[music]

Matt Katz: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Matt Katz reporter in the WNYC newsroom filling in for Brian today. On Wednesday, after testimony from survivors and parents of victims of the Valdi Texas shooting, the House voted to raise the minimum age for the purchase of most semi-automatic rifles to 21 and banned high-capacity ammunition magazines. The Washington Post called the vote the most aggressive gun control measures taken up on Capitol Hill in years with five Republicans joining most Democrats and backing the legislation and two Democrats voting no.

Now the measures head to the Senate where Republican opposition will likely stymie what Democrats are referring to as common sense gun laws, but what might common sense gun laws look like? When we're talking about semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity ammunition magazines or body armor, are we all talking about the same things? Joining me now to help parse some of these legal and political terms and discuss the latest on gun control negotiations in Congress is Jennifer Mascia, news writer and a founding staffer at The Trace, who previously covered gun violence at The New York Times. Jennifer, welcome to WNYC.

Jennifer Mascia: Thanks for having me.

Matt Katz: Listeners, wondering if anyone out there in our broad listening area owns guns. If you do, what kind and why do you own them? Any AR-15-style rifle owners listening? What do you think of the current movement of mass shootings perpetuated by owners of semi-automatic rifles? Or to anyone listening who has experienced gun violence, what do you want others to know? Tweet @brianlehrer or give us a call now at 212-433-WNYC, that's 212-433-9692.

Jennifer, as I mentioned in the intro, the House passed this minimum age measure and this ban on high-capacity magazines. Can we break down these two bills first? Why a minimum age of 21? Is there any research to support that this is the age when adults can responsibly use guns? Why not 25 or even older? Why 21?

Jennifer Mascia: Experts say there are certain brain development benchmarks and the maturity level is not quite as developed as it is when we reach the end of adolescence, which is the earlier mid-20s. The argument is, well, people can go to war if they're 18, but they can't own a civilian gun in their own country. To that critics say, "Well, in the military there's a lot of training and there's a lot of gun storage requirements." It's not like people are just running around with guns, there's a discipline to it, and the responsibility is taken really greatly. In civilian life we are missing that. The idea of teenagers with these guns, it's difficult. We can't even rent a car until we're 25. There's something to that.

Matt Katz: Yes. For those who aren't familiar, what are high-capacity magazines and why do lawmakers want to ban them?

Jennifer Mascia: High-capacity magazines are defined a couple of ways, they're magazines that hold a certain number of bullets. The cutoff point for some states, some states do already ban these, about eight states, is 10. Anything over 10 bullets in a single magazine is considered high capacity. For the purposes of this house bill, they set it at 15 rounds. The reason that they do this, the thinking behind it is that if you have a gunman, if he has to stop and reload, he has to stop his rampage. There have been rampage shooters who have been tackled while reloading. We just saw that in Laguna Woods, and that was also the shooting that entered Gabby Giffords in 2011, someone tackled the gunman.

Matt Katz: Now, these two bills that we've been talking about, The Washington Post is already reporting that these measures are not going to pass the Senate. You've been reporting on gun laws for years, do you agree that these aren't going anywhere?

Jennifer Mascia: Unfortunately, I do. At this point, the political stakes with guns are still so high that a lot of Republican lawmakers fear getting primaried from the right, and guns is an easy issue to burnish conservative credentials. Lawmakers are posing in Christmas cards with their weaponry. That's going to be a really high climb. It goes back to a lot of popular legislation that dies in the Senate. Ultimately, this is an electoral system issue. There's minority rule in the Senate. More populous states have the same amount of representation as a very low populous state. It's difficult to get things passed. We're going to see this with guns and a number of other issues.

Matt Katz: There's a other lower-profile gun legislation that's out there as well. The house wants to codify existing executive orders to ban ghost guns. These are the unserialized guns that can be bought in parts and then assembled, and they want to ban bump stock devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to essentially become automatic. From what I understand, these are already executive orders, but they want to make them law, why is that?

