Pure Horserace: Gun Control To The Front?

Will Virginia Tech Massacre Bring Issue Into Focus?

(CBS)  The shootings at Virginia Tech have prompted the presidential campaigns to temporarily suspend their activities and cancel planned appearances today. But when the candidates return to the trail, gun control may be among the first issues they're asked about.

The issue hasn't come up much thus far in the campaign, aside from a minor story over Mitt Romney's hunting experience — or lack thereof. But the deaths of 32 people at the hands of a gunman using weapons purchased in a state without strict gun control measures has already inspired a heated debate the presidential candidates may find difficult to avoid.

A quick look at the record shows that while the major Democrats in the field generally agree on this subject — they all support measures like five-day waiting periods and bans on assault weapons — there is more discord among Republicans. Romney's hunting gaffe came during an effort to gain the support of the National Rifle Association. While Romney now claims general opposition to most gun control measures, he has only recently embraced the issue — his "lifelong" membership to the NRA began just last year.

Rudy Giuliani is most at odds with the traditional stance of his party on the issue. As mayor of New York, he consistently supported gun control efforts. But lately he has tried to strike a compromise, saying that a "one-size-fits-all" gun control policy wouldn't work and that states and localities should be free to tailor gun regulations to their own needs.

John McCain has also strayed from the party line on gun control, though not as far as Giuliani. He has supported requirements for trigger locks, background checks at gun shows, but has also voted against a five-day waiting period and a ban on certain assault weapons. After yesterday's shootings, McCain reiterated his support of the Second Amendment while stressing the need to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people," according to The Associated Press.

If this issue begins to pop up in the campaign in the near-term, it's an issue that could attract the most attention among Republican candidates as they try to balance their need to demonstrate support for gun ownership without appearing indifferent to such a tragedy.

But Democrats could have more to risk in the long term by advocating too much gun control. Al Gore's inability to convince gun owners on the issue is one of the issues widely seen to have cost him a chance to win close states like West Virginia and Arkansas in 2000. Despite his combat experience, John Kerry struggled to demonstrate a kinship with hunters in 2004. Remember that goose "hunt" in Ohio?

Visit CBSNews.com for breaking news and complete coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings.


It Takes … A Campaign: Romney has taken plenty of heat over the evolution of many of his positions in this campaign. Gun control is but one area where Romney sounds like a much different candidate now than he did when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994 or for governor in 2002 — both in Massachusetts. He's had to answer a variety of questions about shifting positions like abortion and gay marriage.

Now, there's this: According to The Associated Press, Romney yesterday took a shot at the title of Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village." That idea of community is the wrong model to replace a traditional family, said Romney, specifically a family with a mother and father. "I think it's time for us to recognize every child deserves a mother and a father," Romney is quoted as saying. "It takes a family," he added.

But, according to the AP, that's different from what he told the Boston Globe in 1998, where he was quoted saying, in part, "Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village."

Sure, this might be taking the "gotcha" game a little far, but it demonstrates a growing perception about Romney as a candidate with a tendency to take the path of least political resistance depending upon the targeted audience.

Sometimes, You Can't Go Home Again: In something of a shocker, former Sen. John Breaux has put the brakes on what had been an expected run for governor of Louisiana. Breaux said he would not run because he could not get a definitive answer from Louisiana's attorney general about his ability to legally qualify for the ballot. Breaux, who now lives in Maryland, was counting on a preliminary ruling to re-establish his Louisiana residency but the attorney general said the courts must decide that and Breaux opted out.

It's a surprising turn of events. Embattled Gov. Kathleen Blanco last month announced that she would not seek re-election, a move at the time seen to clear the way for her fellow Democrat to jump into the race. With both gone, the advantage clearly shifts to Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Republican front-runner who now has smoother road to the governor's mansion.


Editor's Note: Pure Horserace is a daily update of political news as interpreted by the political observers at CBSNews.com. Click here to sign up for the e-mail version.

[s_temper]

"Moron -
He used a legally purchased handgun to kill 32 people before belatedly shooting himself. LEGALLY PURCHASED. Had he not been able to buy the gun, how far do you think he would have gotten trying to kill those people with a knife, for instance?

jimibear"

Well, jimibear, Cho probably would have constructed some sort of explosive device or firebomb. Determined criminals will find an efficient way to murder innocent people, no matter how many restrictive laws you and our mommy-daddy government pass. In a free society, there will always be opportunities for bad people to do bad things. That is the price we pay to live in a free society. If you feel the cost of freedom is too high, please move to Canada or Europe. Also, calling me a "moron" does not make you seem more intelligent. But it is the sort of childish behavior I should expect from a naive American socialist.

[me4prezz]

Guns are not pro-life...they only kill%u2026

Posted by zoe20006 at 01:35 PM : Apr 18, 2007
Would you care to elaborate on that statement?
Posted by corpknot at 02:03 PM : Apr 18, 2007

I don't know about this person, but I sure as heck will.

Guns kill. That is a fact and not really questioned is it? You put a bullet in a gun, release the safety, pull the trigger. Bullet lands in flesh and does serious injury, up to and including death. Bullets tear through layers of skin and subcutaneous layers, into muscle--shredding and tearing those tissues, cause internal hemorrhaging or severe bleeding. If it hits an artery, you can bleed to death in seconds. Heart? Goodbye. Brain? At the very least, serious brain trauma, which can lead to paralysis, speech impediments, paresis, dysphagia, respiratory difficulties, including being on ventilator for rest of life, etc. Lungs? Traumatic pneumothorax, hematopneumothorax, atelectasis, respiratory failure, etc, can occur. More and more and more.

People are born with a natural tendency to destruction. You put a weapon in their hands or make it easy for them to access such a weapon, and you have instead killer for those who have no moral concerns.

The better question might be how can you think it is anything other than prolife?

[me4prezz]

How can politicians claim a war on terror, but allow guns to be so easily purchased? The real war on terror is at home, in the streets, in the hands of people who kill each other without thought. The city I live in has so many gangs in it that it is hard to keep track and they send people from police academies here for gang experience. There are shootings on a daily basis. I went to work one time and just as I opened the door to walk in, a gun fight erupted behind me in a drug deal gone bad. The FBI and SWAT had to come out as it turned into a standoff. A few weeks after that, I got caught in a driveby. Both cars were using me as a shield against the other and I saw the lights at the top of their windows from the gunfire. It put one person in the ICU.

Those are 2 examples from MILLIONS! You want to end the bloodshed, then get the guns out of America!

[cbse3]

http://www.rtnda.org/resources/
speeches/murrow.shtml

It may take a couple of minutes to read, but I think that you will find the time well spent. Do not "skim it" or you will lose out.

Posted by corpknot at 03:15 PM : Apr 18, 2007

OUTSTANDING!!!!! thanks for the courtsey, what do you do for a living

[corpknot]

cbse3,
Here is a link to the text of a speech that Murrow gave on October 15, 1958:

http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtml

It may take a couple of minutes to read, but I think that you will find the time well spent. Do not "skim it" or you will lose out.

[cbse3]

I wiki'd and now I remember......."Murrow hired a top-flight cadre of war correspondents and was noted for honesty and integrity in delivering the news. A pioneer of television news broadcasting, Murrow produced a series of TV news reports that helped lead to the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy."
So I guess Big Business, Corporate America, will make going after Big Oil and an energy policy a conflict of intrest....screw John Q Public, we have our corporate selves to look out for
As the sleeping giant of America awoke after Pearl Harbor, hopefully that same giant will reawaken to save our country for our future generations. Just how much BS is it gonna take ??

[cbse3]

corpknot
can you refresh my memory and is it in one of his commentaries in print

[corpknot]

cbse3,

They wouldn't dare!

Edward R. Murrow warned about this.

[cbse3]

It's a sad commentary, as we all debate the VT GUN issues and see the power of the media, twist and turn statistics and slant their direction for a news story. Mean while neglected on the back burner,Why can't the same amount of bulldogging energy be directed toward the manipulations by outragious energy companies, refineries, policies, prices and get on a fast track energy solution for we the people in our country

[corpknot]

Guns are not pro-life...they only kill%u2026

Posted by zoe20006 at 01:35 PM : Apr 18, 2007


Would you care to elaborate on that statement?

[corpknot]

Guns kill. These incidences are becoming too common, i.e., Columbine. Yes, its about time we have better gun control laws%u2026

Posted by zoe20006 at 01:35 PM : Apr 18, 2007

So what would you suggest?

[realpatriot1]

superpatr,

I know I shouldn't abet the criminally disturbed by responding to you but if you want to find a pre-frontal lobotomy example look in the mirror.

[corpknot]

tcoleman12

That was Jim Webb's guy.

[superpatr898]

"A gun is as good - or as bad - as the man who carries it" - Shane.

Well said.

So, Liberals - keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals, of the deranged, and from Pelosi's terrorist friends - and let the average, good, law-abiding decent citizen have the access to protect themselves.

Just think - if only one student had a gun when creature opened fire, this might have been prevented. It is the creatures, stupid - not the citizens that need to be disarmed.

Enforce the laws, even for your ILLEGAL ALIEN friends, and protect our citizens.

Bring back the pre-frontal lobotomy Joe Kennedy was so fond of for potential future creatures, and stop abetting the criminal and the disturbed.

Thank goodness Harry Prune Face Reid finally made some sense. Gun control will not prevent the crime - screening, prisons, asylums, and yes, enforcing the death penalty will.

No more innocent people should suffer because Liberals are willing to tolerate the aberrant behavior of creature and others, including terrorists.

[corpknot]

tcoleman12

Great point, they are laying low as I am sure that you know already.

It would seem that the ACLU is to the Constitution as what the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson are to Christianity. They simply pick and choose what suits them, like someone in a cafeteria line, that is why I call Sharpton and Jackson Cafeteria Christians. Just as CBS news is to journalism. How can any of them even began to claim fairness and integrity when their inequities are so blatant? How can any rationally minded person respect that?

[tcoleman12]

Refresh my memory...
Was it not Democrat Chris Dodd's assistant who was busted recently trying to get into Congress with a gun? I'm sure I have to be wrong about that. It must have been planted on him by someone in the Romney camp.

[tcoleman12]

Where is the all-powerful, all-knowing ACLU on this issue? Are they not the defenders of personal liberties in this country? I haven't heard anything from them yet.

[corpknot]

My previous post:

"Rhetorical Question:
So what would have happened if Cho Seung-Hui couldn't buy the guns that he used, then what?

Posted by corpknot at 10:22 AM : Apr 18, 2007


Response from jimibear:

Don't try to introduce logic here, corpknot! You're wasting your time. These people believe the answer to gun violence is more guns. How can you argue with that stupid insanity?

My logic was meant for everyone. The point is this: If Cho Seung-Hui was not able to purchase the guns that he used either legally or illegally, do you really think that would have stopped him from carrying out his plan? While you may argue that fewer people would have died if he had tried to do this with a knife, do you really think he would have taken that route? More than likely the answer to that is No, he would have used another means. Do I have to mention the obvious here?

As far as the "stupid insanity" of the answer to gun violence is more guns, this is actually in fact true. When a criminal operates in an area where guns are banned he knows that he will be virtually unopposed. Statistics have shown this, and personally I have been in two situations where having a firearm saved me and my wife from home invasions. Criminals, like animals can sense fear and when they found none in my voice they decided it was best to leave, I didn't even have to threaten them.

[jimibear]

ok thanks, cbsE.

Sad stats for sure.

[cbse3]

jimibear
those MADD stats 16,919 for 2004 and 16,885 for 05 are strictly booze + people vehicles =death
no guns