Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

[Hellbound]

Personally, I think the best option would be to target specific attributes: Limit magazine size on any detachable-magazine rifle, for example (internal magazines, I think, would be fine...or at the least have a much higher limit).

Still, no matter what's done, a ban isn't going to fix things quickly. By that I mean not within 10 years, at a minimum. I wouldn't expect to even see much difference at all until several years had passed.

I still say a better solution is to remove the stupid "no electronic records" and "no funding research" rules. Get better records of sales and better background checks combined with licensing. Pass laws requiring safe storage (at the least make people civilly liable for unsafe storage), and to require reporting of stolen firearms (most states don't require this). Actually enable the research to determine the extent and character of the problem(s). That's the long term part.

Short term? The best option is "contain and protect". Design schools in ways to secure them: electronic doors, for example, that can be locked remotely (from a central office, say). Bullet proof (or at least resistant) windows and doors. Give staff "panic buttons" and/or at least radios to contact the central office in the case of an incident. Staff should also be able to trigger a hard lock manually, perhaps with an RFID badge or smartcard, so a class could escape a room and lock the shooter in behind them. This would let the school be locked down in an active shooter situation, meaning the shooter becomes limited to one room or hallway, instead of roaming for more targets. That's the immediate solution. We could easily have the funding to do that if the government shifted about 0.5% of military spending to this project.

Or better yet, repurpose the funds allocated to "the wall"

 

[lobosrul5]

Depends on how you read the 2A, I guess. The military has a definition of "assault rifle" that is based on practicalities of small-unit combat. If we used that definition as the universal one, we could ban self-loading rifles that use intermediate cartridges and have selective fire.

But for the "well regulated militia" fetishists on the gun control side, banning the canonical firearm of the regular infantry would clearly violate *both* clauses of the amendment.

As for sanctioning people based on their "probability of becoming a nutter", that would likely violate other articles of the Constitution as well. Right to privacy. Right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Right to freedom from prior restraint. Etc. Such a solution may be less problematic for some readings of the second amendment, but more problematic for other parts of the Constitution.

If somehow "Terry stops" and "civil forfeiture" have survived constitutionality checks then I really fail to see how confiscating someones firearms won't after they brag on the internet how many people they want to murder, or are declared legally insane (as two examples).

ETA: actually the civil forfeiture laws means there is precedent that "property" has no rights. Therefore property, including guns, can be taken based on mere suspicion. Its a pretty frickin dangerous precedent really.

 

[lobosrul5]

Personally, I think the best option would be to target specific attributes: Limit magazine size on any detachable-magazine rifle, for example (internal magazines, I think, would be fine...or at the least have a much higher limit).

Still, no matter what's done, a ban isn't going to fix things quickly. By that I mean not within 10 years, at a minimum. I wouldn't expect to even see much difference at all until several years had passed.

I still say a better solution is to remove the stupid "no electronic records" and "no funding research" rules. Get better records of sales and better background checks combined with licensing. Pass laws requiring safe storage (at the least make people civilly liable for unsafe storage), and to require reporting of stolen firearms (most states don't require this). Actually enable the research to determine the extent and character of the problem(s). That's the long term part.

Short term? The best option is "contain and protect". Design schools in ways to secure them: electronic doors, for example, that can be locked remotely (from a central office, say). Bullet proof (or at least resistant) windows and doors. Give staff "panic buttons" and/or at least radios to contact the central office in the case of an incident. Staff should also be able to trigger a hard lock manually, perhaps with an RFID badge or smartcard, so a class could escape a room and lock the shooter in behind them. This would let the school be locked down in an active shooter situation, meaning the shooter becomes limited to one room or hallway, instead of roaming for more targets. That's the immediate solution. We could easily have the funding to do that if the government shifted about 0.5% of military spending to this project.

Or better yet, repurpose the funds allocated to "the wall"

https://www.tssbulletproof.com/cost-pricing-bulletproof-glass-system-schools/

So a $ million a school on average, maybe(?). And there are about 100,000 public schools in the USA (source https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84). That's $100 billion dollars just to get bullet proof glass on the outside of all schools. I mean I guess we *could* do it.

 

[Hellbound]

Okay, so ~17% of the military budget

Still, it's going to need to be something along that route to make any immediate difference, anything else is going to take a lot of time. I still say it's a better solution that the proposed bans.

Even without bulletproofing and such, just installing electronic locks and giving staff radios would be a help, and do more, more immediately, than weapon bans (IMO). And doesn't necessarily have to be bulletproof, for that matter; the main purpose would be to keep them in one spot. The wire-mesh glass, for example, and stout doors (metal or solid hardwood) would serve the purpose, and do more to slow down a shooter than would smaller mags or using a pistol instead of a rifle.

 

[lobosrul5]

Okay, so ~17% of the military budget

Still, it's going to need to be something along that route to make any immediate difference, anything else is going to take a lot of time. I still say it's a better solution that the proposed bans.

Even without bulletproofing and such, just installing electronic locks and giving staff radios would be a help, and do more, more immediately, than weapon bans (IMO). And doesn't necessarily have to be bulletproof, for that matter; the main purpose would be to keep them in one spot. The wire-mesh glass, for example, and stout doors (metal or solid hardwood) would serve the purpose, and do more to slow down a shooter than would smaller mags or using a pistol instead of a rifle.

I'm not saying all schools have this, but the PA system where I went to school was two way. Every teacher could communicate with the office. Also, we had what we called "narcs" in high school. Security people with radios.

 

[Hellbound]

I'm not saying all schools have this, but the PA system where I went to school was two way. Every teacher could communicate with the office. Also, we had what we called "narcs" in high school. Security people with radios.

Yeah, that's security step 1: detect.

The next step is analyze (i.e.-take the detections and figure out what's going on) and then react/mitigate (do something about it).

You have to have step 1, but without 2 and 3 you're like those commercials with the bank robbery and the "security monitor"

My main problem is a lot of the funding is done locally, so there's a very wide range of precautions. Some schools are implementing systems like I outlined above (bulletproofing, centralized security, etc). other smaller schools have traditional windows and doors, poor (if any) training on what to do or basic security procedures (such as the outside doors left unlocked between classes).

I'd like to see federal funding put towards this, and some actual mandate or standard for security.

ETA: There's about 51 million students in public school in the U.S. IF we took the proposed $17 billion for the wall and put it to schools instead, that's about $333 dollars per student. We could do a lot with that.

 

[William Parcher]

Even without bulletproofing and such, just installing electronic locks and giving staff radios would be a help, and do more, more immediately, than weapon bans (IMO). And doesn't necessarily have to be bulletproof, for that matter; the main purpose would be to keep them in one spot. The wire-mesh glass, for example, and stout doors (metal or solid hardwood) would serve the purpose, and do more to slow down a shooter than would smaller mags or using a pistol instead of a rifle.

Sounds like a recipe for a very high death count. You'd be trapping the shooter into a space along with students. Those could all be executed with none escaping and no rescue intervention.

A gunman suddenly appears inside a classroom with 35 students and starts shooting them. Which doors do you lock at that moment?

 

[lobosrul5]

Sounds like a recipe for a very high death count. You'd be trapping the shooter into a space along with students. Those could all be executed with none escaping and no rescue intervention.

A gunman suddenly appears inside a classroom with 35 students and starts shooting them. Which doors do you lock at that moment?

Yeah I'm thinking about how to implement all this, and workarounds for potential shooters. So we have just one or two controlled entry points for each school. We'll need metal detectors at each point with at least one, preferably two armed guards/police at each point. Talk about cost prohibitive, a cop after benefits costs roughly $100k a year. Now then we have a line of students milling about in line to get their stuff searched and go through the metal detector. Perfect opportunity for a mass shooting attacker. Secondly, there still have to be multiple fire exits that can be opened from the inside. So all a shooter needs to get in is a single accomplice, like at Columbine.

 

[Hellbound]

Sounds like a recipe for a very high death count. You'd be trapping the shooter into a space along with students. Those could all be executed with none escaping and no rescue intervention.

A gunman suddenly appears inside a classroom with 35 students and starts shooting them. Which doors do you lock at that moment?

Well, at that point, security has already failed. Gunman don't "suddenly appear in a classroom" unless you've already done something wrong. It's not like they pull a rifle out of their backpack in the middle of class. Exterior doors should be locked between classes, at least the "only open from the inside" type door.

And the approach should be caught on security cameras.

The idea is he/she never gets inside the classroom with the gun.

Assuming he does "appear in a classroom", you lock all the other doors to start; leave open some routes for fleeing students/staff to escape away from the shooter. Lock them behind escapees.

No system works without training and drill, and plans can be set up beforehand.

Worst case-scenario, you don't lock down anything until the shooter is in an area by himself, then you lock down that spot.

I fail to see how this would do anything other than decrease casualty counts.

 

[lobosrul5]

Well, at that point, security has already failed. Gunman don't "suddenly appear in a classroom" unless you've already done something wrong. It's not like they pull a rifle out of their backpack in the middle of class. Exterior doors should be locked between classes, at least the "only open from the inside" type door.

And the approach should be caught on security cameras.

The idea is he/she never gets inside the classroom with the gun.

Assuming he does "appear in a classroom", you lock all the other doors to start; leave open some routes for fleeing students/staff to escape away from the shooter. Lock them behind escapees.

No system works without training and drill, and plans can be set up beforehand.

Worst case-scenario, you don't lock down anything until the shooter is in an area by himself, then you lock down that spot.

I fail to see how this would do anything other than decrease casualty counts.

A CAR-15 with a foldable stock will fit in a backpack.

 

[Hellbound]

Yeah I'm thinking about how to implement all this, and workarounds for potential shooters. So we have just one or two controlled entry points for each school. We'll need metal detectors at each point with at least one, preferably two armed guards/police at each point. Talk about cost prohibitive, a cop after benefits costs roughly $100k a year. Now then we have a line of students milling about in line to get their stuff searched and go through the metal detector. Perfect opportunity for a mass shooting attacker. Secondly, there still have to be multiple fire exits that can be opened from the inside. So all a shooter needs to get in is a single accomplice, like at Columbine.

As opposed to today, where we have none of that, students still mill around outside between classes and at lunch (or mill about in large, enclosed areas inside), have no metal detectors or guards or searches.

Besides, I didn't include metal detectors, but it's an option.

It's not perfect, but nothing is...and I fail to see how it'd be worse than what we currently have. Besides, it's the start of an idea, there'd be other design considerations, and it'd take time to get the right combination.

So what about the alternatives? If this isn't something to help, what will? the "assault weapons ban"? That leaves thousands of grandfathered weapons, as well as weapons that provide similar functionality (but just look different) available?

If there's a better solution, I'm open to it. Seriously. Details would have to be worked out on my proposal, but at least some school systems are already planning on implementing it, so someone is thinking along these lines besides me.

 

[Hellbound]

A CAR-15 with a foldable stock will fit in a backpack.

Yes, there are exceptions. But how would it be worse than the current situation, where they can do exactly the same thing with less resistance or ability to do something about it?

I feel like this is being rejected because it's not perfect...when it's a damn sight better than doing nothing.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yes, there are exceptions. But how would it be worse than the current situation, where they can do exactly the same thing with less resistance or ability to do something about it?

I feel like this is being rejected because it's not perfect...when it's a damn sight better than doing nothing.

Thinking of flaws is not rejection. There's also cost/benefit on the money required. $100 billion would go a long ways to getting the 1000's who die each year from lack of adequate medical care, medical care. Of course we'll squander it on Littoral Combat Ships etc rather than spending on that, so its a bit irrelevant.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah he had to stop and shoot people multiple times, or go for a head shot. Had he not needed to do that, its pretty likely that Cho would've killed more people.



There is a small possibility it would at that range (given prompt medical attention). 22 LR is hitting with about 30 foot pounds of energy at that range.

He didn't need to do that, he chose to do that.

.22LR goes through both sides of a steel entry door at 200 yards, probably the most popular semi-auto rifle in the USA, the Ruger 10/22. With 25 round magazines readily available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo24lo_hUAA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22

 

[Hellbound]

Thinking of flaws is not rejection.

You're right, and I'd welcome constructive criticism. Sorry, the initial "pointing out flaws" of how this would (somehow) be worse than nothing set the tone [Ed. in which I read the follow-on posts]

As I said, the details need to be worked on, but it's promising. The same principals are already used in secure installations, so a lot of these should be worked out for various scenarios. I don't believe it's an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[lobosrul5]

.22LR goes through both sides of a steel entry door at 200 yards, probably the most popular semi-auto rifle in the USA, the Ruger 10/22. With 25 round magazines readily available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo24lo_hUAA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22

Thats a thin metal-skinned door. Not an actual steel door. If 22 LR is so great why doesn't the military use them. Why don't police carry them?

I've seen a 3/4" inch wooden plank holding a target up hit by 22 LR. It didn't go all the way through at 100 yards.

But I guess you're right? Any impending AWB should include the Ruger 10/22. I had a 30 round mag for it when I was a kid BTW.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thats a thin metal-skinned door. Not an actual steel door. If 22 LR is so great why doesn't the military use them. Why don't police carry them?

I've seen a 3/4" inch wooden plank holding a target up hit by 22 LR. It didn't go all the way through at 100 yards.

But I guess you're right? Any impending AWB should include the Ruger 10/22. I had a 30 round mag for it when I was a kid BTW.

The military does use the .22LR for certain work.

You can find plenty of videos of long range .22LR lethality demos, such as passing through animal carcasses.

They are certainly quite lethal at classroom distances, and readily available in high capacity semi-auto pistols, rifles, and 10 shot revolvers, 20+ shot bolt action and lever action rifles, etc.

Ban them.

Any justification for banning an AR-15 is a justification for banning the Ruger 10/22, imo. There's no way to ban one without banning the other unless you use some sort of twisted logic in your law. The rifles are identical in classroom lethality.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Reagan was shot with a .22, as was Brady and at least one DC officer.

Watching the video of that assassination attempt should disabuse anyone of thinking a .22 is not a serious round.

Though stipulated that had Hinkckley been armed with a larger-caliber weapon, the carnage would have been much more severe.

 

[Ranb]

.... The rifle and the round are sold -- and bought -- as man-killers. That's the root of the problem. No hunter, no target shooter, nobody protecting his home needs an AR15.

Keep in mind that the modular design of the AR-15 platform is very easy to adapt to other calibers. I have .30 and .458 caliber AR-15's that are well suited for hunting. Any cartridge case that has a head .475 inches or under and an overall length of 2.26 inches or less is easily chambered in the AR-15 and can be magazine fed. The 50 BMG can be used in single shot versions of the AR-15.

The .223 is entirely adequate for small game. Service rifle competitors favor the AR-15 over the M-14 and other service rifles at ranges out to 600 yards. Longer than that and it is the more powerful rifle chambered in .308 Winchester and .300 WM that dominate.

So while it is easy to say that no one needs something, shooters want what they want. Claiming that the AR-15 does not ideally fulfill the needs of a target shooter or hunter is naïve.

 

[Polaris]

Thats a thin metal-skinned door. Not an actual steel door. If 22 LR is so great why doesn't the military use them. Why don't police carry them?

I've seen a 3/4" inch wooden plank holding a target up hit by 22 LR. It didn't go all the way through at 100 yards.

But I guess you're right? Any impending AWB should include the Ruger 10/22. I had a 30 round mag for it when I was a kid BTW.

I suspect a lot of current gun-owners who would get behind an AWB* would stop for a second when semi-auto .22's are included, as they realize, "Hey, I have one of those!"

Re: the .22LR and steel doors - I've seen them wadded up against old, rusty 55-gallon drums in the woods, fired from only a few yards away with barely a dent made, let alone penetration.


*My favorite is the kind who owns a handgun, such as the lady on NPR last week, saying nobody needs an assault weapon, and that all she does is take a pistol to the range from time to time. Even leaving Virginia Tech out of the equation, the vast majority of firearm deaths are from handguns like hers, not large, expensive rifles and shotguns. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.

ETA:

Reagan was shot with a .22, as was Brady and at least one DC officer.

Watching the video of that assassination attempt should disabuse anyone of thinking a .22 is not a serious round.

Though stipulated that had Hinkckley been armed with a larger-caliber weapon, the carnage would have been much more severe.

Mossad apparently** used .22LR's for assassinations. Maybe they still do - they're not the most transparent bunch.




**The only cites I find for this are in gun/survivalist waters, FWIW.