10 Questions: What About Gun Control?
Almost invariably, America can't suffer a gun tragedy--like this week's massacre at Virginia Tech--without a gun debate immediately following it. The basic question is this: Should government impose restrictions on what kind of guns can be sold, and to whom? Would those restrictions make us any safer?
For one side's perspective on this issue, we turned to Paul Helmke, a Republican who is the former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a pro-gun control group.
1.Mr. Helmke, it almost seems too early to discuss a policy response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech. And yet, people are already lining up behind various ideas including more gun control-which your group obviously supports. Are there any measures that could have been taken to prevent this tragedy?
We’ll never know for sure if this horrific shooting could have been prevented, but it seems quite clear that what we’re doing now is not working and that this individual should not have been allowed to get his guns and ammunition so easily. It’s still unclear whether his mental health history legally disqualified him from purchasing weapons. If so, this information apparently didn’t get to the state and federal authorities who should have disapproved these sales. In approving gun sales, the focus should be on completeness, not quickness. If his documented history wasn’t a disqualifier, it should have been. Requiring references could have made it obvious that guns shouldn’t be sold to this person. A stronger, more extensive system of real background checks might have made a difference. In addition, ballistics microstamping technology might have allowed the police to determine more quickly after the first two killings who the shooter was.
2.What do you say to those who argue that Virginia Tech had already implemented several gun safety measures on campus-banning guns in classrooms and dorms-that apparently did nothing to help?
Partial restrictions by a university or a city are going to be of limited effectiveness when an individual can go off-campus or out of the city or to the next state and easily acquire these weapons – in this case, not once but twice. We need effective, enforceable, national, common-sense restrictions to prevent such easy, quick access to so much deadly firepower.
3. A leading Virginia gun rights group said that if one of the victims were carrying a concealed weapon, this massacre might have been averted. What's wrong with that argument?
It’s natural to ask “what if” and think that maybe some Gary Cooper/John Wayne hero might have been able to react quickly enough to limit the amount of death and injury after the shooter burst into the classrooms and started firing numerous rounds from a high-capacity clip in just seconds. As a former mayor, however, I know that being able to react quickly and effectively without becoming one of the first targets of the shooter is difficult even for trained police officers. Studies show that adding more guns to a home, a community, state, or country leads to more deaths and violence, not less.
4. Are you disappointed by the dearth of national politicians calling for more gun control as a response to this?
There are many strong leaders on this issue at the national, state, and local level, and there will be more in the days ahead, but most politicians are extremely risk-averse. We need leaders to step forward to address the question of what we need to do to reduce gun violence. The public needs to ask elected officials and candidates: “What are you going to do about it?” Other countries have figured out ways to reduce gun violence. This is not an insolvable problem.
5. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats are now averse to gun control because it cost Al Gore three states-Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas-any one of which would have made him president. Why should Democrats risk political defeat to argue for gun control?
Supporting common-sense measures to restrict the easy availability to guns, like we saw here, and make our communities safer should be a political winner, not loser, in 2008. I know of no candidate, at any level, who was hurt by taking such a stand in the 2006 elections. Thirty-two people die from gun homicides every day in this country. What we’re doing now is not working. In 2000, George Bush supported the federal assault weapons ban, trigger locks, and “smart gun” technology in order to attract votes from the center. If Al Gore had been declared the winner in Florida, or done any number of things differently in 2000, no one would be talking about gun politics this way.
6. You are a Republican. Why do you think formerly pro-gun control members of your party, like Rudy Giuliani, are now backing away from that position?
The Republican party that I grew up with in Fort Wayne, Indiana solidly supported “law and order” measures to keep our communities safer. Republicans like Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were supporters of strong sensible gun laws. Because those who believe in almost any gun, any time, anywhere, for anybody have become so vocal, so unwilling to look for areas of compromise, and so tied into G.O.P. primary politics, too many Republican politicians have been trying to disavow their common sense positions from the past.
7. President Bush says he supports an assault weapons ban-which the Republicans in Congress let expire. Groups like yours criticized the White House for not doing much to help re-authorize it. First of all, how do you define an assault weapon (as opposed to the semi-automatic that was apparently used at Virginia Tech)? And what have been the consequences of not renewing the ban?
The term “assault weapon” was coined by gun companies, who used it in the 1980’s to market their product. It means a weapon designed for use by soldiers in war to kill large numbers of people in a crowded setting as rapidly as possible: a weapon with features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, grenade launchers, flash suppressors that cloak the location of the shooter, and barrel shrouds to prevent the shooter from getting his hands burned after prolonged, rapid fire.
