I guess he *is* high...

How do you spell stoned? K-R-I-S-T-O-F

Since the Brady Bill took effect in 1994, gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats. They have accomplished almost nothing nationally, other than giving a big boost to the Republicans. Mr. Kerry tried to get around the problem by blasting away at small animals, but nervous Red Staters still suspected Democrats of plotting to seize guns.

Moreover, it's clear that in this political climate, further efforts at gun control are a nonstarter. You can talk until you're blue in the face about the 30,000 gun deaths each year, about children who are nine times as likely to die in a gun accident in America as elsewhere in the developed world, about the $17,000 average cost (half directly borne by taxpayers) of treating each gun injury. But nationally, gun control is dead.

Huh? Perhaps Kristof is as depressed as I am about the election and has been toking a little sumpin'-sumpin' in order to take the edge off, but even considering that, this is pretty absurd.

First off, Kristof does not offer one shred of evidence that this is true... furthermore, I don't think this is even a part of the conventional wisdom that the media spouts. Other than Kerry's little goose-hunting foray into Ohio, the topic of guns was pretty much ignored during this election cycle despite the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

Ah, the assault weapons ban... that was a political non-starter... for Republicans. Remember, 74% of Americans are in favor of renewing the assault weapons ban. Kerry should have jumped on this like a windsurfboard, but judging by his anti-geese activities in Ohio I guess he didn't want to scare the almighty Heartland.

But wait... the same link shows that the voters in the swing states reacted favorably when the issue was framed in terms of homeland security. Sure, the source must be looked at with a little suspicion, but even without the poll data, such a strategy makes a lot of sense. This goes back to the issue of language and framing of the debate... you have to use the proper language to move the issue into a rhetorical battleground where you can be on the offensive. This issue was crying out to be a part of the war on terror, and was a point on which Dubya was very vulnerable. If Kristof wants to talk about political landmines for the Dems, one of the biggest is not taking advantage of easy opportunities. (Side note: it is on items like this that I really get DHP at the timid let's-not-tick-anybody-off DLC influence on the party... Arrrgh!)

I'm not saying that some of Kristof's suggestions aren't good... but they should augment and not supplant current measures. Furthermore, there are more than a few items we could easily add to the list. For example, one of the most common rally cries of the NRA laypeople is "Don't create new laws... Enforce the existing laws!" Dems should be all over this... the NRA has been very thorough in gutting the ability of ATF to pursue and prosecute gun retailers who fail to live up to current laws (see Muhammad, John a.k.a The DC Sniper). This should be an issue that is easy to frame in language that will not only resonate with the general public, but also the NRA laymembers... furthermore, it would be very difficult for the Republicans to rebuke.

Update: Most of what I have detailed in this post concentrates on the politics of the issue... as far as looking at the actual affects of gun control measures like the Brady Bill, that's another post for another day. In short, I agree that many items need some tweaking (what legislation doesn't?), but moreover I agree with the final comments in this publication:

No matter how effective a legislative scheme is, legislation alone will not eradicate the deeply rooted culture of gun violence that exists in this country.

Yep... legislation is part of the picture, but more can be done. What that may be is the great question...