#gunsense: Today is the Day! (And so is tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow. And the day after that.)

Even before last Saturday’s mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue, gun violence had emerged as a major issue leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. Our country’s recent history is fraught with a cycle of tragic mass shootings that stir public outcry for better firearm regulation, only for the outrage to wane with time, and with it any efforts to pass new laws… until the next mass shooting.

Recently, though, a more sustained push for gun legislation reform has taken hold, perhaps because the frequency and intensity of mass shooting incidents has increased. The most visible advocates for gun violence prevention are survivors of a February 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, during which a former student used an AR-17 semi-automatic rifle to kill 17 students and staff and injure 17 others. In the wake of the incident, students and their families organized protests andother events to draw attention to the issue of gun violence prevention. They also founded organizations advocating for the passage of legislation that would make it harder to obtain large-capacity semi-automatic weapons. One such entity is the Families vs. Assault Rifles Political Action Committee (FAMSVSARPAC), whose stated aim is to keep military-grade weapons out of schools, chiefly by backing political candidates who support legislation banning assault rifles from the general public. As their name suggests, it has pitted the students and their families squarely against the National Rifle Association (NRA). FAMSVSARPAC president Jeff Kasky, whose son Cameron is one of the students at the forefront of post-Parkland activism, contrasts the “field and stream NRA” of old with the current “Call of Duty” NRA.  He notes that though individual NRA members often respond to polls indicating their support of background checks, waiting periods, and other regulation of firearms, “NRA leadership adamantly oppose any legislation that impacts theon-demand availability of deadly weapons of all kinds, which would slow downsales and bring down revenues for their constituent gun manufacturers”.  Moreover, the NRA has weaponized the Second Amendment, religious messaging, and the general concept of patriotism in order to stoke fear and thereby increase support for candidates who promise not to address firearm regulation while in office.

Though the Parkland shooting has prompted more restrictive gun legislation in certain states, federal laws to the same effect have been notoriously elusive. In 2013, the Senate failed to pass a bill to increase background check requirements. Viewed at the time as “low-hanging fruit” of the gun-control legislation forest, the bill would have required background checks at gun shows and for internet sales, without imposing them for “private transactions” between family and friends. Although crafted as a bipartisan compromise, the political environment at the time prevented certain Senate Democrats from supporting the law. Specifically, several Democrats from Republican-leaning states were up for reelection in 2014 and feared that coming out in favor of gun regulations – even those as minimal as laid out in the bill – would doom their chances of reelection. This outcome illustrates the insidious grip held by the NRA on our political process: the organization has rather handily achieved its legislative objectives while bankrolling only a minority of elected officials and accurately representing the views of a small swath of Americans.

As a result of this fraught political climate, other groups have emerged to advocate for apolitical, community-based approaches aimed at reducing gun violence. Speaking at a recent event on Long Island, Sandy Hook Promise founder Nicole Hockley used drunk driving as an analogy. While laws against driving under the influence of alcohol were necessary in deterring the harmful behavior, marked decreases in the number of drunk driving incidents only occurred after several decades of advocacy for a change in culture among at risk groups (namely, teens first experimenting with alcohol).  Hockley urged ignoring people “at the extremes” of the gun control debate, and fighting apathy amongst those in the middle who are disillusioned about ensuring safety in our communities. To this end, a lot of Sandy Hook Promise’s programs aim to address at-risk behaviors, the signs of which often manifest in middle school and high school. They provide training for teachers and others to recognize the signals of someone in crisis, before they obtain a gun and/or attempt to use it. Sandy Hook Promise also advocates for anonymous reporting systems, whereby individuals can notify local authorities of suspicious activity without compromising their identities. When it comes to addressing harmful antisocial behavior, the organization advocates for disciplinary methods that address the underlying causes in a non-confrontational way, instead of merely pushing students away with suspension or expulsion. Another program called Start With Hello trains children to interact with their peers in a way that reduces bullying and social isolation. Teaching children to reach out and include others prevents vulnerable kids from withdrawing from society, a necessary first step in avoiding the seclusion that can set certain individuals on a path toward the commission of mass violence. Sandy Hook Promise advocates for acceptance, community, and openness, in sharp contrast with the NRA’s individualistic, fear-based methods of persuasion.

The foregoing yields a mixed message with respect to the election. Voters should visit gunsensevoter.org to learn which candidates in their local races will advocate for gun control legislation, and cast their ballots accordingly. Overcoming the NRA’s influence will require electing a sufficient majority of officials not under their financial purview, who are thereby willing to push for more restrictive firearms laws. That this has proven to be a difficult hurdle demonstrates that Election Day is merely a small part of the necessary action. The rest of the year, it is imperative that we work toward building communities in which children receive support and attention that prevents them from straying onto a path of dangerous behavior. In addition to overcoming the apathy that sets in between high-fatality mass shootings, we must push back against societal forces that weaken the bonds between neighbors and classmates. 

Voting for #gunsense is only the beginning. Acting for #gunsense needs to be something we do every day.

Land of the Free (to Disagree)

If you're reading this, you're probably aware of the #TakeAKnee movement. Started by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick last year, the campaign involves kneeling during the national anthem at sporting events as a protest to police brutality and other racial injustices plaguing this country's people of color. Over the weekend the movement gained increased attention after criticism from the White House and other elected officials.

During their Sunday games, most NFL teams participated in the protest in one way or another - players kneeled, sat, or stood together with arms linked in unity. Some teams elected to stay off the field during the anthem in an attempt to avoid the controversy altogether. Interestingly, the Pittsburgh Steelers decided on this course of action so that offensive tackle Alejandro Villanueva, the sole player on the team who wanted to stand for the anthem as usual, would not be visibly singled out. Nonetheless, he could be seen standing at the entrance to the field, with other players and coaches behind him in the tunnel (some of them with their hands on their hearts in salute to the flag as well).

These events have been reported on and scrutinized from a variety of angles, so what follows are a few less popular observations.

1) NFL teams and players are private actors. 

There's something to be said about the unfortunate pressure faced by professional athletes as public figures in this situation.  If they come down on the wrong side of such a controversy, they risk alienating fans or creating discord amongst their teammates and/or team ownership... all of which puts at risk the success of the team on the field and, as a result, its financial success. Kaepernick, a free agent at the end of last season, remains unsigned as the current season enters its fourth week; some speculate that his acts of protest amount to a liability that no NFL team wants to take on.

It's an ominous reminder to current players that despite their right to free public expression, their employers are private actors who hold influence over their lives, since the First Amendment merely proscribes the government from taking action that infringes on speech. NFL employment is governed by league-wide collective bargaining protections as well as the terms of each individual contract. At least one reporter has concluded that a team could probably "fire" a player for protesting the national anthem, due to vague provisions about "personal conduct" and "public respect" for the game. Regardless, most of the official statements released by the teams expressed unwavering support for the players' desire to peacefully influence social justice, so it's not likely that participation in #TakeAKnee will result in any player dismissals.

2) Both sides of the argument are diminished by ignorance.

As with most politically-charged disagreements, this issue has been improperly reduced to an either/or, "us-versus-them" choice. The impetus to "pick a side" is particularly ripe in the powder keg of social media. Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms are alight with posts that proclaim support for #TakeAKnee in the name of free expression, while others deride the demonstrations as unpatriotic.

Opponents of #TakeAKnee diminish their own argument by misunderstanding key components of the movement - namely, jumping to the conclusion that anyone protesting the anthem is inherently unpatriotic. Patriotism is defined as "vigorous support for one's country".  This doesn't necessarily imply support for the flag or the military at the expense of other societal causes. There's a popular meme circulating which states that "Thinking NFL players are 'protesting the flag' is like thinking Rosa Parks was protesting transportation."

Another bit of nuance missing from the discussion is that critics of #TakeAKnee are fully entitled to their feelings. The same First Amendment that allows protest also permits vocal opposition to the movement. Nonetheless, the most legitimate criticisms of the protest are those which recognize the true basis of the campaign. Villanueva articulated an understanding of the issues Kaepernick seeks to call attention to, despite his opinion that doing so during the national anthem is inappropriate.

Conversely, it delegitimizes the campaign when its supporters call out certain public figures by name, imploring them to #TakeAKnee. A protest such as this should stand on its own merits, attracting support from those who genuinely believe in the cause without pressure to cater to a certain fanbase. It is human nature for there to be disagreements in society, and the change the movement seeks to effectuate will not come to fruition immediately.

If and when circumstances do improve, it stands to reason that there will still be opponents to the cause. I'm reminded of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, namely the proliferation of American flags and other pro-U.S. displays. After a time, a chorus of critics emerged decrying this era of so-called "bandwagon patriotism"; that is to say, they dismissed an objectively positive movement as a mere fad instead of a genuine display of national pride.

3) Avoiding the controversy may not be possible... nor necessary. 

For the aforementioned reasons involving possible fan alienation and its effect on their bottom line, it's understandable that NFL teams sought to avoid controversial optics involving the national anthem. But staying off the field as a team seems like a compromise where everyone loses, since it deprives players the opportunity to protest OR to participate in the traditional anthem ritual. Linking arms, too, smacks of a half-measure, though it amounts to an act of protest insofar as defying the "normal" ritual of standing with a hand on one's heart for the anthem.

The teams' statements, though, told a different story. Many of these explicitly pushed back against Trump's remarks that the NFL should quash the protests. One owner went so far as to thoughtfully enunciate the dichotomy between respecting our country's symbols of freedom, "including the right to have differences of opinion". All of the remarks emphasized the role of sport as both a unifier in society and an appropriate avenue for influencing social justice.

Hence, despite some calls that professional athletes "stick to sports," the NFL has afforded some latitude to the #TakeAKnee campaign. Before it's over, there is likely to be further discussion, conflict, and controversy. As I said before, it is both our nature and our right to disagree.