US gun control

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump to address NRA after threatening to roll back gun control laws if elected

      by

      Amid fears that he would reverse gains made by gun control activists if elected to a second presidency this fall, Donald Trump on Saturday is scheduled to address the National Rifle Association’s annual convention.The former Republican president is set to take the stage in Dallas after threatening to roll back the firearms regulations enacted by the Joe Biden White House and expand gun rights – at the expense of American lives – if voters lift him to victory over the Democratic incumbent in November.Trump’s message marks a sharp contrast with Biden, who signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022 and has hailed it as evidence of his commitment to gun safety, among other measures.Congress passed that law after a string of deadly, high-profile mass shootings, which nonetheless continue to occur. But it marked the first time in nearly 30 years that the US enacted a new major gun law at the federal level, expanding background checks for the youngest firearm buyers and investing in community violence intervention programs.Trump has hit the campaign trail openly expressing his wish to impose a law that would force states to recognize concealed carry firearm permits issued by other states. And his answer to the school shootings that the US has consistently seen throughout its modern history is to arm teachers and fund programs training educators how to shoot effectively.Most Americans do not agree with Trump’s approach to gun control. Only 12% of Americans believe gun laws should be loosened while 56% say they should be toughened and 31% assert they should be maintained as they are for now, according to an October poll conducted by Gallup.The NRA is holding its convention less than three months after its former long-serving leader Wayne LaPierre – as well as other executives of the group – were held liable in a lawsuit centered on the organization’s lavish spending. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican lawmaker leaves loaded gun in Colorado capitol bathroom

      by

      A Colorado state legislator publicly apologized after leaving a loaded gun in the state’s capitol building.Colorado state representative Don Wilson, a Republican, confirmed that he left a loaded 9mm Glock handgun in a capitol bathroom on Tuesday evening, according to a statement on X.“I want to be clear that I take full and complete accountability for the incident. I made a mistake and am very sorry,” Wilson said.Wilson added that he takes firearm safety “very seriously”, calling the latest incident a “humbling experience”.The gun had been left unattended for 23 minutes before being discovered by the capitol’s janitorial staff, who contacted the Colorado state patrol (CSP) about the weapon, NBC News reported.Nearly an hour later, Wilson contacted the CSP “to report leaving items in the restroom”, the CSP said in a statement. The firearm was then returned to him.State troopers confirmed that the building was closed to the public before Wilson misplaced his gun.Wilson did not violate any state rules and no criminal charges are being weighed, state patrol officers said in a statement, the Colorado Sun reported.Colorado Democrats have argued that the latest mishap proves that firearms should be banned from the state’s capitol.“The consequences of leaving a firearm unattended in a public space could be very serious, and the incident this week created a dangerous situation,” said state representative Julie McCluskie, the Democratic House speaker, in a statement, Colorado Public Radio News reported.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Colorado legislature is also considering a “sensitive spaces” bill that would ban firearms in the capitol building for everyone, excluding law enforcement officers, Colorado Public Radio News reported.Wilson has also reportedly pledged to no longer bring guns into the capitol building, the House majority leader, Monica Duran, said to Colorado Public Radio News.Tuesday’s accident is not the first time that a Colorado lawmaker has mishandled a gun in the state’s capitol.In 2022, Republican state representative Richard Holtorf, who is running for Congress, accidentally dropped his gun while rushing to vote in the House’s chamber, Colorado Public Radio News reported. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Arizona court rules Mexico can proceed with lawsuit against five US gun dealers

