+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

guns

Democracy

Ret. Major General explains the difference between an AR-15 and the military's weapons of war

Major General Paul Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He knows his weapons.

Public Domain, @PaulDEaton/Twitter

Retired Major General Paul Eaton shared his thoughts on whether the AR-15 is a "weapon of war."

A common criticism gun rights activists levy toward gun legislation advocates is that many people who push for stricter gun laws don’t know a lot about guns themselves. That’s not wholly accurate—there are plenty of gun enthusiasts who support reasonable gun laws—but it’s true that many people who are horrified by our nation’s gun culture are not well-versed on the specifications of our nation’s 393 million guns.

Not every American is an active part of American “gun culture." Some of us have never shot a firearm, for fun or otherwise. Some of us really are ignorant about guns themselves.

That can’t be said for anyone in the military, however. And it definitely can’t be said for a former Major General of the U.S. Army.


That’s why an explanation of the difference between an AR-15 and military-style firearms from retired Major General Paul Eaton has gone viral. Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry.

He wrote:

“As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. A thread:

Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t.

The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15.

So what’s the difference between the military’s M4 and the original AR-15? Barrel length and the ability to shoot three round bursts. M4s can shoot in three round bursts. AR-15s can only shoot a single shot.

But even now, you can buy AR-15s in variable barrel lengths with Weaver or Picatinny rails for better sights and aiming assists like lasers. Like the military, but w/o the bayonet.

But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15.

That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."

Eaton is not the only former military leader who has spoken out in support of gun legislation. In 2019, a group of 13 influential retired military leaders wrote a letter to Congress, pushing it to pass the Bipartisan Background Check Act.

"Each of us has, at some point in our lives, made the choice to risk our lives for our fellow citizens and place ourselves in harm’s way," they wrote. "We were trained, we were coached, and we were prepared for the dangers that we chose to face. This is not the case for most Americans, yet they continue to face danger on the sidewalk, in their homes, at school, and at work. It is in the same spirit that led us to serve in the armed forces that we ask you, our elected leaders, to help protect the American people from gun violence here at home. We urge you to support this legislation."

Police leaders have also voiced strong support for gun legislation, which makes sense considering how much harder and more dangerous our free-for-all gun culture makes their jobs. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest professional association of police leaders in the world, has a position paper that outlines the gun safety laws it supports, including firearm offender registration, waiting periods, closing the gun show loophole, banning semiautomatic assault weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, bulletproof body armor and more. The IACP states that these are “common sense policies that would assist in reducing gun violence, while upholding the second amendment.”

Yep, the largest police leader association supports banning semiautomatic assault weapons like the AR-15. Here’s what it has to say about that:

“First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent.”

If those who oppose gun legislation don’t want to listen to people who don’t know enough about guns to speak authoritatively on them, that's fine. Perhaps they should listen to these military and police leaders who not only know guns inside and out, but who also have the firsthand experience on both sides of the barrel to speak authoritatively on what can help minimize America’s gun violence.


This article originally appeared on 06.04.22

From Your Site Articles
Democracy

In just two sentences, Corey Hixon made a moving case for gun control in Parkland trial

"I miss him."

@cathyrusson/Twitter

Corey Hixon's father was killed in the Parkland, Florida, school shooting in 2018.

When we debate guns and gun violence in this country, we tend to get bogged down in statistics and often argue over semantics.

There is zero question that the U.S. is a complete outlier among developed nations when it comes to gun deaths, and even more of an outlier when it comes to mass shootings. No other high-income nation puts their children through active shooter drills at school. None of our peer countries have firearms as the leading cause of death for children and teens like we do. (In fact, it's not even in the top five causes of death in any other high-income nation.)

And yet, no matter how many times we experience gunmen massacring schoolchildren, no matter how many shocking or sobering stats we see, a not-insignificant portion of our country either denies that there's a problem or denies that there's anything we can do about it.

Because our debates over this issue can get unnecessarily complicated, it's good to be reminded of the simple truth that guns cause unnecessary loss, grief and pain. And nowhere has that been made more clear than in Corey Hixon's brief testimony at the trial for Nikolas Cruz, the murderer who shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14, 2018.

