Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Moms firing back

Tuesday, May 16, 2000 | 9:21 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Come on, Michael, tell me you're joking.

This Wednesday, Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack will propose a resolution that "strongly encourages manufacturers, sellers and distributors of firearms to supply the recipient of every firearm sold, traded or acquired by other means, with educational opportunities on responsible gun ownership and a gun safety lock."

Raise your hand if you are against that. I take that back because there are always some people who are conditioned to oppose anything that has the word 'gun' in it and a dose of common sense attached to it. If the resolution goes forward as planned it should pass unanimously because it is nothing more than a feel-good effort to hit the insanity of gun deaths squarely between the ... toes. Actually, Councilman Mack should be congratulated for coming up with anything that might add some sanity to the gun debate, but it seems to me that the council, if it is going to take an action, should do something decisive rather than take a duck on this most controversial issue.

Sunday's Mother's Day March on Washington and other major cities in this country made it abundantly clear to any politician worth a re-election that the people who run this country -- the same people who give birth to its citizens -- have had enough of the indiscriminate killing of their children. The last time those folks got together they won the right to vote, and have ever since learned how to use that great rite of citizenship to get what they want and what this country needs. Michael's reaction may be the most mild one but, at least, it is a step toward some kind of sanity.

But let's face it, people, strong encouragement with nothing else will do little or nothing to keep guns out of the hands of children and others who should not have them. Encouraging profit-making companies to give something for nothing is Pollyannish and the thought that those who acquire guns "by other means" will take the time for an education is ludicrous.

What the good councilman has done is the very least he should do to respond to what he knows is a responsible request by the most potent force in American politics at any level of government -- mothers. Whether they are soccer moms, working moms, Reagan moms, urban moms or the suburban variety, the fact remains that if they don't get what they believe is necessary for the health and safety of their children, there will be hell to pay. They have sat quietly far too long while the man in their house has dictated the gun policy in the family, a policy which usually starts and ends with, "Don't take my guns away."

But this time that just won't cut it. This time Mom knows that there is so much that can and should be done about common sense gun safety and screening that doesn't even approach Dad's biggest fears, that she won't stop until it is law. Why does it have to be law and not just some encouraging words? Because, while most people will prevent the tragedies before they happen by getting safety locks, gun safes and gun safety education for themselves and their families, there are so many others who either don't give a damn or don't know any better. Those are the people who the rest of us need to be protected against.

No, the gun debate will no longer be drowned out by the monotony of the NRA's one-liners. The mothers have spoken and the law will respond. Encouraging words, Michael, while pleasant sounding and politically inoffensive to re-election efforts, are no longer acceptable. Come up with a plan that works and have the courage to lead on the issue. That will get you elected and save innocent lives, too. That's called win, win.

So, while I am in a critical mood, will someone explain to me what our good governor, Kenny Guinn, is trying to pull over our eyes?

I can no longer look at or listen to that commercial he is reading for Republican senatorial candidate John Ensign without questioning the man's motives. Since I would never like to do that, I just ignore him when he tries to tell us about John's great courage and clout on the nuclear waste issue.

You know the commercial I am talking about. It is the one where Kenny tells us that John had the courage to stand up to Newt Gingrich, who was the speaker of the House when Ensign was a congressman. John was running for higher office at the time and pleaded with Newt to delay a vote on a bill so it wouldn't look like the Republicans were doing exactly what the people of Nevada know they are doing -- trying to force the nation's high-level nuclear waste down our throats. Since Gingrich knew he didn't have the votes to override a presidential veto, he pulled the bill from consideration. It was to save John's political hide, not in deference to his courage that Gingrich gave in and withheld action.

Guinn would have Nevadans believe that it was Ensign who saved us from the radioactive onslaught that will start rolling our way if the GOP-controlled Congress has its way. Such doublespeak is unbecoming of our governor and way out of character. If he wants to talk to the voters of this state about nuclear waste and who's voting how, then he should take the time needed to do just that. But trying to pass John Ensign off as our nuke waste savior is disingenuous and untrue. Kenny knows better.

The question remains: Why did Gov. Guinn allow himself, on an issue so vital to every family in Nevada, to be used that way? We'll wait for his final answer.

Now, back to the guns. Since, as one gun seller puts it, "We can't tell a gun owner or a pro-gunner what to do," why don't we tell him what he can't do? He can't allow a society to prevail that allows sick people to buy all manner of firearms and then turn them loose on children in our schools and day care centers. He can't allow people to own guns who will not keep them from their children or their children's friends, young people who know all there is to know from television. And he can't require us to live in a society that has us cowering in corners for fear that speaking out against violence or irrational behavior may subject us to a random act of violence or worse, a planned act.

As Americans, we should not have to live in constant fear that sticking up for ourselves or our families will subject us to a lethal retaliation from someone who should never have had a gun in the first place. And before the NRA starts re-spouting its usual crap about enforcing the existing laws, let me remind everyone that prosecuting the criminals usually occurs after there is a victim. Any volunteers?

I know where this debate is going and I feel better already. That's in the knowledge that common sense will prevail and responsible people will still have their guns.

archive