Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stroger and Peraica swing hard
Next Post: Junk ban approved
Posted in:
It’s not often that a candidate, or anyone else for that matter, is asked the question that Tammy Duckworth was asked yesterday. Good for the Daily Herald. [emphasis added]
Sixth Congressional District Democrat Tammy Duckworth tried to capitalize on the recent spate of school shootings by citing them as she criticized her opponent’s record on gun control Tuesday.But when pressed to name what gun laws could have prevented the attacks in Pennsylvania, Colorado and elsewhere, Duckworth couldn’t name any.
“Yes, there are going to be aberrations, but frankly we need overall better gun laws in this country,†said Duckworth at a news conference at a Lombard park.
The Hoffman Estates Iraq war veteran brought up the school shootings as she criticized President Bush for excluding gun control groups from his Tuesday summit on school violence.
Too often, candidates are allowed to demagogue with a “there oughtta be a law” statement without any sort of journalistic follow-up. Also, too often after major tragedies, people propose solutions that never would have prevented the events in question, yet somehow they are allowed to skate free. Duckworth didn’t get a free pass this time.
*** UPDATE *** Today’s Tribune story of the same press event is a good example of how gun control candidates get off too easy.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Dan Curry, a blogger who also works for the Topinka campaign, noted the above remarks and applied them to today’s AP coverage of Gov. Blagojevich.
Today, AP should have shown similar toughness when giving Rod Blagojevich a free ride on one of his talking points during this campaign — his position in favor of a ban on assault weapons. His attack on Judy Baar Topinka on this issue hardly is news compared to revelations at the Tribune editorial board that a sitting governor refuses to reveal whether he is using the services of a criminal defense attorney. Yet AP played assault weapons higher in the story.It’s not particularly newsworthy because the Democrats control every lever of power in Illinois. If AP is going to do Rod’s bidding on this issue, it ought to have the journalistic toughness to ask Rod why, with a Democratic Governor and Democratic General Assembly, he couldn’t successfully pass an assault weapon ban in Springfield the last three years?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 8:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stroger and Peraica swing hard
Next Post: Junk ban approved
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
THANK YOU DAILY HERALD for showing that people like her are gun grabbers with no answers.Enland and Canada have some of the toughest laws in the world and they still have problems.This falls right in line with Blago and the rest of the Democrats.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 8:28 am
If only the press had done the same for Blago and Durbin when they went to Englewood to complain about how the NRA killed those two little girls, not the gang bangers who were breaking the unenforced, existing gun laws of the state and city.
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 8:51 am
Guns don’t kill people, evil people with guns kill people. Take away all of their guns and you still have an evil person bent on killing someone.
Comment by Jechislo Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 8:51 am
[…] Rich Miller already noted that Eric Krol of the Daily Herald asked a rare tough question of a Democratic politician attacking a Republican on gun control. […]
Pingback by Reverse Spin » AP rolls over on guns Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 9:25 am
Well, though vauge, at least her answer was an honest one, rather than the hem, haw & bluster we get all too often.
Frankly it’s nice to occasionally have a politician admit to “I don’t know..” rather than making up some BS on the spot.
Comment by Sceptic Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 9:28 am
Jechislo: that is the most absurd argument. Based on your logic lets legalize WMDs because they dont kill people, if you “take away their WMDs and you still have an evil person bent on killing someone.”
The right wing “tough on terrorism” nuts such as Peter Pan Roskam think that assault rifles, cop killer bullets, saturday night specials ect ect should all be legal. That would make a very safe country for us and our police.
Comment by HANKSTER Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 9:32 am
Come on Rich did Todd write that for you?
Comment by Brady Bill Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 9:44 am
Brady Bill, there would be no criticism here if she had just answered the question. Sorry, but I just don’t reverently worship at the altar of the usual hot-button issues the way some do.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 9:59 am
Will Roskam be asked just as tough a question from his point of view?
And I wonder how this would tie into the Axley and Kotowski race… The 33rd State Senate does overlap the 6th CD a bit.
The Amish Schoolhouse shooting may need deeper thinking than a simple “what laws” question (as appropriate as that question is for candidates). But certainly kids bringing guns to school (from 1st graders to high schoolers) can be addressed by strengthening trigger lock laws and other common sense legislation.
Comment by NW burbs Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:12 am
Rich, it’s a tough question to answer until we know all of the facts in these cases.
1) How did a seventh grader get his hands on an AK-47?
2) How did a man with such obvious mental problems get his hands on guns in Pennsylvania?
3) How is it that a 15 year-old was able to so easily open his family’s gun cabinet in Wisconsin?
Clearly, a federal ban on military-style assault weapons might have prevented #1.
Philadelphia is using new technology to profile people most likely to commit homocides and target resources to homocide prevention. I don’t know if it is applicable here, but with all of the data and all of the technology we have, we can certainly do a better job of screening FOID applicants. A more thorough and far-reaching solution would be to invest appropriately in mental health funding. This guy clearly was carrying alot of grief and didn’t get the help he needed.
#3 is very easy to solve. Require gun safes to be tamper-proof. If a gun owner puts their guns in a locked cabinet, they should have a reasonable expectation that it will take more than a 15 year-old with a screwdriver to get it open.
Maybe I should run for Congress?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:19 am
This is not a gun issue. It is a mental health issue. There are people out there who “have problems in living” as one of my late Psych profs used to say. The instrument, guns, knives, bombs, whatever do not matter. We need to identify these people and get them some help just like we do with any other disease. These school shooters are sick.
Comment by Eagle I Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:23 am
I think that those who say that taking guns away doesnt eliminate crazy people are totally missing the point.
