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.
.
.
.
.March 10, 2010
Gun Industry Remains at Center of Persisting Problem
ICHV Column by Josh Sugarmann
Since its inception, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) has approached gun violence as a broad-based public health, as opposed to solely a crime, issue. The public health approach offers insight into the full range of gun death and injury. At the same time, drawing from a long history of lessons learned from life-saving consumer product regulation, the VPC believes that the most effective approach to reducing firearm injury and mortality lies in looking beyond the gun store counter to the industry itself — and holding gunmakers and their products to the same health and safety standards that all other consumer products must meet. With the recent regulation of tobacco, guns are now the only consumer product sold in the United States not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety.
This approach is summed up in our 1994 study Cease Fire: A Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Firearms Violence. Prior to the release of Cease Fire, gun violence prevention efforts focused almost solely on the user — not on the industry itself. Since Cease Fire’s release more than 15 years ago, the industry has continued to exploit its unique, unregulated status by designing and marketing increasingly lethal weapons as measured by firepower and capacity. Today’s gun industry is, in fact, primarily a purveyor of military-bred technology.
Trend Toward More Lethal Weapons
As my VPC colleague Tom Diaz states in his 1999 book Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America, “Lethality is the nicotine of the gun industry.” It’s what the industry uses to hook new buyers and keep past customers. The trend is long and all-too-easily documented, beginning in the 1980s when six-shot revolvers were replaced by high-capacity pistols. This was followed by: assault weapons; powerful palm-sized pistols labeled “pocket rockets” by the industry; “vest-busting” handguns like the 50 caliber Smith & Wesson Model 500, capable of penetrating the most common level of body armor worn by law enforcement; and, 50 caliber sniper rifles capable of penetrating armor plating and downing jetliners on take-off and landing at distances of up to a mile. The common thread connecting each of these technological “advances”? Increased lethality, eagerly marketed by the gun industry with no concern for public safety.
This constant innovation for lethality is a waning industry’s response to the steady decline in household gun ownership From 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006. During the period 1980 to 2006, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than nine percentage points: from a high of 30.7 percent in 1985 to a low of 21.6 percent in 2006. The reason is that the primary firearms market of white males is aging and dying off — and they aren’t being replaced by a new generation of shooters. This has resulted in a two-pronged approach by the industry. The first is trying to resell the white male market of current gun owners. This has resulted in the marketing of militarization (assault weapons, etc.) and specialization (e.g., pistols marketed for concealed carry — a “movement” that at its core is about selling guns). A key marketing aspect of this effort has been to advertise these weapons as the civilian versions of the guns used by our military and homeland security forces. The second, following a trail blazed by the tobacco industry, is to entice and engage women and children — an effort that, beyond anecdotes, has met with extremely limited success.
The Modern-Day “Citizen Soldier”
Today, when we look at the gun culture we see that there are two types of gun owners. For the majority, guns are a part of their life. But for a small, yet active and aggressive minority, guns are their life. The gun lobby has become expert at using this second group to further its goals.
Common themes that dominate this group are a distrust of government and law enforcement, an image of themselves as modern-day “citizen soldiers” who are the physical manifestation of what they view as America’s core values, and a belief that the only thing that stands between democracy and totalitarianism is civilian gun ownership. And while the vast majority of these self-described patriots will never act on their Walter Mitty-esque rhetoric, some do—with devastating results. Last year in Pittsburgh, CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons) holder Richard Poplawski, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, shot and killed three police officers in an ambush at the home he shared with his mother. Poplawski had voiced to his friends fears that the Obama administration wanted to ban guns.
Recognizing the potential power for activism this distinct pool of gun owners represents, the NRA and other members of the gun lobby have become expert at exploiting their fears for their own political and financial gain. The NRA’s theme of ‘Obama’s coming for your guns’ is merely a rehash of its “jack-booted government thugs” attacks on federal law enforcement that occurred during the Clinton Administration—a period during which the NRA actively explored the grassroots potential of the militia movement. The inherent risk in the NRA catering to this paranoid mindset is that the organization can play a lethal, validating role. During the Clinton Administration, the NRA warned that the “final war has begun.” Former NRA member Timothy McVeigh took the organization at its word, resulting in the deadly 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Working Together
Right now the national gun violence prevention movement is working together as closely as it has ever worked – exchanging information, developing strategies, and collaborating on the local, state, and national levels. Yet longstanding problems remain. We face an engaged, well-funded opponent while lacking the financial resources to help give voice to those who want to aid us in our efforts. While a few key foundations have taken a longstanding, leadership role on this issue, a challenge that remains is how do we help other foundations better understand the debilitating effect gun violence has on their own policy efforts in areas such as domestic violence prevention, early childhood education, youth violence prevention, and numerous others
The ability to work together is more important then ever. The election of President Obama has been cynically exploited by the gun lobby and the firearms industry to increase short-term gun sales in America—with no concern for the potential long-term consequences. At the same time, the President’s election has resulted in a reawakening of the extreme right in America. And all of this is occurring against a backdrop of increasingly lethal, easily available, weaponry.
For those of us who work to stop gun death and injury the question is how do we get the American public to look beyond the national headlines that inevitably appear in the wake of the most recent horrible incident and understand the direct effect gun violence has on their daily lives — from the fear of a stranger on a darkened city street to the loss of a loved one in a suburban home.
In the short term, we must hold the President to the promises he made before his election — such as banning assault weapons (right now, President Obama can use his executive powers to ban the import of foreign-made assault weapons) and ending restrictions on the public release of national crime gun trace data that was previously available through the Freedom of Information Act (the Tiahrt Amendment).
In the long term, as a public interest movement, it’s our responsibility to make sure that the public understands the true nature of firearms violence, that those most affected by it are given voice, and that we advocate for measures that are effective.
One of the gun lobby’s greatest successes has been in framing gun violence solely as a crime issue—i.e. “bad” people get guns and hurt us, the “good” people — with the all-too-frequent acquiescence of advocates on our own side. Yet, it’s the “good” people who are doing most of the killing. The majority of the more than 30,000 gun deaths that occur each year are suicides—nearly 17,000 in 2006—acts of despair that result in death as the result of the unique lethality of firearms. The most common homicide scenario is not attack by a stranger, but an argument between people who know one another. And fatal gun accidents speak for themselves.
Our responsibility as a gun violence prevention movement is not to offer the most easily accepted answers, but the most effective solutions. As a public interest movement, we have a trust and responsibility to give voice to the victims of gun violence and educate the public and policymakers about the realities of firearms death and injury. While we, of course, have to operate within the confines of political reality, this unique responsibility requires that we offer solutions that will work, not just slogans that will sell.
Josh Sugarmann is executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a national educational foundation based in Washington, D.C. working to reduce gun death and injury. He is the author of the books NRA: Money, Firepower & Fear (1994, scheduled to be reprinted Spring 2010) and Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns (2001). Visit the VPC’s web site at www.vpc.org or visit the VPC’s pages on Facebook.
.February 26, 2010
Our country’s most powerful voice in the fight against hand-gun violence is…NBA Commissioner David Stern?
ICHV Column by Dan Frystak
At first read, this idea seems not only ridiculous, but insulting. To ascribe this title to the commissioner of the NBA, a sports league widely known for its acceptance (some would say embrace) of the ‘thug’ culture, would ordinarily seem laughable. But three weeks ago, David Stern did more to fight gun violence in this country than any public figure in recent memory.
On December 24th, 2009, NBA player Gilbert Arenas removed several unloaded handguns from his NBA locker in order to display to a teammate in mock threat after a gambling debt went unpaid. Once word got around and authorities got involved, Gilbert Arenas tried to defuse this incident by describing it as both a ‘joke gone bad’ and ‘not serious at all’. Of course! How could anyone consider threatening someone with multiple firearms not side-splittingly comical? If you don’t think this is funny, get an x-ray immediately to make sure you do indeed have a funny bone. Days later, while being introduced as a member of his team’s starting lineup, Gilbert was seen mockingly making guns with his hands and pretending to shoot his teammates as they were subsequently announced. That was the last straw for David Stern. Because, unfortunately for Mr. Arenas, it appears the NBA Commissioner must have broken his aforementioned jesting joint needed to understand this hilarious joke. Or more likely, he simply does not occupy the same insane, alternate reality that Gilbert Arenas seems to reside within.
“Although it is clear that the actions of Mr. Arenas will ultimately result in a substantial suspension, and perhaps worse, his ongoing conduct has led me to conclude that he is not currently fit to take the court in an NBA game. Accordingly, I am suspending Mr. Arenas indefinitely, without pay, effective immediately pending the completion of the investigation by the NBA.” – David Stern, 1/6/2010
You hear that flapping noise? No, that’s not a procrastinating goose frantically flapping its wings trying to make its way south before winter’s worst is upon us. That’s the sound of Gilbert Arenas’s checkbook opening and closing every time he loses another game-check, which to this date amounts to over $1.6 million in lost wages. After the initial stories of gunplay were reported, Stern was content to allow the legal process to take its course. Then Arenas did the one thing the commissioner just couldn’t tolerate: he publicly made light of the issue. All too often, celebrities and other figures of national prominence or power believe they are granted a certain immunity to the laws placed upon us mere mortals. And all too often, they are proven right by a flawed legal system that is too heavily influenced by deep pockets and clever legal representation. The state has yet to determine exactly what punishment awaits Gilbert Arenas for his unlawful possession and brandishing. Had he understood the severity of his mistake, and not mocked its significance, he may very well have been another example of a privileged celebrity escaping justice. But with his little mock-gun hand gestures, Arenas tried bragging to the world, “I’m untouchable.” That was an incorrect (and costly) assumption. Regardless of the legal system’s determinations, the NBA Commissioner had his own justice ready to serve up for Arenas. Stern’s statement and suspension of Arenas was incredibly important for the following reasons:
1) The swiftness of his decision: Gilbert Arenas, you are suspended immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $100. Stern did not ponder how to respond to this star player’s inexcusable actions. He wasted no time getting Arenas out of his NBA uniform. For once, a celebrity was not given the benefit of the doubt, or allowed to proceed in his own preferred timeline. Stern did not give Arenas the star treatment; he treated him like the misguided fool that he is.
2) The specific words chosen: David Stern is a lawyer. He knows that every word he writes will be scrutinized and searched for loopholes. He chose his words carefully, and in doing so he made a point – not just that Gilbert was wrong, but that his subsequent actions displayed a complete lack of ethical and moral compass. He specifically says “…not currently fit to take the court…” That is a jarring use of words. Stern is indicating that not only is what Gilbert did wrong, but in his inability to recognize the gravity of his transgressions, he must possess a fundamental gap within the reasonable thought process. And that gap needs to somehow be filled before he can play another game in the NBA. Essentially, Stern is saying that to act this cavalier with respect to firearms is irrational in nature and to do so might actually represent a mental break with reality.
3) What it means to everyone else not named Gilbert: No matter how good of a parent you may be, no matter how strong the mentors your child has, kids idolize celebrities. Actors, musicians, athletes…kids want to be like anyone they see on TV doing something they’d like to do when they grow up. Unfortunately, that includes the likes of Gilbert Arenas. Stern’s message is not just for Arenas, it is for all future would-be NBA stars. And that message is if you are in his league, and end up making headlines with guns, no matter what happens legally you have a potentially much more painful penalty awaiting you. Kids see what is happening to Gilbert Arenas right now. Some will think that Gilbert deserved this punishment, and they are correct, and it will steer them further away from guns. But some kids may disagree with his treatment. And although it is their right, this misguided opinion becomes moot as they won’t be able to ignore the trouble Arenas is in and the money and stature he is losing because of it. Whether a kid doesn’t pick up a gun because he dislikes them, or is scared of the repercussions, I don’t really care – I just don’t want him to pick it up.
In a lot of ways, David Stern’s business handled this issue no differently than most companies might. But when his business is the NBA, one of the most visible organizations to adolescents and teenagers across this country, his actions represent a significant progressive step. He could have tried to sweep this issue under the rug, or even try to aid Gilbert Arenas in an attempt to protect his league’s image. But he went the other way, the right way. Stern drew a line in the sand on the issue of guns in the NBA. You want to play in the NBA? No guns. The law can’t touch you? The NBA still can. You think guns are a funny prop in a ‘joke gone bad’? We’ll turn you from an NBA star into an NBA cautionary tale. David Stern just told millions of fans, many of them impressionable aspiring athletes, that you can play with guns and you can play in the NBA. But you can’t do both. Kids may not sit around debating the constitutionality of gun ownership, but they have witnessed and understand what happened to Gilbert Arenas. Because of that, David Stern has taken an important stride in the fight to stop hand-gun violence in this country.
February 2, 2010
.
Virginia Tech survivor:
“What happened to me can happen anyplace”
ICHV Insights Column by Garrett Evans
I woke up one morning in the middle of April of 2007. It was the oddest of days. The wind was howling, it was snowing, the skies were overcast and the temperature was 34 degrees at a time when it was usually 65 or even 75 degrees. I was a student at Virginia Tech, and I was only a few weeks away from getting my degree in economics.
Something told me to avoid class altogether, but I said let’s just go and get it over with. Normally, when I walked into my German class, I was always greeted with a smile by this young lady I knew. On this day, I walked through the door and she paid me absolutely no mind. I was wondering what was going on because that was too different. Slowly, when I went to sit down, everything else looked and felt a little different. Then, a few minutes later, the door kind of screeched. Then it happened a second time, about five or seven minutes later. I was trying to figure out what that was about. A few minutes later, I heard a series of loud banging sounds. I was thinking maybe they were doing some work in another room.
Then we heard screaming: a woman was screaming in the hallway. I didn’t know if it was just “playing around” screaming or screaming like something was wrong. I was thinking, “What is this?”
Seconds later, the door opened rapidly. The first thing I saw was a gun unloading, one round after another. I was thinking a million things at once. I was wondering most of all if this was real. The young woman I knew was one of the first to get shot. She died instantly. Everything was happening so fast that I had no time to be shocked. All I could do was think fast and react. The instructor was shot in the forehead. A man in front of me was shot in the neck; his blood spurted out like it was coming from a fountain. Bodies were falling one by one. As I hit the floor, I felt something go through my right leg. It didn’t feel like anything at first, but my leg started swelling.
Meanwhile, the shooter was walking around the room and continued to shoot. He unloaded one magazine and reloaded another in seconds. It was like the shooter knew exactly what he was doing, like he had a mission in mind: To kill as many people as he could. While he was shooting, I was trying to get underneath some desks to take as much cover as I could. Then I noticed him turning toward the door to leave. I realized that I had to stop moving. I was praying: God, please don’t let this man kill me. He went back to the rooms to finish off anyone else.
After he left, I was trying to take my shirt off and tie it onto my leg to stop the bleeding. Then I realized that my left leg felt wet. I looked down and realized that I was shot there, too. That is when another guy came to help me get another shirt off to tie it to my other leg. I was talking really fast, letting him know that I appreciated his help; I knew the shooter was going to return to the room to finish us all off. He tried to get through the door, but three other people fought him off.
I was the last person conscious or living to leave the room because I was unable to walk. As I waited for the police to open the door, the stench of all the dead bodies quickly filled the room. My stomach was turning and I felt like I was coming down with a migraine. It was so unbearable that it was difficult to see straight.
Finally, the police arrived. Two officers picked me up, and had to carry me out. As they did, I saw more bodies in the hall and in other rooms. Oh my God. I was thinking a million different things at once. It’s hard to think clearly when you’re so anxious.
When I got to the hospital, I learned that one bullet had gone in and out of my right leg, and then traveled to my left leg, where it stayed. It didn’t hit a thing besides muscle. I was relieved and realized how blessed I really was to be living. I learned when I was in the hospital that the shooter killed himself after killing 32 and wounding 26. I later found out that six people had been admitted to the psych ward at the hospital. That tells you how brutal and surreal all of this was.
When I had a chance to really stop and think about what happened, I realized that I had to forgive the shooter because I knew that God had some things for me to do. I know some people would still be angry with him, but I felt that it doesn’t do any good to harbor anger like that. It prevents me from doing anything positive. Besides, I knew that God had my back.
When I arrived back on campus, I was asked to speak to a couple of my classes about the shooting. Then I wondered, “Am I called to do exactly this?” Since Virginia Tech, I have spoken to women’s groups, schools, and many other organizations, including those whose members strongly oppose gun control. I have been doing this since I graduated in 2007, and I have also participated in press conferences, rallies and peace marches.
I decided to do all of these things because this was what I was called to do – and because I am also trying to save lives. What happened to me can happen anyplace. You have to see the bigger picture: Look at what’s happening around the country. We have too many politicians in Springfield who do not pay enough attention to this issue. I had a state representative tell me that these shootings only happen in Chicago and not downstate. That is when I realized that she and many other politicians are not immune to being naïve. Shootings are happening in rural and suburban areas as well. We must prevent gun violence in all places.
Why don’t we work together to prevent more tragedies? I have spoken to a lot of parents and children, who have just as much to offer on this issue as politicians. Many are too frustrated with what has happened to speak out about it – they feel their points are not as well taken as they should be. Many of the leaders and politicians have their own agendas and egos, which causes a bit of separation. We need to come together and create a positive spirit from the children to the parents – and from the community leaders to the politicians. It’s impossible to overemphasize the power of strength in numbers.
We all have the power to prevent violence (and violence goes much deeper than just guns). That is one of my messages when I go to schools. I tell students that we need to focus on basic and simple things — like listening to people, talking out our problems and being there for people. If we did all of that, do you think these things would be as likely to happen? We have to get to the heart and spirit and emotions of people if we are going to make any dent in the problem we call violence.
I have survived, and I know how much we need to raise awareness about this issue. We have a problem, and by speaking out and working together we can prevent a whole lot of tragedies. I know we can talk all day long about policies and legislation, but we have to peacefully come together first. How are the lawmakers down in Springfield going to propose or pass any type of sensible laws when not enough people come together to create a powerful voice? The more we are involved, the greater the chance is that we will have a positive effect.
As for me, I am sure that I must stay involved. I will be damned if I let what happened at Virginia Tech go in vain.
Garrett Evans was wounded and survived the massacre at Virginia Tech University in 2007. He later graduated from the university and now lives in Chicago, where he frequently speaks about gun violence to schools and other organizations.
January 25th, 2010
Legal Community Against Violence: Providing Expertise, Information and Advocacy on Gun Violence Issues
ICHV Column by Robyn Thomas
In 1993, a disgruntled man drove into Nevada, where he purchased assault weapons and other guns. The man had been a client of a San Francisco law firm twelve years earlier. When he came back to San Francisco after his trip to Nevada, he had a hit list in his pocket and went to the offices of the law firm.
The man ended up killing eight people and wounding six before killing himself. Even though he began his shooting spree at the law firm, none of the “dead or wounded appeared to have any connection” to the killer, according to a news story published at the time.
For many people, this tragedy hit very close to home. It was also the catalyst for the formation of the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV). We have a very congenial and connected legal community in San Francisco, and members of this community came together to form LCAV. One man who died in this tragedy was John Scully, who shielded his wife Michelle and saved her. She later became very involved with the organization.
At LCAV, It’s not just the work we do every day, but the network we have. In addition, many of the lawyers work in law firms we are connected with and are doing this work pro bono.
LCAV is a national organization – and strives to be “national” in at least two ways. First, we are working all over the country. Second, we are working to improve federal laws.
At the same time, the best successes often come at the state level, where political will is making a difference. But you can’t completely ignore the fact that the best possible solution would be at the federal level.
We work to address violence in a number of ways. One of our main bulwarks is the legal expertise we provide to legislators. They work in a complicated legal arena, and for us to be able to come in and understand where the gaps are on this issue fills an important niche.
We also provide support to activists. Maybe we can provide information that helps them understand the impact of a law or issues that arise. We do research and analysis for groups all across the country, and provide publications on key issues. Our goal is to put well-reasoned information out there. One example is our publication “10 Myths About Gun Violence in America,” which is available on our website (lcav.org).
We spend a lot of time and energy tracking information on new and proposed laws. We have also created a database of laws. We try to make this information accessible to a lay person. We strive to be very dispassionate and clear and analytical. We don’t want to play the game the NRA plays. (By the way, it’s important for us to always remember that the NRA doesn’t represent a majority of Americans).
One of the challenges of the gun violence prevention movement is that most Americans don’t have good information about gun violence – they don’t know the laws or the breadth or scope of the problem. Many don’t know that effective laws could be passed that would not adversely affect law-abiding gun owners.
Why is this true? One of the reasons is the success and effectiveness of the misinformation put out by the NRA. The NRA creates good taglines, and the organization really permeates the popular culture. They have money, they lobby. To try and confront that is very challenging. Once an idea is out there, it’s hard to change people’s minds. For example, we will hear the myth that “there are already too many laws on the books.” Trying to educate people that a commonly held idea is not right can be a challenge.
Still, it’s a challenge we can meet. For example, in California we have worked in local jurisdictions to pass ammunition regulations. We were able to show how effective these laws can be, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a groundbreaking law this fall that requires sellers of handgun ammunition to maintain records containing certain identifying information about the purchaser and the ammunition being sold. Sellers are now also required to store handgun ammunition so that it is inaccessible to purchasers without the assistance of the vendor. Other key aspects of the law require that:
* Ammunition sales be completed in face-to-face transactions;
* persons subject to gang injunctions are prohibited from possessing ammunition, and
* ammunition sales to any person the seller knows or has cause to believe is prohibited from possessing ammunition is prohibited.
LCAV co-sponsored this landmark bill. The Governor has also signed several other bills supported by LCAV.
The issue of gun violence can certainly be a political hot button, and it requires a strong spine to tackle. On the federal level, we are going to need more traction. In the meantime, we are making an impact. Last year, we joined with 11 major U.S. cities and the United States Conference of Mayors in filing an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia in the Heller case, which addressed the right to possess a firearm for private use (in its decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban). Now, LCAV is supporting Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois in the McDonald case, which is pending before the Supreme Court. The case will determine whether the Heller decision applies to states. We have been asked by the City of Chicago to coordinate all of the amicus briefing in this case, which means we will work with all of the firms and organizations who want to weigh in on this case to the Supreme Court.
The big question is how will the right to own guns be applied. It’s possible that not that many laws would be affected. We are hoping the Court gives local courts guidance, but this ruling should not affect the vast majority of common sense gun laws.
In the end, we need to create a system that generally makes guns less accessible. In our case, we like to consider ourselves proactive yet responsive. As opposed to having an agenda, we have expertise that we make available and provide support where it’s needed – to those in the movement, legislators, the media and others. There is very little gun regulation on the books in this country — and smart gun laws do work to reduce particular types of gun violence. We will keep those realities in mind as we strive to reduce gun violence.
Robyn Thomas is executive director of Legal Community Against Violence, a national organization based in San Francisco.
December 29, 2009
Year End Thoughts from ICHV Executive Director, Thom Mannard
When we take a look at 2009, we quickly see that once again Americans witnessed a wide range of gun-related tragedies during the course of the year. At this point, it seems as if incidents of gun violence have become something that we expect in this country. It’s the status quo. It’s almost as if many people are getting blasé about gun violence.
It doesn’t have to be like that. We can, and must, keep asking questions and raise our concerns about this issue.
First, though, let’s take a look at the scope of what has happened in the last year. One of the questions we should be asking is “How can we put up with this?”
In the first half of 2009, a man in Alabama went out and killed ten people in two different counties. A man in Pittsburgh killed three police officers, while four police officers were shot and killed in Oakland. Thirteen people were killed by a gunman in shootings at an immigrant counseling center in New York during a class on citizenship. Then the gunman killed himself.
In Fort Hood, Texas, of course, shootings in November occurred on a military base. But they happened with guns that were obtained off-base. Thirteen people were killed by a gunman in the incident, including one woman who was pregnant. Later in the month, four officers in Washington State were ambushed, losing their lives in a coffee shop. Of course locally, we appear to be reminded daily of the toll gun violence is taking on Illinois communities.
Unfortunately, we can point to any number of different tragedies involving firearms that happened during the course of 2009. They are also linked in another way: there doesn’t seem to be any real intelligent and thoughtful discussion about the role that firearms play in these incidents.
I haven’t even mentioned other situations that don’t involve shootings – but do raise questions. For example, what about when a man brought an assault rifle to a presidential rally in Phoenix? Why is a man bringing an assault weapon to a presidential rally and more importantly why is it permitted to happen?
These examples from around the country suggest one of the things we must do: promote dialogue about the use of guns in this country. We must understand that these incidents confirm how vulnerable we are and why gun control is needed. And, of course, we must understand that we can, and will, raise tough questions while still understanding that many individuals have the right to legally own guns if they so choose. But when bullets are fired, and innocent people are injured or die, from guns in this country, we must ask how and why this happens – and do something about it.
Just as examples from around the country demonstrate the urgency of this issue, we see as clearly as ever the impact of gun violence in Chicago and throughout the Illinois. Far too many innocent Chicago children and teens were killed with guns in 2009. We must remember that a weapon was used in almost all of these tragedies– a weapon that can be used from a distance, like 10 or 15 or 30 yards away. A gun.
Ironically this year, national news focused on the deadly tragedy at Fenger High School, which didn’t involve a gun. The country’s Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) visited Chicago after this incident. Unfortunately, the gun violence that has killed most of our young people in Chicago did not lead to the same kind of attention from Washington.
While promoting dialogue on this issue, let’s remember what “dialogue” truly means. Let people who feel that giving guns to all is the right thing to do come to the table. Let those on our side come to the table. On most issues, there is a thoughtful and thorough discussion that engages both sides, however, when people raise legitimate questions about gun violence, they are also, according to some, questioning somebody’s individual right to own a gun. There must be an understanding, particularly among gun owners, that talking about how guns contribute to the deaths of more than 30,000 Americans every year does not mean you are anti gun or anti second amendment. 30,000 Americans dying every year is a simple fact, and it is in the interests of both gun owners and those who don’t own guns to discuss intelligently and rationally how we can reduce that number.
On the federal level, we know that Congress is supposed to be an institution that embodies principles. In reality though, Congress allows the gun lobby to set the agenda on this issue. Bills supported by the gun lobby have consistently received votes while bills supported by gun control advocates are not even given as much as a committee hearing. What does that say about the process? The current situation shows that we are not hearing all sides and allowing for a fair and just process.
There is another important fact we need to repeat: the solid majority of adults in this country – at least 60 percent – are people who could legally own guns, but choose not to own guns(we conclude this information from polls – it’s impossible to get perfect data on this question because so many gun owners are not licensed). There are many times when I wonder how our elected officials in Washington D.C. can just sit there and only acknowledge the position of the minority – i.e., gun owners, but not the majority.
As we look back on 2009, we must wonder: what can we do to improve this situation? Well, there are a lot of things we can do – especially on the local level. We can make sure we keep guns out of our homes or at a minimum make sure they are locked and unloaded. We can ask about the presence of firearms in homes where our children play. We can also weigh in with elected officials and local media about our feelings on this issue. It is imperative that as we enter 2010 we communicate what we know about the impact of guns in our communities.
In today’s America, we understand that many issues have daily impact and resonate with people – issues like health care, unemployment and the economy. At the same time, we must keep bringing up how guns are affecting our world. One year from now, we can safely predict that this issue will still be haunting us.
December 9, 2009
Interview: Dr. Garen Wintemute, Director, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis
Dr. Garen Wintemute has been a leading researcher on gun violence issues for many years and is the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Wintemute is also a professor of epidemiology and an emergency room physician at the university. He has served as a consultant for the National Institute of Justice, World Health Organization, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Red Cross.
In the last five years, Dr. Wintemute has conducted research at dozens of gun shows across the country. We asked him about his work at gun shows and what it can tell us about the prevention of gun violence in this country.
ICHV: How did your work at gun shows begin?
Dr. Wintemute: It started off with me just collecting quantitative data and recording anecdotes. A gun show is like any trade show – there are lots of tables, people walk up and down browsing. I realized that everyone is using their cell phones, and I dictated into mine. I sent myself voice mails that included information from what I observed. I also used a camera, which I carried down near my waist. Over the years, I’ve taken about 10,000 pictures. There were a few times when I was asked if I was taking pictures. The rule of engagement was that this would be done discreetly, to avoid the Hawthorne effect. The term refers to the tendency of some people to perform better when they are participants in an experiment or receive attention.
ICHV: Can anyone go to a gun show?
Dr. Wintemute: Yes, but they’re not free. These shows typically cost about five to fourteen bucks to go in.
One of the real insights in this area is a simple one: guns are consumer products. Gun commerce follows the rules that apply to many other products. It’s a relatively unregulated industry – licensed retailers are regulated, but the private party market is unregulated.
In the mid-1980s, gun sales were lagging, and the gun industry said it needed new markets. So the industry targeted women, and also did aggressive marketing overseas, just like the tobacco industry has done.
ICHV: When you started, how else did you gather information?
Dr. Wintemute: One way was through what we call “shoe leather epidemiology” — in this case, counting up gun vendors in a statistically valid way. Beyond that, as I learned about what I was watching, I kept my eyes open for the sort of activity that has given gun shows a bad name – like the prevalence of straw purchasers and undocumented sales between private parties. Some things were just obvious – for example, when you see a guy selling a gun to another guy, and no paperwork is exchanged. That’s how I knew a gun sale was undocumented. In other cases, there would be a handshake agreement and cash would be exchanged. The whole thing can take less than a minute.
ICHV: Did anything surprise you while conducting this research?
Dr. Wintemute: I came into this work as a scientist. While what I found was not shocking, some of it was new. For instance, the frequency of undocumented transactions was higher than I thought it would be. I think about one in three transactions are undocumented, which is higher than I had previously thought. It was also surprising how common it is to see straw purchases. They were out in the open, and there was absolutely no doubt about what was going on. Straw purchases are felonies for the licensed retailer, the straw purchaser, and the person who is actually getting the gun.
ICHV: Isn’t it true that private sales of guns between private parties without a background check or a waiting period are legal?
Dr. Wintemute: Private sales between private parties are indeed legal in states where they are not prohibited – as long as the buyer is not a prohibited person. But therein lies the rub. Let’s say you have a gun and I want to buy it. If I am a felon, it’s a felony for me to buy that gun. But for you the seller, it’s only a crime if you know that you are selling to a prohibited person. The way it works is this: if I don’t volunteer that I am a prohibited person and you don’t ask the questions, there’s no way to know whether a private party sale is legal or not.
A straw purchase is different in that it involves a licensed retailer – a gun dealer or a pawn shop. In this case, the person who is going to get the gun is either prohibited from buying it himself or otherwise doesn’t want to be named in the paperwork. So they hire other people do it for them – people known as straw purchasers. This person represents himself to be the purchaser – they do the paperwork, and the background check is done on them.
If you see the whole transaction – and I have, many times – in many cases the real purchaser gives the straw purchaser money and points out the gun he wants bought. Then the straw purchaser makes the purchase from the sales person. In some cases the “real” purchaser even picks up the gun. The retailer may be seeing this, too. Sometimes these transactions are done out in the open, with a sense of impunity.
ICHV: What is the role of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in this process? Isn’t the ATF supposed to enforce the law at these shows?
Dr. Wintemute: ATF is able to mount enforcement at three percent of these gun shows. They are not proactive about it. I’ve talked with ATF people, and they would like to have more of a presence at these shows. The real problem, though, is not with a place or a show, but with corrupt retailers and straw purchasers.
My criticism is not of ATF, but those who systematically deny ATF the resources it needs to do its job. Congress does what the NRA wants it to do.
ICHV: What would an expanded, and proactive, enforcement program at gun shows look like?
Dr. Wintemute: I like to promote the operation we have here in California. Undercover agents are at every major gun show in the state, in a program that was mandated by the state legislature and the California Department of Justice. The fact that they are there is known, but they are undercover. Retailers have also been helpful in this situation. It works.
ICHV: How about trafficking, the intentional diversion of guns into illegal commerce? How many guns that are trafficked actually come from gun shows?
Dr. Wintemute: About 30 percent. That’s a really huge number, because our best estimate is that less than 10 percent of all gun purchases happen at gun shows. What that means is guns bought at gun shows are overrepresented among trafficked guns. Our best evidence – from a series of ATF trafficking investigations – is that most of the trafficked guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed retailers.
ICHV: Why do some people choose to go to unregulated, private party gun sellers?
Dr. Wintemute: If you buy a gun from a private party, there is no ID check, no background check, no waiting period. Even if you are law-abiding, that might be more convenient for you. If you are prohibited from purchasing guns, it’s the only option. At a gun show, the table will typically say “private sale” or “private collection.” Everybody knows what that means – it’s an unregulated private party gun seller.
ICHV: What is the demographic of people who go to gun shows?
Dr. Wintemute: At shows in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Washington state, I found that the population was remarkably uniform. Ninety percent of the people there were white males and many were over 50. There were also shows where I was one of the youngest people there. In other parts of the country, it’s not as concentrated. Even though the industry has targeted more women over the years, the vast majority of people at gun shows are white males.
ICHV: What allies can come together to address this issue?
Dr. Wintemute: There’s potential to work together with advocacy groups, policymakers and, in particular, with law enforcement, as well as with licensed retailers. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has been very much involved in this issue. The bottom line, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is that 83 percent of gun owners and 87 percent of the public think that all private party transfers, not just those at gun shows, should follow the same rules as purchases from licensed retailers do.
ICHV: What next steps would you take to address the issues you see at gun shows?
Dr. Wintemute: Our work at gun shows convinces me that gun shows should be addressed as part of a larger problem. Closing the gun show loophole is a fine idea, but it’s not enough to make a big difference in the crime rate. The problem is that closing the gun show loophole will not take care of the problem of unregulated private party gun sales, since most of them happen elsewhere. And it won’t clean up gun shows, because most of the illegal activity involves licensed retailers.
If we think of illegal and unregulated gun commerce as the jungle, then the gun show is the zoo where you can see all of this behavior in a highly concentrated form. That helps us understand the problem, but addressing undesirable behaviors in just one of the places where they occur is not adequate. We need to go after undocumented private party gun sales, corrupt retailers and straw purchasers everywhere, not just at gun shows.
Meanwhile, one message I have for people is to go see for yourself what others are doing at gun shows. Millions of people go to gun shows every year.
ICHV: Is there an opportunity to make a difference on a national scale?
Dr. Wintemute: We might need to wait our turn, since the general public and policymakers alike have other things on their minds. But we still face a very important challenge: Now is the time to educate people on the issues. As we make progress and gun violence returns to the national agenda, we have to make sure that people are informed about this issue.
.
A copy of our 270-page report, Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching, can be downloaded at no charge from our web site: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp. The site also contains links to video shot at gun shows as part of the project.
.
November 3, 2009
We Must Focus on Causes, Means of Suicide
ICHV Insights Column by Stan Lewy .At the end of May in 2001, my son David took his life. It’s by far the most devastating thing that has ever happened to me. The most horrific thing about his suicide was the fact that he was in such psychic pain that this was a viable option. My son was a victim of bipolar disorder.
That one moment changed my life forever; I now devote my life to preventing suicide. We need to focus on both the causes of suicide and what to do about them — and the means of attempting suicide. Since guns are frequently the means of completed suicides, we must consider ways to limit the use of guns that play a role in so many preventable deaths.
First, I want to tell you a little about my son and how I responded to his suicide.
My son was a wonderful and loving individual. He ministered to absolutely everybody. He was a triathlete. He was a Ph.D candidate who led other Ph.D students to volunteer at a soup kitchen. He led master’s swim classes. He helped absolutely everybody he was in contact with, but ultimately he couldn’t help himself. “He was the best of us,” a friend of his said.
After he died, in order to survive myself, I went to a support group called Loving Outreach for Survivors of Suicide. It saved my life.
Meanwhile, I had spent the majority of my business life as a commercial lender or investment banker. In October of 2001, I lost my job as a chief credit officer for a small Chinese bank in Chicago. A month later my wife lost her job; a month after that, she lost her father.
At that point, I decided I couldn’t go back into the commercial world and that I had to do something for others. Specifically, I had to help kids who were affected by bipolar disorder.
I had a lot to learn. I talked to everyone I knew about running or managing a charity or being on a board. After about three months, I figured I knew what to do, but didn’t know where to do it.
I also called the National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association and, later, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP). Soon after that, I agreed to found a Midwest chapter for AFSP. Meanwhile, I met with leaders at Thresholds, which provides a wide range of services to people with mental illness in the Chicago area. I volunteered full time at Thresholds, doing special projects. Then I worked for the organization, running vocational training and placement programs that help enable their clients to obtain employment and to succeed in the workforce. I also collaborated with [State Rep.] Julie Hamos and others during this time to write the state’s Suicide Prevention, Education, and Treatment Act.
In August of 2008, I had a heart attack, and later blanked out for four months. When I regained consciousness, I soon started thinking again about how we could help prevent suicide. I truly believe I survived in order to focus on this issue. I have now formed the Suicide Prevention Association (SPA) which is working to bring to Chicago, a 24/7 suicide hotline which is connected to the national system. Responses, where appropriate will be handled in person by a team of mental health professionals. SPA will open a safe house where people in danger of attempting suicide can check themselves in and out at will.
My dream is to see that suicide prevention gains the level of support that cancer has. Forty years ago, nobody wanted to talk about cancer either.
I have talked about causes, services and the need for greater awareness about suicide. We also need to understand the means people use to attempt and complete suicide. Understanding how guns affect this issue is an important, and natural, part of what we are doing. Consider the following:
* For youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death (source: Centers for Disease Control);
* Firearms are the top method used in suicides of young people (source: Centers for Disease Control);
* There is a positive association between the availability and accessibility of firearms in the home and risk for youth suicide (Source cited in document published by American Association of Suicidology).
In addition, more than half of all suicides in the U.S. involve firearms. In 2006, 55 percent of all of all people who died by suicide, died from guns. Suicide is also still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 55 percent of total 2005 gun deaths nationwide (source: Centers for Disease Control). We also know that males are more likely to use lethal means – like guns — to kill themselves than females. I believe that the extent of the link between guns and suicide is not commonly known. Of course many people who work in the mental health field or on gun control issues know about this connection. But we need to make sure the public knows about it. I believe we have to treat guns as we treat automobiles – to start, people must have licenses, must be trained to use them appropriately and must be insured. They also must be primarily responsible for anything done with guns unless they are reported lost or stolen. Our ability to control the use of guns – and limit their use to legitimate purposes – is paramount.
We also know that males are more likely to use lethal means – like guns — to kill themselves than females. I believe that the extent of the link between guns and suicide is not commonly known. Of course many people who work in the mental health field or on gun control issues know about this connection. But we need to make sure the public knows about it. I believe we have to treat guns as we treat automobiles – to start, people must have licenses, must be trained to use them appropriately and must be insured. They also must be primarily responsible for anything done with guns unless they are reported lost or stolen. Our ability to control the use of guns – and limit their use to legitimate purposes – is paramount.
If we had the will, we could limit access to the means of killing oneself. The questions are very simple: Does a person have the desire to kill themself? Do they have a plan? And do they have the means by which to carry out that plan?
We still have barriers to cross: Many people still will not talk about suicide – they still think there’s something shameful about it. But we must face it. Suicide is a preventable death – not in all cases, but certainly in many. Once we start talking about suicide, it should become clear that guns are a common tool of suicide we can surely help prevent.
We must find ways to help people who are depressed. More and more, we are learning what that means. We must embrace a comprehensive approach to preventing suicide. To do so, we must take into account the needs of those who are vulnerable, their families – and all of us.
Stan Lewy is the Founder of the Suicide Prevention Association and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Midwest Chapter. He has also chaired the Illinois Suicide Prevention Coalition.
.
.
October 26, 2009
Research, Accountability Key to Reducing Gun Violence
ICHV Insights Column by Daniel Webster
At the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, we are dedicated to reducing gun-related injuries and deaths through the application of a public health perspective and sound, science-based research.
In recent years, we have focused on illegal gun markets — and opportunities to disrupt those markets so it is more difficult for dangerous people to get guns.
Overall, we feel that we are establishing a body of evidence that demonstrates a vitally important fact: Measures to make gun sellers and owners more accountable can reduce the likelihood that guns wind up in the wrong hands.
We also want to know what are the appropriate criteria for someone to purchase and possess a gun. In many cases, the standards are not strict enough. We often come across the notion that if you pass a background check, you are considered a law-abiding gun owner. But the fact of the matter is that you can be convicted of a whole host of laws and still have access to a gun. A number of things will suggest that it is not a good idea for you to have a firearm. For example, there is a large number of people who have been convicted of crimes involving violence, drugs, or alcohol abuse that are classified as misdemeanors — yet they are still allowed to purchase, possess, and even carry a gun in public.
Discussions of gun policy usually focus on points of disagreement. But these discussions often lose sight of a key fact – that there is agreement among gun owners and those who don’t own guns that they don’t want dangerous people to have guns. Where we differ is whether we think regulations can be effective. People who fight against regulation of guns often proclaim that regulation is a waste of time — it will only inconvenience or harm law-abiding gun owners. And yet, we are building up a body of research evidence which shows that through comprehensive, well-thought out and enforced measures, we can limit the availability of guns to dangerous people. There are a lot of studies that each side refers to on this issue. When you get to questions asking whether drug addicts, people convicted of any felony, people with serious mental illnesses, and other potentially dangerous people should have guns, the data is so clear. They should not. Risk assessment research identifies groups of individuals who are clearly dangerous — and firearms in their hands can make them more dangerous.
And yet, there is a disconnect between what the public supports and what politicians adopt. Even among those who support a range of firearms regulations, there is skepticism that you can actually effect lasting changes. The NRA has perpetuated a myth that criminals will always find ways around laws and that laws that regulate gun transactions are an affront to the Second Amendment.
Our research refutes that notion.
What we need to do is move away from what is often a cultural debate to a policy debate. A policy debate would start from generally agreed-upon goals — and what I believe is an almost universally agreed-upon goal: Dangerous people shouldn’t have guns. We must keep saying that and using evidence to back it up.
If we start from that premise and move to specific policies, we can focus on what measures can work. What is the alternative? We can keep hearing what we often hear in our culture – angry discussion in the blogosphere, on cable television and in newspapers. One group shouting about freedom and the Second Amendment and another group that truly finds guns and gun owners distasteful. The logical place, at least for our Center, is in the arena of useful policy questions — and working to advance almost universal goals to advance public safety.
We are open to all kinds of public health strategies that can fit the issue of gun violence. In the end, we believe it is essential to use credible science when finding out what works. One example is that in four different studies, our research focuses on retail gun dealers. These studies show that the flow of guns into criminal markets goes down in response to efforts to hold retailers accountable for illegal sales practices. Simply put, we find that there is a direct correlation between higher degree of scrutiny placed on gun dealers and the reduction in how many guns are sold to criminals. These findings debunk the notion that retailers have no role on this issue. We need to make it so that licensed sellers of guns are more accountable for what they do. The same thing applies to private sellers of firearms. States that regulate private sellers have significantly less gun trafficking than those that do not regulate gun transactions.
