Some of us think to ourselves, "It can't happen to me," or, "It can't happen here." We think, "I'm a good person and I don't hurt anybody. I live in a safe neighborhood. I couldn't possibly be a gunshot victim, and neither could my family. It can't happen to me."
Except that it can. Just ask Lance Haver.
About a year ago, I attended an anti-gun violence rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, that Lance was instrumental in organizing. A longtime advocate of common-sense gun laws, Lance is a man who has worked much of his life helping to make all Pennsylvanians safer by pushing for strong gun policy in his state. He is someone who labors tirelessly behind the scenes against gun violence.
What's more, Lance happens to be the city of Philadelphia's Director of Consumer Affairs, an advocate on behalf of regular people who otherwise lack the power or wherewithal to speak to government leaders. His wife, Lisa, is a teacher in the Philadelphia public schools. In many ways, they represent the typical American middle-class family. Yet they are atypical in their unparalleled dedication to public service.
And then, on September 22, their family life was shattered by a man who walked up to their adopted son, Daren Dieter, and shot him in the spine. The shooter left Daren in a parking lot in Philadelphia, paralyzed from the neck down. Daren happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, a young man simply trying to buy a late-night snack for himself and his date.
Now he's permanently attached to a respirator.
It can't happen to you?
America suffers over 10,000 gun murders and 17,000 gun suicides every year. Hundreds of thousands of regular Americans are victims of violent gun crime annually, and the country has now suffered the first two-year national violent crime increase in over a decade. Every day we see or hear or read about another senseless gun injury or death. We can no longer assume that it can't happen to us. We can no longer shut our eyes and hope that other innocent people like Daren Dieter won't be shot every single day. Condolences aren't enough.
It is time for us to ask ourselves why we let this slaughter continue, and what we are going to do to stop it.
To begin, we can remember our traditional obligations to one another, and choose to be our brother's and our sister's keeper. We have to realize that when gun tragedy strikes one of the Daren Dieters of the world, it affects us all. And then we must come together to stop those who help put illegal guns into criminal hands in the first place: "Hear No Evil" gun manufacturers, "See No Evil" corrupt gun dealers, and "Speak No Evil" politicians in Washington who have been in the hold of the gun lobby for far too long.
Common-sense gun laws are favored by a vast majority of Americans and would do much to alleviate the real-life threat of illegal guns in this country. It is up to all of us to push to get those laws enacted, in spite of the gun lobby's most strident efforts. This was Lance Haver's fight long before his son was shot, and it's even more his fight now.
It's our fight, too.
Stay strong, Lance, and know that our prayers are with you.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Judging from their uninspiring speech, this group of progun commentors sound callous when it concerns gun violence.
They also sound as if they don't want to be bothered by what happened to families like Lance's, or the Brady's, as long as it doesn't get in their way ~ or impact them as arms lobbyists, dealers, manufacturers & the like.
Fortunately though, there are many people in this country who do care. Keep up this important fight ~ Paul Helmke & the Brady Campaign ... so that others don't have to endure what the Dieter's (or the Brady's) did.
Thanks,
KELLI
As I have said, over and over again, we on the pro-rights side invite all that read our posts to research the facts that we provide and are more than willing to engage the other side in “reasoned†discourse. All we ask is that this “reasoned†discourse actually be based on “reasoned thought†rather than idealistic emotional appeals.
In Pennsylvania a school shooting plot was uncovered as a teen was trying to recruit others to participate in the shooting. A search of his home found a 9mm AR15 “assault weapon,†a live hand grenade, a few inert hand grenades, 30 air-powered bb guns, and the “anarchists cookbook†which teachers bomb making.
As for the rifle and the bb guns, they were all purchased legally but the police are considering charging the mother with making a so called “straw purchase.â€
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301237,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071011/ts_alt_afp/usschoolarrest_071011215640
Here are my questions
1. Will the Brady Campaign publicly defend the mother that bought her son the rifle if they do bring a “straw-purchase†charge against her, considering the fact that this mom just did the exact same thing Sarah Brady did when Sarah bought her son a rifle and the Brady Campaign stands behind Sarah Brady’s action?
2. What is your stance on the first amendment right that allows books like “the anarchists cookbook†to be published and sold? Do you support censoring written material when it is believed that this material endangers others?
3. This plot wasn’t uncovered by ANY of the laws the Brady Campaign supports, but was discovered thanks to the kids that came forward and turned this kid in. So, is the Brady Campaign willing to focus their limited resources away from draconian gun laws that do nothing to stop such attacks and towards funding programs that can help educate kids on how to prevent such incidents from occurring (e.g. how to recognize potential threats)?
The story of Daren Dieter is a sad example of how unarmed victims (whether unarmed by choice or by anti-gun laws) are just helpless prey for criminals that refuse to obey the law. The sad irony in this incident is that the 24 year old victim (Daren Dieter) of a violent criminal is the son of an ardent anti-gun support supporter (Lance Haver) who supports gun control laws that strip law abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves.
