Commentary
To reduce gun violence, stop guns at the source
by Heather Martens ,Mary Lewis Grow
Heather Martens is executive director and Mary Lewis Grow is a board member of Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence.
In Minneapolis, Duluth and 70 cities nationwide, community members gathered Jan. 8 in solemn commemorations of the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shootings. These events followed by less than a week the funeral of three-year-old Terrell Mayes Jr., killed by a bullet that went through the walls of his north Minneapolis house as the little boy and his brother were running for cover from the too-common sound of gunfire. Later in the same week, thousands attended the funeral of Officer Shawn Schneider of Lake City, shot in the line of duty as he responded to a domestic violence call.
Yet 2011 was a year with fewer gun homicides in Minnesota than the year before. About 32 people still die every day in this country from gun homicide — about one a week in Minnesota. The toll is simply appalling. To grasp this in a way statistics cannot convey, watch the video below. It was taken at the Minneapolis event, as grieving relatives and friends read name after name.
The nationwide "Too Many Victims" vigils demanded that public officials commit to stopping these needless deaths. We must start with the source of the guns.
Weak U.S. gun laws play a key role in allowing access to guns by kids and others who should not have them. Easy access to guns means violence often turns lethal. A respected scholar of gun injuries and deaths, David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, compares U.S. gun deaths to those of other developed countries and shows that despite comparable rates of violent crime, our homicide rate is seven times higher than those of comparably developed countries. This is driven by a firearms homicide rate that is 20 times higher.
The difference, Hemenway points out, is gun laws. Even in those countries such as Canada where gun ownership rates are high, it's much less likely that unsuitable people will get guns and take lives with them, thanks to background checks, training requirements, waiting periods and limitations on high-capacity magazines. Minnesota has a partial background check requirement; people buying from licensed dealers must get background checks, though buyers from individuals at gun shows need not.
The Minnesota Legislature has failed to close this "gun show loophole," even though the ATF has reported that gun shows are a "major trafficking channel." Some argue that criminals get guns no matter what, but that's not the case. All guns start out legal. The way guns get to the streets is through legal private sales, gun trafficking and theft. New York City has successfully shown that interrupting gun trafficking makes guns less available on the streets.
We would support a bill making gun trafficking illegal under state law, not just federal law. The ATF, leaderless for years and understaffed, needs more help from local authorities. There is broad agreement that we should "enforce existing gun laws." So let the Legislature actually help make it happen.
What must stop is the effort in the Legislature this year to ram through several gun bills that appeal to the extremes and decimate our existing gun laws in order to expand the gun market. This year's efforts include:
A constitutional amendment to rearm violent criminals and domestic abusers, and open up the state to expensive lawsuits under the guise of a "right to bear arms."
A bill to legalize the sale of silencers by gun dealers — making silencers more widely available and profitable for gun dealers.
A bill to legalize the shooting of another person, anywhere, as a first resort if the shooter feels threatened; and to create a legal presumption that the killing of any trespasser, even a nonthreatening and unarmed one, is justified. This would expand the market for "self-defense" gun instruction by dispelling any fear of being held responsible for one's actions with a gun.
A bill to allow any person with a carry permit from another state — no matter how weak or poorly administered that state's law — to carry a loaded gun in public in Minnesota. This would be a bonanza for gun traffickers.
A bill to arm prosecutors in courthouses. This bill would begin to absolve public courthouses — and the sheriffs' departments that currently provide security — of responsibility to ensure public safety through the only rational means, weapons screening. Instead, it would deputize prosecutors and assistant prosecutors to be their own security detail.
The sad truth is that more guns in more hands doesn't lead to more public safety. The National Academy of Sciences, after an exhaustive review of the data, found in 2004 that making concealed carry permits available to more people does nothing to improve public safety. But interrupting gun trafficking does. Let's resolve this year to act where the common ground is.
