(photo: unknown)
How UC-Santa Barbara Can Turn Grief Into Action: Divest From Gun Manufacturers
28 May 14
Our communities are bearing the brunt of gun violence while corporate executives reap the financial rewards.
tudents
and faculty at the University of California–Santa Barbara are
understandably in shock after the murder of six innocent people Friday
in the Isla Vista community that borders the campus. Over the next few
weeks, there will be many memorial services, tributes and other events
to remember the victims and provide family and friends with
opportunities to mourn. But if UCSB students, alumni, faculty and staff
want to channel their feelings into constructive action, here’s a
suggestion: ask the University of California Regents if its $88 billion
endowment is contributing to gun violence by being invested in gun
companies that fund the National Rifle Association (NRA) and obstruct
common-sense gun policies. If it is, demand that the UC system divest
itself from these merchants of death.
America mourns with the families affected by this
latest mass shooting. We face the responsibility to work together to
stop the epidemic of gun violence.
“Not one more,” said a heartbroken Richard Martinez,
the day after his 20-year-old Christopher, a UCSB student, was killed in
the Isla Vista tragedy. “Why did Chris die? Chris died because of
craven irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun
rights. What about Chris’s right to live?”
The following day, Martinez made additional comments:
“There’s a tendency to think that this was a madman and that we can’t do
anything about it. I think that’s an easy out. I don’t believe it. I
know this is a complicated problem but I do believe it has a solution.”
Martinez is right. There is a solution, and it starts
with putting economic pressure on the gun industry. The companies that
manufacture guns and ammunition and the NRA are responsible for the
United States having the weakest gun laws among modern democracies. In
April of 2013, a few months after the Sandy Hook massacre, the gun lobby
killed legislation to extend background checks for gun sales, ban
assault weapons and limit the size of guns’ ammunition magazines.
The NRA has even used its political clout to block
medical and academic research that would help us understand and end the
epidemic of gun violence. According to ProPublica, “Since 1996, when a small CDC-funded study on the risks of owning a firearm ignited opposition from Republicans,
the CDC’s budget for research on firearms injuries has shrunk to zero.”
Last week, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) filed a bill that would fund the
CDC research. The NRA issued a statement
calling Markey’s bill “unethical” and an “abuse of taxpayer funds for
anti-gun political propaganda under the guise of ‘research.’”
Although the NRA likes to portray itself as
representing grassroots gun owners, only about 4 million of the 90
million American gun owners are NRA members. The bulk of the NRA’s money
comes from gun and ammo manufacturers that donate millions of dollars
to further political obstructionism and fear-mongering among a small but
vocal minority of gun owners. The gun makers’ profits—and the profits
of Walmart (the nation’s largest seller of guns and ammunition) and
other retailers—grow when there are few restrictions on the sale and
ownership of guns and ammunition.
“There is a lot of profit to be made for all of this
sorrow, all of this death, and all of this destruction,” said Dr.
Sheldon Teperman, director of trauma surgery at the Jacobi Medical
Center in New York City, who routinely deals with gunshot victims and
who was interviewed for a video urging people to unload gun companies from their 401k investments.
The gun industry—led by Remington Outdoor, Sturm
Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Olin—has profited, even as more Americans
die by the products they manufacture and aggressively market. The value
of these companies has grown significantly just as the rate of mass
shootings has increased.
Cerberus Capital Management owns Freedom Group, maker
of the Bushmaster XM-15, which Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook Elementary
School to massacre twenty children and six educators in minutes.
Cerberus promised to sell the gun maker, but after eighteen months it has not yet done so.
Sturm Ruger is the manufacturer of assault weapons
banned in California and in 2012 donated over $1.25 million to the NRA
through a program of selling guns and donating $1 for each gun to the
lobby group.
Smith & Wesson is the maker of the assault weapon
used in the Aurora, Colorado, and LAX airport shootings and the
semiautomatic pistol used at the recent Fort Hood shooting. Smith &
Wesson recently gave the NRA a check for $600,000 to continue its work promoting guns and gun culture.
Olin owns Winchester Ammunition, an NRA donor of
between $500,000 and $1 million and maker of ammunition intended to
quickly expand inside the body, leading to greater human damage.
By divesting from these companies, we bring a new kind
of pressure to bear on the forces of obstruction that Martinez called
out. Divestment was a useful tool in the anti-apartheid efforts in the
1980s and again in bringing the tobacco industry to the table in the
1990s.
University endowments play a special role here, given
the escalation of gun violence in our school and college campuses.
According to Everytown for Gun Safety,
at least seventy-two shootings have occurred on school campuses in the
seventeen months since the Sandy Hook massacre. In 2010, the most recent
year for which data is available, gun deaths—homicides, suicides and
accidents—were the second-highest reason for death of young people ages
15–24, after only automobile accidents, according to a recent Center for
American Progress report.
Universities should lead to ensure that they do not further the
epidemic of gun violence by financially supporting the companies that
profit from the devastation of young people’s lives.
That is beginning to happen. In February, Occidental
College became the first higher education institution to pledge to stay
away from any investments in companies that manufacture military-style
assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines for general
public sale. The college’s trustees did so at the urging of faculty and
students who were horrified by the epidemic of gun violence, including
those at schools and universities across the country. It turned out that
Occidental’s endowment did not have investments in such companies, but
its board’s policy ensured that it would not add any such stocks to its
portfolio in the future.
Last year, the California Public Employees’ Retirement
System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System
(CalSTRS), both large public pension funds, moved to divest from
manufacturers of assault weapons. The University of California endowment
is one of the largest in the country. If the UC system announced a
similar policy, it would have a huge impact, inspiring other
universities to follow its example.
Media coverage of the Isla Vista tragedy has primarily
focused on the details of the rampage, the mental problems, loneliness
and anti-women manifesto of killer Elliot Rodger, and the grieving of
the families and friends of Rodger’s victims. Rodger was seriously
mentally ill. So was Adam Lanza. There are lots of such people in this
world. But if we make it easy for them to obtain guns, they are more
likely to translate their psychological problems into dangerous and
deadly anti-social behavior.
Guns are a large part of American culture. Few object
to the manufacture and sale of rifles used in hunting, a sport that
millions of Americans enjoy relatively safely. But according to a CBS
News poll
last December, 85 percent of all Americans—including 84 percent of
Republicans, 92 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 84
percent of gun owners—favor a federal law requiring background checks on
all potential gun buyers.
Some will point out that Rodger passed background
checks and purchased his Glock 34 and SIG Sauers weapons legally. That
simply suggests that we should made it much more difficult for people to
purchase assault weapons. In fact, a Rasmussen Reports survey
in December revealed that 59 percent of likely US voters think there
should be a ban on the purchase of semi-automatic and assault-type
weapons. Only 33 percent disagree.
That’s the only way to prevent mass killings like we
witnessed in at Sandy Hook Elementary, at Columbine High School and
Virginia Tech University and last week in Isla Vista.
Our communities—especially students from kindergarten
through university—are bearing the brunt of gun violence while corporate
executives reap the financial rewards. Our institutions of higher
learning should not profit from the violence that is wracked upon their
students, whom schools are pledged to care for.
Toward that end, the University of California should
join with major pension funds, unions, religious organizations and
individuals by withdrawing its investments from gun manufacturers that
profit from the violence wracked on our schoolchildren. We can stop the
madness. We can learn from this horror, and even as we grieve, we can
move forward.
2 comments:
If you want to ban guns then use the constitutional method of changing the constitution. Until then stop being a fascist and trying to get what you want illegally.
BTW, even if you do change the amendment we wont be turning them in. Have fun having a "war on guns" when 40% of the population owns them.
Comment moderation by the blogger............so much for free speech..............
Roger V. Tranfaglia
Post a Comment