Armed with Reason: The Podcast - Episode 5

This week's guest is Center for American Progress research associate, Allison Jordan

In our latest podcast, hosts Devin Hughes and Caitlin Clarkson Pereira are joined by Allison Jordan, a research associate for gun violence prevention at the Center for American Progress, and GVPedia board member.

You can listen to the chat via our channel on Spotify, as well as watch on YouTube.

We hope you’ll tune in and let us know not only what you think, but what you’d like to hear more about in the future. And if you are interested in recommending a guest, or even being one yourself, please let us know!

Given the abundance of gun violence in our country, it is critical to have the ability to discuss and advocate for a safer community. This podcast is one more way for the movement to do just that.

---

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION:

Caitlin Clarkson Pereira: Hi everyone, thanks again for joining us here on the GVPedia podcast called Armed with Reason. This is Caitln speaking, and we're joined here again with Devin. How are you, Devin?

Devin Hughes: Hello, it's me again. Doing pretty well.

Caitlin: Yeah. So here we are. I think we're on our fifth episode already, which is really exciting. And we are trying to find some really fantastic minds in the gun violence prevention movement to share any sort of unique experiences they have with with research or any work that they're doing, advocacy work. So today we are really excited to be joined by Allison Jordan, who I'm going to turn it over to Devin to introduce.

Devin: Thank you. Yeah. So Allison is a research associate for gun violence prevention at the Center for American Progress, and she's also a GVPedia board member. So welcome to the podcast. Great to have you on.

Allison Jordan: Thanks for having me. Yeah, a bit about myself. I've been working in the field for almost five years now. Prior previous to joining Gun Violence Prevention, I worked in Tribal criminal Justice. So it was a pretty natural transition. Yeah, Thanks for having me.

Devin: So today, I think that we are going to be talking a bit about some upcoming research that you have that's all about hate crimes, as well as the intersection of gun violence with hate crimes. So I guess tell us a little bit about that, and to leap a bit forward, I guess. What exactly is a hate crime versus some other type of crime? And yeah, just go from there.

Allison: Great question. So at the federal level, a hate crime refers to a crime that's committed based on the victim's perceived or actual identity. This includes race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. There are also state hate crime laws. These vary in the groups included and the breadth of protection they offer. But all of them cover hate crimes as crimes committed against race, ethnicity, and religion. It's also important to note that for something to be considered a hate crime, it actually has to be a crime. So, for instance, while still damaging, someone handing out fliers promoting white supremacist ideology has not committed a hate crime. But if a person motivated by that ideology in said flier threatens or attacks someone because they are not white, that act can be charged as a hate crime. We also know that hate crimes are treated differently from other violent crimes because of their unique tendency to escalate and their uniquely devastating impact for both victims and communities. Because these crimes target individuals based on perceived or actual characteristics, these crimes often result in deep psychological distress, not just for the victim, but for the members of the same group that was targeted. These send a message to groups that no matter where you are, you are inherently vulnerable because of who you are. These crimes also have a unique tendency to escalate because they're meant to send a message. So if the original criminal act fails to elicit the desired response, the offender will then escalate their violence, usually with the use of a firearm, but also with other weapons by breaking windows, things like that.

Caitlin: Allison, can you tell us a little bit about what the data says about hate crimes, and how reliable that data is?

Allison: Yeah. So unfortunately, there is no single resource for reliable data on the number of hate crimes committed in the United States, but there are two federal resources. The first are hate crime statistics reported by the FBI. These are based on voluntary reporting from local law enforcement agencies. These agencies will send in the number of confirmed hate crimes that they receive per year. Because of that, there are some shortcomings. First is that we know that hate crimes are wildly underreported, but also that there are differing levels of participation. Some agencies, in 2020, I think it was 90% of agencies that submitted data to the FBI said that they had zero hate crimes, which is statistically impossible. But it does give us a minimum estimate of the number of hate crimes in the United States. So what this does show us is that the United States is experiencing a significant spike in hate. So for the last four years, there's been a steady increase with 2021 marking the single highest number of hate crimes reported to the FBI in a year. This is almost, this is over a thousand more hate crimes reported than in 2001, which is the second highest number, our highest year on record. We're also seeing increases in hate crimes across all categories of bias. So, for instance, in 2021, we know that crimes against Asian people increased by 167%; in hate crimes against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people increased by over 50%. But again, we're seeing these increases across the board. We also know that the majority of these crimes are committed by strangers, and that hate crimes based on race and ethnicity make up the largest percent of these crimes, with sexual orientation a second. So this, again, like I said, provides a minimum estimate where the National Crime Victimization Survey can help is really showing a more accurate look at how widespread this violence is. And that's because it relies on self-reporting. So it sort of avoids the laws that are part of the FBI reporting. Based on these numbers, we can estimate that there were over 300,000 hate crimes committed in 2021. And we know that fewer than four in 100 hate crimes actually end up being reported to the FBI by law enforcement.

Devin: And one kind of data point I want to emphasize there is that most of these hate crimes are by strangers, because when you look at most other forms of violence, including gun violence, it's actually by acquaintances and people that the victim often knows. And so it's just striking that this is the one area where, like, it's actually the reverse now. And one of the things that I kind of wanted to go into is, so recently I had the great displeasure of reading the Turner Diaries. For those who aren't familiar with the book -- it was written by an avowed white supremacist and actual Nazi, back in the 1970s, and has really been seen almost like a Bible for the extreme fringe right and kind of militia style movement. And unfortunately it's had a major impact on many attacks. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing was inspired by The Turner Diaries. The Buffalo shooter reference stuff that comes directly from the book; and it was looking like the Jacksonville shooter kind of did as well. And one of the kind of harrowing things in the book is that the very initial aspect of this just really bad plot line is the federal government establishing strict gun laws. And you have multiple shooters now talking about how they want their shooting to inspire an overreaction on gun laws so they can start what they see as this race war. And I was just struck at how intertwined basically the gun violence aspect was, along with just this pure hatred that spewing forth in these pages. And so that's kind of a long-winded way of setting up the question of what has your research found about the intersection of guns and hate crimes?

Allison: Yeah. So guns play a really important role in escalating hate motivated violence against protected communities. So time and time again, we've seen firearms that are legally purchased by hate motivated offenders used to commit mass acts of violence. And even in cases where physical harm was not caused, guns have been used to intimidate and add credibility to a threat. So they really are a big part of how hate crimes can become so deadly. But also because the presence of a gun alone is enough to cause like serious harm without ever needing to pull the trigger. So right now, we can estimate that over 28 crimes, hate crimes, are committed with the use of a gun in the United States per day. The majority of these, the gun is never actually fired. Like I said, that has a lot to do with the role guns play for hate motivated offenders and for white supremacists or extremist organizations. These are often the tools through which power is asserted. They're used to send a message, whether it's, you know, you shouldn't apply for this job, you shouldn't be in this neighborhood. And if you don't follow or heed my warning, there will be very real consequences. So we also know that because guns are so particularly popular among white supremacists, this puts groups that are frequently targeted by white supremacists at a higher risk of experiencing hate motivated gun violence. For instance, anti black hate crimes involve the use of a gun at a rate 20 times greater than any other racial group. And we've also seen how these hate motivated individuals and white supremacist organizations capitalize on weak gun laws and capitalize on easy access to firearms, to legally acquire firearms and then also bring these firearms into public during protests outside houses of worship, in capital buildings to communicate to others they perceive as threatening their way of life, that they are unwelcome, unprotected, and in immediate danger.

Caitlin: Allison, can you tell us a little bit more about what holes there might be in some of the hate crime laws that we have?

