I attempt this essay with a great deal of discomfort. I recognize that my views on this subject are at variance with those of members of my family who are near and dear to me. Recent events have moved me to give greater thought to what I see as a serious problem, although I confess that my thoughts may be more directed toward mitigation that solution. At any rate, here goes nothing.
I am struck by the degree to which the phrase “semi-automatic weapon(s)” seems to dominate much of the discussion involving guns in America. There is something ominous about the phrase, and its breathless use in the mass media serves to inflame matters. A “semi-automatic” weapon is one that discharges with each pull of the trigger until the cylinder or magazine is empty. As a category, it excludes single-action revolvers and bolt-action, pump and single-shot rifles and shotguns. To be sure, the fact that a weapon is “semi-automatic” implies an increased rate of fire and that implication is serious. It also seems to be true that serious, competitive marksmen do not normally use semi-automatic weapons in competition. The same may, or, perhaps, should be, true of hunters. But is equally true that serious criminal acts are committed with firearms that are not semi-automatic.
My understanding of history is critical to my approach to this subject. In the early years of the 20th Century, semi-automatic weapons were unusual, even in the military. The earliest exceptions were the double-action pistol and the 1911 Colt .45 pistol. Up until the 2nd World War, military long guns tended to be bolt-action magazine-fed weapons like the Springfield and Mauser. As we entered the war, the military recognized that the rate of fire for a rifleman could be increased if they did not have to operate a bolt between shots. Thus, the M1 Garand and the M1 and M2 carbines were introduced to the U.S. Army. Some of the carbines were capable of full automatic fire. These weapons remained standard for our military through the Korean War.
After that, there was a relatively brief attempt to switch to the M14 rifle which fired a NATO standard 7.62mm round. These weapons proved to be unsatisfactory. I (and many others) thought the M1 to be a far superior weapon. We entered the Viet Nam era with the M14, but quickly moved to a new design, more suited to what the military saw as modern combat.
Thus was born the infamous assault rifle. The military wanted a basic weapon that would increase firepower without radically increasing the weight of the “basic load.” They also sought to increase the effectiveness of the round fired. The result was the M16, which became the standard weapon of the Viet Nam era. It was light. It had the capacity of both semi-automatic and full automatic fire. It fired a smaller .223/5.56 round. The smaller round permitted larger magazines. Design and engineering problems apparently made this weapon less that ideal for the military. There were many stories of the failure of the M16 and of troops picking up Kalashnikov AK47s as replacements. Today, the military is replacing this weapon with a lighter, more reliable version, the M4 carbine, which is limited to three-round bursts (although a full automatic version is available).
The various versions of the AR15 under discussion today are improved versions of the M16, limited to a single round with each trigger pull unless modified by a “bump stock” or some other after-market equivalent. Here is the point at which I will get particularly controversial. The large capacity magazines for these weapons were originally designed to increase the rate of fire for the military. The rate of fire is intended to be directly related to the casualty rate achieved by the firer. The selection of the .223/5.56 round enabled the military to reduce weight without losing the ability to cause maximum casualties. I cannot completely detail the ballistic characteristic of this round. What I can do is repeat the statements of those in the medical community who have seen and, sometimes, treated people with wounds related to this ammunition. Apparently, it causes maximum internal damage to flesh and organs. It does not leave a “clean” wound. It is well-suited to its original purpose.
I cannot see a real, civilian purpose for such ammunition or for a delivery system that is designed to put it out at a high rate of fire. The system is not well-designed for hunting or target shooting although it can be used for these purposes. At a minimum, a ban on civilian sale of this ammunition and the large capacity magazines associated with it would be in the public interest. Those who are interested in weapons for self-defense can be served by traditional weapons although I continue to doubt their efficacy for this purpose.
Would my proposal eliminate all mass shootings? Clearly the answer is “No.” However, decreasing the rate of fire and the damage caused by the ballistic characteristics of a single round would significantly reduce both the casualty and mortality rate of such shootings. In my calculus, any damage to the rights of marksmen and hunters or even those who are “standing their ground” is not as important as protecting human life.
I believe that there is a Second Amendment argument to be made in support of my position, but I will save that for another post.