Previous Post
Next Post


The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s name is a ruse. By declaring that it wants to”prevent gun violence” the BS artist formerly known as Handgun Control avoids signaling its real goal: a de facto gun ban. This they would do by creating expensive, pre-emptive, restrictive, impractical, ineffectual and virtually unenforceable gun laws; regulations that discourage and/or prevent lawful citizens from obtaining a firearm. As for enabling concealed carry licenses so that citizens can prevent gun violence in economically challenged neighborhoods, you must be joking. But now that Daniel Gross [above] has taken the helm from Helmke, expect big changes at the Brady Campaign . . .

Or not.

Gross spoke with USA TODAY over the weekend and said he wants to start a national conversation on gun control and get people engaged in a deep way. [TTAG is reaching out for a web-based live chat.]

“Policy is a big part of the solution but people have to realize that this isn’t a political issue, this is an issue that’s claiming the lives of 30,000 people every year and eight kids every day and we need to approach it with that kind of urgency,” Gross said.

More code. Translation: “Not a political issue” means the Brady Campaign will continue to hammer Republicans for “dragging their heels” on “common sense gun control” while claiming that gun control should be a non-partisan effort that transcends any discussion of constitutional rights or liberties. Although they may not mention that last bit.

“The bottom line is making people care about this issue and care about it personally and deeply,” he added. “If you look at most gun (control) policy, you’ll see the majority of Americans are in favor of it, but that voice has yet to be coalesced and impassioned to the point where it can effect change.”

Huh? Recent surveys show—definitively—that Americans are less supportive of messing around with gun control laws than ever before. Support for the late lamented (by the Bradys) assault weapons ban has also slipped. Dramatically. And that’s from a population that couldn’t tell an assault weapon from a modern sporting home defense rifle (with a shoulder thingie that goes up).

The fact that Mr. Gross is willing to lie about his issue’s popularity, or, worse, holds this belief without any data to back it up, shows us that it’s We Won’t Get Fooled Again. Again.

Here, meet the new boss:

Michael Fleming, executive director of the David Bohnett Foundation, a social activism group based in Beverly Hills, said in an email that he has worked with Gross for almost a decade.

“As a funder that is passionate about stemming the tide of senseless gun violence in our country, I know that Dan will bring Brady a new sense of purpose and energy as they take on some of the greatest public policy challenges we, as a society, face.”

Gross helped create the Center to Prevent Youth Violence, a New York-based organization, after his brother was shot in the head during a 1997 rampage on the roof of the Empire State Building. Before founding the center in 1998, Gross was a marketing and advertising executive in New York.

Let’s look at Mr. Gross’s benefactor . . .

According to their webpage, the David Bohnett Foundation doles out cash to the vote fixers at Acorn, a great many AIDs charities and gay rights groups (nothing wrong with that, save the fact that gay people should be armed against their oppressors) and, of course, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence.

Bohnett has “awarded” the Bradys $198,000 since 2000. Believe it or not that makes them one of the top benefactors. Bohnett also went big for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ($235k since 2009).

We now learn that the abortive website was a Bohnett beneficiary. (Why 2k?) Another 30k (since 2000) went to the Campus Alliance to End Gun Violence, which did so much to stop the Virginia Tech shooting. Oh wait.

There’s a grand to Handgun Control (which I thought was defunct) and 10 Gs for Chicago’s Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP). FYI friends at Media Matters For America took possession of $545k of Bohnett’s bounty since 2007.

He who owns the gold grabs the guns, eh? We’ve reported on Gross’s own Center to Prevent Youth Violence before, whose webpage has some helpful advice on how to suicide-proof your home. Here’s the level of discourse on that topic:

An NVISS Study of firearm suicides among youth under 18 occurring found that 82% used a firearm belonging to a family member, usually a parent. When storage status was noted, about two-thirds of the firearms had been stored unlocked. Among the remaining cases in which the firearms had been locked the youth knew the combination or where the key was kept or broke into the cabinet (Harvard School of Public Health).

So, more of the same, then. Misdirections, statistical manipulation and waving the bloody shirt. It’s too bad that The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence doesn’t really want to prevent gun violence with effective measures that would gain the support of gun owners (e.g., making sure that vicious criminals remain incarcerated until their testosterone levels drop, or longer).

Then again, the sort of campaign would simply provide a more effective cover for their real agenda: disarming Americans. The fight continues.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Is that 30,000 lives per year accurate and if so, what context? The FBI number for all firearms was around 10,000 per year a few years ago and is currently dropping. Handguns are about 75% of that total.

    Looks like Gross will fit in just fine at the Brady Campaign.

  2. Thanks for this introduction to Daniel Gross. When I look beyond your usual mind-reading and distortions, I think I like the guy.

    Good luck to him.

