The Final Showdown on Gun Violence

 

     Like every other American, I was shocked, saddened, and angered by the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday. Just as in past mass shootings, the response has been more hand-wringing, calls for assault weapon bans and a search for the factors leading to such tragic consequences. In every past occurrence of firearm mayhem, I have bitten my lip and kept quiet about my feelings on the subject. Although my experience with guns is admittedly limited, I have many good friends who hunt and own firearms and I never wanted to take a stance that confronted their fervent belief that gun ownership was an important right that deserved to be protected.

     After the events this weekend, I can no longer stay silent on the subject. When a soldier, policeman or gang member dies as a result of gunfire, it is still tragic, but we accept their death as a possible outcome of their choice of occupation. When the victims are totally innocent 6 and 7-year olds, with an entire life ahead of them, we cannot blame the results on their own life choices.

     In an effort to take the focus away from firearms, the gun industry would rather blame this latest incident on mental illness. They have a point, but not a very good one. Republican lawmakers, who have been the biggest supporters of the gun industry, are also the biggest drivers behind reducing treatment options for mentally ill people. Making it easier to get a handgun than treatment for mental illness seems like a bad societal choice and those dead schoolchildren have paid the price for decades of budget-cutting and program eliminations.

If someone in America really wants a gun, it's not hard to get one.

 

The Gun Epedemic

     After every shooting, the public is confronted with the grim statistics: America, we are told, is awash in guns. There are four times as many licensed firearm dealers than there are grocery stores in the country. There are over six times as many gun dealers as there are McDonald’s Restaurants. Homicide rates from gunfire are outrageously high in the U.S (only South Africa, Columbia and Thailand have more.) Just in the last 8 years there have been almost a quarter of a million homicides and suicides due to guns. At times, the carnage from gunfire equals or exceeds that of actual warfare. In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country in 30 different states. More than 75% of the time, these killings are carried out with weapons that were purchased legally.

     How do we account for this? Why does America stand alone in its horribly high rate of firearm casualties? Are we just more naturally violent than other nationalities? Is there just some “evil” in our nation that warps the actions of some misguided citizens into perpetrating such atrocities as at Sandy Hook? Does our abnormally high rate of gun homicides (and suicides) reflect some deep, tragic flaw in our national psyche that inevitably results in such violent behavior?

     Most observers point to just the gun ownership statistics as the problem. There are just too many firearms, according to this point of view, and they are accessible to just about anyone who wants one. It’s been pointed out repeatedly that there are safety laws regulating all sorts of behavior but the restrictions on gun ownership are ineffective, incomprehensive and often easy to circumvent. The type of firearm, of course, is also significant and most recent attempts at “gun control” have focused on restricting access to certain types of firearms or ammunition deemed to be too dangerous for civilian use. While there certainly is a valid argument that semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines have no real purpose for hunting and target shooting, I believe that pursuing “assault weapons” bans will have a negligible effect on the situation.

Weapons like this have no real purpose besides killing people....

     The real solution, I believe, is much harder than the superficial idea that the violent gun death problem can be solved by background checks and weapon bans. If you really want to understand our nation’s fatal attraction to firearms, we must challenge the prevailing beliefs that firearms actually solve problems and that the answer to the problem of having too many guns is to have more of them.

That's me, right rear, clutching my favorite weapon of mass destruction....

 My Own Journey

     As a kid, I loved guns. Like every other red-blooded American boy born in the decade following World War II, I loved playing “war” and fantasized about shooting down Nazis and Japs like the heroes I saw on TV and in the movies. One of the favorite pastimes of me and my buddies was to “shoot” each other and see who could die the most realistic and dramatic death. The 1950s were the peak period of the TV western and show after show featured ta brave lawman facing down the desperados with his shooting iron strapped on his hip. How I longed to be Matt Dillon, solving the problems of Dodge City with a rapid draw and unerring marksmanship.

                    

     Unfortunately, my parents did not share my fascination with firearms. My mother had a cousin who lost an eye in a shooting incident and she refused to allow even a BB gun to enter our household. To my knowledge, no one in my dad or mom’s family hunted, or even owned a gun. To be sure, I had some target shooting experience in the Boy Scouts but I never developed a relationship with firearms like many of my friends.

