

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This is going to be our answer to this no-guardrails world where there are no gatekeepers and everything's kind of insane," said the CEO of The Onion.
In what one journalist called an "insane twist" to the long saga of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' use of his online platform to spread rampant disinformation, satirical newspaper The Onion on Thursday announced it had won an auction to buy Infowars, Jones' bankrupt publication.
Jones declared bankruptcy in 2022 after the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting won nearly $1.5 billion in damages in lawsuits they filed over Jones' repeated claims on his show that the shooting had been a hoax.
Jones claimed the families and victims—20 first graders and six educators—were crisis actors, inciting his supporters to threaten the grieving families.
The auction included everything from Jones' desk and production studio to his diet supplement line, and the Sandy Hook families supported The Onion's effort to take control of Infowars, which the company said would be relaunched as a parody of itself.
"The Onion's goal with the acquisition is to end Infowars' relentless barrage of disinformation for the sake of selling supplements and replace it with The Onion's relentless barrage of humor for good," said the company in a press release, which did not state how much The Onion paid for Infowars.
Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion's parent company, Global Tetrahedron, told The New York Times that he and other leaders at the newspaper initially thought purchasing Infowars "would be a hilarious joke" to play on Jones.
"This is going to be our answer to this no-guardrails world where there are no gatekeepers and everything's kind of insane," he told the Times.
Collins, who previously reported on misinformation for NBC News, reached out to a lawyer representing Sandy Hook families and asked for their input on The Onion's auction bid. The families approved.
"By divesting Jones of Infowars' assets, the families and the team at The Onion have done a public service and will meaningfully hinder Jones' ability to do more harm."
"From Day One, these families have fought against all odds to bring true accountability to Alex Jones and his corrupt business," said Chris Mattei, the families' lawyer. "Our clients knew that true accountability meant an end to Infowars and an end to Jones' ability to spread lies, pain, and fear at scale... By divesting Jones of Infowars' assets, the families and the team at The Onion have done a public service and will meaningfully hinder Jones' ability to do more harm."
Mattei added that the families rejected Jones' offer "for allegedly more money if they would only let him stay on the air because doing so would have put other families in harm's way."
Robbie Parker, whose daughter Emilie was killed at Sandy Hook, said in a statement that the families had been "told this outcome would be nearly impossible, but we are no strangers to impossible fights."
"The world needs to see that having a platform does not mean you are above accountability—the dissolution of Alex Jones' assets and the death of Infowars is the justice we have long awaited and fought for," said Parker.
The Onion has "made an indelible mark on the public response to school shootings," said the company, pointing to its repeated printing of the headline, "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens," which has appeared in the newspaper 37 times following school shootings.
Advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety plans to work closely with The Onion on the new Infowars parody site, which Collins said would mock "weird internet personalities" who traffic in misinformation. Everytown has signed a multiyear advertising deal with the company.
"Alex Jones has profited off the pain of Sandy Hook families," said Everytown, "and his brand of hateful disinformation has seeped into mainstream American culture. We're excited to join them as they turn the page on this toxic chapter of misinformation and begin the next chapter of InfoWars, turning it into a tool to combat disinformation and extremism through humor. Not only will this new venture staunch the flow of hurtful misinformation, but it also holds significant potential for us to reach new audiences in the fight for gun safety."
A new DOJ report on the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is laced with vivid and horrifying detail on the failings of law enforcement, themselves fearing the AR-15 weaponry in the hands of the 18-year-old shooter.
Remember those twisted words by Wayne LaPierre, then leader of the National Rifle Association, just days after the
mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012? Standing there proudly up on the stage, he said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
This January LaPierre resigned from his NRA leadership position ahead of the trial on charges of corruption by the State of New York. But his words after Sandy Hook sadly live on despite repeatedly being shown to be total bullshit. Glaringly so in the review of the 2022 mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, by the Department of Justice (DOJ), released on January 18.
DOJ’s 575-page report, available in English and in Spanish, is laced with vivid and horrifying detail on the failings of law enforcement, themselves fearing the AR-15 weaponry in the hands of the 18-year-old shooter. Failings causing preventable death. Failings in providing adequate emergency medical care to wounded victims after law enforcement finally entered the classrooms. Failings as dozens of trained officers stood idly by without a leader armed to the teeth with their own AR-15-style firearms.
