Interesting Editorial

[Soxy]

Link

 

Corruption killed Starkesia Reed

Fear kept Washington officials from standing up to the NRA

 

By Ronald S. Safer

Published March 10, 2006

 

We are focused these days, and rightly so, on public officials whose self-serving acts of corruption victimize American citizens. All well and good--provided we don't lose sight of an equally insidious, equally intractable, equally endemic form of corruption: the corruption that killed Starkesia Reed, a 14-year-old freshman honor student at Chicago's Harper High School. You've read about Starkesia. She was struck down by a stray bullet from a high-powered assault weapon last Friday morning as she stood in the sanctity of her own home.

 

I don't absolve the killer who fired the weapon. I think I earned my anti-street-crime bona fides as a federal prosecutor. But the killer had a big assist from Congress and our president. In 2004, those so-called public servants let lapse the federal law that banned assault weapons like the one that evidently killed Starkesia. Tuesday's Tribune reported that law enforcement sources have concluded that the shooter sprayed 29 rounds, hitting seven other houses on the stretch of South Honore Street where Starkesia lived.

 

It is now lawful for companies to manufacture, sell and distribute these weapons. And it is lawful for a person to buy an assault weapon if he or she is not a felon.

 

Why did the president and Congress allow these weapons to again fill our streets?

 

Not because the law banning assault weapons was unpopular; poll after poll shows that the public favors gun control, particularly a ban on assault weapons.

 

Not because lawmakers and the president wanted to support law enforcement; most police unions and law enforcement organizations that spoke to the issue in 2004 favored renewing the ban. That made sense. Officers and agents are tired of being outgunned by criminals.

 

Not to protect the rights of hunters. I know of no deer or duck hunters who use assault rifles.

 

Not to allow people to protect their homes. It is the rare homeowner who goes to bed with an Uzi under his pillow.

 

And, most chilling, not because they didn't know that Starkesia Reed would have her precious life taken by one such weapon. They knew.

 

They did not know her lyrical name and they did not know the date: March 3, 2006. But they knew that legions of innocent children have been cut down in the crossfire of drive-by shootings.

 

Those drive-bys are precisely what these semi-automatic weapons--many of them convertible to automatic--are designed to execute. They're efficient, capable of quickly spraying a broad area with lethal bullets. Anyone in that area--an intended victim or a bystander like Starkesia--risks extermination.

 

Our elected officials in Washington, D.C., knew. They had to know. And they let it happen. Why?

 

Corruption. They weren't bribed by a gang. This corruption is more subtle. They were corrupted by fear. The National Rifle Association opposed the ban on assault weapons--just as it indiscriminately opposes any legislation to ban ammunition such as armor-piercing bullets that are designed to penetrate the supposedly bulletproof vests of law enforcement officers.

 

What do NRA leaders have that corrupts these politicians? Votes? Absolutely not. Their members are decidedly in the minority on the assault weapon issue.

 

They do, though, have money. Cold cash. And organization. They can withdraw the grease that lubricates the re-election machine of members of Congress. They can support a congressman's opponent with impressive resources. They are disciplined, single-issue-oriented and relentless in their opposition to anyone who has the audacity to suggest any weapon or ammunition controls be implemented.

 

I understand the politicians' concern. When I wrote an op-ed piece before the assault weapons ban lapsed, urging Congress to renew it, I received approximately 1,000 e-mails from NRA members. One was careless enough to attach the e-mail from an NRA leader who had forwarded my e-mail address to the organization's members and urged them to let me know how "alone" I was in my viewpoint.

 

The membership dutifully responded. Some of these e-mails were thoughtful and interesting. Some were threatening and criminal. (I concluded that the people who wrote the latter messages had skipped over the 1st Amendment to the Constitution in their haste to distort the 2nd. But I suspect they could name every member of the Simpson family.)

 

But remember, I am a harmless and powerless voice. I can only imagine the resources the NRA can train on those with the power to protect children like Starkesia against these weapons of slaughter.

 

Until we change our political system so that sound ideas rather than 30-second ads bought by private contributions decide our elections, we will have to rely on the courage of our elected officials to keep our children safe. I suppose even a brave lawmaker could ask, "What good would it do for me to act on this issue if it results in my being voted out of office and losing power?"

 

My response would be: "What good is being in office if it gives you the power to save the life of Starkesia Reed and all those who will tragically follow, yet you choose not to exercise it?"