    So as not to be accused of “hit and miss” and not backing up my statements, I’d point out that when you claim to know what the de facto goal of the organization is, which differs from their own description of it, you’re being less than honest.

    “This they would do by creating expensive, pre-emptive, restrictive, impractical, ineffectual and virtually unenforceable gun laws; regulations that discourage and/or prevent lawful citizens from obtaining a firearm.”

    With this whopper, you’re not only reading their minds for their true intentions but you’re also predicting the future.

    In your haste to show how glib you are, you probably didn’t notice the built-in contradiction in your statement. If the laws they create are “unenforceable,” how are they going to prevent anything?

    • mikeb,
      Only law abiding citizens would obey unenforceable laws thus giving us the disadvantage against criminals who do not follow such laws.

    • “With this whopper, you’re not only reading their minds for their true intentions but you’re also predicting the future.”

      Or he’s using the history of gun control as it has unfolded all over Europe and elsewhere as an example. No mind reading needed.

    • Mikey…reading your wide-eyed discourse is as reliably disappointing as waking to find your dog has peed all over the carpet. Again.

      And, as with the aged and untrainable dog, no use in smacking him. You just growl and give him some treats anyway, because you love the mutt.

      • The difference is that dogs sometimes learn. Creatures like mikeb can never learn due to their psychoses and woeful intelligence.

    • “If the laws they create are “unenforceable,” how are they going to prevent anything?”
      So, you do see the problem?

    • You do understand that you, the anti gun side, has lost this issue, right? You do understand that this isn’t Britain or Canada and Americans won’t turn in their guns, no matter what you do or what laws you pass? You do understand that apart from a few barbaric hellholes like NYC and Chicago, gun control is radioactive to politicians? You do understand that America is in the midst of a pro gun renaissance such as we’ve never seen before, don’t you? You understand that although the anti gun crowd has the ear of the media and can make a lot of noise, that people aren’t listening anymore?

      Do you understand these things?

      • Yes, and do you understand no one is asking you to turn in your guns? Why are you guys so fixated on that extreme and unlikely fantasy? Does it give you that sense of importance that comes with “grandiose victimism?”

        • Why shouldn’t it? Hasn’t the left gotten everything they wanted through victimism, as you put it? Can’t I have some, too?

          Besides, a total gun ban is the end game for the anti gun movement, and I challenge anyone to deny it. Yes, a nice peaceful utopia where there are no guns, except for the government, and if you don’t do what they say, it’s off to the gulag or gas chamber. Sound familiar? I don’t know if you are honestly deluded or a closet fascist, but that’s where personal disarmament has ended up, not once but many times, and I challenge you to deny that, as well.

  3. “this is an issue that’s claiming the lives of 30,000 people every year”
    A full two thirds of that is from suicide. I have no reliable stats on how many of the rest are self defense or justifiable. USA has a lower suicide rate than many countries with stringent gun laws (Japan comes to mind). Guns are not the cause of suicide, just a reasonably sure way to not botch the job.
    I would like to see some real stats (there aren’t any) on how many lives are saved by using a gun in defense, or even brandishing it to discourage a violent criminal.
    If you really want to prevent gun violence, make sure every criminal knows that most every lawful citizen is packing and prepared to defend him/herself.

    • I didn’t find it immediately, but I think the stats are reported in the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports, and the 30,000 figure is approximately accurate for all deaths, including suicides. Apparently Brady thinks that suicide is “gun violence.” There were about 12,000 murders last year, and yes 80% were by guns. But a more telling statistic is the overall rate of violent crime. AS summarized by the FBI:

      ■In 2010, the estimated number of violent crime offenses was 1,246,248, a decrease of 6.0 percent from the 2009 estimate.
      ■All violent crime offense estimates decreased in 2010 when compared with the 2009 estimates. Robberies dropped 10.0 percent; forcible rapes declined 5.0 percent; murders were down 4.2 percent; and aggravated assaults decreased 4.1 percent.
      ■The 2010 violent crime rate was 403.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease of 6.5 percent when compared with the 2009 violent crime rate.
      ■Violent crime rates for 2010 declined in all offense categories when compared with rates for 2009.
      ■In 2010, the murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4.8 percent decrease when compared with the rate for the previous year.
      ■The estimated number of property crimes in 2010 was 9,082,887, a 2.7 percent decrease from the 2009 estimate.
      ■The 2010 property crime rate was 2,941.9 per 100,000, down 3.3 percent when compared with the 2009 rate.
      ■The estimated number of motor vehicle thefts decreased 7.4 percent and larceny-theft and burglary decreased 2.4 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively.

      That really blew my mind–1.2 million violent crimes last year. I think I need to buy another gun.

