Gun crime

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Only cultural change will free America from its gun problem | Andrew Gawthorpe

      by

      Only cultural change will free America from its gun problemAndrew GawthorpeThe movement to protect innocent lives from gun violence is a multi-generational struggle akin to that which won African Americans civil rights or gay Americans the right to marry Some days it feels like guns are such a foundational part of American identity that the country would have to cease to be itself before it would give them up. When a gunman murdered dozens of elementary-age schoolchildren, leaving their bodies in such a state that parents had to give up DNA samples for them to be identified, it was one such day. What cultural value, what material interest, could be worth this? It must be something that its defenders consider supremely important.Guns – that’s what. Critics of the sickness which is America’s obsession with guns often focus their fire on the second amendment, or the perverse political influence of the National Rifle Association. But neither of these things really get to the root of the pathology. It’s true that gun-rights advocates rely on a surely mistaken reading of the constitution to justify arming themselves to the teeth. And it’s also true that the NRA is a malign force in American politics. But the constitution can be changed or reinterpreted, and special interest groups can be vanquished. What is at issue here is something more foundational, and more difficult to change: American culture itself.The gun is the great symbol, and poisonous offshoot, of American individualism. The country has long valorized masculine heroes – the cowboy, the frontiersman, the patriotic soldier – who impose their will on the community’s enemies with violence. It’s no coincidence that whenever a horrific mass shooting occurs, those in favor of guns respond by claiming that the solution to the guns of the bad guys is more guns in the hands of the good guys. Such reasoning responds to a deep-seated American historical myth, and allows the speaker to imagine themselves as the hero.But they are not heroes – far from it. Mass shooters may be, as the writer John Ganz put it, the “nightmare obverse” of the ideal of the lone frontiersman. But everyone else who defends their own right to possess a gun, who lauds guns as the bringers of peace and order, is guilty too. Their choices make society less safe, not more. The pleasure derived from guns, the sense of participation in America’s deepest myths about itself which they might foster, come at the expense of tens of thousands of lives a year. Sometimes, they are the lives of small children, innocent to the ways of a world which has allowed them to die.Men own guns at nearly twice the rate of women, and within all of this there is something deeply pathetic about the state of American manhood. American gun culture treats ownership of weapons of war as a sign of masculinity and virility, something that makes you more of a man. Almost anywhere else in the western world, a man seeking to demonstrate his masculinity in this way would be treated as an absurd and tragic poser. No doubt many gun owners tell themselves that they are better equipped to protect the innocent. But they are wrong. Rather, gun culture reveals the centrality of violence to American conceptions of manhood – a violence which ultimately harms rather than protects.If the problem is cultural, then what is the solution? There is no easy one. By now, the grooves of the debate are well-worn, and even a shocking event like the Uvalde massacre will not shake us out of it for long. Proposals to change the law or the constitution will be bitterly criticized, and gun-rights proponents will present the shooter as an anomaly who holds no lessons for “responsible” gun-owners. The supreme court is expected soon to loosen rather than tighten the law around carrying guns in public. Republicans will angrily decry attempts to “politicize” the massacre, as if the fact that innocent children are being brutally murdered due to the policies those very same Republicans support was not already a political issue of the highest order.But cultural change is not impossible. It has happened in recent decades on very important issues. America also contains within itself the will to self-improvement, and citizens who will give their all to achieve it. Sometimes it comes before political or legal change, and sometimes it comes after it. The only way to avoid despair is to see the struggle to protect innocent lives against the ravages of gun violence as a multi-generational struggle akin to that which won African Americans the right to vote, or that which won the right to gay marriage. Each of these required Americans in the grip of myths and pathologies to relinquish them, and each at one time seemed impossible. But change did eventually come.The path ahead will not be easy – and, as the supreme court’s expected ruling on Roe v Wade has shown, there will be setbacks along the way. Those who embody a pathological understanding of what America should be are currently ascendant, and there will be no easy victory over them. But despair would be surrender. That’s why for now there is the need to mourn the tiny lives which were extinguished. Remember them, and in doing so remember something else: America’s genius is that it can be changed, never quickly enough, but always in the end. It’s a slim hope to grasp onto in this moment of rage and sorrow, but it may be all that we have left.
      Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States and the host of the podcast America Explained
      TopicsUS gun controlOpinionNRAUS politicsGun crimeUS constitution and civil libertiesRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Gun crime victims are holding the firearms industry accountable – by taking them to court

      by

      Gun crime victims are holding the firearms industry accountable – by taking them to courtFollowing the strategy used in legal actions against cigarette and opioid firms, the lawsuits attempt to sidestep a law shielding gun makers With each slaughter of innocents, the gun industry offers its sympathy, argues that even more weapons will make America safer, and gives thanks for a two-decade-old law shielding the firearms makers from legal action by the victims.Mike Fifer, the chief executive of one of the US’s leading handgun manufacturers, Sturm Ruger, once described the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) as having saved the firearms industry because it stopped in its tracks a wave of lawsuits over the reckless marketing and sale of guns.But now victims of gun crime are following an alternative path forged by legal actions against cigarette makers, prescription opioid manufacturers and big oil in an attempt to work around PLCAA – and the lack of political will to act on gun control – to hold the firearms industry accountable for the bloody toll of its products.‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warnsRead moreOn Tuesday, Ilene Steur, who was badly injured when a man fired 33 shots on the New York subway in April wounding 10 people, filed a lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of the semi-automatic pistol used in the attack, Glock, of breaching “public nuisance” laws.Steur’s lawsuit contends that Glock endangered public health and safety in breach of New York state law with an irresponsible marketing campaign to push its gun’s “high capacity and ease of concealment” in an “appeal to prospective purchasers with criminal intent”.It also accuses Glock of giving significant discounts to American police departments on weapons purchases to “give the gun credibility” in the larger and more lucrative civilian market.“Gun manufacturers do not live in a bubble,” said Mark Shirian, Steur’s lawyer. “They are aware that their marketing strategies are empowering purchasers with ill intent and endangering the lives of innocent people. This lawsuit seeks to hold the gun industry accountable.”The public nuisance strategy has been used against the tobacco industry for lying about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, and with mixed success against pharmaceutical companies for creating the US opioid epidemic by recklessly pushing prescription opioids.Public nuisance claims are also at the heart of a series of lawsuits by states and municipalities accusing oil firms of covering up and lying about the part fossil fuels play in driving the climate crisis.Until recently, the gun industry thought PLCAA provided a shield from similar actions. The National Rifle Association persuaded a Republican-controlled Congress to pass the law after the families of people shot by the sniper who terrorised the Washington DC area for three weeks in 2002, killing 10 people, won a total of $2.5m from the gun manufacturer, Bushmaster, and the store that sold the weapon.But a lawsuit by the families of 20 young children and six staff murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre sought to exploit an exception in PLCAA if a firearm is sold in violation of “applicable” state or federal law, in this case public nuisance and consumer protection legislation.The Connecticut supreme court upheld the argument that PLCAA did not prevent the gun maker being sued for breach of state laws for irresponsibly militaristic marketing campaigns for its semi-automatic rifles aimed at young men. Remington appealed to the US supreme court which declined to take the case while it was still in litigation. In February, Remington settled for $73m.At about the time the Connecticut supreme court ruled in favour of the Sandy Hook families, New York introduced the law Steur is relying on that expands public nuisance legislation to cover gun crimes. On Wednesday, a federal district judge in New York dismissed an attempt by the gun industry to quash the law on the grounds that it pre-empted PLCAA.Timothy Lytton, a specialist in gun litigation at Georgia State University college of law and author of Suing the Gun Industry, expects the validity of the New York law, and the claim that public nuisance legislation is an exception to the protection given to the gun industry, to be appealed all the way to the US supreme court.“The most important thing that the supreme court needs to decide with regard to firearms litigation is probably the scope of the federal immunity law and whether or not the exception that was relied upon by the Sandy Hook plaintiffs is a viable legal theory. If it’s a viable legal theory, then I think you’re likely to see an upsurge in litigation,” he said.But, Lytton said, legal actions against the gun industry face an additional challenge because of the supreme court’s interpretation of the second amendment and the rights it gives to gun owners, a legal area that has also yet to be more widely tested.“There are limits on the ability to sue a newspaper for libel because of the first amendment. It may be the case that the second amendment has similar restrictions on the ability of individuals to hold the firearms manufacturer liable. But we don’t know what those restrictions might be because we have very little indication from the supreme court about what the second amendment actually protects other than a basic right for an individual to own a firearm that they can use for ordinary purposes,” he said.Still, as litigation against the tobacco, opioid and oil industries demonstrates, the point of lawsuits is not only to win in court. After each massacre, the gun industry usually seeks to blame the individual shooter and the failure of systems, such as mental health services. Lytton said lawsuits put the focus back on the actions of the firearms makers and forces public discussion of how they sell weapons.“The impact of litigation is not just about who wins and who loses. It’s about the framing, information disclosure and agenda-setting effects that the litigation process creates even if the plaintiffs lose. A great example of that is clergy sexual abuse.“Almost none of those suits have been won and almost none of them in front of a jury. But they’ve revolutionised the global church because of these three effects of the litigation,” he said.Two decades of litigation over the US opioid epidemic that has claimed more than 1 million lives has shifted the focus away from the drug industry’s attempt to blame the victims for their addiction to the big pharma’s responsibility for pushing the wide use of prescription narcotics despite the dangers. Highly embarrassing revelations in several court cases about the drug companies’ cynical marketing techniques helped pressure opioid makers and distributors into settling thousands of lawsuits over the opioid epidemic.Similarly, states and cities suing the oil industry for lying about the climate crisis hope that public disclosure of what fossil fuel companies knew and when they knew it will add to pressure on big oil to reach settlements.But Lytton warned that strategy may not have the same impact on the gunmakers.“There’s something very different about firearms. When it comes to tobacco or opioids or pretty much any other area of public policy in the United States, people tend to reconsider their views and start to rethink the problem,” he said.“The only place in American public policy where this is not true is in firearms violence. No matter how terrible the tragedy is, people tend to get even more committed to the views that they already have.”TopicsUS gun controlUS politicsLaw (US)Gun crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Nearly half of Republicans think US has to live with mass shootings, poll finds

      by

      Nearly half of Republicans think US has to live with mass shootings, poll findsCBS and YouGov poll returned familiar results, including 62% support for a nationwide ban on semi-automatic rifles Nearly half of Republican voters think the US just has to live with mass shootings, according to a poll released in the aftermath of the Texas elementary school murders last month and as politicians in Washington negotiate for gun reform.Bipartisan US lawmakers ramp up gun control talks amid crisis of violence – liveRead moreThe CBS and YouGov poll returned familiar results, including 62% support for a nationwide ban on semi-automatic rifles, the kind of gun used in Uvalde, Texas.Nineteen young children and two adults were killed at Robb elementary school on 24 May by an 18-year-old who bought his weapon legally.But clear national support for a ban on such rifles or changes to purchasing ages and background checks is not mirrored in Congress. Most Republicans, supported financially by the powerful gun lobby, remain implacably opposed to most gun reform.In an effort fueled by horror at events in Uvalde, senators led by Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut elected after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting killed 26 in 2012, and John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, have expressed optimism that some changes may be possible.Such efforts are largely focused on “red flag” laws designed to stop gun purchases by people deemed a potential danger to others or themselves.In the CBS/YouGov poll, support for such laws ran at 72%. Support for federal background checks on all gun purchases ran at 81%.Joe Biden has called for an assault weapons ban, or at least raising the minimum age for purchases of such weapons. In the new poll, 77% said the minimum age for buying an assault rifle should be higher than 18: 32% said it should be 21 and 45% opted for 25.Asked if mass shootings were “unfortunately something we have to accept as part of a free society” or “something we can prevent and stop if we really tried”, 72% of respondents said such shootings could be stopped.Among Democrats, 85% of respondents said mass shootings could be stopped if US politicians would only try. Among independents, the figure was 73%.But 44% of Republicans said mass shootings should be accepted as part of a free society.Following strict messaging guidelines, Republican politicians repeatedly say mental health and security issues are to blame for mass shootings, not access to guns.In the new poll, respondents were also asked: “Regardless of how you feel about the issue, how likely do you think it is that Congress will pass any laws in the next few months that will make significant changes to gun policy?”Only 7% thought it was “very likely” Congress would finally act, while a combined 69% thought it was “not very” or “not at all” likely.Some state governments have moved to introduce reforms. In New York City on Monday, the state of New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, signed a package of laws including licensing measures for assault rifles and a minimum purchase age of 21, expanded red flag provisions and a ban on sales of body armour.Hochul told reporters: “It just keeps happening. Shots ring out, flags come down and nothing ever changes – except here in New York.”Hochul’s state, however, is home to another politician whose fate starkly shows what can happen to Republicans who express openness to gun reform.On Friday, the New York congressman Chris Jacobs abandoned his bid for re-election, after stoking fury by expressing support for a federal assault weapons ban.Jacobs represents suburbs of Buffalo, the city in which 10 people were shot dead at a supermarket on 14 May in what authorities say was a racially motivated attack.Mass shootings, widely defined as shootings in which four people excluding the gunman are hurt or killed, have continued since Buffalo and Uvalde.‘They had no empathy’: for gun violence survivors, police response can be retraumatizingRead moreLast week, at a hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a gunman killed two doctors, a receptionist and a patient.According to the non-profit Gun Violence Archive, the following weekend saw mass shootings in Philadelphia, Chattanooga, South Carolina, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, New York and Michigan. Fifteen people were killed and more than 60 wounded.The archive says there have been 246 mass shootings in the US in 2022, considerably more than one a day.On Sunday, Murphy discussed his push for reform. He told CNN: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”TopicsUS politicsRepublicansTexas school shootingGun crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ron DeSantis blocks funds for Tampa Bay Rays after team’s gun safety tweets

      by

      Ron DeSantis blocks funds for Tampa Bay Rays after team’s gun safety tweetsFlorida governor defends vetoing funds for training facilityRays had joined Yankees in tweeting about gun safety The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has defended his veto of $35m in funding for a potential spring training site for the Tampa Bay Rays, after the Major League Baseball team used social media to raise awareness about gun violence after mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas.“I don’t support giving taxpayer dollars to professional sports stadiums,” DeSantis said on Friday, when asked about the veto of the sports complex funding. “Companies are free to engage or not engage with whatever discourse they want, but clearly it’s inappropriate to be doing tax dollars for professional sports stadiums. It’s also inappropriate to subsidize political activism of a private corporation.”On 26 May, in the wake of what they called “devastating events that took place in Uvalde, Buffalo and countless other communities across our nation”, the Rays said they would donate $50,000 to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and use their social media channels to offer facts about gun violence. The New York Yankees also used social media to address the shootings, during a game between the two teams last week.On Friday, citing an unnamed source, CNN reported that DeSantis’s decision to block the funding was influenced in part by the Rays’ tweets about the shootings.pic.twitter.com/9DpyuwEzJo— Tampa Bay Rays (@RaysBaseball) May 26, 2022
      In Uvalde, an 18-year-old gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school. The shooting happened days after a gunman shot and killed 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo.“In lieu of game coverage and in collaboration with the Tampa Bay Rays, we will be using our channels to offer facts about the impacts of gun violence,” the Yankees said in a statement.“The devastating events that have taken place in Uvalde, Buffalo and countless other communities across our nation are tragedies that are intolerable.”The Rays said shootings “cannot become normal”.Throughout their game last Thursday, both teams posted facts about gun violence on their social media pages, with links to sources and helpline numbers. Neither team posted the result of the game.Following the Uvalde shooting, Steve Kerr, coach of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors, refused to talk about basketball at a pre-game news conference, instead calling for stricter gun control legislation.02:55DeSantis has made culture war issues including gun control a calling card in his rise to prominence as a possible Republican candidate for president.On another front on Friday, DeSantis announced that the Special Olympics had dropped a coronavirus vaccine mandate for its forthcoming games in Orlando, after he moved to fine the organization $27.5m for violating a state law against such rules.The Special Olympics competition in Florida is scheduled to run from 5 to 12 June.At a news conference in Orlando, DeSantis said: “In Florida, we want all of them to be able to compete. We do not think it’s fair or just to be marginalizing some of these athletes based on a decision that has no bearing on their ability to compete with honor or integrity.”The Florida health department notified the Special Olympics of the fine in a letter on Thursday that said the organization would be fined $27.5m for 5,500 violations of state law, for requiring proof of coronavirus vaccination for attendees or participants.Florida law bars businesses from requiring documentation of a Covid-19 vaccination. DeSantis has strongly opposed vaccine mandates and other virus policies endorsed by the federal government.In a statement on its website, the Special Olympics said people who were registered but unable to participate because of the mandate could now attend.TopicsMLBTampa Bay RaysNew York YankeesBaseballUS sportsRon DeSantisUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Until the US senate is accountable to America, we’ll never get gun control | Osita Nwanevu

      by

      Until the US Senate is accountable to America, we’ll never get gun controlOsita NwanevuDemocrats are heading into this year’s elections without having tried even basic steps to balance the chamber, including ending the filibuster or admitting liberal Washington DC as a state What more can be said about mass shootings in America? We who find ourselves outraged anew by each fresh massacre have settled into a routine⁠. There’s now a canon of essays and satirical pieces to share on social media; in conversations online and off, we offer familiar rebuttals to familiar Republican diversions and deflections. Democratic politicians, for their part, have just about perfected their own boilerplate language⁠. “When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” Biden asked in his Tuesday speech on the Uvalde shooting. “When in God’s name will we do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?”Eighteen-year-old Americans can’t drink. Why can they buy assault rifles? | Ross BarkanRead moreFor the first time since the Sandy Hook shooting a decade ago, the Democratic party has the power to do what needs to be done. It controls the White House. It controls the House of Representatives. And it controls the Senate, where a bipartisan group of senators has talked in recent days about measures ⁠– from universal background checks to incentives for states to allow the confiscation of guns from threatening individuals ⁠– that probably would not have a prayer if Republicans were in the majority. But they still might not even now. While we will not have a clear sense of where everyone stands until the Senate returns from a fortuitously timed holiday, gun control legislation faces the same basic obstacles that have hobbled the rest of the Democratic party’s agenda ⁠– the filibuster and the rhetoric of consensus.As many weary Democratic voters are now well aware, it effectively takes 60 votes in the US Senate, not the simple majority that Democrats hold, to break a filibuster and pass non-fiscal measures. And while rage at Republicans, the NRA and the gun lobby remains well justified, it is moderate Democrats who support keeping the filibuster ⁠– Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema and Democratic colleagues who might privately back their position ⁠– who are preventing the party from simply advancing gun control legislation on its own. Instead, they will need the support of at least 10 Republicans ⁠– a daunting hurdle Manchin and Sinema have defended on the grounds that major policy changes should win broad bipartisan support.“It makes no sense why we can’t do commonsense things to try to prevent some of this from happening,” Manchin told reporters this week. “The filibuster is the only thing that prevents us from total insanity.”As Manchin knows personally, the filibuster is actually the only thing preventing the Senate from passing the commonsensical reforms he putatively supports. In 2013, he and the Republican Senator Pat Toomey co-authored a bill expanding background checks to gun shows and gun sales over the internet. The majority of the chamber supported it ⁠– 54 votes, including four Republicans. But it needed 60 to overcome the filibuster. It died ⁠– a failure that gives lie to the canard that the filibuster actually facilitates bipartisanship. With an extremely modest bipartisan compromise on the table, the Senate instead passed nothing.That same fate may await the bill Senate negotiators are piecing together now; there’s a plot in the graveyard alongside Biden’s other legislative priorities already waiting for it. And if it fails, the design of the Senate itself will bear most of the blame. The reality Democrats are loth to admit is that if the NRA and the whole gun lobby sank into hell tomorrow, the chamber would still disproportionately empower voters in the most sparsely populated and conservative states in the country ⁠– the voters most likely to vehemently oppose not only regulations on gun ownership, but most of the major policies that Democrats, backed by majorities of the American public, hope to pass. And while significantly altering or eliminating the Senate obviously will not be in the cards anytime soon, Democrats are heading into this year’s midterms and the potential loss of at least one chamber of Congress without having taken more basic steps to balance the chamber, including the elimination of the filibuster or the admission of liberal Washington DC as a state.Instead, they have left the American public chained to a fantasy ⁠– the idea that the surest and most defensible route to meaningful change is bipartisan action, no matter how intransigent the Republican party proves itself to be. That’s a delusion pushed not only by moderate politicians who have an interest in constraining the Democratic party’s capacity to pass left-of-center policies, but by the mainstream press, which mourns these shootings with calls for the parties to set aside their differences and “come together” on the issue.But there will not be a grand coming-together on guns. The modest reforms on the table, even if passed, would do little to change the outcome of a culture war one side has already won. For all the ranting and raving we have heard from the right in the last few months about the cultural power liberals wield, the values of rural and exurban conservatives plainly govern the country here. It matters not a whit what liberals in cities like Buffalo or Pittsburgh think about living in a country where people are gunned down in stores and synagogues with legal assault weapons. An inescapable reality has been imposed upon them ⁠– there are more firearms than people in the United States.If recent history is any guide, the conversations we are having now about improving the situation at the margins will be drowned out and defeated by noise and nonsense in a matter of days. Arming schoolteachers, outfitting the nearly 100,000 public schools in this country with the kind of trip wires and traps you might see in the next Mission Impossible film ⁠– this is the blather of degenerates who know they have already succeeded, who know they have no need for arguments that might convince most Americans. The status quo they defend is being upheld by the deference of Democrats now in a position to upend it.
      Osita Nwanevu is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsTexas school shootingOpinionUS politicsDemocratsUS gun controlGun crimeUS SenateRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We have to do something’: calls mount for Texas gun control laws after latest deadly attack

