Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Self Defense
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US

This is a discussion on Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US within the Self Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by ADMk2 All the major terror attacks in US history, haven't caused as much death as the gun ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 26th, 2012   #16
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
All the major terror attacks in US history, haven't caused as much death as the gun related homicide incidents that have occurred in the USA in 2012 alone...

As for the covert / open carriage argument, statistically speaking, America would be better off if everyone carried rifles... Handguns represent the weapon of choice in the overwhelming majority of all gun related homicides.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...esbyweapon.svg
Those statistics are distorted because they include people killed by suicide, accidents, acts of self defense and the police as homicides (which is legally correct). These are not the numbers of people killed by criminals. The numbers also include deaths resulting from criminal-on-criminal homicides (wars between drug gangs mostly) that have alternative access to weapons.
Quote:
Count back 40 years and you can count in excess of 600,000 gun related homicides in the USA, yet the American soldier losses from the Vietnam war (58,000), seem far worse to most.
That is a strawman argument. Besides, the totals over 40 years for many other causes of death, like drowning, automobiles, food poisoning, etc. will exceed the losses in Vietnam as well. Go back 75 years and the deaths from poison gas alone will totally eclipse the Vietnam losses as well.
My2Cents is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #17
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,519
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Before this goes much farther can we agree on a couple of things?
  1. An assault rifle is a rifle capable of automatic fire. Semi-auto does not count.
  2. The weapon used was not an assault rifle.
  3. Assault rifles and other automatic or explosive launching weapons require a special federal license to possess, and they don’t give out many. Getting and maintaining that license requires most the checks being proposed here.
  4. There are an almost infinite number of alternatives if guns are not available, ranging from improvised explosive and incendiaries devices large enough to fill a truck, to knifes, clubs, and rocks.
The technical term for people like the one who caused the latest incident is ‘active shooters’. The key to preventing these incidents is stopping the shooter before he acts. Most are under some kind of psychiatric care before the crime is committed. Most show signs before the act. It is illegal in the US for healthcare professionals to report these individuals to law enforcement.

That’s right. Someone knew this could happen, but couldn’t alert anyone without breaking the law.

See Ray Kelly Interview Rampage Shooters - Why We Can’t Stop Rampage Shooters - Esquire
So a semi-automatic HK 417, on issue to many military forces nowadays, is not an assault rifle? In the USA it's sold as the H&K MR762 to civilian users...

That term "assault rifle" is a media term, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact is, any AR-15 type, clone etc is a rapid fire capable weapon. Most military issued "automatic rifles" are intended to fire about 90 rounds a minute (not the theoretical cyclic rate) a number which a civilianised AR-15 "Hunter's rifles" can easily achieve.

When equipped with 30, 40, 70 or 100 round drum magazines, such a weapon only has one purpose and it ain't "varmint knockin"...

And you're right there are many ways to kill, but that lonely disaffected kid isn't going to go and steal his mum's IED now is he?
ADMk2 is online now  
Old December 26th, 2012   #18
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
old faithful's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin Australia
Posts: 866
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
So people that murder with guns wouldn't murder if they didn't have a gun? That seems pretty silly to believe. Canada banned guns some years back, hasn't had any effect at all on homicide there. Take a look at Scotland's stats, or South Africa or any country that has all but outright banned gun ownership. The effect is negligible enough to be argued which indicates to me that gun bans are as ineffective as any other sort of ban. And that's before we even get into the Bill of Rights.
Not talking about banning guns. Just banning semi and full auto guns, or regulating their use.

Realisticly, considering how many are out there in The US, I would like to see, registration of all fire arms nation wide. safe storage of all guns. Special permits for semi auto, including membership of an aproved semi/auto/military club, and use of that weapon at that club. transportation of that weapon to and from that club. Breaches of rules mean confiscation of gűn and permit forever.

Murders will still kill with illegal guns, leagal guns, bricks,knives fists, but they won't punch 20 kids and 4 adults to death, or throw bricks and kill 2 and injure 2 firemen from 50 yards.

Anyway, we can discuss this again, after the next US nut job gets a semi auto, kills a heap, and my family and I half a world away, watch it on TV and read about in our papers, you see, the world is a small place now days, and like it or not, because of the media, the rest of the western world is a kindaUS colony.
old faithful is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #19
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,519
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Those statistics are distorted because they include people killed by suicide, accidents, acts of self defense and the police as homicides (which is legally correct). These are not the numbers of people killed by criminals. The numbers also include deaths resulting from criminal-on-criminal homicides (wars between drug gangs mostly) that have alternative access to weapons.
They would have ever decreasing access to those weapons which is the point many who argue as you do overlook.

However you want to "explain" 19,000 homicides a year in your country it is a problem that needs fixing, whether it's suicide, murder or accident. There isn't one silver bullet for the problem, a whole range of things have to change, but people not owning military weapons is definitely a big one.

Gang on gang warfare may be an instance where no-one in "polite society" is particular involved, but is that what you are prepared to tolerate within your community? They can do whatever they like to each other, as long as it doesn't affect me? And here I was thinking Americans were patriots? One nation under god and all that?

No matter what is done, 280 million guns exist in the USA. Until those numbers rapidly decline or people stop thinking that pulling a trigger is the best way to resolve a problem, those "distorted numbers" aren't going to change.

Quote:
That is a strawman argument. Besides, the totals over 40 years for many other causes of death, like drowning, automobiles, food poisoning, etc. will exceed the losses in Vietnam as well. Go back 75 years and the deaths from poison gas alone will totally eclipse the Vietnam losses as well.
It's not a strawman argument at all. Bringing up motor vehicle accidents, swimming pool accidents and the like is the strawman. Every single one of those accidents is addressed through some direct action - safer cars, better designed roads, laws and policies designed to make it safer to drive, swimming pool fences, mandatory swimming training for infants and children and so on, yet your larger and far more visible trouble is ignored due mainly to ignorant lobby groups, interested mostly in the status quo, or if possible (ie: more guns!) increasing their share of it.

The point you fail to grasp in my analogy, was that the losses in Vietnam were what ultimately caused your politicians to lose the political will to fight there and you therefore stopped.

Yet far great numbers of losses on American soil from gun related homicides haven't inspired them to do a damn thing about the problem...
ADMk2 is online now  
Old December 26th, 2012   #20
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
So a semi-automatic HK 417, on issue to many military forces nowadays, is not an assault rifle? In the USA it's sold as the H&K MR762 to civilian users...
The HK417 is a selective fire (semi-automatic or full automatic controlled by the position of the safety lever) weapon. The MR762 is semi-automatic ONLY. They are not the same identical weapon.
Quote:
That term "assault rifle" is a media term, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Assault rifle is a technical term describing a selective fire weapon using an intermediate cartridge, such as 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. The HK417 uses a full power 7.63x51mm cartridge and is therefore categorized as a battle rifle, not an assault rifle.

The media’s abuse of the term “assault rifle” is a major problem, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They probably think it makes the story more ‘sexy’.
Quote:
The fact is, any AR-15 type, clone etc is a rapid fire capable weapon. Most military issued "automatic rifles" are intended to fire about 90 rounds a minute (not the theoretical cyclic rate) a number which a civilianised AR-15 "Hunter's rifles" can easily achieve.
It may be possible to achieve, but you probably cannot even be sure they will all go over there, in the general direction of the target. You sure can’t aim it.
Quote:
And you're right there are many ways to kill, but that lonely disaffected kid isn't going to go and steal his mum's IED now is he?
Assuming he is incapable of making pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, or obtaining matches or a cigarette lighter?
My2Cents is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #21
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,519
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
The HK417 is a selective fire (semi-automatic or full automatic controlled by the position of the safety lever) weapon. The MR762 is semi-automatic ONLY. They are not the same identical weapon.
There is a very small difference, the only one being whether or not it comes from the factory capable of cyclic automatic fire. It's accuracy, lethality and PRACTICAL rate of fire is exactly the same.

Here is an interesting demonstration of exactly how much more "lethal" a "military" automatic M4 is, compared to a "civilian" semi-automatic M4 (couldn't find a similar HK 417 video, but the principal is EXACTLY the same)...