Comments (19)
RE: "The MN Legislature has failed to close this 'gun show loophole,' even though the ATF has reported that gun shows are a 'major trafficking channel. ' Some argue that criminals get guns no matter what, but that's not the case. All guns start out legal. The way guns get to the streets is through legal private sales, gun trafficking and theft."
It refreshing to find a hint of honesty in gun grabbers arguments, but let the authors say it flat out: what they are advocating is that all private transfers of heretofore legal firearms must be approved by the government, not just those from licensed dealers (who already have to do so now, even at gun shows). That means if you wish to give your grandpa's shotgun to your son, both of you (and the weapon) will have to be entered in a government database for approval by bureaucrats before it occurs. This is what they mean by "the gun show loophole." No argument will dissuade them though. This is a clash of worldviews about whether the people serve the government or the government the people. Free people who value their God-given, natural and unalienable rights to liberty and property will simply refuse to obey such a law. How many of us "refuseniks" are the authors willing to see killed (for they would never think or confronting us themselves, leaving the bloody business to ATF raid parties) to achieve their "well-intentioned" tyranny? Now THAT is the question.
When voting rights are expanded, everyone applauds. When more people exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, it's time for hand-wringing and Heather Martens blurbs on MPR.
10,800,000 guns were purchased in 2011 (a conservative estimate). People enjoy hunting, collecting, shooting targets, and having them for personal protection.
It's part of American culture and Constitutional law. Restricting freedom isn't the simplistic answer we need to address suicides, murders, and accidental deaths.
"Yet 2011 was a year with fewer gun homicides in Minnesota than the year before. "
If tighter regulation is the answer, how can these numbers trend downward yet MN have laws comparable to TX, some of the more lax?
The bottom line - making it harder to legally obtain a firearm is a cosmetic gesture - it determines nothing about how a gun will or will not be used.
Addressing the root causes of violence, marginalization, poverty, mental illness, and others - much harder and more costly investment than making a few more hoops to jump to get a gun.
This is an inane post about gun violence. You realize the vast majority of guns used in crimes are older models and/or have been heavily modified. By modified I mean the amount of precision used in the modification is like taking a hammer to it. Making it harder for people to actually purchase a new gun will not stop these things from happening. If the media and law enforcement agencies want to put a stop to it, educate the masses instead of putting figureheads in charge that have no idea how a gun works, what different rounds do what, what type of guns are used for their intended purposes, etc. Stop being dumb.
Many people purchase guns from unlicensed sellers at gun shows without background checks. If we want to stop felons, adjudicated mentally ill people and domestic abusers, for just a few, from getting guns, gun shows are one place to stop them. Why wouldn't we want to do this? There is no rational reason to be opposed. It would not stop legal people from buying guns. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. There is no "gun grabbing" going on. That is a trite and overused phrase that has no meaning. The bills suggested by the gun lobby are not needed and would only add to the number of people who Minnesotans have already decided they don't want with their guns in public places to do so anyway. These bills would erode the laws already on the books. The gun lobby loves to throw that up. Let's enforce the laws already on the books- until you don't like the laws already on the books. Why take a step backwards in providing for public safety? We need to tighten, not loosen, our gun laws.
There are too many victims of gun violence in our communities. This country leads the world in that category. We can do better. Enacting laws to make it easier for people to shoot innocent people in public is going backwards, not forwards. We have a public health and safety problem concerning guns. Let's stand up for the victims and do the right thing. I applaud Martens and Grow for their thoughtful and informative article. Shedding light on a dark problem is important.
Let's be clear about a few things that Heather and Mary intentionally left out of their letter:
1) "Silencers" are more accurately called supressors, as they do NOT eliminate the report from a shot. They are, and WILL REMAIN regulated by the National Firearms Act. In order to purchase items regulated NFA, one must undergoe a rigerous ATF background check, be fingerprinted, and pay a $200 tax in addition to the purchase price of the item. Currently its unjustly illegal for anyone to own a supressor in MN, all we're asking for is that MN step in line with Federal Law.
