McHaddad: Should We Do Something?

Years ago after a mass shooting, I had an embittered response: “Should we do something? No? Ok, nothing it is.” The pile-on from right wing friends was immediate, and I ultimately took down the post.

Years later in a time of deep sorrow about a horrific mass shooting in Bend, I find myself asking the same question: should we do something? I do not really care about pathos-based arguments against common sense public safety measures. Especially not after a 5-year-old was murdered at a rural school. My first question begs another question: what can we do? The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution both guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, so firearms will not simply be removed from public life by a law.

In 1996, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was perceived as advocating for gun control after a $2.6 million study. In response to NRA lobbying, Congress adopted the Dickey Amendment, which barred the CDC from advocating for gun control and earmarked $2.6 million for studying traumatic brain injuries. Rather than outright banning scientific research into gun violence, the Congressional rebuke caused a chilling effect that convinced the CDC to avoid the subject for decades. Congress undid the chill during President Trump’s first term, clarifying that the CDC can study the matter in 2018 and even providing funding for the subject in 2020.

By 2023, federal research was collated and summarized by John’s Hopkins University. First, car accident prevention techniques were used as a model to review and reduce firearm-related fatalities, injuries, and crimes. The report provided several public policy recommendations, including:

• Community Violence Intervention (CVI) programs aim to identify and support the small number of people at risk for violence by providing them with wraparound mental health and social supports. Investing in CVI programs provides a public health approach to gun violence prevention, interrupting cycles of violence, and addressing the unique needs of the community where systemic racism, disinvestment, and trauma occur.
• Safe and secure gun storage practices, such as Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, require households with a child or teen to keep firearms unloaded and locked when unattended. These practices promote responsible firearm storage practices protecting children and teenagers from various forms of gun violence, including unintentional shootings and gun suicides. CAP laws are linked to sizable reductions in child and teen gun deaths, including reductions in youth suicide, accidental shootings, and homicides.

Years ago, my position had been that the State of Oregon should take the lead and assign research on the epidemiology of gun violence to University of Oregon. UO researchers could review causes and make policy recommendations to the legislature that could reduce violence while retaining Constitutional protections for law-abiding citizens. Since then, both the Trump and Biden Administrations engaged in that research, and the policy recommendations are freely available.

First we will mourn and reflect on the lives that were lost. When the Oregon Legislative Assembly returns starts in January 2027, here is my challenge to lawmakers. Study the policy recommendations, and make real data-driven change that can protect the innocent without compromising the federal or State Constitutions. See the humanity in the victims, and act with intent to make real change rather than score political points. See the humanity in those with differing opinions as well. Supporters of gun control and supporters of firearm rights both abhor gun violence. Neither side should ignore the other, no matter how many campaign donations it costs.

We have the facts. We have the need. We should do something. And if Oregon’s leaders care about preventing gun violence, they will do something.