Bloomberg anti-gun ad marks second anniversary of Arizona shooting
In the new television ad, Roxanna Green holds a photo of her nine-year-old daughter, Christina, who was killed in Tucson shooting rampage on January 8, 2011.
January 8th, 2013
03:39 AM ET
10 years ago

Bloomberg anti-gun ad marks second anniversary of Arizona shooting

(CNN) – This mother’s passionate plea for gun control will air in living rooms around the country on the second anniversary of her daughter’s death.

“My nine-year old daughter was murdered in the Tuscon shooting,” says Roxanna Green. “I have one question for our political leaders: when will you find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby?”

“Whose child has to die next?”

Her daughter Christina was among the six killed and 13 wounded in the shooting at neighborhood event with then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on January 8, 2011. Giffords was among those wounded and who eventually resigned from Congress to focus on her recovery. Jared Lee Loughner pleaded guilty in August to 19 counts related to the shooting.

But Green remembers her daughter, the youngest victim of the shooting, and calls for action in a new television ad from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

His group also enlisted celebrities to star in a recent video supporting the effort to “Demand a Plan” for action on gun control.

Green’s daughter was a few years older than the 20 six- and seven-year-olds killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, at a shooting there December 14.

That shooting sparked a new wave of calls for gun control, including from leaders in Washington. President Barack Obama pledged “meaningful action” against gun violence and appointed Vice President Joe Biden to lead the effort.

Bloomberg applauded Obama’s statement and urged him to take “immediate steps.” On Monday, Bloomberg outlined his platform, including strengthening background check requirements and banning assault weapons. The assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994, but expired in 2004, and has not been renewed.

The influential National Rifle Association argued the Newtown shooting made the case for armed guards in schools as a line of defense.

The ad will run on cable in Washington, beginning Tuesday and will air through January 14 – the one month anniversary of the Newtown shooting. Obama set the end of January as the deadline for Biden’s group to report back.

It will run Tuesday only in Tuscon, Arizona, as well as other cities affected by gun violence: Binghamton, New York; Fargo, North Dakota; Roanoke, Virginia; and Waco, Texas; Denver and Milwaukee. In Tuscon, the group says the ad will run around 10:10 a.m. local time, to mark when the shooting occurred.

Also Tuesday, Giffords and her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, launched a new website, "Americans for Responsible Solutions." The new effort will "encourage elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership," according to the website. The couple further marked the day by co-authoring an op-ed in "USA Today."

"We can't be naive about what it will take to achieve the most common-sense solutions," the op-ed states. "We can't just hope that the last shooting tragedy will prevent the next. Achieving reforms to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings will mean matching gun lobbyists in their reach and resources."

Bloomberg’s ad encourages people to sign an online petition on the group’s website.

Christina, the nine-year-old, was remembered at her funeral as the only girl on her Little League team – and one aspiring to the major leagues. She attended the Giffords event after her election to the middle school student council.

“To every mother, we can not wait,” Green says in the ad. “We have to demand a plan.”

- CNN’s Ashley Killough contributed to this report

READ MORE: Bloomberg: Biden no 'shrinking violet' on gun control

soundoff (317 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    Peter wrote:

    I have a 380 and a 9MM. I'll give up my guns under 1 condition. First offense for use of a gun in a crime is either life in prison or the death penalty. All gun control does is go after the law abiding owners. The real issue in the US is a lack of God, church, and family. That's where you hould start.....
    Unfortunately "law abiding" gun owners, you would probably be correct. Unfortunately for your "law abiding" argument, there are no laws on the books that they are abiding by. The mother in the Sandy Hook was a "law abiding" gun owner. However, she was a highly irresponsible gun owner, and the fact remains that she broke no laws allowing her son free access to her weapons. I mean, she was taking a mentally unstable individual to a shooting range once a week. Don't you think something should be done about that?

    January 8, 2013 09:42 am at 9:42 am |
  2. jrl1234

    If we are to make intelligent meaningful laws we need to first identify a problem that affects a majority and solutions that will have a meaningful impact without removing liberties.
    This gun control is an emotional response to a rare occurrence it is very sad but doesn't require new legislation. According to a recent FBI study mass shootings account for less than 20 deaths per year (on average over the past 20 years) that's half as many people that are killed by lightning every year. Tens of thousands of people every year protect themselves with firearms in this country. The good far outweighs the bad.

    If we regulate things on this scale we will soon live in a world with no freedoms. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin...

    January 8, 2013 09:43 am at 9:43 am |
  3. RoyBatty

    Democracy is built upon compromise and middle ground that we can all live with. As a nation we will continue to suffer these horrific attacks unless common ground can be found. A ban on firearms is not the answer. Doing nothing is not the answer. The extreemist on both sides of this national discussion seem to be trying to out yell each other. I t would be great to chat with a reasonable gun enthusiast who is willing to look at the mass murders around our nation and seek real answers and not spew more of the same rhetoric from the radical NRA , who seem to be quite comfortable with sacraficing the lives of men, women, and children to make a politcal point. Again, guns bans and more weak words from the NRA will not prevent this from happening again. Only real, honest dicourse among our citizens that will challenge us all is the only way to figure this out as a nation. Good day to you all.

    January 8, 2013 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  4. True Republican


    Thank you Peter and Misplaced focus. I agree 100%.
    The US has to get back to a respect for God and the sense of a caring community

    ------------------------------------- long as we don't provide affordable healthcare to the poor who can't afford it...I'm all for that whole "god" thing.

    January 8, 2013 09:45 am at 9:45 am |
  5. Sam

    1. Congress makes the laws
    2. Law enforcement and the military (in extreme cases) enforce the laws
    3. Law makers have already demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the constitution (infringements "permitted" in many laws despite constitutional protections)
    4. With the combination of 1-3 above, I would ask the anti-gunners...what is YOUR solution to ensure that the folks with the coercive power do not abuse or infringe upon the rights of the people?

    I know what my answer is, I would like to hear yours

    January 8, 2013 09:47 am at 9:47 am |
  6. Greg in Arkansas

    Everybody wants the "personal freedom" to own their gun, but, unfortunately, not everbody is willing to take the "personal responsibility" that goes along with gun ownership. Time for rational solutions because just saying "ban all guns" or "guns for everyone" won't solve the problem.

    January 8, 2013 09:49 am at 9:49 am |
  7. Jeb

    Our gun laws are not designed in the interest of public safety. They are designed to apease the gun lobby and a hand full of very vocal gun nuts.

    January 8, 2013 09:50 am at 9:50 am |
  8. Canuck

    America – where you have the right to own a gun but no right to healthcare. What kind of priorities are those???

    January 8, 2013 09:51 am at 9:51 am |
  9. True Republican


    America – where you have the right to own a gun but no right to healthcare. What kind of priorities are those???
    Hi Canuck...they are "traditional, conservative, christian, family values"...haven't you been following the past couple of elections

    January 8, 2013 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  10. Frank Ch. Eigler

    "America – where you have the right to own a gun but no right to healthcare. What kind of priorities are those???"

    The former is related to one's natural right of self-defense.
    The latter is the placement of an obligation onto others to provide for you.
    They are not even similar "rights".

    January 8, 2013 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  11. SCBAMA

    @Canuck. American priorities. In other words none of Canada or Britions business.

    January 8, 2013 10:02 am at 10:02 am |
  12. ru serious

    No laws could have prevented that brain dead mother from taking her whacked out son to the shooting range, only common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking in the gun-toting element of our society. I mean, who in their right mind would take an antisocial screwed up kid to a shooting range and keep an array of high-powered weapons within easy reach? I just hope she was awake and knew what was going to happen, felt just a small bit of the terror those poor innocent children must have felt.

    January 8, 2013 10:03 am at 10:03 am |
  13. Bassmaster22

    Interesting how the biggest argument against gun control is that it only works for people obeying the law so why bother to do anything. Great argument. So why did we bother will all the TSA bologna after 9/11? I mean, terrorists will find a way and all the regaulations do is punish law obeying citizens right? Stand up against all regulation because apparently it only punish's good people and stops nothing. And yes, it if it's good for gun control it's good for anything.

