PDA

View Full Version : Holocaust Museum Shooting And .30 Carbine Type Rifle


daisey53
June 11, 2009, 07:19 AM
One of the witnesses to the shootings at the Holocaust Museum a few days ago stated that "bullets were flying all over the place". In situations for gaurds of public buildings and in the interest of not having stray bullets flying around with the possibility of injuring bystanders wouldn't it be more prudent to train and arm the gaurds with small light rifles similiar to the M1 carbine? Some of us are much more accurate with a rifle platform vs. a pistol and the carbines are relatively light, small and easy to carry/shoot. I realize the M1 is considered a rifle using a pistol calibre bullet but would not the use of such a gun add to accuracy in panic situations and cut down on the stray bullets from someone pulling off multiple rounds from a pistol? Just curious what others think on this "tactical" subject.

jdscholer
June 11, 2009, 07:44 AM
I'm not making any pro or con statement to your proposal, but it just seems weird to have rifle-armed guards mingling with civilians in our American society. More like a scene from Lebanon or similar countries. Perhaps a glimpse of our future? jd

5whiskey
June 11, 2009, 07:45 AM
The merits of using long arms for stationary security guards are worth discussing. I don't think America as a whole is prepared to see that, though. If there was a guard station/house in which the long arm could be properly stored and secured from general public sneaking in, then you may get people going for it. I'm not sure how I feel about every armed guard carrying a long arm + retention sling. Certainly make a long arm available, but in all I think most of the security companies would be greater served by making firearm & marksmanship training a little more than a once a year check in the box qualification.

Also, as per the "bullets were flying everywhere". I wasn't there. I don't know. The account could be true. This is pure speculation, but I suspect that the phrase came from someone who has never heard the sonic crack of a round flying by their head before. I think there should be liberty to at least propose that there is a chance the witness was not familiar with firearms, exaggerated a tad as to what was actually going on, and prime-time news was more than happy to include the interview on grounds of greater sensationalism. Just my thoughts.

scottaschultz
June 11, 2009, 08:37 AM
In situations for gaurds of public buildings and in the interest of not having stray bullets flying around with the possibility of injuring bystanders wouldn't it be more prudent to train and arm the gaurds with small light rifles similiar to the M1 carbine?Lets examine the facts...
While it is tragic that the security guard made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, there were no civilian fatalities or even any significant injuries and gunman was successfully subdued in pretty short order. (And the way it looks, we may not even have to waste money on a trial) Maybe I just dense and I don't "get it", but explain to me how this situation could have been handled better if the security team had been using M1 carbines?

Their job is to see to the safety of the guests of the museum and it appears as if they did their job admirably.

EDIT: And as a side note, according to the Associated Press, James W. von Brunn shot security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns with a .22-caliber rifle. So the next time someone tries to tell you that a .22 is not an effective weapon, see what Stephen Johns' 11 year old son has to say about that.

Scott

csmsss
June 11, 2009, 01:51 PM
And as a side note, according to the Associated Press, James W. von Brunn shot security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns with a .22-caliber rifle. So the next time someone tries to tell you that a .22 is not an effective weapon, see what Stephen Johns' 11 year old son has to say about that.I find this to be a repugnant statement. There was no reason whatsoever to use this tragedy to advance your position in that particular argument.

Wiskey_33
June 11, 2009, 02:00 PM
Anyone know what weapon/caliber James von Brunn was shot with?

bababooey32
June 11, 2009, 02:24 PM
I find this to be a repugnant statement. There was no reason whatsoever to use this tragedy to advance your position in that particular argument.

Sorry, I disagree. While definitely a tragedy, it is useful to point out that the .22 is a deadly caliber, despite much talk on these boards of it being "less than lethal" and "I'd rather take a .22 to the head then get shot ONCE with a .45!!!":barf:

Further evidence that it is shot placement rather than caliber that matters.

I also agree with Scott - not sure how arming the guards with carbines would have changed the outcome much. there might be some deterrent aspect to having long-gun armed guards around. Might make a few yahoos think twice before opening up. But in this case, the sidearms carried by the guards were sufficient to drop the BG without any harm to civilians.

csmsss
June 11, 2009, 02:31 PM
Sorry, I disagree. While definitely a tragedy, it is useful to point out that the .22 is a deadly caliber, despite much talk on these boards of it being "less than lethal" and "I'd rather take a .22 to the head then get shot ONCE with a .45!!!""Deadliness" isn't the point of that particular argument - even a pellet gun can be deadly if you shoot someone in the eye with it. The point of that argument is what is a suitable caliber for self-defense - in which case you won't necessarily be able to count on taking an exacting shot (with a rifle) on an unsuspecting target at exceedingly close range. And might I also add that (a) we don't know that the AP report is correct and (b) even if it was a .22 rifle, we don't know that it wasn't a .223 or or some other high powered centerfire hunting rifle now do we?

Further evidence that it is shot placement rather than caliber that matters.No, all of it matters. There are a nearly infinite number of variables involved in a shooting injury, and it's silly to think that the only factor of concern is where the bullet initially strikes.

onthejon55
June 11, 2009, 05:00 PM
"Deadliness" isn't the point of that particular argument - even a pellet gun can be deadly if you shoot someone in the eye with it. The point of that argument is what is a suitable caliber for self-defense - in which case you won't necessarily be able to count on taking an exacting shot (with a rifle) on an unsuspecting target at exceedingly close range. And might I also add that (a) we don't know that the AP report is correct and (b) even if it was a .22 rifle, we don't know that it wasn't a .223 or or some other high powered centerfire hunting rifle now do we?


If it was a .223 I can absolutely GUARANTEE you the media would be parading the gun around telling everyone how "high powered" it was and how it could blow someone in half.

Brian Pfleuger
June 11, 2009, 05:05 PM
I think the rationale for handguns is that, to the Sheeple, a rifle appears "menacing" while a handgun appears precautionary (when combined with a law enforcer). Don't want to frighten the Sheeple.

MartyG
June 11, 2009, 05:27 PM
I think the point we all need to remember here was that the actions of a bad guy with a gun were stopped cold by good guys with guns. The only defense against a gun is a gun in the hands of a good guy. Were it not for armed guards, the bad guy could have strolled through with impunity, like the Mumbai Massacre.
Be ready to use this rebuttal for the predictable calls for even more gun control laws since this incident.

scottaschultz
June 11, 2009, 06:11 PM
And might I also add that (a) we don't know that the AP report is correct... The Associated Press did not just make that up. The fact that the guard was killed with a .22 caliber rifle came from Washington Police Chief Cathy Lanier.

Scott

Deaf Smith
June 11, 2009, 06:22 PM
I can see maybe a rifle kept in the back where the video camera survelance room is. Maybe a M1 Carbine, or AR, or Remington pump .223. But as for the guards that are around people, no. Just to easy to disarm them.

R1145
June 12, 2009, 12:02 AM
First of all, I'm sure the remark about the family of the slain guard was not made disrespectfully, but it was tasteless.

Second, +1 to Marty:

Were it not for armed guards, the bad guy could have strolled through with impunity, like the Mumbai Massacre...

Cops walk around all day with pistols, mostly. The long guns come out when reacting to an armed threat. I think the systems in place worked well. The actions of the guards were reactive according to the nature of their job. A nut came in shooting, and it appears he was subdued very quickly.

I agree that against an opponent with a firearm, a light, handy semi-auto rifle gives you the best chance. However, I don't think having guards equipped with long guns would have deterred this incident.

On the issue of the M-1 Carbine, I think the AR is the way to go.

The M-1 itself is a dated design. I think the magazine hookup is weak, and the mags can be unreliable. .30 Carbine JHP ammo is very good, but it is expensive, not readily available, and may require modifications to feed reliably. The safety, sights and mag release aren't bad, but the AR is better and more ergonomic all around.

Other pistol-caliber carbines (MP-5, Camp Carbines, etc.) would also do the job, but ARs are the industry standard. .223 is arguably a better choice with more energy but less chance of over-penetration than pistol rounds.

I wouldn't have the guards carry rifles all the time. It might make sense to have long guns available in an emergency, but I think that this incident would have been much worse but for the quick action by the security staff.

skydiver3346
June 12, 2009, 10:34 AM
Official statements by the AP and Police, definitely state that he used an old .22 caliber rifle to shoot the security guard. Not that much is being made about the type of rifle used in this tragic event, because it was "just a .22 rifle", (that most everyone has in their household). Yes, a .22 rifle will kill you any day of the week but it is generally not considered the gun of choice for most of these type shootings, etc.
They (the press) are concentrating more on Von Brunn's racial hatred and racial history (which they should). This guy was a flaming nut case, an anti-semite, racist, etc. The gov't knew about him years ago and still let him out of jail after trying to kidnap officials who he thought were taxing him too much. He was a ticking time bomb and this was going to happen sooner or later with him. As it turns out, it was later (he was 88 years old) and they probably thought he was too old to worry about anymore. Nut case's do not have an age limit. It is sort of strange that someone that old would do something like this, but this proves the point about nut cases.

Note: Had he used a AR-15 or AK type weapon, the press would have really had a field day with the "caliber" of the weapon used. Then you know what would have hit the fan, (with all the anti-gun folks in the country, including our present administration). From there on, they would probably then go after your automatic pistols, shotgun, etc. etc.

Mello2u
June 12, 2009, 08:04 PM
I wonder why the news reports do not identify the manufacturer and model of the rifle used by von Brunn, "the alleged shooter".

Was it a .22 rimfire or a .22 centerfire?

sakeneko
June 12, 2009, 08:14 PM
According to a report just an hour or so ago, it was a Winchester Model 6, an old .22 rimfire pump-action rifle manufactured sometime between 1905 and 1925. Law enforcement (or somebody in LE) is allegedly annoyed because it's so old they can't trace it; this dates to a time before any reliable records were kept on firearms purchases.

Thermodyne
June 12, 2009, 09:19 PM
First, you have to live here and see the quality of the DC police. Then you have all of the different police forces that operate in the city, and can barely talk to each other. Add to that the limited (almost none) qualifications for being an armed security guard in the city, and you have a disaster in the making.

Now take a provocative tourist attraction and it's a wonder it took this long to happen. If he had whipped it out on the Hill or 16th St. I doubt he would have gotten a round off. But where he was there is no special protection.

When we had the Guard patrolling National airport with their weapons fully displayed, the elite complained endlessly. It's OK for the elite to have armed guards and motorcades (convoys) but the rest of us don't seem to be deserving of equal protection.

And every time some ass pulls a stunt like this almost every Democrat on the Hill will introduce a gun control bill.

matthew temkin
June 12, 2009, 09:35 PM
I read in the papers that it was an old Winchester semi from the 1920's
Model 63?

Doc TH
June 12, 2009, 10:09 PM
Daisey, you are correct in your view that the M1 carbine would allow much more precise shooting than will a handgun. In fact, that is the very reason that it was designed, and 6 million were manufactured and distributed during WWII. However, I don't know if its use by security guards in the DC area would have a measurable overall significant benefit. I live in the region, and didn't hear accounts of bullets flying all over.

The point about the effectiveness of the .22 was just that - it was rapidly lethal in this instance. In Reagan's shooting two LEOs and the press secreatary were downed immediately and Reagan became intermittently unconscious in the car on his way to GWU's emergency room where he collapsed. I don't see anybody arguing it's the best choice for SD.

With regard to shot placement, the largest police agency database of police/perp shootings - the NYPD SOP9 report of 6,000 shootings - revealed the only factor significantly related to stopping the gunfight was not caliber, but shot placement.

Finally, don't believe that LEOs carrying long guns are only seen in places like Lebanon. You will see them in many European countries (e.g., Italy, France, Germany).

Michael Anthony
June 13, 2009, 03:21 PM
The problem with patrolling with a long gun strapped on is this:

In security (and even in law enforcement), your problems with another human are going to be solved by using your mouth and then (rarely) by using your hands. It is rare for it to be solved by gunplay The benefit of having a long gun available is far outweighed by the inconvenience of carrying it all day, even if secured by a good sling.

Pushing, pulling, wrestling and cuffing with a rifle or shotgun bouncing around on you sucks. Walking around all day with it sucks. I would agree that needing one (especially if you don't have one) sucks even more though.

Obviously, this is different if you are providing security for a high-risk target or one against which there is already a known threat.

loosecannon
June 13, 2009, 03:26 PM
This reminds me of the ongoing (for close to 70 years) search that the military has had for a "personal defense weapon." The M1 Carbine was first issued to replace the pistol , only later was it given to front line troops. Perhaps guards and police should be armed with something other than handguns. However I do agree that the M1 Carbine is probably outdated for that role.
The Carabinieri which are the national bolice force of Italy carry submachine guns. People here would no doubt freak out if our guards or police had those.
Maybe I am wrong but would'nt a weapon in .223 caliber have to much penetration?

ImprobableJoe
June 13, 2009, 03:28 PM
I'm not sure what the practical difference would have been between what actually happened, and what would have happened if the guards have been armed with carbines instead of pistols. Possibly the only difference is that the shooter might have come even more heavily armed.

MartyG
June 13, 2009, 06:52 PM
The Beretta CX4 carbine was designed for police work, i.e. a little more than a pistol, a lot less than an M-16. Pistol-caliber, short, light, and interchangeable magazines with the Berreta pistols. However, relatively few security forces have seen fit to equip themselves with it. Perhaps this event will cause some to reevaluate. BTW, it just occurred to me that the Italian Caribinieri's name comes from the Italian word for carbineer, a soldier armed with a carbine.

lunchbox
June 13, 2009, 06:56 PM
why not a rifle more accuracy and control sure it would look weird but should we concern ourselves with how things look

FyredUp
June 14, 2009, 12:36 PM
As far as the general public having a negative reaction to security guards with rifles, on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious. There seemed to be no negative responses from anyone near me. I believe that people realize that this world we live in has changed dramatically and that what we have accepted in the past for security is simply no longer valid.

Europe, as well as most of the "Civilized World", has had police and security guards armed with military styled rifles or submachine guns for decades and th populace seems to have adapted to that well enough. frankly, it isn't as if most Americans know that the police have either shotguns or rifles in their squad car. Or in some cases both. It is simply getting used to the visibility factor more than anything.

scottaschultz
June 14, 2009, 02:27 PM
...on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious. Well this is not the same situation as guards at a museum. We expect the leader of the free world (whether you voted for him or not) to have the best security money can buy. I would be disappointed if the POTUS was being guarded by anything less!

Scott

Double Naught Spy
June 14, 2009, 02:51 PM
Daisey, you are correct in your view that the M1 carbine would allow much more precise shooting than will a handgun. In fact, that is the very reason that it was designed, and 6 million were manufactured and distributed during WWII.

Errr, no, it was not designed for the premise of being more accurate than a handgun. The criterion at the time wasn't to find a platform more accurate than a handgun with which to arm troops as there was no consideration of arming troops with just handguns.

The military wanted a rifle less powerful than a Garand but more powerful than a handgun to issue to troops that needed a weapon but not necessarily a M1 Rifle.

FyredUp
June 14, 2009, 03:00 PM
scottaschultz:

...on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious.

Well this is not the same situation as guards at a museum. We expect the leader of the free world (whether you voted for him or not) to have the best security money can buy. I would be disappointed if the POTUS was being guarded by anything less!

Scott

Umm, nice job of taking a part of my comment out of context to prove your point. Let me repost the entire paragraph so that maybe you will reread it and understand my point.

As far as the general public having a negative reaction to security guards with rifles, on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious. There seemed to be no negative responses from anyone near me. I believe that people realize that this world we live in has changed dramatically and that what we have accepted in the past for security is simply no longer valid.

It seems rather obvious when you read the ENTIRE comment what I was trying to say. Please, in the future if you plan on quoting me try to use the entire sentence instead of cutting and pasting out of context.

As far as the President having the best security I won't argue that he needs it. But I refuse to devalue the life of any citizen as an excuse for a lower level of security in public buildings. This is what you seem to be advocating.

As for me, I have no problem with security gaurds, at high risk level public buildings or areas, being armed with something more than a side arm. I believe citizens would accept it in today's world.

Doc TH
June 14, 2009, 09:47 PM
The M1 carbine was intended for use by non-front line troops as a substitute for the currently issued .45 ACP 1911 handgun. The major reason for that was the fact that few support troops were capable of accurately firing the .45 auto. The carbine was not intended to be an intermediate power long gun. The fact that it became widely used by front line troops, especially airborne, was an unintended benefit.

scottaschultz
June 14, 2009, 10:29 PM
Umm, nice job of taking a part of my comment out of context to prove your point.Whoa! Someone needs to switch to decaf! I wasn't disagreeing with you in the least. My only point was that it should not come as a surprise to anyone to see the president being guarded with such weaponry.

All life is precious and sacred... until you attempt to take mine!

Scott

DougO83
June 14, 2009, 10:37 PM
Anyone know what weapon/caliber James von Brunn was shot with?

Yes, per Wackenhut G4S policy, the Holocaust Museum officers were armed with .38spl. I believe, but am not certain, that they are S&W's of some breed...

As far as the OP, I work in the private security industry much like this brave man who I will refer to as a hero from here on out. At some posts, rifles/shotguns are a practical piece of equipment. For example, working in a 'rough' post in town would be a great place for a long gun. However, in an area with so many people that become incredibly crowded, a rifle is neither prudent nor practical. You have to take penetration risks into account as well as issues with manueverability of a long gun. I have never been to the Golocaust Museum, but I doubt that there is much room, especially with a lobby full of visitors, for an S/O (in this case an SPO) to bring a long gun to bear. A handgun is the primary weapon of so many armed officers for a reason.

Also, the security industry is plagued by profit. Companies have to do everything in their power to appease uneducated "sheeple" (I hate this word, but it fits) This includes using substandard weaponry and having "soft" uniforms. For example, I used to secure a bank and we were issued Taurus 65's in 357with .38 ball ammo. No speedloaders, no other "excessive" means of force (i.e. Taser, OC, ASP, etc:barf::rolleyes:) I also caught a ton of flak from my opsmgr for wearing BDU's (I carry a FAK with me, I think it should be req'd of any armed S/O) All because the clients think that anything more looks too "military/tactical/scary/guygoingonakillingspree-ish" Totally foolish, but these standards must be adhered to in order to keep a business afloat. With this in mind, long guns would probably be frowned upon greatly...What a shame...

Doc TH
June 15, 2009, 04:10 PM
Doug makes a good point. The M1 carbine has much more penetration than does the 38spcl or 9mm handgun rounds. The carbine was a military weapon for which limiting penetration is not high on the list of desirable characteristics.

ZippZ
June 19, 2009, 09:02 AM
Security guards also play other roles besides armed security. They assist the public, help with injuries and incidents, and may have to detain troublemakers. A rifle would get in the way of their daily duties.

Double Naught Spy
June 19, 2009, 12:52 PM
Right. Generally speaking, to have a rifle at the ready for such an incident, you would likely need a dedicated rifleguard(s) whose job it was NOT to do any of those other activities.

Doug makes a good point. The M1 carbine has much more penetration than does the 38spcl or 9mm handgun rounds.

Actually, M1 carbines have excessively poor penetration. :D .30 cal carbine rounds have better penetration than .38 spl or 9mm rounds maybe, but then again, under penetration isn't usually a major issue with 9mm rounds is it?

Then again 9mm rounds fired from a carbine have better velocity and if using ball ammo, better penetration than 9mm rounds fired from a pistol.

FyredUp
June 19, 2009, 01:02 PM
ZippZ:

Security guards also play other roles besides armed security. They assist the public, help with injuries and incidents, and may have to detain troublemakers. A rifle would get in the way of their daily duties.

Sorry, not buying this logic.

First of all, it is not necessary for every security gaurd to carry a rifle. I would say one at each entrance of these high risk facilities. Or perhaps 1 out of every 4 guards could carry a rifle.

Secondly, as I stated previously, there are very visible gaurds outside of the Whitehouse armed with shotguns and automatic weapons and the crowds seem to take it in stride. I think we sell the general public short when we dismiss out of hand their ability to understand why heavier armed guards are needed at high risk facilities. I would wager that those wishing to see the Holocaust Museum would totally understand the need. The lunatic fringe will do whatever they deem necessary to further their agenda, no matter how delusional it is.

Thirdly, I would easily trade off the discomfort of a few visitors at the site of more heavily armed guards for the increased protection of ALL of the vistors.

IZZY
June 24, 2009, 11:38 PM
You need a DA/Sa ( or DAO) set up for most security personell.

A carbnine would not be effective with out a round in the caimber, and it would be unsafe with a round in and safety on...even compared to a series 80 model 1911.

Most domestic security companies use a revolver for this reason...simplicity and saftey.

Doc TH
June 25, 2009, 03:54 PM
"Actually, M1 cardines have poor penetration..."

Compared to what? They have much more penetration than any of the commonly used handgun rounds. If you believe the carbine round has poor penetration go to the Box O' Truth website and see their penetration tests, or go to the ballistics gelatin tests on http//www.brassfetcher.com

Why would you expect poor penetration with a 110 gr bullet at 1950 fps?