Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Editor’s note: This story includes graphic descriptions of injuries, and one graphic image taken from inside a classroom. We are not publishing images of injured or deceased victims.
Upon witnessing a relentless downpour of bullets penetrating a classroom wall and metal door, the initial police officers positioned in the hallway of Robb Elementary School came to the realization that they were facing superior firepower. Furthermore, they acknowledged the imminent possibility of losing their lives.
Carrying an AR-15, a rifle model employed by U.S. soldiers in every conflict since Vietnam, the assailant unleashed bullets that soared towards the officers at a staggering three times the speed of sound. Capable of piercing their body armor effortlessly, the projectiles threatened to penetrate the officers’ protection like a hole punch through paper. Miraculously, two officers were only grazed on their heads before the group hastily retreated.
Sgt. Daniel Coronado of the Uvalde Police Department emerged from the building, gasping for breath, and immediately reached for his radio to alert his colleagues.
Coronado stated, “I possess an AR rifle and a male individual as my subject.”
From across the building, the radio of another officer crackled with the sound of the dispatch.
“Fuck,” that officer said.
“AR,” another exclaimed, alerting others nearby.
Over a year has passed since the deadliest school shooting in Texas claimed the lives of 19 children and two teachers. However, investigators, law enforcement leaders, and politicians continue to be perplexed by the inadequate performance of nearly 400 law enforcement officers involved. The delay of over an hour in breaching the classroom and neutralizing the inexperienced 18-year-old assailant has been attributed to factors such as cowardice, insufficient leadership, or a lack of proper training.
However, the officers themselves explained, both during and after their failed response, that they were hesitant to confront the rifle positioned on the opposite side of the door.
“You knew that it was definitely an AR. There was no way of going in. … We had no choice but to wait and try to get something that had better coverage where we could actually stand up to him.”
— Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Donald Page
An investigation conducted by the Texas Tribune, utilizing police body cameras, emergency communications, and interviews with undisclosed investigators, discovered that officers determined it would be excessively risky to directly engage the armed individual. Despite possessing the same type of rifle as some officers, they made the decision to await the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team located over 60 miles away. This specialized unit possessed superior body armor, stronger shields, and more extensive tactical training.
“In an interview with investigators following the school shooting, Uvalde Police Department Sgt. Donald Page stated that it was evident that an AR was involved. The situation did not allow us to take immediate action, leaving us with no alternative but to wait for a more effective defense strategy to confront the assailant.”
“In a separate investigative interview, Uvalde Police Department Detective Louis Landry stated that our team lacked the necessary resources to enter the room without incurring significant casualties. Moreover, he emphasized that upon discovering the suspect’s use of a rifle, our approach had to be altered significantly. It was clear that a straightforward guns-blazing tactic, reminiscent of the Old West, would not suffice to neutralize the threat.”
After being terminated in August, Uvalde school district Police Chief Pete Arredondo explained to investigators the day after the shooting that he prioritized the evacuation of the school over entering the classroom due to the specific firearm the gunman possessed. State officials had assigned him the role of incident commander and held him responsible for the delay in confronting the gunman.
Arredondo expressed his anticipation of facing scrutiny for not entering the area, stating, “We will face questioning regarding our decision not to go in there. I am personally aware of the level of firepower possessed by the gunman, judging from the shells I observed and the bullet holes in the adjacent room’s wall. Our primary concern was ensuring the preservation of life and maintaining the safety of everyone surrounding the gunman.”
The Tribune was unable to secure any interviews with the officers mentioned in this story.
That hesitation to confront the gun allowed the gunman to terrorize students and teachers in two classrooms for more than an hour without interference from police. It delayed medical care for more than two dozen gunshot victims, including three who were still alive when the Border Patrol team finally ended the shooting but who later died.
Mass shooting protocols adopted by law enforcement nationwide call on officers to stop the attacker as soon as possible. But police in other mass shootings — including at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida — also hesitated to confront gunmen armed with AR-15-style rifles.
Despite a flawless law enforcement response and the immediate apprehension of the gunman, the death toll in Uvalde would have remained significant. Investigators determined that the majority of victims had already been fatally wounded in the minutes preceding the arrival of the police.
However, following the shooting incident, little attention has been given to the impact of guns. Texas Republicans, who have complete control over the state government, have focused their discussions on school safety, mental health, and police training, rather than addressing gun control.
A comprehensive and scathing report of law enforcement’s response to the shooting, released by a Texas House investigative committee chaired by Republican Rep. Dustin Burrows in July, made no mention of the comments by law enforcement officers in interviews that illustrated trepidation about the AR-15.
Other legislators have adopted the stance that the type of weapon utilized in the assault carried no significance.
“This man had enough time to do it with his hands or a baseball bat, and so it’s not the gun. It’s the person,” Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, said in a hearing a month after the shooting.
Republican state and legislative leaders, who are in the midst of the first legislative session since the shooting, are resisting calls for gun restrictions, like raising the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has suggested such a law would be unconstitutional, while House Speaker Dade Phelan said he doubts his chamber would support it.
Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and four Republican members of the Legislature — Phelan, Hall, Burrows and Rep. Ryan Guillen, chair of the House committee that will hear all gun-related proposals, declined to discuss the findings of this story or did not respond. Two gun advocacy groups, Texas Gun Rights and the Texas State Rifle Association, also did not respond.
Restricting access to rifles of this nature may not lead to a decrease in the occurrence of mass shootings, which were already prevalent in the country before these rifles gained popularity among gun owners. As per a mass shooting database maintained by Mother Jones, the number of mass shootings remained relatively steady during the ten years when the federal assault weapons ban was in effect, starting in 1994. Moreover, such restrictions would not tackle the underlying reasons that drive individuals to commit mass shootings; rather, they would solely aim to reduce the potential harm caused by the weapons available to them.
Relatives of the Uvalde victims, including Jesse Rizo, are convinced that the statements made by the responding police in Uvalde provide undeniable evidence supporting the need for strict regulations on rifles like the AR-15. This is especially significant for Rizo, whose 9-year-old niece Jackie Cazares tragically lost her life in the shooting incident.
Rizo stated that the police were aware that the person behind the door was not the child, but rather the 18-year-old gunman holding a rifle. He emphasized that it was the AR rifle that instilled fear in them, as their training did not instruct them to remain passive and wait.
A weapon of war
Upon their arrival at Robb Elementary on May 24, officers had a shared reaction upon realizing that the individual responsible for the incident was armed with an AR-15.
“Can you please confirm the type of gun?” inquired State Trooper Richard Bogdanski during a recorded discussion outside the school, as captured on his body-camera footage.
“A.R., the voice replied, possesses a battle rifle.”
“Does he really?” another asked.
Bogdanski inquired, “How can we ensure our safety while doing this task? I definitely don’t want to encounter any trouble.”
There were legitimate concerns as the AR-15 was specifically engineered for the effective elimination of human beings.
The AR-15 was created by ArmaLite, a California-based gun manufacturer, during the late 1950s. This firearm was envisioned as an advanced military rifle for the future. In comparison to the infantry rifle used by the U.S. Army back then, the AR-15 was designed to be lighter, with a shorter barrel and utilized lighter ammunition. This configuration enabled soldiers to carry a greater quantity of ammunition during combat situations. Although it fired a smaller-caliber bullet, the AR-15 made up for it by increasing the velocity at which the bullet was propelled from the barrel.
According to a declassified 1962 Department of Defense report during the Vietnam War, the AR-15 was deemed suitable for deployment among South Vietnamese soldiers due to their smaller build and lesser training compared to their American counterparts. The report identified five key advantages of the AR-15: its simple maintenance, precision, rapid firing capability, lightweight design, and exceptional effectiveness in causing harm or incapacitating targets.
According to the authors, the impressiveness of the AR-15 lies in its lethal capability and exceptional reliability.
