Speech Against Gun Violence in America 

    Two days ago, I talked about the four freedoms I believe
    we must commit ourselves to guaranteeing for our
    children: freedom from want, freedom from illness,
    freedom from ignorance, and freedom from fear.
    Tonight, I want to talk about fear and the violence that
    has produced it. 

    If you've read the
    newspapers,
    watched television,
    talked with parents,
    had a casual
    conversation with
    colleagues, or lived
    in America over the
    last two months, you
    know about the fear
    of violence that has
    left a trail of tears,
    along with broken
    dreams, broken
    promises, and
    broken hearts in
    communities all
    across America. 

    The fear is real. But
    what you don't hear
    as much about is the
    fact that a graduating
    senior today is less
    likely to have tried
    drugs and alcohol
    than twenty years
    ago. Today's senior
    is less likely to get
    pregnant while still a
    teen and more likely to believe in God. Our children are
    basically good children. Our parents are good parents,
    trying to raise good children. The American people are a
    good people. 

    So why is it so difficult in this country to have a rational
    dialogue about reducing gun violence, built around the
    commonsense notion that it is in the interests of our
    children and families to do so? Why are our
    conversations based on what polls, focus groups, or
    political calculation tell us is the least likely to offend any
    voters? Why should our leaders self-censor their
    proposals on gun violence to what they think Congress
    might be willing to pass, as opposed to what might
    work? 

    I believe a president has to trust the American people
    enough to be honest about the issues facing our nation.
    And, let's be honest-any conversation about reducing
    violence has to begin with talking about guns. 

    Despite the assassinations of our political leaders and
    heroes over the last four decades, despite the fact that
    the number of Americans murdered in the last ten years
    is double the number killed in the Vietnam War, despite
    the fact that thirteen children every day are killed by
    guns-we have allowed the terms of the discussion to
    be defined within a narrow context that often has little to
    do with the realities of life in America. Often, it seems as
    though the only voices heard are the small numbers at
    either end of the spectrum-those who believe in no
    guns, and those who believe in no regulation of guns.
    We end up with a shrill and stale debate that offers false
    choices and little hope of reducing the carnage in
    America. 

    The source of this frustrating and, ultimately, tragic
    debate is the Second Amendment. The NRA and its
    allies take the view that the Second Amendment is
    absolute-that any regulation of any gun, regardless of
    how deadly or destructive, infringes on their individual
    right to "bear arms." As a result, they have tenaciously
    and effectively fought all attempts to regulate the
    manufacture, distribution, registration, and licensing of
    guns. They have gone so far as to oppose the banning
    of assault weapons and cop killer bullets-all weapons
    that have no sporting or hunting purpose and exist for
    only one purpose: to destroy human life. They have
    resorted to slandering the ATF as "jack-booted
    government thugs" and falsely accused them of wearing
    "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms."
    And just two weeks after the last funeral for the victims of
    the shootings in Littleton, Colorado, the NRA sent letters
    to its 2.6 million members warning that President Clinton
    would "demand that you pay the price for the insanity of
    the killers." 

    On the other side, there are some in the gun control
    community who also have an absolutist view of the
    Second Amendment. They believe that the government
    has the right to regulate all guns out of existence. They
    sometimes seem to demonize all gun owners as an
    extreme faction aligned with the most radical elements
    of the NRA, when the truth is actually quite different. 

    So like two lumbering warriors, both sides have been
    fighting over the same sacred ground of
    liberty-brandishing the arguments of no guns versus no
    regulation of guns. The effect of this unproductive debate
    has produced policy choices that don't reflect the
    complexity of our jurisprudence or the texture of where
    we live our lives-in real communities with real people
    whose lives are shattered every day by the haunting hail
    of gun fire. And it has produced a thirty-year legislative
    roadblock that has prevented almost every effective and
    meaningful reform that would reduce gun violence from
    being adopted. 

    This I know for sure: In America, no individual or group
    can claim to have a monopoly on freedom. We have
    fought and struggled too long in our own country and
    around the world to preserve our basic freedom to allow
    it to be hijacked by any group who seeks to manipulate it
    for their own political gain at the expense of the public
    good. 

    Every now and then, a tragedy occurs like the school
    shootings and the bombing in Oklahoma City where we
    react collectively as one nation and one family. Where
    the event touches a deep chord in the American soul,
    and we begin to look inward at who we are and what we
    have become. 

    Now is such a time and here is what we see. We live in
    a society with over 200 million guns where thirteen
    children a day are killed by them in homicides, suicides,
    or unintentional shootings. In 1996 alone, 4,643 children
    and teenagers were killed by guns. According to a 1997
    Centers for Disease Control report, the rate of children
    up to fourteen years old killed by guns is nearly twelve
    times higher in the United States than in twenty-five other
    industrialized countries combined. 

    We see a society where, until recently, there were more
    gun dealers than gas stations and grocery stores.
    Where there are roughly seven gun dealers for every
    McDonald's. These dealers sell an estimated 7.5 million
    guns every year-of which 3.5 million are handguns. In
    1996, handguns were used to murder two people in New
    Zealand, fifteen in Japan, thirty in Great Britain, 106 in
    Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United
    States. 

    Furthermore, we see a society where hamburgers and
    children's cribs have more regulations than guns. There
    are no federal manufacturing or safety standards that
    govern how guns are made or marketed. The TEC DC-9
    semi-automatic pistol, one of the weapons that was
    used in the Columbine High School massacre, is made
    by a Miami-based company. Their ads bragged that the
    gun's finish is "resistant to fingerprints," a marketing
    campaign clearly targeted to those who engage in
    criminal activity. 

    By contrast, think about this: The Consumer Products
    Safety Commission requires that the slats on cribs be
    no more than two and three-eighths of an inch apart, to
    reduce the possibility of children getting stuck between
    them. The National Highway Transportation and Safety
    Administration recalls children's car seats that are found
    to be unsafe, or even just unreliable. And the Consumer
    Products Safety Commission mandates that safety caps
    be put on medicine bottles to prevent children from
    accidentally poisoning themselves. 

    We are willing to regulate to protect our children in many
    areas-food, toys, clothing, and equipment. But not
    guns. 

    We have become a culture where in neighborhoods
    children once played in the streets, police now draw
    chalk silhouettes on the sidewalks. 

    Where businesses once thrived, storeowners now
    speak to customers through grilles and bulletproof glass.

    Where neighbors once left their doors unlocked, private
    security guards now patrol walled-in communities,
    protecting those who can afford it in gated citadels of
    illusory security. 

    The fear of violence stops people from going to a PTA
    or church meeting at night. It stops us from reaching out
    to our neighbor. It robs us of our liberty. It destroys the
    world of trust. 

    The effort to find a framework for what makes sense,
    what will work, what will save lives is lost on a
    Republican Congress consumed by partisan passions
    and special interest politics, more interested in issues to
    use in the next election than solutions that would make a
    difference today. The roar of the Columbine tragedy still
    echoes across the land. But the Congress, at a time of
    momentous opportunity, stumbles all over each other to
    weaken an already watered down background check for
    guns sold at gun shows. The gridlock persists, and
    reasonable people are left to wonder: What will it take to
    save our children's lives? 

    It's going to take leadership-leadership at every level
    of our society. Leaders in every community. Leadership
    that seeks to do big things, rather than nibble at the
    edges of a crisis. Leadership that gives people a
    reason to believe that we can begin to extinguish the
    epidemic of violence if we have the will to confront it
    honestly. And we need leaders who believe that, if
    politics is the art of the possible, it is the role of a leader
    to expand the possibilities. 

    It's going to take people like you here tonight and in
    communities all across the country to realize the power
    we possess if we work together toward a common goal.
    We are a strong and vibrant country, and we have fought
    the right fights before and won. State-sanctioned racism
    began to fall when we objected to its moral depravity
    and we furthered the cause of justice. Today, we have
    the power to save our children's lives and further the
    cause of liberty. 

    So let's talk about what makes sense for our children.
    Let's talk about how we might end the thirteen gun
    deaths a day-a daily Columbine, 365 days a year. 

    Every amendment of our Constitution is open to
    interpretation. Our most cherished amendment, our First
    Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, has
    restrictions. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You
    cannot commit perjury. You cannot slander or libel an
    individual. 

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Second
    Amendment confers rights on individuals to own guns.
    My reasons for supporting the rights of an individual to
    own a gun is based more on personal experience, and
    less on legal doctrine. 

    When I was a boy, I used to take my 22 and shoot
    targets along the Mississippi River with my grandfather.
    Millions of sportsmen and hunters use guns responsibly,
    and I see no reason why their passionate pursuit should
    not continue. Many sportsmen and sportswomen are
    concerned about government intrusion in their lives. But
    most of them would agree that there is no need for the
    junk handguns and assault weapons that are causing
    carnage in our communities. 

    A commonsense approach to what kind of gun
    regulation is needed must be built on the shoulders of
    the Second Amendment-by applying the same
    restrictions to it that are applied to other amendments. In
    our constitutional system, we must always balance the
    public safety of the people-especially
    children-against the rights of the individual. And in a
    society with over 200 million guns and thirteen children a
    day killed by them, I believe that the government has a
    legitimate interest in regulating guns. 

    That means we can decide who is safe to entrust with a
    gun, what kinds of guns may be manufactured or sold,
    and how those guns can be distributed. It means that we
    can pursue a goal of making our country safer from gun
    violence by applying principles like making guns safer,
    regulating the distribution of them more carefully, making
    owners more responsible, and giving police greater
    abilities to stop gun violence. 

    But it also means that if you use your gun responsibly,
    store it safely and use it lawfully-then your rights under
    the Second Amendment will continue to be protected. 

    This is the model I used in my attempt to grapple with
    these issues during my eighteen years in the Senate. 

