shootings, and have little value for self-defense or sport. It cites the Siebel testimony, which relies upon a report of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stating that semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines are not suitable for sporting purposes.

I couldn't agree more. It sets an important precedent for federal law.

SECOND: Another win for our side. A federal court in Lubbock, Texas, ruled against the NRA in their attempt to lower the legal age to purchase handguns from gun dealers from 21 to 18. From the ARTICLE:

Thursday the judge ruled that federal restrictions on gun sales to young person are in fact reasonable and constitutional. Quoting from previous case law the judge ruled, "The Constitution permits legislators to 'draw lines on the basis of age when they have a rational basis for doing so at a class-based level."

Thursday's ruling also says,

Congress identified a legitimate state interest—public safety and passed legislation that is rationally related to addressing that issue.

And what is that "legitimate state interest -- public safety" referring to? It's no doubt referring to the fact that ages 18-20 are PRIME age for gun deaths. Gun-related deaths by homicide and suicide are the number 2 and 3 causes of death in that age range, not too far behind unintentional deaths (where 0.8% were due to firearms). Firearms were used for 84.1% of homicides and 45.6% of suicides (according to CDC WISQARS data for 2008, the last year available). Of the 10,658 reported total deaths, firearms led to 2257 deaths, or about 21.2%.

Compare that to the age range between 21-30, where firearms led to 17.5% of deaths. The next age range, between 31-40, drops even further, to 9.2%.

Similar trends hold for these age ranges for violent crime, as well.

THIRD: A draw. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of concealed carry of firearms without a permit (ARTICLE). It turned down the appeal of a Maryland man who had been charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, caught while supposedly transferring his weapon between homes. From the article:

Maryland countered that the Supreme Court made clear in its 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, that its holding would not undercut the enforcement of reasonable restrictions on guns. Maryland’s permit requirements were reasonable restrictions, the state argued.

And here is the noted statement from the DC v. Heller opinion:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

Based on that statement, I'm rather disappointed the court didn't hear the case. They didn't say so far why they refused the case. Could it be because the court leans toward the conservative side?

Concealed Guns Now Allowed at Oregon Universities

2011-09-30T14:56:00.000-07:00

If you are a college student, how safe would you feel knowing that the people around you on campus may be armed with loaded handguns? In class? At football games? At on-campus parties? In university judicial hearings? Even in campus daycare?

You should be concerned. Among college-aged people (ages 18-30, to include most grad students), 81.5% of homicides and 46.5% of suicides are by firearms. Homicide and suicide are the number 2 and number 3 causes of death in that age range (behind unintentional deaths, where firearms are about 1%) (based on CDC WISQARS data for 2008). Percentages increase if you drop the age to undergrad ages (18-22), and the difference in ranking between accidental and homicide drop dramatically.

Prior to this week, the Oregon university system had a policy against possession of firearms on campus, with the exception of law enforcement. Not anymore.

NRA-sponsored legislative challenges to get guns on campus were rampant across the nation in 2011.

In the words of Paul Helmke, who had directed the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence until recently, “There’s a reason why this kind of wrongheaded legislation has now failed 56 times in 30 states. Parents, faculty, university leaders, and students understand that forcing more guns into more places is dangerous and unnecessary.”

Quoting John Woods, founder of Students for Gun-Free Schools, whose girlfriend was murdered at Virginia Tech: “Guns on campus is an ideological agenda that has been pushed by people who spend little or no time on college campuses, while it is opposed by students, faculty, staff, law enforcement, parents, university administrators, mental health professionals, and the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting.”

College students, administrators, and faculty overwhelmingly oppose guns on campus. As of June 16, 2011, over 275 colleges, universities and associations in 36 states have signed a resolution to keep campuses gun-free and have turned out in large numbers to oppose such laws at legislative hearings.

But the gun lobby’s failed attempts to force institutes of higher learning to accept weapons on their grounds hasn’t stopped them. Instead, they are now searching for judicial avenues around the country.

In 2009, a student at Western Oregon University with a valid concealed weapons permit was caught carrying a concealed handgun on campus against school policy. He was arrested, but the charges were eventually dropped. Nonetheless, the extremist pro-gun lobby group, Oregon Firearms Federation, filed a lawsuit. To illustrate their extremism, they advertise that they are “Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group” who are “fighting the freedom haters in court.” The case went to Appeals court. Now, sadly, the 3-judge panel on the Oregon Appeals Court has made a ruling, overturning the prohibition of guns on university property.

The Oregon State Board of Higher Education hasn’t yet decided if they’ll appeal further.

Here is Ceasefire Oregon’s official statement on the ruling:

September 29, 2011

Ceasefire Oregon Statement on Oregon Firearms Ed. Foundation v. Bd. of Higher Ed.

An Oregon Court of Appeals decision announced on September 28 holds that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education lacks the necessary legal authority to regulate firearms on Oregon college campuses. The court invalidated a longstanding ban on guns on campus but also noted that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with its decision.

Ceasefire Oregon urgently calls on Governor Kitzhaber to seek, and the Oregon Legislature to enact, a legislative ban on guns in Oregon schools. Ceasefire Oregon concurs in the judgment of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators that guns on campuses pose an elevated and unacceptable risk to students and staff.

The pro-gun extremists think you’ll feel more comfortable and safer knowing there are armed people around you to play Wyatt Earp on your behalf. They are also trying to remove or weaken any and all restrictions, including further background checks and training requirements for concealed weapons permits, nationwide. But accidents happen every day, and there are plenty of violent and reactive people out there. Where there are guns, there are gun crimes and accidents.

