In the wake of a shooting, it’s generally a good idea to wait for all the facts to come out before spouting off. It’s also a good idea to check in with firearms and gun policy expert Stephen Gutowski, who’s always extremely careful to consider the information that’s available, and, unlike so many self-proclaimed “experts,” actually knows what he’s talking about.
California, where today's school shooting took place, already has universal background checks. https://t.co/LP71iDuaRy
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) is currently advocating for a federal universal background check law and assault weapons ban on MSNBC. California, where today's school shooting happened, already has both measures.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Since many politicians are advocating new gun laws California already has in place as a solution to today's school shooting, it is important to ask why those gun control laws failed to prevent today's horrific attack. It's hard to answer that at this point with so few details.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Which demonstrates the need for federal law as one can simply cross the state border to protect brain one. Stop gaslighting
— jeff stanbury (@jeffstanbury1) November 14, 2019
Do you have any evidence what so ever that happened in this case? I haven't seen any at all.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
No, but your post also presupposes ineffectiveness of a hypothetical federal law that May or may not have helped. I’m pointing out the errors of your argument. That’s all.
— jeff stanbury (@jeffstanbury1) November 14, 2019
There's no indication at all it would have helped as the specific policies being presented are already in place where this attack happened. They clearly didn't prevent it from happening so it's important to know why.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Recommended
yes because school shootings only happen in california and that negates all the shootings that would be prevented in other states by a federal law, i am very smart, i am a pro-gun pundit https://t.co/bTx6bx7mDc
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
Califonia, where today's school shooting happened, already has the measures that Kamala Harris advocated for on MSNBC. If those measures are the answer to today's shooting, as the Senator argued, why did they not prevent today's shooting?
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Your argument appears to be that importing of banned firearms from other states, which is also already illegal in California, is the problem but there's no evidence that was a factor in today's attack so why are you so confident?
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
my argument is that we should have federal laws to deal with an issue that affects multiple states. states are not islands.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
theyre not *the* answer. they are an answer. murder is illegal and people murder, so obviously we shouldn't have laws and regulations against murder — is the ridiculous logic of this stance.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
That's a fair enough argument to make generally but the logic of arguing these specific laws are what we need to pursue in the wake of an attack which they demonstrably failed to prevent is weak.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
my argument is that we should have federal laws to deal with an issue that affects multiple states. states are not islands.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
I understand your argument and I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I'm saying today's attack is not good evidence for it.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
for you guys, no school shooting ever is. its always "this doesnt fit this box we just made up" as long as you get to continue flooding the country with guns.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
California has adopted every gun control law you're arguing for and yet today's attack happened in California. I'm open to listening to your explanation for that fact if you ever actually come up with one.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Perhaps you should read the bill @StephenGutowski it includes language with responsibility of the gun ower (adult) i.e. The child that had the gun was 15- most likely he got the gun from an adult gun owner- perhaps in his home
— Leslie Marshall (@LeslieMarshall) November 14, 2019
That's also already the law in California. https://t.co/hNw7LLfuQv
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
for you guys, no school shooting ever is. its always "this doesnt fit this box we just made up" as long as you get to continue flooding the country with guns.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
California has adopted every gun control law you're arguing for and yet today's attack happened in California. I'm open to listening to your explanation for that fact if you ever actually come up with one.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
because last i checked ca is still connected to the rest of the united states unless you're aware of a new body of water that has made some changes to the topography lately
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) November 14, 2019
Police have now identified the shooter as a 16-year-old who used a handgun. It is illegal for anyone under 21-years-old to purchase a handgun under federal law. It is also illegal for adults to allow unauthorized access to guns under California law. https://t.co/hNw7LLfuQv
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Charlotte Clymer, who does comms for the Human Rights Campaign and never really comes off as a terribly insightful or decent person, took issue with Gutowski’s use of facts against bogus but popular gun control narratives:
Not so fun fact brought to you by a military veteran + gun owner from Texas: firearms are transported across state lines. There are no metal detectors on the highway. You're welcome for this new information, @StephenGutowski.
So, yes, Kamala Harris is right to call for this. https://t.co/zmYffhcjk8
— Charlotte Clymer?️? (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019
If Clymer was hoping to own Gutowski, she was setting herself up for disappointment:
What you're describing is already illegal and has zero relevance to today's attack in California as there is no evidence the gun in question was transported across state lines. The condescension in your tweet is entirely unearned. https://t.co/RCDNmNjyJo
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Without facts on her side, condescension is the only weapon in Clymer’s arsenal.
The firearm police identified as being used in today's attack appears to be legal to own in California. It would also have been illegal for the 16-year-old attacker to purchase it anywhere in the United States anyway. There's no reason to believe other state's laws played a role.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Sweetie, we're trying to tell you how this works, and yet, per usual, you refuse to acknowledge the reality that people DO purchase firearms in private sales without background checks and transport them into other states.
Don't be a child. https://t.co/MQtgsTQjTa
— Charlotte Clymer?️? (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019
Who’s being the child?
That's already illegal in California and there's zero evidence it had anything to do with today's attack. The shooter was 16-years-old and, therefore, barred from purchasing a handgun anywhere in the country. You don't appear to understand the policies you're discussing. https://t.co/nHnLdHVfbC
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Does anyone want to teach @StephenGutowski how basic geography works? Y'all are obsessed with one border to our south and then completely lose all logic when it comes to state lines. I would hire a 3rd grader to teach you, but it'd be a waste of their time. https://t.co/irLHRUpV6O
— Charlotte Clymer?️? (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019
What you're talking about is both already illegal and completely unrelated to what happened today. It's obviously more than fair to point that out. News coverage should focus on policies that could have had an actual impact instead of what your particular politics prefer. https://t.co/1e8PydXUiV
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
It doesn't matter if transporting firearms is illegal if you can LEGALLY buy a firearm in a private sale without a background check in one state and carry it to another with no checkpoints to ensure it's not happening.
And you know this, Sweetie. https://t.co/dF1XmYrmfS
— Charlotte Clymer?️? (@cmclymer) November 14, 2019
You can't legally do any of this. What you're describing is illegal at both the point of sale and when you cross state lines and every moment afterward. Again, though, this has nothing to do with what happened today since interstate sales aren't implicated in any way. https://t.co/WirNVTWyRi
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
If Clymer were an intellectually honest person, she’d admit to being woefully out her depth. Instead, she’ll seek refuge in her own ignorance. And look even more foolish for it.
Reminder: Being condescending doesn't somehow make you right.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 14, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member