Gloria Cruz's 10-year-old niece was riding her bike one sunny day when a bullet, meant for a neighborhood man, tore through her tiny body abruptly halting her vibrant life.
Carolyn Thomas lost 80 percent of her face, and has endured unimaginable trauma over the course of 11 operations, because of a bullet launched from a .44 caliber pistol in the hands of her boyfriend.
Amanda Wilcox lost her 19-year-old daughter, Laura, to four bullets blasted point-blank from a gun held by a mentally ill man.
These women and others like them across the country have been directly victimized by the lethal power of guns and are agitated by their growing ubiquity. They represent the faces and voices and stories of the majority of Americans who said in a poll released this week that they oppose people carrying loaded guns. They also have problems with companies and politicians who believe that guns in public are an acceptable risk.
According to a poll conducted April 26-28 for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence by respected polling firm Lake Research Partners, most Americans disagree with people carrying loaded guns openly in public. More feel unsafe than feel safer with brandished weapons, and nearly a third feel much less safe.
"We found strong negative reactions to more guns in public - both carried openly and concealed - among many key voting blocks...," said Celinda Lake, President of Lake Research Partners.
Lake's survey found a sizable gender gap in the data, with 63 percent of women feeling less safe with allowing open carry. The gap, of 49 points between the net attitudes of men and women, represents "one of the largest divides seen on current issues," the researchers explained.
The women who responded negatively to guns in public in this poll come from the suburbs, the cities and the farms of this country. They come in shades of black, white, and brown. They are affluent, low-income, and jobless, young and elderly. And they have a potent message: Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike.
Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.
Among other findings:
· A solid majority of Americans - 56 percent -- favor Starbucks and other retail establishments establishing strict "no guns" policies for their retail premises. The numbers are dramatically more pronounced among women who say the current policy allowing guns makes them fear for their safety.
"Retailers - especially Starbucks - who allow guns in stores risk losing business," Lake explained.
The gun lobby's vision of more guns, anywhere, and at any time, clearly doesn't fit with the vision held by most Americans and, particularly, by most women. And to ensure that the gun lobby's vision doesn't take hold, women such as Cruz and Wilcox have joined forces in recent years to fight for stronger federal and state laws to keep dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
They are leaders within Million Mom March and Brady Campaign Chapters, which represent the grassroots base of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. They are part of a growing and strengthening legacy begun 10 years ago today by Donna Dees-Thomases, a New Jersey mother who founded the Million Mom March after watching the news of a mass shooting at a day care center.
While juggling childcare, household chores, and family shopping, through word of mouth, basement phone banks and Kinko's, a motivated corps of volunteers with little to no organizing experience launched the Million Mom March and hundreds of thousands of women into this pitched battle for sensible gun laws. They have not had the money of the gun lobby. But their track record -- and the results of this new poll -- tells us in convincing fashion that their hearts and voices will continue to be heard on this issue.
For more information about "open carry," including which states allow it, click here.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates Nationwide
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Prairie Dog Coalition
Pro-Choice Public Education Project
Progressive Leadership Alliance
Public Campaign Action Fund
Public Citizen
Public Education Network
Punk Voter
Rock the Vote
Sierra Club
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
The Centre for Development and Population Activities
The Herndon Alliance
The White House Project
The Wilderness Society
TURN
USAction
VoteVets.org
Washington League of Education Voters
Women in Government
Women’s Campaign Fund
Women’s Policy Institute
Women’s Voices. Women’s Vote.
WomenMatter
Young Voter Strategies
ISSUE ADVOCACY GROUPS Part 1
ACORN
Afterschool Alliance
Alliance for Excellent Education
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Civil Liberties Union
Americans for Health Care
American Rivers
American Social Health Association
America's Voice
Animal Protection Institute of New Mexico
Asian American Justice Center
Basic Rights Oregon
Basic Rights New Mexico
Blue Green Alliance
California Common Cause
Campaign Money Watch
Center for American Progress
Center for National Policy
Center for New Democracy
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Women Policy Studies
CEOs for Cities
Chicago Metropolis 2020
Citizen Action
Clean Air Trust
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Common Cause
Community Service Society
Democracy for America
Early Childhood Investment Corporation
EMILY's List
Equality California
Equality Florida
Equal Rights Washington
Floridians for Fair Elections
Families USA
The Fresh Air Fund
Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
Health Care for America Now!
Human Rights Campaign
Humane Society of the United States
Illinois Citizen Action
National Council of La Raza
Latino Policy Coalition
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
League of Conservation Voters
Maine Won’t Discriminate
MassEquality
Metropolitan Group
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
MoveOn.org
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Affirmative Action Consortium
National Center for Summer Learning
National Immigration Forum
National Immigration Law Center
National Voting Rights Institute
National Women's Law Center
Nevada Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
New Mexico Office of Education Accountability
OneAmerica
Omega Institute
Oregonians for Health Security
People for the American Way
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
"Proposition 2, California, 2008: Assured humane treatment of farm animals
Proposition 4, California, 2008: Prevented parental notification of teens seeking abortion
Amendment 1, Nebraska, 2008: Assured wise investments of public endowments
Amendment 46, Colorado, 2008: Defeated a Ward Connerly-backed initiative and protected equal opportunity programs
Measure 20-142, Lane County, Oregon, 2008: Secured funding for replacement, renovation and renewal of Lane Community College facilities
Question 1, Connecticut, 2008: Prevented the state from holding a constitutional convention that would unleash an endless number of initiatives focused on abortion rights, marriage equality, and how public schools are funded
Amendment 107, Arizona, 2006: Prevented ban on domestic partnership rights
Issues 14-19, City of Columbus Bond Initiatives, Ohio, 2008: Secured long-term economic development for the city
Measures A and B, City of Santa Clara, California, 2008: Provided senior housing and public parks
Measure A, Bond Initiative, Peralta, California, 2006: Established necessary funds for making improvements to Peralta Community College
Proposition A, Phoenix, Arizona, 2008: Preserved parks throughout the Phoenix area
Proposition 202, Arizona, 2006: Increased the minimum wage for all working Arizonans
Issue 2, Ohio, 2006: Increased the minimum wage for all working Ohioans "
http://www.lakeresearch.com/clients/index.asp
Does this sound like an unbiased polling firm to anyone???
