Terror in The City: San Francisco ’93 massacre explained

101 California 3

Date: 1 July 1993

Location: Law offices of Pettit & Martin and neighbouring offices, 101 California Street, San Francisco, California

Number killed: 9 (including perpetrator)

Number injured: 6

Perpetrator: Gian Luigi Ferri, 55 years old, real estate speculator. Committed suicide at the scene.

Weapon: Two Intratec TEC-DC9; Norinco .45-caliber M1911 pistol.

What happened: At approximately 3 p.m. the gunman entered the law offices of Pettit & Martin at 101 California Street in San Francisco’s financial district. He wore earplugs and carried a TEC-DC9 pistol equipped with high-capacity magazines containing forty to fifty rounds of 9mm ammunition strapped across his chest. He also carried a handgun, for which he had ‘Black Talon’ hollow-point bullets.

He started shooting through the windows of a conference room, killing two lawyers, a witness, and a court reporter, before moving to other floors. Within minutes, the gunman had shot and killed eight people. Eventually, police cornered him in a stairwell where he committed suicide. Throughout the shooting spree, he fired between 75 and 100 rounds.

The semi-automatic firearms used by gunman were manufactured in Florida and sold in Nevada. The gunman purchased his firearms at a pawnshop and at a gun show in Nevada using an invalid Nevada license and a fake address. Under California state law, the semi-automatic Intractec TEC-DC9 model was specifically named as a banned assault weapon.

101 California

Legal Context: The law lists assault weapons as defined by Penal Code Section 30520, which includes a list of specific banned firearms, including the Intratec TEC-9 model used by the gunman. In addition, some weapons were banned due to their characteristics. For example a semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine; a magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds; a centrefire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches, or any shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Legislative Change: The 101 California Street shooting  marked a significant turning point in the gun control movement. San Francisco Assistant Police Chief Earl Sanders, stated that, “the weapons Ferri had – Tec-9s – turned a 55-year-old, pudgy, out-of-shape little man into a killing machine.” Luis Tolley, Director of State Legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence stated that in the aftermath of the shooting, “a tenure of real activism and change” took place.

Increased national public awareness sparked real legislative change when California Senator Dianne Feinstein drew up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban the following year, which was modelled on California’s ban. While the state legislation in California was widely regarded as a ‘quick fix’ after the Stockton school massacre without the substance to force real change, the Federal Assault Weapon ban was seen as a piece of historic gun reform legislation.  President Bill Clinton signed the bill on 13 September 1994.

Enacted under Title XI as a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Federal Assault Weapon Ban prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of nineteen listed semiautomatic assault weapons and approximately 200 firearms covered by the law’s generic definition of ‘assault weapon’[1].  Legally speaking, firearms are defined as ‘assault weapons’ if they possess certain features. Among these characteristics are a compact design, a barrel of less than 20 inches, a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping grip, and the ability to receive large-capacity ammunition magazines[2]. Congress agreed that these characteristics differentiated a military-style from civilian-style weapons, which could be used in hunting and target shooting, as well as in self-defence. The ban was passed for an initial period of ten years, but in 2004 Congress failed to renew it and the law expired.

California, at the state level, repealed a statute that had given gun manufacturers immunity against lawsuits after an attempt by some relatives of the victims to hold the companies that manufactured the pistol TEC-DC9, that the gunman used in the shooting, liable for negligence in Merrill v. Navegar.

——
[1] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Sec. 110102 (a) (v) (1) (30) (B) (C) (D).
[2] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Sec. 110102 (b) (30) (B) (C) (D).

Iain Overton's Gun Baby Gun is now for sale on Amazon.  Please order your copy here.  

Russia, despite high murder rate, relaxes its gun laws.

russian-president-vladimir-putin-fires-kalashnikov-assault-rifle-getty
Vladimir Putin, echoing Al Capone, this week told a meeting of the Russia United People’s Front: “You can get a lot more done with politeness and a weapon than with politeness alone.”

Russia, with the fifth highest murder rate in the world, has gone and relaxed its gun ownership laws.

Previously, Russians could own firearms for hunting or target practice. Now, under new laws, they will be allowed to have them for self-defence too.

Russia’s murder rate has fallen since the 1990s, when organised crime was at its height but there are still plenty of murders there.

In the most recent year for which full and reliable statistics are available, 2009, there were 21,603 murders in Russia. This gives it one of the world’s highest murder rates, according to a 2011 UN report. In the same year the US, which has a population almost twice as large, had 13,636 homicides.

Currently, Russians own 13 million forearms, in comparison with the 310 million owned in the US. Under the new laws, gun licenses in the country will still have to be renewed every five years, and applicants will be required to undergo background checks and take a safety course.

It will be interesting to see how many murders Russia sees once the new laws come into effect and guns become more ubiquitous.

Iain Overton's Gun Baby Gun is now for sale on Amazon.  Please order your copy here.  

Scotland’s tragedy: the Dunblane massacre explained

Dunblane shooting

Date: 13 March 1996

Location: Dunblane Primary School, Dunblane, Scotland

Number killed: 18 (including perpetrator)

Number injured: 17

Perpetrator: Thomas Hamilton, 43. Hamilton was known to Central Scotland Police before the shooting. He had been forced to resign from the Scout’s Association in 1993 following investigations by the police into summer camps he had run for young boys. It transpired after the shooting that the police were generally uneasy about him, but that this was not reason enough to refuse the repeated renewal of his firearm certificate. A tiny proportion of certificate applications and renewals were refused at that time.

Weapons: Hamilton had with him two semi-automatic 9mm pistols, two .357 revolvers and 743 rounds of ammunition. He had been in possession of a firearms certificate since 1977, citing his reason for requiring firearms as target shooting at local clubs and ranges, as required by the 1988 Act[1]. His licence had been amended and renewed several times over the years in order to allow him to purchase more guns and larger amounts of ammunition. In 1989 he surrendered a rifle that became illegal after the passing of the 1988 Act. All of his weapons were acquired and held completely legally[2].

What happened: The shooter walked into Dunblane primary school at 9.30am on the morning of the shooting. A class of five and six year old children and three teachers were in the school gym, about to begin a lesson. He entered the gym and began firing in rapid succession, killing one teacher instantly and hitting the other two. The two injured teachers stumbled into a storage area, taking some of the children with them. The shooter remained in the gym, firing dozens of shots at the children. He then walked in a semi-circle, shooting at point-blank range those who had been injured or lay terrified on the floor.

The shooter left the gym, firing at children and staff who he spotted through windows and doorways. He shot into a mobile classroom while a teacher and her class hid under tables – all survived without injury. He then re-entered the gym, where one teacher and 15 children lay dead, with a total of 58 gunshot wounds. The perpetrator killed himself with the revolver[3].

Law and wider context at the time: The legislation passed after the Hungerford massacre of 1987 focused on the banning of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, the banning of armour piercing ammunition, and the tightening of controls on shotguns. At the time of Dunblane, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols were still legal with a firearms licence, as were single-shot shotguns and rifles. The right to possess firearms is not guaranteed by UK law.

Reaction: The tragedy at Dunblane had serious and wide-reaching implications. Public opinion had an enormous impact on the legislative changes that occurred as a result of the massacre. The Snowdrop Campaign was founded by families and friends of those affected by the tragedy in Dunblane, and gained 750,000 signatures to a petition for a ban on private gun ownership in six weeks. The campaign stopped short of calling for a total ban on all guns, but rather called that guns for recreational use be held securely at authorised clubs, and all private ownership of handguns be banned[4].

The combination of the public pressure, driven by the Snowdrop Campaign, with the anticipation of the findings of an official Inquiry into Dunblane by Lord Cullen, caused a near-political crisis for the Conservative government. The gun lobby, which had won the concession of the establishment of the Firearms Consultative Committee after Hungerford, now looked out of touch and unsympathetic. The Labour party meanwhile, supported the Snowdrop Campaign in calling for a total ban on handguns[5]. With only months until a general election, the government had no choice but to pass legislation that prohibited all handguns above .22 calibre[6].

Due to public and political pressure, the government legislated far beyond the recommendations of the Cullen report. Although the report concluded that the attack could not have been predicted, it raised serious questions about Hamilton’s firearms licence, which in Cullen’s opinion should have been revoked in light of what the police knew about him.[7]

The report praised the response of the local police force to an unprecedented and entirely unpredictable tragedy. Most serious was the investigation into Hamilton’s firearms licence. As a result, there was a review of the way in which firearms licences were approved and renewed.

Law and wider context after: The legislation passed after Dunblane resulted in the UK adopting some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 banned all handguns above .22 calibre, followed by the Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997, passed by the subsequent Labour government, which extended the ban to all handguns regardless of calibre[8]. At the time, Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw commented that the changes should have been made nine years previously, after the Hungerford massacre.

 

The Select Committee on Home Affairs reported in 2000 that legislation passed after the tragedies in Hungerford and Dunblane was designed to respond to the failures in firearms controls. It found no reason to extend the controls further at that time[9].


[1] Cullen report.
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Hon Lord Cullen, “The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996”, prepared 16 October 1996.
[4] Ibid., para. 7.15.
[5] Squires, 2000.
[6] Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997
[7] The Hon Lord Cullen, “The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996”, prepared 16 October 1996, Para 6.64.
[8] Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997.
[9] Select Committee on Home Affairs, 2000.

Iain Overton's Gun Baby Gun is now for sale on Amazon.  Please order your copy here.  

The Devil’s Trade: guns and violence in El Salvador

abd-rodrigoThis is a report I did for Action on Armed Violence.

Gun violence is a part of everyday life in El Salvador. In a country that is home to two of the most powerful and violent criminal gangs in the world – the Calle 18 and the Mara Salvatrucha-13 (MS-13) – and where guns are readily available, it is of no surprise that the Central American country experiences some of the world’s highest homicide rates year after year.

The homicide rate in El Salvador in 2009 was 222 per cent more than the average rate in Latin America and the Caribbean. An end to the bloodshed is nowhere in sight.

The Devil’s Trade: Guns and Violence in El Salvador, a new report by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), investigates the ways in which violent groups arm and equip themselves. It finds that the number of illegal guns in the country far exceeds estimates, and that relatively few guns are removed from circulation.

The report also examines El Salvador’s history of violence. The country endured a particularly brutal civil war in the 1980s and 90s, where it is estimated that 75,000 people were killed and many more subjected to severe violations of human rights. After the conflict, the government failed to destroy stockpiles it had built up during the war, including the arms that it had confiscated from guerrillas.

00010840_mediumToday, weapons are being diverted from military stockpiles. Sources, both from the government and gangs, described to AOAV how easy it is to access the weapons either directly or indirectly through corrupt military personnel. There is even less control over the arms caches held by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) during the civil war era.

Other sources of weapons include the black market and arms trafficked through the uncontrolled north-eastern border with Honduras.

AOAV also recognises that there is a lack of centralised and reliable data on firearms in El Salvador. This means it is difficult to estimate the number of illicit guns in the country as well as the number of guns stockpiled, but the experts we spoke to were clear: the country is awash with guns.

The Devil’s Trade concludes that powerful parties with financial interests in the gun trade have crushed attempts to reform firearms law, and that corruption in gun law enforcement is rampant. Those interviewed during AOAV’s investigation indicated that firearm sellers have strong links to the military, and this cosy relationship allows gun stores to selectively enforce firearms law.

By examining how guns end up in the hands of criminals, this report brings us closer to understanding the driving forces behind the daily horrors of shootings and murders that plague El Salvador.

devil's trade

Report by: Jacob Parakilas and Iain Overton
With thanks to: Jenna Corderoy, Alexander Renderos, Steven Smith
Cover Illustration and Photos: Gangland guns in El Salvador by Adam Hinton
Design: Matt Bellamy

Iain Overton's Gun Baby Gun is now for sale on Amazon.  Please order your copy here.  

Horror in the snow: the Montreal shootings of 1989 explained

Massacre at Montreal, Canada, 1989

Date: 6 December 1989

Location: École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Number killed: 15 (including perpetrator)

Number injured: 14

Perpetrator: Marc Lépine, 25 years old. Committed suicide at scene

Weapons: .223 calibre Ruger Mini-14 rifle. The gun was purchased legally in a shop in Montreal in November 1989, shortly following the granting of Lépine’s firearms acquisition permit. The shooter also had with him three magazines with a total capacity of 65 rounds.

What happened: The shooter had been seen loitering around a university building between 4p.m. and 5p.m., a time when the school was very busy. He was not enrolled at the school and had never been a student there, although the coroner’s investigation found that he was very familiar with the campus. At 5.10p.m., he entered a room where a student was giving a presentation to a class. He fired a shot at the ceiling with a rifle and demanded that the men and women separate into two groups. He ordered the male students to leave the room and approached the nine female students who remained. He then engaged one of the women in a brief exchange, during which he declared his motivations for the attack. The shooter then opened fire on the women, shooting from left to right. Six of the nine women died. He then left the classroom and shot four more Montreal 1students who were in another room and in the corridor.

Over the next ten minutes or so, he moved around the same floor of the building, firing at three students, two of whom died. He then entered the cafeteria where about 100 students were congregated. He fired several shots in different directions, and killed two students who were hiding in a storage room. He instructed two other students to leave, and let them escape without injury.

The shooter then left the cafeteria area and after firing at students in the corridors, entered a classroom where he killed two more students, and injured many. At some points he aimed directly at individuals, and at other times he fired in all directions. He ended his killing spree by standing on the platform in the classroom and shooting himself.

Law at the time: Under laws passed in 1977, a Firearms Acquisition Certificate was required for all firearms purchases, with additional restrictions for certain handguns and fully automatic firearms. Lépine was not required to undergo any training in his application for the certificate and he was not required to register his firearm.

Reaction: The tragedy attracted particular attention and analysis due to the targeted nature of the shooter’s attack. The media pored over his decision to specifically shoot and kill women, as well as the details of his rambling suicide letter (which was not published in full). Parliament established the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, to be held on the anniversary of the massacre every year.

Students of the Polytechnique circulated a petition calling for the banning of military-style weapons. The newly formed Canadians for Gun Control recommended actions such as licensing firearms owners, establishing a gun registry, and prohibiting military-style assault weapons. This group would later merge with students of the Polytechnique to form the Coalition for Gun Control, which exists today as Canada’s major gun control lobby group.

Law after: Bill C-17 was passed in 1991, in the aftermath of the tragedy at École Polytechnique. The Bill focused on military-style weapons, banning high-capacity magazines for automatic and semi-automatic firearms. The law imposed a 28-day waiting period in the application for a firearms certificate, requiring a photograph and two references, as well as further background information and screening of applicants. From 1994, applicants had to pass a firearms safety course as part of the certification process. The Bill also restricted most military style rifles and introduced new regulations for firearms dealers.

The Coalition for Gun Control claimed that the restrictions did not go far enough. The debate then lead to the introduction of the Firearms Act, which came into force in 1995. It went much further than Bill C-17 in its creation of the Firearms Registry, which required the registration of all non-restricted firearms. The Act also required all gun owners to have a renewable firearms licence and increased restrictions on handguns.

The registration requirements of the Firearms Act were dropped in the enactment of Bill C-19 in 2012. This aspect of firearms law is currently a topic of legal and political debate in Canada.

Iain Overton's Gun Baby Gun is now for sale on Amazon.  Please order your copy here.