Consider

Response to a news article

An article was published in our local weekly paper written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, hoping to influence our local city decision makers. I submitted a response the next day, but it was eventually rejected by one of the editors.

 

I was told that to be considered for publication, my opinion must be more than 950 words, be in response to a recent article, and focus on a local issue. I submitted this expanded response shortly thereafter, but it wasn't published and I haven't heard anything more from the Palo Alto Weekly.

 

Understanding Violence

 

On June 27 2014, the Palo Alto Weekly published a Guest Opinion written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, titled Stemming the Tide of Gun Violence. In this article she suggests that our community should not acquiesce to the gun industry, and she encourages the City of Palo Alto to take action, suggesting that “strong, common-sense measures to deter gun violence can — and must — be advanced in every local community”.

 

She acknowledges that Palo Alto currently has regulations in place regarding the sale of guns, but she is using the fear of violence to motivate residents in Palo Alto to focus on gun violence, and she wants the City to add additional measures to further regulate gun and ammunition dealers.

 

I am a long time resident of Palo Alto, and I appreciate it as a city with both insight and foresight because of its educated and informed population. I too hope that our community can reduce gun violence and create a safe and sane future, but I would hope that we continue to carefully consider the issue of violence without allowing emotion to overwhelm our understanding.

 

We often hear that statistics are like lamp posts, they’re used more for support than for illumination. Palo Alto should be considering policy based on fact rather than fiction. To do that we must stop paying attention to reports promoting specific agenda(s) and start paying attention to un-biased reports from neutral parties. For instance: Recent reports from the Center for Decease Control, law enforcement organizations, and even Congress acknowledge that gun violence has been declining for the last 20 years.

 

I agree that the one injured or killed by violence is not the only victim of the crime, and that it naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent any kind of violence. To do that we need to understand the cause of violence, and we need to recognize that guns are not the problem. The recent knife attack in China and the bombing at the marathon should suggest to the most casual observer that violence is not a gun issue. Violence comes from the heart, not the barrel of a gun; guns are just the tool.

 

I also agree that the right to safety is inalienable, but like the Bill of Right’s protections for the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, the people have a constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms. Unfortunately, like the First and Fourth Amendments the Second Amendment is under attack by those who would prefer control to freedom.

 

Before you ask me what I’m afraid of, let me say that what I fear most are people who are willing to give up their rights and take away the rights of others, because they have been convinced by someone else that it’s for the greater good. Unlike the suggestions promoted in the Guest Opinion by Sally Lieber, I do not believe that her solutions regarding gun violence will be affective.

 

Restricting the rights of citizens, in Palo Alto and across the nation, will not reduce gun violence and I believe it will increase crime. How successful has the Government been at keeping drugs off the street? How successful has the Government been at stopping human trafficking? What makes anyone think that the Government can take guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen write that, “A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

They continue, “We are compelled to pay attention to extreme events and we estimate risk with these vivid examples, but as much as we should try to prevent these horrific events from taking place we should not use them as the sole basis for making inferences that determine policy. The outliers are a tragic part of the overall story, but we must pay attention to the rest of the distribution.” Their conclusion is that whatever the cause of violence is, that is where the focus needs to be: Focusing on the tool is still not the answer.

 

Sally Lieber’s suggestion that Palo Alto should “build on its existing ordinances by requiring additional physical security measures for gun businesses” does not address the problem of violence. Asking the city to “make gun and ammunition dealing a conditional use”, or “requiring a zoning permit” is not going to make the city a safer place to live.

 

While I encourage the community to get involved in the public decision process, I would ask that we approach the issue with understanding and not acquiesce to the fear mongering of anti-gun groups. Like so many others who do not understand the cause of violence, Sally Lieber is focusing on the tools of violence. The focus should be on why bad people are doing bad things; not on their tool of choice.

 

When a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver. When a mad bomber kills people we blame the bomber. When a deranged shooter kills people we blame the gun. It doesn’t make sense. Like cars, bombs, and knives, guns are just a tool. Punishing law abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of a few is not going to make our streets and neighborhoods safer.

 

In fact, if we as community in an enlightened city are so concerned about the safety of our children why don’t we focus on the biggest problem first. Thousands of children lose their lives every day through the violent act of abortion: Where’s the outrage?