In Pennsylvania, Daren could have obtained a concealed carry permit and legally been armed at the time of his attack but he chose not to and unfortunately he found himself at the mercy of an armed attacker. But would it have made a difference? Would he have been able to stop his attacker? Maybe not, but one thing is certain, he didn’t even have the chance to find out. Many of us, though, prefer to carry a weapon so that we do at least have the opportunity to defend ourselves. However, anti-gun supporters like Paul Helmke and Lance Haver keep trying to strip us law abiding citizens of this God given right to self-defense
The anti-gun community continues to tell us that we should rely on the police to arrive and save us from an attacker in incidents like this. Well, we see how well that worked for poor Darren. So yes Paul, ask yourself why such slaughters continue occur. Ask yourself why you continue to support oppressive laws that only disarm law abiding citizens when it has been demonstrate time and time again that criminals disobey your laws and continue to attack innocent people. Just make sure you’re looking down at the blood on you hands when you are asking yourself these questions.
What I think is interesting about these responses (above) from progun extremists, is how little they touch upon your earlier question of, 'What are you going to do about gun violence in this country?'
Maybe, they haven't got a clue.
KELLI
By engaging people like Paul, the BC, and other misguided gun-control advocates on this plane of ideas and defeating their deadly dogma, we work to keep legitimate individual rights out of their clutches and, therefore, retain the law-abiding individual's ability to defeat violence directed at her or him.
One of Paul's links above is to the BC's ideas for desired federal and state gun laws. Many of these ideas would clearly over-reach into unreasonable infringement on law-abiding citizens rights to self-defense and other unenumerated and enumerated rights. If the BC would simply stop going after law-abiding citizens, there would be no need for our responses.
Blaming people who could better be made allies in solving this prolbem is not the path to a solution.
Casting dispersions (and using terms such as “extremistsâ€) about people who have harmed no one, who are well within their rights, and are also attemting to affect positive change is also not a path to the solution.
Shifting the focus from the perpetrators to individuals who have no influence or involvement…not part of the solution.
Dumping millions of dollars into campaigns that attempt to smear and demonize established programs to educate children, support law-enforcement with training and funding, and teach citizens how not to fall victim to violence is not on the path to a solution.
Standing in opposition to associations which offer communities funding to help stop violence while not spending a dime to help enforcement, victims, or suitable education…also not on the path.
Running a MIS-information campaign to intentionally raise anxiety and anger toward groups and individuals who are better embraced as part of the solution is not on that path.
Do you have some viable solutions of your own you would like to share?
Recently there was YET ANOTHER shooting at a "gun-free" school, in Cleveland. There are metal detectors, but they were only used "intermittently". There are guards, but staff reductions eliminated some of them so not all floors were covered.
Most incredibly, there is a principal, but she was "too busy" to meet with students who had knowledge and information they tried to give her days before tragedy happened.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting;_ylt=Av0K8mIQLzVdjFTeZkXPbfqs0NUE
All the gun-control laws and anti-violence procedures in the world are not going to save you if they are not robotically followed. However, humans are not robots; therefore, gun-control laws and anti-violence procedures need to be backed up allowing law-abiding adults to be prepared to provide their own defense and defense of children in their custody.
Aside from the principle of there being a natural right to self-defense, reality demands that that right not be encumbered.
This commentary "Banning firearms would not improve our safety" shows that while reducing the number of guns may reduce the number of gun suicides, it does not reduce the overall number of suicides. In other words, people will find other means of killing themselves if they really want to do so.
"Suicide rates
Suicide rates have absolutely nothing to do with gun availability. When guns are restricted, other ways are substituted. For example, quoting the aforementioned study, “Sweden, with over twice as much gun ownership as neighboring Germany and a third more gun suicide, nevertheless has the lower overall suicide rate. Greece has nearly three times more gun ownership than the Czech Republic and somewhat more gun suicide, yet the overall Czech suicide rate is over 175 percent higher than the Greek rate. Spain has over 12 times more gun ownership than Poland, yet the latter country’s overall suicide rate is more than double the former country’s. Tragically, Finland has over 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia, and a great deal more gun related suicide. Estonia, however, turns out to have a much higher suicide rate than Finland overall.â€
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200771008064
Afrikaner
I think this further illustrates our contention that Paul and the anti-rights campaign really aren't that concerned with violence as a whole, but choose to focus on GUN violence. It's pretty sad, but I think Paul really doesn't care about any other type of violence/suicide that isn't gun related.
Moderates such as myself, who see a vision of keeping guns out of the wrong hands while protecting the rights to possess and carry firearms for law-abiding adults, are extremely turned off by this. Although they "talk the talk", most gun-control advocates' failure to "walk the walk" when it comes to really being sensible about gun laws is what is causing them to lose the hearts and minds of people outside their small core group of emotionally-driven, non-critically-thinking adherents.
I keep seeing this statement (and others) from the Brady Campaign, which have no basis in fact. How about some stats to back up what you say, for a change? Something that wasn't funded by the Joyce Foundation would be nice.
