Guest column

A matter of mathematical certainty

Since that terrible day--Oct. 1, 2017--when 58 people were killed and almost 500 were wounded in Las Vegas, there have been several other mass shootings. The most recent, in Florida on Feb. 14, is just another in a long and growing list of tragedies.

Incidents like this will continue, probably with increasing frequency, if we as a nation continue to accept a mindless status quo with respect to gun culture and policy. This is essentially a mathematical certainty based on the number of people, the number of guns, and the firepower of many of these weapons in our country.

Let me state that I am not a gun hater or inexperienced with guns and other weapons and how they should be used. I served in the United States Army, own and collect firearms, and have hunted all my life. I was a member of the NRA at one time, have a concealed carry permit, and own an assault weapon which, by the way, I would certainly sacrifice if required.

In one of our most popular movies, Titanic, there is a scene where, after the ship hits an iceberg, the ship's builder inspects the ship and states plainly that Titanic will founder or sink. When this is questioned by a White Star Line executive, the engineer basically replies that the ship is made of steel, and more water is coming in than going out. The fact it will sink is a mathematical certainty. The only question is how long it will take.

One could use a similar line of reasoning to express the relationship between guns and mass shootings. Granted, there are many complexities, but here is a common-sense multiplication formula that illustrates the primary factors:

The number of unstable people, times the number of guns of all types, times firepower of those guns (from a low-capacity handgun to an assault weapon or greater) is in direct proportion to the number of injured and/or dead people.

The more unstable people in a community, the greater the chances of an incident. There is no doubt that we should do everything we can to identify unstable people and prevent them from having access to firearms. However, this alone will not significantly reduce the number of mass shootings.

At present the United States' homicide rate is approximately 25 times higher than that of other developed countries. Our people have no more inclination toward irrational behavior than any other country. We certainly do not have 25 times more unstable people than other developed countries. The key difference between the U.S. and other developed countries is our lack of sensible gun control and the proliferation of guns in our society.

If addressing unstable people is not the solution, then what is? Let's cut to the chase.

First, we have too many guns. This is a mathematical fact.

The second is that the firepower of many of these weapons is very high. The Second Amendment states we have the right to bear arms within a well-regulated militia. But let us forgo the Second Amendment debate for now. Here are the obvious steps our nation could and should take to drastically reduce these tragedies.

As a nation, we need to remove or restrict so-called offensive or military style weapons and remove or restrict corresponding high-capacity magazines. Offensive types of weapons are used by every military force in the world because they are the most lethal and effective at killing or injuring people in combat. They provide high and sustained rates of lethal fire, which is the military objective.

It does not follow that these should be easily accessible to the public. In fact, after a violent rise in crime and shootings, our federal government passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. This took fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, hand grenades and other explosive devices out of the market. So something can be done.

Think about this: When was the last time someone used hand grenades in one of these attacks? I cannot remember a single one. Yet if conducting a military attack, hand grenades would certainly be used if available. Why? Because ordinary people cannot buy them legally, and they are almost impossible to get illegally.

Then why weren't assault weapons banned in 1934 if they are so lethal? They did not exist. They arrived in 1944 when the German army introduced the SG44, the first assault rifle, on which all later assault weapons were based.

So why disallow high-capacity magazines? The reason is simple. Large-capacity magazines allow for continuous sustained rates of fire; that's the reason militaries everywhere use them. For hunters, a high rate of fire is not normally necessary or desired.

What are the exceptions? Duck hunters know that there is a three-shot magazine limitation due to the nature of the hunt. When a gaggle of ducks approaches, you try to shoot as many as possible. Yet hunters are by law limited to three shots, so we don't shoot too many ducks. We all know what happens if a game warden catches a person without the device that limits the magazine. Think about it. Do we really care more about ducks than our own children?

So if we reduce firepower of the weapons, the number of injured/dead people will go down. This is the same thing our diplomats are trying to do with so-called rogue nations. We are trying to limit or reduce their firepower--nuclear, chemical weapons, or delivery systems.

My recommendations are straightforward and implementable. The federal government should, through enacting new laws as well as an empowered Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, remove assault weapons, military style weapons and high-capacity magazine handguns from access to the general public. This should be done by banning future sales and buying back these weapons and magazines at a fair market value. This is what Australia did after its last mass shooting 22 years ago. They have had not one fatal mass shooting since. This is not a fluke, just elementary math.

As a compromise to those wishing to own and/or fire such weapons, this could be restricted to special regulated licensed firing ranges where they are controlled. Just as our military keeps its weapons secured in armories until needed for training or combat, the same method could be used for the public to fire a machine gun or military style weapon. But this would be on a supervised and controlled range, not in the public.

Innocent people and children are needlessly dying. In recent days, our children have shown more courage and insight than the adults who are supposed to take care of them. Will we do nothing except repeat the same empty rhetoric that our children recognize for the BS that it is? If we do not change and reduce the number of guns, the access to guns, and the firepower of guns available to the public, we will experience more and deadlier mass shootings. It is a mathematical certainty. The only question is how long until the next tragedy.

Russ Melton lives in Little Rock and served as an officer in the U.S. Army from 1979 through 1989.

Editorial on 03/11/2018

Upcoming Events