By Donna Mo
In the wake of the Virginia Beach shooting that killed 12 people last week, the national debate continues to pit gun restriction advocates against those pushing for gun freedom in America.
But gun violence expert Robyn Thomas says there are signs of hope for those fighting against gun violence, and she outlined them in a recent talk hosted by the Walter Capps Center for Ethics, Religion, and Public Life at UC Santa Barbara.
“It is an absolutely devastating crisis,” Thomas said. “But we have momentum on our side.”
Thomas is the executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that works to create safer gun laws through researching, writing, enacting, and defending laws designed to prevent gun violence.
Thomas’ talk came a few days after the fifth anniversary of the the 2014 Isla Vista shooting in which six students died and 14 others were injured. She was invited to speak at a memorial for the IV shooting at UCSB.
“Capps Center is honored to make our contribution to remembering the victims of the shooting through this event,” said Religious Studies professor Kathleen Moore, who helped organized the talk.
Thomas believes that gun violence has grown because there is no strong adversary to the National Rifle Association (NRA), America’s largest gun rights organization.
“We don’t have an organization that has the kinds of lobbying dollars and the kinds of mechanisms at play that could balance the NRA’s power,” Thomas said. “So over the last 20 or 30 years, they’ve been incredibly effective at stifling any progress at the federal level.”
The United States has little federal regulation of guns, with no universal background check required. The NRA has continued to control the conversation about guns, particularly as a result of the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which forbids physicians at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying gun violence. After the Dickey Amendment passed, the federal government could not conduct research on gun violence.
“It really helps the NRA argue that gun laws don’t work. But every single study that has been done more or less shows the opposite,” Thomas argued.
With no new federal research, no national law, and as an unopposed organization, the NRA was able to construct a largely successful campaign to ensure that the Second Amendment, which states that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” is interpreted as an individual right, rather than a militia right.
But guns are a large threat, Thomas said, and often lead to preventable damage, especially when used in suicide attempts, domestic violence, and urban violence.
Thomas said research shows that guns are used in only 5 percent of suicide attempts, but are responsible for over 50 percent of suicide deaths. The presence of a gun can do overwhelmingly higher damage than a suicide attempt without a gun. “There’s a realization that suicide is an impulsive act, and that easy availability in guns is tremendously impactful on it ending in death,” Thomas said.
To prevent this, a few states have already passed the Extreme Risk Protection Order, a law that allows police to temporarily take away a gun from an individual if the individual is thought to be at risk. This law was created immediately after the Isla Vista shooting.
In domestic violence cases, women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser has a gun. The way to combat this is to hold stricter background checks, says Thomas. “We need expand the category of who to prohibit from gun purchase.”
Currently, the federal government has a very narrow list of who counts as domestic abusers. Authorities do not count stalkers or ex-dating partners, people Thomas believes should be looked at when doing a background check. Thirty-three states have already enacted tighter background checks, but the we have yet to pass a law on background checks at a federal level.
Gun violence also occurs in urban communities, where it disproportionately affects people of color. Thomas found that gun violence in these communities is perpetrated by and against a small group of individuals and local leaders are able to define the most at-risk individuals in these communities.
The best solutions for gun violence in urban communities are research-driven intervention and prevention programs, says Thomas. Often, these programs include street outreach workers building trust. Offering individuals drug rehab, job training, anger management, and other forms of support allows potential gun offenders to find alternative paths.
Thomas found that these programs have been largely successful and don’t require much money or legislation. In Oakland, California, investment in community-based intervention and prevention programs reduced gun violence by more than 50 percent in six years. Connecticut invested $1 million in three cities and reduced gun violence by almost 70 percent in seven years.
And though it seems as if nothing is done about gun violence even after mass shootings, Thomas notes that things are changing, especially since the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting which saw the death of 26 people, 20 of them children. “Americans really stood up for the first time and demanded change,” she said.
When Thomas testified at a congressional hearing this past February, she saw every single Democrat in Congress show up. It seemed as if every person in the audience was a student wearing a “March for Our Lives” t-shirt. These students sat through all eight hours of the hearing, making their presence known.
“It doesn’t always feel like it’s changing until we get to a certain tipping point,” Thomas said. “But I think we are very, very close.”
Donna Mo is a fourth-year Communication major and Theater minor. She is a Web and Social Media Intern with the Division of Humanities and Fine Arts.