One of those killed was Corey Hixon's father, Chris Hixon. He was the athletic director at the school and was shot and killed while trying to disarm the gunman. According to Florida ABC affiliate Local 10, Hixon was one of the last to speak before the court. Rather than have him read a victim impact statement, the judge asked Hixon, who lives with Kabuki syndrome, what he wanted to share about his father.

In just two sentences—each of which was followed up by an emotional hug with his mom—Hixon distilled the emotional reality of our nation's gun problem and brought home what gets lost when we keep doing nothing.

Watch:

The whole room felt that "I miss him!" But the simple description of walking to get donuts together and walking back home every Saturday is just gut-wrenching. It's those little things, the everyday connections and joys and time spent together, that gun violence rips away.

This isn't the first time Corey Hixon has touched people's hearts. A video of him giving Joe Biden a hug at his father's funeral when Biden was vice president went viral during the 2020 election season.

People try to say that gun control won't stop mass shootings, but can't we at least try? Nikolas Cruz legally purchased the AR-15-style rifle he used to terrorize and slaughter students and faculty at that high school. He was a legal gun owner, right up until he wasn't. Though he had no criminal record, red flag laws—which Florida enacted in the wake of the Parkland shooting—could have prevented him from being able to legally purchase or own a firearm.

We have plenty of statistical evidence that gun laws do work. But unfortunately, statistics aren't likely to change people's minds. At this point, if appealing to emotion by sharing the grief families have to live with is more effective to persuade, fine. The emotions are real and the stats are sound, so if that's what it takes to get people to accept reality and do something about it, so be it.

No child should have to go through what Corey Hixon has. And no American should look away from his pain when he truly could be any of us.

From Your Site Articles
gun control
Democracy

Parkland parents launch 'NRA Children's Museum' with 52 school buses—all empty but one

The mile-long bus convoy makes a powerful statement.

Photo courtesy of Change the Ref

The NRA Children's Museum is meant to get lawmakers' attention.

When Joaquin Oliver was 12, he wrote a letter to gun owners imploring them to support background check legislation to help prevent gun violence in America. When he was 17, he was shot and killed in a hallway outside his creative writing class at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Oliver's parents, Manuel and Patricia, have been on a mission to raise awareness and reduce the influence of the gun lobby ever since. They founded the gun control advocacy organization Change the Ref and their latest initiative may be their most powerful yet.

gun violence, NRA, gun controlManuel and Patricia Oliver's son Joaquin was killed in the Parkland, Florida, school massacre in 2018.Courtesy of Change the Ref

On July 14, the Olivers took a mile-long convoy of 52 school buses—dubbed The NRA Children's Museum—to Ted Cruz's offices in Houston, Texas, to deliver Joaquin's letter to him.

The empty seats on 51 of the buses represent the more than 4,368 children in the United States that the organization claims would have sat in them since 2020 had they not been killed by guns. The leading bus is filled with memorabilia of children killed in shootings—things like photos of the children, the clothing they wore or things they carried, such as the Nickelodeon backpack of a student from Santa Clarita, California, a girl scout sash from a student in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and a piece of construction paper artwork from a student in Newtown, Connecticut.

The reason for the buses representing child gun deaths since 2020 is that, according to the CDC, since that year, firearms have overtaken car accidents to become the leading cause of death in children and teens ages 1 to 19 in the U.S.


That fact is worth repeating. Since 2020, gun violence has been the leading cause of death for children and teens in America. More than car accidents. More than disease. That's mind-blowing.

And the reason for heading to Ted Cruz first? Lawmakers in Texas lead the country in donations taken from the gun lobby, and among those lawmakers, Ted Cruz leads the pack.

gun violence, gun legislation, NRA

The NRA Children's Museum is meant to get the attention of lawmakers.

Courtesy of Change the Ref

“To commemorate this horrific historic moment, we are showing American voters the toll these politicians have taken on our children's lives with this all-too-real archive,” Manuel Oliver said in a statement. “And this is only the beginning. We will not stop with Sen. Ted Cruz. To every politician who has stood by, taken NRA money, and refused to listen to the people they represent: the museum is on the way to honor you next.”

