Regulate Weapons Like We Do in the Military, Says an Army Officer

[Hermit-The-Prog]

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2018/03/an-army-officer-says-regulate-weapons-just-like-we-do-in-the-military/554816/

For the list of previous entries in this series, please see the index at the end of the post. But: if you’re revving up to send me a note explaining what kind of ammunition the AR-15 uses, and how it is similar to (and different from) the military’s M-16 (and so on), please first at least look at this 8,000 word Atlantic article I did on that exact topic more than 35 years ago.

For today’s installment, letters from readers who are familiar with weapons and with the military application of firepower, and the lessons it has for civilian use.

First, from an Army officer:

I’m a Regular Army officer and have served in frontline positions in Iraq (this only to mean that I’ve got a very small slice of experience with the practical application of what military grade weapons were designed to do).

I’m a southerner who grew up shooting .22s in the field behind the house from the time I could hold the rifle.

I own several “classic” firearms like the M-1 Garand and a Martini-Henry, though not an AR-platform, which I shoot enough at work, to be honest (something half-submerged in my mind makes me think that in my house I don’t need a weapon designed exclusively for combat, either for sport or home defense—my German Shepherd is a much better platform for both).

[...]

My niche perspective is this: in the Army, firearms are much more heavily regulated than in civil society. How can so many enthusiastic gun owners say that they hold the military as a model, and yet not accept the strict regulations that go with the military’s use of firearms?

[...]

----------

[Related, by the same author, from first link in above article (AR-15 is worse)] :

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/

M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story

Why the rifles jammed

James Fallows June 1981 Issue

Between 1965 and 1969, more than a million American soldiers served in combat in Vietnam. One can argue that they should never have been sent there, but no one would argue that, once committed to battle, they should have been given inferior equipment. Yet that is what happened. During those years, in which more than 40,000 American soldiers were killed by hostile fire and more than 250,000 wounded, American troops in Vietnam were equipped with a rifle that their superiors knew would fail when put to the test.

[NickB79]

1. The last thing we need is a society more heavily modeled on the military

There are a thousand great reasons to more heavily regulate guns in this nation, but to do so to make our nation as a whole more like a military base isn't one of them.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. where did that come from?

I do not understand your comment in the context of the article, at all.

[Nitram]

7. I disagree. If the military model is stricter about how and when guns are used, I'm in favor of it.

It isn't evil just because it is military policy. Thee reason is to regulate guns, not to create "a society more heavily modeled on the military."

[NickB79]

9. The problem is that other aspects of the military may then be applied to civilian life

If precedent is set.

My fear is that a future president (or even the current one, given his love of bravado and unquestioning loyalty) would use the glorification of military life as a way to push other, less desirable aspects of military life into civilian life to stifle debate and resistance to policies that infringe on other rights.

Having friends and family that have served in the military and lived on military bases, there is a lot of shit that we take for granted as civilians that absolutely does not fly when you're in the service. As my wife's uncle (30 years in the Army) likes to say, "To Uncle Sam, when you put on that uniform you're another piece of hardware."

Like I said, we have a ton of good reasons right now to more heavily regulate guns. We don't need to look to the military model for more inspiration. IMO, we already have too much influence from the military in our lives right now, given the militarization of our police departments, the trillions we spend on them at the expense of our social programs and Trump's push for military parades.

[Nitram]

10. Using the military model to set gun policy is not a precedent for other areas of life.

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 09:30 AM - Edit history (1)

If that's what it takes to get conservatives on board, I'm all for it. I completely agree that glorification of the military (since WWII) and militarization of the police policy is a problem in this country. The "
Greatest Generation" came out of WWII thinking the military were the perfect model for all of us to follow. We've been paying the price ever since.

[aikoaiko]

3. Arguably the 2nd Amendment protects a civil liberty that is based on a model opposite of

a formal military model, as the author understands it.

And the author is apparently oblivious to the fact that his M1 Garand was indeed designed exclusively for combat.

SMDH.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. which of the 4 authors?

Are you referring to (1) the author of the series and the 1981 report on the M-16 fiasco, or (2) the Army officer who authored the first letter, or (3) the war correspondent who authored the second letter, or (4) the Canadian "gun-fancier" who authored the third letter?

