By: Gwen Oliver Guns have been a major point of contention in America in recent history, and the debate over gun control laws has many people up in arms. But one aspect of guns in America that many people fail to consider is history. How have guns played a role in civic issues in the past, and how can this give us insights into what we need to do in the future? A viewing of the short documentary 778 Bullets took on this important question, and analyzed events from 1970 that are still very relevant today.
The documentary was about a shooting in November, 1970 in the small town of Carbondale, Illinois. Local and state police surrounded the residence of the local Black Panthers and shot into the house 778 times. This occurred in the early hours of the morning, waking up the neighborhood and causing uproar in the town. Thankfully, no one was seriously injured. A townsperson was sent into the house as a peaceful negotiator, and the Panthers were taken into custody. Their arrest and the subsequent trial were a matter of great interest in the surrounding areas, and the Panthers were all ultimately acquitted. The documentary used a combination of professional historians and community members to tell the story of the shooting. Professors from several universities spoke in historical terms about the activity and role of the Black Panthers in general at that time, discussing how the government perceived them and how this played a role in the shooting. The Panthers were considered one of the largest threats in the country. Community members told more of a story, explaining how it felt to wake up in the middle of the night to hundreds of gunshots. They described how police surrounded the house, not allowing anyone to enter and refusing to explain what was going on. The filmmaker, Angela Aguayo, described her thought process in creating the film: she wanted it to primarily be a story told by community members, supplemented as necessary by professionals. She was successful in this regard, and extended her point by playing gunshot sounds over the narration of the professionals, while keeping complete silence during the narration of the townspeople. The effect was quite distinct: this story must be told, the townspeople must be heard. Beyond the artistic aspect of the film, the history of the piece was fascinating. One especially interesting aspect of the story was the role of the Panthers in the town of Carbondale. Although the Black Panthers are typically associated with berets, guns, and police shootings, the Panthers of Carbondale had a much calmer place in the community. They organized breakfasts for children and helped out around the town, and, according to a community leader, much of the town was proud to have the Panthers there. However, when other Black Panthers around the country began to be attacked, fatalities resulting from every other police shootout, the Black Panthers of Carbondale began to prepare themselves for similar violence. At the time of the shootout in Carbondale, the Panthers had sandbags in the windows and were themselves armed. The fact that the Panthers were armed became an interesting subject of discussion after the film. Angela Aguayo herself brought up this fact explicitly, explaining that, to her, this story stands as a testament to the benefit guns can be. Although in favor of gun control, she had to admit that because the Black Panthers had guns, they were able to hold back the police until a peaceful negotiation could be made. If the Panthers had not been prepared and armed, fatalities may have resulted. Others in the room agreed that in this particular case, guns were a benefit rather than a detriment. However, much of the rest of the discussion revolved around the idea that having a gun in the house is often more dangerous for the homeowner than for any potential criminal. Widespread gun ownership makes guns more available to those who know how to use them; unfortunately, this is often criminals rather than the gun owners themselves. However, when gun control was brought up, others argued that gun control discussion has caused a huge spike in the amount of guns and ammunition bought and sold. Fear that the government is trying to “take away the guns” can even cause hoarding. Since Trump’s presidency, the fear of gun control has diminished significantly, as have gun sales. So, if we try to implement gun control and limit the number of guns available in America, will it work? Or will the result be the opposite of our intention? Another participant also pointed out that gun control may not even matter at this point; there are now more guns in America than there are citizens. So, even if all gun sales were strictly controlled or even cut off, there would still be a huge number of guns in circulation. Ultimately, the discussion didn’t generate any real solutions. All participants recognized that gun control is a complex issue, and won’t be resolved by simply taking away guns or allowing current policies to continue. However, we did generate some fascinating discussion about the ties between the history of guns and their current effects on society. There’s a lot we can learn from the past, especially when we look past statistics and begin to delve into how guns relate to the community.
0 Comments
By: Gwen Oliver Before attending today’s deliberation, I knew something about the heroin problem in Centre County. But, after discussing the issue for an hour and a half with a variety of people from around State College, I have a much deeper understanding of the issue. Not only did I learn something about how to moderate a deliberation and how to field a variety of problems (especially with participants), I gained a lot of insight into the opioid crisis and how it might be resolved.
