New Video in Uvalde

Unless we get on the abolition train, eventually the cops will have to become some kind of Janissary corps to be able to do their job

 

A pretty substantial percentage of LEO's are ex-military, some active reserves, so some are or were soldiers.

This whole thing was a complete CF, but reminds me a bit of what George Foreman said about his opponents: Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face.

 

This aspect is unclear to me. I'm not using this post to argue one way or the other. I'm just trying to understand the facts, and those facts probably will impact what sorts of laws and regulations I would support or not support.

1. Most people I have read or listened to who seem to know a lot about guns seem to say that the advantage of having an AR-15 style rifle is at a distance or from an elevated position and that they do not really offer a tactical advantage at ground level at closer range. Is that true? If that is true, why do law enforcement seem more scared of going in during an active shooter situation when there's an AR-15 style firearm involved? Or am I mistaken and that's not the case? Would these cops have been as hesitant to go in if this guy had a semi automatic handgun? If so why? Could it relate to body armor or something else?

2. Perhaps relatedly, some seem to suggest that wounds from AR-15 style firearm are unique - e.g., they make the bodies of victims unrecognizable, etc. Is this a fair statement? If it is, is that due to the velocity or something else? Yet other people have seemed to say (for example, two friends I have) that there are handguns (particularly when using hollow tip rounds) which will do just as much damage as an AR-15 at this sort of distance and the victim is going to be just as dead either way. Who is right and what am I missing?

I know there are several people on here knowledgeable about guns. Maybe someone can expound on these two points: (1) tactical advantages and (2) resulting bodily damage when comparing and contrasting semi automatic hand guns and semi automatic rifles.

 

Rifle is just easier for accurate shots and will penetrate the average vest absent a plate. The vests that stop rifle rounds are much heavier and hotter.

 

Mike Tyson quote, fyi.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

 

@WC53 is right about accuracy. A long arm can be aimed more accurately than a short one. This is not to say that a handgun cannot be used effectively (and perhaps more effectively) in a short range situation. Muzzle velocity between a rifle and a handgun is greatly different and accounts for the ability for a rifle round to possibly penetrate body armor.

As for #2, that is just pablum for the masses to try to scare them into believing the AR15 is some kind of evil, super weapon. Any high velocity rifle projectile is going to mess up a body...the larger rounds might make even more of a mess. Hollow point handgun rounds will also make a mess of a body because they flatten out when they make contact.

 

Other than the grip on the lower right one they all can do the same damage. You can add a magazine to all of them. I think it has mostly to do with the round, a .223 but would probably do less damage than a 7.62 or 5.56.

 

Its just the echo from each round. Hes shooting rapid fire but thats not bump stock or auto. Auto is actually very hard to control even for soldiers. Most don't use it unless its a mounted fully auto weapon.

Not that it matters in regards to this situation..

 

Some excellent points here that I don't think have been brought up. First, on distraction. From what I can tell, the shooter appeared to enter a classroom that may not have had exterior windows. That would have been an opportunity for a distraction squad. Second, the commander of a five-team squad had NO BUSINESS being in charge of this situation. If these LEOs were standing back for the sake of protocol, then protocol should have been scrapped.

Good points also about the expenses associated with training. Too many people think that we should just arm a few good teachers. They have no idea about the resources necessary for training, especially the resource of time, which detracts from necessary pedagogical training.

 

Where are all the tough guy cops who empty clips into unarmed people when you need them?

 

I imagine the protocols associated with live-shooter training are wildly complicated. My neighbor who took me shooting recently (shotguns) is a disaster specialist who teaches firearms classes and administers live-shooter training. He pushed the political gears to allow that he conduct the trainings at a shooting range, where he had individuals firing live ammo around the trainees. This is rural Minnesota and I doubt it would happen in many places, but he has the right idea. If you need to learn what it's like to have bullets flying around, you need to have bullets flying around.
I would like to hear what our veterans (@murphree_hall and @uftaipan) think about this.

 

Excellent thoughts and questions. I don't mean to be presumptive, but imagine that you have earned one or more graduate degrees (nature of interrogation). I imagine that the gun gurus will enter with all kinds of rationales equivocating AR/rifle bullet damage, etc. From my poorly informed perspective, I'm going to guess that these LEOs were intimidated by the sound and frequency of fire. IOW - this was a high-powered weapon that scared the shit out of them. That's a poor man's report and I would also suggest that leadership failed wildly.

 

Typically they will designate a hot zone a warm zone and a cool zone and then act accordingly for whatever protocols are in place for each zone. They have to work off of limited information most times as well. You can imagine a rogue action could screw things up so command structure is typically followed and orders are not disobeyed like in movies.

People have to consider multiple shooters as in Columbine as well as the evolution of these attacks as in MSD where a fire alarm was pulled to create chaos and also gain access to students.

People want to fire every officer involved in Uvalde but the leadership and lack thereof is where it starts for me. I don't expect a lower ranked officer to go cowboy and defy orders especially since their information may be even more limited than the ones making the calls.

 

I see the anger and disgust for these cops and I agree that they completely screwed this up. At the same time, the first thing I thought about was early in my career when I was in training and I was leading a squad that was the supporting effort on a hostage rescue. The main effort was conducting the breach, and my team was supposed to protect their flank then go in the building after contact. We were about 50 feet away hiding in a low spot. When it was time to go in, I hesitated for probably about 5 seconds longer than I needed to. A more experienced combat guy who was my buddy looked at me and said “f that let’s go!” and started running and we all went. I was losses at the time because he disobeyed me, but I knew he was right. I learned a valuable lesson in training that day.

So, my thoughts are that the incident commander screwed up, probably due to lack of training and situational awareness. Unfortunately, he learned his lesson during a real event and innocent people died. I learned my lesson in a training environment.

 

The main issue as I see it is if cops need military style training to deal with these things, that training is going to be brought to bear on other situations. This is already the case of course, but the more sophisticated it gets, the more it will become in other areas too. We already have vets talking about the importance of not hesitating etc, and while that may be useful in a situation with an active shooter, it probably isnt going to be when you respond to another call and are quick with your weapon.

 

True, but there also isn't the same command structure or discipline structure as there is in the military, nor the same rules of engagement.

 

I’ll add one more quick point. The guys who are pros at this kind of thing would have eliminated that threat in about 60 seconds. The difference between good at it, great at it, and excellent at it is huge. I think even a “good team” would have gotten it done pretty quickly.

 

An AR-15 is a rifle that shoots rifle rounds. At ground level and at CQB ranges, that is the distinguishing factor that provides an advantage in an engagement. Handguns are ALWAYS a compromise in a gun fight. Handguns wound by using expanding ammunition that more or less opens up a wound channel roughly the size of the bullet due to lower velocity. Rifles wound by transferring much higher energy to tissue resulting in a wound channel much bigger than the bullet, and in some cases introducing fragmentation.

The statements about making bodies unrecognizable are hyperbole, frankly, unless someone was shot in the head and blew their face open or something. Otherwise, there will be a small entrance wound and significant damage inside the body.

Rifles categorically have vastly superior terminal ballistics to handguns. You have some exceptions, like when the velocity of a rifle round drops too low due to either insufficient barrel length or longer range engagements, but the velocity inherent in rifle rounds enables them to transfer much more energy to tissue even with non-expanding rounds. A rifle will be superior to a handgun for all but the closest quarters where the dimensions of the rifle itself become a constraint. You can also stop handgun rounds with soft body armor, whereas stopping rifle rounds requires plates.

All that said, those cops were almost all wearing plates which would stop rifle rounds, and they vastly outnumbered the shooter. It's their job to go into gun fire and neutralize him.

 

Plate carriers with plates and ballistic shields….and they sat there.

 

A flash bang grenade may have paid great dividends in this situation. I’m sure there will be differing opinions on this. I’d much rather treat the kids for any minor concussive effects than bullet wounds. Let’s just say in the very unlikely worst case scenario they have some serious injuries that eventually heal… I’d take that over death by AR-15. All of the grieving parents would take that option.

Breach the door… throw in a flash bang, and take out the shooter. He could still shoot blindly, but that’s still better than taking close range aimed shots at the hostages.