Holocaust Museum Shooting And .30 Carbine Type Rifle

[daisey53]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Anyone know what weapon/caliber James von Brunn was shot with?

[bababooey32]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by csmsss

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I read in the papers that it was an old Winchester semi from the 1920's
Model 63?

[Doc TH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

why not a rifle more accuracy and control sure it would look weird but should we concern ourselves with how things look