Enlist gun owners in cause of rational laws

Many people support "common-sense" gun laws. So the argument goes.

An example of such laws are those that require background checks on potential gun buyers. Who wouldn't want to make sure that people with criminal histories, those who have committed domestic violence and those with destabilizing mental illnesses are kept from purchasing guns through a screening process?

Indeed, there is strong public support for such laws, according to polls.

In a 2007 Gallup review of public attitudes on gun control, it was found that more than 9 in 10 Americans support the government requiring background checks for people purchasing guns.

In our state, a survey by the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence found that 80 percent of those polled strongly support the state requiring people who buy guns from private individuals to undergo a criminal background check.

Such a response is understandable. It makes common sense. After all, people buying guns at stores in Illinois must undergo a background check. So do those who buy guns from private sellers at gun shows. Why shouldn't those who want to buy a gun in a private one-on-one transaction also be subject to a background check? Yet a bill in the Illinois House that would have set up a system for closing this loophole was defeated last month.

Why did this fail? Well it could be that even though the bill made common sense it made no political sense to support it. Not when it would anger the gun lobby that gives nice campaign contributions. And not when constituents call or e-mail saying such legislation is a step toward ultimately taking their guns away.

So what is to be done?

The Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence tried diligently to get this bill passed. Just as they lobby long and hard for other gun control measures. They compile statistics showing the awful toll of gun violence in our communities. They offer the grim testimony of victims of a shooting and those who have lost loved ones to criminals wielding guns. All this is good.

But rarely do you see responsible gun owners out front and active in campaigns to urge passage of "common-sense" gun laws. We would think many of them are smart enough to reject arguments that such laws are a threat to gun ownership.

If they could be enlisted in the cause of lobbying for reasonable and necessary regulation of gun purchases, it could make a difference. If legislators were to hear them saying, "Look, I own a gun, and I don't think thorough background checks are going to lead to me losing my gun to hunt, target shoot or defend my family. And if you believe so, that is a radical point of view that I will keep in mind on Election Day."

It would seem only helpful to seek out gun owners with such points of view, and enlist them in the campaign for common-sense gun laws. Have them go to Springfield and appear before community groups and editorial boards, and see if no votes turn to yes.