Part 2
This table also compares the duration, average rate of fire and lethality of various active-shooter incidents.
So, here’s the problem with the magazine-capacity argument: These killers are not using a high rate of fire; they’re not even using a moderate rate of fire. Their rate of fire could be described as sluggish, no faster than a lever-action or bolt-action rifle. But that begs the question, why is their rate of fire so slow? The answer is a simple one: When you’re alone with your victims in an enclosed area and you’re the only one with a gun, a rate of fire any faster would only mean misses.
Are AR-15s to Blame?
When a mass shooter chooses an AR-15 as the firearm of choice, it’s usually referred to as a
“high-powered” or “military-style” rifle by the media, implying that it’s more powerful (and more deadly) than more commonly available rifles, such as those used for hunting deer. Let’s find out if that’s correct or if it’s another red herring. The answer might just redefine what the media considers a “high-powered” rifle.
Below, I’ve shown the round fired by the AR-15 alongside the three most popular deer hunting rounds. Which of the four rounds do you think is fired by the AR-15? If you guessed one of the three larger rounds on the right, you’d be wrong.
The AR-15 round is actually the smallest round on the far left, which is the Remington .223. The three rounds on the right are the three most popular deer hunting rounds, including the .30-30 Winchester, the .308 Winchester and the .30-06 Springfield, respectively.
One of the rounds above is the Remington .223 fired by the AR-15. The other three are the most popular deer hunting rounds on the market. Do you know which is which? The answer might just redefine what the media considers to be a “high-powered” rifle.
The fact is, the AR-15 round isn’t just physically smaller but also falls dramatically below those popular deer hunting rounds in kinetic energy (and well below the kinetic energy of a 12-gauge 000 buck shot shell too). I’ll add that a 12-gauge 000 (pronounced “triple-ought”) buckshot fires six to eight projectiles, all 45 percent larger in diameter than a single Remington .223 bullet
Now, I haven’t put this illustration together to make an argument that all ammunition of all types should be banned. Instead, I’m using it as a way of explaining that
simply banning one ammunition type or the firearm that shoots that ammunition in the hopes that it will result in less devastation during mass shootings is hopelessly naive. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but any ammunition type or caliber size fired into a human body at close range will have devastating effects.
When more than one round is fired into a victim, the devastation is magnified exponentially. As an example, the Virginia Tech shooter killed many of his victims using what would normally be considered a “plinking” round, or a round normally used for shooting squirrels and other small game. The .22 Long Rifle round is so tiny that most people wouldn’t give it serious consideration as a defensive or offensive round with its 100 foot-pounds of energy (less than 1/12 the energy of the Remington .223). Yet, when fired into a human body at close range, the results will be as fatal as any of the rounds shown or handgun ammunition of any type.
At Virginia Tech, each of the victims was shot at least three times. Of the 30 victims killed in Norris Hall, 28 were shot in the head, including one victim with nine bullets fired to the head. The politicians and gun-control advocates who are telling you that you’ll be safer during a mass shooting if the shooter has 10-round rather than 30-round magazines are the same ones who are implying that you’ll be safer if the AR-15 and its so-called “high-powered” ammunition were removed from the marketplace. My suggestion is that you not buy into that flawed logic and that the solution to ending these mass shootings does not lie in simply getting rid of any firearm type, any ammunition type or any particular magazine size.
Do ‘Gun-Free Zones’ Help or Hurt?
After every mass shooting, gun-rights organizations point the finger at the existence of “gun-free zones,” while gun-control advocates call for even more locations to be declared “gun-free.” So, who is correct? For their part, gun-control advocates have done much to try to dispel the notion that these killers seek out schools or other locations that ban guns. One anti-gun group even tried to dismiss the argument that Fort Hood was a “gun-free zone.” The group claimed that the base police who flooded the area and exchanged fire with the shooter proved that Fort Hood was not a “gun-free zone” after all. But claiming that arriving police means an area isn’t a “gun-free zone” (even though soldiers on base were barred from carrying personal firearms by base policy) is not a valid argument. Instead, let’s look at the data.
The data tells us that
since Columbine, and up to and including the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando and the shooting in Parkland, Florida, 50 mass shootings have occurred. Of those, 74 percent of them fell in “gun-free zones,” where civilians were disarmed by state law, school policy, federal law or policy, or by private policy. It’s worth noting that nearly
48 percent of the locations where mass shootings occurred were self-declared “gun-free zones.” No law barred civilians from protecting themselves with firearms but institutional policy did declare such a ban. In most cases, it’s a university or corporate
lawyer who suggests the ban as a way of avoiding liability if a shooting or an accident were to occur. But, after looking at the data,
those lawyers might want to reevaluate their idea of what liability means.
As mentioned, 74 percent of the mass shootings since Columbine have occurred
in “gun-free zones,” but those shootings were responsible for 85 percent of the deaths. That trend in the data clearly indicates that mass shooters actively seek out soft targets while avoiding hardened targets. Signs, school policies, corporate policies, state statutes, glass doors, unlocked doors and unarmed victims do not create hardened targets. What those things create instead is the perfect environment for these deranged individuals to successfully carry out their plans.
In the “gun-free zones” of our nation’s schools, these shooters don’t just believe, they KNOW that a counter-attack will only come from the outside. They know they’ll get a loud and dramatic warning of the upcoming counter-attack as they hear sirens approaching from all directions. Those sirens tell them that they have at least another four minutes or more to kill any remaining victims before police will enter the building. Again, they know that no counter-attack will be launched from within the school walls. It isn’t just what they believe; it’s what they know to be true. And so do we. If we change the environment, we stand a chance at changing their plans.
Read the full version and learn more about school shootings in Inside School Shootings: What We Have Learned.