Second Response to Del. Weldon

Second Response to ‘Del. Weldon Says,

"I can tell that Sarah Brady is a good woman"’

Phil Lee1

Oct 16, 2003 (rev. 12/29/04)

My efforts to supply Del. Weldon with information will require several responses such as this one.

Del. Weldon correctly objects to the gun-control crowd using "appeals to pity" (Argumentum ad Misericordium) as the mainstay of their argument and he seems to understand such arguments are without merit. But these arguments are used again and again by that "good woman" Sarah Brady. Her husband, struck down by the least powerful handgun on the market (a .22) which was fired by a person who would have qualified under the Brady law to buy the gun if it were in force at the time, continues to be used as a part of her arguments for gun controls. In addition to her personal "appeal to pity," she has led an organization that promotes this practice in every venue and that deceives and distorts at every turn -- hardly the leadership you would expect from a "good woman."

As an example of her "goodness", this link gives her statement accusing Attn. Gen. Ashcroft of being beholden to the gun lobby for a decision to follow the law as written by Congress which forbade the US to keep gun registration information. This good woman thinks character assassination is acceptable political discourse.

She has supported ballistic fingerprinting of guns, a huge waste of money and a program that is unlikely to ever solve a crime in its present implementation. Her support is shown by the link (see also the Brady press release). Documentation of the failures of ballistic fingerprinting may be obtained from the Attn. Gen. of California who studied how well existing systems performed. A brief summary of results is given by the Attorney General's press release (saved on the internet archive) and the full report may be found at the California government link (saved by the internet archive). The four attachments to that report are important (especially Attachment D, the outside ballistics expert Dr. Jan De Kinder's evaluation) and they are linked by:

Attachment A (Appendices A through F)

Attachment B (no longer available)

Attachment C (no longer available)

Attachment D (Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales)

She should know that ballistic fingerprinting is a failure, but instead of modifying her support for that program, she proposes to extend it nation wide and to long guns as her organization's web site makes clear. Furthermore, she falsely states the Attn. Gen. of California's conclusion about ballistic fingerprinting, including the statement:

California's Attorney General reported that ballistic fingerprinting won't work:
Not true. In fact, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has called for rapid deployment of state and national ballistic fingerprinting databases that would include images from all firearms before they are sold. In a brazen effort to mislead the public, the National Rifle Association has circulated an early draft of the California Attorney General's report that did not include technical feedback from BATF, which resolved some initial questions raised by the Attorney General and the state Department of Justice. The NRA's deception prompted an October 20th statement by Attorney General Lockyer that, "The FBI and BATF have proven through their National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) that ballistics databases help law enforcement solve crimes... It is critically important that we invest our resources and energy to create a ballistics database that contains information about all new firearms manufactured and sold in order to help law enforcement solve crimes faster and save lives."

You can compare this statement to the press release from Attn. General Lockyer who said:

"However, our analysis concludes that today's technology is not yet adequate to handle the volume associated with adding all new guns to the database and still provide useful information for investigators," Lockyer said.

Lying about the facts and character assassination may be the qualities of a demagogic person, but hardly that of a "good woman."

She has been documented as buying her son a rifle in a way that evaded the laws of Delaware (and the US). Inasmuch as her straw-purchase was illegal, she is a hypocrite at the minimum and a federal and Delaware felon. For the story, see the link. You can also read the ABC interview where she admits purchasing the rifle but denies being a straw-purchaser because her son is not disqualified. It turns out that the law she promoted requires her son to be checked by Delaware or the US and not just her. As far as her actions are concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not the screening would pass her son. That interview (no longer posted on ABC) may be viewed at the link.

She is arrogant as you can see from:

It is fascinating to find that Brady has nothing but contempt for her opponents. Anyone who disagreed with her is labeled an extremist and Charlton Heston is called a "pompous ass." She also has harsh and insulting words for various members of Congress who did not support her agenda.

(see the review of her autobiography by Dr. Michael S. Brown).

And let’s not forget her group's statement equating gun ownership with terrorism pointed out by Ed in his response.

In a series of comments I plan to spend some time discussing the legal issues connected with gun control, with effectiveness of gun controls and political issues as begun in Ed's response. But I can't close without commenting on Del. Weldon's statements:

"When the framers drafted that language, they were contemplating the possession of black powder guns, and they were concerned about an overly powerful central government ignoring the will of the people, necessitating armed resistance.

I wonder if they would have included protections for the possession of fully automatic weapons, or bullets designed to pierce the vests worn by law enforcement officers."

I wonder what Del. Weldon thinks black power guns and the balls fired from them would do to the vests of that day? Or, for that matter, who does Del. Weldon think were the law enforcement officers when this republic was founded since professional police forces date from the early 19th Century? (See the link for a history of policing and the development of professional police forces beginning in 1829 and the American professional police experience prior to the War Between the States.) While Del. Weldon bemoans the availability of "fully automatic weapons," I'll bet he has no data at all about crime with such weapons. Except in Hollywood films, crime with automatic weapons is rare -- see the discussion by Guncite.

1 Phil Lee has a PhD in Mathematics and is active in Maryland politics to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.