Candidates quiet on gun issues (Chicago Tribune Commentary)

[Neo-Luddite]

(FYI: Take Blood Pressure meds before continuing. -Mike)


Commentary

Candidates quiet on gun issues
By Ronald S. Safer
February 28, 2008


Silence is in short supply this political season. The airwaves are filled with candidates talking about every issue under the sun. The other omnipresent feature in the news is mass murder and the mourning that follows. Interesting that these two circles do not overlap. Why aren't politicians even engaging in the debate about how to stop these shootings?

On Feb. 14, Steven Kazmierczak, armed with three handguns and a shotgun, opened fire on students at Northern Illinois University, leaving five dead. On Feb. 2, five women were shot to death in a Lane Bryant store in Tinley Park.

It is unfair to say that our leaders in Washington did nothing between those dates regarding gun control. On Feb. 8, a majority of Congress found time to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the District of Columbia. The fate of that law, passed by a City Council that represents a community desperate to stop gathering to mourn the shooting deaths of their children, will be determined by the court this term. Were the members of Congress who urged defeat of that law moved to action by their long study of the history behind the 2nd Amendment's pronouncement about well-regulated militias? Or were they moved by crass self-interest?




Perhaps there are some clues in history.

Congress, including some of the same people who urged the court to strike down the Washington law, allowed the federal ban on assault weapons to lapse. These semiautomatic weapons, many of which are easily convertible to automatic weapons that allow its shooter to spray an area with 30 or more bullets in seconds, are not for hunters or homeowners. Rather, they appeal to gang members and their ilk.

How many more times must we read about innocent victims of gun violence?

When I prosecuted the leaders of the Gangster Disciples, I learned that these weapons were as precious to gangs as the drugs they trafficked. At that time, these weapons were unlawful and difficult for the gangs to obtain, making them ripe for undercover sting operations that led to prosecutions.

Today, thanks to Congress, gang members (not all of whom are felons) can walk into a gun store and lawfully purchase these weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to Congress, prosecutors and law enforcement officers wrestling with gangs have to come up with new and different strategies. Maybe it is just a coincidence that many of the mass killings -- and countless other, less notorious, but far more common shootings -- are done with semiautomatic weapons.

Maybe Congress thought it was a good idea to allow more of these weapons on the streets and it was just a coincidence that the ban lapsed after the National Rifle Association promised to target congressmen who voted to renew it.

The Chicago Tribune recently described the patchwork nature of the states' gun-control laws. If gun control is the answer, that solution can only come from the federal government. What is most alarming is not that the solution hasn't been fashioned, it is the debate is not raging, even in the face of catastrophe after catastrophe.

Campaigns for primaries fill the news. The candidates endlessly debate every nuance of every issue. Yet if the debate about gun control is taking place, it is certainly not front and center on the national scene. Why shouldn't we look to Washington to at least struggle with the question, if not provide the answer? The NRA and its members are single-minded about what the answer is not. They are organized, well-funded and hire extremely effective lobbyists. Could that be why the question is not being asked?

Or maybe it is just coincidence.

----------

Ronald Safer is a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Chicago. During the 1990s, he headed the Justice Department's prosecution of Chicago's Gangster Disciples.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0228gunsfeb28,0,2972245.story

 

[D94R]

I try to avoid topics such as these, cause lengthy responses ensue and it gets to be repetitive, but alas.

Were the members of Congress who urged defeat of that law moved to action by their long study of the history behind the 2nd Amendment's pronouncement about well-regulated militias? Or were they moved by crass self-interest?

Why is it or? Every one of them with an agenda full of swiss cheese holes thinks its always 100% black or white when it comes to gun control. Yet they seem incapable of grasping anything rational about the whole situation. Rather they'd prefer to let emotion and opinion substitute that of fact. There are no facts in that article to back any kind of notion that guns are the culprit, only their misinterpreted ideals and feelings on the situation(s).

Perhaps there are some clues in history.

YES, there are multiple clues. Some of the more profound clues are those in recent history dealing with the very occurances he makes initial reference to. The trend seems to see all these "mass murderings" in gun control areas. The crime rate increased with the ban of hand guns in D.C., and that was a direct correlation in regards to time. Too big of a coincidence to simply push that to the side and say the gun ban had nothing to do with it. And in almost the same breath, the article writer switches from using "three handguns and a shotgun" causing "mass murder", to saying "These semiautomatic weapons, many of which are easily convertible to automatic weapons that allow its shooter to spray an area with 30 or more bullets in seconds".

Sorry, but keeping with context to make a valid point is not this guys strong suit. The sheeple and un-educated will follow said words and believe this guy knows what he is talking about. He simply doesn't. I don't think I've ever seen a semi auto shotgun capable of pumping out 30 or more bullets a second.

I've recently (after the Brady Bill lapse) got into guns. So I may be a bit un-educated myself as to its terms. But weren't various kinds of "semi auto weapons" still available during said ban? As I understand it, hand guns (and rifles?) of semiauto capabilities were still available, just without high capacity mags right?

It seems he's using a crutch as a leg to stand on, and the crutch is broke.

Regardless of if the guns in the shootings were purchased legally or not, they were still acquirable during the ban as they are now. Especially the "three handguns and a shotgun" which were used to kill the students at Northing Ill. Any modifications to them after purchase which would have then made them illegal are nothing that can be controlled if it was done out of the publics eye.

How many more times must we read about innocent victims of gun violence?

Indefinitely until nut jobs such as that guy understand that a carrying public is a protected public. It was a carrying off duty cop who ended the Trolley Square killings in Utah here. What would have happened had there been no one there with a CCW to intervene? Or how many lives could have been saved at Columbine(sp?), Northern Ill, or a multitude of other places had there been someone with the capability to put the killer to a halt. These guys are however incapable of seeing the other side of the coin, which is scary.

At that time, these weapons were unlawful and difficult for the gangs to obtain...
Today, thanks to Congress, gang members (not all of whom are felons) can walk into a gun store and lawfully purchase these weapons of mass destruction.

If they are not a fellon, and have a clean backround, it's sad to say, but they have every right to own a fire arm as anyone else. It's sad that such people buy the guns with future intentions of using them on someone else senselessly, but until we can create a back round check with ESP you will never be able to determine if a purchased gun is going to be used maliciously or not by anyone.

Whats up with the weapons of mass destruction BS. It's not enough that every gun that is capable of shooting speeds faster than that of a flint lock rifle is an "assault weapon" these days, now they have to escalate to calling them WMD's? Is it propaganda, or that these people seriously can not distinguish between reality and fiction?

Maybe Congress thought it was a good idea to allow more of these weapons on the streets

Look, another gross inaccuracy. I don't see a multitude of AK's and "WMD's" in peoples hands when I drive down the street. In fact, I've never seen anything like that, ever. If someone has a CCW, I'd assume they'd have the permit. Even if they didn't, I wouldn't know it anyhow since I shouldn't be able to know they have the gun(s) if its concealed.

But, assuming someone was illegally carrying a gun discretely to commit a crime, and there was a ban on weapons (CCW's are a possibility if Obama has a say) then their target stands zero chance of defense, other than to hope the response of the cops is faster than a bullet or two.

If gun control is the answer, that solution can only come from the federal government.

The Bill of Rights was established to limit the Gov's input and actions. Why would we rely on the Gov to now dictate what the public should be deeming legal or not? This guy can give up his rights like a beaten dog, I'll fight for mine. I suppose he thinks the U.S. will just kiss and make up with eachother if there were a gun ban. It won't happen, those law abiding will be defensless and those who broke/break the law will simply continue. It's not as if the crime commiters will simply go "Oh my god, I've got a gun illegally, I'm going to stop carrying it now." They have very little to nothing to lose as it is, what's a few words on an official document going to do to them?

The Chicago Tribune recently described the patchwork nature of the states' gun-control laws.

Of course it looks patchwork. The STATE body is who has (had more like it) the final say when it comes to this type of dealing. They were Militia's because they were STATE run. Not controlled by big government. They simply formed up when called upon to defend the nation to keep their STATE rights. Again this guy is not able to separate fact from his own opinions, not being able to distinguish state and federal government, and using either's power to slander the opposites capabilities is how the mis informed become more entrenched with wrong information.

Or maybe it is just coincidence.

No, this guy's just a nut.