Facing weapons of mass murder
A ‘good guy with a gun’ doesn’t stand a chance against an AR-15-style rifle and body armor
The latest episodes of our mass murder series made one thing plain: Good guys with guns do not provide a safe harbor. In Tops Grocery, former police officer and armed security guard Aaron Salter fired at the killer multiple times, hitting him once in the chest. A bulletproof vest protected the murderer’s torso, however, while a ballistic helmet shielded his head. Salter wore his summerstyle security uniform.
Ten days later, in Robb Elementary School for second, third, and fourth graders, multiple officers hesitated rather than rushing to face the mass murderer’s AR-15 style weapon. As the police spokesperson explained, the officers “are hearing gunshots, they are receiving gunshots. At that point, if they proceed further without knowing where this suspect was at, they could have been shot, they could have been killed.”
Despite our shock over the police hesitating while children cowered and bled, let’s not miss what the officers faced. Mass murderers are evil but not dumb, so their preferred killing tool does not surprise. The AR-15 style weapon is designed and built to kill or horribly wound as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
Unlike a hunting rifle, this weapon uses 30shot magazines with 100-shot magazines available. (The Uvalde mass murderer fired 142 times inside the school). An AR-15’s bullet travels nearly three times faster than a 9 mm handgun and thus delivers more than three times the force. For example, while a handgun bullet destroys a 1-inch to 2-inch pathway through the liver, an AR-15 round’s effect is to pulverize the liver, “much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete.” And the AR-15’s light recoil enhances its accuracy and ease of use.
To cut to the chase: Would the Uvalde commander have kept the 19 officers huddled in the hallway if the killer had a handgun or hunting rifle?
Salter, the grocery store armed guard, died when he took on an assault weapon carried by a killer with body armor. Ten days later, Uvalde officers faced the same type of weapon and another murderer wearing tactical gear (albeit, it turned out, without the needed ballistic plates installed). They hesitated and lived.
What can we learn?
First, why should civilians be able to purchase and wear body armor? In response to the Tops Grocery shootings, New York passed a law outlawing the purchase or sale of “body vests,” defined as bullet-resistant soft body armor. It appears the law does not cover the protection worn by the Buffalo murderer, however, which is known as body armor or a plate carrier. This oversight likely will be corrected.
Otherwise, body armor retailers advertise that all other states allow it; only Connecticut forbids online purchases. Many states prohibit wearing body armor when committing a crime, i.e., unlawful body armor use (really). Topeka, Kansas prohibits wearing bulletproof vests (and gas masks) during parades, demonstrations, rallies, and assemblies. Louisiana had prohibited wearing body armor on school property but amended the law following the Parkland murders so students can wear bulletproof backpacks.
Surely no one would claim the Second Amendment covers the right to wear body armor. Can we agree police and armed security guards would be better protected if the shooters they faced were not shielded from return fire? If the Buffalo shooter were not wearing body armor, Salter and those subsequently murdered would be alive.
Second, why should we force police and armed security guards to face weapons of mass murder? Justice Antonin Scalia cautioned in his well-known District of Columbia v. Heller opinion, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” He went on to note the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Indeed, Justice Scalia anticipated his reasoning might allow the banning of weapons that are most useful in military service — “M-16 rifles and the like . . .”
Each of the five federal Courts of Appeals that have considered assault weapons bans have upheld them; a cert petition challenging Maryland’s law, sustained by the Fourth Circuit en banc, is pending in the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit likewise has two appeals pending. Assuming AR-15s can be regulated, shouldn’t we think about our police and armed security guards who must face this weapon? These guardians understand an AR-15’s mass murder capability — and so should we.
AR-15 bullets can penetrate the soft body armor typically worn by police, which is built to stop handgun rounds. The AR-15 30-shot magazines enable a torrent of fire to be unleashed as fast as you can pull the trigger; its magazines can be changed in five seconds or less. The AR-15 bullet, as noted, hits with such force that it tears gaping holes and liquifies vital organs as if a bomb had gone off inside the body. In response to Sandy Hook, civilians are trained to “Stop the Bleed” while paramedics carry “active killer kits” for the military-level wounds caused by mass murder weapons. So imagine what rockets through our guardians’ hearts and minds when they see a mass murderer using an AR-15 style weapon. Training helps push officers’ reactions down so they can do their job, but events in Texas reveal the shortcomings of training. Then imagine the aftermath for those guardians — unlike Salter — who survive and return to their families. Would they be wrong to wonder why we the people permit this to go on, why we the people expose them along with children, churchgoers, and shoppers to these weapons of mass murder?
Can Aaron Salter’s death at Tops Grocery together with the reaction of the police at Robb Elementary School make plain what is before us? Unless we’re fine with using “good guys with guns” simply as a cliché, shouldn’t we take civilian body armor and weapons of mass murder off the table?
Ralph A. Weber is an attorney and founder of Weber Advising.