After a gunman killed 12 moviegoers in Aurora, Colo., in July, gun control supporters hoped the slayings would spur the presidential candidates to talk seriously about reducing gun violence, which is on pace to kill 48,000 Americans over the next four years.
It hasn’t worked out that way. President Obama and Mitt Romney rarely mention guns on the campaign trail. And when they were pressed by an audience member at Tuesday night’s debate, both candidates’ vague answers dismayed advocates.
Comments
Cowed by the NRA perhaps?
So what would be a concrete suggestion for addressing the issue of gun violence?
Neither the passage of the assault weapons ban, nor its expiration, had any effect on gun violence, and that's according to the FBI. Why would Obama propose re-enacting legislation that has already been determined to be totally ineffective? The government that indulges in futile exercises earns the contempt it gets.
Bloomberg suggests "The solution is to prevent all people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them.” The crux of that statement is how do we make that determination? Bear in mind, we are talking about depriving people of a constitutionally protected civil right, so the means of abridging that right needs to involve rigorous due process. In fact, if the process would not be acceptable for determining whose religion can be forbidden or who should be restrained from exercising free speech, then it ought not to pass muster for determining who may be disarmed.