‘Rally of Hope’ to reduce gun violence set for Monday afternoon in Edmonds

The Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition is hosting a “Rally of Hope” to reduce gun violence at 4 p.m. Monday, Feb. 19 at the Edmonds-Woodway High School south parking 7600 212th St. S.W.

The group plans to march from the high school to College Place Elementary, where they will lay out flowers in remembrance and light candles in memory of those lost to school and mass shootings.

 

53 Replies to “‘Rally of Hope’ to reduce gun violence set for Monday afternoon in Edmonds”

  1. “Events like this, if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.” ~Roger Ebert

    Nikolas Cruz did this so that we’d all know his name and march from one school to another because of something he did. I totally understand it’s a way we grieve. I also understand it’s tragedy people want to politicize. It’s time to train a couple teachers in every school, have some gun safes on premises, just like we allow pilots and air marshals to be armed on aircraft. Our kids need heroes to engage evil when it happens, and teachers using their bodies as human shields isn’t the answer.

    Ignored

    1. Marrhew, you say below that America is getting safer – this is basically true, but it’s still the most violent developed nation in the world. You state that Criminologists don’t understand the roots of today’s gun violence. Criminologists do know that gun ownership rates are correlated with gun violence rates. You’re just as likely to be robbed in London as in New York, but you’re 54 times as likely to be killed in New York as in London. Countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun murders, and states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun murders.
      What about mass shootings? Adam Lankford’s 2015 study found a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting.
      You worry that people will try to “politicize” the tragedy. (Presumably you mean people will want to do something other than offer prayers.) Urging your legislators and congresspeople to pass a law is not “using” the tragedy to advance a political agenda, and it is insulting to imply that it is.
      Very few people want to entirely outlaw gun ownership but we should take a realistic look at limiting access to certain types of weapons. Common sense tells us that it’s easier to kill large numbers of people with an AR-15 than an ordinary weapon. They are not weapons suitable for self-protection or for hunting – the AR-15 and similar weapons should be banned.

      Ignored

      1. “Countries with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun murders, and states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun murders.”

        Countries with more commuters riding mopeds have higher rates of moped-deaths.
        What’s the total road safety of that country? Gun-murder is not a useful metric. Japan leads the 1st world in non-gun suicides, and you can’t solve their non-gun suicide problem by giving them guns. The US is one of the safes countries in the world and Mexico is one of the most dangerous, the first having about one fire arm per capita and the later has strict prohibitions on firearms. ***There are no countries with many guns and many homicides.***

        I agree that something should be done about mass-killings. I’m an atheist, but I appreciate prayers. Don’t mock how people grieve. I also want something tangible done. A man killed 84 people and injured over 400 with a packing truck in Nice, France, until someone with a gun stopped him. I wrote to our city council and went to a council meeting and asked them to install steel bollards to protect our farmers market. There are no bollards to date. It took too long to respond to Nikolas Cruz. Law Enforcement dropped the ball and first-responders (like the hero, Aaron Feis) had to use their bodies to shield students. I want at least one teach per school trained and to have access to an inconspicuous gun safe at every ESD school.

        Ignored

        1. “There are no countries with many guns and many homicides”? That’s just factually incorrect – the actual relationship is “more guns-higher homicide rate” and “fewer guns-lower homicide rate.” Look it up.

          Ignored

        2. Bill Im not saying anything sensational. Even counting suicides via guns (which is almost 3/4th of all “gun deaths”) alcohol is still the nation’s leading component in death and homicide. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/guns-far-less-dangerous-than-alcohol/

          There is no correlation between guns per capita and murders per capita other than all countries with high murder rates have few guns. Look at how data has to be culled to get the results youre looking for:
          https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html

          Sorry.

          Ignored

        3. Here’s za direct quote from the site you provided a link to: Thus, when we consider countries that are similar to the United States, a strong correlation exists between the number of guns per capita and the gun-related homicide rate.

          Ignored

        4. This really is a test in objectivity. Bill, literally the first line of the article I cited from realclearscience is a partial retraction. Mexico is similar to the United States.

