A rifle is once again the subject of a hotly conteste
debate in this country. Many of the deadliest mass
shootings in America have seen from the use of this gun
from the Vegas massacre. 60 lives lost there to what we
just witnessed in Texas were three young Children and
five adults, all under 35 were lost. We want to look
deeper at the popularity of AR-15 with Timothy Litton.
He's a law professor at Georgia State University and
also author of the book, Suing the Gun Industry, a
battle at the Crossroads of gun control and mass torts
professor. Thanks for giving us some time this morning.
We appreciate it. Good morning Washington Post. As I'm
sure, you know, just did an extensive look at the AR-15
from all angles. And it is fascinating and I want folks
to understand it is now the best selling rifle in
America, one in 20 Americans own one. That's roughly 16
million of us own one. Can you talk a little bit about
why they've become so popular even in the face of all
these mass shootings It's becom quite a symbol in this
country's struggle with gun violence. How and why I
think there are two things that account for the
popularity of the AR-15 platform type weapons. The
first, which is really marketing the firearms industry
after the ceasing of the or the the end of the assault
weapons ban in 2004, really started to push the AR-15
as a weapon that would provide a tactical experi
for firearms owners. And that tactical experience is
something that I think there was a market for, there
was both a taste for this in American gun culture an
there was also a marketing strategy behind it. A
these two things sort of fed on each other. I think the
second reason um for the popularity of um the weapon is
it's become a powerful political symbol for not just
firearms rights but really a whole host of items on the
conservative political agenda. you see this in uh
lawn signs, for example, in congressional races in
North Georgia where I live um instead of American flags
or the Statue of Liberty or some other symbol of
liberty, the symbol of liberty has become an AR-15
platform weapon. There are silhouettes of these weapons
that are used to suggest what the alignment of a
political candidate is. So I think that the the weapon
itself besides just its popularity has become a very
powerful symbol and in some ways, it's caught in a kind
of cycle, the more the weapon shows up in mass
shootings, the more calls, ther are to ban it and the
more calls there are to ban it, the more people are
intent on going out and buying the weapon and the more
people go out and buy the weapon, the harder it is to
regulate the weapon, which make it more likely to show
up in these sorts of criminal shootings. So there's
kind of vicious cycle that's been going on around the
AR-15. Well, and your mention of the marketing strate
is really fascinating because that's a huge part of
this. But the fact that it's also being used as a
symbol of liberty in some corners of the country is, is
very, very telling back to that Washington post
reporting. I want you to break some of this down. The
survey found that AR-15 owners come from red, blue and
purple states compared to Americans as a whole, AR-15
owners are significantly more likely to be white male
and between the ages of 40 and 65 they're also more
likely to have higher incomes to have served in the
military and to be Republican. Ar 15 owners are more
likely to live in states. Former President Trump won in
2020 than adults overall. Can you help us understand
the demographics of ar 15 ownership in the country as
well or does it go back to that Marketing and poli
Sure, I think it's, it's, it's dangerous to over
generalize. But I think some of the indicators that you
just mentioned people who live in states that were won
by Trump in the previous election suggest that
AR-15 as a symbol of liberty is really stronger in
places that have more Republican leanings at this poi
And you know, keep in mind the symbol is in part
realized by people ability to go out and purchase and
own the weapon. So the fact is people don't just want
the weapon to be legal. People want to purchase and own
the weapon as a way to really affirm their rights for
lot of people. The second amendment is as or more
important than the first amendment and many people who
want to exercise their first amendment rights don't
just cherish them. They want to go out and practice
them, they go out and demonstrate, they write let
to the editors, they celebrate a free press. They're
really engaged actively with the First amendment and
first amendment rights is really a cornerstone of
liberty. I think a lot of people who see firearms
ownership as an important expression of the second
amendment are really engaged in purchasing these
weapons to affirm that commitment to the second
amendment is really a pillar of American liberty. It'
it's an affirmation that's so fascinating on a much
lesser degree. It almost remind me of the battle we
had and maybe we're still having to a lesser extent
over vaccines and masks. If you had at a certain point,
this pandemic, if you had a mask on or saying, hey, I'm
going to get the shot. I'm going to get the booster
that was seen as indicative of your politics and folks
who rejected that also use the same argument. You can't
tell me what to do with my body and cover my nose and
my mouth. It is this sense of liberty, what the
government can take me. I can and cannot do. Which is
fascinating. Another stat here, 10 of the 17 deadliest
us mass shootings since 2012 have involved Ar 15 1
Republican lawmaker, Barry Moore of Alabama introduced
a bill in February to declare the Ar 15 quote, the
National Gun of America about your point about what a
symbol it's become we have, we want a national gun in
America as we deal with the ravages of a gun violence
epidemic. Seemingly every week, if not every day for
folks who look at this from a legal perspective beyond
the second amendment, you're al an expert on what it
takes in terms of legal action in the gun industry in
this country. Where does that stand right now Is that,
is that a push that has gained or lost steam and been
more successful or not many victims and their families
after these mass shootings file lawsuits against not
only the shooter but against the manufacturers of th
weapons that are used in the massacres. In this case,
very often manufacturers of AR platform weapons and
those lawsuits claim that the firearms manufacturers
have some responsibility for the mass shootings. And
the reason is for a number of theories, one is, is that
the design of these weapons makes them especially
lethal. The bullet wounds from an AR-15 weapon are much
greater than you would have, for example, from a
handgun. The second is the marketing practices of thes
companies, companies are pushin not only the tactical
experience but they're placing these products in video
games, giving people an opportunity to play out
scenarios that look, you know, sadly like what we see
in mass shootings. And the third is distribution
practices. Men and companies are supplying large
volumes of weapons to places where they know the legal
market probably won't be able to absorb all those
weapons. And so there's some sense that firearms
industry may be aware of how these weapons are
trafficked. These lawsuits generally have not succeeded
because the federal government in 2005 passed a law
immunizing the firearms industry from civil lawsuits
that arise out of criminal misuse of a weapon. There
are some exceptions to that immunity shield and curren
litigation now is sort of testing the boundaries of
those exceptions. So we're seeing lawsuits out of
Uvalde or after Highland Park or after the Buffalo
shooting that are based on these theories against the
firearms manufacturers seeking to hold the firearms
manufacturing industry liable and responsible for mass
shootings. Somewhat like we hold the Pharma industry
liable for the opioid epidemic. It's not their sole
responsibility. But many people think that the industry
plays a role here and should be held to account the
difference between the pharma industry in the, in the
opioid scenario. And the firearms industry of course,
is the federal immunity shield. And that's the subject
of litigation around the country. Currently at this
point are those companies though, are those gun makers
and most gun makers now have their own version of the
AR-15 That's how popular they are. They all have jumped
in that game and made an AR-15s weapon to have in their,
in their lineup because of the soaring popularity of it.
I would assume they are wealthy enough to withstand
either well lawyered enough or well moneyed enough to
withstand whatever legal challe may come. No one
wants to write a big check, but they sell a lot of guns
in this country financially. You were talking about
very, I assume very lucrative companies. Well, on t
one hand, the firearms industry and its trade
association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation
has spent a lot of money defending these lawsuits
the last 25 years. They've been largely successful
Their legal bills are considerable, but as you
mentioned, there are bills that could be handled by a
major industry. On the other hand, I don't think one
should underestimate the power of the message that
liability sends the farm industry is by orders of
magnitude, much larger than the firearms industry. And
the Pharma industry has really been brought to its
knees paying out tens of billions of dollars in
settlements and re re fashioning the way they do
business around opioids. They've redesigned opioid
products. They've changed their marketing of opioid
products and they've changed their distribution and
they've done that because the judgments that have been
brought against them have sent a very powerful message.
And that's basically the idea behind the lawsuits that
somebody needs to send a powerful message to the
industry to do what it is within their power to try and
at least control their marketing efforts and the suppl
chain. Now, that being said, we don't have clear proof
that the firearms industry could have that kind of
influence that we've seen, for example, that the farm
industry has had, but we won't know until they actually
try and they don't currently really have much ince
to try and do things that might reduce the risk of
criminal misuse or criminal diversion of their weapons.
And the best incentive for that right now is probably
litigation. It doesn't look like Congress is in a
particularly good position to pass firearms legislation.
Congress is as divided as ever and we're coming up on
an election year, I wouldn't expect to see major gun
legislation at a federal level this year in an election
year and real quick and on a political note as well,
much like abortion, there is a national consensus on
guns in this country. Most people do support common
sense, gun control, particularly background checks,
things of that nature. What's striking to me always is
the disconnect between what the American people and say
that they want and then what DC is unable to get done
on the issue of guns in particular Why is there a gap
between what most of the country says Yeah, we support
that and what the folks in DC can get done. It is a
representative democracy at the end of the day, why
can't we get there on this issue From your perspectiv
it's much easier in the American political system t
block legislation than it is to pass legislation. You
only need a handful of votes in a place like the Senate
in order to kill legislation or to kill it in a
committee in the House. And that's in fact, by design,
the founders of the United States built a constitut
that's designed to make sure to block more legislation
than it allows because it was a great