Pat Craig is the aunt of Ryan Clark, a wonderful 22-year-old who was killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre on April 16, 2007. She recently sent a message to elected officials in a video. "Being in a leadership position is an awesome responsibility," she said. "But when you stand up to say 'I will,' then those of us who put you there expect you 'to do.' "
Craig, an outspoken Brady Campaign supporter, continued, "If you're unsure of what it is you can do, should do -- ask any of the victims..."
Craig appealed to elected officials to talk to gun violence victims because she understands that, too often, our lawmakers forget about the struggles of the people who put them in office. Her appeal resonates especially now as we reflect on the troubling trend of the "guns everywhere" lobby to force loaded guns into more and more places. Four states that passed laws this year allowing people to carry loaded, concealed firearms into bars and restaurants provide a fresh example.
Most Americans don't want to eat, drink, or socialize next to people packing heat. Surveys indicate that 70 percent are unnerved by this reckless idea. Restaurant and bar owners, as well as their employees, are opposed as well. A waiter in Tennessee recently sued the state for creating an occupational safety hazard with its new law agreeing to guns in bars.
And yet, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia lawmakers also ignored their constituents' concerns, along with the objections of our law enforcement professionals, and sanctioned the carrying of concealed guns in places that serve alcohol. The requirements that have to be met to carry a gun vary widely among states. Some demand hours of face-to-face training. Others don't. No state requires passing a Brady criminal background check to obtain a concealed carry permit, and sadly, it is all too easy for a gun to be sold legally without doing a Brady background check.
What's also fairly consistent is that gun carriers are forbidden from drinking alcohol. (Georgia is one exception.) But that caveat seems to have been added with a wink and a nod. Just weeks after Virginia's law took effect, a Lynchburg man went into a bar and ordered a mug of beer. His hidden gun fell and discharged, accidentally shooting him in the leg. Luckily, no one was killed. But hardly a day goes by in America without some "law-abiding," gun-toting citizen breaking the law and snuffing out lives.
Richard Poplawski, a white supremacist armed with an AK-47, was arrested for murdering three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania police officers in April last year on his front porch. He was a concealed carry permit-holder.
Michael McLendon was the "suicide shooter" who went on a rampage through the small towns of Kinson and Samson, Alabama in March of 2008, murdering 10 people before killing himself. He, too, was a concealed carry permit-holder.
We've also seen that what happens in the states doesn't always stay in the states. In July 2009, Congress took up a vote on the so-called Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Reciprocity Act. It would have let people from states with the weakest gun laws carry hidden, loaded weapons in states with much stronger gun laws. When it comes to who is too dangerous to legally carry a gun, it seems as if state decisions on the matter got no respect.
Sen. John Thune of South Dakota brought us this mind-boggling legislation, known as the Thune Amendment. It was attached to the Department of Defense appropriations authorization bill. We thank the many senators, including Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and our supporters, who helped block it.
But senseless bills like this are pressed repeatedly in Congress by lobbyists for the gun-pushers. Granting untrained, under-trained, emotionally unstable or impulsive people permission to carry loaded handguns in public jeopardizes our safety. It also makes it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs -- and I.D. the real perpetrators during a shooting.
More guns in more places mean more gun violence. As the former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, I enthusiastically join Pat Craig's plea to elected officials on the Hill, and at every level, to consider the awesome responsibility of the jobs they've been entrusted to do. Talk to victims, survivors, and law enforcement about the all too pervasive and underreported tragedy of gun violence. And then do something, something meaningful, to halt it. The Brady Campaign and the American people are here to help you get started.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
""I think the Obama administration has been loathe to act on anything -- or say anything -- related to guns," Chad Ramsey of the Brady Campaign told TPMMuckraker. "The administration has said almost nothing about the gun issue since Obama took office."
Despite several attempts last week, TPMMuckraker was unable to get a White House official to respond to requests for comment about their priorities on gun control. Likewise, the Brady Campaign has tried to have a number of meetings with Obama administration officials, but "hasn't had much luck," Ramsey said.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/gun_ban_obama_not_so_much_say_gun_control_advocates.php
Soooooo...Obama won't even MEET with you?
That's gotta sting a bit, huh Paul?
* Most Americans don't want to eat, drink, or socialize next to people packing heat. Surveys indicate that 70 percent are unnerved by this reckless idea.
Except that in the states where this has been law for years, __NOTHING BAD HAPPEND___. Kansas passed restaurant carry, and no one noticed. Florida has has restaurant carry for years. Georgia and Tennessee didn't see a rash of shootings over dinner. For gosh sake, calm down. Please, if you want to make the case about how horrible this must be, let's see some numbers.
How many CONVICTED concealed carry holders have shot someone illegally in a restaurant?
How about we ban fat people from restaurants? Fat people in restaurants can be pretty "ugly", and it would be for their own good, really.
I have no problem restricting certain "freedoms" if it results in a significant, OBJECTIVE net positive for society. But to propose such restrictions because you think something is ugly is, in my opinion, reprehensible.
Paul, what do you say to these victims who now wish to buy and carry a gun with them so they're not victimized again(hopefully)?
Are those the concerns we should make a priority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
Oh, but they did!!!
Don't you remember them claiming victory in both cases?
Hardly a day goes by in America with some Law Breaking, gun-toting armed robber breaking the law and taking innocent lives. But, hey, who cares if criminals have the guns, as long as the law-abiding citizens just keep quiet and just "take it', we're all good. Do I have that right?
I would suggest we start with Massad Ayoob, an ethnic minority and non-religious trainer and former police chief with a J.D. degree I believe. He is recognized by the courts as an expert witness on defensive use of a firearm and the author of "In The Gravest Extreme".
http://www.amazon.com/Gravest-Extreme-Firearm-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001
There are reasons why the pro-gun posters dominate gun control or guns-in-the-news articles on HuffPost.
Not good reasons.
As you indicate in the attached post below, your preference is meeting with like-minded pro-gun advocates, while getting "rid" of others with different opinions. Your preference seems contradictory to your huffpost pundit badge.
Rooster Coburn 11:12 PM
143 Fans Become a fan Unfan
At least we got rid of 'enlightened45' for the time being anyways. 'Dreamweaver' seems to have given it up too. Neeext?
* Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
* Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
* Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
* Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda
"A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher; and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
The US is the 40th country on the list with 11.1 per 100,000 committing suicide per year. Gun prohibitionist UK has 9.2 per 100,000. France is way up there at 17.0 interestingly. Canada has 11.6? Weird. I would have pegged them as much less than us. Switzerland, 17.5! Finland 18.8!
Someone determined to exit this life is pretty much going to do so with or without firearms. If you want to reduce those stats maybe implement a robust public health system like the U.K. with mental health counciling freely available to all?
That might help with the homicide rates too actually ...
Suicide is an iconic example of the gun rights group's argument that a gun is a tool, not a decision. You don't see correlation with gun availability and suicide rates precisely because the two are completely unrelated. Guns obviously don't make people want to kill themselves.
When you mix situations where the gun caused a death that wouldn't otherwise happen (kids finding daddies gun) with situations where a death was going to happen gun or no (suicides) you hurt your argument by appearing like you are just grasping wildly at any GUN BAD stat you can find without actually *thinking* about them. Which in turn suggests you started from a conclusion rather than from evidence.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
"In 2006 in the United States homicide was the second leading cause of death for infants."
------------
No kidding. People who can't walk or do anything that their parents don't decide they'll do tend not to die to causes other than ill health or parental malice.
However, since neither you nor the site claimed guns are the weapon of choice for parents ridding themselves of an unwanted infant ( seems like unnecessary overkill ... suffocation by fluffy pillow would be less messy and wouldn't alert the neighbors - Outlaw fluffy pillows! ) that means this isn't a gun related statistic and you are just tossing it in for shock value.
For the rest ... this whole "second", "third" thing seems like you avoiding giving per-capita numbers - to low to prompt the reaction you want? Furthermore, you provide no concrete evidence that a gun prohibition would do anything besides cause people with murder in their hearts to use a different tool. What reason do you have to believe that a ban would do anything besides turn this headline:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5602209.ece
----------------
Man shoots his entire family, then himself, after losing his job
-----------------
into this headline:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/13/ukcrime
-----------
Taxi driver guilty of bludgeoning family to death
--------------
I guess the European way the murderer would survive since its harder to bludgeon yourself to death ...
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Yes, in a militia.
----------
which was a local organization, not federal, and they were all supposed to be called together and put under the command of the president in the incredibly rare situation that we went to war.
