Last summer, 125 Chicago families lost loved ones in combat. But unlike the coffins draped in American flags returning home from Iraq, these contained victims of local gun violence. The city of Chicago had suffered nearly twice as many fatalities as all American soldiers in Iraq over the same period. Their battlefields were the streets of Chicago — the very streets now courting the 2016 Olympics.
In all of 2008, the city tallied over 500 homicides, 80 percent of which were caused by gunshot wounds. In total, the social costs of gun violence in Chicago are estimated at $2.5 billion. Despite the devastating impact on local communities, federal gun control has essentially been taken off the table as a valid issue due to concerns of its unpopularity in elections. To reinstate such an important and consequential dialogue, Democrats must re-frame gun control as a pro-security measure. The debate over violence and gun control may be complicated and national in its scope, but it has local implications.
Social Security has long been referred to as the “third rail of politics,” but perhaps it shares some voltage with gun control. Since President Obama’s election, gun sales have surged and some gun owners are reportedly hoarding ammo in fear of future restrictions on guns. Two weeks ago, Jimmy Carter questioned what had happened to the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons. The ban, which was signed into law in 1994, defined certain semiautomatic weapons as prohibited “assault weapons.” The law presumes that such weapons, which sometimes include high-capacity ammo magazines, are not used in hunting and have no essential legal purpose. The general issue of gun control is so touchy that when Attorney General Eric Holder floated the idea of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, the Administration was forced to back off his comments. The ban, which was once almost universally supported, now is only backed by a mere 53 percent, according to a recent study.
The topic of gun control is a nuanced argument with different levels. The decline of support may be due in part to the effective framing of the issue. The issue of gun control has effectively been framed as an infringement of civil liberties. Many, including Bill Clinton, blame the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 for the Democrats loss of control of Congress in the same year. Some think that Al Gore’s embarrassing loss in his home state of Tennessee in 2000 was due to his vocal stance on gun control. The combination of the notorious power of the National Rifle Association and moderate Congressmen resistant to hot button issues has eliminated any constructive conversations on gun control in recent years. The bill to extend the Ban on Assault Weapons was rejected 90 to 8 by the Senate a mere ten years after it passed, despite public support for the law. Although the law was imperfect, Democrats have made little effort to repair its flaws.
The umbrella issue of gun control encompasses other measures, such as registration requirements, mandatory waiting periods and local ordinances on handguns. The latter restriction on handguns was recently dealt a blow by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled Washington, D.C.’s ”complete prohibition” of handgun possession in the home to be invalid. Although this decision has not been incorporated into the states, many local governments, including that of Evanston, have repealed their ordinances out of fear of being sued by the NRA. With this measure effectively taken off the table for many communities, the best strategy for gun control may be extending moderate waiting periods and background checks when registering for a firearm.
On the issue of gun control, Democrats have simply been outplayed. Republicans have framed themselves as the party of security and stoked fears of the government kicking in doors to pry guns out of Americans’ hands. Allowing the Republican Party to present itself as such is politically suicidal for Democrats. The New York Times reports that the GOP, having recently suffered many political setbacks, is falling back on its classic argument of national security. This is especially disastrous considering safety is the quintessential nonpartisan issue. With a nation fighting two wars in the Middle East and still mindful of September 11, Democrats cannot afford to concede such an important point.
All progressive acts, then, should be framed in their impact on our nation’s security. Issues that may be controversial should be subject to the litmus test of safety before being introduced into the public forum. And with the United States reeling from some of the highest rates of gun violence in the industrialized world, the reckless use of guns certainly constitute a safety, if not public health, concern.
Democrats must be careful to clearly identify their goals in relation to gun control. They will be unsuccessful in trying to separate guns from their legitimate owners. Instead, they should focus on the black market sale of guns and their impact on inner-cities. Similarly, mandatory waiting periods and strict registration laws will ensure that firearms are only sold to those that are responsible. The NRA will have a much tougher job if it is forced to defend criminals and others using firearms illicitly. It seems that the era of gun control, in which legal firearm ownership was drastically reduced, has died due to political fears. In order to appeal to the political center, Democrats must march out their own proud gun owners, like Jimmy Carter and Virginia Senator Jim Webb, to speak on the dignity of legal and responsible gun ownership. Democrats must avoid the anti-gun label. Instead, they must effectively frame the issue as anti-crime and pro-security.
If President Obama has ruled out a revival of the Assault Weapons Ban, he should at least use his political capital to redefine the issue of gun control. As a Chicago resident, he must be acutely aware of the toll of reckless gun use. As a party leader, Obama may be keen to renew an old party tenet through an electorally important lens. Perhaps even the term, “gun control,” should be overhauled. Democracies and, ultimately, the people, thrive on adversarial conversations on public policy. Despite disagreements on the efficacy or constitutionality of such restrictions, the nation is being done a disservice if at least one party doesn’t question the role of non-sporting guns in our society and their limited state of regulation. At the very least, the families of the thousands of dead due to gun violence deserve an honest debate.