Never forget WHO Jim Brady was...

He was Ronald Reagan's press secretary prior to the assassination attempt.  That said here is Ronald Reagan on

Gun Control
 
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time, according to Salon.com.

In 1986 as president, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.”

After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers.

In 1991 Reagan wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times stating his support for the Brady Bill and noted that if the Brady Bill had been in effect earlier, he never would have been shot. He also urged then President H.W. Bush to drop his opposition to the bill and lobbied other members of Congress to support the bill.

In 1994 Reagan wrote to Congress urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

For some reason, the right has decided that these policies are somehow "wrong" and that they are in some way "liberal", yet there are loads of conservative statements from way back similar to those made by Reagan.

What's up?  Why play with public safety?

People seem to forget that there was a certain incident that led to the creation of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley.

I would add that President Reagan and Jim Brady were surrounded by armed Secret Service Agents.

This was written by Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association. 

So, next time you say that "gun control" is "liberal", remember that people like Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan supported it.

www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Published: March 29, 1991

Why I'm for the Brady Bill

"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.

It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.

I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.

Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.

Dan Gross on the Impotence of the NRA

Huffington Post

The NRA's bark was certainly loud, but its bite was toothless.

The facts are staggering. In all, less than 1 percent (actually 0.81 percent) of the (inaptly-named) NRA Political Victory Fund's political spending was spent in support of winning candidates. The NRA spent more than $100,000 in each of seven Senate races; its candidate lost in six of those seven. Not many House incumbents lost -- 26 as of last Tuesday -- but more than two-thirds of losing candidates (18 in all) had the NRA's support.

2012 is hardly the first election to prove that the NRA is not the political force it pretends to be. Paul Waldman analyzed NRA influence in federal elections from 2004-2010 and found that "NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races." 

Waldman also disproved the widely-repeated claims that the NRA was key to the GOP's takeover of the House in 1994, and to the 2000 presidential race. When one looks at the facts, it is clear that both races turned on partisan politics, not guns.

To those of us who study the facts, it is not surprising that the NRA is so ineffective delivering votes against candidates who support common sense gun laws. After all, the vast majorities of NRA members and other gun owners support the common sense gun laws that the NRA vehemently opposes. So no matter how many millions the NRA spends to tell gun owners that their freedom is at stake in an election, not many are buying it.

Concealed Carry in California

The Los Angeles Times reports

on the newest attempts on the part of gun fanatics to recover from their defeat over open carry. Of course some of the die-hards are now carrying unloaded long guns in some of the most beautiful beach communities of Southern California. A more ridiculous image is hard to picture.

They're trying to use the fact that they can no longer open carry a pistol as reason for loosening the restrictions on concealed carry.

There is also gross inconsistency among authorities in California's 58 counties on what constitutes good cause, which could lead to courts finding equal protection violations, said Stephen Halbrook, a Virginia attorney and frequent litigator for the National Rifle Assn. In remote Plumas County, one in 39 adults has a carry permit, according to state Department of Justice statistics for 2011. In Los Angeles County, one in 33,700 adults is licensed to carry, and in San Francisco the latest records show zero civilian holders among the county's 700,000 adults.

Statewide, the number of civilians with concealed weapons permits is 32,666, or 0.1% of the adult population. That compares with about 5% licensed to carry nationwide, according to Calguns Foundation chief Gene Hoffman.

What seems clear from these incredible numbers is that all the claims about how good concealed carry is for us are bogus. If they were true, California and especially San Francisco would be home to frequent mass shootings because the bad guys know there's a "target rich environment." Isn't that the silly expression they keep using about gun-free places?

What's your opinion? Is California the leader in gun control policies that work. The Brady Campaign thinks so.

Please leave a comment.

MikeB302000 Is Not an Extremist Anti-gunner

 From commenter Bob (not to be confused with Bob S.), over on The Truth About Guns:

+1 Although I generally disagree with MikeB302000, occasionally we can find small areas of agreement. Remember his posts about teaching his son about guns – That was a very intelligent and enlightening conversation.

By the way, MikeB302000 is not an extremist anti-gunner. He’s definitely not an irrational hoplophobe! I imagine there are a few things the Brady Commission has said that Mike would find a little extreme.

I’m glad Mike is around to provide a well-spoken ‘other side’s’ view occasionally.

Naturally I thanked him. The +1 indicates that the preceding comment also sang my praises, as did a number of others.

After a while, though, I got to thinking. Do I find certain things the Brady folks say "a little extreme." I couldn't think of any of the top of my head. Let's see.

From the Brady Campaign About page:

We should make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get guns in the first place.

We can do this by passing laws such as requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement’s efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.

Please be a part of our efforts. There are quick and easy ways to sign up to be part of our e-action network, to become involved if you are a victim of gun violence, to become an activist, and to donate.

Thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die and be injured needlessly each year without stronger, sensible gun laws. The Brady Campaign fights for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and your community.

Nope, nothing extreme there that I can see. What else?

The Mission Statement:

We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the dangers of guns, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that all Americans, especially children, have the right to live free from the threat of gun violence.

The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we represent victims of gun violence in the courts. We educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities.

No, certainly no problem with that. What else?

FAQ: What is the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center's goal?

Our goal is to protect you, your family and your community from gun deaths and injuries. In America, we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. There are only a few federal gun control laws on the books, and even those have loopholes. This leads to senseless gun violence affecting tens of thousands.

We should make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get guns in the first place. We can do this by passing laws such as requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.

We can also do this by exposing corrupt gun dealers who feed the illegal gun market. Our Brady Center legal staff works to hold those dealers accountable in court and to protect common sense gun laws when they are attacked in court. We work to strengthen law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market. We also educate the public about gun violence through grassroots mobilization and outreach to affected communities.

Thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die and be injured needlessly each year without stronger, sensible gun laws. The Brady Campaign fights for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and your community.

Again, no problem, nothing extreme at all.

What could explain this odd ability of Bob's to see that I'm just a guy with a differeing opinion but to view the Brady Campaign as extremists? If I had to guess, I'd say Bob has been influenced by his more hysterical fellow gun owners. I honestly believe the Brady crowd are no more extremist than I am and if folks would just give them a good look, they'd see that too.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

More on the Way Gun Flow Works

The Brady Campaign published a report about the numbers of guns that go missing directly from the manufacturers.

From 2009 to the middle of 2011, at least 16,485 firearms left gun manufacturer’s inventory without a record of being legally sold. The 16,485 “missing” guns are likely a vast undercount of the total number of guns that disappeared from gun manufacturers in the last two and a half years.

Now, this adds some interesting detail to our theory about gun flow. Many of the guns which end up in criminal hands are never even shipped to FFL gun dealers, they go directly from the manufacturer to the black market.

I call that fascinating. What do you think? Please leave a comment.

U.S. vs Norway in Gun Deaths

via Alan Colmes

via Dennis Henigan at the Brady Campaign

There are some in America who will use this shooting to assert that Norway's strong gun laws don't work or to support the American gun lobby's campaign to make it easier to carry guns in public places.  That would be a tragedy. It should not be forgotten that, in a typical year, Norway loses fewer than 10 of its citizens to gun homicide; America loses an average of 12,000.

Since the Norway massacre, there have been at least four mass shootings in the U.S., leaving six dead at a roller rink in Texas, one dead and eight wounded in Stockton, CA, nine teens wounded at a party in Florida, and seven wounded at a Casino in Seattle.  Our hearts go out to these victims and their loved ones as well.

Whereas a mass shooting in Norway is an extraordinary event, it is a regular occurrence in America. Whereas 84 shooting deaths in a single day is a historic event in Norway, described by the nation's prime minister as a 'national disaster,'  84 dead is essentially the everyday toll of fatal gun violence in America.

I think we're on the same page with Mr. Henigan. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Paul Helmke's Parting Remarks

 The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne Indiana reports

“We needed more people at the local level talking to their elected congressional representatives,” he said. “Even in northeast Indiana, there’s a lot of folks I know who agree with me on these things. I hear from them. They are NRA members, they are gun owners. But they agree with the specifics I talk about. But somehow I haven’t in northeast Indiana translated that into pressure on (former Rep. Mark Souder and Rep. Marlin Stutzman) sufficient to convince them. And that’s the same thing multiplied in congressional districts throughout the country.

“I came from the local level, and I see the power in change in Washington is coming from the local level, and I wasn’t able to translate that idea into juice at the local level to get it done. Looking back, I probably should have put more emphasis on that more quickly and started building at the local level … get our numbers up a little higher than they are now.”

Not to worry, Paul, that's exactly where we come in, grass-roots level carrying of the message.

The pro-gun bloggers and antagonistic commenters that we seem to have so many of are really a tiny percentage of what's out there. Many gun owners agree with the sensible gun control laws we're talking about. I predict a turnaround within the next five years.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

California Crime Down in 2010

via The SF Gate

The article talks about improved policing and social networking, but guess what? It's no coincidence that The Brady Campaign has determined California to be the number one best state for gun control. I'd say that's got something to do with it.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Paul Helmke on the 2010 State Scorecard

At the Brady website there's a wonderful interactive map.

