January 8th was the 1 year anniversary of the Tucson shooting that killed 6 people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Throughout the country a “Too Many Victims Lost To Gun Violence” Vigil took place to remember that, in at least 68 cities. One of those was in San Francisco, and it was at Yerba Buena Gardens in the early evening.
I found out about this through a fairly ironic channel; I had been watching the Northern California Open Carry organization's facebook page to see when they would have an event, and they were discussing whether to show up at the SF vigil with their guns.
The vigil sounded interesting enough, and I was curious if the Open Carry people would show up. They didn't, and though I was worked up for a spectacle, I'm glad they stayed home.
Recently I've been having an internal debate about the issue of gun control. I'm all for it, and I'm aware that the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. Now I would be first in line to claim that the right to peacefully assemble is constitutionally protected, and doesn't have any limitations on it like only until 10 PM. I don't think the right to bear arms is limited either, and there's my dilemma. Why do I only want to follow the constitution when it suits me?
Still, when our forefathers came up with all of this, I doubt they had any idea what kind of arms would eventually be developed.
One of the representatives of a co-sponsoring group for the vigil was Juliet Leftwich, the senior director of the Legal Community Against Violence. I asked her about the right to bear arms and her reply was “Citizens do have the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has held that a person has a right to a handgun in self defense but there is not a constitutional right to have a large capacity ammunition assault weapon. The court has found there's an exception to dangerous and unusual weapons.” I'm not sure I'm sold on that, even though I basically agree with her.
I spoke with another organizer, Karen Arnson, and besides being there to honor the 1 year anniversary of the Tucson shootings, she said “we're here to remember all of the victims. Too many dangerous people can get their hands on dangerous weapons. Tonight is mainly in memory of the victims and the survivors and to give them a voice because they're not here.”
There were around 8 speakers, including State Senator Mark Leno and Assemblyman Jerry Hill.
The real heart of the event for me were the speakers who had either been victims of gun violence, close to where it happened, or had known gun violence victims. Their stories were heartfelt and sad, and made the point clearly and poignantly. I've included a video of 4 of those speakers. It was moving to be in their presence and to listen to their stories.
The other organizations that sponsored this event were Youth Alive and The California Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. The national Brady Campaign seems to have put the whole thing together. I counted around 65 people in attendance though the local news station KTVU said it was over 100. Other cities with vigils included Washington DC, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles.
I asked attendee Mary Hennessy why she had come to the vigil, and she told me “I'm concerned about violence. I work in Oakland, in affordable housing, and people that live in our buildings are effected immensely by violence as are everybody, and I feel like we're all responsible for it, we're all responsible to work to find solutions.”
Wise words, and when I heard them I was glad I had come out to the event. I wish more had come out too, but every effort helps us on the difficult path to making things safer and better. I just wish I could resolve my own contradictions about this constitution stuff. I'm working on it. And that's a start.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
ManhattanWhiteGirl
essaysandmusic
Julie Morse
Dan O'Mahony
designanator
podunkmarte
Salon.com
Comments
I cannot stand these gun rules in the US. In Kansas I do believe you can carry one in your pocket to get your hair cut,
I dont like guns and that is my opinion. I am so glad those people stayed home and let Gabby have her day.
Well done my friend.
HUGGGGGGGG
i have long advocated that all firearms be licensed and insured in a manner similar to automobiles
- take a course on gun operation and safety
- pass a test on the "class" of gun you seek to own/operate (shotgun for geese, deer gun, handgun for defense)
- show proof of insurance (rates based on age, experience, security of storage when not in use, etc)
- acquire your weapon
So in reality, if you do not like the existance of the NRA legislative wing, you need to go complain to those who created them.
Go to a mirror, look at yourself, and start yelling. Then if that is not enough, your welcome to slap yourself silly.
Then again, have never comphrended why the parents who birthed a child, wouldnt be proud of said child, learning how to play the game they taught the child, better than their parents eh.
Baltimore- Interesting idea
VA- I'm uncomftorable with the gun culture, still trying to figure it out, which is why I've been waiting to check out an open carry event to talk to those people to try and understand them.
lschmoopie- Thanks!
second, I am one of the "gun people" that are spoke of. I'd simply like to offer the other side of the equation. My goal (and MOST gun carriers) is not to convince you to start carrying guns or even LOVE the fact that we carry ours, but more so to get you to understand to simply RESPECT our decision as long as we are being safe with our guns.
