For far too long, those who oppose gun reforms have said that nothing can be done to stem the violence.
Gun Control
1 additions to document , most recent about 6 years ago
| When | Why |
|---|---|
| Nov-02-18 | New Assignment |
LETTERS
Inspired by the Activism of Emma González
Two young women write about school shootings and how they have energized students into political action.
Image
To the Editor:
“Advice From a Young Activist,” by Emma González (Sunday Review, Oct. 7), is so incredibly powerful to me, and reminds me of the fear brought by all the school shootings. I remember the chilling conversations with my friends about what we would do if there were a shooting in school, how we would feel if we had to hide for our lives in the corner of a classroom.
I am tired of having to worry about my little sister’s safety in her elementary school. I am tired of being doubted in conversations regarding gun control because I am “too young to know enough about it.” If I am old enough to worry about being shot in my class, I am old enough to say I want gun control.
Emma González’s and her classmates’ activism gives hope to students like me, showing us that we can be heard, too. They are so brave to fight so hard for what they believe in, and they have inspired many young adults.
It’s heartbreaking that they had to go through such a traumatizing event to gain the platform they have now, but so many have joined the movement so that no one else would have to see the empty chairs of students whose lives were stolen.
Emma Caraus
Chicago
The writer is a freshman at DePaul University, as is Ms. Morgan (below).
They had a class assignment to write letters in response to a Sunday Review article.
To the Editor:
Emma González tells the truth about activism. I’m 18. I’ve marched more times than I can count. I’ve failed classes as a result of spending so much time organizing with my peers and my community. I’ve made more phone calls to the government than to my best friend. Organizing is powerful. Yet every time I look at the news I break down again. Another shooting, another family torn apart, another sexual assaulter in power. Sometimes I cry. It’s O.K. to cry.
What is not O.K. are the people who still don’t care about or pay attention to politics. The people who can turn a blind eye to the injustice in American society. It is less than one month from the midterm elections. I’m voting for the first time, and I hope the candidates I choose will do the good things I hope for. But if they fail I will be there to tell them to do better and hold them to it.
Activists aren’t looking for a pat on the back. We are looking for fundamental societal change. We are crying for it.
Mara Morgan
Chicago
A version of this article appears in print on
, on Page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Inspired by the Activism of Emma González
theguardian.com
'A human rights crisis': US accused of failing to protect citizens from gun violence
By Lois Beckett in San Francisco|Sep. 12th, 2018
American gun violence is “a human rights crisis” and the US government’s refusal to pass gun control laws represents a violation of its citizens’ right to life, according to a new report by Amnesty International.
“The USA is failing to protect individuals and communities most at risk of gun violence, in violation of international human rights law,” Amnesty argues. “The right to live free from violence, discrimination and fear has been superseded by a sense of entitlement to own a practically unlimited array of deadly weapons.”
To address the crisis of gun homicide, suicide and injury that leaves about 38,000 Americans dead and 116,000 wounded each year, Amnesty recommends the US pass a sweeping set of gun control measures, including universal background checks, the requirement of a valid license to buy a gun, no gun purchases for those under 21, a ban on certain military-style weapons and ammunition, and the creation of a digitized national gun registry.
Congress should also pass a federal law prohibiting carrying guns in public “unless there is a credible justification for doing so”, Amnesty argues.
Some of the measures Amnesty recommends go further than the policies even Democratic party politicians currently support. Current US law, for instance, “expressly prohibits the creation of a national registry of most firearms,” the report notes, while endorsing the policy.
Amnesty also recommended that “the USA should guarantee the right to health and access to healthcare services for gunshot survivors,” and insure that healthcare costs do not cause “catastrophic financial burdens” to survivors or their families.
While it gives some attention to public mass shootings, the Amnesty report focuses more on everyday forms of gun violence, particularly urban violence, domestic violence, and the impact of gun violence on children. Mass shootings “account for less than 1% of gun deaths in the USA,” the report notes.
Noting that the gun violence crisis disproportionately burdens Americans of color, and particularly young black men, Amnesty called for Congress to pass legislation to ensure “sustained funding” for local violence prevention programs. Despite strong evidence that some community-based programs can reduce urban gun violence, “lack of funding and lack of political will” have blocked successful programs from being widely implemented, the report noted.
By framing gun violence in terms of human rights, Amnesty is attempting to use international human rights law as a counterweight to Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms, experts said. While the invocation of human rights law could be a powerful rhetoric tool for advocates, they said, it was unlikely to make much difference in a courtroom. The United States has largely resisted being held accountable by international human rights bodies.