      by

      ‘We have to do something’: calls mount for Texas gun control laws after latest deadly attackAs data indicates state leads the US in mass shooting deaths, Democrats – and some Republicans – demand legislative action Texas leaders are under growing pressure to increase gun control measures in the face of data indicating the state leads the US in mass shooting deaths, while Republicans have steadily eased restrictions on weapons and cut mental health spending.As the funerals of the 19 children and two teachers begin on Tuesday in the tiny, devastated southern Texas city of Uvalde, a week after a shooting at the elementary school, state Democrats – and some Republicans – are demanding a special legislative action.Right-leaning Republican governor Greg Abbott has been asked to convene a special legislative session to weigh legislation, with state senate Democrats calling for increasing the age for buying any gun to 21.They also want to mandate background checks for all gun sales, and regulate civilian ownership of high capacity magazines, the Austin ABC affiliate KVUE reported.They are also calling for “red flag” legislation that would permit the temporary removal of guns from persons who present an “imminent danger to themselves and others” and are urging a law to require a “cooling off” period when buying a gun.“We have to do something, man,” Democratic state senator Roland Gutierrez, whose district covers Uvalde, said to Abbott at a press conference. “Your own colleagues are telling me, calling me, and telling me an 18-year-old shouldn’t have a gun.”The gunman who took a military-style assault rifle and a backpack of ammunition into Robb elementary school last Tuesday and shot his victims in two adjoining classrooms was a local 18-year-old, Salvador Ramos.He reportedly had posted violent threats and boasted about guns on social media, and was shot dead by federal agents after local police waited for more than an hour in the hallway in what state authorities said was “the wrong decision”.“We’ve asked for gun control changes. I’m asking you now to bring us back [for a special legislative session] in three weeks … this is enough, call us back, man,” Gutierrez said.Several Texas Republicans are now also putting pressure on Abbott to act after the shootings in Uvalde. “Governor Abbott should call us into special sessions until we do SOMETHING The FBI or DPS [Texas department of public safety] BELIEVE will lessen the chance of the next Uvalde Tragedy,” Republican state senator Kel Seliger said in a tweet.“We should hope and pray every day, but DO something,” Seliger added, without presenting any specific proposals, the Dallas Morning News noted.Republican representative Jeff Leach tweeted his call for a special session, saying: “Texas lawmakers have work to do. Conversations to engage in. Deliberations & debates to have. Important decisions to make.”Abbott has sole authority to summon lawmakers before the next legislative session starts in January 2023. He has said all options are on the table. But Texas has responded to the many mass shootings to afflict the state in the last 15 years by loosening not tightening restrictions on the use of guns.And data from Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun regulation advocacy, indicate that 201 people have been killed in mass shootings in Texas since 2009, significantly more than any other state.California has suffered 162 such deaths, while Florida, the third most populous state, with 22 million people compared with 29.7m in Texas and 39.6m in California, has counted 135 such deaths, according to Everytown, which defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more people are killed, excluding the shooter.It was not immediately clear whether Uvalde was included in the Texas toll. Texas also leads the US in school shootings, according to US News & World Report.The Texas Tribune reported that state lawmakers relaxed gun laws during the last two legislative sessions, including the approval of permit-less carrying of firearms in 2021. Such easing of gun laws was approved less than two years after the Odessa and the El Paso mass shootings left 30 people dead.Some rightwing Texas Republicans last week called for more guns.“We know from past experience that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” US Senator Ted Cruz told MSNBC.Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general who faces felony fraud charges, voiced similar sentiments and predicted more mass shootings.“People that are shooting people, that are killing kids, they’re not following murder laws. They’re not going to follow gun laws,” Paxton said on the far-right network Newsmax. “I’d much rather have law-abiding citizens armed, trained so they can respond when something like this happens because it’s not going to be the last time.”Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who is running for governor and heckled Abbott at a press conference last week, tweeted about some of Texas’ recent mass shootings, saying: “Abbott should have acted after Sutherland Springs, after Santa Fe, after Midland-Odessa, after El Paso. He refused. Let’s vote him out and get to work saving lives.”He also slammed the weakening of gun restrictions and made a mark during his failed bid for the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination by advocating a ban on assault weapons for the general public.38,000 Texans had their license to carry denied, revoked, or suspended over the last five years because law enforcement deemed them too dangerous to carry a loaded gun in public.But thanks to Greg Abbott’s new law, they don’t need a license to carry anymore.— Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) May 29, 2022
      Abbott, meanwhile, placed the blame for the Uvalde carnage squarely on mental health concerns, at his first press conference after the attack.But mental health advocates told ABC News that Abbott has neglected mental healthcare, saying that he moved money out of Texas agencies charged with providing services. CNN also reported on such budget cuts.“We as a state, we as a society need to do a better job with mental health. Anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge. Period. We as a government need to find a way to target that mental health challenge and to do something about it,” Abbott said last Wednesday, the day after the shooting in Uvalde.Debbie Plotnick, executive vice president for state and federal advocacy at the nonprofit Mental Health America (MHA), told ABC that mental health was a regular scapegoat. “Hate is not a mental illness … having a mental health condition does not make someone violent,” she said.This spring, Abbott switched $210m away from the state agency that oversees public mental healthcare, towards funding a controversial security program at the US-Mexico border.TopicsTexas school shootingUS gun controlTexasUS politicsUS crimeUS school shootingsGun crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      DoJ launches investigation into police response to Uvalde school shooting