The bullets had the capability to penetrate the body armor that the initial responding officers to Robb Elementary were wearing, which posed an additional level of danger that they were well aware of. Although rifle-rated body armor is available in most departments, including the city of Uvalde’s, it is generally not worn by officers on patrol due to the extra weight it adds.
According to Lt. Javier Martinez of the Uvalde Police Department, if anyone had entered through that door, he would have fatally harmed them. He explained to investigators the day after the shooting that carrying multiple ballistic vests is not feasible as the .223 caliber round would easily penetrate them.
In his interviews with investigators, Coronado expressed his worry about the moment he became aware that the gunman possessed a battle rifle.
“I also realized it wasn’t a pistol,” he recalled. “In that moment, I thought, ‘Oh no, it’s a rifle.'” Reflecting on the situation, he added, “Based on his shooting style, it seemed like he intended to harm all of us.”
While the AR-15 may possess less firepower compared to various rifles employed for hunting deer or other sizable animals, it surpasses handguns in terms of power. It propels a bullet with almost triple the energy of the standard round used in police pistols.
According to a study published in 2016 by The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, the AR-15 inflicts greater harm to the human body compared to handguns. Unlike handgun bullets that typically follow a straight path through the body, high-energy bullets lose stability as they slow down in flesh. This causes them to twist and turn, resulting in a more extensive damage to surrounding tissue. Consequently, these bullets not only create a permanent cavity of the bullet’s size but also a secondary cavity that is often significantly larger.
In simpler terms, the Defense Department report explained the impact of the AR-15 rifle during a battle with the Viet Cong at a distance of 50 meters. The report stated, “One person was shot in the head, resulting in a devastating outcome as it appeared to have caused an explosion-like effect. Another individual was struck in the chest, causing a large gaping hole in their back.”
In 1963, the Defense Department made a significant move by placing a large order for the rifle, which was later named the M16. They continued to use this design as the foundation for all their service rifles until 2022. The primary distinction between the military and civilian versions of the AR-15 lies in their firing capabilities. The military variant can discharge multiple rounds automatically when the trigger is depressed, while the civilian AR-15 is semi-automatic, necessitating a trigger pull for each individual round fired.
When it comes to mass shootings, the distinction between rates of fire becomes insignificant as both have the potential to cause the loss of numerous lives within seconds.
That’s what happened in Uvalde.
Before any police officer entered the school, the gunman unleashed a barrage of over 100 rounds at close range, targeting both students and teachers. Shocking photographs taken by investigators revealed that some victims suffered severe head injuries, while others had flesh torn apart by bullets measuring up to a foot in length. The devastating impact of the gunfire resulted in a child’s shattered shin, a near-amputation of another’s arm at the elbow, a neck torn open, and a baseball-sized hole blasted into a student’s hip. Additionally, bullets managed to pierce through the walls of Room 111, pass through an empty Room 110, and ultimately injure a student and teacher in Room 109, who fortunately survived.
In interviews with investigators, medics expressed their helplessness upon reaching the victims, stating that there was little they could do for the majority of them. At the school, eighteen out of the twenty-one victims were sadly declared deceased. To facilitate identification by their families, the police assigned each victim a letter of the alphabet and collected DNA samples.
Rifle popularity surges
Ruben Torres, an experienced Marine infantryman who witnessed the devastating impact of rifles in combat during his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, could never have fathomed that someone would employ the same weapon in an attempt to harm his daughter, Khloie. Shockingly, she was injured by fragments of a bullet while attending Robb Elementary.
Torres, having memorized the firearm safety rules due to the Corps’ rigorous training, believes that civilians should be obligated to undergo military-like training before owning AR-15s. Although he does not oppose civilians possessing these firearms, he has noticed that numerous individuals treat them carelessly and frivolously.
According to Torres, there are individuals who have never served in the military or law enforcement but still try to portray themselves as such. These individuals acquire weapons systems without any knowledge of how to use them or the level of responsibility and maturity required for their operation.