          “statistically insignificant trend is toward slightly (as inferred from the negative slope of the line) less homicides as gun ownership increases.”

          I went to the march yesterday, and a Moms Demand Action rep told me that Nicholas Cruz is a child, perhaps one that shouldn’t be tried as an adult or entirely to blame as “his brain isn’t fully formed yet.” The dishonesty here is, the criminal is the last thing people want to blame.

          Barbara Chase commented [below] that reading to your kids is important. Who are the [fill it in yourself] who’d thumbs-down that comment? People are even denigrating those who pray. I love this town, but there is a sickness.

          Ignored

        5. To all commenters, once again I am receiving requests (actually pleas) from people who are saying two things: 1) I should put a word limit on comments and 2) they are not reading the comments any more due to just a few people commenting constantly. So I am opening it up to the readers for ideas. Should I limit 1) the word count of comments and/or 2) the number of times people can comment per day/week OR 3) should I just leave it alone and let folks comment at will? I created this site for the community. I want ALL to feel welcome to read and comment. I value a diversity of opinions. But I don’t want folks to feel they are being shut down/overwhelmed by others. I value your opinions. If you don’t want to comment publicly, feel free to email me at myedmondsnews@gmail.com. — Teresa

          Ignored

        6. Create a setting that would remove certain articles that have long side discussions from appearing in the “Recent Comments”. You’re aggregating long comments about school shootings with bird watching, so it collects stuff most aren’t interested in. I know how it feels, I was amazed at how dominating and pointless the comments surrounding the Port Commission election were.

          Besides my point on the Recent Comments list, you’re getting calls from those who want censorship. People will even ask you in the comments to censor, which is profound. In this experiment, I’ve created fake accounts to actually measure how one-line comments verse long ranting comments are censored. It actually has a lot to do with how the comment leans as to whether or not it is pulled. I have some interesting metrics. The censorship tactic has been very effective.

          I would say relax. This is my last comment in MEN (should this not get moderated). I’d like to leave readers with that understanding. Talk to people who don’t agree with you once in a while. Be civil. The whole reason I jumped into MEN was to force that upon some of you.

          Ignored

        7. I want to point out that despite this latest comment, I am not directing this at any one individual or at the political bent of the commenter. It is an ongoing issue that has come to a head recently and I want to let readers know they are welcome to express their opinions always. Take it personally if you will, but that wasn’t my intent. As for creating fake accounts to try to demonstrate bias, that is disturbing in and of itself and violates our commenting policy that requires use of real first and last names. I email folks to determine if they are real people and try as best I can to determine their city of residency and true identity. This is what drives publishers to eliminate comments altogether. Jeesh.

          Ignored

  2. Matthew,
    What I saw in My Edmonds News was a simple report that people will be rallying tomorrow afternoon against gun violence. When you blame the media for “politicizing” an issue like this, you are looking for a simplistic explanation of what’s going on. Training a couple of teachers in each school about the use of guns might be useful as a last resort. However, our society needs to make mental health services available to children who need them WHEN THEY NEED THEM. Have you ever looked into how long it takes to get an appointment for counseling at ANY facility? It could take many months.
    And what if the parents lack funds for mental health counseling? Check out which counselors are willing to accept Medicaid, assuming the child qualifies. Many middle income parents cannot afford to pay cash for mental health or other medical services. I challenge you to call in posing as a parent seeking mental health care for your child. You might begin to understand the roots of today’s gun violence.

    Ignored

    1. I basically agree with everything you’ve said. Criminologists don’t understand the “roots of today’s gun violence”, or why rates are consistently decreasing. America is a safe place and getting safer. I don’t think lay people (including myself) can make a science out of it. Violence is violence, our kids are ‘soft targets’ due to policy, and sick people will exploit that for attention. That said, being someone who is familiar with mental illness, autism, Asperger’s and such, blaming this on mental illness (not saying you are) is worse than blaming it on inanimate objects like guns. Mentally ill people are a protected class, and overwhelmingly only a danger to themselves at best, not to our society. I’ll name him; Nikolas Cruz explicitly said he did this for attention, for media and marches. Maybe this march won’t be politicized, maybe it will be constructive, so let’s see what sort of picket signs show up.

      Ignored

  3. I hope we have some signs saying ‘Read to your kid” “Show affection to your children” “Put down the phone and engage with your child”,

    Those children who have attention and care will be very unlikely to want to gun down their classmates.

    Ignored

  4. Our kids are feeling helpless as they watch their peers, across the nation, shot down in schools while innocently attempting to get an education. This is their way to have their voices heard. Let them march, let them cry, let them be angry, and let them hold up any sign to bring attention to this ongoing travesty. They have a right to demand change and as their mentors, parents, grandparents, neighbors, and friends, we have the responsibility to support them. When they are old enough to vote, if they make it, let’s hope they won’t be complacent and uninformed and that they will feel engaged and passionate to bring about change while making this country a safer place to go to school and be a kid. Let’s face it, our country has a problem. (BTW, if guns were fully inanimate, we wouldn’t be having these problems.)

    Ignored

  5. Think if what is being suggested here: gun safes in school and teachers armed with weapons. In what apocalyptic universe would it be considered normal for our children’s teachers to carry guns and return fire? Not to mention people caught in the crossfire, panic, bad aim, and bad luck.

    The rest of the world must look at the USA with grave concern, and pity.

    The problem is the guns. They are the weapons of mass destruction now. Our children and grandchildren shouldn’t be going to school with even the glimmer of a thought that school could be fatal.

    The problem is the guns.

    Ignored

    1. Everyone believes in guns in schools returning fire. Police officers enter schools with guns. I’ve never seen someone stand in the threshold of the school when people with guns responded to an active shooter situation, and point out the possible crossfire situation, or the panic, or the bad luck.

      Ignored

      1. Please note that the post you were responding to specifically referred to “teachers armed with weapons, not police called in at need.

        Ignored

        1. Yes, train a couple teachers to return fire. It’s a pretty sophomoric point to make that guns can’t stop or deter other guns because of “crossfire”. Teachers aren’t firemen, but there are fire extinguishers in the school. It’s a tragedy that Cruz could walk around, without anyone engaging him. He knew there were no other guns there, he knew he could put his down and walk out before the police could respond.

          Ignored

        2. There actually was an armed security guard at the Florida school (which didn’t deter the shooter).

          Ignored

  6. There are some truths in all of the above comments. We need CONSTRUCTIVE approaches to deal with the on-going problem of the USA having the most mass shootings in the developed world. We can’t change the past, but we surely can help change the future.

    Ignored

  7. For anyone to criticize citizens coming together to call attention to the epidemic of gun violence in this country is ridiculous. You can call it “political” or give it any label you choose – the fact is only our country has this problem and far too many kids and adults are dying because of our society’s willingness to turn the other cheek when these tragedies happen. No more. You’re correct – our kids need heroes, but more people with guns are not the answer. We need people who are willing to speak out and bring attention to this terrible problem, and hold politicians and the NRA accountable. Time to speak up.

    And regarding mental illness – sure, more resources are needed. But that’s just an excuse. The vast majority of mentally ill people do not commit atrocities. We will never be able to proactively identify every kid who is ostracized at school, or every adult who sympathizes with white nationalists, or every person who seeks revenge because of a love affair gone wrong, let alone intervene in a timely fashion. When my kid can buy an assault weapon before they can buy a beer, what other proof do you need to see that we’ve lost our moral compass?

    The problem really is obvious – there are just too many guns, and they are ridiculously easy to obtain.

    Ignored

    1. “When my kid can buy an assault weapon before they can buy a beer, what other proof do you need to see that we’ve lost our moral compass?”

      Beer kills more people than guns, and that’s the original reason why the ATF regulated both. But did banning alcohol reduce or increase the alcohol related deaths or increase them? Was the original reason behind the 18th Amendment objective, or a “moral compass” reason?

      Ignored

        1. I did a quick google search and it looks like alcohol related deaths per year: 88,000.

          Firearm deaths per year (homicides): 13,000

          Ignored

        2. …and murder rates were worst in the midst of alcohol prohibition, so was consumption. Bans create vice, and vice creates violent crime.