So the next time you’re at an Oregon football game, on-campus party, or just sitting in class, and someone gets belligerent, drunk, or appears suspicious in some manner, take a moment and wonder if he’s packing a loaded handgun. It’s legal now.

UPDATE (10/4/11): A related article, written by Elise Gautier (Board President of Ceasefire Oregon) and Penny Okamoto (Executive Director): http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/student_safety_oregon_should_b.html

Oregon Legislators Refuse to be Intimidated by the Gun Lobby

2011-09-24T00:02:00.000-07:00

Unlike many legislative bodies elsewhere, the Oregon Senate and a substantial portion of the Oregon House have refused to be intimidated by the gun lobby. Ceasefire Oregon applauds the many legislators who stood up to the gun lobby this year and refused to succumb to its strong-arm tactics. We thank, in particular, Senators Ginny Burdick, Suzanne Bonamici, Jackie Dingfelder, and Floyd Prozanski and Representatives Mary Nolan, Carolyn Tomei, and Tina Kotek. We sincerely thank all the legislators who refused to make it easier to obtain guns or to carry loaded, hidden handguns in our state.

At the behest of various elements of the gun lobby, other legislators introduced 25 bills that would have weakened Oregon’s gun laws, many substantially.

Ceasefire Oregon volunteers carefully tracked these bills throughout the session, conducted extensive research, submitted detailed written testimony against several bills, and attended hearings to testify in person against those bills. We sent email alerts to our supporters urging them to contact legislators about specific bills, and many did. We worked with other community groups on mutual concerns, and we were in regular contact with key legislators.

We are pleased to report great success this session. Once again, the time and energy needed to defeat the dangerous bills meant that we could not advance bills we wanted to enact. But all the time spent working to defeat those dangerous bills paid off.

All those bills were defeated. The gun lobby, in fact, saw only one of its proposals enacted, provisions regarding the carrying of firearms on ATVs, motorcycles, and snowmobiles. Ceasefire Oregon opposed the original bill in principle, but decided early on that due to its limited impact, we would not spend our limited resources working against it. After the language was combined with provisions curtailing the ability of felons to lawfully possess guns under state law, even parts of the gun lobby opposed the bill, which was enacted. All of the gun lobby’s other bills were defeated.

In May the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on whether Oregon should prohibit handguns carried by CHL holders in public schools. A group of Ceasefire Oregon members attended the hearing to demonstrate that sensible gun restrictions have broad public support.

We at Ceasefire Oregon are all volunteers. With your help and support, we will continue to stand up to the gun lobby and work to defeat its many attempts to make guns easily accessible and pervasive.

With additional volunteer help, we could also work to enact positive, common-sense gun laws, such as laws requiring that all gun purchasers first pass a background check, that all guns include chamber load indicators, and that no guns be allowed in certain public places, including schools. Please let us know if you can help.

Bullet Trajectory is The Shortest Path Between Tucson and Norway

2011-09-14T11:48:00.000-07:00

(Today we have a guest blogger: Penny Okamoto. Penny is a longtime volunteer and, until recently, Executive Director, for Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation.)

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords courageously returned to Washington D.C. on August 1 to vote to avoid government loan default. The Congresswoman is making a remarkable recovery from an assassination attempt that left six dead and 12 others injured by Jared Loughner, a maniac wielding a Glock with high capacity magazine clips.

In Norway, just ten days before Ms. Gifford’s return to Congress, another maniac wielding a Glock with high-capacity magazine clips, Anders Breivik, sadistically gunned down 68 people.

Seventy-four people dead on two continents, killed with high capacity magazine clips bought legally from one country: the United States.

It’s difficult to determine how many others worldwide have lost their lives to guns outfitted with high-capacity ammo clips between January and July, but seventy-four is an embarrassment to America.

If Congresswoman Gifford’s colleagues sincerely wish to help her and the victims of the Norway massacre then they should pass laws banning all sales of high-capacity guns and magazine clips.

Let’s put lives ahead of politics and pocket change.

Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation send our deepest condolences to the victims of all gun violence.

Putting 9/11 And Gun-Related Deaths In Perspective

2011-09-11T01:19:00.000-07:00

On September 11, 2001, I had gone through my morning routine and driven to work as usual. Oddly, I didn't listen to the radio on my way to work. It was when I got to my office and checked in with my coworkers that I learned about the planes hitting the World Trade Center towers. Because I'm on the west coast, I didn't find out about what had happened until after the second plane hit. We watched in horror, along with the rest of the country, as the event unfolded, the fires grew, the jumpers jumped, and the emergency personnel scrambled to save the people in the towers. And then the towers fell, first one, then the other, pancaking in a plume of fire and dust, a windstorm of debris and dust rushing along Wall Street like a sandstorm, and loose paper fluttering through the wind like wayward ghosts.

No work could be done that day, and we went home early. I sat glued to my TV all evening, flag flying outside at half mast, learning all the details and seeing the towers fall, again and again, from a hundred different camera angles across New York. It was the biggest declaration of war ever made, and a blow to those like me who wished for peace in the world. I knew what would be coming next, from G.W. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president", but it surpassed even my jaded worries.

Nearly 3000 people died that day in the event. As a direct result of the tragedy, planes ceased to fly for two days across the nation, a war was launched in Afghanistan which persists to today, another war was launched in Iraq (on false accusations of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and the supposed presence of weapons of mass destruction) which also hasn't yet fully ended, the Department of Homeland Security was created (the biggest bureaucracy ever created in the U.S.), the Patriot Act was enacted, curtailing some of America's freedoms, the TSA was created to presume every air traveler is guilty until proven innocent (with mixed results), and we still live in fear of extremists from beyond our borders (as the precautions in New York today can attest). With all of this in mind, it is an easy argument to make that 9/11 is the one largest, single-day event ever to shape American policy, which cost the most American lives, freedoms, and gross domestic product as a result.

But while we are today mourning the loss of the 3000 who died in 9/11, I ask that you please keep another thought in mind. The United States loses the same number of people to gun violence every 35 days or so. That's around 31,224 people a year -- ten times the number who died in 9/11. Another 66,768 a year are wounded but survive. In the 10 years since 9/11, that equates to around 300,000 killed and 670,000 injured to gunfire on our streets and in our homes (compare that to the 5800 American soldiers who have died in that time in Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Imagine, a million people shot in ten years! But unlike the dramatic results that came after 9/11 -- the wars, the Patriot Act and other legislation, the trillions of dollars spent -- practically nothing has changed to slow the rate of civilian shootings in the U.S. In fact, with cuts to the ATF, the lapse of the assault weapons ban, and numerous state-level legislative changes around the nation to relax gun laws, our nation has only become more dangerous. To the NRA, these alarming numbers are collateral, insignificant compared to a warped sense of Second Amendment freedom.

For instance, those who are listed on the Terrorist Watch List are still permitted to purchase firearms. From a press release by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

An earlier department report indicated that some on the Terrorist Watch List appeared to be making multiple attempts to purchase guns. Some 1,228 purchase attempts through February 2010 were by just 650 individuals. Nearly 70 percent of the individuals (450 of 650) were involved in multiple transactions and six were involved in 10 or more transactions.

In June, a month after the House Judiciary Committee rejected closing the terror gap in federal gun laws, one of al Qaeda’s terrorist recruiters – American-born Adam Gadahn – explained how easy it is to acquire assault weapons in the United States:

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?" [see video in this post]

The NRA has twice fought for, and won, the right for potential terrorists on this list to continue legally purchasing guns.

America has become numb to the daily deluge of shootings on the news. It's a slow drip-drip of American blood which, though far more deadly, hardly garners the attention of a terrorist attack. Make no doubt about it: America is at war, but it is fighting an enemy within: the ease with which criminals are able to get guns. In Oregon, for instance, and most of America, private gun sales require no background check, no ID, and no paperwork. It's just cash and carry. A seller has no way of knowing if the buyer is a felon, an abuser, mentally ill, has a warrant for his arrest, or is even of appropriate age. And since the seller isn't required to check, he isn't held accountable for the sale.

Every life is precious. Is the death of three thousand people by gun any less horrifying and terrible than by plane?

We rightly mark the passing of those in the 9/11 tragedy today with somber remembrance and caution. But tomorrow the flags will be folded, people will go back to work, and the evening news will return to daily reports of death by bullet. After the passage of another 35 days, when we once again match the number dead on 9/11, what will you have done to help prevent gun violence?

(See HERE for a good, related blog post by Dennis Henigan for the need to close the "Terror Gap").

I'm A Great Uncle -- for the Fifth Time!

2011-09-06T22:42:00.000-07:00

I’m happy to report that one of my nieces has just given birth to a healthy 8 ½ pound baby girl, named Addison. Both are doing well after a C-section.

This makes me a great uncle for the fifth time! This is my niece’s third child, and her brother fathered his second back in February. I’m currently at her home in Washington state watching her other kids, and my own, while she’s recovering. Her mom, my sister, will be relieving me in a couple days. It’ll be great to see my sister again.

Makes me feel a bit old. By the time I was born, all my great uncles and great aunts were in their 60’s to 70’s. But then my niece and nephew wasted no time in starting families.

With all the sadness that marks the topic of this blog, I’m always happy to celebrate the wonderful news of new life joining us. Happy birthday, Addison! Let’s hope for a more peaceful future for you, free from gun violence.

Ride the Peace Train

2011-09-01T15:25:00.000-07:00

As I’ve said previously, I greatly enjoy getting out in public and promoting our message of reducing gun violence. It’s a chance to connect with others, the vast majority of the public, who share my concerns and wish to do something about the violence. As I pointed out in my last post, shootings in my area are increasing, year by year, and we have already met the number for last year’s record. All the more reason to engage others.

Last Saturday (August 27) was the parade for the Eugene Celebration, an annual festival held here in Eugene, Oregon, to celebrate the diversity and people of our town. Over the course of three days (Aug 25-28) they close off several blocks of downtown Eugene to motor traffic and set up all sorts of tents and music stages. The parade is one of the highlights of the event.

This year I wasn’t able to get around to setting up a table for Ceasefire Oregon, but I did at least have a car for Ceasefire Oregon in the Peace Train, in the parade. The “Peace Train” is a mock train engine, colorfully decorated, behind which trail a number of wooden train cars, each decorated with the name of a local peace and non-violence organization or chapter. I painted and pushed the car for Ceasefire Oregon. Other cars and marchers represented Million Mom March (which is part of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence), Veterans for Peace, Beyond War, Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC), the Democratic Party of Lane County Peace Caucus, Women in Black, Commissioner Rob Handy, Eugene Mennonite Church, WAND, and others.

I am happy to say that there were also a couple additional volunteers there to march alongside and help with things (thank you!). My two young children rode the entire way inside the engine.

All along the parade route we got constant shouts of encouragement, thumbs up, and peace signs from the crowds. It’s incredibly encouraging. (It was good exercise, too).

HERE is a link to a video of the Peace Train that was made by one of our volunteers (thank you, Neil).

HERE is a link to the official parade video. Go to time 13:41 to see the start of the Peace Train. I didn’t attach a sign well, and it fell off just before that video was taken. Luckily, a volunteer (Neil) carried it alongside at that point.

I’m the guy in white in those videos, pushing the green Ceasefire Oregon car. I look forward to doing this again next year.

I’ll leave you with the song that is the namesake of the Peace Train: “Peace Train” by Yusuf Islam (previously named Cat Stevens): LINK

Peace.

Already Matching Last Year for Shootings Here

2011-08-25T14:19:00.000-07:00

It’s been a very difficult month so far in my area due to gun-related crimes and shootings.

So far this month there have been six armed robberies here, bringing the total to 11 this year – all using guns, of course, as most armed robberies do. Though at least a couple are tied to the same robber, there’s currently no evidence to suggest the others are related. It’s hard to get good data of robberies that involve guns, using the city’s online statistics, but I watch the newspaper and online news reports carefully for my area. This is a huge up-tick in armed robberies for this area, given that there were only two that I can find in all of last year (resulting in what was deemed a self-defense shooting but which may have actually been a drug deal gone wrong). Luckily none of these recent robberies have resulted in injuries or deaths, and none of those who were held up tried to pull a gun of their own (since possessing a gun increases the chance of dying in a gun-related assault, and seeing a gun increases aggression). And how do these criminals get guns, anyway? In Oregon, they can buy from any private seller without the need for a background check, paperwork of any kind, or even showing ID.

Also this month, there was a suicide in Coburg, on the northern edge of Eugene, where a man shot himself to death in a car outside his business. I wonder if the family and friends of this man knew he was suicidal, and if they knew he owned a gun. Most suicides go unreported unless they are public, like this one. So far this year there have been four reported suicides (including two that were murder/suicides). In all of last year there were only two reported here.

And then in Springfield, a man who is a (legal) medical marijuana grower and his friend had been “on the town” when they returned the grower’s apartment. The friend left, but quickly realized he had left his keys in the grower’s car. After banging on the door and getting no answer, the friend helped himself inside through a side door or window. The grower mistook him for someone trying to rob him of his marijuana plants and shot him twice in the leg. The article didn’t say if either of them was under the influence of anything at the time of the shooting, but I think you know my feelings on the idea of medical marijuana users, or anyone under the influence of mind-altering compounds, possessing guns. Though, like suicides, accidental shootings are not always reported, but this makes the third accidental shooting reported this year. There were none reported in all of 2010 and 2009 in my area. Luckily the friend was not killed.

So far this year there have been 12 shootings, already matching the record set last year , and 9 shooting deaths, also matching last year. Shootings tend to have a marked increase in the last few months of the year here, so we are certain to break records this year.

Let’s hope this is the end of this month’s shootings and gun crimes. It’s time to bring some common sense legislation to Oregon’s lax gun laws.

Finally, Back to Blogging!

2011-08-24T00:26:00.000-07:00

You may have noticed I haven't been blogging much in the last few months. I have finally crawled out from under a very lengthy scholarly article for my job, which turned out to be around thirty-thousand words long -- nearly a small book! Once a co-author finishes a small section, I'll finally be able to send it off to the publisher (I had been invited to write for). That, combined with family issues, seriously restricted the amount of time I had for blogging. Too bad I'm not paid to do the gun control activism! There have been SO many issues related to gun violence it has been almost painful to keep from spending my time bringing them to you. Barring unforeseen events, I should be able to get back to it now.

I haven't been idle, though. A small part of my time has been spent planning an event for this weekend, for Ceasefire Oregon, which will coincide with the Eugene Celebration, a yearly festival in downtown Eugene, Oregon, where I live. More on that this weekend.

Every once in a while I peruse the pro-gun blogs to see what they're writing about, so I've done a little of that. It's the usual stuff about how great guns are, how horrible our liberal leaders are, and the usual nonsense about how the government and us "anti-gun cultists" are out to get them. One blogger posted a racist joke, likening Michelle Obama to Cheeta the chimpanzee from Tarzan. Of course I called him out on it, and he tried to deny the connection, as obvious as it is.

Another few bloggers attacked an article about the ASK program (a program which advocates for parents to ask about guns and other dangers where their children play). They belittled the commentator who had advocated for ASK, suggesting that she wasn't concerned about other dangers, like heroin usage in the home (!?) or sex abuse (!), that it's unnecessary because kids will avoid guns just because you tell them to, and actually advocating that you lie to the parents and tell them that you don't have a gun in the home if you really do! I left a comment refuting the ignorance of this blogger. Within a few hours (at 3:30AM!) I get an email from him trying to lure me into a debate about it and warning me that if I didn't do so he would label me a "troll" and bar me from his site. When I finally got around to his site a couple days later, he had posted about me, making fun of my name, suggesting I was fat, belittling my family's training in kung fu (which I had commented on at another site), and labeled me a "troll" because I hadn't gotten back to him, then saying he'd barred me from commenting (even though he's the one who's trolling around at all hours). Well, all I can say is that there's a name for someone who tries to intimidate people, calls them names, makes fun of their names and weight, and makes arrogant and belittling remarks: BULLY. Gee, I wonder why no one posts comments on his site other than his extremist pals?

"Children do have a way of discovering things...."

2011-08-01T01:18:00.000-07:00

I just came back from a very nice two-day vacation, camping with friends and family at the Oregon coast.

Upon my return, though, I am once again reminded of the dangers of guns to children. I found this recent news item of a 10-year old who was visiting the home of his 12-year old friend. The boys entered the bedroom of the 12-year old's parents where they picked up the loaded and unlocked gun that his parents kept bedside "for security purposes." After being handed the 9mm handgun, the 10-year old then accidently shot his friend through the chest. The boy was flown to the hospital, still alive.

“Children do have a way of discovering things and we at the sheriff’s office would encourage all parents with firearms to make their firearms as safe as practical,” Undersheriff Vic Watson said in a written statement.

You don't say? Apparently other guns were locked in a safe, but the parents neglected the fact that ALL children are curious and impetuous to at least some extent, and even one unlocked and loaded gun in the home is too many when children are around. In my opinion, these parents should have all of their guns forcefully removed and be prohibited to purchase another.

It's interesting to note the opinion of one commenter to the article linked above. Says "Mikki":

"this is just stupid! if you have guns in your house make damn sure your kids know gun safety and that they are not toys! My 7 yr old and 3 yr old BOTH know that they ARE NOT TO TOUCH the guns unless it with mom and dad, but they do know the things guns do to living animals and people... GUN SAFETY PEOPLE!"

My son and daughter are 7 and 6. If I only had a dollar for all the times they did things that I had lectured them not to do! I hope "Mikki" doesn't learn the hard way the same lesson learned by the parents of the child in the article. Don't you think the parents gave that talk to their son? Don't you think the son had exposure to guns before this point? I imagine so, on both points.

Among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, 22% of the children, questioned separately, said that they had. But even keeping them locked up isn't a solution. When household guns are kept locked up, youths typically know where the key is kept, the combination, or are able to break into the gun cabinet.

Every day in America at least one child finds a weapon and kills themselves or others. Accidents, suicides, or murder, leaving a loaded gun in a home with a child is a free pass for tragic consequences. If only the parents of the 10-year old had ASKED about guns in the home beforehand. If only the state had Child Access Prevention laws in place, demanding safe storage of guns, which have been shown to reduce fatalities of adults as well as children. But it's too late, now, for this tragedy. Hopefully the boy is recovering okay.

Here is a tune I heard a few days ago on this very subject: "Pumped Up Kicks" by Foster the People. Catchy tune (click on the video to hear it), but read the lyrics:

http://lybio.net/foster-the-people-pumped-up-kicks/indie/

And while I'm on the subject, let me also give this comment: our pro-gun culture glorifies firearms to children, so it's little wonder these boys were drawn to handle the gun. For a "blast" from the past, check out this TV commercial from the 60's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqd5EQXD-g&feature=related

You're Probably A Pro-Gun Extremist If ....

2011-07-07T23:03:00.000-07:00

Pro-gun extremists who occasionally leave comments on this site don't seem to realize how "fringe" they are. They think they are in the majority, despite all the polls that suggest otherwise.

Fellas, the first step in overcoming a problem is to realize you have a problem in the first place. So, in the interest of helping you extremists out there realize you may need counseling, I've compiled a little list for you. If you recognize yourself in there, you might want to put down the AR-15 you're cleaning and call a good therapist.

YOU'RE PROBABLY A PRO-GUN EXTREMIST IF....

1) you think the Second Amendment was written so you could forcefully overthrow your government if you disagree with it.

2) you gave a pink handgun to your pre-teen daughter for her birthday.

3) you think it's perfectly acceptable to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

4) you think a 5-minute background check is an infringement of your rights.

5) you argue that an assault rifle is indistinguishable from a hunting rifle used to shoot deer or elk.

6) you think firearms training should be a required class in grade schools.

7) you call anyone who disagrees with you a "gungrabber," "anti-gun cultist," or "hoplophobe."

8) you argue that the main purpose of a silencer is to protect your hearing.

9) you think children under 18 should have unsupervised access to a handgun "for their protection."

10) you think gun violence statistics shouldn't count accidental shootings, shootings by law enforcement, defensive shootings, gun-related suicides, or pretty much any shooting outside of those that involve gangs or drug dealers.

11) you think a citizen's paramilitary militia should be funded by your state in order to "help law enforcement."

12) you see no problem with allowing people on the terrorist watch list to purchase guns.

13) you accuse any article published in distinguished medical journals as being "biased" if it casts a negative light on firearms, no matter how respected and peer-reviewed the journal may be.

14) you have prepared to resist a home invasion by jackbooted government agents coming to take your guns.

15) you label gun control advocates as "pro-criminal" even though you oppose any measure to prevent guns getting into criminal hands.

June 21 Is National ASK Day

2011-06-21T16:00:00.000-07:00

Today is National ASK Day, when parents are urged to ask about guns and other dangers where their children play. Is there a gun where your children play, in their friends' homes, in the purse of your babysitter, in your relative's home? Are you certain? Have you asked?

And if there is a gun there, is it properly stored, locked and unloaded?

Have you talked to your children about avoiding guns without proper supervision, or what to do when they find a gun?

Here is an excellent article on National ASK Day put out today by womenshealth.gov: http://www.womenshealth.gov/news/english/654092.htm

Here is a previous post I have written on ASK: http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/02/asking-saves-kids.html

And here is an article I recently published on the topic, in Metro-Parent Magazine (see page 28): http://www.metro-parent.com/issues/june11/june11.pdf

(a post I wrote about the article: http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-article-on-ask-campaign-was.html ).

Nearly 40% of homes with children possess firearms, and as many as 14% keep them unlocked and loaded. As a result, accidental shootings by children happen all the time in America. HERE is one example of a recent one (in a home where the father was a shooting instructor, no less).

Can you really afford not to ask? Your child's life may depend on it.

A Table At The Eugene Saturday Market

2011-06-19T00:32:00.000-07:00

I spent most of today at one of my favorite places here in Eugene, Oregon: the Eugene Saturday Market. A landmark for our town, this market covers about a block and has handmade art and crafts ranging from fine pottery to crochet hats, professional photos to tie-dye tutus, jewelry made of precious metals to jewelry made out of woven hemp. There's music, food, and an excellent farmer's market with organic produce, bread, and deserts.

