Several months ago Moonhowlings featured a post on Colin Goddard, a film maker who survived the Va Tech Massacre. His documentary, Living for 32, has received nationally acclaimed accolades and has been shown at Sundance Film Festival. It was nominated for an Oscar. Goddard has traveled all over the United States talking with groups about sensible gun restrictions.
Tomorrow, April 16, marks the 4th anniversary date of that horrible day at Virginia Tech, when 32 students and faculty lost their lives because of a lone, crazed gunman. It marks the day that Colin Goddard was shot 4 times as he sat in his French class. This past week, HBO featured the documentary, Gun fight which includes footage from Colin Goddard’s documentary. Gun Fight examines the many sides of the right to bear arms as well as its restrictions.
According to the Washington Post:
After Goddard became outspoken about gun control, he was enlisted as the subject of a 40-minute documentary called “Living for 32,” about the 32 victims of Cho’s rampage. But at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, accomplished documentary filmmaker Barbara Kopple already was focusing on the issue of guns in America. Goddard is now at the center of that 90-minute film, “Gun Fight,” which premieres Wednesday night on HBO, three days before the fourth anniversary of the Tech shootings.
Gun Fight fight is available on-demand as of Thursday.
Living for 32 as a stand alone film is not yet available for individual purchase. Living for 32 can be seen April 19 in at UVA in Charlottesville at Newcombe Hall at 7 pm. The event requires an rsvp.
Goddard continues to fight for sensible gun regulations. He travels the nation with his film, Living for 32. He joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and coordinates efforts with that organization. He did return to Tech to get his degree. Follow Colin as he recounts his survival of a massacre, goes to gun shows to illustrate how laxgun laws are, and lives still with a bullet in him. And the debate rages on. There are no simple answers, regardless of our opinions or what we think we know.
“Gun Fight examines the many sides of the right to BARE [Emphasis supplied] arms as well as its restrictions.”
Moon–I don’t have anything against BARE arms, it’s packin’ heat that bothers me! 😉
Thanks George. That one gets me every time. Every read Chocolate Moose for Dinner? It did me in forever on homonyms.
http://youtu.be/tWxRumYSrtY
Cute book though.
I guess that book is more about idomatic expression than homonyms. Sorry. I hadn’t read it in years.
“:Goddard continues to fight for sensible gun regulations.”
Goddard continues to fight for useless gun laws that will do nothing to stop people like Cho.”
Why does Goddard fight to close the non-existent :gun show loophole” when Cho jumped through all the necessary hoops to get his firearm? Just because Goddard is a victim, does not mean that he is an authority on firearms, use of firearms, or the pros and cons of carrying firearms.
I’m prayers continue to go out to the vicitims of Cho. However, that does not mean that said victims get a pass when they advocate restricting my rights.
That should read “my prayers”
@Cargo, I don’t see how Goddard is denying you your rights. Is he telling you that you cannot have a gun?
He might be advocating some conditions under which you buy that gun.
For instance, might ask that you have a waiting period so you can think over whether you really want that gun or not. He might make you view films to see how the gun was made or how it operates. He might try to set up building codes where you buy the gun and how large the halls are…just in case you need to escape. In the past he might have advocated that you have spousal consent before buying that gun.
But he isn’t doing those things. Any of those things. If he were I would totally be on your side. I noticed you weren’t on mine. However, I have never advocated that all guns be banned nor has he.
Moon,
He is a spokesman for an organization that has stated that it would like to ban all guns. He continues to advocate for procedures that would put an undo burden on the transfer of weapons, restrict weapons, etc.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/04/15/some-debate-with-colin-goddard/#comment-91030
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/04/goddards-been-assimilated.html
The Brady Campaign is in the businesses of restricting gun ownership by incremental means. No gun control advocate has EVER stated what laws they would be satisfied with and would be an end to gun control attempts. Every time a law is enacted, they have pushed for further restrictions.
Actually he is just a member and if you are speaking of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, I have never ever heard them say they wanted to ban all guns. Gun safety is different from banning guns.
I know plenty of people who want sensible gun laws who don’t want to ban guns. Some of them are even NRA members.
Funny, you are more than willing to totally ban all abortion rights for me and mine but God forbid you can only buy one hand gun a month.
Now tell me again…who is this all about?
I’d like to ban violence.
We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.
Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993, at 11A (boldface added).
The best way to prevent gun violence is to ban handguns.
Michael K. Beard, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Letters to the Editor, Wall. St. J., July 23, 1997, at A19 (boldface added).
The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) (“The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.”).
These are the groups with whom Colin Goddard is working.
Again, what is considered a “sensible” gun restriction? According to whom?
As for your question about abortion, do you really want me to get into that with you again? The more we discuss it, the more blunt I become, and then the more angry you and others will get.