  4. I know those who work for the Brady Campaign – how many is it, four or five? – want to keep their jobs, but wouldn’t it make more sense after their dismal performance over the past few years to simply shut up for a time? They could then pop up after a few more years under a new name and pretend to have new ideas.

    Or they could just move to Canada. (My apologies to Canadian shooters.)

  5. “As a funder that is passionate about stemming the tide of senseless gun violence disarming minorities and the poor in our country”

  6. “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities -very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”

    -Nelson Shields,Hangun Control Incorporated chair (1976).

    • The past is often prologue. Their words and their tactics have continued to change and evolve, but their end game was, is and continues to be the same as it ever was. They are grasping at straws in hoping that they finally find the right formula of words, policies and emotion that that will at long last allow them to capture their oh so enlightened holy grail of ending civilian gun ownership. It’s never going to happen. Nor have they rationally considered the unintended consequences of the hellish nightmare that they espouse; for if they had, and if they were in fact smart, rational people, they would find something else to do with their lives that would be of greater benefit to society.

  7. If they really care about preventing gun violence, then they should stop pushing this nation toward civil war. It is pure projection of their own cowardice to think that a free people, duly armed and trained, would simply hand over their tools of liberty.

    I’ll paraphrase Jeff Cooper; to Mikeb and your ilk: “If you want my guns, then you come and take them. You! Don’t send some poor sap to enforce your edict. Have the fortitude to stand by your convictions and YOU come and take them.”

    • That’s why the dark side of me wants Obama, whether black or white (Romney), bans guns – because that will finally be the step too far and provoke a civil war, which is realistically the only way that we’ll ever regain control over the government and start following the Constitution again.

      • Don’t give in to the dark side, Luke. Prepare for the worst (a bloody, protracted 4th generation war amongst our own homes and families) but work toward the best (a peacful, intellectual revolution mirrored by principled restoration).

        • Come on, we’ve seen what these scum have done with a century in power. People aren’t going to magically vote these people out.

          • I agree with you. That’s why I continue to prepare for war… but I’m certainly not hoping for it. War f–king sucks!

            • True, but if it’s the only way to restore your freedoms, doesn’t that change things? I mean it’s not like anyone in the colonies WANTED to go to war.

              • Totenglocke, the fact that you seem to welcome a war indicates that you think you would fight it and win it.

                Henry Bowman is right. War sucks. Si vis pacem, para bellum is a good motto. The goal of the para bellum part is peace, not war.

              • Totenglocke keep trying to impress how tough he is.

                Henry, too, I guess with that silly “come and take them” nonsense.

                Only your side is talking about war and having your guns “took.”

              • Actually, I was trying to impress how tough you aren’t.

                I’m sure you’d happily espouse sending young cops or soldiers to enforce anti-gun edicts. But, I’m sure that if you personally had to do it, you wouldn’t dare.

              • Would you personally volunteer to serve on the staff of a gun disarmament agency? As a gun owner I practice what I preach,so I ask you Mikeb,what have you personally done to advance the cause of civilian disarmament?

              • The oral diarrhea continues, someone get MikeB some pepto ASAP.

                A quote from the Handgun Control nuts was posted saying that the ultimate goal was to ban handguns.

                Dianne Feinstein has said repeatedly that if she could get the votes she would seize all guns.

                Even our fearless leader Obama has supported banning handguns, let alone semiautomatic rifles.

              • I’d fight, yes, but if I’d win? Who knows. All I know is that given the choices of living in chains with a number burned into my forehead or dying trying to restore freedom to our country, I’d choose dying.

                It’s not about being macho or wanting to hurt anyone, it’s about quality of life. To quote Braveheart “it’s all for nothing if you don’t have freedom”. No matter the situation, I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Too many people who would otherwise stand up for themselves and die for what’s right don’t because they’ve been fooled into thinking life in and of itself is somehow valuable. It’s not the fact that you exist that matters, it’s what you do with your life that matters.

  8. Doesn’t matter who they name Chief Tyrant of their merry little band of sub-humans. No one listens to them, and no one will, no matter how much they lie. A new wave of personal responsibility and rational, logic views on guns is sweeping the country, and groups like these are irrelevant.

    If it continues, the Bradys and mikeb’s ilk will be swept aside to the ash heap of history, like all despicable tyrants eventually are.

    • Or they will tear this union asunder, as those who espouse the principles of groupthink and collectivism seek to enforce their will on those who remember the origins of the American experiment in 1776.

      One day the disagreement about who should and shouldn’t be armed in America will go beyond words. I pray its not an event any of us alive today will see.

  9. This isn’t a political issue? If Gross (a perfect name btw) keeps on snapping off one-liners like that, then he’s funny enough to open for Chris Rock.

    Maybe he can do a whole Martin & Lewis thing with mikey.

Comments are closed.