I've read a couple posts online about people OC'ing their own guns at these candlelight vigils for victims of gun violence, but there were no confrontations, no spectacles made, no one was there to spark a debate, it was simply to remember the victims of gun violence and pay respect to them.
Just because we carry guns doesn't mean we want to add to the victims of gun deaths - just the opposite. We actually carry for the same reasons you have a fire extinguisher in your home, seatbelts in your car, insurance policies, and emergency exits - just in case!
You have a fire extinguisher in your home, but I'm pretty sure you don't expect to ever have to use it. Chances are you won't, but if you ever need it, you want it right there with you wouldn't you? Why? to preserve your life, your family's life, and lastly your goods that you've worked so hard to obtain.
You have life insurance. No, you don't expect to die. You hope you never have to use it, and chances are you won't have to use it anytime soon. But it's great to be there just in case. Same with our guns. We don't expect to have to use them, most of us hope and pray we won't ever have to, we even take precautions to avoid circumstances that would increase the probability of us having to use our guns (staying in well-lit areas, steering clear of crime-infested neighborhoods whenever possible, traveling with groups of friends etc) but as we all know that isn't a perfect situation. No where is 100% safe. Criminals pop up from all over and we choose to simply protect ourselves JUST IN CASE.
I agree that some gun owners make a horses' rear end out of themselves with their carry tactics (like the infamous Kwikrnu walking around with his Draco pistol with the tip painted orange) and make us look bad, but he is less than 1% of gun owners. The gun owners consider him an idiot. He's been banned from just about every gun forum on the web for his antics and the damage he does to our cause.
But I'll try to wrap up my response, all we want is for the constitution to be upheld, it says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" This means we have the right to our guns, just as you have a right to speak out against it if you feel it's necessary. So be it. I respect your right to speak out against it, it's your opinion. So why can't you simply respect my right to keep my holstered handgun on my person?
One thing I've noticed from a lot of anti-gun people, when they end up in a dangerous area, they're usually very happy I have my handgun on me. Especially the 3 times I've prevented robberies with it. No one was shot, I merely held the suspects at bay until a law enforcement officer arrived. I didn't want to kill anyone, but even more so, I didn't want to be killed or have my friend raped on the same token. Now she doesn't carry herself, but she respects my choice and doesn't give me any grief about it.
Fact of the matter is, most people either don't notice it, or notice it, but just don't care, some just ask questions about the legality and what qualifications are needed to carry a sidearm. I happily answer all. I feel my friendly demeanor puts them at ease. Appearances are everything.
I've never had a "Oh my god it's a man with a gun" call on me. Most people speak, feel me out, and go about their business as do I.
I've only had one person verbally attack me about my carry piece, I replied kindly, he still had a negative tone, so I ignored him and moved on with my business.
But I'm getting off topic, I'd just like to extend the opportunity to ask any questions you'd like to know about the pro-gun side of the coin. I'll answer any and every question honestly. Hopefully we can come to a mutual understanding and those that don't know will understand most gun owners abhor gun violence. Ask away.
P.S. ms. Giffords is a pro-gun politician. She understands that was just one idiot that did it to her. That says a lot.
When I lived outside of Detroit I was going to the back to make my night drop when a group of teenagers started towards me. Since it was late, dark, and there was nothing else there except the bank I was there only possible destination. I didn't have to pull a weapon. All I did was face them and open my coat to allow them to see it. They decided that maybe they wanted to go someplace else.
And people wonder why the media is losing readers, no, no wonder.
I support the open carry people to have demonstrations of their own, that's why I've been watching so I can go cover one for this blog.
I do think things like the vigil are one sided and leave out when guns have stopped crimes from happening. I also think the other side doesn't want to admit that guns are responsible for too many tragic events.
Catnlion- Not sure about you carrying a concealed weapon, but I'm glad it saved you.
Also, look at www.gunssavelives.net for some news stories of how guns can save a life.
And to understand some of the rational behind those of us who choose to carry, go look at http://mafirearmsafety.com/2011/02/why-carrying-a-gun-is-a-civilized-act/
I make the decision to carry a firearm. I do not take that responsibility lightly. I respect that you do not. All I ask is the same respect in return.
Here is my worst nightmare. I am in a super market, or at a public event, and some mental basket case pulls a gun. And mine is at home. So no. It is not at home. It is in my pocket.
Sure, if I was robbed at gun point I would give up all my stuff. Offer to write a check. Smile with my eyes downward [submissive signal]. But I guarantee you, if you are in the crowd and a maniac shows up? In your classroom, for instance, as the maniac shoots his way from door to door down the classrooms? So I declare to all present I have a gun and ask you whether or not you want me to deploy it.
