By Colin Goddard
Trayvon Martin, Gabrielle Giffords, The Virginia Tech 32, The Columbine 13. Reagan, JFK. All shot by people who shouldn't have had access to guns.
After each of these tragedies, leading politicians have said, basically, "Now is not the time to talk about gun policy."
Last year, House Speaker John Boehner said it a nanosecond after the attack on Congresswoman Giffords and the others in Arizona.
The fact is, the tragedies that make national headlines represent only a small fraction of the thousands of deaths that occur every year at hands of people who never should have had guns. It is easier to take home a gun in our country than an adopted dog from a shelter.
Convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, even terrorists, can buy guns in most states through gun shows or private sales over the internet with no background check whatsoever.
If Speaker Boehner knew firsthand what it was like to lose a loved one because of one of these people who never should have had a gun, would he think differently? Would it then be time to talk about gun policy?
On Monday, I'm going to try to meet with Speaker Boehner, and as many Members of Congress as I can. I want to ask simple questions like, "Do you think a convicted felon should be able to buy, carry or use a gun anywhere in our nation?"
I'll be joined by 31 of my friends, friends who I probably wouldn't have ever met except that they, too, were victims of guns in the hands of dangerous people who never should have had them. I've written to the Speaker (and other Congressional leaders) asking to meet. As of this point I've heard he's too busy.
I was shot four times at Virginia Tech -- five years ago this coming Monday, April 16. It's a sickening and surreal feeling, to be lying on the floor, hearing a constant BANG! BANG! BANG!, feeling the warmth your own blood, smelling what smells like fireworks on the 4th of July. It's absolutely terrifying, and it's nothing like you see glorified in movies.
I talk about it at length in a documentary about the shooting called Living for 32 that is going to be watched at more than 32 colleges and universities Monday evening, and I'll be discussing my experience after the movie in a livestreamed Q and A with NBC News' Luke Russert.
After the fourth shot, the shooter must have thought he got me, so he moved on. Seconds later, he shot himself, but I didn't learn that until the SWAT team stormed the room.
What does it say about Mr. Boehner if he, as the Speaker of "The People's House" will not meet with me and 31 other victims of gun violence to discuss how our tragedies might have been prevented?
I know the Speaker has met with people from the gun industry and their lobbyists at the NRA -- the House recently passed a bill to force every state to allow in people carrying loaded, concealed guns from every other state -- your own state requirements be damned.
Is Mr. Boehner scared to face the consequences of his actions, or complete lack thereof, as he has done the bidding of the gun lobby? Does he just want to sweep us under the carpet? We know he is an emotional guy. Might facing the real human toll of his political expediency force him to rethink his actions? Or might it just be embarrassing?
We must demand change now. We can't wait for another mass-shooting -- another "Breaking News" banner with people crying, ambulances screaming, flowers piling, then candles lighting. And, given the reaction of Congress I wouldn't count on them to do anything no matter how horrific the next tragedy might be.
That's why we need to take matters into our own hands. We can't hope for something to change anymore. We have to make it change. We have to put the realities of what happens when dangerous people have easy access to guns right in their face.
Every day in America, 32 people are murdered by guns. That's a "Virginia Tech" happening in our nation every single day. That's why there will be 32 of us walking the halls of Congress next week. But we will not just be there speaking for ourselves and our lost loved ones. We will be speaking for all of the 30,000 Americans who are lost to guns every year -- all of their families loved ones and communities -- all Americans who are sick and tired of living with the preventable tragedy of gun violence in our nation and who demand accountability from our elected leaders to end it.
Mr. Speaker, we're coming over to your office this week, and the offices of many of your colleagues. If you think it's not "appropriate" to talk about gun violence during the week that marks both Virginia Tech and Columbine -- the worst shootings in our country's history -- then when would it be for you?
Follow Colin and Andrew Goddard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/clgoddard
"they're not advertized online but on tables at gun show"
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/06/talking-off-script.html
Everything he says is right out of Brady Campaign press releases and 'reports', none of which has any connection to reality.
Remeber the AWB of 1994? That did nothing to assault rifles. Just the appearance of rifles that looked simular to them, but functionally the exact same as others that were not in the AWB. Namely the AR15s. Functionally they are just like any other semi-automatic rifle on the market. but because they looked scary, they had to be banned. And your mis-labeling them even still persists wrongful;ly today. The AR15s are not assault rifles.