Allison: Yeah. So in addition to federal statutes, 46 states have their own hate crime laws. And like I said earlier, these laws vary in the groups that are protected and the level of protection offered. So, for instance, while every state considers race, ethnicity, and religion part of their hate crimes statutes, sexual orientation and gender identity is often not included -- which creates a significant gap in protection. We also know that these hate crime laws are often applied after the fact as sentence enhancements. So what that means is after a violent crime is committed, if evidence shows that that crime was motivated by hate. Additional penalties can be applied to that individual. While this helps hold people accountable, if fails to proactively prevent violence. We also know that the only law, or the only crimes that automatically trigger a firearm prohibition are felony level offenses and state hate crime misdemeanor, or [rather] state crime misdemeanors punishable by more than two years. This makes sentence length the determining factor in whether or not someone's able to access a firearm, which we know that many times guns are used, or [rather] displayed but not actually fired, which can often result in shorter sentences for hate motivated individuals. That creates a situation where an individual with a demonstrated history of using firearms against communities based on hate can still go legally purchase a firearm because their sentence was too short to actually trigger a firearm restriction. So in at least 28 states, someone convicted of a violent hate crime can still legally purchase a firearm. One of the biggest ways we can address this shortcoming is actually looking at the risk factors associated with a previous hate crime conviction and say, well, we know that these crimes have a unique tendency to escalate. Therefore, we should prevent people with a demonstrated history of violence against communities from purchasing firearms in the first place. This is a really basic concept. It's also something that has legal precedent. Courts and policymakers have continually upheld and pushed for laws that restrict firearm access when there is an escalated or an elevated risk of violence. Because we know that firearms make hate crimes that much more deadly and are routinely used by hate motivated individuals to terrorize others, we should bar access -- right? Somebody with an elevated risk of violence towards others should not be able to access a firearm.

Devin: And to kind of add on to that, I'm curious what specific policies are best at kind of addressing these holes that we already have? And then kind of as an add on that came up when you were talking, is that for many of the mass shootings we've seen, there's often a domestic violence element to it beforehand. And I was just curious whether you had seen any data on like whether people who are committing these hate crimes, if there is a link to domestic violence as well, because I would imagine, particularly with gender identity, there would be some sort of link there. But I was just curious about that overall.

Allison: I personally have not come across any data looking at the overlap between those two things. I'm sure it exists. I haven't really looked into that. But to answer your other question, there are a couple of ways that we can sort of address this crisis proactively. The first is by passing a federal law that bars individuals convicted of hate crime misdemeanors from ever purchasing, or from purchasing firearms. This stops the cycle, the cycle of violence at a very critical point. In addition to that, extreme risk protection orders are one of the ways that we can really interrupt violence when an individual is displaying that they are a threat to themselves or others. And many states have passed these laws, but there are still some that have not, and should, especially because there is now funding through the bipartisan Safer Communities Act to help implement and support extremist protection orders.

Devin: Awesome. And to kind of start to wrap up here, and this is kind of a question we always ask is what are some of the biggest myths and pieces of disinformation that you've encountered on this topic? Like some of the things I've seen before is where like you'll have somebody like the Buffalo Shooter who's obviously motivated by racial resentment and hatred, and has like, literal pages of the Turner Diaries, like copy and paste it into their manifesto. But like, you'll have people on the far right, such as John Lott saying like, Oh, they're actually motivated by concerns about the environment, and they're actually eco terrorists here, where they just ignore like 90 to 95% of what these people are writing. And so, like, I've seen some sort of obfuscation around the edges, but I'm just curious if there's any like deeper myths that you've seen.

Allison: Yeah, well, one of the main things we see is push back that argues hate crime laws violate First Amendment rights. This is completely untrue. In order for a hate crime law to even be applied, a crime needs to take place. So something like, you know, posting white supremacist ideology or distributing fliers, like I said early earlier, while damaging, is not a hate crime, and a hate crime law does not violate First Amendment rights. The other thing that really is fueling misinformation around this topic is the lack of reliable data. So like I said, while we have information that allows us to see minimum estimates, we don't really have a complete picture of the number of hate crimes that are committed in the United States each year. So improving data reporting, data collection skills, that's all going to be to be a really important part of addressing this crisis.

Devin: Yeah, And one of the other things I had seen as well was actually a 2009 study of gun shows by Dr. Garen Wintemute, who visited like something like 40 or so. It might have been even more gun shows across the country, and was just taking pictures of what he saw, and you'd see all sorts of like neo-Confederate type stuff, like actual Nazi memorabilia, and all these like fringe right things. And like at those gun shows, they would have every right to display those products, like the display of those products and even selling those products -- not a crime. But if somebody took the next steps in that sort of ideology and decided to act on that hate, that's where it becomes a crime and that's where it becomes necessary to make sure that person doesn't have access to firearms.

Allison: Exactly.

Caitlin: And Allison, I think something that you said was really important when you're talking about data collecting, is this, one of the main points of a hate crime is to make others who identify in that community feel vulnerable. And that's not something that you can quantify necessarily. Right? And that's something that we would come to be more intimate with and know more details on based on qualitative methods, I would assume. So, is there is there any way we go about measuring like the true impact on like a socio-emotional sort of scale when these crimes occur?

Allison: That's a great question. Honestly, I don't have a single answer for that. We know that after hate crimes occur, members of the community that was targeted often express feelings of vulnerability, feeling unprotected, feeling unsafe. And that also contributes to like depriving groups of safe spaces. Safe spaces are really historically important, especially for marginalized communities. And when a hate crime occurs, it kind of signals to these communities that your safe space is no longer safe. But in capturing the widespread emotional impact of these crimes, I'm not really sure. I think that we need to do more research on the aftermath and the psychological impacts that are associated, not just for the individual victim, but for the communities in general. I think it would also be really interesting to look at how maybe participation in certain things decreases. So, for example, in Eugene, Oregon, a hate motivated individual targeting a Catholic church escalated his behavior from spraying door handles with pepper spray, or using pepper spray to spray it through the slots in the doors, and harassing parishioners outside of the church, to leaving hollow point bullets in the church's office with a note saying he was going to put Eugene on the map. And that alone really discouraged people from attending the church and freely expressing their faith. And so, you know, maybe looking at how communities are less inclined to gather, to have these shared spaces because of hate crimes might be an interesting way of looking at the impact.

Devin: And just to kind of jump into there like a further thought is like whenever these hate crimes are occurring, it does unfortunately motivate people in those communities to purchase firearms because they tend to feel like, well, what else am I supposed to do if I'm not safe here? And unfortunately buy into the myth and narrative that a gun is going to make you safer -- even though the stats show that a gun in the home doubles your risk of homicide, triples your risk of suicide, is just going to further fuel escalation. And it's also kind of harrowing to think that there's a lot of the intimidation that is unfortunately protected by law to a degree to where, like in Oklahoma, it wasn't a hate crime or it wasn't motivated by necessarily hate for any sort of group. But there was a guy that had his AR-15 out and was patrolling around the baseball fields I used to play baseball on when I was like eight, nine, or ten. And multiple parents were calling in like, Hey, there's a guy with an AR-15 here. Like, what are the police going to do? And they couldn't really do anything, because he was open carrying in a public area. And I do feel that unfortunately, particularly with open carry and displaying long guns like that, it's a way to intimidate others or at least provide camouflage to those who wish to intimidate others, and just say like, Oh, I'm just embracing my Second Amendment and First Amendment rights to walk in a public area with this gun, even though the clear message is that I'm ready to shoot somebody if they cross me.

Allison: Yeah, absolutely. And we've seen how guns in these spaces really increase the risk of violence. Like we know that the use of guns during protests increase the risk that onsite violence will occur by sixfold. So and we've seen the consequences, whether it's from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to, you know, other like Kyle Rittenhouse. Right? You know we see how guns at the site of protests openly carried outside of capitol buildings, houses of worship again are used to not just intimidate others, but really can result in significant harm.

Caitlin: Well Alison, thank you for your time here. And I'm actually really intrigued by something you said in your opening. So maybe we can have you back on the podcast to talk about tribal communities. Obviously, this is something, gun violence impacts tribal communities in a huge way, and it's something that I don't think we talk about nearly enough. So maybe we can snag you in the future to go into a little more detail on that. But we really appreciate you being here and talking to us about hate crimes, something that is really important. And, you know, sometimes we don't really pay attention to it until something bad happens. And the more we know beforehand, hopefully, the better society we can all be for one another.

Allison: Yeah, well thank you for having me.

Devin: Thank you so much for being here, and also for agreeing to be part of GVPedia's board. So double thank you!

Caitlin: Yes. And Alison has published with us on our Substack before, so feel free to go on the Substack page and check out what she wrote as well.

Devin: Auto sears and the rise of basically machine guns.

Allison: And stayed tuned for our upcoming piece on armed hate.

Devin: Definitely.

Caitlin: Thank you.

Allison: Thank you!

---

Photo of Allison Jordan courtesy of Center for American Progress.