It’s been six days since the horror of the theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., and, on the issue of gun control, President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney have drawn their lines in the sand. The Republican challenger will evade. The Democratic president will delay.The latest duck-and-cover came Wednesday from Romney, who -- asked directly about a national discussion on semiautomatic weapons and massive ammunition purchases -- talked, instead, about "bombs" and "other devices" and ... avoiding the "road" to a failed European economy.
The question came from NBC anchorman Brian Williams, who asked whether the Colorado bloodbath should "start a national conversation about whether an AR-15 [rifle] belongs in the hands of a citizen, whether a citizen should be able to buy 6,000 rounds off the Internet." Romney responded as if he had hadn't heard the question. Or as if he had been asked about the deadly cache of weapons reportedly found at the home of suspect James Holmes.
"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices, and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said to Williams. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."In reference to grenades and explosives, Romney was right on point. Not that anyone asked him. Or that anyone would disagree. As to the question at hand -- the arsenal that Holmes allegedly used to kill a dozen innocents -- Romney said not a word.
The candidate segued (somewhat awkwardly) toward more comfortable turf. So Williams and NBC's audience were soon hearing about job creation and about "the impediments for free people wanting to build enterprises."
Why talk about guns, especially when your record might make today's words sound just a bit flip-floppy? A pesky reporter might remind people about that assault weapons ban you backed as governor of Massachusetts and that tough talk of how you would not just "line up" with the NRA.
"Gov. Romney's remarks during the Brian Williams interview just show how desperate he is to avoid any meaningful conversation about the role of guns in the Aurora, Colo., tragedy or, for that matter, in the 32 gun murders that happen every day," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Obama, meanwhile, wants more gun controls, but it's unclear when he might get around to a concerted push to enact them. The president's aides have reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban. He told the National Urban League on Wednesday night, without making a specific proposal, that he favors more background checks to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons.
Patrick Gaspard, the executive director of the Democratic National Committee, told MSNBC on Wednesday that Obama's support of the assault weapons ban faces "significant headwinds in Congress."But NBC Political Director Chuck Todd pressed Gaspard on that point. "If the president puts his shoulder behind it, right, if he wanted to make a push on the assault weapons ban, he would force a vote," Todd said. "It's clear he doesn't want to do that. Is that a fair interpretation?"
The Brady Campaign's Gross has expressed exasperation with both candidates, concluding: "If nothing is done about the problem, 48,000 people will be murdered by guns during the term of the next president."
Evading and delaying may be smart politics, as spelled out by Los Angeles Times political reporter Mark Z. Barabak here. But that doesn't make it any more palatable to voters. Many see a serious national problem and expect their leaders to speak clearly, at the least, and, just maybe, to take decisive action.