The Army officer is the only one of the 3 letter writers who mentioned the M-1, but I don't see where he said or implied that the M-1 was not a combat weapon. His entire letter is an argument of reductio ad absurdem -- if civilians want military weapons they should be willing to accept the regulations the military applies to those weapons. His description of those regulations and qualifications make it clear that it would be ridiculous to implement among civilians. He is "more strongly on the side of gun control than of unrestricted gun circulation."

For example:

My niche perspective is this: in the Army, firearms are much more heavily regulated than in civil society. How can so many enthusiastic gun owners say that they hold the military as a model, and yet not accept the strict regulations that go with the military’s use of firearms?

And later:

Will most Americans grow up and out of the fairy tale that their right to bear arms is without nuance or burden of responsibility? Will they realize they are probably not Lone Rangers waiting for their moment to save the day in their home or school?

[Nitram]

6. Are those two quotes supposed to expose a weakness in his argument or just to document that

the writer wants to regulate guns in civilian life? I happen to agree with both the points made in those quotes because I am "more strongly on the side of gun control than of unrestricted gun circulation." Where do you stand, Hermit?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. well-regulated militia

The two quotes, I think, show the Army officer's opinion that military weapons need military controls and that those who advocate civilian access to such weapons have ignored such controls. It's not likely that those advocates would submit to rigorous training and qualification, so what is left is gun control and a change in the gun culture to "seeing firearm ownership as innately bound up in social responsibility."

In my opinion, semi-automatic weapons should be treated the same as machine guns.

[aikoaiko]

11. Right. I was referring to the "regular Army officer".

I own several “classic” firearms like the M-1 Garand and a Martini-Henry, though not an AR-platform, which I shoot enough at work, to be honest (something half-submerged in my mind makes me think that in my house I don’t need a weapon designed exclusively for combat, either for sport or home defense—my German Shepherd is a much better platform for both).

My point is that he thinks he doesn't need a "weapon designed exclusively for combat", but there he is with two. The Garand and Martini-Henry were designed for military/combat use.

[Nitram]

12. As he correctly points out, the two weapons you tar with the same brush as the AR-platform are

"classics", and obsolete on the battlefield of today. Technically you are right, they were designed for use in war. One over a fifty years ago, and the other over 150 years ago. No one today would consider these weapons of any practical use in a contemporary war.

[aikoaiko]

13. I think we can consider "A weapon designed exclusively for combat" or "Weapons of War" terms of art

"Weapons of War" appears to be the new "assault weapons" term of art.

Almost every major class of designs for firearms were created to solve military or combat problems and people forget that.

Over the last 100 years or so we've seen a few major shifts in US military rifles typically issued for combat.

In 1903, it was the bolt action 5-round magazine Springfield 1903 rifle chambered in 30.06 (114 years ago)
In 1937, it was the semi-auto 8-round Garand M1 rifle chambered in 30.06 (80 years ago)
In 1967, it was the 20-30 round detachable magazine, full-auto M-16 rifle, based on the AR-15 design, chambered in 5.56x45 (53 years ago)

Of course, the US military has used and continues to use many different types of firearms, but those are the big changes based on major classes of designs. As it turns out the US military still uses variants of bolt-action rifles for its snipers (often Remmingtons and not Springfields) and variants of the original M-16 for its boots on the ground service members.

It is not really the age of a design but rather the function of a design that dictates whether something is currently used in combat.

[Nitram]

5. This is exctly what I've been thinking after reading an article about how weapons are regulated in

the military. It also hearkens back to the "well-disciplined militia" clause.

[sl8]

14. K&R

I especially liked the 1981 article::
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/

I'm slowly working my way through the rest of the linked articles. So far, I like that the author seems fairly open to opposing points of view. That's uncommon these days, especially with regards to gun control.

Thanks for the post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previously in this series:

“On the Language and Culture of Discussing What to Do About Guns”
“Tanks vs. AK-47s”
“A Gun Holdup Victim on Whether He Wishes He Had Been Armed”
“White Male Privilege”
“A Case Against Gun Control”
“The Cultural Roots of a Gun-Massacre Society”
“A Veteran on the Need to Control Civilian Arms”
“‘Show Us the Carnage,’ Continued”
“Only in America”
“Show Us the Carnage”
“The Empty Rituals of an American Massacre”
and before that:
“Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal”
“The Nature of the AR-15”
“Why the AR-15 Was Never Meant to be in Civilian Hands”
“More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15”
and
“The Certainty of More Shootings,” from back after the Aurora massacre
“Two Dark American Truths from Las Vegas,” with included video.