We already knew that the New York Times’ readers wholeheartedly agreed with us (that’s what makes them such sensible people), but now we’ve got confirmation that the Gray Lady’s staff also reads our humble (and amazing, and informative) website.
How do we know? All week we’ve been talking about New York Governor Pataki’s proposed gun laws. Since the deaths of two police officers this past month, Pataki has called the legislation into a special session, and demanded they pass two laws aimed at criminals who use guns against police officers. But, as we’ve been saying, the laws only strengthen the penalties for crime– that doesn’t prevent crime, it only punishes it. If we really want to stop crime, we have to attack the people who are enabling the criminals– attacking criminals after they commit the crime only makes them regret it more afterwards. And in today’s NYT, we see exactly that.
The new laws make the illegal possession of three guns a felony, with a jail sentence of two to seven years. Previously, possession of fewer than 20 illegal guns was a misdemeanor with a one-year jail sentence. The laws also toughen penalties for the illegal sale of firearms and close a loophole that allows gun traffickers to avoid harsh penalties by selling a small number of guns at a time.
But they do nothing to tighten restrictions on legal gun sales. Mr. Silver had proposed legislation that would have required dealers to perform background checks and keep detailed records of sales, but the Republicans who control the State Senate opposed such measures.
And the Times even spoke with our friends over at New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, who agreed with us: These gun laws might be a band-aid, but they’re not the cure.
Advocates for gun control gave qualified support. “By increasing laws for trafficking, we are going somewhere at least,” said Jackie Kuhls, the executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. “But there’s a huge hole that is still out there with the gun dealer provisions. You want to look at where these illegal guns are coming from, what’s the ultimate source of these.”
Before the vote in the Assembly, several Democrats criticized the legislation as not going far enough.
“My concern is that what we are doing is only window dressing,” said Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie, a Bronx Democrat. “No one that commits a crime in New York is really looking at what the penalty is.”
Which, of course, is exactly what we said yesterday.
So, Gun Guys, you ask, what is the cure? Stronger gun laws in New York and states like Pennsylvania, where lax gun laws allow criminals to buy their guns from legal dealers. Laws like “one gun a month,” which closes the flow of straw purchases to all but a trickle without getting in the way of legal gun owners who want to buy guns for recreation (unsafe as it is). And closing the loopholes that allow criminals to get their guns from legal sources, like gun shows and classified ads.
The gun lobby is right (boy, that’s something we cringe at saying): criminals don’t think about the law. But the people who give them their weapons do, and those are the people we need to crack down on.
Update: Looks like lawmakers have passed the bill that increases the punishment for gun trafficking, but declined to re-enact the death penalty. Meanwhile, two measures that would have actually helped to prevent crime didn’t even have a chance to get voted on.
While halting the death penalty measure, the Assembly Democrats suffered a political defeat Wednesday with the gun trafficking bill.
They backed down from threats not to pass any bill unless it included new restrictions on gun dealers and banned possession of armor-piercing bullets. The gun lobby opposed both provisions.
“What we’re doing is closing the front door but leaving the back door wide open,” Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said of Wednesday’s deal that he insisted does not go far enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Of course the gun lobby opposed both provisions. Restrictions on gun dealers and a ban on armor piercing bullets would have actually prevented the deaths of police officers, but it also would have taken away from the gun industry’s bottom line. And when you’re talking about the bottom line, it doesn’t matter to the gun lobby how many cops or children are killed.
