How true. None of the presidential candidates from either major party even acknowledge the appalling gun violence epidemic in our country.
This is why an "independent approach" that Bloomberg speaks of is so important -- a focus on solutions instead of debating ideology and getting caught up in bitter partisanship. No wonder why Mayor Bloomberg has emerged as such a strong leader on efforts to clamp down on illegal guns, gun traffickers, and a call to reduce gun violence.
Bloomberg also urges the presidential candidates to produce an urban renewal agenda:
Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.
In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?
More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue.
We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.
Now that Bloomberg stated he will not run for president, he goes on to say he will work aggressively to push and advocate the presidential candidates to stop ignoring our nation's big challenges -- including gun violence -- and start working towards solutions.
Bloomberg is in effect saying, "Who wants to join me in the solutions business?"
Our advice -- and again it's just our opinion -- that if the presidential candidates want Bloomberg's highly sought out endorsement, they should reach out to him over the issue of stopping illegal guns and gun trafficking, an issue that is near and dear to Bloomberg's heart.
Now is the time for the presidential candidates to accept Bloomberg's challenge: adopt "innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership" to reduce gun violence, or continue to pander to special interests such as the gun lobby, or continue to ignore our nation's looming challenges to their own political peril.
Mayor Bloomberg is anxiously waiting for their answer. And so are we.
Ronald Safer, a former federal prosecutor who headed the Justice Department's prosecution of Chicago's notorious Gangster Disciples, wrote a persuasive guest commentary on Feb. 28th in the Chicago Tribune that stated at the end of his piece:
If the debate about gun control is taking place, it is certainly not front and center on the national scene. Why shouldn't we look to Washington to at least struggle with the question, if not provide the answer?
The NRA and its members are single-minded about what the answer is not. They are organized, well-funded and hire extremely effective lobbyists. Could that be why the question is not being asked?
The most baffling question to us that we put not just to the presidential candidates, but to any politician running for office or re-election is this: "What are you so afraid of?" Don't candidates know, haven't they realized by now that the gun lobby is not the "big bad wolf" that the gun lobby likes to believe that they are?
As if doing the right thing and voting the right way wasn't a good enough reason already -- taking a moral stand against violence and protecting our children and communities -- the fact that political candidates have taken the gun lobby's bait and allowed themselves to be "defined" by gun extremists is a significant part of the problem.
The current American political playbook almost dictates that candidates state their "support for the Second Amendment." Once a candidate does so, he or she is immediately in a defensive position to the gun lobby.
The candidate must define and reframe the gun issue to talk about the need to enforce the law on illegal gun traffickers; make the connection between our lax gun laws and the threat of terrorism; make the common sense case to close loopholes so that every gun owner must pass a sensible background check; create clear distinctions between military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber sniper rifles and hunting rifles; emphasize the costs of gun violence and highlight the pain and suffering of victims and survivors and the urgency to get our gun violence epidemic under control; embrace and build upon alliances with grassroots advocates, law enforcement, public health, social justice, business and interfaith leaders.
Perhaps most importantly, a candidate must use "fighting the gun lobby" as an advantage to highlight the candidate's strength, authenticity and independence to appeal to suburban voters and families to build robust and inclusive coalitions to pass legislation.
With just a little bit of tenacity and smarts, virtually any candidate could turn the tables on the gun lobby and redefine the gun issue and put the gun lobby on the defensive. There is no shortage of arguments to use against them.
This is no easy task to be sure. At heart, a candidate must be confident, demonstrate leadership, and be willing to take the onslaught from the gun lobby who spare no shortage of the worst and negative tactics against anyone who challenges their position.
Added to the difficulty is that lawmakers move in "packs" and group think makes it easier to just go with the flow and vote with the gun lobby. Rarely do politicians, especially moderate or swing lawmakers, ever pay a price for voting with them. This creates even more incentives to give the gun lobby whatever they want instead of standing up to them. Redistricting obviously favors the status quo where lawmakers are neatly protected from challengers as well.
Here's the truth that political consultants refuse to tell their clients: You can't run away from the gun lobby, triangulate or negotiate with them. You have to take a moral stand based on your principles and fight them.
But a lot of candidates feel that fighting the gun lobby is a hopeless cause. According to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, most Americans believe in an individual right to own a firearm.
"Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10."
This fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby must rate as one of the most successful con jobs ever pulled on the American public. A focused, simplistic and sustained public relations, media and communications campaign has successfully rewritten American history and convinced Americans to buy into the gun industry's and lobby's slogans.
We have three responses to this fact.
1) Americans often have competing and illogical dichotomies with respect to guns. On one hand, as the Gallup Poll found, Americans believe in the right to own a gun. But at the same time a far majority of Americans forcefully support gun control on virtually every topic and question asked about the issue.
In Wisconsin, which has a sizable number of hunters for example, a recent bipartisan poll found that "68% of NRA Members" support requiring background checks on all guns sales (see p. 2 on link).
According to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago:
Support for the stricter regulation of firearms is widespread both in terms of the range of measures endorsed by the public and in terms of the high level of public approval for such measures.
Majorities in 2006 favor all proposals to expand regulations: 91% support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol, 85% want the sale of 50 caliber rifles limited, 82% want the sale of semiautomatic, assault weapons limited, 80% favor criminal background checks for all sales of guns, including private sales between individuals, 79% back requiring a police permit before a gun could be purchased, 76% believe that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control, and 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely than illegal drug sales with another 37% saying that punishments for illegal gun sales should be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs.
2) We believe that part of the reason the Gallup Poll's numbers were so high is that elected leaders, political candidates -- and let's not forget the media's complicity -- have given up on debating the Second Amendment and ceded the issue to the gun lobby which claims a near monopoly on the discussion.
There might be a good reason for this. Even many gun violence prevention advocates don't want to waste their time arguing over the history of guns and Constitutional law while kids, cops, and women are being gunned down. Most advocates feel that debating the Second Amendment is playing on the gun lobby's turf and that it's a debate advocates will consistently lose. They're probably right as the deck is now completely stacked.
But Professor Saul Cornell who wrote what we believe to be the seminal book on the Second Amendment, "A Well Regulated Militia", and is also the director of the Second Amendment Research Center contends that giving up the "rights" debate to the gun lobby is a mistake. According to Cornell, most Americans have a revered understanding and view of the Constitution as a sacred document. When the gun lobby claims a monopoly over the debate, the "gun rights" frame is surely to trump any policy debate or communications battle.
If we could reverse history and engage the gun lobby back when they started their cynical campaign to convince Americans they have a "right to own guns" then our politics would certainly be in a different place. But it's too late now and the gun lobby's well-armed genie is out of the bottle.
3) In light of the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll most political candidates and leaders believe that the gun issue cannot be turned around, and that "we" -- advocates and everyday Americans -- have to live hostage to the gun lobby.
We reject this notion entirely.
Let's just called a spade a spade: a lot of candidates are just plain lazy and don't want to pick a fight with a bunch of gun nuts and crazies that will surely be a pain in the neck to their campaign. Politicians can, and often do, beat the gun lobby. But it's just easier to placate them.
Finally, political candidates should recognize that long-term and dramatic trends are shifting to the side of gun violence prevention -- not to the gun lobby or gun industry's favor. As time goes on, the gun lobby's base will continue to erode.
The NORC survey released some astonishing statistics in a report, "A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America."
Gun ownership in America is declining.
During the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006.
During the period 1980 to 2006, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than nine percentage points: from a high of 30.7 percent in 1985 to a low during the period of 21.6 percent in 2006.
As we noted in yesterday's GunGuys.com post about Mayor Bloomberg's call to the presidential candidates to work for solutions on the issue of gun violence to receive his endorsement -- it's past time for gun control to reemerge as a national issue and debate.
Let it begin now.
Groll/AP 
