The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys
Mass shootings in the US are on the rise—and ordinary citizens with guns don't stop them.

—By Mark Follman
| Fri Dec. 28, 2012 1:11 PM PST
619

undefined

The gut-wrenching shock of the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14 wasn't just due to the 20 unthinkably young victims. It was also due to the realization that this specific, painfully familiar nightmare was unfolding yet again.

As the scope of the massacre in Newtown became clear, some news accounts suggested that mass shootings in the United States have not increased, based on a broad definition of them. But in fact 2012 has been unprecedented for a particular kind of horror that's been on the rise in recent years, from Virginia Tech to Tucson to Aurora to Oak Creek to Newtown. There have been at least 62 such mass shootings in the last three decades, attacks in which the killer took the lives of four or more people (the FBI's baseline for mass murder) in a public place—a school, a workplace, a mall, a religious building. Seven of them occurred in 2012 alone.

Along with three other similar though less lethal rampages—at a Portland shopping mall, a Milwaukee spa, and a Cleveland high school—2012 has been the worst year for these events in modern US history, with 151 victims injured and killed. More than a quarter of them were young children and teenagers.


See our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

The National Rifle Association and its allies would have us believe that the solution to this epidemic, itself but a sliver of America's overall gun violence, is to put firearms in the hands of as many citizens as possible. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," declared the NRA's Wayne LaPierre in a press conference a week after Newtown, the same day bells tolled at the National Cathedral and the devastated town mourned its 28 dead. (That day a gunman in Pennsylvania also murdered three people and wounded a state trooper shortly before LaPierre gave his remarks.) LaPierre explained that it was a travesty for a school principal to face evil unarmed, and he called for gun-wielding security officers to be deployed in every school in America.

As many commentators noted, it was particularly callous of the NRA to double down on its long-standing proposal to fight gun violence with more guns while parents in Newtown were burying their first graders. But more importantly, the NRA's argument is bereft of supporting evidence. A closer look reveals that their case for arming Americans against mass shooters is nothing more than a cynical ideological talking point—one dressed up in appeals to heroism and the defense of constitutional freedom, and wholly reliant on misdirection and half truths. If only Sandy Hook's principal had been packing heat, the argument goes, she could've stopped the mass killer. There's just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way—even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.
Gun rights die-hards claim the Portland mall shooter saw an armed good guy—who ran for cover instead of firing—and promptly shot himself dead. Obviously.

Attempts by armed citizens to stop shooters are rare. At least two such attempts in recent years ended badly, with the would-be good guys gravely wounded or killed. Meanwhile, the five cases most commonly cited as instances of regular folks stopping massacres fall apart under scrutiny: Either they didn't involve ordinary citizens taking action—those who intervened were actually cops, trained security officers, or military personnel—or the citizens took action after the shooting rampages appeared to have already ended. (Or in some cases, both.)

But those facts don't matter to the gun rights die-hards, who never seem to run out of intellectually dishonest ammo. Most recently, they've pointed to the Portland shopping mall rampage earlier in December, in which an armed civilian reportedly drew his gun but thought twice about potentially hurting an innocent bystander and ducked for cover instead of firing. The assailant suddenly got scared of this retreating good guy with the gun, they claim, and promptly shot himself dead. Obviously.

Another favorite tactic is to blame so called "gun-free zones" for the carnage—as if a disturbed kid shoots up a school, or a disgruntled employee executes his coworkers, or a neo-Nazi guns down Sikhs at worship simply because he has identified the safest place to go open fire. All we need to do is make sure lots of citizens have guns in these locations, and voilà, problem solved!

For their part, law enforcement officials overwhelmingly hate the idea of armed civilians getting involved. As a senior FBI agent told me, it would make their jobs more difficult if they had to figure out which of the shooters at an active crime scene was the bad guy. And while they train rigorously for responding in confined and chaotic situations, the danger to innocent bystanders from ordinary civilians whipping out firearms is obvious. Exhibit A: the gun-wielding citizen who admitted to coming within a split second of shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded, after initially mistaking that person for the killer, Jared Loughner.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The NRA's LaPierre was also eager to blame violent video games and movies for what happened in Newtown, and to demonize the "unknown number of genuine monsters" walking among us. Never mind that the failure to recognize and treat mental health problems is a crucial factor in this dark equation: Of the 62 mass shootings we examined, 36 of them were murder-suicides, while assailants in seven other cases died in police shootouts, widely considered to have been "suicide by cop."

Those who are serious about contending with the problem of mass shootings understand that collecting and studying data is crucial. Since we began our investigation after the attack in Aurora in July, we've heard from numerous academic researchers, legislative aides, and others wanting access to our full data set. We've now published it here.

The question now isn't whether most Americans will take seriously the idea of turning every grammar school in the nation into a citadel. (Here, too, the NRA's argument falls apart; an armed sheriff’s deputy at Columbine and a robust security force at Virginia Tech didn't stop those slaughters from occurring.) Now that we've just witnessed the worst year for mass shootings in memory, including 20 of the most innocent of lives snuffed out, what remains to be seen is whether real reform is finally on the way on Capitol Hill. Despite years of this kind of carnage, next to nothing has been changed in our legal system with respect to how easy it is for a disturbed young man to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle and a stockpile of highly lethal ammunition.

Sen. Diane Feinstein has vowed to introduce a new ban on assault weapons when Congress reconvenes in January. President Obama has signaled that the gun issue will be a real priority going forward. But once the raw emotion of Newtown dissipates there will be the danger of slipping back into the same inertia and political stalemate so successfully cultivated by the pro-gun ideologues. Soon lawmakers will start eyeing their 2014 reelection campaigns and thinking about how much money the NRA has in its coffers to take aim at them with should they dare to dissent. This time, have we finally had enough?
619

Print
Email
Tweet

Mark Follman
Senior Editor

Mark Follman is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories, follow him on Twitter, or contact him with tips or feedback at mfollman (at) motherjones (dot) com. RSS | Twitter
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
The unthinkable massacre in Connecticut adds to what is now the worst year of mass shootings in modern US history.
NRA Chief Calls for More Guns Everywhere
Wayne LaPierre, the head of the gun lobby, envisions a paramilitary society.
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America
As Newtown mourns the latest massacre, see our map of 62 mass shootings in the last 30 years—in which most of the killers got their guns legally.
Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy
What our in-depth investigation reveals about mental illness and America's mass killings with guns.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

The lies are out of control in Washington, DC. Luckily, Mother Jones is here to fact-check our politicians.

The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys




In answer to the final question...hell yea.

This of course is for those who can a: understand it b: appreciate it.

Not trying to change any minds at all here.

The moment I seen the name Feinstein I see this as more hypocritical BS and twisted rhetoric. NICE TRY!

And still back to the 20 children...


How about children dragged into wars and die IN WARS AS SOLDIERS?


Oh no, too much to think about??? Kids with guns becasue adults make them kill?


Not in America? REALLY??? And Trust Politicians to protect us? And trust police to not shoot us in the back? For reals?


MOVE TO ENGLAND! Or better yet go to Australia! New Zealand would not want anything to do with you emigrating. Want to talk about tight immigration standards?

I said it is for those who can understand it

The http://gunowners.org/ offers better representation for gun owners.

Looks like the NRA is getting soft and cozy with politicians.


Tuesday, 05 February 2013 19:35 Written by Erich Pratt


Background Checks, Registration & Confiscation



“Confiscation could be an option.”

-- Gov. Andrew Cuomo (New York Times, 1/09/13)




1. ATF illegally copying 4473 forms

* ATF using digital scanners. “ATF has been copying FFL Bound Books for years -- with or without FFL permission. During annual compliance inspections in other states, FFL dealers have reported that ATF industry operations investigators (IOI) brought in digital cameras and photographed the entire dealer ‘Bound Book’ without permission of the FFL holder. Other dealers reported investigators brought in digital scanners and scanned portions of the Bound Book -- line by line. Of course, the Bound Book contains the dealer’s full record of lawful firearm sales transaction records.”

