A couple nights ago we honored several amazing individuals who have stepped forward in the last year to advocate for common-sense gun laws in this country.
The Brady Center awarded Col. Gerald Massengill the James S. Brady Law Enforcement Award for his work as chair of the Virginia Tech Review Panel. This group made strong recommendations to close the gun show loophole, report all records of the dangerously mentally ill to the Brady background check system, and allow colleges and universities to keep their campuses gun-free.
We also awarded Abigail Spangler the Brady Center Advocate Award for the grassroots movement of concerned citizens she has inspired - including students, parents, and people from all walks of life - who have been willing to demonstrate publicly their desire to strengthen America's woefully inadequate gun laws. Like many of us, she was moved to tears by the shocking events of April 16, 2007. Unlike many of us, she decided to do something about it.
She started ProtestEasyguns.com, and anyone can with participate or help organize one of their events. All you need are 32 people who agree that it should be harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. This symbolizes the total number of murdered at Virginia Tech, as well as the number murdered by guns every day in this country. These individuals lie down on the ground in a public place silently for just a few minutes, to symbolize the amount of time it took for the Virginia Tech shooter to get his guns.
We expect over 50 of these or similar events to take place across the country this coming Wednesday, the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. If any of these are in your area, I encourage you to participate.
Finally, and most important last Wednesday night, we heard the voices of Virginia Tech family members Joseph Samaha and Pat Craig. Joe lost his daughter Reema in Norris Hall and Pat lost her nephew Ryan Clark at the West Ambler Johnston residence hall. Joe and Pat - two truly courageous individuals - gave talks that those in attendance said were among the most moving they had heard in a very long time.
I've been involved in politics since I was a child, and since that time I've heard more speeches than I can count. But listening to Joe Samaha and Pat Craig reminded me of the oft-quoted story recounted by Adlai Stevenson many years ago:
"Do you remember that in classical times when Cicero finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke'-- but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.'"
It was an honor just to be with all these individuals.
Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Gun violence statistics show that if you tighten access to firearms, you get fewer gun deaths and injuries." -Paul Helmke (same Couric interview)
You're kidding me, right? I'VE BEEN ASKING TO SEE THESE STATISTICS FOR YEARS!!!! WHERE ARE THEY???
And you will keep waiting. Why because the data is ether (A) Is fabricated or (B) Does not exist.
If there were data to support the Brady position then why then everywhere that laws have been changed to (shall issue) concealed carry permits, the crime rate has dropped dramatically?
Why did the Klinton 94 gun ban not reduce crime? In fact crime continued to rise.
Let"s face facts the Brady"s just raise money and the world is not better for their existence, in fact the world is worse for allowing them to continue.
"Let"s face facts the Brady"s just raise money and the world is not better for their existence, in fact the world is worse for allowing them to continue."
What a blanketedly naive statement Mel. To state that the "world is worse [off]" is simply buying into the pro-gun NRA-set propaganda. The BC is responsible for the Gun-free Zones that so many government agencies, universities and others have adopted. Are you next going to argue that these are ineffective? (Of course you will, how silly of me to think otherwise)
What exactly is Naive about the statement?
na¢ive "adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique: valuable naive 19th-century American portrait paintings.
4. not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.
I make my claim via published information and facts. Like it or not the Brady Campaign has absolutely no what could be considered resounding successes. They are much like an annoying little dog, "nipping at your heals". Edutilos think before you attempt to excoriate
"And you will keep waiting. Why because the data is ether (A) Is fabricated or (B) Does not exist."
That is completely on target. Groups like the Brady Center do tend to quote highly questionable research, if it supports their agenda, Just like the outright fraud advanced by Belseilles. It is really interesting to see them squirm when they get caught.
For the Brady Center, it does not seem to matter, when their source is totally discredited as being fraudulent, they will still try to repeate it as the gospel truth.
"The BC is responsible for the Gun-free Zones that so many government agencies, universities and others have adopted. Are you next going to argue that these are ineffective? (Of course you will, how silly of me to think otherwise)"
Come on Tood! You're damned right their ineffective! Now we've been over this, but for anyone who has been marooned on a desert island for the last couple of years, every mass shooting we hear about takes place in a Brady Gun-Free Zone!
The last thing a murder-bent miscreant is looking for is armed resistance. Said miscreant is looking for helpless sheep, who will cower under a desk, patiently waiting for their turn.
These victim disarmament zones are constantly teeming with dead bodies, but apparently the BC is unmoved by this.
Click here to DONATE NOW !!! (tm)
I will. Name one example where said gun free zones have prevented a shooting? Sort of an unfair argument, asking to prove a negative.
Alright, how about we try this: Name one example where gun free zones have NOT prevented a shooting? There we go, that can actually be factually analyzed.
Or this question: Name one example of said areas becoming dangerous by omitting the status of gun-free zone? I can think of a few colleges out west that don't appear to have any problems at all (and Utah has quite a few colleges), and haven't yet had a school shooting. Somewhat telling, no?
You showed progress, but you keep falling back to ad hominem attacks. Get past those and you'll find a lot more agreement than you think.
Here's everything you need to know about Paul Helmke's / BC's position with regards to gun-control, Kel...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/20/couricandco/entry2709838.shtml
Notice that just about every answer to those "tough" questions has been a blog topic here at one time or another. I especially like the "Assault Weapon(tm)" rhetoric about grenade launchers and other various doo-dads, not one feature of which is on about half or more of the very "assault weapons" he wants to ban.
Nice try, but Glassjawedangel would have been more appropriate. Your left jabs just aren't going to match the right hooks on this argument.
Attacking gun control won't get you anywhere, folks. Attacking gun violence may, however. And gun-related violence is not a fun trip ~ as we all well know, especially after Virginia Tech. There is a big difference between advocacy groups like the BC/Paul H. which continue to work diligently to improve gun-control measures (even their own background checks/Brady Law) in order to more effectively tackle violence ... compared with lobby groups and those who merely wish to see gun-control's demise.
Kelli:
Pull your head out of the sand! The pro-civil rights force here have always "attacked" gun violence. Much more so than the victim-disarmament side, we have called for enforcement of laws that punish those who use guns in a violent manner. Meanwhile, you and your kind have gone after the tools not the users.
Michael
So Kelli, why did you change your username? Did you get banned, or something?
It certainly IS me ... and yes, I did get "banned" for responding to a couple of choice posts with my own choice words. Apparently, the Moderators didn't like that too much. I am, of course, overcome with remorse. But I think the username "ironjawedangel" is more appropriate here anyway ... so maybe, they did me a favor. Time will tell.
kinda killed my "you don't know who you are talking to" point I was making below, but....glad to have you back Kelli.
Rather ignorant of you mikey (and many others) to assume that there can only be one person who shares a common opinion about an issue. Does it matter than ironjawed lives in Melbourne and is here on a student-visa for the 08-09 school year, and simply becoming interested in American politics and with the issues that confront our great nation. Did you even ask? No - you immediately assume because someone doesn't drink your kool-aid then they must be the enemy. Open your mind. You'd be amazed at what you may learn. Or don't (wouldn't surprise me)....
Kelli should remember the old proverbs:
1. A leopard cannot change its spots.
2. You can call something by a different name, but that does not change what it is. That means someone can go by an alias, but that does not change who they are.
For example, calling someone a "lady" when clearly lady-like traits are not possessed by said being. I could think of a few other "titles" but that just wouldn't be very gentlemanly of me, now would it?
Why attack only gun violence? What makes it worse than non-gun violence? As someone who was the recipient of non-gun violence in the past, I can assure you that it's no "fun trip", either. Ask anyone whose ever been beat or stabbed or victimized in such a way as to put them in the hospital and they'll agree.
