On Tuesday, when a 6-year-old Houston boy took a gun to school, everyone in the building became a target. The gun fell out of the child's pocket in the cafeteria at Ross Elementary and accidentally discharged. The boy and two other children were wounded.
We are terribly fortunate that none of the children suffered serious injuries. Ra-Heem Jackson, a 16-year-old honor student at H.D. Woodson High in Northeast D.C., was not so lucky. He was shot multiple times and killed April 7 just 20 feet from his back door, his grieving mother told a Washington Post writer.
Ra-Heem, the recipient of a $50,000 college scholarship from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, had reportedly tried to buy an illegal gun from a street dealer. He was seeking protection from the random gun violence that too often crackles through his neighborhood like lightning. It appears the gun sellers decided instead to rob and kill him.
It is sadly ironic that Ra-Heem attempted to protect himself from gun violence by buying a gun. What his death and the Houston elementary shooting demonstrate, again, is that more guns in more places make us more vulnerable to gun violence. And anyone can be a target.
Police continue to investigate how a 6-year-old armed himself and a teenager's promising life was cut short. But here's something that already is clear. Guns are so easy to get, they can end up in the hands of a 6-year-old, loaded and capable of turning the playful and nurturing confines of an elementary school into a zone of danger and discord.
It is estimated that 2,200 children and teens are injured or killed by a handgun in an unintentional shooting or a suicide attempt each year. Millions of guns are stored in homes unlocked and loaded, and left within a child's reach. This should not be. Childproofing a gun so that only the gun owner can fire the weapon is another way to dramatically reduce the number of children accidentally wounded by gunfire.
Houston parents pointed out there are no metal gates or checkpoints at the entrances to the Ross school to screen for weapons. But making prison gates out of school doors won't solve our gun violence problem because it is not localized. It's a national threat, an epidemic that touches Americans of every age, race, and socio-economic background.
No teen should feel compelled to buy or carry a gun to protect himself on the way to getting an education.
No child just learning to read should be able to pack up a handgun before heading off to school, endangering himself, his schoolmates, and teachers.
As a nation, we can continue to mourn for our children who are victims of unintentional and criminal gun violence. And mourn, we do. But to honor them and the precious nature of life, we must take action. Contact President Obama, your congressional members and your state legislators. Tell them that common sense gun laws, such as background checks on all gun sales, and child access prevention laws, and stricter policies on who can buy guns and where they can carry them can protect our children and us. Let them know if they don't take these simple steps, the result will be many more unspeakable tragedies; tragedies that all the mourning and sympathy in the world will be powerless to undo.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on the Brady Campaign Website.
As a violence policy advocate, the steps needed to end gun violence are clear.
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
Seven years' work to get the Brady bill signed by President Clinton.
Brady campaign site:
On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the “Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act”, also known as the “Brady Bill,” into law. The enactment of the Brady law (effective February 28, 1994) changed this “lie-and-buy” system to a “background check-then-buy” system by requiring that every sale of a gun by a licensed dealer be referred to law enforcement for a background check. ...
The Brady Law was implemented in two stages. The purpose of the two-stage implementation was to provide time to organize and computerize criminal history and other relevant records and for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to develop the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
During the first stage, which lasted four years, purchasers were subject to a waiting period of five days to give law enforcement time to search records. On November 30, 1998, the “permanent” provisions took effect with implementation of NICS.
This law has successfully blocked over 1.9 million purchase attempts by dangerous people from a gun dealer. However, more needs to be done to protect our families and communities from gun violence. The Brady Law needs to be strengthened.
HCI (and Sarah Brady) wanted cooling off periods and had been fighting for these for years. Their bill had been around in various forms for several years, but never made it very far. After the 1992 election, with the most pro-gun control Congress and President in more than a decade, there was another push to pass their bill, but it still did not quite have enough support to pass and was at a standstill. A couple Congressmen finally brokered a compromise: Start with the waiting period which HCI and Brady wanted, but phase in the NRA back instant background check (which the NRA had previously asked Congress to study) and phase out the waiting period.
