SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
assault weapons
‘Good Guys’ with Guns Are Fucking Useless in Stopping an Armed ‘Bad Guy’
A new DOJ report on the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is laced with vivid and horrifying detail on the failings of law enforcement, themselves fearing the AR-15 weaponry in the hands of the 18-year-old shooter.
Jan 22, 2024
Remember those twisted words by Wayne LaPierre, then leader of the National Rifle Association, just days after the
mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012? Standing there proudly up on the stage, he said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
This January LaPierre resigned from his NRA leadership position ahead of the trial on charges of corruption by the State of New York. But his words after Sandy Hook sadly live on despite repeatedly being shown to be total bullshit. Glaringly so in the review of the 2022 mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, by the Department of Justice (DOJ), released on January 18.
DOJ’s 575-page report, available in English and in Spanish, is laced with vivid and horrifying detail on the failings of law enforcement, themselves fearing the AR-15 weaponry in the hands of the 18-year-old shooter. Failings causing preventable death. Failings in providing adequate emergency medical care to wounded victims after law enforcement finally entered the classrooms. Failings as dozens of trained officers stood idly by without a leader armed to the teeth with their own AR-15-style firearms.
Here are the opening words by Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta at the news briefing where the DOJ report was officially released, remarks following those by Attorney General Merrick Garland:
The Attorney General just gave a sense of the detailed timeline we have laid out, and the cascading failures that occurred over the course of the 77 minutes between when law enforcement arrived on the scene and when they finally entered the classroom. But we also know the pain—and the failures and missteps—did not end when law enforcement finally entered the classrooms and rescued the survivors.
It continued at minute 78, when it became clear that because there was no leader, there was no plan to triage the 35 victims in classrooms 111 and 112, many of whom had been shot. Victims were moved without appropriate precautions, victims who had already passed away were taken to the hospital in ambulances, while children with bullet wounds were put on school buses without any medical attention. In the commotion, one adult victim was placed on a walkway—on the ground outside—to be attended to. She died there.
As difficult as the vivid words in the report are to ignore, I am not naive. If history is any guide, some in Congress will mightily try to discount the DOJ report, continuing to block any subsequent movement on meaningful gun-control measures. Republican lawmakers in solidly Republican states, as a detailed article in The New York Times describes, are fraid their voter base would vote them out of office if they show any hint of supporting gun-control measures. Those Republicans are waiting for the report to fade away in the news cycle to collect dust.
But then, the victims of the gun carnage in Uvalde, and those before, deserve more than letting the report die buried in dust. They deserve someone taking the debate to the naysayers in Congress and state legislatures armed with hard facts about the effectiveness of gun-control measures, framed by the realities of having none in a gun-friendly state like Texas where the brutal carnage within Robb Elementary School happened. Yes, there is an association between lack of gun regulations in a state and the occurrence of mass shootings, as I describe below.
Here are some of the arguments I would make today replying to some of the naysaying comments (bolded below) common among members of Congress downplaying any need for gun control:
Gun control does not work and won’t reduce gun violence.
Wrong. Take requiring gun licenses, as required in a minority of states today. In his review of studies, Garen Wintemute, who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, writes in Health Affairs that license requirements for gun purchases “have repeatedly been associated with reduced rates of [gun] violence.” This body of research is clear.
Furthermore, Michael Siegel at Boston University and his research team found, as reported in Law and Human Behavior, that requiring one to get a permit to purchase firearms was associated with a 60% lower odds of a public mass shooting occurring in a state, controlling for state characteristics like population. Other researchers found the same thing.
Why? Because licenses to purchase firearms typically entail in-person applications and background checks involving multiple databases and, among other things, taking a gun safety course. Basically a more comprehensive examination than standalone background checks singularly taken at the point of a firearm sale.
Congress already passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) in 2022. Nothing more is needed.
Okay, but the BSCA basically only includes more funding for mental health initiatives.
Well, mental illness is the cause of most gun violence, especially mass shootings.