          Ignored

  8. I would respectfully like to weigh in here. We need an entirely new way of thinking about this issue. When one goes back to the legal foundation for the right to bear arms, our constitution was amended because our forefathers several hundred years ago recognized the constitution was incomplete and imperfect. Now, several hundred years later, it seems some of our constitutional amendments are incomplete and imperfect. The courts are bound to uphold constitutional law, even if they are incomplete and imperfect. This is a difficult question, but is it time to amend the second amendment if the majority of our citizens demand it?

    Ignored

    1. I agree. A constitutional amendment would likely never pass. America leanered our lesson with the 18th and 21st. That’s why when the feds wanted to ban marijuana, they used tax schemes instead of banning things through an amendment like the temperance movement. “We the people” means “all of us individuals”, and our country was the first established based on individual rights. If we defer to the masses, then every single civil rights movement would have failed; most women didnt want the right to vote but we’re given suffrage against their will, most Californians didnt want gays to marry (Prop 8), most people wanted hard time for pot smokers. This country was designed to protect individuals from the most. Nicolas Cruz arguably would love having his name attached to Constitution Amendment.

      Ignored

    2. Where does it end, Dave? Is the first amendment next? Canada and UK are teetering on the brink of erasing free speech.

      Ignored

      1. The process of amending the constitution is a long and complex one. If times and needs change, revising it by a careful process seems only sensible – even Jefferson saw the need for occasional revisions.

        Having lived in both Canada and the UK, I can see very little evidence of freedom of speech being erased.

        Ignored

  9. Good perspective Dave. You are talking about making a change in how we as a society operate and for guns you are saying we may need to revisit the constitution and bill of rights. There are other changes that seem to occur when the citizens finally get together and as a group “march, rally, speak, protest, or whatever” and then we make changes to how we as a people make a fundamental change. Hollywood, political leaders, business leaders and the notion of harassment. We are in the process of making major changes in our society about harassment because “we the people” have decided to make the changes. How that all sorts out will be for the better, and we will make changes! The role of special interest will be displaced by the people.

    Next up on the change list is guns et al. “We the people” with come together and we will make changes. Special interests will again lose their power and the will of the people will emerge.

    After that who knows what will be the next thing “we the people” will put on the priority list. One local item for the list is property taxes and taxes ibn general. What will likely happen is the special interest groups will lose some power the will of the people will emerge. The deeper question of what role of government and how do we pay for it.

    Point of all this is when the people finally come to the party and become engages things will happen. In civics class we were all told to study the issues and vote. We don’t do that very well today but we are stepping up on individual issues like harassment and guns. This is democracy at is finest. If more of us simply voted then “we the people” would be the special interest group!

    Ignored

  10. I went to the march and caught the opening statements. Most signs were simply “ban guns”. There was *not* a lot of flowers or morning. A dozen or more signs, and even the speeches said “no more prayers”, or “prayers are not enough”. There weren’t a lot of Trump references, but a few connected him to the crime, saying “ban guns, fire trump”. One of the speakers was feeling out his political aspirations.

    Moms Demand Action was very organized. I spoke to their PR rep, Ian Taylor. I asked what the general crux of this demonstration was; “We’re fed up with the federal govern’s inability to do something about gun violence.” I said that Mr. Cruz made mention that he “could do better” than prior mass shootings and that he said he wanted attention for doing something like this. I asked, “Do you feel like marches like these feed into his motivations?” Taylor said, “Not at all. His brain isn’t formed enough, he is only 19 and not old enough to understand right and wrong. People his age shouldn’t be allowed access to firearms.” I asked, “Because he’s so young?” “Yes, he’s a child and partly a victim in all this.” I had to ask twice, and was reaffirmed that Nicolas Cruz was not completely at fault.

    I saw a lot of caring people at the march. There also seemed to be a lot of people who wouldn’t let a perfectly good tragedy go to waste, and were there to co-opt feelings of people trying to make sense of this. Based on the signage and the comments, this event was more about political action than showing respect or grieving.

