March 30, 1981: We Remember

Twenty-seven years ago, yesterday, on March 30, 1981, a mentally disturbed gunman attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. In the process the shooter wounded a Secret Serviceman, a Washington, DC police officer, and the President's press secretary, James S. Brady.

As we remember that horrible day - and Jim and Sarah Brady - we should also resolve to do what we can to prevent gun violence in America.

President Reagan believed we could do something, and he wrote about it when he recalled that fateful day:

"[F]our lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981."

The Brady Law has prevented at least 1.5 million prohibited gun purchases so far, but we have a long way to go to keep thousands of other American families from having to mark their own solemn anniversaries every year as victims of preventable gun violence.

Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.

Comments

[shedances]

I think there is little disagreement that Sarah Brady has been a remarkable woman & role model in championing the cause of gun control, following her husband's tragedy. She's taken the initiative to use her considerable resolve, courage & smarts to help others; despite the dominance of the gun lobby in this country. I am beginning to see that the American gun lobby is like a 'cancer' that takes hold & can cause considerable damage & well as being lethal.

K

[molonlabe]

Stop.....humor time!

http://vpc.org/Amici%20comparison%20list.pdf

Read the 1st paragraph of this document and then, you know, actually read the list. Especially the last entries regarding the members of congress.

Also, if you took out the words "domestic" and "violence" it would eliminate about 3/4 of that "broad" support to DC's Amici briefs.

Do they really believe that sheeple, I mean, people can't read?

[Thirdpower]

So Jews, Academics, Lawyers, Cops, Health assoc. and lots of Joyce Foundation groups vs Jews, Gays, Lawyers, Cops and lots of firearm assoc.

The real telling ones are at the bottom:

Former Department of Justice Officials: 13
District Attorneys: 18
Members of Congress: 18
State Attorneys General: 5

vs.

Former Department of Justice Officials: 11
District Attorneys: 30
Members of Congress: 306
State Attorneys General: 31
Retired Military Officers: 31
Women State Legislators2: 122

[molonlabe]

Yeah, guns are the problem with our society's violent tendencies. If you seriously believe that then you are ignorant.

When 8-10 year olds are plotting attacks against their teachers, there's a much LARGER problem with society. Like inadequate parenting.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cops-say-3rd-graders-plotted-attack/20080401150309990001

[mike101]

Ah, the "civilized" west. It seems that unarmed UK police officers are being assaulted. Imagine that.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/03/22/shock-reveals-400-police-attacked-91466-20657464/

Bloody awful, what?

[molonlabe]

Yeah, real civilized. A call to ban kitchen knives because of uncontrollable stabbings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Maybe the next "civilized" thing to do would be to ban the wheel because of automobile deaths?

Standaman-
The Bazooka & Nuke argument has been beated like a dead horse. You might want to come up with an original one.

[1will]

I was just wondering.
What do you anti gunners think would happen if all guns were banned in America tomorrow? Your dream has just come true. All guns are banned, gun stores padlocked and gun manufacturers run out of business. Concealed Carry is now illegal, hell all carrying is now illegal. A total confiscation of firearms has taken place from all law abiding citizens from coast to coast. What do you think America will now look like? Can you back up your scenarios with any facts, statistics or decent arguments?

[mike101]

I guess Stan is referring to civilized western nations like England? Well, violent crime in the UK has been on a sharp, steady increase since they banned guns in '97. As a result, they have had to ban pocket knives and swords. Now there is proposed legislation in the UK that would ban large cooking knives. All of this despite the fact that they have installed security cameras all over London, and other UK cities. Well guess what. Now they're going to have to ban hoodies.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/39622/Ban-the-hood-for-good

Well, the Brits are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it any more!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

Stan, what is so civilized about turning a whole country intp potential victims?

[mike101]

"Let's join other civilized western nations in imposing strong and effective gun controls."­..........
StanDaMan


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." ...........
Adolf Hitler

[DMeadows]

Frequently, anti-rights folks think they are very clever in asking something like, "For those of you who promote a right to bear arms . . . why not insist that you and all other Americans have a right to bear artillery, nuclear missiles, chemical weapons, bazookas, etc.?"

But really, if one thinks about it, this is quite easily addressed. While I have a robust right to free speech, I can't insist on a right to incite people to violence. While I enjoy a liberal right to practicing my choice of religion, I can't insist on a right to practice religions involving human sacrifice. So on and so forth, our rights are and should be robust and liberal while prescribing limits which are genuinely reasonable.

This is what is lost on so many anti-rights folks. Their focus on limits is frequently myopic to such a degree as to blind them to questions of legitimacy of such limits and the nuance required to carefully balance that with robust and liberal protection of individual liberties. Lack of nuance and balance leads almost always to illegitimate ideas and frequently to injustice.

[tadees]

I love your logic, DMeadows. Up for pancakes? Lemme know... :)

[1will]

1.5 million prohibited gun purchases blocked is pretty impressive. I applaud the Brady Campaign for the background checks. It's unfortunate they've moved on to advocating almost total gun control.
It would be interesting to get a statistic on how many of those 1.5 million gun purchases that were blocked ended up in an arrest or conviction.

[Thirdpower]

Take a look at Zen's numbers in the previous blog post.

[kaveman]

These are the relavent stats from Paul's previous post.


Let's do some math, OK

"Almost 1.5 million prohibited purchasers have been denied at the point of sale since 1994.

Between 1999 and 2006, 11,058 denied purchasers were arrested by the authorities after they attempted to purchase a gun, with 1,314 arrests in 2006 alone."

The numbers were dealing with are from 1994-2006, a 12 year period.

Let's assume that the number of denials are evenly distributed during the time frame listed.

1.5 million divided by 12 is 125,000 denials per year.

The time frame of 1999-2006 is 7 years.

7 times 125,000 is 875,000.

Of those 875,000 denials, 11,058 were arrested. NOTE: You failed to provide any stats on how many convictions resulted from those arrests.

11,058 divided by 875,000 and multiplied by 100 gives us the percentage of people who were arrested for the felony committed.

1.26%

Think about this for a sec. The dealer has in his possesion the name, address, social security #, height, weight, drivers license, left and right thumb prints and the signature of the prohibited person on the form 4473.

How hard would this case be to presecute. This is a cake walk for any District Attorney. Signed confession with prints.

Yet only 1.26 of denials lead to even an arrest, let alone actual conviction, as stated before.

This is pathetic and this is the truth.

[1will]

Great post. I've seen similiar stats from different columnists on the pro gun side.
The Brady Campaign would actually do a little good in the world if they would push for the prosecution of those attempting to buy guns illegally instead of constantly working to make life more difficult for law abiding Americans. Inconveniencing gun owners and disarming citizens seems to be their only real goal today.

[WorkingClass]

The gun control idiots live in nice safe neighborhoods. They think if guns were illegal there wouldn't be any. I live in a mid sized southern city. A large percent of the population here are full time criminals. They have never known anything else and never will. Every one of them is armed and dangerous. The citizens here are also armed. For that reason, pan-handlers approach with caution and wont step close enough to receive a hand out until you invite them to do so. Thieves will not enter your home or apartment if they know or suspect that you are there because there is a good chance that you will kill them. If the citizens in this town were disarmed there would be an instant bloody crime wave because only non-criminals would give up their guns. The police in this town are constantly looking for two things. Drugs and illegal guns. They find and confiscate both by the ton. Yet both are always cheap and available. You simply can not round up the illegal guns, just the legal ones. You are NOT going to take my gun and go back to your rich neighborhood and leave me here at the mercy of the gang bangers.

[StanDaMan]

For those of you who promote a right to bear arms, I have a question: Why limit yourselves to guns? The Oxford English dictionary defines “arms” as “guns and other weapons”. Why not insist that you and all other Americans have a right to bear artillery, nuclear missiles, chemical weapons, bazookas, etc.? They're arms too. And, when (not if) yet another arms-loving American -- who, from the age of 4, was told by politicians and other respected leaders that he/she has the constitutional right to bear arms and who watched one newscast after another and one action flick after another exhibiting one shooting after another -- flips-out and unloads in some _____ (fill in the blank; e.g., school, day-care center, church, shopping mall, etc.) and kills several hundred people, then you can take personal satisfaction in knowing that you defended the killer’s right to bear the arms that killed the victims -- while blithely ignoring the inconvenient fact that there were innocent victims who left grieving families and friends -- and repeat the pro-gun lobby’s mantra "guns/arms don't kill people; people kill people".

[Thirdpower]

Are you honestly promoting this nonsense slippery-slope? Is this really the best that you have? Why don't you respond to the fact that every shooting lately has been in areas where the people have been forcibly disarmed by the authorities?

When you can defend that, then we can talk.

[Egghead]

"Every shooting lately?" What on earth do you mean by "every shooting lately?"

[CalebC]

"When...an­other...Am­erican...f­lips-out and unloads in [a public place] and kills several hundred people, then you can take personal satisfaction in knowing that you defended the killer"s right to bear the arms that killed the victims." [Edited for clarity and hyperbole]

And Stan, you can take personal satisfaction in knowing that you, denied those several hundred people any chance at defending their lives against a lunatic. Unfortunately Stan, you can not legislate civility.

[Thirdpower]

Exactly. Stan should therefore be held liable for all criminal actions in areas w/ firearms aren't allowed for defense and people are forced to rely on others to protect them.

Will you accept that Stan?

Stan?

[Egghead]

Rrrrrright. Because everybody knows that if we allowed everybody to pack heat, then the next time a crazed killer kicks down the door and opens fire, brave brave defenders would leap to their feet, heroically shooting the weapon harmlessly out of the killer's hand to the applause of the multitude. (Cue the theme song from *The Magnificent Seven.*)

OR they would just randomly open fire in a panic, shooting even more people.

I love the way gun advocates somehow think they have more cool and skill than John Wayne in a freaking *movie.*

[mike101]

"When...an­other...Am­erican...f­lips-out and unloads in [a public place] and kills several hundred people,"

You guys are just amazing. Cite one time when this has ever happened.

You folks really need to curb the hysterical rants, if you want anyone to take you seiously.

[Berettasskeeter]

Very nice. But, the 2d Amendment was not put in place for the individual to be able to "keep and bear" crew-served weapons. While some grandfathered crew-served weapons are held by licensed individuals, with my heartfelt support, what's really at question is individual weapons. Do any of those you mentioned come under that heading? NO.
Any other brilliant ideas?
Semper fi

[Egghead]

If you can point to the bit in the Constitution that refers to "crew-served weapons," I will eat my best hat. There is a reference to a militia. You could make a better argument for the idea that if you own a weapon, you are obligated to be in a militia. Which by the way would get rid of a peacetime army.

[TIMEATELL]

I live in Cali. Gun control in California is pretty tight compared to most states. I suppose that's a good thing. But at the end of the day, anyone can buy a gun. It's just too easy. Hell, I could buy one on some message board right now. I believe in a right to bear arms, but there should be tighter restrictions and more regulation (nationwide). To answer your question: Why limit yourselves to guns? I don't, but the State of California does. California has strict limitations with regard to the types of weapons one can possess (I can't speak for other states).

[mike101]

"Hell, I could buy one on some message board right now. "

Oh really? Like where for instance? I'm sure you could buy one from the local crackhead, but a message board? I don't think so.

[kaveman]

Stan...

After you experience the pure joy of hitting the dirt at 40mph on the side of a mountain, 50 miles from the nearest township, only to stand up and focus on a pissed-off charging black bear....and survive...then we can have a little chat.

Say what you want, but the gun I was carrying that day saved my life. In your utopia, I would have died at the age of 14.

Think of the children.

[tadees]

As edutilos like to espouse, "think of the children, won't you." Too funny, nicely played kaveman.

[StanDaMan]

I have a simple and elegant solution for enacting appropriate gun laws: Pass a constitutional amendment which obligates every lobbyist or politician who promotes the right to bear arms or opposes gun-control (1) to give all Americans without criminal records access to his/her office and all work/public meetings, appearances, etc., and (2) to make fully-loaded guns (including automatic and assault rifles) freely available to all persons in attendance on those occasions. It’s called putting your money (or, in this case, your life) where your mouth is. I guarantee that the pro-gun lobbyists and politicians would very quickly realize the errors of their way and fall over one another in their haste to reverse their positions.

[Thirdpower]

I have a simple and elegant solution for defeating ridiculous gun laws: Pass a constitutional amendment which obligates every lobbyist or politician who opposes the right to bear arms or supports gun control (1) give all Americans with criminal records access to his/her office and all work/public meetings, appearances, etc. and (2) to make them rely exclusively on calling the police w/o them or private security being in attendance. It"s called putting your money (or, in this case, your life) where your mouth is. I guarantee that the anti-gun lobbyists and politicians would very quickly realize the errors of their way and fall over one another in their haste to reverse their positions.

[tadees]

Brilliant. Me likey.

[Berettasskeeter]

As most Federal, State, and local government offices have rules about entering armed, how would you go about abrogating those rules? And if you can, do you want to give the Federal Government more of that kind of power? Please try, at least, to be coherent in your comments.
Semper fi

[JulieSA]

HuffPost's Pick

When I was a 19-year-old woman, I used a cheap .22 revolver to stop a large man from committing violence against me. All I did was pull the gun out my purse halfway, and he ran off.

