Reflection of Interview and Research Interview

Interview: Gun Control

            I emailed one of the regional coordinators of the program New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), observing the opinions he has on the topic of gun control and the different arguments about it. I gave him the questions that I had for him, and told him that if he could, he could take his time in answering these questions so that he could put in all of his thoughts. In the end he gave me much information to help my argument as a whole.
Interview:
Thank you again for the response. Here are the questions I have:

What does your program do? The mission of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV) is to reduce gun violence through legislative advocacy and education designed to encourage action, influence public opinion and lead to policy change. With a primary focus on New York State, NYAGV also advocates at the local and national levels for laws, policies and practices that protect New York State residents, particularly youth, from gun violence. NYAGV was established in 1993 by Brooklyn mothers galvanized by the senseless shooting death of a teacher in Prospect Park. It is a nonprofit organization with 501(c) (4) tax status.

What are your main goals with your program?
Our program engages in legislative advocacy though interactions with our local, state and federal legislators advocating for gun violence safety laws. With this advocacy we also engage in community education of activists, students, voters and others of our efforts and the need for more practical and common sense gun laws. We utilize statistics, studies, and case law to advance the cause of gun violence awareness. 

Advocacy - NYAGV advocates to:
·         Strengthen gun safety laws in New York State.
·         NYAGV was instrumental in the passage of the NY SAFE Act in 2013.
·         Defend and preserve New York’s strong gun safety laws, which are under constant attack and challenge from gun lobby groups.
·         Strengthen federal gun safety laws, since illegal guns from states with weak laws continue to flood New York communities.

NYAGV also has an educational arm in the NYC area (which we hope to spread to upstate in the upcoming years).

Youth and Community Education

NYAGV’s Education Fund, the tax exempt 501(c)(3) arm of NYAGV, holds gun-violence-prevention programs for youth and community members.

·          The ReACTION Youth Program operates in New York City public high schools.
·          NYAGV holds community workshops for youth and community groups and organizations.


How can people enter this program?
NYAGV is a member driven organization, based out of NYC, with regional coordinators in Buffalo (me), Rochester, Utica, Albany, the Hudson Valley and Long Island. We are a 501 (c)(3) and 501 (c) (4) for educational and political advocacy. You can visit our website at NYAVG.org to see membership applications.

What has this program achieved throughout its history?
As with many advocacy organizations, it is difficult to quantify the success or failures of your work. Inasmuch as our organization is committed to shaping policy and opinion, the results are illusory. We have participated in many of the gun safety programs and laws that have been enacted in NYS (including NY SAFE Act) and in local communities. We also team with other GVA organizations, (Moms, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms, Brady, Sandy Hook Promise, Jessi’s Message, etc.) in pursing common goals.

Our goal is to shape and share public opinion in an effort to influence elected representatives to support and advocate gun safety legislation.

Do you believe this program is necessary now more than ever?
The easy answer is, of course, yes, now more than ever. However, had we been more successful in the past perhaps we would not find ourselves in the dire straits in which we now find ourselves. After every mass shooting the gun-advocacy groups and their elected advocates maintain that it is too soon after the event to begin discussion of substantive gun control discussion. The fact of the matter is that had more been done after the Columbine shooting (1999) we might not be in the situation we now find ourselves.

So, yes! The urgency is greater now. There are now more than 33,000 gun deaths (average) annually (36,000 last year). Of these deaths approximately 21,000 are suicides and accidents; 12,000 are homicides. 98 Americans die and 315 are shot on a daily basis – 19 of those killed are children under the age of 15.  Each month 50 women are killed by a domestic partner.

The cost of gun violence in our country is estimated to be more than $2.8 billion annually.

With more that 280 to 320 million guns in the country we are the most heavily armed country in the world.

Gun ownership in the US is declining while gun sales rise – fewer people now own more guns. The national average used to be 50% ownership is now down to about 33% (18% in NYS).

The average gun owner in the US owns 17 guns while most gun owners own only one. 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns in the country or 1% of gun owners own 50% of the guns in the country.

Do you believe that these mass shootings have become part of American culture?
That isn’t culture. I believe that we are going through a period of turmoil that many attribute to the loss of self-esteem, worth, etc. by the older, white, male in our country. Male dominance is being challenged by women, minorities (racial and ethnic and religious). The blue-collar, non-college-educated working man is often no longer the main bread-winner in the home and his last bastion of self-worth is now defense of the family (Trumpism). There are all kinds of socio-economic theories about so many of these issues.

Are there any representatives in the U.S. government that you believe is helping create stronger gun control laws?
There are definitely very active legislators dedicated to GVA (none in the Republican party)– Senators Blumethal and Murphy of CT; our own Senators Schumer and Gillibrand; Senators Franken, Whitehouse, Warren, Markey. And many more in the US House. In NYS Brian Kavanagh was just elected to the Senate (from the Assembly where he was instrumental in many GVA proposals). Additionally, Sen. Hoylman and others in the Senate.

Have you fully achieved said goals?
If I had achieved my goals, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I am lucky – I, nor my family, have ever been touched by gun violence though I also belong to a community organization in Buffalo – Stop the Violence Coalition – which deals with gun violence on the street on a virtually daily basis.
I am doing this because I believe that it is a fight worth fighting for a cause worth winning. I am also doing it because I have 3 grandchildren and I don’t want them to have to grow up with active-shooter drills.

This is a marathon and not a sprint – and I am in it for the long haul (God willing!).

Do you believe that we can achieve less gun violence with stronger gun control laws?
There are so many minor, sensible laws that could be enacted to make our daily lives safer (and still respect the 2nd Amendment).

FEDERAL LAW:
Background checks for all gun sales – you saw the results of poorly reported and maintained background check records. The 1st Baptist Church shooting in TX was evidence that the background check system is flawed and needs to be overhauled. Background checks need to be expanded to ALL gun sales – internet and hand-to-hand sales. 40% of all gun sales do not go through a background check.

Concealed Carry of Handguns across state lines. NYS, because of our strict handgun licensing laws and requirements, does not allow handgun owners from other states (almost all of which have far less stringent requirements than ours) to concealed carry their handguns in NY. Some states do not even require licensing to own handguns. These people cannot be allowed to carry their guns in NY. Concealed Carry licenses are not the same as driver’s licenses. (Note that TX denied the Baptist church shooter a concealed carry license but he was able to secure guns in TX anyway).

SHARE Act – Sportsman’s Heritage and Recreation Enhancement would expand the availability of silencers (used to suppress gun fire noise). A rise in the availability of silencers would impede law enforcement’s ability to determine the origin and direction (even existence) of gun fire. Those at the Las Vegas shooting responded to gun fire by the crack of the gun and police were able to locate based on the sound. Congress is scheduled to take this up soon – it has been postponed 2x already – after Rep. Scalise shooting and after the LV shooting.

STATE LAWS:
Safe Storage laws would keep guns secured when not in use or in the constructive possession of the gun owner.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) would allow family or friends or law enforcement to petition a court to remove guns from the possession of an individual the court deems (after hearing) to be a threat to him/herself or others.

What are your opinions of the current gun control laws we have, is it doing anything at all?
Gun control laws work where they are allowed to work. In states like NY, CA, CT, MD, etc. where there are strong gun laws, gun violence is at the lowest nationwide. And the opposite is true of states with lax gun laws.


http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/06/17/the-10-states-with-the-worst-gun-violence/2/

www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2015-confirms/


What do you think about the process of obtaining a weapon, should it become more stricter or stay the same?
Certainly we need to make access to firearms more restrictive. Easy access to guns across state lines must be stopped; 2nd and 3rd party sales of guns must be subject to background checks (convicted felons can buy guns on the internet or out of garages and car trunks without checks). We have to better control who has weapons and what kind of weapons they possess. There is no need for civilians to have access to military-style assault weapons with 30, 50 and 100 round capacities and bump stocks.

The 2nd Amendment (surprised you didn’t ask) 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.”

For more than 200 years this amendment was interpreted to address the need for an armed militia (no longer needed once we had law enforcement and armies).

In 2008, the US Supreme Court decided US v. Heller, and for the first time in our history, the court held that the 2nd Amendment provides for the individual possession and use of firearms. Many would argue the court was wrong but that is another argument for another day.

What we are left with, as the Court stated is the right of civilians to keep and bear arms The Court states that this right “was not unlimited” and that the Amendment does not protect “the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation.”

The Court went on to limit that right - The Court states that its opinion should not be read to cast doubt on “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Moreover, the opinion expressly states that this list of “presumptively lawful” restrictions should not be viewed
as exhaustive.”

This holding therefore gives states and other political subdivisions the right to enact its own gun safety legislation.

I hope that this discussion somehow answers your questions. Please feel free to follow-up by email or call if you prefer.

Thank you again for reaching out and for striving to better understand this difficult issue. Good luck with your paper. I would appreciate the opportunity to review it, either before or after submission.
Best wishes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Draft #1 of Research Paper

Journal Entry #6

Journal Entry #10