Here is my article dated on October 4th, 2015 that basically become Hillary Clinton's gun safety platform three days later and was basically a focal point in that debate they had that week:
Another Day, Another Mass Shooting in America.
After another mass shooting in a white middle class part of America, there is the same uproar about the USA needing national background checks. There are also calls for us to look towards mental behavior issues. National Background checks and clamping down on mental behavior issues alone are an ineffective safety measure. We need to close existing loop holes in 33 states that allow the sales of firearms at gun shows without not only a simple background check but also without a simple verification of the gun purchaser's identity.
I recently saw an expose' on television that had a 15 year old kid attempt to buy a lottery ticket which he was denied to do at that market. I then watched that same kid try to buy liquor which again, he was denied by that liquor store clerk. He then tried to buy a pack of cigarettes which he was denied by that attendant at that market.
He then went to a gun show in Pennsylvania, I believe where he was able to buy 5 guns within an hour span of time.
There is something wrong with that scenario.
Besides, they are mere symptoms to the major problem we face with gun violence today
However, there is nothing worse than anything set forth by law, than gun makers being immune to civil liability laws against them. The following is a brief summary of the Equal access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, written by The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress. They are a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress and this bill I speak about was introduced to the House on 1/22/2013.
"The 'Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act' prohibits a court from dismissing an action against a manufacturer, seller, or trade association for damages or relief resulting from an alleged defect or negligence with respect to a product, or conduct that would be actionable under state common or statutory law in the absence of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, on the basis that the action is for damages or relief from the criminal, unlawful, or volitional use of a qualified product."
Congress initially passed the law with support from Republicans as well as Democrats in pro-gun states, and Schiff’s proposed legislation failed.
What it does is make the contents of the Firearms Trace System database that is maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) subject to subpoena or other discovery and admissible as evidence in law suits. It permits such contents to be used, relied on, or disclosed, and permits testimony or other evidence to be based on the data, on the same basis as other information in a civil action in any state or federal court or in an administrative proceeding.
That is not allowed by law, today.
It should be proposed as legislation that would ease current law to allow people to file civil law suits against gun manufacturers and others in the industry when they act irresponsibly. The The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), would amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Rep. Schiff, that 2005 law enacted by George Bush Jr. and by Dick Cheney gives gun manufacturers, distributors and gun dealers immunity from most civil negligence and product liability actions. That was described that year as the 'mother of all laws' because what it does is to make an entire industry immune to law suits.
I therefore ask every reader the following question which is what industry on this planet is immune to law suits as a whole? I ask any reader to name one. I then ask major media outlets to take hold of this article, and to run with it. I then ask the POTUS to do the same thing. I especially ask the people in Congress to do the same thing.
Because by mentioning talking points such as they do today, that is just a product of the problem. It is NOT the root of it. In reality, there are only two scientific constants to every killing with a gun and that is the gun itself and the bullet used to do it. Everything else is a part of the problem and again, there is no real science behind it. Plus, every other issue behind every gun death, varies (i.e.: racism, general mental behavior issues, the magazine a gun holds, the type of a gun, people in general etc. are the reason given as talking points about why whomever kills anything). I will say it one more time. The ONLY scientific thing regarding every killing, murder, injury are the gun and the bullet itself.
Let me assume that no one is going to believe that we Americans are going to get rid of every gun and / or every bullet.
However, I myself say and the Representative Adam Schiff believe that his bill is needed to be passed as a way to allow suits to go forward when these entities are found to be negligent, or for product liability issues, let alone for selling a gun or any weaponry in a corrupt way (i.e.: knowingly selling guns and bullets to someone that you know will use it for a crime).
Since 2005, "numerous cases around the nation have been dismissed on the basis of PLCAA even when the gun dealers acted in a fashion that would qualify as negligent if it involved any other product," Schiff said in a letter to House colleagues seeking support for his bill. "The victims in these cases are denied the right to even discover and introduce evidence of negligence.
(Adam) Schiff goes on to say that his "bill will reinstate the intent of PLCAA, allowing civil cases to go forward against irresponsible actors" "Letting courts hear these cases would provide justice to victims while creating incentives for responsible business practices that would reduce injuries and deaths. At the same time, my bill will provide protection for gun companies who are sued when they do not act negligently, which was the purpose of PLCAA."
And, I agree with that 100%. With such a law in place, the incentive to not sell any old product to anyone would help root out a lot of these issues we face today. Certain people would not have a 13 gun arsenal in its hands (Authorities say dead suspect had more than a dozen firearms, including six recovered from the crime scene.). Schiff added that current law only protects the "worst actors in the industry," and said that "good gun companies" and I say gun sellers "don't need special protection from the law; bad companies don't deserve it."
Schiff's bill is co-sponsored by 11 other house Democrats, including Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). It has been dead since it was placed into action in January 2013. There have been thousands of people killed with guns and bullets since that day.
Schiff also introduced another bill that would create a new, two-year sentence for "straw purchasers" of firearms, or people who are buying weapons for people who cannot pass a background check. He states that "the laws currently on the books targeting straw purchasers of firearms don't treat it as anything other than a paperwork violation." He also states that "we need to crack down on those who are buying weapons with the express purpose of providing them to those who can't pass a background check" and that "straw purchasing is not a 'paperwork' violation — it's a serious crime that has led to a horrendous increase in criminal access to firearms."
Our culture that is geared towards guns is fine to have in America. However, we Americans have lost our responsibility to do it.
CNN reported the other day about American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence which they spelled out to everyone in one graph:
*Includes the following domestic terrorism incidents:
September 11 attacks (NY, DC, PA) 9/11/01
2001 Anthrax attacks (DC, NY, CT, FL) Oct., Nov. 2001
El Al counter shooting (California) 7/4/02
Beltway sniper attacks (DC, Mid-Atlantic) Oct. 2002
Knoxville church shooting (Tennessee) 7/27/08
Pittsburgh police officers killed (Pennsylvania) 4/4/09
Tiller abortion clinic (Kansas) 5/31/09
Holocaust Museum shooting (DC) 6/10/09
Fort Hood shooting (Texas) 11/5/09
Plane crash into Austin IRS building (Texas) 2/18/10
Fort Stewart Army base killing (Georgia) 12/10/11
Sikh Temple Shooting (Wisconsin) 8/7/12
St. John's Parish police ambush (Louisiana) 8/16/12
Boston Marathon Bombing (Massachusetts) 4/15/13
LAX Shooting (California) 11/05/13
Think about the money we spend on every year to combat terrorism compared to what we spend every year to combat Gun violence in America.
I ask every reader to understand that simple fact. I ask every reader to think about it that way. Either we need to cut down what we spend on terrorism or we need to have an equalling out affect to happen fast.
This POTUS (Barack Obama) stated the other day after the latest mass shooting was his 15th press release on them.
I must also add that same day 4 people in the city of Philadelphia were killed at the same time this news story broke, yet there was no mention about it on any news outlet, except for the local ones surrounding the city of Philadelphia.
Regardless of that happening in Philly that same day without the media taking hold of it, Obama did say that "the reporting is routine." Obama went on to say that his "response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation in the aftermath of it. We've become numb to this." He then went on to ask all news organizations to tally up the number of Americans killed through terrorist attacks in the last decade and compare it with the number of Americans who have died in gun violence.
Accordingly to the writers at CNN, and them using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
And, that according to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, CNN compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.
That is not normal how we think about the two issues here. We get free reign to spend whatever to thwart terrorism which I respect, we also have lost so many civil liberties in the process but then again, the same goes to try thwart gun violence. Mat Welch from Reason stated on the real Time With Bill Maher show Friday night that was why initially, that the 'stop and frisk' laws were set in place in most major cities in America. I think in either case that if one has nothing to hide, than it is mostly OK, however for the [people that do have things to hide, it is not good for the likes of them.
There have been 3 lawsuits to attempt to hold gun makers, sellers liable for shootings in 2015 so far. There was a legal complaint set up in Newtown, Connecticut after that horrid shooting and that lawsuit is relating the death of children with violence. The complaint tells about of the dead children throughout it. Jesse Lewis, 6, an only child, loved riding horses. His last meal was an egg sandwich with hot chocolate. Dylan Hockley, 6, loved garlic bread and the moon. His favorite color was purple. Benjamin Wheeler, 6, wanted to be an architect, a paleontologist or a lighthouse keeper. The three died Dec. 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary School.
They did the same thing describing the murdered people in Oregon this week when they read the names of those victims. They prefaced every one of them with something they believed in and liked to do. One was an animal activist if I remember correct but regardless of those tactics if you will, the suit had been filed in federal court in Connecticut in January, Soto et al. v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC. That is one of several lawsuits making their way through the court that seek money damages from gun shops and manufacturers. However, other than talking about the likes of the victims and what they did for the world, these cases have no weight per se and it is because of a decade-old federal law that I mentioned above (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) and that gives the gun industry total immunity to never be sued.
Here’s a look at the law:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
President George W. Bush along with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sign the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields the firearms industry from civil lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, on Oct. 26, 2005, in Washington. The legislation at the core of gun lawsuits is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Signed into law by President George W. Bush and by Dick Cheney in 2005. That law restricts there from being any civil lawsuits set up by crime victims against gun makers and sellers.
It first came about after the DC Killings when there were many law suits filed and therefore, the gun industry challenged a series of setbacks because of them. Among them was a suit brought up in New York City claiming how gun manufacturers and sellers had allowed their weapons to be sold in illegal markets, creating a public nuisance, and 2002 California legislation explicitly allowing suits against gun manufacturers.
The gun industry claimed at that time how civil law suits had cost it more than $100 million, and members of Congress began to voice concern about the fate of military weapon suppliers if the entire industry went bankrupt. “Where will our soldiers get the arms they need to protect our freedoms?” asked Rep. Candice S. Miller, R-Mich., according to the Los Angeles Times. “From France? From Germany?”
The law put the National Rifle Association against gun safety organizations. In the Washington Post that year, it had stated that the legislation “barely pretends to be anything other than a special-interest gimme designed to shield the gun industry from lawsuits.”
The debate was that if gun manufacturers and retailers are not held responsible, who pays when a mass shooting or another gun tragedy happens? It was stipulated back then in 2005.
Then, with the Newtown massacre of those kids and when other mass shootings occurred, was when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act. That would then hone in that law enacted in 2005 law by then allowing suits when manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers are negligent in the ways described in this article.
That law “denies the victims of gun violence and their families their day in court, and in doing so it protects the worst actors in the gun industry,” Schiff said.
The current law does include a few exceptions that allow gun manufacturers and retailers to be held liable: (1) when a manufacturer or seller knowingly falsifies federal or state records about the gun (however, it is against the Federal Law to alter or change any Federal Court Document or State Court Document anyway), (2) when a manufacturer or seller sells a gun to someone who they know is prohibited from having a gun (that means nothing without any national background check registry set in place), and (3) when a design defect directly results in property damage, physical injuries or death (which is negated because of the guns are manufactured today and is very hard to prove).
The exceptions of this is in the sates of Connecticut, Wisconsin and Alaska.
Currently, there are three cases being seen today and that were brought forth which are:
1. The Newtown suit
Two years after Adam Lanza went into the Sandy Hook Elementary School to for some reason, killed what were 20 children and six school staff members, the victims’ families announced plans to sue file suit against the manufacturer of the gun Lanza used, a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. They also added that the shop that sold the gun to Lanza to be part of that suit. The complaint, accuses the manufacturer and the seller total "disregard of the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” The Plaintiff's stated in the complaint how the gun maker and store owner should have known "that people unfit to operate the weapons would gain access to them." Most notably in that case, the plaintiff's state that, "Bushmaster should have known of the “unreasonably high risk” that the rifle would be used in a mass shooting."
They state how the AR-15 is designed as a "military weapon, engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” and that how its design of it features “exceptional muzzle velocity, the ability to accommodate large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire.”
Both the Plaintiff's involved in that law suit and The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry that happens to be also located in Newtown, have not commented on the lawsuit to any media outlet covering it. The NRA also did not respond to anything with regard to that law suit and let alone about the suit that that they most likely feel should be shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act legislation.
The Newtown case takes a different approach than many other law suits vs. gun sellers and directed at the gun manufacturing industry.
It focuses on negligence by the seller and by the manufacturer. And, it focuses on why we have assault types of weaponry readily available for sale to the general public. The legal angle is how it is negligent to allow assault styled weapons like we use at war and during war's pose a danger to a person not trained to use it. "While other lawsuits have focused on problems with the sale of a gun, this one claims that by introducing the Bushmaster AR-15 gun into the marketplace, the manufacturer should be held liable."
This is the first time this has been raised in any court system. Many legal experts have raised doubts on the lawsuit’s chances of success. Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University states that “it’s almost exactly the sort of claim that the legislation was designed to prevent,” I think it keeps the conversation going but at the same time, no one really talks about the suit today. Even the victims families that were interviewed this week on major media outlets never said one word about it.
2. The Badger Guns case
In April this year, a gun lawsuit hit the courts in Wisconsin. The Norberg et al. vs. Badger Guns Inc. et al., is set forth because of injuries occurring when two Milwaukee police officers who were shot in 2009 by an 18-year-old kid named Julius Burton. They tried to pull him over for riding his bicycle on the sidewalk and were somehow shot because of it. The officers say that Badger Guns, is liable because the store should have known it was illegal to sell the handgun to an underage kid at the time. The under aged kid was however, with a friend that happened to be 21 years old. The lawsuit is set up because the gun store owner and sales person should have known that buyer of the gun was the under aged kid which had been stipulated clearly on the purchase slip. On that slip, it was written that the 21-year-old was not the buyer of the gun, let alone would not have been the owner.
