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 web editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.