(This is Part 2 of an ongoing series, illustrating how contentious any discussion on gun restrictions is, and how difficult it can be to engage in civilized, honest, and open conversation.)

From the comment moderation queue in response to my April 3 blog:

“You and your idea’s are from a pompous ass. You are a “DICKHEADâ€� to the extreme. If you ever have to defend yourself ,OR your family I hope you have a DAMN SLING SHOT AND NO AMMO, ASSHOLE!!”

- Wil Glo, April 5, 2007

A close friend on the Hill just emailed me an MTV/NYT poll that asked:

Thinking about the violence at Virginia Tech this past spring, do you think that stricter gun control laws would have done a lot to prevent the violence at Virginia Tech, done a little, or had no effect on preventing the violence at Virginia Tech?

In response to this question, 30% of adults said that stricter laws would have helped “a lot,” 21% said “a little,” and 45% said stricter laws would have had “no effect.”

Regardless of your response to this question, I think almost all would agree that what we are doing now to prevent tragedies like Virginia Tech, and gun violence in general, clearly isn’t working. Changes in how we respond to gun violence are needed sooner than later.

We make it far too easy for dangerous people to get guns in this country. Stricter gun laws can and will make a difference. Brady background checks have stopped over 1.5 million dangerous people from buying guns since 1994; more than half a million of those denied purchases were caught by the NICS system established in 1998 as a result of the Brady Law, which can be further improved.

The poll referenced above also indicates a split between those who believe that adding more guns to a situation like the Virginia Tech tragedy would have helped reduce the violence (23% of adults), or made it worse (26% of adults). There are thousands of nightmare scenarios involving more guns in tense situations, and a handful of best-case, John McClane-or-John-Wayne-saves-the-day scenarios. There are no easy answers. Adding guns to the mix doesn’t seem like a solution to the problem of gun violence.

Thirty-two Americans are murdered with firearms every day, and even more die in suicides by gun and accidental shootings. We need solutions, even if the first steps only help “a little.”

(Note to readers: This blog entry, as well as past blog entries, are co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and www.huffingtonpost.com)

One of the questions I’ve been asked often in the past few months is if I really believe that a law could have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter from carrying out his attacks.

What people tend to forget is that a law is more than a simple pronouncement directed at criminals; it’s a policy that should guide the actions of the government and the law-abiding populace.

As Mayor, I knew that simply making a declaration wouldn’t change the behavior of dangerous and deranged individuals. I knew that laws, and enforcement activities connected to them, had to be crafted in such a way as to actively and effectively thwart a criminal’s misdeeds.

This is why I, and many others, supported the Brady Bill in the early 1990s, and why so many people from all walks of life support bills today that would close the loopholes in our background check system. Those bills didn’t rely on a dangerous person’s honesty to be effective, and they don’t interfere with the lives or freedoms of average citizens.

Not only is positive action being taken at the Federal level — where Congresswoman McCarthy’s bill has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate — but a number of States are acting on their own. The Illinois State Legislature has passed a bill that will mean more mental health records going into the Brady background check system.

The fact that both chambers of the Illinois Legislature were able to take such swift action is a testament to the common-sense logic of this bill. It’s also a testament to the dedication of many in that state who felt duty-bound to correct the broad legal loophole that made it easier for one man in Virginia to murder thirty-two innocent victims. Illinois State Senator Dan Kotowski and State Representative Harry Osterman in particular have shown that a common-sense approach to gun laws can win broad support.

The bill is awaiting the signature of Governor Rod Blagojevich, who should act quickly to put this sensible measure into law.

(Note to readers: This blog entry, as well as past blog entries, are co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and www.huffingtonpost.com)

I haven’t seen Sicko, Michael Moore’s new film about the costs and problems with American healthcare, but I do think it’s important to put the spotlight on difficult and contentious issues. Certainly healthcare is a pressing concern, and one that we should have a national dialogue about. Whether Mr. Moore’s movie jump-starts that dialogue is yet to be seen, but it raises another important point through an interesting omission.

Several studies have shown that the treatment of gunshot wounds can add a staggering cost to our already burdened healthcare system. Estimates vary depending on methodology, but they range from tens of thousands of dollars for a single shooting victim to be cared for at an emergency room, to a total lifetime medical cost of billions of dollars in total treatment costs. Many of these costs are picked up by the public.

Last November, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel took a closer look at the cost of treating gun violence victims in Milwaukee.

The average charge for a gunshot victim admitted to Froedtert Hospital was more than $38,000 last year, when the hospital treated 236 such patients.

Those cases alone totaled about $9 million. Froedtert and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin also treated at least 226 other gunshot cases last year for which average charges were not available.

The Journal Sentinel’s three-part series on the price of gun violence is very well researched, and is recommended reading for anyone concerned with gun violence or healthcare costs.

Regardless of a person’s position on privatizing, socializing, or reforming healthcare, mandatory insurance, or a host of other issues, it’s clear that a discussion of America’s health care costs must contain an honest appraisal of the medical and financial toll gun violence takes on our society. The price is simply too high to ignore.

While the war of words between Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas and his hometown paper continues, the House and Senate are both moving to consider the appropriations bill containing controversial language that restricts law enforcement access to vital data on illegal trafficking in firearms.

But the Wichita Eagle is not alone. Numerous newspapers have written editorials calling for the removal of this harmful restriction. Most point out that undercover officers and ongoing investigations have always been protected, and that the release of crime-gun trace data has never compromised an investigation or jeopardized an undercover officer.

Here are the most recent editorials against keeping crime-gun trace data secret:

• Philadelphia Daily News: Un-cuff law enforcement
• Wichita Eagle: How do Tiahrt restrictions protect cops?
• New York Times: Why Protect Shady Gun Dealers?
• Bowling Green Daily News: Police need records of guns at crime scenes
• New York Times: Silence on Guns