Mauser undeserving of abuse
By Angela Cortez
Denver Post Columnist
September 19, 2000 - There is simply no excuse or defense for the hate mail and death threats that some alleged gun rights advocates have aimed at Tom Mauser, father of murdered Columbine High School student Daniel Mauser.
In the wake of the Columbine massacre, Mauser became an activist to tighten gun-control laws, taking leave from the Colorado Department of Transportation to lobby for SAFE Colorado.
After failing to get a law through the legislature to close the so-called gun show loophole, SAFE petitioned the issue onto the November ballot.
In the course of covering Columbine as a reporter, I came to know Tom Mauser, a kind man who has suffered a loss that no parent should. He has begun working within the political system to change the law in hopes of keeping the Eric Harrises and Dylan Klebolds of this world from killing other people's children.
I am a gun owner but understand Mauser's wanting to do something about "off the paper" private sales at gun shows. Federally licensed dealers must do instant checks on all gun sales under the Brady Act, but private vendors selling from their own collections do not. SAFE wants to require checks for all sales at gun shows. I agree with that, but I don't believe SAFE's proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution is the way to go.
For his stance, Mauser has been vilified by some who violently oppose his position. Mainstream pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association and Colorado State Shooting Association, however, reject such tactics.
Days after Daniel's murder, Mauser received a 3- by 5-inch card that called him a "weak, pitiful man" and stating that the writer was angry with him for advocating tougher gun laws.
"If that poor kid could see what a f---up his old man turned into, he'd s--- his pants," said another nasty missive.
Others have threatened Mauser's life or sent hateful e-mails to Daniel's memorial Web site.
One can't help but wonder what these cowardly knuckle-draggers hope to accomplish. It certainly won't win them any votes.
"I already knew there were people opposed to my position," Mauser said.
"I accept that. I know I've put myself into this public debate, and I'm willing to take criticism for my position. But these are personal attacks. They're not arguing issues." Mauser said he realizes that the authors of the hate mail are "just the extremists" in the gun debate.
The scare tactics also are condemned by the NRA and CSSA. "Never would we make threats of that nature," said Bill Dietrick, legislative director for the CSSA. "We don't make threats to people. We achieve what we achieve by lobbyists and the ballot box. We don't threaten people. Never have and never will."
Unlike the furtive letter-writers, Dietrick notes that "Tom Mauser and we have had our disagreements, but it's always been in public debates... We may not agree on anything, but as leastj we're civilized about it." For example, Dietrick says he's troubled that proposed Amendment 22 is "so broad" it would cover any private transfer of firearms - bequests to relatives or the loan of a gun to a hunting buddy, and unlike federal law, label muzzleloaders a firearm.
"The CSSA suggested having Colorado Bureau of Investigation teams at gun shows to do background checks, he said, but "they (SAFE) didn't want it."
Dietrick prefers to educate the public, not make threats. But another pro-gun group implied Mauser asked for the abuse.
"I'm sorry about that, but he's put himself in the public eye and he's fair game," Dudley Brown, lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and perennial Chicken Little of the gun debate, told Post reporter Trent Seibert.
Sorry, Dudley, but nobody is "fair game" for death threats, even if you disagree with him.
Peter G. Chronis is a member of The Denver Post editorial board. E-mail Peter about this column.
Copyright 2000 The Denver Post.
By Angela Cortez
Denver Post Columnist
September 19, 2000 - There is simply no excuse or defense for the hate mail and death threats that some alleged gun rights advocates have aimed at Tom Mauser, father of murdered Columbine High School student Daniel Mauser.
In the wake of the Columbine massacre, Mauser became an activist to tighten gun-control laws, taking leave from the Colorado Department of Transportation to lobby for SAFE Colorado.
After failing to get a law through the legislature to close the so-called gun show loophole, SAFE petitioned the issue onto the November ballot.
In the course of covering Columbine as a reporter, I came to know Tom Mauser, a kind man who has suffered a loss that no parent should. He has begun working within the political system to change the law in hopes of keeping the Eric Harrises and Dylan Klebolds of this world from killing other people's children.
I am a gun owner but understand Mauser's wanting to do something about "off the paper" private sales at gun shows. Federally licensed dealers must do instant checks on all gun sales under the Brady Act, but private vendors selling from their own collections do not. SAFE wants to require checks for all sales at gun shows. I agree with that, but I don't believe SAFE's proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution is the way to go.
For his stance, Mauser has been vilified by some who violently oppose his position. Mainstream pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association and Colorado State Shooting Association, however, reject such tactics.
Days after Daniel's murder, Mauser received a 3- by 5-inch card that called him a "weak, pitiful man" and stating that the writer was angry with him for advocating tougher gun laws.
"If that poor kid could see what a f---up his old man turned into, he'd s--- his pants," said another nasty missive.
Others have threatened Mauser's life or sent hateful e-mails to Daniel's memorial Web site.
One can't help but wonder what these cowardly knuckle-draggers hope to accomplish. It certainly won't win them any votes.
"I already knew there were people opposed to my position," Mauser said.
"I accept that. I know I've put myself into this public debate, and I'm willing to take criticism for my position. But these are personal attacks. They're not arguing issues." Mauser said he realizes that the authors of the hate mail are "just the extremists" in the gun debate.
The scare tactics also are condemned by the NRA and CSSA. "Never would we make threats of that nature," said Bill Dietrick, legislative director for the CSSA. "We don't make threats to people. We achieve what we achieve by lobbyists and the ballot box. We don't threaten people. Never have and never will."
Unlike the furtive letter-writers, Dietrick notes that "Tom Mauser and we have had our disagreements, but it's always been in public debates... We may not agree on anything, but as leastj we're civilized about it." For example, Dietrick says he's troubled that proposed Amendment 22 is "so broad" it would cover any private transfer of firearms - bequests to relatives or the loan of a gun to a hunting buddy, and unlike federal law, label muzzleloaders a firearm.
"The CSSA suggested having Colorado Bureau of Investigation teams at gun shows to do background checks, he said, but "they (SAFE) didn't want it."
Dietrick prefers to educate the public, not make threats. But another pro-gun group implied Mauser asked for the abuse.
"I'm sorry about that, but he's put himself in the public eye and he's fair game," Dudley Brown, lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and perennial Chicken Little of the gun debate, told Post reporter Trent Seibert.
Sorry, Dudley, but nobody is "fair game" for death threats, even if you disagree with him.
Peter G. Chronis is a member of The Denver Post editorial board. E-mail Peter about this column.
Copyright 2000 The Denver Post.