* GOA legal counsel, Michael Hammond: “Several gun dealers have contacted me and asked for my advice. Invariably, they say that the ATF is, or has been, at their store -- making wholesale copies of their 4473 forms -- and they want to know if that’s legal. I’m not going to betray their confidence without permission, but I can tell you that this has occurred enough times to make me believe these are not isolated incidents. And this has happened despite the prohibition in 18 USC 923(g)(1)(D) which specifically prohibits anyone in the Justice Department from ‘seiz[ing] any records or other documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law.’”

*FFL’s complain of illegal ATF activity. “The [ATF] is engaged in new illegal activity, this time in the state of Alaska. According to gun store owners in Anchorage, ATF agents are requiring that they submit what is called ‘4473 Forms’ going as far back as 2007…. The ATF has the authority to inspect or request a copy of the form if agents are conducting a criminal investigation. But nowhere does the law or the rules and regulations of the ATF permit the agency to require gun stores to simply turn over these records en mass as a matter of course. The gun stores in Anchorage are not being told that their records are being requested as part of a criminal investigation of any kind. The ATF has not specified certain forms from specific time frames as one would expect during such an investigation. The agency is telling the stores that it wants all of these records, in totality, going back to 2007.”
2. Elected officials have used registration lists to confiscate firearms

* From registration to confiscation in New York. In the mid-1960's officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns. In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms.... Spot checks are planned [for other homes].”

* Confiscation in New Orleans. “No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns,” said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police, right before several law-enforcement agencies began confiscating the firearms of lawful gun owners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (2005).
3. Background checks can (and do) lead to gun registration

* Justice Department report (1989). “Any system that requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms.”

* Justice Department initiates registration (1994). The Justice Department gave a grant to the city of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University to create a sophisticated national gun registry using data compiled from states’ background check programs. This attempt at registration was subsequently defeated in the courts.

* More gun owner registration (1996). Computer software distributed by the Justice Department allowed police officials to easily (and unlawfully) register the names and addresses of gun buyers. This software—known as FIST—also kept information such as the type of gun purchased, the make, model and caliber, the date of purchase, etc. This demonstrates how easily background checks can be used to register gun owners’ information.

* Federal Bureau of Investigation registers gun owners (1998). Despite prohibitions in federal law, the FBI announced that it would begin keeping gun buyer’s names for six months. FBI had originally wanted to keep the names for 18 months, but reduced the time period after groups like Gun Owners of America strongly challenged the legality of their actions. GOA submitted a formal protest to the FBI, calling their attempt at registration both “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”

CONCLUSION: Universal Background Checks will send us much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need for gun confiscation. But we still won't be able to stop creeps like Adam Lanza from circumventing those background checks (he stole his weapons) and attacking children.





Robert Farago, TheTruthAboutGuns.com (May 27, 2012).

[ii] See http://www.examiner.com/article/alaska-gun-stores-say-atf-engaging-new-illegal-activity (April 5, 2012).

[iii] On August 16, 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins signed Local Law 78 which banned the possession and sale of certain rifles and shotguns.

[iv] John Marzulli, “Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized,” Daily News (September 5, 1992).

[v] Richard B. Abell, Assistant Attorney General, Task Force Chairman, Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms (October 1989), p. 75.

[vi] Bureau of Justice Assistance, Grant Manager’s Memorandum, Pt. 1: Project Summary (September 30, 1994), Project Number: 94-DD-CX-0166.

[vii] Copy of “FIST” (Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking) software at GOA headquarters, Springfield, VA. See also Pennsylvania Sportsmen's News (Oct./Nov. 1996). The default in the “FIST” computer software is for the police officials to indefinitely retain the information on gun owners—despite the fact that the Brady law only allows officials to retain this data for 20 days. One wonders who will ensure that this information will be deleted after the 20th day.

[viii] Mike Slavonic, NRA Director and Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, states that the instant background check could be “our downfall.” He notes that, “What most Americans don't know is that once instant check goes into effect in 1998 the purpose of Brady could be used to set the stage for national confiscation. Instant check could eventually keep guns out of the hands of everyone by registering everyone who purchases a handgun, rifle and shotgun and who obtained concealed weapons permits in a computerized database like ‘FIST’. The most difficult problem with a gun ban is locating the firearms. FIST [with the help of the instant check], over time, could solve that problem.” Slavonic, “Another Gun Database Discovered,” Pennsylvania Sportsmen's News (Oct./Nov. 1996) at 7.

[ix] FBI’s Final Rule printed in the Federal Register (October 30, 1998) at 58311. After the FBI submitted its proposed regulations on June 4, 1998, Gun Owners of America submitted written comments (in September of 1988) to challenge the FBI’s regulations. GOA stated, “These proposed regulations are unlawful and unconstitutional. They are so fundamentally corrupt that there are no incremental changes which will even marginally improve them. Rest assured that they will be challenged in every possible judicial and legislative forum. . . . The efforts to retain information on gun owners for eighteen months—and indefinitely in your computer backup system—constitutes an illegal system of firearms registration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 926. The same is, in fact, true even for efforts to retain information about persons prohibited from purchasing firearms.”

Again it is for someone who understands....

I read it, I understood it. And it is BULLSHYTE! PROPOGANDA! Shall I use easier words for you to COMPREHEND? If you are so scared of the 2nd amendment and wish to reinterpret it over and over and over again in such a blind way fine. I just have a solution to both of our problems. If you are so wound up about guns MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY HAVE LAWS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF!

So back to the smileys?








Bring it...

Again I said it was for those who understand it.....

Don't you worry your little head about that. You won't.

Obama Goes Nuts and Offers Anti-gunners Wish List
Friday, 18 January 2013 00:00 Written by Gun Owners



Most of his crazy proposals are so extreme, only few of his initiatives pose serious threat



Surrounded by child-props, Barack Obama yesterday proposed a semi-automatic ban so extreme that it could potentially outlaw up to 50% of all long guns in circulation and up to 80% of all handguns.

Originally, Obama's allies had announced they would reintroduce the 1994 ban on commonly-owned, defensive firearms. That was until they found out that they would look like fools, since that semi-auto ban was largely the law of Connecticut on the day the Newtown shooting occurred -- and didn't cover Adam Lanza's AR-15. After that, gun grabbers just kept adding more and more guns until they would register (or ban) a huge percentage of the defensive guns in existence.

So where are we now?

Obama's crazy gun ban is now being denounced by many Democrats. And, although you don't "pop the cork" until Congress adjourns, it will probably take the magazine ban down the toilet with it.

This means that gun owners' focus must now shift to the part of Obama's agenda which poses the most danger because it is most likely to move: the requirement that the government approve every gun transfer in America -- the so-called universal background check.

All of you know why this is a problem. But how do you explain it so simply that even a congressman can understand? Let's take a crack at that:

ONE: THE FBI'S "SECRET LIST" WHICH IS BEING USED TO BAR AMERICANS FROM OWNING GUNS IS INSIDIOUS

The FBI’s database currently contains the names of more than 150,000 veterans. They served their country honorably. They did nothing wrong.

But, because they sought counseling for a traumatic experience while risking their lives for America, they have had their constitutional rights summarily revoked, with no due process whatsoever.

You want to know something else? The "secret list" could soon include tens of millions of Americans -- including soldiers, police, and fire fighters -- with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and even post-partem depression. This would be achieved under the 23 anti-gun "executive actions" that Obama announced yesterday.

TWO: THE FBI REFUSES TO INSURE US THAT IT ISN'T TURNING ITS "SECRET LIST" INTO A NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY

Our legislative counsel drafted the Smith amendment in 1998 to prohibit the FBI from using the Brady Check system to tax gun buyers or put their names into a gun registry. But the FBI refuses to tell us -- or even to tell U.S. Senators -- how (or whether) it is complying with the Smith amendment. Why in the world should we give the FBI more authority and more names if it abuses the authority it already has?

This is the inherent problem with any background check, where gun buyers’ names are given to a government bureaucrat. Is there any way to make sure that once a name is entered into a computer, that it doesn’t stay there permanently?

This concern is especially valid, considering how federal agents are already skirting the laws against gun owner registration. Several dealers around the country have informed GOA that the ATF is increasingly going into gun shops and just xeroxing all of the 4473's, giving them the names of every gun owner who purchased a gun through that shop -- and setting up the basis for a national registration system.

This is illegal under the 1986 McClure-Volkmer law, but that has apparently not stopped it from being done. If every gun in America has to go through a dealer, this will create a mechanism to compile a list of every gun owner in America. And, as we have seen with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has just been legislatively handed such a list, when that happens, the talk immediately turns to “confiscation."

THREE: AS A RESULT, REQUIRING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF EVERY GUN OWNER IN AMERICA WOULD DO NOTHING BUT CREATE A PLATFORM FOR NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATION.

As alluded to above, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo now has a comprehensive gun registry. This is the most dangerous thing that New York legislators could have done -- as Cuomo has made it clear he’s considering gun confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms.

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said. “Confiscation could be an option.

Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option -- keep your gun but permit it.”

How nice. He’ll let gun owners “permit” their guns for now -- so that, presumably, they can be confiscated later, just as certain defensive weapons were confiscated in New York City during the Mayor David Dinkins administration in 1991.

FOUR: THE FBI REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW GUARANTEEING THE RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE PURCHASERS

The Brady Law requires that the FBI correct erroneous denials of firearms purchases. And it requires that it reply, initially, within five days. According to attorneys familiar with the problem, the FBI NEVER, EVER, EVER complies with the law. In fact, it increasingly tells aggrieved legitimate purchasers to "sue us" -- at a potential cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

FIVE: EVEN UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE BRADY SYSTEM HAS BROKEN DOWN REPEATEDLY

Since its inception, the FBI’s computer systems have often gone offline for hours at a time -- sometimes for days. And when it fails on weekends, it results in the virtual blackout of gun sales at gun shows across the country.

According to gun laws expert Alan Korwin, "With the NICS computer out of commission, the only place you could legally buy a firearm -- in the whole country -- was from a private individual, since all dealers were locked out of business by the FBI’s computer problem."

Of course, now the President wants to eliminate that last bastion of freedom!

Recently, the FBI’s system went down on Black Friday, angering many gun dealers and gun buyers around the country. “It means we can’t sell no damn guns,” said Rick Lozier, a manager at Van Raymond Outfitters in Maine. “If we can’t call it in, we can’t sell a gun. It’s cost us some money.”

The bottom line: Our goal is to insure that Obama's politicized dog-and-pony show doesn't produce one word of new gun law. Not a single word.

And the biggest danger right now is universal background checks -- which would create a platform for national registration and confiscation.

We would note that, in addition, Obama is attempting to illegally enact gun control through unlawful and unconstitutional "executive actions." Click here to read about these.

ACTION: Click here to contact your senators and congressman.>>http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62339821 Urge them to oppose the universal background check because it is a platform for national firearms registration and confiscation.

Yes, anyone who wants to live in a country where guns have been banned, there are quite a number of them. Go to Europe.

Again it is for those who understand it....

It is for those who understand it....

willing2, Thanks for the great information above.

I certainly understand that.

This is great information willing2. Thanks.

Those who understand it...

Still it is for those who understand....

I am loving the bumps up...