While it is a safe assumption that we wont get rid of crazy nut-jobs anytime soon, look at it this way. Guns allow those wachos to take several mroe people with them. Sure that PA guy was crazy. But maybe had he not had such easy access to guns he would have simply committed suicide and not taken innocent lives with him.
While England and other countries still have problems with guns and violence, I think statistically they are so much lower its hard to say it doesn’t work. I will try and find some stats.
Comment by Robbie Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:38 am
Good and legitimate question.
The other side of the question is easy in Illinois–though Roskam wasn’t holding a press conference on it.
Would you simply extend the FOID requirement to the nation? It doesn’t keep anyone from getting a gun here and could easily reduce straw purchasing and gun running from more lax states.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:39 am
I’m surprised Duckworth is a gun control Democrat. I thought the party had assimilated the research that showed existing gun control laws had litte effect on crime rates.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:40 am
===The instrument, guns, knives, bombs, whatever do not matter.
There is an efficiency issue that no one seems to want to admit to here. If you want to take a classroom hostage, a gun is a lot more effective than is a knife.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 10:40 am
Hankster, “assault rifles, cop killer bullets, saturday night specials”? Sheesh, using loaded partisan code words like those makes me suddenly go deaf.
I thought Dems had finally realized that so-called Gun Control is a third rail issue – touch it, and you’ll die. Hot Rod must have missed that particular memo.
Those of you that are calling for bans… why do you think criminals would follow your new laws? That’s why they’re called *criminals* fer crissake! Those of us that are responsible gun owners and users are the only ones that will be punished. Focus on enforcing the current laws.
Illinois is already so far out of step with national thinking on guns that it’s not even funny. Rod’s bleatings on the subject are surreal.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 11:16 am
There are only two places on the planet that require a FOID card, they are Illinois and Cuba. This is either a source of pride or shame, take your pick.
Comment by Eagle I Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 11:30 am
===#
There are only two places on the planet that require a FOID card, they are Illinois and Cuba. This is either a source of pride or shame, take your pick.
Make up stuff much? Seriously, registration of firearms is required in all of Europe. This kind of claim is just shameless.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 11:57 am
Ken: maybe you have not looked at any polls but Roskam’s stance on guns is a huge vulnerability for him. Roskam’s views on guns are extreme and, like it or not, most people in the district agree with that.
Once again a gun lover comes up with some terrible logic. According to you now we should not have laws since criminals wont follow them anyway.
Comment by HANKSTER Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 12:01 pm
===I thought Dems had finally realized that so-called Gun Control is a third rail issue – touch it, and you’ll die. Hot Rod must have missed that particular memo.
It’s only a tough issue in rural areas. In urban and suburban areas, gun control including assault weapons bans are popular. Overall, there is a majority supporting stricter laws with the most recent numbers I’ve seen putting it in the mid 50%s.
The challenge of the issue is that gun advocates tend to be single issue voters and so they have disproportionate influence especially in rural areas. Rod isn’t worrying abou rural areas.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 12:01 pm
Once again Democrats are being asked tougher questions than Republicans. Why are no journalists asking President Bush and the Congressional leaders which acts of terrorism their proposed fence and new security at the Mexican border would have prevented? They too would be unable to answer the question because there has been no act of terrorism committed by a terrorist who entered the US illegally across the Mexican border.
Rich, why are you holding Democrats to a higher standard than you hold Republicans?
Comment by Dave Barrett Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 12:29 pm
Having said all that, I think there should be an admission by gun control advocates that a state-by-state patchwork of gun safety laws has far less efficacy than federal action.
Banning straw man purchases in Illinois doesn’t do a heckuva lot of good when they’re allowed in Indiana.
Furthermore, campaigning on gun safety at the state level creates an expectation that the problem can be solved or atleast addressed at the state level, expectations that are difficult to meet and support the NRA’s main argument: we don’t need more laws.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 12:49 pm
Hankster: “Once again a gun lover comes up with some terrible logic. According to you now we should not have laws since criminals wont follow them anyway.”
“Gun lover”? Sticks and stones… I’m a lawful gun owner that is also an independent, and is at odds with the NRA almost as much as I am against the gun control advocates. And how does wanting to enforce existing laws translate to not wanting any laws at all?
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 1:09 pm
Ken: you said what will more laws do since criminals dont follow them anyway. That is your logic that I am responding to.
Comment by HANKSTER Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 1:34 pm
“Since the assault-weapons ban expired, gunfire has again become the leading cause of death for police officers in the line of duty, surpassing motor-vehicle accidents, Street said.”
that about says it for me.
Comment by Old Quack Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 1:37 pm
Show me that the officers are being killed by so-called “assault weapons”, and I’ll pay attention. Otherwise it’s a statistical anomaly.
Bet you can’t.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 2:47 pm
Ken from Aurora
Glad to hear you are a law abiding gun owner just like Charles Roberts was until he decided to use his lawfully obtained guns to kill defenseless Ahmish girls. Cut the Law abiding gun owner crap, hoss.
Comment by Downtown Wednesday, Oct 11, 06 @ 5:25 pm
Downtown, that is an evil insult and is totally inappropriate.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Oct 12, 06 @ 10:40 am
My two-cents: More gun control laws are are a rural solution to a urban/suburban problem, i.e. rural citizens bear the burden of additional laws that primarily benefit those living in urban and suburban areas.
Such laws may be the only way to address the problems of gun violence, but this cost-benefit imbalance must be addressed — or at least recognized.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Friday, Oct 13, 06 @ 11:19 am