      by

      A trial court in Arizona has ruled that the Mexican government may proceed in its trailblazing lawsuit against five US gun dealers, who stand accused of facilitating gun trafficking across the border into Mexico.Mexico argues that the companies’ marketing campaigns and distribution practices mean that they are legally responsible for the bloodshed that their guns contribute to.This is the second such case that the Mexican government has brought in US courts this year, having also accused US gun manufacturers of facilitating the cross-border arms traffic in a case in Massachusetts.“[The Mexican lawsuits] emphasize the responsibility of companies regarding how they produce and sell their weapons,” said Carlos Pérez-Ricart, a political scientist in Mexico.Gun sales are highly restricted in Mexico itself, where there is just one gun store, run by the state.Yet the Mexican government estimates that 200,000 firearms are smuggled over the border from the US every year.This fuels a level of insecurity and violence that is extraordinary in peacetime: for the past six years, Mexico has seen more than 30,000 homicides a year.Some 70% of the guns used in homicides in Mexico have serial numbers that can be traced back to US gun shops.Between the two cases, Mexico is seeking $25bn in damages. But it also seeks to shine a light on industry practices and force change, thereby reducing the flow of weapons into Mexico and the gun violence they add to.In both cases, the gun companies sought protection under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents them from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.The trial court in Massachusetts initially dismissed Mexico’s case on those grounds, but Mexico appealed, and the decision was reversed in January.The gun manufacturers have said they will ask the supreme court to take the case on. But the supreme court only takes a fraction of cases where review is sought by defendants.By contrast, the trial court in Arizona accepted Mexico’s case against gun dealers. This means the “discovery” phase can begin right away, in which Mexico is entitled to ask for documents from defendants, and company executives may be questioned under oath.“We’re off to the races in the Arizona case,” said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, which is co-counsel in both cases.To win, Mexico will need to convince the juries that the companies’ design choices, marketing campaigns and distribution practices are sufficiently connected to gun violence in Mexico for them to be considered responsible.The lawsuits could provide a template for future legal actions to change the way the gun industry operates, for example forcing manufacturers to produce firearms in a way that makes it harder to convert for greater lethality.“This could lead to a massive reduction in the sale of crime guns supplying both cartels in Mexico and also criminals in the US, because the same industry practices supply both,” said Lowy. “It would save a great deal of lives – on both sides of the border.”Even if Mexico doesn’t win the lawsuits, it has put the issue of smuggled firearms as a catalyst of violence squarely into the public debate for the first time.“For many years the conversation was dominated by drugs going from Mexico to the US, and nobody mentioned firearms,” said Pérez-Ricart. “It’s crucial that we talk about firearms as a matter of greatest importance in foreign policy.” More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why do so many Americans believe the Taylor Swift and Joe Biden conspiracy? – podcast

      by

      Just under a fifth of Americans believe Taylor Swift is part of a conspiracy to help Joe Biden win re-election in November, a new poll found this week. The global pop star has been a regular feature at NFL games since September, when she was first spotted linking arms with the Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce.
      Before the Chiefs won the Super Bowl on Sunday, rightwing commentators had suggested the championship was rigged by the Biden administration and Swift was secretly helping in order to sway the election in November.
      So where did this conspiracy theory come from? Why are conservatives so obsessed with Swift? And did the Biden team do the right thing by jokingly feeding the conspiracy? Jonathan Freedland speaks to Nikki McCann Ramírez of Rolling Stone magazine to try to figure it out

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US elected officials avoiding topics of abortion and gun control over fear of threats

      by

      Tens of thousands of state legislators and elected local officials are avoiding hot-button policy issues such as abortion and gun control because they are fearful of the backlash of intimidating abuse, a new report has found.A major survey by the Brennan Center for Justice released on Thursday warned that the spate of extremist intimidation that has been seen nationally in the US, epitomized by the attack on the Capitol building on 6 January 2021, is also sweeping local and state politics. In the fallout, elected individuals are limiting their interactions with constituents and narrowing the contentious topics they are prepared to take on.Some are even contemplating quitting public life altogether. Such chilling of public discourse poses a threat to the functioning of representative democracy at every level of government, the Brennan Center, a non-partisan authority on law and policy, concludes.The center conducted a survey of 350 state legislators and more than 1,350 local officeholders working in towns, municipalities and county government. It found that more than 40% of state lawmakers had experienced threats or attacks in the past three years, while almost one in five local officials faced the same abuse over 18 months.View image in fullscreenAlmost one in 10 state legislators reported that they had been intimidated by a person wielding a weapon. Many others faced death threats, including one state lawmaker who said they had received a message that provided granular detail down to the date, time and precise location where an attack would take place.The abuse is often directly related to the policy positions that elected individuals have adopted over contentious issues such as gun control and abortion. That in turn is having a withering impact on the democratic process, the Brennan Center warns.Some 39% of locally elected officials and more than one in five state lawmakers said they were less willing to advocate for contentious policies for fear of abuse. When those figures are extrapolated for all public servants in state and local government, many tens of thousands of officials are affected.At a time when the US is experiencing record numbers of mass shootings, gun regulations were repeatedly mentioned as an area in which lawmakers were holding back for fear of attack. Kelly Cassidy, a Democratic representative in the Illinois legislature, told the researchers that she decided not to lead bills that would introduce safety controls on firearms because “my kids were too little, the threats were too common and too on point”.View image in fullscreenPublic service is being distorted in other ways. Many officials said they are now less likely to participate in public events, post on social media, visit public spaces when off-duty or bring their family members with them, or make media appearances.A similar pattern has been seen on the national stage, with politicians becoming increasingly wary of confronting controversial subjects. Liz Cheney, the former leading Republican in the US House of Representatives who was herself forced out of her Wyoming seat in retaliation for her criticisms of Donald Trump, has alleged that some of her party colleagues voted not to impeach Trump over his role in the Capital insurrection because they were afraid for their lives.Concern for the safety of elected individuals has become a top priority for the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, as the country enters the 2024 presidential election year. On 5 January he convened a meeting at the justice department to discuss increasing protection for all public servants, from law enforcement personnel, members of Congress and judges, to election workers.View image in fullscreenGarland said the country was seeing “a deeply disturbing spike in threats against those who serve the public”. The abuse threatened “the fabric of our democracy”.Kristine Reeves, a Democratic lawmaker from Washington state, told the Guardian that as the first Black woman elected to the state house in 2016 she now has to think carefully before addressing hard political topics. She recently introduced a bill that would disqualify anyone convicted of acts of insurrection from running for state office under the 14th amendment of the US constitution.The blowback has been extreme, she said. “White men have come online and told me that I need to be hanged. They have called my office and suggested that me and my family need to watch out because we’ve got what’s coming to us. It’s one thing to take those risks on for yourself; it’s completely another to do so knowing that you’re putting your family in harm’s way.”Reeves belongs to a demographic group that is bearing the brunt of the incipient political violence sweeping the US. The Brennan survey shows that women – and women of colour in particular – are disproportionately likely to endure severe abuse, often of a sexual nature and frequently with the threats extending to their families including children.Reeves and her election campaigns team have been forced to limit contact with the public. They have curtailed the canvassing of citizens during elections – a bedrock of US democracy – with door knocking increasingly replaced by phone banking, mail outs and virtual events.When canvassers do go out, Reeves encourages them to travel in pairs and to avoid knocking on doors alone. “It sounds crazy to say this out loud as a woman of colour, but if we have a Black man going out, we encourage him to go with a white counterpart, just to ensure that there’s a de-escalation opportunity.”Canvassers are also handed pepper spray in case of attacks. Reeves herself was abused on a doorstep recently when she was called the N-word.As the election year unfolds, the volatile language and imagery used by Trump at his rallies and in fundraising communications is raising concern about what might lie ahead. Trump has taken to calling convicted rioters from the January 6 insurrection “hostages”.In a recent fundraising email the Trump campaign offered supporters free “Make America great again” knives, with “razor-sharp, 3.5[in]” flick blades. The knives are recommended for “military personnel”, “tactical enthusiasts”, and “law enforcement” and are described as a “symbol of patriotic pride” that are perfect for “self-defense”. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The major tests US gun control activists face in 2024