Spend your time on fighting economic injustice, foreign wars and environmental degradation. Don't waste your time tilting at windmills.
That is all Colin was asking for.
-- The man in the Trayvon Martin shooting had no disqualifiers, passed two background checks as well as a training requirement
-- The man in the Giffords shooting was an epic failure by police in never pursuing actions which would have made him a prohibited person.
-- The man at VTech actually should have been disqualified but due to a legal issue and a clerical mistake was able to pass two background checks. NOTE: This issue has since been fixed.
-- The gunmen at Columbine obtained their firearms illegally and two people went to jail for it. None-the-less, Colorado bowed to political pressure to pass a gun control law even though it would not have prevented the shooting.
-- The shooting of Reagan resulted in the passage of a law which would have prohibited his gunman from buying firearms and the ammo used was banned.
-- The JFK shooting subsequently led to the passage of laws which prohibited the manner by which the gunman obtained the rifle and would have made the gunam a prohited person.
You talk about bad people that shouldn't have guns, but your writing is transparent enough that we know your agenda is that nobody should be allowed guns. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a crazy guy, but now you're trying to punish the people that didn't do it.
The pain and suffering that Colin's "bad" experience and the loss of 32 of his classmates is what drives him to stop that kind of tragedy to happen to others.
I'm not interested in making more background checks on private sales. All that means is the sales will be more expensive because you'll have to find and pay a licensed FFL to transfer a gun, which is silly. I shouldn't have to go through a background check if my brother is going to let me take his rifle hunting.
The background check law won't stop bad people from getting guns. It'll just impose barriers for law abiding citizens. Criminals will continue to have their friends buy guns for them in violation of the law. All the things that such legislation is trying to prevent is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice studies through their own National Institute of Justice /Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report, every year for the last two decades, there are fewer and declining violent crimes and fewer and declining gun accidents where law abiding citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms, both at home and in public. Essentially, according to NIJ/BJS and the FBI, more guns = less crime.
Note too that the safest and most responsible segment of our society are the 10 million+ law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits. They are safer and more responsible in the safe and proper use of firearms than even the American law enforcement community.
The anti-gun effort is now reduced to focusing on tragedies that occurred in part because the victims were not allowed to defend themselves, and the assailants were emboldened by that fact. Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Columbine, and countless other “gun-free” incidents are good examples of that.
And it illegal. It is a criminal violation of federal law for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm. It is also illegal to sell a firearm to a prohibited person.
They are not.
Misleading information like that calls the rest of the article into question.
What NRA tyranny are you speaking of?
How do you propose to end gun violence?
Step One is to take advantage of high profile incidents that involve guns and to use them to get media time. People make decisions when their emotions are elevated that they would not have considered at other times.
Step Two is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent. Police forces should be considered as sufficient without personal security measures. Incidents of the mishandling of guns create doubt about their usefulness and their safe use.
Step Three is to make some guns seem more dangerous than others. Fear could sway the support for banning of some firearms.
Step Four is to register every sale. It’s important to know who owns guns and what type for future reference.
Step Five is a “Shall Issue” permitting process. Police can then decide a person’s eligibility for a permit based on “Good Cause” which can later be legislatively defined to limit carry to those who are law enforcement with further prohibitions as opportunities arise.
The Final step is to encourage and incentivize the forfeiture of arms. If people believe that they no longer have a need for arms and that arms are dangerous to own, they will be more likely to forfeit them. Incentives could include cash or food for information about unlicensed neighbors or family members. Lastly a serious of ongoing compliance inspections based on gun and ammunition sales registration would complete the goal of a world free of gun violence.
If you want people to feel safer without removing guns altogether, suggest that they get a non-lethal form of defense. A ranged tazer can incapacitate a shooter without the risk of more people being shot.
I'm against guns that have no legitimate purpose other than to kill people. Ban automatic weapons with large magazines. Ban handguns (I'm pretty sure a well-regulated militia wouldn't make use of handguns).
Allow rifles and shotguns used for hunting.
Mandatory jail sentences for anyone violating a firearm control law.
It's time four our politicians to put some sanity into our gun laws and stop bending over for the NRA.