 |
           |
  |
|
Welcome to ICHV Insights, a page that provides a forum of ideas and perspectives from those working to reduce gun violence in Illinois and across the nation. The ICHV Insights page allows us to highlight the wide range of voices and viewpoints in the gun violence prevention movement, including those of medical professionals, law enforcement officers, mental health professionals, advocates, victims, ICHV members, and others. Our hope is to illuminate the world of gun violence prevention and engage people in discussion about the issues that contribute to gun violence in our society. This section of our website highlights the incredible work our coalition partners are doing, and will give you a unique look at the many perspectives within gun violence prevention.
Lives are Being Lost….But Why?
ICHV Insights Commentary by Ron Holt
May 10th was like any other day in the spring. My son Blair and I had talked that week - he wanted his mom, my ex-wife Annette, to have something nice for Mother's Day.
I remember those days so well, since I saw something changing in Blair at that time - I used to tell him he was growing up fast. Even his voice was deeper. He was 16 years old.
That day I went into a novelty shop where I knew I could get a pendant that Blair could give to his mother. I saw one that I wanted, and then my phone was ringing. It was Annette, but I had never heard her speak in that tone before. She told me she just got a call from Blair's friend.
Blair had been shot on a bus, on 103rd Street.
Dead silence. The world had stopped. I've been a police officer for 17 years, and cops helped me get through traffic. I arrived at Christ Advocate Hospital. My family, friends and clergy were there.
Soon after that, I learned that Blair's aorta was damaged. A lot of his vital organs were damaged.
This is just too much, I thought. And then he died.
I was numb. I don't even think I cried until I caught up with Blair's mom. I am standing there at the hospital thinking: "God just give me strength. My God, our only child." We had so much hope for him, he had so much promise. He had just gotten his driver's permit. All those things you do in your growing years came to a screeching halt. And then we learned that he was killed when he covered a classmate, shielding her from being shot.
It's still new and fresh and overwhelming, and will always crush me. I am so angry and bitter about the ongoing gun violence on the streets. I wondered: Where does this madness come from? Why is it so pervasive? How come these parents whose kids commit crimes can't raise kids properly?
Blair's mom and I became unsolicited catalysts for change. And then I started meeting people on the way who had also lost kids. These people became the nucleus of a group we formed, Purpose Over Pain. Our goal is to educate the public about gun violence and provide peer support. We would always see each other at rallies, at churches, at schools. The common goal was to stop gun violence. Maybe it was spiritual, because we had refused to go away - we were in so much pain about losing our children. Maybe if we had some laws that say certain youth should not have guns in their hands. Or parents should be prosecuted in certain situations if their children use handguns. We knew gun violence would continue, but we asked, "How can we reduce it to the level that would make a difference?"
We need to ask more questions. In an airport, they want to know about the nature of your business. In gun shops, however, we can't find out what we need to know to keep us all safer. Who is buying this weapon?
I've been a patrol officer for 17 years. For most of those years, I was a tactical and gang officer. When I became a police officer, I saw a subculture of misguided youth who were born to a generation that was part of the drug scene. In many cases , there was a perpetuation of decadent human behavior. I wasn't around violence that much as a kid, at least not the kind that is pervasive today. These days, it is almost at the level of normalcy.
Gun violence permeates the American fabric to the degree that it should be viewed as a public health and public safety issue. At this point, there should be a course taught on the impact of gun violence - it should be a part of health education in high schools, right next to CPR, Driver's Ed, sex education classes. We also have to realize the importance of changing the mindset and behavior of young people who can't find another approach to conflict resolution besides violence. We need to talk to young people, and allow them the latitude and voice to speak.
I know what people with the gun lobby say, but I don't have an issue with the second amendment -- just with how it has been convoluted. If you are a law-abiding adult, and you are responsible and use a firearm only when necessary, then you should be able to have a handgun in your home, if that is your choice. It becomes a problem when those guns get into the wrong hands for the wrong purposes.
Gun violence reminds me of racism in America, which has often been viewed as the dirty laundry we fear to air. Gun violence is another form of dirty laundry we don't want to air and hang out to dry. But we have to talk about it.
You know, no one is immune from being impacted by gun violence. It touches everyone. But people have the right to live without living in an environment of fear. Lives are being lost--but why? As for me, I still have the pendant I bought last May 10. I never had a chance to give it to my son.
Ron Holt has been a police officer in Chicago for 17 years. On May 10, 2007 his son Blair was shot and killed on a CTA bus. He was 16 years old.
February 22, 2008
Wanted: National Discussion on Gun Violence
Tinley Park, Illinois. Kirkwood, Missouri. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. And, of course, Northern Illinois University.
The number of places in this country that have been hit by horrifying acts of violence in recent weeks just confirms what we already know. Now, it's not a question of "if" and "when" - but "when" and "where." These events, like so many others, have shown the devastating impact of guns in our society. The tired notion that guns really only kill people in the inner city is, of course, ridiculous, and has been for a long time.
In all of these situations, there are clearly a number of variables that come into play. One of the most prominent among them, of course, is the presence of guns.
As it stands, who will be surprised the next time we learn about a horrible, gun-related tragedy in this country?
What we clearly need is an open national discussion about gun violence. It is a real disgrace that there has not been rational and reasonable discussion about how guns play a role in so many killings.
"No matter who we are or how safe we think we are, any of us could be among the dozens of victims each day who end up on the wrong side of a gun," said Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to the Senate a few days after the tragedy in Tinley Park. "We need to change the way we talk about gun violence in this country."
Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that we need to do something from listening to many elected officials. We don't even see candidates bringing it up. Or, if they do, it's a footnote. We also don't hear about this issue from many in the media. It's unbelievable that when we talk about these tragedies, so few people are willing to call them acts of gun violence - or even refer to guns in any way.
The language we hear is often something on the order of we didn't "expect to have this happen here" or "our whole community is in pain." Or that this is a "tragedy."
All true. But where is the discussion of guns and gun-related violence? The reality is that even if we had the strongest laws, we would still have these tragedies because there are so many firearms.
In some cases, when candidates do address problem of gun violence, they rightly express compassion and sympathy for those who lost their lives and their families. They don't stop there, though - we often also hear about the second amendment and the "right to bear arms." In this situation, we would like to know why there is any need whatsoever to bring up the individual right to bear arms. It's disrespectful, and even insulting, to families that lost loved ones. Do you think these people care at this point about the individual right to bear arms? It's gotten to the point where you can't just say this is "an act of gun violence."
When we hear about the right of people to own guns, we rarely hear the whole story. In reality, the majority of people in this country make the choice not to own a firearm. Where are the rights of those people? Don't they have the right to be free from gun violence?
What has become clear is that the gun lobby takes every change in attitude or law as an attack on rights. Asking for mandatory criminal background checks? An attack on rights. Asking that ammunition be encoded so that we know it came from a specific gun? That, too, is an attack on rights. If the majority of people agree that banning the sale of certain weapons is a good idea, that is also a violation of rights.
Yes, it is time to hear all sides on this issue and have a broader discussion about gun-related violence in this country. We need a greater consensus on what, exactly, "right to bear arms" really means. Does it really mean that citizens should be able to walk around with AK-47's, or that they should be able to carry guns in a stadium or city hall? Or that people who are not qualified to purchase guns purchase them anyway?
The gun lobby, however, can go even further. Some, in fact, even say that citizens at one of the sites hit by violence recently would actually be safer if they had guns. However, did any of these people talk to administrators, teachers and students about that. We would, without a doubt, bet that the vast majority do not want their own guns in this situation. If the gun lobby really wants to know how the public feels about people having their own guns in these situations, why don't we have a discussion on that point?
It is time to raise questions, listen to all sides, and do what we can to prevent the kind of tragedies we have already seen all too often. We have not had a real national discussion on guns - not yet, anyway. What we do have is a situation where gun manufacturers around the country continue to make thousands of firearms on a daily basis. Can we at least talk about these issues before moving full steam ahead to the next tragedy?
In the aftermath of many shootings, we see vigils. We see many people sending out their thoughts and prayers. Before the next tragedies occur, we need to hold a national conversation that targets the common thread in these tragedies: firearms.
February 8, 2008
A Closer Look at Gun Deaths Could Help Prevent Them
ICHV Insights Column by Kathleen Monahan, MPH
The Illinois Violent Death Reporting System (IVRDS) proceeds from the understanding that the more you know about a violent death, the better you will be able to prevent that kind of death in the future. For counties participating in the project -- Cook, Kane and Peoria -- IVDRS provides detailed information about violent deaths in their jurisdictions. The ultimate goal is for IVDRS to become a statewide data repository for violent deaths.
The idea behind this effort is not only taking hold in Illinois, but around the country. The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) launched by the CDC in 2003, funds 17 states to collect information on homicides, suicides, and other violent death categories. In 2005, Illinois launched the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System with private funding. In 2006 and 2007, the project received funding from the Illinois Department of Public Health as well as a range of private sources.
There is a precedent for understanding how this system works -- look at the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which contains data on all fatal vehicle crashes in the country. By studying this data, we have already prevented thousands of car crashes. By studying data on violent deaths, we are learning how to prevent violent deaths.
When someone dies a violent death, there's an assumption that all of the information surrounding the incident is being looked at - probably because there is news about it reported on an ongoing basis. In most cases, though, there isn't enough research available on it at all. That's what this system tries to create: a researchable database.
It can be a challenge to get the information we want. In fact, in can take months or even years. What it takes is for people, and counties, to come together and agree that this needs to happen. In Illinois, we have seen how the system can work -- we had this magic moment in Illinois where key people involved in the project signed legal agreements to make sure relevant information was available.
Our goal has always been to share data so we can provide more accurate information. What we hope to look at with this data is disparities - who is being affected more by this violence, and how can we work with these communities to prevent it? We might want data from a police chief, medical coroner, a local immigration council, a city planner, for example. We serve as an honest broker of information. If people in a county learn that the rate of suicide is twice that of another county, maybe they'll wonder "Why is that?" and then work together to address the problem after they see the data.
So many people can use this data. For example, a master's student at a medical center who wants to look at suicides and teens will soon have access to this data. And, of course, this data can inform people about the circumstances leading up to homicides and suicides that are linked to firearms.
In the future, we hope to have the funding and staffing to realize the true promise of this system. Meanwhile, we are coming up with a lot of compelling information. For example, we have determined with greater accuracy than before that children in Illinois are witnesses to murder-suicides at unacceptable levels. We have also found out that in Illinois, certain immigrant populations are more vulnerable than others. In Chicago, everyone knows young African-Americans males are disproportionately affected by violence. But most don't know suicide is more likely to be a rural problem -- and that suicides will outnumber homicides overall. We'll know even more when we collect data as the project expands in Illinois.
We know this project yields valuable information, but let's understand that people should not expect results for four or five years. This is an investment that can pay off in a big way down the road.
There are, of course, certain deaths we may not be able to prevent - but many that can be prevented. We know that if we can just reduce the number of deaths a little bit, that would make a big difference.
Kathleen Monahan is the Project Director of The Illinois Violent Death Reporting System. IVDRS is a project of the Child Health Data Lab at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago.
January 3, 2008
Looking Ahead in 2008
State Level
The Illinois House and Senate will begin the upcoming General Assembly on January 9, 2008. For a complete schedule of when both the House and Senate will be in session, go to the 95th General Assembly Session Schedule at http://ilga.gov/house/schedules/default.asp (House) and http://ilga.gov/senate/schedules/default.asp (Senate).
As we begin a new year, it is important to understand that "yes" votes in 2007 are not necessarily "yes" votes in 2008, and "no" votes are not necessarily "no" votes in 2008. Let's keep in mind that we are in many ways starting from scratch, and we must make our voices heard on key gun issues.
We also need to acknowledge the dynamics that often come with an election year. The Illinois primary will be held on Tuesday, February 5, 2008. That is the day on which the largest number of state primary contests will be held next year.
How will this date impact the gun issue in Illinois? It is very likely that most gun votes will happen after the primary because the Illinois state legislature will only be in regular sessions a couple of times before the primary.
The early primary date could be helpful for gun violence prevention issues because some legislators may want to vote on these issues in a way that helps prevent them from being criticized during the general election.
After the primary, candidates will be faced with a general election on November 4, when supporting our position on a gun issue could help them.
History also tells us that there is more going on in the state legislature in odd-numbered years.
Another factor that could come into play is that several members in both chambers are retiring, and they have generally voted with the NRA. In some cases, when members retire, they may be more flexible about how they vote, as they no longer have political reasons to vote with the NRA.
At the moment, there are two bills we will be focusing on. If other opportunities arise, we will consider them as well. These two bills are:
SB1007: This bill would ban the delivery, sale, purchase, or possession of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (i.e., high-capacity magazines). Here is an example of a bill that has gradually made it through the process. SB1007 has already made it out of the Senate and a House Committee. It is only one step away from going to the governor.
HB0758: This bill focuses on universal background checks on all handguns sold in Illinois. HB0758 was voted on this year and came up a little bit short, but people continue to talk about it and work for its passage. The bill got 58 votes in the House and was just two votes short. We feel that therefs a definite possibility it could get two more votes.
Let's keep in mind as well that it is possible for other key pieces of legislation to emerge in 2008. In particular, we should not discount the possibility that a vote on assault weapons legislation could be held during the year.
Weigh in with your opinion!
We urge you to weigh in with your opinion during the upcoming session of the Illinois General Assembly. We know from experience that sharing our convictions with legislators makes a big difference over the long haul. This time, we also expect to find swing votes in the Chicago suburbs. If you are from that part of the state, make sure you are weighing in with legislators on our issues!
Federal Level
Tiahrt Amendment
We will, as usual, be hearing about gun issues related to major news stories, federal bills or court cases. There are a couple of federal bills we should mention here. The first involves the Tiahrt Amendment, legislation that includes language severely restricting the release of information about guns traced to crime scenes. The bottom line with this bill is that gun control advocates have not been able to repeal this bill. There were slight improvements to the House version this year; the Senate version was more problematic.
Fortunately, the better of the two versions is what passed -- House language was used in the final version of the bill. One key element of this bill is that it removed restrictions to accessing federal gun trace data outside of one's geographic jurisdiction.
It is also worth noting another reason why it is a good thing the Senate version did not pass -- that version would have criminalized law enforcement officials who shared gun trace data in violation of the Tiahrt Amendment.
The NICS Improvement Bill (H.R.2460)
The NICS Improvement Bill (H.R. 2460) is the other key bill. This bill concerns how to ensure that records, including, but not excluded to mental health records, of prohibited purchasers go into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in a timely way.
The NICS Improvement Bill has passed through the Senate and the House (the House voted on the bill during the week of December 17th).
Opinions about how effective this bill will be are mixed, but there are a couple of important benefits we should mention.
For example, this bill will provide a financial incentive for states to enter records of prohibited purchasers of firearms into the system. This is especially important because we know -- after the tragedy at Virginia Tech and many other tragedies -- that many of these records are not currently in the NICS system.
Because of this bill, we are likely to see a big improvement in the number of records the system maintains of people with mental health issues, and we might see some improvement in other areas as well.
The bill will also provide the possibility for veterans who were disqualified from getting firearms for mental health reasons to petition state and federal authorities to get their gun rights back. The bill is likely to affect 90,000 veterans.
At this time, we need to remember that these federal bills deserve our attention, but our best opportunity to make an impact is on the state level, not the federal level.
Finally, just a word about how gun issues are often covered in the news -- and what impact that has on the process. When we research what happens in the aftermath of gun-related tragedies, we can say that, yes, public and media response to these tragedies have had an impact. What has the most significant impact, though, is who is weighing in on gun issues. As we look to 2008, let's remember that our voices make a difference.
We will keep you updated as developments occur on these and other gun violence prevention issues. If you have any questions or would like more information, please give us a call at 312-341-0939 or 217-744-7383.
Thank you for your support and dedication to reducing gun violence.
December 21, 2007
Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue
By the 1980s, gun-related injuries were the leading cause of childhood injuries and mortality in American cities. Late in the 1980s, I worked with a group that created the HELP Network, a coalition of medical and allied organizations addressing gun violence (HELP stood for Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan). Through this coalition, we brought together people working in health, child welfare, law, advocacy and other areas to address the handgun problem.
We knew, of course, that gun-related violence was a crime problem. It was also an issue many tied to product liability. What we wanted to emphasize is that it's a public health problem. People hadnft talked about it in those terms as much before | but when people bleed, organs get damaged, patients go through acute treatment and rehabilitation, and families are affected, it's not hard to see the connection. In fact, we felt it was inarguable that this was an important aspect of gun violence.
The 80's was an amazing and scary time to be working on this issue, but I learned about how I wanted to talk about gun violence | and still do. I don't focus on acts of violence, but talk about health, children and handguns. I never talk about gun control | it's not a useful phrase. I talk about gun injury prevention. It's not the guns I'm interested in controlling, it's the injuries.
People started making the connection between the word epidemic and gun violence | this connection even got into a Supreme Court ruling, and was cited at the United Nations and by Donna Shalala when she was Secretary of Health and Human Services. It wasn't the ownership of the word "epidemic" that was important, or the phrase "Protect Children, Not Guns," which the HELP Network coined. It was the message.
Over the years, gun ownership, unintentional gun-related injury rates and suicides by guns went down. We also learned a lot of things | for example, we learned that certain types of gun storage are more acceptable and have a positive effect.
Now, we are seeing a very different situation | one that has challenged efforts to address gun violence as a public health issue. In Washington, D.C., when President Bush was elected, the NRA bragged that it would work out of his office. Meanwhile, in recent years a recession shrank the size of endowments from philanthropies, which impacted the amount of resources available for this issue. Then, after 9/11, for a long time when people said "violence," they meant "terrorism" -- and philanthropies meant "bioterrorism." As a result, many people paid less attention to how gun violence affects our communities.
At the same time, we also learned that gun deaths declined by 25 percent | which was somewhat of a response to increased understanding and awareness.
What is the impact of all these developments? In the 80's, we were responding to an emergency; now, we have to level the rates of gun-related deaths and injuries. We have gone from epidemic to endemic. Firearm injuries are still a serious and ongoing problem, one that may give rise to new epidemic outbreaks.
Our challenge now it to consolidate what we've learned and develop plans for the future. We have seen what works to address endemic problems in campaigns on teen pregnancy, cigarette smoking and motor vehicles. Now, a big part of our challenge is to share our message with people all the time | there's a new crop of parents and adolescents every year. While doing that, we can use valuable tools that are already in place. In Illinois, for instance, we have a much greater capacity to track what is happening through the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System.
I believe there are models that can be helpful as we work to prevent gun injuries. For example, we have seen how planning, engaging key experts, and communicating effectively have made a difference in efforts to prevent influenza. We can learn from that model.
When I look at our world today, I hope that young parents are raising kids with greater awareness about guns and how we can prevent injuries and deaths resulting from gun violence. Let's hope that there will be more room for discussion of these issues in the coming years | and that the health perspective will be at the table.
Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel was the Founder of the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP Network) and is currently the Medical Director of the Consortium for Lowering Obesity in Chicago Children. Dr. Christoffel is also the Director of the Center on Obesity Management and Prevention at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. She is a nationally respected researcher and the recipient of professional awards from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and other national groups.
November 21, 2007
Technology and Gun Control
Gun control advocates in this country have taken important steps toward the development of new tools that can have an impact on the number of violent crimes that involve handguns. These tools are showing how technology can be used by law enforcement officials to identify who owns a gun | and who does not.
How important is that? Consider the following: the FBI has reported that 40 percent of all homicides in the U.S. go unsolved each year.
Itfs possible that many people in Illinois familiar with gun control issues have not heard much about how technology is being used to stem handgun violence. If so, thatfs partly because there has not yet been a major movement or legislation along these lines in the state | yet. In several places around the country, however, innovative new technologies are emerging that can make a difference | and, advocates say, could be replicated in other states in the years to come.
A range of alternatives have energized the gun control movement around the country | especially in California and New Jersey.
California
In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed The Crime Gun Identification Act this fall -- a law that would require manufacturers of semiautomatic weapons to equip new guns with identifying markings that transfer to shell casings. This technology is known as microstamping, and would go into effect for guns sold in the state in 2010.
Identifying markings that appear are believed to be far too small to be detected by criminals. When police analyze cartridge casings, they can query the California Department of Justice to see if information on the casings matches the departmentfs list of handgun purchasers | whether those purchases are armed criminals or straw buyers who illegally traffic weapons to prohibited purchasers.
Another benefit of microstamping is that it adds information to the crime gun trace database, which can provide key data to law enforcement agencies.
While gun control advocates worked to pass this law, they found strong support from law enforcement officials in the state. In fact, more than sixty law enforcement officials and groups | including many chiefs of police and sheriffs | endorsed the law, as did mayors of many cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.
The microstamping law is having an impact on other states as well as policymakers in Washington, D.C., according to Griffin Dix, Chair of the Brady Campaignfs Million Mom March National State Presidents Council. Four states are considering a version of the bill, and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and California Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) are also expected to introduce a microstamping bill (last May, the offices of Kennedy and Becerra sponsored a demonstration of the technology at a shooting range on Capitol Hill).
Dix added that | despite the protestations of those who opposed the law | the additional cost of microstamping is "minimal." The cost to gun manufacturers is estimated to be between fifty cents and one dollar per firearm, he said.
Other promising approaches developed in California include a chamber-loaded indicator that tells gun users whether a round is loaded in a gunfs firing chamber, and magazine disconnect safety devices, which prevent a gun from firing once the magazine is removed.
New Jersey
In New Jersey, advocates have long endorsed what they call "child-proof" handgun laws (others have called them "personalized" handgun laws). Childproof gun legislation that established a standard for childproof handguns was signed by the statefs governor in 2002. The law indicated that three years after a childproof gun was verified by the statefs attorney general, only childproof guns could sold in the state. To date, New Jerseyfs attorney general has not made that verification
"Our idea has been that handguns could be manufactured so that they would recognize the holder," said Bryan Miller, Executive Director of CeaseFire New Jersey, a state-based gun violence organization. "We know that this kind of technology can work."
The gun industry has long demonstrated the effectiveness of their own technologies to childproof handguns, according to Miller, even though it has backed off from advocating for them.
One possible technology, he said, would feature a chip that stores images of fingerprints. A fingerprint scanner on the grip or trigger of a handgun would connect to that chip. The gun could only be fired if it was picked up by someone whose fingerprints were stored in the chip.
The state of New Jersey also funded the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) to develop a childproof gun. The Institute has developed dynamic grip memory recognition technology | but has not yet married that technology with the mechanics of a handgun.
The New Jersey law does not define which type of technology should be used | it just says that technology must deny the use of a handgun to unauthorized users, be tamper-resistant and operate automatically. Miller said his organization is working to identify a person, or organization, to take the necessary final steps to develop a childproof gun.
Both Dix and Miller have worked to prevent handgun violence for years after the shooting death of loved ones; Dix lost a son in a gun-related accident, and Miller lost a brother, an FBI Special Agent, who was shot and killed in an act of gun violence.
Promising approaches
One prominent researcher of gun policy called the California and New Jersey approaches "promising."
"What your average citizen needs is greater protection on unauthorized users gaining access to guns, and microstamping and 'personalized' guns are the key approaches right now" said Daniel Webster, Co-Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
Webster, however, said he believes there should also be room for low-tech solutions to this problem, including locks on guns, magnets and radio transmitters.
"The media gets excited about high-tech, cool technologies | all of that sounds very James Bond-like," he said. "But I worry that that will actually make it much harder to come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. We can and should aim on supporting lower-tech options as well."
October 22, 2007
Shootings Lead to Questions About Access to Guns in Home
We are reminded over and over again in our culture about the enormous potential dangers of access to firearms. This is an issue we must look at more closely.
We don?t have to go any further than the news ? or our neighborhoods ? to see a few recent examples.
Early in October, an accidental shooting injured Darnell, a four-year-old boy who lives on Chicago?s West Side. Later in the month, we learned about the shooting death of Patrick Ryan, the 24-year-old son of former Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan.
In both of these cases, we need to emphasize an often-overlooked reality. When a gun is brought into a home, the likelihood is greater that it will be used in an accidental shooting in the home or for a suicide attempt than ever being used in self-defense. We believe it is imperative that people understand that risk.
Unfortunately, the risk tied to gun violence does not stop there. We have also recently seen how guns can be taken from the home and used to kill someone. That is what happened in the case of 10-year-old Arthur Jones in Chicago on Wednesday, October 17. That day, a young man ?allegedly went to his grandmother's home and got the gun used in the shooting? of Jones, according to news reports.
What do these tragedies tell us? Here, in the most heavily armed country in the world, access to guns must become a more prominent issue. We must keep asking, ?How can we change a culture so that when people are bringing handguns and firearms into their homes ? these guns are properly secured?? While we?re doing that, we must also understand that there are legislators who are trying to make these guns more accessible ? not less accessible. Why?
We also need to acknowledge another fact that often gets overlooked ? there is a gun industry that profits from the sale of more firearms. The only way this industry makes more money is by selling more firearms.
Shooting of Child
On Wednesday, October 3, according to one news report, a young child identified by friends and neighbors as Darnell ?apparently found a gun in his West Side home when the gun went off, and he was wounded and rushed to the hospital.?
After the shooting, the boy was listed in critical but stable condition. He was shot above the right eye.
The shooting of Darnell occurred even though keeping a loaded gun with children in the house violates both city and state laws.
