D.C. United

Two events during the past month have demonstrated with striking clarity the viewpoint of D.C. residents regarding gun violence and firearm regulation.

The first was the "Second Amendment March," which took place at the Washington Monument on the National Mall on April 19. Organized by Skip Coryell, a gun enthusiast from Michigan, the mission of the rally was “to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.”

Approximately 2,000 individuals from across the country listened to far-right-wing speakers like Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt tell them, "We're in a war. The other side knows they are at war, because they started it. They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of Socialists." For his part, Skip Coryell opined that his God-given rights were being infringed because he could not carry a fully automatic assault rifle on the National Mall.

Few—if any—residents of the District of the Columbia attended the rally.

Nearly three weeks later on May 5, D.C.’s elected officials, local victims of gun violence, voting rights organizations, and community groups stood together at a press conference to denounce legislation that would dramatically weaken the city’s gun laws. S. 3265/H.R. 5162, the “Second Amendment Enforcement Act,” was recently introduced in Congress by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Tester (D-MT) and Representatives Travis Childers (D-MS) and Mark Souder (R-IN). Drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the legislation would legalize assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in the nation’s capital; repeal the District's licensing and registration system; allow some convicted substance abusers and violent misdemeanants to purchase and own firearms; roll back important regulations curbing illegal gun trafficking; and prevent the D.C. Council from enacting gun-related legislation in the future.

Speaking at the press conference at city hall were D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty; D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray; and Council Members Phil Mendelson, Michael Brown, David Catania, Marion Barry, Harry Thomas, Jr. and Muriel Bowser. Last month, the council unanimously approved a resolution that stated their opposition to “any [legislation] that would restrict the Council’s authority to legislate laws or regulations that restrict the private ownership or use of firearms or that would repeal major portions of the District’s firearms regulation law.” They were joined at the event by local and national organizations including Reaching Out to Others Together (ROOT), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, DC for Democracy, DC Vote, Peaceoholics, Inner Thoughts and Safe in the Streetz.

The most powerful testimony, however, came from family members who lost loved ones
to gun violence in the District. This included Nardyne Jefferies, whose 16-year-old daughter Brishell Jones was killed in the March 30 mass shooting in Southeast Washington involving an AK-47; Brishell’s two grandmothers; and Norman Williams, who lost his son Jordan Howe in the March 30 shooting. Williams had a decidedly different take on assault rifles than Skip Coryell. “Those weapons belong in Afghanistan or something,” Williams said. “They don’t belong here.” Nardyne Jefferies agreed, noting the damage such a weapon had done to her daughter.

After the press conference, these gun violence survivors traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. In a statement this week, Del. Norton said, “I am grateful that the victims of last month's massacre are not standing alone, but have been joined by the voting rights coalition and organizations that have always stood up for our right to enact gun safety laws. Together we must expose Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate who profess to be for self-government, and then sponsor bills to take away the self-governing rights of the District of Columbia, even though the federal courts have now found the District's new gun laws to be constitutional."

Mayor Fenty agreed with these sentiments, saying, “Any introduction of a law which would introduce more guns into the streets of Washington, D.C. would be a law that would set us back from a public safety standpoint. Great to see the unity here today. Great to see everybody coming out saying, ‘Let’s have less guns. Let’s continue to reduce crime in Washington, D.C.’”

Kenny Barnes, the founder of ROOT who organized the press conference, was even more effusive. “Incredible, what took place today,” he said. “It was historic, and we’re all united to try to stop violence.”

"Nothing came up."

On February 12, professor Amy Bishop, 45, sat with her colleagues in a biology faculty meeting at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Suddenly, without warning, she drew a semi-automatic 9 mm handgun and began methodically shooting those sitting closest to her. Bishop killed three and critically wounded three other colleagues before her weapon jammed. Faculty members were then able to push her out of the room and barricade the door. “She looked like she was intent on doing this, and she was angry,” said one of the survivors. Bishop was arrested outside the university shortly after calling her husband, James Anderson, to pick her up. As she was placed in a police car, she quietly muttered, “It didn’t happen ... There’s no way … They are still alive.”

The shooting occurred after the university had denied Bishop’s last appeal for tenure. Her husband said she was frustrated with what he called a “tough, long, hard battle.” He also indicated she recently acquired the handgun used in the shootings. Bishop would only say that she borrowed the gun and was “cagey” about the details, according to Anderson. He had joined her in a trip to an indoor shooting range where she practiced her marksmanship.

After the massacre, Alabama police officials ran a background check on Bishop. “Nothing came up,” they reported. That nothing did is disturbing, and speaks to how America’s weak gun laws are incapable of stopping individuals who are clearly violent and deranged from legally acquiring guns.

Within hours after the shooting, news reports began to surface about Bishop’s bizarre past... In 1986, she fatally shot her 18-year old brother in their hometown of Braintree, Massachusetts. According to a police report, Bishop—who was 21 at the time—was trying to unload the family’s shotgun and accidentally discharged it into her bedroom wall. She then came downstairs to ask her mother for assistance and allegedly discharged the weapon as her brother walked past her in the kitchen, killing him. Bishop then ran out of the house, discharging the weapon into the wall on her way out.

Bishop fled to a nearby auto repair shop, where she entered the storefront and began searching for car keys. When two nearby men came to investigate, she turned her shotgun on them and told them to get their hands up. As one of the men recalled, Bishop was saying, “I need a car, I need to get out of here,” and ranting about how “[her husband] would be looking for her, and that if he found her he would kill her.” [Bishop was not married at the time.] Finally, police arrived. “I drew my service revolver and yelled three times ‘drop the rifle’,” Officer Timothy Murphy remembers. “After the third time, she did.” Bishop, however, was released from jail within hours and not questioned until 11 days later. She was never charged with any crime.

The man who was the Chief of the Braintree Police Department at the time, John Polio, said he never saw the police report in the case and called the investigation “shoddy and definitely fishy.” “To say someone accidentally fired a shot gun three times is crazy,” Polio states.

In 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) questioned Bishop and her husband about two pipe bombs that were sent to Dr. Paul Rosenberg, a former colleague of Bishop’s at Boston’s Children Hospital. Rosenberg told ATF investigators that he played a role in Bishop’s resignation as a postdoctorate research fellow at the hospital’s neurobiology lab, explaining that Bishop “exhibited violent behavior” and “was not stable.” Another witness recalled that, “Anderson stated that he wanted to get back at Dr. Rosenberg and that he wanted to shoot him, bomb him, stab him or strangle [him].” The couple was never charged and the case remains unsolved to this day.

A third incident in Peabody, Massachusetts, occurred in 2002, when Bishop was arrested for punching a woman in the head at an International House of Pancakes after the woman took the restaurant’s last booster seat. According to the police report, Bishop struck the woman while yelling, “I am Dr. Amy Bishop!” Bishop was charged with assault, battery, and disorderly conduct. She eventually admitted to the assault, served probation, and the charges against her were dismissed.

How could someone with so many red flags in her background possibly come up clear in a background check?

There has been no formal confirmation from ATF as to where Bishop got her handgun, but she was a legal firearm purchaser under federal law. Federal law prohibits convicted felons, those under active restraining orders, those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution or adjudicated as a “mental defective” from purchasing guns (along with certain other categories). Individuals purchasing guns from Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers (FFLs) are run through the FBI’s National Instant Computer Background Check System (NICS) and, sometimes, through a state database. Because Bishop did fall under any of the prohibited categories mentioned above, she had no disqualifying records in the system.

An instant computer check (normally completed in a matter of minutes), however, is no background investigation. Only a few states in the country license handgun purchasers and conduct such investigations (i.e., New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts), in addition to running them through the NICS system (virtually every other industrialized democracy has licensing and registration processes for firearm purchasers that include background investigations). These investigations can involve detailed questionnaires and interviews with character witnesses (i.e., spouses, co-workers, friends, etc.). Law enforcement is typically given the discretion to deny licenses to individuals who present a threat to public safety.

Such background investigations are capable of yielding important information about individuals like Amy Bishop who fall through the cracks of a computer check but present numerous red flags in their backgrounds. Not coincidentally, states that conduct such investigations on handgun purchasers have some of the lowest gun death rates in the country.

The gun lobby has effectively bullied America’s legislators into believing that even minor inconveniences during the gun purchasing process are “infringements” on Second Amendment rights. But does anyone seriously believe that a system that is incapable of stopping individuals like Amy Bishop from buying guns would have been endorsed by our Founders? Or that they would have failed to see it as an obvious threat to individual liberty, given the resulting carnage?

The Lessons of Fort Hood

On November 5, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a licensed Army psychiatrist, walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center on Fort Hood military base in Killeen, Texas. After yelling “Allahu akbar,” Hasan, 39, opened fired with a semiautomatic handgun, killing 13 people (12 of them Soldiers) and wounding 32 others before he was shot by military police. Hasan sustained multiple injuries and is currently hospitalized in stable condition at an Army hospital in San Antonio. He will face 13 charges of premeditated murder in a military court.

The Fort Hood shooting ranks as the nation's worst ever on a military installation. It also has raised new fears about terrorist attacks on the homeland, as Hasan had been in contact with a radical imam that has praised the killings.

The U.S. Congress is now preparing to investigate the shooting to determine what action they might take to prevent similar tragedies in the future. Later in the month, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), will begin hearings on the subject. As these inquiries commence, we would urge legislators to take several important actions concerning America’s gun laws:

1) Close the “Terror Gap” in Gun Purchasing Laws and Allow Federal Agencies to Share Critical Information
A May 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 865 individuals on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List were allowed to purchase firearms from federally licensed gun dealers between February 2004 and February 2009. Amazingly, while individuals on the FBI’s list are prohibited from boarding planes, they can purchase as many guns as they want as long as they can pass an instant computer background check.

While there has been no indication from federal officials that Hasan was on the Terrorist Watch List, the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated Hasan after they discovered 10-20 email communications between him and Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, a radical imam now living in Yemen, was known to have associated with two of the 9/11 hijackers. Hasan worshipped at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque, led at the time by al-Alwaki, in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 along with the two hijackers.

When Hasan purchased his weapons in August 2009, the Joint Terrorism Task Force was not informed. An NRA-drafted provision in the “Tiahrt Amendments” attached to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) appropriations bill requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to destroy completed background check records within 24 hours. The NRA has also been able to enact restrictions that restrict federal agencies from sharing information about legal gun purchases.

"The piece of information about the gun could have been critical," said former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett. "One of the problems is that the law sometimes restricts you in what you can do." "We need to be smarter about sharing information," added former 9/11 commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. "It's very disturbing to see…that the FBI is precluded from sharing information."

There is no rational reason to allow potential terrorists to purchase firearms. The U.S. Congress should act immediately to pass S. 1317—sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)—and H.R. 2159, sponsored by Representative Peter King (R-NY). This legislation would give DOJ the discretion—subject to judicial review— to block gun sales to individuals on the Terrorist Watch List. Congress should also remove current information-sharing restrictions on federal agencies so that they can better monitor gun purchases.

2) Oppose and Defeat the “Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act”
In the U.S. Senate, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) has offered a legislative proposal, the “Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,” that would require that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to stop submitting the records of those found to “lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs” to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The immediate effect of this measure would be the removal of approximately 116,000 such records already in the system. These individuals would be free to purchase and own firearms even if the VA determined they are “mentally incapacitated,” “mentally incompetent,” or “experiencing an extended loss of consciousness.”

Senator Burr’s legislation would put veterans, their families, and the public in danger. Researchers are predicting that the rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among veterans returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom could be as high as 35%. Furthermore, the Army suicide rate is at its highest level in three decades. The New York Times reported that “at least 128 soldiers killed themselves [in 2008], and the Army suicide rate surpassed that for civilians for the first time since the Vietnam War.” All told, 12,000 veterans under VA care attempt suicide each year. A 2007 study by researchers at Portland State University and Oregon Health & Science University found that male veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide as their civilian counterparts. The study also found that veterans are 58% more likely to use firearms to commit suicide than non-veterans.

The shooting at Fort Hood wasn’t the only recent tragedy to remind us of how lethal the combination of mental illness and guns can be. Just two days after Hasan’s attack, a 63 year-old veteran suffering from PTSD opened fire while being escorted out of a bar in Vail, Colorado, killing one and injuring three.

The “Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act” is an affront to common sense and the well-being of America’s veterans and should be rejected by Congress.

3) Enact Licensing Laws for Handgun Purchasers
Currently, only 11 states in the entire country require the licensing of handgun purchasers. Of these, nine states conduct a thorough background investigation on licensees that goes far beyond a simple instant computer check through the FBI’s National Instant Computer Background Check System (NICS).

The problem with NICS checks (like the one which Hasan passed at Guns Galore) is that they lack critical information from state and local authorities. According to a Third Way report entitled “Missing Records,” “91% of those adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed cannot be stopped by a gun buyer background check” because their disqualifying records are not in the system. In addition, one out of four felony conviction records are not in NICS. Third Way’s overall assessment of the database is that it is “deeply flawed.”

Would a background investigation (as opposed to a computer check) have stopped Nidal Malik Hasan from purchasing a handgun? Possibly.

There were several red flags in Hasan’s background that suggested he might have been a threat to himself or others. He had been working with service members suffering from PTSD for more than six years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and experienced problems that required counseling.. He had also begun openly opposing America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and espousing extremist Islamic views. While a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed, Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation to mental health staff members which concluded, “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” In the Spring of 2008 and again in the Spring of 2009, key officials from Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences met and expressed concern about Hasan's behavior, which fellow students and faculty had described as "disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent and schizoid."

Finally, as described above, Hasan was being monitored by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force because of emails he had exchanged with the radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki. The FBI was also investigating whether he was behind violent anti-American comments left on a website under the screen name of "NidalHasan."

None of these warning signs were revealed by the NICS check that Hasan underwent at Guns Galore. But any or all of this information might have been uncovered by a background investigation if Hasan had had to obtain a license in order to purchase a handgun. Such investigations typically involve interviews with licensees’ family, friends, and co-workers/colleagues.

Because instant computer checks are imperfect, the U.S. Congress should adopt licensing standards for handgun purchasers similar to those enacted in New York and New Jersey. This would help ensure that dangerous individuals do not legally acquire handguns.

4) Regulate High-Powered Firearms on the Civilian Market
Hasan used a Belgian-made FN Herstal Five-seveN semi-automatic pistol during the shooting which he legally purchased at Guns Galore in Killeen. The weapon's name refers to its 5.7 mm bullet diameter. The Five-seveN is popular with U.S Secret Service agents and police SWAT teams because of its ability to penetrate body armor. It is also popular with the Mexican drug cartels, who call the Five-seveN the “Mata Policia” (“Cop Killer”).

The Legislative Director of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Steve Lenkhart, has called the Five-seveN "an assault rifle that fits in your pocket."

FN Herstal maintains that armor-piercing ammunition for the Five-seveN is only available to law enforcement and military personnel. However, when first launched for civilian sales, FN officials advertised that “enemy personnel, even wearing body armor can be effectively engaged up to 200 meters.” Additionally, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence tested the Five-seveN in January 2005 with commercially-available SS192 ammunition and found that it penetrated both Level IIA and Level IIIA body armor.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence joined the Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, Freedom States Alliance, and States United to Prevent Gun Violence on a November 19 letter urging President Obama to use existing executive authority to prohibit the importation of the Five-seveN as well as 5.7X28mm ammunition with armor-piercing capabilities.

The Point of No Return

Two recent undercover investigations, by the City of New York and a researcher at UC Davis, drew national attention by exposing widespread illegal activity at America’s gun shows. But however shocking these studies might have been, they contained no new revelations.

It has now been ten years since “The Gun Show Loophole” became a household term following the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. It is well-known that the shooters at Columbine obtained firearms through Denver-area gun shows, but two new books—Dave Cullen’s Columbine and Jeff Kass’ Columbine: A True Crime Story—have shed light on how weak federal and state gun laws were purposefully exploited in the tragedy.

A Tragedy of Epic Proportions
On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold drove to their high school in Columbine with an arsenal of bombs, guns and ammunition. Their subsequent rampage lasted approximately 45 minutes and left 13 dead (one teacher and 12 students) and 24 injured. Harris, armed with a Hi-Point 995 9mm carbine rifle (with thirteen 10-round magazines) and a Savage-Springfield 67H sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, would fire a total of 124 rounds during the shooting. Klebold, armed with an Intratec Tec-9 semiautomatic assault pistol (with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine) and a Stevens 311D double-barreled, sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, would fire 64 rounds. Their final rounds were used to take their own lives.

The plans for the mass shooting had begun to take shape in the fall of 1997. On November 3, 1997, it was mentioned for the first time when Klebold wrote in his diary, “[Name blocked] will get me a gun. I’ll go on my killing spree against anyone I want.” What Klebold had in mind was a “straw purchase,” where a prohibited purchaser recruits another individual to buy guns on his behalf—a federal felony offense for both parties.

Both Klebold and Harris were intimately familiar with existing gun laws. On November 12, 1998, Harris referred to Jim Brady and the 1994 “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” in his diary, writing, “Fuck you Brady! All I want is a couple of guns, and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any! Come on, I’ll have a clean record and I only want them for personal protection. It’s not like I’m some psycho who would go on a shooting spree….fuckers. I’ll probably end up nuking everything and fucking robbing some gun collector’s house. Fuck, that’ll be hard. Oh well, just as long as I kill a lot of fucking people. Everyone is always making fun of me because of how I look, how fucking weak I am and shit, well I will get you all back, ultimate fucking revenge here ... Guns! I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms!”

Harris was being playful and sarcastic. He knew that getting guns would not be difficult, despite the fact that at age 17, he and Klebold were barred under federal law from buying both long guns (minimum age 18) and handguns (21). Harris had previously written an essay about the Brady Act for school. “The FBI just shot themselves in the foot,” he declared. “There are a few loopholes in the new Brady bill. The biggest gaping hole is that the background checks are only required for licensed dealers…not private dealers.”

Too Easy
Just ten days after Harris cursed Jim Brady in his diary, he and Klebold would exploit that loophole. On November 22, 1998, they brought Robyn Anderson, an 18 year-old friend of Klebold’s, to the Tanner Gun show in Denver. There, Anderson purchased three of the guns used in the shootings (the Hi-Point 9mm rifle and two shotguns) for Klebold and Harris through three different private sellers. As these sellers were (supposedly) “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, Anderson never had to undergo a background or fill out any paperwork. Only one of the three sellers checked her driver’s license to see if she was of legal age to purchase long guns. Klebold and Harris were able to buy ammunition at the show themselves. The entire process took only about an hour.

In a statement she released after the shootings, Anderson said, "I think it was clear to the sellers that the guns were for Eric and Dylan. They were the only ones asking all the questions and handling the guns ... It was too easy. I wish it would have been more difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a criminal background check." Of the private seller that sold him his Stevens shotgun through Anderson, Klebold wrote, “He knew I was fucking buying it.”

That night, Harris was ecstatic as he wrote in his journal: “Well folks, today was a very important day in the history of Reb [Harris’ nickname] today, along with Vodka [Klebold’s nickname] and someone else who I won’t name, we went downtown and purchased the following: a double barrel 12 ga. Shotgun, a pump action 12 ga. Shotgun, a 9mm carbine, 250 9mm rounds, 15 12 ga slugs, 40 shotgun shells, 2 switch blade knives, and a total of 4 10-round clips for the carbine. We ...... have ...... GUNS! we fucking got them you sons of bitches! HA! HA HA HA! Neener! Booga Booga. Heh. It’s all over now. This capped it off, the point of no return. You know what’s weird, I don’t feel like punching through a door...probably cause I am fucking armed. I feel more confident, stronger, more God-like.”

The purchases made Harris hungry for more firearms. On December 3, 1998, he wrote in his diary, “I’m gonna still try and get my calico 9mm. Just think, 100 rounds without reloading.... hell yeah! We actually may have a chance to get some machine pistols thanks to the Brady bill. If we can save up about $200 real quick and find someone who is 21+ we can go to the next gun show and find a private dealer and buy ourselves some bad-ass AB-10 machine pistols. Clips for those things can get really fucking [big] too.”

On December 18, 1998, Harris, paid for nine magazines of 9mm ammunition at Green Mountain Guns in Lakewood, Colorado. The store ordered the ammo for the 17 year-old, and Harris was able to pick it up on December 29.

The duo then got the assault pistol they were looking for. On January 23, 1999, Harris and Klebold met Blackjack Pizza co-worker Philip Duran, 22, and his friend Mark Manes, 21, at the same Denver gun show they attended with Robyn Anderson. They shopped around for Tec-9s before Manes agrees to sell Klebold and Harris one he owned for $500. Klebold gave him a down payment of $300 that night and took possession of the gun.

From February through March 1999, Harris, Klebold, Duran and Manes would hone their marksmanship together in a forested area outside Denver known as Rampart Range. On the third and last trip to the shooting range on March 6, Duran filmed the outing with a camera that Harris and Klebold had taken from Columbine High. In the video, Klebold and Harris can be seen gleefully firing their newly acquired firearms. Nine days later, Harris and Klebold would record the first of their “Basement Tape” videos and thank Duran and Manes. Klebold observes, “We used them, like you use a horse to carry shit.” And they add one final round of thanks: “Thanks to the gun show, and to Robyn. Robyn is very cool.”

One final purchase was made the day before the shootings. On April 19, 1999, Manes went to Kmart and bought 100 rounds of 9mm ammo for Harris. Harris picked it up from Manes’ house that evening.

A History of Violence
In the wake of the shootings, commentators focused on Klebold and Harris’ age (17) when discussing their illegal gun purchases. But even if the two had been of legal age to purchase firearms, there were numerous red flags in their background that are eerily similar to ones we continue to see today in school shooters like Seung-Hui Cho and Stephen Kazmierczak. These warning signs included:

• August 7, 1997—Teenager Aaron Brown reports Eric Harris’ website to the Jefferson County Police. The website contains information about homemade bombs and acts of neighborhood vandalism. Police meet with the Brown family and are given seven printed pages of Harris' website.
  
  
• Fall 1997—Harris and Klebold bring a pipe bomb to work at Blackjack Pizza (they plan to blow up a watermelon after work, they say) and are admonished by their boss.
  
  
• October 2, 1997—Harris and Klebold are suspended for hacking into Columbine High School’s computer system to get student locker combinations.
  
  
• December 10, 1997—For a classroom assignment, Harris writes a paper titled “Guns in Schools,” which affirms, “It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator.”
  
  
• January 30, 1998—Harris and Klebold break into a parked van and steal equipment they find inside (total value: $1,719). They are arrested that evening and placed in a juvenile diversion program. Both are released from the program early for good behavior.
  
  
• February 15, 1998—A passerby finds a homemade pipe bomb in a suburban park near Harris' house. The bomb is reported to the Jefferson County Police and they recover it.
  
  
• February/March 1998—Klebold is suspended again for scratching something threatening into a student’s locker.
  
  
• Spring 1998—In September 1998, Harris writes an essay in school about a time when he had to “give away all my weapons to my parents.” “I paid good money or spent a lot of time making them,” he says. Months later, in the “Basement Tape” videos, Harris and Klebold confirm that Harris’ parents found a tackle box in his room with pipe bombs in it. Nate Dykeman and Zack Heckler, friends of the pair, tell authorities after the massacre that Harris’ father detonated a bomb that had been confiscated from Eric’s room in the spring of 1998. Dykeman also claims that he saw Harris and Klebold blow up things with bombs on several occasions.
  
  
• March 18, 1998—The Brown family calls Jefferson County Police again after Harris updates his website and writes, “God I can’t wait till I can kill you people. I’ll just go to some downtown area in some big ass city and blow up and shoot everything I can ... I will rig up explosives all over a town and detonate each one of them at will after I mow down a whole fucking area full of you snotty ass rich mother fucking high strung godlike attitude having worthless pieces of shit whores. i don’t care if I live or die in the shootout, all I want to do is kill and injure as many of you pricks as I can, especially a few people. Like brooks brown [a fellow student of Harris’ at Columbine High School].” Although one detective begins to prepare a warrant to search the Harris home for bomb-making materials (the warrant mentions that a pipe bomb matching a description by Harris was recovered in February 1998 near his home), no concrete action is ever taken in regards to the complaint.
  
  
• November 1998—Harris designs a business project for his Government and Economics class. The proposal, “Hitmen for Hire,” is for a business “basically to kill people who anger our clients.” “Several weapons, such as a sawed-off pump-action riot shotgun, an AB-10 machine pistol, homemade rocket launchers, swords and daggers were gathered to help our business,” Harris adds. In a video produced for the assignment, Harris and Klebold take money from a student who complains of being bullied. The pair then shoot and kill a “jock” with fake guns in an alleyway.
  
  
• December 1998—Green Mountain Guns calls the Harris house to report that the 9mm magazines which were ordered (for Eric Harris) are ready for pick-up. Harris’ father answers the phone, says he did not place any such order, and hangs up. In his journal, Eric writes, "jesus Christ that was fucking close, fucking shitheads at the gunshop almost dropped the whole project. Oh well, thank god I can BS so fucking well."
  
  
• February 1999—Klebold tells Zack Heckler that he and Harris recently bought shotguns.
  
  
• February 1999—Klebold writes an essay for his Creative Writing class. It tells the story of a man who kills “preps.” The man is Dylan’s height, wears a trench coat (like both Klebold and Harris), and uses bombs, a knife and two guns. The essay uses inappropriate words like “pussy” and “prick.” Klebold’s teacher talks to his parents and later calls the essay, “the most vicious story I have ever read.”
  
  
• February/March 1999—Harris requests Zack Heckler's assistance in making napalm and asks another friend, Chris Morris, to store the finished batches at his house.
  
  
• March 1999—Harris approaches Chris Morris and suggests they rig a "trip bomb" behind Blackjack Pizza to target kids crawling through a hole in the fence behind the restaurant.

All told, Klebold and Harris had 15 confirmed contacts with law enforcement before the Columbine massacre. This is information that would have been readily turned up in any type of background investigation prior to a firearm purchase (as opposed to an instant computer check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database maintained by the FBI). Only a handful of states in the U.S.(New Jersey being one example) license gun owners and conduct such investigations. Virtually every other industrialized democracy in the world has licensing and registration laws in place for gun owners and their weapons.

Criminal Neglect
What was done in the wake of the Columbine tragedy to eliminate the loopholes in America’s gun laws that Harris and Klebold so deftly exploited?

Not much.

To Colorado residents’ credit, they acted quickly to close the Gun Show Loophole at the state level. In 2000, 70% of Colorado voters approved Amendment 22, a referendum to require background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. The “Robyn Anderson” bill was also passed to clarify state law and make it clear that no individual can legally transfer a long gun to a minor without the consent of that juvenile’s parent or guardian.

The U.S. Congress was a different story. On May 21, 1999, the U.S. Senate narrowly passed an amendment to close the Gun Show Loophole. Then-Vice President Al Gore had to use his constitutional power to break the 50-50 tie vote in favor of the amendment, which he dedicated “to all of the families that have suffered from gun violence.” Then the National Rifle Association (NRA) took over. They accused the White House of backing "a charade of lawmaking" and warned that they would "hold a mirror up to this dishonest process.” Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), an NRA board member who led the effort to defeat the amendment, was equally confident. "I haven't lost," he said with a smile, wagging his forefinger in the air. "It's not over yet." These were not idle threats. Within days, similar Gun Show Loophole legislation was defeated in the House of Representatives. The Senate bill eventually stalled in conference committee.

The NRA continues to oppose efforts to close the Gun Show Loophole to this day, portraying them as some secret scheme to confiscate all privately-held firearms in America. Their defiance is certainly not a reflection of the views of the American people. According to a recent national poll, 87% of Americans—including 83% of gun owners—support closing the Gun Show Loophole.

One decade after Columbine, only 17 states in the U.S. have taken some action to close the Gun Show Loophole. It remains wide open for future Klebolds and Harrises in the other 33. As for illegal straw purchases, the recent undercover investigations by New York City and UC Davis demonstrate that they are as commonplace at gun shows as ever.

The Cost of “Freedom”
When police searched Dylan Klebold’s 1982 Black BMW following his shooting rampage, they found a newsletter from the Firearms Coalition of Colorado. “Dear Firearms Activist,” it read. “The Firearms Coalition of Colorado is working for you!” And working they were, to: a) Prohibit local municipalities from enacting gun control ordinances; b) Prevent law enforcement from exercising discretion in issuing concealed handgun permits, and; c) Bar the state of Colorado from suing firearm manufacturers “like the tobacco companies have had to fight.”

Klebold and Harris would have been gratified to know that all three of these campaigns were ultimately successful. The pair was concerned about their legacy and hoped to kick-start a “revolution.” They even spoke directly to future students in the “Basement Tapes,” stating, “If you’re going to go fucking psycho and kill a bunch of people like us...do it right.” Those who have been inspired to kill by Klebold and Harris have had no problem in following their model—weak gun laws in this country continue to allow the obviously disturbed to acquire arsenals of firepower.

“Whoever said the cost of freedom was free?” asked the Firearms Coalition of Colorado newsletter found in Klebold’s car. Certainly not the victims of Columbine. They understand the price we continue to pay for gun “freedoms” better than anyone.

“The academic environment is sacred…and students need to feel safe.”

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a young man who is determined to keep America’s college campuses safe.

On April 16—the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy—approximately 300 students staged a “walk-out” of their classes at the University of Texas to protest a bill in the state legislature that would allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus. The students made their way to the Texas Capitol building, where they chanted in protest and rang a bell 32 times for the victims lost at Virginia Tech.

At the head of the marching students was John Woods, a Campus Leader with the group Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS) who organized the demonstration. John is currently a graduate student at the University of Texas, but was directly affected by the shootings at Virginia Tech. He was an undergraduate at the college on April 16, 2007, and lost his girlfriend and a number of other close friends that day.

“I didn't have a choice about becoming involved,” John says. “When the shootings happened at Virginia Tech, there was no purpose to them. The people I cared about—they didn't die defending their country or their beliefs. They died for nothing.”

“I needed for there to be a purpose,” he recalls, “so I started looking at prevention. Texas lawmakers, however, started using the Virginia Tech tragedy to market concealed carry on campus. ‘The death toll could have been reduced,’ they said. From talking to survivors, though, I knew this was extremely unlikely. I knew that what the authors of the concealed carry legislation were claiming was a Hollywood fantasy.”

John resolved to organize on campus to fight HB 1893, a bill sponsored by state Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland), who claims that allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus would help to prevent another Virginia Tech. John was already active in Student Government at the University of Texas and found out about the organization Students for Gun Free Schools. He quickly signed up as an SGFS Campus Leader.

“I organized the walk-out because I had been to a number of offices in the Capitol where they seemed completely shocked that students were against the bill,” says John. “We hoped the walk-out and rally would show them, in a very visible way, that students did not want guns on campus.” He is now organizing students to come back to the Capitol on May 11 when the Texas House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HB 1893.

When John talks about “prevention,” he has something specific in mind: “I think gun laws in this country utterly lack common sense. Specifically, I think background checks [on gun purchasers] need to be universal.”

John also stresses that our nation’s college campuses are some of the safest places in the country, far safer than the communities that surround them. “When someone says guns on campus make faculty and students safer,” he says, “I tell them campuses are already about as safe as they can be. I tell them to talk to the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting, who are experts on the issue. I also point out that the lack of guns on campus enables police to respond extraordinarily quickly to a crime, particularly in an active shooter situation.”

“I think it's important to note that guns are dangerous in certain circumstances. They're not allowed in football games or athletic events or in the gallery of the Texas Capitol. Why not? They can’t be carried by private citizens onto airplanes, even though the gun lobby would have us believe someone could stop a hijacking with one in the right place at the right time. Why not? And why is campus different?”

With the gun lobby pushing to force universities to allow guns on campus, John says now is the time for others to get involved. “To other students, I would say this: Get existing leaders on campus involved. Student government organizations are always looking for ways to get things done so they can say to students, ‘Look, we accomplish things for you.’ Hold them to it—show them that this issue is important. Recruit volunteers from among them. Or run for a position yourself if you have to.”

John also emphasizes public education about loopholes in our current gun laws. “Most people don't think about it,” he says. “When they do, they end up wanting common sense gun laws.” John makes reference to another bill in the Texas state legislature that would make Texas (for the first time) forward mental health information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent deranged individuals from acquiring guns through licensed firearms dealers.

Ultimately, John sees irony in his current activism. “My precise stance on guns on campus is much like [National Rifle Association CEO] Wayne LaPierre's ten years ago,” he notes. “Schools should have absolutely zero tolerance for weapons of any kind, except in the hands of law enforcement. The academic environment is sacred, and more importantly, it's safe, and students need to feel safe.”

The Threat from Within

On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a disturbing assessment of right wing extremism in the United States. The Department noted that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” Recalling the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, the Department speculated, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Of particular concern to the Department was the recent spike in gun sales nationally. The assessment stated that “the high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

Richard Poplawski, a Neo-Nazi gun enthusiast who recently murdered three police officers responding to a 911 call from his house, was also mentioned in the assessment. DHS cited Poplawski’s cold-blooded murders as an example of violent right wing extremism and noted, “The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories relating to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled ‘one world government.’”

The Department also voiced concerns about disgruntled military veterans who possess combat skills and experience that right wing extremist groups find attractive. “These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists,” said DHS. The assessment noted that Timothy McVeigh was an Iraq War veteran and referred to a 2008 FBI report that found that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had joined extremist groups.

Unlike insurrectionist activity during the Clinton Administration, DHS was concerned that “the advent of the Internet and other information-age technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.”

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence recently addressed the increased threat of right wing extremism—and the promotion of anti-government violence through mainstream media news sources—in a Huffington Post blog entitled “Insurrectionism Goes ‘Mainstream.’”

Many other commentators are expressing their unease regarding current right wing paranoia and rhetoric. Eric Boehlert, in an article for Alternet entitled “Fox News' Unhinged, Irrational Obama Attacks Stir up Violent Right-Wing Militants,” states that “What Fox News is doing today is embracing the same kind of hate rhetoric and doomsday conspiratorial talk that flourished during the ‘90s, and Fox News is now dumping all that rancid stuff into the mainstream. It’s legitimizing accusatory hate speech in a way no other television outlet in America ever has before.” Boehlert writes that “the Oklahoma City bombing story broke 18 months before Fox News made its cable-news debut. But if [Fox owner Rupert] Murdoch’s team maintains its current course—if Beck and company insist on irresponsibly fanning the militia-type flames of distrust—there’s the danger Fox News might soon have to cover other episodic gestures of anti-government payback.”

In another article, “Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox News’ Militia Media,” Boehlert correctly notes that Richard Poplawski is not the first American to be inspired to murder by extreme right wing rhetoric. On July 28 of last year, Jim Adkisson brought a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee and opened fire on parishioners, killing two and wounding several others. He specifically targeted those on the Liberal end of the political spectrum, and made that painstakingly clear in a suicide note: “Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people.” Investigators who searched Adkisson’s house discovered copies of Michael Savage’s Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Sean Hannity’s Let Freedom Ring, and The O’Reilly Factor, by Bill O’Reilly.

In a post 9/11-era, where terrorist threats from abroad are taken very seriously by the public and law enforcement officials, the threat from within is quickly becoming equally—if not more—grave.

Deranged Shooters, Legal Handguns

A horrific tragedy occurred last month when a 24 year-old man opened fire with a handgun outside a popular under-21 nightclub in Portland, Oregon. On January 24, Erik S. Ayala drove downtown to The Zone, got out of his car, and began shooting into the crowd gathered outside. He fired 8-10 times before fatally shooting himself. Ayala had taken a tranquilizer prior to the shooting, but otherwise had no alcohol or drugs in his system.

The shooting took the lives of two bright young women: Marta “Tika” Paz de Noboa, 17, a Peruvian exchange student, and Ashley Wilks, a 16-year old high school sophomore. Seven other individuals were injured, including the manager of a nearby restaurant and other foreign exchange students.

Like the shooters in the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, Erik Ayala had an established and well-known history of mental illness and violent tendencies. In high school, Ayala was identified as a “student of concern.” School officials received an anonymous tip in September 2000 that Ayala had made threats against others and talked about bringing a gun to school. In December of that year, he was hospitalized for attempting suicide by overdosing on over-the-counter pills.

As a result, Ayala was diagnosed with “numerous mental disorders,” including schizophrenia, and received intensive counseling from a team composed of school officials, psychologists, police, county mental health experts, and Oregon Youth Authority officials (which was formed in response to the 1998 Thurston High School shooting in Springfield, Oregon). This treatment was administered during a month-long stay at a Portland mental health facility and continued when Ayala returned to school.

Once Ayala graduated high school in 2002, his treatment ended (in part because he was unable to obtain health care insurance). He worked as a data entry operator for the Oregon Department of Health and Human Services until July 2007, and then part-timed with a temp agency. At the time of the shootings, police say that Ayala was unemployed and battling depression.

Ayala purchased the weapon used in the shooting, an Italian-manufactured EAA Witness 9mm pistol, for about $350 from 99 Pawn & Guns in Milwaukie, Oregon. He visited the pawn shop on January 6 to browse and returned the next day to purchase the handgun, but was told he did not have appropriate identification. Two days later, he returned with an alien resident card and proof of three months residency in the United States in the form of utility bills. Ayala then passed the required instant background check and left the store with his gun later that day.

Despite his history of mental illness and threatening behavior, Ayala appears never to have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution or declared “mentally defective” by a court of law. He was therefore not prohibited under federal law from purchasing firearms.

That’s not to say that Ayala’s handgun purchase couldn’t have been prevented, however. States such as New York and New Jersey require would-be purchasers to obtain a license/permit before they are allowed to buy handguns. The permitting process involves an actual background investigation where law enforcement officials interview significant figures in the applicant’s life (such as a spouse or relatives) about issues ranging from substance abuse to the applicant’s mental health. Under this process, Ayala would certainly have been denied a permit once authorities spoke with members of his family or local officials.

Commenting on the Portland shooting, Dr. Joseph D. Bloom, professor emeritus at the Oregon Health & Science University Department of Psychiatry, said, "It's all becoming very familiar. A person with recent losses and some history of past difficulties who is depressed and becomes suicidal, and then deliberately purchases a gun with a clear plan in mind to end his life and take out his anger on society by a random shooting event and ends it by taking his own life."

Such tragedies don’t have to be familiar, however, and won’t be for long if our elected officials take the necessary steps to assure that gun purchasers are not a threat to themselves or others.

“We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools”

In the wake of recent shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, there has been a push by the gun lobby to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring handguns onto college campuses. To date, lawmakers in 17 states have considered bills that would prohibit university officials from regulating the possession of firearms on school property. Fortunately, all of these measures have gone down in defeat due to the strong opposition of students, university administrators, and campus law enforcement officials.

During the past six months, two respected organizations, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), have released well-researched policy briefs that argue clearly and convincingly against allowing concealed handguns on college campuses.

IACLEA was founded in1958 and is affiliated with the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers (NASSLEO) and campus law enforcement organizations in 29 states. In their position paper, “Concealed Carrying of Firearms Proposals on College Campuses,” IACLEA’s Board of Directors states unequivocally that such initiatives will not make campuses safer, pointing out that, “There is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. In fact, the evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws generally will increase crime.”

The paper also states that, “IACLEA is concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect. Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students. There is also a real concern that campus police officers responding to a situation involving an active shooter may not be able to distinguish between the shooter and others with firearms.”

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities—a group devoted to helping to advance public education, economic development and the quality of life at our nation’s universities—has issued a policy brief entitled “Concealed Weapons on State College Campuses: In Pursuit of Individual Liberty and Collective Security.” The brief states that “the vast majority of college administrators, law enforcement personnel and students maintain that allowing concealed weapons on campus will pose increased risks for students and faculty, will not deter future attacks, and will lead to confusion during emergency situations.”

The brief further notes that, “While police are extensively trained to deal with crises, students or university staff with concealed weapons are not trained or integrated into campus security plans. Even with the best of intentions, armed students or employees could escalate an already explosive situation further, accidentally cause harm or use a gun in a situation that is not warranted.”

Once upon a time, even the National Rifle Association recognized the wisdom in keeping schools gun-free. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the issue in a speech at the 1999 NRA National Convention, stating: “First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period, with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel. We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.”

Great irony can also be found in recent comments by Ken Stanton, the Virginia Tech Campus Leader for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). SCCC believes “there is no pragmatic basis for declaring college campuses off-limits to concealed carry.”

Speaking about Haiyang Zhu, who tragically murdered a fellow Hokie on campus last month, Stanton said, “He wasn’t like [Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho] at all. He’s a very social, outgoing guy. He was just a normal outgoing kind of person like the rest of us. We couldn’t have seen this coming.” Stanton did not make it clear why the behavior of students with concealed carry permits—which now can be obtained through a one-hour online “training” course in Virginia—would be any more predictable.

“I still see the faces of the people…that died that day…”

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Ameri Today we focus on the victim of a horrible shooting tragedy that has turned his grief and trauma into a determination to help others.

On the evening of February 7, 2008, Todd Smith, a reporter for the Kirkwood-Webster Journal, was covering a city council meeting at Kirkwood City Hall in Missouri. Just after the meeting began, Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton—a local resident who had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood—entered the chambers and opened fire with two handguns, a .44 Magnum revolver and a .40 caliber handgun (the latter of which had been taken from a police officer Thornton killed in the parking lot outside the meeting). Before he was stopped by police, Thornton killed a total of five people (two police officers, two city council members, and Kirkwood’s public works director) and wounded two others. One of the wounded was Kirkwood Mayor Mike Swoboda, who would finally succumb to his head injuries and pass away seven months later. Also wounded was Todd, who was seated in the front row at the meeting and shot in the hand. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “[Thornton] was completely possessed … He looked at me directly and I felt complete rage.”

Like most of those present at the meeting that night, Todd was familiar with Thornton and his grievances. “I had seen him before at other city council meetings, and on one occasion he decided to speak at a council meeting and I decided to ask him what his issues were,” he recalls. “I had trouble understanding him and what he was wanting—he seemed angry and I had just started on Kirkwood beat and did not know his whole history. Even at this particular meeting he was somewhat incoherent and erratic and wearing a sign on his body in protest of the Kirkwood City Council.”

Sadly, this was not the first time Todd had been a victim of gun violence. He describes another traumatic incident that occurred more than a decade earlier:

“I had moved to New Castle, Delaware. A few days after July 4, 1997, I went to a nearby 7-Eleven around 9:00 p.m. I purchased a soda and was walking through a shopping center when two teenagers came up behind me with guns in their hands. They asked for money. I ran, and one of them shot at me. They ran away. I kept walking, but noticed there was blood coming from the back of my leg. I made it to a gas station that was across the street. I told the clerk to call 911. A guy getting gas noticed me sitting down in front of the gas station and took off his shirt and it was used as a tourniquet to stop my bleeding. I never saw this man again, and wish I had the chance to thank him. About 30 minutes after the shooting, an ambulance arrived on the scene and took me to a nearby hospital. A doctor came to see me and studied the wound and decided to pull the bullet out. He did numb the area, but I remember it being a painful process. I was in the hospital for three days before being released. The African-American teenagers that committed the act were never found. A police officer did come by once, I looked at pictures, but it was hard to tell who it was. I only saw them briefly, it was dark out, and their faces were partially covered.”

Todd’s recovery from these violent episodes has been difficult. The injuries he sustained in the Kirkwood shooting required two surgeries, the second of which involved a joint replacement. “I will never fully recover from this incident,” he says. “Emotionally, I have come a long way, but have a ways to go. I still have a fear of being alone at night and have fears of being in a setting with a large group of people.”

Despite the trauma he has been through, however, Todd wants to create something positive from his experience. “I feel the need to be a spokesperson on gun control,” he says. “The victims in Kirkwood were expecting to leave the meeting to go home and be with their families, like any other night. Instead, they never had a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. I think there is something to be said about stronger gun control measures so people can go on living with the people they care about.”

Todd notes, “I am not against guns. I grew up around guns. I lived in a rural area, where people hunted and worked at a gun club. I would not like to see people’s right to have a gun taken away. I just believe in properly screening those who want to purchase guns, and developing ways to identify guns so that we know where they came from and where they were originally purchased.”

He has contacted the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and become involved in their Program for Victims and Survivors. Todd will take part in legislative advocacy efforts at the federal and state level, and reach out to other journalists to educate them about gun violence prevention.

Still, some memories do not go away easily. “I still see the faces of the people that were friends of mine that died that day in Kirkwood,” Todd says. “One did her best to help people like Thornton. She worked to make sure that the council considered the views of constituents so their concerns were always heard and represented. I also will never forget Kirkwood Police Officer Tom Ballman. He stood up when Thornton pulled out his guns and in that instant he was killed. This image will haunt me for the rest of my life.

“The instantaneous ending of a human life—which guns allow for—should not be allowed.”

A Fine Example

Tragedy was averted on December 9 when police arrested 15-year-old Richard Yanis, who planned to carry out a mass shooting at his high school in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.

Yanis was going to “shoot everyone he did not like” at Pottstown High School. He planned to tell friends to leave the school’s grounds prior to opening fire on teachers and students. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman characterized the would-be school shooter as “an outcast, a loner who didn’t have many friends. He was picked on, he felt like he didn’t fit in very well.”

In preparation for the shooting, Yanis stole three handguns and ammunition from his father’s locker and gave them to a friend. The friend was to deliver the weapons to Yanis at the high school on the day of the shooting. However the plot began to unravel when Yanis’ father, Michael Yanis, reported the guns stolen to police, touching off an “intense, month-long investigation.” The friend holding the weapons soon dumped them in a river with the help of his stepmother and alerted school officials. Police intervened and quickly took Richard Yanis into custody. He has been charged with criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder.

The incident touches on a number of hot button issues regarding the role of guns in schools and the responsibilities of firearm owners...

Recent years have seen aggressive efforts by the gun lobby to push concealed weapons into America’s schools. Gun rights organizations have argued that arming teachers and allowing others to carry handguns into schools will enhance children’s safety. The Harrold School District in Texas made national news when it became the first K-12 campus in the country to allow teachers and faculty to carry concealed handguns. Defending the district’s decision, Superintendent David Thweatt stated, “When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ‘Sic ‘em’ to a dog.”

Not only did Thweatt ignore the facts—a recent study showed that youth ages 5-18 are over 50 times more likely to be murdered when they are away from school than at school—he also failed to consider that a better solution might be to prevent active shooter situations before they even happen. The Pottstown case demonstrates that good investigative work by police, and vigilance by school administrators, can forestall a tragedy without the need to inject guns into a learning environment.

The Pottstown incident also highlights the importance of reporting lost and stolen firearms to the police. One can imagine what might have happened had Michael Yanis failed to make that critical call to law enforcement. As District Attorney Ferman noted, Richard Yanis “had the immediate capacity to commit the crime with the guns and arsenal of ammunition waiting to be delivered upon his word.”

One might think that reporting lost and stolen guns is a common-sense thing to do. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has reported, however, that “most gun owners do not report stolen firearms to the police.” In the state of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Police recently reported that out of 1,900 firearms recovered on crime scenes in 2007 and 2008, only 231 had been previously reported missing or stolen.

The city of Pottstown recently passed a new ordinance that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the police. The National Rifle Association (NRA), remarkably, opposed the ordinance, stating, “It’s not going to end up lowering crime. All it ends up doing is further victimizing someone who’s been a victim of crime.” The NRA, however, has been unable to cite a single instance where a law-abiding gun owner was wrongfully prosecuted under the law in any of the seven states where it has been enacted. At a recent Pottstown City Council hearing, one local gun owner, David Blankenhorn, had a very different view: “[My pistol] turned up in a drug raid in Auburn. Because I reported it in 24 hours, because I cooperated with the law, I was given that gun back. This ordinance can have a major benefit. If you simply follow the law, it works with you.”

Hopefully, municipal officials across the country will look to Pottstown as an example of how to prevent tragedies in their schools without putting students at additional risk of gun violence.

“I don’t keep a gun in my house, because I value my life.”

In August we blogged about an article in Esquire that looked into the background of Steven Kazmierczak, the grad student who shot and killed six people (including himself) and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008. The author of the article, David Vann, debunked the media’s simplistic portrayal of Kazmierczak as “an award-winning sociology student and a leader of a campus criminal justice group” who presented “no red flags.” Vann’s research uncovered something strikingly different—a young man with a lengthy and disturbing history of mental illness and volatile behavior.

Vann’s latest work, Legend of a Suicide, is a collection of stories and a novella that explores a more personal topic—the death of his father. Vann’s semi-autobiographical account—which incorporates both metaphor and allegory—is being published this month and has already garnered substantial praise. The book received the Grace Paley Prize in Short Fiction and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Robert Olen Butler commented, “This is one of the most striking fictional debuts in recent memory.” Legend of a Suicide can be purchased through the University of Massachusetts Press website.

The young character at the center of Legend, “Roy,” shares a passion for firearms with his father. Vann confirms that this is based on truth: “I grew up in a hunting and fishing family in Alaska and rural northern California, so I was shooting guns at an early age. I was given a pump pellet gun at age 7, a 20-gauge shotgun at age 8, and a Winchester .30-.30 rifle—like in the westerns—at age 9. When I was 11 years old, I killed my first two deer with that Winchester. California law said I had to wait until I was 13 to legally kill a buck, but family law said 11, and killing my first buck included eating the heart and liver.”

Recalling his Esquire article about Steven Kazmierczak, Vann drew parallels between himself and the troubled student: Kazmierczak was trained by the U.S. Army not to have any emotional or psychological response to killing a human being. In the shooting at Northern Illinois University, he killed without any sign of emotion at all…and I do think that hunting trained me in a similar way. We killed everything that moved in Alaska or California, hundreds of animals. The second deer I shot, at age 11, was paralyzed, hit in the spine. My father made me walk up behind it and put the .30-.30 rifle to the back of its head to finish it off, execution style. I still find that tremendously upsetting.”

Vann also remembers his father owning a .300 magnum rifle (for hunting bears) and a .44 magnum pistol. The .44 was kept under the seat of his father’s car for personal protection. Tragically, instead of being used for self-defense, Vann’s father used the handgun to take his own life. “I saw that guns are simply too powerful, too easily misused,” Vann recalls. “My father’s .44 magnum pistol had a hair trigger. I had fired it once, and it went off before I expected it to, with just a faint touch.” Vann is also cognizant of research that shows that many gun suicides are attempted in the heat of the moment, without significant premeditation: “When I think of my father sitting at his kitchen table in Fairbanks, Alaska, alone, with the gun to his head, it bothers me that he only had to want suicide for an instant. It’s just too fast and too easy, and there’s no turning back.”

Nor was this his family’s only tragic experience with gun violence: My stepmother lost her parents to a murder/suicide. Her mother killed her father with a shotgun and then killed herself with a pistol. They were a wealthy couple with a large house on a hill overlooking an entire valley in California. Their lives should have been considered good, but in a moment of anger, guns made killing very easy and quick.”

Ironically, Vann would inherit his father’s gun collection after his suicide. Instead of using these firearms solely to hunt, however, he capitalized on the opportunity to blow off steam and avoid dealing with complicated emotions like shame and rage. “I learned to break the .300 magnum rifle into several parts and stuff them down the back of my jacket,” he remembers. “I’d ride my bicycle into the hills above my suburban Californian neighborhood and shoot out streetlights from hundreds of yards away. That rifle sounded like artillery, but I was never caught.” More ominously, Vann notes: “I also sighted in on our neighbors in the afternoons and evenings, right from my bedroom. I had a shell in the chamber and the safety off, and I’d be looking at someone’s face through the crosshairs as they stood in front of a living room window. I was a straight-A student, would become valedictorian, was in student government, sports, band, etc. No one would have guessed I was living a double life.”

But Vann says that his fascination with firearms is now a thing of the past: “It’s extremely rare that anyone is able to defend their life or the lives of their loved ones with a firearm. If you don’t do drugs or engage in crime, you’re unlikely to ever confront a gun. The only way you’re really put into an increased level of danger is if you own a gun. I don’t keep a gun in my house, because I value my life.”

Vann also has some important advice for families dealing with issues of depression: “One of the most critical steps is to ask for outside help. Right before his suicide, my father convinced our family that he was fine. He sounded reasonable and clear-headed. Professional help, from a therapist or psychiatrist, is necessary.”

It’s been 28 years since Vann’s father’s suicide, so he’s had the time and distance to transform family tragedy into art. The stories in Legend of a Suicide are simply beautiful, reinventing a terrible past and making sense out of chaos.

Shooting with the Enemy

Recently, CSGV Director of Communications Ladd Everitt met with Brian Borgelt, the former owner of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, while spending time in Tacoma, Washington. Bull’s Eye was the source of the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle used by D.C. snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo during their deadly shooting spree. Here is Ladd's recounting of his trip...

I recently traveled to Tacoma for the screening of a documentary entitled “Illicit Exchanges: Canada, the U.S. & Crime.” The film was produced by the School of Arts & Communication at Pacific Lutheran University and a premiere was held on October 4 at Seattle’s Museum of History & Industry. During a post-premiere reception, I was approached by Brian Borgelt, who owned Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply before his Federal Firearms License (FFL) was revoked in 2003 following the D.C. sniper shootings (we both appeared briefly in the documentary). He now runs the shooting range directly above the store.

Brian was surprised that I knew who he was, and I explained to him that being both a gun violence prevention activist and a longtime resident of Washington D.C., I was well acquainted with the specifics of the D.C. sniper case. I told him that I had been thinking of visiting Bull’s Eye during my stay in Tacoma, and he was kind enough to invite me in to see the store and shoot at his range.

The afternoon I spent with Brian two days later was one of the most interesting I have spent working in the gun violence prevention field.

The Gun(s) That Disappeared
The shooting spree perpetrated by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo in October 2002 terrorized the entire Beltway area and was headline news across America. All told, ten people were killed and three others critically injured by the snipers in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Subsequent investigation revealed that Muhammad and Malvo were responsible for additional murders that had been committed previously in Alabama, Arizona, and their home town of Tacoma, Washington.

When Muhammad and Malvo were finally apprehended, the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle they used in the Beltway shootings was traced to Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, which was owned at that time by Brian Borgelt. Brian told authorities he didn’t know how the gun left his shop. And it wasn’t just the Bushmaster. All told, Brian could not account for 238 missing guns in his inventory and indicate whether they had been lost, stolen, or sold off the books. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had been investigating Bull’s Eye since 1994 because guns from the store were repeatedly ending up on crime scenes.

In July 2003, ATF finally revoked Brian’s Federal Firearms License, citing “willful” violations of federal gun laws (the required standard thanks to a 1986 law written by the National Rifle Association). Undeterred, Brian simply transferred ownership of the business to a longtime friend, Kris Kindschuh, and moved upstairs to run the Bull’s Eye Indoor [shooting] Range. The store never lost a day of business and Bushmaster, describing Bull’s Eye as a “good customer,” continued to supply them with firearms.

Straw Man’s Boon
When I visited the Bull’s Eye Indoor Range on October 6 to meet with Brian, he revealed to me some aspects of the sniper case of which I was not aware.

I learned that the Bushmaster rifle was not the first gun that John Allen Muhammad had acquired from Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply. In November 2001, Earl Dancy, Jr. straw purchased a .308 Remington 700 rifle (a gun often used by police departments for tactical shooting) from Bull’s Eye on Muhammad’s behalf. On August 17, 2002, that rifle was found perched on a bipod in a patch of woods in Tacoma. It had been loaded and pointed toward a nearby apartment complex. Law enforcement traced the gun to Dancy, who lied for Muhammad and claimed that the rifle was stolen from him sometime after he bought it. As the state of Washington has no law requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms (only seven states currently have such laws in place), police had nothing to charge Dancy with and he was released after questioning.

Straw purchasing a gun for another individual (so that they can avoid the required background check) is a federal felony offense. It is a common tactic for straw purchasers to claim a gun was stolen after it is traced back to them from a crime scene. This forces law enforcement to prove that they are lying, which can be extremely difficult if the shooter has yet to be identified and/or apprehended, or if the connection between the shooter and the straw purchaser is tangential.

Brian expressed a great deal of frustration to me that local law enforcement had failed to identify Dancy as a straw purchaser in the fall of 2002 (he was later convicted after the Beltway shootings). He believed Muhammad could have been stopped before the bulk of his shooting spree took place.

I was surprised, therefore, to learn that Brian opposes any requirement for gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. His explanation was that he knows many gun owners who own 30 or more guns and these individuals might not be aware if one or more of their guns were stolen. He was worried that law enforcement might prosecute these individuals if they did not comply with the law.