Even disregarding what I learned about the issue itself, attending the deliberation today was extremely valuable, because I discovered what makes a deliberation work well. First and foremost, getting the audience involved early in the deliberation is key. The discussion ran the most smoothly when the moderators gave us a bit of information, then asked an open-ended question to spark discussion. Once one person began to speak, everyone wanted to chime in, and we had some great discussions. Second, it’s helpful to get knowledgeable community members to attend the deliberation. There were three adults at today’s deliberation. Two of them work with schools and community members to spread awareness about the opioid crisis and develop strategies for dealing with it. The other is a doctor who treats patients who are addicted to opiates. Each was able to offer a lot of information that even the moderators didn’t have, and each could offer their expert opinion on the issues. Unfortunately, two of the adults had very strong (and opposing) opinions on how to deal with the problem, but the moderators dealt with the disagreements well, redirecting the conversation to get more people involved. After watching the team this morning, I think it will be important for my group to be aware of the possibility of tensions among participants, and to come up with some steps ahead of time to diffuse any contentious situations. In addition to observing the moderators, I participated in the discussion and learned a lot. The team’s three main issues were education, law enforcement, and harm reduction. The entire group agreed that current education policies need to change - they don’t work. We talked about various programs aside from D.A.R.E. (for example, Cas Start), but came to the consensus that these programs need to be significantly better funded and more individual-based to be effective. During the discussion on law enforcement strategies, the most important thing that we talked about is how addiction is a disease, and people’s brains are physically changed by their addiction. When this was first brought up, it completely changed the tone of the conversation. Opiate addicts are people who need the drug for survival. Several people shared their personal experiences with drug addicts, and it opened a new door to how to look at the problem. Ultimately, most of us agreed that police officers should be allowed to carry around Narcan (which can save people from overdoses in many cases) and that drug courts should be implemented to allow people a chance for rehabilitation (from an economic as well as a humanitarian standpoint). The third and final approach, harm reduction, focused on acceptance; people will use drugs, so how can we reduce the chances of an overdose and improve their overall quality of life? The solutions included clean needle programs, safe injection sites, and methadone clinics. Again, I learned a lot when people shared their personal experiences; one girl explained that after a surgery, her mom became addicted to Percocet for 10 years. She was bedridden for much of that time, and has only recently regained a more normal life by taking methadone (which is still a narcotic, but doesn’t give the same high, and reduces cravings). At the end of the discussion, all participants said they would spend tax dollars to implement some of these programs. Overall, I would describe the deliberation today as a success. As a participant, I learned a lot and gained a new perspective on opiate abuse. As an observer and an RCL student, I was also impressed. Almost everyone who attended the deliberation participated, and the moderators facilitated some excellent discussion. I hope my own deliberation next week goes as well! By: Gwen Oliver Three of the closest people in my life have struggled with mental health for several years now. As such, I feel like I have a lot of experience dealing with the ups and downs of mental health, and I think I understand the stigma of mental health pretty well. However, as I considered the topic of today’s deliberation, it occurred to me that I wasn’t sure how to address this issue. How can we get rid of the stigma surrounding mental health?
The moderators presented three approaches relating to this topic: access to health care, legal complications, and the stigma itself. In the discussion on health care, we mainly discussed Medicare and Medicaid, and whether or not government funding should be allotted to help people with mental health illness. It was fascinating to hear how different people viewed mental health compared to physical health; many discussed how mental health often involves more long-term treatment than most physical ailments. I responded that mental health could be compared to a chronic illness, and should be treated with the same degree of respect and seriousness. By the end of the discussion, everyone agreed that Medicare and Medicaid should insure treatments for mental health, but qualified that strict standards need to be set to prevent misdiagnosis and overprescription of medication. In the second approach, legal complications, we touched on access to firearms, courts and sentencing, and discrimination in the work force. Most of the group agreed that it makes sense to limit access to firearms, at least in cases where violent or depressive behavior has been exhibited. Although it’s difficult to justify limiting people’s rights, most of the group agreed that, because it’s an issue of public safety, it could be justified. We also touched on “pleading insanity,” and the programs for the mentally ill in place of prison time. It was pointed out that it is very difficult to prove insanity in court, and when people do get reduced or alternative sentences because of mental illness, they aren’t set free, but are often placed in institutions or recovery programs. We agreed that, generally speaking, these were good programs. We also discussed job discrimination, and the tough line between needing productivity in businesses and wanting to treat the mentally ill with the same respect as all other workers. Someone mentioned that their parents are small business owners who, because of their small profit margin, are very hesitant to hire those with a history of mental illness, because of the potential reduction in productivity. By the end of the discussion, most agreed that it should be optional for employees to disclose their mental illness to their employer, but that employers should also have the right to pay the employee reduced wages if it can be demonstrated that their work does not match that of their colleagues. It was tough decision, but most agreed that this was a reasonable conclusion. The final approach, why the stigma surrounding mental health exists and how to eliminate it, was by far the most personal. People shared stories about friends and family who struggled with mental illness, and explained that they didn’t want to seem “crazy,” that they may not even have realized that they had a mental illness, and that they were reluctant to seek treatment for those or a variety of other reasons. We talked about how the casual use of words like “anxiety” and “depression” normalizes these serious conditions, and may lead someone to believe that they don’t need to seek help. I talked about how my sister didn’t realize she had anxiety until my parents took notice and asked her to start seeing a psychologist. She thought her level of stress was normal when in fact she was very unhappy. We agreed as a group that education at the elementary and middle school level is especially important, so that at a young age people can recognize their own feelings and symptoms, and are aware of mental illness and how to get help. We also agreed that the media can play a huge role in how mental illness is perceived (in a positive or negative way), and talked about how more portrayals of people with normal lives who struggle personally with mental illness would be helpful in reducing the stigma surrounding it. We need fewer characters whose entire role is to be “the crazy one” or “the depressed one.” Overall, it was a fascinating discussion, and the group did an excellent job facilitating it. For my own deliberation, I want to make a point to integrate transition questions, to move to different topics even within the same approach. The moderators did an excellent job of moving the conversation, not allowing it to stagnate on one subject. I would also like to make a point about keeping the atmosphere amiable and open. The moderators specifically set ground rules at the beginning of the deliberation, explaining that we were in a safe space and should all respect one another. I thought that was a nice touch, and everyone was very respectful. I’m glad I went to today’s deliberation. It gave me some ideas about how we can address the stigma surrounding mental health, and I now feel compelled to work for some of these issues. The moderators did an excellent job, I learned something, and I am now motivated to make a change! |
Categories
All
|