Jennifer Mascia: It makes them harder to undo by subsequent administration. A president can come in and just disregard or repeal executive orders, but if they're codified law, it's a lot harder to overturn. Former President Trump issued new rules that the ATF is now following for bump stocks, and those have been upheld in courts. President Biden issued his ghost gun executive order. If those were codified in law, it would be a lot harder to undo.

Matt Katz: When Democrats talk about passing gun control legislation, they use the phrase common sense gun law. Is that a very broad term that can mean a bunch of different measures or do Democrats have a specific set of laws that they want to target, like the measures passed by the house yesterday? Even within the party, is there a consensus about what makes a common sense gun law?

Jennifer Mascia: That was a phrase that began use about a decade ago, I think a little bit after [unintelligible 00:06:39], to appeal primarily to gun owners. A lot of gun owners, if you ask them, they will say, "Yes, there should be a lot higher bar to own these guns. Background checks should go deeper. They should go longer." I think that common sense is a way to appeal to lowest common denominator, whatever we can get past. If you look at other countries, these things are a given, and things are a lot stricter. To get guns, you have to sit for interviews and set the character references.

Here when they say common sense, they're like, "Guys, we can agree on this basic thing because it's making public life less dangerous if we pass it." Common sense is an ever-shifting goalpost. It's whatever is politically feasible at the time, and we can't even get universal background checks through. I think a lot of Americans don't realize that almost a quarter of gun sales transfers are made without background checks and it's perfectly legal.

Matt Katz: Incredible. It doesn't seem like this phrase, common sense gun laws, has been all that effective of marketing tool for the Democrats in passing a new legislation?

Jennifer Mascia: No, not with the Republicans, but it is with the general public. The numbers are off the charts for bipartisan support, NRA member support, Republican support for even just universal background checks.

Matt Katz: That's just not reflected in Congress.

Jennifer Mascia: No, not at all. We have a big gulf between what the people want and what the lawmakers are doing.

Matt Katz: Why aren't Republicans responding to their constituents in this regard? Are the gun owners in red congressional districts not going to vote out Republicans who aren't supporting common sense gun legislation? It's just not like a issue that's relevant in terms of their electoral prospects?

Jennifer Mascia: Well, when it comes to Republicans and Republican primaries, as we see, a lot of far-right candidates are winning the day. When you're a far-right candidate, guns are definitely an issue that you're very liberal on. That's just part of the package, but also, when people think their gun possession rights are at stake, and this is a vocal minority of gun owners, the vast majority of gun owners believe in some tougher gun regulations, whatever those may be. This is a very vocal minority and they're unfortunately running the conversation. It's very difficult.

Matt Katz: You're listening to The Brian Lehrer Show. I'm Matt Katz filling in for Brian today. If you're just joining us, we're speaking with Jennifer Mascia from The Trace on gun legislation, and we can take some of your calls as we talk about the latest news on gun legislation. Gun owners or those with any experience with guns, what do you want others to know. Tweet @brianlehrer or give us a call now at 212-433-NYC. That's 212-433-9692. Let's go to Tim in Brooklyn. Hi, Tim. Thanks for calling in.

Tim: Hi. Good morning.

Matt Katz: Good morning.

Tim: Good morning. Great to hear you on the air.

Matt Katz: Appreciate that.

Tim: I'm a gun owner and a liberal and I think that we, the left-liberals progressives, people who want to reduce gun violence are making a huge, huge mistake by focusing on the scary military semi-auto and going for a ban on that, for three reasons, one, it's simply not going to happen in the current political climate. Two, there's already tens of millions of them in private hands. If you want to see a civil war, start confiscating guns in this country. Three, the vast majority of firearm deaths are done with handguns in this country. The vast majority of homicides and injuries are done with handguns. We are wasting our political capital. We're not solving the bigger problem.

We should, of course, increase the age, I agree with that, absolutely. We should definitely have a national minimum standard so that it is difficult to buy a gun anywhere in this country, or more difficult than it is now, because we have a vast trafficking network from places where the regulations are very lax into urban areas. It's slaughtering our children to the extent that we don't even look at it anymore. All we see are the mass incidents, and they get all the attention, but there's is just vast slaughter. It's like 20 to 1, 50 to 1 handguns versus the scary semi-autos. They simply are not very commonly used except in these high-profile incidents.