Can I get some love for reducing gun deaths by taking standing military forces away from the executive branch?
Of course people who advocate reserving force to duly appointed authorities want said authorities to be the ones applying force.
Duh.
Disarmament advocates who are also police officers are happy to take guns away from civilians both in theory and in practice. In a way, it is those people who are the most objectionable because they are advocating "guns for me and no guns for thee" while the people you are getting snarky at aren't such hypocrites.
"The police could have been just as easily called. Personally, I would not want to kill someone for breaking in my basement, but that is just me. It may even be a relative."
One of the articles was about an 84-year old man shooting at two 20-year old burglars! Is it so hard to see how two 20-year olds could be a threat to an 84-year old man, armed or not?
The point is that two young strong criminals are a deadly threat to an 84-year old citizen.
What do you think he should have done? Throw his walker at them? Bite them with his false teeth?
From their analyses, Ayres & Donahue (2003) concluded: “The best evidence suggests overall small increases in crime associated with adoption of concealed carry laws…No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states.”20
Rosengart et al. (2005) concluded: “a ‘shall issue’ law that eliminated most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates.”23
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Fall_2008.pdf
"no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.”25 This is not
the same as saying the laws don’t affect crime, just that we still don’t know whether they do or not with any
degree of certainty.
But your cited authors are claiming causality.
Funding for Bulletins is provided by the Joyce Foundation
Enough said there.
Follow the link to this: "Funding for Bulletins is provided by the Joyce Foundation"
Nice, Paul, nice.
Do you also believe statistics from the tobacco companies?
Pizza hut employee kills two armed robbers:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Pizza-Hut-employee-shoots-kills-2-robbery-suspects-103917264.html
84-year old armed WW2 veteran defeats two home invaders; one wounded and both arrested (I'd love to hear from the gun banners how he could have beat them without a gun)
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/25221759/detail.html
Home owner shoots at invaders, forcing them to flee
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Man_Shoots_At_Robbers_After_Home_Invasion_104570099.html
Car dealer employee shoots burglar:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_9a17c08c-bcd1-11df-92c4-00127992bc8b.html
They were probably some lost couple asking for directions, like the Japanese young man who showed up at the wrong house looking for a Halloween party who was shot and killed.
"American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States." (Centers for Disease Control)
"Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records." (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation)
"Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths." (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
* "America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America." (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
very low in most of Illinois, with numbers generally too low to
compute rates.
The rates of firearm hospitalization and death in Chicago are at least
four times higher than any other region in Illinois (Figure 4).
Southwest and Far South Chicago adolescents ages 15 to 19 have
very high hospitalization rates due to firearm injuries at 139.3 per
100,000 and 134.1 per 100,000 respectively (Table 2).
Children's Memorial Research Center
So when they're talking about 'teens', they're talking mostly about 18 and 19 year olds engaged in criminal activity.
very high hospitalization rates due to firearm injuries at 139.3 per
100,000 and 134.1 per 100,000 respectively (Table 2)."
Yes, I am glad we are in agreement and 18 and 19 year olds are still teens. The data I presented related to children by the way so, of course, your post has little to do with mine. Also, you are inferring the teens are engaged in "criminal activity" when injured by guns, which is leaping to an uneducated conclusion. Many are innocent bystanders or just walking down the street. Your statement is an example of the rationalization you gun cultists do regularly.
The children in Afghanistan orphaned when their civilian parents were killed by US troops.
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
Can we put squabbling about the second amendment to one side and agree that our executive branch needs to be disarmed? Per the constitution the federal government was not supposed to be permitted to keep a standing army and the president was not supposed to have any military to command *except* when one had been gathered by congress for a period not exceeding two years. Such a congressional authorization was only supposed to occur in response to a direct threat.
Our current setup guts the second amendment more thoroughly than Brady ever could as it bequeaths to the government a military force that the civilian population cannot defeat. If - as a gun rights supporter - you deny that this is a bad thing then please think of every argument you use when dealing with someone who wants only cops to have guns and apply them to yourself.
Meanwhile, defanging our executive branch will keep it from killing millions more innocent people and force them to rely more on diplomacy than might when working overseas.
These are some swords we should all agree need to be beat to plowshares.
It would also save us a bundle in taxes.