Breaking Rank (16 page)

            
QUESTION
: In general, would you say you favor stricter gun control, or less strict gun control?

Bill Clinton, who as president championed the assault weapons ban and pushed for other modest but important gun control measures, makes clear the consequences of tangling with the NRA in his autobiography,
My Life
(2004). Some Democrats had urged the president to keep the assault weapons ban off the table during the run-up to the '94 congressional races. Clinton refused, and in his book writes that those who warned him the Democrats would lose a lot of seats “were right, and I was wrong.”

In the 1994 election, an astounding fifty-four Democrats were voted out of office. This included Tom Foley, Speaker of the House, much beloved representative of my home state, and friend to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle (even Dick Cheney, in his 2004 vice presidential debate against John Edwards, referred to Foley as a pal), and Jack Brooks, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Of the twenty-four house members the NRA had targeted in that election, nineteen were defeated.

How does an organization of a mere three million members have such power over the U.S. Congress? The American Association of Retired People has
thirty-five million
members, yet the NRA wields far greater influence. Perhaps the answer lies in what Joan Esteban and Debraj Ray found in their research on political influence. Citing the “Olson Paradox,” they point out how “larger groups may be less successful than smaller groups in furthering their interests.” It has something to do with membership anonymity and inertia in the larger groups. And the fact that over 90 percent of NRA members consistently show up at the polls and vote—and that a lot of people who favor sensible gun control don't.

Tom Foley came from eastern Washington. He understood his constituents' love affair with hunting and firearms, yet he dared to support the
assault rifle ban (which had the backing of the Major Cities Chiefs and the NRA to paint a target on his back. They pulled out all their big weapons and made a trophy of one of the most decent, principled men ever to serve in Congress.

In pursuit of more and better anti–gun violence education, we developed in Seattle a program called “Options, Choices and Consequences.” Cofounded by Dr. Roy G. Farrell, president of the Washington chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, we aimed the curriculum at kids but were confident it would capture the imagination of teachers and parents as well. We called it our “cops and docs” program: police officers, prosecutors, and ER doctors and nurses teaming up in the classroom at all middle schools in the city.

The cops' message? If you're packing, we're tracking. It doesn't matter that you took the gun to school for protection, or that you were “just keeping it for a friend.” Zero tolerance was the message. And we enforced it.

A deputy prosecutor followed the cop into class and told the kids, “If the police arrest you we're going to charge you, aggressively prosecute you, and seek the stiffest sentence possible.”

When an innocent sixteen-year-old Melissa Fernandez was struck by a bullet meant for a rival gang member outside Ballard High School, her death resulted in the arrest of every kid in the drive-by vehicle. The driver and two of the three passengers claimed that since they didn't do the shooting they ought not to be charged. Well, they were charged, and convicted, along with the shooter. All were sentenced to major jail or prison time. That sent an icy message to Seattle's banger community, as did my statement to the press and to my own detectives: “If there is a drive-by shooting in this city, there will
not
be a retaliatory drive-by.”

Reporters and cops were incredulous: Given the pride and avenging compulsion of young people, how could this expectation possibly be met? My response: “We're smarter than the bangers, we're more organized, we have more resources. We're adults. We're going to ‘adopt' every gun-toting,
gangbanging kid in town, inform him of the new PD policy, and let him know the consequences of his actions.” There were no retaliatory drive-by shootings on my watch. In fact gang-related shootings virtually disappeared from the radar screen.

But it was the “docs” who really captured the attention of the students: they explained to them what bullets do to bodies. Then showed them. The classroom exhibits—adult diapers, catheters, and the like—disabused the kids of their feelings of immortality, of invincibility. Recognizing the importance of vanity (and feelings of insecurity) in the lives of teenagers, they showed pictures of kids who'd taken one to the face. Or the spinal column.

Three years into the program, graduates of Options, Choices and Consequences were surveyed. The students were:

       
•
  
90 percent more likely to report a fellow student who carried a weapon to school

       
•
  
91 percent more aware of the serious medical consequences of weapons violence

       
•
  
94 percent more likely to believe that firearms are a poor way to resolve conflicts

Ninety-three percent said they would recommend the program to fellow eighth graders.

Clearly, the kids were impressed. But would they act on their feelings and change their behavior? Would they snitch off a fellow student who brought a gun to school?

In the year following the introduction of the program, reporting of school weapons declined, statewide, by thirty percent. In the Seattle school district, reporting went
up
, ninety percent. There was also a significant reduction in gun violence and school gun incidents during the first three years of the program—however, longitudinal studies, currently underway, are necessary to establish the link between OCC and these heartening reductions.

When Americans get a deeper understanding of the scope, nature, and financial and emotional costs of gun violence, I believe they'll agitate and mobilize for change. Just as they did against the tobacco industry which, despite continuing to spend a hundred thousand dollars a day on Congressional lobbying, has taken some mighty hits in the past three decades.

I can be “for gun control,” but if I don't vote what good is my opinion? If I don't help honorable lawmakers like Tom Foley stand up to the NRA, what good is my opinion? If I don't tell my elected representatives I'll not vote for them
unless
they support gun control, what good is my opinion? If I don't write letters to the editor and to my congressional delegation, what good is my opinion? If I don't join Washington Ceasefire, or the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or the Million Mom March, or the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (now united with MMM), what good is my opinion?

Nicholas D. Kristof, in his
New York Times
column of November 13, 2004 (“Lock and Load”), wrote, “Nothing kills Democratic candidates' prospects more than guns. If it weren't for guns, President-elect Kerry might now be conferring with incoming Senate Majority Leader Daschle.” Maybe. But I couldn't disagree more with his assertion that “. . . nationally, gun control is dead.” Citing the grisly statistics of gun murders, gun accidents, and gun suicides, Kristof argues that a “public health approach to try to make [guns] much safer” is the way to go. (That is what we did in Seattle with “Options,” and in our work with Harborview Medical Center to promote gun safety, particularly through lockboxes.) But given the public's strong, albeit “latent,” support for reasonable gun control laws, it's premature to declare the movement dead.

It's long overdue: a persistent, durable grassroots campaign to counter the power and influence of the NRA. The legislative agenda of such a campaign?

       
•
  
Reinstitute, immediately, a total ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

       
•
  
Outlaw, or continue to outlaw, armor-piercing bullets, “plastic” guns that can defeat airport screening devices, and any other weapon or ammunition
designed to kill people.

       
•
  
Close the “gun show” loophole in the Brady Bill.
*

       
•
  
Require that all firearms be registered.

       
•
  
License every gun owner—contingent upon his or her satisfying the requirements of a certified gun safety course.

We should continue—as politicians and the NRA regularly remind us—to aggressively enforce
existing
gun laws. We should continue the fight in the courts to hold gun manufacturers liable for the production of “unsafe” firearms. And we should push for the development of what Kristof calls a “smart gun,” which can be fired only by a person authorized to possess it.