Yesterday was gorgeous, with clear blue skies and warm weather. This morning, as I set out the door, it was cloudy, drizzling, and cold enough that I needed my jacket. My family in Arkansas and Texas are roasting in a heat wave with temperatures around 100. Here in western Oregon, I still contemplate making a fire in the woodstove each night. Go figure. Anyhow, I didn't let it get me down.

I sat at an information table at the Saturday market today for Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation. I set up around 10AM and stayed until around 2:30. I love sharing my story and my mission to reduce gun violence, but the unpleasant weather kept most people away from the market today. Normally the market is so packed that you can't walk past five stalls without bumping into someone. Today, sometimes five minutes would go by at a time without someone walking by. In fact, I think it wasn't until after noon before the patrons of the market actually outnumbered the people in the stalls. Darned rain and cold! I was thankful that the stall I got was covered.

But I didn't let the unseasonable weather get me down. I was right behind the main stage, and heard some great folk and blues music. I also met some very interesting people and had some good conversations. I love people-watching. The market is a great cross-section of the diversity of our community. In a quick scan of the crowd you can pick out hippies and yuppies, homeless and rich people, young kids and old seniors, runaway teens and close-knit families.

One person selling decorative nightlights shared her story with me about her and her husband being attacked by a drugged out intruder at their home. Despite the trauma of the attack, in which they were both injured, she hadn't in any way let insecurity sink into her. Though she is more careful than before, she hadn't felt the need to go pro-gun and arm herself as a result. If she had pulled out a gun, someone likely would have died that day, quite possibly her or her husband. She is thankful the attacker wasn't armed. She signed our email list and told me how supportive she was (and snapped this picture of me).

And then there is the guy in the stall next to me. He was even more to the left of me, politically. But I guess that's to be expected, given he sells far-left postcards and lapel buttons with political messages. We had a good discussion about guns in America compared to the impressions he had heard while in other countries. Foreigners he had talked to think America is awash in gun violence and that we are insane not to regulate guns as they do. I agree. One need only consider the comparative death rates.

I spoke with several dozen people during the day, including a quick visit by Mayor Kitty Piercy and her husband, as well as a homeless guy named "Frog" who sells homemade joke books (he's a regular at the Market, and known by everyone). Like I said, visitors to the Market are a true cross-section!

One other person who stuck out was the lone pro-gun guy who paid me a visit. A 60-something white guy with a Cabella's hat, it wasn't hard to guess his stance before he spoke. He asked what Ceasefire Oregon stood for, and when I told him we work to reduce gun violence in Oregon, he said, voice dripping with condescension, "Sounds an awful lot like you mean gun control."

"Yes," I said, "if by gun control you mean stricter regulation of guns, that is something we support, as well as education about the dangers of guns in the wrong hands."

He scrunched up his face and said, "So you want to ameliorate our second amendment rights, huh?" (He said ameliorate, which is a word that means "improve", but from his tone it was clear that didn't know the meaning of the word and he really meant "remove", or did he mean to say "attenuate"?).

"No," I said, "our goal isn't to remove peoples' second amendment rights, unless they are criminals or mentally ill."

"Uh, huh. You just want common sense regulation of guns," he said with sarcasm.

"That's right," I replied.

With a sly smile he started walking away, as if he had made some point to me. But I got his attention again by mentioning our ASK campaign, where we encourage parents to ask about guns where their children play and how they are stored, to decrease the chance for deadly accidents, as an example of our educational goals. "And who do you ask?" he asked.

"The parents," I replied, then invited him to read a copy of the article I recently published on the topic. I think he was trying to bait me into a discussion about talking to kids about gun control instead of their parents.

"Uh, huh," he said again, as if I were lying about something, then he left without another word, smirking. He didn't take a copy of the article, by the way. ;)

Despite the weather, I would like to thank the organizers of the Saturday Market for allowing us to have the non-profit booth (they allow any given non-profits to have the booth only one time during the summer), and I look forward to sitting there again next year.

And speaking of the ASK campaign, please note that June 21 is National ASK Day. If you have children in their teen years or younger, I urge you to ask about guns wherever they visit, including the homes of their friends and your own relatives, and insure that if there are any guns there that they are kept locked and unloaded during their visit.

Sarah Palin and "Takin' Away Our Arms"

2011-06-08T23:31:00.000-07:00

Leave it to Sarah Palin to turn Paul Revere's ride into a statement about "gun-grabbing." In a wonder of historical revisionism, she stated about Paul Revere, in one of her famous off-the-cuff blunders,

"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

(See the video of her statement HERE). (Another SOURCE).

Later, in trying to defend her earlier comment, she explained,

"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have."

Yes, according to Palin, Paul Revere made his ride not to warn his comrades about the advancing British, but to tell the British they couldn't take away our arms. And, heck, why not throw in a random reference to a "private militia" (Not that private militias were recognized by the nation, the British, or Paul Revere. "Militias" as they were defined at the time were state-organized armies). Ms. Palin, please unload your half-cocked mind and stop seeing the world as if through rifle sights.

HERE is a description of the true events of that night and Revere's real, more patriotic motivations.

I can't claim to be surprised by Palin's revisionism, nor the attempts of her fans to re-write Wikipedia's entry on Paul Revere to match her new history. It's just another predictable pro-gun statement by a public figure who is known for such extremist views. And it makes for yet another semi-entertaining media circus for her to wallow in.

I wonder, if left to her devices, how would Palin further revise history? Hmm.... HERE is one interpretation:

My Article On The ASK Campaign Was Published

2011-06-06T02:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a day of highs and lows.

It started out great. I found out an op-ed article of mine was published in this month's issue of Metro-Parent Magazine, a Portland, Oregon family magazine. The article features the ASK Campaign, the need for safe storage of guns around children, and a quick introduction for the need for Child Access Prevention laws. Here is a link to the issue; see page 28 for my article: http://www.metro-parent.com/issues/june11/june11.pdf

June 18 is National ASK Day. The ASK campaign advocates that parents ask about guns and their storage wherever their children play, such as at a friend's house. For more on the ASK campaign, please see my PREVIOUS POST, or visit the originator of the program, PAX (www.paxusa.org).

It is all too common, I'm sorry to say, that tragedies happen due to ready access of unlocked and loaded weapons by children. Just last week, for instance, a 2-yo boy shot and killed his 6-yo sister after finding a loaded semi-automatic handgun in his father's bedroom. When police responded and searched the home, they found an amazing 53 guns in the home. Five children, between the ages of 2 and 15, lived in the home. What would the father have said before the shooting, I wonder? Would he have claimed his children knew not to touch the guns without his supervision? That they were stored safe enough?

I spent the day outside, enjoying the (finally!) warm weather here in Oregon and watching my 5- and 6-yo kids play on their Slip-N-Slide and ride bikes. I'm glad I don't have to worry about them accessing guns in our home, or the homes of the friends we visit.

Yesterday ended on a sad note, though. Around 6:30, a 19-yo young man was shot twice outside a local indoor putting range and arcade, called Putters. He was shot by another young man, thought to be 18 years old. The victim was out in the parking lot listening to music with relatives when the assailant approached and started shooting. The victim was rushed to the hospital and is expected to survive. Though it is legal in Oregon for someone 18 or older to possess a handgun or to purchase a handgun privately, it is illegal for them to be sold a handgun from a licensed seller (until they are 21). So where did the youth get his weapon? Currently he is on the run. This is the age demographic most at risk for gun violence.

Remember, every gun in the hands of a child first passed through the hands of an adult.

Guns for Stoners

2011-05-24T01:02:00.000-07:00

If you came upon someone on the street who was smoking pot and clearly stoned, how would you feel if they were handed a loaded gun? Do you think that person would have sound judgment, enough to handle a lethal weapon? Would they have good aim? Would you feel safer?

I know I wouldn't.

But the Oregon Supreme Court disagrees. Earlier this week they ruled that people with medical marijuana permits can be issued concealed carry permits, too.

From an article in the Register-Guard:

The ruling upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court that determined a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.

"We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state's concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses," Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote in the ruling issued in Salem.

Cynthia Willis, one of four plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling.

"I feel like a big girl now," Willis said. "I feel like a real human being now, not just a source of revenue to the county."

The article goes on to explain that the plaintiff, Willis, "volunteers at a Medford smoke shop that helps medical marijuana patients find growers, and teaches how to get the most medical benefit from the pound-and-a-half of pot that card carriers are allowed to possess."

Honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with medical marijuana. Like a majority of Oregonians, I feel it helps alleviate a variety of serious medical symptoms and is less damaging to society than alcohol or even cigarettes.

However, I firmly believe that guns should not be possessed by people who are using mind-altering drugs, whether they are legal or not. This goes for alcohol, too. Sadly, there is no law against them owning guns in this country simply for that reason, unless the drugs are illegal and they have been convicted of such crimes. This ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court is a slap in the face of common sense.

Sure, I can see the coming argument. You may say that medical marijuana users aren't your typical junky. They are likely only to use their drug in their home, and are less likely to go out of the home while high.

I would counter by saying that a gun in the home in their hands isn't any more safe than on the streets. And there is nothing preventing them from walking out of the home, armed and stoned.

But consider also THIS article just the day after the previous one. From the article:

Oregon's medical marijuana law provides a safe-haven for large-scale drug production and trafficking operations, law enforcement officials told state lawmakers Thursday in testimony supporting a proposed overhaul of the system.

and

Critics say the professional growers can cultivate massive marijuana plants that are each capable of producing dozens of pounds of pot. That creates a significant excess beyond the 1½ pounds a patient is eligible to possess, and some growers sell their surplus on the black market. Designated "caregivers" are allowed to possess the marijuana designated for patients in their care, so becoming a caregiver for 10 patients would give someone cover to transport 15 pounds of marijuana.

Now, I'm certain the vast majority of medical marijuana distributors and users are not criminals. Still, some clearly are, according to law enforcement professionals who testified. Thanks to the Oregon Supreme Court, they can now be legally armed in public, too.

Interestingly, there is also a bill written by the extremist group, Oregon Firearms Federation, and submitted by Representative Thatcher, their voicebox in the legislature, which proposes that anyone convicted of misdemeanor marijuana crimes (including non-medical marijuana) should be allowed to carry concealed as well. House Bill 2789 was referred to the Judiciary Committee, last I knew, but isn't likely to get traction. Still, it is disturbing to me that any leader would even propose such a heinous attack on common sense. Never mind that those who are convicted of this crime likely have been convicted of other drug crimes, but I digress. I call this the "Guns for Stoners" bill. It's one of a number of very dangerous pro-gun bills introduced this year in Oregon.

I'm glad that the plaintiff mentioned earlier, Willis, feels "like a big girl now" or a "real human being" because the Oregon Supreme Court says she can pack heat and be stoned in public. But I don't want to be anywhere near her if I could help it, and it doesn't give me any sort of sense of "liberty" knowing she is able to blow me away if she feels threatened in her mind-altered manner.