What I wrote is not a lie. It is all in the Congressional Records.
"When Bill Clinton signed the Brady bill into law on November 30, a drop of blood dripped from the finger of the sovereign American citizen ... The executioner's tool is the Brady bill - now the Brady law ... [T]hey'll go house to house, kicking in the law-abiding gun owners' doors." (NRA, "Line Up and Shut Up. Face Forward. Stay in Line. Last Name First," American Rifleman 32, January 1994)'." Remind you of anybody?
From the FBI website:
The Brady Gun Background Check Act was enacted in the former press secretary turned gun control advocates name in 1994, and its major provision is that anyone wishing to purchase a firearm must undergo a gun background check before being allowed to do so. Gun background checks must be performed by anyone selling a firearm in any state in the Union.
A gun background check can be performed most easily by accessing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is run by the Federal Government. The system is available to licensed gun dealers and pawnbrokers seven days a week, and on every day of the year except Christmas and Thanksgiving.
The Brady Bill also clearly established what persons are not to be allowed to purchase a firearm. These are
Convicted Felons or those under indictment for a felony
Known fugitives from justice in any state
Individuals who were dishonorably discharged from military service.
Unlawful drug users and convicted drug addicts or dealers
Individuals who have ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or have been legally declared mentally incompetent
Illegal aliens, and those legal aliens who are admitted to the United States on a non immigrant visa, such as a temporary work permit or student visa
Con't
We're about as close to that technology as we are to phasers from Star Trek. It doesn't exist and will not exist any time soon.
The demand for "childproof guns" is just an excuse by the gun banners to try to ban the guns that arn't considered "childproof", which is every gun in existance.
What Paul is demanding is something that would make a gun impossible to use for an unauthorized user, but does not hinder the authorized user in any way. Such technology simply doesn't exist.
Right now anything that makes it harder for an un-authorized user is going to make it harder for the authorized user as well.
And no one said that no firearms will fire when dropped. Most modern firearms are unlikely to fire when dropped, but that can also depend on various factors unique to each firearm. Older firearms or those not built to SAAMI specs are more likely to fire when dropped or those carried with a cartridge chambered, the firearm co.cked, and the safety off.
If a six year old gets a hold of a hand gun, it is not because of hand gun proliferation... but becuase of bad parenting and bad decisions of the parents.
I would like to see a strengthening of hand gun laws... but blaming a six year old for bad decisions on his parents part is not a reason to harass a group of people that is law abiding for the most part.
If the bad guys got em, than you'll get em too-to protect yourselves.
Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
If you do,
you'll do it only once.
Don't tell that to Sugarmann. He'll start claiming that Bill and Melinda are funding criminals and illegal firearm sales.
c'mon people are we regressing as a society?
How many times in your life have you felt the need to potentially protect yourself or your family with a fire arm?
How many times in your life have you torn a fingernail and wished you had a pair of nail clippers or a file?
Now--do you carry a file around with you at all times?
Because if the answer is "no"--I'd say there are psychological reasons for your need to carrry a gun that have nothing to do with "protection".
Once. When I stopped 3 uninvited thugs from harming my 79 y/o father at his farm. I also lost my older brother when he walked into a gas station robbery after getting off work.
There is a file in the center console of my truck, as well as clippers.
Not only did I "feel the need," but I actually used a firearm once to save my own life at the age of 14.
And yes, I was carrying legally.
The best data that I can find, based on the national crime victimization survey suggests that guns are used to stop robberies or home invasions on the close order of 200 thousand times a year and that the number of incidents where the gun owner is killed is lower than that of home invasions where the owners are unable to defend themselves.
So, I'm going to call you out. Citation please, publication, date, researcher, and published data sources.
Kellerman also excluded all defensive uses of firearms except when the attacker died, which is by far the rarest outcome.
When you hear that statistic quoted you automatically think about accidental shootings in the middle of the night or an enraged husband mur_dering his wife - and I'm not saying that doesn't happen - but Kellerman specifically tried to conflate those all numbers into one study, and that is disingenuous.