It was, and is, against the law for a 19-year-old girl to possess a handgun. I asked an older friend to buy the gun for me, because I was frightened living away from my family and hometown for the first time. 30 years later, I'm still glad that my friend and I violated the law, and I'll never, ever, stop standing up for the right for women to defend themselves with effective means. You will never take that away from me. If you pass laws violating my rights, I'll disobey them, and I'll get your congressmen thrown out of office, as they were in the 90's. Al Gore lost TN, and thus the presidency, because of his stance on this civil right. Power to the people. /rant

One of my very best friends worked with Mr. Brady on the Connally campaign. She was very fond of him because he is such a great guy.

[ladyshooter]

I am glad you were able to frighten him off. I know there was at least on case, where a potential troublemaker left me alone, because he may have suddenly realized that I may have been armed and unwilling to tolerate any arm-twisting for money.

Once, this panhandler bounced around the ticket machine,for the local transit system, and tried to hit me up for cash. He stopped dead in his tracks, when I said nothing doing. I did not even have to flash the weapon. I carry rather discreetly, but my method of carrying would almost scream gun, to someone familiar with firearms.

[Sneaky]

Fanny pack!?

[1will]

Good post. It's a shame the anti gunners would prefer you had been a victim rather than a young woman who defended herself.

[mike101]

"You will never take that away from me. If you pass laws violating my rights, I'll disobey them, and I'll get your congressmen thrown out of office, as they were in the 90's. Al Gore lost TN, and thus the presidency, because of his stance on this civil right. Power to the people. /rant "

Good on ya, Julie. I agree wholeheartedly.

[JoePalooka]

Great post, JulieSA!

[OrganizersWin]

That guy named John, who shot Reagan and Brady.... you know who is "father" was? You do know who the Vanderbilts are, right? You know that the Hinckley family was one of the top Bush campaign supporters in 1980? About the dinner plans with Hinckley's brother and one of the Bush brothers that week? Reagan was 'forced' into taking on Bush as VP, thanks to players like former President Ford at the convention, not just the Rockefeller meeting prior... the Bush family 'backers' were always way more evil than ol' Ronnie, but his administration in history now, horrible that it was.
If some of these questions get you diggin', you may eventually stumble upon things such as MK Ultra, Eli Lilly, the CIA, Jim Jones, mind-control, School of Assassins, Columbia, Missouri, LSD, etc... don't be afraid... Bush family made its fortunes from the Third Reich, and continue with their Bin Laden history... the evil layers peel like an onion...

[Egghead]

And it's 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

here come the gun nuts!

Yeah, I'm done trying to be reasonable with you people. You won't rest until you have concealed carry laws everywhere, including preschools and hospitals. I've given up on this issue. American are blind, deaf, and dumb on it. I'm going to start pricing Kevlar jackets now.

Incidentally, we had two students attacked on campus two weeks ago. One of them clearly had defense training--she dropped, slipped out from the guy's grasp, yelled like heck and got away with a few scrapes. One drew her knife to defend herself. Guess which one is in the hospital? But I'm sure that if the weapon she'd been carrying when she was attacked at close quarters had been a GUN, well, now, it might all have been different. She might well be dead.

[Thirdpower]

"I'm done trying to be reasonable with you people."

You have to start before you can be done.

Why don't you link to your anecdote. I can provide more to counter it.

[Thirdpower]

BTW. Owning body armor is also illegal in the heaviest gun control states. Ask yourself why.

[kaveman]

Egghead says, "I've given up on this issue."


Well that was easy.

Thank god for Attention Deficit Disorder.

[Sneaky]

No kidding. I haven't even seen him/her post here before. Huh.

[mike101]

"Incidentally, we had two students attacked on campus two weeks ago. One of them clearly had defense training--she dropped, slipped out from the guy's grasp, yelled like heck and got away with a few scrapes. One drew her knife to defend herself. Guess which one is in the hospital? But I'm sure that if the weapon she'd been carrying when she was attacked at close quarters had been a GUN, well, now, it might all have been different. She might well be dead."

Well, the FBI would disagree with you on that. And what makes you think you're being reasonable when nearly every mass shooting since Columbine has taken place in a Brady Gun-Free Zone?

[1will]

You aren't really reasoning with us 'Gun Nuts.' You haven't put forth one argument that is even remotely convincing. Explain to me how I'm safer not owning a gun and I'll listen. Facts, statistics and links make an argument. Happy thoughts and what ifs don't convince people.
Incidentally we had a couple of high profile murders of young college girls last month. They weren't armed and as males have at least twice the upper body strength of females the only likely equealizer they could have used would have been a handgun. Of course I'm sure every female could drop, slip out of an assailants grasp and run away as the ONE woman did in your unsubstantiated example. Criminals don't spend their days in jail working out or anything like that.