The federal assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in September 2004 included a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, like the one that the Virginia Tech killer had for his Glock semiautomatic pistol. What a high-capacity clip does is allow you to fire more shots without reloading. Before the ban expired, new clips holding more than 10 rounds were banned from sale. Because the ban expired, this killer was able to buy larger clips. He was thus able to fire more bullets without reloading.
8. Isn't it true that people kill people-as the cliché goes-and that a criminal will always find a way to get a gun?
While it is “people who kill people,” they do so more often, and more successfully because we make it so easy to get such lethal weapons. Gun violence statistics show that if you tighten access to firearms, you get fewer gun deaths and injuries. Making it harder for dangerous people and criminals to get guns make it less likely that they will get them. These guns come from somewhere – they don’t grow on trees in the “bad” parts of town. Stopping “straw purchases” of guns from dealers, limiting the number of guns that dealers can sell at one time, requiring complete background checks on all gun sales, and strengthening law enforcement’s ability to combat illegal trafficking guns and corrupt dealers could significantly reduce the supply of guns available to criminals.
9. If tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech won't cause gun control legislation to pass, will anything?
We will take action to slow our nation’s gun violence. It is inevitable. The only question is how long it will take – how many more will die or be injured before we do something about it. There are many of us dedicated to fighting for common sense gun laws. For the sake of the families of gun violence victims in America and all of us who help pay the costs and suffer the consequences of the decline in public safety and security, I desperately hope we take action sooner rather than later. I don’t think America wants to declare defeat on this issue.
10. You went to Yale Law School with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Do you think Senator Clinton would take action on this issue if she is elected president?
President Bill Clinton showed that federal policies promoting more police and less guns helped reduce violent crime. He’s pointed out that recent federal policies leading to less police and more guns has led to a rise in violence. Senator Hillary Clinton has always supported sensible gun laws which help prevent violence and fight crime while allowing legitimate uses of guns for sporting purposes, collecting, and self-defense. Most of the Presidential candidates have shown some level of support for sensible gun restrictions in the past. What we need is a leader who can help start a national dialogue on this issue and bridge the gap that divides Americans on this issue as well as others.
(bradycampaign.org)
1.Mr. Helmke, it almost seems too early to discuss a policy response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech. And yet, people are already lining up behind various ideas including more gun control-which your group obviously supports. Are there any measures that could have been taken to prevent this tragedy?
We’ll never know for sure if this horrific shooting could have been prevented, but it seems quite clear that what we’re doing now is not working and that this individual should not have been allowed to get his guns and ammunition so easily. It’s still unclear whether his mental health history legally disqualified him from purchasing weapons. If so, this information apparently didn’t get to the state and federal authorities who should have disapproved these sales. In approving gun sales, the focus should be on completeness, not quickness. If his documented history wasn’t a disqualifier, it should have been. Requiring references could have made it obvious that guns shouldn’t be sold to this person. A stronger, more extensive system of real background checks might have made a difference. In addition, ballistics microstamping technology might have allowed the police to determine more quickly after the first two killings who the shooter was.
2.What do you say to those who argue that Virginia Tech had already implemented several gun safety measures on campus-banning guns in classrooms and dorms-that apparently did nothing to help?
Partial restrictions by a university or a city are going to be of limited effectiveness when an individual can go off-campus or out of the city or to the next state and easily acquire these weapons – in this case, not once but twice. We need effective, enforceable, national, common-sense restrictions to prevent such easy, quick access to so much deadly firepower.
3. A leading Virginia gun rights group said that if one of the victims were carrying a concealed weapon, this massacre might have been averted. What's wrong with that argument?
It’s natural to ask “what if” and think that maybe some Gary Cooper/John Wayne hero might have been able to react quickly enough to limit the amount of death and injury after the shooter burst into the classrooms and started firing numerous rounds from a high-capacity clip in just seconds. As a former mayor, however, I know that being able to react quickly and effectively without becoming one of the first targets of the shooter is difficult even for trained police officers. Studies show that adding more guns to a home, a community, state, or country leads to more deaths and violence, not less.
4. Are you disappointed by the dearth of national politicians calling for more gun control as a response to this?
There are many strong leaders on this issue at the national, state, and local level, and there will be more in the days ahead, but most politicians are extremely risk-averse. We need leaders to step forward to address the question of what we need to do to reduce gun violence. The public needs to ask elected officials and candidates: “What are you going to do about it?” Other countries have figured out ways to reduce gun violence. This is not an insolvable problem.
5. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats are now averse to gun control because it cost Al Gore three states-Tennessee, West Virginia, and Arkansas-any one of which would have made him president. Why should Democrats risk political defeat to argue for gun control?
Supporting common-sense measures to restrict the easy availability to guns, like we saw here, and make our communities safer should be a political winner, not loser, in 2008. I know of no candidate, at any level, who was hurt by taking such a stand in the 2006 elections. Thirty-two people die from gun homicides every day in this country. What we’re doing now is not working. In 2000, George Bush supported the federal assault weapons ban, trigger locks, and “smart gun” technology in order to attract votes from the center. If Al Gore had been declared the winner in Florida, or done any number of things differently in 2000, no one would be talking about gun politics this way.
6. You are a Republican. Why do you think formerly pro-gun control members of your party, like Rudy Giuliani, are now backing away from that position?
The Republican party that I grew up with in Fort Wayne, Indiana solidly supported “law and order” measures to keep our communities safer. Republicans like Nixon, Ford, and Reagan were supporters of strong sensible gun laws. Because those who believe in almost any gun, any time, anywhere, for anybody have become so vocal, so unwilling to look for areas of compromise, and so tied into G.O.P. primary politics, too many Republican politicians have been trying to disavow their common sense positions from the past.
7. President Bush says he supports an assault weapons ban-which the Republicans in Congress let expire. Groups like yours criticized the White House for not doing much to help re-authorize it. First of all, how do you define an assault weapon (as opposed to the semi-automatic that was apparently used at Virginia Tech)? And what have been the consequences of not renewing the ban?
The term “assault weapon” was coined by gun companies, who used it in the 1980’s to market their product. It means a weapon designed for use by soldiers in war to kill large numbers of people in a crowded setting as rapidly as possible: a weapon with features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, grenade launchers, flash suppressors that cloak the location of the shooter, and barrel shrouds to prevent the shooter from getting his hands burned after prolonged, rapid fire.
The federal assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in September 2004 included a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, like the one that the Virginia Tech killer had for his Glock semiautomatic pistol. What a high-capacity clip does is allow you to fire more shots without reloading. Before the ban expired, new clips holding more than 10 rounds were banned from sale. Because the ban expired, this killer was able to buy larger clips. He was thus able to fire more bullets without reloading.
8. Isn't it true that people kill people-as the cliché goes-and that a criminal will always find a way to get a gun?
While it is “people who kill people,” they do so more often, and more successfully because we make it so easy to get such lethal weapons. Gun violence statistics show that if you tighten access to firearms, you get fewer gun deaths and injuries. Making it harder for dangerous people and criminals to get guns make it less likely that they will get them. These guns come from somewhere – they don’t grow on trees in the “bad” parts of town. Stopping “straw purchases” of guns from dealers, limiting the number of guns that dealers can sell at one time, requiring complete background checks on all gun sales, and strengthening law enforcement’s ability to combat illegal trafficking guns and corrupt dealers could significantly reduce the supply of guns available to criminals.
9. If tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech won't cause gun control legislation to pass, will anything?
We will take action to slow our nation’s gun violence. It is inevitable. The only question is how long it will take – how many more will die or be injured before we do something about it. There are many of us dedicated to fighting for common sense gun laws. For the sake of the families of gun violence victims in America and all of us who help pay the costs and suffer the consequences of the decline in public safety and security, I desperately hope we take action sooner rather than later. I don’t think America wants to declare defeat on this issue.
10. You went to Yale Law School with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Do you think Senator Clinton would take action on this issue if she is elected president?
President Bill Clinton showed that federal policies promoting more police and less guns helped reduce violent crime. He’s pointed out that recent federal policies leading to less police and more guns has led to a rise in violence. Senator Hillary Clinton has always supported sensible gun laws which help prevent violence and fight crime while allowing legitimate uses of guns for sporting purposes, collecting, and self-defense. Most of the Presidential candidates have shown some level of support for sensible gun restrictions in the past. What we need is a leader who can help start a national dialogue on this issue and bridge the gap that divides Americans on this issue as well as others.
Washington and Jefferson could not have forseen the technological advance of weapons in our day. Imagine if they were to tour a major American city today and see the effects of these weapons: they would not have used their quotes as you have abused them. We can just imagine their reaction! Washington did not stand still for armed mob action in the Whiskey Rebellion. Would he sit still as our nation's security is robbed by the wholesale availability of these advanced weapons of war?
I said it once and I will say it again. If you wish to carry a military-like assault weapon, you should join the military or become a law enforcement officer. Be a public servant.
This decision to let the assault weapons law lapse has come back to haunt the country. But even more has to be done than that law. There must be reasonable restrictions on the possession of these weapons of war. And it will take a war on assault weapons to undo what has been done.
Eric
This "all or nothing" approach to the subject is just not reasonable. Make criminals work for their guns. Don't allow them to be able to buy them from gun stores and the internet. And if they are caught with illegal firearms, lock them up and throw away the key.
If the founding fathers could see this country today, they would either regret they started it in the first place, or would regret they had not been more specific in the Bill of Rights.
There is no British crown here. It only exists in the minds of the McVeigh's. We need to fight them. And the gun lobbies. The weapons of war must go. For our children and our grandchildren.
Eric
Well, nowadays, we are seeing drive by shootings, a group of people breaking and entering homes, all of whom are armed, some poor guy walking down the street gets shot because, "He LOOKED like a snitch," gang murders, gang rapes, capture bonding, and the such, we may may just NEED 2 or 3 30 round assault rifles. We're going back to the days of the mafia. We'll then go back to wild, wild, west. If you carry a weapon responsibly, walk with group,but leave no doubt that you will use it, it enhances freedom. Otherwise, the only people enforcing their freedoms will be the drug dealers, pimps, murderers, rapists, illegal aliens, gang bangers, and ex-cons. They are armed and intentionally pose themselves a threat. Isn't it crazy that people who call themselves Americans but live on alien ideals are the terrorist threats we need to worry about? The sooner we realize this, the better!
Only those who read The Turner Diaries believe in such paranoia.
Reasonable controls over military weapons are a responsibility we have for our children and grandchildren.
If you wish a weapon for home defense, a 30 round assault rifle is ridiculous. A 12 gauge is still the best defensive weapon in-home. The weapons of war must go, however.
Eric
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it".
With the proper education, instruction and training one would be able to handle one and many lives could have been saved. It is pretty sad when one has to rely on a poll instead of facts and common sense for a sense of security. Too bad that some just don't understand that. Look at what DYN175 had posted, EVEN the POLICE said themselves they should have been armed. If that is not common sense, than what is? Even though in some towns and cities, it may take only about 5-10 minutes for police and sheriff's deputies to get there, it could seem like 5-10 hours for them to do so. Not only that, a bullet can travel way faster than that and what if one was on the receiving end of the bullet? Take it from one who's uncle was on the police force for 30 years and one who's good friend is a sheriff, one should look more carefully and not depend on a poll to decide. For more information, please look at and read 2 web pages. www.gunowners.org and www.jpfo.org
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=67f00436-536c-405e-addb-ef09fdb57bd7
With the proper training one would be able to handle one and
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
and one by one of the Founding Fathers themself..
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Benjamin Franklin
and last but not least..
"Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those who haven't"... unknown.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao
Mass Murders Agree - Gun Control Works!
Democracy). Even though, a majority may not exist, it IS still their right to speak out- their right to redress their grivances.
It does NOT matter what kind of gun/weapons laws are in effect, because a criminal is going to get a side-arm/weapon whether anyone likes it or not, that IS why they are called a CRIMINAL-which should not be so hard to understand, that is just something there called common sense.
In closing, Gun-Control kills. One example, Virginia Tech. Had they been allowed to carry sidearms, those many deaths could have been prevented.
I don%u2019t agree with you at all.
The right to bear arms is not some fuzzy interpretation of the Constitution like abortion or the separation of church and state.
It is the second amendment of the Constitution!
It is the law.
Like it or not, it%u2019s the law until it%u2019s changed.
Please don%u2019t waste the patience of the people who uphold this law.
A) If you don%u2019t like it, work within this great democracy to gather a majority of people that want the law changed.
B) If a majority doesn%u2019t exist, you have the right to remain silent.
C) You have the right to leave this country and live anywhere you choose.
Please select one of the above options and act quickly.
Greg
Another nice interview. Keep them coming. Good observation: politicians on both sides of the aisle see this as a hot potato before an election.
I believe I cannot say it better than I already have:
Law enforcement is hopelessly outgunned in this country, both by criminals and terrorists. Assault weapons and automatic pistols have no place in the hands of civilians.
If you are a hunter, hunt. If you are a sport shooter, shoot with sports-type firearms.
But these weapons are weapons of war, and our streets are full of them. All, gang members, lunatics and grandmothers can purchase them. Openly and on the black market.
And it will take more than background checks to get rid of them now. If you ban them, are you willing to support law enforcement's fight, a real War against the McVeigh-like Americans who have them stockpiled already?
The only people who should legally be able to possess and carry these assault-type weapons should be law enforcement and military personnel.
Have a great day commenting on this one, guys & gals who think it is every American's right to contribute to anarchy in this country by obtaining high-tech weapons of war (remember, this nation's forefathers and their contemporaries had muzzle-loaders and shotguns!).
Eric
- by oregon_1 April 20, 2007 3:58 PM EDT
- Only people who are willing to casterate America for the since of false security will push for gun control. Teaching respect of one another is a more powerful control. Kate has no respect of others rights. Guns don't kill, people kill.When Kate and other Liberials teach respect by showing it while reporting the news then that will change everyone else. Right now you talk like you have two faces .One of concern and one of vindictive punishment. Your opinion is worthless until you respect your self and others.
- Reply to this comment
See all 19 Comments