This incident confirms what we know -- even though it is all-too-often ignored in our society. When you have a loaded handgun in a home with young children, there is a real danger of that gun being used in an accidental shooting.
There will, of course, be people who say that ?a kid can?t pull the trigger? of a firearm in the house. This story provides even more evidence that, yes, a young child can pull the trigger. While a 4-year-old would not likely be able to handle a rifle or shotgun, he or she would be able to handle a handgun.
Suicide
As kids get older and become adults, a shooting is more likely to result in a suicide than an accident.
On October 7, four days after the shooting on Chicago?s West Side, Patrick Ryan died of an apparent suicide at the family home in Elmhurst. Police received a call from the family saying that the young man was suicidal. The family member who called police said Patrick ?had been seen with a handgun and was alone in the house.?
Police later found him alone in the house, dead from ?an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound,? according to news reports. Police did not believe that the gun he had used was ?in any way illegal.?
Meanwhile, in the tragedy of Arthur Jones, an innocent boy was caught in the crossfire. The problem, though, started before the shooting ? when a gun was taken from a home.
We know that tragic incidents like these have happened before and, of course, could happen again. We must take a closer look at the role guns play in these incidents ? and keep working to protect our homes and communities in ways that make sense and enhance our safety.
October 4, 2007
2007 Blue Ribbon Winner
For the thirteenth year in a row, ICHV will be hosting our annual Essay, Poetry & Art Contest. This contest is a wonderful opportunity for Illinois youth to share their thoughts and feelings on an issue that touches them deeply; gun violence.
The Essay, Poetry and Art Contest was founded to encourage students to think critically and express their views on gun violence, leading them to safer, smarter decisions. At ICHV, we are often impressed and inspired by the insight and creativity that we find in the contest entries. Illinois youth have so much to say and we are proud to provide an open forum for them to speak out on this vital topic.
This year's topic is: "What would you tell adults and political leaders about the problems caused by gun violence and possible solutions?" As in previous years, winners of the contest will receive a brand new desktop computer and a $25 gift certificate to a bookstore for themselves and a $100 gift certificate to a co-sponsoring bookstore for their classroom teacher. Over the contest's 13 year history, prizes have been awarded to over 100 students hailing from scores of different schools. Packets will be available through the mail and at our website, www.ichv.org, on October 15, 2007. The deadline for all entries is February 1, 2008.
We appreciate your help in achieving our mission to hear and support the powerful statements these students have to offer. Please make sure to pass along this information to others interested and encourage those you know to participate. If you have questions about the contest or would like to be added to our contest mailing list, please email us at info@ichv.org.
September 24, 2007
It Happened So Fast...
ICHV Insights Commentary by Mike Robbins
It happened so fast. My partner shouted 'gun, gun, gun!"
A guy put his gun into the window, and it was in my face. I grabbed his wrist and shouted expletives.
My immediate reaction was self-preservation. I had been on the force for ten years, in the gang investigation unit. I spent all my time in the police department in that unit, and arrested many young people. After they committed a crime, I tried to give them a little guidance. Continue along this path, I said, and you can end up in jail, in a wheelchair - or dead. Now, I intervene so kids do not commit a crime.
That one time, though, which was back in 1994, I was fortunate and blessed to survive. The guy with the gun fired three times into my chest, once into my stomach, three times into my left leg, twice into my right leg, twice in my right arm, and so on. By the time he was done, I had been hit 13 times.
I tried not to panic, and went into the mode I knew from two wars I had served in - Vietnam and Desert Storm. I grabbed for a radio, and said "We've been ambushed."
A doctor told me I would be paralyzed from the waist down. Later, a doctor told me that they would have to amputate my left arm. No, I wasn't going to let them do that. I told the doctors I was going to walk. I did, but I learned there was more to recovering than walking. It took me a few years to recover physically, psychologically and emotionally. Now, my left arm is still shorter than my right arm, and I still have bullets in there and don't have full rotation of that arm. The bullets are still causing me problems.
I am on full disability as a result of having three bullets that are still in me.
After I was shot, I stayed in Cook County Hospital and was later transferred to Michael Reese Hospital. Then I went home, where I was assisted by nurses almost 24 hours a day. While lying in the hospital, I had time to reflect on my situation.
I decided during that time that I need to talk to kids about gangs. That's the best thing I can do: talk to kids. There are so many who need help. In fact, there's a phrase people use about kids who don't make it, kids who grow up in difficult and often violent circumstances - they "fall through the cracks." In reality, we are no longer talking about "cracks." We are talking about a "continental divide." We are losing kids.
One of my messages to kids has always been clear: Too many guns are getting into the hands of people who have criminal intent. In fact, my life has been about addressing the availability and access of too many firearms getting in the hands of too many individuals who shouldn't have them. Many of those individuals, of course, are young. I have also led a victim's group, and I've tried to align with groups in the city that work to prevent gun violence.
The violence didn't stop with that shooting, though. Five years after I was shot, my son was shot -- in January of 1999. I'm lucky, because we still have him.
I've been a victim of gun violence, watched a family member who has survived it, and worked to stop it in our communities. I have learned through my experiences how important it is to look at the big picture. This is not just about one community. If you don't help us in Chicago, sooner or later the problem will be in your backyard. People say "That's a Chicago problem." No, it's our problem.
