Activism

OPINION: Sacramento Mass Shooting Confirms What Experts Already Knew, But Media Won’t Tell

A 2020 study done as a part of the RAND Corporation’s Gun Policy in America initiative, revealed that of the 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws, only 123 (0.4%) were found to meet a base level of academic rigor. They also noted that the only reliable conclusion one could get from those 123 studies was that there is zero evidence that gun control laws have any effect on violence in general or gun violence specifically.

Published

3 years ago

April 21, 2022

Oakland Post

Craig DeLuz. Photo courtesy of the author.

By Craig DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In the wake of the horrific mass shooting that took place in Sacramento, California, politicians and media pundits have rushed to their soapboxes to proclaim, once again, that guns are the root of all evil and the cause of the recent violent crime wave that has gripped our nation. They share with whoever will listen their prognosis for ending crime as we know it.

“We need more ‘common sense’ gun laws,” they say.

But there are a number of underlying truths that they will dare not share with the public. Because if they do, it will become clear that they and their policies are not the solution. They are, in fact, the root of the problem.

Here are just a few of those truths they will not dare share:

We do not have a gun violence problem. We have a violence problem.

Guns have been a part of the American lexicon since the very beginning. For generations, society had a healthy relationship with the Second Amendment. Firearms were given their proper respect as tools to be used to feed one’s family, defend one’s home or fight for one’s liberty.

It is only recent generations that have concluded that violence is an acceptable way to address the myriad issues confronting them. The firearm is not the cause of this. In fact, it is not even the weapon of choice.

While it is true that 77% of homicides in 2020 were committed with firearms, 92% of all violent crimes do not involve firearms. The overwhelming majority of violent offenses — including robberies, rapes and other sex crimes — almost always involve other weapons or no weapons at all. And there is no doubt that the number of instances of all these offenses are increasing.

Guns are no more the cause of this violence than cars are the cause of drunk driving.

Gun control does nothing to reduce crime in general, let alone violent crime.

There is a popular saying amongst statisticians, “There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.” Politicians and the media have been using all three to push their false narrative about gun control laws. They would have you believe that studies support the idea that the best way to reduce violent crime is to pass more gun laws. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The recent increase in violent crime is directly linked to “Smart on Crime” (read soft-on-crime) policies

Violent crime was at an all-time high in the early 1990s fueled by gangs and the drug trade. This led to federal, state and local initiatives aimed at stemming the tide. Tough-on-crime initiatives were enacted that included, among other things, increased policing and mandatory minimums for a number of crimes.

Crime (especially violent crime) would go on the decline for the next 20-plus years.

Then in the 2010s, several states began instituting “Smart on Crime” policies that decriminalized a number of criminal offenses and let violent criminals out of prison. That wasn’t the intention of those who supported these policies. But that is, in fact, what happened.

Case in point: Back in 2018 Smiley Martin was sentenced to 10 years in prison for punching a girlfriend, dragging her from her home by her hair and whipping her with a belt.

But, sadly, under California law, these are considered non-violent offenses, making Mr. Martin eligible for a reduced sentence under Proposition 57. So, instead of sitting in a jail cell serving the fifth year of a 10-year sentence, he was walking the streets of Sacramento with a modified automatic pistol.

This story is not the first. It is not even unique to Sacramento. Just a month earlier, three children and their chaperone were killed by their father who should have been in ICE custody. But under California’s Sanctuary State policy, David Mora Rojas, who was locked up for assaulting a highway patrol officer was released from police custody, was free to kill his children.

While the media and politicians deny the correlation and instead seek to blame guns; the increase in crime, especially violent crime, directly corresponds with the change in our criminal justice policies.

This is about race. But not in the way you think it is.

Gun control has always been about keeping “Those People” from being able to own firearms. Following the Civil War, Southern states enacted ‘Black Codes’ making it illegal for newly freed slaves to own guns. In the 1870s, California would pass laws preventing the sale of firearms and ammunition to Native Americans (then referred to as Indians.) In the 1920s, California acted again, prohibiting the sale of firearms to the “Chinese” or “Mexicans.” Then in the 1960s, California would pass the Mulford Act, eliminating the ability to openly carry loaded firearms in public as a way to disarm the Black Panther Party.

The truth is that the gun debate has always been rooted in racism. However, those who push these policies are the true victimizers.

Consider that the last gun case to be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago) was brought by a Black man who simply wanted to be able to defend his home from the ravages of gang and drug violence. This underscores two very important, yet often overlooked truths:

Policies that release habitual criminals into our neighborhoods lead to the victimization of people in those communities. These policies disproportionately impact people of color.
Gun Control Laws only serve to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to own or possess firearms they may need to protect themselves and their loved ones. These laws also disproportionately affect people of color.

We are often told that young Black and Brown men are disproportionately impacted by gun violence. But it is rarely noted that young Black and Brown men are disproportionately the ones pulling the trigger. The sad fact is that people who seek to victimize others (Black, White, Latin, Asian, etc.) tend to go after people who look like them.

So, while it is noble to try and reduce the number of young Black men in our criminal justice system, we cannot ignore that in doing so, we have put Black men, women and children at risk of being their victims.

At the same time, we are limiting the ability of these very same folks to be able to defend themselves from the very danger we have put in their path.

To any objective observer, these truths are self-evident. Most of the media and political elite have proven themselves to be anything but objective observers. If we are to ever address the scourge of violence in our streets, it will only happen when we all come to grips with these and many other truths.

Craig DeLuz is president of 2ANews Corporation and hosts a daily news and political talk show “The Rundown.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Howard Terminal Designer’s Safety Warning Ignored By Port, City and Mayor: Part 1

Don't Miss

Democratic Party, Others Endorse Rebecca Kaplan for Alameda County Board of Supervisors Seat

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

2 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

2 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

3 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”