Subscribe by email

Your email:

Get this free eBook

The Essential Step-by-Step Guide to Internet Marketingdescribe the image[click here]

About

The Savvy Blog is a sassy little blog about public relations, journalism and politics, with occasional diversions. New posts show up about twice a week, most of them written by Dennis Bailey, president of Savvy, Inc., a leading public relations firm in Portland, Maine, with infrequent guest posts from bloggers around the country. Please offer your comments and subscribe by submitting your email in the form above. And Connect with . Thanks.

@SavvyInc

Blogs We Like

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

The Gun That Killed 20 Children in Newtown: Made in Maine?

  
  
  

The first time I fired a Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle, I was struck by how compact and light it was – around five pounds – and yet it was very loud and powerful. Lethal, you might say. But my overriding thought was, why is this thing even legal?

The Bushmaster Assault Rifle that Killed 20 Schoolchildren: Maine in Maine?

I was on assignment for Maine Times, the now defunct but sorely missed alternative weekly newspaper. The story I was working on was how these scary-looking weapons were swiftly becoming a leading Maine export. Bushmaster Firearms was founded in Maine. Its manufacturing plant was in Windham. I interviewed the company executives, dealers and hunters, and my story (which unfortunately can’t be found online) basically concluded that no self-respecting Maine hunter would walk into the woods with one of these things.

The Bushmaster, I wrote, was the weapon of choice for terrorists and drug dealers, not sportsmen. Lightweight, easy to conceal, with a folding stock, pistol grip and a magazine that could hold dozens if not hundreds of rounds, the Bushmaster would turn a deer into steak tartare in seconds. The gun seemed like an odd, ugly stepchild of the Remingtons and Winchesters that I grew up with, a scale-model of the assault weapons used in actual combat. Unless you were planning a government coup or expecting an invasion, there was just no good reason to own one. And I couldn’t understand the fascination and downright fetishism of this weapon by some of its owners.

That was more than 30 years ago.

Now, as all of us are sick to our stomachs over the horror last Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, I wonder how the founders, owners and employees of Bushmaster Firearms feel knowing that, once again, the product that’s made them millions was used in a mass shooting, this time sending 20 innocent, helpless little six-year olds to their graves? The state's medical examiner has confirmed that all of children and teachers killed at the elementary school were shot multiple times by the Bushmaster rifle, the only rifle he was carrying at the time. (Other weapons were found in his trunk and he killed himself with a pistol.)

Screen Shot 2012 12 17 at 11.14.01 AM
Bushmaster with a "Windham, ME USA" label

From humble beginnings in Windham, Maine, Bushmaster Firearms is now reportedly the nation’s leading manufacturer of assault weapons. Not long after the company reached a $2.5 million settlement with the victims of the Washington, DC sniper (who also used a Bushmaster assault rifle to kill 10 people), a big conglomerate swallowed up Bushmaster and moved manufacturing to New York. Its Windham facility closed last year. But the owners and employees quickly regrouped to start Windham Weaponry, which continues to do a brisk business today selling nearly identical assault weapons.

In the wake of the awful tragedy in Newtown, there are new calls to reinstate a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Makes sense to me. While assault weapons are used in only about 10% of all gun crimes (and most of those are handguns), they do seem to be the go-to gun for mass murderers – Stockton Schoolyard; Aurora, Colorado; Washington, DC; Columbine and more. If a Bushmaster was a prescription drug, it would be taken off the market for its role in this many deaths.

But an assault weapons ban would be only a small step, and most likely ineffective, in preventing what happened on Friday in Newtown. And don’t expect our elected officials to fall in line for something like this. They are way too timid and too entrenched with gun manufacturers and the NRA to do anything responsible about the proliferation of guns in this country. The NRA has succeeded in convincing them that there will be hell to pay if they so much as breathe the words “gun control,” even though it’s a myth. (I heard these same claims back in 1990 when I was working for Tom Andrews who was running for Congress. When he made a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns central to his campaign, party bigwigs told us that he’d committed political suicide and would probably bring down the state’s Democratic Party with him. Andrews went on to win the Primary and serve two terms in Congress. Now as then, the public is way ahead of the politicians on gun matters.)

