Whistling Past the Graveyard

If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done.

— Peter Ustinov

Few things are truly certain. One is that people will offer grand, sweeping statements in the aftermath of a tragedy. Yeah, me too.

The latest school shooting, this one in Florida, is no different than the last, or the one before that. Or the one before that. Some disgruntled asshole obtained a weapon - this time apparently legally - walked into a school and began shooting. Multiple fatalities, multiple injuries. Much political hay being made on all sides. No real discussion, no real debate. In time, this will just be another historical artifact.

Here are a few things I think are factual.

First, the ubiquitous AR-15 platform began as a project to fill a need within the US Military. The US Military purchases weapons for one reason - to arm service members. The notion that the the AR-15 was not conceived as a small arm intended for use in shooting human beings is absurd.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic shoulder weapon that is functionally indistinguishable from any number of other semi-automatic rifles. The differences are sometimes cosmetic (most AR-15s are black), but sometimes meaningful.

The AR is ergonomically superior to the weapons systems it replaced. Mild recoil, compact design and the straight line bore-to-shoulder make it easier to fire multiple shots accurately (the argument over magazine capacity is a side show). Advancements in "furniture"  - stocks, fore grip pieces, etc., enhance the shooter's ability to run the gun. Optics that make target acquisition child's play are inexpensive, rugged and efficient.

Rifle trainers, and those who know much more than me about ballistics often engage in meaningful discussions about the effectiveness of the .223 (or, NATO 5.56) versus the .308 (roughly the NATO 7.62). Sadly, the lethality of the .223 in mass murder scenarios is beyond question.

Finally - despite the need the AR-15 weapons system was invented to meet, it's not exclusively a "weapon of war." Many individuals whose opinions I value suggest the AR as the premier home defense weapon. It has been used successfully in that capacity all over the country. I know, everyone loves the shotgun. It's easy, it's point and click... And every trigger pull unleashes eight or nine thirty caliber pellets moving in a steadily expanding pattern. If half of them hit the target - pretty good shooting - four are still headed downrange.

So, now we reach the second issue. Does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution secure the right of citizens to own this efficient killing machine? Undoubtedly it does. The landmark Supreme Court cases of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) clearly state that the right of an individual to own firearms is "central to the inherent right of self-defense." Not target shooting, not hunting, not macho posing. 

A number of commentators go on at great length about the right to protect one's self against governmental tyranny. Sure, fine. 

But, before anyone runs off to buy a machine gun... The Supreme Court also said that reasonable restrictions, to address "compelling governmental interests," would be constitutional. What are they? 

The court in Heller left it for us to work out. So...

We're the grown ups. We have failed the children we are supposed to protect. We haven't enacted quickly enough laws designed to keep the frightfully efficient AR-15 out of the wrong hands. When enacted, the agencies charged with enforcing those laws has been remarkably inept at doing more than apologizing profusely as yet another mass murdered slips through the dragnet. We've gotten really good at burying school children, though. And saying beautiful phrases at their memorial services.

Some schools have chosen to arm teachers. This is, among other things, an intensely personal decision to be engaged in by...wait for it...grown ups.

Let's all grow up a little. The right to keep and bear arms comes with a degree of responsibility that we have been criminally reckless in avoiding. The absolutists on both sides - yeah, I'm talking to you, too, NRA - need to understand that firearms are valuable tools that keep people safe. And, they are dangerous instruments of mass murder that some people ought not to possess. The Constitution recognizes this, and is awaiting us to get off of our dead asses and do something about it. Does this mean that a lot of people will have guns? Yes. Does it mean some very nice, well-meaning people won't be allowed to have them?

You're damn right it does.