      by

      The grim statistics around mass shootings underscore a haunting reality for the US: despite recent legislative efforts at the state and federal levels, gun violence remains alarmingly common across the country.But gun safety groups say they remain undaunted in 2024, when they plan to push for more change through state legislatures and executive actions. And as voters turn their attention to a crucial election year, gun safety groups are also prepared to press candidates on their plans to curb gun violence.The simple statistics demonstrate what a weighty task it is. In December, a gunman carried out a shooting spree across two communities in central Texas, killing six people. The attack was the 39th mass shooting in the US last year, marking a new single-year record for the country. The previous record of 36 mass shootings had been set just one year prior.Gun reform groups will still face steep hurdles as they attempt to reduce the carnage.Republicans, who now control the House of Representatives, have shown little appetite for passing another federal gun safety bill, following the enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022. The supreme court’s conservative majority has similarly embraced a rather expansive definition of second amendment rights, jeopardizing gun safety laws passed at the state and federal level.For gun safety groups, the first significant test of 2024 will come in June, when the supreme court is expected to decide its next major second amendment case.United States v RahimiThe case centers on Zackey Rahimi, who was placed under a domestic violence restraining order after allegedly assaulting his then girlfriend and firing a gun in front of bystanders in 2019. Per federal law, those under such restraining orders are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, but Rahimi is now challenging that statute based on another supreme court decision.In 2022, the supreme court overturned New York’s century-old regulation requiring that anyone seeking to carry a handgun in public must show “proper cause” to do so. The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, established a new test to determine the constitutionality of gun regulations. The conservative justices ruled that any gun regulation must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”.The ruling has sparked a flurry of challenges to firearm regulations and forced gun safety advocates to search the historical record for analogous laws from the nation’s founding to defend their proposals. In the case of Rahimi, the conservative-leaning US court of appeals for the fifth circuit agreed with his argument that the law blocking those under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms is inconsistent with historical gun laws and is thus unconstitutional.That ruling has now been appealed to the supreme court, which held oral arguments in the case in November. The justices’ decision could have far-reaching implications for the future of gun rights as well as the safety of survivors of domestic violence. According to a 2023 study, more than half of domestic violence homicides involve firearms.“The stakes are incredibly high in Rahimi because it would be the first time the supreme court strikes down a federal law on gun safety in decades. And of course, it’s a particularly important federal law,” said Nick Suplina, senior vice-president of law and policy for the gun safety group Everytown.The Rahimi ruling may also help clarify lower courts’ apparent confusion over applying the Bruen test. Thus far, courts have reached conflicting decisions over how to interpret the “historical tradition” of gun laws, said Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law and a constitutional scholar focusing on the second amendment.“I certainly think that confusion is only growing,” Charles said. “We see circuit courts even disagree with one another and are kind of all over the place, the same way that the district courts have been. So I don’t think we’re having any more guidance until the [supreme] court weighs in more.”During the oral arguments, some of the court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical of the fifth circuit’s decision, seemingly hesitant to stretch gun rights to the point of protecting alleged domestic abusers. Even if the supreme court rules against Rahimi, the decision will probably not mark a sea change in conservative justices’ overall approach to the second amendment. Charles, who filed an amicus brief in the Rahimi case, suggested the justices may issue a narrow ruling that upholds the law regarding domestic violence protection orders but leaves the Bruen test intact.“That will still leave lots of other cases, like assault weapons bans, outside the scope of this new kind of revisionary guidance,” Charles said.That dynamic could complicate gun safety groups’ efforts to strengthen the nation’s gun laws, including their campaign to re-enact a federal assault weapons ban.‘A political issue that doesn’t need to be’The country’s worst mass shooting of 2023 unfolded in October in Lewiston, Maine, where a gunman killed 18 people at a bowling alley and a bar. The devastating attack prompted a change of heart for congressman Jared Golden, the conservative Democrat who represents Lewiston in the House of Representatives. Reversing his previous position, Golden announced he would now support reinstating the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I have opposed efforts to ban deadly weapons of war,” Golden said. “The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure, which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles.”Gun safety groups praised Golden’s announcement, while noting that his new position brings him closer in line with voters’ stance on an assault weapons ban. According to a Fox News poll conducted in April, 61% of voters support banning assault weapons. Other proposed gun regulations, such as enacting universal background checks and mandating safe storage of firearms, enjoy even more widespread support among voters.“We’re hopeful that [Golden’s announcement] will spur others to be able to take some of that political courage and step out there,” said Vanessa Gonzalez, vice-president of government and political affairs for the gun safety group Giffords. “It’s a political issue that doesn’t need to be. We just need more folks to have the courage to say that and to step out on those issues.”The 2024 elections will provide gun safety groups with many opportunities to push sitting lawmakers and first-time candidates on enacting more firearm regulations.“We are continuing to look for younger elected officials or candidates who are not afraid to say gun violence in America has to stop and then actually see it through,” Gonzalez said. “And then on the flip side, what does it look like once [they are] elected to really hold them accountable for what they said they were going to do?”Suplina predicted that gun safety will play a prominent role in campaign ads and messaging in 2024, partly because the issue might help Democrats sway the independent voters who will be crucial in determining the outcomes of close races. An AP/Norc poll conducted over the summer found that 61% of independents believe gun laws should be made more strict.“If you want to win the middle of the American electorate, you have to be strong on gun safety,” Suplina said. “And being strong on gun safety means recognizing that assault weapons should not be in the hands of your average citizens.”So far, efforts to reinstate an assault weapons ban have met consistent resistance from Republicans in Congress. The Senate majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, most recently reintroduced the assault weapons ban bill in December, but Republicans blocked the legislation from advancing. Even if Senate Democrats could get the bill passed, it would almost certainly fail in the Republican-controlled House.Despite the obstacles presented by a divided Congress, gun safety groups have found recent success at the state level, and they hope to build upon those wins in 2024. According to Everytown, state legislatures passed a record-breaking 130 gun safety bills in 2023 while blocking 95% of the gun lobby’s agenda.Gun safety groups are also exploring options beyond Congress as it pushes for change at the federal level. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has proposed a new rule aimed at closing the so-called “gun show loophole”, which allows some private gun sellers to perform transactions without completing background checks on prospective buyers. Hundreds of thousands of gun safety proponents have already submitted comments in support of the proposed rule, according to Everytown.That campaign reflects gun safety groups’ overall goal to put more pressure on sellers and manufacturers of firearms in the year ahead. Such efforts may face resistance from conservative courts, but gun safety advocates fervently believe that the political momentum is on their side heading into 2024.“The state of the gun violence prevention movement in our country is strong and stronger than it’s ever been,” Suplina said. “Courts or no courts, Congress or no Congress, we’re going to really do a lot to animate the public to understand who it is that’s flooding the streets with guns and making money off of it while the rest of us suffer.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      As the NRA fades, a more zealous US pro-gun group rises as a lobbying power

      by

      A zealous gun rights group, even more uncompromising than the once formidable National Rifle Association, is emerging as a force in US politics with a mission to oppose efforts at gun control and ease further America’s already lax regulations on firearms.Last year the Gun Owners of America (GOA) spent $3.3m on lobbying, a record sum for the hardline foe of gun control that now claims over 2 million members and activists, and has previously operated in the shadows of the larger NRA.The GOA’s record lobbying spending in 2022 was spurred in part by a rise in its annual revenues, which more than tripled from $2.3m in 2016 to $8.7m in 2021, according to tax records.The GOA is an adamant enemy of gun control measures of all stripes, and proudly calls itself the “no compromise” gun lobby. Its surge in lobbying spending reflects one way it has capitalized on the financial and legal problems of the once 5 million-member NRA in the hopes of expanding the GOA’s political clout, say gun experts.“The GOA was formed in the 1970s because they believed the NRA was too liberal,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on guns and a professor emeritus at Suny Cortland in New York. “True to its creed, the GOA has opposed every manner of gun law and attacked the NRA at every turn.”The GOA’s anti-gun control posture was underscored by its opposition to a bipartisan compromise gun control bill in 2022 that closed some gun law loopholes, including for prospective buyers under 21, and implemented gun violence prevention policies, becoming the first gun control bill enacted since 1994.The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act garnered just 29 Republican votes in Congress, but the GOA this year in an alert to its members warning of pending legislative threats suggested those votes were “cowardly”.The GOA’s lobbying efforts in 2022 were notable in another way: it was the only gun rights group to increase its spending in 2022 according to OpenSecrets, and surpassed the NRA’s lobbying expenditures of $2.6m last year, a drop of over $2m from the NRA’s 2021 total.Through the first six months of 2023, the GOA spent $1.8m on lobbying, putting it on track to equal or surpass the $3.2m it spent last year.As it has ramped up its influence activity in Washington, the GOA also touts its member chapters and allies including the California Gun Rights Foundation and other ones in Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas.Nationally the GOA and its chapters have flexed their lobbying and legal muscles in some significant fights in several states. For instance, in New Mexico the GOA has claimed success in obtaining a temporary restraining order against new gun curbs in Albuquerque.On the legal front, the GOA has also filed amicus briefs – with help from the conservative lawyer William Olson, who put forward some aggressive schemes to Donald Trump in late 2020 as he sought to overturn his election defeat – in at least two major cases pending at the supreme court where the GOA is seeking to thwart existing and new gun regulations. This month the court heard arguments in US vs Rahimi that could overturn a 30-year-old ban on guns for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.Gun experts say the GOA has long tried to outflank the NRA on the right as the most implacable opponent of gun control measures, and now sees an opening to expand its influence in federal and state battles over gun control.“With the mostly self-inflicted damage the NRA has suffered, the GOA very much wants to replace the NRA as the nation’s pre-eminent gun rights group,” said Spitzer. “To that end, it is raising and spending more money, filing more suits against gun laws, and has formed its own Super Pac and political victory fund. These and other tactics mimic the NRA’s traditional political playbook.”In Spitzer’s eyes, “the GOA’s prospects for success depend on the extent to which the NRA can recover from its reversals and retain the loyalty of gun owners”.The NRA has reportedly lost about 1 million members since 2019 after allegations of financial misconduct surfaced and the New York attorney general sued the CEO of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and other top executives for using the NRA as a “personal piggy bank”.Some ex-members of Congress say that historically the GOA has tried to exploit a perception that the NRA is too moderate.“For years, the NRA had concerns about losing members to the GOA and other extreme groups,” the former Republican congressman Charlie Dent said. “Any time the NRA tried to compromise on something, the GOA would accuse them of selling out.”Likewise, gun control advocates and ex-NRA officials say the GOA has been moving to fill the gap created by the NRA’s woes.“The NRA’s loss has been GOA’s gain,” Kristen Rand, a veteran lawyer with the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy and research group, told the Guardian. “GOA makes the NRA look thoughtful and moderate. No matter how minor a change in rule or statute, GOA always portrays it as a sweeping gun ban.”Such hardball tactics have coincided with an uptick in the GOA’s federal campaign spending to expand its influence. The GOA donated $147,500 to Republican federal candidates last year, more than double what the group donated in 2018 to federal candidates, according to OpenSecrets.Further, the GOA last year established a Super Pac, the GOA Victory Fund, which spent $2.6m on federal races in last fall’s elections.The GOA did not respond to calls seeking comment.To keep the heat on Congress by mobilizing its members, the GOA regularly posts feverish alerts. Several alerts this year have bashed regulatory moves by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other efforts to tighten gun curbs in response to rising deaths from gun violence, and mass shootings in Maine, New York, Texas and other states since Joe Biden became president.One GOA alert this year broadly condemned the ATF as a “rogue executive branch that flat out hates gun owners and the constitution”.Other GOA alerts warn darkly of threats of new gun control bills after last year’s bipartisan measure passed, including a possible assault weapons ban that Biden has called for, but which is deemed unlikely while Republicans control the House.One alert warned: “Now, Biden and the anti-gun lobby are dialing up the pressure on the same cowardly Republicans to find support for the next item on their endless wish list of gun control … a national ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and normal capacity magazines.”Gun control advocates say the GOA’s scare tactics are out of sync with reality.“Gun Owners of America peddles hyperbolic falsehoods about any and all attempts by Congress to slow the devastating toll of gun violence in our nation,” said Adzi Vokhiwa, the director of federal affairs for Giffords, a gun control advocacy group.“They even oppose every effort by the ATF to simply enforce gun laws.“Gun safety laws limiting the availability of firearms to people with a history of dangerous behavior can and do co-exist with the ability of law-abiding gun owners to freely exercise their second amendment rights, despite GOA’s false claims otherwise.”Other anti-gun control groups have also ramped up their lobbying and legal drives.The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the firearms industry, has outspent the NRA on lobbying in recent years. In 2020 and 2021, the NSSF reported spending $4.6m and $5m respectively on federal lobbying. By contrast, the NRA spent $2.2m and $4.9m.Some ex-NRA officials downplay the influence of the GOA and other pro-gun groups in the wake of the NRA’s problems.“The void created by the self-inflicted and fatal chaos that is the current NRA is being filled by numerous other pro-gun organizations,” a former NRA executive said, adding that this situation “is more of a reflection on the demise of the NRA, than the effectiveness of other organizations”.Another ex-NRA honcho quipped: “GOA’s rise corresponds to when the NRA started going down the crapper.”Assessing the GOA’s impact and expanded lobbying efforts, the Violence Policy Center’s Rand stressed: “As the NRA has lost its footing, its more extreme members have embraced GOA. The group’s expanding influence can only drive pro-gun positions on legislation even further to the right.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      American Gun review: riveting and horrifying history of the AR-15

