At last night’s Fox “News” GOP debate, 2 questions were asked about the gun issue. Problem is that only two of the candidates got to answer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.
GunGuys.com would have loved to hear all the candidates speak about their positions on the gun issue. A similar thing happened on the CNN YouTube debate where only two democratic presidential candidates answered a question about guns — including Sen. Biden’s (DE) remarks about a man who called his assault rifle his “baby”.
(Note: GunGuys.com does not endorse or support any presidential candidate from either party, or for any candidate for elected office).
At the debate, moderator Wendell Goler asked:
Mayor Giuliani, Senator Fred Thompson — and we do wish he was here — says the Virginia Tech tragedy might have been lessened if some of the students had been allowed to carry guns. He also says that…
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
He also says he never felt safe in your city because of its gun control laws. What do you have to say to him about either of these assertions?
GIULIANI: Well, I would say to him the FBI would disagree with that. New York City was, during the years that I was mayor, the safest large city in the United States. In fact, in 2000, which was one of the last years that I was mayor, it was 191 for crime in the country.
For example, in Boston, there was a 59 percent greater chance you’d be the victim of a crime than in New York City. In many other cities, there was 100 to 300 percent greater chance that you’d be a victim of a crime than in New York City.
One of the things I accomplished as mayor of New York City was the impossible.
GIULIANI: I took a city that was the crime capital of America, and I made it not only the safest large city in America, I made it safer than 189 small cities. So, I mean, people have their right to their own feelings. The reality is, you were safer in New York than just about any other city in the United States after I was mayor for about three or four years.
GOLER: And the idea of letting college students carry weapons?
GIULIANI: I think states have a right to decide that. I mean, states have a right to decide their gun laws. The second amendment grants you the right to bear arms.
We have a federal system. A lot of these issues work in America where we have people of different views and different conscience because we are a federal system. We allow states to make different decisions.
The focus of our laws should be on criminals. That’s what I did in New York City. I reduced shootings in New York City by 75 percent. And I did it by focusing not on guns but on criminals. Putting them in jail, putting them in jail for long periods of time when they committed crimes with guns, and it worked.
It appears that Mayor Giuliani is trying to have it both ways on the gun issue, on one hand saying he reduced crime and shootings but then saying he supports the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and that each state can determine its own gun laws. But Giuliani supported the federal assault weapon ban, and other gun control measures.
Also, Giuliani knows full well that guns are trafficked from states with loose gun laws into largely urban areas with stronger gun laws. The idea that each state can and should fend for itself over illegal guns simply fails the commonsense test. Just look to Giuliani’s replacement, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who proved that the “iron pipeline” of guns is flooding New York City from states like Virginia. For all the success of New York City in reducing crime, New York cannot, by itself, stop illegal gun channels pouring into New York, or other cities such as Chicago or Los Angeles.
It requires, ultimately, federal legislation and tougher enforcement from ATF. But in the meantime states should do all they can to clamp down on gun trafficking and take actions to reduce gun violence.
The other example of Giuliani being two faced over the gun issue was reported in today’s Chicago Tribune, where he is courting the arch-conservative Federalist Society, an elitist click of lawyers and judges that trains and supports mostly law school students in advocating for conservative principles. Eradicating any and all gun violence prevention measures is one of the Federalist Society’s top priorities. In fact, the Federalist Society counts as one of its favorite supporters and guest lecturers at America’s law schools none other than “Mary Rosh”, a.k.a. John Lott, who peddled the unsubstantiated and ridiculous notion that carrying concealed weapons reduced crime.
The second question in the debate went to Congressman Ron Paul:
GOLER: Congressman Paul, another gun issue for you, if you will. You have said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they’d felt that some of the passengers aboard the airplanes might have been armed.
We have seen airplanes — airflights diverted because people heard Arabic on planes, because they heard Muslims praying. What do you think it would do to the travel industry of this country if passengers felt others were carrying guns aboard, sir?
PAUL: Well, first off, you’re quoting me incorrectly.
GOLER: I’m sorry.
PAUL: I said the responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government — not the passengers. The airline’s responsible for the aircraft and the passengers.
If we wouldn’t have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts, because the airlines would have had the responsibility.
PAUL: But we assumed the government was going to take care of us. After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility and private property and second amendment, we moved in the opposite direction. We turned it over to the federal government. And look at the mess we have now at airports.
I mean, the airlines — private industry protects their property all the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up, and if we put the responsibility on the right people, respected the second amendment, I sincerely believe there would have been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening.
(APPLAUSE)
There’s not a whole lot to say except that any suggestion that airline passengers should be permitted to carry guns on airplanes is perhaps the looniest idea we have ever heard.
Since the gun lobby continues to weaken America’s national security by supporting the unrestricted sale of .50 caliber sniper rifles — capable of shooting civilian aircraft — we have to ask if they also want to destroy America’s airline industry by allowing guns on planes?
We’d like to hear what each of the presidential candidates, from both parties have to say about that.
