A report by Breitbart columnist AWR Hawkins claims that numerous high-profile mass shooters obtained their weapons through legal channels. the analysis lists incidents from 2009 to 2026,arguing that existing background checks were followed in each case.
From Pawtucket 2026 to Nashville 2023: The Pattern of Legal Acquisition
According to the analysis, a significant number of high-profile public attackers passed all required point-of-sale gun controls. The report specifically cites the suspect in the February 16, 2026, Pawtucket, Rhode Island attack, as well as the perpetrator of the December 6, 2023, UNLV attack, as individuals who acquired their firearms legally.
Other recent examples highlighted in the review include the March 27, 2023, Nashville Christian school attack and the April 15, 2021, Indianapolis FedEx attack. In these instances, the analysis asserts that the attackers were compliant with the laws in place at the time of purchase, suggesting that the legal system found no reason to deny the sale of the firearms.
A Seventeen-Year Record Spanning Fort Hood to the Present
The data compiled by AWR Hawkins covers a broad chronological range, starting with the Fort Hood attack on November 5, 2009, and extending through 2026. This timeline includes several notorious incidents, such as the June 12, 2016, Orlando attack and the November 5, 2017, Texas church attack, both of which the report claims involved legally purchased weapons.
The scope of the list extends to various settings, including government buildings, military installations, and entertainment venues. As reported by AWR Hawkins, other notable cases of legal acquisition include the September 16, 2013,D.C. Navy Yard attack and the May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara attack, illustrating a persistent trend across different types of targets and geographies.
The Breitbart Argument Against 'Knee-Jerk' Democratic Responses
The analysis frames these findings as a critique of the political reaction to mass shootngs in the United States. AWR Hawkins argues that the Democratic response to such tragedies is often an immediate, "knee-jerk" push for stricter gun control measures , rather than a measured response based on the fact that attackers often already complied with existing laws.
This perspective places the current debate within a larger ideological conflict over the Second Amendment. By highlighting that attackers passed background checks, the report suggests that adding more layers of point-of-sale regulation may not effectively prevent violence if the individuals are already deemed "legal" by current standards.
What the Hawkins List Omits About Firearm Procurement
While the analysis emphasizes legal compliance, it leaves several critical questions unanswered. The report does not provde the names of the attackers, nor does it detail the specific types of firearms used or the specific vendors involved in the transactions. It remains unclear if these attackers utilized loopholes or if they had clean records that simply failed to preidct future violent intent.
Furthermore, the analysis does not include the legal outcomes of the cases or the specific results of the background checks performed.. Because the source only presents the argument from the perspective of a Second Amendment columnist, it does not address counter-arguments regarding red-flag laws or the efficacy of waiting periods that might have altered the timeline of these attacks.
Comments 0