Media Center

By Jim Galloway - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The young man had intended to gun down Martin Luther “Daddy” King Sr., but couldn’t get close enough. So he shot and killed his wife, Alberta King, as she sat at the organ – then another congregant. Six years after the death of her son, Martin Luther King Jr., the city too busy to hate had gained a reputation as a heavily armed camp.

“That is what motivated me,” Scott, 68, said Thursday. “We were called a murder capital. The No. 1 issue was what we called Saturday night specials. Kids were using them. [Adults] could ride up to the high school, and sell them right there. If the police came and saw them, it was just a misdemeanor.”

Before moving on to Congress, Scott would spend nearly 30 years in the state Capitol, sponsoring gun bill after gun bill. He lost more often than he won, but one of his first victories was a measure that made the sale of a firearm to a minor a felony.

“My name was on it, but the little success we had was because the community rose up,” Scott said.

On Wednesday night, a disturbed, 21-year-old white man prayed with 10 black members of the historic Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. Then he preyed on them, shooting nine dead, with the far-fetched intention of starting a white-on-black war.

The racial overtones of the incident make it different and terrifying. But otherwise, we are all familiar with the plot: A young man legally obtains one or more guns, and murders many people. Outrage ensues.

Except this time there was no White House call to the battlements. President Barack Obama quickly signaled that he would not tap his remaining political capital for another push to target gun violence – not as he did in 2012, after the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six adults died.

“It is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now,” he said. “But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point, it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it.”

The president’s tone was one of sadness, frustration — if not surrender. Which is why I put a call into Scott. His flight from Washington had just touched down, and the congressman was waiting for a line of thunderstorms to pass before he headed to the parking lot.

“It’s very depressing to see this. And I imagine that he’s so discouraged at this point,” Scott said. But he wished the president’s tone had been more positive.

“My fear is, if we throw up our hands to this, then people will react with a sense of alarm. Then it’s every man for himself,” Scott said. We would find ourselves tumbling toward a sidearm society.

“I’m not critical of the president’s response. I am understanding of it. I’ve gone through the trenches on this year after year. I’ve been discouraged,” he said. “But had I given up, we wouldn’t have what little we have now.”

One can argue that, when Scott worked at the state Capitol, he was the resident of a different world. The U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t yet decided that the Second Amendment was a guarantee that applied to individuals rather than a well-regulated militia. The National Rifle Association hadn’t quite locked down, nor was it pestered by even more conservative, competing groups that threatened to steal away its membership.

In 1989, a conservative governor — Joe Frank Harris — could propose a statewide ban on military-style assault weapons, even if it was at the tail end of his time in office. Twenty-six years later, another conservative governor – this one Nathan Deal – would be required to acknowledge that, yes, legislation he signed does give a fellow the right to stroll through Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport with an AR-15 and a hundred rounds of ammunition.

Scott was elected to Congress in 2002. He has had no success with gun legislation in Washington and doesn’t expect any. Obama was right about that. “If we come at this for more gun control, and all that kind of stuff, you’re just going to rile up the people at the NRA,” Scott said.

But there is always something to be done. And if the legislative climate doesn’t exist, Scott said, maybe we need to address the social climate. Parents, perhaps.

In the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Scott pointed out, the disturbed miscreant’s mother made weaponry available to her son. How the Charleston shooter obtained a gun has yet to be pinned down. An uncle says the youth’s father gave him the .45-caliber pistol. Other reports say the father gave him the birthday cash, and the young man purchased the weapon himself.

Whatever. Socially, if not legally, we need to put more of a focus on the enablers, Scott said.

“When you go get a gun that’s going to kill people, there comes a very strong and righteous need for you to be responsible for that weapon. You’re the one that bought it, so you must be held responsible for it, to make sure it doesn’t get in the wrong hands,” Scott said. “This is what the pattern is.”

You can imagine the public service announcement: “Mom and Dad, if your son is borderline nuts, or harbors dreams of a racial apocalypse, do yourself and your neighbors a favor. Keep him away from live ammunition.”

Admittedly, this is a low bar. But to Scott’s point, the alternative is to do nothing. And to do nothing is to accept the current situation as our new normal.