Lessons We Should Learn from Rep. Gifford's Shooting

Remove all ads!

I've only ever heard clip used as either a slang-ish term (along with 'gat,' 'guage,' etc.) or by people who are not well-informed on the subject.

From Wikipedia on Answers.com:

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clip_M1-SKS.JPG​

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9mm_pistol_magazine.jpg​

 

Gauge is perfectly acceptable when referring to shotguns.

 

As in, "I blasted that mo-fo with my gauge?"

In Loughner's case, thirty-three rounds. That's really the only remarkable thing about his weaponry: the 9mm is a round that is not even widely used by law enforcement anymore, as they prefer rounds that have greater 'stopping power.' And the Glock 19 is a semi-automatic pistol, which means that when you pull the trigger, it fires once. It's not a fully-automatic pistol or a machine pistol.

At the risk of sounding insenstitive, Loughner could have done a lot worse. If he had used a heavier round, Giffords would probably be dead now. And if he had used a deadlier weapon, such as an assault rifle firing a .223 round, the injuries caused and the number of persons injured could have potentially been far greater.

I wish it had never happened of course, but all things considered, it could have been much worse.

 

What? He could have done worse? You don't sound insensitive, you sound silly. Sure, he could have used soft point bullets (and blown Gifford's brains out), or FMJ (and shot through several bystanders, likely at such short range). Had ha carried an automatic rifle he likely would have not been able to come as close, might have even been stopped before since you can't hide a rifle as well as a handgun. Coulda, woulda. So what? He didn't.

A Glock - even in 9mm - is plenty lethal. There is a reason why it is America's most popular police gun. 9mm recoil isn't that severe, and the Glock has reportedly a soft trigger pull, it's from what I read reliable, easy to use and pretty accurate. You can probably empty even the extended mag of a Glock - even though it is 'just semi auto' - in less than a minute, or maybe one and a half.

The 'lower firing rate' of a mere semi auto is really very relative. With an Uzi (cyclic rate of iirc 600 rpm i.e. 10 rounds per second) and say a 30 rounds magazine, you spray out all 30 rounds in just three seconds, and hit nothing. You fire in short bursts of, say, three to four rounds. With a handgun you'd probably fire double taps, which is essentially not that much different than a burst; it doesn't take that much longer. Loughner fired fast enough to wreak substantial havoc. Mind that he did have time to hit, how many, 19 people?

 

He would not have gotten as far with an assault rifle -- people would have scattered sooner. The biggest difference between this lunatic and others before him was that Loughner was a good shot. A person who is a good shot can kill with a .22 caliber weapon. A 9mm is obscenely efficient -- especially with a large magazine.

An automatic weapon, like an Uzi, is difficult to aim -- sure there may be collateral damage but the lethal nature of any weapon depends on where the bullet is put, and that required either luck or skill.

 

But do we have any indication that he really did any targeting at all, (perhaps besides Giffords herself), and that he wasn't just firing into the crowd?

I don't know anything about Uzis, but if I had to pick between getting fired at by a guy with a long rifle and a guy with a pistol I'd take the pistol any day, both for relative potential damage and the likelihood of getting hit.

 

This is the silly. Hit nothing?! If there is a specific target, then sure, you will probably miss it with automatic fire (unless you're trained properly). But hit nothing in a crowd (i.e. when the crowd is CLOSE)?! While firing 30 bullets, several people would be hit during those 3 seconds.

 

Baronius, an Uzi (and any automatic weapon) pulls when being fired. Without extensive experience with firing such weapons the first few rounds fire at the crowd, the remaining 27 fire high.

Gaear, the high mortality rate indicates accurate aim -- or extreme luck. I don't believe in luck. I think an objective look at the victims and crime scene shows a plan and targetting of victims.

Plain clothes police officers would have taken him out -- although there would still have been a few victims. A show of force with several uniformed officers may have caused him to abort.

 

Fair enough, and I tend to agree with you, but I'm just curious about the particulars. If the crowd were really dense, for example (and I don't know that it was), hitting a lot of people wouldn't be as remarkable.

This is perhaps my deepest regret, personally. I'm frankly rather astonished that there was essentially no one there to handle security, by the sound. I mean, I understand the ideal and the desire to reach for it - that we should live without constant fear hanging over us - but the real world is what it is, and an ounce of prevention could have gone a long way. I really don't know of many elected officials who go around with absolutely no protection. The former governor in my state was a real people person too, but even she went around with a couple state cops all the time.

Loughner may have been a lunatic, but he may not have been a completely reckless one. Just knowing that the congresswoman had protection (if she had) might have stopped him.

 

Without "extensive experience"? You must be kidding, or watching too many movies with kids trying guns. Of course they pull, but you need basic practice and some strength to keep it down. And then it hits whatever it reaches, potentially causing much harm. This is not "extensive experience". Extensive experience is needed to actually hit more targets with it (even when the multiple targets are more sporadical, not forming a crowd), not to hit people in a crowd by emptying a full magazine.

Of course, I should not forget the fact that USA is a country where more people can buy guns than how many can actually use them safely and properly.

On a side note, I see that some terms are confused in this thread; e.g. "assault rifle" and "submachine gun" (such as Uzi). They are fundamentally different weapons, apart from the fact they are both capable of automatic mode of operation.

 

Sorry, Baronius. But I'd have to say you're the one who has watched too many movies. I happen to know how difficult it is to aim on automatic.

 

Baronius,
T2 is right. Weapons start to develop a life of their own when firing. They go directions where you don't want them to go, usually up and right or left. And don't get me started about sights.

I fired Uzis back then in the army. I found it easier to fire assault rifles accurately, despite the greater recoil. My general impression is that weapons in full auto are far less controllable and accurate than Hollywood makes people believe. The mass action of the Uzi makes it essentially recoilless, but it still has a pound of metal moving when the action cycles, which means it is not that easy to control. You need both hands to control it. And the Uzi was nothing compared to the G3 on full auto, or the MG3 for that matter. In a foolish moment, I also fired two Uzis, 'gangsta style', that was lots of fun but even worse. And it wasn't just me. Best you could do was spray and pray.

 

Guys, who was talking about total *control* or accurate aim. There was a statement that

Saying that "extensive experience" (!) is needed to hit anyone in a crowd with an Uzi with a full magazine is really an overkill. I would subtitute "extensive experience" to "basic experience". You wouldn't need a full control over the weapon, just practice to keep it down. In other words: if target"density" is high (which is true in a crowd) and you can "keep it down", it's hardly true that you will hit "nothing". Again I emphasize: a basic practice is needed in the use of such weapons, and I am talking about random hits (random victims hit at random positions).

So you don't need total control over the weapon to cause damage with a full magazine in a crowd. Partial control is enough. Nonetheless, generally, such weapons are indeed harder to use than most of the weapons that you use in semi-automatic mode (e.g. 9mm guns).

OK, the guy who performed the shooting in Tucson would have probably been unable to control an Uzi indeed, I don't doubt that. Because, as I said, he doesn't even have fundamental experience in its use.

Assault rifles are totally another field, with a different purpose and primary application field than submachine guns. For example, in their semi-automatic ("1 shot at a time") mode, with proper aim, you can hit a standard target in 300 meters distance (for this, you need practice, of course).

 

It was done by me also. I made marksman. Give me five rounds and I'll hit a man sized target easily at 300 metres, with assault rifle or machine gun, your pick (I'd prefer the machine gun). I might need glasses nowadays though.

And as for automatic fire in the Giffords situation: The point is moot, since it didn't happen.

I introduced the Uzi for comparison. Point remains: With an SMGs, on full auto, you are basically wasting ammunition. Because it is difficult, you do need a lot of training to use an SMG properly on full auto. I can judge that, because I have done it myself. Of course you will hit somebody in a crowd spraying with an SMG - that's like shooting fish in a barrel - but hits beyond the intended target will be accidental.

As I said, a Glock is plenty lethal, and the effective firing rate, even though it is just semi auto, is significant. Loughner fired aimed and rapidly. He couldn't have done much more damage with an SMG (with that he would have needed to reload as well, and he was overpowered when reloading).

Loughner's aimed fire is actually far worse (and more 'effective') than spray and pray - he discriminated (unlike 'spray and pray' which basically says: 'Let God sort'em out') and targeted quite deliberately. Of course, those shot will not appreciate the extra attention he spent on harming them.

 

I own a gun for one simple reason. Protection from anyone invading my home. And I hope I never have to use it. I don't carry it anywhere except to the range, which I only visit about once a year, maybe twice if I'm lucky. Odds are I won't ever use it otherwise. But if it gives me that slight edge in increasing my chances of protecting my family if something would happen, I'm all for it. Of course, I'm not crazy and don't have a criminal record, so no harm there.

I won't agrue the fact that extended clips should be banned, there is no reason for them. Any handguns that can be extended to have the same function as a machine gun are just ridicilous. There is no need. One shot from my 9mm will probably be enough to stop someone, but I am sure 15 will do just fine.

Keeping the guns out of the hands of the unhinged will obviously lessen the chances of them shooting everyone. As I don't see how that is not assumed by EVERYONE, I don't see the point in bringing this up, as I doubt anyone will argue it. As Chandos is fond of saying "Common Sense 101". The key is passing legislation through w/out stamping on the rights of gun owners everywhere. Harder said than done here in the States. Even the most thought out legislation will meet stubborn resistance from the NRA as they percieve every move that limits gun ownership a slap in the face, no matter how much sense it makes.

 

Assuming that by "machine gun" we mean fully automatic, a Glock 19 with a high capacity magazine does not give it the same function as a machine gun.

A regular magazine for a Glock 19 holds 15 rounds. Using them instead of the 33 round magazine, if Loughner started with 1 in the chamber and reloaded once, he would have had 31 rounds at his disposal. If he was as experienced with firearms as we're assuming here for the sake of argument, reloading would not have been an overwhelming task, so is there really a tremendous difference between 31 rounds and 33?

IIRC he was stopped during reloading though. I've never handled an extended magazine like that, but I can see how it could be somewhat unweildy due to its size. But a well-trained person can switch out a regular sized magazine in a matter of a couple seconds or so, so unless someone was right there waiting to jump him the second he ran empty, it doesn't seem likely that much opportunity would arise to do that.

As for one shot from a 9mm reliably stopping someone, I disagree. It may, depending on placement, but it's by no means guaranteed. I know this from personal experience.

Running out of bullets if you really really need them is a very very bad thing, so I wouldn't be so quick to put an upper bound on the number of rounds you make available to yourself. In your hypothetical scenario, what if you fired at the intruder 10 times and missed due to stress-induced loss of fine or complex motor skills, then he returned fire, then you fired back five times and managed to hit him ... and then his partner came in?

We can conjure up any imaginary scenario we want, of course, but my point is that arbitrarily deciding that 15 rounds is sufficient for any self-defense need is something you can by no means guarantee.

 

The only thing I learned from this is that there are whack jobs out there. I don't blame Sarah Palin, I don't blame the gun, I don't blame the number of bullets in the magazine/clip, etc. About the only thing we can probably blame is the security detail/police for not putting a stop to this faster.

 

The question is how to keep the guns out of the hands of the unstable. Obviously, the 'keep them out of everyone's hands' solution isn't acceptable, but if you have a process for identifying those who's mental illness presents a danger to the public, then I doubt anyone would argue denying guns to those individuals. The question is how to decide that, and who's responsability it should be to bring the individuals to the court's attention.

I think we may also be able to blame the school for not bringing this guy to the attention of the authorities. I'm not 100% sure on that one, though.

 

Well, the security detail/police were not the ones that put a stop to it - it was the people in the crowd who stopped it, when Loughner stopped to reload. If that is the metric you are looking at, then the number of rounds in the clip is a VERY important factor. If he had a standard 9 rounds - or even 15 - as opposed to the 30+ rounds, he would have stopped to reload sooner, and fewer people would have been wounded/killed.

As has already been pointed out, no reasonable scenario can be envisioned where you'd need a 30-round clip. The days of the shootouts at the OK-Corral have long since passed.

But that's the trick, isn't it? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the way the NRA opposes any limitation on gun rights. They are not nearly as tolerant or reasonable as you seem to be in this regard.

EDIT:

And yet, this unlikely opportunity is exactly how we was stopped. He emptied his 30 rounds, and was stopped when he attempted to reload.

It is no guarantee, but 15 is more than sufficient for any reasonable scenario. Working for the army, I know a lot of people who own firearms. The general consensus is that 3 or 4 rounds are typically more than enough to resolve any scenario. That second guy you mention is likely running the other way after you've fired 15 shots (ignoring for the moment what the hell he was doing not helping his parter who was being turned into Swiss cheese) - it's not a reasonable scenario.

 

No offense Aldeth, but that's nonsense. The first rule of understanding altercations like these that happen in the real world is that there are no such things as 'reasonable scenarios.' You don't rule out possibilities that seem unlikely or unreasonable if you expect to survive. You prepare yourself, as much as is possible and practical, for any scenario. What if you were up against Loughner with his 30 round magazine?

Many responsible and reputable firearms training organizations for private citizens/concealed carry recommend that individuals carry somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 rounds - one magazine in the firearm and two magazines on your hip. Police officers carry at least one backup magazine. Is that overkill for them? If there is no reasonable scenario where anyone would need upwards of 15 rounds, why would they carry extra?

None of us were there of course, so we don't really know excatly what happened, but as I suggested above the 30 round magazine itself could have dramatically increased his reload time. Those things stick way out of the grip of the handgun. Both ejecting them and inserting them may require greater concentration and manual dexterity, which may have been his downfall, as doing that sort of thing effectively in a firefight requires that it be done primary by muscle memory, not concentration. But who knows? None of us know well-enough to draw any firm conclusions about what 'must have happened' or why it did.

Incidentally, I was reading a story on the web yesterday regarding the testimony of the local county sheriff on the Tuczon case, who had seen surveillance video of the incident from a supermarket security camera. He said that Loughner shot Giffords at a range of about three feet, and that she was his first victim.

p.s. - I agree (and have heard as much from others experienced in such things) that in most situations, a gun battle will be resolved with very few rounds at short distance in a short amount of time. This does not, however, mean that all of them will, or that there is no possibility that they won't.