“We want to display, for the voters who keep these politicians in office, the consequences of those choices. We want voters to remember which politicians are in the pocket of the NRA when they visit the polls in November,” added Patricia Oliver. “We urge everyone to join us in our mission to fight for every innocent soul lost to gun violence and to demand universal background checks on gun sales.”

Change the Ref requests that Sen. Cruz immediately renounce all future funding from the NRA and listen to the people's will to enact legislation for universal background checks—commonsense gun legislation that most of his constituents, including those in his own party, support. The Olivers hope that their son's letter will spark a realization that receiving political donations from gun lobbyists like the NRA is not worth an innocent child's life.

Reasonable citizens everywhere share the same request and the same hope.

From Your Site Articles
Democracy

A man told me gun laws would create more 'soft targets.' He summed up the whole problem.

As far as I know, there are only two places in the world where people living their lives are referred to as 'soft targets.'

Photo by Taylor Wilcox on Unsplash

Only in America are kids in classrooms referred to as "soft targets."

On the Fourth of July, a gunman opened fire at a parade in quaint Highland Park, Illinois, killing at least six people, injuring dozens and traumatizing (once again) an entire nation.

My family member who was at the parade was able to flee to safety, but the trauma of what she experienced will linger. For the toddler with the blood-soaked sock, who was carried to safety by a stranger after being pulled from under his father's bullet-torn body and ended up losing both of his parents in the massacre, life will never be the same.

There's a phrase I keep seeing in debates over gun violence, one that I can't seem to shake from my mind. After the Uvalde school shooting, I shared my thoughts on why arming teachers is a bad idea, and a gentleman responded with this brief comment:

"Way to create more soft targets."

Soft targets. That phrase gets me every time.

As far as I know, there are only two places in the world where children in school or people gathering for enjoyment are referred to as "soft targets"—active war zones and the United States of America.

Never in a million years would I think to use the words "soft targets" to refer to schoolchildren—or parade-goers, or people enjoying a live concert, or grocery shoppers or people in a bible study. I wouldn't even use the term "unarmed civilians" unless I were in the military and actively involved in a military operation.

They're not targets, they're people. People just living life.

That's what freedom is supposed to be, isn't it? The ability to just live life?

Instead, we are being held hostage by a militarized monster of our own making, one that says the answer to America's gun violence is more guns. (The irony, of course, being the fact that we already have more guns than people.) We see it in the weird worshipping of weapons, the Christmas cards with the whole family carrying, the bizarre fetish with one interpretation of one constitutional amendment to the exclusion of all others. It's in the language being used not only in reference to guns, but in reference to people just going about their daily lives—that is, "soft targets."

The truth is we should be "soft targets." No, really. That's what freedom is. We should be able to go to school and the store and our houses of worship without fear of being shot. We should be able to peaceably assemble per our First Amendment right without being scattered and shattered by gunfire.

We shouldn't feel the need to arm ourselves simply to go about our daily lives. Feeling compelled to carry a gun at all times isn't freedom. Living like we're living right now, with mass shootings on the regular, isn't freedom. And adding more guns won't make us more free. It won't. It hasn't.

If the Highland Park parade shooting proved anything, it's that even an event with a police presence in an idyllic, upscale, objectively "safe" suburb isn't safe from mass gun violence. There were good guys with guns there. There were good guys with guns in Uvalde, too. There were good guys with guns in Buffalo. So many good guys with guns. And yet, here we are.

It's time to look in the mirror and recognize how ridiculous we've become. Other civilized nations don't refer to children as "soft targets." They just don't. While we're debating whether the U.S. is a gun violence outlier because of doors or video games or mental illness, which the rest of the world has as well, our peers in other developed countries live their daily lives with freedom that we do not have—the freedom to gather without worrying that a whack job with a weapon of war is going to open fire, the freedom to go to school without rehearsing for a mass shooting event, the freedom to not ever think about carrying a gun to defend themselves against other guns.

Gun violence can happen anywhere, yes. But it happens far, far more often here than in other developed nations. There's a reason for that. Perhaps when we finally accept that our culture's dysfunctional relationship with guns is the problem, the idea of referring to people simply living their lives as "soft targets" will be as disturbing here as it is everywhere else.

From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories