The non-profit gun violence prevention group Brady United estimates about 4.6 million children live in homes with unlocked and loaded firearms.

And guns are now the leading cause of death among children.

Michigan recently took steps to help stop injuries from firearms by enacting a law requiring owners to keep guns safely stored and secured.

But the president of Brady United, Kris Brown, says gun owners must use extra caution during the holidays when large numbers of family members often gather together.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Kris Brown, Brady United: If you look at all of the different causes of gun violence in this country, unintentional shootings in a home kill or injure eight kids a day. About 76% of school shooters get their gun from a home where it’s not safely stored. And two-thirds of gun deaths are from suicide. The hugest risk factor for suicide in the home is the presence of a loaded and unsecured firearm.

Taken together, those statistics show us that preventing “family fire,” the unintentional injury or death of a loved one with an unsecured fire in a home, has to be a top priority if we’re really going to lessen the rate of gun violence in this country in a material way. It starts in everyone’s home and it starts with safe storage.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: In Michigan, there was a tragic school shooting a few years ago at Oxford High School. It was one of the many that have happened across the country, sadly. A law was passed around the time of the Oxford shooting mandating safe storage of firearms. And in that case they also held the parents liable for the gun crimes committed by their son because they said that it wasn’t stored safely. From what your group has seen, are those kinds of laws widespread across the country? And do they seem to have any effect on limiting unintended shootings?

KB: They’re not widespread yet. There are a number of states that, after the Oxford shooting and others like it that have, unfortunately, occurred in states like Georgia, has created more of a groundswell to seek support for those kinds of laws. Child access prevention laws and similar laws of that ilk.

Brady United has mixed feelings about it. We believe the critical thing is to prevent these kinds of shootings from happening in the first place. Throwing parents in jail after the fact because they’ve been grossly negligent, that’s what the law we do believe should require. But it doesn’t bring back the innocent victims. It doesn’t stop the harm from happening in the first place.

That’s why we think child access prevention laws that ensure if you choose to have a firearm in the home it is safely stored are important compliments to public safety laws. They should be adopted across the country.

QK: In your view, does it seem that “threatening” parents, for lack of a better word, actually makes an impact? Or is it something where they just need to have this top of mind to begin with? There’s been shootings where people had a gun stuck in a shoe box that they seemed to think was fine because it stored away. And still a kid was able to get to it.

KB: I think there needs to be a complement of effort, sort of in the same way that getting a ticket when you’re speeding is a way to remind you that you shouldn’t have a lead foot. It compliments education in driver’s ed about why speeding is potentially very dangerous. The same sort of approach should apply here. This isn’t a unique area of human experience, though it’s a uniquely deadly area of human experience.

We at Brady have done a lot on our website so that families can find absolutely crystal clear guidance on safe storage options. And even how to talk to family members when you’re at the dining table over the holidays about the kinds of things that they can be doing, if they choose to have firearms in the home, to protect those who live there and those who visit the home.

We at Brady believe that it’s on each of us to have these conversations and to normalize something that’s as old as our nation, older than the Second Amendment, which is safe storage of firearms. Back in the colonial times it was mandated and enforced in terms of muskets. Why should it be different today, when eight kids a day are killed or injured by guns that those parents and most gun owners brought in with the idea that they should protect their families? And unless they’re safely stored, it’s tragic that that is exactly the opposite of what’s happening.

QK: I’ve heard some firearm owners and people that say they’re fighting for the Second Amendment who mention some of the recent mass shootings, the tragedy in Australia, for example. They’ll say that country had some of the toughest gun laws around and still that tragedy occurred. They argue restrictions on firearms really don’t make any huge difference, whether it’s children in the home or people out and about. What is your reaction to those kinds of comments?

KB: There was a mass shooting in Australia at Port Arthur. Immediately following that, I think it was a matter of days or weeks, not months, Australia banned various assault style weapons. And they greatly strengthened the regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms in their country. There was a significant reduction in mass shootings.

If you look at U.S. history, we have a distinguishing feature. Here guns are the number one killer of our kids. We experience 26 times the gun violence of every other industrialized country. The five states with the strongest gun laws in this country have a 70% or more reduced experience of gun death and injury compared to the states with the five weakest laws.

Will they prevent every gun death and injury? No, just like speeding limits didn’t stop every automobile fatality. But they reduced them a lot. This is in our hands. This is in the hands of gun owners across this country. That means guns locked, unloaded, and stored separately from ammunition. Doesn’t need a vote at the ballot box. It doesn’t need a better enforcement agency. It needs an individual taking an action that will ensure that a firearm is not used unintentionally to harm someone in their home.

Holiday decorators in Michigan are facing a Grinch stealing part of the Christmas tree business.

The American Christmas Tree Association says most U.S. families use artificial trees that are imported and subject to heavy tariffs.

That could help Michigan real tree growers who provide millions of trees nationwide annually.

But the founder and CEO of artificial tree company Balsam Hill, Mac Harman, says tariffs are forcing price hikes for much of the season’s holiday décor.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Mac Harman: For artificial trees, pre-lit trees, all of those are made in Southeast Asia. 87 % of artificial trees imported to the U.S. last year came from China. It’s going to be lower this year because we and many others have diversified our supply chains to other parts of Southeast Asia. But there’s a tremendous amount of labor that goes into a pre-lit artificial tree.

Most of the reasons that people choose artificial trees are around convenience and longevity. What’s really convenient is you don’t have to spend an hour or more stringing the lights on the tree. And that’s a job that Americans don’t like doing when they set up their farm-grown trees.

And it’s a job that Americans didn’t want to do in factories, which is why pre-lit artificial trees were never made in the United States. That’s why we see them coming in from overseas.

From a farm-grown tree standpoint this year, maybe they have some increased costs affecting something they use on the farm. The price of the tree may not change as much.

But you still need the lights and the tree stand. And those are generally imported as well. Certainly the lights are all imported. And so those costs are up even more because, unfortunately, Christmas lights are tariffed even higher than pre-lit Christmas trees.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: When you were looking at what was going on with tariffs as you were plotting your sales for the holidays this year, how difficult was it? Tariffs would go up, they’d go down again. Is it possible, even with diversifying supply chains, that there could be a shortage of trees?

MH: This year has been the most difficult running a business in my 25 years being a CEO, more difficult than COVID. And it is exactly because of trying to manage the tariffs. Literally the day after the presidential election, we started shipping as many products in as we could because it was talked about that there was going to be a so-called Day One tariff on Inauguration Day. So we and most major retailers shipped-in a lot. Then, on Day One, there wasn’t any tariffs.

There was an announcement that there would be a change on April 2nd. So we all scrambled and manufactured as many goods as we could and shipped them in before April 2nd. Everyone kind of independently made a decision to cut back around 15%-20%. So across the industry about 15% fewer trees were imported this year. We don’t have official data yet because the data was shut down during the government shutdown and they haven’t caught up. But we also think demand is going to be a little bit slower because the prices have gone up.

I think what we’re going to see is that there won’t be as many trees available at clearance. There are consumers who say, “Hey, an artificial tree lasts me 10 years. I can get by with the one I have this year. I’m going to wait ‘till after Christmas and buy one next year.” I don’t think we’re going to see as many of those deals this year. And we’re starting to see across the major retailers, as well as Balsam Hill, that we’re running out of stock on the most popular models because there just aren’t as many to go around this year.

QK: Let me play devil’s advocate. President Trump has long argued that the reason he wants to use tariffs is because he wants to have products made in the U.S. Obviously I’m paraphrasing, but if you’re making something and you’re depending on imports, well, you should be making it in the U.S. instead. So there might be a little bit of short-term pain, but suck it up and start building your stuff in the U.S. What’s your reaction to that argument?

MH: I think it’s fantastic that the president wants to bring strategic good manufacturing back to the U.S. I’d love it if my cell phone, telecommunications equipment, ships, things that we need for our defenses could be made in the U.S. What I don’t think needs to be made in the U.S. are non-strategic goods. And certainly Christmas trees are a non-strategic good, meaning that they don’t have any national security interest.

And they’ve actually never been made in the US. So it’s not even a matter of bringing it back. When the idea for the pre-lit artificial tree came about, the workers in the factories that made unlit artificial trees said they literally did not want to get paid to put lights on a tree. They said they were going to go find another job. And the entire industry moved in the early 1990s over to Thailand at the time.

We are in discussions with the Trump administration in D.C. Pretty much every official I’ve talked to, and I’ve had the privilege to talk to many, agrees with that. We’re hoping that, once things settle down with the U.S. Supreme Court case over IEEPA authority for tariffs, we will see more targeted tariffs. Just like we’ve seen these carve-outs for things that don’t grow here, like bananas and coffee and chocolate, I think we’re going to start to see that for some other non-strategic industries. So I’m hoping that we will see some tariff relief for the Christmas industry in the coming months.

QK: If you did want to try to start making them in the U.S. in some fashion, would that even be possible?

MH: We looked at that back during the first Trump administration. The only way we could manufacture artificial Christmas trees, pre-lit artificial trees in the United States would be if we could invent ways that reduce the labor costs. And we got to a point where a tree that we sell today for $800 would need to sell for about $3,000, back when we looked at this six or seven years ago. And that just isn’t feasible. We have taken another look at it now and not enough things have changed to make any difference in that.

I’ve spent a lot of this year in Washington, D.C., talking with the administration as well as Congress about this holiday decor issue. What we’re hoping for and what we think is going to happen is that President Trump’s going to do something like he did back in 2019, when he was putting the 301 tariffs on China in place. He delayed them until after Christmas to help Christmas retail. That’s public, he spoke about it. At the same time, many Christmas decorations were placed on list 4B, which was tariffed at 0%. So pre-lit Christmas trees have not been tariffed above 0% until this year.

I do think we are going to see some kind of relief from the administration. Going into the mid-term elections next year, you want consumers to be really happy. If everyone goes into Christmas and the conversation around the dinner table is about how expensive the mashed potatoes and the roast beef are, or whatever you’re eating, that’s not going to be a super Merry Christmas from at least an economic standpoint. For us, even though we’ve already imported all the goods we’re going to sell this year, if we know relief is coming next year, there are ways we can cut costs even more. We could potentially lower prices as we’re selling things for the rest of this season.

Right now we’re staring at even higher tariffs next year because the tariffs would be in place for the whole year. Whereas this year they’ve been in place only part of the year. And we brought a lot of our inventory in before those tariffs went into place.

The head of Macomb County’s government says the economic uncertainty felt in some sections of Michigan has yet to truly impact his area.

County Executive Mark Hackel summed up the situation in his annual State of Macomb County speech.

Hackel says the county is not just weathering the ebbs and flows of the overall U.S. economy but thriving in the midst of them.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Mark Hackel: With our financial situation, our economic foundation, we’re in a great place. I know the things that you’re hearing across the country are challenging. But there’s so many things that kind of help lift us up. We’re pretty diverse too, though we rely heavily upon the automotive and defense industries and manufacturing. But the reality is Macomb is in a very sound place.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: President Trump’s tariffs have impacted various segments of the U.S. economy, including the auto sector, which does have a pretty significant presence in Macomb County. Some of the prices for vehicles are starting to climb now. Do you have any concerns about how tariffs or the overall economic outlook are going to impact jobs or other parts of Macomb County’s economy?

MH: We’re always concerned about what happens at the federal and or state level that may have an impact on our economy. But look at what happened in 2010. There was a huge challenge with manufacturing, job losses, housing shortages that we faced back then. And we doubled down on manufacturing. By doing so, we’ve seen our economy continue to grow here.

Macomb County is a $54.2 billion economy. That’s bigger than the states of Vermont and Wyoming. We are right now at an all-time high. There’s never been a better time in Macomb County with our economy being as robust as it is right now. So whatever might happen with some of these tariffs or other economic concerns, we’re not seeing it directly have an impact right now. We’re in a good place with that.

QK: There is some financial stress in other parts of the country, other parts of Michigan, other parts of metro Detroit, for that matter. In your view, why is Macomb County doing well when some of these other places are having a bit of a struggle?

MH: We decided to double down on manufacturing. We retooled some of our manufacturing facilities. They’re different than they once were. We upgraded them. We really put a full-court press on making sure people understood that with our workforce, from concept to consumer, no one does it better than right here in southeast Michigan. And Macomb County is a major part of that. We are the defense capital of the Midwest. More contracts are awarded to Macomb County, as far as the actual number and the money associated with them, than anywhere else in the entire Midwest. So we keep promoting that, we keep pushing that.

And I think all the attention that we’ve been trying to drive has really helped us. We used a protecting growth strategy when we first got in and worked with the state on that. And we’ve done so well that we’re not really as worried about protecting anymore because we’re seeing that continuous growth. So we’re fortunate. Working with everybody has really had an impact on where we’re at today.

QK: In last year’s State of the County speech, you said that Macomb needed to focus on partnerships instead of partisanship. There was a line about not reaching across the aisle but getting in the aisle. How’s that bipartisan effort been going for you?

MH: Aside from a certain election here or there, for the most part, partisanship is not our conversation. None of that drives what we do here in Macomb County. People are willing to work with each other. You’ve heard that phrase, “Us versus everybody.” Some sports teams use it sometimes, municipalities or communities use it, as a sense of pride, a sense of esprit de corps. But when I look back on 15 years of how Macomb County has got to where it’s at and how we’ve evolved, we’ve kind of flipped the narrative on that. We look at it as, “Macomb with everybody.”

We’re trying to partner at the local, state and federal level. And never do we look at it as, “We can’t talk to them because they’re Democrats or Republicans. We can’t let their idea soak through or let them get successful because their party may get credit for it.” We don’t talk about that, don’t think about it. It’s a call for everybody who wants to come to be part of the solution. And if somebody looks more like they’re wanting to be part of the problem or be just a naysayer, we accept that. But the reality is we continue to forge ahead with people that want to provide solutions and help us get to where we need to go.

QK: When you talk about bipartisan cooperation, there are elections next year that could be pretty significant on a number of fronts. Michigan U.S. Rep. John James, for one, is running for governor and leaving a seat open that represents part of Macomb County. And there is a gubernatorial race underway. Whoever ultimately wins, what would you like to see from Lansing that you think could really affect Macomb County?

MH: That same willingness to partner and work with us rather than figure out how they could get credit by giving support to one particular area or segment of the state as opposed to somewhere else. Ensuring they are not ignoring any community within the state of Michigan. Specifically for Macomb County, whoever the governor is needs to realize they’re not the governor on behalf of the party, they’re the governor on behalf of the people. So govern on behalf of the people. That’s all I ask from whoever the next governor is. Work together on projects that matter, whether it’s in Macomb County, southeast Michigan or beyond.

QK: In terms of the partnerships that you’ve had, are there specific projects that you would like to see either the state or the federal government partner with Macomb on? Or projects that you’re pleased that they have partnered with you on to date?

MH: I’ll go with the ones I’m pleased that they have done to date. We got some support from the state because they realized the importance of our new jail project. It isn’t just about a jail. It’s about dealing with people that are going to be assessed for mental health or substance abuse when they’re brought in at the first point of contact. Every municipality now is partnered-in on this particular facility. We make a determination whether there’s any substance abuse, then decide what we need to do. The state partnered with us with some financial contributions because it impacts the state prison system too. When people are leaving our facility and sentenced on a felony, they’re going to the state facility. We look at what happened with Mound Road, a quarter of a billion dollar project. We got some state funding to help support that as well as federal and local. And then look what happened with Selfridge Air National Guard Base and us pushing the defense industry here in Macomb County. We are the defense capital of Midwest. And I do declare that at some point in time we’re going to be the defense capital of America.