    I sponsored the effort to limit the purchase of a handgun
    by any one person to one gun a month. The flood of
    illegal guns in our streets begins with middlemen known
    as straw purchasers who make legal buys of thousands
    of guns-which they turn around and sell illegally to
    street criminals. When Virginia passed a one gun a
    month law, the effect was felt in Philadelphia, New
    Jersey, and New York-because that's where the guns
    were going. 

    Then there is the question of handgun registration. There
    are some words that are so emotionally charged that
    they inhibit discussion of an issue, and this is one of
    them. Some gun owners hear this word, and fear unfair
    government intrusion in their lives. But most Americans
    would agree that those who own handguns should have
    to pass a basic safety course on instruction before they
    can operate them. Most Americans would agree that it is
    in our interests to know who owns handguns, and to be
    able to track where those handguns go. And I have
    supported efforts that would let us do just that. 

    I led an effort to eliminate junk handguns completely and
    permanently. Saturday Night Specials are 81% of the
    ten most used guns which are traced by the BATF. Many
    of these junk handguns are manufactured here in
    California by gun manufacturers known as the "Ring of
    Fire." The evidence is clear and convincing that these
    guns lack any sporting use and pose a significant threat
    to the safety of the American public. They are a menace
    to society and they should be outlawed. 

    I also led an effort to make it illegal for any person to
    possess a handgun if they have been convicted of
    domestic violence. We must do everything we can to
    offer better protections for fearful women and innocent
    children against the brutality of batterers. No
    country-especially ours-should be more worried
    about protecting the right to bear arms than protecting
    the arms that carry our children. 

    Finally, with seven times more gun dealers than
    McDonald's Restaurants, I supported an effort to
    increase substantially the license fees on gun dealers
    and require them to have pictures and fingerprints taken
    with their application. Between this effort and work on
    the local level, we've reduced the number of gun dealers
    from 287,000 to 80,000. But we can go farther, and we
    can get that number much, much lower. With a simple
    change in our current law, we can do nationwide what
    you are doing community by community here in
    California. By simply restricting federal firearm licenses
    to businesses located in commercial zones and
    eliminating "FFLs" in residential areas, we can get the
    gun dealers out of our neighborhoods and into
    commercial areas with the legitimate dealers who
    respect the law. Most businesses can not be located in
    residential neighborhoods-gun dealing shouldn't be the
    exception. In addition to trigger locks and mandatory
    background checks at gun shows, these are sensible
    measures that should be taken now. 

    I know the blaze of violence has many fires. We won't
    end violence by reducing gun violence. There are many
    reasons and many causes. But think how much more
    effectively we can deal with the other root causes if we
    find common ground on reducing gun violence. Then, the
    discussion about prevention, and education, and
    collaboration between parents, teachers, the private
    sector, and government becomes a constructive
    discussion. 

    We can discuss violent and lethal influences on our
    children. We can talk about the responsibility each of us
    has in how our children get the idea that violence is
    somehow glamorous. But we can't have an honest
    discussion until we confront the fact that, while our
    children may be exposed to lethal special effects in
    movies and videogames, we are doing very little about
    their access to lethal weapons. 

    It seems to me that we have a choice. We can continue
    to participate in a debate of extremes that offers false
    and hopeless choices. A debate that has allowed the
    carnage in our culture to become so deeply imbedded
    that it has become a fact and a way of life. Or we can
    seek the common ground-a place that offers fewer
    guns, less violence, and fewer tears. The commonsense
    approach to discussing violence is only a beginning, not
    an end. And all proposals that will save the lives of our
    children and fellow citizens should be considered. 

    Let me end my conversation with two stories. 

    A few years ago, the Washington Post ran a story about
    violence-and in it, they told of an eight-year-old girl who
    wrote a letter to her parents saying which of her dresses
    she wanted to be buried in. She wrote the letter because
    she didn't think she would live to see her twelfth birthday.

    And then there are the people in this room. When
    senseless gun violence left eight people killed and six
    injured at 101 California six years ago, you responded
    to tragedy with a purpose. From a small group of
    lawyers and volunteers mobilized to prevent gun
    violence, you have grown and persevered over the
    years. You know the result-today, over seventy cities
    and counties here in California have enacted nearly 200
    local firearms regulations, ranging from junk gun
    prohibitions to trigger lock requirements. You're doing at
    the local level what few are even willing to discuss at the
    national level-and you've made a difference in the lives
    of hundreds of thousands of people. 

    When I look around this room and think about the hard
    work you have done in the name of protecting children
    and families, I know there is hope and reason to be
    optimistic about the future. I know that we can look at you
    and your accomplishments and take that same model of
    hard work, perseverance, dedication, and will to a
    national level, and to every community in this country.
    Because we are a good people and a caring people,
    who want the best for our children, who want to raise
    good children, and who believe in the enormous power
    of working together for the common good. And working
    together for the common good is what it will take to
    make a difference in the fear our children-and our
    parents-live with.


