How Many Lives Have to Be Lost Before We—Finally—Pass Common Sense Gun Legislation

 

I first posted this blog almost three years ago. I do so today after the murder of ten more people in a single incident in Boulder, Colorado. Surely, we can act now!

As many as 50 people—50 men, women and children—might still be alive today if the common-sense gun policies supported by 80% of the American public were in place.  

That’s right.  Fifty people today, 50 more tomorrow, 50 every day after that, might still be alive if  we were acting  on what we know to be true.  

For someone of my age, this fight for life through the adoption of responsible gun policies recalls other fights for life through common-sense regulations. Fights including automobiles and tobacco.

Take automobiles. Today, about 35,000 people die annually as a result of automobile-related accidents.  That’s tragic, but consider that if automobile fatalities per mile were occurring at the same rate today as they were in the year I was born, those 35,000 deaths would not be 50,000, not 100,000, not 200,000, and not even 300,000.  They would be closer to 400,000 people each year. 

Back then, seeing this carnage, nobody talked about banning cars.  But they did come to demand common-sense 

regulations. Seat belts became required; so did airbags.  You were required to pass a driver’s test.  (How, I ask, do you justify requiring a test to drive a car and not a test to shoot a gun?)  You have to get your license renewed every five years.  There are fines for traffic violations and sometimes suspension of your license. 

Make no mistake.  These common sensed regulations didn’t come easily.  Car manufacturers complained about the cost of some of the safety devices. Drivers complained about being "forced" to use seat belts.  But the evidence prevailed.  So did common sense. So did public will.  

  

Or  take tobacco.

What if people were smoking today  at the same rate as when I was a teenager in the mid-1950s?  Almost half the population  smoked then, compared to 15% smoking today.  If that rate of smoking still prevailed, and if the linkage of smoking to mortality remained about the same, up to one million more people might have died last year from smoke-related diseases.  Instead of what is still a tragedy of almost 500,000 people dying from smoke-related illnesses, the death toll could be closer to 1,500,000.  

Believe me, getting common-sense regulations for cigarette smoking was a decades-long battle.  If you think the NRA is a strong lobby today, you should have seen the tobacco lobby.  It supported politicians committed to the industry.  It supported medical conventions and encouraged doctors to recommend cigarettes; I’m serious.  It lobbied against research to establish the linkage of smoking and cancer.  But we kept getting more data linking smoking to cancer, just as we are today on the linkage of guns to gun-related deaths.  

As a result, warning labels were mandated on cigarette packages.  Age limits were imposed on the purchase of tobacco; advertising was regulated to shield children from its influence; excise taxes were increased. 

What drove these changes in automobile and tobacco regulation?  There was increasingly compelling data and research. Above all, this research showed that automobile and tobacco related fatalities werematters of public health.  

We came to recognize that whether a person smokes is not just a private issue.  It's a public health issue.We learned the damaging impact of secondhand smoke.  

We recognized that how a person drives a car is not just a private issue.  It affects others.  It can kill others.  So we insisted that you had to have a license  and demonstrate you were able to drive.

Just as with tobacco and automobiles, owning a gun is not only a private matter. It is also a matter of public health. Tragically, we witness that every day.  So just as with tobacco and automobiles, use of guns must be regulated responsibly.

Importantly, changes in behavior resulting from the regulation of tobacco and automobiles also changed the “culture.”  It is no longer “cool” to smoke.   When I joined Procter & Gamble, there was an ashtray in front of every board seat.   You would walk into a store or restaurant and it could be “cool” to be smoking.  Movie stars were portrayed smoking; men and women. No longer.

It’s no longer “cool” to drive without a seatbelt.  It’s stupid.  That’s what strong social movements can do.  

Culture changes impact everything.  Including business.  Businesses stepped up to forbid smoking on their premises and encourage safe driving habits. 

We’re seeing businesses step up on the gun issue.  Walmart has banned the sale of assault weapons and now has increased the age to 21 at which one might buy a rifle.  Dick’s has done the same thing.  Rental car companies and airlines like Delta have stopped giving preferred discounts to members of the NRA.  Kroger has banned the sale of large magazines. 

 Businesses are getting the message. 

I urge you support businesses which are adopting responsible gun policies.  Let them know that’s why you’re shopping there.  And let those which aren’t adopting similar policies know you’re going to support their competitors.

Focus on electing candidates who support responsible gun policies and rejecting those who don’t.  Nothing counts as much as your vote. Demand to know exactly where a candidate stands on universal background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of people who have been involved in domestic violence and banning assault weapons and large magazines. 

The wind is at our back on this, but it’s going to be a continuing battle.I’m inspired how young people are taking the field.  Let us be worthy of their commitment.   

As I said at the outset, as many as 50 men, women and children might still be alive today if we had adopted responsible gun regulations.  This estimate is not a matter of sheer speculation.  Nineteen state already require background checks for ALL gun sales. In these states,  we are seeing up to a 40-50% lower incidence of gun deaths linked to domestic abuse, suicide and involving law enforcement officers.

These facts don’t call for banning guns. They don't call into question the practices of millions of responsible gun owners.  They don’t deny any reasonably interpreted right conferred by the Second Amendment.  They do call  for common-sense regulations of the kind we have applied to automobiles  and tobacco. Regulations that recognize that having a gun today is not only a private matter; it is a matter of public health.  Let’s act on what we know to be true.  Let’s demand that legislators, business leaders, everyone do the same.  Let’s start saving lives. We can do this.

*This an edited transcript of a talk I gave to a rally of "Moms Demand Action" in Cincinnati, Ohio on March 25  2018

"'Equity' Works as a Mandate to Discriminate"

 So reads the provocative and mistaken headline to an opinion piece posted in The Wall Street Journal on March 5, authored by Professor Emeritus Lipson of the University of Chicago.

 

He states the issue this way:  “There is a big difference between equal treatment and equal outcomes.  Equality means equal treatment, unbiased competition and impartially judged outcomes.  Equity means equal outcomes, achieved if necessary by unequal treatment, biased competition and preferential judging.”

 

Professor Lipson founds his opinion piece on a fundamental error.  “Equity” does not mean “equal outcomes” not, at least, for me.  What equity means and requires is equal opportunity.

 

And, yes, to test whether equal opportunities actually are being provided, we must measure how outcomes compare.

 

For example, if one finds, as we have, that African-Americans entering a corporation do so with every available test measure and interviews showing comparable likelihood to succeed, and if we find African-Americans are advancing at a significantly lower rate than their white peers, one has to ask, have they been provided equal opportunity?  Have they received the mentoring support, the advocacy, the placement in positions which offer the best opportunities to enhance growth and provide visibility of superior performance?

 

There is, to be sure, a challenging question as to what represents equal opportunity and how should it be applied.  There are tough choices here.  There is no dismissing that fact.

 

One emerges in college admissions.  On average, the SAT or ACT scores of African-Americans are lower than whites or Asian-Americans.  If admissions were based entirely or very heavily on SAT scores, the percentage of African-Americans being admitted to so-called premiere schools would be lower than they are today.  Does the assessment of what is “equal opportunity” allow for the admission of an African-American student qualified highly in every respect than perhaps his or her SAT score relative to a white or Asian-American applicant justify admitting the African-American?

 

My answer to this is yes.

 

Does my reaching this conclusion take into account the multitude of challenges faced by African-Americans over time which in fact amount to a lack of equal opportunity?

 

Again, yes.

 

To deny that this is a balancing act would be to deny reality.  But it is a balancing act we are called on to make in order to provide equal opportunity to the best of our ability.

 

 

The Criteria for Assessing the Rightness of An Organization Design

 Neil McElroy, a former CEO of P&G and who also served as Secretary of Defense for President Eisenhower, once  described the two basic tests of the rightness of any organization design this way:  to what extent does it 1) advance the growth of leadership brands and 2) provide an environment where women and men can grow in their abilities and satisfaction from the work they do. 

John Gardner in his magisterial book, "Self-Renewal" captures the timeless essence of the second test. 

"We shall discover that what counts is not the size of the organization but the patterns of organizations.  It is possible to continue achieving economies of scale and still give attention to human needs.  Too often in the past we have designed systems to meet all kinds of exacting requirements except the most important requirement of all—that they contribute to the fulfillment and growth of the participants.  We must discover how to design organizations and technological systems in such a way that individual talents are used to the maximum and human satisfaction and dignity are preserved.  We must learn to make technology serve man not only in the end product but in the doing".