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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.