Wednesday represents an important homecoming for a key member of our staff. Colin Goddard, Assistant Director of Federal Legislation for the Brady Campaign, will be in Blacksburg, Virginia for the first screening of the powerful documentary, Living for 32.
The film has earned critical acclaim and was selected to appear at the prestigious 2011 Sundance Film Festival. It's being shown on more than 20 college campuses and other venues around the country. But Wednesday's premiere will be one of the most significant, and certainly the most poignant, screenings to date. It takes place where it all started for Colin: Virginia Tech.
It was at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 that a dangerously mentally ill student armed with two semiautomatic weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition killed 32 students and teachers and injured 17 others before killing himself. It was the deadliest school shooting in our nation's history. Colin was shot four times but thankfully survived.
Through Colin's vivid recollections, news footage, police reports and interviews with other survivors and families of victims, the first half of Living for 32 takes us through the terrifying events of April 2007. But by going beyond simply documenting the horror of that day, Living for 32 puts human faces on our nation's continuing debate about guns. The documentary shows how real people and families are affected by our nation's reluctance to enact and enforce common sense gun laws.
While Colin's account of that terrible day is gripping, what happened afterward is inspiring. The film shows how this 25-year-old Virginia Tech grad is using his life-changing experience at Virginia Tech to help protect the lives of others. Through his hidden camera work at gun shows on behalf of the Brady Campaign, highlighted in Living for 32, Colin demonstrates how easy it is for anyone to purchase dangerous weapons at a gun show without a background check or basic identification.
This is chilling evidence of the immediate need to close the gun show loophole, which allows the irresponsible, untraceable sale of hundreds of firearms by "private sellers" without a Brady background check. As part of his work here at the Brady Campaign, Colin also shares his experiences and expertise by testifying before lawmakers on Capitol Hill and at statehouses across the country.
Whether a shooting happens at a Tucson Safeway store, a Columbine High School, or at a Youngstown State frat party as it did early Sunday morning, there's too much bloodshed in America because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns. Enough is enough!
This poised young man's dedication and enthusiasm inspire me. It is nearly impossible to comprehend the horror and the agony that Colin endured nearly four years ago. It is just as difficult to imagine having the strength to move on from that experience without being consumed by fear, anger, or depression. But move on in a profound and dynamic way is just what Colin continues to do daily -- despite being called "coward" and worse by so-called gun rights activists. I am extremely proud of Colin and appreciate the sacrifices he's making on behalf of all who, because of guns, have suffered and died.
Produced by Maria Cuomo Cole, a member of the Brady Campaign's Board of Directors, and directed by Kevin Breslin, Living for 32 is dedicated to not only to the 32 people who lost their lives in the Virginia Tech massacre but to the 32 people on average who are murdered by a gun every day in the United States.
For Colin, and for me, this all is a constant reminder of why we must work every day to enact common sense, life-saving gun laws in our country. We hope you'll find a way to see the film at one of its upcoming screenings or join us in the fight. Go to www.livingfor32.com
Living for 32
Virginia Tech
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
7:30 p.m.
The Lyric Theatre
135 College Avenue
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on The Brady Campaign site.)
How much did that 'non-profit' pay you last year? I heard ~$250k.
NRA members understand were their money is going.
50,000 support the Brady center.
How much did you donate?
The fact is that the BC is out to disarm the civilian population, while falsely claiming not to be a "gun banning organization".
The BC says you do not have a right to carry a gun in public. The BC says you do not have a right to have a gun in your home. Dennis Henigan claims the SCOTUS just made it up for the Heller decision.
If you can't have a gun in public, or in your home, where can you have one?
Add to this the fact that the BC has supported, and solicited donations to support, every gun ban we've ever had in this country.
But, they're not a gun-banning organization.
"And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." Lt. Cdr. Montgomery Scott
2. A proper investigation was obstructed (prevented). No contact with Cheney until many hours later.
Care to connect these dots?
One poster I regularly see on gun issues had a good idea. All gun shows should require weapons being brought onto the premises be recorded. If someone one is leaving with one that does not match the paperwork on who brought it in, then a background check should be run. Firearems purchased from a licensed dealer already have to do so. This would not infringe upon any ones rights. Only way to avoid a background check then would be pure private sales, craigslists, newspaper ads, etc....
No matter what, if someone wants a gun they will get one. Ideas like above would just help keep gun shows above board and silence the critics.
What's the answer to finding a balance?
We are paying ATF to be there anyway, let's get them to do something except strut around and admire all the firearms.
Just another idea to consider. Either open up the NCIS to citizens so that conscientiÂÂous buyers can make a simple phone call (Brady bunch is against this idea). Or add a tax incentive for sellers to use the NCIS. If there was a $100 tax credit for using a FFL (or police station) to transfer firearms, people would be more likely to sell private property in such a manner.
There's no way to stop such behavior but we can decrease it by offering such an incentive. besides, I could use the deductions :)
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages...with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Who is the troll?
A person should be allowed to own a weapon until proven un-responsible. There should be a system in place to prevent wide spread "private" sales at gun shows without a background check. Find a way to include these checks into the "admissions" fees. Gun owners should come up with a plan that works instead of the govt. We've all seen the disasters govt plans create.
And thank you, Colin Goddard, for your courage and compassion. I wish there were more people in the world like you.
I certainly hope this film is powerful enough to pursuade at least one gun-lover to reconsider his/her stand. Unfortunately, I think if you've reached the point where you value your weapon more than a human life, then you're probably past help. But then again, anything is possible.
Here's a hint: believing that certain gun controls either will not work or are not worth the cost, does equate to valuing guns over human life.
I think Paul's got worldview issues here. It is not "because of guns" that 32 people died at VA Tech, it is because Mr. Cho wanted to kill as many people as he could before ending his life. What if he had decided to build a bomb and detonate himself around as many people as he could on campus? Would it be "because of bombs" that all those people died?
I don't look at it as fatalistic though, I look at it as willing to deal with the dangers associated with having a constitution that protects individuals from government interference unless very specific conditions have been met.
For those to lazy to Google. The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 primary school children and 7 adults, and injured at least 58 people. The worst school tragedy in the US and no guns involved.
Incorrect.
You might want to read the Heller and McDonald decisions.
A very interesting article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020706450.html?wprss=rss_metro
2. The vendor gave Goddard a gun.
3. Goddard put the gun into the trunk of his car, and drove away.
I made quite clear that I was referring to the "gun show loophole" as Mr. Helmke understands it. Essentially, by arguing for closing the "gun show loophole," the Bradys want to require background checks for all private sales.
So, my question remains unaddressed: would having closed the "gun show loophole," as Helmke portrays it, prevented Cho from obtaining the weapons he used?
And in my opinion that makes it worse and yes, I own firearms.
Come again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif