Speaking out in her grief, Bronx mother fights guns that killed her kid

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/05/08/2011-05-08_speaking_out_in_her_grief_pain_ma_fights_guns_that_killed_kid.html

This Mother's Day, Diana Rodriguez has a wish: Let no parent endure the grief she felt on the holiday five years ago.

The Bronx woman's teenage daughter was killed by a bullet probably meant for someone else - and losing a child to gun violence has turned her into an activist.

She's a member of Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun crusade, a fixture at rallies where she consoles parents like herself and cajoles young people into giving up the gun.

"I believe I've made a difference," Rodriguez said. "A lot of people have asked me to come and speak to different groups. They say to me, 'How do you do it?'

<more>

Happy Mother's Day NRA

:thumbsdown:

yup

I don't know the statistics of those that support stronger gun laws. At one time there were more in favor.

people are awakening to the failure of the last several decades of gun control.

Society may never be free of child pornography either, but the public policy on it is very clear and unequivocal.

First you have to have support for such an idea before it will ever become law. Currently you don't.

And if not why not?

and we both know it won't. That is the historical record. How would you explain when nothing happens, like Jamaica, Brazil, Canada? Or if it gets worse like UK? What is the next scapegoat in search of your simple solutions to complex problems?

the majority of Americans disagree with you. This graph only deals with a ban on sale of handguns.


source: http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/two-thirds-americans-favor-stricter-gun-control-laws-just-one-third-favor-ban-sale-all-handguns

I feel that the reason so many people oppose banning the sale of firearms is because they enjoy the rights Americans have including the Second Amendment. Unlike many other countries we grant unusual freedom to our citizens and our citizens appreciate this. Many people would view your plan as an attack on the Second Amendment.

In a previous post you mentioned pornography. Most Americans dislike pornography especially child pornography but would hate to see pornography used as an excuse to do away with the First Amendment.

Of course, most intelligent people would not see your idea of shutting down the manufacture and importation of firearms as a feasible solution. Some of the reason are:

1) There are already 300 million firearms in this nation. A firearm with reasonable care can last indefinitely as can ammunition as long as it is stored properly and not subjected to temperature extremes.

2) Banning the manufacture and importation of firearms would lead to gun smuggling. If tons of drugs can be smuggled into the United States on a daily basis, firearm smuggling would be lucrative and present no challenge to accomplish. A gun smuggler could offer fully automatic assault rifles (the real deal) at a far lower cost than one can be bought legally today in the United States. Mexico has strong gun laws but their criminals use fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, and rocket launchers.

3) You may argue that your idea would cause the value of existing firearms to skyrocket. That may be debatable but if it did happen you would achieve the basic goal of gun control - racism. The rich, the influential and the famous would be able to own firearms as would the upper middle class but the lower classes would be unable to afford them. Since minorities often compose the majority of people in the lower classes, the result of your plan would be oppression of the poor by the wealthy.

delusional but honest.

oh, wait

yup x infinity

yup

I forgot it was not a gangster or drug dealer, who fired the shot. A gun in Montana beamed the owner to The Bronx and the trigger pulled his finger.

you can take every one of my guns and it still won't make you safer.

which most don't. I found many people who support stronger laws, did not know those laws have been federal laws since the 1930s and 1960s.
If stronger laws were the answer, why did not the Sullivan Law prevent that tragedy? The only way to take guns away from gangs is to take away their money. Once drugs became more profitable, these same gangs moved up from knives to guns. Before Prohibition, the mob could barely afford pistols let alone submachine guns.

The NRA is a group of people..., right?!

It's just so confusing...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so posting on their forums seems a little hypocritical to me.
But thanks for the suggestion.

so I decided to post here and debate intelligent people who do not agree with my views in favor of gun ownership and concealed carry.

On the positive side, I can go to other sub-forms on DU and read and post without the stomach turning experience I had on more conservative boards.

i just realized that if i could, i would hide this entire topic. i just posted on another thread about guns and don't even want to read the reply. it's not possible to unpolarize these positions. i know i cannot be persuaded that we are a better or safer place because of so many people walking around with the ability to kill someone by simply pulling a trigger.

work together on things we agree that would make a difference?

That says more about you than about the empirical evidence.

Moreover, you're not going to find too many people on this forum who will assert that public safety in general is improved by having more people legally carrying concealed. What you will find is the argument that the statistical evidence indicates that an increase in legal gun ownership and legal concealed carry has not decreased public safety, and that therefore the assertion to the effect that "more guns => more deaths" does not hold water. At the same time, firearm possession can make individual citizens safer by providing them with an effective means to defend themselves against an attempted violent crime.

But if you are serious in your claim that you cannot be persuaded of something, there's honestly not a whole lot of point in talking to you.

:eyes:

JFMC.org

This should be good....

More people get killed by cars then guns in this country, yet I see little bug-eyed, spittle-flecked outrage directed towards

the American Automobile Association...

for most CCW holders, including myself, is to maybe shoot someone who is a threat to me. So they are not like cars.

As I've pointed out repeatedly on this forum, a car is a two-ton-plus self-propelled bludgeon capable of traveling dozens of miles and hour, and by dint of that fact, capable of transferring more than enough blunt force to kill quite a large variety of animals, humans included. It doesn't matter that it wasn't the car's "main purpose" to kill you, or that the driver didn't intend to kill you, you're still going to be dead as a fucking doornail, just like the other 43,000 people killed in the U.S. annually as a result of motor vehicle collisions.

And in that regard, operating a motor vehicle while drunk, stoned, yakking on your cell phone or otherwise impaired is little different from discharging a handgun down the street; the effects are indistinguishable.

Criminals ultimately obtain their gins from so-called law abiders

yup

Phale.

Or does she fight them all?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you teach kids guns are bad and only useful for evil purposes those kids will do bad things when they get their hands on a gun. If you teach them the legitimate use of guns is target practice and sporting purposes they will likely use guns for those purposes.

Its not so clear from the article what other measures she supports.

According to the same NY Daily News (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-05-16/news/18337600_1_prom-security-cameras-shell-casings), the late Ms Guzman was shot after she and her three companions (a girlfriend and their two prom dates) stumbled upon a mugging on Washington Avenue. One of the muggers (of whom there were at least three), Lawrence Harris (16 years old at the time), attempted to also rob one of Ms Guzman's male companions, but then decided against it, and fled with his fellow miscreants, one or two whom discharged 13 rounds of 9x19mm in the general direction of Ms Guzman's companion, but striking her twice instead.

Ms Guzman died as the result of an act of wanton disregard for human life on the part of a bunch of underage thugs engaged in multiple acts of strongarm robbery, and in possession of firearms in violation of local, state and federal laws. She was not the victim of a legally armed citizen guilty of bad judgment and inadequate shooting skills; she was the victim of criminal behavior by criminals.

But I guess some people just find it easier to blame the NRA in some vague generalized way than ask why New York's gun laws failed to prevent this kind of incident. Again.