An interesting fact about this issue is that changes in how guns are bought and sold may not always require new legislation to be passed. It’s not an “either/or” situation: we should shore up laws, but also do a much better job of enforcing those on the books. Either way, we see the potential of public policy to be a positive one that can save lives.
Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH is Co-Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Associate Director of the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
.
.
October 15, 2009
Supreme Court and Chicago’s Ban on Handguns
ICHV Insights Column by Thomas Mannard, Executive Director
.
Late last month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns — a ban that has been in place since 1982. The announcement was made over a year after the court’s Heller decision, a 5-4 decision that protected an individual’s right to have a handgun at home for self-defense.
There are a number of ways to view this announcement. Right off the bat, though, we should note that there are those in the gun lobby who virulently opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the court, branding her as an “activist” on gun issues. Let’s be very clear about what is going on here. It’s ironic for the gun lobby to call Justice Sotomayor an activist in a derogatory way without acknowledging how others on the court who have supported their agenda have voted in recent years. Consider, for example, how Justices Thomas and Alito have been called “activists” on numerous issues as well. We’ve had an activist court in recent years. When gun lobbyists go after a justice, or nominee, who may not support their views, let’s remember the big picture.
It’s essential that we keep in mind a few of the basics that define the gun ban issue. We hear a lot from the gun lobby about how important guns can be for a person’s self-defense. The fact is, however, a handgun (or handguns) in the home is more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide or unintentional shooting than in self-defense. Research is clear on that point, though you won’t hear about that research from the gun lobby.
Let’s also look at the long-term goals of the gun lobby in this country. This court case isn’t just about the gun lobby trying to overturn a gun ban. It’s about their long-term goal of trying to force courts to affirm that not only should people be able to have guns in the home — they should be allowed to carry them wherever they want. Remember, too, that part of the gun lobby’s strategy, of course, involves hiring lawyers to find plaintiffs who can go from court to court to support their cause. They have to do this, partly because public support is not on their side.
Arguments for this case will likely be made some time after the first of the year, and we may not know about the Court’s decision until the end of June. Meanwhile, we need to take this opportunity to talk about the facts and how this issue affects citizens. No, we can’t control the court’s decisions. What we can control is how we educate the general public about the risks of having guns in the home. That continues to be vitally important for the simple and powerful reason that owning guns has an impact on public safety and public health.
In the long run, while we have very limited ability to impact what the decision might be in this particular case, we have to look at the possibility of what this means if this ban is overturned or if it is upheld.
Finally, there’s something else to ask about here. The majority of people in this country who could legally own guns make the conscious choice not to own guns. Where are our rights as the clear majority — a majority that chooses not to own guns? Where are our rights to be kept safe from the damage guns can, and do, inflict on people?
Thank you for your support and dedication to reducing gun violence.
Thomas Mannard is the Executive Director of Illinios Council Against Handgun Violence.
.
.
September 9, 2009
“Children Deserve Right to be Heard”
ICHV Insights Column by Alex Franklin
.
Alex Franklin often tries to avoid walking down the street a couple of blocks from his home. “In my neighborhood, we know there are people a couple of blocks away who shoot people. I know some people who have been shot.”
Alex, who was 10 when he wrote an essay that was awarded at ICHV’s “Student Voices” contest last June, will be a fifth grader this fall at St. Angela School in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood.”
The contest provides a platform for students to express their views on gun violence. “Everyone has the right to speak, and children deserve to be heard,” says Alex, who is the youngest of four children (all have attended Catholic schools in the neighborhood).
“Taking guns off my street will make a big impact on our chances at staying alive,” writes Alex in “Handgun Violence,” his essay for the contest.
Alex says that when he gets upset, he “writes about it. That helps me. When I am sad, I write or draw pictures. I don’t play a lot of violent video games,” says Alex. “My mom says it’s inappropriate.”
“When I hear about a person in a hospital who is diagnosed with an illness or was a victim of gun violence, it really bothers me,” he adds.
“We know our son grows up in a community where gun violence happens,” adds Alex’s dad, Timothy. “When he brings the issue home, sometimes we will sit down and talk about it.”
Timothy reflects back on when he was a young man. “Back it my day, people would fight but later it wouldn’t be such a big deal. Gun violence has changed that picture. Maybe in some ways we have learned to adjust to it, but my wife says we shouldn’t have to ‘adjust’ to gun violence.”
He recalls one exchange with a young man in his neighborhood that serves as an example of how gun violence can threaten communities. “There was a basketball rim on the ground, and a kid of 12 or 13 said to me that the next time he catches me throwing the rim out, he is going to shoot me. That young man knew he couldn’t challenge me physically, but with a handgun, he was equal to the task. He couldn’t have said that without a gun. What I want to know is, ‘Why should it escalate to that point?”
He says that gun violence must be a major issue for public officials and schools – but that it’s especially important for parents to communicate with children and their teachers. “What are we teaching children besides the ABC’s? We need to teach kids about how to treat various situations and learn what roads to go down. At the same time, officials need to have more interaction with parents and teachers.”
The Franklins have lived in the Austin community for 21 years. Lately, they have considered moving out of the community, and safety is a main reason.
While living in Austin, Timothy says, he and his wife have routinely driven their kids to school. “You have to be conscious of what is happening in the neighborhood,” he says. “We drive our kids to school and pick them up. Not all people can do that, but as much as we can, we’re involved in the travel and get to know our kids’ teachers. The school is four or five blocks away, and to get there many kids have to travel through a gang-infested area.”
Meanwhile, Timothy says he was hopeful when he saw what his son and other students created for the “Student Voices” contest. “Some of the ideas from these students just amazed me – that students can express themselves like this at a young age. I thought I was listening to a seasoned poet or artist. These children have a voice. Are we listening to them?”
August 28, 2009
Thoughts from an ICHV Student Contest Organizer
ICHV Insights Column by Marcia Adelman
.
I have been affected by handgun violence. I remember it as though it was yesterday: On May 20, 1988, Laurie Dann shot and killed a boy and wounded two girls and three boys in an elementary school in Winnetka, Illinois, where I lived. Then she took a family hostage and shot a man before killing herself.
At the time, I had a son at Hubbard Woods School, the elementary school where the shootings occurred. Until I knew my son was safe that day, I felt that he was lost to me. I thought that nobody should experience that feeling, but that people do, every day. And, finally, I thought “This is wrong. What can I do to help?” I was personally touched because it happened in my community. But it made me feel this wave of empathy for mothers who had to experience the loss of a child or threatened loss of a child. And I wanted to do something about it.
Since the mid-1990s, I have been involved with ICHV and its contest for students, which provides young people from grades 1 through 12 with a chance to express what they think and feel about gun violence in essays, poetry, art, and multimedia. The purpose of this contest has always been to give these kids a voice. These youngsters didn’t create the problem – adults did. But kids are directly affected by it. I think violence is holding too many children back from learning – it’s constraining their world. I see so many students whose minds are not engaged, and I really think a lot of that has to do with gun violence around them, whether in their communities, in the media or in video and computer games.
I am a former English teacher and member of a school board. The fall after this tragedy, I was also going to be PTA Chair, so I was invested in what happened at the school. Schools in the area went on lockdown – this was a new experience in these communities. People were not going to stroll through unlocked doors any longer, and security personnel became a part of the school staff. In many schools, all doors were locked – except for the front door.
A Forum for Student Voices
Bob Williamson, a writer and teacher (who also lived in Winnetka), was a part of the ICHV board after the shootings. He originated the ICHV contest, because he really felt these kids needed a voice. (In fact, the contest is now called the “Student Voices Contest”).
The contests started as an essay and poetry contest. Then we added art and multimedia as categories.
I am always proud and impressed when I look at what students have created. Just take a look at how one student created a message out of images of people who were victims of violence themselves. People like John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon and Abraham Lincoln are depicted sitting together at a fantasy Peace Conference table.
One important factor in the contest is that participants can create moving pieces even though the things depicted in them had not happened to these students. The point is that kids do not have to personally experience what they are writing about because they know about gun violence. It’s not just victims who are directly impacted by violence – it’s all of us. It hurts the families, caregivers, friends, schools.
Currently, an invitation to participate in the contest is sent to more than 600 city schools and about 300 parochial schools, as well as schools in other communities. This year, we had close to 1,000 entries. It’s not just a contest about winners, but everyone that we can get to participate. Part of our mission is to circulate what the students do. We’ve sent it to legislators, funders and others. For the past few years, we put together a calendar with winning entries. This contest is an outreach vehicle to kids, adults and ultimately, the community at large.
Evolution of Contest
The contest has evolved over the years. I have been adamant that judges need to have experience with children at this level. We don’t want someone to say, “Oh this is terrible – the punctuation is off.” These kids need to be heard. What is exciting is when you see these kids have a voice. There’s a real person behind what they are saying.
There have also been changes in what students create for the contest – and how that reflects their view of gun violence in our world. In recent years, we have been seeing a lot more violence in the artworks students submit. Not just from the boys, but from the girls as well.
We are seeing the impact of reaching schools through this contest. One teacher wrote to us, “Thank you for doing this. It has provided a week’s worth of discussion in my classroom.” Others have used the works created for this contest to teach research skills and various forms of poetry.
In many cases, winners have not been previously recognized for anything. I like to think that this contest is a very important moment for kids and their families, and that it can encourage and broaden civic involvement. We hope that we are helping young people to think about violence and their relationship to handguns. They take a position and connect in a way that could serve them – and all of us – very well.
Marcia Adelman is an ICHV board member and contest organizer for the ICHV Student Voices Contest.
August 28, 2009
Think Before You Shoot
ICHV Insights Column by Mike Perlongo
.
The drawing appears to be so serene that one may not, at first glance, understand the full meaning or power of what it says.
Then, a closer look confirms it — there is a gravestone, with a flower next to it. A winding tree is nearby. In the lower left-hand corner is the drawing’s title: “Think before you shoot.”
Mike Perlongo, who created this drawing, was a Blue Ribbon winner for this work in ICHV’s 14th Annual Student Voices Contest. He drew the piece while he was at eighth grader at St. Emily School in Mount Prospect; this fall he will be a freshman at John Hersey High School in Arlington Heights. He likes to act and play volleyball.
For his drawing, Mike says, he drew the piece in pencil; then he drew it in colored pencil.
Mike says he was not, for the most part, thinking about what leads up to an act of gun violence when he sat down and created his artwork. “I was thinking about what happens afterwards,” he says. “What are the results of handgun violence?”
“I just think gun violence is a terrible thing and a very big issue,” he adds. “I just wanted to speak out about it in my own way. “It’s a huge problem.”
Mike says he believes schools should spend a little more time discussing the issue of gun violence than they do. When he learned about the ICHV contest, he decided that expressing himself on this issue was worth it to him.
“I think it’s a great thing that all these kids are speaking their minds and trying to end gun violence,” he says. “It’s not just about adults saying they can stop it. Kids can speak out, too.”
Mike calls essays, poems and artworks created for the contest “amazing. I was surprised by what some of the smaller kids were able to do. All these kids are speaking out about gun violence. People protect their children about the world, but many times children know what’s going on.”
When asked what else he might do about the issue, Mike confirms the importance of getting involved in your community. “I think more people should give their opinion on this issue,” he says. “If they want to stop gun violence, they should send a letter to their senator and tell them what they want.” Meanwhile, he adds that if an opportunity presented itself at school on this issue, he would “definitely” get involved.
Mike’s mother, Terry Perlongo, says she was also amazed by what kids created for the contest. “The poems and essays and drawings all came from deep inside these kids, from the youngest to the oldest.”
“This is an issue that needs to be talked about,” she adds. “You see violence on TV, and the kids are exposed to it. They talk about it at school.”
She says Mike’s drawing “said a whole lot even though it didn’t look complicated. I think the artistic side of him came out.”
She, like Mike, says that gun violence is an issue that deserves attention in every community, even though the focus of attention is often on just a handful of neighborhoods. “There definitely needs to be greater awareness, no matter where you live.” “You can’t think nothing is going to happen to you because it might,” adds Mike. “The threat is there.”
Mike Perlongo is a 14th Annual ICHV Student Voices Contest winner.
July 16, 2009
We Were All Devastated
ICHV Insights Column by Deja Coleman
.
“We were all devastated,” writes Deja Coleman, who entered the 7th grade at St. Angela School on Chicago’s west side this fall.
Deja is referring to how she, her family and their neighbors felt one night in November of 2006 — and many days and nights after that after Deja’s uncle was shot and killed.
Deja writes about the tragedy, and the impact of violence, in an essay that was a Blue Ribbon winner this year at ICHV’s 14th Annual Student Voices Contest.
Tragic Night
“I remember him so well,” Deja says of her uncle, who she described as her mother’s “god-brother.” “He and my mom grew up together.”
Her uncle, she says, was very close to her family, and lived in the same neighborhood.
“We were close, and had a great relationship. He used to come over every other day or so to see my mom. We used to go to the store together.”
Then, one night, she says, “I remember hearing gunshots. We heard my aunt scream, and we ran outside. That’s when we saw him laying on the ground. My family called the ambulance, and my mom started crying. There was so much commotion. I found out that my uncle was on his porch, and someone shot him.”
In the Community
Deja lives in a home with a number of relatives – an aunt who lives on the third floor with two children, her grandmother and grandfather who live on the second floor, and her mother, sister and herself on the first floor. For Deja, even walking outside her family’s home on the west side can be a troubling experience.
“I can’t really walk outside,” she says. “People are on the corner, selling drugs and things like that. I can sit on the porch. It gets so bad, and the police are everywhere. It’s just crazy.”
Sometimes she sees kids who are as young as 12, 13 or 14 holding guns. Many are about 15 years old to 17 years old. “Usually there are at least five to seven boys on the corner, holding guns and selling drugs. Why do they do it? They just want to be like others, they want to be cool.”
On the 4th of July this year, she says, people “weren’t popping firecrackers. They were shooting.”
Earlier this year, a bullet was shot at the second floor of her home, where Deja’s grandparents live. Luckily, no one was hurt, and the family brought the bullet to the police.
Deja has seen how gun violence affects her family, her neighbors and her community, but she has still been able to remain enthusiastic about school. “I love school – we get to go to recess, I love going to math class – it’s my favorite.”
Deja says she wants to “go to college in Atlanta, maybe at Spelman College. I’d like to be a forensic scientist.”
Now, Deja hopes that adults will pay attention to what kids are saying about gun violence. “During the day in our community, kids are at home after school, and they can see everything while adults are at work,” she says. “What I see is that the neighborhood has been getting worse. I can’t really walk outside.”
Deja Coleman is a 14th Annual ICHV Student Voices Contest winner.
June 25, 2009
Student Poem Shares Personal Impact of Gun Violence
ICHV Insights Column by Gabrielle Onyema
.
Two friends — young women, maybe 14 or 15 years old — are walking down Catalpa Street in Chicago. We learn that one of their brothers has been using, and selling drugs.
Suddenly gunshots are fired from a car.
One of the girls, Ciara, is shot and killed. The other, who is unnamed, tries to come to terms with the shocking reality of what has just happened.
The scene could be something out of any number of shootings that have taken the lives of young people in the last year. It is, however, a scene that is part of “Guns are Grim,” a poem that won its young author an award at the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence’s 14th Annual Student Voices contest earlier this year.
The poem’s author, Gabrielle Onyema, will be an eighth grader this fall at Farnsworth Elementary School on Chicago’s Northwest Side.
The vision of gun violence expressed in the poem is not about gun laws or statistics. It is about the raw emotion felt by someone in the middle of a gun-related tragedy.
The poem’s narrator says at one point:
My friendship, shattered.
My mind, scarred.
My friend gone.
I had been hit hard.
“I felt maybe people could see inside of the tragedy,” says Gabrielle. “I tried to do that by showing two people who were close to each other.”
Gabrielle says she has not run into any problems related to violence in the Edgebrook community where she lives. When she was younger and lived in the Gresham neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side, though, she did come across violence.
Gabrielle’s mother, Crystal Carter — who is a Chicago police officer — says that when the family lived in the city’s Auburn-Gresham community there was a triple homicide in front of a neighbor’s house. “The message I took from that tragedy was the same that Gabrielle expressed in her poem,” she says. “Guns affect everybody, the entire community — whether you are talking about a relative, a neighbor, or someone in law enforcement.”
Telling the Story
Gabrielle is a student who likes writing stories and says her writing “edges toward fantasy or science fiction.” In this case, however, she penned a more realistic story that begins with a simple scene of friends hanging out — and ends with the author wondering how, and why, an innocent person can lose their life to gun violence.
She writes in the poem:
How can we stand here and let innocent blood be shed?
How long can we let this happen to those who did nothing to receive it?
Would you do that for drugs?
For revenge?
Out of anger?
Gabrielle adds that writing a poem was a different experience for her than writing a story. “A poem is kind of like a magnifying glass,” she says. “The smaller you make the ray of light, the more intense the heat is.”
“I just pretty much wanted to show the mental shock of this experience, and question a world in which this could happen,” adds Gabrielle. “I also don’t think it’s all about the blood and guts when someone you are close to is hurt.”
Role of Youth
Gabrielle says the ICHV contest gives kids a chance to share their thoughts, feelings and experiences on an important issue.
“Maybe adults can see things in a different way if they understand a young person’s point of view,” she says. “They can learn from what kids say about how disastrous gun violence can be, and how people should not use guns for the wrong reasons.”
Meanwhile, Crystal Carter says she was “amazed” by her daughter’s poem. “I think,” she says, “adults will be surprised at how well kids can articulate what they think and feel about this issue.”
Gabrielle Onyema is a ICHV 14th Annual ICHV Student Voices Contest winner.
June 15, 2009
Thoughts from Saint Sabina Catholic Church in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side
ICHV Insights Column by Father Michael Pfleger
.
Gun violence has always been an issue, but in the last ten years, I’ve watched it become more of an epidemic. It has grown to a new and frightening level. In some communities, murder and shooting of youth is to be expected.
Role of Gun Industry
Why is this happening? Well, the culture of violence has become acceptable in America. Violence has also been glorified by videos and music. It’s also important to realize that the NRA has encouraged guns to be part of America’s wardrobe in the name of fear. Anyone can get a gun.
When we take a closer look, we can see that the NRA is the lobbyist for gun manufacturers — but not for gun owners. It’s really about business. It’s like the tobacco industry. Eventually, that industry started targeting younger and younger people.
The gun industry reaches an astounding number of illegal consumers — and many of them are young. For example, I can go to any high school in the city and students will say they know where they can find a gun. Without a doubt, the gun industry has promoted the kind of easy access to guns that makes this possible.
Of course, the gun industry tries to paint this issue with a wide brush by saying that anyone who challenges it is criticizing the second amendment. What they don’t tell you, though, is that you can be for the second amendment and still realize that the gun industry is pushing guns on us in a way that is hurting our neighborhoods and children.
Broad Effects of Gun Violence
What can we do? Some say that guns are not the problem — you have to change people’s behavior. I say that you have to teach children to make the right decisions — but also focus on the very real gun problem that plagues our society.
We are not dealing with the broader effects of violence. A child gets killed, and everyone connected to that child is affected. What about the children? Who sits in the classroom where that child sat? And what about the children all around the neighborhood? Now, when you visit communities, our new historical landmarks are murder sites. Now, the prayer is not that children avoid illness — but that they don’t get killed. Children are afraid to go to school and afraid to come home from school; fear greets you in the morning, and in the afternoon.
We need to have a different approach to our schools. We teach about the health costs of smoking and disease; let’s also teach children about the impact of guns and violence. We must also support conflict resolution programs and other efforts that can be effective.
It’s also about resources. When a mother or father or school system sees a young person who is in a potentially violent state or situation, we must provide resources that help prevent what could happen. I have talked to so many principals who say “We saw it coming.” I ask: “Then why didn’t we try to help that child more?” They always say: “There’s not enough resources.”
Facing the Race Issue
Meanwhile, there is a context to this violence that far too few people are willing to talk about: the response and reaction of our society to violence is always affected by class and race. Why do you think there was a lack of response to Katrina, but a rapid response when homes were hit by wildfire in California? Earlier this year, we watched our nation authorize a billion for the development of a new swine flu vaccine. When will our country release funding and take the necessary legislative steps to deal with gun violence?
Violence against our children has become acceptable because the biggest number of children who are victims are black and brown. If 38 white children were the victims of gun violence, there would be a national response and outcry. How many shootings at a Virginia Tech, Columbine or Northern Illinois University have to happen in white rural and suburban communities before people care about the bigger picture?
Looking Ahead
Still, we are making some progress on this issue. We have partnerships with handgun groups, some faith leaders in the city and beyond, some legislators, parents who have lost their children to violence and, in Chicago, the mayor. We are seeing positive responses from many people in our neighborhoods. As we connect and organize people in our communities who are concerned about this issue, they don’t feel alone. They feel empowered.
At the same time, there is a greater majority that is either silent or afraid, and until this majority becomes engaged on this issue, we will be like voices crying in the wilderness. I believe there are enough people out there to support laws that mandate universal background checks on guns, limit the number of guns people can purchase, and make sure other key gun control laws are passed. But we need to hear from them.
In the end, this is a comprehensive problem that demands a comprehensive response. Our neighbors, our legislators, our schools, our neighborhoods — together we can make a difference. We can change the current of the river.
Father Michael Pfleger is the pastor of Saint Sabina Catholic Church in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. He is well-known for being a social activist on a range of issues, including gun violence.
May 20, 2009
Brian Malte is the State Legislation and Politics Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
ICHV Insights Column by Brian Malte
.
Between 2000 and 2008, it was quite obvious that nothing, or very little, would get done on gun violence prevention issues on the federal level. That is when the Brady Campaign decided to embrace a state-based strategy, and focus on impacting this issue in a select number of states.
I am not talking about a twenty to fifty state strategy – but a five to ten state strategy. We believe that if we can get our issue out there in a handful of states that are geographically dispersed, then we can change the dynamic on gun violence prevention. This is a strategy not only designed to improve a state’s firearm or gun violence prevention laws, but to show the public that this movement is starting to go in the right direction.
Illinois fits well into this strategy. A lot of times, media will say this is a “bicoastal” issue. It’s true that we have dedicated advocates in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts. However, we also need states in the Midwest, the Plains, and in the South. In the Midwest, we are working in Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as Illinois.
Patience a Key
In this movement, we have to show patience. Just because there was a horrible massacre at Virginia Tech, that doesn’t mean the next year there will new legislation in Virginia. It is almost always going to take a few legislative sessions to break through.
For example, some people will say that California was always pro gun control. However, the NRA had a good grip on California politicians in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It wasn’t until the gun violence prevention movement held people accountable on their votes that change began to happen. We learned that we had to target key districts. Either legislators in those districts voted on our side – or we had to try to remove them from office.
Still, today, there is a perception out there than the gun lobby is really responsible for what happens in elections. Let’s be clear on this point, however: elected officials are rarely thrown out of office because they oppose policies supported by the pro-gun lobby.
Need for Comprehensive Strategy
To build a comprehensive strategy on this issue, you have to build strong coalitions while also using strong legislative and electoral strategies. Working on the state legislative side is an efficient use of resources. For a few thousand dollars and earned media (favorable publicity gained through promotional efforts other than advertising), you can affect specific races. That’s what we did in California.
Illinois was selected to be part of this strategy because of the strength of organizations and advocacy in the state. The electoral strategy in Illinois is exactly what we did in California. We know it works. We are raising money in Illinois that is specifically earmarked to hold people accountable. We have a comprehensive strategy that involves raising funds, getting our message out on the phone and through the mail, and working in conjunction with other interested parties.
What else does this strategy involve? We call it the concentric circle strategy. First, you want to make sure that all of your urban legislators are voting with you – you start with the areas that are most affected. In Illinois, that means asking if all Chicago legislators are on our side. If not, we have to take care of that. The point is, get your areas of strength locked up. Then, move into the ring of suburbs that border Chicago. Then you go to the next “ring.”
One of the things our movement has done well is educate policymakers on issues. But one of the things it has not done well – but is doing better now — is think politically. What we have to do is start making legislators fear that we may have to come after them. We know, for example, that if you are voting against us in the Chicago suburbs, defeat must happen. If not the first time, then by the third or fourth.
When do we know a legislator is concerned? I like to see what a legislator’s reaction is to our pressure and lobbying. If they react negatively, we know they are on the run.
In Illinois, it’s important to realize that the public is on our side. In the last few years, Illinois voters were polled on specific issues, like universal background checks, on a statewide basis and also in specific legislative districts. The survey results were off the charts in their support for gun violence prevention policies. Surveys, however, were not just used to say “this is popular” – but that this is a good political deal for legislators as well if they want to be re-elected.
Our work, however, is not just about supporting candidates who agree with our position. We also want to identify leadership on the state level who can be more outspoken on this issue. That way, it not only becomes a political issue for a candidate, but can impact the party apparatus on gun violence prevention issues. Meanwhile, another group to target is political consultants. We try to get them to go from telling candidates “Don’t worry” to the point where they say “Be careful.”
As we look to the future, we know we have to hold people accountable. If we don’t, we are not going to get what we need. The good news is that, in the end, our commitment to gun violence prevention is growing. We have made a pact, and we’re not going to go away.
Brian Malte is the State Legislation and Politics Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
April 28, 2009
Giving Kids a Positive Outlet
ICHV Insights Column by Willie Williams
.
I remember the night: March 31, 2006. My son Willie went to a movie with his friends at Ford City. The late movie.
Willie was shot and killed early the next morning, on April 1. You get that call, and you don’t even want to imagine it. It was the worst nightmare that could ever come true. I’m still dealing with it today – you are never going to forget. It’s an unbelievable thing to hear; then you get to the hospital and see it right in front of you. Your child has been shot.
I went to the hospital and had to watch for 14 hours. I couldn’t do anything but pray. And then my son died.
In March of that year, Willie and I had heard on the news about a young lady getting killed in her home. Then, soon after that, an 11-year-old girl was also killed in her house.
I remember always drilling my son about being careful – and then we hear stories about how you can’t even be safe in your own house. My son would say “OK, Dad, I’m always careful.”
Things are so different for kids today than they were when I was growing up. When I grew up, yes, kids were beat up, or even stabbed. But it wasn’t like it is now, with all the guns.
After my son died, I just had a sense of urgency about what to do next. I need to do something, I told myself. I thought – what if I started a foundation to keep kids busy. So I started a foundation – the Willie Williams III Youth Foundation, named after my son. We hold events for the kids, organize sports. We even went on a trip downtown with a group of kids, encouraged them to taste different foods, see different places for the first time. Our goal is to provide support and guidance for inner-city children. We also work to provide job training and mentoring to young people.
We want to provide a positive outlet for teenagers. My son Willie had that – he loved sports, and was a talented basketball player as well as a member of Jesse White tumblers.
I have always worked with kids. I’ve coached softball, baseball, basketball. I’ve coached a hearing-impaired team. Willie and I wanted to open up three youth centers in Chicago. We wanted to make sure kids had a place to go – a place to play sports, dance, go to GED classes, cookie classes. A place where they could be safe. Eventually, I would still love to open my own center for kids, a family-oriented place that really cares.
With my foundation, we give kids a positive message. We let them know, you don’t have to worry about the drugs, gangs and gang-banging. You do have to work hard. In my neighborhood, kids know I’m there to help.
A big part of what I do is explain to people why we need this foundation. I am thankful that so many people and organizations have supported what we are doing – including Mayor Daley and the city of Chicago, and city departments, aldermen, state senators, community groups, companies, so many others.
Meanwhile, we have to keep asking the question — what can solve the problem of gun violence? People. And yet, we have a lot of people who think they are exempt from gun violence – that this cannot happen to them. It’s true that I never thought it would happen to me. I was doing everything possible with my kids – they were on the straight and narrow, were respectful – and were becoming young adults. And yet look at what happened.
We should talk about how to keep kids safe, and about gun violence, a lot more often. There should even be classes in school about it. We can’t push this aside.
When I think about what happened to my son, I could be sitting and crying. It hurts. But seeing that what we are doing helps kids – that gives me the energy to want to do more. Besides, this is way bigger than me.
Willie Williams has worked directly with children for many years. He started the Willie Williams III Youth Foundation after his son
April 17, 2009
CeaseFire: Reducing Shootings and Killings in Our Neighborhoods
ICHV Insights Column by Gary Slutkin, MD
.
As a medical doctor, epidemiologist, and researcher, my training and experience is largely in health epidemics — which is mostly based on behavior change. For example, some of my work has focused on AIDS (sexual behavior) in Uganda and cholera (how people use sanitation and water) in Somalia.
Over the years, I learned most epidemics are reversed by methods related to behavioral change and interrupting transmission.
During my work overseas, people from various countries told me and my colleagues at the World Health Organization (WHO) that they were using techniques we used for behavior change to reduce violence or drug use. I began to think about how peers specifically influence other peers, how the highest risk and bad outcome situations are avoided, and how people learn the most essential behavioral and life skills.
When I visited the United States, friends would tell me about children shooting and killing other children. I learned more about this problem and requested a formal leave from my work at the WHO to further explore this issue. When I returned to the states, my colleagues and I spent our first five years trying to figure out what kinds of strategies might be put in place. In the field of disease control, you must design and add new strategies when a problem isn’t bending. Many approaches to violence reduction were focusing on punishment, sentencing and aggressive tactics to handle the problem. People studying health and behavior know these are not effective ways of addressing this problem, or behavior change.
In 1995, we formed the Chicago Project, which led to CeaseFire. We found support in neighborhoods frustrated by the apparent intractability of shootings and killings. As we built support for this work, we learned that behavioral change strategies had a significant impact on smoking, exercise, the wearing of seat belts, along with the progress science and society made in reversing prior epidemics.
The operating infrastructure was a network of community groups because of their credibility and embedded nature in the neighborhoods. We established a steering committee, which included community organizations, clergy, residents, law enforcement organizations, and local foundations.
In 2000, after five years of strategy design, we implemented the model in West Garfield Park, a neighborhood where violence was prevalent. In the first year there were almost instantaneous results — a 67% drop in shootings. We’ve seen positive results in 16 other communities since then. Not only in terms of overall numbers, but in the experience of people who were rewarded to see 60 or 90 days go by in their community without shootings.
Recently, a U.S. Department of Justice commissioned external evaluation has shown through four different scientific methods that shootings and killings were reduced statistically in every community tested.
The community-based organizations are the implementers of CeaseFire. I can’t begin to emphasize the importance of their role. In every case, the community is driving the solution — they are involved in responses that occur to every shooting. They distribute materials, and hire and supervise the outreach workers. CeaseFire outreach workers interrupt conflicts and carry high-risk clients — helping to change their thinking over years of intensive work. CeaseFire interrupters through their contacts and credibility in the community–and through their training–successfully anticipate and mediate conflicts, directly preventing hundreds (and, over years, thousands) of shootings.
In addition, CeaseFire’s data and our team’s evaluation of this project are key parts of this process. CeaseFire is an evidence-based practice for reducing lethal violence in cities; four different statistical methods have been used to evaluate this work. We’ve now been visited by over 30 cities, and other countries.
What’s next? Our largest priority is to work with all of our community, foundation, city, state, federal, and law enforcement partners to have a bigger impact in Chicago. Everyone wants to see the problem go away in Chicago – and we know that’s doable. The usual thinking is that this is an intractable problem, but this intervention is now being used reliably to reduce shootings and killings in our neighborhoods. A larger impact in Chicago requires a larger part of each community covered. Additionally we are now designing a CeaseFire 2.0 model, and are hoping to expand to areas of Chicago where the intervention has not yet been started. The work has begun in several other cities as well.
Gary Slutkin, MD, is founder and executive director of CeaseFire, an evidence-based public health approach to reducing shootings and killings. Dr. Slutkin is also a professor of Epidemiology and International Health at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and a senior advisor to the World Health Organization.
February 12, 2009
Taking a Stand
IICHV Insights Column by Police Chief Russ Laine
.
I have been in law enforcement since 1976 and police chief in Algonquin since 1985. Last November, I became president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Our work, though, is not just about how law enforcement professionals can respond to violent crime. It’s also about partnerships. Bringing a wide range of stakeholders together is what will give this work impact. That is why, when we talk about gun violence, we are sitting at the table with educators, social workers, churches, community groups, leaders in the corrections field, and our colleagues in law enforcement from many communities.
I have found over the years that everyone can add something to the discussion. When we sit in a vacuum, only talking to those in our own field, we miss out on so much. We have to be talking to each other and exchanging ideas, or we are missing the boat.
In 2007, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Joyce Foundation released “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities.” Now, we are looking at the next steps and trying to set an agenda that builds on this report.
Keeping Communities Safe
I believe that one of the first things to remember about gun violence is that it affects everyone. This is not just an urban, Chicago or big city problem — it’s migrating to suburban and rural communities. We need to work with groups that are educating the public and taking preventative steps on this issue.
Preventing and Solving Gun Crime
A key section of “Taking a Stand” focuses on preventing and solving gun crime. When I look at this issue, I am reminded of something we see in our culture. We devote a lot of time and resources to make sure people are qualified to get a driver’s license. But we don’t do that when people want to purchase guns. Maybe we need to adjust our priorities.
Meanwhile, we should also take a look at how we investigate crimes. How can we better equip officers to locate guns and gun owners? What kind of investigative tools do we need to develop? What can we do about assault weapons? These are the kinds of questions we need to be asking.
Keeping Police Officers Safe
Our report also emphasizes the importance of keeping police officers safe. That is why this report addresses the availability of weapons (especially to young people), strategies for removing weapons from those involved in a crime, and ways we can provide technology for investigations.
Today, we also have an opportunity to discuss with, and educate, new members of Congress and other elected officials on gun violence issues. We need to be open to talking with those we agree with and those with a different position. We believe “Taking a Stand” makes sense for all of these people. Meanwhile, we also need to look at broader challenges facing our nation. In IACP’s report “To Protect and Defend,” we look at challenges to public safety and homeland security facing the president. According to the report, “… in the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 99,000 Americans have been murdered, and each year roughly 1.4 million Americans are the victims of violent crime … Yet surprisingly, resources available to the local law enforcement community have been decimated.” The report calls for an integrated public safety and homeland security effort and greater attention to reducing firearms violence, illegal guns and other problems.
Over and over, when we talk about reducing gun violence, we hear concerns from opponents that we are “trying to take weapons away.” That, however, is not our focus at all. We have reasonable expectations when it comes to reducing gun violence, and we must work together to meet them.
Russell B. Laine is the Police Chief of Algonquin, Illinois and the current president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
January 15, 2009
Working Together to Stop Gun Violence
ICHV Insights Column by Pastor Michael Allen
.
Gun violence is a terrible symptom of what troubles our communities. Dealing with it has become a quality of life issue, and to understand how gun violence affects us, we need to take a look at our communities.
I am pastor at Uptown Baptist Church on Chicago’s North Side. In this community, there is incredible diversity — rich, poor and middle class, those with Ph.D’s and those with no education, people of all colors and backgrounds. People live, work and worship next to one another. It’s essential that they come together to fight crime, including the threat of gun violence
We have seen here how a community can improve itself and deal with its problems. For example, consider the murals that have gone up in Chicago’s Uptown community. One that is intact at Sunnyside and Sheridan was done in the mid-1990s, before I got here. Before the mural went up, that area was called “Blood Alley” because of all the stabbings and rapes and shootings there. When the mural went up, crime took a nosedive in that area. There is still crime there, but it’s way better than it was 8 to 10 years ago. A friend of mine has explained to me that where there is order and beauty, many criminals have been known to scatter.
Meanwhile, over the years our church has participated in Mayor Daley’s gun turn-in events. At the first one, about 90 weapons were turned in; then, that number rose to about 100 or 115. Last time, about 230 weapons were turned in.
I have seen the impact of people getting involved in this community. One example is the city’s CAPS program (Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy), which encourages average citizens to be the eyes and ears of the police department and become part of the city’s decision-making process on how to fight crime. What happens? Churches, block clubs, businesses and others all say “We live in this place. We worship here and we want to stay here. Let’s see what we can do to work together to solve issues that affect us.”
In 2004, there was a lot of prostitution, pimping and drug dealing in the area where this church is located. People came together to create positive responses to this problem, and crime went down. We learned that leaders around the world in countries hit by violence — including England, France and Belgium — found out about what we were doing. The BBC flew a team here to learn about our community and how we approached problems related to crime.
As we look to the future, we must focus on the youth in our communities and understand how our world has changed. When I was a kid, children got in trouble in middle and elementary for chewing gum in class or throwing paper airplanes. Once in a while there was a fight. In high school, maybe someone pulled a knife once a year. Now, we are much more likely to see murder and guns.
We have to work on a long-term solutions; one of mine would be into reintroduce value-based education in the schools. Alongside the teaching of Darwin, my view is that we should reintroduce praying or the Bible in public schools. Let’s study the effects of doing that.
In our communities, we also see who kids are turning to– or not turning to — when they need someone. Most kids that perpetrate crimes do so because they don’t know how to handle anger and express it in the wrong way. The majority of these kids, of course, are boys, and many of them don’t have a male role model. Unfortunately, they often find that role model in a gang.
Where can kids find role models? Well, it’s important for us to hire more men as teachers. We also need to provide after school clubs for kids — clubs that have some male mentors. Let’s face it, we can be more creative about how we use spaces in our community after school. It’s time for the faith community to open up more of its buildings for after school programs– organized activities that are fun can help children develop.
Overall, there are many ways to improve our community, and that will help us address the problem of gun violence. We need to use as many tools that we have in our toolbox as possible. That will mean bringing together people from all walks of life in our community and using the resources and assets we have to make a difference. We are committed to the long haul, and pray for the eventual reality of making our community and other communities safer and more peaceful places.
Michael Allen is the pastor of Uptown Baptist Church in Chicago, Illinois.The views expressed in this column solely reflect the opinions of the author.
November 2, 2008
Gun Violence: “The Human Toll is Unacceptable”
ICHV Insights Column by Jennifer Bishop
.
My sister Nancy was 25 and my brother-in-law Richard was 28. Nancy was pregnant with her first child, and they were living in Winnetka. They were the dearest people.
Nancy and Richard returned home one night in 1990 after a birthday party for our dad. What happened after that changed me permanently and profoundly.
That night, a 16-year-old junior from the local high school held Nancy and Richard at gunpoint with a .357 magnum. He used it to kill my sister, her husband and their unborn baby in the basement of their home. I found out that the last thing my sister did before she died was to write, in her own blood, a message of love.
I later learned that the gunman was very bright, and very bored, and he got a rush out of doing something rebellious. He had read the writings of Leopold and Loeb, as well as Manson and Hitler. He associated true brilliance with evil. At one point, he had poisoned his parents, and they put him in the hospital. He also got an adult in Chicago to switch identities with him, and the state send him a FOID (Firearm Owners Identification) Card. His parents intercepted the FOID Card, and sent it to a lawyer. But the young man broke into the lawyer’s office –where he found the .357 magnum.
He was eventually charged with three murders, and three life sentences. One of the charges: Intentional homicide of an unborn child.
Taking a Stand
The night the shooter was arrested, I was at a railroad bridge, looking at the media circus at the Winnetka Police Station. I was alone on the bridge and there was a beautiful moon. That is when it hit me: I knew what the rest of my life had to be about. My sister Nancy was saying to me that love is the most important thing in the world. Everything in my life since then has been about honoring her and Richard and their unborn baby.
The first political stand I took was to oppose the juvenile death penalty. A local politician who supported the death penalty said he wanted to “honor” my sister– but I did not want the death penalty in Illinois to be my sister’s legacy. I also participated in murder victims groups, and in the Million Mom March in 2001, which promoted better gun control policies. That is where I met my husband, Bill. I later became Illinois President of the Million Mom March.
I also had the chance to testify to the Chicago City Council on gun violence prevention. In addition, I visited death row, which was an eye-opening experience. I learned that more than 75 percent of the guys waiting for execution in this state were people who shouldn’t have been able to get a gun but did.
I began to realize how incredibly preventable gun violence is. In the United States, we have about the same percentage of guns per person as Canada but our gun industry is far less regulated. Our lethality rate, of course, is much, much higher. We can change that.
In the next decade, I became more and more immersed in the criminal justice system. Bill, who lost a son to gun violence, took me to a gun show in Kankakee in 2005 to learn more about guns. As soon as we got there, someone said, “Here, fill this out, and you won’t have to get a background check when you buy a gun.”
When I got home from that gun show, I literally got sick. I had a visceral reaction: This has got to stop.
The gun show experience was helpful, though, because I saw how much I needed to learn about guns. Now, when the NRA says, “You don’t know anything about guns,” I can stand up to them and talk about guns. I’m very used to that.
Today, I am the National Program Director for Victims and Survivors for the Brady Campaign. I do victim intake, and make sure that victims connect to local support groups. Most victims that contact us want to become activists, and I help them do that as well. I also train other people in how to do outreach to victims.
One of my jobs was to involve families of Virginia Tech victims to go to Capitol Hill and lobby for passage of the NICS Act, a gun control act which requires federal agencies to provide information for inclusion into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The law passed, and victims had an impact on making that happen.
A Commitment to Saving Lives
When people ask me about the Brady Campaign, I tell them that it has always supported regulations we know will save lives, like universal background checks, regulation of trafficking of illegal guns, and banning of military-style assault weapons. Despite what the NRA may claim, we have also always supported self-defense rights, as well as the rights of gun collectors and hunters to own guns.
The NRA has managed to suppress the story about guns in this country– and the data. Still, it doesn’t have any good talking points for the devastation left behind, except to say that everyone should have armed themselves. The NRA has swamped the nation with fear, and the profit motive is their dirty little secret. This is a multibillion dollar a year industry that profits off of death.
Alas, the cost is far too great. The human toll is unacceptable.
When I think back on how victims see this issue, I return to the same thing: We don’t quit. I have been at this for 18 years, and I am not going to stop until we have a safe country. We didn’t pick this club: We’re really in this because we have to be.
Jennifer Bishop is the National Program Director for Victims and Survivors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. She also participates in a range of activities that address the need to reduce handgun violence in Illinois and is a longtime supporter of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
October 20, 2008
For Kids’ Sake: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities
ICHV Column by Susan D. Wright, Esq.
.
Too many young people living in the city of Chicago are afraid for their lives. When working with youth, I ask them what they think we can do to change the status quo. When they say, “Nothing, it’s hopeless,” my heart aches.
I am angered when I hear adults blaming young people for the violence. It’s a simplistic reaction to a complicated problem. If anything, it is more likely that we are the ones who are to blame, the ones who have dropped the ball. After all, isn’t it our responsibility to protect children, to provide youth with recreation and jobs? Aren’t we the ones with the resources and the infrastructure to make change happen? Yet, our children are dying in the streets and afraid to go school or outside to play.
Like I said, the problem is complicated. The issue isn’t just youth gun violence, but more so the underlying social and structural causes. That’s what For Kids’ Sake (FKS) seeks to address as we attempt to mitigate the violence.
The goal of For Kids’ Sake is to drastically reduce youth gun violence by focusing our efforts in Chicago communities that have among the highest rates of gun violence: Englewood, Lawndale, Pilsen, Little Village and Humboldt Park. One of the most important aspects of this project is its emphasis on peer-to-peer communication about youth gun violence. We want to give young people a forum through which they can ask, “How can we make this better?” Then, equip them with the tools and allies they need to make change happen.
Our work involves getting out into these communities with our Real Talk public education campaign — a campaign created by the youth — to change normative values about guns and violence while promoting gun safety. At that same time, we focus on improving police and community (particularly youth) relations and advocating for the resources necessary to address the social and structural issues that exacerbate gun violence.
As a part of this public education campaign, FKS youth share a powerful message about gun violence and safe gun storage. This summer, our presentations prompted a great deal of dialogue between FKS youth and attendees. Young people working with FKS were often saddened to learn that some of the youth they spoke with — young people between five and ten years of age — had held guns or knew how to access them. In many cases, the most powerful messages to the group came from other youth sharing their personal stories about gun violence and gun-related tragedies. The presentations ended with the youth encouraging each other to their families and friends about safety and prevention.
In addition to our successful public education campaign, FKS youth had an opportunity to take part in a youth academy hosted by the Mayor’s Office and Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (also known as CAPS), and held at the training facility on West Jackson Boulevard in downtown Chicago. We all know that there can be antagonism between community residents and the police, but when kids get to see what police really do, it makes a difference. This experience gave young people a better appreciation for the dangers police face. A day after the training, FKS youth shared their experience — and how it changed their views about police — with younger peers at the Chicago Youth Centers who were criticizing the police.
Gun violence is a societal problem; to mitigate the violence and address the underlying issues, we must focus in on improving public safety in our neighborhoods and providing resources for children and families living in Chicago’s hardest hit neighborhoods. FKS is about organizing and developing youth leaders who can rally their peers and come together with key government and law enforcement officials to work toward drastically reducing youth gun violence, reclaiming our communities, and restoring the promise of a brighter future for themselves and each other.
Susan D. Wright, Esq. is Executive Director of For Kids’ Sake, a Chicago organization created to reduce youth gun violence through innovative initiatives, interventions and public policies by empowering Chicago’s youth and partnering with community, civic, business, faith-based, education and philanthropic leaders. For Kids’ Sake is a project of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
September 2008
Gun Mole Infiltrates Gun Control Groups
ICHV Insights Column by Mother Jones
The next time you hear members of the NRA talking about “rights” and the “2nd Amendment” when making a point about firearms, remember this: the NRA will stop at nothing. It is not interested in a fair-minded debate about gun issues.
Let’s consider the story of Mary McFate. In July, Mother Jones magazine published a story about McFate, a woman in her 60’s who has been a prominent activist in the gun control movement.
Until now. The article showed that McFate was also Mary Lou Sapone, a gun lobby mole who, for the last decade, has infiltrated a number of gun control organizations. Sapone, the article said, worked through a firm that had a contract with the NRA; her job was to provide intelligence about what was going on in the gun control movement.
During that time, she befriended a wide range of people in the gun control movement — including those who were related to victims of gun violence. Sapone also sat on the board of Freedom States Alliance, a grassroots organization working to change the way America thinks about guns. In her decade as an alleged mole, Sapone served on executive boards, helped coordinate state groups and lobbied in Washington. (Note: Of course, the idea of deceiving people about one’s identity is not completely new for supporters of the gun lobby. In recent years, noted professor and activist John Lott used a fake persona to defend his work online — including his book “More Guns, Less Crime.”)
As for Sapone, “She was one of the major players in the [gun control] movement,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence in an interview. “She was at every meeting possible and made you think she cared so much about the issues.” (Sapone ran unsuccessfully for the Brady Campaign’s board).
Now, the story continues to unfold — on August 19, the Brady Campaign claimed that “a Republican political operative considered part of the McCain campaign’s ‘kitchen cabinet’ oversaw a National Rifle Association lobbying campaign that allegedly hired a spy to infiltrate gun control groups.” Meanwhile, it appears that elected officials are showing interest in the issue. New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, for example, wrote a letter to the NRA looking for more information about the Sapone story.
Once again, take a look at stories about Mary Lou Sapone. They confirm that for the gun lobby, fighting for what it believes in can involve questionable intelligence-gathering tactics — doing what is necessary to gain an advantage, whether it is fair or unfair.
Their idea is simple — they are trying to squash any kind of opposition. (Sometimes, of course, they try to ignore it. Remember when the NRA held a major conference in Denver — less than two weeks after the tragedy at Columbine?)
We often hear the “God Bless America” symphony from the NRA, as it preaches to us about values. But if you truly believe in a democratic process and “American” values, why would you be so interested in trying to stop information coming from your opponents? It doesn’t stop there. We have also often heard, and will hear again, the nonsense about how supporters of gun control want to take away the right of Americans to own guns. That is totally false. Yet, that’s what the gun lobby wants people to believe.
We have said this before, but if the NRA truly believes in a democratic process, both sides should have their say. Let people in this country makes judgments about guns. That, however, is exactly the kind of dialogue that the NRA is not interested in. An open dialogue? The NRA has not even responded to the Sapone story.
We do have questions for the NRA about the Sapone story, questions that need to be answered. If you really feel like the message you have to share with the public is solid and strong, why resort to these tactics? If you know what is best for the American people, then why do you need to infiltrate groups working on the other side?
To see the original Mother Jones article about Mary Lou Sapone, “There’s Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole,” go to http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/mary-mcfate-sapone-gun-lobby-nra-spy.html
September 7, 2008
Gun Violence Not Just a City Problem
ICHV Insights Column by Chris Boyster
Ten years ago, gun control was a dirty thing to say in this area. I had more than a few doors shut on me.
That’s not true anymore. Yes, there is resistance to what we do, but it’s not on the same scale as it once was. Now, the tide seems to be changing a bit. After Columbine, Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, many people seem to have a more open-minded perspective. We’re also finding that there is a core of people downstate who are passionate about gun control issues. We have members in Chicago, but let’s also remember that we have members in Cairo, Illinois.
Still, one of the biggest challenges we face is the perception that gun violence is a problem in urban areas — but not in our communities. Gun-related violence is portrayed as an urban, criminal issue. But every day when you turn on the TV, you learn about shootings in our communities as well.
When we consider what we’ve been doing in recent years, it shows that more and more people are expressing their interest in supporting gun control in downstate Illinois.
This year, we had the first-ever downstate winner of ICHV’s Essay, Poetry & Art Contest — a 4th-grade boy from East St. Louis. The school board, mayor and local media even recognized that he won the award.
One of the most important things we can do is educate people about this issue. We have done many things in recent years to raise awareness about this issue and raise our visibility as well. Our billboards, for example, talk about the risk of having handguns in the home. The billboards include a message about the link between having a handgun in the home and the increased risk of suicide. People have seen that message and called to say they didn’t know about that link.
We also continue to build relationships with the law enforcement, health care and religious communities. In addition, we sit on the Illinois Suicide Prevention Alliance.
There are so many things we can do to get our message out. We encourage members to write letters to the editor, which still make a difference. We have worked with community partners including business owners, law enforcement officials and defense attorney’s to promote a local gun buy back program.
We are also working with local communities to focus on the issue on gun violence. In East St. Louis we recently partnered with domestic violence groups, the mayor, police department, U.S. attorney and victims to hold an 8-hour symposium to look at the problem and come up with strategies to address it. We hope to hold this kind of event in other communities in the future as well.
Earlier this year, I made a presentation in Peoria to the state’s Office of the Illinois Attorney General about firearms and the elderly. What is alarming, research shows, is the correlation between suicide and handgun access in homes of the elderly. Our research included data from coroner’s offices in two downstate counties.
When I started working in our Springfield office ten years ago, 11 children died every day in this country from gunshots. That number has gone down, and I like to think the efforts of groups like ours has contributed to that decline.
I grew up in downstate Illinois, and I can see some signs of change. I am from Sparta, Illinois, which is now home of the World Shooting & Recreational Complex. I grew up with hunters, including some members of my family. When I told them about this organization, there were people who just couldn’t believe it. Today, however, at least they recognize our mission. When they hear about what we advocate, many are right there with me. After all, I tell them you’re never going to hear us say you can’t have that firearm. But you do need to hear about the risks associated with firearms.
I am reminded of a story a family in downstate Illinois once shared with me. They showed me a picture of their son, whose name was Christopher. When he was 11 years old, he died accidentally of gun wounds inflicted in a neighbor’s house. When I work with people in downstate Illinois, I remember that family’s story, and I know we need to keep building support on this issue. The reality is that increased access to guns means increased risk — no matter where you live.
Chris Boyster is Downstate Director of Programs and Services for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
August 6, 2008
Student Artist Shows “Guns are Fencing Us In”
ICHV Insights Column by Darious Lyles
“When the creativity comes to me, I put it down,” says Darious Lyles, who graduated from Corliss High School last spring.
This year, when Darious puts down creative thoughts in the form of artwork or music, he often turns to the subject of gun violence. How does it affect our communities? Why does it happen? How can we stop it?
His artwork, “End the Violence: Don’t Fence Us In” won an award at ICHV’s 13th Annual Poetry, Essay and Art contest in June.
Darious created “End the Violence” while he was a senior at Corliss High School last year. This fall, he plans to go to Columbia College in Chicago, where he will study music.
The artwork depicts a group of about a dozen young people behind what appears to be a fence. Look closely, however, and you will see that the fence is really made out of guns. Hence, the idea that we are trapped by guns – and, by extension, violence.
Darious completed the project for an art class.
“I got pictures of guns off the Internet, and then put the guns together,” he says. “Then I took pictures of classmates, and had the image of us trying to break through the guns. There is, by design, a glow around the people in the image.”
“Guns are fencing us in, ” Darious says. “No one is saying that, and I thought I’d put it out.”
Darious lives in Beverly, but was born in Roseland, which he describes as “pretty dangerous.” Darious says of his growing up years, “If I can overcome growing up in a violent area, anyone can.”
“I grew up around gangs,” Darious says. “You do something they don’t like, and there are consequences. Or you can just be at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
“I would guess that about 70 percent of the violence in these neighborhoods is gang-related,” he says. “Other times it’s a misunderstanding.”
Sometimes, he says, violence happens when people “don’t have anything to do. We have to find more things for people to do, especially when they get out of school.” In particular, he suggests that there is a lack of youth programs in many communities – and a general need for more recreation centers.
A strong message about violence, he adds, does not only need to go to gangs – but to parents. “Parents need to be a little more careful about what happens to children.”
Despite his concerns, Darious says he is enthusiastic that more people will eventually listen to messages about how to stop violence.
Meanwhile, he continues to explore the issue. This summer, Darious sings and plays keyboard in a band with friends (he says he plays “organ, piano, drums and a little bit of horns”). He has written a song that includes the following lyrics:
How come every time I turn on the TV screen
I see people dying, the same age as me?
So many crazy things that people do/
People robbing and stealing and shooting up the school.
That ain’t even cool, but we can get through,
By keeping positive minds and staying in school.
We gotta teach the little kids coming up
about being a man and not guns ‘n’ stuff;
that ‘aint even tough and it don’t make you a man -
and the world would be a better place if you just understand.
Darious Lyles is a winner of ICHV’s 13th Annual Poetry, Essay and Art contest.
July 30, 2008
Tragedy Inspires Positive Action
ICHV Insights Column by Dan Gross
.
“The shooting changed a lot of our lives forever,” said Gross.
The story made the front page of The New York Times. Right after the shooting, Gross knew he wanted to do something. “When my brother was in the hospital I went to Washington, D.C. and had the chance to meet the president,” he said. “People were talking about what to do on the gun issue, but I knew that I didn’t want to change my life to be a flash-in-the-pan based on this tragedy. I wanted my response to be thoughtful as well as emotional. Soon, I realized the magnitude of this issue, and learned that what happened was not unique to my experience.”
At the time, Gross worked in advertising as a partner with J. Walter Thompson. He decided to quit his job and use his background and passion for marketing, media and communications for this cause. “It was a big decision for me,” he said.
Gross’ brother attended the launch of the organization, which was held on the one-year anniversary of the shooting.
When PAX was formed, the organization took a purely public health and safety approach to the gun issue. It doesn’t get involved in political advocacy, laws getting passed, or court decisions regarding the second amendment. “We view gun violence as an urgent issue of public safety – an issue that we are all in a position to do something about,” said Gross. “What we set out to do is create the changes in attitude and behaviors that can make a difference.”
National ASK Day
One way the organization does that is through National ASK Day. Through this education and awareness program, more than 50 partner organizations and individuals across the country joined PAX this year in urging parents to ask if there are guns in homes where their children play.
The program is part of the ASK Campaign, which PAX created with the American Academy of Pediatrics. National ASK Day has been held for the last eight years, and typically kicks off summer vacation, a time of year when kids are more likely to play in other homes.
Studies have shown that 40 percent of all homes in this country have guns; many are left locked and unloaded. Gross said that “When we told parents that, we heard back things like ‘That’s means there’s a 40 percent chance of kids playing in homes where there are guns? And I’m asking other questions?’”
“Once you tell parents some of these facts, they say “I am going to start asking questions,” he added.”One of the things we have learned is that there is no other side to just asking if there are guns in the home. Everyone can do it.”
Gross said the organization has seen changes, through its work and the work of others. “We may not solve the whole issue every day, but we are providing people with genuine things they can do to make a difference based on things they care about,” he said.
Making change measurable is a big part of what the organization does, according to Gross. National polling has shown that 19 million parents have asked about guns in the home. The numbers also show that fewer children and teens are dying from guns in this country.
Meanwhile, PAX runs another program, Speak Up!, the first and only national toll-free hotline dedicated to giving students a way to report weapons threats anonymously. Twenty-five thousand young people have called to “speak up” through the program.
The link between these programs is that PAX is working to empower targeted groups of people to do something about improving safety – while creating shifts in social and cultural norms.
