Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Puts Gun-Control Issue on Back Burner
Advocates say they are still looking to him for leadership
In July 2007, when the presidency was still a long-shot proposition, Barack Obama stopped at Vernon Park Church of God in Chicago to deliver a fiery sermon challenging the government, the gun lobby and the public to do more to stop gun violence.
"Our playgrounds have become battlegrounds. Our streets have become cemeteries. Our schools have become places to mourn the ones we've lost," he told a standing-room-only congregation at the Far South Side church. "The violence is unacceptable, and it's got to stop."
As he expressed outrage over 32 Chicago public schoolchildren having been killed that previous school year, Obama called for better enforcement of existing gun laws, tighter background checks on gun buyers and a permanent assault-weapons ban.
"A couple weeks ago, cops found an AK-47 near a West Side school," he said at the time. "That type of weapon belongs on a battlefield, not on the streets of Chicago."
Fast-forward to the present: 33 Chicago public school students have been slain so far this school year.
But even as Obama has packed his agenda during his first 100 days in office, he has mostly bypassed the contentious gun issue, despite its importance in Chicago and other urban areas.
Gun and ammunition sales have surged across the nation since Obama's election because of fear that his administration will put additional restrictions in place. But at least so far, Obama and Democrats in Congress have given no indication that they will re-impose an expired ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons.
Earlier this month, Obama suggested he does not believe the re-authorization of a federal ban is politically viable now. While he said he still believes the ban "made sense," he expressed greater interest in stricter enforcement of existing gun laws and efforts to more widely distribute gun-tracing information to local law enforcement.
"He can't sidestep it," said Ronald Holt, who lost a son to gun violence in May 2007. "There is going to come a time that President Obama will -- and should -- speak to the issue of gun violence. When he does, I hope he comes back home to do it."
Holt said he received a voice message from Obama the morning that a visitation was held for his 16-year-old son, Blair, who was killed on a CTA bus.
"He said something about how he couldn't imagine how he would react if something like this had come into his family," Holt recalled, adding that he returned a message to Obama to say he wanted support for stronger gun legislation.
The assault-weapons ban, which lapsed five years ago, has many supporters in the White House, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who lobbied for its passage when he worked for President Bill Clinton. But with an economic crisis still raging, the administration has decided now is not the right time to tangle with the powerful National Rifle Association.
"The president supports the 2nd Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement. "The administration included $2 billion in funding in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act for communities to hire more police officers and to enhance their crime-fighting technology."
Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said he did not expect Obama to push gun legislation early on in his administration. But he said that advocates will be looking for leadership on the issue and "there probably will be a limit to that patience."
Mannard said he was encouraged by Obama's remarks on the assault-weapons ban and a recent decision not to challenge a court ruling that prohibits visitors at some national parks from carrying loaded concealed firearms. "He will be a backstop for potentially vetoing bad legislation that gets through," he said.
One of those in Obama's Cabinet who dealt with gun violence routinely is Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the former head of Chicago Public Schools. In a recent interview, he said he has not spoken with the president about gun violence in Chicago or elsewhere.
"I don't have any keen insight there," Duncan said, before noting that gun violence was the most challenging aspect of his former job.
"I thought I had made things better in some areas," he said. "This is an area where I was a total failure."
- Posted in



28 Comments so far
Show AllEmail I got from a gun-nut:
Subject: Fwd: Doctors vs. Gun Owners
Doctors vs Gun owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Gun Owners
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
Is 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups, is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner is
.000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do..'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT
ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please alert your friends
to this
alarming threat..
We must ban doctors
before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Out of concern for the public at large,
I withheld the statistics on
Lawyers
for fear the shock would cause
people to panic and seek medical attention!
LOL! Ezeflyer, you're a riot!
Ezeflyer is looking only at accidental deaths.
If intentional injury and death from guns is considered, then doctors, automobiles and other misleading NRA-sponsroed statitistics become conspicuously deceptive.
What is the figure for intentional deaths caused by doctors?
Joe
You get too many dumb emails :-)
Very funny. The gun lobby works diligently to entertain us. I've seen many such tongue-in-cheek arguments. They're intended to sidestep the fact that compared to most consumer products, firearms are very hazardous when properly used and therefore require (or so reason would suggest) strict regulation and control. Doctors are, or rather the practice of medicine is, very hazardous. Prescription drugs and the favorite illegal drugs are. Motor vehicles are. Alcoholic beverages and cigarettes are. Ordinary hand tools aren't; bicycles aren't; most food isn't. Thus rational people support extensive regulation of the use and possession of motor vehicles, prescription and dangerous drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. The practice of medicine is highly controlled. We also regulate possession and use of firearms, but only with great difficulty because of the mind-set of the NRA.
