gun ownership en Vote Down The Guns <span>Vote Down The Guns</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>First a word about our lovely press. If I hear one more reporter grovel and squirm about how we don't really want to hurt the NRA or take away any gun rights or do anything unreasonable, no, no, we just want to assume there is a solution to the carnage that does not inconvenience any of the gun loving yahoos that watch our networks .... then I'm going to I just don't know what. Reporters: Please leave open the possibility that a double digit percentage of Americans don't care one whit how much restrictions there ends up being on guns. We just want the insanity to end, and if that means taking away all the guns, then, whatever. It was not our decision to make guns so available that they can be amassed in sufficient quantities to shoot over five hundred people in one sitting. We want results, we do not care, not one bit, who's feelings are hurt. </p> <p>But I digress.</p> <p>You need to do this before any upcoming elections. Find out who on the ballot has a record of opposing guns vs. who has a record of supporting guns, and vote against the gun supporters and for the gun opposers.</p> <p>I made a list of current members of the Minnesota US Congressional delegation, and put it at the top of the post, with relevant information. I also looked some details up from <a href="">HERE</a> and <a href="">HERE</a>. </p> <p>In a recent rating of recent and current members of the Minnesota House delegation, the NRA gave Rick Nolan, Keith Ellison, and Betty McCollum the grade of "F" and none of these three lawmakers have taken money from them.</p> <p>Collin Peterson took $2,500 bucks from the NRA, Michele Bachmann took $3,500, Erik Paulson took 2,250, John Kline $2,500, and Tim Walz took $2,000. They all got a rating of "A" from the NRA.</p> <p>Notice that party lines are being crossed here.</p> <p>During the recent congressional session, Congresspersons Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison supported zero bills that support guns, but have supported 14 gun control bills.</p> <p>Richard Nolan has supported one gun control bill.</p> <p>Al Franken has supported two gun control bills.</p> <p>Amy Klobuchar has supported two gun control bills.</p> <p>Those are the clear good guys in Congress from Minnesota. But you might ask why the great variation in number of bills?</p> <p>Congressman Erik Paulsen has supported one gun rights bill and has not supported any gun control bills. Collin Peterson has supported three gun rights bills and zero gun control bills. Tom Emmer has supported zero gun control bills and five gun rights bills. John Kline has supported a whopping nine gun rights bills and zero gun control bills.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Tue, 10/03/2017 - 07:03</span> Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:03:38 +0000 gregladen 34548 at More guns equals more gun deaths <span>More guns equals more gun deaths</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And lax legislation and elected representatives who run their elections using money from the gun industry make sure there are PLENTY of guns to go around. People who are running for office who have pro NRA positions and/or take gun money should be drummed out of politics.</p> <p>The rate of gun ownership in a state <a href="">predicts the rate of gun deaths</a> in that state. </p> <p><a href=""><img src="" alt="" width="610" height="524" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-24588" /></a></p> <p><a href="">This works</a> across countries as well.</p> <p><a href=""><img src="" alt="" width="1" height="1" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-24589" /></a></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" alt="" width="610" height="521" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-24590" /></a></p> <p>Once again. Politicians who have voted in favor of NRA policies need to go. </p> <p>Photo above from <a href="">TIME</a></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Mon, 10/02/2017 - 15:05</span> Mon, 02 Oct 2017 19:05:53 +0000 gregladen 34547 at Considering Candidates Post Las Vegas Massacre: Rule Out Tim Walz <span>Considering Candidates Post Las Vegas Massacre: Rule Out Tim Walz</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>A man who was not even known as a gun collector amassed an arsenal that all experts agree included illegal fully automatic weapons. He carried out an act of carnage, alone and using only those weapons, that exceeded in casualty count almost every military battle fought in recent decades by American troops, and that equaled or surpassed all but a very small number of terrorist attacks. </p> <p>He shot five hundred people. </p> <p>He shot these people, killing nearly 60 of them, with guns he was able to get because he lives in America. In America, the Second Amendment has protected gun ownership for so long and so irrationally that, even though the worst killing machines are sort of, kinda, a little, illegal, you can still get them.</p> <p>Guns are the only toys protected by a Constitutional amendment. Gun ownership is a deadly pasttime that is protected by Congress. Even though the CDC and other government agencies, and the concomitant experts, believe that guns are a major public health risk, Congress has legislated against the distribution of research funds one might use to study this problem. And, generally, Congress has been the lapdog of the National Rifle Association, which is a lobbyist organization representing gun and ammo manufacturers disguised as an interest group supporting guns as toys for men and women, but mostly men, across the country.</p> <p></p><h2>Why Tim Walz Is Not Viable as a DFL Gubernatorial Candidate </h2><p>First, let me say that I would normally argue that it is too early to make strong statements against a fellow DFLer (Democratic Party) who is running for office. But what happened last night in Las Vegas has changed all that, and I have to speak out, and strongly so. I am very unhappy about this situation. Here's the story. </p> <p>As I was poking around to find out how various members of Congress and future candidates for re-election had voted on guns, in pursuit of writing about Las Vegas. I was shocked and deeply disturbed to find that Congressman Tim Walz, who currently represents Minnesota's 1st District and is now running for the Democratic Party's endorsement for Governor, is one of those questionable members of Congress. I had seen Walz speak at a recent forum. Members of a gun-control group were there and they asked the first questions. They asked about various bills and they asked about silencers, an issue that has come up recently in the Minnesota legislature.</p> <p>I was utterly confused by Congressman Walz's response to these questions. At no point did he lay down a position. He seemed to take more than one position at a time. He mentioned he was a veteran and a hunter several times, but he also mentioned that we have to be sensible about guns. But he wasn't able to articulate a position that I could understand, and I've been following and writing about gun issues for years. I left that forum not knowing what his position on guns was, but feeling like I had been somehow conned. In fact, I felt like I needed a shower after that set of answers, and I honestly can't explain exactly why. I did check my wallet on the way out the door, though.</p> <p>Anyway, I have now looked into it. Walz is, essentially, a Republican when it comes to guns. He supports conceal carry. He supported a bill that allowed the registration and position of weapons that are normally illegal, by a privileged group. He supported the ban by Congress of the Washington DC law that included sensible trigger lock provisions, disallowed semiautomatic weapons, and provided for stricter registration He opposed legislation what would limit access to guns by people with questionable mental competence. And, I think he said, silencers should be legal, but again, I'm not sure. </p> <p>Walz was actually a co-sponser of HR420, the Veterans Heritage Firearms act. This basically allowed veterans or people related to veterans (i.e., a LOT of people) to keep and register firearms that would normally be illegal, as long as they had stolen the gun off a dead enemy. Or otherwise acquired it while "overseas." </p> <p>The act of Congress disallowing Washington DC to regulate its own guns was HR 1399 was also co-Sponsored by Walz. Congress allowed DC to continued to disallow sawed off shotguns, but not semiautomatic weapons. </p> <p>The mental competence law that Walz supported was HR2547. This bill "Prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, considering any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."</p> <p>It seems like Walz is especially concerned with protecting and even expanding beyond normal the gun ownership rights of veterans with mental disabilities, which by definition includes a subset of individuals who really should not be walking around with guns that are not even legal for other people to have. </p> <p>The other Democratic candidates for Minnesota Governor have very different positions. Walz stands out like a sore thumb among his colleagues. Rebecca Otto wants a science based approach. She noted in a statement following the Las Vegas massacre that Congress has essentially illegalized scientific research on guns and gun safety. Clearly, we have made huge strides in automobile safety, and people generally have the right to drive cars, and far far fewer people are killed because of driving today than would otherwise have been possible without sensible science-based policy. We did not need a Constitutional Amendment protecting driving to make this happen. In fact, the Second Amendment damages our nation's ability to be sensible about gun laws. </p> <p>Here is, in part, Otto's <a href="">statement</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>What we are doing with gun safety laws is not working. We must study gun violence as a public health issue just as we did motor vehicle safety and our work to reduce motor vehicle deaths. We need to steep our policies in evidence, not rhetoric. Let's collect the evidence and let our scientists study the issue.</p> <p>The NRA has its place, but not at the expense of so many lives. The NRA and their gun lobby stranglehold on D.C. is a perfect example of the Politics of unfettered greed. Time to end the Politics of Greed & return to the Politics of the common good.</p></blockquote> <p>Here's the thing: Even Walz can be seen as advocating a sensible approach, if you stand in the back of the room, plug one ear, and kinda squint while he is talking about guns. But he has never voted for sensible change, and when he tries to advocate a mainstream progressive policy, his tongue gets stuck on his trigger and thing go badly. He is pushing himself as a progressive left of center who won't move to the right, but he's been far right on guns all along. </p> <p>Sorry, Tim. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Mon, 10/02/2017 - 11:38</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="" hreflang="en">Policy</a></div> </div> </div> Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:38:36 +0000 gregladen 34545 at Today is Lock Up Your Gun Day <span>Today is Lock Up Your Gun Day</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Not really. But it is World Suicide Prevention Day. And, one way YOU can help prevent suicides is by keeping your gun locked up, separate from the ammo, and keeping the ammo locked up as well. </p> <p>Why?</p> <p>Here’s why:</p> <ul><li> <p>Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among teens and young adults and the 10th leading cause of death among all Americans. </p> </li> <li> <p>On average, 4 teenagers and 118 total Americans complete suicide every day. </p> </li> <li> <p>90% people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. </p> </li> <li> <p>Many suicide attempts occur with little planning during a short-term crisis. </p> </li> <li> <p>50% of suicide deaths in the United States are by firearm. </p> </li> <li> <p>Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide. </p> </li> <li> <p>Firearms used in youth suicide usually belong to a parent. </p> </li> <li> <p>Reducing access to lethal means, like firearms, saves lives. </p> </li> <li> <p><strong>A gun in the home is 22x more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or unintentional shooting than for self defense.</strong></p> </li> <li> <p>If there is a gun in your home, <strong>keep it unloaded and locked up or with a trigger lock. Store the bullets in a different place that is also locked.</strong></p> </li> <li> <p>If there is a gun in your home, <strong>do not let children and teens have a key to the places where guns and bullets are stored.