Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly
Op-ed in Tuesday’s USA Today:
Our new campaign will launch a national dialogue and raise funds to counter influence of the gun lobby.
In response to a horrific series of shootings that has sown terror in our communities, victimized tens of thousands of Americans, and left one of its own bleeding and near death in a Tucson parking lot, Congress has done something quite extraordinary — nothing at all.
I was shot in the head while meeting with constituents two years ago today. Since then, my extensive rehabilitation has brought excitement and gratitude to our family. But time and time again, our joy has been diminished by new, all too familiar images of death on television: the breaking news alert, stunned witnesses blinking away tears over unspeakable carnage, another community in mourning. America has seen an astounding 11 mass shootings since a madman used a semiautomatic pistol with an extended ammunition clip to shoot me and kill six others. Gun violence kills more than 30,000 Americans annually.
This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we’re not even trying — and for the worst of reasons.
An ideological fringe
Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.
As a result, we are more vulnerable to gun violence. Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets. Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available. And gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles.
Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms. As a Western woman and a Persian Gulf War combat veteran who have exercised our Second Amendment rights, we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home. What we do want is what the majority of NRA members and other Americans want: responsible changes in our laws to require responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.
We saw from the NRA leadership’s defiant and unsympathetic response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre that winning even the most common-sense reforms will require a fight. But whether it has been in campaigns or in Congress, in combat or in space, fighting for what we believe in has always been what we do.
Let’s not be naive
We can’t be naive about what it will take to achieve the most common-sense solutions. We can’t just hope that the last shooting tragedy will prevent the next. Achieving reforms to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings will mean matching gun lobbyists in their reach and resources.
Americans for Responsible Solutions, which we are launching today, will invite people from around the country to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention, will raise the funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby, and will line up squarely behind leaders who will stand up for what’s right.
Until now, the gun lobby’s political contributions, advertising and lobbying have dwarfed spending from anti-gun violence groups. No longer. With Americans for Responsible Solutions engaging millions of people about ways to reduce gun violence and funding political activity nationwide, legislators will no longer have reason to fear the gun lobby. Other efforts such as improving mental health care and opposing illegal guns are essential, but as gun owners and survivors of gun violence, we have a unique message for Americans.
We have experienced too much death and hurt to remain idle. Our response to the Newtown massacre must consist of more than regret, sorrow and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve fellow citizens and leaders who have the will to prevent gun violence in the future.
Giffords and Kelly are weighing in heavy. They don’t want to strip away people’s guns. They want some restrictions on guns that can kill mulitple people in just a few seconds. they want a dialogue. They feel Congress has done nothing.
People like Colin Goddard, Gabby Giffords, and countless others who have been victims of gun violence are not going to be silenced any more and they aren’t going to be talked over by the gun lobby. It’s that simple. I think we all should probably prepare for some change. There have been enough massacres and there have been enough platitudes given.
Nothing will fix all violence. However, a healthy debate needs to happen and slogan and bumper sticker expressions really aren’t going to cut it any more as reasons to do nothing anything goes gun laws.
They are lying. They clearly do want to strip away certain types of weapons and magazines from gun owners under the guise of “common-sense solutions”. They do not get to define “what’s right” for me.
I think when you are a victim of a gun massacre, your voice reaches a higher plane than others, it just that simple to me. The recent rant of the nutcase on Peirs Morgan has done no favors for people unwilling to even egage in sensible dialouge.
General McCrystal was really great on the subject of high powered military style weapons.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/exclusive—stanley-mcchrystal-extended-interview-pt–1?xrs=share_copy
I think they were pretty clear about what they want. They didn’t lie.
I think what is right for them is to not get their brains blown out.
They may very well get to define what’s right for this society, as people who have been brutalized the most severely by our refusal to make common sense rules.
So, when the victims of said crimes support INCREASED liberalization of gun laws, support more gun carry, etc, do those people also get the support of a “higher plane” or more validity than others?
The overuse of the the term “common sense” is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a “common sense” gun law since your definition is different then mine and both are different from Feinstein’s.
I agree about the Jones rant, but that was Morgan’s purpose. But then, Morgan doesn’t want a dialogue either.
As for Prof. McCrystal, we already know he says stupid stuff, that’s why he’s a former general. Just because he’s prior Army does not mean he knows squat about civilian armament requirements. The .223 is NOT a powerful round and the semi-auto AR-15 is no different than any other semi-auto rifle. By his logic, ALL rifles need to be removed from civilian hands. Remember, the FT. Hood massacre was exacerbated because only Nidal was armed. The military is all about gun control. Military MEMBERS are usually pro-2nd Amendment.
You are doing binary talk again. I am pro 2nd amendment. Bet that means something different to you than it does to me.
Common sense? Since we are talking about public safety, it is becoming increasingly clearer what is common sense and what is not.
.223 is not a powerful round? Does it kill multiple people in seconds? Its powerful. What is powerful to me might not be powerful to you. Not saying it needs to be removed. Just saying that I think most guns are powerful by definition.
I am not sure McCrystal says stupid stuff. I think he just took someone in to his trust he shouldn’t have.
You want unfettered accesss to any and all weapons. There are a bunch of us out here, many of us gun owners, who simply do not.
I do wish that they were as interested in spending controls as they are in gun controls. I suppose, however, that the consistency here is that in both cases they want to take what is mine – legally earned and/or purchased – and do so for my own – in their view – good. I want freedom of choice.
Blue, they don’t want your guns. Read the op-ed.
Cargo, I think what I am trying to say is, at least the past decade, in my case even longer than that, people have felt almost bullied into to not mentioning any restrictions on weapons, especially in Virginia. I thing that tactic isn’t going to work any longer. I was pretty much over it the day that psycho freak shot up Va Tech.
By the way, what happened to all those promises made about mental health changes in this country? Fairfax County was not allowed to tell Tech that Cho was a nut case. By the same token, Tech refused to act on complaints by students and faculty until a star professor refused to teach him. Even then, he was farmed out for one on one to another faculty member, rather than him being dealt with. Passing the buck is still going on.
But no one hollers. Everyone still wants to “stop spending” when its obvious that mental health is a long neglected area and is often first on the chopping block. Laws need to be changed that are ignoring serious mental health issues under the guise of privacy. Instead our legislators are wasting time over ultra sounds and debt ceilings.
I think we could argue about spending until we’re blue in the face. More at the heart of the issue, why do (for example) public schools and universities tiptoe around mental health issues? I argue that their delicacy (translation: deference to lawyers) is what kills people. Cho went on a killing spree precisely because of that sensitivity. As another example, it’s hard to get justice for kids who have been bullied, because often the bully’s right to privacy trumps the parents’ and student’s right to find out whether any disciplinary actions have been taken at all. We’re all so sensitive, respectful and discrete, even when it comes to people who could possibly pose a threat. And then when someone finally cracks and kills a bunch of people, we’re all wringing our hands and looking for the easy solution–“Let’s ban something, quick!”–and an easy scapegoat–“It’s the NRA’s fault!”.
I have to wonder that, if Giffords were a Republican, whether she would have the same credibility if her position did not involve fighting the NRA.
@Emma, I know lots of gun owners who wouldn’t go near the NRA. They do have a nice range. [she said hypocritically.]
You ask about schools tiptoeing. They are following the law as it is spelled out to them. The laws must change. Privacy needs to not be able to trump public safety.
Some of it is tied in to HIPA laws. (sp?)
I am not saying throw patients rights out the window but…there should be levels of privacy…sort of a need to know basis that still protects provacy but doesn’t endanger the rest of us.
Lady Emma (love the new moniker BTW)
Does Joe Scarborough count for republican cred? He had a great summation of his feelings recently and his new world view about guns after the tragedy of Sandy Hook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA_0-ZltUL0
@Lady Emma
Ditto. I can’t say it better so I won’t.
@Moon-howler
The laws must change. Absolutely. Cho and Loughner SHOULD have been adjudicated.