On this day 29 years ago, a robust, warm, funny, clever man in the prime of his life, at the pinnacle of his profession, took a bullet intended for the President of the United States. A man who charmed everyone, who served his country with great honor, saw his career destroyed and now lives in a wheelchair, battling severe pain.
Back then, this happened because we made it too easy in America for dangerous people to get dangerous guns. And we still do.
I first met Jim Brady when I was Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and was trying to do things to reduce the gun violence in my city. One of the things I appreciate about my current job as President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is that it's given me the chance to spend quality time with Jim, who is as affable and hilarious as he ever was. He tells remarkable jokes, and gives terrific advice. He's truly a great communicator in his own right. Over the years, whenever the organization needed a good Jim Brady quote, Jim Brady would write it best. For example, when Peter Coors was running for the U.S. Senate from Colorado and said he wanted to repeal the Brady Law, Jim said Coors "must be dipping into the product" and that "he ought to have his head examined." We are all frequently reminded of his comment "when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. I have several stands around here."
But it makes me angry to see him suffer. And it makes me angry when I think about how hard his wife Sarah's life, also, has been because of Jim's shooting. It is unfair. And it was completely unnecessary.
Jim Brady has to struggle to cross a room, and Sarah has to process elaborate details to get him across town to see the doctor, all because a dangerous, delusional man with a psychopathic crush on a movie star was able to buy a gun as easily as any of us buy a loaf of bread. Our weak gun laws, which back then relied totally on the "honor system" to keep felons and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns, allowed the shooter to arm himself. All the Secret Service and law enforcement protection for the President wasn't enough to protect Jim and the other people shot that day. (And some still argue that shootings only happen in "gun-free zones.")
So after a multiyear struggle, we passed the Brady Law to slow the insanity. And almost two million dangerous people have been stopped from buying a gun since 1993. But we didn't finish the job.
We left glaring loopholes so other dangerous and evil men who decide to make themselves famous or avenge some paranoid grievance by destroying innocent life can go to a gun show, approach a table with a big banner shouting "Private Seller: No Background Checks," and weapon up. They can buy guns without a background check from "law-abiding citizens" like Timothy McVeigh, who used his gun show sale profits to blow up the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and kill 168 innocent people. The killers at Columbine were outfitted at a gun show. More recently, Mexican drug cartels apparently have used gun shows to buy a lot of the arms that allow them to be strategically competitive against a national government.
And what about people with firearms getting close to the President of the United States? Oh, we've really tightened our policies on that. Now radicals proudly carry assault rifles to visits by President Obama, and the current holder of Jim's old job says it's just fine, and they're not at all worried.
So it's 29 years for Jim and Sarah with today's anniversary. Twenty-nine years of pain, and wheelchairs, and specially equipped minivans, and nursing help, and physical therapy. This is a sad story: and, given the 80,000 nonfatal gun injuries that occur every year in this country, it's similar to way too many other families' stories. It's been made bearable and promising for the Bradys only by their mutual love for each other and the amazing generosity both of them have shown to their country.
We are all safer because of these two magnificent people. But we're far from being as safe as we could be.
What an absurd statement!
The Secret Service and police officers present took down Hinckley in seconds, preventing anyone from being killed. What would have happened if there were no cops or SS agents there? Would the outcome have been better or worse? How does the casualty count of four wounded and no dead compare to shootings at "gun free zones" such as Columbine and Virginia Tech?
Just because the guards present that day were not able to prevent all injuries doesn't mean they didn't make a huge difference and save a lot of lives.
Get tired of coffee?
On the same day of the lawmakers’ firearms class, the House gave first-round approval to a bill that would expressly allow legislators, their aides and employees to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/31/1849619/missouri-and-kansas-move-to-relax.html
According to anti-gun logic, even though concealed carry is allowed and performed elsewhere in that area without any incidents of law abiding citizens using their legally carried firearm to commit violence, this new new bill will create a magical and spontaneous wave of shootout outs in the 'corridors of the Capital'....
...wait, that doesn't sound all that logical to me.
Remember this the next time you frequent the Starbucks located closest to Secret Service Headquarters.
But hey --- the SS did a fine job "protecting" Cheney following that HUI incident in Kenedy County, Texas, eh??
Well, some of don't have Secret Service staff and law enforcement provided to us for our protection at taxpayer expense.
Therefore, we are tasked with providing our own security.
So you DO read your own blog. How about that?
But you need to read more carefully. We said that "mass" shootings almost always take place in 'Gun-Free Zones'.
What we have said is that "mass shooters" seem to prefer "gun free zones," as they are the only ones there that are armed when the tragedy is occurring.
We point out that these "gun free zone" areas have been shown, time and time again, to be the areas where mass shooters are able to obtain the highest body counts, before their incident concludes.
