At least 12 people were killed and dozens injured between Friday and Saturday nights in the United States this weekend. Chattanooga, Tennessee, saw the second mass shooting in a week’s time. South Carolina, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania: While the blood continues to flow, the Senate continues to talk about maybe doing something, something that is unlikely to include most of the measures the House will vote on this week.
Had the proposals the House will forward to the Senate (where they will be rejected because Republicans) been in effect since 1999, more than 400 people would not have been killed by gun violence. That includes potentially keeping four killers under the age of 21 from legally obtaining the assault-style rifles they used. Another four would have been stopped by required background check and 10 might not have been able to steal the weapons they used. Twenty could not have legally purchased large-capacity magazines they used to kill, on average, 16 people each.
This is according to an analysis from The New York Times, using information from the Violence Project Mass Shooter Database. That organization defines mass shootings as those that cause four or more fatalities, not counting the shooter. That was the criteria the Times used for its analysis.
The age limit on rifle purchases, strengthened background checks, safer gun storage, and banning large-capacity magazines “might have changed the course of at least 35 mass shootings—a third of such episodes in the United States since the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado,” the Times estimates. In those three dozen shootings, 446 people were killed and hundreds more were wounded.
Campaign Action
Because of the masses of lethal hardware in America’s homes and streets, none of these measures would prevent gun deaths—the shooters in those massacres highlighted by the Times might have been able to get their guns and ammo anyway. But having to actually do some work to get their hands on lethal weaponry might have been a barrier to the shooters seeing their rampages through.
Another provision under discussion in Congress, red-flag laws, could make a significant difference:
“In a startling 46 percent of shootings in the database, attackers had told someone about their intent to cause harm before the attacks. And in 36 percent of cases, an attacker had previously expressed suicidal intentions, another cause for possible gun removal under the laws.”
That is, if red flag laws were national and not up to the states, and if they survived the Supreme Court, which is likely to throw states’ gun regulations into jeopardy with an upcoming decision. That case centers on New York’s 108-year-old restrictions on who can carry a weapon, but many gun safety advocates fear the Court will rule broadly enough to create a basis for challenging any state gun restriction.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are abdicating, essentially saying, “what’s the point of having laws.” A strange position for actual lawmakers to take, but there you go. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), who is retiring and actually could do something, says changing the age limit is pointless. “I’m not sure that the answer would be yes, just by changing the age,” Burr said. “If that were the case, we wouldn’t have illegal purchases of tobacco or beer.” Because those things are completely analogous to killing machines.
Why have laws at all? People just break them. Echoing that: “Those who want to break the law will find a way to get around the law. That’s just the facts,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said.
RELATED STORIES