Here are the opening words by Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta at the news briefing where the DOJ report was officially released, remarks following those by Attorney General Merrick Garland:
The Attorney General just gave a sense of the detailed timeline we have laid out, and the cascading failures that occurred over the course of the 77 minutes between when law enforcement arrived on the scene and when they finally entered the classroom. But we also know the pain—and the failures and missteps—did not end when law enforcement finally entered the classrooms and rescued the survivors.
It continued at minute 78, when it became clear that because there was no leader, there was no plan to triage the 35 victims in classrooms 111 and 112, many of whom had been shot. Victims were moved without appropriate precautions, victims who had already passed away were taken to the hospital in ambulances, while children with bullet wounds were put on school buses without any medical attention. In the commotion, one adult victim was placed on a walkway—on the ground outside—to be attended to. She died there.
As difficult as the vivid words in the report are to ignore, I am not naive. If history is any guide, some in Congress will mightily try to discount the DOJ report, continuing to block any subsequent movement on meaningful gun-control measures. Republican lawmakers in solidly Republican states, as a detailed article in The New York Times describes, are fraid their voter base would vote them out of office if they show any hint of supporting gun-control measures. Those Republicans are waiting for the report to fade away in the news cycle to collect dust.
But then, the victims of the gun carnage in Uvalde, and those before, deserve more than letting the report die buried in dust. They deserve someone taking the debate to the naysayers in Congress and state legislatures armed with hard facts about the effectiveness of gun-control measures, framed by the realities of having none in a gun-friendly state like Texas where the brutal carnage within Robb Elementary School happened. Yes, there is an association between lack of gun regulations in a state and the occurrence of mass shootings, as I describe below.
Here are some of the arguments I would make today replying to some of the naysaying comments (bolded below) common among members of Congress downplaying any need for gun control:
Gun control does not work and won’t reduce gun violence.
Wrong. Take requiring gun licenses, as required in a minority of states today. In his review of studies, Garen Wintemute, who directs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, writes in Health Affairs that license requirements for gun purchases “have repeatedly been associated with reduced rates of [gun] violence.” This body of research is clear.
Furthermore, Michael Siegel at Boston University and his research team found, as reported in Law and Human Behavior, that requiring one to get a permit to purchase firearms was associated with a 60% lower odds of a public mass shooting occurring in a state, controlling for state characteristics like population. Other researchers found the same thing.
Why? Because licenses to purchase firearms typically entail in-person applications and background checks involving multiple databases and, among other things, taking a gun safety course. Basically a more comprehensive examination than standalone background checks singularly taken at the point of a firearm sale.
Congress already passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) in 2022. Nothing more is needed.
Okay, but the BSCA basically only includes more funding for mental health initiatives.
Well, mental illness is the cause of most gun violence, especially mass shootings.
I agree mental troubles underlie many suicides, by firearms and otherwise. And extreme-risk or “red-flag” laws encouraged via funding in the BSCA have been shown to reduce suicides.
But research repeatedly finds that psychiatric disorders, as a comprehensive review by Rand Corporation concluded, are not the principal driver alone across the spectrum of firearm violence. And that includes not being a predictable factor in mass shootings. Sure, after a mass shooting, politicians and media search hard to find a motive and signs of mental troubles; retrospective interpretation to justify mental illness alone as cause. Retrospective interpretation, I submit, many of us not owning a gun would fail.
But an assaults weapon ban is going too far. Based only on the threatening appearance of guns, nothing more.
Maybe the 1994 ban automatically expiring in 2004 was based too much on physical appearance instead of functionality. But today, as criminologist Thomas Gabor and former ATF agent Julius Wachtel have each argued, a ban can be based on objective ballistic lethality, scoring firearms on components including caliber, muzzle velocity, firing rate, ammunition capacity, loading mechanism, and ability to add accessories that increase lethality.
Wachtel in his 2015 article in The Washington Post describes one extreme lethal ballistic feature about AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. With “their most common calibers—7.62 and .223—these weapons discharge bullets whose extreme energy and velocity readily pierce protective garments commonly worn by police, opening cavities in flesh many times the diameter of the projectile and causing devastating wounds.” Hence, a herd of law enforcement personnel at Uvalde afraid of the weapon in the shooter’s hands milled around aimlessly for over an hour before doing anything.
