Another Pro-Gun Republican Has Had Enough Of Oregon Firearms Federation's Extremism

I'm laughing tonight.

Oregon Firearms Federation (or "OFF", which bills themselves as "Oregon's only no-compromise gun lobby"), and their rabid executive director, Kevin Starrett, are no strangers to extremism.  They lie, distort, and belittle in order to try to get their way.  They are far worse than the NRA, and often accuse the NRA of being "too compromising."  Any time there is even a hint of gun violence prevention bills, OFF immediately jumps to extreme conclusions and mobilizes against those horrible liberals comin' to take their gunzzz (This is the same group that has tried to pass bills to allow felons to be armed, to allow convicted drug offenders to carry concealed guns, and even to force schools at all levels to have mandatory gun classes for kids, among other extremist positions, and they have gleefully burnt effigies of the governor on the capital steps, marched through the capitol building with assault rifles, and stood behind gun violence victims in legislative hearings while sporting loaded handguns in open intimidation of those brave presenters).

Lately, an Oregon politician named Val Hoyle has been in the running to fill a soon-to-be-vacated state senate seat.  In past years, Val Hoyle had gotten an A rating from OFF.  That is, until she dared to co-sponsor a bill for universal background checks (Oregon Senate Bill 941), at which point her A was turned to an F.  She understood that, according to four different polls of Oregonians, the bill was supported by the public to the tune of 79-90%!  The bill passed and was enacted in May of 2015.  The response from OFF and its followers was immediate and extreme.  They urged their followers to disobey the law (yes, as usual, the pro-gun movement is also pro-criminal).  They vengefully started a movement to try to recall Hoyle and three other Oregon politicians who had supported the bill, which failed miserably, and they also started a movement to get county commissioners to pass resolutions against the bill.

The county commission of Lane County, here where I live, and where Val Hoyle's house district was located, was one of those commissions that passed such a resolution (you can read it HERE).  In fact, they passed it AFTER the bill had been passed, which means that their statement that they would refuse to fund or enforce the law was a breach of their oath of office.  Four of the five members of that commission are very conservative Republicans (and it was those four who voted for the resolution).  Jay Bozievich signed the resolution on the commission's behalf.  Lane County residents were overwhelmingly FOR Senate Bill 941, so Mr. Bozievich was going against the wishes of his constituents.  Oh, how OFF crowed about that little victory (even though it did nothing to stop the law from being enacted)!

Well, there was a vote by the Lane County Commissioners this week, to decide if Hoyle would fill the Senate seat, or if it would be filled by another Democratic candidate named Jim Manning.  OFF lobbied hard to flood the commission's email with anti-Hoyle emails, with the usual name-calling (they called her a "Bloomberg stooge," "Bloomberg's handmaiden," "anti-gun zealot," and other names, in part because Michael Bloomberg had given her a campaign donation).  In the end, Manning was voted into the position instead of Hoyle (the vote was 3-2 for Manning), so OFF celebrated and claimed the victory as their own.  Jay Bozievich was one of the two votes for Hoyle.  According to an article, very few of the deluge of emails from the gun guys were from constituents who actually lived in Hoyle's district, and the emails didn't affect the commissioner's decisions.

But, as usual, the extremist comments from OFF and its supporter soured their own reputation with the politicians they inundated.

The reason I'm laughing is because OFF posted a statement from Jay Bozievich on their Facebook page, in response to the recent vote against Hoyle.  See a screenpic of that posting, to the right.

That's right:  the very Republican far-right commissioner, who signed a resolution against background checks on their behalf, is sick of OFF's extremism and has let them know, in no uncertain terms, that they are a "non entity that does not have any real power."

Bozievich was correct.  OFF is destructive to their own cause.  Every time they send out their email alerts or open their mouths in hearings, OFF proudly displays their extremism for all to see.

.

2016 Election: Gun violence prevention laws make great strides in WA, CA, NV

The shocking outcome of the presidential election leaves many unanswered questions about what steps will be taken in the next four years at the presidential level to reduce gun violence. (CBS compiled a list of Donald Trump's policy proposals.) Ceasefire Oregon Action Fund and our sister organizations will continue to work at the national and state level to reduce gun violence.

Gun violence prevention initiatives in California, Washington and Nevada were successful. We congratulate our gun violence prevention colleagues for their excellent work!

-California overwhelmingly (67% to 33%)  passed Proposition 63, which prohibits high-capacity magazines and creates a court procedure to restrict prohibited people from buying firearms. 

-Washington overwhelmingly (71% to 29%) passed I-1491 which allows families of people in crisis to ask a judge to issue an extreme-risk protection order to temporarily prevent a loved one from having access to firearms.

-Nevada passed Question 1 which requires background checks for almost all firearm sales.

-Maine's universal background check initiative failed but garnered 48% of the vote.

Ceasefire Oregon Action Fund is thrilled to see so many progressives elected to office in 2016. We look forward to working with all the legislators to reduce gun violence in Oregon.

Thank you for your great support!

Ask your candidate: Where do you stand on gun violence prevention?

Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan said it best: "Government is too important to be a spectator sport." She was talking to all of us. Know the issues and where your candidate stands on gun violence prevention. Registered Oregon voters should have received their ballots by now. If you didn't get yours, call the Oregon Elections Division at 1-866-673-VOTE (1-866-673-8683) Find your Oregon legislators here. Is your State Senator up for re-election? Find out here. Is your State Representative running for re-election? Find out here. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Right now is a great time to ask the candidates questions about their positions on gun safety. Do you believe gun violence is a problem in Oregon?  Fact: In 2014 alone, 497 Oregonians lost their lives to gun violence.1 Fact: Over 85% of guns deaths in Oregon are suicides.1 Fact: Just last year, Oregon suffered from our deadliest school shooting yet. (Umpqua Community College, Roseburg) Fact: Gunshot wound was a predominant mechanism of death in the incidents of IPV-related homicide.2 Do you support an assault weapons ban?3,4 Do you support legislation to limit firearm magazine capacity to 10 or fewer bullets? (Oregon's cartridge limit is five when hunting large game.)5,6 Would you support a law that requires safe storage for firearms?7 Do you believe people should be required to complete training before they can buy a firearm? (Training could include accurate shooting, gun safety and safe storage, conflict de-escalation, and/or anger management.) How would you improve Oregon’s mental health system to help reduce the suicide rate by firearm?8 What will you do to reduce gun violence?  Increase standards of gun ownership.9 Require secure storage for all firearms. Require research into gun violence in Oregon. Close the Charleston Loophole.10 Call or email your candidates or elected officials today. Ask them the questions listed above and request a reply. Be sure to tell them you're a voter in their district! Thanks for your work to prevent gun violence. Ceasefire Oregon Board of Directors 1. Oregon Public Health Authority 2. Oregon Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team: 2014 Report to the Legislature, page 3.  3. S. 4269 Assault Weapons Ban 4. "How Effective Was the Assault Weapons Ban?" 5. Large Capacity Magazines, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence 6. Ceasefire Oregon supports a magazine limit of 5 cartridges based on the Oregon limit of cartridges permitted when hunting large game. 7. Safe Storage and Gun Locks, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence 8. Suicide Prevention Resource Center, Oregon Public Health Authority 9. Ceasefire Oregon's Plan to Reduce Gun Violence: Prohibition of gun ownership for 10 years if a person has multiple offenses involving misdemeanor violence, alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence, a domestic violence restraining order or serious juvenile offense. 10. Close the Charleston Loophole: HB 4147.  2016 Oregon Legislative Session Make a difference today

Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation Release Recommendations to Reduce Gun Violence by 30-50% in Five Years

http://www.ceasefireoregon.org/advocacy

Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation have drafted a plan of action, both legislative and educational, that could reduce gun violence by 30 to 50 percent in five years.

The plan has three overarching goals:

• Require higher standards for firearm ownership.
• Enhance accountability of federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs).
• Improve safety standards for firearms and firearm ownership.

Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation are greatly indebted to Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer for his plan “Enough is Enough”1 and to Dr. Daniel Webster, Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.2

The plan respects the values and ideals held by responsible gun owners while remaining within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Recommendations for requiring higher standards for gun ownership include (1) national universal background checks for all firearm sales3,4,9; (2) prohibition of gun ownership for 10 years if a person has multiple offenses involving misdemeanor violence, alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence, a domestic violence restraining order or serious juvenile offense.5,6,7 (3) secure weapons storage;8,9,10,11,12 and (4) standardized training for concealed handgun license applicants that includes marksmanship proficiency, active shooter training, and conflict resolution.13,14

Ceasefire Oregon supports Dr. Webster’s recommendations to reduce gun violence by enhancing accountability of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs).20, 21 The pipeline of crime guns can be stopped by (1) requiring security cameras, computerized sales inventory, and other anti-theft measures as are required by other purveyors of dangerous substances such as pharmacies;2,15 (2) limiting gun purchases to one gun per month to reduce trafficking and straw purchases;16, 17 (3) repealing the Gekas amendment of the 1994 Brady Bill that allows FFLs to sell a gun without a background check if the check is not complete in three business days;18, 19 and (4) imposing a waiting period of two weeks between time of sale and possession to deter suicide and impulse shootings.9

Affordable and effective technology exists today that would improve safety standards for guns and gun ownership. This includes (1) a microstamped code on each bullet that links it to a specific gun;22 (2) magazine disconnect mechanisms (MDM) that prevent a gun from loading a bullet in the chamber;23 (3) loaded chamber indicator (LCI or CLI) to show that bullets are still in the gun;23 and (4) “smart guns” with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or biometric recognition (fingerprint) capability.24

While only 4% of violent crime is attributable to mental illness,25 we call for more funding to provide competent assessment and care of our mentally ill citizens and those who are considering suicide. The funding would be generated by a tax on each gun sale and on every box of bullets purchased. This tax would be collected by the states and used to augment direct services for those suffering from mental illness.

To reduce the high number of people killed in mass shootings, the sale and possession of military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines should be banned.26

Finally, Ceasefire Oregon and the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation call on President Obama to appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention Policy. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gunfire. Appointing a National Director to focus solely on gun violence prevention would give the necessary attention needed to reduce these largely preventable deaths.

Ceasefire Oregon, the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation, and the Central Coast Ceasefire Oregon Chapter have been at the forefront of the gun violence prevention movement in Oregon since 1999. After the Sandy Hook, Connecticut massacre, we helped establish the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety (http://www.oregonallianceforgunsafety.org/coalition) that has grown to over 50 organizations.

Ceasefire Oregon collaborated with the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, Everytown in Oregon, Moms Demand Action Oregon and Gun Owners for Responsible Ownership to pass the 2015 Oregon Firearms Safety Act that closed the private gun sale loophole in Oregon. The Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation (http://coef.ceasefireoregon.org/) has worked since 1994 to reduce gun violence through education programs including ASK: Asking Saves Kids and gun turn-ins.

Information about current state laws are on the Ceasefire Oregon website.

1. Enough is Enough: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Gun Safety. 2015. Retrieved fromhttp://blumenauer.house.gov/images/pdf/enough_is_enough.pdf.

2. Webster DW. “America’s Path to Fewer Gun Deaths.” Retrieved fromhttp://www.tedmed.com/speakers/show?id=309062.

3. Quinnpac University Poll, Sept. 17-21, 2015  http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm.

4. State Background Check Requirements and Rates of Domestic Violence Homicide.http://everytownresearch.org/state-background-check-requirements-and-rat....

5. Sorenson SB and Webster DW. “What Works, Policies to Reduce Gun Violence. Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention and Policy," APA Panel Of Experts Report. American Psychological Association, 2013, pg. 30.  Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/ reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx.

6. Wintemute G. “Broadening Denial Criteria. Updated Evidence and Policy Developments on Reducing Gun Violence in America."  Editors Webster DW, Vernick JS. Baltimore, 2014. pp. 13-17. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-cente....

7. Seventy percent of gun owners and 76.1% of non-gun owners support a gun policy prohibiting a person convicted of two or more crimes involving alcohol or drugs within a three-year period from having a gun for 10 years. Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness." N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1077-1081. March 21, 2013. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

8. Safe Storage & Gun Locks Policy Summary. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved from http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun-locks-policy-summary/.

9. Anestis MD, Anestis JC. “Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns.” American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105:10, 2049-2058. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753 Retrieved fromhttp://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753.

10. Forty-four percent of gun owners and 75.3% of non-gun owners support a gun policy requiring by law that a person lock up guns in the home when not in use to prevent handling by children or teenagers without adult supervision.  Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness.  N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:1077-1081. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

11. Policy Statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population.” Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive Committee. Pediatrics. 2012;130:5. e1416 -e1423. (doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2481). Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full.

12. In Oregon, 82% percent of voters support child access prevention laws requiring safe storage of guns in a locked container for homes where a child is present. Additionally, 71% of gun owners support this law. Benenson Strategy Group, Polling Results, April 2015. Retrieved fromhttp://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2015/04/ARS-
Oregon-Child-Access-Prevention-Memo.pdf.

13. “Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted.” Donohue JJ III, Aneja A, Zhang A. "The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy." May 20, 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://media.law.stanford.edu/publications/archive/pdf/ssrn-id1632599.pdf.

14. Delaware Weapons Instructions and Forms. Retrieved fromhttp://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml#1441.

15. Almost seventy-nine percent of gun owners and 86.4% of non-gun owners support a gun policy allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to temporarily take away a gun dealer’s license if an audit reveals record-keeping violations and the dealer cannot account for 20 or more guns.  Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness,  N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:1077-1081. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

16. “This study provides evidence that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms.” Weil DS, Knox RC. “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate Transfer of Firearms.” JAMA. 1996;275(22):1759-1761. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530460063033. Retrieved fromhttp://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=403492.

17. An April 13, 2012, Ipsos/Reuters poll found that 69 percent of Americans support limiting the number of guns a person could purchase in a given time frame. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5586.

18. “Blumenthal, Murphy Move to Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals.” Retrieved fromhttp://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-murph....

19. Sixty-seven percent of gun owners and almost 80% of non-gun owners support a gun policy allowing law enforcement up to five business days to complete a background check for gun buyers. (Note: This survey was conducted in January 2013, two and one-half years before the Charleston massacre in which Dylan Roof allegedly shot nine people to death. Reportedly, Roof obtained his firearm because of the Gekas amendment.http://everytownresearch.org/nics-charleston/)  Barry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, Webster DW. “After Newtown — Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental Illness, N Engl J Med 2013;368:1077-1081. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1300512. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article.

20. “Congress should repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the sharing of gun trace data.”  Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities: A report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police 2007 Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence, pg. 21. Retrieved fromhttp://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/ACF1875.pdf.

21. H.R.1449 - Tiahrt Restrictions Repeal Act 114th Congress (2015-2016) Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13] (Introduced 03/18/2015) Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1449/text.

22. Lizotte TE, Ohar O. Forensic firearm identification of semiautomatic handguns using laser formed microstamping elements. SPIE Proceedings. 2008;7070:1-15.

23. “From a nationally projectable sample, GAO estimates that 31 percent of accidental deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two safety devices.” Eleanor Chelimsky, Assistant Comptroller General. United States General Accounting Office, Report to Chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. Accidental shootings : many deaths and injuries caused by firearms could be prevented: report to the chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies, and Business Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. 1991. pg. 2. Retrieved fromhttps://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2090194.

24. Webster DW, Vernick JS, Teret SP. “How Cities Can Combat Illegal Guns and Gun Violence.” Center for Gun Policy and Research. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Baltimore, MD. Updated October 23, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/How_Cities_Can_Combat_Illegal_Guns.pdf

25. Appelbaum PS. Violence and mental disorders: data and public policy. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(8):1319–1321.http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1319.

26. According to a December 2014 poll by Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Americans support a ban on semi-automatic weapons. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/09/a-public-opinion-trend-t....

Who Does The NRA Really Represent? Follow The Money.

The NRA, as with other gun lobby groups, likes to promote itself as a membership-based organization that is fighting for the gun rights of the average gun owner, supported by their memberships, to promote gun safety and Second Amendment rights (but only the second half of the Second Amendment, mind you).

The NRA claims to have almost 5 million dues-paying members, a number that the organization likes to promote.  But this number is almost certainly greatly-inflated, with a real number down around 3 million.  That sounds like a lot of people still, until you consider that there are around 70 million gun owners in the United States, around a declining 22% of Americans, which means that the NRA only represents around 4% of gun owners, and this a tiny percentage of the total U.S. population of 320 million people.

Nonetheless, the NRA is a political powerhouse, pushing politicians to vote against their conscience to oppose any and all reasonable regulation to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them.  Why?  Follow the money.  Many tens of millions of dollars come from gun makers to the NRA.  From an article:

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson. 

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.  

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

And why do the gun manufacturers give the NRA so much money?  Is it to promote gun safety?  Hardly.  In the last election cycle, the NRA spent over $28 million on campaign contributions -- paying off our elected officials to make it easier for guns to get in to any and all hands.  More from the previous article:

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

You can read more details from a Violence Policy Center report about the close ties between the NRA and gun manufacturers, as well as in this Forbes article.

What does this mean for gun owners?  It means the NRA does not really speak for them.  For instance, a study out of Johns Hopkins found that 85% of gun owners supported background checks for all gun sales, including private sales.  63% support banning semi-auto assault weapons.  And 60% support banning high capacity ammo magazines.  And it doesn't stop there:

In the 2015 survey, the majority of gun owners surveyed support prohibiting a person convicted of a serious crime as a juvenile from having a gun for 10 years (73 percent), prohibiting people who have been convicted of public display of gun in a threatening manner excluding self-defense from having a gun for 10 years (75 percent), and prohibiting people convicted of domestic violence from having a gun for 10 years (76 percent). 

Similarly, the majority of gun owners (67 percent) also support allowing cities to sue licensed gun dealers when the gun dealer's sales practices allow criminals to obtain guns and requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison for a person convicted of knowingly selling a gun to someone who cannot legally have one (71 percent).

See more on these disagreements with the NRA HERE and HERE.

But don't tell all that to the NRA leadership.  They oppose such bills at both the state and federal levels.

The bottom line is that NRA doesn't care if a gun winds up in the hands of a felon, a child, or the mentally ill.  Every gun that is sold is another dollar in their pocket and the pockets of the gun manufacturers.  Follow the money!

A Town Hall Forum On Gun Violence In Eugene

On October 29th, I was honored to take part in an excellent Town Hall forum on the issue of Gun Violence.  It was hosted at the First Christian Church in Eugene, Oregon, and was organized by Tony McCown, who is a candidate for Lane County commissioner.

Around 100 people took part.  Concerned citizens from many different walks of life, including a number of gun owners and hunters.  This was the second time the church has hosted such an event.  The first time, a couple years ago, I was one of the speakers.

I set up a table for Ceasefire Oregon, and there were three other representatives from my organization, too, including one of the speakers, Executive Director Penny Okamoto.  Moms Demand Action was also represented with a table and a speaker, Charlie McKenna.  Also on the panel was state senator Floyd Prozanski, Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy, and current Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson.

The Town Hall began with the speakers.  See video, below.  After a quick introduction by Penny Okamoto, Senator Prozanski discussed in detail issues around the recently-enacted Senate Bill 941, which requires a background check for every gun purchase, including private transfers, in the state of Oregon.  Mayor Piercy talked about the recent visit by President Obama to meet with the families of victims from the Umpqua Community College shooting, and about Mayors Against Illegal Guns (she is a member).  Commissioner Sorenson talked about the resolution by the Lane County Commissioners (he was the only vote against it) which declared that the background check bill was "unconstitutional" and that no funds would allocated to enforce it (against the oath that they took to do so).  Finally, Charlie McKenna talked about Moms Demand Action and what had to change in the Oregon Legislature in order to pass the universal background check bill after three years of trying.

The introduction of the speakers from the forum:



After this, the audience broke up into smaller groups to explore the issue of gun violence, its causes, and possible solutions.  I was impressed by how seriously everyone took the issue and the level of positive debate that occurred.  We all then re-convened and each group did a little presentation for each part of the questions.

Again, I was impressed with the solutions that people suggested, such as smart gun technologies, suicide prevention strategies, mandatory proficiency training for gun owners, and mandatory safe storage of guns, among other suggestions.  The level of awareness was most striking.  In similar forums, in the past, it didn't seem to me that there was the same level.

And, with each suggestion, comments were made by the speakers.  See below for Penny Okamoto's response regarding mental illness, and how the NRA and other pro-gun supporters scapegoat the mentally ill (who are statistically more likely to be gun violence victims than to be gun violence suspects):


I want to thank First Christian Church for hosting the event, the speakers, and most of all the other attendees, for taking part.  It is my hope that there can be more public forums like this one.

Pro-Gun Responses To The Umpqua Shooting: Part II -- Politicians Weigh In, Democrats vs. Repubicans

(This is Part II of a two-part series.  Part I focused on the response by local pro-gun Oregonians)

UPDATED (10/13/15): The Democratic candidates debated the issue of gun violence prevention.  Watch it HERE.

It's been 12 days since the horrible mass shooting at Umpqua Community College.

The wounded are healing.  Some have been released from the hospital.  And those who died are being remembered in various memorial services, vigils, and special events. (Examples HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.)

As of today, UCC has resumed classes.  There is a high police presence today to help reassure students, and there is increased mental counselling and comfort dogs present.

As I said in Part I of the series, it's no surprise to anyone that there are polar differences between the two sides of the gun debate.  Nothing displays that difference more than the responses after a large mass shooting.

There is certainly a stark difference between the responses of Democrats and Republicans.  Beyond the standard and utterly-repetitive "They are in our hearts and prayers" statement, many high-profile politicians weighed in with more substantive comments.

DEMOCRATS:

For Democratic politicians, they firmly placed themselves in the gun violence prevention camp, calling upon new gun laws to help keep guns out of the hands of madmen like the one who attacked UCC.  These statements are growing in number and becoming less wishy-washy with every new mass shooting that happens (we now have more than one a day in America, by the way!).

President Obama set the tone with his address to the nation later that day, the 15th time he has addressed the nation after mass shootings [see this interactive map to see each of those speeches].  In his speech, he minced no words in his call to pass new legislation to help prevent another of what has become "routine" mass shootings in America, and chastised Conservatives for not taking action.  He then came to Roseburg, personally, last Friday, to pay his respects to the victim families and survivors.  At least one family member, a father of a deceased victim, felt comforted by the visit.

Oregonian legislators also weighed in.  Representative Earl Blumenauer gave a passionate speech on the House floor.  He also rolled out a comprehensive plan to combat gun violence.  Senator Jeff Merkley lost an extended family member in the shooting, the great-granddaughter of a cousin of his [the extremist Oregon Firearms Federation mocked Merkley as part of their response to the UCC shooting, suggesting that Merkley had to do "hours of geneology" to find a connection and that he did this to "roll around in the blood of the victims at pressers and photo ops"].  Later, both Merkley and fellow Oregon senator Ron Wyden joined together in calling for stricter gun reforms, including background checks for all gun sales, strengthening the NICS background check system, and better prosecution of "straw purchase" sales.  

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has always been an advocate for tighter gun laws, but after the UCC shooting, she stepped up her emphasis on this need by affirming that she would stand up to the NRA and call for universal background checks.  [Update: She has also signaled that she would consider a gun buyback program, similar to the one Australia enacted.]

The other major Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, has had a mixed history when it comes to gun reform, and has voted against some major gun reforms in the past.  He was against the Brady Background Check bill or waiting periods.  After the UCC shooting, he reversed some of his previous philosophies and released a statement that "consensus" is needed to prevent mass shootings.  He now wants to enforce instant background checks on all gun purchases, ban semi-auto assault rifle sales, make "straw purchases" a federal crime, and enhance mental health screening.  He has also said he would soon release a position statement on gun legislation, but to my knowledge has not yet done so.  On "Meet the Press," when pressed about his vote for the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," (PLCAA)—which gave gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers unprecedented broad immunity from civil litigation—Sanders softened his position significantly, stating, "That was a complicated vote and I’m willing to see changes in that provision ... So can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes.”

A lesser-known Democratic presidential candidate, Martin O'Malley, has come out the strongest for gun reform and says he has a plan that includes a ban on assault weapons, "fingerprinting and licensing for every person who purchases a gun and for changing the laws so that trafficking illegal guns is a federal crime. He also urged the federal government to refuse to buy guns from manufacturers that do not use all safety technology available, such as micro-stamping."

REPUBLICANS:

 

It comes as no surprise that no Republican politician or candidate has suggested any plan whatsoever to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  They basically repeat the NRA propaganda talk, calling for more guns in more hands, blaming the mentally ill, or shrugging the issue off completely.  Since the UCC shooting, they've truly tooted the NRA horn.

Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush was by far the most flippant.  When asked about what he would do in the wake of the UCC shooting, he callously responded "Stuff happens."  He went on to say that government wasn't the answer we should "connect ourselves" and that it may not be the "right thing to do" to respond to a crisis of this sort in any way.

Another presidential hopeful, Donald Trump, responded to the UCC shooting by saying that the teachers and students should have been armed, then puffed himself up by saying he owns a gun and would shoot anyone who attacks him.  How very macho of him.  He then doubled down on his callousness and called mass shooters "geniuses in a certain way" and shrugged off any attempts to keep guns out of their hands, simply saying "That's the way the world goes."  He had previously come out against any new gun laws and blamed the mentally ill.  Trump has come out with a position statement on guns, which basically echoes the NRA by reinforcing the idea of self-defense, expanding conceal carry, opposing universal background checks, and again blaming the mentally ill.  

Another Presidential hopeful, Bobby Jindal, long an advocate for expanded gun rights, suggested that the UCC shooting was the fault of the shooter's father, cultural decay, and video games, even though the shooter had hardly been in contact with his father for years, and all other advanced nations share much of our culture and all of our video games.  Funny how he doesn't blame the shooter's mother at all, given that she armed her son, trained him in firearms, and turned a blind eye to his violent behavior and unhealthy interest in other mass shootings.  Jindal's philosophy seems to be a failed one, though, given that Louisiana is the second highest in the nation for per-capita shooting deaths.

A fourth presidential candidate, John Kasich, blamed the shooting on "loneliness" and "alienation" and completely shrugged off the role of guns.  He again blamed the mentally ill, too.

A final presidential candidate, Ben Carson, blamed the victims of the UCC shooting by saying that they were too compliant and let the shooter kill them, stating that if only he had been in that classroom, he "would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, 'Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me but he can't get us all.'"  He also doubled down on his pro-gun rhetoric by saying "but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away."  Wow.  Apparently this doctor has forgotten his Hippocratic oath to prevent harm to patients and that, according to the oath, he has "special obligations to all my fellow human beings".  The heartless nature of Carson astounds even me!  Naturally, a great many people were incensed by his statements, including the daughter of a Sandy Hook victim.  Well, it turns out that Carson had been in a robbery at a restaurant years before, and when the gunman aimed his gun at him, Carson didn't attack him, but rather mildly said, "I believe that you want the guy behind the counter."  What a "hero."

Well, gun violence isn't a "Democrat" or "Republican" issue, as I see it.  Bullets don't care what your political affiliation is, and neither do most gunmen when they pull the trigger.  Gun violence is an urgent public health crisis, with 33,000 killed and 70,000 injured per year in the U.S. in gun homicides, suicides, and accidents.  Sadly, Republicans roundly refuse to consider ways to keep guns out of the wrong hands, preferring instead to proliferate guns in our society and blame boogeymen like the mentally ill, loneliness, or video games, or not caring about the issue at all.  So we need to vote for the candidates, whatever their party, who will do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands and have a plan to do so.



UPDATE (11/9/15):  Hillary Clinton has now unveiled her full gun violence prevention plan.