    Ignored

    1. Yes. Mothers Demand Action was tacitly definding Nikolas Cruz. Email me at mdrich2012@gmail, and I can give you Ian’s contact information so he could clarify. I don’t want to take him out of context, so I asked twice.

      Rick, I listened to Cheryl Wheelers song, “If it were up to me.” She’s talented. Maybe it’s […], maybe it’s […], maybe it’s [the person who committed the heinous crime]. It really seems like people are actually defending the criminal, to a significant degree. I’m all done on this one.

      Ignored

      1. Hi Matthew,

        Reaching out to compliment you on the amount of knowledge your are willing to share on MEN.

        Just a word to the wise, continually trying to dominate a conversation with your wisdom causes people to turn a deaf ear to your messaging. I want the people of Edmonds to hear your wisdom, it just may best be served a bite at a time.

        Thanks,

        Ed

        Ignored

        1. I def agree with you. I sorta started this out as a pet project. I know 40% of Edmonds is pretty lined up with me ideologically. I felt there was an echo-chamber happening in MEN where the minority report wasnt getting out. Frankly I really feel like a jerk, and sorta saddled myself with that yoke over the last couple months for a cause. I’ve seen some measured success. This shooting thing has me depressed. Other stories have me depressed. My family really doesnt want the attention we’ve gotten. It’s time to retire. I’m open to suggestions.

          Ignored

  11. Take a moment and Listen to Cheryl Wheeler sing, “If It Were Up to Me”… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDOcBYgEqW4.

    I heard a commentator recently make a remark that I found insightful. Paraphrasing… “The NRA leadership’s & the gun lobby’s efforts aren’t intended to protect the right to BEAR arms (that’s just noise); their efforts are intended to protect the right to SELL arms”. You know, money talks…

    Yet at what point does someone’s right to shoot (or sell) a gun, impinge on others’ right not to be shot by one? You know… what about that “Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness” so eloquently stated in our Declaration of Independence, referring to the inalienable rights that governments are created to protect. Yet our Federal government seems incapable of doing anything to even try to curb the gun violence and resulting carnage… even common sense approaches to gun safety that seem to have large support.

    The fact is that while there are many causes of violence (and the US population is generally no more violent and has no more mental illness than other Western countries), the easy access to guns is the difference between a violent confrontation leading to injury or to one being lethal.

    Perhaps it’s time for a Declaration of Independence from Gun Violence.

    Ignored

  12. Hi Teresa: If you have the capacity to do a combination of limiting the word count of comments and the number of times people can comment per day, you should do so. It’s not an uncommon practice and no one should view it as such. Those with longer/deeper views could get creative by asking/having their own column or opinion pieces or create their own blog and link to it. It’s not censorship but moderation.

    Ignored

    1. ok, lets call it “moderate censorship”. I notice that the “censor” word has been brought up twice, directly after Mr. Richardson’s comments. Jeeesh, if you see a commenter that you do not usually agree, skip it! I certainly skip some comments with whom I do not agree. I am actually appalled that you are even talking about this. It is an uncommon practice, but if you cannot stand the heat, then please get out of the kitchen. Without Mathew Richardson’s comments, you will lose some readers. Isn’t that what “journalism” is supposed to inspire; differing opinions that communicate with one another? I have never heard MEN speak to the “long winded” progressive/liberal commenters.

      Ignored

      1. As I said before, this was not about any one particular person. it was about the practice by several commenters over the past several weeks being very long in their responses. As a result, several people sent me direct emails — which has never happened before in the eight years I have been doing this — complaining that they didn’t feel comfortable commenting because of it. I have not asked anyone to stop commenting or to leave the site. I have simply asked readers for their opinions. Teresa

        Ignored

      2. I have to admit that I post far less than I used to or would like to because a post these days is likely to provoke a firestorm. Asking people to post more succinct answers, or not to post on almost every single comment is not censorship – it is a call for courtesy and for allowing others to get a word in without having to defend themselves. When one person has as many as five or even six comments at once, it tends to shout everyone else down.

