The National Rifle Association yesterday ridiculed the efforts of Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly to reduce gun violence with expanded background checks. Slate’s Alec MacGillis explains why the NRA’s disgusting strategy is off-base:
But the big problem with the mocking argument put forth by Breitbart and the NRA (which did not return a call seeking comment) is that it misses the entire point of Giffords’ advocacy. She is not devoting herself to the cause of expanding background checks because that measure would have stopped Loughner, but because that measure is the one that police and criminal justice experts believe would have the biggest impact on reducing gun violence overall. The same was true of the families of the victims in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre: Universal background checks would not have stopped Adam Lanza, who got his guns from his mother, but the families wanted to push for whatever reform would limit shooting deaths, period. Making it harder for people with criminal records, histories of domestic violence, and adjudications for mental illness to obtain guns is one of the best measures at our disposal to do so.
In other words, Giffords and others whose lives have been upended by gun violence are thinking about others, not themselves—they are exhibiting a form of political empathy. It’s a concept that is apparently foreign to the NRA—which would help explain why the organization thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to casually taunt a victim of gun violence who is still trying mightily to recover from her near-death experience.
This article appears in Mar 5-11, 2015.
Way to keep it classy, NRA.
if gabby can’t handle a taunt she shouldn’t be in politics. there is no need to treat her like a porcelain doll
Really, fisheroftruth? Maybe you should have your brain ventilated by some nutjob and then let us know your stance on not treating Gabby with some respect.
But, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Not even an internet troll.
She’s not. This is her one issue now. You’re a dbag by the way.
I never liked Ms Giffords’ politics and some of El Crapo’s deals were questionable but she didn’t deserve the attack on her by a mentally deranged individual. Neither does she deserve to be used as a pawn in this stupid gun-grab crap.
Most people that I know here in AZ (neighbors, family, friends, acquaintances) responsibly own guns of some sort. They are not in the least bit afraid that government agents are going to swoop in and take them away. None are currently members of the NRA, and one good reason why they are not members is reported above.
They, and you, are nothing but tools (and useful idiots) for bigger forces. They are the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent.
But the NRA thought it was mean of Michael Moore to pick on a deranged Charlton Heston?
Background checks on private sales are a prerequisite to gun registration. And from there, confiscation. That is how it has worked every time. MS. Giffords knows this, and you all are advocating the infringement of a civil right. There are no laws that criminals adhere to, they only affect the law abiding. So there are two reasons to be against any of the Congresswomans ideas.
If you feel so strongly about violating a guaranteed civil right, pick one of the others to go with it. I would suggest the pursuit of happiness, because when the cops and military are the only one’s with weapons, you all will discover what it was like for the Polish Jews or the Armenians. Or about 70 million others murdered by their governments in the last century. No happiness there!
Think about that really hard, and don’t say it can’t happen here. It can. Just wait.