The countless Facebook posts supporting former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ New York Times op-ed, which berates the Senate for its failure to pass the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, have begun. “Damn straight, Gabby,” some commented. “A courageous piece,” others called it.
Yet for me there are major issues with Congresswoman Giffords’ piece.
First of all, what is the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, and why should we pass it? I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of my fellow students — an intelligent group of people — know nothing about the bill beyond “it’s gun control legislation that will save lives, and we need to do something,” or “it expands background checks, and I think background checks are good.” But before we throw our support to new laws, and blatantly attack ad-hominem the opponents of those new laws as cowards, we should evaluate the effectiveness of those laws and see how they might improve the situation already at hand.
As you can probably tell, I am not too big a fan of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but not because I disapprove of background checks. The truth is we already have countless background check laws on the books, many of which are unenforced. Wouldn’t an amendment that strengthens existing gun laws, increases resources for prosecution, better enforces the existing background check system, and addresses school safety and mental illness in the criminal justice system be a better measure? That’s exactly what the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which was sponsored by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa), Cruz (R-Texas), Graham (R-S.C.), and Coats (R-Ind.) intended to do. Yet it was struck down as well, mostly by the same people who claim opponents of Manchin-Toomey are cowards for not trying to do anything to save lives.
This brings me to the bigger problem inherent in Giffords’ op-ed. She attacks those who opposed Manchin-Toomey as cowards who are afraid of the NRA, accusing them of not caring about the dead children at Sandy Hook. Patricia Maisch, who was escorted from the Capitol after shouting in anger, furthered this rhetoric: “They are an embarrassment to this country, that they don’t have any compassion or care for people who have been taken brutally from their families.” In my view, this sort of rhetoric, which attempts to use the innocent victims as props in the gun control agenda, is unfair and uncalled for. These kinds of attacks have no place in our policy debates.
“People have told me I’m courageous,” Giffords writes. Don’t get me wrong; I admire Congressman Giffords’ resilience and her courage as a victim of gun violence. But there’s nothing courageous about her constantly attacking anyone who disagrees with her as unfeeling.
The author’s name was removed from this article retroactively at their request.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.