        Ignored

    2. Be thankful for the opportunity and the forum for commenting that Teresa has provided with MEN. If a comment length or content annoys, then don’t read it and scroll past it…easy to do with today’s technology.

      Kind of like guns…I don’t like them, so I am not going to buy one…everyone else can do as they please so long as it’s within the strictures of the law.

      Ignored

  13. With all due respect to the gun lobbyists or any gun owners (as I know many hunters) – it is simple to me. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be available for any normal individual (citizens) unless in the military, protection services, or security fields.

    Ignored

    1. I speak as a former gun owner (my eyes are too bad to shoot these days) who grew up with guns and was a member of the US Biathlon Team. Both grandfathers were very fine shots with a shotgun, Dad was a gunsmith with world records on his guns, and my brother was a multiple-times NRA champion back back when the NRA was a just sporting organization. None of us could ever see any reason to own or use a semi-automatic or automatic weapon – if you can’t hit with one shot, perhaps you should learn to shoot. We would have been ashamed to need large clips, etc.

      I would like to state categorically that I support strict licensing of firearms, along with laws mandating “smart guns,” secure storage, background checks, and laws that can prevent the unstable, violent or underage from obtaining firearms – along with funding for strict enforcement. There is no One Way to end firearm violence, but responsible citizens who view our country as community need to work together to formulate an array of steps to dial violence back. It will not be achieved overnight, or by one law – or even achieved completely. But we must work selflessly to reduce the fear and the killing.

      For a view of how some who used guns on a daily basis and on the highest competitive level, see an article about how members of the US Biathlon Team view gun control:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/us-biathletes-shoot-guns-to-compete-they-want-gun-control-for-america/2018/02/20/6f7911ee-1603-11e8-b681-2d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.83351c8c9f5e

      Ignored

    1. NB, Keep posting as much as you want, your voice is part of the answer not part of the problem. I post too often and too long but trying to curb both. During our school discussion I tried to give people the benefit of my research into the levy issues. I check one of the later threads on schools and there were 38 thumbs ups and 208 thumbs down. 20% to 80%. But the election turned out to be 46% down and 54% up. Not much correlation to those numbers.

      My bet is the 18 thumbs up had something to do with the information and the 208 down tracked with the way the person was voting. Democracy is messy but free speech is messier.

      Keep posting …. please.

      Ignored

      1. NB, separate topic to see how the ups and downs fair with this one. You are mostly correct but some added ideas:
        1. We the people is in the constitution not we the DEMS, GOP, and other labels.
        2. I would bet a number of folks who consider themselves part of the GOP were in the march.
        3. Putting labels on things is part of the problem.
        4. Special interest groups use $ to be “speech” and politicians “Listen”
        5. My bet is if our legislature and congress could have a untraceable vote a large majority would vote for some changes in gun laws.

        We the people can work together on issues, create and implement solutions which would be agreeable to a vast majority. Problem is some politicians need to show their a return to the special interests for who “spoke..$” to them.

        Ignored

  14. From reading so many comments about the latest I conclude:
    1. It will take many approaches to rid ourselves of these shootings
    2. Sensible changes in gun laws will help.
    3. Responsible parents teaching their children right from wrong is important.
    4. Society holding responsible those committing those crimes is good
    5. People observing troubled kids should follow through in recommending help. This includes relatives, teachers, police, neighbors etc. Let’s make it easy to do.
    6. Lastly the media needs to use self restraint in the way they report the crimes. The ability to publicize these actions does not mean news media report each detail, thus making a media star of the perpetrator.

    Ignored

    1. Thank you Barbara for wonderful post.

      It almost always brings me to tears when I think about the reality we are experiencing. It is money, not logic which has put these laws in place. Logic tells me, if we can further validate licensed carrier’s of firearms for conceal and carry permits, we could also validate the requirement to own an assault rifle. I’m sorry, but when I research reasons to require ownership of these type of weapons, most answers center around rural needs. That’s not where these type of horrific crimes typically occur.

      Something has to change!!

      Ignored

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.