We really need a national standard for minimums. Of course, there should always be background checks, but we're wasting our political capital going after something we simply are not going to achieve. That's just ridiculously foolish. We should be going for minimum standards.

Matt Katz: You see the issue as the fact that like Pennsylvania, North Carolina have lax gun laws and then guns can be purchased there and brought into New York City, for example. That is the crux of the problem when it comes to gun-related bloodshed in the country.

Tim: I think that the real crux is that we glorify gun violence incessantly in video games and Hollywood. Given what we can achieve, I think that a minimum national standard and universal background checks are a place to start. As far as do games have any connection to these mass shooting incidents? I think the fact the Buffalo shooter published his screen on discord and live streamed that on Twitch should resolve any question about that because those are almost exclusively gamers platforms. Name me a mass shooter who didn't play first shooter video games. There's a real problem here and we're not even looking at.

Hollywood is the biggest hypocrite. The liberals in Hollywood constantly call for greater gun restrictions while they put out the vast amount of just absurdly well-done glorification of incessant gun violence.

Matt Katz: Tim, I want to ask Jennifer about a couple of these ideas that you mentioned. I really appreciate it. Jennifer, what do you make of, A, a national standard and the political possibility of something like that, and then B, the influence of these first-person shooter games that Tim was referencing?

Jennifer Mascia: Tim made a lot of good points. First of all, most gun violence is handgun violence, but that has proven so difficult to regulate. I think these mass shootings capture national attention. I believe that because handgun regulation is so difficult in this country, that's the opportunity that lawmakers use to draw-- not draw attention to from, but try to offer solutions when everyone's paying attention.

I'll just say, every country has the same video games. They don't have the same access to guns. That is what turns this into shootings. Those first-person shooter video games, though, there is a point there, gun makers used to have licensing deals with them and their logo was perfectly visible. It stopped a lot after Sandy Hook, but there is definitely a connection there.

The caller is from Brooklyn, which is really interesting because New York City has gun laws. To own a gun is very difficult. You have to go through months of interviews with the NYPD. It's a very expensive process and it kind of mirrors what's done in other countries. The NYPD and lawmakers like to say, "This is why we don't have the rate of shootings as other cities." It is true about guns being brought in from states with laxer gun laws. Your state is only as safe as the closest state with the tightest gun laws. We have the iron pipeline. They were all driven up here from Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas.

Matt Katz: There were two big busses [unintelligible 00:14:55] of guys bringing them up from the south into New York City. Is it politically feasible to have a national standard and get rid of state-specific gun laws and make a national standard for how you can purchase a weapon and who can purchase a weapon?

Jennifer Mascia: I don't believe that that will ever happen. We can't even get universal background checks federally. Gun rights people want a national standard for what they call constitutional carry. They want to be able to carry a gun anywhere in the country. Now, gun laws vary state to state. Certain states have reciprocity agreements, like one state, "I'm going to recognize only this state's permits," and New York doesn't have any. You really can't bring guns into here legally from other places. That's the standard that Republicans and gun rights activists want. That's the national standard, is freedom for all. If it's going to go anywhere toward a national standard, unfortunately, given our political realities, that's more likely.

Matt Katz: Can you school us a little bit on the AR-15? Both the 18-year-old shooters in Uvalde Texas and Buffalo use this weapon. Let's break down a bit about what exactly it is and what it does. You write that there are hundreds of companies making their own AR-style rifles. That's why it's helpful to think of the AR-15 not as a single type of rifle, but as a weapons platform. What does that mean?

Jennifer Mascia: AR-15s have a few features in common. One of them is a detachable magazine. Then there's one of five possible features that define it, a folding stock, which means the back of the gun can hinge and fold so it's smaller. The theory is more concealable. A bayonet mount is one of the features like mounting a knife on your gun. There's a federal definition of what it is.

A semi-automatic rifle is basically a rifle that the energy from the bullets immediately reloads another bullet. It queues up that bullet right away, which is why you can fire so fast. You have the old-style semi-automatic rifles, which are Rugers and they're wooden. Then you have what looks like war games. The reason that they appeal to gun owners and they're so lucrative for the industry is because they're modular. You can swap out components. You can get another trigger and you can get all these features and you can soup it up. It's like for gearheads, people really enjoy customizing these weapons.

Matt Katz: Right. I was struck by the white house briefing the other day. A lot of people may have already seen the viral clip of actor Matthew McConaughey speaking at the White House press briefing on Tuesday. The one that's making a lot of rounds explains how one child, 10-year-old, Maite Rodriguez, one of the massacre's victims was only identified by her green converse sneakers. There's another part of that speech I'd like to play that concerns the AR-15 specifically. Let's listen to about 35 seconds of Matthew McConaughey the other day.

Matthew McConaughey: These bodies were very different. They needed much more than makeup to be presentable. They needed extensive restoration. Why? Due to the exceptionally large exit wounds of an AR-15 rifle. Most of the body's so mutilated that only DNA test and green Converse could identify. Many children were left not only dead but hollow.

Matt Katz: It's gutting. We talked earlier about the House's proposed ban on high-capacity magazines, but the ammunition used by the Uvalde gunmen is among some of the most destructive types of ammunition. Can you talk a bit about that, Jennifer, what those bullets are and what they do and why that's not a focus for lawmakers?

Jennifer Mascia: I've seen more and more about it. I saw a lot of reporting about this after the Las Vegas massacre. I see now a lot of demonstrations where researchers are showing bullets going through gelatin and you see the handgun slug, and it cuts a path directly across the gelatin. Then you see the rifle round. It creates a shock wave where it destroys flesh from a few inches away from the entry wound in all directions. It's a complete destruction of flesh that when it exits, it can leave an exit wound the size of an orange. Rifle rounds obliterate human tissue. That is why the details of that hearing yesterday, where children were decapitated by these rounds. People are starting to be more forthcoming, I've noticed, with these details, and it's because they want to show the damage that this does. I cannot imagine the first responders who walk into these scenes. I think about it every time. When it's adults, they hear the cell phones ringing and they see the mangled bodies and that's something they can never get over. When it's children, I cannot even imagine, because you have smaller bodies, so these bullets do even more damage to those small bodies.

Matt Katz: The first responders, [unintelligible 00:20:32] stay with them until the day they die. It is more dramatic than any other image you can possibly conjure up. Unbelievable. Jennifer, I just had one more question. You guys at The Trace had a scoop yesterday regarding New York's body armor ban. The legislation was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul a few weeks after the 18-year-old gunman killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket.

According to reports, the body armor he was wearing had deflected a security guard's bullets at the entrance of the supermarket and he was able to enter and continue shooting. You reported that this new body armor ban wouldn't ban the type of body armor that the Buffalo shooter was wearing. Can you explain that a bit?

Jennifer Mascia: Yes, we started hearing rumblings on social media that tipped us off to this discrepancy. When we looked into the actual bill and then looked at the state's definition codified in 2014 of what a body vest is-- The ban that passed was a two-year-old bill that didn't even refer to body armor, it referred to body vests. Those are bulletproof vests that are defined in state law as soft body armor. Now, this gunman was wearing hard plates, and that was what deflected those security guards' bullets and allowed him to continue the rampage.

The legislation was proposed as a way of trying to make it easier for a good guy with a gun to intervene in a mass shooting, but we looked into it and we pressed lawmakers and they admitted, "You're right, this doesn't directly address that," but it looks like they are going to go back in January and make fixes. Until then, it looks like you could possibly still buy these hard plates. A lot of sellers are very confused as well, there's really been no guidance. This was pushed forward as a solution that really isn't a solution yet.

Matt Katz: That seems to be a trend, solutions being put forward and things being voted on that won't necessarily make a difference. Jennifer, incredible reporting. We're going to leave it there. My guest has been Jennifer Mascia, news writer and founding staffer at The Trace. Thanks so much for your reporting and thanks for coming on the show today.

Jennifer Mascia: Oh, thanks for having me, Matt.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.