And such carnage Wachtel describes was visited upon the children and teachers in Robb Elementary School on that fateful day in Uvalde, Texas.
A federal law banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is an approach supported by 81 percent of those self-identifying as Republicans and 91 percent of self-identified Democrats polled.
Before the Lewiston, Maine spree shooting suspect began voicing plans to “shoot up” his community, there was already a red flag that he might someday commit a mass shooting. The same red flag was also present well before a Florida Republican donor shot his wife and then killed himself in a restaurant parking lot three weeks ago in Palm Beach, Florida. The same red flag had been flapping wildly for years before a shooter took the life of a Judge in Maryland four weeks ago. Each of the shooters, now all dead by suicide, had the same red flag waving from their past: domestic violence. Indeed, one of the strongest indicators that someone will commit gun violence, particularly a mass shooting, is if that person has previously committed violence against an intimate partner or family member.
As City Attorney of San Diego, I have used our state’s red flag laws, also known as gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), to disarm over a thousand truly dangerous people, a third of them domestic abusers. Having this common sense intervention available to law enforcement and the public is one of the reasons why California also has 43% fewer gun deaths than the rest of the country. Since California’s red flag law went into effect seven years ago, GVROs have been credited with disarming 58 potential mass shooters who had threatened to commit large-scale gun violence. Of the individuals who had firearms temporarily removed with a GVRO, nearly a third had an assault-type weapon such as an AR or AK-style rifle.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe.
Focusing on the use of GVROs to reduce the impacts of domestic violence is key to protecting those experiencing abuse, but it can also protect entire communities. In the U.S., domestic violence has been identified as a common factor in nearly 70 percent of fatal mass shootings, meaning the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member or had a history of domestic abuse. It was the case in Sandy Hook, it was the case in Majorie Stillman Douglas High School, it was the case in Robb Elementary, it was the case in Pulse NIghtclub, and it was the case in the most recent spree shooting in Lewiston. The use of GVROs and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) in cases of domestic violence is constitutionally consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, next month, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Rahimi, which examines whether federal law can prohibit someone subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order from having a gun.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe. In United States v. Rahimi, Rahimi pled guilty in 2021 to possessing guns in violation of a federal law, 18 USC § 922(g)(8), that makes it a crime to possess guns when you are the subject of a qualifying domestic violence restraining order.
Rahimi had such a protective order against him because of his actions against his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has a young child, and after he was involved in six separate shooting incidents around Arlington, Texas, a search of his bedroom turned up a pistol with an extended magazine and a semi-automatic rifle. A federal grand jury indicted him for possessing the guns, but his lawyers challenged the constitutionality of prosecuting him. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Rahimi, ruling that the Second Amendment prevents the government from barring individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders from possessing a gun. The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.
The Washington Post exposé has been described as "the most powerful article you will read this week" and "one of the most important pieces of journalism ever produced."
On Monday morning, The Washington Post published a series of 3D animations to show "how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart."
A few hours later, a 28-year-old shooter armed with two assault rifles and a handgun killed six people at a private Christian school in Nashville.
In the wake of that massacre—the 129th mass shooting in the United States in 2023—the Post's exposé has received sustained attention, with one person calling it "the most powerful article you will read this week" and another characterizing it as "one of the most important pieces of journalism ever produced."
Noting that the lethal wounds caused by AR-15s "are rarely seen" by the public, the newspaper demonstrated "the trajectory of two different hypothetical gunshots to the chest—one from an AR-15 and another from a typical handgun—to explain the greater severity of the damage caused by the AR-15."
Then, after obtaining permission from the parents of two school shooting victims, a team of visual reporters created 3D models to depict how bullets fired from "many mass killers' weapon of choice" obliterated their children's bodies.
Noah Ponzer was one of the 26 people who were killed by an AR-15-wielding gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. The 6-year-old was shot three times.
"Noah's wounds were not survivable," the Post reported, citing 2019 court testimony from Wayne Carver, who was the state's chief medical examiner at the time.
Peter Wang was one of 17 people murdered when an attacker armed with an AR-15 opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018. The 15-year-old was shot 13 times.
As the Post reported: "The combined energy of those bullets created exit wounds so 'gaping' that the autopsy described his head as 'deformed.' Blood and brain splatter were found on his upper body and the walls. That degree of destruction, according to medical experts, is possible only with a high-velocity weapon."
"This is the trauma witnessed by first responders—but rarely, if ever, seen by the public or the policymakers who write gun laws," the newspaper noted.
Instead, many GOP lawmakers glorify assault rifles, including U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), whose congressional district is home to the Nashville school where Monday's deadly shooting took place.
Another right-wing member of Tennessee's congressional delegation—Republican Rep. Tim Burchett—baldly stated that "we're not gonna fix it" just hours after the shooting.
There are more guns than people in the United States. Due to National Rifle Association-bankrolled Republicans' opposition to meaningful gun safety laws—bolstered by a 2022 ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court's reactionary majority—it is relatively easy for people to purchase firearms in many states.
Two years ago, Tennessee became one of several states that allow most adults to carry handguns without a permit.
There have been thousands of mass shootings since Noah and more than two dozen other individuals suffered gruesome deaths at Sandy Hook, including last year's slaughter at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, among hundreds of others. Research shows that U.S. states with weaker gun control laws and higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of mass shootings.
Research also shows that gun regulations with high levels of public support, including bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, help reduce the number and severity of fatal mass shootings.
Guns recently became the leading cause of death among children and teens in the United States. A study published last year found that roughly 26,000 kids could still be alive today if the U.S. had the same gun mortality rate as Canada.
"I am 21 years old," said Jackie Matthews. "The fact that this is the second mass shooting that I have now lived through is incomprehensible."
Hours after a man opened fire on Monday night at two locations at Michigan State University, killing at least three students and injuring at least five, a 21-year-old student at the school posted a TikTok video to share that this was not the first mass shooting she'd survived.
"Ten years and two months ago I survived the Sandy Hook shooting," said Jackie Matthews, describing crouching in a corner with her classmates while a gunman fatally shot 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
"I am 21 years old," Matthews said. "The fact that this is the second mass shooting that I have now lived through is incomprehensible."
Matthews described the physical manifestation of the trauma left by surviving the Sandy Hook massacre, one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.
"I now have a full-blown PTSD fracture [in my lower back] that flares up any time I am in a stressful situation," she said.
Time reported that a number of other students on campus were survivors of a 2021 shooting at Oxford High School in Oxford Township, Michigan. U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who visited the campus, told the magazine that she had seen a number of students wearing shirts that read, "Oxford Strong," which were given to them after the shooting.
"I'll forever be Sandy Hook Strong," said Matthews, "and I'll forever be Spartan Strong."
"We've let down generations of children by letting this continue."
The Michigan State shooting followed the recent release of a study by gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety about survivors of gun violence.
Fifty-nine percent of U.S. adults now report that they or someone they know have experienced gun violence in their lifetime. More than 40% of those who have had personal experiences with gun violence say they have trauma as a result.
"The impact of gun violence extends beyond those who are wounded or killed," said Everytown. "The families, communities, and anyone with a personal experience of gun violence in their lifetime are also survivors of gun violence."
Matthews expressed solidarity with the families and friends of the three people who were killed Monday night at the school.
"But we can no longer just provide love and prayers," she said. "There needs to be legislation. There needs to be action. It's not okay. We can no longer allow this to happen. We cannot longer be complacent."
The law did not include universal background checks, which have the support of more than 90% of Americans, or a ban on assault weapons.
"We've let down generations of children by letting this continue," said progressive advocacy group Indivisible Michigan in response to Matthews' video. "We must act NOW."
As of Tuesday, 306 children under age 12 were killed by guns and another 668 were injured nationwide. For those ages 12-17, 1,328 were killed and 3,734 were injured.
With just a few days left until the new year, 2022 has already set a grim record: so far at least 6,036 children across the United States have been killed or injured by gunfire, according to the Gun Violence Archive.
As of Tuesday, 306 children under age 12 were killed by guns and another 668 were injured nationwide. For those ages 12-17, 1,328 were killed and 3,734 were injured.
Those figures include the 19 kids—but not the two adults—killed in the May 24 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and come just a few weeks after the nation marked the 10th anniversary of the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
Launched in 2013, the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is an online project that aims "to document incidents of gun violence and gun crime nationally to provide independent, verified data to those who need to use it in their research, advocacy, or writing."
GVA's annual figures for child deaths and injuries go back to 2014. As the group highlighted in a tweet Monday, this year is the first in recorded history that the overall number has topped 6,000—which Project Unloaded called "heartbreaking and preventable."
Jacob Sumner, who is pursuing a master's degree in public administration at Arizona State University as a Sackton fellow, tweeted of GVA's figures that "we should not and cannot allow that to be normal. We need lifesaving commonsense gun safety measures."
Noting ABC News' reporting on the record, Brady PAC—a political action committee that supports candidates who champion policies to reduce gun violence—declared that "our children have the right to live."
Another ABC reader described the development as "an absolute fucking disgrace."
U.S. President Joe Biden—who
signed some gun safety reforms into law after the Uvalde shooting—said on the Sandy Hook anniversary that "we have a moral obligation to pass and enforce laws that can prevent these things from happening again." However, with the GOP set to take control of the U.S. House next week, progress on the issue over the next two years is unlikely.
U.S. progressives marked the 10th anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre by renewing calls for gun control, with one reform advocate telling families of those slain in the nation's worst primary school shooting that "it is our national shame that we failed to take meaningful steps to protect your children."
"Instead of a moral reckoning, this country has seen an increase in mass shootings. The whole damn system is guilty as hell."
On December 14, 2012, a mentally ill 20-year-old armed with an assault-style semi-automatic rifle shot and killed his mother before murdering 20 first graders and six faculty members at the Newtown, Connecticut school before taking his own life as first responders arrived on the gruesome scene.
While gun control advocates pressed for reforms in the wake of the Sandy Hook slaughter, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, who still holds the position today, asserted that more guns in the form of armed guards at schools were part of the solution to a problem which he blamed on violent movies, video games, and music videos.
Since Sandy Hook, Democratic U.S. lawmakers have proposed dozens of gun control laws, with the vast majority failing to pass.
"Ten years ago today, 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School were shot and killed. We must never forget that horrific day," tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "It's time for Congress to pass the commonsense gun safety reforms the American people are demanding."
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tweeted that "it's been 10 years since Sandy Hook. Ten years and Republicans still offer no solution beyond thoughts and prayers. Our children deserve action."
Former Democratic Ohio congressional candidate Nina Turner wrote on Twitter: "It's been 10 years since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary occurred and instead of a moral reckoning, this country has seen an increase in mass shootings. The whole damn system is guilty as hell."
Since Sandy Hook, there have been 189 deadly school shootings in the United States, resulting in 279 deaths, according to the K-12 School Shooting Database. The advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise says that 12 children are killed and 32 more wounded by gunfire each day in the United States.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures show that more than 250,000 people have been shot dead in the United States between 2016 and 2021. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 42,199 U.S. gun deaths in 2022 alone, including 628 mass shootings.
"Today, gun violence has become the leading cause of death for children in the U.S.," noted the Institute for Policy Studies in a Twitter thread.
IPS continued:
Even within the U.S., gun deaths are highest in the states with the fewest gun restrictions... The same NRA lobbyists who profit off pushing more guns into the populace tell us that the answer to school shootings is to militarize schools. But we've seen that adding police to schools harms students--and *still fails* to prevent shootings.
The pro-gun lobby, one of the largest in the country, ignores these facts and spreads distortions by vastly outspending all of the gun safety orgs, while Congress looks on. Nearly $3 billion(!) is being spent annually on school security across the country without proven evidence that it promotes safety. Instead, we should invest in what we *know* promotes safety: Social and emotional support for students. And commonsense regulations on guns.
"From Sandy Hook to Parkland to Uvalde to Club Q, mass shootings are heartbreaking, too common, and entirely avoidable," IPS added. "Before we see any more tragedies, Congress must listen to the people and pass bold gun control now."
President Joe Biden--who earlier this year signed minor gun safety legislation in the wake of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas--marked the Sandy Hook anniversary by declaring a day of remembrance.
"We should have societal guilt for taking too long to deal with this problem," the president said in a statement. "We have a moral obligation to pass and enforce laws that can prevent these things from happening again."
At the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, Biden was vice president under then-President Barack Obama.
Biden added Wednesday that he is "determined" to sign a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, an unlikely outcome given Republicans will control the House of Representatives beginning next month.
"Enough is enough. Our obligation is clear," the president said. "We must eliminate these weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people in large numbers."
A Connecticut jury on Wednesday ordered far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay nearly $1 billion to people including relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, who endured relentless threats and harassment as the Infowars owner repeatedly claimed the shooting was a hoax staged by "crisis actors."
"There will be more Alex Jones in this world, but what they learned here today is that they absolutely will be held accountable."
Jones and Infowars parent company, Free Speech Systems, were ordered to pay $965 million to family members of eight Sandy Hook victims and an FBI agent who responded to the scene of the December 14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting in which 26 people--including 20 elementary school students--were murdered.
"There will be more Alex Jones in this world, but what they learned here today is that they absolutely will be held accountable," said Erica Lafferty, mother of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, after she was awarded $76 million.
Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son Ben was killed in the shooting, told the court: "It is one thing to lose a child. It's quite another thing when people take everything about your boy who is gone, and your surviving child, and your husband, and everything you ever did in your life on the internet and harass you."
Christopher Mattei, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told reporters outside the courthouse that "the jury's verdict is a testament to that courage, in a resounding affirmation that people of goodwill, dedicated to the truth, mindful of their responsibilities to their fellow citizens can come together to protect the innocent, to reveal lies masquerading as truth, and to set right a historic wrong."
"You may say that is astronomical. It is," Mattei said of the judgment. "It's exactly what Alex Jones set himself up to do. That's what he built. He built a lie machine that could push this stuff out. You reap what you sow."
Spurred by Jones' lies, his supporters subjected the plaintiffs to menacing threats and merciless harassment, including accusing parents of faking their own children's deaths. Some of the plaintiffs described feeling unsafe in their hometown; some of the families even left Newtown.
According to the Associated Press:
Strangers showed up at their homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house. Mark Barden told of how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his 7-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.
A Texas jury in August awarded nearly $50 million to the parents of another Sandy Hook victim. Due to state limits, the actual payout will be far less.
Jones was not in the Connecticut courtroom as Wednesday's verdict was read. Instead, he live-streamed the court proceeding on an Infowars broadcast and laughed as the jury read the damages against him.
"Why not make it trillions?" he asked sardonically. "Do these people actually think they're getting any of this money?"
Jones then implored his supporters to buy his overpriced dietary supplements, asking them to go to his website and "get all the great products that are there that keep us on air."
"They want to scare us away from questioning Uvalde or Parkland," he added, referring to two other U.S. mass shootings. "We're not going away. We're not going to stop."
To that, Fred Guttenberg--whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was one of 17 people murdered during the February 14, 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida--replied: "If Alex Jones intends to now question Parkland, bring it. Alex is a scum-sucking low-life dirtbag who deserves his place in hell."
Observers said that if upheld--Jones has vowed to appeal the "kangaroo court" verdict--Wednesday's judgments could spell financial ruin for the conspiracy theorist and his Infowars empire.
"Remember, even if Alex Jones does not have $965 million in cash, the Sandy Hook families can now use this judgment to go after his property, assets, and to garnish his wages," tweeted attorney Aaron Parnas. "He may never pay the full amount, but this judgment is going to cripple him."
Some of Jones' supporters called Wednesday's judgments an attack on free speech. In the past, numerous far-right figures including former President Donald Trump--who while running for office in 2015 said Jones' "reputation is amazing"--have voiced their support for him.
"My audience," added Trump, "90% of them, they support you."
Amid the desperation, pain, and frustration in the wake of last month's massacre of 19 children and two teachers at a Texas elementary school, there is renewed debate about whether making public post-mortem images of those killed by AR-15s and other assault weapons would help move the public or lawmakers in the U.S. towards taking real action on gun violence and mass shootings.
"I just cannot believe that Americans in this country would see what these weapons do to our children, our teachers, our community, and that they would stand by and do nothing."
In a society that often averts confronting the bloody and graphic consequences of its domestic and foreign policy choices, many people argue the images of children and others who suffer unimaginbale violence--like Emmett Till's pulverized body, Phan Thi Kim Phuc running naked and napalm-scorched down a South Vietnamese road, or Derek Chauvin's knee slowly choking the life out of George Floyd--have the power to change minds and potentially upend horrific norms.
Trauma surgeon Amy Goldberg believes Americans wouldn't be so numb to gun violence--which claims tens of thousands of U.S. lives each year and is so frequent that only the most horrific mass shootings make national headlines--if they saw what she has seen so many times.