     That could have changed because of the Vietnam War, but a college deferment and a later high lottery number kept me out of the draft and into college. By that time, however, World events had changed my views on warfare and gun usage. The assassinations of political leaders and the imposition of military force on other countries caused me to question the use of violent intimidation as an effective means of solving problems and I began to see those days of adolescent war-making as “kid stuff” and my views on war and peace began evolving. Not long after I chose “Peace Studies” as a minor and began to formulate new ideas about violence and its effectiveness to achieve desired outcomes. Gradually, I became a proponent of pacifism and non-violence and have over the years come to believe that: (1) using force to achieve one’s ends rarely works in the long run and (2) guns NEVER solve problems. In almost every case, the use of violence to get one’s way creates new and additional problems that are even harder to solve.

Statistical Uncertainties over Concealed Carry

       Statistics on gun issues are all over the map. Both gun control advocates and opponents can line up apparently solid studies showing that guns do and do not cause violence. States and cities with tough gun control laws are shown as being ineffective in one study and successful in another. Comparisons of America with other nations with stricter and looser gun laws is often inconclusive about the role firearms, themselves, play in the issue. Gun advocates claim that as many as 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by victims who use firearms themselves, although most of these cases involve just brandishing a firearm or threatening to use one. Other studies place the figure much lower and claim that such boasts of effectiveness are highly-exaggerated. Some studies how that murder rates decrease in concealed carry states while others suggest the opposite.

     This is important because right now, we seem to be “doubling down” on the response to these tragic mass shootings. Not surprisingly, the first response to these events by gun advocates is to INCREASE the number of guns at the crime scene. If teachers, were only armed, we are told, this would all be prevented. The same thing happened after the Virginia Tech massacre. Concealed Carry proponents repeatedly argued that, if Virginians had only been allowed to carry their own guns, the shooter would have been stopped by their quick actions. The police, not surprisingly, are not all that crazy about such a world. How would they have responded to the situation there if, after receiving reports of a gunman on campus, they arrive on the scene and find everyone they see brandishing a firearm.

 

     A similar thing happened after 9-11. The solution to airline safety, we were told, is to arm the pilots, as if putting more weapons in an airplane was a good idea. Putting aside the fact that airplanes usually fly at high altitudes and that ANY discharge of a weapon in a pressurized cabin could result in the immediate and gruesome death of everyone on board, we have to ask the question: how can the problem of having weapons on a plane be solved by adding more weapons to the mix? We would not want our untrained pilot shooting in an airplane, no matter what, and I think we could say the same thing for the brave teachers at Sandy Hook. They are teachers, not firearm experts, and their use of a firearm in a classroom, no matter what the circumstances, runs a risk of tragic consequences.

               

The Self-Protection Conundrum

     For several years, I had a firearm training simulator located next to my office. It was used extensively to train police recruits and to refresh training for veteran officers. Basically, trainees had a pistol attached to a computer and various scenarios were presented to the officer on a projection screen. They would have to make snap judgments about who is a threat and who is not. Even veteran police officers were humbled by the experience. Well-trained shooters often made the wrong call and fired at non-threatening subjects and their accuracy at hitting their target was not especially high, either. You might think you have the presence of mind to wake up instantly from a deep sleep, assess the threat from an intruder, and neutralize the perpetrator with your handgun but the more likely scenario is you could shoot your own child who is looking for a drink of water.

Let's hope this woman doesn't have any children.....

     This, of course, requires you to keep a loaded handgun by your bedside and the multitudes of Americans who have bought a gun for protection probably do so. Unfortunately, if you have children in the house, there should NEVER be a loaded firearm present; in fact to be entirely safe, ammunition and firearms should be locked up in separate locations to ensure maximum safety for your family. Such behavior, however, would make the fantasy of a nighttime shootout to take out an intruder pretty much impossible and therefore most people do not take even these simple precautions. Many innocent children have died as a result. This is incredibly ironic considering the most popular reason people give for keeping a gun at home is for protection of their family.

Adolescents, teen angst and easy access to firearms are a dangerous mix.....

 

    Incidentally, the Sandy Hook shooting was the result of a juvenile gaining access to weapons owned by his mother, who also presumably purchased them partly for her family’s safety. It does seem incredible that there are few regulations whatsoever for how firearms are to be stored in a home and only rarely have parents been held liable when their firearms are used illegally by their offspring.

 

Are you really making your kids safer by teaching them to fire a fully-automatic machine gun?

     Regardless of your feelings about the statistics on firearm safety, there is one correlation that has remained constant over the years. If you own a handgun, and that gun is ever used on a human being, the odds are much, much, MUCH greater that it will be used on you or someone you love rather than a “bad guy.” Firearm supporters conveniently ignore this fact when they discuss how safe we will all be when everyone we come into contact with is packing heat. Human beings can be cantankerous and people get into arguments over the most inconsequential reasons. Tempers flare, angers rise and disputes can often lead to violence. If alcohol is involved, the danger is even greater and the presence of a firearm in a charged situation can often be the catalyst for even more violence and often results in death and injury.

Ending It All

     Finally there is the problem of guns and suicide. Just in the last 8 years, over 140,000 people have ended their lives using a readily-available handgun. Depressed teenagers, veterans with post-traumatic shock syndrome, and mentally-ill people are allowed easy access to firearms and thus an easy way to “end it all.” Guns are quick, easy and irreversible. Suicide attempts using guns are almost always successful but many of the most widely used other suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.

     Studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. While having a handgun certainly doesn’t lead people to take their own lives, having one available sure makes it easier to carry it out once they have made the decision. This, too, is a price we pay to allow people unfettered access to firearms.

 

  The Search for Solutions

     After the funerals, the grief and the hand-wringing over the latest mass shooting, we face, as a nation, what to do next. The most likely scenario is that we will take a big sigh, express our sorrow and totally ignore the issue until the next shooting. So far, this technique has worked pretty well for the gun lobby. Enough accusations, misleading statistics and outrageous claims are thrown around to totally confuse the issue and essentially breed fear into every citizen of our nation. Fear sells weapons and if every American is terrorized, the sales of guns go through the roof.

 

     As mentioned before, we are likely to see some ineffectual attempts to ban some assault weapons or institute additional background checks. Personally, I do not believe any of these will have an appreciable effect on the situation. The “genie” is out of the bottle. We already have millions of guns around us and trying to round up all those firearms would, of course, be impossible and restricting access now is just too little, too late. Instead, we must accept the fact that we live in an ocean of weaponry and look to a more progressive approach. The solution to our problem is not “gun control”; it is changing the way we look at guns and their effectiveness in solving problems. As I have already stated, my belief is that guns NEVER solve problems, they just make them worse. This has been shown throughout history.

Law Enforcement Issues

      But don’t police solve problems when they use their sidearm in taking out a “bad guy” in the course of their duties? Not really. Leaving aside the instances where innocent bystanders are wounded or killed during shootouts, the use of a service weapon on a criminal brings a whole new crop of problems, sometimes for the officer, himself. Unfortunately, we have all seen so many movies where the policeman says “Stop, or I’ll shoot!” Even though officers are trained to NOT rely on their firearm as their main method of enforcement, in too many cases a pistol becomes a quick way to resolve a situation and shots are fired with the expectation that this will solve the problem. As I have already pointed out, even trained officers have a hard time accurately hitting their target and when they do, they often suffer, as well.

 

Sometimes a firearm death is harder on the shooter.....

     There are numerous studies now showing the enormous toll that an officer-involved shooting incident can take on the individuals involved, as well as the police department, itself. When a police officer kills a criminal in the course of duty, that individual has essentially short-circuited the judicial process. The split-second judgment that often has to be made sometimes results in the policeman being the judge, jury and executioner rolled into one and this often places a heavy psychological burden on the affected officer. Even when justified in using their firearm, many times officers must leave the force afterwards because they are unable to deal with the trauma and reality of taking another human’s life, no matter how justified. Actually, this exact thing happened to one of my best childhood friends who became a police officer but left the force after a shooting incident.

A Challenging Future

    It’s not surprising that we, as a nation, seem to believe that firearms are the solution to many of our problems. Consider the thousands of TV shows and movies that show the “good guys” always walking away from a gunfight. How many times have we seen the cavalry arrive and shoot all the Indians? Didn’t we learn that Sylvester Stallone won the Vietnam War (at least according to the body count of his movies)? As the bullets fly, the bad guys are killed, the town is saved, the victims are rescued and everything is resolved by the end of the show. Most of the credit usually goes to the effective use of the hero’s gun.

 

     Very rarely do those shows ever show the reality of gun violence. Even when hit by a stray bullet (bad guys can never shoot very well), the hero is usually just “winged” and often continues shooting back. Most of the multitudes of TV westerns refused to even show blood after the shootouts and so we get this collective notion that guns are this easy, no-mess way to solve problems. This effect, what I call “gunreality,” leads many Americans into thinking that firearms are some mystical, powerful force that can be used to bend other people to our will and achieve some mythical level of safety with no side effects or negative consequences.