</strong></p> </li> <li> <p>If a household member becomes depressed or has severe mood swings, <strong>store the gun outside the home for the time being while you seek help!</strong></p> </li> </ul><p>Adapted from <a href="">this source</a>.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Sat, 09/10/2016 - 05:26</span> Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:26:14 +0000 gregladen 34056 at Philando Castile's Killing: Some geographic background <span>Philando Castile's Killing: Some geographic background</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Philando Castile told his mother that he was reluctant to carry his legal, permitted, firearm because he was afraid that if he had a run in with the police, they would simply kill him.</p> <p>Later that day, a Saint Anthony Village police officer pulled Castile over for a broken tail light, and then, at the first opportunity, fired several bullets into his arm and torso. A few moments later, Castile fell into unconsciousness, apparently dead. The police then apprehended Castile's companion, who was in the passenger seat, and, treating her like a criminal, handcuffed her and stuffed her in the back of a police car. Later, it was confirmed that Castile was killed.</p> <p>I would give you a trigger warning for the following video, but I don't care if it triggers you. I want it to trigger you. You and everybody else needs to see this. </p> <iframe width="480" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><p> I used to live a block from this incident. It is a city called Falcon Heights, which is the location of the inaptly named "Saint Paul Campus" of the University of Minnesota, and also the home of the Great Minnesota Get-together, the Minnesota State Fair. In fact, the intersection at which this killing occurred is at the north entrance of the fairgrounds. This makes me think that it would be a good idea to put a monument there, a monument to how dangerous the police can be, for all the fairgoers to take note of when they go to the fair, from now on.</p> <p>Back in the old days, a few years ago and on back, when I lived walking distance to the fair and the site of this shooting, the police would be at this intersection in numbers, helping people cross the street, controlling traffic, keeping people safe, during the State Fair. Then, one year, there was a bogus terroristic threat against the fair, so the police apparently redistributed themselves and stopped protecting people at that intersection. Or, perhaps they changed their policy for some other reason. Crossing the street, pulling your car out, etc. was then a matter of every person to themselves. (There were always a few cops standing around watching the chaos, but not helping.) Now, that intersection is added to the ever growing list of American Police killing grounds. Yes, a monument, at this intersection, to remind the people and whatever police might remain controlling traffic during the two week long fair event would be appropriate.</p> <p>A couple of blocks from this intersection are two or three blocks or corners that are in Saint Paul and that have a bad reputation for crime. As I noted, I used to live there, and after I was no longer living there, my daughter lived there part time for several years. This is the school district she went to. I also worked on that campus for two years. I know the area, and the neighborhoods.</p> <p>The exact location of the shooting, and to the west and north, is a palatial residential community with small single family houses, and a few bunches of condos and apartment buildings, mainly down the street from where this killing happened. I should mention that Falcon Heights, as well as nearby Lauderdale, and Saint Anthony Village, are all patrolled by a sort of amalgamated police department. These various cities (which adjoin the well known Roseville, MN) share various such services, including police fire, etc. and tend to be umbilically connected to Saint Paul, where the major utilities come from. </p> <p>The immediate neighborhood is occupied by many people who are connected with the University, a fair number of retired people, some students. Most are white, but there is a strong Asian presence, because this is one of the main neighborhoods into which the Hmong immigrated back in the day. Also, many apartment dwellers in the area are from countries all around the world, because the are connected to a major university. My daughter's grade school, another block north of the shooting beyond where we lived, is famously international. Each year they hang flags representing all of the countries from which the students come, and there would always be dozens of them.</p> <p>So that's the basic cultural context. A neighborhood where bad things don't happen, filled with people who probably carry out their share of white collar crime (or who are academics, and thus have other problems) but otherwise pretty quiet. Nearby are the scary neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that are actually pretty typical urban zones, with varying degrees of charm, development, decay, all that. Nothing exceptional. But I have the sense that the people of Falcon Heights, Saint Anthony, Lauderdale, and this part of Roseville, a generally liberal and highly educated enclave, collectively identify, label, and talk about those other neighborhoods, which are blacker, crimier, scarier, bits of the "Inner City" (a term disdained by Twin City dwellers, just so you know) creeping out into the "better neighborhoods." </p> <p>The victim, of course, was a school employee and citizen of good standing who didn't live in any of those nearby scary neighborhoods, and was not part of an inner city creeping, even if such a characterization was valid (which it only barely is). But he and the others in the car were black, and they were driving down a street where the city police probably feel a duty to keep the Inner City away, keep the blackness away. One good way to do that is to encourage black people to avoid driving down that particular street, a major local thoroughfare, and instead, stay south and in the city. Let Saint Paul take care of its own problems. Don't be driving through our quiet neighborhood. How do you do that? Pull over black people with broken tail lights, obviously. Then shake them down. Make them regret driving down that particular street. </p> <p><a href=""><img src="" alt="CmvSp_DXgAAbmGT" width="300" height="400" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-22696" /></a></p> <p>People who live in the area know that this is a zone where the cops pull people over all the time. For years I drove down that street twice a day or more, and very often saw people pulled over. The cops even have a trick with traffic speed postings, changing abruptly between 30 mph and 40 mph in a couple of places, allowing them to stop "speeders" more easily. I regard this traffic stop as part of that process, of the police policing the blackness impinging on a neighborhood of special snowflakes. </p> <p>It is rather shocking that a murder of a citizen by a cop on this street did not happen sooner. </p> <p><a href="">Here is a piece by Shawn Otto that you should have a look at. </a></p> <p>This also: </p> <iframe src="" height="500" width="635" scrolling="no" border="no"></iframe></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Thu, 07/07/2016 - 07:48</span> Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:48:38 +0000 gregladen 34001 at The chilling effect of concealed carry law on the Texas classroom <span>The chilling effect of concealed carry law on the Texas classroom</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Texas has adopted a law that allows students to bring a handgun to class, or to meetings with professors.</p> <p>As a response to this policy, the president of the Faculty Senate, Jonathan Snow, gathered a group of faculty and gave a powerpoint presentation that included the slide at the top of the post.</p> <p>Snow's presentation was not any sort of official university statement, but the slide does a good job of demonstrating the likely effect on faculty student relationships under the conditions where students are more likely to pull out a handgun and plug the professor. </p> <p>The situation, and the context for this presentation, are written up in <a href="">this post at the Chronicle of Higher Education</a>. PZ Myers discusses it <a href="">here</a>. The powerpoint presentation is available <a href="http://chrome-extension://gbkeegbaiigmenfmjfclcdgdpimamgkj/views/app.html">here</a>. </p> <p>A suitable response faculty may consider is <a rel="nofollow" href="">here</a><img src="" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />. </p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Wed, 02/24/2016 - 07:05</span> Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:05:14 +0000 gregladen 33852 at Which US Senators Voted Against Expanded Background Checks For Gun Purchase? UPDATED <span>Which US Senators Voted Against Expanded Background Checks For Gun Purchase? UPDATED</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>UPDATE! This post was written months ago when, yet again, the Senate tried to do something about guns. You are probably looking for information on the more recent chance for the Senate to show that the are not up to the task of protecting American Citizens. For information on who voted for what in this round, <a href="">CLICK HERE</a>. </p> <p>We've had a spate of spree killings lately, most recently and famously the killing of 14 people in San Bernardino by two people who should not have owned firearms but were apparently able to legally purchase assault rifles, pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammo.</p> <p>So, Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, a Democrat and a Republican, introduced an amendment that would expand background checks for commercial gun sales. This would be a helpful provision, but really wasn't much of a restriction. No one in the Senate should have voted against it. But several did. By definition, those who voted against the proposal are gun nuts, and they should not be in the Senate or any other elected office. Here are their names:</p> <h3>Democrats Who Voted Against the Proposal</h3> <ul><li>Max Baucus (D-Mont.)    </li> <li>Mark Begich (D-Alaska)    </li> <li>Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)    </li> <li>Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)    </li> <li><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helevetica, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Harry Reid (D-Nev.)  (Voted "no" as a procedural move to preserve option to reintroduce the bill.)</span></li> </ul><h3>Republicans Who Voted Against the Proposal</h3> <ul><li>Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)</li> <li>Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)</li> <li>John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)</li> <li>Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)</li> <li>John Boozman (R-Ark.)</li> <li>Richard Burr (R-N.C.)</li> <li>Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)</li> <li>Dan Coats (R-Ind.)</li> <li>Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)</li> <li>Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)</li> <li>Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)</li> <li>John Cornyn (R-Texas)</li> <li>Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)</li> <li>Ted Cruz (R-Texas)</li> <li>Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.)</li> <li>Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)</li> <li>Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)</li> <li>Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)</li> <li>Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)</li> <li>Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)</li> <li>Dean Heller (R-Nev.)</li> <li>John Hoeven (R-N.D.)</li> <li>Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)</li> <li>Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)</li> <li>Mike Johanns (R-Neb.)</li> <li>Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)</li> <li>Mike Lee (R-Utah)</li> <li>Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)</li> <li>Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)</li> <li>Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)</li> <li>Rand Paul (R-Ky.)</li> <li>Rob Portman (R-Ohio)</li> <li>James Risch (R-Idaho)</li> <li>Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)</li> <li>Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)</li> <li>Timothy Scott (R-S.C.)</li> <li>Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)</li> <li>Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)</li> <li>John Thune (R-S.D.)</li> <li>David Vitter (R-La.)