But Friday’s slaughter in Newtown may be the tipping point. This tragedy, perhaps more than any other recent mass killing, has exposed much deeper and darker questions about what’s going on in America. What is it that’s making angry, intelligent but mentally ill young men want to dress head-to-toe in combat gear and slaughter innocent people with assault weapons? What are we doing wrong? Is it our gun-loving, violent culture that glamorizes killing on the big screen and in video games? Why is it easier in this country for these people to get their hands on guns than it is to get the mental health services they need?

It’s easy to blame the guns, but it’s more than that. We need to open up the lines of discussion with everybody involved – the National Rifle Association, Hollywood movie makers, gun manufacturers, mental health experts, etc. – and come up with a comprehensive plan to address this issue. Otherwise, we’re in for more sickening heartbreaks like last Friday.

For what they’re worth, here are my suggestions:

  • The NRA and its followers have got to drop their paranoid beliefs that any reasonable restrictions on owning or buying a gun will infringe their Constitutional rights. The Constitution may (and I emphasize may) give you a right to possess firearms, but it doesn’t give you a right to possess every type of firearm with absolutely no restrictions. There are all kinds of firearms you can’t legally own, a shoulder-fired Stinger missile, for example. Licensing and registering guns are not the same as confiscation. Get over it. If you stick to these unrealistic, delusional, pig-headed views, maybe your right to own a gun should be questioned.
  • With millions of guns in circulation – something like three per household – banning one type of weapon is probably unrealistic. What we need to do is limit the access and the lethality of these weapons. For example, fully automatic versions of these assault weapons (the kind that keep discharging bullets with one pull of the trigger) are highly regulated, but not illegal. The sale and ownership of machine guns are subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are still tracked by the ATF to this day. They only pass from one owner to the next after a thorough background check and ATF approval – and I don’t hear the NRA or gun owners complaining about this intrusion of their rights. And here’s the important point: There have only been two murders ever committed with a legally owned fully automatic machine gun, one by a police officer in 1988 and the other in 1994. None since then.
  • So if we can't ban semi-automatic assault weapons, let’s just treat them the same way as their fully automatic cousins. But at the same time let’s ban high-capacity clips and magazines. Why does a gun owner need the ability to fire off 100 or even 30 rounds in a few seconds if he’s hunting or defending his house from an intruder? Banning high-capacity magazines would at least force these mass murderers to take some time to reload during their rampage and might just save a few lives.
  • In addition, let’s tax the shit out of these guns. Big time. They’re an exotic, unnecessary luxury item for gun collectors and enthusiasts. But they are also dangerous, deadly products. If people really want to own them, they should pay a premium, a huge premium. And we’ll dedicate those tax dollars toward expanding and improving the nation’s mental health services. It's a small cost for causing all this carnage.

The politicians who cower in fear over the lobbying strength of the NRA aren’t going to do anything with this issue. It’s time for the people, all of us who are outraged by these senseless shootings, to get serious.

Note: This story was updated to include information from the medical examiner that the Bushmaster rifle was the only weapon used to in the assault.

