Here & Now

How AR-15-Style Gunshots Maim and Kill People

Satya Rhodes Conway:

This time the shooter wreaked havoc in Highland Park and drove to Madison. Next time, it could be anywhere. On his way here, he drove past hundreds of communities, celebrating the Fourth of July. All of us are at risk when weapons of war are on our streets.

Frederica Freyberg:

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes Conway. More on that later but first, its described as the weapon of choice for mass shooters, as in Highland Park, the AR-15 style rifle. Our next guest has a lot of thoughts on mass shootings as a Milwaukee emergency room physician, who’s treated hundreds of gunshot patients. In addition to being an ER physician, Dr. Stephen Hargarten is founding director of the Comprehensive Injury Center at Medical College of Wisconsin. He has thoughts and research about the maiming and killing potential of assault rifles. He joins us now.

Stephen Hargarten:

Thank you very much.

Frederica Freyberg:

First, when you saw the Highland Park shooting, what was your immediate reaction?

Stephen Hargarten:

Well, what I saw was really through the media that was reporting on it. And I immediately thought there must be an AR-style rifle being used to inflict the deaths and injuries that were done in such a short period of time, and that’s very characteristic of the shootings that have taken place in other settings.

Frederica Freyberg:

You describe the velocity of the bullet used in these assault-style rifles as having “devastating wounding potential.” How so?

Stephen Hargarten:

Well, bullets are — they’re released from, in this particular case, from a rifle. They have a velocity that’s over two to 3,000 feet per second. And kinetic energy, which is defined by the mass of the bullet, but the velocity of the bullet squared really quantifies the amount of energy that is displacing tissue both primarily from the bullet but the temporary cavity that’s formed by this kinetic energy release and that tears through organs such as — through organs and results in fractures and devastating injuries that you don’t see with other caliber guns — other caliber bullets from, let’s say a handgun.

Frederica Freyberg:

I wanted to ask you about how your research zeros in on the firepower of these AR-15-style weapons. From your research, do assault rifle bullets compare to other — how do they compare to other ammunition in terms of this fire power?

Stephen Hargarten:

In terms of let’s say a 9-millimeter 40 caliber bullet from a handgun, this rifle bullet is almost 9 times greater in terms of its kinetic energy release and its temporary cavity formations about three to four times higher. So there’s a big variation from caliber bullets from handguns and so we see the predictable outcomes of having devastating injuries because these bullets are traveling so fast.

Frederica Freyberg:

Devastating injuries and almost certain death, correct?

Stephen Hargarten:

Well, in the case of let’s say Sandy Hook, all 20 of those children who were struck by these bullets died. This were no survivors in that age group. And it’s the same I believe in this Uvalde tragedy in Texas. These bullets result in devastating, predictable injuries. And I think they’re more severe. We don’t have that data. It’s hard to do. But it’s certainly more severe in the younger age groups. They have less reserve to at least immediately survive these injuries and get to hospitals and our emergency departments and trauma centers.

Frederica Freyberg:

You’ve written about how the Second Amendment passed 230 years ago could not have anticipated the rifle and bullet technology of today. What’s your example of that?

Stephen Hargarten:

Well, when we did the calculations of the energy release and how many bullets can be released in such a short period of time, the Sandy Hook shooter who released 154 bullets in less than four minutes. You calculate a militia person, in the 1780s when the Second Amendment was framed, that individual released so many more bullets over one minute than a militia person could do. And the energy release of the bullets from the AR-style 15 rifle compared to the energy release of a musket ball that resulted in a calculation we estimated this individual represented about 170 militia attacking Sandy Hook school.

Frederica Freyberg:

There is precedent for regulating the style and mechanics of firearms as in the 1934 restrictions on machine guns. Why not impose similar regulations on AR-15 style rifles and their ammunition?

Stephen Hargarten:

Sure. I think it’s a good example about how the federal level discussions changed in the late ’20s and early ’30s from a series of gangland-style mass shootings that occurred, most notably the St. Valentines Day massacre. There was also a assassination attempt on then-President Roosevelt, resulted in 1934 regulation of, in this case a Thompson machine gun which fires a 45-caliber bullet. And that has resulted in people being able to own this gun but they have a registration requirement and mild tax, and yet for 80 years, there has never been a mass shooting with a Thompson machine gun. And we feel that perhaps this is an approach for assault-style rifles to consider this approach for controlling this firearms availability in the community by, if you want to have this firearm, then you register it and there’s a tax similar to what they’re doing with Thompson machine guns.

Frederica Freyberg:

What might be contemplated as public health measures to prevent devasting injury and death does not contemplate banning or seizing weapons, the possession of which is of course enshrined in the Second Amendment?

Stephen Hargarten:

Im not here to discuss — I’m not a constitutional expert on the continuing interpretation of this. But I find it to be notable that the technology has emerged as it has in this case this product, that’s equivalent to other firearms that are regulated like the Thompson machine gun and it’s so different than what the technologies were back when the framers of the Constitution thought about having a well-regulated militia. So I think it’s important to, one, we have these discussions to base it on a science-oriented, science-informed platform that has people coming together to discuss what is appropriate for possession, for hunting, for self-protection, for sporting, and what perhaps is something else that could be or should be regulated in a different fashion.

Frederica Freyberg:

We leave it there. Dr. Stephen Hargarten, thanks very much.

Stephen Hargarten:

Thank you.