The recent shooting attack in the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut was an act of almost unimaginable horror. Because of its impact on the national psyche, it is almost certain that some attempt will be made to change or fine-tune our national firearm laws.
If these changes are to be substantive, it is important that we and our legislators fully understand the complex interplay of military needs, modern technology, and corporate greed that ended up getting us into this mess. Unless we understand how we got here, it will be difficult to find a logical and effective way forward.
Right after the close of World War II, Brigadier-General S.L.A. Marshall completed an exhaustive study relating to how our American troops participated during direct combat operations. His findings were rather startling. He found that in our most effective combat units, only 25% of the troops actually fired their weapons during firefights. In average units, only 15% actually fired their weapons.
The reasons given for this low participation in firefights were many and varied.
American infantrymen at the beginning of World War II were armed with bolt-action Springfield rifles which required opening the bolt to extract a fired cartridge followed by manually closing the bolt to inject a new cartridge into the chamber which meant a slow and deliberate rate of fire. Many men who failed to fire during combat said they never saw anything to shoot at and didn’t want to waste ammunition. Many admitted to an internal reluctance to shoot at another human being.
The military firearm training given to new recruits at that time consisted entirely of firing at bulls eyes on paper targets. Many recruits had learned to use firearms earlier in life for hunting purposes, and their early training had stressed the need to keep from endangering other humans during their shooting activity.
Simply put, the military realized that they had to provide firearms that put out a high rate of fire with minimal action on the part of the shooter, and they had to change their training programs so as to condition their recruits to accept the idea that shooting other humans was what war was all about.
Weapons changed so that semi-automatic and full-automatic firearms became the norm, and training changed so that shooting at targets approximating human silhouettes in combat settings largely replaced the conventional target ranges. These changes showed good results. During the Korean War, about 55% of frontline troops actually fired their weapons during combat.
Following Korea came the onrush of new technologies which markedly changed both military firearms and training methods. Military firearms and ammunition were reduced in size and weight, and the weapons functioned in full or semi-automatic mode. Magazines that held 30 rounds could be fired in a matter of seconds.
New training methods, many using computer simulations, were developed to de-sensitize trainees and allow them to shoot rapidly at realistically human targets without hesitation. This new equipment and new training methods proved successful. During the Vietnam War, fully 95% of troops in active combat situations fired their weapons.
While the military was successful in accomplishing its goals, society was faced with a new problem – a problem it had been forewarned about 50 years ago.
In his last speech to the American public prior to leaving office in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated: “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.” (emphasis provided).
President Eisenhower could not have foreseen the development of our current situation, a situation in which corporate greed has completely over-ruled logic, reason, and a concern for societal well-being.
The firearms industry developed highly efficient killing tools to meet the needs of the military. These firearms have no real utility for the general public. They are simply not needed nor are they suitable for target shooting or sport hunting purposes. Yet, the industry developed a very aggressive marketing strategy to convince the American public they somehow needed civilian versions of military firearms. In this marketing effort, they have been very successful. Not only are they sold to adults in most sporting goods stores, but scaled down yet identical-looking toy versions are marketed as “soft air rifles, full or semi-automatic” that hopeful youngsters look forward to finding under their Christmas trees.
Meanwhile, the computer industry, having successfully developed visual programs that allowed the military to de-sensitize recruits to the idea of rapidly killing a human being, saw an opportunity to market these products to the general public as video games. Obsessed as it is with developing new technologies, it seems that in this instance the industry lost its conscience somewhere along the way.
So, are there troubled teens out there who spend their hours playing video games that reward them points for quickly and unhesitatingly killing their virtual human adversaries? When they need a break from the computer, do they pick up their battery powered “Zombie Hunter Soft Air Rifle” to see how many seconds it takes to empty the 30 plastic pellets from the magazine in full-automatic mode?
I don’t know of any personally, but the Sandy Hook Elementary School episode does come to mind.
Our elected representatives in Washington are now scrambling to change laws and regulations in order to prevent another Sandy Hook tragedy.
We wouldn’t be facing this problem now if we had paid more attention to yet another warning by President Eisenhower that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.
Certainly, our legislators will go beyond what has become the standard practice of coming up with a politically-expedient band-aid quick-fix. They will take a much more holistic view. They will review past practices and policies that have lead us to the current unacceptable situation. With this information in hand, they will map out future changes in rules, regulations, and procedures pertaining to firearm use and availability, as well as video games and firearm advertisement content, that will lead us to becoming a safer and saner society.
They will, won’t they?
Ron Sadler, retired Chief of Forestry Planning for the BLM, spent two years of active duty in the US Army working in the G3 Planning section of the Headquarters Staff at Ft. Hood, Texas in a position that required a Top Secret security clearance.
Mr. Sadler: I am considerably older than you. Like you, I had confidential, secret, top secret, as well as several compartmentalized three letter government organizations clearances; crypto and Q clearances also. Some are active. Makes me no better than any other person. I read your piece three times searching for what YOU would do to remedy the problems at hand. I have been fired upon. I have destroyed lives – for which I received not recognition and medals but PTSD. I think that I agree with you. Being older, I remember the Eisenhower military / industrial complex statements. I do not believe that he had the Bushmaster in mind. You mention “some attempt will be made to change” … “national firearms laws”. Please remember that most states have governing law. Most manufacturers make what are considered “state compliant” rifles and hand guns. How would you motivate both the states and feds starting in our back yard where you would not have support from Mr. Defazio?
Mary, I’ve been fighting the same bug and it’s no fun.
Thanks, Ron, it is definitely no fun. Hope you feel better too
Good article. I have never seen the figure of how many combatants during the war in Vietnam actually fired their weapons, placed at that high of a figure. I’m no expert, but I’ve seen much lower figures quoted over the years. I also don’t agree the use of video games or other influences is a contributor to mass shootings. My opinion is it’s time for people to take responsibilty for their own actions and mis-deeds and place the blame squarely on the perpetrator.
My boy went through Miles Gear training and CAX in simulated urban conditions amongst mock villages setup in the desert in Southern California. Team A would square off against Team B and whichever team had the most survivors at the end of the day would win… usually that would mean one survivor and one survivor only. During his first serious encounter in Ramadi where Pvt 1st Class “Shane” Folmar died just feet away from him, the Marines “lit up the street”, bystander or combatant, everyone went down.