What America has been doing to prevent gun violence isn't working. It's not enough. And if we're going to change what we've been doing, we have to talk about what's good, what's bad, and what's ugly about America's approach and policies.
After the shocking mass shooting in Tucson on January 8, we called on the Obama Administration to begin a conversation about the issue of gun violence in America. Finally, nine weeks later -- after 2,000 more gun murders, a spike in the shootings of police officers, and a flood of guns being illegally trafficked, not only to Mexico, but also to cities throughout this country - the Obama Administration has told us that it's paying attention to the frequent death and injury facilitated by the all too easy access to guns.
Last Sunday, President Obama delivered a statement on gun violence prevention in an op-ed published in the Arizona Daily Star. He affirmed his belief in the Second Amendment while also recognizing that, because of gun violence, "every single day, America is robbed of more futures...And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it."
"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on a gun in the first place," the President also declared.
On Tuesday, I attended a meeting at the U.S. Justice Department with representatives from the White House, the Vice-President's office, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the FBI, and others from the Obama Administration, along with leaders from the gun violence prevention movement, to discuss how to reach the goals outlined in the President's statement. Officials from the Administration indicated that this was the first of what they hoped would be a series of discussions. They said they had not settled on, or excluded, any relevant proposals.
I began the discussion by listing basic measures that the Brady Campaign, and others, felt could make a difference. The list included: a strong background check system, with good and complete records of dangerous and irresponsible people, applicable to all commercial gun sales; more tools for law enforcement to stop trafficking in illegal guns; increasing the number and type of military-style weapons, including "assault clips," that should not be readily available to civilians, like machine-guns and fully automatic weapons. Administration officials then asked questions. My colleagues and I gave examples and arguments for legislative, administrative, and voluntary policies that could help reduce the bloodshed.
The meeting lasted more than 90 minutes. Having this many Administration representatives spend this much time on this initial meeting signaled to me that the President is serious. He wants to do something meaningful about gun violence. After meeting with others, including law enforcement and "gun rights" groups, Obama's representatives will be presenting specific proposals. We hope those will include all the "sound and effective steps" that the President called for in his statement.
Sadly, National Rifle Association Boss Wayne LaPierre has decided that he and the leadership of his organization aren't willing even to engage with the Obama Administration or the rest of the nation in a conversation about what can be done to reduce the tremendous loss of life that we Amercians suffer from gun violence. Solving challenges begins with a frank discussion - and that's what we need - not posturing that allows the situation to get worse.
Regardless of party or ideology, Americans of all backgrounds and circumstances should be working on "preventing future bloodshed" and forging "a nation worthy of our children's futures," as the President said.
I thank President Obama for making the most significant presidential statement on gun violence in a decade and for starting this conversation. I'm hopeful that we will engage the nation and Congress around sound and serious ideas of how to protect more Americans from the threat of gun violence. And after the talking, then we need action.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter. This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on The Brady Campaign site.
Unable to imagine why that is?
The First step is to take advantage of high profile incidents.
The Second step is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent.
The Third step is to make some guns seem more dangerous than others, even if they are not.
The Fourth step is to register every sale.
The Fifth step is a robust “Shall Issue” permitting process.
The Final step is to encourage and incentivize the forfeiture of arms.
http://tinyurl.com/4k346he
Not the Crime Prevention Movement, not the Violence Prevemtion Movement - specifically the Gun Violence Prevention Movement. Just as the media gives only passing coverage to murders committed by other than gunfire, the Brady Bunch could care less about anything other than guns. Banning guns.
Oh, today they recognize the right to keep and bear arms. They don't want to ban guns, they just to restrict your ability to acquire, possess and carry them. Maybe, if we keep enough guns out of the hands of honest citizens long enough, bad guys will stop having and using guns to commit crime. Just because it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world, wheever it has been tried, doesn't mean it might not work in the USA - right? And when it does, and crimes are committed using other than guns, their job is done...
As far as gun rights- they are limited, just as bombs, cannons, etc are illegal. Weapons in public are just plain wrong.
So some claim, however, there are plenty of exceptions to that theory.
"Then there is the rose in the manure pile where a gun carrier occasionally saves someone."
At least 15 studies done by universities, the government, newpapers, and even strong advocates of gun control, have been done on defensive firearm uses and most of them indicate that successful defensive firearm uses occur between 1 and 2 million times each year.
When is NRA going to agree to taking guns away from crazy people? What is the criteria for "crazy" NRA would accept? What circumstances would justify taking guns away? Internet postings with threats to kill people?
It already does.
"What is the criteria for "crazy" NRA would accept? "
The one in 18 USC 922
"What circumstances would justify taking guns away?"
See 18 USC 922
That is an oxymoron!
So basically guns can never be taken a way from crazy people.
And what of politicians who are rabidly trying to pass gun ban legislation that targets only law abiding citizens? Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy actually want to reinvent the dismally failed magazine ban of 1994. During that ban murder actually increased but has dropped 10% since the ban expired. So their agenda is what, to help criminals? To pass "feel good laws" that do nothing but waste taxpayer dollars rather than actually prevent crime?
We have serious problems in America and we need legislators whose agenda is America and Americans not personal interests and prosecuting silly laws that consume much while doing nothing.
What's the next scary term going to be when trying to demonize guns or gear? Are we still supposed to believe that we can shoot airplanes out of the sky with 24 lb rifles and carry Glocks through airport metal detectors or have new lies been created?
They are the victims of those that use these devices. These people are the victims of robbers, rapists and killers. They are the victims of the violent and sometimes the insane.
They are no more the victims of "Firearms" then they are the victims of automobiles when some drunk takes his car up onto the sidewalk and runs someone over.
Put the blame where it should be....on the person committing the crime.
Nope.
I can see it now. Obama will open the meetings with a lot of doubletalk and useless drivel that means something different for every listener present. Then the Brady Campaign gets to state some twisted facts and junk science. Follow this by Obama droning on for 5-10 minutes about nothing in particular. Now let the NRA spokesman speak for 5 minutes. Obama now gets another 10 minutes as the moderator. Now give the floor to Biden, Schumer, Boxer or Kerry for 10 minutes. Now Obama gets another bit of unlimited time to talk. Follow this with the NRA trying to refute all of the falsehoods with their 3 minutes of time. Obama now returns to the microphone for an unlimited amount of time for rebuttal.
Imagine the Healthcare debate with the Dems, Republicans and Obama and you'll get an idea of what this meeting would be like.
The NRA is right in staying away. They aren't going to get anything from this group and there's no point in having Obama say that everyone worked together in the latest and greatest ban.
There is simply no safeguard for such an event.
Then why do you keep calling for more of the same?
The left’s great social experiment has failed and they just can’t stand it….So blame the GUNs.