I told Brian that my personal concept of a “responsible gun owner” is an individual who takes the necessary precautions to prevent unauthorized individuals from gaining access to their firearms (i.e., by storing those firearms safely and securely). It disturbed me to think that a gun owner could be so cavalier about his collection that he could lose guns without even noticing.

I suggested to Brian that even a law that gave gun owners one, three, or a full six months to report lost or stolen guns would be better than nothing (most laws of this type allow gun owners 72 hours to make their reports). It would certainly help deter straw purchasers like Dancy, who would lose their most convenient alibi and face the threat of prosecution.

But Brian wouldn’t budge. Law enforcement should just do a better job of investigating these cases with the tools they have, he said.

It’s Hard to Get Good Help These Days
Regarding the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle that Muhmammad and Malvo used in the Beltway killings, Brian told me he still isn’t sure how it left his store. Bushmaster delivered the rifle to Bull’s Eye on July 2, 2002. Two Bull’s Eye employees later told investigators that they first noticed the rifle missing from a display case in August or early September. The first murders linked conclusively to the rifle occurred in mid-September at liquor stores in Maryland, Georgia and Alabama. Brian did not report the weapon missing—as required by federal law—until two weeks after the snipers’ arrests in November.

Lee Malvo would later tell authorities that he shoplifted the Bushmaster from Bull’s Eye. Brian had a different theory to share with me. He believes one of his employees took the rifle from the store and transferred it to Muhammad and Malvo off the books.

Brian believes he first met Muhammad and Malvo at a gun show in Washington many months before the sniper shootings. They came to his table to inquire about AR-15-type rifles and Brian referred them to an associate of his who was well versed in those firearms. He thought it might be possible that this individual was involved in the illegal transfer of the Bushmaster XM-15.

That was not the only employee that Brian had a problem trusting, however. He told me one horror story after another … One pair of employees he hired became involved romantically and conspired to steal his clients and open a new gun store … Another was embezzling money from Brian by keeping a calculator on top the cash register and ringing up transactions off the books …

To his credit, Brian did require new employees to possess a concealed carry permit in Washington (to demonstrate that they had passed a criminal background check). While not a perfect screening mechanism (such permits are only renewed every five years and it’s unclear how often state authorities check permit holders’ records to see if there is cause for revocation), there is no federal or state requirement in this area, so Brian took this step voluntarily. He also told me he wrote to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the main trade group for the gun industry, requesting assistance in performing more thorough background checks on his employees. They never responded.

Despite these efforts, I found it hard to imagine that this much malfeasance had taken place at Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply without Brian’s knowledge. The showroom is just one large room, with the owner’s office sitting directly adjacent. Was Brian minding his shop at all?

I was also aware that it wasn’t only store recordkeeping that was an issue for Brian during this period. The record shows that Brian failed to file a partnership tax return for Bull’s Eye from 1994 to 2001. But he also failed to file personal income tax returns between 1995 and 2001. He was eventually indicted for tax evasion and pled guilty to a single charge. At that point, he agreed to pay back taxes, penalties and interest for all the counts alleged in the indictment—amounting to $230,884.

President Harry Truman used to keep a famous sign on his desk in the White House that read “The Buck Stops Here.” I’m still trying to figure out where the buck stopped at Bull’s Eye.

“They Stole Your Freedom”
During a conversation about self-defense, Brian threw me a curveball. While asserting his belief that citizens have the right to be armed in public against would-be criminals, he informed me that he had stopped carrying a concealed handgun twelve years ago. His reticence stemmed from an incident when he was jumped in a parking lot by two unarmed young men who mistook a hand gesture that he made. He told me that he spent most of his energy during this brief confrontation defending his own handgun (which he wore in a waist holster and never drew). Thankfully, he was able to subdue the men and prevent them from gaining access to his firearm until a nearby security guard arrived on the scene, but the encounter changed his thinking about concealed carry.

I told Brian I had thought a lot about this topic myself after being mugged in my neighborhood in the District a year ago. I was accosted by two young men (who may or may not have been armed) who took my wallet, cell phone, iPod, and work bag and left me unharmed to walk home to my family. To Brian, the equation was simple—these criminals were “terrorists” who had “stole my freedom.” I granted that I lost my freedom for about a minute, but while I was scared by the incident, I didn’t quite feel terrorized (I was walking in my neighborhood again the very next day and have been ever since).

I also wondered what might have happened had I been carrying a concealed handgun. These guys grabbed me seconds after I first spotted them turning a corner. Would I even have had time to draw a gun? If I was carrying a gun but didn’t draw it, would they have found it on my person and taken it from me, potentially using it against future victims? If I had drawn a gun, could they have overpowered me and taken it from me? What if I had fired a handgun in that type of tense situation? Did these young men deserve to die for stealing my property? And if I had missed my target(s), where would the bullets have gone? I was in a residential area with houses on all sides, mere feet away from where I stood.

I told Brian I had a difficult time imagining any positive outcomes that might have resulted from my being armed during that encounter.

Cause and Effect
That afternoon at the Bull’s Eye indoor shooting range, I underwent safety training and fired four handguns (.357 Ruger revolver, Glock 9mm, Sig Sauer 9mm, Ruger .22 caliber), a shotgun (Mossberg 12-gauge), and an assault rifle (Hi Point 9mm). It was my first time firing anything more powerful than an air gun, and I took to it pretty quickly, grouping most of my shots in fairly tight circles on the targets. I was awed by the power, lethality and accuracy of these firearms—particularly the Hi Point rifle, which had little if any recoil and which I was able to rapid-fire with great accuracy (placing 10 or so shots in the eye socket of the target). It was easy to see how even a teenager without any formal firearms training could become an efficient killer with such a weapon.

Brian was clearly a skilled shooter and proud of his range’s role in training gun owners. He also asserted to me that the range was great for kids, because it taught them patience, discipline and “cause and effect” (i.e., that there are consequences for their actions). On that point, I wasn’t so sure. It’s one thing to blow holes in a paper target; completely another to shoot another person and witness the damage that bullets can do to the human body. I was worried that having fun at the range could have the opposite effect and desensitize kids to the enormous damage that firearms can do.

I was reminded that John Allen Muhammad himself had once practiced at the Bull’s Eye range, honing his marksmanship. He had also reportedly practiced shooting with Lee Malvo—then just a boy in his mid-teens—in a backyard on South Proctor Street in Tacoma.

His Own Worst Enemy
The greatest irony of Brian’s story seems to be that—for all his concerns about street criminals and the damage he has endured in past assaults—it is his own criminal actions and the alleged actions of corrupt individuals that he himself employed that have had the greatest negative impact on his life. On one level, I had a great deal of sympathy for Brian. He clearly was proud of building Bull’s Eye into a profitable business in the late 1990s and devastated at losing the store and his reputation in the wake of the sniper shootings. On another level, it really bothered me that he never expressed any sympathy for the victims and survivors of those attacks, who suffered far worse than he did.

I was also dismayed that he refused to take ultimate responsibility for the guns that were lost or stolen from his store. When I asked him, “If you could go back and do it again, what would you do differently?” he said “nothing” other than that he would have kept a smaller staff once the store began to profit (presumably of those who were most trustworthy). As usual, it was a way to avoid his own culpability regarding the reckless manner in which his business was run.

Just before I left that day, Brian told me he had filed a lawsuit and was seeking to regain his FFL. It was still his dream to be a successful gun dealer. I told him that if he got his license back, I would move to Washington and handle his books. I was joking—I have no bookkeeping experience to speak of—but sadly, I was also certain that if tasked with that job, I would do it right and make sure the store presented no threat to the public. In a better world, well-funded trade organizations like the NSSF and National Rifle Association would step in and work directly with gun dealers to make sure they are running their businesses responsibly (as opposed to turning a blind eye to negligent conduct). But I’m not holding my breath.

Despite my disappointment, I enjoyed my time with Brian. I think he put it best when he said we were able to “come together as human beings rather than political or ideological rivals.” Unlike so many gun rights activists I deal with on a regular basis, Brian was always civil, and eager to engage in polite conversation on a number of topics. Demonizing him would be easy, but he treated me with great hospitality and listened to what I had to say—even when I was critical of him. It left me with hope that we might have more in common than we realize and that—if we’re willing to listen—we might ultimately find some things to agree on that can make us all feel more secure about this world we live in.