</li> <li>Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)</li> </ul></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Thu, 12/03/2015 - 13:55</span> Thu, 03 Dec 2015 18:55:41 +0000 gregladen 33774 at What YOU can do about gun violence <span>What YOU can do about gun violence</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><h3 id="whyyouhavetodosomethingaboutguns">Why you have to do something about guns</h3> <p>This message is primarily for those living in the United States. In the US, we have an outdated Constitutional amendment that has been interpreted by many, including the courts, in a way that hampers effective legislation to address what is clearly a major problem with the proliferation and use of firearms in inappropriate ways. We are frequently reminded of this by the regular occurrence of mass killings such as the recent event in Oregon. But really, that is a small part of the problem, numerically. I lay out some of the numbers below, and address some of the arguments that regulation of guns should be absent or minimal. We have another problem as well, one that is paralleled in many other areas of policy. Special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, through pressure and campaign financing, control much of the Congress. </p> <p>Other countries have addressed their gun violence problem effectively. We can too. But in order for that to happen, this has to happen:</p> <p>1) The specious arguments against gun regulation have to be called out for what they are, and ultimately, ignored.</p> <p>2) Citizen pressure on our elected representatives has to be increased significantly.</p> <p>3) Organized efforts against the gun industry and the gun lobby have to be supported. </p> <p>Your role as a citizen is critical. There are three steps you can take. Here, I’m asking you to take one of them, the one that requires the least effort and would likely have the largest impact. First, the other two. You can learn more about the gun problem, by reading this post to the end, and reading other material. After that, don’t let the gun supporters off easy when they pull out their arguments. Tell them they are wrong, and why. I understand and respect the fact that most of you are not going to do this, but some of you may be inclined to do so, and I thank you for that. Another idea is to check your investments (like your 401k) to see if you are supporting the gun industry. If so, see if you can fix that. You can find information about that <a href="">here</a>. </p> <p>The easy step you can take, and likely the most effective, is to send a note right now to your representative in Congress. I’m told (see <a href="">this</a>) that a written letter delivered by the US Post Office has a significantly larger impact when it arrives on the desk of your Congressperson than an email (or tweet or a signature on a petition), so do please spend the stamp and do that if you can. But an email is good too, and if that is all you have time for, please do it.</p> <p>Write your own note, but here are a few suggestions.</p> <h3 id="writeyoursenators.">Write your Senators.</h3> <p>You have two US Senators. Find out who they are and get their contact details <a href="">here</a>. Usually there is a form to fill out. I suggest you say something like this:</p> <blockquote><p>Dear Senator,</p> <p>I am a voter living in your state, and you represent me in the US Senate. </p> <p>Firearms have become one of the most significant sources of injury and death in the United States. Yet Congress has done little to address this problem. We have made cars and toasters safer with sensible regulation, but have not done so with firearms. </p> <p>I am writing you to urge you to take action to address this problem. Also, please tell me what you have done so far and what you plan to do in the immediate future.</p> <p>Sincerely, </p> <p><em>your name here</em></p> </blockquote> <h3 id="writeyourrepresentativeincongress">Write your representative in Congress</h3> <p>You have one representative in the US House. Find out who that is <a href="">here</a>. Send that person a note as well. An example:</p> <blockquote><p>Dear Congressperson,</p> <p>I am a voter living in your district, and you represent me in the House of Representatives. </p> <p>I am writing to ask what actions you have taken to reduce gun violence and deploy sensible regulations of firearms. Also, what actions do you plan to take in the near future? </p> <p>Gun violence has become one of the most serious problems we face in this country, including massive numbers of youth suicide. Yet, Congress has failed to act effectively to address this problem. I urge you to to do so. </p> <p>Sincerely, </p> <p><em>your name here</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Read the rest of my post if you want more background before writing the notes. Or, just do it if you don’t feel the need to do so. Ask your friends and relatives to write their reps. Ask your Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and your buddies on Instagram and Pinterest to help out. </p> <h3 id="gunmorbidityandmortalityrivalsothersources">Gun morbidity and mortality rivals other sources</h3> <p>When people talk, especially in social media, about this or that alleged dangerous thing (pesticides, nuclear radiation wafting from Fukushima to California, failure to purge, vaccination) it is very rare that Godwin’s Law comes into play (the mention of the Nazis or Holocaust to eventually come up). But quite often someone will make the comparison between the deadly issue of concern and car deaths. “More people die in their cars than by eating GMO corn,” someone will say. </p> <p>Indeed, we see reference to automobile deaths as a misleading rhetorical device to diminish the importance of firearm fatalities. I’ll quote from Briebart: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) final report on death statistics for 2013 shows there were 35,369 deaths from motor vehicle accidents versus 505 deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms. That is not a typo—35,369 versus 505. Americans are 70 times more likely to die in a vehicle accident than by the accidental discharge of a firearm.”</p> <p>The truth is that the average annual rate of death by firearms is currently about 32,529. About 67,000 people are injured annually by firearms in the US. So, while you were not looking, cars got safer. The annual rate of death by car has declined steadily in recent decades owing to increases safety standards, even as the rate of cars per person on the road has increased. It is about half as dangerous to ride around in a car these days than it was before aggressive implementation of safety laws, and <a href="">for some groups this number has declined even more</a> (i.e., children). </p> <p>It is also true that gun related deaths and injuries have declined over time, but not by much (in recent decades) and the rates are now going back up. The reasons for the decline about 20 years ago are not entirely clear, but probably have to do with changes in crime related violent deaths. In the late 1980s and 1990s, there were major changes in the nature and character of the illegal drug trade, and major efforts to clamp down on drug production and distribution caused a significant increase in violence followed by a decrease in many communities. Murder cities (often with special names like Murderapolis for Minneapolis) emerged temporarily around that time as organized gangs changed territories and tactics. <a href="">From one study</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Previous research points to several potential contributing factors including the cycling up and down of youth firearm homicides (more so than adult homicides), changes in markets for illegal drugs (particularly the crack cocaine market which swept across urban cities in the 1980s and crested about 1990), changes in juvenile arrest policies and penalties for drug-related crime in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, improved economic conditions, and an increase in community-based policing strategies and primary prevention strategies for youth, families, schools and communities </p> </blockquote> <p>So the current situation, 67,000 injuries and over 32,000 deaths annually, being one of the major non-disease causes of morbidity and mortality in the US, especially for youth, is a mild improvement from a period of chaos a few decades ago, and the rate of injury and death is staring to climb again. </p> <p>Most gun deaths are suicide (20,000 a year), followed by homicide (11,000 a year) and accident (under 600 a year). Despite the obvious importance of rampage killings such those over the last few years in Roseburg (10 dead), Charlestown (9 dead), Ila Vista (7 dead), Fort Hood II (3 dead), Washington DC (13 dead), Santa Monica (5 dead), Newtown (27 dead), Brookfield (3 dead), Minneapolis (6 dead), Oak Creek (6 dead), Aurora (12 dead), Oakalnd (7 dead), Seal Beach (8 dead), Tucson (6 dead), Manchester (8 dead), Huntsville (3 dead), Fort Hood I (13 dead), Binghamton (13 dead), most of the homicides are not random mass killings. But, since the victims of rampage killings are entirely innocent, and the killings are sudden, unexpected, shocking, and often target children, they constitute a significant part of the problem. </p> <h3 id="anatomyofasuicide">Anatomy of a suicide</h3> <p>Let’s talk about the single most important gun related problem for a moment: suicide. </p> <p>Sensible gun laws can prevent thousands of gun related deaths a year. When people talk about suicide, gun owners often bring up the idea that suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Well, yes, suicide <em>is</em> a mental health issue, but it is abysmally incorrect to say that it is <em>not</em> a gun issue. Here is why. </p> <p>The majority of firearms related deaths in the US are due to suicide. A recent study showed that about 20,000 people in the US die of suicide using a firearm. This is the largest single cause of firearms related death.</p> <p>If a person attempts suicide by poison, their success rate is about 2.5%. Cutting and stabbing has a success rate of less than 1%. Jumping has a success rate of just under 20%.</p> <p>The total amount of time from choosing to commit suicide and carrying out an attempt at doing so, on average, is incredibly short, measured in minutes. (There is obviously a large spread for this number.)</p> <p>When a person attempts suicide and lives, the chances that they will attempt suicide again is very low. The rate of trying an additional attempt is about 10%. A large proportion of those who do attempt suicide change their minds and seek medical attention, or others find out what is going on and intervene, saving the person’s life. </p> <p>The rate of success of suicide by firearm is about 85%. When a firearm is used there is little chance to reconsider. A large percentage of those who attempt suicide and do so with a gun probably would have gotten past this period in their lives had they used a different method. I don’t have data on this, but I suspect this is more true for younger people. Also, one could argue that people should be allowed to kill themselves. I’ve seen gun owners make this argument. However, while that may be true for some individuals, especially older ones, it is a rather cynical answer to the suicide problem and certainly does not apply to adolescence or young people. </p> <p>It is probably the case that a large number of people who kill themselves with guns obtain the guns simply because they are easy to obtain. Given the short span of time between choosing to take one’s own life and carrying out such an act, it is likely that most of these guns were already in the household. It is likely that many young people who kill themselves with guns obtain a gun owned by the adults in the household, a gun that is kept unlocked with ammunition readily available, perhaps the gun already loaded. </p> <p>Among those who make the strongest statements against any kind of gun regulation, based on numerous conversations I’ve had, seem to be many who prefer to keep a firearm loaded and at the ready, in a nightstand drawer or some other convenient location. In a household with younger kids, this is extraordinarily irresponsible. While it might be difficult to imagine how laws or regulations could change this extremely dangerous and selfish behavior, having such laws would allow for vigorous prosecution after the fact, and may lead to more thoughtful and safe behavior by such individuals in the long run. </p> <h3 id="butwhataboutgunsasselfprotection">But what about guns as self protection?