There’s so much happening and we’re so excited about that. But there’s more to be done. We’re partnering on trying to figure out how we retool a facility or find a new use for the Romeo Ford engine plant. We’re looking at the Romeo airport. There’s a lot more that we need to do with our water quality. The support we get from Candice Miller and her team at Public Works. I’m telling you, there’s another trusted voice and a fierce advocate for cleaning our waterways and making sure we’re addressing underground issues. So, a lot has been happening. We’re going to continue those conversations and hopefully wherever the next governor is, they’re willing to address the issues that we’re talking about as opposed to politics.

The whole issue of where we’re headed as a region and even as a state is incredibly important. The biggest thing is that we all need to come together because we need to be competitive with other regions around the globe. And southeast Michigan is a major player. But our biggest challenge right now is our workforce, making sure that we’re attracting people to this area so they take on these jobs. That provides better opportunities for these manufacturers or companies that do the things that they do here in southeast Michigan. Us all coming together to promote the region as one.

The Trump administration wants to cut the number of waterways protected under the Clean Water Act.

Some business owners and developers say the move would help them operate better because it would change which wetlands and streams legally count as an “official water of the United States.”

Those designations are covered by the Clean Air Act, which was originally written in part by the late Michigan Congressman John Dingell.

His wife, current U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, says protecting streams and wetlands helps stop pollution from flowing to large bodies of water like the Great Lakes.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

U.S. Rep Debbie Dingell: People that are seasoned, like myself, know what our waters used to look like. And John Dingell was really the significant author of the Clean Water Act, along with the late former U.S. Sen. Ed Muskie. And he did it because the Rouge River caught on fire. Now, the consequences of what this administration is going to do would undermine the strong protections that have kept our water safe and healthy and have cleaned them up. So I’m very concerned that we not go backwards. We see the Great Lakes and our Detroit water system is significantly improved from where it was 30 years ago, 40 years ago. But we have to keep cleaning it up. And taking away those safeguards endangers our water.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: Some environmental groups often raise concerns about runoff from farmland into waterways or companies dumping there illegally at times. Now they say this change proposed by the Trump administration could increase the chance of those types of activities happening. Do you agree with those kinds of concerns?

DD: I’m very, very concerned about what this means and what the real consequences are. Lake Erie has seen very significant experiences of algae blooms. People have actually been told not to drink tap water. So I think it’s very important that we make every effort to continue to clean up our water, protect our waters. And the administration’s announcement that they were going to roll back Clean Water Act regulations worries me greatly.

QK: On the other side, some business owners and farmers, among others, have said that they think the change will help them. It’ll limit the costs and regulatory red tape, they say, of having to check if a stream or other waterway on their property is covered under the Clean Water Act. They say it should be something that states regulate more than the federal government. What’s your reaction to those comments?

DD: We need to have federal regulation. Because here’s the reality. Water doesn’t say, “oops, I’m at a state line.” Do you think Lake Erie or the Detroit River know when they’ve crossed a state border? I think we should all be working together to keep our water safe. But when water runoff is going into major tributaries like the Huron River, the Rouge River, then goes into the Detroit River, which goes into the Great Lakes, there are consequences when there are things in those waters that are not safe. Things the public needs to be protected from. I want to reduce regulation. I want to look at how we can simplify. But undermining the goal of clean water is something that worries me greatly and something I will always fight for.

Detroit Mayor-elect Mary Sheffield is shaping her administration’s personnel and policy priorities.

A group of 18 committees will advise Sheffield about what issues to tackle first.

She calls it the most inclusive mayoral transition in Detroit’s history.

Attorney Butch Hollowell is leading Sheffield’s transition team, as he’s done for many other officials.

Hollowell says he finds this change in city leadership unique in a variety of ways.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Butch Hollowell:  We’re off to a flying start. I think the whole team and the whole city is just energized behind the first woman mayor in the city of Detroit. She came in with 77% of the vote. That in and of itself tells you that there’s a mandate from our community for what Mary Sheffield stands for. And that’s making sure that we have a city where everyone feels that they’re included as we deliver core city services, improve the quality of life and address these issues at the kitchen table level. Mayor-elect Sheffield has asked me to put together a transition team that’s smooth in terms of the handoff from the Duggan administration to the Sheffield administration. And that it is the most community-driven transition in Detroit’s history.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: What is your role specifically in the transition? Do you recommend certain people to lead on policy or do you say there’s certain positions on the mayor-elect’s staff that have to be filled right now? How do those nuts-and-bolts work?

