Being the target of violence has always been a risk for those in public office in this country. The organization I head, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is named after an individual, Jim Brady, who was shot and seriously injured nearly 30 years ago while serving as President Reagan's Press Secretary. During my first month as mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, I started receiving death threats which my Police Department considered to be very credible. Too many public officials have been killed and injured in this country in my lifetime -- nearly all of them by guns.
I first met Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shortly after her election in 2006. All who met her felt that she had the potential to go far in politics and government. Our hearts and prayers go out to her for a successful recovery, and to the families of the Federal Judge, the young child, the District Director for the Congresswoman and the others killed and injured at the Tuscon grocery store today.
While we are all still learning details about this shooting, and particularly the 22-year old responsible for this horrendous act, we should find it unacceptable that when Americans and our elected leaders are assembling in public places, their lives are at risk from gun violence.
We also are deeply concerned about the heated political rhetoric that escalates debates and controversies, and sometimes makes it seem as if violence is an acceptable response to honest disagreements. Shortly after President Obama took office, the head of the NRA crowed that "the guys with the guns make the rules;" participants in Congressional forums and Presidential events started carrying guns in public; and then, just last year a candidate for U.S. Senate said the citizens unhappy with elections results should consider exercising their "Second Amendment remedies" and Sarah Palin used gun "target" metaphors encouraging voters to defeat Rep. Giffords and others.
We, as Americans, can and should do more to restore civility to our political discourse. And we can and should do more to address the easy access to high-powered guns that make it too easy for dangerous and irresponsible people to disrupt and destroy the lives of innocent Americans, and political leaders who are simply trying to serve their communities and our country.
Alan Grayson: Gabby Giffords: A Few Words
Robert Naiman: Is Palin's "Crosshairs" Map Relevant? Giffords Thought So
Priscilla Warner: How to Sit Still When Tragedy Strikes
The place where we could use some civility in our political discourse is gun control. The problem is that issues are not being articulated civilly -- they are being articulated as (loaded) statements of moral position. Mr. Helmke broadly associates the NRA, Sharron Angle, and people showing up at rallies with guns, and then tries to tie the three with the shooter, ending with a vague plea to "address the easy access to high-powered guns" in some undisclosed way. A civil discourse would identify specific social harms and potential responses, rather than simply drawing (perceived) associations between "types" of people and opposing political views. (Now to be fair, I can find pleny of un-civil discourse from the other side of the fence scrolling down through the comments . . .)
Bringing civility into the gun discourse ought to begin with a re-framing of the issue -- it is not about whether people "like" or "dislike" guns. Gun control laws need to be tailored to address specific societal issues, rather than to address moralistic views about whether people "should" or "should not" own guns.
FP: You write that the United States had the "most puzzling reaction" of any country to the Kalashnikov. Why was it that we alone failed to grasp the significance of the rifle, when everyone else did?
CC: There was a romance in the American military with the idea of the frontier marksman, and it manifested itself in the institutional idea of the far-shooting, eagle-eyed American grunt. So along comes the idea of a lower-powered rifle, with a shorter barrel, that fires automatically -- three traits that make it less accurate, especially at medium and long range. This was the AK-47. It was early in the Cold War. The two sides were making choices about how to arm themselves. The Pentagon took stock of the AK-47 and all but sneered. It did not even classify the AK-47 as a rifle. Traditionalists advocated a heavier rifle that fired a more powerful round. The M-14 was designed, developed, and fielded. When the two rifles met in Vietnam, the Pentagon realized its mistake.
Taken from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/15/from_russia_with_blood?page=full for those who demand to know sources.
I don't think the aversion was uniquely American either. For most of the history of firearms, the heavier the shot and the longer the barrel the longer and faster it went. There was a lag in the transformation to smaller calibers as the increase in technology was at odds with conventional wisdom. This was not just an American problem, several other countries developed their own modern rifles with heavier calibers before resigning to smaller cartridges.
"Relatively low powered" would be accurate, when comparing to other centerfire rifles (it is less powerful than even .30-30, after all), but on an absolute scale "intermediate powered" would be probably the best descriptor.
7.62x39mm was designed to exactly split the difference between the little 7.62x25mm pistol cartridge (7.62 Tokarev) fired by the PPSh-41, and the 7.62x54R full-power rifle cartridge fired by the Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle and the DP/DPM LMG.
I think you mean exploit.
How many lives could have been saved (or would you rather have waited for the police to finally show up)?
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
good show
If you don’t know who that is, and why I’m thanking that hero:
(You can verify at YouTube, CNN, azcentral.com or the Dateline interview
Joe Zamudio held down the shooting suspect, and secured the gun. (looks to be a young college-aged fellow)
Dateline: (available at msnbc video “Is Congress’ heated rhetoric responsible?”
at 2:56 to 3:36
I had my hand on my gun, but I didn’t pull it out
“You never drew your gun?”
No, I didn’t need to.
azcentral:
Four people instrumental in disarming Arizona shooting suspect
“Patricia Maisch, Roger Salzgeber, Bill Badger and Joseph Zamudio.”
Youtube:
Shooting witness What I saw – Joe Zamudio – CNN video
On behalf of all affected by this:
Thank you Joe for mitigating the potential damage that the shooter could have caused.
100yds for a car is just a running start.
Please define "high powered guns."
Even the smallest pistols (.22 or .25 caliber) can be lethal in many instances.
I would say 99.999% of the nation is in agreement that we want to reduce the risk of firearm violence.
There are plenty of laws on the books and they are being well enforced.
What really and truly do you suggest? The complete banning of guns will only take the innocent law-abiding citizens out of the arms possession and will leave the criminal element with their guns.
What really do you suggest?
Outlawing semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Period.
Background checks on everyone.
Drugs, alcohol, and firearms have some things in common in the US. In a nutshell:
* federal & state governments have been trying to control them for a very long time, with varying degrees of (un)success
* if something is "banned" that a certain portion of the public wants, be they minors, criminal gangs, folks that like to dance & party, or just most of the general public (in the case of prohibition), a tremendously lucrative black market develops, over which the government has no control or oversight & receives no tax revenue.
* the only proven ways to remedy the problem are to repeal the ban & sensibly regulate legitimate trade in the product, and/or make it no longer financially lucrative for the underground contraband market to continue (in the case of prohibition, it was repealed not because the public wanted it to be but because the criminal element making & moving the liquor was beyond government control).
In the case of gun control, there is a vast black market for guns bought by "clean" middlemen from shady FFL dealers & sold to criminals at tremendous markup. The Washington Post has an excellent series on this, the actions the BATF is taking, and how their hands are often tied by the NRA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/guns/
Anyone wanting to know what is really being done about the problem would do well to read it.
The key here is you are talking about regulating a RIGHT, just like free speach, it needs to be taken up on an amendment level if you think the Constitution is out of line, or you start getting people wanting to regulate free speach, like guns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823.html
most of the stats you request and points you bring up are addressed:
* as you point out, a lot of FFLs are needlessly harassed or even shut down for using abbreviations on forms or other simple clerical errors.
* the vast majority of FFLs are honest businesspeople. The article shows that thousands of legally purchased guns used in DC-area crimes come from a handful (less than 10) of stores on the east coast.
We should abolish traffic signals? Traffic signals are like laws against murder. Criminals don't care what the law says. Blaming guns for crime is like blaming pencils for mis-spelled words.
Both the anti-gun & pro-gun lobbies in the US wield an immense amount of political power and the resulting battle over the last 40 years has made an absolute mess of the political landscape, to the point where a Glock pistol is considered by certain journalists to be "an assault weapon, a... semi-automatic pistol, with an extended magazine... illegal to sell in the US... under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban". This statement is simply incorrect.
I encourage journalists commenting on firearms to watch this video made by a law-enforcement officer explaining the differences between assault weapons and semi-automatic firearms: http://bit.ly/fG9PsL
Personally, I find Arizona's lax firearms legislation appalling. Did anyone notice that the suspect was not changed with any gun crimes, although he was clearly carrying a concealed firearm? Arizona nullified the requirement for a CCW (which requires hours of training and a good score before being granted) 6 months ago, allowing anyone to legally carry loaded concealed firearms. Including into venues that serve alcohol.
eh? I said appalling, not appealing...