March 30, 1981: We Remember

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Twenty-seven years ago, yesterday, on March 30, 1981, a mentally disturbed gunman attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. In the process the shooter wounded a Secret Serviceman, a Washington, DC police officer, and the President's press secretary, James S. Brady.

As we remember that horrible day - and Jim and Sarah Brady - we should also resolve to do what we can to prevent gun violence in America.

President Reagan believed we could do something, and he wrote about it when he recalled that fateful day:

"[F]our lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981."

The Brady Law has prevented at least 1.5 million prohibited gun purchases so far, but we have a long way to go to keep thousands of other American families from having to mark their own solemn anniversaries every year as victims of preventable gun violence.

Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.

Comments

[shedances]

I think there is little disagreement that Sarah Brady has been a remarkable woman & role model in championing the cause of gun control, following her husband's tragedy. She's taken the initiative to use her considerable resolve, courage & smarts to help others; despite the dominance of the gun lobby in this country. I am beginning to see that the American gun lobby is like a 'cancer' that takes hold & can cause considerable damage & well as being lethal.

K

[molonlabe]

Stop.....humor time!

http://vpc.org/Amici%20comparison%20list.pdf

Read the 1st paragraph of this document and then, you know, actually read the list. Especially the last entries regarding the members of congress.

Also, if you took out the words "domestic" and "violence" it would eliminate about 3/4 of that "broad" support to DC's Amici briefs.

Do they really believe that sheeple, I mean, people can't read?

[Thirdpower]

So Jews, Academics, Lawyers, Cops, Health assoc. and lots of Joyce Foundation groups vs Jews, Gays, Lawyers, Cops and lots of firearm assoc.

The real telling ones are at the bottom:

Former Department of Justice Officials: 13
District Attorneys: 18
Members of Congress: 18
State Attorneys General: 5

vs.

Former Department of Justice Officials: 11
District Attorneys: 30
Members of Congress: 306
State Attorneys General: 31
Retired Military Officers: 31
Women State Legislators2: 122

[molonlabe]

Yeah, guns are the problem with our society's violent tendencies. If you seriously believe that then you are ignorant.

When 8-10 year olds are plotting attacks against their teachers, there's a much LARGER problem with society. Like inadequate parenting.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cops-say-3rd-graders-plotted-attack/20080401150309990001

[mike101]

Ah, the "civilized" west. It seems that unarmed UK police officers are being assaulted. Imagine that.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/03/22/shock-reveals-400-police-attacked-91466-20657464/

Bloody awful, what?

[molonlabe]

Yeah, real civilized. A call to ban kitchen knives because of uncontrollable stabbings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Maybe the next "civilized" thing to do would be to ban the wheel because of automobile deaths?

Standaman-
The Bazooka & Nuke argument has been beated like a dead horse. You might want to come up with an original one.

[1will]

I was just wondering.
What do you anti gunners think would happen if all guns were banned in America tomorrow? Your dream has just come true. All guns are banned, gun stores padlocked and gun manufacturers run out of business. Concealed Carry is now illegal, hell all carrying is now illegal. A total confiscation of firearms has taken place from all law abiding citizens from coast to coast. What do you think America will now look like? Can you back up your scenarios with any facts, statistics or decent arguments?

[DocSarvis]

"A total confiscation of firearms has taken place from all law abiding citizens from coast to coast."

Make that: MΟΛΩN ΛΑΒΕ.

I wish Huffpo had a better font choice system.

[tadees]

welcome to the Interwebs, circa 1994.

[DocSarvis]

"A total confiscation of firearms has taken place from all law abiding citizens from coast to coast."

Î"ΟΛΩÎ" ΛΑΒΕ!

[mike101]

I guess Stan is referring to civilized western nations like England? Well, violent crime in the UK has been on a sharp, steady increase since they banned guns in '97. As a result, they have had to ban pocket knives and swords. Now there is proposed legislation in the UK that would ban large cooking knives. All of this despite the fact that they have installed security cameras all over London, and other UK cities. Well guess what. Now they're going to have to ban hoodies.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/39622/Ban-the-hood-for-good

Well, the Brits are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it any more!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

Stan, what is so civilized about turning a whole country intp potential victims?

[mike101]

"Let's join other civilized western nations in imposing strong and effective gun controls."..........
StanDaMan


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." ...........
Adolf Hitler

[DMeadows]

Frequently, anti-rights folks think they are very clever in asking something like, "For those of you who promote a right to bear arms . . . why not insist that you and all other Americans have a right to bear artillery, nuclear missiles, chemical weapons, bazookas, etc.?"

But really, if one thinks about it, this is quite easily addressed. While I have a robust right to free speech, I can't insist on a right to incite people to violence. While I enjoy a liberal right to practicing my choice of religion, I can't insist on a right to practice religions involving human sacrifice. So on and so forth, our rights are and should be robust and liberal while prescribing limits which are genuinely reasonable.

This is what is lost on so many anti-rights folks. Their focus on limits is frequently myopic to such a degree as to blind them to questions of legitimacy of such limits and the nuance required to carefully balance that with robust and liberal protection of individual liberties. Lack of nuance and balance leads almost always to illegitimate ideas and frequently to injustice.

[tadees]

I love your logic, DMeadows. Up for pancakes? Lemme know... :)

[1will]

1.5 million prohibited gun purchases blocked is pretty impressive. I applaud the Brady Campaign for the background checks. It's unfortunate they've moved on to advocating almost total gun control.
It would be interesting to get a statistic on how many of those 1.5 million gun purchases that were blocked ended up in an arrest or conviction.

[kaveman]

These are the relavent stats from Paul's previous post.


Let's do some math, OK

"Almost 1.5 million prohibited purchasers have been denied at the point of sale since 1994.

Between 1999 and 2006, 11,058 denied purchasers were arrested by the authorities after they attempted to purchase a gun, with 1,314 arrests in 2006 alone."

The numbers were dealing with are from 1994-2006, a 12 year period.

Let's assume that the number of denials are evenly distributed during the time frame listed.

1.5 million divided by 12 is 125,000 denials per year.

The time frame of 1999-2006 is 7 years.

7 times 125,000 is 875,000.

Of those 875,000 denials, 11,058 were arrested. NOTE: You failed to provide any stats on how many convictions resulted from those arrests.

11,058 divided by 875,000 and multiplied by 100 gives us the percentage of people who were arrested for the felony committed.

1.26%

Think about this for a sec. The dealer has in his possesion the name, address, social security #, height, weight, drivers license, left and right thumb prints and the signature of the prohibited person on the form 4473.

How hard would this case be to presecute. This is a cake walk for any District Attorney. Signed confession with prints.

Yet only 1.26 of denials lead to even an arrest, let alone actual conviction, as stated before.

This is pathetic and this is the truth.

[1will]

Great post. I've seen similiar stats from different columnists on the pro gun side.
The Brady Campaign would actually do a little good in the world if they would push for the prosecution of those attempting to buy guns illegally instead of constantly working to make life more difficult for law abiding Americans. Inconveniencing gun owners and disarming citizens seems to be their only real goal today.

[Thirdpower]

Take a look at Zen's numbers in the previous blog post.

[WorkingClass]

The gun control idiots live in nice safe neighborhoods. They think if guns were illegal there wouldn't be any. I live in a mid sized southern city. A large percent of the population here are full time criminals. They have never known anything else and never will. Every one of them is armed and dangerous. The citizens here are also armed. For that reason, pan-handlers approach with caution and wont step close enough to receive a hand out until you invite them to do so. Thieves will not enter your home or apartment if they know or suspect that you are there because there is a good chance that you will kill them. If the citizens in this town were disarmed there would be an instant bloody crime wave because only non-criminals would give up their guns. The police in this town are constantly looking for two things. Drugs and illegal guns. They find and confiscate both by the ton. Yet both are always cheap and available. You simply can not round up the illegal guns, just the legal ones. You are NOT going to take my gun and go back to your rich neighborhood and leave me here at the mercy of the gang bangers.

[StanDaMan]

For those of you who promote a right to bear arms, I have a question: Why limit yourselves to guns? The Oxford English dictionary defines "arms" as "guns and other weapons". Why not insist that you and all other Americans have a right to bear artillery, nuclear missiles, chemical weapons, bazookas, etc.? They're arms too. And, when (not if) yet another arms-loving American -- who, from the age of 4, was told by politicians and other respected leaders that he/she has the constitutional right to bear arms and who watched one newscast after another and one action flick after another exhibiting one shooting after another -- flips-out and unloads in some _____ (fill in the blank; e.g., school, day-care center, church, shopping mall, etc.) and kills several hundred people, then you can take personal satisfaction in knowing that you defended the killer"s right to bear the arms that killed the victims -- while blithely ignoring the inconvenient fact that there were innocent victims who left grieving families and friends -- and repeat the pro-gun lobby"s mantra "guns/arms don't kill people; people kill people".

[Sneaky]

HuffPost's Pick

Damn, you really are serious, aren't you? You really believe that stuff?


Let me answer your question: bearing firearms makes sense. A nuke is pretty damn useless for self-defense, for obvious reasons. Artillery doesn't tend to fit in my pocket or on my Jeep very well (although the Marines are developing a newer howitzer that might; still out of my price range, though), but is still ill-suited for self-defense. Chemical weapons can't protect you from anything; again, useless for self-defense. I bazooka I can make an argument for, but more for national defense and not self-defense.


Your hypothetical story is kinda funny, though. Do you know how to get ahold of any of those items you describe? I mean, I know some people, who know some people, but that pesky "law" thing gets in the way, and when it doesn't money sure does.


