Tucson Shooting Survivors Urge Congress to Act on Gun Laws

(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Survivors of the Tucson, Ariz., shooting rampage that left six dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, raised their voices to Congress today calling for stricter gun laws, while also offering words of encouragement to the recovering congresswoman.
Patricia Maisch, who wrestled the gun clip from Jared Lougher and prevented him from reloading his gun, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would require background checks on anyone who tries to buy a gun, while also tightening rules mandating federal agencies and states to report criminal background activity.
“I am definitely here to remember the names of those we lost, as well as to honor each survivor,” Maisch said. “But my primary mission today is to remind all of you that Tucson is yet another extremely tragic example of what is at stake each and every time a gun falls — or is placed — in the wrong hands.”
Maisch was joined by several others who played a critical role in the moments after Lougher opened fire in Tucson on Jan. 8, including Faith and Roger Salzberger and Col. Bill Badger. Roger chased after Loughner along with Colonel Bill Badger, whose head was grazed by one of Loughner’s bullets, and took the shooter down. Also present was Nurse Nancy Bowman, who provided critical medical care to the wounded that day.
In addition to the Tucson survivors, more than 50 victims of gun violence from around the country were also present in the Senate Judiciary hearing today, after a day of lobbying their Congressional representatives.
The Tucson survivors had words of encouragement for their recovering congresswoman. Maisch had a message for Giffords, who gave her first interview Monday with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer.
“I know it’s hard. Keep working,” Maisch said following her testimony. “You’re in my prayers.”
Maisch went on to say that whenever she is near the site of the shooting now, she bows her head and remembers the victims of that day.
Nurse Nancy Bowman said she wants Giffords to know that she has been an inspiration to her.
“If weren’t for this incident, I wouldn’t be politically involved,” Bowman said outside the hall of the hearing on the guns bill.
Roger Salzberger, who said he went through many tissues watching Giffords’ interview with Sawyer, said that while he wants Giffords to do what’s best for her, he hopes to see her serving Tucson as their representative in Congress again soon.
“Congress needs Gabby, and 434 members like her,” Salzberger said.
While the guns bill had a tremendous showing of support in the audience, there is opposition to the legislation.
Research director of the Independence Institute David Kopel, who testified before the committee, had sharp criticisms for the proposed law, saying that it would ban gun ownership for anyone who’s ever been ordered to receive treatment for any mental problem.
“[The bill] bans gun possession by anyone who has ever been ordered to receive counseling for any mental problem, this would include a college student who is ordered to get counseling because the school administration was retaliating against him for criticizing the administration,” Kopel said.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the author of the legislation, denied Kopel’s assertion that the bill would apply broadly to anyone who’s received counseling, saying that the legislation would only deny gun ownership to individuals who were determined to be mentally ill through adjudication.
Email
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
The reality is he would have gotten the gun no matter what the laws are. It is sad that there weren’t responsible citizens around with concealed carry weapons to take him out. The liberals in NY keep this jerk shumer reelected but the other good American citizens should not be moved by his emotional BS
Posted by: Ron | November 15, 2011, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
Stricter gun laws are just the first step towards complete confiscation. The 2nd Amendment was put there for a reason, to guarantee the people’s right to self defense against criminals and governments, which in many cases overlap. These people certainly have good intentions, but tyrants will abuse their power and attempt to disarm their opponents because of some people’s good intentions.
Posted by: Eric | November 15, 2011, 8:47 pm 8:47 pm
NO, stricter gun laws are not a slippery slope leading to an evil conspiracy of Big Government ; we all agree it’s a 2nd Amendment right. However, defining “militia” as allowing guns to every crazy or sick person who lives in the United States IS a slippery slope. For example, where I live the Northwest, a convicted felon was recently permitted to carry guns again – a guy with a history of mental problems. He shot and killed.
Why not treat firearms the same as driving or flying? Citizens can still do THOSE things, even with restrictions. If I want to drive or fly an airplane in most states, I have to pass written and practical tests, have my car inspected, and carry liability insurance. You know, responsibility.
Citizens can lose those privileges for a variety of legal offenses or medical/ mental problems. I support laws for responsible ownership of firearms by responsible people.
Posted by: green.goddess | November 15, 2011, 9:05 pm 9:05 pm
Same old horse snot, over and over. I agree that if real men and women, the kind who had the same spirit as those who successfully resisted/repelled a tyrannical government, tamed a wild country, and built a strong nation, had been there that day with their personal protection, the tragedy would have been quickly and greatly reduced. However, we’ve grown into a nation of wussies, and government teat-suckers, and require the government to do more and more for us each day. We allow our country to be invaded by illegal aliens (an act of war, some would say), then pee on the officials that try to boot them back out.
We get what we ask for . . .
Posted by: Len Cooley | November 15, 2011, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm
Green.Goddess: In this country it is already illegal for the mentally ill to own firearms. His ability to obtain them only shows our own government and law enforcement agencies’ incompetence and inability to enforce LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Making more laws will not make what he did any more wrong or any more illegal. More laws, more rules, and more regulations are not the answer.
Posted by: Chris | November 15, 2011, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
Would love to see people in this country have an honest discussion about guns. Unfortunately you have people who want to make this out as though it’s a war between people protecting your right to own a gun and people who are trying to take them all away. Most people are capable of a far more nuanced argument. I am proud of these survivors for standing up and speaking out and trying to start a conversation. I wish them luck.
Posted by: e | November 15, 2011, 10:20 pm 10:20 pm
Dr Suzanna Gretia Hupp survived the 1991 shooting massacre at the Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen Texas. Dr Hupp lost both of her parents in that tragedy. Her testimony before Congress is easily found on the internet.
While survivors of violent crime often become gun ban proponents there are many who take the opposing view. Some of us quickly learn that we will fight back or die and the choice is ours.
Some may quote skewed statistics or make eloquent orations on the evils of firearms but I ask them one question: If a homicidal maniac with a large knife is about to attack your child what would you do with the gun in your hand?
Now go tell your child why you wouldn’t kill to save his life.
Posted by: oonogil7 | November 15, 2011, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
GreenGoddess —
Northwest of what country? In the United States it is a violation of federal law for any person who has been judged mentally ill or has been convicted of a felony to possess a firearm even at home. Background check required for CHL would quickly prevent issue of licence.
It is not uncommon for gun ban advocates to invent or twist events to suit their agenda. It’s usually pretty easy to spot them. Better luck next time.
I do agree with gun safety training for everyone starting early with the NRA Eddie Eagle program. Unfortunatly gun ban people usually object to such education preferring the head in the sand approach.
Posted by: oonogil7 | November 15, 2011, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm
California has some of the most strict gun laws in the country, including full background checks and a 10 day wait to buy a gun as well as requiring a 10 hour safety course to able to buy a hand gun. Even so, the gun crime rate is soaring!!! We have a ‘people’ problem not a gun problem! Don’t be fooled by the ‘quick fix’ of even more gun laws, they don’t work! They only trample the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners!!!
Posted by: RadioMan77 | November 16, 2011, 2:32 am 2:32 am
Waste-o-Time™
Just let good people act and think without fear of lawyers.
Loughner would have never been able to buy the guns if folks were allowed to use their brains.
What we need is a Common Sense 101 Law.
Posted by: Noz | November 16, 2011, 7:30 am 7:30 am
Greengoddess
Do you know the difference between a privilege and a right? Driving is a privilege yet owning a firearm is a right.
Why do some people, you included, think that in the list of individual rights, number two on that list is not an individual right but a collective right? I don’t get it.
I invite you to try something Greengoddess, buy a firearm. Go through the process yourself and see what it is like. If you truly don’t want the firearm, return it before you even take it home. At least though you can see the process first hand.
Posted by: kris | November 16, 2011, 7:44 am 7:44 am
This is truly incredible. THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS AND PROCEDURES TO SCREEN OUT DANGEROUS PERSONS in the form of the National Instant Check System (NICS) designed to allow a seller to access the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) at the time of purchase. In the case of Jared Loughtner, there was never a history of any arrest even entered into the NCIC data base because the police and sherrifs departments refused arrest Loughner for ANY of his many offenses of drug possession and threating others. This was a case of inaction by law enforcement and mental health authorities. ANY mention of ANY arrest for threatening others and/or drug possession would have red flagged Loughner at the time of purchase and he would have walked out of the store without a gun. Address that ABC News.
State Law Enforcement, 1988-2004
Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2006-2007
Teacher, 2010- Present
NRA Member, Life
Posted by: Nanjing03 | November 16, 2011, 8:11 am 8:11 am
I believe in the right to own a gun, but I don’t object to this proposed law. Any further steps we can take to prevent mentally troubled people from easily obtaining guns, will help prevent massacres.
The slippery slope argument doesn’t work here. One can’t say a tougher gun law will lead to losing our rights to own guns. With that logic, any new law can lead to tougher laws so no new laws!
Each new law is a separate entity, voted on, objected or praised by the public to their elected representative. Those who voice the slippery slope argument must really haven’t a good reason for objecting to the Fix Guns Check Act. And I have to ask if those objecting have read it themselves or are listening to ‘talking heads’, that guaranteed way to get misinformed.
