Assault Weapons, Guns, Gun Regulation, and Guns in Schools

AR-15s, Assault Weapons, Gun Regulation, and Guns in Schools

Me and why I’m writing this:

I have been asked for information and for my opinions on topics related to guns numerous times by friends, colleagues, and acquaintances multiple times in the days following the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. While I am sure I am not the best person to address all the questions I have been asked, I do view my perspective as useful to those who do not have the experiences I have.

In terms of my general political stance I would describe myself as a libertarian leaning, non-party affiliating, active citizen. I understand that information may cause some people to write off my opinions immediately and/or stop reading right now, but I am going to assume that if you fall in that category, you’re not really looking for information or informed opinions anyway…you’re probably just looking for another person in favor of whatever your particular viewpoint happens to be to make you feel better about believing what you already believe... That being said, I think my perspective is useful in the discussion around school shootings and gun regulation because I am a non-politically conforming gun rights advocate (i.e. the NRA would probably not give me a good score if I were a politician, but I do support the retention and even expansion of rights of lawful gun owners) as well as a secondary school teacher. I spend every day in the environment in which these tragedies take place and I also enjoy hunting, shooting sports/competition, and just guns and shooting for fun.

So, let’s start with a little education about some of the hot topics related to school shootings and gun violence. I’ll lay out a little information (not necessarily meant to persuade anyone one way or another) about some things that many people do not understand with regard to guns and related topics. **Brief disclaimer: most of my knowledge of gun laws is limited to the federal laws and the laws of the State of Michigan**

Background Information/Education

Assault weapons, AR-15s, and semi-automatic hunting rifles:

The first thing I think needs to be addressed under this umbrella is that most people and certainly the media (probably most people because of the media) are misusing the terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle.” Assault weapon has been coopted to some extent and is harder to define in it’s original form because it was used as the defining term of the ban of certain gun types from 1994-2004. The legislation that banned those weapon types used the term assault weapon incorrectly and the term has since taken on a meaning different from its original use. The term assault rifle has not really had that happen to it yet and, therefore, you can still easily do a web search for “assault rifle” and see exactly what I will talk about here. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle" are meant to refer to weapons that are select fire and magazine or cartridge fed. Select fire is a term most non-gun people (and probably a decent number of gun people who aren’t AR people) are not familiar with, so I’ll help you out on that one. Select fire is something that is specific to military weapons for the most part and refers to the ability to select whether the gun is on safe, semi-auto, burst, or full-auto modes. Most guns that have select fire switches do not have all of those options, but do include at least 3 of them. For instance, most rifles that our military uses come in one of two configurations: safe, semi, and burst or safe, semi, and auto. A gun with safe, semi, burst options would allow the user to have the trigger not function (safe), fire one round for each pull of the trigger (semi), or fire a very rapid burst of rounds (usually 3 rounds) with each pull of the trigger. A gun with the “auto” setting would naturally keep firing rounds very rapidly until there are none left to fire. So, this select fire ability on an assault rifle is much of what makes it an “assault rifle” and what makes it different from other weapons. There are also “machine guns” which are always fully automatic and do not have the ability to be switched to a semiautomatic firing mode.

The difference, then, between these “assault rifles” and an AR-15 rifle that is available to normal civilians should be reasonably obvious. While they look similar and have some similarities in their secondary or tertiary functioning, the primary distinction that makes something an assault rifle is not present. AR-15s, while they often have the same selector switch, are only able to switch between "safe" and “semi” - meaning they are only able to fire one round for each pull of the trigger. Because of this lack of select fire ability, the AR-15 rifles that the media and many individuals are referring to as “assault rifles” are not what they are being called. Honestly, that’s mostly just semantics, but I find that it’s important to have semantics correct if a reasonable discussion about a topic is going to take place. As a note of interest, the AR in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, but actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle - if you don’t believe me, you can look that one up too. Anyone interested in this topic might do well just to spend some time on wikipedia (I know, not a great source, but if you know almost nothing about a topic, it’s a good place to get some cursory information) - look at the different types of rifles, the evolution of rifles for both hunting and military purposes, etc.

Now, the one other common definitional item that distinguishes an “assault rifle” is that it has a detachable magazine which feeds ammunition into the firearm. That, to me, is a very archaic thing to point to as it is true of almost any modern rifle. The detachable box magazine was developed in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, was first patented in 1904 and came to wide use and production in the 1940s and '50s due to the patent expiring. Since then, a vast majority of rifles (even those that are not semiautomatic - look at most bolt-action rifles) are fed by a detachable box magazine. …on the topic of magazines, many “gun people” get bent out of shape when people refer to that as a “clip” - I’m not sure why. They are referring to the same thing just using a different, more colloquial term - like saying gun instead of firearm..not something to be concerned with from my perspective.

Let’s think for a bit about rifle power now since that’s another aspect that seems to be mentioned a lot by news media. There is a lot of talk about “high powered semiautomatic rifles” in conjunction with the talk about AR-15s and other “assault weapons” or “assault style weapons.” There is little conversation in the news that makes it more clear that the people writing these stories don’t know guns. Most gun people will be able to tell you this, but the idea that an AR-15 is a “high powered rifle” is really quite laughable. Compared to many other options of rifles out there used for hunting (I would even hazard to say MOST hunting rifles), the .223 caliber round used by AR-15s is incredibly weak and underpowered. It is, in fact, weak enough that the US military has been working towards getting rid of it in favor of a more powerful caliber for a decade or so…but government changes happen very slowly. If you want to know more about the relative power of the AR-15, take a look at some of these sites and their comparisons to other popular hunting calibers: SWGGun .308 vs .223  Wilderness Today - .308 vs 30-06    Trek Warrior - .223 vs .308    Also, see this chart which diagrams a whole bunch of calibers and what they are/can be used for in hunting. It doesn’t give a lot of sense for caliber except for in looking at what size animal each is recommended for:

Borrowed from BassPro at: https://1source.basspro.com/images/article_
images/Don_Sangster/Rifle_Ammo/RifleAmmoBuyingGuide_chart.jpg

My Opinions:

Alright, now we move on why you’re obviously really reading this: for my personal opinions :) I’ll split this into my opinions on a few categories, but I will also include various bits of related opinion within each section. So here’s what I’ll express my thoughts and opinions on: gun purchase regulations, gun bans, gun magazine capacity, open and concealed carrying, and guns in schools.

Before getting into some of that stuff, I will acknowledge that I do lean in a libertarian direction in

that I generally support people’s rights to do what they want unless they are infringing on the rights of others. I am not usually in favor of removing rights for anyone unless there is a clear reason to remove those rights. I will also say that I view rights somewhat differently than many people. I believe that in the United States of America, we should pretty well have the right to do whatever we want as long as we aren’t infringing on those same rights for other people.

Gun Purchase Regulations:

Personally, while I am fully in favor of law-abiding citizens being able to purchase guns of many different sorts, I do also support tighter regulations on the purchase of firearms. I think certainly universal background checks as well as closing of gun show and private sale loopholes are things that should have happened a long time ago. There is no reason a firearm should be able to be sold without any kind of background check - those wholes in the background check regulations provide a clear way for people who aren’t allowed to have guns to get them. Anyone who is not legally allowed to own a gun knows they can very easily get one without even paying black market prices just by going to a gun show or buying from someone off a classified listing or whatever.

Another hot topic in the news right now is the legal age to purchase firearms. I think I can see an argument for increasing the age, but not any better argument for that than for increasing the legal age for smoking or driving or any other dangerous activity…and those aren’t going anywhere so I’m not sure why firearms should. There are a lot more teens who kill themselves and each other with cars than they do with guns. That’s not to say the firearms purchase age shouldn’t change, but if I were choosing how my legislators spent their time, it would be on other things. Age doesn’t concern me all that much.