Let us read their own words, shall we?
"Most of all, we’re a firm of true believers – each one of us feels privileged to work with our clients to advance progressive ideals – it’s the primary ‘intangible’ benefit of Lake Research Partners."
"Lake Research Partners is a national public opinion and political strategy research firm founded by Celinda Lake in 1995. The firm quickly expanded to become Lake Snell Perry Mermin and Associates, and in 2005 continued to grow through a merger with Decision Research. Our principals are leading information and political campaign strategists, serving as tacticians and senior advisors to a wide range of advocacy groups, labor unions, non-profits, government agencies, companies and foundations, as well as dozens of elected officials at all levels of the electoral process."
http://www.lakeresearch.com/people/index.asp
Not according to Lake Research Partners, they're not.
"Issue Advocacy and Message Development
The right message to the right audience wins the day. LRP is one of the most reputable firms in providing issue advocacy organizations with research that shapes the debate and leads to winning policy outcomes. LRP’s research goes well beyond telling us where the public is, providing a path on how to get to where our clients want to go. Our research methods help develop a vocabulary and messages that are thoroughly tested, that resonate with the public and decision makers, and that stand up to the opposition. "
http://www.lakeresearch.com/
The simple fact is, a firearm is a means that allows women who are frailer and weaker than an attacker the necessary strength and power to defend themselves.
It says a lot for the anti-gun sides true respect for woman's safety and well-being that Paul and the Brady Campaign would use a cherry picked 10 year old story and a self-conducted survey to try and justify stripping women of their means to defend themselves against stronger attackers and forcing these women to be helpless victims at the mercy of predators.
Perhaps it's because it makes a better "anti-gun" case than an old story about a woman shooting and killing the rapist who returned after a week intent on raping her again: http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/2008/11/01/missouri-cape-girardeau-woman-shoots-kills-would-be-rapist-at-her-home/
http://www.thebredafallacy.com/2010/05/neat.html
This must be a desperate time for the Brady Campaign to Empower Official Gun Violence. Gun & ammo sales are through the roof, carry permits are becoming ever more popular with citizens and with states, and there are more and more states passing and planning firearm freedom acts and the elimination of the permit process. Throughout the country here and there government officials are warning the citizens to arm themselves as the police forces are cut back.
Due to at least some of those reasons, we are also having an explosion in the number of small easily concealed pocket pistols. The .380 revolution has begun - and that has just got to make the Brady Campaign nervous as it becomes popular to always carry a gun with you.
Tell that to the two unarmed victims of an open-carry advocate who were shot this week in Milwaukee in a dispute overa parking spot. One dead, the other paralyzed.
See:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/93744194.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/93829994.html?page=1#comments
IMO, the worst comment . . . the one saying the shooter is a hero because he took out two drunks.
1. Should we do more to control access to firearms? and
2. Should we prohibit qualified people from carrying firearms?
smoothly melded into one.
1. There are already thousands (if not tens of thousands) of laws on the books to strictly regulate the legal access to firearms. Adding more only effects those that engage in the legal process of acquiring firearms where these laws are relevant and in effect. Most that use firearms illegal also acquire them as such.
2. The law already disqualifies those deemed by a count to be mentally unstable and those that have had prior prosecutions for felonies and violent misdemeanors from being permitted to legally own and obtain firearms. How can you make such persons 'more prohibited.'
The problem is, that targeting criminals having access to firearms is not enough for the anti-side. The are constantly trying to push for new laws that ONLY affect the law abiding and not those that illegally obtain and illegally use firearms. We saw the same thing with concealed carry laws. The anti-gun side prophesied "blood in streets" levels of violent crime increased if CCW aw allowed. Guess what, every state that has enacted CCW has either seen reductions in violent crimes or no change at all. Yet they are still opposed to CCW laws, using the same tired arguments.
Anti-gunners personally dislike firearms and do not want ANYONE to own these things. Don't by into their lies about it being about "sensible laws to insure only the right people" own firearms.
Even today, the tragedies that result in the greatest loss of life happens in 'gun-free zones' (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's, etc.) where the shooter is the only one armed and often can continue to kill until they decide to stop. However, when the same type of event is attempted in areas where there are one or more armed citizens able to intervene, the result is often the shooter stop 'in his tracks' by the legally armed citizen(s) and many lives saved (Colorado Springs Church, Pearl High School, The Appalachian School of Law, Salt Lake City mall, etc.).
Perhaps those that allow concealed carry by the law abiding in areas like churches, shopping centers, and National Park, know something that people that support 'gun-free zones' will eventually find out.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/05/16/the-protestors/