Gun debate rallies are full of surprises
10/06/00
Not everything turns out the way it is planned.
This week's First Monday 2000 rally in Bethlehem, we were told in advance, was
not for gun control. "It's just antiviolence," rally organizer Helen Ruch told me.
That's not the way it turned out; the rally was largely devoted to antigun rhetoric
on signs and in speeches.
Ruch had hoped 1,500 would join her, but 70 showed up to march across
Bethlehem's Fahy Bridge. That dwindled to 40 for her postmarch rally at
Moravian College.
An anti-antigun turnout, on the other hand, surprised even the most
ardent National Rifle Association members. More than 1,000 foes of gun
control lined one side of Fahy Bridge as Ruch's 70 demonstrators marched
across on the other side, then more than 2,000 showed up at Bethlehem's
Rose Garden for a rally to support the Second Amendment.
Another surprise, given the passions on both sides, was that nearly all
these people were very polite.
At Moravian, following some truly dreadful music, Ruch hailed her
"rally to attempt to end gun violence." She said there are conflicting
numbers about how many people are killed by guns, but "one victim a
day is too many.…Our children do not feel safe and that's not fair."
Then began the awfullest music you can imagine, so I bailed out to go see
how the other rally was doing.
The pro-gun rally focused almost entirely on why gun control is bad. It was
argued that crime increased after cities like New York, Washington and Los
Angeles imposed severe restrictions on citizens carrying guns, giving criminals
free rein. Other arguments were that things like gun locks and waiting periods
similarly leave people defenseless.
All that may be true, but it seems to me that if you have 2,000 zealots in one spot,
you should not waste time trying to convince them of what they already intractably
believe.
Instead, tell them how to gain political support, pool resources or persuade those
not yet in your camp, including news media people, many of whom unabashedly
support those who seek to dilute the Bill of Rights.
My sentiments have long been aligned against gun control, mainly because it
abrogates part of the Bill of Rights, but also because much of the impetus comes
from hysteria.
Last year, I questioned the hysteria over gun violence in schools while there was
far less outcry over violence caused by drunks. This week, figures supplied by
Mothers Against Drunk Driving said drunken drivers killed 15,935 in 1998.
Handgun Control, a Washington group that pushes gun control, said there were
12,102 homicides by firearms in 1998.
Neither figure is heartening, but the drunks are outdoing the gunslingers
when it comes to deadly violence.
And that brings us back to Ruch and a final surprise.
Noting her view that it's not fair for children to feel unsafe because of
guns, I asked her Thursday if she thinks it's also unfair that they feel
unsafe because of the far more serious dangers from drunken drivers.
"What does that have to do with anything?" she replied.
I told her it has to do with her drunken driving charge.
"I have no comment," she said.
That's OK, because Lehigh County Court records commented plenty.
They say Ruch was charged with public drunkenness (later dropped), driving
under the influence, and improper "emerging onto roadway" in 1996. "Driver was
given sobriety tests of balance and walking and failed all tests. Effects of alcohol
were extreme," said an Allentown police report. The report said her breath test
registered 0.162.
The records say that in 1997, Ruch agreed to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative
Disposition program. Typically, when ARD is successfully completed, DUI
records can be expunged.
In any event, it seems to me that if those marching across Fahy Bridge
genuinely want to curb deadly violence, they can start by demanding
tougher sanctions for drunken drivers.
Contact Paul Carpenter
610-820-6176
paul.carpenter@mcall.com
http://www.mcall.com/html/columns/cpc/b_pg001_e15surprises.htm
10/06/00
Not everything turns out the way it is planned.
This week's First Monday 2000 rally in Bethlehem, we were told in advance, was
not for gun control. "It's just antiviolence," rally organizer Helen Ruch told me.
That's not the way it turned out; the rally was largely devoted to antigun rhetoric
on signs and in speeches.
Ruch had hoped 1,500 would join her, but 70 showed up to march across
Bethlehem's Fahy Bridge. That dwindled to 40 for her postmarch rally at
Moravian College.
An anti-antigun turnout, on the other hand, surprised even the most
ardent National Rifle Association members. More than 1,000 foes of gun
control lined one side of Fahy Bridge as Ruch's 70 demonstrators marched
across on the other side, then more than 2,000 showed up at Bethlehem's
Rose Garden for a rally to support the Second Amendment.
Another surprise, given the passions on both sides, was that nearly all
these people were very polite.
At Moravian, following some truly dreadful music, Ruch hailed her
"rally to attempt to end gun violence." She said there are conflicting
numbers about how many people are killed by guns, but "one victim a
day is too many.…Our children do not feel safe and that's not fair."
Then began the awfullest music you can imagine, so I bailed out to go see
how the other rally was doing.
The pro-gun rally focused almost entirely on why gun control is bad. It was
argued that crime increased after cities like New York, Washington and Los
Angeles imposed severe restrictions on citizens carrying guns, giving criminals
free rein. Other arguments were that things like gun locks and waiting periods
similarly leave people defenseless.
All that may be true, but it seems to me that if you have 2,000 zealots in one spot,
you should not waste time trying to convince them of what they already intractably
believe.
Instead, tell them how to gain political support, pool resources or persuade those
not yet in your camp, including news media people, many of whom unabashedly
support those who seek to dilute the Bill of Rights.
My sentiments have long been aligned against gun control, mainly because it
abrogates part of the Bill of Rights, but also because much of the impetus comes
from hysteria.
Last year, I questioned the hysteria over gun violence in schools while there was
far less outcry over violence caused by drunks. This week, figures supplied by
Mothers Against Drunk Driving said drunken drivers killed 15,935 in 1998.
Handgun Control, a Washington group that pushes gun control, said there were
12,102 homicides by firearms in 1998.
Neither figure is heartening, but the drunks are outdoing the gunslingers
when it comes to deadly violence.
And that brings us back to Ruch and a final surprise.
Noting her view that it's not fair for children to feel unsafe because of
guns, I asked her Thursday if she thinks it's also unfair that they feel
unsafe because of the far more serious dangers from drunken drivers.
"What does that have to do with anything?" she replied.
I told her it has to do with her drunken driving charge.
"I have no comment," she said.
That's OK, because Lehigh County Court records commented plenty.
They say Ruch was charged with public drunkenness (later dropped), driving
under the influence, and improper "emerging onto roadway" in 1996. "Driver was
given sobriety tests of balance and walking and failed all tests. Effects of alcohol
were extreme," said an Allentown police report. The report said her breath test
registered 0.162.
The records say that in 1997, Ruch agreed to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative
Disposition program. Typically, when ARD is successfully completed, DUI
records can be expunged.
In any event, it seems to me that if those marching across Fahy Bridge
genuinely want to curb deadly violence, they can start by demanding
tougher sanctions for drunken drivers.
Contact Paul Carpenter
610-820-6176
paul.carpenter@mcall.com
http://www.mcall.com/html/columns/cpc/b_pg001_e15surprises.htm
A three-pointer for sure.