A lot of people in our country are disheartened about the gun issue, but there is still tremendous reason for hope, according to Gross. “People have been taking the fact that kids are dying and doing something about it,” he said. “It’s not because we are master communicators – but because this issue resonates with people. Together, we are saving lives – and have an opportunity to save many more.”
Dan Gross is a co-founder of PAX, an organization that has become the largest non-lobbying organization dedicated to the gun violence issue. One of the organization’s programs, the national ASK Campaign (ASK stands for Asking Saves Kids), raises awareness among parents about the importance of asking whether there are guns in places where their kids play. Like many people who work to raise awareness on gun issues, Gross was deeply affected by a single unforgettable incident. In 1997, his brother was shot in the head and critically injured on the observation deck of the Empire State Building. He was in a coma for a while, but survived, and has faced significant challenges in living independently ever since. Gross’ brother was in a well-known band at the time, the Bushpilots, and one of his bandmates – who was his very close friend — was killed in the shooting. The gunman later killed himself on the spot.
July 21, 2008
A Student’s Thoughts about gun violence
ICHV Insights Column by Verdell Taylor
.
Like many students who won awards in ICHV’s Essay, Poetry and Art Contest this year, Verdell Taylor has experienced the effects of violence in his own life.
“I wrote an essay for the ICHV essay contest because I have heard and seen how gun violence has affected my family,” said Verdell. “So I wanted to write about what I feel. I’ve also learned not to be afraid about speaking out.”
Verdell wrote an award-winning essay about gun for the 2008 ICHV Essay, Poetry & Art Contest while he was an eighth grader at St. Sabina Academy in Chicago. He will be a freshman at Morgan Park High School in Chicago this fall.
Verdell lives in the Beverly/Morgan Park area, down the street from a police station. He said “it’s a very quiet neighborhood. You rarely hear about any violence at all.”
The same, however, is not true of neighborhoods where many of his relatives live.
“I hear a lot about gun violence from relatives on my mother’s side of the family,” said Verdell. “I see them almost every day; some are in [Chicago communities of] Gresham and Englewood. No, they don’t feel safe. They talk about how they hear gunshots and then police drive by. They talk about how they have to be careful at night.”
In particular, Verdell is close with his older cousin, Ebonie Turner, who is 28. “I see her all the time — she’s the kind of “big cousin” everybody wants,” he said.
Last year, Ebonie was by herself, and a man wanted her car. He shot her three times for it.
“I was very afraid when I heard that, because I didn’t think it would happen to her, of all people,” said Verdell. “She’s very nice, and thoughtful to everyone. Now she’s afraid. My cousin is recovering, but one of her hands is paralyzed.”
Now, Verdell says he talks to younger cousins about guns all the time. I tell them to always be aware and to always tell their parents if someone has a gun around them.”
“Why do people use guns?,” asked Verdell. “I think many use them because of drugs, or to get money or material items. Or because they’re in a gang. And some people will do it for no reason. I know it happens all over — I just hear about it in Chicago.”
“How can we stop it? It would help a lot if we had stricter gun laws. I also think parents play a big role in it, and can help make sure kids don’t have a chance to get a gun.”
Verdell points to the positive influence of his mother as well as teachers at his school in getting him to think about how to face this problem in his own life.
“My mom and I talk about this issue a lot, and about how I shouldn’t be influenced by other kids,” said Verdell. “I also have a curfew. Plus, it’s very important that I was always taught to be a leader, not a follower. I think just being a follower can cause destruction. I’ve learned that followers don’t know what they really want in life. My homeroom teacher in school was a pastor, and he witnessed gun violence. He’s seen so many friends get shot. He told us you should choose your friends wisely, know what is going on in their lives. And tell the closest authority about gun violence.”
Meanwhile, Verdell believes something can be done about gun violence, but that people have to hear a message about how it affects so many lives.
“I believe this problem can be solved, but it’s going to take a while,” he said. “I wish that people who make decisions, like politicians, could see what has happened in my family. In my essay, I wrote that being shot felt like someone heated a fork over a fire and stuck it into their bodies.’”
That’s what Verdell’s cousin Ebonie said it felt like when she was shot.
Verdell Taylor is a winner of ICHV’s Essay, Poetry and Art Contest.
June 26, 2008
Statement on Supreme Court’s Ruling to Overturn D.C. Gun Ban
.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday to strike down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. confirms once again that this country needs to have a vigorous and thorough debate on gun ownership. In our view, the significance of this ruling is that it creates an opportunity to educate people about the increased risk of having handguns in the home.
The ruling was disappointing, but not surprising. It’s important in this situation to consider the sources of this ruling. For example, when President Bush appointed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Alito had already said that Congress has no authority to even ban the sale of machine guns. Alito is one of the five justices in the “majority” in this case.
In a death penalty case, Alito once cited the judgment of Louisiana lawmakers to back up his point of view. Now, he takes sides against the gun ban, despite the overwhelming support for the ban by the Washington, D.C. City Council. He has ignored prevailing public opinion when it does not match his own opinion, but cites it when it does.
Like many, we believe that the United States has the best judicial system in the world. But to think that five people can overturn a policy supported by hundreds of thousands in the D.C. area and every member of the City Council — well, that decision needs to be questioned. With all due respect, the fact that five people have this opinion does not mean it is something we should accept.
At the same time, the court’s ruling was hardly as unqualified as some supporters may claim. Justice Antonin Scalia said in his opinion that the ruling should not be interpreted as one that lets criminals and the mentally ill own a handgun. In addition, the court “apparently allowed for the retention of the law’s ban on most semiautomatic weapons,” according to the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center.
In the coming weeks, it is highly likely that we will see a challenge to the handgun ban in Chicago. There is no doubt that Chicago is the biggest target of those who support this kind of ban. (In the Chicago area, other municipalities have also voted to ban handguns, including Evanston, Wilmette, Morton Grove and Oak Park).
The news is full of stories about the Supreme Court’s decision against the D.C. handgun ban. Here in Chicago, the decision has already sparked interest in how the city’s ban will be affected.
What is at stake, however, goes far beyond what five justices decided on Thursday morning. Consider, for example, what happened in Joliet on Wednesday, June 25. In that city, a 3-year-old boy was playing with a .45-caliber handgun and shot himself in the head. The boy died. When we talk about guns, we invariably hear about the self-defense, among other issues. We need to broaden this discussion so that it includes what is really happening – handguns play a tragic role in unintentional deaths and suicides.
The Court’s ruling, of course, creates another opportunity in the coming months – for voters, who should consider the importance of Supreme Court justices when they vote for president, since presidents have the ability to appoint these justices.
About 80 Americans die each day from guns. Amid the news about the D.C. gun ban, let’s taker a closer look at what we can do to make our world safer.
April, 2008
ICHV’s 13th Annual Essay, Poetry and Art Contest: Highlighting Student Views on Gun Violence
.
Students from first grade through twelfth grade shared a powerful array of essays, poetry and art that reflected their perspective on gun violence at ICHV’s 13th Annual Essay, Poetry and Art Contest.
This year’s assembly for the contest was held on June 3rd at Richard J. Daley Academy. The assembly is traditionally held at the school of one of the winners. This year, three students from Daley Academy were honored at the event.
The contest was created to give children a voice to stop gun violence. This year’s contest, in fact, shared twice as many examples of how students view gun violence — 18 — than the contest had ever shared before. Of the eighteen students who won awards for the contest, 17 attended the event. One student, Yazhon Kennedy, who won a poetry award in the 1st to 4th grade poetry competition, even traveled with his parents from East St. Louis for the contest.
Winners of the contest presented their work at the assembly.
“People in my family have died and gotten shot due to gun violence,” said Verdell Taylor, an 8th grader at St. Sabina Academy in Chicago as he read his essay to the crowd. “The family members who survived said it felt like someone heated a fork over a fire and stuck it into their bodies.”
Later, he added that “A few possible solutions to stop gun violence would be if we had stricter gun laws. Most importantly, our first lesson should come in our home from our parents. Parents should teach their children how devastating crimes with guns can be.”
“Be strong, live above the influence and Shine/ Don’t let guns be your set back/ Don’t let guns Define,” wrote Jocelyn Luckett, a 10th grader at North-Grand High School in “Guns,” her prize-winning poem.
Students received a certificate for their efforts. In addition, all winners received a computer and a $25 gift card for a bookstore or art supplies store, depending on whether their entry was a poem, essay or artwork. Teachers of the winners also received a $100 certificate for books or art supplies.
Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan also spoke at the event. “I am so proud of all the young people here,” Duncan said. “We as adults have failed on this issue. Too many kids say “if” I grow up – not “when.”
Mary Ann Ahern, political editor for WMAQ Channel 5, served as emcee and a blue ribbon judge for the contest.
Ahern, who is also a former teacher, told the crowd that “all of the student entries in the contest were so heartfelt. These students truly have a gift that they’ve passed on.”
Other blue ribbon judges were Dina Bair, Anchor/Reporter, WGN Channel 9; Burt Constable, Columnist, Daily Herald; Peter Gianopulos, Senior Editor, Northshore magazine, and Sue Ontiveros, Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times.
Meanwhile, Yazhon Kennedy, a 4th grader at Wright School in East St. Louis, read his poem “Make a Plan, Take a Stand” at the assembly. The poem concluded:
“I want my neighborhood free/ from all the gun violence and all the guns/ So I am asking you to make a plan/ To get rid of it./ Please, somebody, anybody help!/ We need to take a stand.”
ICHV would like to thank all of the students and judges who participated in the Essay, Poetry & Imagery Contest.
The 13th Annual Essay, Poetry & Art Contest was sponsored by The John R. Houlsby Foundation and the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority. Additional sponsorship was provided by The Joyce Foundation, Helen V. Brach Foundation, J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation, Francis Beidler Foundation, 57th Street Books, and The Book Stall.
April, 2008
Young People Need Hope
ICHV Insights Column by Fred Long
.
I was once part of the child welfare system. My parents were drug addicts, and I lived with my mom until I was 9 or 10. I was placed into foster care.
I remember growing up in the 1990s. In those days, if you lived almost anywhere on the South Side, you knew that violence and gang activity were reaching a new peak, especially with the drug epidemic. We had a couple of family members killed by gang violence. Another family member was shot recently. It seems like everyone has been affected.
At the age of 18, I was introduced to UCAN (Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network) in Chicago. They had programs for older adolescents, and I participated until I was 21. Later, I interned and then started working for the organization.
I have been able to relate my own experiences to what young people are going through today. With UCAN, we speak with young people and hold workshops. We think of youth development in a lot of areas — education, social skills, decisionmaking, employment. It’s also important to share your life experience with others.
Hands Without Guns
One of the programs we run is Hands Without Guns Chicago. We provide what we call “violence prevention interruption services” to students from the 6th to 11th grades in various Chicago schools located in communities that are often hit hard by violence. The curriculum for this program focuses on how kids can make better choices while managing anger and conflicts.
The one thing that we always find through surveys and evaluations of this program is that young people want to be heard and want change — even though some adults may feel otherwise. Through Hands Without Guns and our other programs, we give kids the opportunity to voice their opinions. We also offer a Young Leadership Development Institute for kids to do community work, receive training in facilitation skills and learn how to work with the media. Young people through our program might also get a chance to participate in press conferences or rallies on gun issues.
In one Hands Without Guns class, I asked kids how many knew someone who had been shot in the last month. Many, of course, do know someone who has been shot; we have learned that what students often have in common is violence. We have found that that’s something most African-Americans and Latinos are familiar with. What we do in our program is contrast the experience kids have had with violence with information we have on prevention.
Other Programs for Youth
Meanwhile, our Voices program gives students the opportunity to learn about music and the arts and participate in a range of service learning, mentoring and academic activities. Another program, Project Visible Men, is a male support group for 14-26 year-old men of color that addresses issues around anger management, fatherhood, manhood and a lot more. The idea for this class was based on Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” and writings of W.E.B. DuBois and, in particular, efforts to combat negative stereotypes.
Look around, and you will see that there are not a lot of prevention programs out there. A lot of them have been cut — instead, our culture focuses on an approach that emphasizes conviction. But the whole conviction approach is not working, and we are hearing a message over and over again: young people are saying “We need programs, opportunities and resources.” In our communities, there used to be good after-school programs, but now a lot of communities don’t have the necessary manpower because of funding.
In today’s world, there are more opportunities than ever for young people to participate in things that are not healthy. It’s not just gangs and drugs, either. We should also be talking about the technology piece. Youth are interacting with each other in ways that are good and bad through so many avenues — My Space, Facebook and, of course, cell phones. Just in terms of their relationships with each other, for example, young ladies interact with young men at earlier ages through modern technology. At a very early age, we are allowing them to communicate in an environment that may or may not be supervised.
We also must keep advocating to our elected officials on issues that are pertinent to young people. It’s more than just money, though. Our elected officials must believe in our youth and the process that is needed to turn things around. We don’t just need a 3-year grant but a continuous process of bringing resources and efforts into our communities.
When I work with youth in our programs, I feel I have a responsibility to help those who are unfortunate and to take on this challenge. Young people need hope and someone to believe in them. We talk to young people who are in gangs and find they often have good aspirations for life, but lose that. I am trying to make sure they keep in touch with that hope. A lot of young people are hopeless.
Fred Long is a youth leadership specialist for Ulrich Children’s Advantage Network, a multi-faceted social service agency based in Chicago that provides a safe harbor to orphaned, neglected and abused youth, children, and families.
March, 2008
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 there?fs 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
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
ICHV Insights Column by Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel
.
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 hadn?ft 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 and 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.
It?fs 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, that’s 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 department?fs 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 Campaign’s 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 gun’s 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 state’s governor in 2002. The law indicated that three years after a childproof gun was verified by the state’s attorney general, only childproof guns could sold in the state. To date, New Jersey’s 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 ? Are these guns 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
Thirteenth Annual ICHV Essay, Poetry & Art Contest
“I dream for a world — or a city, or a neighborhood — where people can solve their problems with words instead of guns. I want to make a difference because the perpetrators and victims deserve a chance to live, to go to school, and to raise a family. They deserve to know a world where guns are not the answer to their problems.”
Bethany B.
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.
March 16, 2007
Imagine No More of This
ICHV Insights Colum by Matt Malec
.
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.”
December 1, 2006
It’s a Matter of Safety: Police Need Access to Gun Records
ICHV Insights Column 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.