 

     The only real solution to this controversy, in my way of thinking, is to challenge head-on this belief that guns are the way to keep us safe. Nothing could be further from the truth and, until our society faces this fact, out nightmare of unending mass murders will continue. For every cop show glorifying gun violence, we need a corresponding program showing the reality of it. If our citizens actually saw the blood and gore, if they witnessed the frantic attempts to save gunshot victims in the operating room, if they could see first-hand the trauma that a gun death causes to real people in our nation, I believe we could begin to turn around the idea that guns are “saviors.” In my fantasy, the informed citizen of the future will not have their guns taken away from them, they would not want them in the first place once they understand the dangers involved.

 

     The more likely outcome of all this is that we will go the other direction: more metal detectors, locked-down schools, militarized police and even more people carrying firearms. We have already seen Illinois become the last state to fall to the “concealed carry” fantasy that every American is safer when we are all armed to the teeth. Now, enthusiasts want restrictions lifted so that concealed guns can be carried into courthouses, bars and yes, even schools. (Just today I learned that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder will veto a bill he originally wanted to pass that allows concealed carry in churches and schools). Essentially, the plan of the NRA is to challenge every state’s restrictions, expanding the right to carry weapons into ANY venue, regardless of the danger. Eventually there will be so many exceptions that there will be no restrictions at all, which is their ultimate goal.

     As a nation, we could use this tragedy as a wake-up call and move towards a society with common-sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions on gun access. We should at least apply the same level of regulation as we do our electrical appliances. We should understand that individuals with mental problems need treatment options that help them relieve stresses that sometimes result in violent behavior. Rather than glorifying gun ownership, we should warn the public about it and instigate more widespread programs on gun safety and appropriate usage. It wouldn’t hurt to challenge the most often used line of the NRA that “Guns don’t kill, people do.” Actually, guns DO kill people and, until enough Americans come to believe it, we are probably doomed to yet more of these horrific incidents. I am still optimistic enough, however, to believe that we can still turn it around and make the World a better place. I just hope I’m still around to see it……

 

 

   

   

  

    

Violence and the Labor Movement

     Republicans are apoplectic. For the first time in almost a half century, the labor movement is re-awakening and fighting back against the attempts of the wealthy to marginalize the American worker and amass huge fortunes on the backs of the working class.
     As Michigan lawmakers prepared to ram through a bill to destroy the labor unions that helped make their state a symbol of American industrial prosperity, labor organizers took to the streets and large numbers of protestors surrounded the capitol building. Attempting to make Michigan the 24th state to adopt "Right-To-Work-For-Third-World-Wages" legislation, the Governor thumbed his nose at the protestors and bragged about his attempt to pass a law that could reduce the pay of every worker in the state. Knowing they would not have the votes to pass it in January, Republicans fast-tracked the bill, giving no opportunity to even discuss it and passed it with no public hearings or input.
     We have seen it all before. Even a casual reading of history reveals a bitter war between labor and capital that has been carried out ever since the founding of our Republic. Given the life-or-death consequences of economic policies, it is not surprising that confrontations between workers, business owners and politicians have often led to violence. This week's protest was no exception.
     Because the public was shut out of the process entirely, it is not surprising that tempers flared during this week's protests. In any crowd of that size it is not hard to find examples of people behaving badly and video cameras caught a confrontation between Conservative comedian and activist Steven Crowder and several union members. In the ensuing scuffle, Crowder was punched in the face and a tent being occupied by Americans for Prosperity, a pro right-to-work group was knocked down.

Fists fly at the altercation in Michigan.

     Conservatives have gone ballistic. Tired of being called flunkies of the 1% and sensitive to any criticism of their selfish behavior, their bloggers, politicians and talking heads have seized on this incident as finally giving them some "higher ground" to shout from. Immediately, the cries of "Union Thugs" went out and has reverberated throughout the Internet. A search for the term in Google returns 2.7 million hits. For the first time in years, Republicans can pretend that their supporters hold the moral high ground aginst the onslaught of evil union "thugs" out to destroy the nation just to maintain their exorbitant compensation.
     I don't condone violence to achieve political goals, so I hated to see such an event happen. I do know a little bit about history, though, and, given the scale of past labor conflicts, it seems like the events in Michigan were pretty insignificant, unlike what you will hear on Fox "News."
     In almost every case of labor strife in the last 150 years, it has been the "company thugs" who have carried out the most egregious violence against workers. Labor strikes, sit-downs and picketing have been met with clubs, guns and lynchings. When the scale of the protests become too large, business owners appealed to the government to help them and many times Federal troops have been used against strikers, often with fatal results.
     Here is just a partial list of past incidents of labor violence. Although there have been a few incidents of violent behavior coming from the workers, by far most of the violence has been perpetrated ON them not BY them.

