Joyce Foundation seeking help to further gun-control effort

[Molly B.]

I think this confirms our belief that the gun-control movement is losing momentum.

 

 

The Joyce Foundation

 

As you know, the Joyce Foundation has long been committed to the prevention of gun violence. Our

hearts go out to the families of the victims of the Tucson shooting, and to the many others whose

lives are touched by gun violence every day. I wanted to share with you the following column that

appeared today in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

 

Best,

 

Ellen S. Alberding

President, The Joyce Foundation

 

January 14, 2011

 

Philanthropy Must Challenge the Idea That Gun Violence Can't Be Stopped

By Ellen S. Alberding

 

We see this latest tragedy and ask, How could this happen? How could it not happen, when we

systematically make it easier for angry and troubled people to get ever-more-powerful guns, and

harder for the police and public-health people to stop the mayhem?

 

Those words appeared in The Chronicle of Philanthropy in 2007, in the days after the Virginia Tech

massacre. Three and a half years later, our nation’s gun laws have gotten weaker, the gun lobby has

become emboldened, and the toll of deaths and injuries caused by firearms has grown. With few

exceptions, our leaders continue to sit on the sidelines.

 

Now, once again, we mourn the victims of a senseless shooting.

 

Over the past decade, I have watched gun-violence prevention fade from philanthropy’s agenda.

Saturday’s events offer a startling example of what that trend means for all of us who work in

philanthropy.

 

The Tucson shooting makes clear that gun violence threatens not just public health and public

safety; it threatens the core of our democracy. Our democratic system depends on an open discussion

of ideas, even when the parties to that discussion disagree. Threats of violence, and the easy

opportunity to act on those threats, create a chilling effect on public discourse that undermines

the democratic process, deters people from running for public office, and ultimately imperils our

progress on any public issue.

 

I agree with President Obama that we must work to return civility to our public discourse. And as

the president said in his memorial speech in Tucson, “We cannot and will not be passive in the face

of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the

prospects of such violence in the future.”

 

Let's start by challenging the assumption that there's no way to stop gun violence. Gun violence in

the United States is not a constitutionally derived inevitability. Gun violence, whether directed

at a member of Congress or a child walking home from school, happens because our elected officials

have made a series of deliberate policy judgments that guns should be easy to buy, sell, and carry

by nearly anyone, anywhere, any time.

 

In this case, those policy judgments enabled the suspected Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, to buy a

Glock semi-automatic pistol and 33-round ammunition magazine, conceal that gun and ammunition as he

traveled to a public event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and fire more than 30 rounds before

pausing to reload.

 

If it's not obvious that gun policy matters, consider that Mr. Loughner's high-capacity ammunition

magazine was illegal in the United States until 2004, when Congress allowed the ban to expire. As

The Wall Street Journal explains, the federal assault-weapons ban “barred dealers from selling

magazines holding more than 10 rounds.” A federal law-enforcement official said Mr. Loughner used

a magazine with about three times that capacity. “Without that extended magazine, you would not

have seen the body count as high,” the official said.

 

What's more, until just last year, Mr. Loughner would have at least been required to apply for and

obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of Public Safety before he could legally have carried a

gun, but the Arizona legislature abolished the permit requirement. So Mr. Loughner was easily able

to buy and carry a gun despite his history of mental-health issues, drug use, suspension from

school, and rejection by the U.S. Army.

 

Arizona is only the latest example of the trend toward relaxed rules on carrying guns in public

places. Laws in several states now allow concealed guns in bars, places of worship, and public

parks.

 

Sadly, past experience tells us that eventually the shock of last weekend's events will fade from

the headlines. But what will not fade is the relentless toll of gun violence: Every day in the

United States, an average of 34 people are murdered with guns. Nearly 50 more are killed in gun

accidents and suicides. And 183 more are injured by gunfire. Every day.

 

In philanthropy we have the ability to gather great minds to tackle tough issues by harnessing our

resources, setting measurable goals, and carrying out a sound strategy. I have seen the nonprofit

world's great achievements in areas as diverse as scientific research, early-childhood education,

public health, and human rights.

 

It is time for us to bring our collective leadership together to push for reasonable public

policies that protect our citizens and our democracy from the scourge of gun violence.

 

Each one of us must challenge the assumption, best stated in 2009 by Wayne LaPierre, executive vice

president of the National Rifle Association, that "the guys with the guns make the rules." If this

is true, it is a direct threat to our democratic process.

 

Foundations can play an important role in turning this issue around. Our resources can help reduce

the financial imbalance that allows one side to overwhelm the debate on even the most modest policy

changes. Putting our money into research on ways to prevent gun violence, analysis of the public

policies that make the most difference, and advocacy efforts that mobilize the public can help

ensure a balanced discussion about how our society should handle guns.

 

We're ready to do our part and share our expertise after many years of focusing on this issue in

our own grant making. Now we need more hands to take on this issue—and to promote the kind of

democracy that inspired Representative Giffords to invite her constituents to share their concerns

at her "Congress on Your Corner" event.

 

Ellen S. Alberding is president of the Joyce Foundation, in Chicago.

[Federal Farmer]

Just send this off via Joyce's "Contact Us" page (whitespace added here for clarity).

 

In "The Chronicle of Philanthropy", Ellen Alberding asserted that "until just last year, Mr. Loughner would have at least been required to apply for and obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of Public Safety before he could legally have carried a gun" as if that law would have prevented Loughner from carrying his firearm to that meeting just as the laws that prevented Cho from carrying his firearms did nothing to stop him.

 

This is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Additionally, your characterization of the expired "Assault Weapons Ban" is incorrect. Only the sale of those magazines to civilians was banned. They continued to be lawfully possessed by civilians and lawfully manufactured and sold for law enforcement use.

 

It is ironic that the very items that are characterized as "weapons of mass destruction" are legitimately used by law enforcement. It is not my understanding that law enforcement has the need to utilize "weapons of mass destruction".

 

This is why gun rights activists like myself refuse to allow your proposed infringements of the rights enjoyed by all law-abiding people.

[mstrat]

Here's why the Joyce Foundation makes me want to smack my head against a brick wall:

 

1) Constantly trying to circumvent the constitution. I would at least respect them if they were honest and just said "Our goal is to chip away legal gun ownership until we can ultimately repeal the Second Amendment."

 

But even disregarding the legal/constitutionality issues...

 

2) Gun control doesn't work. They know it. We know it. CDC knows it. DOJ knows it. Criminals know it. Everyone knows it.

 

So why then, does the Joyce Foundation continue to throw money down this drain? If they're willing to write the check, there are a hundred other places where that money will stop more violence:

 

* Greater numbers of police (time and again this is the #1 factor)

* Real, genuine school reform. Our schools, as a whole, do not serve students of low socioeconomic status (e.g. only 1 out of 3 or 4 black males graduate in CPS). Kids need genuine hope and opportunity that staying in school is worth the time and effort.

* Youth centers, after-school programs, and other initiatives to keep those kids off the streets and out of trouble.

* JOBS. JOBS. JOBS. People who can find work, don't have to sell drugs.

 

I promise you that any sizable investment into any of those areas WILL help prevent some violence, and moreover vastly improve the lives of many Americans.

 

Taking away my magazines; preventing me from buying an AR rifle; making me jump through hoops to get a "license;" preventing me from carrying a firearm...

is not saving any lives. Nor is enacting these restrictions upon any of the other people who obey the law.

 

If their goal is really to save lives, why are they beating a dead horse? Either they're the stupidest (tiny group of) people in this country, or they have another agenda. Hrmm.

[anonymous too]

What's more, until just last year, Mr. Loughner would have at least been required to apply for and

obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of Public Safety before he could legally have carried a

gun

 

I find this confusing. Looks like to me they are saying that if you obtain a permit you can carry!

[Yas]

If I recall correctly, over 10 -15 years ago in Sedonia AZ , my pal, An Az resident open carrying a .45 long colt western revolver on his hip in plain view. I know at that time he had no permits. There were some towns such as Tombstone that had "open carry restrictions". That had to be observed.

 

 

What's with Alberding's poppycock about a permit last year?

[markthesignguy]

If I recall correctly, over 10 -15 years ago in Sedonia AZ , my pal, An Az resident open carrying a .45 long colt western revolver on his hip in plain view. I know at that time he had no permits. There were some towns such as Tombstone that had "open carry restrictions". That had to be observed.

 

 

What's with Alberding's poppycock about a permit last year?

 

Either ignorance (unlikely) or a deliberate lie. Arizona IS open carry, for a LONG time. I personally did so in the mid 1990's.

[lee n. field]

What's more, until just last year, Mr. Loughner would have at least been required to apply for and

obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of Public Safety before he could legally have carried a

gun

 

I find this confusing. Looks like to me they are saying that if you obtain a permit you can carry!

 

Arizona went "constitutional carry" (open or concealed, "just do it") as of this year. That's probably what the writer is thinking of.

[Drylok]

I just can't read through their garbage any more. Like someone else said, I would have more respect for them if they just were honest and said "we know gun control doesn't work, we just flat out don't like guns and want the 2A repealed"

[Jeffrey]

What's more, until just last year, Mr. Loughner would have at least been required to apply for and

obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of Public Safety before he could legally have carried a

gun

 

I find this confusing. Looks like to me they are saying that if you obtain a permit you can carry!

They just want to ignore the facts. If he did this last year, five years ago, 20 years ago, it doesn't matter. His mindset was to flat out kill. There are no permits for that.

[sctman800]

It seems to me the Joyce F. is saying that if Loughner had to apply for a permit to carry and been denied, he wouldn't have carried a firearm when setting out to kill as many people as possible. Jim.