Seriously.
I am a Federalist, and the Second Amendment has never been incorporated. [None of the Bill of Rights originally applied to the states]. Accordingly, I am compelled to respect the laws of those states that outlaw guns.
However, I would like to see Federal legislation to restrict the punishment of those who bring legal guns from their home states into those that do not to confiscation of the gun. This in itself would be a matter for The Supreme Court, since The Various States are entirely sovereign on the Second Amendment because it has NOT been incorporated. However, the Second Amendment is, as far as I can determine, the ONLY one that has not been incorporated.
Accordingly, stare decisis is squarely on the side of incorporation.
I don't normally carry anymore. I don't carry cash and don't have a regular schedule. The question for the punks now, is this a day when I have to do something that makes me think having it with me is a good idea.
Guns are like hammers. They are both tools to be used by responsible people in a responsible way. Hammers can build you are nice home or someone can beat your brains in with one while you are asleep.
It would be nice to live in a perfect world, but we don't. There are people out there who will and do very bad things. Some we can prevent, others I'm sorry will suffer at the hands of another. We just have to learn to put the blame where it belongs. With stupid people. While the goal of making the world safe is good people are not willing to do what it takes.
Tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents. A very large number of them die from head trauma in that accident. We could greatly reduce that number by thousands of deaths per year if we just make everyone in a car wear a motorcycle helmet. Why do I guess that nobody here is willing to do that? That they are willing to take the risk. So the goal is really not safety since you can save more lives by wearing a helmet in your car than banning all gun. The goal of the handgun ban people is to replace their bias and judgement for what is actually happening in mine.
The closest thing you said was"...the issue of gun control. I'm all for it..." but you did quote the Brady groups who have a know position on the subject.
And I wasn't talking about you. As you said you are having an internal debate about what to do. That's great. It means you are thinking instead of taking an emotional position. You did have someone post "I'm about as anti-gun as you can get, and the whole gun culture is unfathomable to me.". While I wish this person would have expanded their thoughts to explain why, I'll bet they would like them ban.
So how do you want to control/regulate without putting a ban in place for what somebody doesn't think should be allowed? Some want to ban some weapons because they look spooky, not because they are anymore dangerous than a plain jane weapon.
The closest thing you said was"...the issue of gun control. I'm all for it..." but you did quote the Brady groups who have a know position on the subject.
And I wasn't talking about you. As you said you are having an internal debate about what to do. That's great. It means you are thinking instead of taking an emotional position. You did have someone post "I'm about as anti-gun as you can get, and the whole gun culture is unfathomable to me.". While I wish this person would have expanded their thoughts to explain why, I'll bet they would like them ban.
So how do you want to control/regulate without putting a ban in place for what somebody doesn't think should be allowed? Some want to ban some weapons because they look spooky, not because they are anymore dangerous than a plain jane weapon.
Algis- Thanks!
I just want to make one point here. I'm neutral on the gun control debate, however I don't personally advocate banning anything whatsoever. This comment:
"Still, when our forefathers came up with all of this, I doubt they had any idea what kind of arms would eventually be developed. "
Made me think... do you think that the forefathers had any idea that we would have access to the technologies that we have today, such as this wonderful open forum for our 1st Amendment right to free speech? Do you think that we should be limited to the technology of 1786 in order to present our ideas and arguments (Old fashioned printing presses, writing paper, quill pens, and soapboxes)? The argument that our forefathers didn't intend for us to have access to modern "assault" guns and large clips is one that doesn't make sense to me. By that line of reasoning, one who is against the freedom of expression could argue that they didn't intend for us to have freedom of expression via new forums and technologies.
With that in mind, I truly believe that gun owners should be allowed to have access to modern technologies and designs, if only for safety's sake. Let's just think about modern metallurgical advances for a moment... I don't know about you all, but if I were a gun owner, I'd want to have modern designs and access to them rather than 1780s cast iron when setting off a small explosive charge near my face!
Lastly, I don't see what an inanimate object has to do with violence. It's the user. Cars don't kill people when they're sitting in a parking lot, however drunk drivers kill more people than people who use guns improperly yearly! I had to go to the CDC page to find that out, and it was pretty shocking to see that. I guess this post made me do some more research on the matter, and has kind of pushed me towards the position of not really being comfortable with them, but not against them by any means.