Giffords urges support for background checks
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords returned to the scene of the horrific shooting that wounded her and killed six people two years ago, urging senators Wednesday to pass background checks for gun purchases in her first public event at the site since the rampage.
Giffords, who is still recovering from her injuries, spoke fewer than 20 words in the parking lot of the Safeway grocery store in her hometown of Tucson in a brief but emotional call for stricter gun control measures.
"Be bold. Be courageous," Giffords said. "Please support background checks."
At one point, Giffords pumped her fist in the air and grinned.
Other survivors joined Giffords at the news conference, along with her husband, Mark Kelly. Giffords and Kelly have returned to the Safeway previously to visit the memorial, but Wednesday marked their first public event at the store since the shooting. Sheriff's deputies were there to provide security.
A gun control group started by Giffords and Kelly began airing a new television ad in Arizona and Iowa Tuesday urging Congress to take action. Giffords and Kelly support extending background checks to gun shows and Internet purchases. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up tougher firearm regulations Thursday.
"This discussion is not really about the Second Amendment," Kelly said. "It's about public safety and keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill."
Jared Lee Loughner, 24, was sentenced in November to seven consecutive life sentences, plus 140 years, in the Tucson shooting. The rampage happened at a meet-and-greet event organized by Giffords outside the grocery store on Jan. 8, 2011.
Kelly said it was not difficult to return to the place where his wife nearly died. As he spoke, shoppers and vehicles moved throughout the ubiquitous shopping center that includes a nail salon, a Starbucks and dry cleaners. It smelled like grocery store fried chicken.
It's places like this, Kelly said, that Congress needs to make safer.
Supporters gave Giffords a standing ovation as she arrived at the event with her husband and staffers. With Kelly's help, Giffords walked directly to a memorial outside the supermarket honoring the victims of the shooting, where she placed a bouquet of white roses and daisies.
Kelly, who was not present when the shooting occurred, recalled the massacre that took place two years ago on a chilly morning. Loughner walked toward Giffords and shot her once in the head before directing fire at the crowd around her. He released 33 bullets in 15 seconds, Kelly said.
"It was clear that the shooter had a history of mental illness, but he had easy access to a gun," Kelly said. "If things were different, he would have failed that background check."
Giffords occasionally rubbed her husband's back as he called for gun control reform and introduced the victims of the shooting. Many of the 13 wounded survivors underwent multiple surgeries and months of physical therapy.
Susan Hileman described her excitement before the 2011 event as she waited to introduce her 9-year-old neighbor, aspiring politician Christina Taylor Green, to Giffords. Green was the youngest of those killed.
"I am tired of this," Hileman said. "If we can save one life, if we can keep one family from feeling this awful, empty ache, if we can do something, and if that something is a commonsense something, if that something is a responsible step ... then I wonder what the problem is, people?"
Emily Notterman recalled that her son's bullet-ridden body was left on the sidewalk outside the supermarket for hours as investigators scrambled to make sense of the chaos. Her son, Gabe Zimmerman, Gifford's director of community outreach at the time, was 30 years old when he was shot.
"It's very hard to be here today," Notterman said. "The system is riddled with holes - bullet holes. It needs to be fixed."
Giffords, who is still recovering from her injuries, spoke fewer than 20 words in the parking lot of the Safeway grocery store in her hometown of Tucson in a brief but emotional call for stricter gun control measures.
"Be bold. Be courageous," Giffords said. "Please support background checks."
At one point, Giffords pumped her fist in the air and grinned.
Other survivors joined Giffords at the news conference, along with her husband, Mark Kelly. Giffords and Kelly have returned to the Safeway previously to visit the memorial, but Wednesday marked their first public event at the store since the shooting. Sheriff's deputies were there to provide security.
A gun control group started by Giffords and Kelly began airing a new television ad in Arizona and Iowa Tuesday urging Congress to take action. Giffords and Kelly support extending background checks to gun shows and Internet purchases. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up tougher firearm regulations Thursday.
"This discussion is not really about the Second Amendment," Kelly said. "It's about public safety and keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill."
Jared Lee Loughner, 24, was sentenced in November to seven consecutive life sentences, plus 140 years, in the Tucson shooting. The rampage happened at a meet-and-greet event organized by Giffords outside the grocery store on Jan. 8, 2011.
Kelly said it was not difficult to return to the place where his wife nearly died. As he spoke, shoppers and vehicles moved throughout the ubiquitous shopping center that includes a nail salon, a Starbucks and dry cleaners. It smelled like grocery store fried chicken.
It's places like this, Kelly said, that Congress needs to make safer.
Supporters gave Giffords a standing ovation as she arrived at the event with her husband and staffers. With Kelly's help, Giffords walked directly to a memorial outside the supermarket honoring the victims of the shooting, where she placed a bouquet of white roses and daisies.
Kelly, who was not present when the shooting occurred, recalled the massacre that took place two years ago on a chilly morning. Loughner walked toward Giffords and shot her once in the head before directing fire at the crowd around her. He released 33 bullets in 15 seconds, Kelly said.
"It was clear that the shooter had a history of mental illness, but he had easy access to a gun," Kelly said. "If things were different, he would have failed that background check."
Giffords occasionally rubbed her husband's back as he called for gun control reform and introduced the victims of the shooting. Many of the 13 wounded survivors underwent multiple surgeries and months of physical therapy.
Susan Hileman described her excitement before the 2011 event as she waited to introduce her 9-year-old neighbor, aspiring politician Christina Taylor Green, to Giffords. Green was the youngest of those killed.
"I am tired of this," Hileman said. "If we can save one life, if we can keep one family from feeling this awful, empty ache, if we can do something, and if that something is a commonsense something, if that something is a responsible step ... then I wonder what the problem is, people?"
Emily Notterman recalled that her son's bullet-ridden body was left on the sidewalk outside the supermarket for hours as investigators scrambled to make sense of the chaos. Her son, Gabe Zimmerman, Gifford's director of community outreach at the time, was 30 years old when he was shot.
"It's very hard to be here today," Notterman said. "The system is riddled with holes - bullet holes. It needs to be fixed."
We're used to this logic from the fearful left but Giffords is an otherwise intelligent, educated gal. She, more than anyone, knows that background checks do nothing to slow evil-doers in their mad quests.
@HawkEyeYou can associate "fearful logic" from the left, but conveniently ignore it's rampant use by the right with a strait face? Ok there Pinocchio.
@HawkEye"We're used to this logic from the fearful left"
As opposed to the fear from the right that expects massive drone attacks targeting innocent people seen through an over-encroching survailence network of cameras and CIA black choppers...?
Orcas....You are for domestic drones? Really? Why do I doubt that if Bush was talking about deploying these things on American soil you would be the first one in line to scream about it?
@sometimesright I favor them if used under strict control to keep surveillance on terrorists, drug runners, human traffickers...but note that I said "keep surveillance" NOT with armed capability. Right now we use police choppers to track the bad guys - which costs a lot of money, is harder to use close to the scene, and risks the lives of those on the bird. If you can get close enough to see who the players are, determine what their actions will be and intercept them before people are harmed, I see that as a huge improvement in police capabilities. Will there be errors of judgement? Of course, but those become known and reported, and break the chain of evidence needed to convict and put the criminals away - the same as the cases where police brutality has caused cases to be thrown out of court...that practice has been reduced because the police see that changing the facts costs the State time and money, and let criminals go free.
As long as the rules and standards are set high, and followed by the police, I see no problem with using drones in reasonable situations. And that might even include watching a high crime area where the police can't be on the scene 24/7 - especially for violent crimes.Â
We already have police choppers used to do this work. Look at the capture rate of the WSP Eye in the Sky that catches speeders, drunks and others disregarding the rules on the freeways - how is that different than using a drone that can do the same job, at far less cost?
I'll agree to that law when it requires checks for politicians and lawyers. It must also include their past political record that can be used against them to bar them from being elected again. What? They don't like people keeping a record to be used against them at a later date?
@Xirxious Small difference - elected officials are elected by the public...the public has no say on who should have guns.
Orcas...nor should they!
@OrcasThunder Do you even know what laws we already have in regards to guns?
@sometimesright that's an interesting statement. Here I thought the public was supposed to have a say in everything
@sometimesright So...the public should have no say about criminals having guns? Terrorists? The mentally ill? American anarchists?
@Xirxious snicker.... chuckle... Luv it!
Sad that her tragedy has become yet another pool of blood for the antis to dance in with the prospect of removing people's rights with emotional lobbying. I can't blame her, really....she's far too close to the situation to think clearly, not to mention possible brain damage from the shooting itself.Â
@dg54321"she's far too close to the situation to think clearly"
Actually, those who have been this close are FAR MORE CAPABLE of seeing the issue for what it is.Â
The gun folks yak about all the dangerous people waiting in the bushes to ravage home and family - and yet according to the stats, gun murders are at the lowest rate in years - 3.59 per 100,000 people, or 0.00359%...while accidental gun injuries are up 17.8 per 100,000, or 0.0179%...and gun suicides are at 6.28 per 100,000, 0.00628% of the population of the entire country - twice the number of murders using guns.
Frankly, I would trust the POV of someone who has actually encountered gun violence close up than that of an entire organization devoted to sell guns for the gun industry - which, BTW, has doubled the number of guns in this country since 2007. Fear, it seems, is good for business...
All those numbers come from http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.pngÂ
Ask any combat vet who they think understands the ugliness of war better - them, who experienced it up close and personal, or those who write about it in blogs...that is Gaby Gifford's opinion balanced against yours.
@dg54321 That's why I used Reagan's level headed response..... He survived John Hinckley's assassination attempt in 1981!
@Funky-Munky @dg54321 Yep.....a man that was shot by some nut and yet still stands up for the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. Gotta love it!
What rights are being removed? The 2nd amendment says nothing about the procurement process associated to firearms.It in no way limits the power of the government from requiring background checks, nor does prohibit the requirement of registration.
Neither of these actions violate âA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringedâ.It would not infringe on ownership until that information is used to disarm citizen that have not violated the law.
Want to gripe about loss of rights start with the Patriot Act that clearly stripped rights from the citizens of the United States.Â
Justaguy...bad logic. Just because the Patriot Act was bad legislation doesn't mean you should put more bad legislation!
my argument isn't whether or not it is good legislation. It is that what is being discussed in regards to background checks and registrations do not violate protected rights in the United States. Also I was pointing out that many who oppose this law supported the Patriot Act, so I question their desire to protect our rights.
I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong if that can be proven but so far it hasn't.
@Justaguy Yeah, how is Obama, who said he would undo all those nasty laws that violate freedom, doing on repealing the Patriot Act? Oh, he passed the NDAA, a vast expansion on the power to usurp personal freedom in this country in the name of "safety"? Hmm.....interesting.
It's infringing upon the rights of the citizenry not because of the background check itself but the aspect of keeping the serial numbers of said firearms attached to the person buying them. It's defacto registration, which history has shown us always leads to confiscation in short order.
I thought the story was about background checks and gun registrations. Not quite sure what Obama's views on Waterboarding or the use of drones has to do with that topic.
@dg54321 @Justaguy And when Obama states here that waterboarding is torture:
Obama on Waterboarding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8TaDrHHNXzI
Here his attorney general states that Obama has the legal authority to use drones on U.S. Soil to kill American citizens.
Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html
don't get me started about my mass dissatisfaction with President Obama.He is just has bad as his predecessor when it comes to citizen rights infringements.
But you simply canât claim a rights violation because historically people in other countries had leveraged similar data points. If you can point to where having a registration is a direct violation I would love to see it and probably would support it.However, leverage data is completely different that maintaining data.
@Justaguy Many are just venting anger...... And guess what? They're doing it justly!!!
I don't disagree I'm simply pointing out that the argument is not valid. Which I have the right to do, freedom of expression in this country isn't limited to a single view..
It doesn't mean that registrations are good it just means that they are within the rights protected of the constitution
@Justaguy No second amendments are being broken. The fourth amendment is. Keeping a database of 'potential criminals' who have done nothing wrong (YET according to them) is a violation of our right not to be searched because our name is in some database.
@Xirxious@Justaguy"Keeping a database of 'potential criminals' who have done nothing wrong (YET according to them) is a violation of our right not to be searched because our name is in some database."
The right to vote is also written into the Constitution - You are also likely in the list of voters, those who voted and those who didn't.Â
Thus far I have heard of no mass arrests of people that voted, even to remove any candidate form office. Nor is there any effort afoot to require those who do not participate to vote.Â
If you own a car, you are on a list. If you have garbage collection you are on a list. If you have HIV-AIDS, you are on a list.
i doubt you could claim that ownership is infringed upon because the potential owner feels uncomfortable about making a legal purchase due to the process associated to making that purchase.Having the right to own something doesnât prohibit the government from placing restrictions on the procurement process.For example here in Washington it is legal to own and use marijuana for casual use but it is currently illegal to purchase or cultivate it.
when did I say that? No I'm not in support of the Patriot Act and actively worked against its passage.
What I am saying is that having a registration database in itself is not a violation. The search that data could have been until the Patriot Act was passed and no we don't have that protective freedom
@Funky-Munky@dg54321@Xirxious@Justaguy"Sic vis pacem para bellum........"
@dg54321 @Xirxious @Justaguy I am thinking it's safer to plan for the worst.... enjoy peace? yes, because soon the world will know none! (just a thought)
@Justaguy Oh, so now you support the Patriot Act because it lets you do what you want? Some principles you have......
No the storage is not a violation. The search is potentially a violation, however the Patriot Act provides the government protection from that and I would wager that given the current law set that search is not seen as a violation.
@Xirxious @Justaguy Except couldn't you say the 2nd is being infringed upon (or rather being planned to be infringed upon) because it puts a "chilling effect" on purchase or sale of firearms with the requirements to go through FFLs for all transactions? Not to mention tracking every gun, no matter where it goes (except for criminals who transfer guns, of course). I get your 4A argument, and it's a good one.....I'm just thinking there is cause to claim violation of the 2nd as well.
As usual the delusional "We have to DO something" syndrome trumps reality and common sense. This story is a lie from start to finish. The lie by omission is the shooter got his gun without a background check.
The fact is Jared Lee Loughner PASSED a background check and bought his gun from a gun from a sporting goods store. Why was he not flagged as a nutcase in the system? Mainly because his mother worked for the county there and the local sheriff did NOT flag this nutcase as a risk.Â
The common sense solution is to require police agencies to flag druggies, nutcases and criminals like Mr. Loughner in the system IMMEDATLY when they are contacted by police so he would rejected. The Virginia Tech shooter also passed a background check because the police and courts did not flag him as a nut in the system.
@Goodwin"The common sense solution is to require police agencies to flag druggies, nutcases and criminals like Mr. Loughner in the system IMMEDATLY when they are contacted by police so he would rejected. "
Fine.
But, if he had bought the gun over the web, or from a private buyer, your method would have still allowed him to do so...legally. If those venues were also check enabled, he wouldn't. THAT is the common sense in this issue.
@OrcasThunder @Goodwin You can not buy a gun over the web without a background check, it has to be shipped to a FFL who will do the check, Are you really that ignorant of our gun laws?
@OrcasThunder Your ignorance to one law is hard enough to point out. I am not going to point by point your BS posts.
@OrcasThunder It is against the law to ship a gun to a non FFL, I don't rely on websites to tell me what laws I need to follow.
@DarkParty  "You can not buy a gun over the web without a background check"
Um, you missed/left out/ignored the part of my post that included "private seller"...
@DarkParty@OrcasThunder@Goodwin "You can not buy a gun over the web without a background check,"
The following set of terms from http://www.armslist.com/ requires your agreement before continuing.
TERMS OF USENotice that while #3 asks the reader to agree to "obeying all applicable enforcement mechanisms", it places that responsibility at the user's feet, with no wording the BINDS them to the requirement.
THEN, notice #2, which removes ArmsList from ANY responsibility involving having a BC or not.
Thus, it's the old "Wink and a Nod" - they say "we aren't making you take the check, it's all your choice...".
I clicked "agree", and went to the Washington State listings http://www.armslist.com/classifieds/washington and ran through a random sample.
Not ONE of them mentioned the words "background check". You might think that a seller, wanting to obey the law, would want to let the buyer know up-front that they would require one...
Oh, wait - these are private sales on the web - they don't require a BC...!
=============================
"it has to be shipped to a FFL"
I entered the words "background check" in the Power Search of the entire site:
No records found.
Â
""I am tired of this," Hileman said. "If we can save one life, if we can keep one family from feeling this awful, empty ache, if we can do something, and if that something is a commonsense something, if that something is a responsible step ... then I wonder what the problem is, people?""
 There are lots of things we could do that would save the life of at least ONE person or child. We have to balance that benefit against the cost. For example, we could limit the speed of all vehicles to 10mph. That would save thousands of lives! Of course it would be ridiculous because we'd never get anywhere.
Â
@nwbackpacker"We have to balance that benefit against the cost."
And what, exactly, is the COST of keeping a gun out of the hands of someone who should not have one?
Sure, they "might" find someone to sell the gun, but then there would be TWO people we could prosecute and put in prison, As it stands now, that seller would get away without even a slap on the wrist.Â
And maybe they would find someone who would sell them a gun, but then immediately arrest them for buying it against the law.
And unless they are a felon, or a restricted mental patient, they CAN buy the guns legally in a private undocumented sale that does not require a background check.
@OrcasThunder "And unless they are a felon, or a restricted mental patient, they CAN buy the guns legally in a private undocumented sale that does not require a background check."Â
And what is wrong with that?
Ronald Reagan, concerning gun control:
@Funky-Munky"Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up"
The problem with that is, there is no way for the private seller to KNOW they are thugs, and have a justified reason to not do the sale.
And many thugs can be very nice trustworthy looking people when they need to be. While the frightened homeowner whose neighbor was just burglarized may seem a bit two edgy and questionable to risk selling him a gun.