100 Living Peace & Justice Leaders: List 2, Part 2

By Kathie Malley-Morrison & Anthony J. Marsella

David Reiff, in his classic paper, “The precarious triumph of human rights” (New York Times Magazine, August 8, 1999), described characteristics of a “new moral order” that we desperately need today:

  • Civil society;
  • Humanitarianism;
  • Human rights versus state sovereignty;
  • Emergence of human rights activists, development workers, aid experts committed to needs of an interdependent world;
  • Small is beautiful;
  • Democracy building;
  • Growth of NGOs;
  • Considering individual as well as state rights;
  • Plans for a permanent international criminal court.

Despite the many abuses permeating societies today, there is a new spirit of encounter (e.g., Black Lives Matter); a new spirit of protest evidenced by DC gatherings of women and minority groups; a new spirit of communication among media free of government or wealth controls; a new spirit of protest against war, militarism, and the spending of a nation’s wealth on weaponry and endless war; a new spirit of concern for life and land; a new spirit of determination to expose the abuses of privilege and position by those who have politicized and weaponized laws for personal use (e.g., FISA).

All these emerging changes signal and sustain “Hope!”  “Hope” is the life blood of progressive change. “Hope” can be suppressed and oppressed, but it cannot be defeated.  Regardless of life forms and species, “hope” is the evolutionary impulse pursuing survival. If you want to hope, just think of the high school students organizing to fight gun violence ; honor their courage in joining together to protest in front of the White House ; admire their plans for a march on Washington in March.

Our list-building efforts are just beginning. Each day, new people are rising to the call.  Please send us names and links of individuals and nonprofits you think should be recognized for their contributions to the cause.

 

  1. Kame’eleihiwaLilikalā K. Kame’eleihiwa
  2. Katz: Nancie L. Katz
  3. Kaye: Jeff Kaye
  4. Kelman: Herb & Rose Kelman
  5. Khan-Cullors: Patrisse Khan-Cullors
  6. Kimmel, Paul Kimmel
  7. Kivel, Paul Kivel
  8. Kis-Lev, Jonathan Kis-Lev
  9. Lapham: Lewis Lapham
  10. LeBlanc: Andrea LeBlanc
  11. LoCicero: Alice LoCicero
  12. Lopez-Lopez: Wilson Lopez-Lopez
  13. Lutz: Catherine Lutz
  14. Lykes: Brinton Lykes
  15. Lyubanski: Mikhail Lyubanski
  16. MacNair: Rachel MacNair
  17. Maleno: Helena Maleno
  18. Martin: Abby Martin
  19. McKee: Ann McKee 
  20. McKinney: Cynthia McKinney
  21. McKone: Anita McKone
  22. Moghaddam: Fathali Moghaddam
  23. Montiel: Christina Montiel
  24. Moore: Michael Moore
  25. Nelson: Linden Nelson
  26. Norsworthy: Kathryn Norsworthy
  27. Palast: Greg Palast
  28. Parenti: Michael Parenti
  29. Perlman: Diane Perlman
  30. Randa: Lewis Randa
  31. Rappoport: Jon Rappoport
  32. Robinson: Rashad Robinson
  33. Rosenberg: Carol Rosenberg
  34. Secker: Glyn Secker
  35. Shetterly:  Robert Shetterly
  36. Shiva: Vandana Shiva
  37. Sivaraksa: Sulak Sivaraksa
  38. Soldz: Stephen Soldz
  39. Solomon: Norman Solomon
  40. Spieler: Susan Spieler
  41. Stout: Christopher E. Stout
  42. Sveaass:  Nora Sveaass
  43. Valent: Roberto Valent
  44. Wadlow: Rene Wadlow
  45. Wasfi: Dahlia Wasfi
  46. Wessells: Michael Wessells
  47. Wise: Steven M.Wise
  48. Wollman: Neil Wollman
  49. Wright: Ann Wright
  50. Zeese: Kevin Zeese                                                                                                                          Join us in celebrating the individuals making the world a better place for all; individuals advancing the human and natural order. 

What Does Social Science Tell Us About the Link Between the Presence of Firearms and Violence? Part 2

This image depicts the exterior of CDC′s “Tom Harkin Global Communications Center” located on the organization′s Roybal Campus in Atlanta, Georgia. This image is a work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, taken or made as part of an employee’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. feJames Gathany, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention federal government, the image is in the public domain. Author: James Gathany, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

By Alice Locicero

Note from Kathie MM: In this second part of her essay on firearms and violence, Dr. Alice Locicero shares information from the social science research community and asks the vital question: Who benefits when such information is withheld, when discussion of potential regulations of gun sales is suppressed. 

Perhaps the more critical questions are: Who benefits from arms sales? Does the proliferation of gun sales and open carry laws make YOU feel safer?

In October, 2017, a Scientific American article discusses 30 studies that, by and large, show that more guns make us less, not more, safe….

The science linking the presence of guns with increased violence could benefit from research by the Centers for Disease Control. ..but the CDC is specifically forbidden by law—a law that totally defies common sense and thumbs its nose at science—to study gun violence. (If you are shocked, your reaction is normal.)

When there is so much scientific evidence pointing in one direction, one has to look at the forces silencing those who would do research, act on the results of research—or even talk about it. Ask yourself: Who benefits from suppressing science and suppressing all conversation about regulating firearms?

For the complete article on which this post is based, go here

  

Note from Kathie MM: You decide:  Are health and human services being addressed when research on guns is not allowed in a major public, tax-supported institution that is supposed to protect the citizens of the country? Let’s repeat the earlier question: Who benefits when such research is prohibited? Who would want Congress to pass such a law?

Alice LoCicero, Ph.D., is president-elect of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence, Division 48 of the Anmerican Psychological Association.

 

What Does Social Science Tell Us About the Link Between the Presence of Firearms and Violence? Part 1

2 men playing arcade game Fast Draw (Southland Engineering Inc., 1964) at California Extreme Arcade pinball Show 2009. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: numb3r

by Alice LoCicero

Note from Kathie MM: This is the first in a two-part series based on the Psychology Today website.

Another day in the US, another mass killing with firearms.

The current public conversation about firearms is disturbing, because when anyone posts or publicly states the possibility of even what are known as “common sense” gun regulations — such as restrictions on automatic weapons or background checks before purchase in all situations (including so-called gun shows) — there is apt to be an aggressive and hostile backlash.

The most recent time when we thought that — after the Las Vegas mass shooting — there might be a glimmer of light where Congress might be willing to at least ban so-called “bump stocks” that allow a semi-automatic weapon to shoot like an automatic weapon — Congress froze and did nothing. (But  the state of Massachusetts has acted to ban them.)

The situation is worrisome, since the number of firearms in the US in 2017 is 300 million, very close to one per person. Perhaps more disturbing still, half of those 300 million firearms are owned by just 3% of Americans; about 9 million Americans own about 150 million firearms.

Let’s talk about just a few highlights of the relevant gun-use science. Early research is summarized briefly in a 2013 Psychology Today article by Professor Brad Bushman.

Professor Bushman recently published another study, with over 1,000 participants, showing that images of firearms — whether used by police or soldiers on the one hand, or by criminals on the other — increased the accessibility of aggressive thoughts.

In 2014, Andrew Anglemyer, a scientist from the University of California, San Francisco, reported that an analysis of the results of 16 studies “… found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access … and moderate evidence for … increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared.…”

Note from Kathie MM: Please join the dialogue. What will it take to get people to heed social science research about how access to guns increases the propensity to use them? Join us in our discussions of these issues.