      by

      DoJ launches investigation into police response to Uvalde school shootingInquiry comes amid anger over why officers waited over an hour outside the classroom where the gunman killed 21 people The US government on Sunday announced a federal investigation into the police response to the mass shooting at a Texas school five days ago as anger mounted over why armed officers waited more than one hour in the hall outside the classroom where the gunman killed 19 children and two teachers and wounded others.The US Department of Justice said it will conduct a “critical incident review” of the law enforcement action in the small south Texas city of Uvalde last Tuesday.“The goal of the review is to provide an independent account of law enforcement actions and responses that day, and to identify lessons learned and best practices to help first responders prepare for and respond to active shooter events,” DoJ spokesperson Anthony Coley said.He noted that the mayor of Uvalde, Don McLaughlin, had requested the review.At the request of Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin, the U.S. Department of Justice will conduct a Critical Incident Review of the law enforcement response to the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24. Read more about it here. https://t.co/ELK53ML6Yk— Anthony Coley (@AnthonyColeyDOJ) May 29, 2022
      Uvalde school district police chief Pedro Arredondo, who was in command of the incident response, in which state officials said failing to storm into the classroom where the gunman was barricaded was “the wrong decision”, remained out of sight and under police protection on Sunday.Texas state senator Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat who represents Uvalde, said that errors in the response to the school shooting may have contributed to more deaths, and he had spoken with the mother of one child who had died from a single gunshot.“The first responder that they eventually talked to said that their child likely bled out,” Gutierrez told CNN on Sunday morning. “In that span of 30 or 40 minutes extra, that little girl might have lived.”“So many things went wrong, here,” he added, although he said responsibility should not be on one police officer.“At the end of the day, everybody failed, we failed these children,” he said, including lawmakers failing to pass stricter gun safety laws.The gunman who caused carnage at Robb elementary school was local 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, who had reportedly made violent threats on social media and boasted about guns.He legally bought the assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition he took into the school.During the time that he had locked and barricaded himself into a classroom with the children and their teachers, one child made at least six calls to the 911 emergency number to plead for help from police, even as officers were right outside.Gutierrez said he had questions over the official timeline of events, including which agency was in charge of the response. Ultimately, it was federal agents from border patrol, not Uvalde’s school police department or the separate city police force that has a part-time tactical Swat team, that confronted the gunman and killed him.This appeared to be against state protocols to “confront the attacker”rapidly.Criticism of the law enforcement response came from both sides of the political divide. Texas Republican congressman Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy Seal, told CNN that “the fact that it took border patrol an hour later to come in and actually do the job for the police is pretty embarrassing.”“It does seem clear protocols weren’t followed,” Crenshaw added. “So, let’s let the investigation play out, but it’s hard not to see how someone doesn’t get fired for this, for these very, very bad calls.”On Friday, Steven McCraw, head of the Texas department of public safety, admitted that the delay in storming the classroom had been “the wrong decision”. Lydia Torres, a neighbor of Arredondo, told the New York Post: “Pete [Pedro] Arredondo is a coward. He didn’t do his job. He failed the children. He is hiding in his home, requesting the PD [police department] patrol the area and guard his home day and night. He should come out and speak up.”Florida congresswoman and former Orlando police chief Val Demings demanded a “complete investigation”, telling CBS “we have more questions than answers.” TopicsTexas school shootingUS politicsGun crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Eighteen-year-old Americans can’t drink. Why can they buy assault rifles? | Ross Barkan

