Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Husband to Launch Gun Control Group

They seek solutions that protect gun rights and reduce gun violence

Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly have launched a new campaign to push for laws that promote responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.

The announcement comes on the second anniversary of a mass-shooting in Tucson, Ariz. that left Giffords and twelve others wounded and six people dead. Giffords and Kelly said they have created a new political action committee and web site called "Americans for Responsible Solutions, " to counter the powerful influence of the gun lobby.

"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," Giffords and Kelly wrote in a USA TODAY op-ed. "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."

As both gun owners and victims of gun violence, Giffords and Kelly bring a unique voice to the gun control debate. They have not yet proposed any specific policies.

"Forget the boogeyman of big, bad government coming to dispossess you of your firearms," Giffords and Kelly wrote. "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."

Via USA TODAY

Will Giffords and Kelly help lawmakers strike a balance in protecting gun rights and reducing gun violence?

[armed_liberal]

I saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was "Schindler's List".

[Mogal]

Where in that article, exactly, did it say Gifford wants to take away your guns?

[Dan_Tien]

Very original. I must have seen thought remark a dozen times in recent days. Is it trending on Twitter now? Are you going to pop off a quip about "sheeple" "drinking the kool-aid" now?

[Dan_Tien]

@Dan_Tien Oh yeah, my typo is because of "that damned auto-correct".

[martydotcom]

Enough will the Schinder's List commentary. No original thought? That comment appears daily boring.
What is the problem with Giffords trying to raise funds to counter the NRA's salacious arguments. Is the NRA afraid that sane controls will inhibit gun ownership by mandating background check, maintaining database of mentally ill, eliminating hi cap magazines and the currently legal semi automatic available that are fully capable of firing 100 rds a min (see URL below). I believe their fear is that a majority of sane citizens don't possesses the extreme paranoia so common place among the strick 2 Amd. adherents

Here's a good gun-gasm video = Every home should have one of these

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[armed_liberal]

@Dan_Tien
It's a great quote. I must have said it 10 times in the last 2 days.

[Buzzfriendly]

I wonder if she had of been attacked by someone driving a car if she would be going after automotive control.

[AceLuby]

If it was a car whose sole use is to kill as many people as quickly as possible... you'd probably be right.

[ProCCW]

@AceLuby Have you ever shot a gun?

[AceLuby]

@ProCCW I go hunting every year w/ my step-dad. Duck, turkey, and deer.

[ProCCW]

@AceLuby Good for you and your step Dad.  I was just wondering cuz there are so many out there commenting about guns when they have never used one.  I hunt deer myself.  I do not agree with your statement that the sole purpose of a gun is to quickly kill as many people as possible. But you are correct in cars sole purposes is not to kill anyone. Unfortunatly there are crazies out there, there will always be crazies out there. A firearm is just a tool, like a car or a hammer. A crimminal bent on killing will find a tool to do the job. Eliminating any guns from those who abide by the law will not eliminate a weapon from a crimminal who does not follow the law.

[AceLuby]

@ProCCW I was not talking about guns made for other uses, I only have problems w/ guns whose sole function is to kill humans. And while I agree that you will never eliminate the threat of someone who wants to harm lots of people, that doesn't mean we should make it easy as stopping by wal-mart and walking out w/ weapons to do so (not saying that is possible, but you get the idea). Just like I want sane traffic laws and safety standards for cars I want sane gun laws and harsh punishments for those who break them. One thing I do know is that doing nothing most definitely won't work to help this severe problem.

[Mogal]

-waits for the uber-right wingers to not read this article and attack Gifford-

[Malitia_Man]

Why isn't she going after the phsycotropes that cause people to commit these heinous crimes? Ohhh... I forgot!!! They want the sheep zombiefied on those drugs!!!

[DARSB]

Medications cause mass murder?

[Malitia_Man]

@DARSB

No, but the numbing (I don't give a f*#%) effect they inflict on the user sure contributes to the actions of a person carrying out an assault on another person!

[AceLuby]

@Malitia_Man And you know this... how exactly?

[Malitia_Man]

@AceLuby

-Adam Lanza (Newton)
-James Holmes (Aurora)
-Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine)

What do all of these murderers have in common? Prescribed Psychotropic Anti-Depressant drugs!!!

The numbing affects that these drugs cause have been linked to an increase in suicidal tendencies of the user/s!!! So my question is, if these drugs can cause a person to take their own life, then why isn't it reasonable to believe that these drugs can increase and contribute to a persons will to commit an act of violence onto another person/s?

http://www.naturalnews.com/038353_gun_control...

[AceLuby]

@Malitia_Man Doesn't depression itself have a solid link to an increase in suicidal tendencies?

[DARSB]

Today (1-8-13) is the two year anniversary of her shooting.

I think we can agree on one thing - doing nothing doesn't work. The question, it seems to me, is how to find the balance between lawful, responsible gun ownership and the safeguarding of innocents from gun violence.

[AceLuby]

I agree 100%... unfortunately there are many who believe doing nothing is the right course of action...

[PNWest]

We lost JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK, John Lennon and many others. Maybe if Reagan hadn't made it the right would have gone along with gun control. As long as it is not right wingers getting blown away I don't see the right changing. I suspect that they might change their tune if somebody plugged Scalia or Clarence Thomas though. Each gun death costs society about $5.1M according to Businessweek.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-...

[DerivePI]

In case anybody is interested in educating themselves: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01...

They don't actualy offer solutions to talk about but if you read between the lines here is where they are looking (quotes taken from their editorial):

"Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets" - my interpretation - "make ownership of fully automatic weapons illegal - Not sure why we'd do this. I am not aware of any murders committed with these highly regulated guns

"Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks" - My interpretation - require a background check for all types of gun sales and stricter interpretation of mental illness - this one does concern me and is exemplified by Giffords own personal experience with looney tune Loughner. Worth talking about, but concerned with broad definitions of mental illness. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274...

"Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available" - My interpretation - Limit clip size to some arbitrary capacity - I think this one is not appropriate. So the killer will have to reload more often. This is not the answer.

"gun owners are less responsible for the misuse of their weapons than they are for their automobiles" - My interpretation - strict punishment for gun negligence regarding storage, handling, borrowing, etc... I've also floated the idea of requiring locked storage for weapons when not in use. The problem with any of these ideas is the enforcement.

[jessejaymes]

No issue is more conflicting to myself than the gun issue. I see these hillbillies racing around with shotguns and a confederate flag waving from the bed of their pickup and just wonder to myself what kind of idiots are armed in this country? I see gangsters in Los Angeles who are armed to the teeth. Illegally. And i wonder to myself what kind of idiots are armed in this country?.

I own guns and sometimes still go to the range and carry concealed sometimes but find myself wondering just what is the solution? The far right wants anyone and everyone to have a gun. They're willing to shoot up a 7/11 to protect the corporations profits just so they can. The far left is about as naive as naive gets thinking they are going to take all the guns. Hell, we can't stop ANYTHING from coming into this country illegally. We can't stop guns either.

I don't know what the solution is. i know what I would do if I were in absolute power. I would make it a federal crime of 10 years on a chain gang for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm. I would make it 10 years for being drunk and in the possession of a firearm in public. 10 years for being a documented gang member in possession of a firearm. And I'd clean up America with all those people working on our roads, our backwaters, our wherever.

But you can't take all the guns. It's simply not possible. I don't know what the Giffords have in mind but I can tell you pretty much what it's going to come to. Not much.

[DerivePI]

Just looked it up - Felon in possession of a firearm carries a 'maximum' penalty of 5 years. And here I was thinking it was an automatic 5 years added to whatever the other sentence the felon already has.

[jessejaymes]

@DerivePI California has the law that it's an additional five years to use a gun in the commission of a felony. But the thugs don't care. prison is a badge of honor to them.

[Cheenoguy]

Why not imitate the Swiss? Anyone over 18 who can pass a background and mental health test can have up to 3 guns which must all be registered. If I remember correctly (and I am not certain that I am) semi-automatics are okay but no high capacity magazines and they must be trained in the use of firearms.
Conservatives love to point to Switzerland when the topic of gun control comes up as proof that a nation can be armed and safe. I'm open to that.

[jessejaymes]

@Cheenoguy My initial reaction is to ask you if you have ever been to Switzerland? That's a country about the size of Rhode Island would be my guess. I don't have a problem with what you mention but I don't think it's enforceable in a country this size or this population.

[Cheenoguy]

@jessejaymes
Set up individual state departments. Let each state enforce the federal policy much in the same way that Medicaid is a federal program administered by the states.
Yes I know this will cost money, but I would argue that there are some things worth paying for.

[Knightkore]

I think this might actually be a positive thing. I hope the conversation can be open and respectful and that their concept will work. It will take everyone on both sides of the issue working together to come up with solutions that are constitutional...

[twinertia]

Brady Lite.....

[NormalFlora]

And the gun hoarders, fearing their imagined doomsday, keep buying, and buying, and buying. Cha-Ching!!!! Fear mixed with a weak mind means BIG profits for the gun manufacturers.

[jessejaymes]

You are correct. But then there are those like myself who own 4 guns and have considerable money invested in those guns. Who have them responsibly. I haven't purchased a gun in over 20 years. You won't take my guns.

[falco_alba]

Requiring registered gun owners to take a yearly safety and security course might be a good start. Promotes safety regulations and updated databases as well as the economy.

[ProCCW]

A safety test would be fine. Many gun owners spend a lot of time at the range. Most gun owners are better marksmen than your average LEO. I believe if you spend so many hours of range time, it should count as our saftey test. But they will add another fee or tax.

[Thegrif]

Why? Are there a lot of registered gun owners misusing guns. No gun law would have prevented this last mass killing. The people who use guns to kill others will never be involve in gun control classes, and will most likely never be a legal gun owner. So other than harrassing good responsible gun owners, what is the point.

[DARSB]

"The people who use guns to kill others will never be involve in gun control classes, and will most likely never be a legal gun owner."

As I recall, the weapons used in the mass murders since Tuscon were legally purchased. Indeed, the Newtown shooter had guns from his mother's legal collection.

[Thegrif]

@DARSB right, but as I said, people who use guns to kill others. In this last case I do think the mother was irresponsible, mentally ill son left home with guns, duh.
Gun control will not stop stupid.
See the shooter did not have a gun collection, as you said the mothers legal gun collection. Now if you wanna go after the mom for being negligent, then make the case. But explain how more gun control would have prevented a lunatic son from unlocking moms gun cabinet, stealing a gun, and killing those kids. I personal could pass any requirements they wanna make. I keep my guns licked away and secure and my ammo locked in another ace locked and secure, however could someone break in and steal them, well, where there is a will-there is a way.
Then also take a look at how many of those cases of multiple killing and see how many were on anti lunatic meds, which seems to have back fired, no pun intended.
So instead of putting the blame on a gun, lets talk to some doctors who prescribe these meds even though there are plenty of well documented case where these drugs are involved, maybe blame them, or family who knew the kid was worse, yet failed to act.
Far more people die from medical malpractice than guns, cars kill more people too. Plus when you look at gun deaths 70%, give or take, are gang related, which to me seems more of a social issue than the guns fault.
Now there are around 270 million guns out there, I should say known guns, from a statistical stand point guns do not kill often, if often is the right word.
We have people making bombs from tobacco cans and things anyone can by at the hardware store, are we going to have a big yard fertilizer control issue, no. Any teenage kids can learn how to make a pipe bomb on the net. See mental health and behavior heath seem much bigger issues to me, and far more to blame to me as well.

[AceLuby]

@Thegrif Maybe he has to reload more often and one less child is killed...

The question then becomes, what's the value of a child to you?

[Thegrif]

@AceLuby so you think he couldn't kill 20 kids without a semi auto weapon? Hmm, well he could have in about 60 secs.
But forget it lets say guns are outlawed all tigether, then what? Did bad people planning bad things give up their gun? Notta chance in hell! So this only accomplishes to take from good people.
Or did they just make a couple of pipe bombs with stuff you can buy in the hardware store and kill a lot more than 20 kids, like the kid in Alabama made and planned to do, or what about the guy that just stabbed 30+ people before he was stopped.
Killing is basic and easy, if someone wants to kill there are many ways to get that job done, especially when it is unexpected.
The state this happened in already has the structest gun control law in America, they didnt come in to play because criminal and crazy people do not obey the law.

[tomincali]

if there is not going to be a gun grab,what is their plans on the guns already owned? buying back or wanting those who have guns that become illegal? in away that is a gun grab if they expect someone who owns weapons and are expected to tun them in. also the gun buy backs do not even touch the worth of the gun,may as well make a few dozen zipguns and turn them in for what they offer.

[DARSB]

Guesses we'll have to wait to find out.

[AceLuby]

Those guns would be grandfathered and legal, though the sale of them to another would be illegal.

[cleverusername]

must be a true democrat let no tragedy go without exploitation....gabby tard for president...

[blue_yahoo]

Until as a nation and as local groups, we address why the violence is so prevalent in our society, it won't matter how many guns you take off the street or how many classes you take. Also our mental health system and laws need to be looked at and some hard decisions need to be made concerning why known mentally ill persons with violent thoughts/tendency continue to roam without any interventions.

[thejimbo]

The same thing happened when James Brady was shot in 1981, along with President Reagan. Little tangible good came of it. No reason to believe it will now either.

[HungryJoe87111]

As a fellow victim of violent crime (I was wounded by 2 FELLOW soldiers suspected of being Muslim sympathizers while serving in the US Army), I can certainly empathize with Gabrielle Giffords and her husband. However, I think they are operating strictly on emotion and not on logic. Abrogating Americans' 2nd Amendment rights will not make the country safer. The delusion that giving up freedoms means acquiring safety is covered on this web site, complete with US Department of Justice Reports which DO NOT support the case for more gun laws or bans of any particular weapons.
http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com There are direct links to statistics on causes of death in the USA and to Senator Dianne Feinstein's own web site, exposing disinformation she is propagating to ram this bill down the throats of The People of the United States.

