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

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.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; The way I look at it is that Martin Bryant was of average height and weight with a very low ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 26th, 2012   #31
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,061
Threads:
The way I look at it is that Martin Bryant was of average height and weight with a very low I.Q. Had he attempted the Port Arthur massacre with a bolt action rifle and double barrel shotgun he would not have been able to kill as many people. Had he been armed with a knife or even an axe he would have been taken down by patrons in the cafe where he started his rampage. I’ve taken down a bigger stronger man than Bryant, if he had an assault rifle or even a shot gun or pistol, instead of a knife, I would almost definitely be dead.

The thing is Bryant didn’t use a knife he had an AR-15. He opened up at people at point blank range with a semi automatic variant of a military assault rifle (30 round magazines) at people seated at tables. Every time he squeezed the trigger a 5.56x45mm round left the barrel and struck a person no more than five or six metres away from him, most were closer, they had no chance. The report of the weapon discharging in the confines of the cafe would have created shock and confusion, people would not have known what was happening or even if they recognised the danger likely would not have known where the shots were coming from. In 15 seconds he fired 17 rounds from the hip, killing 12 and wounding 10 others. He fired 12 more shots inside killing another 8 people; you can’t do that with a bolt action rifle or even a semi auto pistol with a ten round magazine. The other victims were a mother and her two young children on foot and the occupants of two cars, none of his victims were even in a position to be aware of what was going on until it was too late; none were in a position to get away let alone defend themselves. Would one of the victims being armed with a concealed carry hand gun or even a security guard with a S&W .38 have made any difference at all, I seriously doubt it. Moot point these mongrels always go for soft targets.

In a training period, when I was much younger and in uniform, an instructor burst into the rear of the classroom, killed the lights and emptied a 20 round magazine of blanks from an SLR (the semi auto Australian service rifle of the time) with the muzzle pointed to the ceiling. A very telling demonstration, he emptied the magazine in seconds, not one person dove under a table, not one person attempted to tackle him, if it had been for real we would all be dead and we were soldiers in the middle of a lecture on combat fatigue who had some idea that they were going to do something to spice things up. What chance would civilians at a tourist destination, campers on an island, or school children in class rooms have had? Well we know the answer because real nut jobs with live ammo and semi auto high capacity magazine feed assault rifle style weapons have shown us, innocent people die, children die, old people die, people in the prime of life die.
Volkodav is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #32
Troll Hunter
General
WebMaster's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 18,119
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
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?
It doesn't work, that is the point:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

Look at what is happening in Mexico with their gun control laws... I don't know the number but last I heard some thing around 50,000 dead?

Guns are more regulated than free speech. Just like you can't use N word or F word on tv/radio, you can't buy guns without background checks and through proper channel. But if you decide to use N or F words on radio/tv, should the rest of the people in that production also lose their jobs because YOU used the words which you weren't suppose to?

I am glad you brought up freedom of speech regulation on tv/radio, drunk drivers kill a lot of people, so many families are dead because of alcohol, why don't you call for alcohol ban? Yea there are DUI laws, and very harsh punishment if you get caught but apparently, its not working.
________________
Wise man says...
DefenceTalk.com | SinoDefenceForum.com

Got a problem? Need help? Contact me!
WebMaster is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #33
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,476
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.
I said it's achievable with a semi-automatic weapon, I didn't say it was particularly accurate, the rate of fire issue, raised by many gun enthusiasts is a non-sequitor in the extreme.

It makes it sound like there's a rate of being able to kill people per minute you're actually happy with, as a nation...

Quote:
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.
Yep, nothing more than a piece of paper signed by the right group of people with the approval of a larger group. Laws were created by one group of people at a particular time for a particular reason and are now IMHO sadly outdated and used only to promote the interests of a relatively small minority.

Said laws effectively at the end of the day are only worth the paper they are written on. They can be changed or deleted by another group when necessary too.
ADMk2 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #34
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,476
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebMaster View Post
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.

My point is, you've got to start somewhere. All the handwringing, red herrings and strawman arguments in the world won't stop the bloodshed, but banning high capacity semi-auto rifles and concealble firearms and reducing as many of them as possible as being on the streets over decades long programs to do that, just MIGHT make a difference.

The link I put up earlier showing how high the rate of homicides committed by handguns really is, is a good example of where such a targetted firearm reduction program might just make a real difference.

The lunatic arming himself to the teeth and storming his workplace or a school is less easy when he finds it difficult to conceal his intent carry rifles and what not, not impossible certainly but everything to make these things harder is worth the effort.

Concealable handguns and high magazine capacity semi-auto rifles have been banned before by legislation in the USA so it can certainly be done, so long as politicians with a spine exist (thin on the ground though they may be)...
ADMk2 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #35
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,476
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebMaster View Post
It doesn't work, that is the point:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

Look at what is happening in Mexico with their gun control laws... I don't know the number but last I heard some thing around 50,000 dead?

Guns are more regulated than free speech. Just like you can't use N word or F word on tv/radio, you can't buy guns without background checks and through proper channel. But if you decide to use N or F words on radio/tv, should the rest of the people in that production also lose their jobs because YOU used the words which you weren't suppose to?

I am glad you brought up freedom of speech regulation on tv/radio, drunk drivers kill a lot of people, so many families are dead because of alcohol, why don't you call for alcohol ban? Yea there are DUI laws, and very harsh punishment if you get caught but apparently, its not working.
Sorry webs, but you're doing exactly what Gremlin, My 2 Cents and others did below. You are cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

We're not debating crime in general I thought, but rather rampant gun related homicides?

Check Britain's gun related homicide rate and overall homicide rate per 100,000 people compared to America's and you'll see the difference...

And Mexico, yes that's out of control, but where are they getting these weapons exactly?

The USA...
ADMk2 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #36
Moderator
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 861
Threads:
There must be demonstrative proof that a nationwide gun ban has had a significant impact on violent crime? I'm not talking about comparing per capita rubbish either, but significant declines in violent crime departing from trends.
________________
Helicopterese spoken here.
Gremlin29 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #37
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,694
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
I'm not suggesting anything, the fact is the 2nd ammendment was specifically written for this purpose.
Prehaps it is time for change. Hugh ask I know, however, I cannot see why the 2nd amendment cannot sit beside restrictions on the types of guns.
alexsa is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #38
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,476
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
There must be demonstrative proof that a nationwide gun ban has had a significant impact on violent crime? I'm not talking about comparing per capita rubbish either, but significant declines in violent crime departing from trends.
It's not violent crime that's the significant issue, statistics show that the USA isn't really worse in that regard than other industrialised Western nations and when guns are removed from the equation, even the rate of non-firearm related homicides are comparable to most nations.

This shows that USA citizens aren't necessarily more murderous than anyone else, when employing all the other methods available, and to me that offers a fair amount of hope that IF the firearm problem could be seriously addressed, that the continuing sorts of tragedies we see on the nightly news could be seriously reduced. Reducing it totally is unlikely, it happens elsewhere unfortunately and will probably continue to happen in the USA. It has to be reduced however.

The issue unfortunately seems to be the rampant access to firearms and specifically IMHO easy access to firearms that have no other designed purpose than to kill people. We all know it's ridiculously easy to kill with a modern firearm and that piece-meal solutions don't work. The "gun free zones" can only ever apply to those who will act lawfully with their weapons.

As we're starting to go around in circles, I'll make my final points on this issue, this is what I think should happen:

1. Handguns and large capacity semi-auto rifles and shotguns should be banned from sale as a general rule for civilians. If your argument for possessing firearms is that you need to defend yourself against a police state, then a handgun is not necessary, being all but useless as a modern weapon of war. Sports shooting, and those who need a self defence firearm for their occupation (security, law enforcement and military) should be the only "legitimate" criteria for owning a handgun.

2. Pyschiatric assessments for all firearms owners should be mandatory.

3. Far more stringent regulation and administration of firearms, ammunition and major weapons components and licencing regimes need to be employed.

4. Major societal programs designed to bring about cultural change of the mindset in relation to the use of firearms needs to be udertaken. It will have to be long term, no "sunset clauses" on this for it to have any chance of working.

Many said that changing people's thinking on smoking and tobacco wouldn't work either, yet making smoking socially unacceptable has worked wonderfully well in reducing the incidence of people smoking in many societies.

5. Major action targetting the use of weapons, specifically guns by outlaw groups, whether they be gangs, drug runners, home grown "terror" organisations or whomever. Priorities may have to be changed around, gun violence has to stop first and then other problems, drugs, property crime can be worked on.

With all the resources available to the United States, focussing on this primarily cannot help but help solve the problem, it just needs a nation-wide focus that clearly isn't there at present, no matter how much it's talked about, but maybe events like Newtown can at least lead to that and help out in someway...
ADMk2 is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #39
Troll Hunter
General
WebMaster's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 18,119
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Sorry webs, but you're doing exactly what Gremlin, My 2 Cents and others did below. You are cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

We're not debating crime in general I thought, but rather rampant gun related homicides?

Check Britain's gun related homicide rate and overall homicide rate per 100,000 people compared to America's and you'll see the difference...

And Mexico, yes that's out of control, but where are they getting these weapons exactly?

The USA...
Law abiding, good citizens don't commit homicides, criminals do and criminals will always have guns to kill people despite of the laws. They happen because someone breaks into someones house, or its planned ahead of time. If people in those homicides are armed and have the means to protect themselves, would the killing still take place?

If someone wants to go on a killing spree then no amount of gun ban laws are going to help prevent that. What makes someone go on a killing spree?

The liberals in Obama administration (fast and furious scandal) who were supplying guns to the criminal Mexican cartels are the same people who want to ban guns in USA, the blatant hypocrisy of these people. Gun ban could very well turn into something like the anti-drug laws we have in here US. They have not and do not work... drugs are still being made, sold, and we continue to waste billions on enforcing those useless laws.

Lets say, for argument sake, guns are outlawed in USA. How should the citizens protect themselves and their families? Who is responsible if a criminal robs a house and kills (with a gun of course) someone during the process? I would rather have the means to defend myself stay alive than become a victim, I rather not see my wife, kids die in my arms while the criminal with a gun roams freely, I don't know about you.


Speaking of hypocrisy:
Demand A Plan HYPOCRITES - YouTube
________________
Wise man says...
DefenceTalk.com | SinoDefenceForum.com

Got a problem? Need help? Contact me!
WebMaster is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #40
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,162
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
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 term “assault rifle” was coined (by Hitler, no less) to describe the new, in the 1940s and 50s, generation of weapons that could replace both a conventional long rifle and a SMG. It didn’t need to fire a certain class of calibre and it didn’t even need to fire fully automatically. But it did need to be able to put out rapid sustained fire and be rapidly reloaded requiring self-loading between shots and quick magazine reloading of at least 20 round per unit of fire. The term 'battle rifle' is AFAIK an invention of the American gun press in the 60s or 70s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
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.
At what range? A casual shooter could still fire 90 accurate rounds per minute at targets only 10-20m away. Even easier in a typical class room at ranges of under 5m.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
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.
While this may be historically accurate it is also ridiculously stupid. What about the rule of law? Why have courts, democracy and a constitution when ultimate power is rested in an armed mob? It is also pretty vainglorious because since when has an armed populace ever overthrown a tyrannical government? Certainly not in American history. The American Revolutionary War was fought between armies raised by states.

But to the point at hand. While gun ownership restrictions are well proven in reducing violence in the community the opposite would be likely in America. Because any attempt to significantly restrict gun ownership there would likely result in comparative mass outbreaks of violent resistance (compared to current levels of gun violence). Guns are an integral part of personal and community identity in several of the nations that make up the cultural geography of America and that is unlikely to ever change no matter how many crazies casually kill innocent children.
Abraham Gubler is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #41
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,162
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin29 View Post
There must be demonstrative proof that a nationwide gun ban has had a significant impact on violent crime? I'm not talking about comparing per capita rubbish either, but significant declines in violent crime departing from trends.
Yep. Australia. There has been marked decrease in deaths caused by firearms since gun restrictions. The rate fell 47% from 1991 to 2001. There has also been zero to date (16 years) mass shootings (>4 KIA) since the firearms restrictions compared to 0.7 per annum over 18 years previous.
Abraham Gubler is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #42
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,064
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
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?
You can use those words and much more on TV, if you own the station. Otherwise the owner has the last word, and he will only stop you because of concern about the potential loss of advertising revenue.

Of course you can now display almost anything simply by hosting your own internet site and displaying it there, like Julian Assange did. Though for things universally illegal, like pedophilia, you might want to restrict access.
My2Cents is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #43
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,064
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
Yep. Australia. There has been marked decrease in deaths caused by firearms since gun restrictions. The rate fell 47% from 1991 to 2001. There has also been zero to date (16 years) mass shootings (>4 KIA) since the firearms restrictions compared to 0.7 per annum over 18 years previous.
That is mass killings by guns only, what about violent crime overall?

Have there been no mass killings in the last 16 years by any means?
My2Cents is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #44
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
old faithful's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin Australia
Posts: 834
Threads:
Web by,when all this started in Australia, I was like you, I argued blue in the face about guns don't kill people, people do etc, I lost an SKS and my pride and joy L1A1 SLR,(FNFAL). But I was wrong, we have not had a mass shooting since the laws were introduced. I am happy to be restricted to bolt action,lever action firearms, knowing full well, that when some poor bastard gets the sack, and his wife leaves him, loses his house, he can't just loose it, go buy an AR15 and sit at a NYE party and empty 30 rd mags into the crowd.
No one is saying BAN GUNS, we are saying, restrict and regulate.
It does work.
old faithful is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012   #45
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,064
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
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.
Haven’t had that many since 1996. Less than 2/3rd of that this year.
Quote:
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?
Interesting how you can impute an entire range of false motives for derogatory purpose from a simple statement of fact.
Quote:
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.
You will have much greater success preventing multiple homicides if you identify those disturbed individuals before they act, and it is likely to be much cheaper as well. The current laws medical privacy prevent that.
Quote:
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.
I said drowning, not swimming pools. Most people who drown don’t do it in swimming pools.

I guess that since the annual number of deaths from “vehicle accidents, swimming pool accidents and the like”, after all those steps have been taken, when extrapolated over 40 years are still greater than the deaths in Vietnam, that by your standard those policies taken to address the problems are failures.

It is a strawman argument because you can generate any homicide level you want just by changing the period you total the deaths over. Would you accept an argument from me because the deaths from handguns in 1 second is less than 0.0003 is insignificant compared to the 58,000 killed in Vietnam that guns are not a hazard? Of course not, it is ridiculous. So why do you expect me to accept a similar argument from you?
Quote:
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...
I failed to grasp your analogy because it is false.
My2Cents is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:35 AM.