Mass Shooters - The American Gun Extremist Superman

I had dinner the other night with a long-time friend and psychiatric colleague.  She and I ran an acute care unit for many years where we were charged with assessing and treating some of the most difficult problems in psychiatry. By definition, that also means the associated social problems.  That work included a significant number of civil commitments and in Minnesota associated hearings about medications.  The conversation turned to politics and then the recent attempted assassination of Trump.  Before I could say anything, she commented about how absurd it was that there was endless speculation in the media about “motive” and the fact that there was no motive. I agreed with her completely on that point.  What motive can you have for picking up a high-capacity military weapon and deciding to shoot and kill someone and anyone else who happens to be around?  And of course – why does it predominately happen in the US? 

As I pondered our conversation over the past couple of days and what I have written here about it – I came up with the idea of the American Gun Extremist Superman. This is not a traditional superman role or even the antihero role.  It is a superman role that can occur only in a culture of gun extremism.  I have written in the past about how this is quite definitely a cultural problem and the people who have been the source of the culture – extremist politicians, judges, and other gun extremist advocates largely blame everything else.  Incredibly they blame the lack of an armed staff in schools, a shortage of firearms in the most heavily armed country in the world, and more recently law enforcement and parents. They never examine the fall out of gun extremist policies that have been accumulating over the past 40 years.

Here are the features of the gun extremist superman that I have so far.  They are not diagnostic criteria by any means.  This is a societal and cultural problem more than anything.  It obviously exists only in the US.  There are undoubtedly people with psychiatric disorders who acquire these traits – just like people with psychiatric disorders assimilate other social and cultural traits.  But a psychiatric disorder does not explain most of these shootings.  I am using the pronoun he in these cases for the obvious reason that practically all of the shooters are men and boys.   

He is disgruntled and dissatisfied:  This is a common nonexplanation for mass homicide. It is basically a marker for what causes an unexplainable behavior.  When you study human behavior, these changes can occur from internally driven psychological states, external states, and all points in between.  To what extent is their insight, judgment, and decision making affected? To what extent does their moral decision making have an impact on what is occurring?  It is complicated by what is known about a person’s baseline.  For example, are they quiet and non-disclosing about their internal states or are they more demonstrative?

He has no problem at all attributing his state to the actions of others even when that is completely displaced.  In other words, displaced onto completely innocent coworkers, bystanders, school children, etc.  In psychiatry we call this projection and historically it is listed as a defense mechanism.  It is typically seen in persons with psychotic disorders and moderate to severe personality disorders.  It is a common experience to feel like you are being unjustly blamed during interactions with people using this mechanism or in the extreme case where that person is reacting to you as though their accusations are true.  Even though it is difficult to research this mechanism in mass murders – it seems intuitive that it has to exist at some level given the discrepancy between their real victims and the purported abusers (if any).

He knows that there is a burst of fame associated with each shooting and endless speculation about his motivations.  Although there is little information about the Trump shooter – it is known that he had details about a previous mass shooter on his electronic devices and this has also occurred with previous mass shooters. Anybody experiencing the news cycle in the US following a mass shooting notices a flood of information and speculation about that shooter that can go on for weeks followed by other bursts from associated court cases, documents, computers, web sites documenting mass shootings, legislation, and scientific literature.  Mass shooters seem to be guaranteed immediate and sustained notoriety – despite some concerns expressed in the literature that this is reinforcing the behavior.  The psychology of mass shooters is difficult to investigate, but I would not be shocked to learn that revenge fantasies go hand-in-hand with the expectation of notoriety from the act. 

He feels some justification by identification with previous mass shooters and cultural revenge themes.  As noted above many aspiring mass shooters have immediate access to the mass shooter literature as well as a wealth of revenge-based video games and movies.  The preponderance of this information depicts the shooter as the good guy meting out justice and revenging either his own victimhood (real or imagined) or that of his loved ones.  A secondary theme is that the usual channels of justice – law enforcement and the courts are too weak, do not apply to him, are too slow, or too negligent to be useful.

He sees it as a singularly masculine activity – especially with the use of firearms.

Most of the cultural figures engaged in this activity are men.  Armed men are typically the graphic elements of disaffected groups of society but their rhetoric has creeped into the political mainstream.  You don’t have to look too hard to find opinion that in the battle over “gun rights” – the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment will go to the winners of an armed insurrection or that the more heavily armed political party will “win.”  In that atmosphere was it an accident that we witnessed an insurrection on January 6^th?  Nobody steps back to point out that gun rights are there in the Second Amendment and the real battle is between gun extremism and common-sense guns laws.  In the common discussion nobody has advocated to take guns away from law abiding and responsible citizens.  At this point the US is awash in guns to the point that collecting all of those guns or buying them back is impractical.

Societal reinforcement of the Gun Extremist Superman. 

At first that seems like an extreme idea.  How can American culture and society reinforce this behavior? I have touched on the very real aspects of gun extremism and the cultural aspects that are reinforcing but there are others. Whenever mass shootings occur – politicians show up make the typical statements about “sick individuals”, offer “hopes and prayers”, and in some extreme cases have encouraged the affected communities to “move on.”  Mental health becomes a distraction, when politicians use it as a cause for the incident but never do anything constructive to address it.   The condemnation of the shooter is trivial compared with what has occurred. And no effective measures are ever suggested or accomplished. If anything, many politicians come up with a series of rationalizations about why the shooter was not stopped – the teachers were not armed, law enforcement response was inadequate, the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good guy with a gun, etc. Specifically, no measures to counter gun extremist laws are ever suggested and we are supposed to pretend that getting as many guns out on the street is a remote problem from the problem of mass shootings.  The real message to mass shooters is that “we are not going to do anything to stop or interfere with you.”

There is an additional message that is the direct result of gun extremism and that is – shoot first and ask questions later. Stand your ground and castle doctrines or statutes are a relatively recent development in the gun extremism landscape.  Stand your ground statutes basically say that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force. Before these laws self-defense laws included the provision that the person who is unlawfully attacked needs to exercise judgment to try to avoid the use of deadly force by retreating if necessary.  Stand your ground laws were passed initially in 2005 in Florida and since then these laws exist in 38 states. The details are available at this site, including references to the fact that it probably increases the crime and homicide rate.  Although these laws were passed primarily in the past 20 years, they are the culmination of gun extremist rhetoric that has emphasized the need for people to be armed and dispense justice with firearms.  My conceptualization of the mass shooter is that he likely believes he is dispensing justice, even though nobody would agree with that premise.

The additional cultural change that preceded stand your ground was the idea of the armed citizen.  In the 1960s, the people who owned guns were predominately hunters.  The focus of the National Rifle Association (NRA) was hunter safety. When I took that course one of the mainstays was never pointing a gun at a person and always assuming a gun was loaded.  As firearms become more important as political rhetoric there was a sudden shift to the idea that there needed to be more guns out there for personal protection.  Since then there has been a steady escalation in gun extremist rhetoric and the idea that there are defined preconditions for shooting someone.

Psychosis is not an exclusion from societal or cultural factors:  Although the majority of these shooters are not mentally ill there is a lot of confusion over whether mental illness excludes the person from societal and cultural factors - making the psychosis in itself an explanation for the behavior.  It does not.  Just as computer chips, microwaves, and surveillance satellites were incorporated into delusions as they became incorporated into society - gun extremism has the same effects.  There is no reason that they and the folklore of mass shooters cannot be incorporated into a delusional system of thinking and acted upon.  In other words - there is no de novo psychosis of mass shooting - it happens in a gun extremist society.

All of the above elements are more important to him than self-preservation.  Many mass shooter incidents occur with the death of the shooter by homicide or suicide.  The high mortality rate suggests that mass shooters are unconcerned about their own life in carrying out their actions. This information is readily available to potential mass shooters and I would argue is part of the Gun Extremist Superman stereotype.  

He has easy access to high-capacity firearms – both handguns and rifles. Easy access to legally purchased firearms is well documented in many of these cases.  In some cases the firearms are borrowed and in other cases they are purchased from licensed firearms dealers.  One of the common gun extremist slogans is “if guns are criminalized only the criminals will have them.”  It is obvious that firearms are legally available at this point to anyone who wants to commit a serious crime like a mass shooting. It is also obvious that there are loopholes that allow gun purchasers to bypass existing laws.

What I have described here is a Nietzschean superman who clearly rejects traditional moral values of society and adopts his own – even though they are morally reprehensible to almost everyone else.  There are currently numerous patterns in American culture and society that reinforce this pattern of activity.  We are on a course for that to continue unabated.  It may worsen as the pattern of gun extremism worsens.  There are two potential solutions as far as I can see.  Reverse gun extremism back to the gun rights laws of the 1960s or preferably the 19^th century.  If the 19th century seems  too radical - see the Tombstone ordinance at the bottom of this post.  A second more public health focused measure would be on mass homicide prevention – by identifying the problem and trying to intervene while researching it.  

At the time I am writing this - neither intervention seems likely.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA  

Supplementary:  If you have any doubt about the lack of motive for most firearm related homicides - I suggest watching crime TV like The First 48.  These shows typically have investigations by experienced homicide detectives that include interrogations of  suspects, witnesses, and family members.  In some cases court proceedings are included. The majority of cases are attributed to senseless violence and that typically means somebody got angry, there was a firearm available, and it was used to commit homicide.  Mass homicides can be viewed as taking the senseless violence theme to the next level.  Senseless violence is a predictable outcome of widespread gun availability and gun extremism. 

The American Gun Protection Fantasy and the Secret Service....

 

Ten days ago, a lone shooter attempted to kill former President Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania. About 6 minutes after he began speaking, Trump is noticed to turn his head to the right and then grab his right ear and drop to the ground. He is swarmed by Secret Service agents and after a period that seems too long is escorted off the stage and taken to a local hospital for assessment and treatment.  Three people in the audience are shot – one dead and two seriously wounded.  They were all in the line of fire seated behind Trump.  About one minute later the Secret Services Counter Assault team returns fire fatally wounding the shooter.  Weeks later it is learned that the shooter may have fired as many as 8 rounds based on shell casings found near his body on the roof.

There is immediate speculation and controversy about the incident. Quite incredibly several members of the Republican party blame the incident on Democrats even though they are the party that has been espousing political violence and gun extremism. Preliminary reports suggest that although the shooter is a registered Republican – he donated $15 to a liberal cause a few years earlier.  The shooter was using an AR-15 rifle that he borrowed from his father and he had purchased 50 rounds of ammunition.  At the time of this post there is no information on whether he was using a high-capacity magazine or not.  The state of Pennsylvania has no prohibition on assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.

We subsequently learn that the shooter did not make the cut for his high school shooting team, but did belong to a local shooting club.  He was described as a loner who was bullied in school. Some people described him as bright and eccentric.  All agreed that there was no suggestion that he was a potentially violent individual and nobody ever heard him make any threats. It was later learned that he did some drone surveillance of the site and had saved materials on several people from both parties.  To at least one analyst this data suggested that his goal was a mass shooting rather than an assassination.  Others speculated that it may have been a “suicide by cop” scenario.  Some information leaked from the preliminary investigation suggested he was searching “major depression” on the Internet. 

We also learn that the shooter had a picture of a recent mass school shooter whose parents were also convicted for allowing him access to firearms.  The shooter in this case places his father in the same predicament, although there have not been any statements from the parents.

At this point there are signs that there were significant security lapses.  That led to Congressional testimony by the Director of the Secret Service on July 22.  Several members of Congress demanded an immediate resignation and she subsequently resigned on July 23. She did accept full responsibility for the security lapse, an administrative maneuver that is apparently expected only in the government.  She resigned at a time when the results of the investigation of the incident are still pending.

The public has been presented with interviews of people who saw the shooter on the roof and tried to get the attention of law enforcement including the counter assault team without success.  The shooter was approached on the roof by a police officer who apparently had to back down because the rifle was pointed at him and he was not able to draw his weapon in defense.  There was a story today that Secret Service agents were located at the roof level on the interior of the same building that the shooter was on but did not see him.  The shooter was identified as a “suspicious person” but not a threat because his rifle was not seen initially. If he had been identified as a threat – Trump would have been sequestered in a safe area until the threat was neutralized.

I have not heard any information about the perimeters established for security.  I heard initially that there was a Secret Service perimeter closest to Trump and extending out for 200 yards.  The meant that Secret Service was responsible for anything inside that perimeter and local law enforcement was responsible for the next tier beyond 200 yards.  That may explain the aborted attempt by the police officer to intervene moments before the shots were fired at Trump. 

Most significant to me as a psychiatrist is the continued “search for a motive” or that “no motive has been found.”  That is a routine finding in these events.  There really are no rational motives for picking up a gun and trying to kill the former President or anyone else.  There is no motive for essentially firing into the crowd beyond Trump and killing a spectator and seriously injuring two more.  Most firearm related homicides are irrational acts – related to angry disagreements and firearm accessibility.  The fact that motives are lacking is probably the reason mental illness is often considered to be a factor in firearm homicides. 

That takes me back to my hypothesis of mass shooters that can probably also be related to lone shooters in this case.  The United States has a long history of cultural memes related to firearms.  Film and television is a rich source of revenge stories where the hero/antihero is wronged and proceeds over the next 90 minutes to kill everyone who wronged him.  That has extended in the media to include mass shooters and school shooters. Many are described as “bullied”, loners, or mentally ill.  The overriding story is the revenge meme – whether it is accurate or not.  For several decades the meme involved postal workers "going postal" due to workplace stress and mismanagement although a subsequent investigation showed the incidence of post office violence was not greater than other workplaces.   All it takes is a marginal person without self-control ability to decide to project their problems onto an available individual or group and extract their revenge.  The method of choice in the US is a firearm.

There is another group and cultural factor that may be important in these cases and that is the American sniper.  There are thousands of snipers in the US military.  They typically operate at a range of 600-1200 meters, although several shots have occurred at much greater distances. The IMDB database lists 18 sniper movies dating back to 1963. Just inspecting that list suggests to me that there are many more. And of course there are constant real-life stories about mass shooters.

My point about snipers is fourfold.  First, it reinforces the shooter meme in that a sniper is generally seen as a very competent person who is shooting people for the right reason.  Even the cinematic revenge version often has the audience primed to see the shooter's viewpoint.  Second, snipers are generally portrayed as cool and professional.  Third, there are any number of weapons that can be used to become a self-styled sniper.  The first mass shooting I became aware of was the Texas Tower mass shooting of 1966.  The incident occurred at the University of Texas and the shooter fired from the same clock tower position.    Snipers are generally portrayed as possessing some special talent to shoot well – but the reality is that anyone can shoot well – even at a distance if they have enough practice. Fourth, gun access in the US is easy.  The problem of how long mass shooters experience thoughts about shooting people is unknown and probably an impossible study.  That leads to a certain politics of explaining the motives.  To gun extremists the shooter is just “a bad guy with a gun.” who needs to be stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”  Many of these same gun extremists tend to blame the behavior either on mental illness or the treatment of mental illness even though most incidents are not related to either.  This group rigidly avoids acknowledging their possible role due to cultural changes and the widespread availability of guns.  They are joined by some mental illness advocates for not treating mental illness who suggest the behavior is due to medical treatment.  In the past, I have suggested going after the problem directly and approaching it as a public health problem.  That is – if you have homicidal thinking call an emergency number for intervention.  Acute care psychiatrists intervene in the problem when it is precipitated by severe psychopathology, but in most cases that is not the issue.  It is safe to say, the problem and successful interventions cannot be well studied in the current landscape.

Getting back to the shots fired at the Trump rally, Trump was speaking 430 ft away from the shooter or about 131 meters.  That is well within typical sniper range.  Further – given the military sniper range suggests that the Secret Service would need to secure the entire area out to 10 times the distance to that rooftop and even then, that may not be far enough.  If there are two important lessons from this event it should be that guns are inadequate protection from a shooter with an element of surprise and a long-range weapon.  You can make the argument that the Secret Service snipers may have stopped a mass shooting event, but at this point that seems to be highly speculative.  Secondly, the perimeter is very significant.  If the initial descriptions of a 200-yard perimeter are accurate – new strategies are required and even then, I would question the likelihood of stopping catastrophic results from single shot fired by a sniper who was trained in evasive action.  These are important considerations when the political solution at this point appears to be an investigation focused on who to blame for security lapses.  Members of Congress are saying all that is needed is a thorough and transparent investigation.  So far – very few details of the investigation are available.

It is doubtful that the obvious cultural factors like gun extremism, widespread availability of weapons and military style weapons, and the cultural phenomena of the lone wolf shooter will be addressed. It is doubtful that public health approaches to the problem will be discussed. I expect a final report several hundred pages long focused on what law enforcement and the Secret Service should have done.  I look forward to reading that report to see what perimeters and measures are considered and anticipate that they will be woefully inadequate compared with any determined shooter from a long range. 

And then there are the legal considerations. After the Reagan assassination attempt, the Brady Bill – a modest modification of existing gun control laws was eventually passed 12 years later.  Since that time there have been decades of gun extremism put into the law, basically because one of the major parties needs the issue for political purposes.  This has made the United States less safe for everyone including Presidential candidates.  The most striking example is that the city of Milwaukee was not able to ban firearms outside of the hard security perimeter at the Republican National Convention that occurred 2 days after Trump was shot at.  Wisconsin law prohibits local municipalities from banning firearms.

Over the past 30 years we have gone from a nation of common-sense gun laws – to a nation of gun extremism.  That is almost entirely due to the actions of the Republican party and its politicians.  There has been a clear association with increased firearm deaths and there has been no resulting retracing of the path to gun extremism.  Gun extremism puts everyone at risk including Presidential candidates. I will refrain from the usual political platitudes about how I hope everyone will be safe out there. Hopes and prayers for the victims of firearm violence have not changed anything so far and I expect more of the same until the party of gun extremism decides to change their mind or they are voted out. 

These are my observations about this Trump rally. It was a shocking event, but probably not shocking enough to change any gun laws or the steady march towards gun extremism that is oddly enough in the hands of the party whose candidate was targeted. 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Update on the FBI Investigation of the Attempted Assassination of Former President Donald Trump Update: July 15, 2024, 3:05 p.m. EDT:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/update-on-the-fbi-investigation-of-the-attempted-assassination-of-former-president-donald-trump

2:  Neuman S, Westervelt E.  Trump's close call: A detailed time line.  NPR:  https://www.npr.org/2024/07/19/nx-s1-5041734/trump-shooting-assassination-crooks-bulter-secret-service 

 

Supplementary 1:

I decided to write this essay ahead of any investigation results because it appears that will be a very slow process. I will read those reports as they become available.

Supplementary 2:  This article became available after I completed the above post.  It is based on testimony by the FBI Director Christopher Wray.  He states the AR-15 used by the shooter had a collapsible stock and therefore was easier to conceal.  He also said the shooter flew a drone for 11 minutes over the site about 2 hours before the event.  And in terms of the motivation:   

"Wray said investigators haven’t found a manifesto or obvious motive for the shooting. He said pictures were saved in the cache of Crooks' electronics from news searches, rather than necessarily because of a specific search for a public official."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-director-wray-set-house-143641332.html

Supplementary 3:  Additional fragments of information today in the news. There were 8 expended cartridges next to the shooter's body.  No word on the location of the other 42 rounds or whether there was a high capacity magazine.  Some data from the shooters laptop showed that he did a Google search on the JFK assassination searching on both Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Graphics Credit:

Click on graphic to get full information and CC license on Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

 

 

Irrational American Gun Landscape Gets Worse….

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to lift the ban on bump stocks yesterday (on June 14, 2024). The bump stock is a device that allows a shooter to depress the trigger of a semiautomatic rifle once.  After the initial firing the recoil energy of the firearm is used to bring the trigger back against the trigger finger for repeated firing without a subsequent trigger pull.  The result is a very high rate of fire with various quotes of 800 rounds per minute.  The limiting factor is rounds in the magazine and a standard magazine is 30 rounds with some states having lower limits or no limits.  

The majority decision was done by the Republican appointed justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett), who used a series of rationalizations to show that in their opinion the bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic weapon to a machine gun as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Note that the majority opinion uses graphics (Figures 1-6) from the Firearms Policy Foundation - an organization that fights gun control laws (see reference 2 and their web site).  The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor in the final few pages points out the inconsistencies in the majority opinion.  

Both court opinions include the precipitant for the bump stock ban – a 2017 Las Vegas shooting where the perpetrator was able to fire over 1,058 rounds from a hotel room into a crowd at a music festival killing 60 people and wounding 413.  An additional 454 people were injured in the ensuing panic. The gunfire occurred from 10:05 to 10:15 PM.  It is the deadliest mass shooting in the country that holds the record for mass shootings.  From the perspective of bump stocks, the Las Vegas shooter used 14 AR-15 (.223 cal) semiautomatic rifles and 8 AR-10 (.308 cal) semiautomatic rifles.  All of the AR-15s were fitted with bump stocks and 100 round magazines.  None of the AR-10s were fitted with bump stocks and 5 of 8 had 25 round magazines.  The remaining three AR-10s had no magazines. The AR-15s had a potential capacity of  1400 rounds that could have been discharged with a bump stock. The relevant factors from this list is that magazine capacity rather than firing rate is the major limiting factor in the total number of rounds that can be discharged and the shooter overcame that limitation by using more firearms with bump stocks. Only 15 states ban or restrict large capacity magazines.

There are various opinions in the media about how a bump stock ban originated in the Trump administration. The politics is interesting because the precipitating event was so egregious that the National Rifle Association supported restrictions on bump stocks.  I can find no action by the Trump administration other than encouraging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to consider rule changes and in fact this report suggests there was a memo circulated with the usual “guns don’t kill people” message.  The Supreme Court refers to the ATF rule changes but also makes one reference to Trump.  Unless I missed something it seems clear that he did very little on the issue.

At the end of the day – we have a typical party line vote supporting gun extremism.  I don’t care who you are – the only reason you need a bump stock is to kill large numbers of people.  A bump stock is not useful for hunting or target shooting.  It converts a weapon that is already a military weapon (semi-automatic rifle) to what is essentially a fully automatic rifle. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion also includes the original reason for the machine gun ban and that was to keep these weapons out of the hands of gangsters.  Two of the typical gun extremist arguments against even minimal forms of gun control are:  “We already have enough gun laws on the books and they are not enforced” and “If we have more gun control laws only the criminals will have guns.”  They make these arguments while continuing to deregulate guns, make gun regulations harder to enforce, and make guns even more widely accessible either by Republican legislators or judges.

A second development on firearms was a recently released report by the CDC on the accessibility of firearms by children.  This is a timely study because of the April 2024 Michigan court case against a couple whose son shot and killed 4 students at his high school.  In that case the couple was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison because their son used an unsecure handgun and they did not attend to behavior suggesting he could become violent. At the time of the shooting Michigan did not have a statute about securing firearms at home and that law was passed during the first prosecution of the parents. It was widely hailed as a warning to parents about securing firearms at home.

The CDC report was based on a Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System module administered in 8 states (AK, CA, MN NV, NM, NC, OH, and OK)  in 2021–2022.  The survey was administered by land line telephone calls. The nonresponse rate ranged from 3.5% to 12.8% by state.  The prevalence of firearms kept “in or around the home” was 18.4% (CA) to 50.6% (AK).  The general figure from Gallup is in the high 40%.  In 19.5% (MN) to 43.8% (NC) the firearm was stored loaded. Half of those reporting storing a loaded firearm said it was unlocked.  25.2% (OH) to 41.4% (AK) of those reporting storing an unlocked loaded firearm also reported children less than the age of 17 in the home.  For adults 65 years of age or older 58.5% (NM) to 72.5% (OK) of those with firearms had them stored unlocked.  The authors list the usual limitations of telephone self-report surveys but do not comment on cultural or political factors like the belief of some gun owners that the government is coming for their guns.  

The authors conclude that unlocked firearms may place children and other vulnerable populations at risk.  There is a higher suicide risk in the elderly.  It also illustrates how common the scenario is that led to the conviction of the parents for their son being a mass shooter. A secondary consideration of those convictions was a warning to parents that firearms at home need to be secured to prevent them from similar risks. As I commented at the time, that is a very inefficient approach to a problem that could be addressed at the population wide level. It is in effect, one political party putting parents at risk to continue saturating the population with firearms. And now we know it may be  about four in ten parents who store unlocked, loaded firearms, with children in the home.

To me, mass shootings are a function of:

- mass availability of high-capacity and rapid-fire firearms - both rifles and handguns

- gun extremism translated into effects at every level

- cultural effects - the disgruntled employee/student/etc as mass shooter has been an American meme for 50 years...

The Republican Party and their judicial appointees essentially control two of those three variables.  They are a party with no good ideas but they know how to get votes by stimulating excessive emotion around issues like firearms and abortion.  Their current approach to firearms is to place large part of the population at chronic risk with an arbitrary interpretation of the Second Amendment that they think that they can use to get votes. The basis for their gun extremist view, including the current Supreme Court decision is based on false premises rather than rational thought or legal precedent.  Americans generally don’t expect much from political parties and now they can expect the same from a highly partisan Supreme Court.    

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary:

I frequently talk about gun extremism on this blog and decided to attach a checklist of what I consider gun extremism to be.  Basically it is a marked divergence with common sense gun laws from the 1970s and earlier (see Tombstone ordinance from 1881). From a political standpoint it is clearly a political maneuver to excite and agitate people and get them to vote for a particular political party.  Like all of the so-called hot button issues it is an exercise in rhetoric and conspiracy theories that has unfortunately led to historic levels of gun violence in the US when compared with high income and low and medium income countries around the world.    

 

Gun extremism checklist:

☐  Advance “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws.

☐  Eliminate bans on handguns

☐  Eliminate bans on assault weapons

☐  Minimize the characterization of “assault weapons” or military style weapons because they are not fully automatic weapons

☐  Eliminate bans on large capacity magazines

☐  Eliminate waiting periods

☐  Eliminate bans on public carry of guns

☐  Eliminate the need for permits to purchase handguns and/or carry them openly or as concealed weapons

☐  Eliminate gun-free locations (ie. places of worship, public transportation, healthcare facilities, public buildings)

☐  Eliminate bans on self-manufacturing of firearms

☐  Eliminate laws on age limits to firearm purchase and possession

☐  Eliminate laws on age limits for handgun and ammunition purchase

☐  Eliminate bans on gun accessories like bump stocks and pistol grip extensions

☐  Eliminate laws on “cannot issue” firearms to certain purchasers

☐  Eliminate gun purchase bans for perpetrators of domestic violence

☐  Eliminate gun purchase bans for convicted felons

References:

1:  Friar NW, Merrill-Francis M, Parker EM, Siordia C, Simon TR. Firearm Storage Behaviors — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Eight States, 2021–2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2024;73:523–528. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7323a1

2:  Lithwick D, Stern MJ. The Group Helping the Supreme Court Rewrite America’s Gun Laws Is Worse Than the NRA.  Slate June 15, 2024.  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-nra-gun-laws-bump-stocks.html

3:  McClellan C, Tekin E. Stand your ground laws, homicides, and injuries. Journal of human resources. 2017 Jul 1;52(3):621-53.

4:  Rosenthal L. The limits of Second Amendment originalism and the constitutional case for gun control. Wash. UL Rev.. 2014;92:1187.

5:  Rowh A, Zwald M, Fowler K, Jack S, Siordia C, Walters J. Emergency Medical Services Encounters for Firearm Injuries — 858 Counties, United States, January 2019–September 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2024;73:551–557. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7324a3

6:  Andrade EG, Hoofnagle MH, Kaufman E, Seamon MJ, Pah AR, Morrison CN. Firearm laws and illegal firearm flow between US states. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Jun;88(6):752-759. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002642. PMID: 32102044; PMCID: PMC7799862.

"States with stricter firearm legislation are negatively impacted by states with weaker regulations, as crime guns flow from out-of-state."

 

Graphics Credit:

From Wikimedia Commons per the posted Creative Commons licensing agreement. Click on the graphic for all details including author, color coding, and specific CC license.

Blame Gun Extremists – Not Parents

 

   

 The Crumbley verdict is in and in the usual manner – the media is either celebrating it or bothered by it.  The bothered response is more muted this time – probably because Americans have been conditioned to see national court cases as vindication or rejection of whatever moral position they seem to have on the issue. Without reading the court transcript – media reports suggest that the prosecution in the case portrayed Jennifer Crumbley as a distracted mother who did not pay adequate attention to her son – 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley’s mental status.  If she had - he would not have had access to the 9mm semiautomatic handgun that he used in the Oxford school shootings.  On November 30, 2021 – he shot and killed 4 students and wounded 7.  The jury agreed with the prosecution despite Ms. Crumbley’s statement: "You never would think you'd have to protect your child from harming somebody else. That’s what blew my mind. That was the hardest I had to stomach is that my child harmed and killed other people."  She was found guilty of 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter and the sentence is pending. 

Jennifer Crumbley is of course right.  Professionals charged with assessing the potential for harming others cannot accomplish this task with any degree of certainty.  Should untrained parents be held to that standard, especially when they are emotionally involved with the children they are supposed to assess?  A summary of her court testimony is available from several sites at this point. It focuses on testimony and texts that suggest her son was having difficulty at school and that other people noticed he was moody and depressed. The parents were called in by school officials because they had noticed violent content in his drawings, but after a meeting they did not insist that he be removed from school.  I do not know the school professionals involved – but if there was that level of concern – why not insist that the parents take their son home and give them a clear plan of care?

With any criminal proceeding there are always a lot of discrepancies.  Jennifer Crumbley denied that her son was symptomatic (hearing voices and depressed).  She denied knowing anything about his preoccupation with violent thoughts.  Ethan Crumbley apparently intentionally injured birds and enjoyed doing that.  I do not know if the parents were aware of this or not. There was some debate about the family’s health insurance situation.  Coverage for Ethan lapsed when his father lost his job and his mother was trying to enroll him during the next enrollment period in her plan.  There is also the question of what is generally available for emergency psychiatric care for a 15 yr old.  I don't know if that was bought up during the hearings or not.  I can't speak to what is available in that specific area, but I can say that it is generally non-existent throughout much of the country.    

There is some opinion in the media right now that this trial is precedent setting in that it may translate to parents being held responsible for the crimes of their children. Although I am not a lawyer – to me the precedent seems to already have been set – parents are not responsible for the crimes of their children.  There have been other parents convicted in cases where their children were involved in school shootings.  In one case the mother of a 6-year-old who shot his teacher was sentenced to 21 months, but that was for illegally obtaining a firearm by denying a that she had a drug problem.  In the other case, a father of a shooter who killed 7 people was eventually charged with 7 counts of reckless conduct for assisting his son in obtaining a firearm license even when he had expressed thoughts about killing himself and others.

The critical events in the Crumbley case seem to be the parent purchasing the handgun for their son as a way to lift his spirits, not securing the gun when he was not under their direct supervision, and the two meetings at school on the day before and the day of the shooting. On the first of those days there was concern that he was researching ammunition on his phone during class.  He explained that he went shooting with his mother and that was a hobby.  The counselor called his mother who communicated by text and joked that he had to learn to not get caught.  On the day of the shooting, his parents were called in after he was seen watching a violent video in class, drawing guns and a bleeding body on a math worksheet and writing several nihilistic statements. The counselor was concerned that he might be suicidal. During the meeting the Dean of Students brought in Ethan’s back pack but nobody searched it.  The handgun was in the backpack.  He returned to school from that meeting with his backpack and started the shooting (2).  

In a related matter – there is a civil suit but the trail of that paperwork is difficult to follow.  The original suit against the school and staff was dropped but a subsequent suit against the counselor and Dean of Students was allowed to proceed. There was also a lawsuit against the Michigan State police.

From what I know about this case so far, it appears that Jennifer Crumbley’s trial was primarily an attack on her character. Combined with hindsight that is a powerful approach to find someone guilty of a crime.  I looked up the definition of involuntary manslaughter in the state of Michigan according to this reference it requires proving one of 2 theories:

1:  That the deaths were caused by grossly negligent actions of the defendant

2:  That the defendant neglected her duty as a parent to “exercise reasonable care to control their minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others.”

There is a lot of room between "gross negligence" and "reasonable care." In this case the parents were responsive to school authorities and those responses at the time satisfied those authorities to the point that they allowed Ethan to return to school.  

Applicable laws in the State of Michigan state that handgun purchasers must be 18 years of age to purchase from a private seller and 21 years of age to purchase from a federal licensed firearms dealer (FFL).  The handgun purchase in this case occurred when Ethan Crumbley was 15 years of age.  Michigan will not have a safe storage law for firearms until February 13, 2024.  The law mandates that unattended firearms must be locked and unloaded and it defines crimes and penalties for problems that occur as a result of violations defined as behavior ranging from threats to deaths resulting from unauthorized access to that firearm.  Since the Oxford school shootings occurred in November 2021 – that law does not apply. 

The medical literature has a few studies that appear to address the issue of age-related firearm purchases and homicide and suicide.  The authors of one study (6) found no correlation between higher age requirements and homicide rates of 18-20 year olds; but discuss the reasons why that was the case.  Most of those reasons come back to the firearm density in the United States and how easy it is to access firearms through back channels.  Any casual inspection of those firearm density figures in the United States – shows an incredible number of firearms even relative to war zones across the globe. The United States ranks 9^th in gun homicides.  The 8 countries ranking higher all have significant amounts of gang and cartel related violence, some to the point that it is driving the current immigrant crisis at the southern border.  Five of those 8 countries have the highest crime index.  Four have the highest homicide rates.  The US has the gun homicide rate of lawless low and middle income (LMIC) countries.  

The cultural effects of gun extremism are never discussed as being a cause of gun violence in the United States.  Over the past 50 years, gun extremists have pushed for increasing accessibility to firearms by shall issue laws, stand your ground laws, fewer restrictions, and loopholes that allow back door access to firearms. In the process, common sense gun laws that were developed in the 19^th century, like city ordinances that forbade carrying guns in town have fallen by the wayside.  Some gun extremists are pushing to eliminate domestic violence charges as a disqualifier for gun possession. In that landscape there is a subcultural effect that (for some) guns are a legitimate way to express anger or dissatisfaction in school or the workplace. Nobody is standing up against that myth.  If anything, the gun extremists are rationalizing it as mental illness or not enough guns (arm the teachers) rather than far, far too many guns.

That is what I think about when I think about the Jennifer Crumbley verdict. In many ways she was set up to take a fall for 50 years of gun extremism. Certainly, her son should have never had a handgun.  But do other parents buy firearms for their children?  They certainly pose them with guns on Christmas cards. When I was a kid 50 years ago – no kid had one and it was the law. There was a good reason for it and that reason was not discovered until the 21^st century.  Teenagers may look like adults but they do not have the brain development or judgment of adults. Combining that with a general culture of gun extremism and a subculture of mass shootings is a recipe for disaster. Until we recognize the cultural effects and how guns became part of the culture wars – we will not be able to stop this violence and loss of life.  

Parents may have become the next casualty.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Photo Credit to my colleague Eduardo A. Colon, MD

References:

1:  El-Bawab N.  Jennifer Crumbley says she wishes son had 'killed us instead' as she took stand in manslaughter trial.  February 1, 2024.  https://abcnews.go.com/US/jennifer-crumbley-takes-stand-manslaughter-trial-tied-sons/story

2:  Snell R.  Oxford school shooting victim's family sues Michigan State Police in latest legal challenge.  October 5, 2023  https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/10/05/oxford-school-shooting-victims-family-sues-michigan-state-police/71074873007/

3:  Stack MK.  What Is This Mother Really Guilty Of?  New York Times.  Febnruary 1, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/opinion/mother-homicide-court-crumbley.html

4:  Strom S. Michigan Involuntary Manslaughter Law.  FindLaw.  February 7, 2024. https://www.findlaw.com/state/michigan-law/michigan-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html

5:  Associated Press.  Timeline: Key moments surrounding the 2021 Michigan high school shooting as mother of shooter is found guilty.  https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/timeline-key-moments-surrounding-the-2021-michigan-high-school-shooting-as-mother-of-shooter-is-found-guilty/3348384/

6:  Moe CA, Haviland MJ, Bowen AG, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Rivara FP. Association of Minimum Age Laws for Handgun Purchase and Possession With Homicides Perpetrated by Young Adults Aged 18 to 20 Years. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Nov 1;174(11):1056-1062. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3182. Erratum in: JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Nov 1;174(11):1119. PMID: 32870238; PMCID: PMC7489426.

The Only Gun Legislation In the Past 30 years Is Nothing To Get Excited About

 

The only thing more annoying than seeing self-congratulatory legislators not solving another problem is when they discuss their rationale for their latest decision.  That was in full view on CBS This Morning Today as Tony Dokoupil interviewed four senators Chris Murphy (D), Thom Tilis (R), John Conryn (R), and Kyrsten Sinema (I).  In the interview Sen. Murphy suggests there is evidence that “the law is starting to have some impact” according to “criminologists”.

But what is the evidence?  A summary of the bill is available at this link and it is more readable that the final version on the same web site. One of the provisions was enhanced background checks for gun purchasers 18-21 years of age.  That has resulted in 230 denials. Sen. Tilis commented that 107,000 people between the ages of 18-21 applied to purchase a gun and therefore only 0.2% were denied. No comment on the negatives of putting another 100,000 guns out on the street. I tried to find data on the NICS database but it is not available for 2022.  We don't know if a 0.2% denial rate is an exception or if it is expected.  This report states the overall denial rate was 3.92%.  He goes on to say he is proud of the fact that they have passed the “biggest investment in mental health” in history and “we all agree that behavioral health had to be the foundation of everything we did.”  

Hold on Senator! Granted I am only a psychiatrist and not a behavioral health expert – but this seems like bullshit to me. The federal government and their cronies in behavioral health managed care have been rationing services while making massive profits for the past 30 years. It is as likely that your funding intervention will have as much impact as it did on the opioid epidemic.  It also happens to be a gun extremist narrative to divert attention from the primary problem of far too many guns.

Senator Sinema suggests that “every single person” who picks up a firearm and engages in mass violence is mentally disturbed.  If that were true (and it is not) – the suggested funding through the usual channels will not impact mass shooters. Mass shooters are a product of gun extremism. They see politicians every day talking about guns as the solution to many problems. Stand your ground laws that encourage both gun violence and exoneration of the gun user. They see people being shot and killed or shot at for trivial reasons.  They see indignant gun extremists claiming that “the government” wants to kick your door down and confiscate your guns – even though with the massive number of guns in this country it is physically impossible.  They see armed “militia” intimidating state legislators on their own capitol grounds. They see social media threats about the use of arms. Most importantly – they see daily mass shootings in the United States and nobody doing anything about it. Politicians seem to blame the victims, in some cases the police, or globally “wrong place-wrong time.” You do not have to be mentally ill to be confused or driven by those messages and emotion.

Most notably – there continues to be no background checks for all gun buyers and no assault weapons ban.  There was some joking about not being able to agree on a definition of an assault weapon.  That is a basic definition and it has been defined by Congress in the past but it appeared to be off the table for this crew.

Dokoupil makes a point that violence in America seems to drive legislation and maybe the tradeoff for a Second Amendment is that there will always be violence in America. He cites examples of gangsters in the 1930s and violence in the 1970s with riots and radical politics.  That is a good sound bite but it ignores the fact that there has been no gun legislation through the past 30 years of gun violence and this anemic bill was the result of a level of gun violence that should have been an embarrassment for any legislator.  He misses the obvious point that even in the Wild West (see Tombstone Ordinance of 1881), you had to check your gun when you came into town and post-World War II we had decades of common sense gun legislation that did not involve the massive carrying of firearms.  During those decades – nobody under the age of 21 could own a handgun, guns were used for hunting, and the Second Amendment was interpreted the way it was written.  During those decades the NRA was focused on gun safety and hunting rather than flooding the streets with guns. 

There was some rhetoric about how an extreme mass shooting incident led to the bipartisanship necessary to pass this mediocre bill. First off - that is an extremely high bar.  How many catastrophes does it take to move Congress?  The answer is obviously hundreds. Secondly, it is obvious that partisanship was alive and well right in the room.  None of the Senators could even touch the assault rifle issue? Assuring the rights of people refused firearm purchases was a higher priority?  Gun extremism is alive and well and as long as one party finds it necessary to fan the culture war flames - very little movement would seem possible and that is exactly what we have seen for decades.  

The gun extremism of one political party and their judges is the current problem. An atmosphere of unabated gun extremism is unlikely to have any desired effect on mass shootings, gun homicides, gun suicides, or accidental deaths. I have attached a few paragraphs on what gun extremism is below. This is my definition. I have written about potential solutions in the past – but clearly people would rather listen to the clear thinking of their elected officials instead.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Previous Posts:

Likely and Unlikely Causes of Mass Shootings

Another Note on Gun Extremism - An Appeal to Grandparents

Gun Extremism Not Mental Illness

Elements of Gun Extremism

1:  Misinterpreting the Second Amendment:

The culture war political party and their judges ignore the text of the Amendment which is simply:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun extremists ignore the preamble that gives the rationale for the right to bear arms and instead isolate the clause about the right to keep and bear arms and generalize it to the entire population and any firearms.  The well-regulated Militia in this case is every states National Guard.  Arms in those days were muzzle loaders that could fire 2 rounds per minute if you were an expert contrasted with 45 rounds per minute from an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. A fully automatic AR-15 can fire 700-900 rounds per minute. Courts have taken additional steps to say that gun permits can be superfluous and that anyone requesting one should be issued one – with rare exceptions.  Local legislatures have gone ahead with permitless carry and concealed carry laws.

In debating gun extremists, a common argument is that it is protection from tyranny and that is why the Amendment is there.  When I suggested that using weapons against the US government was treason, a famous gun advocate suggested “it would depend on who won.”  Clearly there is nothing about tyranny associated with the amendment.  Gun extremists favor lawlessness and insurrection.  Their judges do as well.

2:  Putting everyone at risk:

One of the famous gun extremist arguments is that more guns results in less crime.  That is clearly not the case and the number of defensive uses of firearms does not have a significant impact on crime.  In the meantime, there are more gun suicides, homicides, accidental deaths, mass shootings, and deaths from the impulsive use of an available firearm in the US than any other high income country.

3:  Increased risk with handguns and assault rifles:

Before the gun extremism culture took over – guns in the US were used for hunting and target shooting. Some people thought they were necessary for self-defense but they were clearly in the minority.  The NRA ran Hunter Safety Courses to teach safe use of hunting firearms.  Gun extremism is a result of the culture wars approach to American politics. When one party realized they did not have much to run on they decided to make a few things up.  Gun extremism was one of those results.   Gun extremism has resulted in the proliferation of handguns and assault rifles.  Both of those weapons are designed for shooting people not wildlife. Gun extremists try to minimize the role of assault rifles by claiming that they are not fully automatic like the military version but they can still release a flurry of high velocity rounds capable of penetrating many walls – as fast as you can pull the trigger.  That is not a hunting firearm.  No need for a lot of physics - just recall that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of the square of its velocity.  Weapons with high muzzle velocity like assault rifles will have much more energy to damage the target.

4:  Increased risk with permitless carry:

 As the gun extremists became more radical there was a progression of loosening of gun regulations.  Initially to carry guns in public you had to have a permits. In many states that required an application and background check from a county Sheriff.  For a concealed carry permit, training was required. Continued radicalization has resulted in the abolition of many of those laws so that you can purchase a handgun and carry a concealed handgun without a permit or training.  You just must meet minor age criteria. It is obvious that this is the goal of gun extremists across the USA.  Permitless carry will make every community more dangerous. Just ask your local men and women of law enforcement. 

5: The idea that gun carriers are supermen or superwomen:

In other words if you meet criteria to carry a gun your were by definition responsible and did not make any mistakes leading to the loss of life or injury. Epidemiology teaches that just having a gun on the premises greatly increases the likelihood of death by accidental injury or suicide. Every year hundreds of police officers are injured by accidental discharge of their firearms and they have more extensive and ongoing firearms training than typical gun owners, especially in this era of vanishing qualifications. The obvious political goal of gun extremists is to eliminate any qualifications except for age and possibly (if a NICS check is run) a history of felony crime or domestic violence.   

6:  The new era of shoot first ask questions later:

There have been many incidents in the news of people being shot at and in some cases killed for ringing a doorbell or accidentally driving down the wrong road. In well televised road rage incident, a man fires several rounds from a semiautomatic handgun through his own windshield at a car he mistakenly thought had fired a gun at him.  Not a thought about how far those bullets travel and who else he might hit on a busy freeway. Is this the kind of country we want to live in?  This is the country we currently have courtesy of gun extremists. 

7:  All we have to do is enforce existing laws:

This is a favorite of gun extremists as they continue to roll back existing gun laws. The also use the slogan "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them."  That slogan is obviously flawed at two levels.  First, nobody has ever suggested outlawing guns and as I pointed out earlier - it is physically impossible at this point.  Secondly, nobody seems to consider where outlaws get guns. A large source is theft from legal gun owners. About 380,000 guns are stolen in 250,000 incidents in the USA each year.  In other words, one of the largest sources of illegal guns in the hands of outlaws is legal guns from legal gun owners.   Keeping the streets flooded with guns keeps that process going. 

Image Credit:  Thanks to Rick Ziegler.

 

Killer Mike's Gun Recommendations for Families

I watched TMZ Live yesterday. They interviewed the rapper Killer Mike. Harvey Levin was his usual overcomplimentary self. He asked the rapper about his recommendation that every family should have "multiple guns, all sorts of guns" and this is what he said:

"5 - 5. I have always just said 5. You should have a revolver, a semi-automatic pistol, you should have a shotgun, you should have one bolt action rifle, and you should have a semi-automatic rifle."

When questioned about the semi-automatic rifle:

"I said semi-automatic, military is fully automatic. It's not military - it just looks cool. It can look like a race car but it doesn't go 200 miles an hour. My thing is simply this - the founders of the Constitution saw a need to fight tyranny at some point and they believed that that could happen again so they wrote that provision so to get to the ultimate answer you got to dig up those old white guys and ask them. I'm simply applying - I'm going by the rules that were given to me in the Constitution - nothing more-nothing less."

When asked about the risk of an increasingly armed and divided population, Killer Mike points out that the fastest growing group of gun owners is black women and he does not want to get in the way of black people enjoying their freedom.

In terms of stopping gun violence he was in agreement with curfew and an exception for working adolescents. He believes that no new gun laws are needed and echoes the line that there are enough laws to take care of the problem already on the books and that criminals are not going to follow the laws anyway. That ignores the fact that almost all mass shooters have no criminal record and in many cases have recently purchased firearms that they use in the mass shooting crime.  Instead he recommends "Stop the Bleed" classes and joining gun associations or gun clubs. His rational is that if you have a tool that can cause harm you should be educated about what to do for that harm.  Unfortunately if you get hit anywhere in the body - the education you will need is how to be a trauma surgeon and even then you had better be at a Level 1 trauma center. 

Consistent with the previous writing on this blog Killer Mike is clearly behind gun extremism and normalizing it as a constitutionally derived right. Obvious gun extremist rhetoric includes the claim that just because an assault rifle is not fully automatic it is somehow less worrisome. Anyone who has fired an AR-15 knows that you can fire as many high velocity rounds just as fast as you can pull the trigger and if that gun is discharged in a residential community that bullet is going a long way and in some cases through multiple buildings.  In fact, all of the weapons he recommends for the family will penetrate multiple walls and are a potential risk for the entire neighborhood.  The normalization of assault rifles by the NRA and Republican party was a move away from the use of guns for hunting to the use of guns for killing people and there is no way around it.  From the testing link this was a quote about the assault rifle result.  It speaks to the mechanism of assault rifles as a combination of high velocity and bullet deformation and tumbling:

"Though the 5.56 bullets showed the most deformation, they were also terribly penetrative (19 panels, or nine walls) and, beyond the first two or three panels, created relatively large holes as they tumbled along their paths."

Just as a reminder this is the full text of the Second Amendment:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Nothing about tyranny. Gun extremists ignore the preamble. The "well regulated militia" these days is each state's National Guard.  This country went through a period of gun regulation that was widely accepted and reasonable until one political party realized they did not have many ideas to run on and decided to make guns a part of that culture war. I don't know Killer Mike's political affiliations.  There may be a subcultural effect since this same show regularly reports gun violence and deaths within the rapper community.  

The problem with all forms of extremism is that it is an appeal to emotion and it typically ignores the facts. Killer Mike sees the problem as encroaching on the rights of black people but that doesn't address the problem that firearm homicides have increased in the black community by 39% from 2019-2020 (1). We know that the political rhetoric that more guns for defensive purposes does not put a dent in those numbers and that these are almost always impulsive homicides based on gun availability.

The answer to how to reduce gun violence is not increasing guns and I don't care what your rationale is - but that is the residue of this interview that started with that question.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Kegler SR, Simon TR, Zwald ML, et al. Vital Signs: Changes in Firearm Homicide and Suicide Rates — United States, 2019–2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:656–663. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7119e1