Well, it certainly seems that way. He scribes for the San Diego Union-Tribune
and his column recieves national syndication. Joe's sentiments, expressed here in two columns, are very encouraging.
We should control guns by controlling criminals
Joseph Perkins
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
22-Oct-1999 Friday
Sammy "The Bull" Gravano has, by his own admission, sent 19 men to their graves. So it's safe to say that the former underboss of the Gambino crime family knows a thing or two (or 19) about guns and violence. That's why his recent remarks about gun control, published in Vanity Fair, have resonance. "Gun control?" Sammy pondered. "It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun. "Safety locks?" The Bull continued. "You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." Gravano's insights came to mind this week as President Clinton reissued his challenge to Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill to present him with a sweeping gun control bill that he can sign. "We need Congress to help us keep guns out of the wrong hands," Clinton told a group of more than 300 high school students from around the country, who were in the nation's capital this week to attend a two-day youth violence conference sponsored by House Democrats. But even those high schoolers had to wonder whether the gun-control bill President Clinton is trying to goad Republicans into approving will really keep guns out of "the wrong hands." Indeed, even if the president got every provision he seeks -- including mandatory trigger locks, new restrictions on possession of semi-automatic weapons by persons under 18 years of age, a ban on imported large-capacity ammunition clips and a requirement that all vendors at gun shows conduct mandatory background checks on customers -- bad guys would continue to get guns. So all this new law would do is make it that much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain weapons to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their property from the criminals who, as Sammy the Bull attests, are always going to have a gun. The president takes refuge in polls showing that a decided majority of Americans favor stricter gun-control laws. But while that is true, those same polls show that half of Americans also believe that new gun-control laws -- such as the one for which the president is currently agitating -- will do nothing to reduce violent crime. In fact, there are already more than 20,000 gun-control laws on the books at the federal, state and local levels. Yet, these controls have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; have failed to reduce the level of gun violence throughout the country. And why is that? Because these gun-control laws are predicated on the notion that firearms are the root cause of gun violence when the real cause of gun violence is violent criminals. So, it stands to reason that the most effective way to reduce gun violence is not by passing yet another symbolic gun control law, but adapting a one-strike approach to gun crimes. In other words, if a person carries a gun while committing a crime, even if he or she does not brandish the weapon, even if the weapon is not used, that person should receive a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in prison with no parole. That will make the bad guys sit up and take notice. As it is now, the courts are often lenient when it comes to gun crime. Indeed, Sammy the Bull whacked 19 victims and only spent five years behind bars. So you know that a two-bit criminal who merely uses a gun to knock over a liquor store is unlikely to do any hard time. When the federal government and state and local governments start to target gun-related crime, rather than guns themselves, then the nation will see a meaningful reduction in gun violence. The real-life proof of this is Richmond, Va. For the better part of the decade, the Virginia capital had one of the nation's worst per capita murder rates. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond devised a strategy, under the title "Project Exile," to try local gun offenses in federal court where bond is less easily obtainable and sentencing guidelines are stiffer. This approach yielded immediate results, with indictments against 404 armed suspects, a conviction rate of 86 percent and an average prison setence of more than four and a half years. Meanwhile, Richmond posted a 36 percent decline in gun-related homicides last year. These are the kinds of results that the American public really wants to see. And they were achieved not by enactment of new gun-control laws, as President Clinton advocates, but by prosecuting armed criminals to the fullest extent of already-existing laws. Perkins can be reached via e-mail at joseph.perkins@uniontrib.com.
Firing blanks | Judge dismisses city's suit against gun makers 11-Oct-1999 Monday
Any San Diego official who might be thinking of joining the ranks of the 30 or so municipalities that have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers ought to take a look at what happened last week in Cincinnati. A state judge threw out that city's suit, which sought reimbursement for police, ambulance, prison and other costs related to gun violence.
Judge Robert Ruehlman declared that manufacturers of legal guns may not be held liable when criminals beyond their control misuse firearms. Furthermore, he wrote, "The city's complaint is an improper attempt to have this court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature."
The Ohio judge's decision might very well be a harbinger of court rulings to come elsewhere in the country.
A spokesman for the Violence Policy Council, a gun-control advocacy group, acknowledged that the ruling against Cincinnati suggests the cities suing gun makers are in a weak legal position.
That's not because there are so many judges throughout the land who are Second Amendment absolutists, who seek to protect the gun industry, who are unmoved by the gun-related carnage that afflicts cities like Cincinnati. It's simply because most guns are a lawful consumer product owned by millions of citizens. The hard reality that some guns are misused for violent purposes is not the fault of gun manufacturers, but rather of the gun-wielding lawbreakers.
If gun makers are held responsible for gun-related violence, rather than the criminals who commit the violence, then by logical extension other manufacturers should be liable for violent crimes committed with their legal products.
In fact, one-third of murders committed in this country are not gun-related. Some 2,500 Americans are stabbed to death each year with knives, ice picks, letter openers or other sharp objects. Some 1,200 are beaten to death with hands, fists or feet.
Another 900 or so are bludgeoned to death with clubs, tire irons, hammers, baseball bats or similar weapons. And some 1,200 Americans are killed each year by poisoning, drowning, explosives, narcotics or other form of murder. If Cincinnati or San Diego or other cities can sue gun manufacturers, it stands to reason they also can sue makers of cutlery or martial arts schools. For guns are, by no means, the only tool used by criminals to commit murder or other mayhem.
No reasonable-minded person would disagree that there is far too much gun-related violence in America. But the way to attack this problem is not by trying to litigate the nation's gun makers to death.
It's by cracking down on violent criminals -- whether they use guns or any other weapon.
and his column recieves national syndication. Joe's sentiments, expressed here in two columns, are very encouraging.
We should control guns by controlling criminals
Joseph Perkins
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
22-Oct-1999 Friday
Sammy "The Bull" Gravano has, by his own admission, sent 19 men to their graves. So it's safe to say that the former underboss of the Gambino crime family knows a thing or two (or 19) about guns and violence. That's why his recent remarks about gun control, published in Vanity Fair, have resonance. "Gun control?" Sammy pondered. "It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun. "Safety locks?" The Bull continued. "You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." Gravano's insights came to mind this week as President Clinton reissued his challenge to Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill to present him with a sweeping gun control bill that he can sign. "We need Congress to help us keep guns out of the wrong hands," Clinton told a group of more than 300 high school students from around the country, who were in the nation's capital this week to attend a two-day youth violence conference sponsored by House Democrats. But even those high schoolers had to wonder whether the gun-control bill President Clinton is trying to goad Republicans into approving will really keep guns out of "the wrong hands." Indeed, even if the president got every provision he seeks -- including mandatory trigger locks, new restrictions on possession of semi-automatic weapons by persons under 18 years of age, a ban on imported large-capacity ammunition clips and a requirement that all vendors at gun shows conduct mandatory background checks on customers -- bad guys would continue to get guns. So all this new law would do is make it that much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain weapons to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their property from the criminals who, as Sammy the Bull attests, are always going to have a gun. The president takes refuge in polls showing that a decided majority of Americans favor stricter gun-control laws. But while that is true, those same polls show that half of Americans also believe that new gun-control laws -- such as the one for which the president is currently agitating -- will do nothing to reduce violent crime. In fact, there are already more than 20,000 gun-control laws on the books at the federal, state and local levels. Yet, these controls have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; have failed to reduce the level of gun violence throughout the country. And why is that? Because these gun-control laws are predicated on the notion that firearms are the root cause of gun violence when the real cause of gun violence is violent criminals. So, it stands to reason that the most effective way to reduce gun violence is not by passing yet another symbolic gun control law, but adapting a one-strike approach to gun crimes. In other words, if a person carries a gun while committing a crime, even if he or she does not brandish the weapon, even if the weapon is not used, that person should receive a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in prison with no parole. That will make the bad guys sit up and take notice. As it is now, the courts are often lenient when it comes to gun crime. Indeed, Sammy the Bull whacked 19 victims and only spent five years behind bars. So you know that a two-bit criminal who merely uses a gun to knock over a liquor store is unlikely to do any hard time. When the federal government and state and local governments start to target gun-related crime, rather than guns themselves, then the nation will see a meaningful reduction in gun violence. The real-life proof of this is Richmond, Va. For the better part of the decade, the Virginia capital had one of the nation's worst per capita murder rates. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond devised a strategy, under the title "Project Exile," to try local gun offenses in federal court where bond is less easily obtainable and sentencing guidelines are stiffer. This approach yielded immediate results, with indictments against 404 armed suspects, a conviction rate of 86 percent and an average prison setence of more than four and a half years. Meanwhile, Richmond posted a 36 percent decline in gun-related homicides last year. These are the kinds of results that the American public really wants to see. And they were achieved not by enactment of new gun-control laws, as President Clinton advocates, but by prosecuting armed criminals to the fullest extent of already-existing laws. Perkins can be reached via e-mail at joseph.perkins@uniontrib.com.
Firing blanks | Judge dismisses city's suit against gun makers 11-Oct-1999 Monday
Any San Diego official who might be thinking of joining the ranks of the 30 or so municipalities that have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers ought to take a look at what happened last week in Cincinnati. A state judge threw out that city's suit, which sought reimbursement for police, ambulance, prison and other costs related to gun violence.
Judge Robert Ruehlman declared that manufacturers of legal guns may not be held liable when criminals beyond their control misuse firearms. Furthermore, he wrote, "The city's complaint is an improper attempt to have this court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature."
The Ohio judge's decision might very well be a harbinger of court rulings to come elsewhere in the country.
A spokesman for the Violence Policy Council, a gun-control advocacy group, acknowledged that the ruling against Cincinnati suggests the cities suing gun makers are in a weak legal position.
That's not because there are so many judges throughout the land who are Second Amendment absolutists, who seek to protect the gun industry, who are unmoved by the gun-related carnage that afflicts cities like Cincinnati. It's simply because most guns are a lawful consumer product owned by millions of citizens. The hard reality that some guns are misused for violent purposes is not the fault of gun manufacturers, but rather of the gun-wielding lawbreakers.
If gun makers are held responsible for gun-related violence, rather than the criminals who commit the violence, then by logical extension other manufacturers should be liable for violent crimes committed with their legal products.
In fact, one-third of murders committed in this country are not gun-related. Some 2,500 Americans are stabbed to death each year with knives, ice picks, letter openers or other sharp objects. Some 1,200 are beaten to death with hands, fists or feet.
Another 900 or so are bludgeoned to death with clubs, tire irons, hammers, baseball bats or similar weapons. And some 1,200 Americans are killed each year by poisoning, drowning, explosives, narcotics or other form of murder. If Cincinnati or San Diego or other cities can sue gun manufacturers, it stands to reason they also can sue makers of cutlery or martial arts schools. For guns are, by no means, the only tool used by criminals to commit murder or other mayhem.
No reasonable-minded person would disagree that there is far too much gun-related violence in America. But the way to attack this problem is not by trying to litigate the nation's gun makers to death.
It's by cracking down on violent criminals -- whether they use guns or any other weapon.