The gun shop's defense is that that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects it from any liabilities in such a claim.
The officers claim how “it was a straw buy,” and how it's “our contention that there were plenty of legitimate red flags that surround the purchase.”
This Badger Guns gained national notoriety in 2005 when federal data showed it was the nation’s top seller of guns linked to crimes (537 of its guns were recovered by police). In that claim, the Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Conen ruled in favor of the officers in January 2014. It found the claim met one of the exceptions of the legislation, clearing the way for the upcoming trial.
3. A challenge in Alaska
This claim is basically a wrongful death lawsuit. In 2006, Simone Kim was fatally shot while painting at a Juneau supermarket. Later, a drifter named Jason Coday was convicted in the killing. The Kim family filed a wrongful death suit, alleging that a gun dealer illegally sold Coday the gun without a proper background check. The lawsuit alleges that Coday went to Rayco Sales and walked out with the gun after putting $200 on the counter as a bribe to be able to get it.
The gun shop owner told a very different story saying that when Coday came into the store, that he wasn’t interested in buying a gun that day. Coday evidently then put on his backpack as if he was going to leave the store, that the seller then walked away from the area. It was told that the gun shop employee saw the $200 in cash on a counter later on, and and he then realized that the gun had been stolen by Coday from the counter. It was also told that the gun seller quickly began to search for Coday and that he was not to be blamed for the bribery and/or the negligence.
Therefore, did Coday steal the gun without the sales clerk's knowledge or was there a bribe in action? Either way, there is negligence but one is willful knowledge and one was just for walking away while guns lay down on the counter with the great ease to swipe. A trial judge eventually dismissed the claim because its ruling was that of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. However, it was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court that then ruled the case could go forward, saying it was not barred if the gun was sold illegally without the seller doing a background check. It went back to the trial courts in Alaska.
It does turn out that licensed gun dealers have a protection that no other gun dealer has because think about it this way, if someone walks into anyone's house to steal their guns when it is not locked up in a safe manner, and then they take those guns to shoot people or to use it in crimes, whomever can indeed be sued for negligence.
Conversely, if it is a licensed gun dealer, and somebody does that to them, they would be protected by this law.
Overall, this issue needs to dealt with by the root. Which is by law. If we start by fixing that law, we can then start to place together the other pieces of it. Like doing national background checks. Like changing up the gun show loop hole and like to not allow there to be assault weapons sold to the general public. Until then, it will not stop. And, I will realize that no one is serious about gun safety issues.
Because i maintain that any firm believers of that antiquated 2nd amendment (which the forefathers that enacted our amendments wrote them up to be altered and amended; it does not have to be written in stone so to speak like people make it out to be), have lost their privilege today. There is nothing wrong with a responsible gun manufacturer, gun seller and gun user. That's is not what this aimed to be against. It is for the corrupt people. Besides, if "Corporations are People Too My Friends," those corporations that make guns and sell them, should have morals too. It should nit be only about that other Amendment (14th) where it is only about creating as much profits and with as much profit margin as possible. I maintain there should be a moral fiber to that amendment too.
Also and occasionally, a lobbying client may refer to a bill number from a previous Congress, either in error or because they are lobbying on a bill that has not yet been assigned a number. In these cases, it will appear as though they are lobbying on the bill sharing that number in the Congress in which they are filing, which in most cases is a different bill entirely.
To see more information about the bill the client is lobbying on, you can look at the specific report under the "Report images" tab below on the lobbying client's profile page.
Here is a list of them from 2014 at the Center for Responsive Politics:
| Bill Number | Congress | Bill Title | No. of Reports & Specific Issues* |
|---|---|---|---|
| H.R.1565 | 113 | Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013 | 4 |
| H.R.332 | 113 | Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act | 4 |
| H.R.452 | 113 | Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 | 4 |
| S.54 | 113 | Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 | 4 |
| S.649 | 113 | Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 | 3 |
| H.R.4783 | 113 | Promoting Healthy Minds for Safer Communities Act of 2014 | 3 |
| H.R.4806 | 113 | Pause for Safety Act of 2014 | 3 |
| H.R.4906 | 113 | Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act | 3 |
| S.1290 | 113 | Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2013 | 3 |
| S.2445 | 113 | Pause for Safety Act of 2014 | 3 |
| S.2483 | 113 | Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act | 3 |
And, here is a list of them from 2015:
| Bill Number | Congress | Bill Title | No. of Reports & Specific Issues* |
|---|---|---|---|
| H.R.1217 | 114 | Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.1701 | 114 | Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.1706 | 114 | Real Education for Healthy Youth Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.1885 | 114 | Securing Access to Rural Postal Services Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.224 | 114 | To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health. | 1 |
| H.R.368 | 114 | Safe and Responsible Gun Transfer Act | 1 |
| H.R.402 | 114 | National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.410 | 114 | Pause for Safety Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.752 | 114 | Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act | 1 |
| H.R.923 | 114 | Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| H.R.986 | 114 | Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.213 | 114 | Look-Alike Weapons Safety Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.498 | 114 | Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.551 | 114 | Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 | 1 |
| S.874 | 114 | Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 | 1 |
If you believe that there is an error, please e-mail the Center for Responsive Politics at info@crp.org. They will attempt to correct it.
------------------------------------------
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey
Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50%involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50%involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
| United States | Japan | |
| Per capita spending on video games | $44 | $55 |
| Civilian firearms per 100 people | 88 | 0.6 |
| Gun homicides in 2008 | 11,030 | 11 |
Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime
Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.
Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have apermanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have apermanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
Icons in gun ownership chart: Handgun designed by Simon Child, rifle designed by Nadav Barkan, shotgun designed by Ammar Ceker, all from the Noun Project Front page image by konstantynov/Shutterstock
------------------------------------------
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik: Everything We Know About The Suspected Shooters.
San Bernardino authorities named Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, as the primary suspects in Wednesday’s massacre at the Inland Regional Center. The attack saw at least 14 people killed and 21 injured, police said on Thursday.
“There was obviously a mission here. We know that. We do not know why.”
A married couple, Farook and Malik were each of Pakistani descent. Farook was a U.S. citizen and Malik was not, though she was in America on a K-1 Visa. Malik obtained the K-1 Visa — which allows the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to temporarily enter the country — in July 2014, after Farook travelled internationally to meet her, police said. The two had a six-month-old daughter.
Farook and Malik were killed on Wednesday, not during their own attack but during a bloody shootout with police. During that shootout and their attack, they wore tactical-style body armor and were equipped with multiple guns, all of which were obtained legally, according to San Bernardino police.
Police chief Jarrod Burguan said the couple also had an enormous amount of ammunition and 12 crude pipe bombs in their home, including “hundreds of tools” that could have been used to construct more bombs. The couple also allegedly placed a pipe bomb at the Inland Regional Center, but the remote control they built to set it off did not work correctly and the device did not detonate.
“There was obviously a mission here. We know that,” FBI Los Angeles Assistant Director David Bowdich told reporters on Thursday. “We do not know why.”
As far as trying to figure out a motive, much of the attention so far has been placed on Farook, an American citizen born in Chicago, Illinois.
“He never struck me as a fanatic, he never struck me as suspicious.”
For the last five years, the “tall, thin young man with a full beard” had been working as an environmental inspector for the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, where he inspected restaurants, among other things. Records from the county’s Department of Public Health show hundreds of inspection reports conducted by Farook over the years. The New York Times reported that he made about $70,000 a year.
Together, Farook and Malik appeared to be “living the American Dream,” a co-worker told the L.A. Times. They had met online, and had just had a baby.
As of Thursday, a few of Farook’s online dating profiles were still intact, giving a glimpse into his personal affiliations. He was a Sunni Muslim, according to one profile, and considered his family “religios [sic] but modern,” according to another. His interests included “read[ing] religios [sic] books” and “just hang[ing] out in back yard doing target pratice [sic] with younger sister and friends.”
Farook’s estranged father, also named Syed, told the Daily News that his son was a “very religious,” but was shocked at suggestions that religion may have been a motivating factor in the attack. Co-workers also told the L.A. Times that Farook had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia, though they expressed similar disbelief that religious extremism drove him to kill.
“He never struck me as a fanatic, he never struck me as suspicious,” Griselda Reisinger, a former co-worker, told the L.A. Times.
Police confirmed on Thursday that Farook had travelled internationally to meet Malik, but would not confirm that Saudia Arabia was the location. Based on that travel and the presence of pipe bombs, however, the New York Times is reporting that the FBI is treating the case as an act of terrorism.
“I’d much rather be slower and correct than fast and incorrect.”
At Thursday’s press conference, however, rhe FBI’s David Bowdich would not say that terrorism was a motivation for the attack. The investigation, he said, was just beginning.
“I’d much rather be slower and correct than fast and incorrect,” he said.
As authorities continue to probe the motivation for the attack, some noted that Farook had been involved in a workplace dispute at the Inland Center, where a holiday party for his department was occurring. The nature of that dispute has not been revealed, but Farook reportedly stormed out in anger before returning later with his wife, both dressed in tactical armor and donning assault rifles.
“I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea,” his brother, Farhan Khan, told reporters on Wednesday. “I am in shock myself.”
Details on Malik have so far been scarce — we’ll update this post when we know more.
------------------------------------------
Lawmaker Who Was ‘Life Member’ Of NRA Quits After San Bernardino Massacre.
Calling himself a “law-abiding gun owner” who grew up in a family of hunters, and “Life Member” of the NRA, the Democratic candidate for the House said Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California was the final straw for his relationship with the pro-gun lobby.
“Our country is facing a tragic gun violence epidemic, and we cannot ignore it,” he wrote. “Still, the NRA opposes any legislation that would help keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill, and spends millions to stop any action in Congress that could help prevent further violence. I cannot continue to be a member while the NRA refuses to back closing these loopholes.”
The NRA opposes any legislation that would help keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill.
Criticism of the NRA’s political lobbying against gun control measures — which totals in the tens of millions annually — erupted on social media and in the press following the San Bernardino rampage that left 14 dead and more than a dozen wounded. The New York Daily News ran a cover page calling NRA leader Wayne LaPierre a terrorist, and blasting the organization’s “sick gun jihad against America in the name of profit.”
An investigation published by ThinkProgress this week documents how the gun industry has spent tens of millions of dollars to convince lawmakers not to impose regulations on them. Their influence is particularly strong in Nevada, where they showered Republican, pro-gun Dean Heller with campaign donations in 2011 that helped him secure a Senate seat, and successfully tanked the nomination of federal judicial nominee Elissa Cadish in 2013 after she wrote that she doesn’t believe Americans have the constitutional right to own guns.
Today, the state has particularly lax laws. Nevada hosts many gun shows, where thanks to a legal loophole, guns can be purchased without a background check. Private sales can also be conducted background-check-free. The Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that between 2006 and 2013, more than 5,000 guns bought in Nevada were found at crime scenes in other states, the vast majority in California. Now, law enforcement officials are investigating whether the perpetrators of this week’s shooting obtained their arsenal in Nevada.
The NRA has long opposed and lobbied against increasing background checks for gun purchases, despite the fact that the majority of gun owners support such measures.
While Oceguera’s reaction to this was to distance himself from the organization, some politicians had the opposite reaction.
On Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is holding a rally at a gun range in central Iowa, at which he will unveil a “Second Amendment Coalition” of supporters the campaign claims numbers more than 24,000. This is the second time the presidential hopeful has held a pro-gun event just days after a mass shooting. Three days after a white supremacist gunman killed nine people in a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, Cruz held a “Second Amendment rally,” and joked to reporters, “You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I’m pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas — hitting what you aim at.”
Cruz’s campaign has received tens of thousands of dollars from the NRA and other pro-gun organizations.
------------------------------------------
Missouri Bill Would Make Gun Purchasers Jump Through The Same Hoops As Women Seeking Abortions.
According to St. Louis Magazine, Newman pre-filed a bill this week that would make it just as difficult to buy a deadly weapon in Missouri as it currently is to get an abortion — including imposing a 72-hour waiting period for prospective gun buyers and requiring them to receive information about alternative to guns, like “peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution.”
Missouri, which is home to just one clinic that performs abortions, has some of the harshest restrictions on the procedure in the country. Patients must wait three full days before they’re allowed to end a pregnancy and make two separate trips to the state’s lone clinic.
“It is logical we borrow similar restrictions to lower our horrific gun violence rates,” Newman said in a statement. “If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life’, then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities rising rates of gun violence.”
Under Newman’s proposed legislation, prospective gun buyers would be required to jump through multiple hoops before legally obtaining a firearm.
At least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun, they would be required to meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership. After the three day waiting period, they would need to locate a licensed firearm dealer located at least 120 miles from their home, which is the average distance that women currently must travel to get an abortion.
Before the sale, the buyer would also be required to complete several educational requirements. Newman’s bill stipulates that they must tour an emergency trauma center treating victims of gun violence, meet with at least two families affected by gun violence, and talk to two local faith leaders who have performed funerals for children who have been killed by guns. Then, before walking out of the store with their gun, they would need to watch a 30-minute video in the presence of the firearm dealer that details fatal gun injuries and review information about alternatives to purchasing a firearm.
Missouri’s GOP-controlled legislature — which considered more than 30 different new abortion restrictions last year — isn’t likely to advance Newman’s tongue-in-cheek legislation. But she’s not the first reproductive rights proponent to make the comparison between abortion and guns.
