Gun control: Why Obama played it safe in remarks on violence in cities

In a speech Wednesday to the National Urban League, President Obama made his first extended remarks on gun violence since the Colorado shooting spree that killed 12.  Both the president and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, have played it safe in their comments on gun control.

|
Susan Walsh/AP
President Obama addresses the National Urban League convention at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans, Wednesday, July 25.

Six days after the shooting spree in Colorado that killed 12 people, President Obama made his first extended remarks on gun violence.

Speaking Wednesday night to a gathering of the National Urban League in New Orleans, Mr. Obama extended his focus beyond the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and into the streets of Chicago and Atlanta, where guns take the lives of young people daily.

In a bow to political reality, Obama didn’t call for any new laws. Instead, he highlighted measures already taken that don’t require legislation, such as background checks for the purchase of firearms that are now “more thorough.” What he didn’t say was that the background check on the alleged Aurora shooter, James Holmes, turned up nothing to deny him his weapons. All of his firearms were obtained legally.

As has become customary for Obama in statements on gun violence, he made a bow to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the “cherished national heritage” of which hunting and shooting are a part.  

But, he said, “I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”

Since becoming president, Obama has been walking a fine line on guns. Even as he calls for better enforcement of existing laws, and mourns the victims of gun violence, he has also expanded gun rights. In 2009, for example, he signed legislation that allows the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks and another bill that allows people to carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

The unspoken presence in all the president’s actions and statements is the gun lobby and its most powerful player, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Mitt Romney, Obama’s Republican challenger for the presidency, has also been playing it safe in his public statements on Aurora, as a former Massachusetts governor who used to support gun control.

In an NBC interview Wednesday in London, Mr. Romney said more restrictive gun laws likely would not have prevented last week’s tragedy.  

"Political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road," Romney told NBC's Brian Williams. "But I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Romney suggested that it would take changing hearts to prevent similar attacks in the future.

“We can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't,” he said. “Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

Both presidential candidates’ caution on guns frustrates big-city mayors, who formed the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns in 2006. After the Aurora massacre, the group’s leading voice, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, called on both Obama and Romney to move beyond “soothing words” and propose concrete actions to prevent future mass shootings.  

On July 24, the mayors group put out a survey of NRA rank-and-file members by GOP pollster Frank Luntz that found strong support for certain gun-control measures, including criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a gun. NRA members also strongly support allowing states to set eligibility requirements for people wanting to carry a concealed weapon in public. The group’s suggestion was that the NRA leadership is more hard-line than NRA members.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Gun control: Why Obama played it safe in remarks on violence in cities
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0726/Gun-control-Why-Obama-played-it-safe-in-remarks-on-violence-in-cities
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe