My NRA patch and a patch for hiking Oklahoma’s Chisholm Trail

The effective date for 2022’s Question 114, Reduction of Gun Violence Act, was recently postponed until 2028. It only passed by 1.3%, despite “YES” having spent almost 17x the money on it as “NO.” In Columbia County it lost 67.7% – 32.3%. In my Washington County precinct, 301, it lost 68.5% – 31.5%.

If I’m elected and a gun control bill comes up, I’ll review it on the merits and check with you, my constituent. I may pitch certain provisions, but I’ll do what you want. My personal opinion on this issue only mattering in an edge case.

The measure itself was kinda wonky. The part I liked best was the safety training. My father was a long-time NRA member (until it went all-in for Ruger, et al) and in the Army for 30 years – 13 on active duty. He wanted me and all my siblings to be able to shoot effectively. So as an eleven year old, I learned:

– guns are designed to kill;

– guns are not toys;

– always assume a gun is loaded; and

– never point a gun at anyone or anything unless you’re willing to shoot it.

I practiced shooting targets with a single shot Anschutz .22 rifle for a few years and got NRA certifications, eventually getting an Expert Rifleman certification. My mother sewed the patch onto the back of one of my father’s jackets that I wore. I still have the jacket and the patch. In retrospect, target shooting seems like a meditation: noticing my breath going in and out, directing the inevitable motion to be vertical, and timing my trigger squeeze to hit the target. When I hear someone say, “Pull the trigger!” in any context, whether figurative or literal, I often think, “Oh no, you’ll miss! Squeeze, don’t pull!”

The magazine restriction in Question 114 seems straightforward and has precedent in other states. I’m not as fond of the other three provisions – per-sale background check, fingerprinting, and the disputed permit to purchase. I might have instead proposed requiring a renewable, biannual shooter’s license to buy a gun, but have no idea how that would go over. I would check first. It occurs to me to propose requiring gun owner’s insurance, but I’m pretty sure that would be a non-starter. On a somewhat lighter note, how about a warning like all plastic bags have: this is not a toy and can cause injury or death.

The annual number of gun deaths in Oregon (642 in 2023) is roughly comparable to car deaths (587 in 2023). But cars are essential to far more people’s lives than guns are. In 2023 in Oregon, three quarters of gun deaths were with handguns. Suicides were 76% – 489 – more likely for older, White men. Men outnumbered women seven to one. Unsecured guns and documented mental health issues were also factors. Homicides were 21% – 134 –  and typically were romantic partners or gang members. The other 19 deaths were accidents or undetermined causes. In Columbia County there were 44 suicides and two homicides. Murder by strangers isn’t a thing – it’s very rare. If the goal is to reduce gun deaths, then providing more mental health care would be the place to focus. Suicides are only the seventh leading cause of death, though, and murder isn’t even in the top ten.

Talking about guns is talking about symptoms. The ultimate challenge is addressing the underlying fear. About half of Oregon households own guns. Most people – around 80% – buy guns to feel safer and ease their fears. In addition, most people want more gun regulations to ease their fears and feel safer – also around 80% – so clearly the two groups overlap. I’m interested in exploring the fears and considering constructive ways to address them. Gun control, however, is a show horse. It’s a virtue signaling issue. It’s a high-effort, low-return, counterproductive, and politically polarizing issue to spend time on, and would be a low priority for me if elected.

That’s my current read. What do you think?