2) The "Stand your Ground" legislation does NOT "legalize the shooting of another person". This rhetoric from "Protect" MN has been around for years. MN personal defense law stipulates that a "reasonable" person may use "reasonable" force to defend themselves. The "reasonable" person standard is present in Common Law, and is a standard provision in many other laws as well. "Reasonable" people don't shoot "non-threatening trespassers" and should be prosecuted if in fact that is the case. This bill would NOT remove the "reasonable person" standard. It simply means that any person, in any space where they are legally permitted to be may defend themselves. Simple really.
3) Since most carry permits are governed via a Federal Background check in the first place (including MN) - we SHOULD recognize those here in the State of MN as well by law, instead of by the opinion of a politically appointed public official.
Gun control advocates are so out of touch with reality. You cannot legislate away violence. If someone is intent on doing harm can't find a gun, he/she will find something else.
Case in point: the young Oklahoma mother who shot an intruder who was armed with a knife. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-04/justice/justice_oklahoma-intruder-shooting_1_affidavit-walters-ill-husband?_s=PM:JUSTICE
If the gun control advocates have their way, this young woman is unarmed and at the mercy of these two men.
Another key point that gun control advocates cannot comprehend is that the Second Amendment is the reset switch the founding fathers gave the citizenry on a government that no longer serves the people.
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
-George Washington
Heather is nothing more than a liar.
The other thing often times left out by the "Protect" MN crowd is that, somehow, the passage of more laws will compell the criminal element to comply.
Heather/Joan/Etc - if a criminal won't follow existing law, what makes you think they'll follow more laws.
Self-Defense is a human right! Support "Stand Your Ground" this year!
I'm all for suppressors! They are required in some parts of Europe if you're hunting. This article has inspired me to go buy another handgun.
Let's "cut to the chase" as they say.
1. At gun shows there are federally licensed gun dealers and non-licensed gun sellers. They both sell all kinds of firearms. Only licensed dealers sell "new" firearms. Only licensed dealers are required to cause background checks. That means the non-licensed sellers can legally sell a gun to anyone of legal age without first filtering out convicted felons, the adjudicated mentally ill, and domestic abusers.
When I sell a gun I sell to a licensed dealer because I know that dealer can't re-sell it without a background check.
2. Importantly, the bill proposed by Protect MN regarding gun sales by non-licensed persons specifically allows for gifting or sales between family members without background checks. This means, for example, that Grandpa can give his firearm to his grandchild - no background check required.
It's not good jounalism to do a piece on proposed gun legislation, and have the sole source someone who is a professional opponent to the legislation. Would you only use FOX commentators to describe an action proposed by President Obama? Meatens is just as far out as FOX. And just as deceptive.
Biased reporting like this is why my MPR membership has lapsed and you won't get any more of my money until you balance your coverage.
32 people a day die from gun homicide...and 4000 people a day use a gun to defend themselves or their loved ones from violent criminals (studies report anywhere from 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year).
Guns do many things besides killing people, one of the most important is protecting people from violence. Today, 100 million lawfully possessed firearms in the US didn't kill someone.
32 deaths by gun homicide a day
6185 total deaths a day
3.5 million guns owned in the us
so that comes out to...
.00000914 % percent of guns are used in a violent crime
and guns acount for .0051 % of deaths each day
so you will strip away everyones rights because 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of one percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of guns are missused the laws are fine as the are right now, maybe even a little to tight...
Mitch, what's this about "so you will strip away everyones rights..." Unless you're a convicted felon, or have been adjudicated mentally ill, or have been convicted of domestic abuse, you can buy/have all the guns you can afford.
And, Kevin, are you suggesting that guns have been fired in self defense a minimum of 800,000 times a year? If not, what kind of "defensive gun uses" were they? (Something you could do with a realistic looking CO2 pistol?) What kind of "studies" are we talking about?
Heather and Mary are bigots who are opposed to the exercise of civil rights and on a par with the KKK in their outlook. I understand that sounds inflammatory but consider that the KKK were responsible for the Jim Crow laws that barred blacks from possessing firearms and instigated the first laws banning concealed carry. They are also completely unswayed even after twenty five years of continually loosening gun laws and a coincidental drop in violent crime everywhere laws are loosened. Reason has no place in their mindset.
Matt notice that Mitch goofed on his numbers in an important way there are an estimated 300 million legal guns in the US meaning that gun violence is even more rare than he stated. Also Kevin is that not all defensive gun uses result in the gun being fired often just showing the gun to the criminal is enough to make them rethink their victim selection choice. Kevin geets the numbers he cited from the FBI crime stats and from a study done by Gary Kleck in the nineties when he was trying to rebut John Lott's More guns Less Crime.
Personally I am in favor of the legalization of suppressors and the removal of them from the NFA. If I need to have a muffler on my car I find it confusing that I am barred by law from having one on my guns. I would also like to see permit reciprocity between all states as it is no different than a drivers license aside from that there is less justification a carry permit being as the 2nd amendment should be my carry permit.
so when is Eric Holder going to prison?
More federal agencies implicated in gun-trafficking controversy (FBI,ATF,DEA)
Reporting from Washington-- The embattled head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has told congressional investigators that the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration kept his agency "in the dark" about their dealings with Mexican drug cartel figures linked to a controversial gun-trafficking investigation.
Kenneth Melson, the ATF's acting director, has been under pressure to resign over the agency's handling of the gun-trafficking operation, known as Fast and Furious. But in two days of meetings with investigators, Melson disclosed that other law enforcement agencies had a connection to the operation. His statements sharply ratcheted up the affair, and strongly suggested that House and Senate investigations, as well as an internal review by the Justice Department, will widen.
"Our investigation has clearly expanded," one source close to the investigation said Wednesday. "We know now it was not something limited to just a small group of ATF agents in Arizona."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-atf-guns-20110707,0,6997495.story
Which Was Worse: Watergate or Operation 'Fast and Furious'?
http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2011/07/07/which-was-worse-watergate-or-operation-fast-and-furious/
"Calls for Gun Control in Wake of Fast and Furious Ignore Current Law"
But neither Holder nor committee members mentioned the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a federal law already on the books that appears to criminalize the precise conduct undertaken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Operation Fast and Furious.
According to James Steinbauer, a former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer who wrote the Kingpin Act, an extension of the IEEPA, "it is illegal for any U.S. entity or individual to aid, abet, or materially assist -- or in the case of Operation Fast and Furious, to facilitate others to aid, abet, or materially assist -- designated drug traffickers."
(Excerpt) http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/02/calls-for-gun-control-in-wake-of-fast-and-furious-ignore-current-law/
The criminals are the federal government bureaucrats. The best way to control that is to prosecute and incarcerate them so they can't do it again. That goes right to the heart of the problem instead of writing laws to restrict the freedom of citizens who had no part in their criminal enterprise. Defunding and eliminating the criminal bureaucracies themselves is the right piece of legislation to prevent a repeat of the bad behavior.
criminals get guns through legal gun sales. WOW, what a statement! A statement showing that the author has only an elementary level of knowledge regarding this issue.
Let's continue that logic. Prescription drugs given to patients LEGALLY are the way it gets into the hands of criminals. Yes, indeed, lets get gov't approval before anyone can be issued a prescription from a doctor. Liquor? Tobacco? stolen vehicles? you guessed it.
Wait, all domestic abuse evolves from legally induced love....let's get that approved too. That's the spirit...$14 trillion dollar debt NONSENSE, let's hire everyone by the gov't....
Let's continue, according to this author that is, let's just have a camera in our house 24/7 and have the gov't record every action like 1984...perfect.
ABSURD. old saying...I might be a jerk, but I can cchange that. You on the other hand will always be stupid.
Post a comment
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 Terms and Conditions 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.
