by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 26, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

laying dueling banjos with the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, president Clinton proved his mastery at the art of political subterfuge, inflicting more damage on the Bush campaign, still smarting from its bitter struggle against maverick Republican Sen. John McCain. Using gun control as the bait, Clinton succeeded at further marginalizing George W. Bush, whose campaign was successfully associated with the NRA’s incendiary rhetoric. "President Clinton was willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda," said NRA’s LaPierre, railing against current gun control efforts and blaming the Clinton administration for a lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. Even Moses, [NRA’s president Charlton Heston] couldn’t save Bush from Clinton’s 'baiting game' by keeping LaPierre’s hyperbole under raps. "Clinton has blood on his hands," remarked LaPierre, playing right into Clinton and Gore’s hands.

       Bush’s flirtation with his party’s extreme right wing might have won him the nomination but has now cost him about 8 points in the latest CNN-Gallup poll, placing him, for the first time, behind Al Gore in November. LaPierre’s brainless dialogue with president Clinton reinforced the false impression that George W. Bush resembles his party’s venerable right-wing demagogue, Barry Goldwater. We all know what happened in 1964, James Carville & Co. are hoping for a repeat in 2000. With a few more loose canons like LaPierre, the DNC’s prophecy may indeed take place. Losing his foothold, George W. Bush finds himself on a slippery slope, trying to extricate himself from the reactionary muck. Focusing voters’ attention on 'education' and steering his campaign back to the center is a good start, but doesn’t undo the present PR damage.

       Even NRA congressional supporters like House Majority Leader Dick Army (R-Texas), Rep.Tom Delay (R-Texas), and eloquent Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill), disavowed Wayne LaPierre’s inflamatory remarks. "I would never make that statement. I wish he hadn’t," said Henry Hyde, striking a more conciliatory tone. With LaPierre’s comments, it makes you wonder whether he’s working as a confederate for Gore 2000. Few disagree with LaPierre’s point that enforcement of existing gun laws is unacceptably low. What’s that got to do with Columbine High or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Getting guns out of the hands of children—and certainly violent felons—only makes sense. As long a parents leave their guns and their children unattended, how can future tragedies be prevented? No matter how you support the second amendment, it never included arming under-age minors or convicted felons.

       Getting down to the nitty-gritty, sophomoric debates about the second amendment won’t offer pragmatic solutions for reducing gun violence. Good and evil arguments about who really uses guns responsibly, doesn’t address the inescapable reality that far too many people lose their lives to guns. Vehicle codes specify the conditions of extending driving privileges—including age, physical and mental health. If police enforce driving laws to reduce traffic fatalities, why shouldn’t they do the same with guns? Federal and state safety requirements set minimal standards for the auto industry, why shouldn’t the gun industry follow in kind? When Smith & Wesson recently acquiesced to implement trigger locks, develop child-proof triggers, add hidden serial numbers, post warning labels like cigarettes, and recommend background checks for gun-show buyers, were they complying for the good of society? Maybe. But, more realistically, were they trying to fiscally survive against the backdrop of potential lawsuits?

       With over 25% of the U.S. market share Smith & Wesson could ill-afford to alienate potential sales with law enforcement agencies around the country. Settling minor concessions, Smith & Wesson avoided—at least for now—costly payouts from product liability suits holding gun manufacturers’ responsible for wrongful death and dismemberment claims. "It’s a radical step, a giant step away from the attitude that we can’t stop criminals," trumpeted U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Andrew Cuomo. "Smith and & Wesson has set the standard for the industry," said Cuomo, "this is what a responsible corporation does in this circumstance." Like Microsoft, Smith & Wesson hasn’t acquiesced out of purely altruistic motives. Breaking arms hardly gets to the heart of the issue. For those really paying attention, today’s gun control debate is more about scoring points in November than preventing another Columbine High.

       When John Hinckley Jr. pumped lead into the abdomen of president Reagan and the brain of his press secretary, James Brady, many rallied to get Saturday night specials off the streets. Defying popular trends, president Reagan remarked, "I can’t see how gun control’s going to deter gun violence . . . it’ll just lead to more cynical evasions of the law." Despite his own calamity, Reagan remained true to his principles and opposed the Brady Bill, attempting to place more federal restrictions on gun sales and use. Nearly 20 years later, the same issues occupy center stage during another election year. Without dismissing the problem, clamping down the gray market, by offering the same sales requirements as gun stores might not be a bad idea. Even gun lobby loyalists don’t want hand-guns in the mitts of children or violent criminals.

       All’s fair in love and war. But exploiting trendy issues—like gun control—for political gain also can’t pass unnoticed. George W. Bush doesn’t speak for the NRA and the NRA doesn’t speak for him. You can’t blame political hacks for capitalizing on controversial issues which help their cause. At the same time, gun control occupies legitimate dialogue in campaign 2000 and candidates will have to hazard their views. Failing to do so risks shooting yourself in the foot by allowing the opposition to unfairly misrepresent your position. Having virtually won his party’s nomination, it’s time for George W. Bush to weigh-in on the gun control issue. Ducking, running and taking cover, won’t dodge the bullet this time around.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.