In the 1970's, Sen. Edward Kennedy proposed to ban "defective" ammunition and require labeling of guns and ammunition as "hazardous." He told Senate colleagues that his proposal would permit regulation only if the Consumer Product Safety Commission was convinced that the use of either the ammunition or the weapon could result in "unreasonable risk of injury to the user." The NRA was vigorously opposed. Senator Ted Stevens said the Kennedy proposal would "give an open door to any court to use the defective or malfunctioning concept to bring about an entire control of the distribution of ammunitions and firearms." Kennedy's proposal failed, of course.
The NRA actually has admitted that SOME firearms pose an unreasonable risk. In their 2000 friend of the court brief in the U.S. v. Emerson case (concerning prohibition of possession of handguns by persons under domestic relations restraining orders), the NRA said, ". . . there are numerous ways in which government may regulate EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS WEAPONS [my emphasis] and prevent DANGEROUS PERSONS [my emphasis] (such as juveniles, violent felons, and the mentally ill) from possessing guns at all. But all such laws must be narrowly tailored . . ." So the NRA recognizes that the Second Amendment doesn't prevent exceptionally dangerous weapons from being subject to regulation, and doesn't stop the government from preventing dangerous persons from possessing ordinary guns.
The only reason for not regulating the firearms that 80,000,000 Americans have is thus not the Second Amendment, which isn't an obstacle for exceptionally dangerous weapons, but the idea that ordinary firearms, when used as intended, aren't exceptionally dangerous. And that dangerous persons can easily be distinguished from law-abiding citizens. Those are NRA fantasies.
Here's another joke for my side of the issue: toy guns don't kill people; real guns do. But I apologize for joking about a problem that takes so many thousands of lives, needlessly, every year in our gun-toting society.
Where does the NRA draw the line on gun ownership, with machine guns, bazookas, cannons, missiles, what?
Personal weapons, anything that can fit on or in a 1 ton pickup ?
Maybe a dualie w/ extended cab, too.
Very well written and well made point.
The real irony here is that it is easier to 'control' the Doctors than it is the Guns. After all, how many 'doctors' can you hide in your house, or smuggle across the borders, or keep under your drivers side seat, glove box, shoulder holster etc.
But do you think they would even consider controlling the "Doctors"
Hell Noooooooooooooooooooo!
But then again it would be "un-american" to do the intelligent thing.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
"Our playgrounds have become battlegrounds. Our streets have become cemeteries. Our schools have become places to mourn the ones we've lost," he told a standing-room-only congregation at the Far South Side church. "The violence is unacceptable, and it's got to stop."
Precisely why we should end gun control and legalize self-defense.
"Obama called for better enforcement of existing gun laws, tighter background checks on gun buyers and a permanent assault-weapons ban."
"Assault-weapons" do not exist. "Assault-weapon" is a loaded political term just as much as "pro-life" is.
If it was called a "semi-automatic long arms ban" would you support it?
NO! too broad. How about "Current issued Military Rifle" That would include AR-15, AK-47 and FN FAL rifles but would exclude those who collect M1 Garands, M1 Carbines and the like. But face it a "assault Weapons" ban is not going to keep them out of the hands of the criminal gangs in this country just like the 1928 gun control bill did not keep the Tommy Guns away from criminal gangs from that era as that law was intended to do. If you have the cash, you can get anything you want, legal or illegal.
O b a m a,
Please do not place a loaded firearm on that back burner !
In just 100 days, Obama has taken away people's hope for change... The least he can do is allow them to cling to their guns and religion a little while longer...
The next false flag event isn't ready to be enacted just yet...
There is still so much gold to be looted from the treasury...
Now that tax dollars have replaced pension& 401k funds for backing up the Wall St casino,
they need to enact another "pump & dump" To ensure that there will never be a way for taxpayers to pay back the debt...
Then it won't matter if you are a prisoner working in a FEMA camp, or a prisoner in your own home working off your debt..
With the return of debtor's prisons, even that won't be much of a choice after a while...
At a time when Mexican drug gangs, with the help of corrupt policemen are mowing down anybody who inteferes with their business...our own so-callled faterland security apparatus is making Bolshevik noises about the peasants having the wrong ideas...when a billion illiterate drooling Mohammedans may be unleashed upon us...when the ruling/banking class is stealing every dollar that's not nailed down...leaving working-class folks penniless, homeless and unprepared to live decently in the modern world...it is necessary more than ever to arm one's self...I can't believe I'm the only guy out here seeing the very real danger to our collective and individual safety if we allow the very people who hold us in absolute contempt to disarm us. Obama is no doubt doing his best, but he's not going to save any of us when when a pack of junkie psychos come bustin' down our door...we're gonna' have to take care of that ourselves....just like Americans have been doing since Concord & Lexington.
Bigoted Muslim comment aside, you do have a point. But how far do you live from the border?
Yes it is so nice to believe that ALL people are good and will do you no harm. Of course our prisons are filled with folks that are just mis-understood.
These nut cases that are shooting up our schools, "No gun zones," Our shopping malls, again, "Posted No Guns Zones." Just poor folks that have lost their way.
Well if there had been an Honest Armed Citizen at anyone of these shoot outs the count would not have been so high.
That for those that want to check is a proven fact.
Crime in states with "Concealed Carry" laws are dropping. Again a proven fact.
For those of you that wish for that idealic world why not go to the FBI web site and read for yourself the facts as published by Our Own FBI.
Then come back here a tell us all how you are going to walk up to some Nut Case shooting up a mall and talk him/her into laying down their gun.
Get you information a facts straight before you put down those of us that wish to maintain the ability to actually maintain our own Self Defense.
Emotion is dominate when we hear these sad, crazy tales that the media love to talk about. But when you life is actually at stake real self defense is what makes the difference. Those that think someone else will make you safe should seek out more information or have a police officer with them at all times.
Sorry folks but like it or not that is the reality we have today.
Quite a lengthy response to a simple question asked to someone else which you nevertheless failed to answer. Save your rhetoric for someone who wants all guns gone, instead of someone who just thinks toting around a M-60 is not a good idea.
How many crimes were commited with a M-60? I guess you will find none. They are heavy and combersome, hard to hide one in a coat.
I was using it as an obviously overblown example. But in any case, how about a fully automatic AK-47 with a large capacity drum magazine and armor piercing ammunition? A certain crime turned into a movie comes to mind with that.
and still...such incidents while tragic and sensational, are rare.
If I were religious, I would say self-defense is a sacred right. At least it's honored pretty much universally. The issue is, how do we eliminate the needless mayhem without abrogating the right of self-defense? This isn't rocket science. We've figured out pretty well how to limit deaths from automobiles without unduly restricting the right to travel. No one thinks that eliminating lane markings and speed limits and vehicle inspections and driver licensing (and on and on and on) would increase our ability to travel freely and safely. And I wager that even you, Mendo Chuck, don't mean to say that gang members need to be armed, since they live in areas where they're very likely to be assaulted by other gang members. Or children need to be armed against bullies in the classroom. Etc. Common sense isn't that difficult. Right to carry statutes may reduce crime by deterring burglars (at least, unarmed burglars), but the recent 20/20 stories on guns on campus show how misleading it is to think that relatively untrained and unsupervised individuals could prevent shootings like the recent ones in schools and churches, not to mention armed robberies.
Half-stach... Is that you?
I think Obama has one thing correct for which I'm willing to give him some credit. He has one hell of a calm and cool mind, something I wished I had more of myself. That said, perhaps he realizes that it's not the guns that are the problem necessarily. It's the mentality problem that's killing us all. A gun shooting is just one of many symptoms of the mental fallout in our society. The problem lies with the shooter and his/her psychology that put them to it. The more we all study the details of what makes people do it and work towards addressing these mental causes by putting forth better policies in economics, healthcare, trade, workers' rights, and even reforming our US foreign policy by cutting wasteful spending on the war machine, the safer and more sound we'll all be.
Prohibition of alcohol consumption, a well-intended gesture, failed utterly to achieve its purpose; its only lasting effect was to provide the impetus for criminals to organize a powerful black market. As we know, it was repealed after a clear-eyed assessment of the results.
Drug prohibition is no different, in its intention or its effects, but we have yet to undertake our clear-eyed assessment. Gun prohibition would seem to follow this drearily repetitive pattern.
If people want something badly enough, they'll always find a way to have it. Laws which aim toward regulation of such commodities, paradoxically, create an artificial underground economy in which regulation does nothing but drive up the price while corrupting the regulators and making cynics of consumers.
Sorry guys, but no matter how you cut it, this isn't the fault of the gun, but of the criminal misusing it. With the exception of recent high profile cases, most gun deaths involve felons as the shooter - people who shouldn't have had the gun in the first place.
VA Tech could have easily been prevented if the courts flagged Cho as a psychotic and remanded him to care. I'd be all for allowing the National Criminal Instant Check system to peer into HIPAA records for evidence of psychosis and related committments.
Most gun owners, like myself are ok with reasonable restrictions, such as a background check (and add in the aforementioned and we make a huge difference) and even required training courses. But one gun a month rules and this foolishness over assault weapons bans is downright offensive to those of us who obey the law.
There's one big thing to the gun debate that really annoys me. The idea of "law-abiding citizens" being an almost sacred part of the debate. Well guess what? Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they suddenly commit a crime. And if that first crime happens to be a shooting spree, well, no problem, because until then they were a law-abiding citizen and he had every right to own that gun used to murder people.
you're ignoring the facts. shooting sprees, while tragic and sensational, are the exception, not the rule of gun crime. 90% of the time, gun deaths are the result of standard crimes, such as robbery or a drug deal amongst gang members.
Knee jerk reactions to such events are not the way to legislate gun ownership. At the core, guns remain an invaluable right that should be respected. Safeguard the ownership, yes, but don't tell us we can't make provisions for our own protection.