So who is this all about? Its about citizens of the US being free citizens, able to keep and bear arms. Persons like Colin Goddard use their victim status to push their supposed expertise to deny everyone ELSE the rights to keep and bear arms for defense. Just because HE failed to defend himself by hiding under a desk, does not mean that I should be limited to that.
By the way, have you ever seen me state that abortion should be illegal? Or that those involved should be criminalized? Ever? You won’t find that here.
I’m neither confirming NOR denying my opinion on that, but I have never stated that here.
I’m against abortion, especially the easy access that is currently available. But, lets leave it there or this thread will be hijacked into a knife fight about abortion.
This is the type of crap that the Brady Campaign puts out. This is how they apparently see gun owners: http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/04/brady-campaign-releases-new-ad.html
I own two of those magazines. For one thing, what the heck is an “assault clip? And why does the Brady campaign have to resort to such crass propaganda to demonize such tools? According to this, then, are they happy with the results from the first 10 bullets?
For another, the ONLY reason that Patricia Maisch was able to stop Loughner from re-loading was because he had an extended magazine.
I don’t understand what their goal is other than banning guns. None of their ideas actually does anything to stop criminals or crazies.
“None of their ideas actually does anything”
I should REALLY try harder at editing BEFORE hitting submit.
@cargo
Or the more blunt and angrier you will get. I am an old warrior on this subject.
As for guns, I was raised around guns. My mother was an excellent shot and I cannot think of a time there wasn’t a rifle and a shotgun in the house. My father, the athelete wasn’t a good shot. He didn’t grow up with guns like she did.
The people will decide what is reasonable. Brady Center doesn’t want to ban all guns.
@Cargo
I doubt if you would win. And you have said enough that I have a pretty good idea how you feel about the subject.
As for the commercial, this is going to bring a huge so what out of me. That isn’t banning guns. I don’t think that commerical is unreasonable. Many people are calling for the end to assault clips. I have read both sides and don’t feel strongly one way or the other but I sure wouldn’t call someone an extremist who would want the magazine banned.
My point on abortion wasn’t to argue abortion. I don’t really argue abortion–just the right to it. It was to point out that you would be more than willing to take away my right to abortion and related services but yet you expect me to say that any idiot can have any type of gun they want.
This point often escapes the 2nd amendment folks. Not all, but many.
I know all about whittling away of rights. It has been going on since Roe vs Wade affirmed the right to abortion. That right was not originally codified as an unlimited right. I was comfortable with those restrictions.
I do think that most people want some reasonable gun laws without wanting to do away with gun ownership. I would be one of those people. I am also a gun owner.
Goddards speaks about how he feels. He is not asking for all guns to be abolished. I don’t know if I agree with him or not. I haven’t seen his film.
As for the Tech Massacre, I think much could be changed to help prevent things like that…or at least make them less likely to happen, starting with Fairfax Co. geing allowed to notify Tech of some serious mental health problems. He should have been in the system.
I hope guns are never approved for students at state supported schools. Too many people in too small of an area. Again, no one thinks they are nuts. The rest of us don’t know that.
I went back and looked at the trailer picture. I know someone who lived in a place like that. I consider him a friend although I don’t agree much with his politics. He always sends me anti Obama ‘jokes.’ I haven’t reminded him that he really liked Obama before he decided to vote for Fred Thompson and then went ga-ga over Sarah Palin. He had more guns than chairs. Some gun enthusiasts do live in places like that. Actually, I would say someone who lives there probably needs a gun more than someone who lives in a posh uptown condo. But that isn’t my decision to make.
Trailer picture? You mean the pic at Days of our Trailers? I don’t think those bloggers actually live in a trailer. I think that its just a title for the blog.
As for an abortion argument, I’m not trying to “win” an argument here. I’m acknowledging that that would be an impossible task and useless to start here.
I can understand your idea behind the 2nd Amendment rights and abortion rights. And to prevent ANOTHER lengthy thread about abortion, unborn, rights, etc….I’m going to leave that analogy alone.
As for the reasonable rights you desire, what would those be? Additional restrictions? I’m curious as you say that a “majority” is against “assault clips.”
Just an aside…there is no such thing as an “assault clip.” What Loughner was using is called an extended magazine. There is also no such thing as an “assault pistol” or “assault weapon.” All three are made up phrases invented to elicit a negative response.
As for that commercial, those silhouettes would have had most gunners thrown out of a range. And that commercial talked about firing 30 rounds in 16 seconds, but he only fired 17……
I can empty my mag in about 20-25 seconds. I can empty 3 10 round mags in about 30 -35 seconds. Magazine size means nothing. And the gun control people want to use this issue to ban entire classes of weapons, make it a criminal offense to own or transfer such a magazine, and the latest bill does all this without any grandfather clause on currently owned equipment.
So, if you wish more gun laws, what would be your goal, speaking as one that is NOT really in the 2nd amendment fight?
@Cargo, I have never suggested more gun laws, to my knowledge. I probably have said I don’t want laws relaxed. For instance, I was not in favor of allowing guns in churches or in bars. I know I am opposed to guns on campus unless by law enforcement.
Actually, I would think it would be up to the church to issue permission to bring a gun to church. I can see why a church like Westboro might feel the need to protect themselves.
I don’t think there is an analogy to abortion and guns other than its apparently ok to whittle away at one set of rights and not at the other. It is the hypocrisy that I find offensive. I don’t want to ban all guns. Many 2nd amendment folks want to ban all abortion. I suppose I am saying that I don’t see the mutual respect being shown.
I own a Saturday night special. Now you and I both know that there is no such thing as a real ‘Saturday night special.’ I see no point in getting in an argument over semantics. If I say that to you, you know what I am talking about. I suppose ‘assault weapon’ hits you about like ‘abortion for convenience’ hits me.
I just realized, that time needed for emptying my shots are for aimed shots, trying to hit the target. I can, of course, empty a mag much faster, but, my rounds will be nowhere near the target.
@Moon-howler
I can understand your point. However, I don’t think that you were using semantics. I just wanted to point out that, since the gun banners use made up phrases, I did not want you to fall for their propaganda.
If you use terms like “assault clips” you just add to the confusion.
Btw, Saturday night special was a term also invented by those that thought inexpensive guns, easily carried should be outlawed. If that “special” is a .38 snubby, would a pistol designed to be carried by non-uniformed police be considered such? http://www.snubnose.info/docs/Model_36.htm
The irony is that the Brady Campaign’s push to outlaw normal size magazines and their demand that all new magazines hold only 10 rounds, in the ’90s, was what accelerated the popularity of small, concealable handguns like the Glock subcompact series. I mean, why use a large pistol when your limited to only 10 rounds?
Moon, you did realize that guns were allowed in places that serve alcohol PRIOR to current law, right? And those places can still put up signs restricting such today?
As for campus carry, non-students and non-faculty are allowed on campus at VCU. I think Virginia allows carry while crossing the campus, etc.
As for students, those carrying would be 21 years and older if the law stated that one must have a concealed carry permit.
I understand your concern, but, schools like VCU, that have an urban campus, cannot protect their students. Wouldn’t you want a student to be able to protect themselves as they use the campus at night?
@Cargo, under what circumstances?
And yes, any resteraunt owner may bar firearms. (for what good it does)
Urban campuses are not the only campuses where danger exists. I would buy a good can of mace. What are the regs against tazer?
And yes, my SNS is a .38 special but not snub nose. I don’t pay much attention to it. It is pretty much under the control of my son. I prefer turquoise to guns.
Ok, let’s talk about there being no loop holes.
Do private gun sellers have to do a back ground checks? How about if they are at a gun show?
Private sellers do not do background checks. Gun Dealers do have to do background checks. Private sellers are allowed to sell guns at gun shows. What makes the “loophole” non-existent is that those same sellers can meet in the parking lot, etc.
It is illegal to be in the BUSINESS of selling firearms with out a license.
If you want all private sales or transfers to go through an FFL, then there is added cost and inconvenience. Example…there are no FFL’s in DC. So, to transfer a gun, where does one go? The gun banners continually work to lessen the number of FFL dealers every year, with the assistance of the BATFE. Furthermore, to ensure that ALL guns are transferred through a background check, on would have to register them. How else would the gov’t know if someone got a pistol as a present or inherited them? Who pays the cost of the check? The seller, purchaser, or dealer? Is the dealer liable for mistakes?
Besides, do those background checks actually work? Loughner and Cho say no. The criminals that buy guns say no. The minuscule number of people prosecuted for attempting to by a prohibited weapon says no. The background check is “feel good” security theater.
How about this? When you are old enough to lawfully own and/or carry a firearm, your ID is marked. If you are adjudicated for mental problems or convicted of a crime, you ID is changed, once you are released. Everyone that has a “good” ID, can buy as many firearms as they want.
And, to make sure everyone is safe, lets teach gun safety along with driver’s ed in school.
Let’s not teach gun safety along with Driver’s Ed in schools. You sure are willing to use the schools to do your bidding. Who would pay for THAT?
Let’s leave gun safety training to the boy scouts and other groups. The NRA does a fairly good job right up off of route 50 around here. Private groups are often more than happy to volunteer their services either free or for a small fee.
It helps to know what acronyms stand for. So you are saying that it isn’t a loophole because that same person can go out in the parking lot and sell a gun? I feel freaking better already. NOT. I think ‘loophole’ is probably just too mild.
There are lots of folks out there who think that all fire arms sales private and public, need to come under regulation. How about no gun sales in the parking lot either. Whats the deal with mail order guns these days?