    January 8, 2013 10:04 am at 10:04 am |
  14. rapierpoint

    Canuck – you would be correct in your question, except you realize that in America, you don't have the right to have guns given to you free of charge. And you can opt not to own a gun. Unfortunately, with the new healthcare law, that's not an option.

    January 8, 2013 10:05 am at 10:05 am |
  15. FFC

    I can not believe that this violence is happening in the United States.

    January 8, 2013 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  16. woodie

    You can't make a law that second guesses the actions of a criminal. Gun laws will have no effect on criminals and a negative effect on citizens trying to protect themselves. Two negatives do not make a positive.

    January 8, 2013 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  17. plain&simple

    Until gun owners ,the ones who aren't afraid of the government coming to get them, decide this is an everyone will be a problem for everyone. Saying knives kill or fists or fill in the blank kills is sticking your head in the sand. It's always the "other guy"! We've gone away from God is another cop many of these mass murderers have been home schooled,or religious zealots? There's thousands of things we could or should do....and the first would be to start at the source....the weapon is the first most immediate step. Regulation is not taking away a freedom,or guns it's just trying to ensure crazy people or criminals can't walk into a gun show and buy whatever they need to kill 100 or 200 people in a couple minutes. Isn't that worth something?

    January 8, 2013 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  18. ml

    God is not going to solve any of our problems. Anyone who thinks he/she/it will is delusional.

    January 8, 2013 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  19. tony

    Guns don't kill people. People ina high state of emotion who happen to have easy access to guns, kill people, that they otherwise couldn't.

    Guns don't defend people. Only rarely can you fire back against some who shoots you first. Gunfights don't have two winners.

    January 8, 2013 10:16 am at 10:16 am |
  20. Wyobob

    Where are all the mothers whose children were killed in iraq and afganastan?

    January 8, 2013 10:16 am at 10:16 am |
  21. ja

    the nra has bought and bagged our politicans, if you want high velocity weapons join the armed forces

    January 8, 2013 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  22. Rudy NYC


    You can't make a law that second guesses the actions of a criminal. Gun laws will have no effect on criminals and a negative effect on citizens trying to protect themselves. Two negatives do not make a positive.
    Bans and restrictions seem to work very well in England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of which are English speaking countries, that enjoy the same violent video games and movies, but have far less violence from assault rifles and other semi-automatic weapons.

    January 8, 2013 10:20 am at 10:20 am |
  23. Rudy NYC

    When are some gun enthusiasts going to figure out that the same "freedom" and lack of legislation that they enjoy to purchase and own their weapons are also shared by, and used by, the exact same criminals that they use as an excuse to buy their weapons? Duuh!

    January 8, 2013 10:23 am at 10:23 am |
  24. The Real Tom Paine

    In the recent shooting in NY where 2 firefighters were killed, one of the responding officers spotted the shooter and fired 6 rounds before losing him. 6 rounds fired by a trained officer to no effect: if he can't hit a traget illuminated by 7 burning homes, what makes any reasonable person think that they will be able to hit an intruder/intruders with reasonable accuracy? What about stray rounds hitting others?

    January 8, 2013 10:23 am at 10:23 am |
  25. Larry L


    Canuck – you would be correct in your question, except you realize that in America, you don't have the right to have guns given to you free of charge. And you can opt not to own a gun. Unfortunately, with the new healthcare law, that's not an option.
    The new healthcare law only requires you to have insurance so you don't become a parasite on the medical system. Those who are responsible enough to have insurance are not impacted by the law. Those who could afford to purchase insurance but choose otherwise typically expect the emergency room to handle their minor care and often pass enormous healthcare costs on to the hospitals. Ultimately the responsible consumers end up paying the bills through spiraling healthcare costs. It's relatively easy to run up a $500,000 medical bill. Without insurance how many families could pay that bill? Somebody pays it! Turn off Fox News. Obamacare was an idea from a conservative think tank – it was also Romneycare. It's the messenger you hate – not the message.

    January 8, 2013 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13