      by

      Eighteen-year-old Americans can’t drink. Why can they buy assault rifles?Ross BarkanThe solution to mass shootings isn’t increased policing or an expanded surveillance state or runaway anti-terrorism legislation. It’s making it harder to buy a gun The mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas, killing 19 children and two teachers, was a reminder of all the ways the United States has failed its people. A nation that still retains promise, America is now held captive by political polarization and a fanatical gun lobby. There are more firearms in the US than people.It’s important to remember, as these mass shootings continue to occur, that the problem is guns: all of them, not just assault rifles, but handguns too. The assault weapon ban, which lapsed in 2004, should be renewed. Somehow, it must become much harder in this country to buy a weapon. No 18-year-old, especially one with such a deeply troubled history as the alleged Texas gunman, should be able to buy a firearm.My daughter was killed at Dunblane. I know that gun controls save lives | Mick NorthRead moreAfter the racist shooting at a Buffalo supermarket earlier in the month, the Democratic establishment temporarily swung away from the scourge of guns to the scourge of online misinformation and how to crack down on it. Democrats of all ideological stripes swiftly backed new legislation that would “improve intelligence-sharing” between law enforcement agencies, building on a bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee that would create permanent offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and FBI to “monitor, investigate and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism”. The proposal would also improve training for local police to detect and investigate what they believe is terrorism.Since the motivations of the Texas killer are more opaque, there has been less talk about such measures. This is for the best. Measures to empower federal surveillance state apparatuses inevitably backfire, leading to the abuse of civil liberties, particularly endangering vulnerable populations. American Muslims after 9/11 understand the danger of unleashing DHS or the FBI on so-called terrorism suspects. The term remains vague enough to encompass all kinds of people who may, for whatever reason, appear suspicious to overzealous federal officials.Using mass shootings to expand the power of DHS would be a serious error, one that would inevitably punish the left when Republicans take power again. Donald Trump or another rightwing president would not hesitate to reclassify various progressive organizations or movements as domestic terrorism, especially if they reside beyond the political mainstream.The focus must remain on guns. It’s understandable, in one sense, that Democrats would shift to fretting about expanding the purview of a Bush-created agency: taking action is immediately plausible. There may be enough votes to pass the bills and invite bipartisan support. Banning assault weapons or even instituting increased background checks has been a political dead-end for so long because the gun lobby owns the Republican party and many rural voters are gun-owners.This is the intractable challenge. Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. The recurrence of mass shootings – Sandy Hook, Parkland, El Paso – has not budged Republicans, who continue to deny the reality that America is the only affluent nation that grapples with such gun violence and death. Mental health initiatives are fine, but the problem is the number of people who are able to, without any effort, buy guns and shoot them. Mass slaughter is not as easy with a knife. Armed security at every school building in America, logistically impossible, still could not stop a determined murderer with military-grade weaponry.The handgun dilemma must also be solved. Democrat-run states have cracked down on them and are chasing after the ghost-gun manufacturers that create untraceable weapons. But guns continue to flow across state lines, avoiding detection from police. Gun violence of the more regular kind plagues cities everywhere. Every one of those murders is deeply tragic.If the federal government is paralyzed, Democrats must redouble their efforts in various state legislatures to flip chambers and win executive offices. This may be the only answer. States individually can do a great deal on the gun control front. If limiting access to guns is unpopular in conservative states, Democrats must find ways to campaign on other issues and implement safety laws once in power. For starters, there should be more bipartisan consensus around raising the age of gun purchases. If 18-year-olds cannot legally drink, why can they buy firearms? Since most violent crime is committed by the very young, cutting off guns to teenagers could make a small difference.No matter what, Democrats cannot succumb to nihilism or seek dangerous, stopgap measures that infringe on civil liberties. Runaway terrorism investigations will not stop gun violence. Making it far harder to acquire a weapon will.
      Ross Barkan is a journalist based in New York City. He is the author of Demolition Night, a novel, and The Prince: Andrew Cuomo, Coronavirus, and the Fall of New York
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS gun controlGun crimecommentReuse this content More