Barbara, 55, was gunned down in 1992 by her estranged husband. She never witnessed the birth of her grandchildren. But she is present in the work of her sister, Joan Peterson, who strives tirelessly to prevent another family from suffering the same kind of loss.
Laramuin, 20, was murdered by a 16-year-old with a gun in 1993. Laramuin is present too, in the work of Mary Johnson, the mother who buried him. Over the last 18 years, Mary has transformed her grief and anger into compassion, founding the organization From Death to Life.
Joan, Mary and many other victims of gun violence stood with fellow victim Omar Samaha, who lost his sister at Virginia Tech, as they rang a bell in memory of their loved ones in Minneapolis earlier this month. At the Mayors Against Illegal Guns event, victims, mayors and police chiefs urged policymakers to take action to save lives:
Fix the gun checks. Ninety percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing the gaps in the national check system.
Close the loopholes. Gun checks for all gun sales are supported by 86 percent of Americans, including 81 percent of gun owners.
Fully implement a gun check system, which, even in its current porous form, has stopped 1.8 million gun sales to prohibited buyers and has been demonstrated to disrupt illegal gun supply chains.
Only in this country is it a courageous act to point out that people like Jared Loughner, charged with the Arizona shootings last January, never should have been able to buy a gun in the first place.
We are up against a rich gun lobby with a worldview that says gun violence can't be prevented. The real problem, it claims, is a failure to find the right people to blame and a failure to sell enough guns.
Fortunately, only a small percentage of gun owners have been convinced, in the absence of any evidence, that gun lobby executives are protecting the little guy from government -- instead of protecting the $10 billion firearms industry from unprofitability.
Policymakers' job is to solve problems. President Obama has made an effort to do his job by inviting the National Rifle Association to the table to discuss ways to prevent further gun violence. But the NRA leaders have refused, fully aware that the group would lose its reason for existing if it actually tried to solve a problem.
Better to hamper the release of facts about the scope of the problem: In the NRA's latest success, a new rule requires that researchers using Centers for Disease Control funding must inform the NRA if they are conducting research on firearms.
We all pay for this political dysfunction on gun policy. Nationally, gun deaths and injuries in 2005 incurred $30 billion in health care and lost-work costs. In Minnesota alone, those costs were more than $350 million. And that is not counting the costs of law enforcement and prisons.
As David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health points out, "I can predict with complete confidence that in the next decade, the United States will have many more homicides than the other high-income democracies, and many more mass shootings. ... in 2003, the U.S. homicide rate was seven times higher than that of these countries, largely because our firearm homicide rate was 20 times higher."
He points out that all these countries have the same violent video games, bullying in schools, oppressed minorities, mentally ill people and similar rates of non-firearm crime and violence. What is the difference?
"These other countries have stricter gun policies than the United States. And when disaster happens, they typically respond."
Arizona is like a laboratory for testing the NRA's worldview. The art of blaming has been highly developed. Gun sales are robust. Anybody can carry a handgun with no permit. Background checks for gun sales are limited to a neglected federal system that failed to catch the drug abuse problems of Jared Loughner. So if the NRA approach made sense, Arizona should be the safest place on earth. But despite a similar population size, it has more gun murders every year than all of Minnesota's gun deaths put together -- 354 murders, out of 951 total gun deaths in 2007.
Our elected officials owe us policy action on the scourge of gun violence. Background checks work when they are actually implemented. Fix them.
----
Heather Martens is executive director of Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence. She has been active in gun violence prevention since 2003.
I would like to poin afew things out:
1) In the case of the tragity in arazona, there was a LAW-ABIDING SITISIN in the crowd that had left his gun in his truck because he thought he was not alowed to carry it at that event. He could have used it to stop Jared Loughner.
2) In every school shooting there has been in the past few years has been in a "school safe zone". These "school safe zone" don't work. Law enforcement has do arrive on the seen, this gives the gunmen time to kill innocent pepole that are NOT able to defend their self thanks to you and other anti-gunners like you.
3) there are many gun owners that have defended their life with a gun without firing a shot. If you point a gun at an aslant will prevent the conflict.
4) So basically what I am saying is guns can and do save lives.
Scott, spelling errors aside, I must object to your reasoning. My understanding is that there were people at the Tuscon shooting with guns, but given the nature of his weapon (semi-automatic) and disposition (a disregard for his own safety) he was able to get a startling number of shots off in the handful of seconds before he was stopped. In fact, Loughner himself broke no laws before he pulled the trigger, which is both mortifying and telling.
Also, the flawed equation of "more guns=safer community" is a myth. There are many, many more gun deaths in states with lax gun laws than those with tighter restrictions. It's no coincidence that the Tuscon shooting happened in one of the most permissive states in the union for guns. It makes a nice movie scene to see a guy bent on violence give up because of a well-meaning armed citizen pointing a gun at him, but in reality, the person who would go into a public place and shoot people probably doesn't have a lot of regard for his own safety. We need thorough background checks to prevent people like this from obtaining firearms.
First off, I carry. Firearm carry laws might be different in AZ or OH, but by Minnesota law I probally would not have been able to use my gun in the AZ incident. For me to be able to use my weapon I need to be to prove I was left with no other choice to defend myself or a family member. My own zone of personal protection only extends to family and I need to be a 'unwilling participant'.
The AZ incident was close quarters and went down too fast to deploy the weapon, and there was ample chance to escape the situation or take other action. In this case tackling and restraining the guy was the correct action.
As far as the idea of background checks, I'm okay with it. But the often repeated response that gun control only applies to citizens who intend to follow the law is true. If a person intends to use the firearm in an illegal fashion, the laws pertaining to getting the firearm leaglly does not mean much to that person. They will use any means to get the firearm.
The citizen who gets the firearm legally will more than likely never be heard from again. The most likely thing to go wrond will be the firearm is stolen (see illegal use person above).
Lock your weapons in a anchored safe, keep them off the streets.
"In fact, Loughner himself broke no laws before he pulled the trigger, "
@Mick: That is incorrect. Loughner lied on the background check form when asked if he used any controlled substances...he indicated "No" even though he had been weeded out of signing up for the Army by failing a drug screen. That, in and of itself, is a felony.
The failure in Loughner's case was with Law-Enforcement in Tucson, the Army recruiter, his college, and his own parents. All could have reported him to the FBI as a danger to himself and others, which would have resulted in him being on the NICS list as a prohibited person.
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.