Across the country, it’s much more difficult to legally end a pregnancy than it is to legally buy a firearm. There are more waiting periods imposed on people who want to get abortion care than there are for people who want to purchase a gun. And the legislative trends for these two issues are moving in opposite directions. An increasing number of new restrictions on abortion have made it harder for Americans to exercise their right to choose — but, at the same time, states have loosened gun regulations to make it easier to carry a firearm.
There’s been increased scrutiny on gun violence prevention efforts this week thanks to tragic news of multiple mass shootings — one of which took place at an abortion clinic in Colorado Springs. So far, there have been more mass shootings in 2015 than days in the calendar.
------------------------------------------
The day after the latest mass shooting -- this time in San Bernardino, California -- the U.S. Senate voted against measures to close dangerous loopholes in our gun laws. The message is clear: the NRA's allies support a status quo where Americans are 20 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than people in other developed countries.
The solution is also clear: We must break the NRA's grip on politicians.
Make a gift of $25 or more -- and tell NRA-backed politicians we won’t let daily gun violence become the new normal. Your donation today will determine how ambitious we can be when we take on NRA-backed politicians at every level.
We're going to take this fight state-by-state -- passing stronger gun laws and bringing the vote directly to the people through ballot measures. And when our politicians refuse to change gun laws, we'll change our politicians.
We can't do this without you -- and we need your help now. Make a gift and help break the NRA's stranglehold on our leaders.
The terrifying scenes from San Bernardino have become all too familiar. Every day in America, 88 people die from gun violence, with hundreds more injured. This isn't normal -- and we will continue to fight for an America free from this daily toll of gun violence.
------------------------------------------
How Terrorist Sympathizers Exploit America’s Gun Laws.
Federal investigators now believe that at least one of the perpetrators behind the San Bernardino attack may have pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. According to three law enforcement officials who spoke to CNN, female attacker Tashfeen Malik touted her support for the terrorist organization on Facebook after initiating the Wednesday attack, which left 14 people dead and 21 wounded.
The news comes just hours after lawmakers defeated an amendment, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), that would have required suspected terrorists seeking a gun to undergo a background check.
During floor debate over the amendment, supporters pointed to a Government Accountability Office report that found suspected terrorists bought firearms and explosives from licensed dealers 1,300 times between 2004 and 2014, and that in 90 percent of cases, potential terrorists passed a background check allowing them to legally purchase guns. Feinstein’s amendment would have also given the U.S. attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to terror suspects and provided a process for people erroneously denied a gun to have their rights restored.
Indeed, radical Islamic terror leaders have previously urged American sympathizers to exploit the nation’s lax gun laws in order to perpetrate domestic terror and lone-wolf and homegrown terrorists have increasingly relied on high-powered guns to carry out their attacks.
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?” American-born al-Qaeda spokesmen Adam Yahiye Gadahn said in a message to followers in 2011. Gadahn, once the American face of al-Qaida, was killed in drone strike in 2015.
Similarly, a six-page jihadist document obtained by The Violence Policy Center (VPC), instructs would-be terrorists “on the advantages the United States offers for firearms training and advises readers on how to exploit them.”
Closing the so-called terror gap was strongly supported by the George W. Bush administration. On Thursday, it failed in the senate by a vote of 45-54.
The news comes just hours after lawmakers defeated an amendment, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), that would have required suspected terrorists seeking a gun to undergo a background check.
During floor debate over the amendment, supporters pointed to a Government Accountability Office report that found suspected terrorists bought firearms and explosives from licensed dealers 1,300 times between 2004 and 2014, and that in 90 percent of cases, potential terrorists passed a background check allowing them to legally purchase guns. Feinstein’s amendment would have also given the U.S. attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to terror suspects and provided a process for people erroneously denied a gun to have their rights restored.
Indeed, radical Islamic terror leaders have previously urged American sympathizers to exploit the nation’s lax gun laws in order to perpetrate domestic terror and lone-wolf and homegrown terrorists have increasingly relied on high-powered guns to carry out their attacks.
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?” American-born al-Qaeda spokesmen Adam Yahiye Gadahn said in a message to followers in 2011. Gadahn, once the American face of al-Qaida, was killed in drone strike in 2015.
Similarly, a six-page jihadist document obtained by The Violence Policy Center (VPC), instructs would-be terrorists “on the advantages the United States offers for firearms training and advises readers on how to exploit them.”
Closing the so-called terror gap was strongly supported by the George W. Bush administration. On Thursday, it failed in the senate by a vote of 45-54.
------------------------------------------
Lawmaker to Gun Buyers: Wait the 72 Hours Required Before Getting an Abortion. As another mass shooting reignites the gun control debate, this Missouri legislator offers a creative response.
A Missouri legislator wants to treat gun violence as a public health issue by asking colleagues to consider a bill that would treat gun rights and reproductive rights similarly. Just a day before a mass shooting killed 14 and left 21 injured in San Bernardino, California, Missouri state Rep. Stacey Newman presented a bill proposing to make it as difficult to buy a gun as it is to get an abortion.
“If we truly insist that Missouri cares about ‘all life,’ then we must take immediate steps to address our major cities’ rising rates of gun violence,” Newman said in a statement.
Both St. Louis and Kansas City rank in the top 10 U.S. cities with the highest rates of gun violence, according to St. Louis Magazine. In October, Missouri earned the unfortunate distinction of ranking first in a state-by-state Washington Post study on the number of gun deaths inflicted by toddlers. The state is also home to some of the most extreme restrictions on abortion, such as requiring a woman to wait 72 hours before getting an abortion after initially seeking one—a waiting period shared in length only by South Dakota and Utah. Missouri currently has no waiting period for prospective firearm buyers, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The bill would require prospective gun owners to meet with a licensed physician to discuss the health risks of gun ownership during the 72-hour waiting period and to buy a gun from a dealer at least 120 miles away from the gun buyer’s home. Gun buyers would also be required to tour a trauma center at the nearest hospital between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when gun violence victims are most likely to be present, and to meet with two families who have been victimized by gun violence.
“Since Missouri holds the rank as one of the strictest abortion regulation states in the country, it is logical we borrow similar restrictions to lower our horrific gun violence rates,” Newman said.
This isn’t the first controversial bill introduced by Newman: In 2012, she introduced legislation that would have permitted men to get vasectomies only if the procedure would protect them from death or serious injury—another clear comment on abortion access for women. While it’s easy to dismiss both bills—doomed to fail in the Republican-controlled legislature—as campaigns that comment on the state of abortion access, Newman isn’t the first to suggest a public health approach to the crisis of gun violence. In a week when the U.S. experienced its 355th mass shooting of the year, as frustrated and terrified Americans struggle to make sense of the violence, creative responses to the lack of gun control may be welcome.
The American Public Health Association, a scientific research–based policy and advocacy group, has recognized gun violence as a “major public health problem” for more than a decade. A 2001 brief from the organization pointed out that gun violence can be reduced or prevented by using public health tools such as better data collection on firearms policy and violent crime deaths, expanded access to mental health services, and prevention programs in schools and communities.
On Wednesday, the same day as the San Bernardino shooting, a coalition of more than 2,000 physicians called on Congress to remove barriers faced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes for Health to conducting research on gun violence.
“Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day,” said Alice Chen, executive director of Doctors for America, in a statement. “Physicians believe it’s time to lift this effective ban and fund the research needed to save lives. We urge Congress to put patients over politics to help find solutions to our nation’s gun violence crisis.”
There’s still a lot we don’t know about the tragic shooting in San Bernardino. But one thing is obvious: We’ve got a problem.
So far in 2015, there have been more mass shootings than days. In fact, the BBC opened yesterday’s broadcast, saying, “Just another day in the United States of America… .” We’re becoming defined by our inability to act.
And yet, just Thursday, in the wake of this tragedy, Congress caved to the NRA again and refused to act.
But we are not bystanders. We can do better. In the past 72 hours, I’ve heard from thousands of people who want to know: In the face of Congressional inaction, what can we do?
Add your name to support the historic Safety for All ballot measure in California and set a new, national standard in the fight against gun violence.
In California, we can pass the Safety for All Act -- a historic ballot initiative that would require things like background checks on ammunition purchases and a ban on the possession of large capacity magazines (the type of magazines that contain 20, 30, 40 bullets allowing the shooter to inflict maximum damage without having reload).(1)
This is important for all Americans, not just Californians. Safety for All would set the gold standard for meaningful reforms to stop gun violence, creating a model that could be applied everywhere.
So what can you do? Join our movement. Commit to this fight. We have the power to make history here, but we need a groundswell of grassroots support. We need you.
Click here to add your name to support Safety for All and take on gun violence. We cannot let this become our status quo.
The violence will not end until we collectively decide we're going to do something about it. Some of us have been criticized for saying thoughts and prayers are not enough. Well, they’re not. Not unless they are followed by action.
We need to channel our frustration and hurt into relentless organization. And since politicians are too scared to stand up to the NRA, we’ll go around them, taking our call to action directly to voters. Doing nothing is not an option. We have to do SOMETHING. NOW.
Click here to commit to backing Safety for All now. We can save lives.
Thank you for doing what’s right,
Gavin Newsom, Lieutenant Governor of California
p.s. Want to stop the gun madness? Click here to demand safety for all.
1. http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2300?t=5&akid=2343.2119770.Sc8eMF, http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2301?t=6&akid=2343.2119770.Sc8eMF, and http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2302?t=8&akid=2343.2119770.Sc8eMF
------------------------------------------
A Message from Gavin Newsom:There’s still a lot we don’t know about the tragic shooting in San Bernardino. But one thing is obvious: We’ve got a problem.
So far in 2015, there have been more mass shootings than days. In fact, the BBC opened yesterday’s broadcast, saying, “Just another day in the United States of America… .” We’re becoming defined by our inability to act.
And yet, just Thursday, in the wake of this tragedy, Congress caved to the NRA again and refused to act.
But we are not bystanders. We can do better. In the past 72 hours, I’ve heard from thousands of people who want to know: In the face of Congressional inaction, what can we do?
Add your name to support the historic Safety for All ballot measure in California and set a new, national standard in the fight against gun violence.
In California, we can pass the Safety for All Act -- a historic ballot initiative that would require things like background checks on ammunition purchases and a ban on the possession of large capacity magazines (the type of magazines that contain 20, 30, 40 bullets allowing the shooter to inflict maximum damage without having reload).(1)
This is important for all Americans, not just Californians. Safety for All would set the gold standard for meaningful reforms to stop gun violence, creating a model that could be applied everywhere.
So what can you do? Join our movement. Commit to this fight. We have the power to make history here, but we need a groundswell of grassroots support. We need you.
Click here to add your name to support Safety for All and take on gun violence. We cannot let this become our status quo.
The violence will not end until we collectively decide we're going to do something about it. Some of us have been criticized for saying thoughts and prayers are not enough. Well, they’re not. Not unless they are followed by action.
We need to channel our frustration and hurt into relentless organization. And since politicians are too scared to stand up to the NRA, we’ll go around them, taking our call to action directly to voters. Doing nothing is not an option. We have to do SOMETHING. NOW.
Click here to commit to backing Safety for All now. We can save lives.
Thank you for doing what’s right,
Gavin Newsom, Lieutenant Governor of California
p.s. Want to stop the gun madness? Click here to demand safety for all.
1. http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2300?t=5&akid=2343.2119770.Sc8eMF, http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2301?t=6&akid=2343.2119770.Sc8eMF, and http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2302?t=8&akid=2343.2119770.Sc8eMF
------------------------------------------
STOP THE SPIRALING DEATH TOLL: Congress must ban assault weapons right now!
San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine - every one of these tragic mass murders involved a semi-automatic assault rifle. It's past time for Congress to act and ban them again.
14 dead and 21 wounded in our nation's latest mass shooting, this time in San Bernardino, CA. While the investigation into who the murderers were and what motivated them to take people's lives will continue, one fact is indisputable: the shooters used semi-automatic assault rifles to increase their death toll.
An assault weapons ban was in place for 10 years in the United States, and the body count from mass shootings during that time was reduced. In the 10 years since the NRA stopped the ban from being reauthorized, the death toll has spiked significantly.
This common-sense approach to increased gun safety should be passed immediately.
We're not the only ones who think so. U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-Rhode Island) announced he would introduce the assault weapons ban just minutes before the mass shooting in San Bernardino began.
------------------------------------------
Most Gun Owners Say the NRA Is Off Target. A new survey shows that a majority of armed Americans disagree with the gun lobby on background checks.
A new survey of gun owners finds widespread support for universal background checks and provides new details on who does and doesn't support the National Rifle Association. The survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling on behalf of the Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org Civic Action, will bolster claims that the NRA doesn't represent the views of most American gun owners. Yet it also shows the depth of the NRA's support among its members as well as Republicans, suggesting that taking on the NRA, as Democratic presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley are doing, is good partisan politics.
Echoing earlier surveys, this survey finds that the vast majority of gun owners support expanding criminal background checks to cover all firearm purchases. (Currently, federal law does not require background checks for private gun sales.) Among the gun owners surveyed, 83 percent said they support universal background checks. And 72 percent of NRA members say they do.
More than 40 percent of gun owners say they are Republicans; about one-third are Democrats. (The rest are independents.) Support for universal background checks is strongest among Democrats.
Support for universal background checks is strong across racial and ethnic lines. Yet there is greater opposition to them among African American gun owners and minorities lumped into the "other" category.
The survey also asked gun owners how they feel about requirements that gun owners must obtain permits to carry concealed weapons in public. Overall, about three-quarters said they supported these laws, which have been challenged in California and other states.
