WaPo Fact Checker: Rubio Right to Say Gun Laws Wouldn’t Have Stopped Mass Shootings
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio earned a rare acknowledgement from the Washington Post Thursday when they fact-checked his claim that more gun control wouldn’t have stopped recent mass shootings, and ruled that he was correct.
Rubio made a sweeping statement during an interview with CBS’ This Morning, arguing, “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.” But when the Post‘s Glenn Kessler looked into the issue, he found that Rubio was essentially right.
Kessler examined mass shootings back to the Newtown tragedy. In each of the instances, he found that the gun purchases would have still been legal under the most common gun control proposals, or that the shooter was already flaunting existing gun laws and would have presumably continued to do so. In the San Bernardino shooting, for example, “the guns were purchased legally and the rifles were purchased legally by a former neighbor.”
“Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it,” Kessler writes. “Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
In the end, Kessler forgoes his trademark “Pinocchio” rating scare to give Rubio an elusive “Geppetto Checkmark,” indicating “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
[Image via screengrab]
>>Follow Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) on Twitter
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com