Search

Site map

Sections:
Home Page

Gifts & Grants

Fund Raising

Managing Nonprofit Groups

Technology

Philanthropy Today

Jobs

Features:
Guide to Grants

The Nonprofit Handbook

Facts & Figures

Events

Deadlines

The Chronicle in Print:
Current Issue

Back Issues

Sponsored Information
Products & Services:
Directory of Services

Guide to Managing Nonprofits

Continuing-Education Guide

Fund-Raising Services Guide

Technology Guide

Customer Service:
About The Chronicle

How to Contact Us

How to Subscribe

How to Register

Manage Your Account

How to Advertise

Press Inquiries

Feedback

Privacy Policy

User Agreement

Help

The Chronicle of Philanthropy

April 20, 2007

Gun-Violence Tragedy Requires Significant Philanthropic Response

Watching the events at Virginia Tech this week has been heartbreaking. So many young lives, along with decent and honorable people who taught them, obliterated on an otherwise ordinary Monday; a university community in shock; families devastated.

Watching the response has also been heartbreaking, but for different reasons.

We see the grief counselors. We see the memorial services. We see plans to step up communications and lock down buildings when a shooter is on the loose.

We see all the ways people try to cope with tragedy. What we don't see enough of are efforts to prevent it.

With the memory of this latest tragedy seared fresh in our souls, philanthropy must step up to meet this challenge. As foundations, we have the resources to commit to important public problems; we have the freedom to take on tough issues; we have the flexibility to respond quickly; and we are, collectively, diverse enough to experiment with a range of solutions.

'Smaller Steps'

Gun violence is preventable — not entirely, but substantially. We can reduce the toll, in the same way that, over the last 40 years, we have brought highway death rates way down. As with traffic fatalities, we have no one magic formula. Instead, we Americans have taken many smaller steps (seat belts, air bags, campaigns against drunk driving, child-safety seats) that, together, have saved tens of thousands of lives.

With gun violence, however, we have been marching resolutely in the opposite direction. Among our failures:

  • We have declined to check backgrounds of everyone who buys a firearm, allowing 40 percent of sales — at gun shows, through newspaper classifieds, etc. — to skip the checks altogether.
  • We have let mental-health red flags, like those of the Virginia Tech shooter, slip past gun-background checks.
  • We have failed to take guns away from people who are under domestic-violence restraining orders or on terror watch lists.
  • We have made it harder for police to prosecute gun traffickers who arm criminals and urban street gangs.
  • We have watched in silence as the firepower available to civilians soars. We have shrugged as manufacturers market ammunition that can pierce police vests.
  • We have, in a growing number of states, enshrined the principle of shoot first, ask questions later.
  • We have declined proposals to require that guns be childproof, or designed so that you can tell if they're loaded, or put under other consumer product-safety regulations.

Then we see this latest tragedy and ask, How could this happen? How could it not happen, when we systematically make it easier for angry and troubled people to get ever more powerful guns, and harder for the police and public-health people to stop the mayhem?

Signs of a Shift

Some people are stepping up to demand change. Mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York and Thomas Menino of Boston have organized more than 200 of their colleagues to form Mayors Against Illegal Guns to fight outrageous restrictions on gun-trafficking investigations. Law-enforcement officials, on the front lines in this bloody struggle, are demanding stronger policies to back them up.

Last week in Chicago, 200 Midwest law-enforcement leaders assembled to find ways to reduce growing gun violence in many of our cities. Their recommendations will be coming soon.

The public, too, wants action: A long series of polls, right up to last week's University of Chicago survey, shows broad public support for common-sense gun laws like those listed above.

Philanthropy has a role to play as well, one that merits broad discussion at the Council on Foundations meeting in Seattle later this month.

Foundations can pay for critical research identifying gun-violence patterns and evaluating interventions. They can support law-enforcement, medical, and citizen groups, as well as others working on the issue. They can give money for local community-mobilization efforts and for state and national policy development.

Foundations can support the search for answers.

Then, maybe, we won't have to give grants for grief counselors.

Ellen S. Alberding is president of the Joyce Foundation, in Chicago.



Easy-to-print version

E-mail this article

Subscribe

To discuss this item with other readers, go to http://philanthropy.com/forums/. You may also send a private message to comment@philanthropy.com.
Copyright © 2007 The Chronicle of Philanthropy