It is arguable as to whether these drastically greater body counts could also occur in "guns allowed" areas, but are seen more in "gun free zones" because mass shooters choose these areas, almost exclusively, over other "gun allowed" areas or whether it is the presence of armed law abiding citizens in "gun allowed" areas that prevent shootings from becoming "mass shootings."
Regardless, of the reason, the fact is that mass shooting do appear occur more often in "gun free zones" than in areas where guns are allowed. This alone should be a sufficient reason for not creating more and more of these "gun free zone" areas.
Hmmm, people exercising their Rights are now radicals???
What about people who go to the church of their choice? Are they radicals?
What about people who vote(ecspecially women)? Are they radicals?
What about people who post blogs about subjects they're interested in?
Are you a radical, Paul?
"And almost two million dangerous people have been stopped from buying a gun since 1993."
-Helmke
"In 2005, 67,713 prohibited purchasers attempted to buy guns, yet only 135 or less than 1% were ever prosecuted."
-Bloomberg
Why is that Paul?
--extreme eugene
Showing people that gun-control advocates' ideas are cartoonish: worth the cost.
Gun-control advocates talking about which cartoons their ideas are based on: PRICELESS.
---
Seriously Paul? Now the "gun show loop hole" is about what someone could spend money they earned selling guns at a gun show on? What if Timmy had been there at a gunshow selling a stamp collection, baseball cards, musical CDs, homemade beef jerky, etc?
Somehow, this is relevant.
Since Jim Brady and Reagan were shot with a .22 revolver, JFK with a bolt-action rifle, and Lincoln with a single shot muzzle loading pistol, does the Brady Campaign support banning .22 caliber revolvers, bolt-action rifles and single shot muzzle loading pistols?
Please explain why or why not.
__________________________________________
...or one dangerous person 2 million times. Whatever, I am so glad that these 2 million (or 1) people were then prosecuted for their perjury as prescribed by law. I missed any mention of the prosecutions in this article.
I've always said that when the Brady Campaign changes its position on non-FFL access to NICS, that I would whole-heartedly support mandatory background checks on all firearm sales. Personally, I think that this would be a reasonable compromise. I have a feeling that, in the interests of compromise (even though I disagree that it will have any effect on violent crime) many other pro-gunnies would also support this measure.
But opposing non-FFL access to NICS raises some red flags. Namely, the big flag labled "agenda." I know your target audience hasn't given it much thought, but those if us who are truely concerned about violent crime are left wondering..."why would the most prominent gun-control organization in the US not want to compromise on this issue if it means passing mandatory background check legislation which they feel is so crucial??"
Through the late 70s and 80s, crime was on the rise. A movement arose that blamed this high crime rate on criminals having 'easy access' to firearms. This movement told the American people that, if they were willing to sacrifice a little bit of their freedom and allow anti-gun laws, American would see drastic drops in violent crime.
Through the 80s and early to mid 90s, the American public gave this promise a chance. Areas began enacting extremely strict gun laws but failed to see violent crime fall. In fact, Washington DC has a complete ban on firearms (which should have been an anti-gun utopia) and to this day has maintained the highest crime rate in the nation.
Conversely, some areas decided to give the direct opposite a try. Some areas reduced their restrictions on firearms, even allowing concealed carry. Following this, many of these areas saw their crime rates fall or not change at all (even though the anti-gun crowd predicted "blood in the streets" in these areas). Today, most US states have adopted concealed carry laws, and haven't seen such "streets of blood."
Even the FBI's own statistics show firearms are used over twice as often to save lives than to take them.
Face it Paul, America gave you your chance. Americas have sacrificed much of their freedom to your cause and you have failed miserably.
Perhaps, you may want to look up stats on the average "time to crime" of firearms. Incidents where someone walks into a store, legally buys a firearm and then within a few days uses that same firearm in a crime are extremely rare.
That being said, here in FL there is a 3 day waiting period on handguns for anyone that doesn't have a concealed carry permit. How is that for a fair compromise? Allow waiting periods if there is a provision that will exempt those that have already demonstrated they are law abiding by obtaining a concealed carry permit?
While some will call this reasonable, anti-gun folks like Paul and the BC call this a "loop hole" that should be closed. That is the problem we have with anti-gunners. Regardless of what anti-gun measures they are allowed, they always want more. Their idea of "compromise" is only accepting 1/2 of the new anti-gun laws they want (and will go for the other 1/2 later). They are never willing to give up anything in return for adoption of their desired laws.
The Brady Law mandated background checks and a waiting period. Several years later, the waiting period was removed and repaced by the "instant check" system.
Eugene, what bad things happened when the waiting period was removed? If nothing much negative occurred when they were removed, why would new waiting periods be "sane policy"?
Maybe the BC should start focusing on criminal behaviour and leave the law-abiding alone.
Or they can continue their slide into irrelevance.