Amnesty’s new report comes as the Senate prepares to confirm a gun rights champion as a new supreme court justice. Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the supreme court has been backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and his confirmation could tip the balance of the court even further in favor of gun rights advocates and gun manufacturers. Gun control advocates say they fear Kavanaugh could be the swing vote to rule, for instance, that banning assault weapons is unconstitutional, or to further restrict the ability of local governments to regulate gun-carrying in public.
But even as Donald Trump has advanced the agenda of the NRA, which spent more than $30m to back his White House bid, the United States has also seen a resurgent gun control movement, led by teenagers frustrated with the constant toll of school shootings and everyday violence. Student survivors of the 14 February school shooting in Parkland, Florida, are now crisscrossing the country, working to register and turn out young voters in advance of the midterm elections, with the goal of voting out Republican lawmakers who are blocking gun control laws.
While framing America’s gun violence in human rights terms is a symbolic move, “I don’t think it’s symbolic in the empty sense,” said Gerald Neuman, the co-director of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School.
“For some people who are already concerned about the number of deaths that are occurring, having it framed as a human rights issue may help them understand the issue differently – that there are rights on both sides to be considered.”
Governments that are violating the human rights of their citizens tend to “gaslight” victims, said James Cavallaro, a Stanford University professor and a former president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
American gun control advocates may be encouraged by the human rights report that they’re “not asking for anything bizarre” and that the legitimacy of their demands are “recognized in the rest of the world”, Cavallaro said.
This is how we save
lives from gun violence
Those who oppose reforms say nothing can be done. That's demonstrably wrong.
March 23, 2018
Those claims are demonstrably wrong. Research on gun violence is notoriously underfunded, but the data we do have shows that lawmakers can act to save lives from gun violence.
Thousands of people will descend on the Mall this week to protest gun violence in the United States. This movement should be informed by science, with specific policy proposals that could make a real impact.
The Las Vegas massacre. The massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo. The Virginia Tech slaughter. The massacre at the Texas First Baptist Church.
These are the five highest-casualty mass shootings in modern American history. And what did they all have in common? Semiautomatic weapons that allowed the shooter to fire into crowds without reloading.
Based on the evidence we have, banning these weapons probably won’t do too much to curb overall gun deaths. We know this because in 1994, Congress passed legislation to outlaw the sale of certain types of semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines, and the effect was unimpressive. Gun homicide rates declined during the ban, but they also fell after the ban expired in 2004. One federally funded study of the ban found that the effect on violence was insignificant, partly because it was full of loopholes.
But banning so-called assault weapons was never meant to reduce overall gun deaths. It was meant to reduce gun deaths from mass shootings — even if these represent a small portion of gun violence.
And in fact, mass shooting casualties dipped during the ban, although a review of studies by the Rand Corporation found the effect of the ban on mass shootings to be inconclusive. We need to know more.
But research shows that semiautomatic weapons and weapons with high-capacity magazines are more dangerous than other weapons in shooting events. One older study of handgun attacks in New Jersey shows that gunfire incidents involving semiautomatic weapons wounded 15 percent more people than shootings with other weapons. Another more recent study from Minneapolis found that shootings with more than 10 shots fired accounted for between 20 and 28 percent of gun victims in the city.
So how do we keep such dangerous weapons from being used in crime? A ban on assault weapons might help, as data from a few cities during the 1994 ban suggest:
But experts say focusing on reducing large-capacity magazines might be more effective. Simply put, gunmen are less deadly when they have to reload.
Such a ban might take time to have an effect, as a Post investigation shows. But it would be worth it. Alarmingly, local crime data suggest that crimes committed with high-powered weapons have been on the rise since the 1994 ban ended.
Again, mass shootings account for a small piece of the puzzle, so any ban on these weapons and magazines would result in marginal improvements, at best. But even if this step reduced shootings by 1 percent — far less than what the Minneapolis study suggests — that would mean 650 fewer people shot a year. Isn’t that worth it?
Keep guns away from kids
Recently, we’ve heard proposals to raise age limits for semiautomatic weapons. Taken alone, this would do very little. Since 2009, men under 21 committed two mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles. And one of those shootings involved a gun purchased illegally.
But expanding existing age limits to all guns might be more effective, since young people are far more likely to commit homicide than older ones. One survey of inmates found that setting a minimum age requirement of 21 could have prohibited gun possession in 17 percent of cases in which people legally owned a gun and used it to commit a crime.
Of course, keeping guns out of the hands of young shooters would be difficult, because it’s so easy for people to obtain guns illegally. But age limits in general have proven to be effective in limiting bad behavior, so it’s worth trying.
There’s another reform that could be even more effective at keeping guns from kids: requiring gun owners to securely store firearms in a locked container or with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock.
Nearly 2 million minors in the United States live in homes where firearms are loaded and easy to access. And alarmingly, one study found that of the teens who had guns in their home who had attempted suicide in the past year, 40 percent had easy access to the firearm. Another study from the federal government shows that 68 percent of school shootings are perpetrated by shooters who obtain a gun from their homes or the homes of relatives.
In Massachusetts, which has the strictest safe-storage laws in the country, guns are used in just 9 percent of youth suicides, compared with 42 percent nationally. The suicide death rate among youth in the state is 38 percent below the national average.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence also reports that states requiring locks on handguns in at least some circumstances have 40 percent fewer suicides per capita and 68 percent fewer firearm suicides per capita than states without such laws.
Meanwhile, another safety innovation is being developed: smart guns. These are guns that use fingerprint recognition and other means so that only their owners can fire them. The technology is still relatively new, but it’s promising. One small study found that over seven years, 37 percent of gun deaths could have been prevented by smart guns. Lawmakers could encourage their use by incorporating them into laws regulating safe storage.
Stop the flow of guns
Here’s a general rule: The more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be.
It holds across countries (note how much the United States stands out):
And across states. One 2013 study from Boston University found that for every percentage point increase in gun ownership at the state level, there was a 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate.
So how do we reduce the steady flow of guns? Three ideas:
1. Institute a buyback program
In the 1990s, Australia spent $500 million to buy back almost 600,000 guns. Harvard University researchers found that the gun homicide rate dropped 42 percent in the seven years following the law and the gun suicide rate fell 58 percent.
An Australian study found that for every 3,500 guns withdrawn per 100,000 people, the government was able to achieve a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.
In fact, since the ban, the country has not experienced another mass shooting. That doesn’t proves causation. But the likelihood it’s due to chance? Roughly 1 in 200,000, according to a recent paper.
Of course, the United States is different from Australia. The Australian buyback was mandatory, which would probably run into constitutional problems here. Plus, we have way more guns per capita, so the United States would have to spend exponentially more to make a significant difference.
Still, given Australia’s trends, it’s worth at least experimentation. Perhaps the government can use buyback programs to target specific kinds of weapons, such as semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.
2. Limit the number of guns people can buy at one time
Federal gun enforcers have long warned that state laws allowing bulk purchases of guns enable crime. Older studies from what is now called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show that as many as 1 in 5 handguns recovered in a crime were originally purchased as part of a sale in which multiple guns were purchased.
To combat this behavior, some states have instituted “one handgun a month” policies, such as Virginia in 1993. At the time, Virginia was the top supplier of guns seized in the Northeast. Three years later, the state dropped to eighth. Research also shows that the Virginia law was effective in reducing criminal firearms sent to nearby states. It also led to a 35 percent reduction in guns recovered anywhere in the United States that were traced back to Virginia.
Such a policy isn’t going to solve gun trafficking. The Virginia law didn’t prevent “straw purchases” in which traffickers pay people to buy guns legally so they can be sold elsewhere. In fact, Virginia remained the eighth-top supplier of illegal guns even after it repealed its one-handgun-a-month law in 2012.
But experts say one-gun-a-month laws make it more costly for criminals to traffic guns. And given the success in the past, such policies are worth promoting.
3. Hold gun dealers accountable
Research has shown that in some cities, guns used to commit crimes often come from a small set of gun dealers. In Milwaukee, for example, a single dealer was linked to a majority of the guns used in the city’s crime.
So how do we stop the flow of those guns? Hold dealers accountable.
In 1999, the federal government published a report identifying gun shops connected with crime guns, including that Milwaukee dealer. In response to negative publicity, that dealer changed its sales practices. Afterward, the city saw a 76 percent reduction in the flow of new guns from that shop to criminals and a 44 percent reduction in new crime guns overall. But in 2003, Congress passed a law prohibiting the government from publishing such data, after which the rate of new gun sales from that dealer to criminals shot up 200 percent.
Studies show that regulation of licensed dealers — such as record-keeping requirements or inspection mandates — can also reduce interstate trafficking. So can litigation against gun dealers that allow their guns to enter criminal markets. One sting operation conducted by New York City reduced the probability of guns from the dealers they targeted ending up in the hands of criminals by 84 percent.
Strengthen background checks
Federal law requires background checks to obtain a gun, but those checks are extremely porous.
Under federal law, only licensed gun dealers have to perform these background checks. Private individuals and many online retailers don’t. That leaves a lot of gun owners — about 42 percent, according to one survey published in 2017 — who didn’t undergo a background check for a gun purchase. So what happens when states go beyond federal laws and require all handgun sales to undergo a background check? Fewer gun deaths.
Between 2009 and 2012, those states had 35 percent fewer gun deaths per capita than those without the requirement. Those states also have 53 percent fewer firearm suicides and 31 percent fewer overall suicides per capita.
States are categorized from highest rate to lowest rate. Although adjusted for differences in age distribution and population size, rankings by state do not take into account other state-specific population characteristics that may affect the level of mortality. When the number of deaths is small, rankings by state may be unreliable due to volatility in death rates.
That doesn’t prove causation. In fact, a few states with expanded background checks have relatively high gun-death rates.
But we do know most gun offenders obtain their weapons through unlicensed sellers. One survey of state prison inmates convicted of offenses committed with guns in 13 states found that only 13 percent obtained their guns from a seller that had to conduct a background check. Among those who were supposed to be prohibited from possessing a firearm, nearly all of them got their hands on one through suppliers that didn’t have to conduct a background check. Closing that loophole might help, although it’s questionable to what degree, since black markets already feed the flow of crime.
What else can we do to strengthen background checks? Three possibilities:
1. Close the “Charleston Loophole”
Most gun background checks are instant. But some — around 9 percent — take more time, and federal law says if it takes more than three business days, the sale can proceed. As a result, thousands of people who were not supposed have access to guns ended up getting them, as the Government Accountability Office reported.
Among the people who benefited from this loophole? Dylann Roof, who killed nine people in Charleston, S.C., in 2015. Ending this practice would save lives.
2. Close the “Boyfriend Gap”
Between 2006 and 2014, an average of 760 Americans were killed with guns annually by their spouses, ex-spouses or dating partners, according to an Associated Press analysis.
Federal law prevents anyone with domestic violence misdemeanors from having a gun, but that law is defined narrowly and doesn’t include all domestic violence perpetrators — for example, boyfriends. More specifically, the law doesn’t keep guns from abusers who are not married, do not live with their partner or do not share a child with them.
Some states have expanded on federal law — and it works. One study found that domestic-violence-related homicide rates decline 7 percent after a state passes such laws.
3. Implement waiting periods
It’s not clear that waiting periods reduce violent crime. But we’re pretty sure they prevent suicides.
Research shows that people who buy handguns are at higher risk of suicide within a week of the purchase, and that waiting periods can keep them from using guns to commit suicide. In fact, one study found that when South Dakota repealed its 48-hour waiting period in 2012, suicides jumped 7.6 percent in the following year.
4. Improve reporting on mental health
Mental illness is associated with a relatively small portion (around 5 percent) of gun homicides. Federal law already prohibits anyone committed to a mental-health facility or deemed dangerous or lacking all mental capacities through a legal proceeding from having a gun.
But mental-health records are notoriously spotty. There’s limited evidence that improved reporting at the state level might reduce violent crimes. Connecticut started reporting mental-health data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in 2007, and one study found that violent crimes committed by people with mental illness there significantly decreased.
We can also make it easier for family members to help loved ones with mental illness, by letting them seek court orders to disarm relatives who might do harm to themselves. In Connecticut, which has allowed this since 1999, one study estimates that the law averted 72 suicide attempts through 2013 from being fatal.
Treat guns like we treat cars
Consider two data points: first in Connecticut, then in Missouri.
In Connecticut, state lawmakers required people to get a license and safety training for a gun, just as we do for cars. In the decade after, it saw a drop in both gun homicides and suicides — at faster rates than other states without similar laws. And at the same time, Connecticut saw no significant drop in homicides not related to guns.
In Missouri, the state legislature repealed its licensing requirements in 2007.
A study found that the law change was associated with an additional 55 to 63 homicides in each of the five years following the repeal — even as homicides committed without guns dropped.