[Waynestew]

While do people see gun-control as gun-ban? This seems like a very silly position. That is like saying birth-control is a sex-ban. I am a gun owner so I am not advocating the banning or repossessing of guns. I do want us to come together to figure out why these things are happening and see what the best ways of preventing them from happening are. I just don't think having an arms race with my neighbors is a solution to making me safer. But this is what the right is suggesting. If someone has a gun get a bigger gun. Where is this mentality going to end when every American has a tank park in the driveway and instead of a car.

[BelinKS]

I'll say yes for now. I do not know their mission statement because they have yet to write it. As gun owners themselves, I am willing to listen to what they have to say. The only problem with another group trying to effect gun legislation is that criminals will still be able to get any gun and ammo they please because of the country directly to our south. They will keep those arms readily available to anyone who decides to buy off the black market instead of going the legal route. That door was opened a long time ago and cannot be shut again. The US is culpable in this situation. Just look at the arms gained in the very ill conceived plan "Fast and Furious"! This was happening long before then. What do you think the US did with older weapons? Melt them down? No, they sold them to other countries.

[dcv1]

The right to bear arms as currently construed, is obviously archaic. It is the function of Supreme Court justices to consider and amend while maintaining the integrity of our constitution as applied. Unfortunately, their is little latitude for this amendment right, without dissection of firearm hardware, as a prerequisite.
If proponents for gun control can effect whats reasonably unnecessary, we MIGHT get somewhere.

[culinary]

AS many of you know, I am as pro-gun as you can get. But, I am open to legal, constitutional "answers". But what is the answer? I'm not sure that there are any. There are pros and cons to everything. Making everything illegal and taking everything back will not work. Letting everyone be armed to the teeth will not work. I have to agree with someone else, can't remember who, that posted about the CONSEQUENCES of ulawful use of a firearm. While prison is a country club, there is no punishment. Criminals kill people, whether in a robbery, gang shooting or just for the hell of it, they go to prison, do their time and don't care. So, until prison is a punishment for crimes committed, there is no punishment. Mental health treatment is expensive. And most that need it don't have access to it or can't afford it. So, until treatment is readily available and affordable, there is no treatment. Should a person be denied the right to own a weapon because they take antidepressants? No, because, based on statistics, most of the American public take one form or another. Guns are not cheap. So legal, responsible gun owners work for right to own these weapons. What they do with them, whether hunting, target shooting, or personal protection, is no one else's business. It becomes someone else's businss when they use that weapon while committing a crime.

I also agree with someone who said that there may not be a national database but that the information is readily available (hence, the New York fiasco). Do I care if my name is on a national database? No I don't. Because it doesn't matter. Should I be allowed to go buy an AR-15? Yes, I should. Should I have a background check to buy it? Yes and would readily submit to one. Should high capacity mags be outlawed? No, because again, it doesn't matter. A criminal can carry one 100 round mag or ten 10 round mags. It takes about a second and a half to switch them out.

So, what is the answer? I honestly don't think there is one. Because it comes down to this....a criminal will commit the crime that they wish to commit one way or another. Drugs are outlawed. Yet , 22 million Americans are dependant on ILLEGAL drugs. So outlawing guns will not stop a criminal from obtaining a gun and doing with it what they will.

[PayThatCEO]

You've touched on too many areas, none of which seem to be relevant to the types of shootings we're focused on.

Adam Lanza wasn't a "criminal" or on illegal drugs. Neither were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold or most of the other mass murderers. Mentally ill? Quite possibly. But even then it would be difficult to know whether they could have been diagnosed as homocidal.

Outlawing drugs isn't the answer either. In fact, illegal drugs are a major factor in criminal violence. What about alcohol? Tens of thousands of Americans are killed or wounded every year in alcohol-related gun violence. Should we go back to prohibition? I can see just as much furor over that as I'm seeing over this gun issue.

We can outlaw guns. We can't outlaw alcohol. We shouldn't outlaw drugs. BUT...what we have is an out of control society that seems to use violence as a way of solving problems. THIS must stop! We have GOT change ourselves. We must look in the mirror and resolve to stop this madness by becoming better people. The anger, the hate, the virulence that oozes from our society is probably one, if not THE, root cause of this upswing in violence. We are reaping what we've sown.

When we stop hating each other, stop hating the rest of the world, stop living in fear and paranoia and stop raising our children in such an environment I can almost promise we will see a difference and we won't have to give up anything else that we hold dear.

[PayThatCEO]

@PayThatCEO

Sorry. Meant to say we "can't" outlaw guns