After the Colorado shootings, surely Obama must revisit gun control

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/23/colorado-shootings-obama-gun-control

Version 0 of 1.

How many gun deaths does it take for American politicians to crack down on the availability of deadly weapons? Seemingly no number is high enough.

Even in the wake of the Aurora killings, one of the most deadly shootings in recent US history, both President Obama and Mitt Romney remain non-committal about their stance on what the rest of the industrialised world would consider common-sense gun control.

At a high level, this reflects the fundamental obstacles to gun reform ingrained in American society. As the New York Times editorial page put it, "we keep getting stuck on a theoretical debate about the second amendment". At its heart, that's the thorny debate that prevents effective measures being enacted to prevent killings like those in Colorado. As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg articulated somewhat bluntly after the latest massacre: "Maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they're going to do about [gun control]."

From a political standpoint, the inaction isn't surprising, at least from Romney. After all, it's no secret that the Republican party is deeply in the pocket of Washington's waning but still powerful gun lobby, led by the fanatical National Rifle Association. And at first glance, it's perhaps not surprising from Obama, either. For Democrats, conventional wisdom has always been that gun laws are an electoral Achilles heel; a disastrous proposition for candidates at the ballot box. As Bill Clinton told journalist Ron Brownstein recently, he believes that Al Gore was defeated in his 2000 bid for the presidency because the gun lobby was able to turn out core Republican voters in droves in the critical swing states.

Clinton's pronouncement may be an exaggeration, but it is representative of the raw fear Democrats have of alienating voters by proposing tougher gun laws. Obama has deemed it prudent to avoid the topic, perhaps cognisant of Clinton's failure to pass relatively uncontroversial gun show restrictions in the wake of the Columbine shootings. Alternatively, the president may be wary of a marked trend against new gun laws among the American public that has taken place over the past decade.

True, Gallup opinion polls show a long-term decline in those who favour stricter gun laws (78% in 1990 to 44% in 2010). But that broad analysis doesn't tell the full story. In fact, underlying trends among certain voters should bolster the case for Democrats to step out on the issue. Specifically, the trend does not hold true among swing voters, particularly among professional voters located around cities on or near the two coasts – voters in the urban or suburban areas of critical swing states like Virginia or Pennsylvania, for example.

And then there's the support of the more passionate Democratic base, the party faithful whose strong turnout will be so important to the president's re-election. As Ronald Brownstein points out, a recent Pew survey of college-educated white woman and all non-white voters demonstrated overwhelming support for stronger gun laws.

And young people, another constituency likely to swing the president's way, are also supportive of greater restrictions. The parallels are similar with Obama's stances on gay marriage, contraception insurance or amnesty for young immigrants. White blue collar rural voters, who are among the least likely to vote Democrat, are the main opponents of gun control. That shouldn't be of any concern to the president.

The president has a unique opportunity to create a "reset" moment on this issue. Not unlike his landmark speech after the shooting of representative Gabrielle Giffords, Obama has a chance to energise his base on an issue that is overwhelmingly popular with them, one that could not be more relevant in the wake of the Aurora killings. Of course, this strategy would not be without risks, precisely because of the societal beliefs ingrained in much of the American psyche. But it's simply untrue that gun control is the political third rail Democrats believe it is. In fact, it may play directly to the voters the president is most intent on capturing this November. All that said, as inspirational as this president is, he's also a realist and – in this election – a prudent one. Articulating support for gun control could be a second-term proposition, as it was for Clinton.

Taking the long view, gun control has an aura of historical inevitability. Columnist Gail Collins goes so far as to compare it to the slow but steady path to victory of the civil rights movement. In perhaps one of the most hopeful columns to follow the Aurora shootings, Collins writes: "Eventually, the American voters come around. Just ask the suffragists." We can only hope this is the case.