I am not sure exactly how other regulations could/should be tightened, but I am certainly in favor of some strengthening of current regulations. In particular, I think there is an argument for things like drunk driving charges and domestic abuse being disqualifies for firearms purchases. It seems to me that if you have a record of making poor choices or choices that are harmful to other people, you forfeit your right to possess potentially dangerous items. But similarly to the age topic, I think there should be a lot stronger penalties with regard to drivers licenses for people who make those sorts of choices as well…so that’s a bit of a tough one for me when looking at restricting guns while not restricting other things I see as parallels.

European Drivers License Levels
courtesy of Wikipedia

That being said, I think a drivers license is another great parallel to draw. Driving a car is a “right” of sorts in the US or at least access to earning that privilege is a right. I am hugely in favor of citizens having the right to earn qualification for a privilege. I would love to see some comprehensive reform in firearms regulation that looks like the drivers license system. Needing to pass basic written and practical tests to prove competency and proficiency with the device you’d like to operate and then regularly scheduled updates to that license. Why can’t we have firearms license with varying levels just like drivers license? There are at least a couple levels of drivers license from learners permits to permanent licenses to motorcycle endorsements and commercial operators licenses. It seems to me that same principe could be applied to firearms and allow for a lot more public safety without actually taking away the rights of anyone who actually should still have those rights.

In general, I think that people who oppose new gun regulation are concerned that their guns might be taken away from them or that they won't be able to purchase new guns in the future. And given much of the public media sentiment, I think that is a legitimate fear. However, I think there are perfectly good ways to increase the reliability of making sure guns don't end up in the wrong hands without people like myself needing to worry about it. Taking universal background checks and waiting periods (these often go together as the waiting period allows time to complete the background check) as examples, I'm not sure why anyone who has nothing to hide would have issues with that. Sure it takes a little extra time, but is that such a big deal that you're willing to risk someone with a violent criminal record getting their hands on a gun just so you don't have to wait 3 days?

Gun Bans:

I’m not particularly in favor of most or really almost any all-out bans on guns. I do think there are probably some things that don’t belong in the hands of most people, but, at the same time, I think even kind of crazy weapons should be purchasable by people who have had extensive background checks and with proper regulation. As a hypothetical, if a person has been trained in using automatic weapons in the military, had no disciplinary issues while in the military, has had no issues since (even very minor ones), why should that person not be allowed to own and operate an automatic weapon as a civilian? The conversation around these sorts of things is always the “why would anyone ever NEED that” kind of thing. As I said earlier, I’m definitely libertarian leaning if not fully libertarian, so I don’t think that question of whether someone needs something really bears any weight at all.

There are lots of things we, as Americans, don’t need, but still want and are able to have. If a person has no history of violence, mental instability, poor choices, etc. and would like to own a potentially dangerous item (regardless whether it’s a firearm or something else), I see no reason that right should be denied them. That being said, there should absolutely be a multitude of checks to see if there are reasons for that person to not be allowed to own said dangerous item.

It’s not necessarily a good analogy in this situation, but I liken it to a lot of other things like cars. If I had the money to buy a retired Formula 1 car and followed the proper regulations to transport it and drive it only on tracks that legally allow it and things like that, why shouldn’t I? For that matter, the same could be said for a decommissioned tank or better yet, a private jet. A TON of damage COULD be done with a Gulfstream G650, Boeing Business Jet, or Airbus AJC320 if someone so desired, but if a private citizen or corporation wants one and follows the proper regulations to purchase and operate it, there is nothing to stop them from doing just that. Personally, I don’t see why guns should be any different. I’m all for more and tighter regulations as you move up to more dangerous weapons, but I don’t see much reason for all out bans.

Gun Magazine Capacity:

I’ll keep this one short and sweet. If you are legally allowed to own the gun and shoot as many rounds as you’d like through it, why should there be a limit to the magazine size? As with the gun bans opinion discussed above, if a person has demonstrated no reason why they should not be allowed to own a firearm, then they should be allowed to own a firearm. And if they are allowed to own the firearm, why limit the magazine? If there are people who shouldn’t have those large magazines, then they probably shouldn’t have the gun in the first place. It seems logical to me that we should work on that problem rather than the secondary issue of magazine size. Work on keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them and you don’t need to worry about magazines.