There is middle ground here. I suppose 2nd amendment die hards think they don’t have to compromise at all?
This area needs much more discussion. That is often impossible because of being shouted down. Fortunately the gun owners in my family don’t believe that they have an absolute right to do anything they want.
Mail order guns are delivered to the FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer of your choice.
Actually, the Bradys, etc, have come out AGAINST a system by which private citizens can do a quick background check. They demand that all checks go through a dealer, thereby increasing cost and inconvenience.
In all the discussions that I’ve seen on the web, including those with board members of gun control groups, not once has true compromise been done. The gun banners compromise by saying that they’s only restrict this “little bit here for our own good” and we keep the rest. Then they do it again, everytime they try to enact new laws.
Their new mantra is “gun safety” not gun control. They are trying to use the terms “assault pistols, assault clips, sensible gun laws, etc” to try and control the argument.
I think we are AT the middle ground. Across the nation, gun laws are becoming more liberalized. And its driving the gun banners crazy. Carry laws have enacted across most of the country. Open carry is increasing as is campus carry. And now, Constitutional carry, ie, no permit needed, has expanded to four states. The citizens have discovered that they’ve been lied to by the controllers. Increased carry DOES NOT lead to more violence, but seems to trend the other way.
So guns are never shipped to one’s house? Does the FFL dealer get a cut of the sales profit?
Just out of curiosity, why is it important for you to open carry into a restaurant? What if I don’t want to sit next to pistol packin’ Pete while I dine with my kids?
@Moon-howler
“Let’s not teach gun safety along with Driver’s Ed in schools. You sure are willing to use the schools to do your bidding. Who would pay for THAT?”
Why not? Its a life skill that’s sorely needed in our society. Why teach driver’s ed then? Or sex ed? Or “life skills”? All of these can be taught by parents, etc.
Heck gun safety would take only about a week or so. Its not like its rocket science.
Start in elementary school with a program similar to Eddie Eagle. Put it in the background noise with posters, etc.
Then when they are older, teach basic safety and the fact that guns are not toys. No range time is needed. In fact, no ammo would be needed.
As to who would pay for it? Well, we would, just as we pay for it now. Isn’t the argument that publicly funded schools, paid for by all, is a necessary burden for the betterment of our society?
Then, again, if my way of funding schools were enacted, with the funding being sent to t parents as vouchers, and all schools privatized, a parent could pick and choose what school to send the kids to.
@Cargo, would one opt in or opt out?
You are aware that public education is an American institution of long standing. Private schools are one thing. Privatized schools don’t have the best of reputations. Interesting what would happen to all those kids who are the NCLB subgroups. Who would take them?
Sped, ESOL, minorities, economically disadvantaged? Those guys.
@Moon-howler
Open carry used to be the only legal way to carry a firearm into a restaurant. Now it’s legal to conceal if the person has a permit and doesn’t drink. For patrons that don’t have a permit (18-20 year olds mostly or anyone that doesn’t want to get a FOIAable document from the government identifying them as a possible gun owner) it still remains a legal option to open carry.
Yesterday I went to the Stafford Lowes (#48 won this Sunday, WOOHOO!!) to buy some paint supplies and other things off the honey-do list. I shopped for over an hour while open carrying. No one approached me or my wife about me being a “pistol packin’ Pete”.
Open carry is about normalizing guns in public. To show that they’re no differnet than a watch, a cell phone, a piece of jewelry or any other fashion accessory or tool.
I can only recall one negative experience while OC (the guy threatened to assault me and claimed he was a federal agent) and only positive experiences (nice gun, is that a glock?, i feel safer now, etc.)
I think it’s upto an inviduals choice to be armed or not.
But they are different and I don’t want people to think guns are commonplace. I suppose that’s the difference.
If I saw you in Lowes with one, I would just assume you lived in a bad neighborhood. In a restaurant, I just don’t think its necessary and I would leave. I am not sure of the difference.
@Moon-howler
Parents with special needs can apply for additional funding. Those schools that wish to make more money can take those children. Incentives can be found.
As for guns in public. Remember, it was the LAW that required open carry. Concealed carry was what we wanted so that we could be discreet. Many carriers don’t like to open carry either. As for carrying in Lowes vs a Restaurant, why can’t the restaurant goer live in a bad neighborhood? Guns ARE commonplace. You’ve been around people with concealed firearms your entire life. I had to open carry when we went to eat after lobby day at the the capitol. Not one person objected to dozens of armed people. I don’t think that they noticed.
Open carry is no longer necessary in places serving alcohol. Now, we can be discreet.
Schools are not in business to make money.
Private schools are. Profit is NOT a bad word. Even non-profit schools need a profit to stay in business. Any excess is used according to non-profit regulations.
I have no problem with Harvard or Princeton charging a premium and maintaining a large war chest. After all, our public education system gets kids ready for (the superior) private education. 😉