Remember DR. Pettit and family, of Connecticutt. They didn't think it could happen to them, either.
I have no doubt that most Americans would support a law that stops criminals from committing acts of violence, while rendering the rights of good citizens fully intact. Unfortunately for our author, most of those laws were passed years ago and only bear enforcing.
This guy...he is in the business of selling new laws, but I have to wonder:
Would one more law have stopped the man who shot Daren Dieter or the Pettit family? Which one, and at what cost?
Maybe, but to the BC, "Common Sense" really means disarming the population. They claim they are not in favor of banning guns, yet they support every ban there is. They go after guns that are not used by criminals. They have an anti self-defense mentallity. They don't believe you have a basic human right to protect yourself and your family.
They have been shown time after time, that criminals do not use "assault weapons", to any degree. It must have sunk in, because now they're trying to scare people into thinking they should be banned because "terrorists" will start buying them. They seem to have a new angle for every situation.
The man just said they have a duty to "be their brother's keeper". What more do you need to hear?
You have to read between the lines. Paul is using a semantic trick to try to mislead the public. If you ask each person whether they consider the individual gun laws that they support as being “sensible†or not, you’ll find most people affirm that they do in fact believe the laws they support are “sensible.†Likewise, Paul says that the laws the BC supports are “sensible.â€
Where Paul deceives the public is in how he tries to draw a distinction between the the laws THE BC says are "sensible" and the actual laws that people themselves characterize as "sensible." Paul makes statements like “most people support sensible gun laws†to suggest to the reader of the statement that the majority of society actually supports the BC laws.
Keep in mind that in the phrase “sensible gun laws†you have the adjective “sensitive†modifying the noun “laws.†What Paul is trying to do is suggest that because his laws share a common adjective with the laws that others support, they are in fact the same laws.
and the police who are just as culpable, especially in Chicago. You know, the city that is disbanding it's SOS unit because of corruption and murder for hire? Howabout New Jersey were hundreds of legislators are being indicted for embezzlement, fraud, etc.
These women thought "it couldn't happen to them" either...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTExZTZjNzUwYjlhZDNlNWJmOTAxZjBlNzljMDk0ODc=
Well, that's most of your problem right there. Who are you to be anyone's "keeper". I am certainly glad you aren't mine, and that I don't have to rely on you, or anyone else to protect me and my family.
Philadelphia isn't the kind of place where you can stroll down the street at night to by a snack. It's the most dangerous city in the country. I feel badly for Daren, but he (and his parents) knew what a hell hole Philly has become. Precautions need to be taken there. Only a fool would not.
You also imply that there are no gun-laws in Philly. Philly residents go through the same background check that everyone else does. What you continually refuse to admit, is that these guns belong to criminals. Criminals don't obey laws, gun or otherwise. If your solution is to heap on more gun-laws for them to ignore, then you have no solution. Instead, you are part of the problem, as all you ever accomplish is to make it more difficult for non-criminals to protect themselves.
In the forty years that we've had gun-control in this country, crime (per 100,000 inhabitants) has more than tripled. It has increased 313%. I don't know what you think gun-control is controlling, but it certainly isn't crime.
Admit it. You are just out to control people, and be everyone's "keeper". That's why you keep going after guns that the FBI has told you aren't used in crime, like these so called "assault rifles" you're always going on about.
Let's try enforcing the laws already on the books, people. I find that a lot of the people in the anti-gun movement, are the first people in line to advocate early parole, work release, house arrest, and other forms of criminal coddling, for inmates convicted of crimes involving guns. They usually use "prison overcrowding" as their excuse. God forbid the criminals should feel cramped.
Lets not forget that Paul and his likes support gun bans (since Paul and the BC support DC's gun ban). Why don't you take a look at this article Paul? There is tragedy out there everywhere. Lets not exacerbate it by taking away people's rights.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTExZTZjNzUwYjlhZDNlNWJmOTAxZjBlNzljMDk0ODc=
Also Paul, regarding your claim that the "vast majority of Americans favor common sense gun laws." That is a lie. There have been numeropus postings out there that show recent Americans polled do not think new gun laws will combat violent crime.
Lets put the onus on our politicians and judicial system to clean up their act and start incarcerating criminals instead of leaving it up to law abiding citizens to give up their rights.
Come on...
As far as I know, Paul is talking about illegal POSSESION by a prohibited PERSON of an otherwise legal consumer product.
Chanting the mantra about illegal guns is just propaganda.
Typical.
Unfortunately, the author has withheld information that would help us to better understand exactly which of the proposed "common-sense gun laws" would have prevented this tragedy.
And since the author chose to use this family's tragedy as a billboard to further his own socio-political agenda I have to ask: Why is it OK for him to use evocative phrases such as "Think it can't happen to you?" to further the agenda of his own group, when they have long decried the use of similar phrases in advertisements intended to sell guns, indicating it to be paranoid fear-mongering?
Seems something of a double standard.