Deafening silence No talk of gun control in D.C., on campaign trail
Note the part at the bottom: "Reader Comments -- This article has 7 comments"
Deafening silence
No talk of gun control in D.C., on campaign trail
The murder of 32 people at Virginia Tech by a disturbed student last month sparked an outpouring of shock and sorrow across the nation and triggered debate about mental illness, safety on college campuses, media responsibility and more. In the three weeks since the April 16 massacre, however, there has been a surprising lack of public and political discourse about the role played in the massacre by the laughably easy access to lethal weaponry in Virginia and other states.
After the shootings in Columbine, Colo., in 1999, and after deadly shootings at schools in Colorado, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania last fall, President Bush and Congress reacted swiftly with a special White House conference and legislative packages. Perhaps because official Washington is currently consumed with the partisan jousting over Iraq war funding, the Virginia killings seem to have made little impression. The dozen or so candidates traveling the country in pursuit of their parties’ presidential nominations seem to be avoiding discussion of the issue for fear of alienating the pro-gun constituencies in predominantly rural early primary states.
The killings warrant more than a politics-as-usual response, especially as more details become known about how the Virginia Tech shooter acquired his arsenal. Cho Seung-Hui was declared by a Virginia court to be a danger to himself and was sent in 2005 for outpatient psychiatric treatment, a finding that disqualified him under federal law. However, he was able to buy two guns because under Virginia law such a court order was not an impediment to gun purchases — until April 30 when Gov. Timothy Kaine signed an executive order closing that loophole.
As The New York Times reported last week, Virginia is among only 22 states that give mental health reports to the U.S. National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Even so, the wording of state laws tends to differ somewhat from federal wording. The wide variations in restrictions from state to state have given rise to an illicit interstate gun pipeline from less restrictive Southern states to the Northeast and New England.
Tough gun laws are not a panacea, of course. But uniform, well-enforced federal standards on the firearms trade — based on Massachusetts’ toughest-in-the-nation regulations passed in 1998 — would go a long way toward discouraging the interstate black market in guns.
With an estimated 200 million weapons in circulation throughout this country and more than 30,000 firearms-related deaths annually, it long past is time to follow the lead of countries such as Great Britain and France where national gun control laws have proved very successful. As gun advocates and manufacturers are quick to say, the Second Amendment establishes a right to private gun ownership, at least for the maintaining “a well-regulated Militia.” However, the Founding Fathers never envisioned unfettered, unlimited access to firearms for all comers, including homicidally disturbed individuals.
Certainly, there should be provision for access to firearms for legitimate sporting purposes and for responsible individuals with demonstrable, compelling need. But it should not be beyond this nation’s ability to craft a nuanced, uniform federal gun law that protects legitimate firearms use and public safety at the same time.
Note the part at the bottom: "Reader Comments -- This article has 7 comments"
