Arm the teachers!
Posted by: hungryhalibut on 22 February 2018
What a wonderful idea. It will really make things better. Why hasn’t someone thought of it earlier?
Richard Dane posted:Derek Wright posted:We had a teacher with "anger management" issues, 99.9% of the time he was a good teacher but if a pupil strayed he would be doing a "chinese burn", or throwing the blackboard cleaner (a block of wood with chalk dust impregnated felt attached to it - left a mark on the target to indicate the accuracy of the aim) or attempting to strangle the pupil.
We had a maths teacher who was a crack shot with chalk, but every now and then he would up the ante by deploying the wooden blackboard cleaner. It hurt like hell, and heaven help you if you blubbed.
Oh, and a headmaster whose favourite ploy was the death grip, where he'd go to shake your hand and once he had your hand in his, he would gradually crush it so you would end up writhing around on your knees begging for mercy.
Happy days.
We had the extremely dubious pleasure of being entertained by a maths teacher whose anger management issues boiled over into a different kind of death grip. One of our fellow pupils was not the brightest of mathematicians which provoked extreme frustration in the maths teacher. To the point that I can recall two occasions when the teacher's face was bright red whilst he held said pupil with an arm aggressively locked around the poor chap's throat. Very scary for the class of pupils. What might the outcome have been were he carrying a fire arm? He is not typical, but one end of a spectrum - let's hope our American friends don't place their teachers in such a terrible predicament of being obliged to carry a gun - particularly if they happen to have a military past.
Peter
Innocent Bystander posted:I really don’t understand the focus on machine guns and the trm “assault weapons”. First of all, any gun is, or can be used as, a weapon of assault, and secondly as much damage can be done, just a bit slower, with semi automatics or even simple pistols.
On October 1, 2017 a shooter situated on the 32nd floor of an hotel in Las Vegas opened fire with assault rifles on a crowd attending a concert from a distance of 200 yards, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. How many people you think would have gotten hurt if he had instead fired handguns from the same position? Zero. And if he had managed to use the handguns within their effective range (40 yards) he couldn't have caused even 5% of the damage he did with his rifles.
How do you think a law enfrocement officer feels when confronting a person armed with an assault weapon knowing that his bullet proof vest is not capable of stopping the high velocity bullets which might be fired at him?
Haim Ronen posted:Innocent Bystander posted:I really don’t understand the focus on machine guns and the trm “assault weapons”. First of all, any gun is, or can be used as, a weapon of assault, and secondly as much damage can be done, just a bit slower, with semi automatics or even simple pistols.
On October 1, 2017 a shooter situated on the 32nd floor of an hotel in Las Vegas opened fire with assault rifles on a crowd attending a concert from a distance of 200 yards, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. How many people you think would have gotten hurt if he had instead fired handguns from the same position? Zero. And if he had managed to use the handguns within their effective range (40 yards) he couldn't have caused even 5% of the damage he did with his rifles.
How do you think a law enfrocement officer feels when confronting a person armed with an assault weapon knowing that his bullet proof vest is not capable of stopping the high velocity bullets which might be fired at him?
I was thinking of the damage that a person can do in the school situation, rather than the concert incident, and whilst slower someone could still kill or maim a large number of people if he/she had semi-automatoc weapons or even multiple pistols so as not to have to reload.
The last point is valid, though it is a distinction of which I was unaware having zero knowledge of firearm or protection capability?
But as I asked, surely every gun is an assault weapon? With the exception of a very small proportion of guns that are sold purely for animal hunting, the vast majority are made for one purpose, and only one purpose, which is to kill or maim human beings. Completely immoral apart from in the hands of legitimate and properly trained formal defence organisations.
Mike-B posted:I would love to see any NRA person, preferably the CEO idiot who was on TV yesterday, armed with a 'concealed' type handgun up against an AR15, the gun type used in the Florida schooling. At 25 metres a hand gun with a full mag might hit a person sized target, then again it might not. An AR15 has an effective range of 500m.
I know little about guns but would imagine that within the confines of a building with many rooms someone trained to use a pistol might have something of an advantage over someone untrained using an assault rifle on the basis that the range is very short and the pistol is much more easily brought to bear on its target compared to a heavy and long rifle.
When I mean 'trained', I was thinking about the armed policeman allegedly outside the school when the attack was taking place, not a teacher or two shown how to use a gun.
Haim Ronen posted:On October 1, 2017 a shooter situated on the 32nd floor of an hotel in Las Vegas opened fire with assault rifles on a crowd attending a concert from a distance of 200 yards, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. How many people you think would have gotten hurt if he had instead fired handguns from the same position? Zero. And if he had managed to use the handguns within their effective range (40 yards) he couldn't have caused even 5% of the damage he did with his rifles.
How do you think a law enfrocement officer feels when confronting a person armed with an assault weapon knowing that his bullet proof vest is not capable of stopping the high velocity bullets which might be fired at him?
A 9 mm parabellum round is still lethal to somewhere between 300m and over 1000m depending on conditions and on the weapon from which it is fired (and some pistol rounds retain lethal kinetic energy at much longer ranges than this). The effective range of a 9mm pistol is limited by the practical accuracy limit of a person shooting it still being able to hit the torso of the person at whom they are shooting, rather than being limited by the kinetic energy of the round. Shooting into a crowd at range with a pistol will still kill people, you just can't predict who it will kill.
However, using an AR15 modified to achieve full automatic fire (whether or not the type of modification used is legal in in the USA) it's possible to send a lot more rounds into a crowd, so making all such modifications illegal is at least a small step starting in the right direction.
It should also be noted that a round from Win 308 hunting rifle is still even more likely to kill the law enforcement officer than the 5.56x45 (Rem 223) round from an AR15.
Mike-B posted:I would love to see any NRA person, preferably the CEO idiot who was on TV yesterday, armed with a 'concealed' type handgun up against an AR15, the gun type used in the Florida schooling. At 25 metres a hand gun with a full mag might hit a person sized target, then again it might not. An AR15 has an effective range of 500m.
Using a pistol I could hit a walking target with a single shot at 25m more than 95% of the time.
Using an AR15 with iron sights (or hunting rifle such as a Win308) that I'd sighted in, I could hit a walking target with a single shot at 300m more than 95% of the time, (unless there's a particularly strong wind and I couldn't see anything to indicate wind strength and direction).
Using an AR15 or a hunting rifle with telescopic sights that I'd already sighted in and if I have even a fair idea of the range and the wind I could hit a stationary target with a single shot at 500m more than 95% of the time, If I know the wind and range fairly accurately, that distance moves out to over 800m.
Huge,
You seem to know a lot about the effective operating parameters of different weapons.
Are you military, SAS perhaps?
Bob Atherton sometimes posts on the forum. Now his opinion would be worth hearing.
Ray
MDS posted:Mike-B posted:I would love to see any NRA person, preferably the CEO idiot who was on TV yesterday, armed with a 'concealed' type handgun up against an AR15, the gun type used in the Florida schooling. At 25 metres a hand gun with a full mag might hit a person sized target, then again it might not. An AR15 has an effective range of 500m.
I know little about guns but would imagine that within the confines of a building with many rooms someone trained to use a pistol might have something of an advantage over someone untrained using an assault rifle on the basis that the range is very short and the pistol is much more easily brought to bear on its target compared to a heavy and long rifle.
I used to live in USA & did a lot of range shooting, this carried on from my early years when gun clubs were common. Yes of course a trained & well practiced person with a small handgun will obviously be a lot better, my point was more about the accuracy of a small hand gun, even with a well practiced person they are not that accurate. I can group a 6" barrelled 9mm around a few inches at 25 yds, 2" or 3" barrels such as with 'carry' or 'concealed' guns my grouping is more like around a few feet. The added factor is doing this in a real life situation, all well & good in a practice range but I dread to think what kind of accuracy I would get in that kind of unimaginable situation in a school shooting, to say nothing of the collateral damage. The whole concept of protecting a school by equipping staff with "protective" weapons is total madness.
Huge, I can empty an AR15 pretty fast, but the bump stop mod gives 15 rounds a second & I was shocked by the effect when I first tried it. The problem with all rifles with rapid fire is barrel temperature, more so with such a light weapon as the AR15.
Final point is you will not get more that 500 yds with an AR15 even with a scope, its only a 16 inch barrel, they will get to 800+ with a 20 inch bull barrel & tighter rifling, but even so its only.223 & its not a hunting rifle.
When you’re 25 yards -and very possibly less -away from massed students in a classroom or hall or corridor, accuracy in hitting some partocular target is of no relevance - most bullets will hit human flesh if pointed roughly in the right direction.
What's next? You guys, the few experts and the ones who had never fired a bullet in their lives, are going to split hairs and compare the break-in periods of hand guns VS assault rifles?
It is quite simple and obvious. Assault rifles are much deadlier than handguns (no comparison) because of their range, their capacity to fire faster, their magazines containing more ammunition and the velocity of their bullets which cause more sever wounds than handguns.
So, is it a good idea to separate these weapons from the family of firearms and try to convince the American public to ban them without scaring the NRA people into thinking that we are taking all their guns away?
I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?
And if there is an explanation, explain how with free availability of guns other than fully automatic weapons means that removing the latter from ready availability will stop people entering schools and murdering or maiming numerous students if that is what they desire to do?
Haim Ronen posted:What's next? You guys, the experts and the ones who had never fired a bullet in their lives, are going to split hairs and compare the break-in periods of hand guns VS assault rifles?
It is quite simple and obvious. Assault rifles are much deadlier than handguns (no comparison) because of their range, their capacity to fire faster, their magazines containing more ammunition and the velocity of their bullets which cause more sever wounds than handguns.
So, is it a good idea to separate these weapons from the family of firearms and try to convince the public to ban them without scaring the NRA people into thinking that we are taking all their guns away?
Then they all switch to the semi auto versions of the H&K MP5, H&K UMP SIS Sauer MPX or FN P2000.
Innocent Bystander posted:I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?
<snip>
Anything in the class of weapons derived (directly or indirectly) from the German StG 44.
Huge posted:Then they all switch to the semi auto versions of the H&K MP5, H&K UMP SIS Sauer MPX or FN P2000.
If you don't know, these are also classified as assault weapons and will be included in the ban .
Innocent Bystander posted:I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?
I should have asked, and what makes the distinction, other than an arbitrary specification for parameters such as rate of fire or kinetic energy of fire, unless the latter cut off is that below which death or serious injury is unlikely?
Haim Ronen posted:Huge posted:Then they all switch to the semi auto versions of the H&K MP5, H&K UMP SIS Sauer MPX or FN P2000.If you don't know, these are also classified as assault weapons and will be included in the ban .
Semi-auto versions of the Mach 10? FN Five-Severn? Where do you draw the line?
When does a semi-auto firing a .22 cartridge (e.g.223 Rem or 5.7x27) become an assault weapon?
When does a semi-auto firing a 9mm parabellum cartridge become an assault weapon?
What about burst fire weapons (I assume they are classed as full auto).
Haim Ronen posted:What's next? You guys, the few experts and the ones who had never fired a bullet in their lives, are going to split hairs and compare the break-in periods of hand guns VS assault rifles?
It is quite simple and obvious. Assault rifles are much deadlier than handguns (no comparison) because of their range, their capacity to fire faster, their magazines containing more ammunition and the velocity of their bullets which cause more sever wounds than handguns.
So, is it a good idea to separate these weapons from the family of firearms and try to convince the American public to ban them without scaring the NRA people into thinking that we are taking all their guns away?
I would suggest that it would be a very good starting point, along with much tougher checks and licensing procedures for the purchase of any type of gun whatsoever.
I am very happy with the position on gun control in the UK, where it is next to impossible to purchase a gun legally except in very specific circumstances. I do understand that a similar position on gun control would be next to impossible to implement in the USA, even without the shadowy and sinister influence of the NRA. Hunting is obviously a very popular pastime in the US, and although I could never personally derive satisfaction from shooting an animal, I admit that my position is slightly hypocritical because I am not a vegetarian. I certainly have no axe to grind (perhaps an unfortunate metaphor given the topic under debate) with people who live off the grid and supplement their diets by hunting, because this has at least some resonance with me and my family background.
I may never have shot a rifle, but my father came from a large crofting family in a remote area of Scotland. As was common in those days, he and a number of his brothers owned .22 rifles, and supplemented the family's food supply by shooting rabbits from time to time. A very tame sort of hunting, but they shot out of necessity and not for pleasure. My father owned this (licensed) rifle up until he died, but he never used it in my lifetime. It remained locked in the loft and unused until he died, back in the 70s.
An indication of the difference in gun control in the UK and in the USA is that the day after my father died, we were visited by the local police who had come round to collect the (now unlicensed) rifle. We were asked if we wished the gun to be given to a friend or relative with an appropriate license or whether we would like them to dispose of the weapon for us. Bear in mind that this was long before the Dunblane disaster, and gun controls in the UK have been tightened up dramatically since that incident.
I suspect most people in the USA would probably be happier with gun controls akin to those in the UK. My friends and relatives in the US certainly fall into this category. But given that this is not going to happen, a ban on semi-automatic weapons and weapons that can be classed as assault weapons, along with much stricter vetting and licensing would at least be bound to make some difference.
Huge posted:Haim Ronen posted:Huge posted:Then they all switch to the semi auto versions of the H&K MP5, H&K UMP SIS Sauer MPX or FN P2000.If you don't know, these are also classified as assault weapons and will be included in the ban .
Semi-auto versions of the Mach 10? FN Five-Severn? Where do you draw the line?
When does a semi-auto firing a .22 cartridge (e.g.223 Rem or 5.7x27) become an assault weapon?
When does a semi-auto firing a 9mm parabellum cartridge become an assault weapon?What about burst fire weapons (I assume they are classed as full auto).
Good. Let them switch to .22 ammunition which cannot go through walls and can be stopped by bullet proof vests and harder to kill with. Got my point now?
The standard chambering for the AR15 IS .22 ammunition (5.56x45).
It penetrates NIJ IIIa armour and sometimes penetrates NIJ III dependant on velocity and the particular round in use.
The 5.7x27 round from the FN Five-Seven will also penetrate NIJ IIIa armour.
AR15's have 2x standard chamber specs, .223 Remington & 5.56mm NATO (SAAMI) 223 should only be used with 223 whereas the 5.56 chamber can use both. The 5.56 cartridge can take a hotter load as the dimensions of the chamber allow for more shell expansion & ejection. There are a lot of other 3rd party chambers available for AR15, mostly sensible, but I've seen a .45 advertised (mad or what, but it is USA)
My US buddy (& I) load our own & he's spent a lot of time experimenting this & has gone to about as far as its sensible. The heavier 77 grain 5.56 with hot load work best with the longer 20" high twist bull barrels, whereas the .223 is limited to 55 grain & lower (stnd) twist barrels.
I was trying to keep it simple, and 5.56x45 and 223 Rem are both .22 rounds.
(The mechanical differences are tiny - but vital if you get it the wrong way round!
Yes, if you want accuracy at range, >70gn round, from a heavy 18"+ barrel with 7" twist (or slightly faster), 5.56 NATO chambering.)
Wow! You guys (Huge and Mike-B) know a lot about this stuff. Sure you aren't Americans
I was trained to use a rifle by a former British army sniper, and trained to use a pistol by a Commonwealth Games Gold medallist.
MDS posted:Wow! You guys (Huge and Mike-B) know a lot about this stuff. Sure you aren't Americans
They must be American teachers