I agree mental troubles underlie many suicides, by firearms and otherwise. And extreme-risk or “red-flag” laws encouraged via funding in the BSCA have been shown to reduce suicides.
But research repeatedly finds that psychiatric disorders, as a comprehensive review by Rand Corporation concluded, are not the principal driver alone across the spectrum of firearm violence. And that includes not being a predictable factor in mass shootings. Sure, after a mass shooting, politicians and media search hard to find a motive and signs of mental troubles; retrospective interpretation to justify mental illness alone as cause. Retrospective interpretation, I submit, many of us not owning a gun would fail.
But an assaults weapon ban is going too far. Based only on the threatening appearance of guns, nothing more.
Maybe the 1994 ban automatically expiring in 2004 was based too much on physical appearance instead of functionality. But today, as criminologist Thomas Gabor and former ATF agent Julius Wachtel have each argued, a ban can be based on objective ballistic lethality, scoring firearms on components including caliber, muzzle velocity, firing rate, ammunition capacity, loading mechanism, and ability to add accessories that increase lethality.
Wachtel in his 2015 article in The Washington Post describes one extreme lethal ballistic feature about AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. With “their most common calibers—7.62 and .223—these weapons discharge bullets whose extreme energy and velocity readily pierce protective garments commonly worn by police, opening cavities in flesh many times the diameter of the projectile and causing devastating wounds.” Hence, a herd of law enforcement personnel at Uvalde afraid of the weapon in the shooter’s hands milled around aimlessly for over an hour before doing anything.
And such carnage Wachtel describes was visited upon the children and teachers in Robb Elementary School on that fateful day in Uvalde, Texas.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As House GOP Aims to Kill Biden Pistol Brace Rule, Dems Renew Longshot Gun Control Push
Congresswoman Lucy McBath, whose son was killed by gun violence, said she filed a discharge petition for an assault weapons ban "because we have been sent to Congress to use every tool to help save American lives."
Jun 13, 2023
As most U.S. House Republicans and two Democrats on Tuesday voted to block the Biden administration's regulation of pistols with stabilizing braces, several other Democratic lawmakers renewed a fight for gun control policies unlikely to pass the GOP-controlled chamber.
Democratic Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Peltola (Alaska) joined with all Republicans present except Congressmen Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Thomas Kean (N.J.) to pass a resolution disapproving of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rule, which was finalized in January.
Under the federal bureau's rule, gun owners who install stabilizing braces on their pistols so the firearms can be used one-handed must register the weapons as short-barreled rifles. Alternatively, they can permanently remove and dispose of the accessory, turn in the firearm at an ATF office, or destroy the gun.
The gun accessories have gained national attention after being used by the perpetrators of mass shootings such as a 2021 rampage at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado as well as a massacre at a Nashville, Tennessee school earlier this year.
"Gun violence is the challenge of our lifetime and the issue of our era."
"The regulation has become a sticking point among conservatives, and gun rights groups like the Gun of Owners of America have urged Congress to pass the disapproval resolution," Roll Call noted Tuesday. "The rule would have gone into effect June 1, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit temporarily stayed the rule while a challenge plays out in the courts."
Even if the House GOP's measure also passes the Democrat-controlled Senate, President Joe Biden would veto it, the White House said Monday, stressing that "this administration has no higher priority than keeping the American people safe, which is jeopardized with a vote in support of a resolution that makes it easier for mass shooters to obtain these deadly weapons."
While Republican lawmakers—and a handful of Democrats—battle the pistol brace policy, Democratic Reps. James Clyburn (S.C.), Lucy McBath, (Ga.), and Mike Thompson (Calif.) are hoping to force votes on gun control legislation with discharge petitions, which allow legislators to bypass GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and bring bills to the floor with simple majority support.
\u201cWe've experienced more mass shootings this year than there have been days. Gun violence is the challenge of our lifetime and the issue of our era.\n\nWe have filed today\u2019s discharge petition because we have been sent to Congress to use every tool to help save American lives.\u201d— Rep. Lucy McBath (@Rep. Lucy McBath) 1686672952
The trio filed discharge petitions Tuesday related to an assault weapons ban and background check legislation. However, actually holding votes on those bills would require winning over not only most—if not all—Democrats but also a handful of Republicans.
