When I learned that 20 people were killed and 26 injured (two later died) in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, one of the first thoughts that went through my mind was that the shooter must have had an assault weapon. It turned out that the murderer used a Russian designed AK-47 assault rifle.
When I first learned only thirteen hours later that 9 people had been killed and 27 had been injured in a nightclub district of Dayton, Ohio, the same thing came to mind. When I later learned that that police in Dayton took down the shooter in less than 30 seconds and that he had used a variation of the AR-15 assault rifle with a drum which made him capacity of firing 100 rounds without reloading, my worst suspicions were confirmed. Police now say that he fired at least 41 rounds before they shot and killed him. Only an assault weapon could cause that many casualties is such a short period of time.
Along Dayton incident, many of the most recent mass shootings, Newtown, Connecticut – 2012; San Bernardino, California – 2015; Orlando, Florida – 2016, Las Vegas, Nevada -2017; and Sutherland Springs, Texas – 2017, have something in common. The shooters in all of these massacres used one of the many variations of the AR-15 assault rifle.
The AR-15 rifle, like its automatic M-16 military equivalent, is a weapon of war designed for only one purpose, killing as many people as possible as quickly and efficiently as possible. Actually, we should be using the term “AR-15 style rifle” because while Colt’s patent on the weapon expired long ago, but they still maintain the copyright on the AR-15 designation. So while many gun manufacturers make equivalent rifles, each has their own naming convention for their version of these people killers.
When a person is shot with a regular handgun or rifle, the bullet carves a relatively narrow path through the body. Unless it hits the heart or brain or another vital organ or a major artery or vein, in many cases the injury is survivable with prompt medical care. Many people shot with AR-15 are not as fortunate.
Most serious handguns and rifles use 38 caliber to 45 caliber ammunition. On the other hand, most AR-15 style weapons use the relatively small and light 5.56 mm (22.3 caliber) ammunition, just slightly bigger than that used by the popular 22 rifles which are useful for killing small game and plinking targets. However, when shot by an AR-15 style weapon that small 5.456 mm bullet is propelled by the explosion of a much larger than normal amount of gunpowder. The bullet leaves the AR-15’a barrel with incredible speed, much faster than that of a regular rifle or handgun. When the bullet hits someone it makes a small hole, but due to its high velocity it fragments and tumbles inside the body causing a massive amount damage to tissue, organs or whatever is in its way before leaving an exit wound the size of a plum or small orange. Blood loss is often massive and often fatal.
This means that wounds to parts of the body that one could recover from if shot by a regular handgun or rifle could easily be deadly if the weapon used is an AR-15. In war this is an asset because when you shoot an enemy you want “stopping power”. You don’t want the person shot getting up and shooting you in return. However, it also means that when an AR-15 is in the hands of a would be mass murderer, the people he manages to shoot are much more likely to die.
When that killing power is combined with the AR-15’s semi-automatic capability (you can shoot as quickly as you can pull the trigger), high capacity magazines (which can hold 20, 30, 60, or even 100 rounds), and the weapon’s lightweight you have a devastating weapon. That is why it’s military equivalent – the M16 – has been the designated weapon of the US Marines since 1983 and the US Army since 1986 and has only recently been replaced with M4 carbine, which is also a variant of the M16. The M16 is still the weapon of choice of the armies of many countries around the world. The only difference between the M16 and the AR-15, the M16 can also be fired in full automatic mode.
The AK-47, the weapon used in El Paso, was designed and developed in Russia. It first saw use in the Soviet military in 1949 and soon became the weapon of choice of the Soviet army and most of the members of the Warsaw pack. Despite the age of the design, because of it relatively low costs, reliably and ease of use, this weapon and its variants are still the most popular and widely used assault weapons in the world. It has been manufactured by companies in number of countries.
The AK-47 fires a large 7.62 mm cartridge which leaves the barrel traveling at the speed of 2,350 feet per second. Like the AR-15, in the semi-automatic mode the AK-47 fires as quickly as the trigger can be pulled. The much heavier bullet used by the AK-47 provides the stopping power required in military situations, but it tends not to fragment when entering the body. However, modern ammunition for the AK-47 is designed to be unstable causing it to yaw or tumble after penetrating the body leaving significant wounds.
The standard magazine for the AK-47 contains 30 rounds, but a 40 round magazine is also available. Also available for sale are “couplers” which join two magazines together so the shooter doesn’t have to reload as often. When planning a mass shooting a killer might prefer to use a 75 round drum magazine for shooting more people without having to reload.
While the AK-47 is generally heavier than the more modern AR-15, like the AR it is a devastating weapon of war that is also designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Assault weapons are the tools of choice in the vast majority of mass shooting situations because the are the most efficient means of getting the job done quickly before law enforcement can put a stop to the killing.
Those who argue against banning these firearms often point out that if these weapons were banned as they have been in other countries, killers would resort to using semi-automatic pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns or even knives. However, none of these alternatives can come close to competing with assault weapons in the number of lives which can be taken in a very short period of time. And all but the hunting rifles, which have limited ammo capacity, can create the devastating, life depriving wounds attributed to assault weapons.
Assault weapons must be removed from possession of civilians in this country. Nobody believes this will necessarily stop mass shootings, but it will definitely will cut down on the carnage. In Dayton the shooter killed or wounded 36 people in about 26 seconds before he was shoot by police as he was about to enter a crowded night club intent on causing even more devastation. In El Paso the shooter killed or wounded 46 people, but could have kill many more. Instead he left the Walmart, climbed into his car and turned himself into the first police officer he saw. Had either of these killers instead been equipped with handguns, hunting rifles or knives it is very likely that at least some lives would have been spared. The killers would have needed to reload and/or change weapons, providing time for more people to escape or for the police to intervene before more people were killed.
Again, no one solution will completely stop the mass killings, but along with the implementation of federally mandated comprehensive background checks and red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, the banning of assault weapons nationwide would be a huge step in the right direction. And by banning I don’t mean only preventing the sale of new assault weapons. I propose totally eliminating those already in the hands of the civilian population. This would have to involve mandatory buybacks and, after providing a suitable period of time for this to occur, making possession of assault weapons a felony punishable by a few years in prison.
Most recent polls show that by a large margin Americans want stricter controls of assault weapons. I myself am a gun owner and I see no need for anyone by the police and the military to have these weapons of war. There isn’t a sporting, hunting or self-defense use for these weapons which cannot be handled as well or better by firearms which are far less dangerous to the general public. The Supreme Court has long found that 2nd Amendment’s provision safeguarding “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not absolute. There have been provisions on the books for many decades which prevent private citizens from possessing machine guns, rocket launchers, operational tanks and other weapons of war. You certainly can’t own an atomic bomb.
There is good evidence that an assault weapon ban would be effective. After a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Australia which killed 35 people, the Australian government passed a law outlawing semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns and instituted a buyback program to remove these weapons from the hands of private citizens. According to the Harvard Injury Control Center the program was “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the18 years before the National Firearms Agreement resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres” in Australia.
Now, the NRA and other advocates of assault weapons will battle back with every excuse they can think of from the difficulty defining which weapons are to be banned to referring to the fact that millions of these weapons are in hands of Americans and only a few have been used to commit mass murder. Most of the money needed to fight a proposed ban will come from the gun companies which make over a billion dollars in revenue from the sale of assault weapons every year. However, with enough political will and public support all of these excuses, and many others that might be offered, up can be overcome.
What we have here is battle of rights. On one side we have the rights of relatively few gun owners who own assault weapons to collect them, rapidly tear up targets on a gun range, or knock off some varmints and wild pigs (which could be hunted with other fire arms). These rights are pitted against the rights of more children in schools, more worshipers in churches, more people at work, in concerts, and in other places of entertainment to stay alive and not be shot. That shouldn’t be a tough call.
Cajun 8/6/2019