UPDATE (7/27/11): The case is appealed by the Sheriff and heads to the U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.kval.com/news/health/126264363.html. Let's hope for a ruling in the Sheriff's favor.

Colin Goddard Visits Oregon

2011-05-14T14:53:00.000-07:00

Colin Goddard addressing the Million Mom March marchers at EWEB Plaza.

Oregon was visited in the last week by Colin Goddard. Colin is a tall, handsome, 20-something who is extremely well-spoken and charismatic. He is also a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech University massacre, and he has made it his mission to do everything he can to help prevent such a shooting from taking place again.

On a snowy, windy April day in Blacksburg, Virginia, young Americans pursued

a college education and their teachers engaged in providing it to them. Colin was among them, in a French class in Norris Hall at Virginia Tech. Earlier that morning, two people had been shot to death in a dormitory. The shooter was at large. Unfortunately, for most of the campus it was still business as usual. Two hours later, while Colin and his classmates were doing their job as students, the shooter came to Norris Hall, chained the doors, and proceeded to open fire, going room to room and systematically shooting to death as many students and professors as he could. His name was Seung-Hui Cho.

In the next 10 minutes were seen the best and worst of humanity: a murderous killer on a rampage, and professors and students risking their lives to barricade doors and protect each other and help each other escape. The situation ended when the shooter took his own life. In the end, he had killed 32 people plus himself and wounded 17 others.

Colin talks to attendees after the Bijou showing.

Colin Goddard was one of those wounded. As explained in the documentary on the shooting that features him, "Living for 32," he was the first one to call 911, was shot four times, and survived the horror. He still has three bullets in him, as well as a titanium rod in his leg. He was 21 at the time.

Cho had been adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to himself and others, but because of Virginia's weak reporting of mental health records to the NICS background check system at the time, he was still able to purchase his handguns and ammo from a gun shop and pass the background check.

After recovering and finishing his degree at Virginia Tech, Colin has since joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He is touring the nation, showing the documentary and speaking at venues, mostly universities, Sundance and other film festivals, and now even public high schools.

"Living for 32" is a powerful and thought-provoking documentary about Goddard and his efforts to bring awareness to the issue of gun violence in America. In the film, he examines his change in thought about guns in America as he recovered from his wounds, discusses what it is like to be a survivor, and goes undercover to gun shows to demonstrate how anyone, including felons and the mentally ill, can purchase a gun without even showing ID.

Colin (tallest guy) and other marchers listening to Mayor Kitty Piercy at the Million Mom March.

When I heard that Colin was travelling the nation, I immediately sought to bring him to Oregon. You may have noticed I didn't post anything during the month of April. This was because I was using all of my available time scheduling a tour of Oregon for Colin. I'm proud to say that I and a team of other volunteers from Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation and Million Mom March had a slew of venues for Colin to speak at.

In five day's time Colin spoke at ten different appearances and radio interviews. All showings were free to the public.

On May 5, Colin arrived in Eugene and immediately went to a live radio interview with KLCC, an NPR affiliate, and the "Northwest Passage" show with Tripp Summer. Listen to it HERE.

Marching to reduce gun violence with Million Mom March.

On May 6, Colin spoke with three classes at South Eugene High School, showing clips of the documentary and discussing the issue of gun violence with around 138 kids and teachers. A few hours later, he visited Thurston High School in Springfield, site of the 1998 shooting by 15-year old Kip Kinkle, Colin spoke with around 300 kids. He made a tremendous impression at both schools, and the schools are eager to have him back. That night, Colin made his way to Portland and the film to a small audience at Multnomah Friends Meeting.

On May 7, Colin met with another small group at Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland, an institution known for advocating for peace and non-violence. Then he made his way south again to a small showing at Oregon State University in Corvallis. A reporter from the university newspaper, the Daily Barometer, was there and wrote up an article.

On Mother's Day, Sunday, May 8, came the annual Million Mom March in downtown Eugene. With around 100 marchers watching, Colin spoke to the crowd and to TV and newspaper reporters, along with Mayor Kitty Piercy (who is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns), myself, a boy named Sage from the iMatter group, and a close friend of Officer Kilcullen, who had recently been slain by a mentally ill shooter. A moment of silence was observed for Officer Kilcullen, and then we all marched a couple miles along the Willamette River. All three major TV news programs covered the event (see HERE and HERE) as well as the newspaper, the Register-Guard (HERE).

Colin addresses the Bijou Art Cinemas attendees.

On his last day here, May 9, Colin didn't stop to rest. At noon he spoke with a class of about 190 students at the University of Oregon. That evening, he had a very long and excellent interview with the U. of O. radio station, KWVA, which I think is the best I've heard with him. Listen to it HERE. Finally, he wrapped up his tour with a showing of the documentary and discussion at the Bijou Art Cinemas, with around 104 showing up.

In all, Colin spoke directly with an estimated 877 people in five days, not counting radio and TV interviews!

And what is the main message of all of this? We need stronger background checks that are better at excluding the mentally ill and those who are criminals, for ALL gun sales, including at gun shows and for private sales, in all states and at all times.

I can't say enough how immensely proud I am of Colin Goddard and the way he has turned his personal trauma into a vehicle for change. He is brave for taking on a difficult subject, and his efforts will almost certainly play a major role in making a new trajectory for our nation.

Keep up the great work, Colin, and I look forward to your next visit to Oregon!

"I think I've actually found a way to turn the negative experience in my life into something positive, something that will hopefully bring change."

-- Colin Goddard, from the KLCC radio interview

(all photos courtesy of Jasmine Rose Penter, photographer and Ceasefire Oregon volunteer)