Helmke on the Bradys

via The Huffington Post

President Bill Clinton once summed up the public service of Jim and Sarah Brady this way: "If it hadn't been for them, we would not have passed the Brady Law, and then the ban on assault weapons, and on cop-killer bullets...How many people are alive today because of Jim and Sarah Brady? How many? Countless."

How many people, indeed? From how many cities and towns and counties across our country? From how many races, religions, economic backgrounds and circumstances?

Since it's impossible to prove what never happened, we'll never know how many lives have been saved because of the contributions of Jim and Sarah Brady. It's part of their legacy, and ours, not to be able to count the vast numbers of Americans who are living out their lives and hopes and dreams because of Jim and Sarah's leadership in the movement to prevent gun violence.

The CSGV on the Reform and Modernization Act

Completely in agreement with Paul Helmke, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence published a statement dondemning the proposed new legislation.

H.R. 2296/S. 941 would make it virtually impossible for ATF to shut down rogue gun dealers, including those who repeatedly violate federal law. The legislation would require ATF to show that a dealer knew the specific law he/she was violating and intentionally disregarded that law, an extremely high and difficult burden of proof. It would also allow dealers who have their licenses revoked to transfer their remaining inventory to their "private collection" and sell these guns for 60 days without conducting background checks on purchasers!

What's your opinion?

Dennis Henigan on Heller and McDonald

I like this guy, I like everything he says.

Louisiana's Ranking

Nola.com reports on the Brady ranking for Louisiana.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence issued its state rankings last week and identified Louisiana as among the states with the weakest gun laws in the nation.

Louisiana tied for second to last place in America, along with Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky and Oklahoma -- earning just two points out of total of 100. Only Utah, with zero points, fared worse on the Brady index.

"Louisiana's elected leaders have done nothing in the past year to stop the flow of illegal guns within the state, failing to do common-sense things like closing the loophole that allows dangerous people to buy guns at gun shows without background checks," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which advocates for legislation to close the gun show loophole at the national level.

But Louisiana earned a couple of points in the Brady ranking for rejecting legislation that would have forced colleges and universities to allow concealed and loaded guns on campus.

What's your opinion? Why would a state with such weak gun laws not also allow guns on campuses? Is it possible that the issue of guns on campuses is not as straightforward as the gun crowd says?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Brady Campaign on "Bigotry"

The Brady Blog published a wonderful article about the so-called bigotry suffered by gun rights activists.

Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement. No, not kidding. Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho.

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

It is mind-boggling, but you’ve got to hand it to them: It takes a very skilled strategist to perform the social ju-jitsu necessary to turn what is, in essence, armed political bullying into victimization (after community members reject their tactics) and get others to nod their heads in agreement.

The truth, of course, is that guns and gun carrying are obviously not immutable characteristics of people, and that the whole cultural framework around the issue of gun violence prevention is a sham. (Brady Center Vice-President Dennis Henigan has exposed this most recently here and here.)

It's writing like this that makes The Brady Campaign the unchallenged leader in the gun control movement. The most enjoyable part for me is how the NRA strategists come up with some bogus idea, then several key figures in the gun rights movement with huge readership pick up on it, and then it's disseminated to hundreds of smaller bloggers who repeat and repeat what was originally said. With the incredible volume of repetition the idea begins to take on an increased credibility and before long it's carved in stone.

A recent example is the open-carry protesters, those misunderstood patriots blazing the trail for their brother gun owners. On the internet we've read hundreds of incidents comparing their efforts to blacks and gays and Jews. My idea is they would better be compared to tree cutters with chainsaws hanging on their utility belts.

What's your opinion? Do you think the Brady Blog post clarifies the misleading cries of bigotry on the part of gun enthusiasts? Do you think this is another aspect of the grandiose victimism they often suffer from?

Please leave a comment.

Brady Campaign Gives Obama an "F"

Politico reports on the Brady report card for Obama's first year in office.

President Barack Obama gave himself a B+ for his first year in office, but he gets an F when it comes to gun control issues, according to a leading advocacy group.

Calling Obama's record on gun violence during his first year in office an "abject failure," the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence said Obama has broken campaign promises and failed to show leadership on the issue.

"As a senator and candidate, he promised to stand up to the gun lobby and fight for strong gun laws," the group writes in Obama's 2009 "report card." "Unfortunately, that Barack Obama has been absent in his first year in office."

Why do you think President Obama failed to follow through on his campaign promises about guns? Is it just that there have been so many other important issues? Or do you think he never intended to live up to them in the first place?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Colin Goddard for the Brady Campaign

The Brady Blog post which featured these videos was mainly about guns on college campuses. I thought this first video made a better point about the background checks.



And in this video, I thought Colin did better than Bloomberg's friends. What do you think?

Eric Thompson vs. Paul Helmke

Here's a debate which aired sometime after the Virginia Tech shooting, pitting Eric Thompson, on-line gun dealer against Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign.



What possible motivation could Mr. Helmke have other than what he says? Does anyone really think he's lying when he says, "when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence?" Don't you think he believes that? I certainly do. And what's more, I agree with it.

In fact, I was saying exactly that before I knew who Paul Helmke was. I think we're both really saying things we really believe, with no sinister or ulterior motives, really.

On the other hand, we have Mr. Thompson, who said in a carefully worded comment that he was "warmly received by many of the students." Although that may be true enough, I find it hard to believe that the loved ones of the 32 dead kids would have "warmly received" him. What do you think?

Do you think Thompson is a bit cold-blooded in claiming that his company didn't help provide the gun but simply sold a legal product? Do you have any problem with that?

Helmke said, "We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns." Do you agree or disagree?

Please leave a comment.

Brady Campaign Stats

I decided to link to The Huffington Post's article rather than the Brady Blog one in order to capture the comments, which are typically divided. Paul Helmke starts off his essay like this.

With over 100,000 gun deaths or injuries every year in America, it is clear what we're doing now to reduce gun violence is not working. Last week, the Brady Campaign released our State Scorecard for 2008, the latest in our annual rating of the 50 states. Each state is evaluated according to a detailed set of gun violence prevention laws that it does, or does not, have. You can read the Scorecard here.

Some gun enthusiasts call this kind of report a pack of lies. Others pick it apart piece by piece, refuting every part of it in a terribly painstaking exercise. Both types are well represented in the HuffPo comments. I personally think it makes perfect sense to enact common sense gun laws and expect them to impact on the availability of guns to criminals.

One thing Mr. Helmke said is that pro-gun folks often lament that there are already too many gun laws. I've actually heard bizarre numbers quoted, I suppose adding up every single law in every single jurisdiction, even obsolete and overlapping legislation. Mr. Helmke pointed out that there are only a few that truly affect criminals, universal background checks for example.

Why are gun enthusiasts so adamant in their opposition? Are they really convinced that these are only the first steps towards confiscation? Does anyone really believe that? I certainly don't.

What's your opinion? Even allowing for bias, doesn't some of what this report offers make good sense?

Please leave a comment.

The Gun Lobby Will Go to Any Length

On the site Mother Jones, there's a fascinating article entitled “There’s something about Mary: Unmasking a gun lobby mole,” which was published on July 30, 2008. The authors James Ridgeway, Daniel Schulman, and David Corn have put the spotlight on the "industrial espionage" that goes on between powerful lobbying groups and their antagonists, in this case the NRA and the Brady Campaign. It seems, Mary Sapone is nothing less than a bona fide undercover agent for the gun lobby.

Using her maiden name, McFate, Sapone began posing as a gun control activist in the mid-1990s. Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, a grassroots gun control group, recalls first meeting her in the summer of 1998. The NRA was holding its annual convention in downtown Philadelphia, and the event drew the usual bevy of protesters. Among them was a middle-aged woman then living in Pennsylvania who made a point of introducing herself to Miller. In the following years, Miller would remember this encounter well, as he watched McFate rise from a street protester to a figure known nationally within his movement.

During Sapone's ascent through the ranks of the gun control movement, she worked for the NRA, according to a business associate.

On the Brady Campaign site a challenge of sorts is proffered in an article called, "The NRA's Dirty Tricks Revealed."

Brady President Paul Helmke wrote in his blog "When the National Rifle Association asks its members for their next contribution, they might want to disclose how much of that money will be spent to spy on gun violence victims and their families."

What occurs to me is another challenge to the pro-gun folks. Let's find a way to reduce the gun violence in America to the point that the gun-control people will get off your back. Instead of encouraging the "us against them" mentality, lets work together to get the guns away from the criminals. Some of you guys are too defensive about your "right to bear arms." The moment we start talking, you think we want to take your guns away. I don't.

Can we all agree there are too many guns in the hands of criminals? From there we can discuss what's to be done.