 

That failure to act ratifies the corruption. The corruption that cost Starkesia Reed her young life.

[Balta1701]

Of course, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that the Assault Weapons ban didn't really ban assault weapons, it banned specific weapons which could be easily tweaked to do the exact same things and get in under the ban...it also didn't ban assault weapons produced before the ban was instituted, there's no guarantee when the assault rifle that killed the girl was made, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

Its an instinctive and natural first reaction to be upset by this violent act, and to wonder aloud how some moron street thug managed to get an AK-47. I wonder that myself.

 

But placing the blame for this incident on the shoulders of this administration, Congress or the gun makers is just not supported by any logic. Statistics show, over and over again, that bans on certain types of guns do only one thing - take them out of the hands of those who are unlikely to use them illegally. Criminals won't heed the bans. They are useless, and in fact create more crime by creating a new black market enterprise.

 

I would rather focus on the things that actually caused this incident - poverty, drug use, gangs and a building culture of violence.

[Balta1701]

But placing the blame for this incident on the shoulders of this administration, Congress or the gun makers is just not supported by any logic.  Statistics show, over and over again, that bans on certain types of guns do only one thing - take them out of the hands of those who are unlikely to use them illegally.  Criminals won't heed the bans.  They are useless, and in fact create more crime by creating a new black market enterprise.

Well, I understand what you're saying there, that the statistics suggest there's no correlation between these bans and a decrease in the usage of those guns, but I would point out, as I said a moment ago, that the Assault weapons ban basically did absolutely nothing except give the NRA something to harp on.

 

The ban targeted 19 specific weapons varieties, all of which were assault weapons. It did so in ridiculous ways, judging things like whether or not you could clip a bayonet onto the rifle, that sort of thing. So what did gun manufacturers do? They just redesigned the guns with slight changes to get around the ban, and marketed virtually the exact same thing. And, you could also get your hands on the exact gun made before the ban...they were just more expensive.

 

I don't think there's been any genuine test in this country as to whether or not actually banning assault weapons would lead to an increase or a decrease in violent crime using assault weapons, because there's never been an assault weapons ban which was more than window dressing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think there's been any genuine test in this country as to whether or not actually banning assault weapons would lead to an increase or a decrease in violent crime using assault weapons, because there's never been an assault weapons ban which was more than window dressing.

I was referring to various bans, including against handguns, or magazine clip sizes, or other things as well. Assault weapons bans included. But you are right, the federal assault weapons ban was a pretty weak attempt at it in any case.

[Balta1701]

I was referring to various bans, including against handguns, or magazine clip sizes, or other things as well.  Assault weapons bans included.  But you are right, the federal assault weapons ban was a pretty weak attempt at it in any case.

I understand...but you can also argue that since a genuine, large caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle may be a different beast from a handgun. A handgun might be useful in your home for example. Or a normal rifle can be used while hunting. An assault rifle though could be a completely different story. Cut access to those, and maybe they become so expensive that the criminals just go ahead and use a less deadly rifle or a handgun, or maybe there are less stray bullets, etc. But then again, who knows, since we've never really tried a real ban.

[zach61]

I understand...but you can also argue that since a genuine, large caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle may be a different beast from a handgun.  A handgun might be useful in your home for example.  Or a normal rifle can be used while hunting.  An assault rifle though could be a completely different story.  Cut access to those, and maybe they become so expensive that the criminals just go ahead and use a less deadly rifle or a handgun, or maybe there are less stray bullets, etc.  But then again, who knows, since we've never really tried a real ban.

 

I need to get me one of these to keep the coyotes out of my yard. http://www.sendarmoury.com/id101790list269...liber&ovtac=CMP

[Rex Kickass]

Its an instinctive and natural first reaction to be upset by this violent act, and to wonder aloud how some moron street thug managed to get an AK-47.  I wonder that myself.

 

But placing the blame for this incident on the shoulders of this administration, Congress or the gun makers is just not supported by any logic.  Statistics show, over and over again, that bans on certain types of guns do only one thing - take them out of the hands of those who are unlikely to use them illegally.  Criminals won't heed the bans.  They are useless, and in fact create more crime by creating a new black market enterprise.

 

I would rather focus on the things that actually caused this incident - poverty, drug use, gangs and a building culture of violence.

^^^^^^^ As well as I could have said it.