</h3> <p>The most vehement and vitriolic verbiage spewed to support unfettered ownership of guns seems to come from those who live in fear of home invasions or other attacks, and feel that they require a readily available firearm to protect themselves. It is quite possible that this honestly does apply to a very small number of individuals, but that is a special case that we should find a way to handle as a society. Most people who have this view are not such special cases. Also, when one has the view that enemies can enter the home at any moment and kill you, and thus you must be protected, then one must also believe that one’s personal gun must be loaded and ready, not locked up or secured, at all times. And that is unconscionable behavior, and should not be legal. </p> <p>A gun kept in your home is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in an unintentional shooting, a suicide, or by a criminal who has taken it, then to be used in effective self defense (<a href="">see this</a>. A gun can be used to intimidate an attacker, but it is not clear that this is a strategy that is more effective than other non-gun related strategies (see study below). Many call for more widespread gun ownership in order to “take down” criminals involved in random violent acts out in public spaces. But there is about one gun in the US per person, a lot of people claim to carry them around, yet these self-defense guns are almost never actually used. This is probably because criminals are non-random in their behavior, and individuals armed with legal (or illegal) firearms are rarely in just the right place at the right time. Also, when people do pull out guns and start firing them, it is not uncommon for the outcome to be something other than the bad guy being “neutralized” with no one else injured. </p> <blockquote><p>Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action. At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. (<a href="">source</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>A <a href="">recent study</a> looked at the use of firearms for self protection.</p> <p>The data for the study come from information on personal contact crimes from the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2007 through 2011. They looked at cases where an offender intended to steal property. </p> <p>Among 14,000+ cases just under 1% involved the use of a gun in self defense. When the incident was over, on average, 4.2% of the victims were injured regardless of how it went down, 4.1% were injured when a gun was used in self defense. In the case of an attempt to steal property, 55.9 percent of the time the property was taken overall, with a slight reduction to 38.5% when the victim used a gun, and if the victim used a self defense weapon other than a gun, 34.9% of the time the property was lost. </p> <p>So, you can stop a robbery with a gun, a little. But any weapon at all has a similar success rate. And you have a good chance of being injured. </p> <p>An interesting result of that study is from the literature review. The researchers found almost no good studies that would inform of the basic question that many assume the answer to: Can you really protect yourself with a gun? The assumption that we should have lax gun laws so one can defend oneself, with the cost of tens of thousands dead each year, is a rather bold and unfounded one. The study is a bit nuanced and complex, and the researchers admit that the data are insufficient to examine many important questions. From the conclusion: </p> <blockquote><p>…the data provide little evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use—the same percentage as were injured during or after taking all other protective actions. Some self-protective actions were associated with higher probabilities of subsequent injury. The reader must be warned, however, that the sample of those injured after using a gun (5/127) is really too small to warrant strong conclusions. The large majority of crime victims who are injured are injured before they take any action.</p> <p>The evidence suggests that using a weapon in self-defense may reduce the likelihood of losing property during the commission of crime. However, it is not clear that using a gun is better or worse than using other weapons…</p> </blockquote> <h3 id="gunculture">Gun culture</h3> <p>Having such lax laws, and a loud minority in favor of keeping those laws lax, and of course other factors, probably contribute to a sort of gun fetish among those sometimes referred to as “gun nuts.” How do you know if you are a gun nut? If you keep a loaded gun in your house, if you keep guns and ammo unlocked, if you are just a regular person with no special security requirements but have a concealed carry permit, or if you think 20,000 suicides by gun per year is not a problem related to gun regulation, then you are probably a gun nut. On occasion a gun owner sets up a trap in their home, luring burglars or home invaders known to be working in the neighborhood so they can be shot “legally.” That is of course, very rare. But if you think that is OK you are probably a gun nut. For that matter, if you think it is OK when a teenage boy, on a dare, enters a home thought to be vacant and is shot dead for it, you might be a gun nut. These are all self-justifying excuses to argue against sensible regulation of guns. </p> <p>Our society as a whole pays a huge cost, greater than the costs of international or domestic terrorism, so that individuals who have this gun fetish can do more or less what they want. The benefit for this lackadaisical and protectionist view of firearms is virtually non-existent. Those who suffer from the nearly unregulated presence of so many guns are accommodating the desires of individuals who want unfettered access to toys they happen to find enjoyable, at best. At worse, our society is accommodating monsters, people who believe that carnage counted in the tens of thousands is necessary so they can be wrong about safety and wrong about security. </p> <p>With our current gun laws, we are paying a very high price to support unjustified ignorance and madness. </p> <hr /><p>Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).</p> <p>Branas, Charles et al. 2009. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034.</p> <p>Fowler, Katherine ,Linda L. Dahlberg, Tadesse Haileyesus, Joseph L. Annest. 2015. Firearm injuries in the United States. Special Issue on the Epidemiology and Prevention of Gun Violence. Volume 79. </p> <p>Hemenway, David, Sara Solnick. 2014. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011. Special Issue on the Epidemiology and Prevention of Gun Violence. Volume 79.</p> <p>Hemenway, David. 2004. Private Guns. Public Health 78 </p> <p>ADDED because it is relevant to some of the discussion below:</p> <p><a href=""><img src="" alt="wholechart (1)" width="610" height="1357" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-21629" /></a></p> <p><a href="">Hat tip</a></p> <p>Added because it is interesting with respect to specific policies that might be implemented:</p> <iframe width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Fri, 10/02/2015 - 06:31</span> Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:31:07 +0000 gregladen 33703 at President Obama's Statement on Shootings in Oregon <span>President Obama's Statement on Shootings in Oregon</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote>"We are the only advanced country in the world that sees these shootings every few months."</blockquote> <iframe width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Fri, 10/02/2015 - 03:42</span> Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:42:35 +0000 gregladen 33702 at How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner? <span>How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner? </span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I refuse to live in fear. I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I have a civic duty. I have to do it. Burglars are not human, they are vermin. I try to be a good person, to do what I should, be a good citizen. </p> </blockquote> <p>Those are among the words uttered by Byron Smith shortly after he murdered two teenagers in his home last Thanksgiving. There had been numerous break-ins in Smith’s neighborhood near Little Falls, Minnesota. Byron set a trap, making his home look vulnerable and unoccupied. If the burglars were to break into his home, they would come in a certain way, and end up descending the stairs into his basement. There, he set up a sniper’s nest of sorts, with food and beverages and ammo, and waited. Eventually the trap was sprung. One of the two teenagers that had been carrying out these break-ins descended the stairs, Smith shot him dead, and dragged the body out of sight. Then the second teenager came down the stairs, and he shot her. She did not die easily, so he shot her a few times. Then he said a few words into the recording machine that had been running the whole time. Eventually, but not right away, he reported the incident. There are more details, but that is the gist of what happened. </p> <p>Byron Smith was convicted of homicide. It turns out that setting a trap for possible home invaders and then killing them is not considered one’s right. Or, as Smith might put it, one’s duty. </p> <p>There are two things about this incident I’d like to point out, one pretty straight forward, the other likely to be controversial. Let’s start with the straight forward one.</p> <p>The chances of this working are slim. If there are burglaries happening in your neighborhood, and you set up a trap like Smith did, the chances that the trap will work are not high. But the trap did work for Smith. I know this is only a single incident, but think about this for a second. It is safe, though not statistically provable by any means, to assume (or at least, guess) that for every trap-setting Byron Smith there is a large number of others doing the same thing but not getting results. In fact, there are probably a few people who have actually managed to trap people this way, but did it differently than Byron, less overtly, and that we don’t know about. My point is simply this: Among the gun owners in this country who feel it is OK to arm themselves with the expectation of killing one or more intruders, it is likely that a non-zero percentage of them are just like Byron but maybe a tad smarter, or a tad less interested in falling on the proverbial sword once the deed is done.</p> <p>The second point is that anyone who decides that it is OK to arm themselves with the expectation of killing an intruder is at least a little like Byron Smith. Oh, no, you may say, a person arming themselves is simply trying to protect themselves and their families from danger, they are not attempting to kill someone. But that does not really make a person that different from Smith. There are multiple alternatives to killing intruders. One set of alternatives has to do with keeping intruders out to begin with. Smith made it easy for the intruders to enter his home. What about a person who has $350 to spend on protecting their home, and has the choice between reinforcing the possible entrance ways vs. purchasing a firearm? If one purchases the firearm and keeps it loaded and handy, but has easily broken doors or locks, that is a little like setting a trap, because it is relatively easy for someone to break into your home and, once they’ve broken in, relatively easy to shoot them. That is a passive setting of a trap. </p> <p>Think about all the different aspects involved here, most of which can be ascertained from looking at the Smith case. Do you feel that taking a life is equivalent to protecting your home? Are you prepared to own a dangerous weapon? Are you prepared to keep the weapon ready and loaded? Did you spend money and effort on arming yourself instead of securing your home better, under the false assumption that you can’t really stop a determined burglar? Did you avoid making it clear someone was home? Do you find yourself checking on your firearm and making sure it is extra handy, instead of taking other action, when you hear about break-ins in your neighborhood? Just how much like Byron Smith are you?</p> <p>I suspect that the majority of people who arm themselves are not a lot like Byron Smith. But is it OK to be half like him? 10% like him? 1% like him?</p> <p>If you want to contemplate these questions, I ask you do do one thing as part of that process. Listen to the tape Smith made. Listen to the whole thing, and do so along with reading about descriptions of what happened, what he confessed to, what he was convicted of.</p> <p><a href="">Here</a> is one of the many available descriptions of the event. </p> <p>Here is the tape. Listen to all of it and imagine yourself being a little like Byron Smith. Or, perhaps, ask yourself how much like Byron Smith is your neighbor, friend, relative, or enemy? </p> <p><iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src=""></iframe></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="" lang="" about="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Sat, 05/03/2014 - 06:33</span> Sat, 03 May 2014 10:33:39 +0000 gregladen 33167 at