In both cases, it’s hard to prove a connection. But these experiences do strongly suggest something we learned in our decades-long efforts to reduce vehicle-related deaths: Regulation saves lives.
It can also deter crime. Research from the advocacy group Mayors Against Illegal Guns has found that guns sold in states with licensing laws — which are sometimes paired with mandatory registration of guns with local police — end up being exported for criminal activity at one-third the rate of states without the laws.
Why? Because it’s much harder to feed guns into illegal markets if police can trace them to their legal gun owners. After Missouri repealed its licensing laws, police in Iowa and Illinois started reporting an increase in Missouri guns showing up at crime scenes.
About this story
Illustration by Ann Telnaes. Design and development by Andrew Braford.
Added November 02, 2018 at 4:17pm
by Anna Drossos
Title: New Assignment
Liberal 9th Circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling
Phil Burns, a firearms instructor, holds a handgun that he carries as part of his survival supplies at his home in American Fork, Utah, Dec. 14, 2012. (REUTERS/Jim Urquhart)
The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.
“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.
The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges -- who were both appointed by Republican presidents -- ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.
9TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN
"We are disappointed in the decision that would undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public,” Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki said in a statement. “But we note that Judge Clifton filed a well-reasoned dissent supporting the constitutionality of this law. We intend to consult with Hawai‘i County and work with them on further action."
It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.
The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.
Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”
Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.
Fox News' Bill Mears, Adam Shaw, Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
My friends and I have also had discussions about school shootings, and the reality that we could be the next victims. More shockingly is how desensitized we have become as a society and a generation to this grave violence. She makes a good point of how we as a people must consider this a possible situation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I strongly agree with these comments, because people my age who comment on the issue of safety and gun control are often disregarded because we are, “too young to know enough about it.” The irony of the situation is that we, the students, have more knowledge on these events than anyone because we are living through them. It is us who are scared for our lives while trying to receive and education.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
It is true, my generation is trying to be as active as possible to save lives. We have had enough of “thoughts and prayers” and are determined to take action. I too have taken part in marches such as the March For Our Lives movement in hope to change society. Though, no matter how hard we try, more people loss their lives everyday due our government’s failure to act. It is heartbreaking that people would rather stand behind their stubborn ways than save the children of our country.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Our Constitution protects human lives and the right to bear arms. However, we have allowed our stubborn ways to place value in our right to own weapons, rather than our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Though you do not need to get rid of guns completely, you need to prioritize safety. I believe in owning guns, as long as the people owning them have been through extensive background checks and do not have criminal records.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
To me these seem like reasonable requirements to own a gun. If you are a sane person who values human lives then you won’t mind to go a few extra steps to own a gun because they understand the importance of safety. Also, no one under the age of 21 needs a gun, they have no need to own a weapon of mass destruction.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Through accessibility of guns, racism and other stereotypes have been made prevalent. People are far more likely to shoot at an intruder with darker skin, than one who shares their own.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This shows how life is valued around the globe, and weapons of mass destruction are not needed to protect one’s self. There are plenty of weapons and forms of protection that do not require weapons that can kill 200 people at a time.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Semiautomatic weapons allow people to shoot crowds without reloading. This results in numerous deaths within seconds. The need for such weapons is highly controversial in civilian areas, because they are only used to kill. A simple weapon could be used for protection, but only the military has a real necessity for such weapons.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Solutions, such as smart guns, can prevent shootings of people who allow their guns to be accessed by other people than the licensed owners. One study proved this could be affective because in the past 7 years, 37 percent of gun deaths could have been prevented by smart guns. We have the technology, now we must utilize it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This reminds me of what we are learning in AP Government at the moment. We are talking about how the Judicial Branch is responsible for acting according to what the Constitution states. They can interpret the Constitution, but their rulings can be controversial.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I am not against gun use in any way, but STRONGLY disagree with this statement. There are an incredibly low amount of regulations on how one attains a gun. In fact, many shootings are committed with legally owned weapons.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Yes, by limiting the amount of ammunition used and bought, the government is restricting the people’s liberties. However, they are only limiting their liberties so others can live our their inalienable rights like the right to life. The idea our nation was built upon was that some lesser liberties would have to be given up for the betterment of the greater good. Furthermore, why do these people need so much ammunition. When you run out you can buy more. In my opinion, the people are being stubborn, and not acknowledging that controls on these issues are beneficial. If they are “sane” enough to own a gun, then they should have the common sense and intelligence to realize that these laws are just attempting to limit deaths.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