Firearms are the most effective means of self-defense. That old Colt advertising slogan is right, in that a firearm is what makes equals out of unequals. Artillery, chemical weapons, and nukes don't. Since this particular topic isn't about the militia, I'll leave out my argment for "bazookas".


By the way, you have many comments here and below. Will you please reply to them? Please?

[mike101]

Well done, Sneaky.

[Sneaky]

Thank you sir.

[mike101]

"Why limit yourselves to guns? The Oxford English dictionary defines "arms" as "guns and other weapons". Why not insist that you and all other Americans have a right to bear artillery, nuclear missiles, chemical weapons, bazookas, etc.?"

Come on Stan. The "what about nukes" thing is so old and absurd, we have a hard time taking it seriously any more.

The Founders were referring to firearms. They didn't know what an atom was, let alone how to split one.

We are entitled to the same arms as "the common soldier". I don't believe that they are issuing nukes or mustard gas to Forrest Gump these days.

[kaveman]

Stan...

After you experience the pure joy of hitting the dirt at 40mph on the side of a mountain, 50 miles from the nearest township, only to stand up and focus on a pissed-off charging black bear....and survive...then we can have a little chat.

Say what you want, but the gun I was carrying that day saved my life. In your utopia, I would have died at the age of 14.

Think of the children.

[tadees]

As edutilos like to espouse, "think of the children, won't you." Too funny, nicely played kaveman.

[TIMEATELL]

I live in Cali. Gun control in California is pretty tight compared to most states. I suppose that's a good thing. But at the end of the day, anyone can buy a gun. It's just too easy. Hell, I could buy one on some message board right now. I believe in a right to bear arms, but there should be tighter restrictions and more regulation (nationwide). To answer your question: Why limit yourselves to guns? I don't, but the State of California does. California has strict limitations with regard to the types of weapons one can possess (I can't speak for other states).

[mike101]

"Hell, I could buy one on some message board right now. "

Oh really? Like where for instance? I'm sure you could buy one from the local crackhead, but a message board? I don't think so.

[tadees]

Gonna have to agree with TIMEATELL here Mike. Don't confuse what you see as the "Internet" that the cable company sells you access to, as the only thing going. Bulletin boards have been around since DARPA developed the 'net, long before the GUI everyone's used to seeing. (Note, at no time did anyone mention the legality of using these services, simply that if you no where to go, there's a lot available. But you might start at www2 or 3...Just saying...)

[Berettasskeeter]

Very nice. But, the 2d Amendment was not put in place for the individual to be able to "keep and bear" crew-served weapons. While some grandfathered crew-served weapons are held by licensed individuals, with my heartfelt support, what's really at question is individual weapons. Do any of those you mentioned come under that heading? NO.
Any other brilliant ideas?
Semper fi

[Egghead]

If you can point to the bit in the Constitution that refers to "crew-served weapons," I will eat my best hat. There is a reference to a militia. You could make a better argument for the idea that if you own a weapon, you are obligated to be in a militia. Which by the way would get rid of a peacetime army.

[Berettasskeeter]

Very good. Now, you're reading. You can read the answer in the other responses to your foolish point. The point of the 2d Amendment was that individuals (all, despite problems of the times) have a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) Right to self-defense and defense of one's property, community, and nation. As they disliked standing armies, communities were to bear the burden of providing crew-served weapons. When the Federal Gov't finally decided a standing army was needed, the necessity of individuals having crew-served weaponry was obviated. While still possible for most of us to own one, it is so prohibitively expensive as to be effectively out of our reach. Try pricing a water-cooled .30 machinegun in working order!
The Congress has the authority to disband the army, just as they have the authority to stand it up. But, we are all militia.
Semper fi

[Sneaky]

Do you know what a militia is? Specifically, do you konw WHO the militia is?


I'll give you a hint. Find a mirror. Find a neighbor. Find a coworker, or a friend, or a family member.


In a broader sense, yes, an argument can definitely be made for keeping and bearing of arms larger than just small arms. Yes, the Framers were mostly against a peacetime army, except for a small group of regulars (even that was hotly disputed), and felt the nation would be served best by a federal government kept unable to strong-arm states and felt the well-armed militias were the best way to accomplish this.

[1will]

US CODE 10, 311 US Militia: Composition and Classes is what you're looking for.
Welcome to the militia.

[mike101]

Actually, you can buy a cannon at Dixie Gunworks.

[CalebC]

I don't know where you, but where I live:

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age."

[Thirdpower]

Since the Militia is made of of the citizenry, everyone is already part of it.

[CalebC]

"When...another...American...flips-out and unloads in [a public place] and kills several hundred people, then you can take personal satisfaction in knowing that you defended the killer"s right to bear the arms that killed the victims." [Edited for clarity and hyperbole]

And Stan, you can take personal satisfaction in knowing that you, denied those several hundred people any chance at defending their lives against a lunatic. Unfortunately Stan, you can not legislate civility.