According to gun industry researchers, the surge in popularity of rifles over the past 15 years can be attributed to customers desiring a military-like experience. While civilians have been able to purchase an AR-15 since the mid-1960s, it remained a niche product for a long time, primarily favored by police SWAT units.
According to Timothy Lytton, a professor at the Georgia State University College of Law who specializes in researching the gun industry, the expiration of a federal assault weapons ban in 2004 opened up a fresh avenue for promoting rifles such as the AR-15 to the general population.
Lytton noted that in the 2000s, the industry witnessed a change in its marketing approach. Instead of targeting individuals solely interested in self-defense, there was a shift towards appealing to those seeking a tactical experience. According to Lytton, this emerging consumer group desired to replicate military combat situations.
The demand for rifles skyrocketed, with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a prominent trade group, reporting that American gunmakers manufactured 1.4 million semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR-15 in 2015, not including exports. This number is ten times greater than the production a decade ago. According to government and industry data, this category of semi-automatic rifles constituted 89% of the total rifles produced by domestic manufacturers in 2020.
As it grew more popular with the public, the rifle also became more popular with mass shooters. AR-15-style rifles weren’t used in any mass shootings until 2007, according to the mass shooting database maintained by Mother Jones, which includes indiscriminate killings of at least three people in public places, excluding crimes that stem from robbery, gang activity or other conventionally explained motives.
In the previous decade, rifles were used by gunmen in only 5% of attacks, but this percentage significantly increased to 27% during the 2010s. However, it was in the year 2022 when the AR-15 became the preferred weapon for mass shooters. This particular rifle was wielded in a staggering 67% of the 12 massacres that occurred that year. Disturbingly, these included incidents such as the tragic parade shooting in Illinois where seven innocent lives were lost and the horrifying supermarket shooting in New York that resulted in the death of 10 individuals.
Both of them were surpassed by the death toll in Uvalde.
The gunman’s purchase
There is limited information regarding the motives of the Uvalde shooter or the reasons behind targeting the elementary school where they were once a student. However, indications of premeditation and a strong fascination with firearms can be traced back several months.
From late 2021 onwards, he initiated a series of accessory purchases. These included an electronic gun sight, rifle straps, shin guards, a vest equipped with pockets for body armor, and a hellfire trigger. The latter attachment enables semi-automatic weapons to achieve near-automatic firing capabilities when snapped on.
On his journey to gather an assortment of weapons, he encountered one notable obstruction: According to Texas regulations, individuals must be at least 18 years old to acquire long guns such as rifles. However, this impediment ceased to exist on May 16, 2022, coinciding with his 18th birthday. Taking advantage of this newfound freedom, he proceeded to purchase an AR-15-style rifle from the website of Daniel Defense, an innovative gun manufacturer known for promoting their firearms through social media platforms.
Daniel Defense, the gunmaker in question, showcases its sleek Instagram videos which frequently exhibit young men swiftly firing the company’s rifles while donning combat-like attire. Additionally, their posts often include individuals associated with the U.S. military. The lawsuit filed by the families affected in Uvalde accuses Daniel Defense of deliberately aiming its marketing towards susceptible young men who are captivated by military fantasies.
The claims were rejected by the company, which portrayed the lawsuit as an endeavor to financially cripple the gun industry.
The case is ongoing, but Marty Daniel, the then-CEO, stated last year that it is unforgivable to suggest that images depicting the brave efforts of our soldiers, who put their lives at risk in combat, encourage young men at home to harm children.
In compliance with federal regulations, individuals buying weapons online are obligated to collect their purchase from a licensed dealer, where a thorough background check is conducted. The Uvalde shooter, with a clean record and no prior arrests, was guaranteed to successfully pass this process. Consequently, the Daniel Defense rifle was shipped to Oasis Outback, a local gun store, as per the prescribed protocol.