Comments

Hi Dennis, another strategy to tide us over until the federal government acts is for local towns to look at their town ordinances. I'm told that it is legal in Maine to have as many guns as you want and to store them however you want, which means firemen responding to housefires can encounter exploding ordinances, and burglars or others can easily break into homes and walk away with weapons and ammo. It should not be "voluntary" for gun owners to safely secure their weapons and ammo and make sure they are not going to explode in a house fire, and that people won't steal or misuse the weapons. It sure would be a lot easier to resolve things on a statewide level and on a federal level, but maybe it will be easier for people to get involved at the local level and start screaming for local land use ordinances and building safety ordinances to recognize that guns impact the community, and people who are gathering arsenals should not be allowed to do so without meeting safer storage requirements.
Posted @ Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:54 PM by Jenny Y
You're right. This was a preventable tragedy. There are all kinds of things we can do if we get beyond this fanatical devotion and crazy politics surrounding guns.
Posted @ Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:26 PM by Dennis Bailey
I have owned firearms all my adult life, and my earliest memory of guns is going with my grandfather to shoot a rabbit in our victory garden. My family has owned guns since the 17th century, here in New England. However, I don't see any reason for a civilian to own what is essentially a close-combat weapon. Why can't assault weapon ownership be restricted to active-duty military? After all, at distances over 100 yards, a Springfield 1903 is far more reliable than any assault weapon. Assault weapons in the hands of civilians are an invitation to mayhem.
Posted @ Monday, December 17, 2012 2:00 PM by William Burgess Leavenworth
I agree. Some of my fondest childhood memories are bird and deer hunting with my dad. We had all sorts of long rifles and shotguns in our household. Still have some of them today. But these assault weapons are a whole other story. Thanks for your thoughts.
Posted @ Monday, December 17, 2012 2:07 PM by Dennis Bailey
I’m sorry but this transcends the gun issue. We, as a society have to look deep at why things like this seem to happen these days. What has happened to our way of life and the things we teach our children (or media teaches our children) that there is no guilt or fear of punishment or sense of wrong in the people that carry out these heinous deeds. Is it a lack or religion and no fear of Hell? Is it the total news coverage saturation, complete with computer animation of the massacre (which by the way –always looks like a video game)? Is it because it’s always someone else’s fault (like a teacher when a child fails)? Guns were in all households in days past, when all families hunted and defended themselves These crimes didn’t happen. Back then, people feared God and retribution. Back then, you didn’t get 24/7 news coverage and more gory details than anyone should ever be subjected to. Back then we didn’t have violent and graphic video games that children played for hours on end. Back then there weren't evenings fulle of shows about killers and how they got away with it or worse. There has been a breakdown in our society and it needs to be rectified. Once again, it is not guns that kill but PEOPLE. Schools, movie theaters, et-all, are “soft” targets meaning, the person that is going to carry these crimes out, KNOW there will be no firearms to fight back against an attack. Ban guns and bombs would become weapons of choice as anyone can go to the internet and manufacture one from common materials. We need to stop chasing guns and figure out what the REAL issue is. What has broken down so much that this now seems to be common place? “Ban the guns” is a knee jerk reaction to a very complicated and multi-facetted issue. My heart goes out to all the parents and families that lost loved ones in the shooting. I also grieve for a society that has lost its way and somehow allowed shootings to become the answer to internal demons that we have somehow cultivated.
Posted @ Monday, December 17, 2012 8:27 PM by Mike Stackhouse
The comments show a clear lack of education and experience with any of these guns. The issue is not the guns, they've been around in their current form for decades. “ I touche3d gun once and got scared” is not a point of authority, it’s marginally informed editorial. The real issue the lack of parenting, mental health care and personal responsibility at play in the U.S. today. We had the same guns 30 years ago. A generation of spoiled, coddled, selfish morons raised by parents themselves products of the 60's and 70's have created a generation too stupid and unstable to be trusted with almost anything. This is the result of the lack of values you traded in exchange for being “friends” with your children. This is at least partially the result of not saying NO, of thinking that your child is special and above reproach on any issue and surrendering your duties as parents , friends and neighbors and family to television, which you then also vilify for not doing your job for you. I get you feel bad and are scared, we all feel that way. The effects of the placebo of acting out against law abiding citizens will be short lived.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:53 PM by Ike Devji, J.D.
As I said in the article, it's not just guns, it's everything, including all the things you mention. But we can't take guns off the table. They play a role in this too.They may have been around for decades, but I don't recall a period of so many mass killings, four in four years, plus other gun violence. If we're going to solve this problem, everything has to be on the table for rational discussion. And our gun laws have been irrational for some time.
Posted @ Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:54 PM by Dennis
Comments have been closed for this article.