Gun violence is a public health and safety issue. We have the right to live in peace and comfort - that is what we need to focus on. Gun violence is also costing the county and state millions and millions of dollars. Who pays for that? The taxpayers. If you don't address violence on the front end, you will pay on the back end.
One of my messages to families is that they should not wait until they lose a child in a firearm-related incident. They should get involved now. There's an old Chinese proverb I like: It's not impossible to move a mountain. It can be done one stone at a time. What we are doing, as victims and advocates, is chipping away at that mountain a little bit at a time.
Mike Robbins is a consultant specializing in youth, gang and school violence prevention. He is a former officer with the Chicago Police Department and has shared personal experiences and presented information about how to prevent violence to a wide range of communities and organizations in Illinois.
July 27, 2007
Let's take a close look at what the gun lobby is really saying
We know that guns continue to be a major factor in tragedies that result in death and injuries to people around the country. The gun lobby, however, continues to share a message that protects the gun industry - not individuals.
The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech University is yet another example of the terrifying power of guns to hurt and kill people. It should also remind us that that there is something we can do to stem the epidemic of gun violence.
That, however, is not the message we usually hear from the gun lobby after a tragic gun-related incident. The gun lobby claims to promote individual freedoms, yet is typically silent on issues that may protect individual lives from shootings. The gun lobby claims it is looking out for the basic rights of Americans to bear arms - yet its policies are geared to protect the gun industry, not individuals.
Pressure on legislators
The gun lobby also sends strong and clear messages that any opposition to its agenda from lawmakers and other elected officials can lead to serious consequences to their political careers. These messages, though, can add up to nothing more than empty threats. For example, in last year's election in Illinois , the gun lobby's top two targets were Governor Rod Blagojevich and State Senator Dan Kotowski. Both were threatened with defeat by gun owners, yet both won by comfortable margins.
Criminal background checks
We need to be out in the open about what the gun lobby is really telling us. Why, for example, does the gun lobby routinely oppose mandatory criminal background checks? We know the answer - the gun lobby is a lap dog of the gun industry, so it advocates for the interest of gunmakers and sellers. The gun lobby has a big problem with background checks because when gun sales are subject to background checks, fewer guns are sold.
Let's go even further to consider how the gun lobby tries to frame this debate. If we are to believe the gun lobby, the debate pits two sides against each other - gun owners and non gun-owners. Or, they say it's about the right to bear arms. What the gun lobby never brings up is that it is tied at the hip to the gun industry.
Let's recall that when we talk about the "gun lobby," we are certainly not talking about all gun owners. Polls show gun owners - in large numbers - support an assault weapons ban. What happens if you completely ban the sale of assault weapons? Fewer guns are sold. The gun industry doesn't like that, of course, because that cuts into its profits.
The issue here is painfully obvious. You can't say that you are trying to minimize the risk of violent criminals obtaining guns - and then fail to support consistent criminal background checks on all gun sales. Yet this is what the gun lobby has done time and time again.
Effective and sensible background checks work. Since 1994, an average of more than 135,000 sales of guns to criminals and other prohibited purchasers have been denied annually because of background checks mandated by the Brady Law. Would members of the gun lobby like to tell us how our nation would be a safer place without background checks of those people?
Limiting release of information about guns and violent deaths
Meanwhile, one fact that often goes unnoticed is how the gun lobby tries to limit the amount of information the public has about guns and violent deaths. For example, the gun lobby has opposed funding for the National Violent Death Reporting System, simply because it knows this system will provide more information about deaths and injuries caused by firearms. That information, of course, would undermine their position.
The gun lobby's real message here is that information about deaths and injuries caused by firearms is information the public does not need to know. Another important example of what the gun lobby does not want the public to know is gun trace data that can play a key role in solving firearms-related crimes. Through its support for the Tiahrt Amendment, the gun lobby has conducted a systematic strategy to deny firearm trace data to law enforcement agencies across the country.
In Illinois, the gun lobby's various messages are out in the open, since important gun-related legislation was being considered in Springfield earlier this year. Key bills on background checks and lost or stolen weapons are among those considered by legislators. We need to keep pushing for an open and vigorous discussion about all of these bills.
Same old argument . . .
The gun lobby still wants to make people think it's bad people, not guns, that are the culprit. But you would be much less likely to have had 32 people dead at Virginia Tech if another weapon had been used. The same is true for recent shootings that took the life of a high school student on a bus in Chicago , and a girl shot in a city park. Guns may be just tools - but they are tools that cause far too many people to die more easily than almost all other tools used to hurt people.
Wanted: legislators who will speak out
In the face of the gun lobby, we need courageous legislators who are willing to speak directly about gun violence. That may sound easy, but consider what happened last spring. When we talk about Virginia Tech, let's realize that nobody in Congress was willing to call this an act of gun violence - even though the assailant used guns with high capacity magazines to kill 32 people. Does anybody think another instrument - a knife or a baseball bat, for instance - could have inflicted the same amount of damage in such a short amount of time?
We believe that a good debate with information from both sides is what we really need. We need agreement about what information is shared with the public so that people can make the best decisions about firearms - and whether to bring a firearm into their home.
Finally, there is another message the gun lobby will share -- about how groups like ours want to take away everyone's guns. This, of course, is ludicrous. Our job is not to criticize someone for bringing a gun into his home. It is to say, "Here is a risk." As we have been reminded many, many times - and will be reminded of again -- that risk is real and contributes to tragic consequences.
Back to top
March 16, 2007
Imagine No More of This
On Friday, December 8, 2006, Michael R. Malec McKenna, 58, was killed in his Chicago office by a gunman. The attacker also killed two other men and wounded one woman. Matt Malec, the brother-in-law of Michael McKenna, shared his thoughts about the importance of taking a strong stand against handgun violence.
My initial reaction to Michael's death was probably a common one of shock and horror. The thing that spurred me on to action more than anything else was what happened at the funeral.
Michael was murdered on the same date John Lennon was murdered - December 8. I was a big John Lennon fan, and I remember I was listening to the radio when he died. Who would want to shoot this guy, who was about as peaceful a person as you could find? Within six months of that night, President Reagan was shot, and then the Pope was shot. I thought: Dear God, nobody's safe. They're shooting Beatles, popes and presidents. About a year-and-a-half before that, my uncle was shot as well, in a holdup.
I knew one thing - I didn't believe that guns made you safer. Last December, when Michael was shot, the experience confirmed that belief.
Even so, every time someone dies from a gun, there is that initial shock and horror, and you say "get rid of these guns," and then you go on with your life. I realized that if there were 30,000 people dying of gun violence at one time, you can bet we'd do something about it. But it happens one or two or five at a time - it makes the news, and then fades away into the next story. That is what has kept guns and gun violence possible.
When Michael died, something profound happened to me, and it wasn't just about this happening to someone who was close to me.
On the day of the funeral I walked into the church and the first song they started playing was "Imagine," by John Lennon. I looked at my sister, and the moment was not lost on me. I still believed that if ever there was a person who stood for peace and nonviolence it was John Lennon. In my own life, if there was ever a person who stood for peace and nonviolence, it was Michael Malec McKenna.
The program at the funeral also included a quote Nelson Mandela read at his inaugural speech in 1994:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?>
You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us.
It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
After reading that, I thought to myself, "You know what, we do play small, we get caught in the day-to-day, and don't leave the impact on the world that we could." I decided that I can make an impact on gun violence, and we can make a bigger impact together.
I don't think this was an accident - that "Imagine" was chosen as the opening song at the funeral, or that a quote Nelson Mandela once read was published at the end of the program. It was a message that we must try to do something about gun violence.
One of my sister's greatest fears was that we would forget Michael. On Christmas, she gave everyone a framed photo of him, and it reminded us of what a happy person he was.
My brother-in-law Michael is still with us, and we're not going to let such a wonderful person - someone who was so brutally and senselessly killed - pass into the night. Maybe his gift to the world was a simple but powerful message: "No more of this. No more."
Back to top
December 1, 2006
It's a Matter of Safety: Police Need Access to Gun Records
By Gurnee, IL Police Chief Bob Jones
A shot is fired. A citizen is wounded or killed. Law enforcement officials do their jobs by investigating the incident. It seems so basic, doesn't it? After all, the job of law enforcement agencies is to protect the public.
Getting to the root of handgun violence, however, could be more difficult for police if dangerous federal bills become law. In recent months, several pieces of federal legislation have been proposed that would make it considerably harder for police to investigate handgun crimes in their jurisdiction. One law, in fact, would make it tougher for police to access crime gun data that may be tied to dealers who contribute the most guns to the illegal market.
We need to respect what happened in this country after 9/11. Elected officials almost immediately said it was of the utmost importance to share information at all levels of law enforcement. Let's apply this standard to our own communities. If it made sense to share information on a national level after 9/11, why wouldn't it make sense to follow the path of guns that are illegally bought and sold?
The issue, of course, is not just the gun buyers, it's the sellers. The public deserves to know the identities of high-risk dealers who are the source of illegal guns. Yes, that is the kind of information that would often be kept secret under a proposed law.
Also on the table is a plan that would limit the ability of police departments to share gun trace data from the federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms bureau with other agencies. We are all here to serve the public, and sharing gun data information can help us meet that goal.
We are very familiar with some of the objections to giving police key information about gun records. Those who oppose our point of view, we know, say that giving law enforcement officials too much data about guns reeks of "Big Brother." That, however, is a very old and tired argument. As a law enforcement official, I don't want to invade people's privacy. But let's understand that those of us who are here to protect the public must have the tools we need to protect the public. Telling law enforcement professionals that they can't access key information about guns does something that ordinary citizens do not want to do -- puts handcuffs on those whose job it is to ensure the public's safety. Without these records, a gunrunner or drug dealer with a number of felonies can have greater access to illegal guns. Police would also have trouble addressing problems related to drug trafficking and multiple sales of guns.
For example, one federal law would eliminate the requirement that gun dealers notify state and local law enforcement when they sell multiple handguns to one purchasers. Police, of course, need access to that kind of information to protect the public.
Let's not allow this issue to become politicized. If we are doing the right thing for the common person, we must ask: Do we want illegally purchased handguns off the street? Do we want to make sure law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to make that happen?
For the record, I think we should all speak out loud and clear with answers to those questions
Chief Jones is the immediate past president of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police.
Back to top
Back to home page