Between May 17 and May 20, the individual responsible for the shooting incident visited the store on three separate occasions. During the initial visit, the gunman purchased a Smith & Wesson AR-15-style rifle. On the second occasion, he returned to acquire 375 rounds of ammunition. Finally, he came back once more to collect the Daniel Defense rifle. Surveillance footage captured an employee placing the rifle case on the counter and opening it. The gunman proceeded to pick up the rifle, inspecting it by looking down the barrel and even placing his finger on the trigger. This action violated a fundamental rule of gun safety, which strictly advises against doing so unless prepared to discharge the weapon.
According to the gun store’s owner, he appeared to be an ordinary customer, showing no signs of concern. However, some of the store’s patrons informed FBI agents that he exhibited signs of nervousness and had an unusual appearance that resembled that of a school shooter.
At precisely 6:09 p.m. on May 23, the individual received an online delivery of 1,740 rifle cartridges. Within a span of eight days after becoming eligible to purchase firearms, he acquired two AR-15-style rifles and 2,115 rounds of ammunition.
He had not violated any laws, nor had he raised any suspicions with authorities. Furthermore, similar to numerous mass shooters, he had not provided any public indication of his intentions.
Investigators concluded that May 24, the day of the Uvalde shooting, was likely his first experience with shooting a gun. The process of using an AR-15 is straightforward: one needs to insert a loaded magazine, cock the rifle to load a cartridge into the chamber, disable the safety switch, and finally pull the trigger. However, according to a relative’s account to investigators, he initially struggled to properly attach the magazine in the days leading up to the incident, as it repeatedly fell to the floor.
After resolving an argument about his cellphone plan, he came to the realization just as he aimed one of the rifles towards his grandmother’s face and pulled the trigger. The shot caused a deep wound on the right side of her face, resulting in a lengthy hospital stay, but she managed to survive. When he headed to the school, he chose to bring along only the Daniel Defense rifle, leaving the Smith & Wesson behind in his grandmother’s stolen truck. He had driven the truck for three blocks before crashing it on the western side of the elementary campus.
When other officers hesitated
The 77-minute delay in breaching the fourth grade classroom was an “abject failure” that set the law enforcement profession back a decade, the Texas state police director said in June. Police had failed to follow protocol developed after the 1999 Columbine school shooting that states the first priority is to confront shooters and stop the killing. Yet even beyond Uvalde, the performance of police against active shooters with AR-15-style rifles — which were rarely used in mass shootings when the standards were developed — is inconsistent.
In 2016, during the tragic incident at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a security officer faced a gunman wielding an AR-15-style rifle. The officer, aware of the threat, cautiously waited for six minutes in anticipation of backup before deciding to confront the suspect inside the club. He later acknowledged that his handgun proved inadequate against the firepower of the shooter’s rifle.
The following year, a sheriff’s deputy stationed at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida failed to confront the shooter armed with an AR-15. Instead, according to investigators, he retreated for four and a half minutes. During this time, the assailant managed to shoot and injure 10 students and teachers, tragically resulting in the deaths of six individuals.
There have been cases where the police have faced the rifle head-on without any hesitation. One such incident occurred in 2019, when officers neutralized a gunman who had tragically taken the lives of seven people in a shooting rampage in Midland and Odessa. Similarly, during the 2021 supermarket shooting in Boulder, Colorado, one of the first responders who fell victim to the AR-15 used by the gunman was among the 10 innocent lives lost.
According to Massad Ayoob, a police firearms trainer with decades of experience, the intense pressure of a gunfight hampers critical thinking and motor skills. Ayoob suggests that officers can overcome this challenge by engaging in repeated training sessions that closely mimic real-life situations. Without such training, officers are at a higher risk of becoming immobilized or retreating.
Kevin Lawrence, a law enforcement officer with four decades of experience and currently serving as the executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association, expressed, “Have you ever found yourself engaged in a firefight? Have you ever encountered a life-threatening situation where your survival was in imminent danger? The truth is, none of us can truly predict our reaction in such circumstances until we are actually faced with them.”
According to Jimmy Perdue, president of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, implementing enhanced training that emphasizes the necessity for police to promptly confront active shooters would increase the chances of them doing so. However, Perdue believes it is impractical to expect all 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States to be fully prepared due to the unpredictable nature of these attacks occurring at random places and times. Perdue also acknowledged that firearms such as the AR-15 pose an extra psychological challenge for officers, as they are exceptionally deadly.
Perdue expressed that our only option is to rely on statistical probabilities and trust that the training will occur, enabling officers to comprehend the seriousness of the situation and react appropriately. Nevertheless, there is no assurance that the particular officer on duty during the next shooting will respond accurately.
According to research conducted by the FBI, it is often inconsequential whether officers adhere to active-shooter training as the majority of mass shootings conclude within five minutes, frequently before officers have a chance to arrive.
In Newtown, Connecticut, during 2012, a tragic incident occurred where a gunman took the lives of 26 individuals at an elementary school. Similarly, in Aurora, Colorado, that same year, another individual used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 12 people at a movie theater.
Resistance to gun control
In Texas, there exists a rich and enduring legacy of gun ownership, marked by a sense of pride and a gradual shift towards reduced regulations. This tradition is firmly grounded in the principle of personal accountability, where ordinary individuals are entrusted with the sensible ownership of firearms to safeguard themselves and their loved ones, as well as to intervene against armed wrongdoers in the absence of law enforcement.
“Ultimately, as we all know, what stops armed bad guys is armed good guys,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz at the National Rifle Association convention in Houston three days after the Uvalde shooting.
He provided two instances as evidence: the Border Patrol team that successfully entered the classroom at Robb Elementary, and the firearms instructor who shot the assailant that targeted a church in Sutherland Springs with an AR-15-style rifle in 2017. These actions potentially rescued lives, yet unfortunately, they were unable to avert the tragic deaths of 47 individuals.
Throughout this year, a collective of Uvalde families has made consistent visits to the Capitol advocating for more stringent gun regulations. One of their key proposals is to increase the minimum age for legally purchasing AR-15-style rifles to 21.
The mass shootings since 2016 in Dallas, Sutherland Springs, Santa Fe, El Paso and Midland-Odessa — all but one committed with a semi-automatic rifle — did not persuade the Legislature to restrict access to guns. Instead, lawmakers relaxed regulations, including allowing the open carry of handguns without a license or training. And Democrats who have proposed a number of new restrictions this session admit that their bills face nearly insurmountable odds.
Sandra Torres is reminded of painful memories when she sees the state troopers at the Capitol carrying AR-15s. The tragic loss of her 10-year-old daughter, Eliahna, who showed great promise as a softball player, at Robb Elementary still haunts her. Sandra never had the chance to share the news with Eliahna that she had made it into the all-star team. On the other hand, Mack Segovia, Eliahna’s stepfather, had no prior experience with firearms, but he has witnessed enough images of 200-pound wild hogs being torn apart by AR-15s during hunting trips with his friends. This has given him a grim understanding of the devastating impact the same rifle had on his beloved daughter.
The couple has made the six-hour round trip to Austin five times already, squeezing with other families into tiny offices for meetings with lawmakers to ask for what they think are commonsense regulations. Most legislators are cordial, but sometimes the families can tell they are being rebuffed, Torres said. Her partner recalled how the House speaker drove 360 miles from his home in Beaumont to Uvalde to tell families he did not support new gun laws, which struck him as a hell of a long way for a man to travel to say: Sorry, I can’t help you.
Torres and Segovia expressed that their perspective on guns shifted dramatically after their daughter’s tragic death, caused by a young man who easily acquired a combat-designed firearm without any scrutiny. They admitted that prior to this incident, they had no strong feelings about guns. However, the loss of Eliahna has compelled them to take action and make it more challenging for individuals to repeat the same devastating act.
“Those individuals were mere infants,” Segovia remarked. “Rest assured, if a similar incident were to occur involving esteemed members of the Senate or the governor, the outcome would unquestionably be dissimilar.”