Why do you mount the argument that the NRA cares nothing for prevention, only punishment, while also arguing that Eddie Eagle is not only useless, but also is used as a platform for selling guns?  The message of Eddie Eagle is "If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult."  I do not understand the contradiction.

How do passing laws help to prevent people from getting guns and hurting others, when criminals, by definition, do not obey the law?

Viewing the following page on the Brady Campaign's website:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/assault.asp

and regarding the following statements on said page:

"Although it is illegal in every state to hunt animals with more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and although semiautomatic assault weapons are useless for recreational activities, the gun lobby fought the assault weapons ban to the bitter end."

"Semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend on the accurate shooting of one bullet at a time. Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip and are designed to maximize death and injury from a very rapid rate of fire."

1) I live in Texas, and would really like you to point out the law that states the illegality of having more than 10 rounds of ammunition in my rifle when hunting game.  The fact is, there is no such law.

2) It is absolutely ridiculuous to state that a semi-auto rifle is designed to be fired "from the hip."  There is now way to achieve good accuracy with this technique.  I know of many semi-auto rifles (the Remington Model 7400 Autoloader comes to mind) which are specifically designed for hunting purposes.  Is this rifle designed to be "shot from the hip" as your website so eloquently states?  Of course not, just like none of the OTHER semi-auto rifles in existence are "designed to be fired from the hip."  

Please answer my two specific questions, without skirting around the issue.  I am sure that you won't, but we can always hope that you and the organization you represent will stop spreading lies such as the two examples I have pointed out.

If there are already laws in place sanctioning penalties (laws never really prevent anything, only sanction penalties for the harmful activity in question) for cases when children, criminals and other prohibited purchasers, why do you continue to call for more gun laws?

Why do you argue that crime is going down (ostensibly due to gun control laws) while arguing that more gun control is desperately needed?  Why do you ignore other factors, such as economic factors and population density?

Quoted:
what kind of material do they make the "fingerprint resistant guns" out of?

where do they advertise them for the criminals?

Guns are merely a tool for criminals to use, alongside of knives, bats, axes, motor vehicals.  In reality, criminals use whatever tools they have at hand in order to create fear in their victims.  Criminals rely on one predictable reaction, and that is submission.  When targets of criminal activity do not submit, the criminals will find another line of work, or targets who will submit.  When targets of criminal activity submit, it encourages the criminal acitivity.  Are you aware that by promoting victim compliance through disarmament, you promote criminal behavior, among those who have a tendancy already?

Quoted:
My question: Since VPC doesn't appear to want to hire me, are there any employment openings available at the Brady Campaign?

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

You advocate "reasonable gun control" which includes licensing and registration.  In reference to the Constitutional Militia of the 2nd Amendment, why do you not call for the reactivation of said Militia?  There would be no violation of the 2nd Amendment for all firearms involved in militia duty to be registered.  The training involved in militia duty would take care of the concern about people who overreact to dangerous situation, or when a shoot/no shoot question arises.

An excerpt: "In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors)."
Are gun bans what you consider "reasonable" gun control?  If not, what DO you consider reasonable, in that context?

MODERATOR
Jim McGrath asks: "Of the 700,000 sales prevented, how many individuals were arrested?"

SARAH BRADY
The important point to consider is that the purchase of the weapons by a prohibited person was stopped. One can only imagine how many lives were saved and tragedies avoided.