Past Labor Violence

 23 November 1887
     The Thibodaux Massacre. The Louisiana Militia, aided by bands of "prominent citizens," shot at least 35 and possibly as many as three hundred unarmed black sugar workers striking to gain a dollar-per-day wage, and lynched two strike leaders.

Attacks on Chinese workers at Rock Springs, Wyoming 1885

1894
      Federal troops killed 34 American Railway Union members in the Chicago area attempting to break a strike, led by Eugene Debs, against the Pullman Company. Debs and several others were imprisoned for violating injunctions, causing disintegration of the union

10 September 1897
      19 unarmed striking coal miners and mine workers were killed and 36 wounded by a posse organized by the Luzerne County sheriff for refusing to disperse near Lattimer, Pennsylvania. The strikers, most of whom were shot in the back, were originally brought in as strike-breakers, but later organized themselves.

12 October 1898
      Fourteen were killed, 25 wounded in violence resulting when Virden, Illinois mine owners attempted to break a strike by importing 200 nonunion black workers.

12 October 1902
      Fourteen miners were killed and 22 wounded by scabs at Pana, Illinois.

 

Police use clubs to make way for a streetcar during a strike in new York City.

8 June 1904
      A battle between the Colorado Militia and striking miners at Dunnville ended with six union members dead and 15 taken prisoner. Seventy-nine of the strikers were deported to Kansas two days later.

22 August 1909
     Pressed Steel Car Company in Pittsburgh calls in 200 state constables and 300 deputy sheriffs to insure the safety of strikebreakers and to evict strikers from company houses. Their actions result in the death of at least 12 people, and perhaps as many as 26.

May 1911
     The Westmoreland Coal Miners' Strike in Pennslyvania was met by fierce resistance from company "thugs." During the strike, six striking miners, nine wives of striking miners, and one bystander were killed, and thousands of strikers and members of their families severely beaten or wounded.

24 February 1912
     Women and children were beaten by police during a textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts.

Miners face off against a wall of bayonets during the textile strike in Lawrence.

 

20 April 1914
      The "Ludlow Massacre." In an attempt to persuade strikers at Colorado's Ludlow Mine Field to return to work, company "guards," engaged by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and other mine operators and sworn into the State Militia just for the occasion, attacked a union tent camp with machine guns, then set it afire. Five men, two women and 12 children died as a result.

Hole where bodies of 11 children and 2 women were recovered from after fire at Ludlow Tent Colony

 

19 January 1915
     World famous labor leader Joe Hill was arrested in Salt Lake City. He was convicted on trumped up murder charges, and was executed 21 months later despite worldwide protests and two attempts to intervene by President Woodrow Wilson.

19 August 1916
      Strikebreakers hired by the Everett Mills owner Neil Jamison attacked and beat picketing strikers in Everett, Washington. Local police watched and refused to intervene, claiming that the waterfront where the incident took place was Federal land and therefore outside their jurisdiction. (When the picketers retaliated against the strikebreakers that evening, the local police intervened, claiming that they had crossed the line of jursidiction.) The official I.W.W. toll was listed as 5 dead and 27 wounded.

Some of the victims of the Everett massacre.

12 July 1917
      After seizing the local Western Union telegraph office in order to cut off outside communication, several thousand armed vigilantes forced 1,185 men in Bisbee, Arizona into manure-laden boxcars and "deported" them to the New Mexico desert.

Marching from Lowell, Deportation of I.W.W's July 12, 1917

27 July 1918
     United Mine Workers organizer Ginger Goodwin was shot by a hired private policeman outside Cumberland, British Columbia.

Federal troops demonstrate their tools for protecting strikebreakers in 1918.

11 November 1919
      The Centralia Massacre. Violence erupted when members of the American Legion attempted to force their way into an IWW hall in Centralia, Washington during an Armistice Day anniversary celebration. Four Legionnaires were shot dead by members of the IWW, after which IWW organizer Wesley Everest was lynched by a local mob.

