My Thoughts on 'Civilian' Weaponry

 

My Thoughts on 'Civilian' Weaponry

I saw an article recently in The Atlantic (What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns) on how damages to human flesh done by an AR-15 are different than those caused by some other semi-automatic weapons. That article sat me back on my keister more than just a little bit. Why? Because I believe my daughter is still alive today because an AR-15 assault style weapon was NOT the weapon used to critically injure her at Columbine High School April 20, 1999. Rather, the weapon used to shoot my daughter was a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle, a semi-automatic long gun.

To be perfectly clear, I do not portray the Hi-Point Model 995 Carbine Rifle herein in any way, shape, or form as being anything but a semi-automatic long gun. I’m simply using it as a comparison to the AR-15 and the damages both can inflict based on research and my own personal analysis and experience.

The Atlantic article features a radiologist, Heather Sher, who spoke out about the injuries she saw in performing autopsies on the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre. Her descriptions of those injuries were unsettling for me because some of them were eerily similar to some of the injuries inflicted on my daughter.

My daughter suffered severe and traumatic injuries to her vena cava vein, her liver, her lungs, her diaphragm, and her spinal column. The injury to her vena cava vein is what almost killed her because it caused severe internal bleeding. The liver wound was bad, but we were told by her doctors the liver can regenerate if it isn't damaged beyond that self-repair threshold. The injury to her lungs caused one of them to collapse...more than once. The injury to her spinal column caused her paralysis. All of those injuries combined to cause fluid buildup around her heart that had to be surgically addressed in order to prevent her from going into cardiac arrest. And that's about as graphic a description of her injuries as I'm comfortable giving in this essay. Please reference The Atlantic article for comparisons in the types of wounds discussed here because some of the similarities are what prompted me to say what I’m saying in the first place.

All of my daughter’s injuries were caused by two rounds...two rounds. They came from that Hi-Point Model 995 Carbine Rifle. At the time, I didn't think two bullets could cause such damage. Apparently, and according to the radiologist in The Atlantic article, I was wrong....almost dead wrong. 

An AR-15 can, and does, inflict much more damage because it fires high velocity rounds. Those high velocity rounds arguably would have blown up my daughter’s internal organs instead of causing the damages, albeit critical damages, the rounds from the Hi-Point Model 995 Carbine Rifle inflicted.

As proof of my assertion, there are numerous YouTube videos anyone can view in which AR-15s are used to shoot rounds into ballistics gel. The one I chose to share here is of the AR-15 military equivalent, the M-16: Could You Survive Three M16 Bullets to the Chest? I chose this Smithsonian Channel video for what I consider obvious reasons. There are many more amateur videos, as well.

What an AR-15 is capable of doing to ballistics gel is horrifying simply because ballistics gel is similar in consistency to human flesh. That right there should be the primary focus of any discussion of whether or not AR-15s should even be in civilian hands from where I sit. 

The AR-15 is virtually a military grade weapon without the fully-automatic function. We can argue nuances until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change that fact. Add in a 'bump stock', and an AR-15 is virtually transformed into an almost fully-automatic military grade weapon. The Las Vegas massacre, in which fourteen of the 24 weapons found in the shooter's hotel room were AR-15 semi-automatic assault style rifles, is proof of that assertion. 

So, please forgive me if I don't buy into the mantra pro-gun advocates and advocacy groups keep pushing that we cannot have a rational discussion on gun 'control' until those in favor of restricting or banning AR-15 assault style weapons educate themselves on same, especially when pro-gun advocates promote that AR-15s are useful for hunting and home defense (The NRA Claims the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly). That’s a non-starter for me, especially after having watched The Smithsonian YouTube video. I'd wager it is for a lot of other folks, as well.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.