Full Auto vs Semi-auto - YouTube

Quote:
Assault rifle is a technical term describing a selective fire weapon using an intermediate cartridge, such as 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. The HK417 uses a full power 7.63x51mm cartridge and is therefore categorized as a battle rifle, not an assault rifle.
Funnily enough I can read wiki too...

The StG 44 was the first ever "assault rifle" and used a short 7.92mm round. The term most commonly denotes the "standard" rifle issued to infantry forces which for a LONG time and as it turns out, increasingly relevant to modern warfare, comprised mostly semi-automatic ONLY rifles such as your own M1 Garand and M-14 and the ridiculously popular FN-FAL in it's SLR variant. No-one besides marketers has ever heard of a "battle rifle" designation. Again, thanks wiki...

The HK 417 btw, uses the "full power" 7.62x51mm "NATO" round as does it's MR762 variant.

All that interesting stuff aside, there's a gold star in it for anyone who can point out to my technical satisfaction the lethality differences or the practical aimed firepower differences between the "military" HK 417 and the "civilian" MR-762, which is the point I think should be addressed, when we're discussing whether this type of weapon is suitable for sale to civilians...

Quote:
The media’s abuse of the term “assault rifle” is a major problem, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They probably think it makes the story more ‘sexy’.
No doubt, but they wouldn't be using the term at all, if little Johnny had nothing but a bolt action 0.223 rifle with a 5 round tubular magazine, rather than a large detachable magazine capacity, semi-automatic 0.223 rifle, (which is easily convertable to a fully automatic "civilian" 0.223 if you know the right armourer) with which to smite his imagined demons.

And as a "plus", a lot more people would be alive today...

Quote:
It may be possible to achieve, but you probably cannot even be sure they will all go over there, in the general direction of the target. You sure can’t aim it.
Indeed, so as you are saying, and as that video showed, perhaps semi-auto only is the wrong path? Maybe full auto ONLY should be allowed to civilians?

Afterall it's the cyclic rate of fire that's important isn't it? Not the 19,000 people a year being killed...

Quote:
Assuming he is incapable of making pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, or obtaining matches or a cigarette lighter?
Or Ebola, don't forget that! Admittedly it would be a rather exotic and technically complex to deliver, method of killing someone but hey it's pretty lethal, so what's the dang Guvmint doing against THAT?

You know what? That and Wiki have convinced me. You're actually all completely correct.

The only possible way to protect MYSELF (or go hunting with, or sports shooting) is to hurry up and buy a HK 417 sorry, sorry, an MR-762 and chuck in a couple of 100 round drum magazines, a spare SPAZ 15 with a half a dozen 20 round drum magazines, carried slung over my back and a couple of fully automatic Glock 17 pistols with a couple of "extended" round magazines I can wear in a tactical thigh holster on each leg for hunting, home defence or in case the Guvmint tries to invade me or give me Ebola or something...

These seem fairly useful afterall. Just imagine how happy you, me and everyone else in the world would be, not to mention how safe if only EVERYONE had them...

http://youtu.be/TuHPqDJ32wE.be/6s1kstDbWO8

http://youtu.be/TuHPqDJ32wE

And finally, not a HK 417 I know, it's an AR-10 but it's close enough and demonstrates just how "non-lethal" a semi-automatic "civilian" rifle is...

http://youtu.be/5LHGS839Wr4
ADMk2 is online now  
Old December 26th, 2012   #22
Moderator
Major
Gremlin29's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 868
Threads:
The M14 and FN FAL are not and never were semi-automatic only weapons. Semi-auto "versions" do exist for the civilian market.

The last semi-auto only rifles issued by the US were the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The M14 replaced both, it is select fire. The M16 "family" replaced the M14 and ALL of it's incarnations are/were select fire.

If you can accurately fire 90 rounds per minute you missed your calling the spec ops community, the thought that this is achievable by a casual shooter is comical. I have been a gun owner and hunter my entire adult life and a soldier for 23+ years so I have more than a casual acquaintance with civilian and military firearms and their use.

This is all rather moot because the discussion regarding gun ownership/banning in the US hinges on the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights. Like it or not this is the basis of US government.

The 2nd Amendment states in part that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The framers intent is quite clear when the notes of the debates for the Bill of Rights are read, and they recorded the debates for this reason. Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others are on record that the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to provide "the people" the means to remove it's government if and when the time came that the government no longer represented the people or the principles of the constitution. In fact they further explained their purpose was that "the people" would always be more powerful than it's standing army. All of these things were considered to be the unalienable rights endowed by our creator, not endowed to us by men.
________________
Helicopterese spoken here.
Gremlin29 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #23
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,705
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
The M14 and FN FAL are not and never were semi-automatic only weapons. Semi-auto "versions" do exist for the civilian market.

The last semi-auto only rifles issued by the US were the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The M14 replaced both, it is select fire. The M16 "family" replaced the M14 and ALL of it's incarnations are/were select fire.

If you can accurately fire 90 rounds per minute you missed your calling the spec ops community, the thought that this is achievable by a casual shooter is comical. I have been a gun owner and hunter my entire adult life and a soldier for 23+ years so I have more than a casual acquaintance with civilian and military firearms and their use.

This is all rather moot because the discussion regarding gun ownership/banning in the US hinges on the Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights. Like it or not this is the basis of US government.

The 2nd Amendment states in part that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The framers intent is quite clear when the notes of the debates for the Bill of Rights are read, and they recorded the debates for this reason. Jefferson, Madison, Mason and others are on record that the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to provide "the people" the means to remove it's government if and when the time came that the government no longer represented the people or the principles of the constitution. In fact they further explained their purpose was that "the people" would always be more powerful than it's standing army. All of these things were considered to be the unalienable rights endowed by our creator, not endowed to us by men.
Written at a time where states rights were paramount and the guns were smooth bore single shot with a rate of fire of greater than one round per minute


The only way this argument makes sense in the current context is if you want the ability to rise up in revolt of the government of the day ( which you appear to suggest). Do you seriously believe this? If so I suspect that your laws against treason may get in the way so you really have no right to undertake such action.
alexsa is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #24
Moderator
Major General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,283
Threads:
Personally, I believe there's a lot of good to be said for UK gun laws. I mean the paperwork needed to be done to own a firearm rather than the types of firearm available, considering that's a very iffy area for the US.

In a very oversimplified manner in order to apply for an FAC (firearms certificate) you've got to be able to suitibly satisfy 3 main criteria; do you have a legitimate reason? suitable background and storage.

The latter 2 are the ones that seem prudent, you've got to be able to have a clean criminal record, no record of drug/alcohol abuse or no record of depression or any mental illness. (I've no idea what the details are in regards to these being done years ago) Then your house has got to be checked by a firearms officer that your storage is secure, well positioned and suitable to the type of firearms you're looking to store.

I know this'll probably be seen as me taking the side of those who want to take guns away from honest people with maybe a rocky history in their youth, but the key points I take from it is that particularly the mentally unstable people can't get hold of firearms and more importantly mentally unstable family members aren't able to grab hold of a relatives firearm and do what they want with it.

Of course, this is all personal opinion, but those steps (especially the storage bit) would be good steps to take IMO.

There are 2 words that'll make all that pointless however; 2nd Amendment

*Puts on helmet and flak jacket and runs for the bunker . . . . *
RobWilliams is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #25
Junior Member
Private First Class
ltdanjuly10's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Posts: 54
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa View Post
Written at a time where states rights were paramount and the guns were smooth bore single shot with a rate of fire of greater than one round per minute
The first amendment was written at a time when news traveled at the speed of sailing vessel or horseback, when books, criers, gossip and newspapers were the only source of information. Given how talk radio, cable news and social media distort and manipulate the political discourse in this country, I see no alternative but to totally ban all forms of electronic media. Why theoretically a rebel with a laptop and internet connection could spread seditious material to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

While new more effective checks to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally disturbed and convicted criminals is generally a good idea (assuming those in power don't abuse such powers) I have serious doubts that banning assault weapons is going to do much to stop mass killings, let alone that it would go over well with my fellow citizens. Reducing the liberty's of law abiding citizens for the acts of a few mentally disturbed individuals seems unjust and unamerican.

What we should be focusing on instead of rates of fire and magazine capacity is what makes an individual commit these acts. There is a culture of glorified violence in the US, a very inadequate mental health system and a growing number of single parent households. All of these affected the shooter. The tool he chose was an AR-15, it could have just as easily been chlorine gas, a relatively simple bomb or a bolt action rifle with bayonet from 1918 (who was there to stop him?)
ltdanjuly10 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #26
Moderator
Major
Gremlin29's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 868
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa View Post
Written at a time where states rights were paramount and the guns were smooth bore single shot with a rate of fire of greater than one round per minute


The only way this argument makes sense in the current context is if you want the ability to rise up in revolt of the government of the day ( which you appear to suggest). Do you seriously believe this? If so I suspect that your laws against treason may get in the way so you really have no right to undertake such action.
I'm not suggesting anything, the fact is the 2nd ammendment was specifically written for this purpose.
________________
Helicopterese spoken here.
Gremlin29 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #27
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,677
Threads:
Well, in this day and age any uprising against the federal government is going to be decided by the active, reserve and national guard formations of the armed forces. The side the majority of them picks is going to come up on top and 300 million small arms won't change that an inch.

It is hard to understand for a european guy like me why such a huge number of people in the US think that owning a weapon makes them any safer. It's not like other 1st world countries with much less weapons in private hands and stricter gun laws are less safe. People over here are not getting slaughtered by the hundreds because they weren't able to defend themselves with their private guns.

And as has been said before. Killing people can be done with anything even bare hands but it is defenitely made easier by having access to alot of very potent semi-automatic small arms. The problem is that there are so many weapons in private hands in the US that reducing them in any meaningfull way might be impossible.
Waylander is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #28
Troll Hunter
General
WebMaster's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 18,129
Threads:
Sorry guys, I am going to have to take sides on this and I agree with Gremlin29. Gun control is not going to solve the problem of mass shootings and criminals acquiring weapons to shoot unarmed, innocent civilians.

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/art...-neighborhood-

From that map, who do you think the criminals and gang bangers are going to hit? Gun owners or those homes without gun permits/owners?

There is something else going on which is enticing our kids to go on killing rampage and in my opinion it has to do with violence in games, movies and lack of communication with their family, friends and breakdown of the family. Look at crime rates in areas which are gun free zones (NYC, Chicago, etc.) and those without those restrictions.

Texas teachers armed back in 2008, interesting discussion:
Texas Teachers Armed -- CNN - YouTube
I live in Georgia, even here, I can't just go out and buy a gun. There is paperwork involved, background checks, etc. before the store can sell even a small revolver. So, doing more of the same is not going to help solve problem of individual acts of violence.
________________
Wise man says...
DefenceTalk.com | SinoDefenceForum.com

Got a problem? Need help? Contact me!
WebMaster is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #29
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 47
Threads:
What ever rules the US brings in they must be prepered for human error and each tragedy must be seen as a learning curve in many incidents in the UK in the last two decades people have found themselves in possession of guns because rules and procedures already in place were not followed. Only recentley for example if there is an accusation of domestic violence in a home , and the accused is a gun owner, the guns are removed to a secure police storage unit until the matter is resolved. There have been incidents where who was responsible for what seemed unclear for example a patients right to privacy with their doctor etc Rob Williams lists the UK gun rules above but each one of those rules has come from learning and tweaking from each tragedy. The other thing the UK learnt from lockerbie in particular was the loss of innocence schools could be quite open places now their properties are secured by metal fences and varoius passive security measures not to mention cctv on top of this all schools now have a system of been buzzed in from behind strong doors and sometimes toughened glass in fact security is now one of the checklists for a government school inspection ( not the biggest but certainly an important check). At the end of the day if rules are brought in they will only be as good as the people enforcing them.
shaun is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #30
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
old faithful's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin Australia
Posts: 866
Threads:
Webmaster, why not? It has worked everywhere else.
How can you be so sure it won't work?
If you restrict violent games, or censor even more TV, pretty sure you can't even broadcast the word shit'or fcuk on US TV, isn't that an ifringment on frečdom of speech, what if I wanted to say Nigger on TV? Would that be allowed?
So freedom of speech is regulated, how about gun owneship?
old faithful is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 PM.