      by

      How long can we go between news cycles featuring assault rifles? According to the Gun Violence Archive, in 2023 the answer is barely more than 12 hours. This year there have been 565 mass shootings in the US, including the latest horror in Maine – an average of nearly two a day. Those statistics make American Gun, a brilliant new biography of the AR-15, a particularly powerful and important book.Written by two fine Wall Street Journal reporters, Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Elinson, the book is packed with characters and plot turns, from Eugene Stoner, the publicity-shy inventor who designed the first AR-15 in the 1950s, to the embrace of the gun by Robert McNamara and John F Kennedy, which led to its disastrous adoption as the chief weapon for army infantrymen in Vietnam.The design was shaped by a simple military adage: “Whoever shoots the most lead wins.” Every detail of how the weapon went from a “counter-insurgency” tool in south-east Asia in the 1960s to the most popular way to kill American schoolchildren in the 21st century is included in this harrowing narrative.Stoner worked with aluminum in one of the booming aerospace factories in California and became obsessed with how he could use new materials like plastic to make a lighter, more effective rifle. He also achieved the “holy grail that gun designers had pursued for generations: how to use the energy released from the exploding gunpowder … to reload the weapon”. Soon he had a patent for a “gas operated bolt and carrier system” with fewer parts than a conventional rifle, that would make his “smoother to operate and last longer”.The first third of American Gun is devoted to how Stoner teamed up with an entrepreneur, George Sullivan, who brought his invention to the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, which set up a new division, ArmaLite, to produce the weapon. The main challenge they faced in selling the gun to the government was a centuries-old tradition of the army designing its own weapons. In 1957, the army announced it had chosen its own M-14 to replace the M-1, the workhorse of the second world war.But the inventors used the ancient rivalry between the services to get their foot in the door. They socialized with an air force general, Curtis LeMay, and got him to fire an AR-15 at a July 4 celebration in 1960. (Famously, LeMay was a model for the psychotic character played by George C Scott in Dr Strangelove.) LeMay was so impressed by the impact the gun had on watermelons 50 and 150 yards away, he decided the air force should buy 8,500 of them for its security teams.The new rifle took off inside the government with the arrival of John Kennedy in the White House and former Ford president Robert McNamara at the defense department, with a legion of whiz kids who wanted to invent new forms of warfare. McNamara was eager to prove he was smarter than the generals he inherited, so he overrode them and convinced Kennedy the army should adopt Stoner’s rifle instead of the M-14.One thing which especially impressed the earliest AR-15 users, including South Vietnamese troops, was the way its bullets became unstable inside a human body, tearing through “like a tornado, spiraling and tipping … obliterat[ing] organs, blood vessels and bones”. This of course was the same quality that would make the weapon the ultimate scourge of American schoolchildren five decades later.To mollify the generals, McNamara allowed the Pentagon’s technical coordinating committee to modify the gun before it went into mass production. Among other things, the committee changed the kind of ammunition used – with disastrous consequences. In Vietnam, the gun jammed repeatedly in combat. Vivid descriptions of how that jeopardized the lives of American soldiers are some of the most terrifying sections of American Gun.Dick Backus, a grunt who saw half of his 10-member squad mowed down, summarized the problem: “Our government sent young men to war with a rifle that didn’t shoot.” A Washington Post editorial reached a similar conclusion: “If the New Left were to set out to compose an insider’s indictment of the ‘military-industrial complex’, it could hardly match the report which a congressional committee has submitted” about the new rifle. Eventually, the army redesigned the weapon, and by 1975 it was working well again.The second half of American Gun highlights the role of Wall Street hedge fund owners in consolidating the gun industry and making the AR-15 the weapon of choice for insecure American males. Some of the most disgusting details are about an ad campaign proposed for readers of Maxim. The first ad was a picture of a gun pointed at the reader, with the caption “MINE IS SO DEFINITELY BIGGER THAN YOURS”. A website for the Bushmaster rifle read: “The Bushmaster Man Card declares and confirms that you are a Man’s Man, the last of a dying breed, with all the rights and privileges duly afforded.”Even more disgusting was the strategy of private equity owners who bought up large portions of the gun industry in the early 2000s. They made sure video games included their brand of rifle because it would “help create brand preference among the next generation who experiences these games, allowing [us] to win our fair share of these young customers”.There is so much more in this book, including the collapse of political will to reform gun laws. The authors also detail how fake the 10-year ban on assault rifles really was, because the bill authored by then California senator Dianne Feinstein contained so many loopholes, gun manufacturers just made tiny tweaks and kept producing weapons.And because Congress had made the AR-15 forbidden fruit, sales actually exploded. In 1995, Americans owned about 400,000 of them. “By the end of 2021,” McWhirter and Elinson write, “that number jumped to more than 20 million.”
      American Gun is published in the US by Farrar, Straus and Giroux More