As The Washington Postdetailed Tuesday:
Of all three bills, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which Thompson first introduced after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, has previously received the most support from across the aisle. The bill, which would require background checks on those looking to transfer or buy a gun, is sponsored by... Fitzpatrick... and received eight Republican votes in 2021.
The proposal from Clyburn would require background checks to be completed 10 days after someone buys a firearm, increasing the current review period by seven days. It would close the "Charleston loophole," a reference to how Dylann Roof, a white supremacist, was able to obtain a firearm in 2015 after the three-day review period expired but before the background check was completed. He went on to murder nine Black worshippers in South Carolina at a church in Charleston.
[...]
Taking on the herculean pursuit of enacting an assault weapons ban into law is personal for McBath. Her 17-year-old son, Jordan Davis, was killed after being confronted by Michael Dunn for playing loud music in a parked car at a Jacksonville, Florida, gas station in 2012.
Various other Democrats announced that they had signed the discharge petitions on Tuesday. Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.)—who was previously the national organizing director for March for Our Lives, formed after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida—said that he was "proud to have been one of the first to sign all three this morning."
\u201cWe are so grateful to @RepJamesClyburn, @RepLucyMcBath, and @RepThompson for heeding the calls of the vast majority of Americans who want continued action on gun safety from Congress.\u201d— Moms Demand Action (@Moms Demand Action) 1686687535
Specifically signaling her support for the assault weapons ban, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) tweeted: "Gun violence is an epidemic touching every community. Firearms are now the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America. This is unacceptable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Refuses to Block Assault Weapons Ban in Illinois
"The Supreme Court once again reaffirms the rights of legislators and local officials to pass gun safety laws," said one advocate.
May 17, 2023
State and local laws banning the sale of assault weapons will stand in Illinois for the time being, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal on Wednesday to temporarily block the measures while pro-gun groups appeal them in lower courts.
The high court did not disclose how each justice voted or explain their reasoning for the decision, releasing only a brief statement saying that the request for an injunction was denied.
A gun store in Naperville, Illinois joined the National Association for Gun Rights in challenging a local ordinance that blocks the sale of assault weapons, defined as 26 firearms and other weapons that meet certain criteria. The law went into effect in January after being passed last August, a month after seven people were killed and nearly 50 were injured in a mass shooting in Highland Park, 35 miles away from Naperville.
The lawsuit also challenges the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which also went into force in January and bans the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines across the state.
The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up the case and is scheduled to hear arguments on June 29.
"This is an important victory in the fight to end gun violence as the U.S. continues to deal with multiple mass shootings."
The gun store and pro-gun group cited two landmark rulings by the Supreme Court, including District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess a firearm for "lawful purposes," independent of serving in a militia; and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that courts must consider the gun regulations that were in effect when the Constitution was written when they decide whether a gun law should stand.
The latter ruling expanded access to firearms last year even as gun violence surpassed vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among children in the United States.
The plaintiffs claimed that "there is no historical analogue to such a ban" as the ones passed in Illinois. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul countered in a court brief that the types of guns targeted by the laws, such as one used by the shooter in Highland Park, fall well outside the Constitution's protections for "firearms that are 'commonly used' for self-defense."
The gun control group Brady said Wednesday's development at the Supreme Court, while not the final word on the case, was "an important victory in the fight to end gun violence."
\u201c\ud83d\udea8BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to block Illinois' and Naperville's assault weapons ban from being enforced. \n\nThis is an important victory in the fight to end gun violence as the US continues to deal with multiple mass shootings.\nhttps://t.co/U8Z3AeJK3Q\u201d— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@Brady | United Against Gun Violence) 1684340876
"This is a great victory for Americans and all of us working to protect our children from the gun violence epidemic facing our nation," said Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, senior adviser to advocacy group Giffords. "With this ruling the Supreme Court once again reaffirms the rights of legislators and local officials to pass gun safety laws."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular