[For educational purposes only]

Clinton Will Announce $280 Million Gun-Control Initiative

Jan. 18 (The Dallas Morning News/KRTBN)--WASHINGTON -- President Clinton is upping the ante on the gun control debate, preparing a $280 million plan aimed at gun violence, aides said.

The plan to be unveiled Tuesday in Boston calls for 500 new agents and inspectors with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, along with 1,100 new prosecutors dedicated to gun cases.

The program also would finance new programs to trace guns and bullets used in crimes and provide funds to develop "smart guns" that can only be operated by owners.

Clinton aides, discussing the plan Monday on condition they not be named, described it as "the largest national firearms enforcement initiative in history." According to a draft, the $280 million would be added to the 2001 fiscal year budget, which starts Oct. 1.

White House aides hope public outrage over mass shootings from Littleton, Colo., to Fort Worth will inspire Congress, despite the failure of a separate gun package last year.

"We are attacking the problem from all sides," one White House aide said. "If we can prevent one gun from getting into the wrong hands, it will make a difference.

The Senate approved last year's gun package, but the bill stalled in the House. Democrats said the Republicans bowed to the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby. Congressional Republicans said Democrats failed to compromise.

"Unless you get enough House Democrats on board, there will be nothing," said Sam Stratman, spokesman for Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "The president's message ought to be aimed at his own party's members."

Mr. Clinton is also expected to announce Tuesday that federal gun prosecutions increased by 25 percent in 1999. In arguing against new gun laws, some members of Congress cited a six-year decline in federal prosecutions of existing laws.

The vote came after gun control became a top issue following the April 20 deaths of 14 high school students and a teacher in Littleton. Aides said Mr. Clinton will continue to press for that package, which includes background checks on all buyers at gun shows, denial of gun ownership to juveniles convicted of crimes, and mandatory sales of childproof "trigger locks" with all guns.

Members of both parties have said new legislation on anything will be tough in this election year. But White House officials believe that Littleton and subsequent shootings -- including incidences at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, day trading offices in Atlanta and at a Los Angeles Jewish Community Center -- will prod lawmakers into action rather than face voters empty-handed.

"Quite frankly, members have been home and they've been listening to people," one administration aide said. "And people want new gun legislation. They don't want another Littleton."

A key to the package's failure was a dispute over how to conduct the background checks at gun shows. Mr. Stratman said Mr. Hyde will continue lobbying for a compromise package, which also calls for background checks at gun shows, trigger locks and a ban on ownership for violent juveniles.

"Chairman Hyde has been trying to move forward with a compromise juvenile justice bill that would include some common sense gun provisions," Mr. Stratman said. "But it is stalled in part by resistance from Democrats in Congress. Maybe the president can give his allies a push in the right direction."

The smart gun proposal was announced a few weeks go. But on Tuesday, Mr. Clinton will discuss the total package in Boston's Roxbury section because, aides said, the area is an example of his successful community policing initiative. It has provided grants to local police departments to pay for more "cops on the beat" in local neighborhoods. Some critics question the program's success.

The gun prosecutor plan takes a similar approach. It contains $150 million so that state and local government can hire 1,000 new state prosecutors to specialize in gun cases. Another 100 federal prosecutors would be added to concentrate on 20 selected "high gun crime areas." The new ATF agents and inspectors would be aimed at illegal trafficking at gun shows, gun shops and on the streets.

Proposed funds would also help 250 state and local enforcement agencies buy new gun tracing equipment. A proposed National Integrated Ballistics Information Network would help officers trace bullets or shell casings to a particular gun.

The program also includes $10 million for local media campaigns targeting gun violence. Whether Congress acts or not, gun control will likely play a major role in this fall's presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley have both called for new gun controls and plan to make them key parts of their fall campaign.

Republicans, including Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have stressed development of the computerized "instant check" system to make sure gun buyers do not have criminal records. They have also chided the Clinton administration for not enforcing laws already on the books.

The National Rifle Association and other gun control opponents argued last year that new legislation wasn't needed because the existing laws weren't being enforced. They cited a 46 percent drop in federal gun prosecutions for the years 1992-98. Clinton administration officials said one reason for the falling prosecutions is the decrease in the crime rate. New gun laws will drive down that rate even further, they said.

"This is a subject matter on which the American people are in resounding agreement," one official said. "They want stronger, tougher gun legislation."

By David Jackson

To see more of The Dallas Morning News, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.dallasnews.com/

(c) 2000, The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by Knight

-- Elaine Seavey (GOds1sheep@aol.com), January 18, 2000

Answers

White house aide: "If we can keep one gun from getting into the wrong hands it will make a difference"

Let's see, $280m to keep one gun from a criminal...yeah, that sounds about right according to liberal white house thinking! Recently saw a news item where a woman stated that we need gun control after someone was beaten with a BALL BAT. Again, typical liberal thinking. We are just about completely under government's thumb and we're kissing their ass for the priviledge.

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), January 18, 2000.

Well, factor the following in:

GUN-RELATED DEATH RATE PLUMMETS TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE THE '60S

http://www.foxnews.com/news/wires2/1118/n_ap_1118_280.sml

4.50 p.m. ET (2202 GMT) November 18, 1999

By James Pilcher, Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP)  Gun deaths in the United States dropped 21 percent between 1993 and 1997 to the lowest level in more than 30 years, and firearm-related injuries fell 41 percent, the government said Thursday.

Experts cited such reasons as tougher gun control laws, a booming economy, better police work and gun safety courses.

The study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at all gunshot wounds reported at emergency rooms, whether they were intentional, accidental or self-inflicted.

The number of fatalities dropped from 39,595  15.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people  in 1993, to 32,436 12.1 per 100,000  in 1997.

The rate "is the lowest it's been since the mid-'60s,'' said J. Lee Annest, a CDC statistician. "This progress is really encouraging and really says that joint prevention efforts of public health officials, legislators and law enforcement should continue.''

The drop was not unexpected: Homicide rates in the 1990s have fallen to levels not seen since the 1960s, and about two-thirds of all homicides are committed with guns. But the latest figures also include suicides and accidental deaths.

Moreover, nonfatal shootings fell from 104,390 to 64,207 in the same period, or from 40.5 per 100,000 to 24.0.

Bill Manown, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the numbers prove that more gun laws aren't needed; the laws on the books need to be enforced.

"It is a fact that this substantial drop in gun violence directly correlated to a big increase in gun enforcement by police,'' said Lawrence W. Sherman, a University of Pennsylvania professor who has studied gun policy. "Police were not treating guns in a preventive sense prior to 1993 and now they are.''

Some experts also credit a strong economy that has helped reduce overall crime and suicide attempts. Margaret A. Zahn, a North Carolina State University criminology professor, said prosperity has also allowed governments to spend more on services that prevent gun violence, such as domestic-violence shelters and youth recreation programs.

The CDC also listed such possible factors as an aging population, increased gun safety measures and the waning of the crack trade.

Gun control advocates said they are encouraged, but pointed out that even so, an average of 265 people a day were shot in 1997. ]

[BFD - So what? And another 50,000 children died today, and everyday...and this is NOT news?]

It's a side issue folks...a distraction out of proportion to where the real problems are.

"Oh...I care SOoooo much!" Get real for a change...alright?

http://www.bashar.com/GSP/sciwarn1.htm

And NOW what do you think 'the problems' are?

-- Steve Meyers (SMeyers33@aol.com), January 18, 2000.

---the only way that this scheme would work would be to physically fire some rounds through every firearm out there that had a rifled barrel, and save the expended bullet, micro photograph it and store the data like fingerprints are now. And in order to do THAT, they would have to initiate nationwide registration and inspection of over 200 million firearms and owners.

And if they did THAT, it would mean civil war.

Now, they might be planning on doing it with only new purchases, or perhaps right at the factory, with an extensive paper trail of ownership following. That still leaves a lot of firearms out there.

Bottom line it's a stupid idea, most likely doomed to failure, no matter how much the socialists want it, unless they think they're ready to rock, in which case they are still doomed to failure, my opinion. Screw em, let em try it.

-- donotcooperate (never@again.holocausts.genocide), January 18, 2000.

Well I wonder where the next mass shooting ( that they will need to get this though) will be ?

-- X (whats@next.where), January 18, 2000.

Again...the way to get effective gun control is to go after the criminal. Whatever on this God's green earth makes people think that taking gun rights away from law-abiding citizens will have any affect on criminals? UNDERSTAND?! THEY ARE CRIMINALS....They will always have access to illegal guns and will be happy to use them on defenseless citizens.

If a gun is used in a crime we should quickly give the 'perp' a fair trail....... and then hang him.:)

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), January 18, 2000.

Isn't it interesting that in the last year there have been a couple of instances of people using cars to run down kids on schoolyards but we aren't legislating for smart cars or new auto safety laws. I also believe I read that bicycles kill more kids each year than guns but they still don't regulate them - someone speaks with forked tongue. ie PTB don't care about your lives, it is all about control over your lives.

-- R (free@last.com), January 18, 2000.

Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 18, 2000.

I don't know who THIS clueless spinmeister has been talking to but most of the people I takl to are NOT in agreement:

"This is a subject matter on which the American people are in resounding agreement," one official said. "They want stronger, tougher gun legislation."

BESIDES, Don't they already HAVE that kind of registry?? I was under the impression that there already WERE files of proof bullets in the NCIC.

And I'm reliably told that running another thousand rounds through the barrel will change things fairly well........


chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 18, 2000.

Actually, running a stainless steel cleaning brush through the barrel a few times is said to completely change its "fingerprint".

-- typical (silly@crap.com), January 18, 2000.

OK guys, what'll you bet that over the next 6 months the white house develops a national "say no to guns" program, complete with TV ads, and the national media are forced to either run them at half price or to incorporate anti-gun BS into prime time TV?

Just like the anti-drug campaign.

Expect to see a rash of swearing at gun violence on all the hospital shows......sobbing children who've lost thier parents, wailing parents who lost children, and doctors who plead for gun confiscation.

-- (4@5.6), January 18, 2000.

I'm just paranoid enough to believe:

a. this administration hasn't told me the truth about anything;

b. the feebs still have my name on file from a firearms purchase I made over six months ago;

c. in chemtrails and black helicopters.

And finally, does anyone suppose there could be just the tiniest chance that some of these mass-media attended shootings were secretly instigated by Slick Willy and/or his cronies?

Keeping my powder dry,

-- Craig (sofpj@netscape.net), January 18, 2000.

What I always find annoying is the "understood" premise that what the Feds mean by gun control is NOT crime control or even criminal prosecution but rather additional control of you and me. Why? For one reason, it's easy and, I believe, serves a larger agenda. It gives the appearance of positive action while really doing nothing to address the targeted problem. There is a term in the banking industry: "making motion" that means exactly that. By their own stats, crime and use of guns in crime is down, so we need more gun laws, right? When pressed,(held down and a blowtorch applied to certain regions) I believe TPTB would reluctantly say: uh...well,no. What we really want is social engineering-the separation of gun ownership from civic identity. As long as the average citizen thinks of himself as an independent sovereign individual, he (or she) will not surrender any other rights or cede ultimate decision making power over their lives. Gun control has always been an issue of control of personal freedom. TPTB don't trust you; they know what's best for you and would really prefer that you were not allowed to run around loose without complete and total supervision.

-- Chairborne Commando (what-me-worry@armageddon.com), January 18, 2000.

I heard on the local Atlanta news that the NRA supports this program. They have always supported enforcing existing laws rather than making new laws, and that is mostly what this program seeks to accomplish.

I find it difficult to believe that you folks are more reactionary than the NRA. Or did you just shoot first and think later?

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), January 18, 2000.

UUUUUMMMMM,

Reactionary? Perhaps you would do well to study American history from a few of the older books. You might be surprised at what the founders believed. (Or, perhaps you already know what they believed, and consider them to have been babbling idiots.)

regards,

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), January 18, 2000.

Hitler was a big fan of gun control. He implimented it in order to "do" the Jews and destroy the German aristocracy.(d@mn! I wish I could spell) He said that the world would follow in his foot steps. Our gun control laws are indeed simular. Just not complete,as of today.But as for tomorrow? Who knows. I am old now;I will die with my gun by my side. I hope to die gently and in peace. But again..who knows. Mabe millions of gun owners.

-- james stallings (jimsta1386@yahoo.com), January 18, 2000.