19 May 1920
     The Battle of Matewan. Despite efforts by police chief (and former miner) Sid Hatfield and Mayor C. Testerman to protect miners from interference in their union drive in Matewan, West Virginia, Baldwin-Felts detectives hired by the local mining company and thirteen of the company's managers arrived to evict miners and their families from the Stone Mountain Mine camp. A gun battle ensued, resulting in the deaths of 7 detectives, Mayor Testerman, and 2 miners. Baldwin-Felts detectives assasinated Sid Hatfield 15 months later, sparking off an armed rebellion of 10,000 West Virginia coal miners at "The Battle of Blair Mountain," dubbed "the largest insurrection this country has had since the Civil War"

22 June 1922
     Violence erupted during a coal-mine strike at Herrin, Illinois. Thirty-six were killed, 21 of them non-union miners.

14 June 1924
     A San Pedro, California IWW hall was raided; a number of children were scalded when the hall was demolished.

25 May 1925
      Two company houses occupied by nonunion coal miners were blown up and destroyed by labor "racketeers" during a strike against the Glendale Gas and Coal Company in Wheeling, West Virginia.

21 November 1927
      A fight broke out between Colorado state police and a group of striking coal miners, during which the unarmed miners were attacked with machine guns. It is unclear whether the machine guns were used by the police or by guards working for the mine. Six strikers were killed, and dozens were injured.

4 May 1931
      Gun-toting vigilantes attack striking miners in Harlan County, Kentucky. As of May 1932, eleven people had been killed: five deputies, four miners, a labor activist and a local storekeeper sympathetic to the strikers.

Bayonets keep striking Harlan pickets at bay.

7 March 1932
      Police kill striking workers at Ford's Dearborn, Michigan plant.

10 October 1933
      18,000 cotton workers went on strike in Pixley, California. Four were killed before a pay-hike was finally won.

1934
      The Electric Auto-Lite Strike. In Toledo, OH, two strikers were killed and over two hundred wounded by National Guardsmen. Some 1300 National Guard troops, including included eight rifle companies and three machine gun companies, were called in to disperse the protestors.

Funeral procession for the two men killed during strike of 1934

1 September - 22 September 1934
      A strike in Woonsocket, RI, part of a national movement to obtain a minimum wage for textile workers, resulted in the deaths of three workers. Over 420,000 workers ultimately went on strike.

30 May 1937
      Police killed 10 and wounded 30 during the "Memorial Day Massacre" at the Republic Steel plant in Chicago.

Troops confronting miners on a railroad track 1939

20 April 1948
      Labor leader Walter Reuther was shot and seriously wounded by would-be assassins.

UAWs organizers Walter Reuther and Richard Frankensteen afterr beating during an unsuccessful attempt to organize the Dearborn plant 1937

5 April 1956
      Columnist Victor Riesel, a crusader against labor racketeers, was blinded in New York City when a hired assailant threw sulfuric acid in his face.

3 November 1979
      Five labor organizers were killed at the Greensboro Massacre in Greensboro, North Carolina. A rally organized to protest recruitment by the KKK and American Nazi Party at Cone Mills and various other textile mills in the area, where workers were attempting to organize across racial lines, turned violent, resulting in the deaths of the organizers. It was subsequently revealed that U.S. government CIA collaborators marched alongside the KKK and Nazi collaborators, and that the Greensboro Police Department, an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, and a paid FBI informant were all aware of the potential for violence, yet did nothing to prevent it (surprisingly, there was not a single police officer present at the rally).

Medical workers treat a strike victim in 1934 

     As this long, but uncomplete, list illustrates, there has been no shortage of violence in labor disputes. It has not been the unions, however, who have caused it. The myth of the "union thug" is a fantasy of the right wing, who wants everyone to think the worker is the problem. Considering the hundreds of worker deaths and the many acts carried out against them and their families, it seems ludicrous to paint the labot movement as being bent on violence. Hopefully, the oppressive legislation being adopted by so many states will wake up the unions even more and re-kindle the organizing spirit that led to the rise of labor unionism and the subsequent creation of the American middle class.ng with

Republicans Get No Respect!

     Ever since the election there has been a lot of reflection on the future of the Republican Party and what it must do to improve its appeal to groups other than white males. Well, in case you’re interested, here are my ideas on the subject…..

     Many conservatives seem to believe the problem was their party’s failure to explain their policies and that they didn’t “reach out” enough to minority voters. “If only these voters understood our positions”, the Republicans argued, “they would see that we are the ones looking out for their interests”.

     I would suggest that the opposite is true. As the GOPs positions on many issues became clearer, more and more people came to understand how their election would be bad for the country.

     Here’s my advice: If you want those minorities and women to vote for your party, you need to initiate and support policies and programs that HELP those constituencies, not HURT them. It really is that simple.

     If you want blacks to vote your way, don’t try to make it harder for them to vote.

     If you want Hispanics to support you, don’t threaten to deport their grandchildren.

     If you want gay people to join your party, don’t deprive them of the same rights every other couple have.

     If you want women to join your cause, don’t mess with their reproductive rights.

    If the GOP cannot adjust to the changing demographics of our country and learn to support policies that serve the cause of the common people and not the wealthy, I fear they will go the way of the Whig Party. Americans deserve an honest debate about the direction our nation needs to take to get us back on the road to prosperity. Unfortunately, one of our political parties has chosen to only support policies that increase the flow of wealth upwards. It’s not surprising, therefore that the majority of Americans no longer see them as a viable alternative to the Democrats, who, despite their faults, at least acknowledge the importance of giving a hand up to EVERY American, not just the wealthy ones…..

    

    

    

High Noon For Stand Your Ground

     Although the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was a terrible tragedy, it has had one positive result: it has brought to the public’s attention the bizarre “Stand Your ground” laws that have been quietly slipped into law throughout the country. Despite your views on gun control and gun violence, you should think carefully about supporting this potentially catastrophic policy that brings back the days of the Wild West in our justice system.
     First of all, let me make it clear – I am not a gun owner and I have never supported the “right-to-carry” laws that many states have instituted. But this is America and I do support the rights of people to own firearms for their own protection and for recreational use. What I don’t support, however, is the right of gun owners to use their firearms on anyone they are frightened by with no accountability for their actions.

     Like many in my generation, I grew up watching Matt Dillon take down the bad guy in the streets of Dodge City. I cheered for John Wayne when he meted out frontier justice to some evil gunslinger. I, too, imagined myself standing up to a threatening criminal and protecting my family with some impressive gunplay. As a child, I owned toy guns and spent hours having my toy soldiers shoot each other in my recreated military campaigns. The gun, we were shown in endless movies and TV shows, was the “great equalizer,” a tool for ensuring justice in a time when there was no established law.

     But most of those westerns ended with the new sheriff coming to town and eventually, the lawman became the only one authorized to use deadly force to enforce the laws. Once the Marshall was appointed people settled their disputes in court rather than with showdowns in the street. The so-called “stand your ground” laws currently on the books today reverse this process and put gun fighting back as the method of choice for settling today’s disputes.

     How did this happen? Why have our state legislatures thrown caution out the window and allowed the gun lobby to take us back to a time when everyone is carrying and allowed to use their weapons on anyone they are afraid of? The story is, as you might expect, a tale of hardball lobbying, wishy-washy legislators and the efforts of the National Rifle Association to push gun ownership to its ludicrous  limits.

     The efforts of the NRA to get state laws changed to allow people to carry firearms in schools, church, bars and pretty much everywhere else has been going on for some time and has been amazingly successful. Playing on the image of the private individual using his gun to protect his family or prevent a crime, the NRA fed the fantasies of gun owners who saw themselves as heroes who were actually helping the police by augmenting their efforts. One by one, state legislatures caved into this dangerous idea: that people are safer when they, and everyone else they encounter, are carrying a firearm.

     Although fighting back with a gun seems like a no-brainer to gun owners, the idea that it makes you safer is definitely still under debate. Statistics have long shown that, if your firearm is ever used to shoot someone, it is far more likely to be a friend or family member than an actual criminal. Even for home protection, using your gun has far more hazards than benefits. Most gun owners fantasize about whipping out their firearm and bringing down the bad guy with a well-placed shot but using a firearm for home invasions has been far more problematic.

     The college where I work is also the home of a Police Academy and for years, their firearm training facility was located next to my office. They had a computer simulation device that placed an officer in a darkened room. Video was projected on a big screen and the officer had to determine whether various scenarios called for shooting or not. The officer’s gun was connected to a computer that measured whether the decision was correct, the response time and the accuracy of the shooting. It was a humbling experience and even well-trained police officers were often unable to make the right call, were slow to respond to the situation and often were wildly inaccurate when shooting under pressure situations. An untrained civilian who wakes up in the middle of the night hearing someone in their home is not likely to do any better. Wild gunshots can go through walls and ceilings and can place your family in greater danger than the intruder does. More children and teens died from gunfire in 2008 and 2009 — 5,750 — than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your handgun could be more dangerous to you and your family than a criminal.....

     But home invasions are one area where the courts have granted wide latitude in gun use and the “home is a castle” doctrine has allowed defendants to use deadly force without consequence in a number of high-profile cases. But using your firearm in your own home is a whole different situation than in the streets and this where the “Stand Your Ground” laws go totally off the track.

     Backed by the National Rifle Association, first in Florida and then around the country, state legislators have quietly pushed for expanding the right to use deadly force.  NRA leaders convinced their friends in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to take up the cause. This shady organization is known as a filter for business-backed legislation that is preapproved by corporate lobbyists. Their model legislation was so successful that twenty-one states now have laws giving citizens wide latitude to use deadly force no matter where they are. If not for the Martin case, most Americans would be blissfully unaware of this subversion of the legal process. This is a dangerously misguided policy change that opens up the door for a shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to settling your disputes. It only takes a little common sense to see the problem.

     If you logically extend the carry-anywhere, stand your ground concept into the future, you can begin to see the problems. First, people are afraid of all kinds of things and groups. Being afraid that someone is going to attack you should not give you the right to unilaterally shoot them. What if both people are armed and angry at each other (which happens all the time)? Both people would be legally justified in shooting the other under this doctrine. Each one can argue that they feared for their life and were therefore allowed to use deadly force. If Trayvon Martin had had a firearm, he would have been legally justified in killing Robert Zimmerman, who was definitely a threat to his safety.

     Such incidents tie the hands of police. The amazing thing is that Zimmerman was never even arrested for his actions. Once Zimmerman claimed he was acting in self-defense, Police had no recourse but to let him go. As the survivor, his explanation was the only valid one and he was not even initially charged with a crime.

     Since passage of Florida’s law — the nation’s first — the rate of justifiable homicide has tripled, according to a 2010 report by the St. Petersburg Times. Their study showed that the law had been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.  Law enforcement and prosecutors across Florida opposed the law for fear they couldn’t prosecute criminals. Indeed, in 93 cases involving 65 deaths in which the new law was a factor, 57 of them resulted in no charges or charges being dropped, the paper found in a review of cases. Seven other defendants were acquitted. Florida’s liberal gun laws, which allow most people except felons to buy guns, further set the stage for armed conflict. The results have not been encouraging….

     On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first “Stand Your Ground” law in the US, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.
     Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.  Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen’s yard, about 10 feet (3 meters) from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

     In 2007, Norman Borden became the first Palm Beach County defendant to beat murder charges under the law. In that case, Borden fired 14 shots at three men, killing two, who he said shouted threats at him and tried to run him over in a Jeep as he walked his four dogs.

     In 2010, a jury acquitted Timothy McTigue of murder charges in the 2007 shooting of Michael Palmer, who was unarmed. The strangers exchanged words and fought briefly before McTigue shot him in the head.

     Last year, a judge dismissed two first-degree murder charges against Michael Monahan, who shot Raymond Mohlman and Matthew Vittum to death during a dispute aboard a sailboat.

     Recently, a Florida judge threw out the second-degree murder case against a man who chased a burglar more than a block and stabbed him to death. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom cited "stand your ground," the Miami Herald reported.

     Thomas Baker, who in November 2010 went jogging shortly after midnight with his loaded pistol. He ran into unarmed, 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier on a jogging trail and ended up pumping several bullets into the man, who he said attacked him. The killing was ruled a justifiable homicide.

     Two months after Mustelier died, Barbara Standard's son, Scott Standard, was shot to death during an altercation with a neighbor even though he was not armed. The "stand your ground" defense applied, though, because the neighbor said he felt Standard -- who had thrown a rock at his truck and with whom he had a long rivalry -- was a threat.

     Two men argue whether a teenager should be allowed to skateboard in a Tampa park. The fight ends with one man shooting the other dead in front of his 8-year-old daughter.

     A 15-year-old died after two gangs brawled in Tallahassee, leaving no one accountable for his death.

     All of these incidents highlight the dangers of this dangerous legislation that has been slipped into state law under the radar of the public. The Stand Your Ground laws have resulted in vigilante-ism, with untrained and unqualified people using deadly force where we do not allow our law enforcement to do so, for crimes we do not punish. As Alcee Hastings, a Democratic congressman from Florida put it: "This misguided law does not make our streets safer, rather it turns our streets into a showdown at the OK Corral. But this is not the Wild West. We are supposed to be a civilized society. Let Trayvon's death not be for naught. Let us honor his life by righting this wrong."