See, what proponents for gun control appear to forget is that in every country where availability of firearms is reduced, violence still occurs, and in countries that formerly had access to firearms general violence increased. Strictly speaking, promoting gun control is NOT attacking gun violence, and is often the unintentional cause of more violence. This can actually be, and has been, documented, whereas the idea of "adding more guns increases violence" has never been documented.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that gun control groups are bad people, but we all know how the road to hell is paved. Such groups are, and this is unfortunately true, rarely grounded in reality with actual evidence to support positions and claims. One group will provide evidence, historical and otherwise, and another makes appeals to emotion. The Brady Campaign is not the former group, and works "diligently" but without factual backing and historical precedent. Opponents of gun control usually have both to support their position.
They want to "improve" them all the way to bans. They're measures have in no way been shown to "effectively tackle violence". As a matter of fact, VT was a Brady Endorsed "Gun Free Zone" and Cho followed the Brady Endorsed "One Gun a Month" laws in VA.
compared with lobby groups and those who merely wish to see gun-control's demise.It needs to demise, Gun ownership it is a right. Not a privilege.
http://www.protesteasyguns.com/
Who are we?
"Concerned citizens, like you, who believe that it is too easy to purchase guns in America. We began as a group of 32 women in Alexandria, Virginia who held a civil protest to express outrage over the shootings that took place at Virginia Tech, the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history. We are not against hunters, guns for private protection or collectors of guns. We are for background checks for gun purchases and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, dangerous individuals, and people not capable of handling a gun responsibly."
Then why did they protest at the DC v Heller Oral arguments when the case centered around an individual"s RKBA and the constitutionality of the DC gun BAN? It didn't have to do with background checks OR with keeping guns out of criminals hands.
Well obviously all residents of DC are considered criminals. W/ all the politicians there, it's a reasonable default.
I'm gonna have to have my head checked - it would appear that twice! In two days! That I might actually agree with the points of two pro-death-machiners.
It does appear that one of the biggest hindrance of progress, regardless of which side of any position one sits, is the incompetence that is elected into positions of power in DC. Do you really wonder why they would want their citizenry completely unarmed? Makes perfect sense to me. (Sheep are much easier to control than wolves...y'know having fangs and claws and such)
/Signing up for rehab as we speak
The Yellow Pages are a good place to look for a psychiatrist.
I'm going to have to take a somewhat-unusual stance here and disagree with Mr. Helmke (and Kelli, and cylindar, et al).
I certainly see the obvious symbolism in having this "lie-in". However, I question why they would do this against the University's express wishes, as well as what it actually proves to demonstrate. Anyone who can read knows that 32 people were killed. We all know how many people 32 is. What exactly is the point?
I cannot imagine being a family member of one of the victims and be driving by this gaudy display as it is happening. Sorely disappointed in your backing this behavior Mr. Helmke/BC. This does little to promote gun control, as much as conjuring up disturbing and sickening images of victims of a tragedy. Poor taste.
Images often speak louder than words ... and stick in people's minds.
This is off-topic; but I'm wondering if you got a chance to see the newer & more powerful "ads" against the tobacco companies? If you've seen any of these, you'll know what I'm saying.
Thanks.
Oh curse the day...I think I am actually in agreement...with...uuuggghhh...snaky. (Oh Lord, please come save my soul!) Tobacco usage requires some degree of choice. Granted, there is debate as to the intended target of their adverts, but that entire discussion has no bearing on anything even remotely close to what's being discussed here. It's usually the pro-gunners that throw out such an obvious red herring - at least they attempt to disguise it.
Images speak louder than words. You come up with that all by yourself? Given your premise, why not just hang pictures of the shot-up students' bodies along the fence so everyone driving by can see 'em. Pick the good and gory ones though, to make an impact. Why don't we do this? Because it's tacky, crude, insensitive and in poor taste. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD do something.
That doesn't change that it is still both poor in taste and without class. No parent wants someone to throw it in their face that their child was murdered, and no parent has ever said "well, at least it wasn't with a gun". As "powerful" as the image might be, it is not conducive to what an intelligent advocacy group is trying to accomplish. The best thing the Brady Campaign could have possibly done is simply acknowledge the tragic day with a prayer or whatever they feel gets the point across that they care. None of that "Donate Now!" garbage, none of that "here's what you can do", just a simple "We mourn your loss."
The anti-tobacco commercials are irrelevant; tobacco doesn't kill violently, and is often associated with some form of choice. Victims of violence rarely have a say in the matter.
Edutilos,
It sounds like you are saying that protests are generally "in," while certain lie-in demonstrations are "out." That's fine. To each his own. I don't see them as in such poor taste, though. I usually support demonstrations (on all kinds of political/social issues), as long as they are peaceful and not intended to incite riots or other types of public danger. From what I understand, the lie-ins were non-violent and sent a public message (to remember what happens when guns are in the hands of very dangerous, deranged people).
As far as the university saying "no," just about any place that doesn't want publicity over certain past events will turn away from such a request to demonstrate or march ... this happens all the time. The university has its own political agenda to consider & wants to, I'm sure, keep the focus on the university in as positive a way as possible. The lie-ins called attention to the massacre (a big negative). But the Brady Campaign's decision to involve itself was, to my way of thinking, a wise move. Advocacy groups are stronger when they are united; rather than fractured. I'm sure Paul/BC understood this & why they encouraged participation in lie-ins.
Is there a point to your novelette, Ironjewedangle? Or do you get a bonus if your word count is maxed?
Seriously, you could've summed that up in two sentences: I disagree it is in poor taste, and, Paul/BC are part of a "movement" (hehe) and wanted to stand strong with others on their side. Everything else you wrote amounts to a lot of space filler and little actual content.
Being that they specifically stated they were there to advocate for more gun laws, that shows what their true intent was in staging their "lie-in". Especially when said laws had NOTHING to do w/ VT.
You must not understand advocacy groups.
The Brady Campaign has been very clear about its work, functions, marches, demonstrations, affiliations, & also what they hope to accomplish and exactly where they stand 'on the issues' and in court (such as the DC Heller case). Despite signing up for their emails, you don't seem to have kept up by way of reading their website carefully, thirdputz. It's all been spelled out for gun-control supporters, as well as the media.
As far as fundraising goes ... such efforts have been ongoing throughout the year. Have to be. That's how advocacy groups survive financially. Contrary to several posts, however, the Brady Campaign & Paul H. did not select just 1 particular day of the year (the anniversary of VT) to fundraise. Such grave misunderstandings seem to be causing several of you to express much anger that is unwarranted (in my view) ... and yes, it shows.
It is definitely on par w/ sending out E-mails on the day of the tragedy asking for $32 to combat the NRA.
I agree, it is in poor taste. I can't think of a reasonable explanation for this kind of behavior. It seems that if reasoned intellectual discourse fails, some people are willing to use whatever sensational tactics they think will garner sympathy for their cause. Disgusting.
David
Would you have been happier if they had just quietly lit candles across campus on that day? And do you think the university would have given them the "green light" to do that? And what's wrong with fundraising, that is up front and sincere? Is it wrong to solicit donations for environmental causes on the anniversary of Katrina, for instance?
"Would you have been happier if they had just quietly lit candles across campus on that day?" Actually, yes.
"The lie-ins called attention to the massacre" Yes, they do, but again, I ask "is it necessary?" Do you think the VT community, students, parents and families, or the country has forgotten what took place there a year ago? No, we haven't. And there's no need to make a mockery of it either.
Once you make it off training wheels you'll learn that it's not always the loudest voice that causes great change. Positive change cam be made without directly assaulting common decency.
Do you think it would have been appropriate to ask for donations in the name of Katrina victims to defeat Nagin or Blanco in the elections because it was their fault it happened?
Posted April 11, 2008 | 05:02 PM (EST)