Nearly a quarter of the gun owners who responded to the survey said they belong to the NRA. (This suggests that NRA members may be overrepresented in this sample. The group currently claims more than 5 million members. Considering that one-third of adults report owning a gun, there are more than 75 million gun owners in the United States. That puts NRA members at less than 10 percent of all gun owners.)
NRA membership is uncommon among Democrats, with just 8 percent saying they belong to the group. The survey also finds that NRA membership is lowest among African American gun owners, with 12 percent saying they're members. In comparison, 35 percent of Latino and 25 percent of white gun owners say they are part of the group.
In a new interview with Rolling Stone, Bernie Sanders comments that "the NRA does not necessarily represent the views of gun owners, in general, and even their own members." He's half right. According to the survey, a slim majority of all gun owners say the NRA does not represent their interests. However, even though 55 percent of NRA members say they disagree with the NRA's stance against background checks, 86 percent say the group still represents them. Among non-NRA members, just 40 percent say it does.
The perception of the NRA also splits along party lines. Just 25 percent of Democratic gun owners say it represents their views, while 76 percent of Republicans—who make up the bulk of NRA members—say it does. And the group's standing among independents is almost evenly split. This breakdown hints that attacking the NRA is probably a winner for Democratic candidates who might fear alienating gun owners in their own party. Nearly 90 percent of Democrats said they'd be more likely to support a candidate who's in favor of universal background checks, which may help explain why the Democratic presidential contenders have seized on this issue. But will it play with swing voters? It might: More than half of politically independent gun owners say they'd be more likely to support a candidate who's in favor of expanded background checks.
Does the NRA represent your interests as a gun owner?
Percentage of gun owners surveyed
Yes
No
Unsure
Independents
20
Unsure
40
60
Democrats
Republicans
Independents
Chart by Mother Jones
------------------------------------------
t was a mild, crystal clear desert evening on November 15, 2004, when Jennifer Longdon and her fiance, David Rueckert, closed up his martial-arts studio and headed out to grab some carnitas tortas from a nearby taqueria. They were joking and chatting about wedding plans—the local Japanese garden seemed perfect—as Rueckert turned their pickup into the parking lot of a strip mall in suburban north Phoenix. A red truck with oversize tires and tinted windows sideswiped theirs, and as they stopped to get out, Rueckert's window exploded. He told Longdon to get down and reached for the handgun he had inside a cooler on the cab floor. As he threw the truck into gear, there were two more shots. His words turned to gibberish and he slumped forward, his foot on the gas. A bullet hit Longdon's back like a bolt of lightning, her whole body a live wire as they accelerated toward the row of palm trees in the concrete divider.
The air bag against her was stifling, the inside of the cab hot. She managed to call 911. "Where are you shot on your body?" the dispatcher asked. "I don't know, I cannot move. I can't breathe anymore. Somebody help me," she pleaded. "I'm dying."
There was a rush of cool air, and a man leaning over her. Then a flood of bright lights. "Am I being medevacked?" she asked. "Those are news vultures," the EMT told her. He shielded her face with his hand as they rushed the gurney into the ambulance. She couldn't stop thinking of her 12-year-old. "Tell my son I love him," she said.
Half of her ribs were shattered. Her lungs had collapsed and were filling with blood. As the ambulance screamed toward the hospital, Longdon, an avid scuba diver, clawed at the oxygen mask. She kept trying to tell them: "My regulator isn't working. My regulator isn't working." The EMT held her hand as she faded in and out.
She was barely hanging on as the ER doctor prepared to insert a tube through her rib cage. "I'm really fast," he assured her, "and I'm going to do this as quickly as I can." As the nursing staff held her down, Longdon heard a dog wailing in the corner of the room. How could they allow a dog into this sterile place and let it howl like that? "The last thing I remember was realizing that it wasn't a dog," she recalls. "It was me."
A couple of days into what would become her five-month hospital stay, Longdon was lying with her back to the door when a doctor came in. She didn't see his face when he calmly told her the news: She was a T-4 paraplegic, no longer able to move her body from the middle of her chest down. Rueckert had also survived, but a bullet through his brain left him profoundly cognitively impaired and in need of permanent round-the-clock care.
Jennifer Longdon: $40,000 for wheelchair-related modifications to her home
Antonius Wiriadjaja: $169,000 for medical care, physical therapy, and counseling
Kamari Ridgle: $1.5 million for medical care, including a $25,000 medevac ride
Philip Russo: $83,000 in lost household income Click here to read these survivors' stories.
Pamela Bosley: $23,500 in medical care and counseling for family
BJ Ayers: $35,000 in state-funded emergency care
Caheri Gutierrez: $120,000 for hospitalization and reconstructive surgeries
Paris Brown: $10,000 for a year of grief counseling
Longdon didn't know it yet, but she was also facing financial ruin. Shortly after the shooting, her health insurance provider found a way to drop her coverage based on a preexisting condition. She would be hospitalized three more times in quick succession, twice for infections and once for a broken bone; all told, the bills would approach $1 million in the first year alone. Longdon was forced to file for personal bankruptcy—a stinging humiliation for someone who had earned about $80,000 a year working in the software industry and building a massage therapy practice on the side.
"I'd never not paid a bill on time before that," Longdon told me as we looked across the mostly empty parking lot on an overcast afternoon in late February. Little had changed about the place except for the name on the Mexican restaurant. "I felt like a failure," she added, beginning the lengthy process of loading herself back into her custom lift-equipped van. "Those doctors had given their all to save my life."
Over the past decade, Longdon has been hospitalized at least 20 times. One especially bad fall from her wheelchair in 2011 broke major bones in both legs. She came close to having them amputated and had to have titanium rods inserted. In 2013, she was admitted five times for sepsis, once after being defibrillated on her living room floor because the fever from the infection had caused her heart to stop. She has taken so many antibiotics that some no longer have any effect.
Most of Longdon's medical bills have been covered through a combination of Medicaid and Medicare. Her income since the shooting has been primarily from Social Security Disability Insurance, which pays her about $2,000 a month. It has amounted to about a quarter million dollars over the past 10 years, though that's barely been enough to keep her in her small house, which required extensive modifications just so she could wheel herself through the front door, take a shower, or make a bowl of ramen for dinner.
When I asked Longdon to try to add it all up—the hospital bills, the countless hours of physical therapy, the trauma counseling, the in-home care, the wheelchairs, the customized van, her lost income—she let out a sharp laugh. "Please don't make me cry." She pondered the numbers for a long moment. "I don't know, maybe $5 million?" She started the engine and used a lever next to the steering wheel to accelerate back toward the main road.
HOW MUCH DOES gun violence cost our country? It's a question we've been looking into at Mother Jones ever since the 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, left 58 wounded and 12 dead. How much care would the survivors and the victims' families need? What would be the effects on the broader community, and how far out would those costs ripple? As we've continued to investigate gun violence, one of our more startling discoveries is that nobody really knows.
Jennifer Longdon was one of at least 750,000 Americans injured by gunshots over the last decade, and she was lucky not to be one of the more than 320,000 killed. Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one. Hundreds of children die annually in gun homicides, and each week seems to bring news of another toddler accidentally shooting himself or a sibling with an unsecured gun. And perhaps most disturbingly, even as violent crime overall has declined steadily in recent years, rates of gun injury and death are climbing (up 11 and 4 percent since 2011) and mass shootings have been on the rise.
Yet, there is no definitive assessment of the costs for victims, their families, their employers, and the rest of us—including the major sums associated with criminal justice, long-term health care, and security and prevention. Our media is saturated with gun carnage practically 24/7. So why is the question of what we all pay for it barely part of the conversation?
A top public health expert describes the chill this way: "Do you want to do gun research? Because you're going to get attacked. No one is attacking us when we do heart disease."
Nobody, save perhaps for the hardcore gun lobby, doubts that gun violence is a serious problem. In an editorial in the April 7 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, a team of doctors wrote: "It does not matter whether we believe that guns kill people or that people kill people with guns—the result is the same: a public health crisis."
And solving a crisis, as any expert will tell you, begins with data. That's why the US government over the years has assessed the broad economic toll of a variety of major problems. Take motor vehicle crashes: Using statistical models to estimate a range of costs both tangible and more abstract—from property damage and traffic congestion to physical pain and lost quality of life—the Department of Transportation (DOT) published a 300-page study estimating the "total value of societal harm" from this problem in 2010 at $871 billion. Similar research has been produced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the impact of air pollution, by the Department of Health and Human Services on the costs of domestic violence, and so on. But the government has mostly been mute on the economic toll of gun violence. HHS has assessed firearm-related hospitalizations, but its data is incomplete because some states don't require hospitals to track gunshot injuries among the larger pool of patients treated for open wounds. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has also periodically made estimates using hospital data, but based on narrow sample sizes and covering only the medical and lost-work costs of gun victims.
Why the lack of solid data? A prime reason is that the National Rifle Association and other influential gun rights advocates have long pressured political leaders to shut down research related to firearms. The Annals of Internal Medicine editorial detailed this "suppression of science":
Two years ago, we called on physicians to focus on the public health threat of guns. The profession's relative silence was disturbing but in part explicable by our inability to study the problem. Political forces had effectively banned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies from funding research on gun-related injury and death. The ban worked: A recent systematic review of studies evaluating access to guns and its association with suicide and homicide identified no relevant studies published since 2005.
An executive order in 2013 from President Obama sought to free up the CDC via a new budget, but the purse strings remain in the grip of Congress, many of whose members have seen their campaigns backed by six- and even seven-figure sums from the NRA. "Compounding the lack of research funding," the doctors added, "is the fear among some researchers that studying guns will make them political targets and threaten their future funding even for unrelated topics."
David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, describes the chill this way: "There are so many big issues in the world, and the question is: Do you want to do gun research? Because you're going to get attacked. No one is attacking us when we do heart disease."
To begin to get a grasp on the economic toll, Mother Jones turned to Ted Miller at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, an independent nonprofit that studies public health, education, and safety issues. Miller has been one of the few researchers to delve deeply into guns, going back to the late 1980s when he began analyzing societal costs from violence, injury, and substance abuse, as well as the savings from prevention. Most of his 30-plus years of research has been funded by government grants and contracts; his work on guns in recent years has either been tucked into broader projects or done on the side. "I never take positions on legislation," he notes. "Instead, I provide numbers to inform decision making."
Miller's approach looks at two categories of costs. The first is direct: Every time a bullet hits somebody, expenses can include emergency services, police investigations, and long-term medical and mental-health care, as well as court and prison costs. About 87 percent of these costs fall on taxpayers. The second category consists of indirect costs: Factors here include lost income, losses to employers, and impact on quality of life, which Miller bases on amounts that juries award for pain and suffering to victims of wrongful injury and death.
In collaboration with Miller, Mother Jones crunched data from 2012 and found that the annual cost of gun violence in America exceeds $229 billion. Direct costs account for $8.6 billion—including long-term prison costs for people who commit assault and homicide using guns, which at $5.2 billion a year is the largest direct expense. Even before accounting for the more intangible costs of the violence, in other words, the average cost to taxpayers for a single gun homicide in America is nearly $400,000. And we pay for 32 of them every single day.
Indirect costs amount to at least $221 billion, about $169 billion of which comes from what researchers consider to be the impact on victims' quality of life. Victims' lost wages, which account for $49 billion annually, are the other major factor. Miller's calculation for indirect costs, based on jury awards, values the average "statistical life" harmed by gun violence at about $6.2 million. That's toward the lower end of the range for this analytical method, which is used widely by industry and government. (The EPA, for example, currently values a statistical life at $7.9 million, and the DOT uses $9.2 million.)
Our investigation also begins to illuminate the economic toll for individual states. Louisiana has the highest gun homicide rate in the nation, with costs per capita of more than $1,300. Wyoming has a small population but the highest overall rate of gun deaths—including the nation's highest suicide rate—with costs working out to about $1,400 per resident. Among the four most populous states, the costs per capita in the gun rights strongholds of Florida and Texas outpace those in more strictly regulated California and New York. Hawaii and Massachusetts, with their relatively low gun ownership rates and tight gun laws, have the lowest gun death rates, and costs per capita roughly a fifth as much as those of the states that pay the most.
AT $229 BILLION, THE toll from gun violence would have been $47 billion more than Apple's 2014 worldwide revenue and $88 billion more than what the US government budgeted for education that year. Divvied up among every man, woman, and child in the United States, it would work out to more than $700 per person.
But even the $229 billion figure ultimately doesn't capture what gun violence costs us. For starters, there are gaps in what we know about long-term medical and disability expenses specifically from gunshots. Miller's research accounts for about seven years of long-term care for victims, and for lifelong care for those with spinal-cord or traumatic brain injuries. But Kelly Bernado, a former police officer who now works as an ER nurse near Seattle, points out that survivors' life spans and medical complications can exceed expectations. One of her patients was shot as a teenager: "He was paralyzed from the neck down and could not feed himself, toilet himself, dress himself, or turn over in bed. He will live the rest of his life in a nursing home, all paid for by the taxpayers, as he is a Medicaid patient." She estimates that over the last two decades the price tag for this patient's skilled nursing care alone has been upwards of $1.7 million. Even in less severe cases the consequences from gunshots can be profound, says Bernado, who joined the advocacy group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense not long after police killed a man who had been firing shots outside her son's high school. "These people have long-term problems—bowel issues, arthritis problems, chronic pain. They're on pain medication, and there are addiction issues. They keep returning to the hospital." In August 2014, a medical examiner concluded that former presidential aide James Brady's death in a nursing home at age 73 was due to complications from the bullet he took to his head during the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life almost 34 years earlier.
Some costs have hardly been studied at all—like the trauma and fear that stunt neighborhood development and prompt schools to deploy armed guards.
To gauge mental-health impact, Miller uses a study he coauthored back in 1998 that surveyed practitioners treating patients for trauma stemming from a broad range of violent crime. It calculated the rate of people who sought counseling, and the corresponding costs. Applying those numbers to current data on gun injuries and deaths gives an estimate of $410 million annually in direct mental-health costs. But that sum would rise substantially if all gun victims and their families could afford to seek counseling. Miller hasn't had resources to build on the data since, and Mother Jones could find no other firearm-related mental-health studies by government or private institutions.
Then there are the costs that the available research doesn't capture at all. What about the trauma to entire communities, whether from mass shootings or chronic street violence? What about the steep societal cost of fear, which stunts economic development and provokes major spending on security and prevention? "This is what big-city mayors worry about," says Duke University economist Philip Cook, who coauthored a study 16 years ago that asked people how much they'd be willing to pay to reduce gun violence where they live. "How can Camden get out of the profound slump it's in? The first answer has to be, 'We've got to do something about the gun violence.'"
The fallout from mass shootings, which have been on the rise in recent years, includes outsize financial impact. Legal proceedings for the Aurora movie theater killer, for example, reached $5.5 million before the trial even got underway this spring, including expenses related to the pool of 9,000 prospective jurors called for the case. Most Americans probably don't even recall a less lethal rampage that took place just a few months after the Aurora tragedy, at the Clackamas Town Center near Portland, Oregon. When a gunman killed two people, wounded another, and took his own life at the shopping complex in December 2012, more than 150 officers from at least 13 local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies responded—an investigation that lasted more than three months and culminated in a report nearly 1,000 pages long. To calm the public, make repairs, and beef up security, the 1.5-million-square-foot mall shut down for three days during the height of the holiday shopping season, depriving 188 retail businesses of revenue.
Since the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, the federal government has doled out at least $811 million to help school districts hire security guards, including $45 million since 20 first-graders and six adults were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. That sum doesn't account for spending at the state and local level; according to the trade magazine Campus Safety, approximately 90 percent of American school systems have made security enhancements since Sandy Hook. Many have worked with law enforcement agencies to conduct active-shooter drills. Companies are marketing "bulletproof" backpacks and other defensive gear for children. A Massachusetts school recently tested an "active-shooter detection system" that costs as much as $100,000 and uses technology also deployed in war zones. One research company recently projected that by 2017, school security systems will be a $5-billion-a-year industry.
JENNIFER LONGDON KNOWS how culturally important guns are in Arizona, where almost anyone 18 and older can purchase firearms at any time, no questions asked. She grew up with guns and has shot them for sport over the years, including periodically since her injury—she favors the reliable heft of a .45-caliber Glock in her palm.
She also sometimes worries that she might turn one on herself. She staves off the feeling with a packed schedule and the occasional pour of añejo. But grief, PTSD, and perpetual neuropathic pain linger. So do the questions.
Had they been targeted? Was it a spontaneous act of road rage? Maybe a case of mistaken identity? The Phoenix police investigated, but never arrested anyone.
Sitting near her favorite waterfall at the Japanese garden where she and Rueckert once planned to get married, Longdon tells me how she eventually had to let go of the idea of justice. "People think all of these crimes make sense," she says, "that all of them have some beginning, middle, and end. They don't."
Longdon, who is 55 and has long dark hair and a sly, charismatic smile, never lets a conversation stay heavy for too long. Many days, she transports herself to meetings with advocacy groups, the mayor's office, or Arizona legislators, hammering away on guns and disabilities issues alike. So you'd better not refer to her as handicapped or wheelchair-bound—she's a woman and a wheeler. "I'm no saint," she adds, "simply a deeply flawed loudmouth on a mission."
Before her injury, fitness was essential to her life. She and Rueckert were black-belt martial artists and trained rigorously. Often they would begin their days by hiking to the top of Piestewa Peak, where they'd snack on fruit and watch the sun rise over the mountains around Phoenix.
"People think all of these crimes make sense, that all of them have some beginning, middle, and end. They don't."
Now, Longdon says, "my morning ritual is so consumed with just setting up this body for survival for the day." It's a taxing hour and a half: the careful process of checking her lower limbs and getting out of bed, the transfers to the toilet and then the shower chair—every day a formidable workout for the arms—and then the tedious process of "logrolling" into her clothes. "And that's before I even put on my makeup, get the coffee going, and start thinking about work," she says.
Gun politics in Arizona are as rough as anywhere, and on the morning we head over to Phoenix City Hall, Longdon is going off about legislation just introduced by a state senator to legalize silencers and sawed-off shotguns. Longdon believes in universal background checks for gun buyers, a position national polls show is shared by most gun owners. But speaking out about the issue has drawn her vicious attacks from gun rights activists—she's been stalked, spat on in public, and harassed with rape and death threats.
Nobody who knows Longdon expects any of that to get in her way—certainly not the mayor's chief of staff, Reuben Alonzo, who worked closely with her on a program in 2013 that took 2,000 unwanted firearms off the streets, the largest buyback in the state's history. Longdon was one of the first people the mayor turned to for advice on gun policy, Alonzo says, noting that it wasn't just a matter of her personal story. "There's a stereotype about advocates like Jennifer," he says, "but her approach is really quite pragmatic. She has the knowledge to back it up."
Longdon is well aware that 2,000 unwanted guns melted down by the Phoenix PD is a tiny fraction of the firepower out there. But the cost of gun violence works out to more than $800 a year each for Arizona's 6.7 million residents, and if she can start to chip away at that by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it's worth it to her. "Not one of those guns will ever be used in a suicide, an accidental discharge, or a crime," she says, "and that is significant."
And maybe it will help save someone from having to pay what she has. "There's nothing I wouldn't give to go back to where life was before. On long nights, when I'm alone and my pain level is high, and maybe something has triggered the memories, I have to be really careful not to let that melancholy and grief overwhelm me," she says. "It's an ongoing battle every day—choosing to stay alive, and to continue to fight."
------------------------------------------
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America
There have been at least 73 in the last three decades—and most of the killers got their guns legally. Our database now includes details on the mass shooting in San Bernardino; we will continue to update it as details emerge.
We have updated this database with the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, in which nine were murdered and nine others wounded. The previous update was in July, with the attack at a military center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which came a month after the one at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina. The interactive map below and our downloadable database, first published in July 2012, have been expanded with 10 additional cases from 2013-2015.* Other public shooting attacks in that period—such as a rampage at Fort Hood, another in Isla Vista, California, another at a movie theater in Louisiana, and two in Colorado Springs, including an attack on aPlanned Parenthood clinic—have not been added because there were fewer than four victims shot to death in each of those cases. For more about that distinction and its limitations, see this piece and this piece.
IT IS PERHAPS TOO EASY to forget how many times this has happened. The horrific massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012, another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that August, another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis that September—and then the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary schoolthat December—were some of the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 73 public mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 31 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty-six of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012 alone, including Sandy Hook. A recent analysis of this database by researchers at Harvard University, further corroborated by a recent FBI study, determined that mass shootings have been on the rise.
We've gathered detailed data on more than three decades of cases and mapped them below, including information on the attackers' profiles, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed. The following analysis covers our original dataset comprised of 62 cases from 1982-2012.
Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. (See charts below.) Just as a perpetrator used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did the one in Aurora, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, the attacker wielded a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifleas he massacred 20 school children and six adults.
The perpetrators: More than half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 20, respectively); the other 30 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, and religious and government buildings. Forty-four of the killers were white males. Only one was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) The average age of the killers was 35, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.) A majority were mentally troubled—and many displayed signs of mental health problems before setting out to kill. Explore the map for further details—we do not consider it to be all-inclusive, but based on the criteria we used, we believe that we've produced the most comprehensive rundown available on this particular type of violence. (Mass shootings represent only a sliver of America's overall gun violence.) For the stories of the 151 shooting rampage victims of 2012, click here, and for our groundbreaking investigation into the economic costs of the nation's gun violence, including mass shootings, click here.
Click on the dots or use the search tool in the top-right corner of the map to go to a specific location. (Zoom in to find cases located geographically close together in Colorado, Texas, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.)
Sources: Research by Mother Jones. (With thanks to the Associated Press, Canada.com, and Citizens Crime Commission of NYC.)
Our focus is on public mass shootings in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing. We used the following criteria to identify cases:
- The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.
- The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
- The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity, armed robbery, or domestic violence in homes are not included.
- If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the total victim count. (But we have excluded many cases in which there were three fatalities and the shooter also died, per the above FBI criterion.)
- We included a handful of cases also known as "spree killings"—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
For more on the thinking behind our criteria, see our mass shootings explainer. Plus: more on the crucial mental illness factor, and on the recent barrage of state laws rolling back gun restrictions across the US. And: Explore the full data set behind our investigation.
Here are two charts detailing the killers' weapons:
This guide was first published on July 20, 2012. Since then, we've updated and expanded it multiple times with additional research and reporting. The analysis and charts above cover the data through 2012 (comprising 62 cases); additional data and analysis on the shooters' weapons are in this story. Information on eight additional mass shootings from 2013 to 2015 is included on the map and in our full data set here. For much more of our reporting on mass shootings, gun violence, and gun laws, see our special investigations: America Under the Gun, Newtown: One Year After, and The True Cost of Gun Violence. (Return to intro.)
First published: Fri Jul. 20, 2012 7:32 PM PDT.
Interactive production by Tasneem Raja and Jaeah Lee
Interactive production by Tasneem Raja and Jaeah Lee
------------------------------------------
Senate Republicans vote down legislation that would block suspected terrorists, felons, mentally ill from buying guns. Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.A pair of Democratic measures - one to close background check loopholes to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from buying guns, another to ban those on the terror watch list from buying guns - both went down in flames against near-unanimous GOP opposition.
------------------------------------------
The Gun Industry Has Systematically Demolished Regulators And Avoided The Fate Of Cigarettes.
Over the weekend, President Obama gave an impassioned call for action, saying, “This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal. If we truly care about this — if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience — then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.”
Gun rights activists, including Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers (R), on the other hand, warned that it would be “premature” to talk about new gun laws.
In a time when it is virtually impossible to keep track of all of the gun deaths, story after story about these incidents notes that nothing is likely to change and that action on gun violence is almost impossible.
How did this happen? Polls consistently show popular support among Americans for universal background checks for gun buyers and bans on assault-style weapons, but any attempt to pass even commonsense reforms appears dead on arrival.
Such a task is not unprecedented, however, considering the nation has made great strides to reduce another major cause of preventable deaths: Tobacco. In the Mad Men-era of the early 1960s, smoking was ubiquitous — almost half of all adults smoked. Robin Koval, CEO and president of the nonprofit Truth Initiative, remembers a time, not long ago, when people could smoke just about everywhere. “Back in the day, you could smoke on airplanes, in your office, in most public buildings,” she recalled, before the “science behind second-hand smoke became an impetus for major action on clean air laws.”
Even as recently as the 1990s, the tobacco industry wielded enormous influence in state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress, giving it a virtual veto on public policy. A 1989 op-ed by then-Rep. Dick Durbin (D-IL) noted that the tobacco lobby was so powerful and ingrained in Congress that the “decorative wooden leaves carved into the speaker’s rostrum in the U.S. House of Representatives aren’t sprigs of laurel; they’re tobacco.”
Back in the day, you could smoke on airplanes, in your office, in most public buildings.
But that is no longer the case today, thanks to the actions of Durbin and many others. Between 1965 and 2011, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows the percentage of American adults who smoke cigarettes dropped from 42 percent down to 19. And in 2009, Congress enacted its first-ever Tobacco Control Act with bipartisan support.
The same is not true for firearm ownership. Over the same period, Gallup polling shows American gun ownership rates have remained largely unchanged and even a modest gun bill in 2013 fell well short of passage. The threat posed by unfettered access to firearms has never been clearer, so why has the gun lobby and industry in America flourished as the tobacco industry became a pariah?
A big part of the answer is that the gun lobby preempted the sort of tactics that anti-smoking activists successfully used to reduce cigarette consumption. After seeing class action lawsuits that forced the tobacco industry to change the way it marketed its product, research by the Surgeon General and the U.S. government helping both discourage use and assist cessation, the creation of smoke-free public places, increased taxes on tobacco deterring use, and many medical professionals helping their patients quit, the gun lobby spent tens of millions to make sure they avoided the same fate. And by changing federal and state laws, it found ways to block every single one of those approaches from being used to undermine the firearm and ammunition industries’ bottom lines.
Here is a look at five key ways advocates were able to hold Big Tobacco accountable for the damage its product was causing — all routes the gun industry has preemptively blocked.
Among the most potent weapons against the tobacco industry was the legal process. While legislators can be defeated or elected with large corporate political action committee contributions, the judicial system is less easy to influence with money. When the industry was held accountable for its practices and products, it not only had to pay for past sins but to change its future behavior.
In the 1990s, after decades of lying about the dangers of smoking and avoiding regulation and punishment, the tobacco industry’s winning streak came to an abrupt end. A 1998 settlement between 46 state attorneys general and the nation’s four largest tobacco companies compelled the industry to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to the states and to end many of its most controversial marketing practices.
One of the most significant impacts of this master settlement was that some of the money went to establish the Truth Initiative, an organization created to use public education to reduce tobacco use among youth and young adults. Its president and CEO Koval told ThinkProgress that at the time of the settlement, 23 percent of high school students smoked. “Since that time, with the advent of the Truth campaign and other things, only 8 percent of young people smoke cigarettes [as of last year].” With the steep decline, she says, it is possible that the effort is now “in the endgame” and that this generation has the power “to be the generation that ends smoking.”
Opponents of the gun industry quickly seized on the tobacco settlement as an opportunity. A December 1998 New York Times story noted that “more than a dozen cities have either sued the gun industry or are preparing to, in a growing campaign to ultimately win in court the handgun controls that gun interests have kept them from winning in state legislatures and Congress.”
Alex Penelas, then-mayor of Florida’s Miami-Dade County, called the success of the tobacco litigation “a ray of hope” for efforts to “send the bill for gun deaths and injuries to the gun makers.”
In late 1999, the Clinton administration announced it would join the efforts: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) vowed to pursue a lawsuit against the firearms industry, on behalf of public housing authorities who spent billions annually trying to protect residents from gun violence. Though gun rights advocates howled that these suits were about driving companies out of business, President Clinton said the aim was not to bankrupt manufacturers and dealers but to make them be more careful about “with whom they deal,” change “irresponsible marketing practices,” and make “some safety design changes.”
The gun lobby was unconvinced and one company decried the effort as “tantamount to harassment.”
The approach showed early dividends. In March 2000, Smith & Wesson agreed to a settlement that included a promise that the company would provide safety locking devices, invest in smart gun technology to limit use to the proper owner, limit magazine capacity for its new firearms, cut off dealers and distributors with a history of selling to criminals, and prevent authorized dealers from selling at gun shows where any arm sales are permitted without background checks.
The NRA decried the “Smith & Wesson sell-out” as an “act of craven self-interest.” The group wrote at the time that “the true intent of this agreement is to force down the throats of an entire lawful industry anti-gun policies rejected by the Congress, rejected by legislatures across America, and rejected by the judges who have dismissed their lawsuits in whole or in part nearly without exception.” And it moved swiftly to ensure that others would not follow.
“ALEC helped to try to punish the one component of the industry that agreed to these measures,” Graves recalled, discouraging local police “from buying guns from Smith & Wesson — for daring to go along with safety [measures] designed to keep kids safe.”
When the NRA’s preferred candidate, George W. Bush, was inaugurated in January 2001, his new HUD secretary Mel Martinez quickly ended the department’s involvement in the lawsuits (the NRA strongly endorsed him three years later in his campaign for U.S. Senate in Florida). ALEC and the NRA worked at the same time to successfully encourage many states to prohibit local lawsuits against the gun and ammo industries.
Next, the NRA and its Congressional allies set about eliminating the threat of state or local action, once and for all. In 2005, Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which effectively shielded the gun industry from legal liability when their products are used in criminal and unlawful activities.
Then-Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) gave a House floor speech in support of the law and against “anti-freedom” lawsuits, at times repeating the NRA’s talking points verbatim. “Since 1998, dozens of municipalities and cities have filed suits against America’s firearms industry, somehow alleging that the manufacturer of a firearm can be responsible for the acts of criminals. These suits, following the model of the tobacco litigation, attempt to push the gun manufacturers into court to force a settlement, a large cash award, or cessation of a business,” she said. “Firearm manufacturers have a time-honored tradition of acting responsibly. They therefore should not be subjected to these frivolous suits.”
NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre lauded it as “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years.”
“What we witness today is the culmination of a seven-year effort that included a comprehensive legislative and election strategy,” NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said at the time. “We worked hard to change the political landscape to pass this landmark legislation. As always, our members were up for the task. Key electoral victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004 helped pave passage of this law.”
A decade later, the law has been used to stop virtually all efforts to hold gun companies liable in court.
“I think that, had the really powerful litigation run its course, we would have had the same success on guns” as on tobacco, Graves said. “That tobacco litigation was historic… They were able to make some substantial progress and change the future — having information out there, showing how evilly the tobacco companies were behaving. So there was an effort to stop that for guns, which have huge number of deaths and injuries. We haven’t seen the same progress as you would have had these been allowed to go forward. ”
In 1949, a TV ad boasted that “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” Decades of research on smoking’s health effects was required to counter the industry’s lies about the dangers of smoking, but also to figure out how to help people break their addiction to nicotine.
In 1964, U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry issued a groundbreaking report on smoking and health, identifying a nearly 70 percent increase in the mortality rate of smokers over non-smokers. A bipartisan array of Terry’s successors continued researching the health impacts and effective ways to reduce smoking. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also done extensive research on tobacco and how to “stamp out smoking,” including targeting high-risk groups like LGBT people, hipsters, low-income African Americans, and Native Americans.
Chris Bostic, deputy director for policy for Action on Smoking & Health (ASH), says this research has been “vital” to groups like his. “It’s nice to have facts on our side and we couldn’t do the research ourselves. We’re not scientists; these are big budget research projects.” He noted that funding from the National Cancer Institute and other parts of NIH have “put a lot of grants [on] two sides, to keep people from starting and to get people to want to quit and help them be able to quit.”
Thanks to a 1996 law, pushed by the NRA and one of its life members, then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR), the federal government does not do the same kind of in-depth research on gun violence and its prevention. The “Dickey Amendment” stipulated that no funds “made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” A 2012 appropriations law put similar restrictions on NIH funding for that year.
Though the NRA claims this was not its intent, the effect of the amendment was not simply that the CDC did not advocate for gun control, it stopped the Centers from doing almost any research on gun violence. And, according to a 2011 New York Times story, before the few remaining firearm-related studies funded by the CDC get published, the NRA gets a heads up “as a courtesy.”
Ted Alcorn, research director at Everytown for Gun Safety, told ThinkProgress in an email that his organization’s research has found that “after the gun lobby’s attacks on the Centers for Disease Control in the mid-1990s, the agency’s funding for public health research on gun violence fell more than 95 percent and publications in the field dried up.” Though groups like Everytown have worked to fill the gap, the lack of federal research has made progress on gun safety even more challenging.
Among those who now worry that the Dickey Amendment may have hampered lifesaving research: Dickey himself. After the Oregon college shootings in early October, Dickey told NPR that it and other similar tragedies have made him regret not making the restrictions on the CDC narrower: “I’ve gone back through it in my mind to say, what could we have done, and I know what we could’ve done. We could’ve kept the fund alive and just restricted the expenditure of dollars.”
“The effect is it makes it a lot harder to enact smart gun laws,” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence senior staff attorney Laura Cutilletta said in an interview. “If you don’t have research showing they’re effective, it makes it harder for legislators who do want these solutions to be able to move them forward — and makes it a lot easier for the NRA and gun rights advocates to poke holes in policy ideas.” She noted that the gun lobby often dismisses proposals by arguing that “there’s no research to prove it works,” but never seems to mention that “there is no research because of their own tactics.”
And when President Obama nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy, a supporter of increased federal funding for gun violence research and of NRA-opposed gun violence reduction measures, to be Surgeon General in 2013, the NRA tried to block him and helped delay his confirmation for nearly a year.
Today, much of the country has adopted smoke-free workplace protections, which has been a major help in reducing smoking. ASH’s Bostic explained that “smoke-free places has been very successful. Look at a map: the states with more stringent smoke-free air laws (that have been around longest) correlate to low consumption,” he observed. “It’s had such an impact because, one, if people can’t smoke much of their day, it’s much easier to quit — and most smokers (70 percent) do want to quit and have tried but couldn’t — and, two, it de-normalizes smoking. There are places where kids, 15 or younger, have never seen anyone smoke in person, only on TV and movies.”The tobacco industry has consistently fought these restrictions — often partnering with the “other NRA,” the National Restaurant Association — but they have become the national norm nonetheless.
The effort to keep workplaces free from guns, on the other hand, has been significantly more challenging. The NRA opposes almost all gun-free zones — even schools.
In addition, it has pushed heavily to prohibit colleges and universities from enacting policies that stop students from carrying guns on campus — attempting to protect what it calls the “right to self-defense.” It boasts that “for the better part of a generation, we’ve been working to eliminate state laws that make it either difficult or impossible to legally carry a concealed handgun for protection while away from home. When we started, 40 states had those kinds of laws. Today, only eight states and the District of Columbia fit that category. Of course, we’re continuing to try to get that number to zero.” ALEC has pushed to eliminate the restrictions in the remaining states, through a model bill for state legislatures called the “Campus Personal Protection Act.”
While smoke-free zones have kept millions of Americans safe from secondhand smoke and reduced smoking, the NRA has opposed gun-free zones in airports, churches, government buildings, and even bars.
ASH’s Bostic says one thing has proven “far and away the most effective and easily implemented interdiction to reduce tobacco consumption,” especially among kids: Tax increases.
As of October 2015, the average state tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.60 per pack. The federal government adds another $1.01 per pack in taxes, bringing the average price for a 20-cigarette packet up to about $6.25. For a pack-a-day smoker, the expense would be more than $2,000 annually, a deterrent for many.
Bostic notes that this deterrent is especially helpful at keeping those under age 18 from becoming regular smokers. “If they’re underage, [they typically] go to places that will sell cigarettes without an ID, have older siblings or friends buy for them, or steal them from parents.” The higher the cost per pack, the less likely they’ll have the money to buy cigarettes illegally and the more likely parents will notice a half-a-pack missing, he observed.
As prices go up, smoking rates decrease. And the states with the higher taxes on cigarettes almost always have lower sales than states with lower cigarette taxes.
Comedian Chris Rock has famously joked that the solution to gun violence is making bullets less affordable. “I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? ‘Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.”
While no U.S. jurisdiction has yet tried Rock’s plan, localities like Cook County, Illinois and Seattle have attempted to reduce gun violence by enacting sales taxes on guns and/or ammo. The NRA denounced these efforts as “misguided and burdensome” and ineffective penalties on “law-abiding gun owners,” rather than criminals who “don’t legally purchase firearms.” (A comprehensive analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that most guns used in recent mass shootings were, in fact, purchased legally.)
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the gun industry, suggested that taxing firearms is not even constitutional. “The Seattle ordinance is nothing but a ‘poll tax’ on the Second Amendment and an effort to drive Seattle’s firearms retailers out of business,” its senior vice president and general counsel opined in August. His group and the NRA have filed a lawsuit to try to block the tax.
Perhaps stronger than the “poll tax” argument is the groups’ claim that the city of Seattle does not have the legal authority to pass any laws regulating firearms, thanks to something called “preemption.” The gun lobby, with the help of ALEC, has gotten the state of Washington and all but a handful of other states to pass laws blocking local governments from enacting any local regulations relating to guns.
And, he notes, it is not just the gun lobby that is pushing for state preemption, but an array of other sectors, including alcohol, energy, and others, all actively opposed to tougher health and safety protections. “Although the issues are different — fracking couldn’t be more different than firearms — the strategies are for all practical purposes identical,” Pertschuk said. “Not similar… identical.”
While it appears unlikely to pass in the current Congress, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) recently filed a bill to impose a $100 federal tax on all firearms. Just 12 members, all in the Democratic minority, have co-sponsored it so far.
The final major component in tobacco use reduction, according to Bostic, is the conversation between patients and medical professionals about smoking.
“Talking about smoking [with doctors and nurse practitioners] is a big predictor of willingness to quit and success in quitting,” he explained. “It has to be more than just saying ‘you shouldn’t smoke,’ but also saying, ‘here’s what you can do, here’s how I can help, here’s what I can prescribe.'” The National Institutes for Health’s smokefree.gov website urges smokers to “talk to your doctor or pharmacist about quit options.”
According to the CDC, research shows that counseling and medication “are both effective for treating tobacco dependence, and using them together is more effective than using either one alone.”
While the conversations doctors have with patients about smoking relate to cessation and the ones they have about guns relate to safety, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Cutilletta says they are no less important. “According to one study, 64 percent of individuals who received verbal firearm storage safety counseling from their doctors improved their gun safety practices,” she said.
“It’s not about having guns,” Cutilletta insisted, “it’s about storage. How is the gun stored? Is it in a home with children? Loaded or unloaded? Locked? Is ammunition stored separately? That’s the kind of question doctors can ask and talk about.”
But, with the support of the NRA, Florida’s legislature passed legislation in 2011 to chill even those conversations. The Privacy of Firearm Owners Act serves as a statewide gag-rule, prohibiting doctors in the Sunshine State from bringing up guns with their patients. In addition to insisting that “inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made,” the law also prohibits the medical community from discriminating against patients on the basis of “firearm ownership or possession” — affording gun owners a public accommodation protection the state does not even afford LGBT people — and allows for disciplinary action for doctors who violate its provisions. Other states have contemplated similar laws and taken smaller steps, though none have gone quite as far as Florida.
Dr. William Jordan, the alliance’s president, told ThinkProgress that his medical students often are wary of uncomfortable conversations with patients about topics like sexual history and gun ownership. “We need to overcome the discomfort,” he said, “and when you have a law on the books that threatens taking away someone’s medical license or other penalties, it has a chilling effect on whether people are willing to go there with their patients.” He pointed to the oil and gas industry use of similar tactics to restrict what Pennsylvania doctors can discuss with patients regarding the oil and gas extraction method commonly referred to as fracking.
Jordan also noted that this is one area where the aforementioned lack of research has been evident: “We don’t have research funding on these things to collect data, to draw clear conclusions [on the Florida law’s impact]. We don’t have polling data to know how many practicing physicians know about the law, even.”
Grassroots Solutions?
