Obama’s Cautious Call for Action Sets Stage to Revive Gun Debate

Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

President Obama in Washington after the shootings.

WASHINGTON — In the emotional statement on the Newtown shootings that President Obama delivered from the White House on Friday, it was a single line, spoken as much in anger as in grief, that stood out. The words were cautious and were immediately criticized for being too timid. But they may have signaled that the long-dormant debate over the nation’s gun laws is about to be re-engaged.

Multimedia

Obama on Connecticut School Shooting

“We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” Mr. Obama said, listing the devastation wrought by other gun violence, from a recent attack in an Oregon shopping mall to the shootings in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in July.

But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York spoke for many gun-control advocates, who have been frustrated and disappointed by Mr. Obama’s failure to embrace the issue, when he said he wanted to hear much more.

“Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action,” said Mr. Bloomberg, who is a leader of a group of mayors against illegal gun ownership.

“We have heard all the rhetoric before,” Mr. Bloomberg added. “What we have not seen is leadership — not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today.”

White House officials professed not to know what Mr. Obama’s pledge for “meaningful action” meant. But given Mr. Obama’s methodical style, the words were not likely to have been chosen casually. And yet the president stopped short of detailing any new initiatives, like restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines or stricter bans on gun buyers with a history of mental illness.

Pressed about whether Mr. Obama would use the tragedy to fuel a new effort, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said the administration did not want to politicize a tragedy. “There is I’m sure — will be, rather, a day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates, but I don’t think today is that day,” he said before Mr. Obama made his remarks.

Politics, of course, intruded almost immediately. Mr. Bloomberg’s group organized a vigil in front of the White House to demand that the president take action. On Capitol Hill, there was an outpouring of condolences and a predictably partisan split on how to respond.

Republicans and many moderate Democrats expressed their horror at the mass killing, but were either silent on a legislative response or said it was not time to talk about gun control. But liberal Democrats said it was time to move forward with serious gun laws.

“The time to talk about it should have been after the last shooting or the shooting before that,” said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, whose husband was one of six people killed in a shooting on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.

Ms. McCarthy said she would resume her quest for broad gun violence legislation: reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004; banning high-capacity magazines; requiring criminal background checks on gun buyers at gun shows; and improving instant background checks to more thoroughly catch people with histories of mental illness.

“I’m not going to be shy anymore,” she said.

As the debate over gun control flares anew, it is likely to focus on the types of two of the guns that were found with the suspect in Connecticut, a Glock pistol and a Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine rifle, which are similar in type to the weapons used in the mass shootings in Oregon and Colorado.

Both guns are popular for target shooting and self-defense, and have been singled out by gun-control advocates because of their ability to rapidly fire multiple rounds and accommodate large magazines.

But Republicans said tighter gun-control measures would be the wrong step.

“That’s one thing I hope doesn’t happen,” said Representative Mike Rogers, a senior Michigan Republican who is a former F.B.I. agent. “That’s certainly the lowest common denominator. What is the more realistic discussion is, how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?” 

Source: www.nytimes.com