"I think the citizens need to see the destruction of what these military-style weapons do, and that would be pictures," Goldberg told NPR earlier this week. "And I don't say that lightly. I don't say that with any disrespect, but I'm desperate. All the trauma surgeons need this to stop."
"I just cannot believe that Americans in this country would see what these weapons do to our children, our teachers, our community, and that they would stand by and do nothing," she continued.
"Emmett Till's mom had an open casket, and I'm sure that had some impact on the civil rights movement," Goldberg added. "The napalm girl--you know, those images, brought into our homes during the Vietnam War, I think significantly made change."
In an op-ed published by Common Dreams on Wednesday, attorney and social justice activist Mitchell Zimmerman contended that "there is no Second Amendment right to protection from reality."
Noting that "a number of states force women exercising their constitutional right to abortion to look at fetal sonograms before ending their pregnancy," Zimmerman asks, "What if states required anyone who wants to buy an assault rifle, or other semi-automatic weapons, to first see photos or films that show what such weapons do to human bodies?"
"Perhaps some would reconsider whether they really need this kind of weapon to hunt or engage in target shooting," he said.
The debate is not a new one. After 26 students and staff were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore asserted that the entire country was complicit in the slaughter due to gun control inaction.
"That is why we must look at the pictures of the 20 dead children laying with what's left of their bodies on the classroom floor," the Bowling for Columbine director said. "Then nothing about guns in this country will ever be the same again."
Moore's remarks sparked widespread outrage.
"There is no Second Amendment right to protection from reality."
"We want to remember the little angels as they were, with their happy expressions and faces and you want to think of the teachers trying to hold them safe and not to see the pictures of their bodies," said the leader of a Newtown parents group who called Moore's idea "a horrendous offense to the families."
Lenny Pozner told The New York Times that after his six-year-old son Noah died at Sandy Hook, he considered showing the world photos of what a 5.56mm x 45mm NATO-spec bullet--the type fired by an AR-15--does to a child's body. Made for use in war, such bullets can decapitate a person or leave a body looking "like a grenade went off" inside it, according to trauma surgeon Peter Rhee.
Pozner's first thought was, "It would move some people, change some minds." His next thought, however, was, "Not my kid."
Others believe that those puhsing for making such images public are mistaken and that many people--especially those so steeped in their sacrosanct right to bear arms that no number of dead children would move them--would "stand by and do nothing," as MSNBC opinion columnist Michael A. Cohen wrote on Thursday.
"To be an advocate of near-unfettered access to firearms means shutting out all the evidence that one's selfish demand for practically limitless gun rights is responsible for so much needless suffering," he continued. "It means looking at Robb Elementary, Sandy Hook, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the 2017 mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas, or countless other tragedies and deciding that the fetishization of steel and bullets plays no role whatsoever."
"Making public the pictures of the children slaughtered at Uvalde's Robb Elementary School would likely do little to change minds or seriously reshape the debate about guns in America," Cohen conluded. "But allowing people to see such pictures would increase the national trauma around gun violence."
"It's something you never want to see and it's something you don't, you cannot, prepare for. It's a picture that's going to stay in my head forever, and that's where I'd like for it to stay."
Some proponents of showing photos argue that it could come down to the way in which the images are displayed.
"I can imagine some pictures that could be made without dehumanizing the victims that speak to the story of the AR-15, which is a story that has not been seen or fully told," Nina Berman, a documentary photographer, filmmaker, and Columbia journalism professor, told the Times.
"For a culture so steeped in violence, we spend a lot of time preventing anyone from actually seeing that violence," she said. "Something else is going on here, and I'm not sure it's just that we're trying to be sensitive."
There is also the very real possibility that ordinary people viewing images of extraordinary carnage could be traumatized, perhaps even forever. Uvalde coroner Eulalio "Lalo" Diaz, Jr. had the grisly task of idenfitying victims of the Robb Elementary School massacre.
"It's something you never want to see and it's something you don't, you cannot, prepare for," he said of the crime scene. "It's a picture that's going to stay in my head forever, and that's where I'd like for it to stay."
Americans have blamed many culprits, from mental illness to inadequate security, for the tragic mass shootings that are occurring with increasing frequency in schools, offices and theaters across the U.S.
The latest, which occurred on May 24, 2022, at a Texas elementary school and left at least 19 children and two teachers dead, was the 213th mass shooting this year - and the 27th that took place in a school.
Yet during much of America's ongoing conversation about the root causes of gun violence, the makers of guns have typically escaped scrutiny. As a public health researcher, I find this odd, because evidence shows that the culture around guns contributes significantly to gun violence. And firearm manufacturers have played a major role in influencing American gun culture.
That's beginning to change, particularly since the US$73 million settlement between the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the maker of the rifle used in the massacre. This may open the door for more lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.
To help support this much-needed discussion, I'd like to share some critical facts about the firearm industry that I've learned from my research on gun violence prevention.
The U.S. is saturated with guns, and has become a lot more so over the past decade. In 2020 alone, U.S. gun manufacturers produced 11.1 million firearms, up from 5.4 million in 2010. Pistols and rifles made up about 75% of the total.
In addition, only a small number of gun-makers dominate the market. The top five pistol manufacturers alone controlled over 70% of all production in 2020: Smith & Wesson; Sig Sauer; Sturm, Ruger & Co.; Glock and Kimber Manufacturing. Similarly, the biggest rifle manufacturers - Sturm, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, Henry Rac Holding and Diamondback Firearms - controlled 61% of that market.
But all that only tells part of the story. A look at the caliber of pistols manufactured over the past decade reveals a significant change in demand that has reshaped the industry.
The number of manufactured large-caliber pistols able to fire rounds greater than or equal to 9 mm has soared over the past 15 years, rising from just over half a million in 2005 to more than 3.9 million by 2020. The number of .38-caliber pistols - small handguns designed specifically for concealed carry - jumped to a record 1.1 million in 2016 and totaled 660,000 in 2020, compared with 107,000 in 2005.
This indicates a growing demand for more lethal weapons, especially those focused specifically on self-defense and concealed carry.
The production of rifles has also increased, doubling from 1.4 million in 2005 to 2.8 million in 2020, though down from a record 4.2 million in 2016. This is driven primarily by a higher demand for semi-automatic weapons, including assault rifles.
So what can explain the jump in the sale of high-caliber handguns and semi-automatic rifles?
Gun-makers have become very effective at marketing their wares as necessary tools for self-defense - perhaps in large part to offset a decline in demand for recreational use.
For example, in 2005, Smith & Wesson announced a major new marketing campaign focused on "safety, security, protection and sport." The number of guns the company sold soared after the switch, climbing 30% in 2005 and 50% in 2006, led by strong growth in pistol sales. By comparison, the number of firearms sold in 2004 rose 11% over the previous year.
There's strong survey evidence that gun owners have become less likely to cite hunting or sport as a reason for their ownership, instead pointing to personal security. The percentage of gun owners who told Gallup that the reason they possessed a firearm was for hunting fell to 40% in 2019 from almost 60% in 2000. The share that cited "sport" as their reason fell even more.
Meanwhile, Gallup found that 88% of gun owners in 2021 reported self-defense as a primary reason, up from 67% in 2005.
Another possible explanation for the uptick in handguns could be the widespread adoption of state "stand your ground" laws in recent years. These laws explicitly allow people to use guns as a first resort for self-defense in the face of a threat.
Utah enacted the first "stand your ground" measure in 1994. The second law wasn't adopted until 2005 in Florida. A year later, "stand your ground" laws took off, with 11 states enacting one in 2006 alone. Another 15 have passed such laws since then, bringing the total number of states that have them on the books to 28.
These laws were the result of a concerted National Rifle Association lobbying campaign. For example, Florida's law, which George Zimmerman used in 2013 to escape charges for killing Trayvon Martin, was drafted by former NRA President Marion Hammer.
It's not clear whether the campaign to promote stand-your-ground laws fueled the surge in handgun production. But it's possible that it's part of a larger effort to normalize the ownership of firearms for self-defense.
This overall picture suggests that a marketing change fueled an increased demand for more lethal weapons. This, in turn, appears to have fostered a change in gun culture, which has shifted away from an appreciation of the use of guns for hunting, sport and recreation and toward a view that guns are a necessity to protect oneself from criminals.
How and whether this change in gun culture is influencing rates of firearms violence is a question I'm currently researching.
This is an updated version of an article published on Feb. 23, 2018.
Michael Siegel, Visiting Professor of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.