If only we had kept America's arms race in check

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In our extremely divided country, very little draws more derision from the left than expressing support for policing. On the right, very little draws more scorn than asserting that the AR-15 rifle is a threat to our nation.

I have written on the former; today I write on the latter.

Politicians on the left and right have made it de rigueur to refuse to answer any difficult question. In the case of Republicans, when they are asked about the unequivocal fact that mass shootings in schools and elsewhere only take place in great numbers in the U.S., you get the standard mumble followed by, "but what I can tell you … ."

Fans of the AR-15 often assert that it is just a rifle like any other rifle. They are quick to point out that "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle" but is derived from the name of the weapon's creator, Armalite. Why did Armalite design the AR-15? It was designed to replace the M1 and M1 carbine, the World War II standard military rifles. Its first military use was in Vietnam, where it was known as the M-16. It was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new, high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Fans will also assert that the AR-15 is, in fact, a hunting rifle. There are hunting rifles equally or more powerful. I ask, then, why don't police carry hunting rifles in their squad cars and why do so few hunters actually hunt with the AR-15? To the former, police now need a lightweight, almost recoilless weapon to meet the threats that they face today. To the latter, it is not nearly as accurate as a high-quality hunting rifle. Also, hunting ammunition is designed for stopping power, not to do as much tissue damage as possible. Surgeons and ER physicians will tell you that is what a round from the AR-15 does. After all, hunters hope to eat venison.

I'm quite sure a majority of police officers oppose firearms restrictions based on a Second Amendment argument. I have always thought they were acting against their own best interests. I still enjoy pistol shooting, and qualify annually. I have never felt the need to own a rifle designed for use in war.

In a 40-year police career, you collect a lot of memories and mementos. One of the most humbling is a handwritten thank-you on U.S. Senate letterhead from Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. In 1994, at his request, I hosted a press event at the Minneapolis Fifth Precinct for metro police chiefs and Wellstone in support for a federal assault weapons ban. The law passed, but with a sunset in 2004, when Congress lacked the courage to even debate the law.

In a recent commentary ("How would we ban assault rifles, anyway?" June 12), the writer and fellow police retiree, among other things, doubted we could we ever stop private ownership of the AR-15 variant rifles in the weapons stream. I think he is right-on. I think that train has left the station. Since 2004, whenever you pick up the ads for sporting-goods stores in the Sunday paper, you are offered six to eight variations of the AR-15 for purchase. There are also sporting-goods stores that have gotten out of the gun business entirely.

As I write, Congress appears on the edge of doing "something." Thank God, but I cannot help but wonder how many lives would have been spared had we stayed the course Sen. Wellstone hoped to set.