Via Drudge I found this story wherein I found this:
Some gun-control advocates question the administration’s timing as Duncan and Holder arrive after a highly publicized beating that didn’t involve a gun.
“Where there have been opportunities for the president to speak out about the issue of firearm violence, he has missed any number of opportunities,” said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Doing so in the Albert case “provides the cover” to address youth violence without confronting the gun lobby, said Mannard, whose group’s board of directors included Duncan until he left for his current post.
Which prompted me to write this letter to the author:
I found your article through a Drudge link. I’ve read it through twice now and I can’t seem to find a point.
Are you trying to say that in a town where handguns are completely banned (yet still holds status as one of the most deadly places of ‘gun violence’ in the U.S.) Obama should expend more ‘political capital’ by speaking for the cause of banning guns? [BTW, I think that is a GREAT idea!]
Or that the argument for doing so was unfortunately sideswiped by the murder committed with railroad ties?
Or that Arne Duncan admits (last paragraph of your article) to the total failure of gun bans to reduce violence?
Or that violence occurs because of the actions of criminals and not the implements used?
Throw me a bone, here.
I eagerly await his response.