This from the man who would try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The idiot doesn't menton increased enforcement on DUIs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20239-2000May27.html
A Model for the NRA
By Charles E. Schumer
Sunday, May 28, 2000; Page B07
As one of its most persistent foes, I shed no tears for the plight of the gun lobby. But I do have some advice for the NRA and its allies: Use the alcohol industry as a model for the gun industry.
In 1982, the alcohol lobby was facing many of the same pressures that the gun lobby is today. Drunk driving deaths, particularly those related to underage drinking, surpassed 25,000. Beer makers were under public criticism for airing glitzy advertisements aimed at teenagers. A group of fed-up mothers formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a nascent grass-roots anti-alcohol campaign that was shortly to become a powerhouse. Congress, which usually supported the alcohol industry, had begun to consider steep increases in excise taxes and advertising restrictions.
Under siege, the industry conducted extensive market research and discovered that only a tiny slice of its business derived from kids and drunks. Well over 95 percent of its revenue came from responsible drinkers. Most bars and liquor stores tried to keep teens from buying alcohol, but a few bad apples--stores and bars that would serve anyone no matter their age or sobriety--were defining the industry.
So beer makers reversed course and embarked on a massive campaign to reduce drunk driving and stop sales to teenagers. Ads featuring beer-guzzling dogs were replaced with "don't drink and drive," "know when to say when" and the "designated driver" campaign. By working with law enforcement and lawmakers and by creating a campaign to ID anyone who looked younger than 26 years of age, the industry clamped down on bars and stores that served minors.
Within 15 years, drunk driving deaths decreased by 10,000, with the most pronounced success among youth fatalities. Best of all for the industry, its bottom line is healthy, with no imminent threat of new laws or serious litigation.
The parallels to the gun industry are striking. Most gun owners are responsible, but a criminal element wreaks havoc on society. Though most guns are designed for hunting, sport or protection, certain guns are designed for criminal use and certain models show up habitually at crime scenes. Most gun stores try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but one percent of the nation's 104,000 gun stores are the source of more than half the guns traced to crime.
The typical gun purchase is totally legitimate, but some are easily recognizable by any store clerk as a straw purchase destined for the black market.
Thus far the gun industry, with the exception of Smith and Wesson, has taken no interest in who sells its guns, who buys them, who resells them or who kills with them. Now it is paying the price through litigation in the courts and in the court of public opinion, where the industry looks extreme and uncaring.
The gun industry needs to follow the model of the alcohol industry and jettison the bad actors for the sake of the majority who are responsible. It should end its opposition to the hiring of new Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms federal agents who will crack down on high-crime gun stores. The industry should support closing the gun show loophole, which clearly allows criminals to avoid the Brady background check, and should favor efforts to require all gun sales to go through a Brady check. It should back law enforcement efforts to create a DNA ballistics database so that a bullet found at a crime scene will identify the gun from which it was fired. Gun manufacturers ought to make trigger locks a standard, non-optional part of a gun.
These and other modest, nonintrusive measures would go a long way toward reducing crime and convincing the public that the gun lobby is as concerned about the bad actors as it is about gun owners' rights.
The NRA has a choice. It can follow the model of the alcohol industry and become part of the solution, or it can follow the model of another industry that faced similar circumstances but chose to stand and fight: the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies just paid a $300 billion fine and are still under the cloud of litigation and legislation.
Charlton Heston may bring the house down with his annual "never surrender" speech to the faithful, but it would be smarter for the NRA to know when to say when.
The writer, a Democratic senator from New York, wrote the Brady law and the assault weapons ban.
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
-- 30 --
My letter to the Post, sure to be printed
Letterstoed@washpost.com
To the Editor:
The Post should emulate the Internet message boards and post a "Barf Alert" when printing articles by Sen. Schumer.
He should stick to what he knows best - trying to ban ALL guns and expanding government power.
In 1982 the alcohol industry was not facing government-backed litigation. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers advocated stiffer sentences for criminal use of alcohol -"enforce existing laws in today's vernacular.
Sen. Schumer states, ". . . certain guns are designed for criminal use . . . ". I scan many gun tabloids, newspaper classifieds, and the Internet. I have yet to see a category called "Criminal Use".
In his best polemical style, "Thus far the gun industry, with the exception of Smith and Wesson, has taken no interest in who sells its guns, who buys them, who resells them or who kills with them." This thinking implies that Ford, GM, and Chrylser should be blamed for selling cars to people without regard to whom they may be resold.
Another gem, "The typical gun purchase is totally legitimate, but some are easily recognizable by any store clerk as a straw purchase destined for the black market." Are clerks now required to possess ESP? Or he is thinking of racial profiling?
Sen. Schumer should restrict his advice to Handgun Control, Inc., or better yet, know what he is talking about.
