There never seems to be a moment’s reprieve when it comes to dealing with tragedies; though the moment may have passed, the lingering feelings of dread and dismay sometimes leave those left behind wrapped up in whirlwind of could’ve-beens and shouldn’t-haves.
We grieve. We get angry. We point fingers at each other, and sometimes at ourselves. We interrogate the accused and judge the guilty – and there are many culprits. We forgive, and eventually let go of the anguish. We hear that it’s going to be sunny and warm in the morning.
And then it happens again.
Despite all of the rigorous investigations, and all of the painful lessons we’ve had to repeat time and time again, the same issues still haunt the prospects of tomorrow. Perhaps this is because we have yet to acknowledge the true culprit of the situation.
Science.
Now, before you furrow your brows and draft accusations of anti-science bias, let us acknowledge the following: there is not enough rhetoric or discussion about the science and engineering behind the weapons.
Indeed, there are plenty of sound bites and text excerpts that can be found in all sides of the gun debate, but rarely is there any talk of the science that gave birth to firearms in the first place.
Ballistics, the proper term for this specific field of scientific inquiry, studies how projectiles interact and behave with their environment – a term that is rarely brought up by most politicians and commentators on both sides.
“It’s clear to me that AR-15[s] and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet,” said radiologist Heather Sher after witnessing the CT scan of an AR-15 wound.
While it’s true that wound ballistics caused by an AR-15 chambered in .223 caliber – the size of the bullet – are severe, what if the bullet passed through the first target and hit another target?
Overpenetration, as the phenomenon is called, is a serious concern for law enforcement officers, and studies have shown that .223 ammunition overpenetrates less on average than common handgun rounds.
In a certain sense, it’s actually safer to use an AR-15 chambered in .223 caliber because you run less of a risk of hitting something – or someone – behind the intended target.
However, there are some discrepancies on the pro-gun side of things, too.
“AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles are not the fully automatic, military-grade firearms that they are often claimed to be by gun control supporters and the media,” says the NRA on their website.
To be sure, the AR-15 is not a military rifle, nor does it possess automatic fire – but it is derived from one. The M-16, chambered in 5.56×45 millimeter – which produces similar ballistic data to the .223 – was designed to be used at distances between 300 to 500 meters.
In the Las Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock was firing into a crowd from a distance of about 300 meters.
If it’s derived from a military variant, fires a very similar round, is operated under the conditions its progenitor was designed for, and experiences only a negligible loss in lethality, then – practically speaking – the only things separating the infamous rifle from its military siblings are its name, a fire selector, and the metric system.
And at the end of the day, it will produce a corpse, should it be used to do so.
On the one hand, it is misleading to the public to completely define a weapon based off of one characteristic because it reduces the nuances of the platform. On the other hand, it is equally disingenuous to overlook ballistic data in favor of technical loopholes because it oversimplifies the complexity of the weaponry.
And if it sounds like both sides engage in the same half-truths and false comparisons they accuse the other of, it’s because they do.
Completely disregarding the legalities and philosophies surrounding arguments for and against the private ownership of firearms, people generally have a lack of fundamental knowledge on the ballistics of most modern weaponry – a lack of knowledge that is leveraged against the common person.
For the public discussion on gun rights to evolve past partisanship and into the realm of solutions, it is imperative for individuals to gain a basic understanding of how weaponry works so that they know what to focus on when public officials are hammering out the fine print of the law.
Letter to the Editor Policy
Here at The Xavierite, we try to represent the thoughts and opinions of the student body and Saint Xavier community within our Viewpoints section. If you feel that there is a story that should have been covered and was not or if you have criticism or concerns about our coverage, the best way to voice your opinion directly is through a Letter to the Editor.
Please send an email with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject line to thexavieritenewspaper@gmail.com.
If you are a student be sure to include your name and major in the email. If you are a member of the staff or faculty be sure to provide your name and title/position. We are always searching for feedback. All thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated.
Letters may be edited for content if they contain profanity, libel or do not otherwise correspond with ethical practices in journalism.
Letters may also be printed at the editor’s discreation.
About Post Author
