GUNSENSE

NO, JOHNNY, MLK WOULDN'T HAVE SUPPORTED THE AMERICAN GUN LOBBY

Mention the name Martin Luther King, Jr. online in connection with nonviolence or reasonable gun-control measures, and soon enough, you’ll be reminded of how ignorant you are and that, in fact, King applied for a license to carry a firearm and was denied one, but obviously supported concealed carry and any other form of armed resistance that your troll cares to attribute to him.

As always, this incident from King’s life is taken out of context and is grossly misrepresented. Here’s what happened.

On the evening of January 30, 1956, Martin Luther King’s house was bombed in Montgomery, Alabama. King was at a meeting at the time, but his wife, Coretta, and his infant daughter, Yolanda (not three months old), were home. Because they were in the back of the house at the time of the explosion, they miraculously escaped injury. When King heard the news, he rushed home to find a group of angry and armed African-Americans vowing revenge. His response to them was unequivocal and clear:

If you have weapons, take them home.  If you do not have them, please do not seek them. We cannot solve this problem through violence. We must meet violence with non-violence. Love your enemies; bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.

Still, King’s advisors were concerned, and they urged him to consider the matter of self-defense. The threats against King’s life from the white racists in the area were constant, violent, and often specific. And the bombing gave King pause. Finally, at the urging of his colleagues, he applied for a license to carry a gun in his car. Of course, his application was denied.

But then King had one of the most important realizations of his life. In Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story, King describes it:

Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. (131)

King refused to arm himself, even in the most dire circumstances.

So King would not have supported the American gun lobby, sponsored by the NRA, that dominates the current gun-discussion with intimidation and fear-mongering; and your troll's attempt to recruit King to the gun lobby's camp is fatuous and a sign either of desperation or ignorance.

Probably both; they often travel side-by-side.

King meant what he said: violence is not the way.

THE ONLY THREE FACTS THAT MATTER ABOUT GUN-VIOLENCE: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS

If you're new to the gun-violence prevention (GVP) movement, and wade into the social-media environment brandishing the hashtag #gunsense, you might be overwhelmed at the intensity of the disagreements. 

Gun-violence in America is a big issue now, although you wouldn't know it by looking at our elected officials in Congress. They won't talk about it—it's poison to their electoral health; it drains their coffers.  So Congress has punted.

It's up to the rest of us to address this issue.

I became aware of the movement through a long-term interest in nonviolence, but an Arkansas bill, introduced in 2013, to put guns on our college campuses, brought me into the political fray. 

I've been here for two years; so I'm a neophyte. But I've learned a few things during those two years that I wanted to pass on to those who are just getting started. When I become discouraged—which happens regularly—I remember three facts, and these three facts alone have always reminded me why this movement is so important. And why it's worth our time to continue, even when we feel dispirited.

1. Of the 32 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with per capita annual income higher than $15,000, the U.S. has 30% of the population but 90% of the firearm homicides (source).
2. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.
3. Women are 16 times more likely in America to be killed with a firearm by a male acquaintance than by a male stranger (source).

America has a problem with violence. We are also charitable, democratic (loosely and plutocratically defined), inventive, dynamic, engaged, diverse. 

But we are also a violent people. And the roots of this violence are not clearly understood.

But we know this: not only are we killing each other at a rate higher than other countries in our peer group, but we are also killing women and children at an accelerated rate.

We're mowing them down, in fact.

First, this is inexcusable. Second, it is a national embarrassment. And third, we can solve the problem and move gradually toward a less violent culture (it is already happening in certain areas of American life, and much heroic work is being done across the spectrum of American social justice).

So the next time you are confronted with that tired and worn-out maze of statistical arguments that would have you believe that swimming-pool drownings (#poolsense), or suicide by hanging (#ropesense), or medical malpractice (#doctorsense) are the real problems, remember these numbers: 30/90, 17, 16.

And this sentence: we live in a country that claims 30% of the OECD's population, 90% of its gun fatalities, and in a country where our young people are 17 times more likely to die by firearms than in other developed nations, and where women are 16 times more likely to die at the hands of men they know than at the hands of men they don't know.

We say this to ourselves, and then we get back to work.

 

 

IT'S DONE! THE AR 90TH IS IN THE BOOKS! OPT-OUT OF CONCEALED CARRY PRESERVED!

The Arkansas 90th General Assembly is over, and Representative Collins' HB 1077, the bill to put guns on our college campuses, was never heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee after it left the House Education Committee, heavily amended.

So for the next two years, the Boards of Trustees will meet and vote whether or not to opt out of Act 226, the law already on the books that allows guns on our campuses. For the past two years, the Boards of Trustees have unanimously voted to opt out of the law, and we hope this united opposition continues.

 It was an unpopular bill, and the affected constituency—faculty, staff, students, administrators—were united in opposition to it. 

On the front lines, though, we had some very brave, articulate, and dedicated legislators from both sides of the aisle who not only listened to us, but acted, both publicly and privately, to keep our campuses safe. To them, we owe the greatest debt of gratitude.

And it's unproductive, in my opinion, to adopt what Martin Luther King, Jr. called the "victor's psychology." Better to say that just for a moment in the early months of 2015, with a concerted community effort, there was just enough sanity to go around, to tip the scales, just a bit, in our favor. 

I'm not sure why that sanity arose, whether it has any staying power, and whether we fully understand what processes—political, social, psychological—gave rise to it, but I can say this: I greatly appreciate your support, encouragement, and dedication to keeping our campuses gun-free.

And this too: without your help, I am certain that those scales would not have tipped. 

Over the next two years, I have some general plans for keeping our campuses within this realm of sanity, and as I develop them, I will keep you all informed and depend upon you for your advice and direction.

For now, though, I'll give your inbox a rest.

But thanks again. Your support was sustaining. And it clearly mattered.