Yours truly, etc.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited May 28, 2000).]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20239-2000May27.html
A Model for the NRA
By Charles E. Schumer
Sunday, May 28, 2000; Page B07
As one of its most persistent foes, I shed no tears for the plight of the gun lobby. But I do have some advice for the NRA and its allies: Use the alcohol industry as a model for the gun industry.
In 1982, the alcohol lobby was facing many of the same pressures that the gun lobby is today. Drunk driving deaths, particularly those related to underage drinking, surpassed 25,000. Beer makers were under public criticism for airing glitzy advertisements aimed at teenagers. A group of fed-up mothers formed Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a nascent grass-roots anti-alcohol campaign that was shortly to become a powerhouse. Congress, which usually supported the alcohol industry, had begun to consider steep increases in excise taxes and advertising restrictions.
Under siege, the industry conducted extensive market research and discovered that only a tiny slice of its business derived from kids and drunks. Well over 95 percent of its revenue came from responsible drinkers. Most bars and liquor stores tried to keep teens from buying alcohol, but a few bad apples--stores and bars that would serve anyone no matter their age or sobriety--were defining the industry.
So beer makers reversed course and embarked on a massive campaign to reduce drunk driving and stop sales to teenagers. Ads featuring beer-guzzling dogs were replaced with "don't drink and drive," "know when to say when" and the "designated driver" campaign. By working with law enforcement and lawmakers and by creating a campaign to ID anyone who looked younger than 26 years of age, the industry clamped down on bars and stores that served minors.
Within 15 years, drunk driving deaths decreased by 10,000, with the most pronounced success among youth fatalities. Best of all for the industry, its bottom line is healthy, with no imminent threat of new laws or serious litigation.
The parallels to the gun industry are striking. Most gun owners are responsible, but a criminal element wreaks havoc on society. Though most guns are designed for hunting, sport or protection, certain guns are designed for criminal use and certain models show up habitually at crime scenes. Most gun stores try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but one percent of the nation's 104,000 gun stores are the source of more than half the guns traced to crime.
The typical gun purchase is totally legitimate, but some are easily recognizable by any store clerk as a straw purchase destined for the black market.
Thus far the gun industry, with the exception of Smith and Wesson, has taken no interest in who sells its guns, who buys them, who resells them or who kills with them. Now it is paying the price through litigation in the courts and in the court of public opinion, where the industry looks extreme and uncaring.
The gun industry needs to follow the model of the alcohol industry and jettison the bad actors for the sake of the majority who are responsible. It should end its opposition to the hiring of new Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms federal agents who will crack down on high-crime gun stores. The industry should support closing the gun show loophole, which clearly allows criminals to avoid the Brady background check, and should favor efforts to require all gun sales to go through a Brady check. It should back law enforcement efforts to create a DNA ballistics database so that a bullet found at a crime scene will identify the gun from which it was fired. Gun manufacturers ought to make trigger locks a standard, non-optional part of a gun.
These and other modest, nonintrusive measures would go a long way toward reducing crime and convincing the public that the gun lobby is as concerned about the bad actors as it is about gun owners' rights.
The NRA has a choice. It can follow the model of the alcohol industry and become part of the solution, or it can follow the model of another industry that faced similar circumstances but chose to stand and fight: the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies just paid a $300 billion fine and are still under the cloud of litigation and legislation.
Charlton Heston may bring the house down with his annual "never surrender" speech to the faithful, but it would be smarter for the NRA to know when to say when.
The writer, a Democratic senator from New York, wrote the Brady law and the assault weapons ban.
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
-- 30 --
My letter to the Post, sure to be printed
Letterstoed@washpost.com
To the Editor:
The Post should emulate the Internet message boards and post a "Barf Alert" when printing articles by Sen. Schumer.
He should stick to what he knows best - trying to ban ALL guns and expanding government power.
In 1982 the alcohol industry was not facing government-backed litigation. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers advocated stiffer sentences for criminal use of alcohol -"enforce existing laws in today's vernacular.
Sen. Schumer states, ". . . certain guns are designed for criminal use . . . ". I scan many gun tabloids, newspaper classifieds, and the Internet. I have yet to see a category called "Criminal Use".
In his best polemical style, "Thus far the gun industry, with the exception of Smith and Wesson, has taken no interest in who sells its guns, who buys them, who resells them or who kills with them." This thinking implies that Ford, GM, and Chrylser should be blamed for selling cars to people without regard to whom they may be resold.
Another gem, "The typical gun purchase is totally legitimate, but some are easily recognizable by any store clerk as a straw purchase destined for the black market." Are clerks now required to possess ESP? Or he is thinking of racial profiling?
Sen. Schumer should restrict his advice to Handgun Control, Inc., or better yet, know what he is talking about.
Yours truly, etc.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited May 28, 2000).]