BH: It’s a little premature to talk about that. Right now what we’ve done is focus on 18 different policy areas such as infrastructure and transportation and housing and education, the meat-and-potatoes issues that affect Detroiters on a day-to-day basis. Once we get down the line with those discussions, we’ll also begin to think of what should the administration look like and what skill sets would be necessary to carry out those policy initiatives. That kind of tells you the kind of person needed to head this agency or that agency.

It’s interesting, the cross-section of amazing Detroiters that have agreed to participate in this. You’ve got the city’s premier grassroots agency for Latino issues working with the chief operating officer of Henry Ford Health. You’ve got the individual who heads the neighborhood community violence initiative on the grassroots level working with the chair of Huntington Bank. We have the East Side Community Development head working with the vice chair of the Detroit Pistons. We’ve never had that kind of a team all in one room, all rowing in unison on the same boat and with the same oars. It was inspiring.

QK: Were you choosing specific individuals for this? Did people volunteer and say, “Boy, we want to help?” How hard was it to decide who was going to be on the transition team?

BH: First of all, nobody told me, “No,” not one person. We looked at people who have a certain skill set in an area, people that have known the mayor-elect, who know me. Then we have an internal team that we kind of bounced some names off of, and I reached out and made phone calls about whether or not they’d be willing to serve. Ultimately that decision was presented to Mayor-elect Sheffield. She’ll make the call for each one of those leadership positions.

Part of it was to explain what we wanted from them. We want concrete plans that can be achieved by this new administration in the 100 days, the first year and the first term in office. They’re going to be looking at what Mary Sheffield’s been saying on the campaign trail. What is her vision for this city in a particular area? And then we test that against national best practices. Is there something that they’re doing in Philadelphia that’s really great or something they’re doing in Los Angeles that particularly works? Maybe we’re the best at it. But maybe we can learn from others. Then the third part of it is to ask each one of those co-chairs to use their own background and experience to work with each other, work with their committees and come up with these concrete results.

We want concrete plans that can be achieved by this new administration in the 100 days, the first year and the first term in office.

QK: There’s always competing interests in various groups. Do you have a sense yet as to what the initial major priorities would be for the mayor-elect? As you say, she mentioned several on the campaign trail.

BH: There two parts to that question. The first part is some things overlap. For example, you can’t talk about transportation by itself, given that 35% of Detroiters go outside of the city for employment and come back in every day. Transportation has to be top of mind also as an economic development issue. And even though there’s a separate economic development team, there are educational initiatives that are important for that and other areas. So we talked about that internally in the work group saying, “You’re going to have some overlap. That’s okay. Just make sure that we have open lines of communication.”

The other part about it is yes, there are some priorities that the mayor-elect had talked about on the campaign trail, particularly just really lifting up the community violence initiative that’s gotten the buy-in, I think, from the entire city. That’s a real top priority for us. Education is a top priority as well. We’ve got to make sure that our kids are ready for the workforce and ready to be able to enter into civic life. Transportation is a critical area, as I said, so that people can get around efficiently. And, of course, the neighborhoods. We need to make sure that everybody feels and can recognize that everyone has a say, everyone has a stake. She wants everyone to know that’s being honored. Those are things that jumped out. There are certainly others but we’ll get through that as this process evolves.

You’re given such a short window in which to bring these plans to fruition and make sure they’re not just something that’s going to sit on a shelf and gather dust. These are action plans. We’re very committed to saying to each of these 18 groups, “Come up with, not a laundry list, but a list of two, three, four things that can be achievable, that Detroiters will see the results of in a focused period of time.” Again, in that first 100 days, first year, first term.