Posted by: Librarian53 | November 16, 2011, 8:21 am 8:21 am
I just read the Fix Guns Check Act, like it and especially this part taken from the summary:
‘Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require each college, university, or postsecondary institution that receives federal funds under such Act or financial assistance under any federal program to develop and implement a mental health assessment plan for assessing, reporting, and referring students who pose a safety risk to themselves or others, informing their families, and addressing such risks.’
Had college and universities’ administrations had any common sense, they would have e been doing this all along and prevented needless deaths.
That is why we need so many laws, the lack of common sense is pervasive, just look at Penn State!
Posted by: Librarian53 | November 16, 2011, 8:25 am 8:25 am
Then we should ban knives, cars, etc that kill people. Mexico banned guns and look where their at in their country. Why do Democrats hate the Constitution?
Posted by: Freedom | November 16, 2011, 8:37 am 8:37 am
@LIBRARIAN53, I too read the Fix Guns Check Act S.436. If you know how deceptive laws are written, there are many gray areas that could include returning armed forces veterans who were hospitalized for injuries and placed on pain medications that — due to their nature — became habit forming. Even the Department of Veterans Affairs VA Health Care system is aware of that inevitability and has a program to get VA patients off of those long term medications when they are no longer needed and authorized. That in itself would be an “admission” to the unauthorized use of a controlled substance, even if it happened in the past and is no longer an issue. Iraq and Afghan veterans will be filling college and university rosters in unprecedented numbers. These vets should not be “targets of convenience” to promote more worthless gun control.
Just remember, if Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the very man who said that no American outside of police or the military should ever possess a gun, the very man who said that the Brady Bill was the “nose of the camel under the tent” has anything to do with a gun control bill, you can count on it being filled with smoke and hokum.
Since we already have laws that mandate the use of the National Instant Check System to access the National Crime Information Center data base, then we should continue to use that system, and mandate that law enforcement, courts, and mental health authorities do their jobs before we enact more repetitious, useless, and even dangerous gun control laws.
State Law Enforcement, 1988-2003
Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2006-2007
Teacher, 2010- Present
NRA Member- Life
Posted by: Nanjing03 | November 16, 2011, 9:45 am 9:45 am
The only thing we lacked on that terrible day were armed citizens, who could have put the perp down. Instead we have a growing portion of the population who wishes us to only be victims, unable and unwilling to defend ourselves. They think it is better people be helpless and slaughtered like lambs as sacrifice to greater good. To hell with those people, that is unamerican., anti-freedom, anti-liberty.
Posted by: Ralph Siegler | November 16, 2011, 9:50 am 9:50 am
I just read the Fix Guns Check Act, like it and especially this part taken from the summary:
‘Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require each college, university, or post-secondary institution that receives federal funds under such Act or financial assistance under any federal program to develop and implement a mental health assessment plan for assessing, reporting, and referring students who pose a safety risk to themselves or others, informing their families, and addressing such risks.’
Had college and universities’ administrations had any common sense, they would have e been doing this all along and prevented needless deaths.
That is why we need so many laws, the lack of common sense is pervasive, just look at Penn State!
Posted by: Librarian53 | November 16, 2011, 11:50 am 11:50 am
nanjing03, If you think that the bill would discriminate unfairly against injured vets who are addicted to their painkillers, then an exception in the bill would cover that. But it hardly an excuse for not signing this bill into law.
Do you agree or disagree that the section I talked about in my 11:50 comment is a needed law?
Posted by: Librarian53 | November 16, 2011, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
LIBRARIAN53, what is needed is for law enforcement and mental health authorities to do their jobs. I was in law enforcement and administration for 17 years. Likewise, my wife is a registered nurse and mental health professional. We can both attest to the fact that both law enforcement and mental health authorities are quick to shy away from their responsibilities at every turn due to costs and legal ramifications. That is where the problem really exists — not in law abiding citizens who will be the only targets of this bill if it is signed into law.
Posted by: Nanjing03 | November 16, 2011, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
Ridiculous! Don’t we already have laws barring the sale of guns to the mentally ill?? Lot of good it did, didn’t it?? With this kind of mentality no-one will be allowed to own a gun..oh that’s right, that’s the plan. Think of the waaaaaaaaay toooooooo many kids that the school system and courts have forced to go on Ritalin and other mood altering drugs! None of them would ever be able to own a gun just because some union teacher didn’t know how to handle bad behavior in the classroom and the government took away the parents’ right to discipline their own child…
Posted by: lindag | November 17, 2011, 9:29 am 9:29 am