Chris Bostic, deputy director for policy for Action on Smoking & Health (ASH), noted that the decline in smoking rates in recent decades has resulted from a series of factors. “The overriding thing,” he told ThinkProgress, is that “there is no silver bullet, no one policy or regulation that solves the tobacco epidemic. It’s a recipe, not a menu. States don’t go and choose one, [you] have to do all to really have an impact.” But the gun lobby has gone to great lengths to take every item in the recipe off the shelves.
Jordan believes that the only way to reduce gun violence is through grassroots organizing. “Unfortunately, the tragedies that make big news come periodically and spur some action, but not necessarily enough to keep a sustained effort going. It’s really up to community leaders, at the local level, to be going to elected representatives and talking about these issues.”
But Grassroots Change’s Mark Pertschuk warns that every step the gun lobby takes makes it harder for citizens to mobilize. “By preempting local authority, what you’re really doing is taking away any chance of building a powerful grassroots movement. In a handful of places like Hawaii, California, and New York, where there isn’t preemption, there are powerful and successful grassroots movements on guns. But there aren’t powerful movements in almost any of the other states.”
Without the ability to use the tools that worked against tobacco, activists “have no purchase.” The only way to make sure this does not happen with other health and safety issues, Pertschuk noted, is for citizens to educate their state legislators “about why preemption is so bad,” and then to work “proactively, at local level, on supporting democracy.”
------------------------------------------
California Gun Laws: An Overview. California is a state with a complicated set of gun laws, including universal background checks and "assault weapon" bans.
For those interested on this day of horrible crimes being committed with guns, a broad overview of some basics of California gun laws, excerpted from the state Attorney General's Office 2013 document on same.
: joelogon / Foter.com / CC BY-SA
As I write I do not know what laws were or were not violated in the manner in which the killers obtained whatever weapons they used, but this is an overview of what the law qua law tries to do in California, a state with relatively stringent gun regulations.
The relevant legal environment in which the crimes did occur is in many ways a model for what politicians mean when they talk about "common sense gun safety laws."
California has since 1989 banned a set of long guns it classifies as "assault rifles," see here for details. And "Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California."
California also has a list of types of specific handgun models that are legal for sale, "available on the DOJ website at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/," with all others presumptively illegal.
Here are types of people who can't legally obtain guns in California:
Any person convicted of any felony or any offense enumerated in Penal Code section 29905. [A wide variety of violent offenses, including murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping]• Any person convicted of an offense enumerated in Penal Code section 23515. [anyone who had used a firearm in a violent offense]• Any person with two or more convictions for violating Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2) [anyone who has waved a gun in a quarrel, essentially, not in self-defense]• Any person adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender...• Any person found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity of any crime, unless the court has made a finding of restoration of competence or sanity....
There are a wide variety of shorter-term prohibitions on gun ownership, including 10-year prohibitions for:
Any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the following: Penal Code sections 71, 76, 136 .5, 140, 148, subdivision (d), 171b, 171c, 171d, 186 .28, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244 .5, 245, 245 .5, 246, 246 .3, 247, 273 .5, 273 .6, 417, 417 .1, 417 .2, 417 .6, 422, 626 .9, 646 .9, 830 .95, subdivision (a), 17500, 17510, subdivision (a), 25300, 25800, 27510, 27590, subdivision (c), 30315, or 32625, and Welfare and Institutions Code sections 871 .5, 1001 .5, 8100, 8101, or 8103 .
Full copy of penal code here, was unable to provide separate links for every offense above in timely fashion.
And 5-year prohibitions for:
Any person taken into custody as a danger to self or others, assessed, and admitted to a mental health facility under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5150, 5151, 5152; or certified under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5250, 5260, 5270 .15 .
Other prohibitions on legal gun ownership cover people on probation, charged with a felony offense as yet unadjudicated, any voluntary mental patient or under "gravely disabled conservatorship," anyone "addicted to use of narcotics," anyone who threatened a licensed psychotherapist within 6 months, and anyone "under a protective order as defined in Family Code section 6218 or Penal Code section 136.2, or a temporary restraining order issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6 or 527.8."
If you are not one of the prohibited, here are some of the laws you face regarding how to obtain a gun as a prospectively legal gun owner:
Only licensed California firearms dealers who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE) are authorized to engage in retail sales of firearms . These retail sales require the purchaser to provide personal identifier information for the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) document that the firearms dealer must submit to the DOJ . There is a mandatory 10-day waiting period before the firearms dealer can deliver the firearm to the purchaser ....
Generally, you have to be 18 to get a long gun, 21 for handgun. You must have a state driver's license or I.D. card. And there is no "gun show" or private sale "loophole" in the state:
Generally, it is illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party) unless the sale is completed through a licensed California firearms dealer . A “Private Party Transfer” (PPT) can be conducted at any licensed California firearms dealership that sells handguns . The buyer and seller must complete the required DROS document in person at the licensed firearms dealership and deliver the firearm to the dealer who will retain possession of the firearm during the mandatory 10-day waiting period .
You can give a gun to a close family member and not go through that process.
You also have to have earned a state-issued "Handgun Safety Certificate" for legal handgun ownership purchasing, which requires that "you must score at least 75% on an objective written test pertaining to firearms laws and safety requirements," with tests "administered by DOJ Certified Instructors, who are generally located at firearms dealerships. An HSC is valid for five years."
You must also "successfully perform a safe handling demonstration with the handgun being purchased or acquired. Safe handling demonstrations must be performed in the presence of a DOJ Certified Instructor sometime between the date the DROS is submitted to the DOJ and the delivery of the handgun, and are generally performed at the firearms dealership."
In addition, all guns bought in California legally "must be accompanied with a firearms safety device (FSD) that has passed required safety and functionality tests and is listed on the DOJ’s official roster of DOJ-approved firearm safety devices."
You can only buy one handgun every 30 days by law. You cannot buy a gun for a different person not going through the background check. If you move here with a previously owned weapon, you must inform the state DOJ or get rid of it.
As far as how you can legally use your weapon, here are some restrictions.
You may in general keep it in your own property or business (including temporary residences and campsites) if you legally own it, loaded or unloaded. You can generally legally transport handguns only unloaded and stored in a locked container, which can include your trunk. Long guns must be unloaded while transported.
As of this year, concealed weapons are banned on state schools and universities. As of last year, family members have a legal process to temporarily bar their relatives from getting guns if the family sees the member as unstable.
As far as having your weapon outside your home, business, or property, there are a set of restrictions:
It is illegal for any person to carry a handgun concealed upon his or her person or concealed in a vehicle without a license....The prohibition from carrying a concealed handgun does not apply to licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from the hunting expedition. (Pen . Code, § 25640 .)...It is illegal to carry a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on any public street, or in any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm .....In order to determine whether a firearm is loaded, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on any public street or in any prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to these provisions is, in itself, grounds for arrest . ....It is generally illegal for any person to carry upon his or her person or in a vehicle, an exposed and unloaded handgun while in or on: • A public place or public street in an incorporated city or city and county; or • A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated city or city and county . ...
Getting that license to carry is up to local authorities, with varying requirements, and is in many areas very difficult to do. Only around 70,000 such licenses exist statewide, with around 29 million adults in the state.
It is legal to use a weapon in self defense under some circumstances:
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime...It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend themself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury . In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death . An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.
The extent to which this set of laws was relevant either legally or practically to how the weapons used in today's crime were obtained is unknown as I write.
------------------------------------------
Congress: Stop blocking gun violence research. By Sarah Clements Newtown, CT
After the shooting, I dedicated nearly all of my efforts to gun violence prevention advocacy. I learned a lot of disturbing things about our nation’s gun laws. Most Americans do not know the extent of our broken system; regulations are nearly non-existent. But one of the most frustrating obstacles to building a safer country free from gun violence is that Congress has banned federal gun violence research since the year I was born -- 1996.
You read that right. An average of 32 people are killed by a gun in America every day, and yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can’t even conduct research into the root causes of all forms of gun violence.
How are we expected to come up with the most impactful solutions if we can’t even study the problem?
Through lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Congress has prevented the CDC from studying the causes of gun violence by claiming that research could be “used to advocate or promote gun control.” Congress even extended the ban right after the Charleston church shooting that left 9 people dead, by rejecting an amendment that would have repealed the ban.
It’s time for this petty politicking to stop. Join me in calling on Congress and the CDC to resume studying the causes and impacts of gun violence.
LETTER TO
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
Allow the CDC to do research on gun violence
------------------------------------------
At least 14 people are dead in San Bernardino, the deadliest mass shooting since Sandy Hook.Details are emerging. So is our heartbreak, so is our outrage.
Here's what I know: This happens too often. There are common-sense steps we can take to stop this from becoming the new normal. We may not stop all gun violence, but shame on us if we don't try.
So if you're angry, if you're fed up, if you agree there's more we can do, I'm asking you to forward this email to five people right now and ask them to text "ENOUGH" to 644-33 to join this movement.
Because together, we're going to win.We'll be in touch in the days and weeks ahead with a variety of ways you can take action.
The bigger and louder this movement gets, the greater our power -- power to break the gun lobby's stranglehold on our nation's laws, power to throw out politicians who fail to lead, and power to set a new course for this country.
Shannon Watts
Founder
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
------------------------------------------
No, THIS is the Best Response to the San Bernardino Shooting.
------------------------------------------
Lawmakers Offer ‘Prayers’ For Mass Shooting Victims, Receive Large Checks From The NRA.
igorvolsky
Got $1,000 from NRA during the 2014 election cycle to address gun violence using his "thoughts and prayers"
NRA dumped $922K into McConnell's re-elect bid, so when it comes to preventing gun violence all u get is this tweet
Got $3,000 from NRA during the 2014 election cycle. Unlikely to address gun problem with anything other than prayer
Got $2,000 from NRA during the 2014 election cycle to reduce gun violence using her "thoughts and prayers"
Got $4,000 from NRA during the 2014 election cycle to address gun violence by "praying"
Got $2,000 from NRA during the 2014 cycle to address gun violence by keeping victims in his "thoughts and prayers"
Got $1,000 from NRA during the 2014 election cycle to address gun violence using his "thoughts and prayers"
Got $2,000 from NRA during 2014 cycle to keep #SanBernadino victims in his prayers and little else
Got $7,450 from NRA during the 2014 election cycle to address gun violence by "praying for peace"
------------------------------------------
The BBC’s Distressingly Accurate Intro To The San Bernardino Shooting.
Watch it:
But the commentary inherent in the BBC segment also speaks to how the United States is unique in this regard. In fact, the United States is the world leader when it comes to mass shootings. Despite having 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. is home to 31 percent of the world’s mass shootings since 1966.
A number of factors seem to contribute to this, but the high rate of gun ownership seems to play a key role. In fact, the connection between gun ownership rates and mass shooting rates isn’t unique to the U.S. Finland and Switzerland, two countries often thought of as being very safe, rank just below the U.S. in per capita gun ownership and similarly rank in the top 15 countries for mass shooters per capita.
In contrast, countries like Australia and Great Britain have done much to rein in gun ownership and mass shootings in turn. In Australia, efforts like buyback programs, extended waiting periods for gun purchases (measured in weeks, not days), a national firearms registry, limits on ammunition, and bans on many semi-automatic, self-loading rifles, and shotguns have made a huge difference. The country has had very few mass shootings since these changes were implemented in 1996, and the changes also contribute to a decline in the firearm homicide rate by 59 percent and a decline in the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent, with no corresponding non-firearm increases in either.
In addition to some of the same measures, Britain went so far as to ban private handgun ownership in 1997, buying back 162,000 firearms from private citizens. In the years immediately after the gun control measures were passed, gun violence continued to increase there for a few years, peaking in 2003–2004, but it dropped off by 53 percent in the subsequent seven years.
When the BBC suggests that mass shootings are a near-daily occurrence in the United States, it’s not just making the point that the rate is high, but also that the country stands alone in that regard. There are, in fact, places in the world where people are shocked and surprised when mass shootings take place.
------------------------------------------
Physicians Demand End To 20-Year-Old Ban On Gun Violence Research.
Mass shootings, gang violence, domestic abuse, suicide, accidents — gun violence in the United States comes in many forms. And often. In the past week, the country has seen already two mass shootings. Every day, 89 people die because of gun-related violence. Experts estimate guns may soon surpass vehicle accidents to the country’s leading cause of deaths. President Barack Obama has repeatedly urged lawmakers to not make this the “new normal.”
But when it comes to finding solutions to this national problem, there’s a major roadblock standing in the way. It’s been decades since any federally-funded scientific research has been done on the issue.
That’s why members of Congress joined physicians from across the country Wednesday morning to demand an end to the Dickey Amendment, a 20-year-old law banning any federal research on gun violence.
“Gun violence is among the most difficult public health challenges we face as a country, but because of the deeply misguided ban on research, we know very little about it,” said Rep. David Price, vice chair to the House of Representatives’ Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. “Regardless of where we stand in the debate over gun violence, we should all be able to agree that this debate should be informed by objective data and robust scientific research.”
On public health matters, it’s critical we listen to doctors—not politicians
This ban, supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), has effectively silenced researchers at both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) for conducting any comprehensive studies on what causes violence — and what can be done to prevent it — since 1996. As expected, it’s left public health experts and policymakers with little to lean on as they attempt to craft new legislation to help quell the fatal trend.
At Wednesday’s press conference, led by Doctors for America, doctors presented a petition signed by more than 2,000 physicians in all 50 states requesting an end to the restriction.
“It’s disappointing to me that we’ve made little progress in the past 20 years in finding solutions to gun violence,” said Dr. Nina Agrawal, who’s been a pediatrician in the South Bronx for years. “In my career, I’ve seen children lives saved from measles, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, motor vehicle accidents…because of federal scientific data and research. It’s frustrating that the CDC is not permitted to do the same type of research for gun violence.”
Instead, GOP leaders have tried to make gun violence an issue that requires mental health research, despite the fact that less than 3 percent of U.S. crimes involve someone with a mental illness. And the most recent argument against CDC-funded research is that “a gun is not a disease” — even though the CDC has been researching motor vehicles, natural disasters, poor ventilation systems, and many other topics that wouldn’t be labeled a disease for years. The politicians behind these arguments have yet to suggest simply allocating money to another government agency.
“Politicians have put a gag order on public health research for gun violence only to score political points,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who also spoke at the event. “On public health matters, it’s critical we listen to doctors — not politicians.”
Common sense dictates we need to do something about this.
Some have tried to roll back these restrictions before. While President Barack Obama signed an executive order following the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut school shooting to restore funds to gun violence studies, Congress has consistently blocked all requests for funding. And the law itself remains in place.
Even the congressman who lent his name to the initial amendment, former Rep. Jay Dickey, has publicly expressed his regret for backing the bill. He lent his support to Wednesday’s press conference by sending a letter to Rep. Mike Thompson, chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, to read at the event.
“He was never in opposition of doing research, he was in opposition to using that to harm the Second Amendment,” Thompson explained, comparing the issue to past research on automobile deaths. “No one did it do do away with cars, because clearly you could end all auto deaths if you did away with cars. It’s ridiculous to jump to that conclusion. No one is calling [to do away with guns]. We’re calling for good public policy to get to the root of this problem we have.”
Rep. Price stressed that press events like this are key to influencing members of Congress who are currently in negotiations for an omnibus appropriations bill that could include changes to the Dickey Amendment. The doctors present all agreed that current policy is not working.
“Using emotions and belief systems to address policy is a bad idea and is going to get us nowhere. So to develop effective policy we must conduct evidence-based research,” said Dr. David Berman, a physician from St. Petersburg, Florida, who spoke. “Common sense dictates we need to do something about this.”
The event ended just a few hours before news broke of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
As the Huffington Post reports, “People on the U.S. Government's Terrorist Watch
List often can't board commercial airliners, but they can walk into a gun store
and legally buy pistols and powerful military-style
rifles.”[1]That’s an egregious oversight -- plain and simple.
Congressional Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, have introduced legislation to fix this problem. But instead of working across the aisle to address this obviously flawed loophole, Republicans have stayed helplessly loyal to the vicious NRA.
Once again, they’ve resorted to the same old obstructionist tactics -- standing in the way of much-needed legislation.
Sign your name to demand Republicans stand up to the NRA and STOP potential terrorists from buying guns >>
By refusing to act, Republicans are essentially telling Americans that the twisted agendas of their special interest buddies are more important than our safety.
Allowing the NRA to dictate our homeland security policy is NOT how we’re going to keep America safe. We need Republicans to hear us loud and clear.
Sign your name to denounce Republicans for being too afraid to stand up to the NRA and jeopardizing the safety of Americans:
http://go.boldpac.com/Close-The-Terrorist-Loophole
------------------------------------------
Three Messages from Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly:It seems like every week we sit down together to find the words to adequately express our heartbreak for another community that has been shattered by gun violence.
We always fail to find the words to match our anger, heartache, and disgust.
Today is no different.
Today is another sad day. Today, once again, America mourns those taken from us by gun violence.
Once again, a senseless act of gun violence has brought terror, tragedy and pain to one of our communities. This time, murderers with guns attacked the Inland Regional Center, a place of refuge and comfort for some of the most vulnerable among us. And that wasn't even the only mass shooting in the United States yesterday.
We wish we could use words like 'unimaginable' and 'unthinkable' to describe the horror that unfolded yesterday in San Bernardino. But it is not. Not in our country.
While we wait to learn exactly what happened and why, we are holding the San Bernardino community in our thoughts. We grieve for those lost, pray for strength for the injured, and hope for comfort for those whose loved ones were taken from them yesterday. We are also grateful to the first responders who worked to end these murderers' rampage.
We want to repeat something we said just last week after the tragedy in Colorado Springs: As a country and a people, we must reckon with the fact that these types of gun tragedies simply don't happen as often in other countries. Other countries have evil people. Other countries have violent people.
But our country stands nearly alone in the rate of people murdered with guns.
America is an extraordinary place. But these tragedies make us stand out in the worst of ways. This is not the America we strive for.
We have to do better. And we can.
Tell Congress that enough is enough: it's time for them to act to make our communities safer from gun violence.
There were more people killed during yesterday's mass shooting than any other since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. And in all of the time that has passed since Newtown, Congress has managed to do what many of us would have thought unthinkable: nothing at all.
Thank you for making your voice heard.
And another one from them that came out after this latest mass shooting:
Four weeks ago, a gunman walked the streets of Colorado Springs armed with three guns. He shot and killed three people at random before he was killed in an exchange of gunfire with the police.
Last Friday, another lone gunman with a documented history of domestic abuse walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and killed three people, including a police officer, and wounded nine others before surrendering after exchanging gunfire with the police.
Both of us were saddened to hear the news, just a day after celebrating Thanksgiving. And while we still don't know all the details about the motivations of the gunman, we must all recognize the shameful reality that these kinds of shootings don't happen as often in other nations. We can do better. We must do better.
We agree with President Obama's response to this most recent act of gun violence:
Sign Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC's petition to President Obama supporting executive action that would close the loophole that allows unlicensed dealers to sell large numbers of guns without conducting background checks.
You might also remember that just two years ago the gun lobby backed a recall effort of the state senator in Colorado Springs, John Morse, who had voted to close loopholes in the state's background check laws. We lost that campaign, but won the seat back in 2014.
Here's the bottom line: the evidence is clear that in states requiring background checks there are fewer police officers killed with guns, fewer suicides using guns, and fewer women killed with guns. Meanwhile, states that have repealed background check laws have seen an increase in gun-related deaths.
President Obama can take executive action that will save lives. And it's important that he knows we stand with him. Sign our petition here:
http://action.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/executive_action
We once again grieve for the Coloradans whose lives were cut short, and we're grateful for the first responders who put themselves in harm's way and whose heroism undoubtedly saved lives.
And, the third one written this week by them:
Moments ago, the United States Senate voted on two gun violence prevention amendments: one to expand background checks, and one to close the "terror gap" that currently allows individuals on the terrorist watch list to buy guns.
Although these amendments were non-binding, the votes were important for paving the way for future action. Both failed.
Once again, we wish we could use words like 'unimaginable' and 'unthinkable' to describe these votes, especially in the wake of yet another series of mass shootings. But we cannot.
Instead, today we'll use words like 'perseverance' and 'commitment' to describe our pledge to continue our efforts to replace members of Congress who put the profits of the gun lobby ahead of the safety of our communities.
A number of the legislators who voted against these commonsense amendments are up for re-election in 2016, and we know that if we stand together we can elect a pro-gun violence prevention majority U.S. Senate in the year ahead.
Make a $3 contribution to Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC to help us continue the fight to change our gun laws.
We are fighters, and won't give up now. Thank you, as always, for continuing to stand with us in this fight.
All of our best,
Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly
------------------------------------------
Here is the very sad truth: it is very difficult for the American people to keep up with the mass shootings we seem to see every day in the news. Yesterday, San Bernardino. Last week, Colorado Springs. Last month, Colorado Springs again. Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista, Virginia Tech, Navy Yard, Roseburg, and far too many others.The crisis of gun violence has reached epidemic levels in this country to the point that we are averaging more than one mass shooting per day. Now, I am going to tell you something that most candidates wouldn’t say: I am not sure there is a magical answer to how we end gun violence in America. But I do know that while thoughts and prayers are important, they are insufficient and it is long past time for action.
That’s why I want to talk to you today about a few concrete actions we should take as a country that will save lives.
Add your name in support of the following commonsense measures Congress can take to make our communities safer from gun violence.
1. We can expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. This is an idea that over 80% of Americans agree with, even a majority of gun owners.
2. & 3. We can renew the assault weapons ban and end the sale of high capacity magazines — military-style tools created for the purpose of killing people as efficiently as possible.
4. Since 2004, over 2,000 people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list have legally purchased guns in the United States. Let’s close the “terror gap” and make sure known foreign and domestic terrorists are included on prohibited purchaser lists.
5. We can close loopholes in our laws that allow perpetrators of stalking and dating violence to buy guns. In the United States, the intended targets of a majority of our mass shootings are intimate partners or family members, and over 60% of victims are women and children. Indeed, a woman is five times more likely to die in a domestic violence incident when a gun is present.
6. We should close the loophole that allows prohibited purchasers to buy a gun without a completed background check after a three-day waiting period expires. Earlier this year, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine of our fellow Americans while they prayed in a historic church, simply because of the color of their skin. This act of terror was possible because of loopholes in our background check laws. Congress should act to ensure the standard for ALL gun purchases is a completed background check. No check — no sale.
7. It’s time to pass federal gun trafficking laws. I support Kirsten Gillibrand’s Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking & Crime Prevention Act of 2015, which would “make gun trafficking a federal crime and provide tools to law enforcement to get illegal guns off the streets and away from criminal networks and street gangs.”
8. It’s time to strengthen penalties for straw purchasers who buy guns from licensed dealers on behalf of a prohibited purchaser.
9. We must authorize resources for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study and research the causes and effects of gun violence in the United States of America.
10. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are over 21,000 firearm suicides every year in the United States. It’s time we expand and improve our mental health capabilities in this country so that people who need care can get care when they need it, regardless of their level of income.
Add your name in support of these commonsense measures Congress can take to make our communities safer from gun violence.
Earlier today, the U.S. Senate voted against non-binding legislation to expand background checks, close the “terror gap,” and improve our mental health systems. I voted for all three, although each of them came up short.
They failed for the same reason the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey legislation failed in 2013, just months after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School: because of the financial political power of a gun lobby that has bought candidates and elections for the better part of the last several decades.
In 2014 alone, the gun lobby spent over $30 million on political advertising and lobbying to influence legislators in Congress and state capitals across the country. And just last month, it was reported that the Koch brothers made a $5 million contribution to the NRA.
Americans of all political stripes agree. It's time to address the all too common scene of our neighbors being killed. It's time to pass a common sense package of gun safety legislation.
With your help, that's what we’ll do when I’m president.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
------------------------------------------
Gov. Christie turned his back on abuse victims. New Jersey women who have the courage to confront their abusers in court were just abandoned by a governor who didn't have the courage to stand up to the NRA.Gov. Chris Christie should be ashamed. He vetoed a bipartisan domestic violence bill that would require convicted domestic abusers to turn in their guns -- a common-sense measure that would save women's lives.
That's why we're calling on New Jersey's lawmakers to override the veto -- starting with Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto.
Send New Jersey Assembly Speaker Prieto a message: Tell him to stand up for New Jersey women once again and hold a vote to override Gov. Christie's veto.
Assembly Speaker Prieto still has time to call a vote and close this deadly loophole by overriding the Governor's dangerous veto, but the window for the legislature to act is closing.
That's why I'm counting on you to make your voice heard now.
Tell Speaker Prieto to stand up for domestic abuse victims one more time and override the Governor's veto. Send him a message now.
Together, we can get our lawmakers to push this common-sense public safety measure over the finish line.
------------------------------------------
| Tell Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “Take real action to protect American lives by helping pass a package of gun control legislation that includes closing the NRA-backed terror gap that allows known terror suspects to purchase guns.”
Yet right-wing Republicans in Congress have done nothing to pass any reasonable proposals to protect our communities from senseless domestic terrorism. And Friday’s mass shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood health center, alongside last week’s white supremacist attack on a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest in Minneapolis, is a stark reminder that horrific gun violence perpetrated by domestic terrorists continues to be one of the most real and present threats to Americans’ safety. As President Obama said in response to the latest tragedy in Colorado, "The last thing Americans should have to do, over the holidays or any day, is comfort the families of people killed by gun violence," adding, "This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal." President Obama continued, “[W]e have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.”1 Tell Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: Act to make us safer. Bring real gun control legislation to the floor for a vote. Click here to sign the petition. It’s outrageous that Republicans are so eager to fearmonger and race bait on behalf of our “safety” but refuse to do anything to combat the epidemic of gun violence that kills more than 33,000 Americans every year. If Republicans actually want to make us safer, they must do everything they can to pass a comprehensive package of gun control reforms, including a bill to close the NRA-backed terror gap which has allowed more than 2,000 people on the terror watch list to purchase guns since 2004.2 With Republican hypocrisy currently in the media spotlight, it’s time to ramp up the pressure on them to finally act. Tell Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: Act to make us safer. Bring real gun control legislation to the floor for a vote. Click here to sign the petition. The xenophobic policies offered up by Republicans in the wake of the Paris and Beirut attacks are simply jaw-dropping: These policies are especially offensive in light of the fact that there is legislation that Congress could pass right now to actually reduce gun violence. The Senate could: If Republicans really want to protect Americans, they need to break their blind allegiance to the NRA and pass gun control legislation. But they’ll never act unless we force them. Can you add your voice today? Tell Senate Republican leaders: Act to make us safer and pass real gun control legislation. Click the link below to sign: http://act.credoaction.com/sign/McConnell_GunViolence?t=7&akid=16203.6785281.TZdR9h
Add
your name:
|