Open and Concealed Carrying:

Alright, this is where things get somewhat specific to Michigan and will certainly vary in application to other states. However, my understanding is that there are a lot more similarities than there are differences across most states with regard to these types of regulations.

Currently, in Michigan, it is perfectly legal to openly carry any legally owned firearm in the vast majority of public places. It is, in fact, even legal for a parent of a child attending a school to openly carry into that school if the person also has a CPL (Concealed Pistol License). While I don’t particularly have a problem with this, I think many of my above concerns with regard to firearms purchases would need to be addressed for me to be fully in favor of the current legal status of open carry. If we could be pretty certain that the only people with guns were people we have no reason to believe would use them inappropriately, I see no reason open carry laws should change. However, that’s not currently the case (again, as previously discussed).

It seems to me that Michigan’s (and many other states’) laws need to change for the sake of public safety. Personally I hope gun purchase laws change and not open carry laws, but they can’t both stay the same and have any reasonable expectation of safety from people who shouldn’t be carrying firearms…Again, I think a multi-tiered licensing system for firearms ownership and operation much like we have for driving is the way to go. There could be levels for things like ownership without ability to carry at all (must be locked when transported outside the home), open and/or concealed carrying, and maybe even adding in things like calibers, capacities, etc. I don’t know exactly where that could or should go, but I think the principle works and there should be a way to apply it in a way that does not take away the rights of any law abiding citizens.

I’ll try to avoid being repetitive, but I think the concealed carry laws need overhaul as well. Anyone who is going to be carrying a firearm in public should have more required training, be required to pass certain proficiency tests, and have some amount of both legal and psychological counseling. Most of the courses I’ve taken have been quite good, but many still don’t stress enough the idea that if you are carrying a firearm in public, the purpose of doing that is that you might need to use it…and there are a lot of horrific legal and psychological ramifications of that eventuality - it may well end up being the worst day of your life if that ever does occur. Again, I think the licensing around carrying a firearm in general should be more stringent in education and testing as well as more all-encompassing of the purpose of carrying a firearm.

Guns in Schools:

This is, of course, one of the big topics right now and I think it's best to split it into a couple categories based on some of the ideas being thrown around. There are a number of ideas out there

related to allowing guns in schools including allowing CPL holders to carry in schools, training some teachers along side law enforcement to carry guns in schools, having gun lockers that only trained staff can access, and probably others.

I think some of these ideas have potential merit if and only if the teachers themselves are completely on board with it and do not feel like they are being pressured into carrying a gun AND if the other regulations already discussed are updated. As I've already said in this article, I think that our purchase laws as well as our carry laws need to be updated and made more strict. People should need to have significantly more training if they wish to carry a gun in public as opposed to just carry when they are in their home. And frankly, the training required right now, isn't all that difficult or comprehensive.

Unless the training and licensing system got a significant update to require more training, to require better/more ongoing training, and to be a more comprehensive education on what it means to carry a gun, I don't think simply allowing people with CPLs to carry in schools is a good plan. A CPL is not all that hard to get in Michigan. I can attest that I have been in classes with people who now have their license who have terrible situational awareness, are poor critical thinkers, and don't react well to stress. I'm not sure why those people are able to gain the legal ability to carry a firearm outside their homes. I don't think they should probably be carrying guns at all, but I certainly don't think they should be bringing guns into schools with the very limited training they posses.


Allowing schools the opportunity to have staff go through some sort of extensive training to obtain a separate license to be able to carry a firearm in a school seems like a good idea to me given the way our laws currently work. And maybe someday if our laws change to what I think they should be, that could be integrated into a larger licensing system, but for now, maybe it's just a separate thing. What I envision for this is essentially a teacher needing to go through the police academy (and pass) and then continue doing all the training required of law enforcement officers. A teacher who had gone through that training and keeps up a regiment of qualified training should be allowed to carry a firearm in their place of work almost regardless of what that place is - and I would include schools in that.

I think having gun lockers in schools is a bad idea. I would have to see some detailed plans of how that would work to offer more specific thoughts, but it seems like a bad idea to me to have firearms in a safe somewhere in a school. It seems like it leaves too much opportunity for them to get into the wrong hands without actually providing any extra security or reactive measure - it would probably take too long for the trained personnel to get to them for it to do any real good.

All of that aside, I think most of the ideas of having guns in schools are only going to be any good as reactive measures to active shooter situations and probably only limited good at that. I hear people espousing these guns in schools ideas as preventative measures, but it seems to me that they are only preventative to a point. The vast majority of the school shootings that occur are not perpetrated by a person who intends to live through the experience. That, to me, suggests that these people would probably not be dissuaded from their plans by the presence of armed personnel at the school unless the presence was so overwhelming that they couldn't do what they wanted to do at all. I don't have any problem with highly trained individuals being allowed to carry guns in schools, but I also think it is not as big a deal as many people are making of it and I think there should be much higher legislative priorities with regard to keeping schools safe.

One last thing that needs to be considered with all this talk of arming teachers is the relationship involved. What many people who are in favor of this aren't thinking about is that we teachers love our students dearly - even the ones that cause us a lot of headache and trouble. I hope I never have to find out first hand, but I have to imagine that taking the life of any person would be an incredibly difficult thing to do and would have a lot of lasting psychological difficulty associated with it. However, if you add into that equation the fact that you might be taking the life of someone you've spent countless hours trying to advance and help succeed in and out of school, I can't imagine needing to make that decision let alone dealing with the aftermath of it. These school shooters are often portrayed by the media as monsters, but the fact is that most of them are normal kids who are abnormally troubled. They are not demons or monsters or anything else of the like - they are kids making VERY bad decisions, but kids nonetheless.


More Solutions to School Shootings:

We teachers would do just about anything to protect our kids because we love and care about them - just look at the stories of heroism from the last few shootings as evidence. But most of us are much more likely to sacrifice our own lives to save our kids than we are to take a life to help save our kids. Along these same lines, I think teachers, as a whole, have been pretty outspoken regarding what we would like to see happen to try to help prevent future violent events in our workplaces; we would like there to be money given to schools specifically earmarked for the salaries and resources of counselors, social workers, and psychologists.

By most measures, public schools in the United States are horribly under funded in many ways. One of the worst issues, however, is the lack of enough student support staff to actually provide adequate support to our students when they need it. Keep in mind as well that this is coming from someone who is in a SPECTACULAR school with regard to support staff. We all hear about and think about teacher/student ratios and class sizes and things like that. Those are, of course, important with regard to student learning, but with regard to supporting students as healthy human beings and helping them plan their futures, ratios of counselors, social workers, and psychologists to students is significantly more important. There are very good schools that I am intimately familiar with that have 3-4 counselors, a part time social worker, and no psychologist for upwards of 1200 students. This is not necessarily due to any major fault on their part except what I see as incorrect priorities - there just isn't money to do everything that really should be done in schools. Even the best public schools in the US have aspects of their operation that are horribly under funded.

Here's the real problem, in my opinion: people have no perseverance, memory, or forethought. The American public has no apparent ability to continue to work on fixing a problem for any length of time nor do they have the ability to work on long-term solutions to complex problems. We, as a society and culture, seem to fixate on quick fixes for everything and never actually make the major changes that are necessary to bring about a better future. If you want a fix to gun violence, work on a fix for violence in general. And if you want a fix for violence, you should probably work on figuring out what the causes or at least the predictors of violent behavior are and work on that. That takes effort, though, and we Americans don't want to work - we just want things handed to us. So let's ask the government to just hand us a quick fix for school shootings and see how that goes instead of spending the time and effort it would take to fully understand the problem and work toward a solution...that'll probably go well...

Be a Fan