The mayor of Grand Rapids drew fire after suggesting gun owners should feel shame and even comparing gun ownership to smoking, while also criticizing police use of a dog during a recent community forum; his remarks, made during a Mayor Monday event after a deadly police shooting, touched off debate about public safety, civil rights, and how elected officials talk to their constituents.
At a community meeting following a controversial police shooting, Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand made a blunt call for social pressure against people who own firearms. He said, “Nobody gardens with a gun, right? Nobody changes their tire with a gun. What they’re for is killing human beings and so it’s really hard. I think as a community we have to start having some shaming around gun possession.”
The mayor doubled down on that line in the same forum, acknowledging the heat it would draw while claiming he respected the Second Amendment. “Now, I’m sorry, that’s gonna be the soundbite of the night, and the NRA, the NRA is gonna be mad at me, but like, you know, I, I get that we got a Second Amendment, I get it,” LaGrand continued. “But, you know, you also should be ashamed of yourself if you smoke. That’s not against the law. I think if you own a gun, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you should really do some self-reflection. And I think that’s, I, I just see so much more harm just like cigarettes. I see so much harm, more harm done than benefit.”
The mayor’s rhetoric raises real concerns about where criticism of a lawful activity crosses into stigmatizing citizens who follow the law. Many gun owners view their firearms as tools for self-defense, sporting use, and constitutional exercise, not as a moral failing to be publicly shamed. When an official suggests shaming as policy, it shifts the conversation from prevention and enforcement to cultural ostracism.
Political leaders should be careful with their language after a traumatic local event, because words shape public tolerance and trust. Residents grieving a loss deserve facts and solutions, not slogans that paint broad groups as the problem. Calls for shaming risk alienating the very people who can be partners in sensible public-safety measures and community healing.
LaGrand also criticized law enforcement tactics in the same forum, questioning the use of a police dog to pursue and subdue a suspect. He asked, “It is time that we ask, what are dogs good for. Like if you need a dog to find someone in the woods, go get a hound dog,” LaGrand said. “If you need to chase somebody in [a] backyard why couldn’t you do that with a drone? If my dog did what I saw in that video, I’d put my dog down.”
That line of questioning touches on operational debates many cities face: how to balance effective police tools with concerns about excessive force and oversight. It is reasonable to review tactics and training, but it is also fair to defend the tools officers use to keep neighborhoods safe when those tools are used lawfully. Oversight should be evidence-based, not driven by soundbite-friendly theatrics.
Public safety debates need concrete proposals: clearer use-of-force guidelines, transparency in investigations, and community engagement to rebuild trust. Instead of urging public shaming, leaders can champion targeted interventions that disrupt criminal behavior and support victims. Policies that respect constitutional rights while improving accountability stand a better chance of delivering lasting results than moralizing rhetoric.
Voters and stakeholders should expect elected officials to steer tough conversations toward policy changes rather than public condemnation. Framing lawful gun ownership as shameful moves the debate away from crime reduction strategies and toward identity politics, which rarely helps first responders or families suffering from violence. Constructive leadership would prioritize measurable reforms and stronger community partnerships.
For residents watching the fallout, this episode highlights a broader issue: political figures can influence public attitudes dramatically with a few sentences. When those sentences single out law-abiding citizens, they risk deepening divides and undermining cooperation. The community deserves leaders who focus on solutions that protect rights and make neighborhoods safer without resorting to public shaming.
WATCH:
