By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
How many students have to be shot to death in their schools before
this country has a serious discussion about guns? Are the 10 who have
been gunned down just since Feb. 27 enough?
The question of the constitutional right to own guns is irrelevant
here—even if you believe that the Constitution gives every last
American the right to own a firearm (which The Times editorial board
does not, but many other reasonable people do).
There is simply no defending the many states that allow people not
just to keep guns in their homes, but to buy an unlimited number of
weapons each month, and to carry guns, concealed or visible, into
public areas, including schools and churches and libraries. The
culture of permissiveness is now so out of control that the city
attorney in Tampa has said he cannot stop people from carrying guns
into the security perimeter that will be established around the site
of the Republican convention in August.
There is no defending the federal Tiahrt Amendments, which prohibit
law enforcement from using gun trace data in a civil proceeding to
revoke the license of a gun dealer who was caught breaking the law.
The Tiahrt Amendments also require the Justice Department to destroy
approved background checks within 24 hours, making it harder to catch
dealers who falsify their records, and harder to track straw
purchasers.
Just on Monday, a 43-year-old former student at Oikos University near
the Oakland International Airport sprayed gunfire into a classroom,
killing seven people.
Would tougher gun laws have prevented the incident? It's difficult to
prove, but we do know that such massacres are more common than they
used to be. The San Francisco Chronicle compiled a list showing that
there have been six school shootings in the last 12 years, compared to
10 in the entire 20th century. The United States has more spree
killings than the rest of the developed world, combined.
And there is little doubt that Trayvon Martin would be alive today if
Florida weren't so lenient when it comes to gun regulation—if it
didn't allow civilians to carry around firearms, basically at will,
shoot people and then make a claim self-defense, freezing criminal
investigations.
There can be a middle ground on guns. Most reasonable Americans, for
instance, understand that it's necessary for gun owners to pass
through a registration process, and think that it's proper for the
government to ban assault weapons.
No gun law will stop all gang members from finding weapons to kill
each other, passersby and the police. But at least the authorities
should be able to stop unscrupulous gun dealers from selling weapons
to people who turn around and peddle them to criminals.
The problem is obvious – the National Rifle Association, which simply
could not exist if Americans came together to agree on reasonable gun
regulation. Its fundraising would dry up. The solution is also
obvious. Members of Congress, from both parties, need to stop their
reflexive obeisance to the N.R.A.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment