Start A Petition

Gabrielle Giffords and Husband Launch Campaign Against Gun Violence

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: gun control, Newtown Massacre, gun violence, children, news, government, ethics, media, lies, politics, americans )

- 1933 days ago -
Today, marks the second anniversary of the Tucson shooting and attempted assassination of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that killed six people and left her critically injured.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Rose Becke (141)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 1:04 am
Good for him after what his wife had to endure

Carol H (229)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 5:15 am
noted, thanks Cal

divergent r (309)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 9:12 am
you beat me to it,thanks Cal

divergent r (309)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 9:16 am
I just reread the article, no mention of the new website that Gaby and husband have started.
Don't remember the name will do some research and get back to this subject.

Jim P (3257)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 12:32 pm
Gabby Giffords

A very brave and awesome woman...

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.


Dear fellow American,

Two years ago, a mentally ill young man shot me in the head, killed six of my constituents, and wounded 12 others. Since that terrible day, America has seen 11 more mass shootings – but no response from Congress to prevent gun violence. After the massacre of 20 children and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary though, it’s clear: This time must be different.

Americans for Responsible Solutions will encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership by communicating directly with the constituents that elect them.

Join us today, and tell your elected leaders that Americans are demanding responsible solutions to reduce gun violence.

Please take a moment to read our op-ed.


.Ty, Cal.

Lois Jordan (63)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 1:13 pm
Noted w/much thanks, Cal.
*I can't currently send a green star to Jim Phillips since I sent one already this week.....but a batch of stars and thanks to you, Jim!

Kit B (276)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 2:42 pm

For each time I have seen this I have stated much the same thing. I believe that each time we prepare to address an issue we have so many groups that none have any power. Let all of those voices, and money come together under one strong group. A strong voice of and for the people, one that has greater clout than the NRA or any lobby because we have the LOUD voice of the American people. As it is with every issue we find ourselves torn between so many groups that none have any significant meaning.

John B (185)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 4:56 pm
Thanks Cal for the link to the article. Kudos to the Giffoers for the action but I like Kit think there needs to be a national coalition umbrella organization for all the gun control groups to gather under and become one BIG & LOUD voice to oppose the NRA. Read and noted.

Winn A (179)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 6:21 pm
What an amazing couple.

Ray M (0)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 7:16 pm
Congrats to them both but will need a lot of luck getting anything done in this money-loving, gun-toting repugnant republicon and blue-dog idiot congress. NRA owns them as well as does their corporate criminal millionaires.

Scott P. (0)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 8:41 am
Gun "control" will NOT stop mass shootings nor mass killing... Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun... have you even bothered to notice that all mass shootings where more than 3 people are shot ALL happen in "gun free" zones??? Do you know why??? The cowards perpetrating the "mass" shooting wants fame... they can't get fame if there is a chance someone else may have a gun and stops them, they need a HIGH body count to be famous... Get a clue... give concealed carry to everywhere without gun free zones!!!! Arm the citizens...

Carrie B (306)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 8:47 am
We seem to have a new troll.

Scott P. (0)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 9:59 am
you seem to be an idiot who refuses to even look at another opinion or idea and check it for validity

Carrie B (306)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 10:50 am
Name calling is a telltale sign of the weak minded and immature who are unable to express themselves adequately and become angry with those who disagree with them.

Thomas P (280)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 11:31 am
Noted...thanks Cal. Blessings to former Rep Giffords and her husband. Kit ..what a great post! Scott P..."The cowards perpetrating the 'mass' shooting..." are batshit crazy, that's why they perpetrate these shootings. Lax gun laws allow them to kill with impunity, and that's what can be mitigated, iif not prevented. We can't stop all the crazies from killing, but we can at least limit the number they kill when they do strike and the duration of their attacks, in part by limiting the capacity of a magazine. By establishing a registry for the mentally ill and identifying those that are at risk (i.e., those accused of domestic violence, those with restraining orders against them, et al) we can also prevent some from obtaining weapons legally. By strongly punishing straw buyers, we can cut down the number of illegal gun sales. And by banning assault weapons, we can eliminate putting any more of those weapons in circulation. The idea of arming all citizens has only exacerbated the killings as gun ownership has increased in the past several years. In 2 years, there will be more guns in this country than people. We have about 90 guns per 100 people in America, a ratio higher by far than any other country in the world. I don't think there are any serious people proposing such an idea, as I'm sure they know they would not be taken seriously.

And there are very few intelligent people who will take another seriously if he or she resorts to ad homonym attacks when reacting to a point of contention. I think you'll find that many on Care2 will at least consider the other side of an issue and listen to arguments for and against their position...unless and until they are personally attacked. And you will find few people anywhere more knowledgeable, or more kind, than Carrie.

Nancy L (141)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 9:22 pm
Amen Scott.

Smoke and mirrors. This is not the issue. If banning guns and restrictions worked why not just ban murder...oh wait...there is already a law for that. When are you going to ban baseball bats or knifes? Do you know that Mrs Gifford was not shot with what you are calling an assault rifle?

Get real people. Guns are not the issue. There will always be weapons. Not to mention the 2nd amendment is clear on this issue....I know, I don't agree but really....if banning something worked there would be no drug addicts.

What about the decline of morals and the lack of real punishment of repeat criminals? How about addressing the lack of real solutions for mental health issues?

Do any of you really care about addressing the real issue?

Nancy L (141)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 9:24 pm
So true Kit.

Nancy L (141)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 9:29 pm

In a recent study two Harvard professors determined that banning guns will not solve the violence or murder problem. That in fact, guns really have nothing to do with it. Instead it is instead a matter of culture.

The reason that gun ownership doesn’t correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. “Ordinary people,” they note, “simply do not murder.” Rather, “the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership” in their society.

Therefore, “banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates.” According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, “there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive.”

The sort of reasoning Kates and Mauser use for seems to be foreign to those who want to ban guns. It is not a problem of law abiding citizens because, as the authors state, law-abiding citizens don’t commit murder. Consequently, taking their guns away will have no fact other than to make them easier victims. The counter gun culture tries very hard to correlate guns with violence and murder. But looking at the number of guns owned in America as well as the number of Americans who own guns (45 – 52 million), we see that in reality gun crime and gun violence are statistically small. As the authors state disarming law-abiding citizens is “not just unproductive but counterproductive.”

Additionally, they use these things called “facts” to gut the myths that have grown up around gun ownership and violence. For instance, the myth surrounding the Soviet Union and its strict gun control.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.” In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world’s highest murder rate.

To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia’s extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

The authors also look at the gun control policies in Europe and find evidence that counters the correlation between gun ownership and violence.

More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary’s murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria’s, but Austria’s gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary’s. “Norway,” they note, “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands,” in contrast, “has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) … yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian.”

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, “murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced.” As the authors note, “strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world.”

Citing England, for instance, they reveal that “when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime.” By the late 1990s, however, “England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns.” As a result, “by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.” In America, on the other hand, “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s.”

So, if one is honest and reads the evidence clearly, they are left with the understanding that the attempted correlation between gun ownership and violence doesn’t really exist. In fact, it appears that it is indeed the culture that is the cause of violence. One could even argue that disarming the public makes them the culture of victims. For example, one of the things we hear about England is that there has been a vast increase in “hot burglaries” since firearms have been banned. That ban has emboldened the criminals. They no longer fear the homeowner. They know the homeowner does not have a gun. Why? Because they’re law-abiding citizens.

Finally, Kates and Mauser talk about the seeming change in American culture and its impact on violent crime.

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that “the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world,” where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

As should be obvious to anyone, those that are murdered really don’t care about the means that murder. Dead is dead. The key to reducing murder is cultural. It has nothing to do with the weapon involved. As Kates and Mauser pointed out the per capita murder rate in other nations is often higher than ours. And many if not most of those include countries with strict gun bans.

It should seem clear, given the experience of many European countries with strict gun control, that banning guns does not solve the murder and violence problem. It would be nice for a change if we would learn from the experience of others. As horrific as the Newtown massacre was, it wasn’t perpetrated by a person anyone would consider a law-abiding citizen. In fact, he had no concept of the principle of law or his responsibility to abide by it.

If we want to learn from that incident, the lesson isn’t about guns. It’s about how inadequate our means of handling those who pose a danger to society really are. Megan McArdle does a good job of discussing that very important point.

This study seems to point to what many would argue is obvious. However there is a strong, emotional lobby that continues to want to ignore the primary problem in favor of banning the instrument of murder in this particular case. It is foolish and shortsighted. It would be feel-good legislation, made in haste as usual and in the end accomplishing nothing. We have a history of knee jerk legislation made in haste in which the consequences are unforeseen and usually unintended.

What should be clear is we don’t want to end up like England.

Scott P. (0)
Friday January 11, 2013, 5:53 am
Hey Carrie... is your weak mind why you called me a troll???

Scott P. (0)
Friday January 11, 2013, 6:01 am
Wait a minute... never mind... your'e just a hypocrite... I get it.. move along folks, nothing to see here

Scott P. (0)
Friday January 11, 2013, 6:14 am
Thomas.. if I may address your post here... "but we can at least limit the number they kill when they do strike and the duration of their attacks, in part by limiting the capacity of a magazine." ...if they can't get a 50 round clip, they will buy 5 10 round clips... you do realize it takes less than 2 seconds to swap a clip right?? Not really enough time to realize the shooting has stopped and decide to make a move to attack the attacker, unless of course, you too have a gun.

An argument I heard for high capacity magazines... from a former SWAT officer - 3 trained swat officers fired 60 rounds to stop 1 guy; they hit him twice. - these are trained professionals... If you are in process of protecting yourself in your home, you may certainly not want your gun to run out of ammo at 10 rounds trying to hit someone hell bent on getting you. You may need more than that to hit a moving target, in the dark, especially.

I do agree, there should be strong punishments for those who illegally acquire and/or provide firearms as well as for those who use them illegally as well.

As for the attack I made, I was responding to an attack by one of your high class members here who called me a troll. I am not allowed to defend myself?

Nancy L (141)
Friday January 11, 2013, 11:24 pm
Scott there is a double standard on care2. One for liberal members and one for more conservative members.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.