Gabrielle Giffords on gun violence: "Too many children are dying... We must do something."

The former Democratic Congresswoman, who was severely injured after being shot in the head at a political rally in 2011, delivered a moving speech at the start of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence.

"Speaking is difficult, but I need to say something important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying; too many children. We must do something. It will be hard. But the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you."

Speaking slowly, speech clearly still incredibly difficult for her, Gabrielle Giffords delivered what should be a powerful and lasting message about the importance for America to act on gun control. She opened yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence - her words even more arresting because she herself was the victim of a shooting in 2011 that left her partially blind and paralysed in her right arm. As a former Democratic Representative, her exhortation that this is an important conversation "for Democrats; for Republicans" is a timely reminder of how important bipartisanship will be if any meaningful steps are to be taken on gun control. Watch her speech in full:

Later on, the hearing heard evidence from National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre, who stuck to his organisation's position that "law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals". He came under fire from Democrat members of the committee though, being forced to admit that while in 1999 the NRA supported the idea of mandatory background checks for people trying to buy guns, it had since relaxed its position. Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, pointed out what a difference such checks could make, saying "My wife would not have been sitting in that seat today if we had had stronger background checks".

Editor's note: this article was updated - Giffords was a Democratic Representative, not a Republican as previously stated.

Gabrielle Giffords with her husband Mark Kelly at the hearing. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Brexit select committee walkout is an ominous sign of things to come

Leavers walked out of a meeting of Hilary Benn's "gloomy" committee yesterday. Their inability to accept criticism could have disastrous consequences

“Hilary Benn isn’t managing a select committee. He’s managing an ecosystem.” That was the stark verdict of one member of the Commons' Brexit committee on its fitness for purpose yesterday. If its meeting on the eve of Article 50 is anything to go by, then Benn’s fragile biome might already be damaged beyond repair.

Unhappy with the content of its “gloomy” provisional 155-page report into the government’s Brexit white paper, leavers on the committee walked out of its meeting yesterday. The committee is a necessarily unwieldy creation and it would probably be unreasonable to expect it to agree unanimously on anything: it has 21 members where others have 11, so as to adequately represent Leavers, Remainers and the nations.

Disagreements are one thing. Debate and scrutiny, after all, are why select committees exist. But the Brexiteers’ ceremonial exodus augurs terribly for the already grim-looking trajectory of the negotiations to come. “As I understand it, they don’t like analysing the evidence that they have,” another pro-Remain member of the committee told me.

Therein lies the fundamental weakness of the Brexiteers’ position: they cannot change the evidence. As was the case with the 70 MPs who wrote to Lord Hall last week to accuse the BBC of anti-Brexit bias, they assume a pernicious selectivity on the part of Remainers and their approach to the inconvenient facts at hand. None exists.

On the contrary, there is a sense of resignation among some Remainers on the Brexit committee that their reports will turn out to be pretty weak beer as a consequence of the accommodations made by Benn to their Eurosceptic colleagues. Some grumble that high-profile Brexiteers lack detailed understanding of the grittier issues at play – such as the Good Friday Agreement – and only value the committee insofar as it gives them the opportunity to grandstand to big audiences.

The Tory awkward squad’s inability to accept anything less than the studied neutrality that plagued the Brexit discourse in the run-up to the referendum – or, indeed, any critical analysis whatsoever – could yet make an already inauspicious scenario unsalvageable. If they cannot accept even a watered-down assessment of the risks ahead, then what happens when those risks are made real? Will they ever accept the possibility that it could be reality, and not the Remain heretics, doing Britain down? How bad will things have to get before saving face isn’t their primary imperative?

Yesterday's pantomime exit might have been, as one committee member told me, “hysterically funny”. What’s less amusing is that these are the only people the prime minister deigns to listen to.

Patrick Maguire writes about politics and is the 2016 winner of the Anthony Howard Award.