“Once More Unto the Breach Dear Friends”

The title of this post is a phrase that Shakespeare has Henry V utter at the Siege of Honfleur. I chose it because this is another attempt to deal with a subject I first addressed in my first posts in 2018. It also is a recognition of a battle still to be fought. I am not completely sure how “winning” is to be defined, but a significant reduction in the casualties from mass shootings would be beginning.

At the forefront of the current debate stands the Second Amendment. Many of the loudest opponents of governmental action to deal with mass shootings are Second Amendment absolutists. As I pointed out in an earlier post, one thing that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion makes clears is that regulation of firearms is permissible under the Second Amendment. [See D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).]. Most people know and accept that the government does not allow us to possess fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weapons, artillery, and guided missiles. (I might add that all of these should be allowed if one accepts the novel historical basis for the amendment put forth by Justice Scalia in Heller. How is one to oppose the military of a tyrant armed only with small arms?)

It is clear to most people that any attempt to deal with the mass shootings will operate only at the margins. It will focus on future behavior and future acquisition and use of firearms. While it would be ideal to reduce the number of dangerous weapons available in homes and on the streets, I remain skeptical about the success of such measures in the United States. However, buy-back efforts appear to have great success in Australia.

There is currently much discussion about appropriate government action to achieve such a reduction. Some argue that the only solution is to identify disturbed individuals in advance and to get them appropriate treatment. While it is important to encourage members of the public to be aware of potentially dangerous attitudes and behavior, translating that into effective treatment modalities is extraordinarily difficult. Furthermore, many of these same individuals oppose one hundred per cent background checks that would include gun shows and private sales.

Others choose to focus on the weapons used in mass shootings. While hand guns and traditional long guns have been involved in a few such events, the assault rifle has been the weapon of choice in the most serious. What about a ban on the purchase of such weapons as President Biden and others have suggested? Had such a ban been in effect the shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde would not have been able to purchase the weapons used. They might have obtained them elsewhere, but only with great difficulty.

We have seen arguments that suggest that it is not possible to define “assault rifle” with sufficient precision to support regulation. This is clearly not the case. When contracting for recent weapons for our military it was necessary to provide specifications for potential bidders. These specifications are performance based and independent of nomenclature and manufacturer. It makes no difference whether AR stands for Armalite or Assault Rifle. What the military was looking for an individual weapon that could project rounds toward the target at a high rate with maximum effect. These requirements affect both the weapon and the ammunition used.

Although civilian versions of assault rifles are not capable of fully automatic or even burst fire, they are capable of a rapid rate of fire. Their only limitations are the speed with which the firer pulls the trigger and the size of the magazine. Since trigger pull can, obviously, be quite rapid, magazine size is critical. Military weapons are often provided with 30-round magazines to achieve maximum effect. Even larger magazines are available for civilian versions.

Assault weapons largely use 5.56 NATO or .223 cal. ammunition. The slight difference between the two is not germane to the argument here. The critical consideration is the effect on the target when hit. Let us not be deceived. The target in question for an assault weapon is a human being. The designers did not create them for big game hunting or target shooting. There is little question about the effect of these rounds on a human target. I pointed out in an earlier post that testimony from trauma surgeons who have experienced the results first hand is compelling. While a 30 cal., 45 cal., or 9 mm round will follow a relatively straight path through a human target, the .223 will tumble, thereby doing maximum damage to organs and tissue. You may recall recent testimony in which the spokesperson held up a pair of green sneakers and said that they were the way in which the identity of the child victim could be determined because the child had been struck by multiple .223 rounds.

What is the role of the assault rifle in the civilian world? Obviously, they may be purchased for their original purpose – killing or seriously wounding human beings. Advocates stress that such activity is in self-defense. This type of weapon is not ideal for such purposes. It is extraordinarily difficult to keep one at hand to use when threatened. Even if they are kept at home to defend ones “castle,” prudent individuals keep them locked up to keep children and angry spouses from accidentally grabbing them. Is the invader going to ring the doorbell first in order to give you time to get to your gun safe, or is the gun owner to throw caution to the winds and keep it “locked and loaded” under their bed?

One defender of civilian ownership of these weapons pronounced them to be ideal for shooting “varmints.” Weapons that use .223 or similar ammunition for shooting small “pests” have been widely available for years. Most of them follow a standard bolt-action, pump, or lever-action design with relatively small magazines. There is no doubt that an AR-15 could be used for such a purpose, but it is not even close to being the best choice of experts.

If the government does not ban assault weapons for civilian use, they should at least place a limit on the size of magazines used. This would have the virtue of extending safeguards to hand guns as well as long guns. I once asked a friend who owns a Glock 15 why he needed the large magazine. Surely, he was a better shot than that. His reply was that it enabled him to shoot fifteen “bad guys.” I suppose that there are circumstances under which that response would make sense, but I am having trouble visualizing them.

Those who would preserve the availability of assault weapons and large magazines, often argue that the best deterrent of mass shooting would be to increase the presence of armed defenders. This “solution” seems to be the modern version of the old west shoot-out in which the law officer engages the outlaw in the middle of the street. This can turn out badly. In Buffalo, an armed, trained guard engaged the assailant and was killed. The assailant had an AR-15 and body armor. The guard had a handgun. Even if the guard had been wearing body armor, he would have been out-gunned.

There are those who are sure that the best response is a variant of the above in which teachers are issued weapons with which to defend their classrooms. It is hard to see how such a response would have results that differ from those of Buffalo and Uvalde. An unarmored teacher with a hand gun would not last but a few seconds against an armored assailant with an assault rifle even if they were able to bring their weapon to bear in an instant. To even the contest, every teacher would have to wear body armor and carry their assault rifle at all times.

By now, it should be obvious that I am arguing for decisive measures in accordance with the reasonable regulation of gun ownership accepted by the majority of the Supreme Court in Heller. Universal background checks, raising the age to buy an assault weapon, and universal “red flag” laws will help, but their effect may not be noticeable. While a ban on assault weapons and large magazines isnot a perfect solution given number of such weapons currently in private hands, such action would clearly have prevented Buffalo, Uvalde, and Tulsa at the time and in the manner in which they occurred. Unfortunately, this view is unlikely to prevail in Congress.