The usual people here have had the usual reaction to it:

"They're bringing machineguns onto the hallowed grounds of higher education! Oh, the shame that George Bu$Hitler has brought upon this once-great nation!"

What they fail to realize is that American cops are actually some of the LEAST well-armed in the world. It's not unusual to see police in Costa Rica, Germany, the UK or other countries walking around everywhere with MP-5 submachineguns strapped to the chests. In the U.S., such firepower is traditionally reserved for SWAT teams and the like, it's not general-issue.

Of course, if the Arizona State legislature allows CCW holders like myself to carry on campus, the need for the cops to up-gun themselves like this suddenly diminishes. Why leave it up to the cops, when responsible, trained individuals are ready and willing to stop any nutjob from wreaking havoc on campus?

"But the new rifles could fire accurately up to approximately 100 yards and offer additional stopping power, he said. "

Huh. I'd hope they'd be accurate out to 300 yards, or I'd be wondering why they didn't go with the M4 carbine.

SSG Jeff, The Bushmaster is almost identical to the M4. Only difference is one is select fire, one is not. They probably do not want to deal with the additional paperwork of having select fire weapons, that and select fire will not give them anything they need for the intended role.

I just hope that they are running M193 from those weapons. Those rounds will achieve core separation at lower velocities than the M855. Which is good because you have less a chance for over penetration.

Also in addition. "Huh. I'd hope they'd be accurate out to 300 yards,"

From the M4 type weapon, you will not get core disintegration past about 120m. While you will still achieve core separation out to 300, there is much less chance for over penetration at that lower range. That and the average long distance for police shootings is 55 yd. They do not need to worry about distance like we do in the military.

A hardware solution for a software problem.

Has there ever been a campus shooting where the casualty count was higher because the campus police were outgunned? Don't make me whip out the "When all you have is a hammer..." line.

Just what you need, arm the wanna be rambos with high powered rifles so they can shoot through walls, regardless what is on the other side. There was a day when that was a consideration, but now it seems that dress up the cops as scary as possible is the way to deter crime ... Anyone wanna bet?

Cite one case where the university police were out gunned ... Why not issue them university cops tanks and RPGs while we are at it.

"Just what you need, arm the wanna be rambos with high powered rifles so they can shoot through walls, regardless what is on the other side. There was a day when that was a consideration, but now it seems that dress up the cops as scary as possible is the way to deter crime ... Anyone wanna bet?"

Yet someone else that does not know much about external and terminal ballistics of the weapons in question.

The M16 Series weapons do not punch through walls very well. Even more so when firing M193.

Inside of 80 meters, The M193s projectile will yaw upon hitting a hard target, and will tend to fail to penetrate standard 3 inch cinder block wall.

"Cite one case where the university police were out gunned"

Columbine High School. One uniform cop with a nine mil, and a shotgun in his car. Had to call in SWAT.

Below is a direct quote from a LEO in Cali, and someone that I consider a close personal friend. If you do not agree with what he says, then you are one of those sheep. I am one of those sheepdogs.

"The world is comprised of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves.

Yes, the analogy may be simplistic, but if it isn't true -- call me on it. I dare ya.

I'm a sheepdog. A sheepdog who acts in the interest of others: Both the shepherd and the sheep.

Sheep are nice.

Sheep are afraid of wolves, because wolves have fangs. Wolves kill and eat sheep.

Sheep are afraid of sheepdogs, because sheepdogs have fangs and bark a lot to control the flock.

Sheep will do NOTHING to protect themselves, as they are not equipped to do so. Without the sheepdog or shepherd, the sheep can only hope to be in the middle of the flock -- so when the wolf comes, the sheep on the perimeter will be eaten first.

Sheep can only congregate to the center of the flock and hope it is NOT their turn.

Sometimes, when a sheep is killed, sheep will bleat, "If we can just get the wolves to turn in their fangs, maybe we won't die!"

Wolves; however, NEVER turn in their fangs.

Unfortunately, that is a FACT sheep ALWAYS fail to accept.

In such denial, sheep WILL TRY SOMETHING -- which usually includes enacting rules, which require the sheepdogs, whom the sheep also fear -- to turn in their fangs, or implore the shepherd to chain the sheepdog.

Sheep bleat happily, because NOW, they see results from their collective efforts. NOW, the sheepdog is defanged or chained. Thus, sheep FEEL and BELIEVE they can roam more freely about the pasture.

They post signs for a "FANG FREE ZONE."

Yet, the wolf awaits, licking his fangs...

The sheep are wrong...again.

Virginia Tech was a GUN FREE ZONE. Cho Seung Hui did not heed the sign.

When there are wolves, we need sheepdogs. So why, WHY -- when so many sheep are killed -- do sheep continue to bleat -- that somehow, the solution is to regulate the fangs of the sheepdogs?

Sheep NEVER let FACTS change the way they FEEL."

Still like the PS90 for this sort of thing. The 5.7 will punch through cheap vests, but not walls. Very quick acquisition as well. I've been very favorably impressed with this little beastie.

bill-tb, please remember to call the next peace officer who pulls you over for speeding a "wannabe rambo" (sic).

Really.

In fact, I suggest you take a swing at him to see if he's the real thing or just a wannbe. Cops love that. Give it a try, and let us know how it goes.

In 3-4 years, with time off for good behaviour, of course.

And as for over-penetration and the M-16/M4/AR (even with M193's), in Arizona, the cops are required by law to carry hollowpoints, so I assume they'll carry something like that in their M4's. But that matters little, as ANY rifle round goes a loooooong way if it doesn't hit it's intended target:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

And pistol rounds ain't much better. I use 105gr Federal EFMJ's in my daily carry gun with the idea that if a miss hits a wall, it'll expand right away and start to slow down, but even then, it'd still be 6-8 walls until that sucker isn't a danger anymore.

"Still like the PS90 for this sort of thing. The 5.7 will punch through cheap vests, but not walls."

While the P90 can punch through NIJ rated, Level IIIA vests, the wound cavity in target is similar to that of an ice pick. It does not achieve enough velocity to fragment during its yaw in the target, and as such will tend to over penetrate flesh, and come out the other end. That is bad when you have to worry about those behind the target. The terminal effects of the 5.7 are less than stellar. And similar to that of the 5.45x39. You have to be able to kill the target. 5.56x45 does this quite well. If they would increase the barrel length of the P90 you would see better results on target. But the P90 was designed as a PDW for pilots. That is it. It is not a SWAT weapon, it was never intended to be. It was only designed because downed pilots were having a hard time punching through the armor of their attackers with their MP5A5s.

For your edification. Spitzer type rounds (any round that is longer than it is thick) will yaw in the body, This includes the 147gr 9x19.

5.45x39mm FMJ lead slug.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg

M193 5.56x45 FMJ lead slug.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

M855 5.56x45 FMJ lead slug, steel penetrator.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

7.62x39 Russian FMJ lead slug.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

M80 7.62x51 FMJ lead slug.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg

As we can see from the pictures (those were artists renditions of actual tests conducted in both ballistics gel, and live animal testing) the only two rounds that caused large final cavities without over penetrating were the M193, and the M855 in 5.56x45mm. While the M855 does tend to cause a larger cavity, it also does a much better job of punching through hard targets. That is why it is seldom used in an LEO role.

'And as for over-penetration and the M-16/M4/AR (even with M193's), in Arizona, the cops are required by law to carry hollowpoints, so I assume they'll carry something like that in their M4's. But that matters little, as ANY rifle round goes a loooooong way if it doesn't hit it's intended target:'

Holopoints (when talking rifles and FMJ, not frangables) do not cause them to expand much. LEOs carry holos in their rifles because they are more accurate. But do sometimes tend to fragment easier than standard M193.

"And pistol rounds ain't much better. I use 105gr Federal EFMJ's in my daily carry gun with the idea that if a miss hits a wall, it'll expand right away and start to slow down, but even then, it'd still be 6-8 walls until that sucker isn't a danger anymore."

What type of wall are you shooting at? cardboard? sheet rock? Or brick? I do not see many schools that use sheet rock in their construction.

They should just allow concealed carry on campus so students that want to protect themselves can do so. Here in Oregon anybody a CHL can carry concealed on the campus of any public school.

"They should just allow concealed carry on campus so students that want to protect themselves can do so."

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE!!! I honestly think that they should take the old "Right to carry" bill all the way to the top, and get it signed. Arm the sheep, the wolves wills top biting.

Arm the sheep, the wolves wills top biting.

Just watch which party the politicians who propose giving ex-cons their votes back belong to. Most if not all of them belong to one party, and it ain't the one with the elephant logo.

It hardly seems a coincidence that the party that wants to gain the votes of ex-cons is the same one that wants to take guns out of the hands of the public.

Oh I know brother. I know. And from my constant typos, it seems that I really need to review my posts before hitting enter. Sometimes I get a bit excited. My bad all.

Carbines for university police? Of course. It is only rational to provide proper tools for clearly defined and recognized specific tasks. Handguns must, of necessity, be recognized to be limited to an effective (reliably accurate) range of less than 25 yards. True, some exceptional shooters can acheive results to 50 yards and beyond, but for most human beings, reliable handgun accuracy is a less than 25 yard affair, often, much less. There is no question (at least not among those who actually understand such matters) that carbines possess much greater accuracy potential over longer ranges than handguns, for trained and untrained shooters.

One should also understand that merely putting on a police uniform does not confer upon the wearer great skill with firearms. Because firearm proficiency is a matter of training and consistent practice, civilians can, and often do, outstrip the average police officer in firearms effectiveness. However, that said, virtually anyone will be more consistently accurate with a carbine than a handgun. Enhancements such as red dot sights can also help to enhance accuracy and speed.

Still, let us not forget the primary issue here: There has yet to be a single school shooting in America in which the police have played any protective or preventive role. Even at the Virginia Tech shooting where the police were able to respond within two minutes (an incredible bit of serendipitous random chance), all of the killing and wounding had been done and the killer was dead by his own hand before the incredibly speedy arrival of the police (a bit of speed that has never before occured, nor is it likely to every occur again). The only truly effective means for dealing with this problem has always been and remains the arming of willing and capable citizens, always and everywhere.

The only truly effective means for dealing with this problem has always been and remains the arming of willing and capable citizens, always and everywhere.

See also the recent Yeshiva shooting:

Yitzhak Dadon, a student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building. “He came out of the library spraying automatic fire … the terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head,” he said.

"The only truly effective means for dealing with this problem has always been and remains the arming of willing and capable citizens, always and everywhere."

I do agree with you. Those people would also be called sheepdogs.

"It's not unusual to see police in Costa Rica, Germany, the UK or other countries walking around everywhere with MP-5 submachineguns strapped to the chests."

Have you actually been to the UK? It is almost unheard of, outside of airports, to see a policeman armed with anything, much less a submachinegun. Our lot tend to go for batons and occcasional pepper spray.

Indeed, Rafar.

Of course, the number of gun-related deaths in the UK is also rising steeply. An excerpt:

However, gun crime figures released last October [2004] showed a 3% rise to 10,590 incidents in England and Wales in the year to June — an average of 29 a day. Gun crime has more than doubled since Labour came to power in 1997.

The correlation seems clear. Take guns away from honest civilians, criminals feel safer.

Go ahead and try to spin it, Rafar.

"The correlation seems clear. Take guns away from honest civilians, criminals feel safer.

Go ahead and try to spin it, Rafar."

I don't have to spin it. You only see correlation because you have no idea what it is actually like living in the UK. You probably imagine a significant minority of people wandering around pre-handgun ban with pistols in their bags in order to defend themselves as it is, I believe, in the US. You probably also imagine a moderate number of homeowners with pistols or shotguns available for home defence.

Honest civilians have never (at least not in living memory) carried firearms for personal security in the UK. Banning handguns did not decrease the number of people who carried handguns for personal security, it decreased the number of people who could shoot at gun clubs (and knocked off our pistol shooting teams, something that I disagreed with at the time, though we haven't had any mass shootings since it came in. Remember that the ban was to prevent a future Dunblaine or Hungerford, not to prevent gang violence in London.)

Because of this, banning the ownership of handguns cannot have had any effect on the number of criminals who didn't commit crimes because they might have faced a gun wielding civilian as there just weren't any.

That's why we have so many burglaries over here, burglars know that they will not face guns, unlike in the US (where I believe your burglary rate is much lower). On the other hand our rate of gun deaths (both accidental and deliberate) is much lower than yours. You pays your money and takes your choice.

But all of that is incidental to my reply, which was just to remind people that policemen in the UK do not go around armed in any routine sense, and are certainly not more heavily armed than US police. A security guard at a warehouse in the US is probably more heavily armed than the vast majority of all UK policemen.

"However, gun crime figures released last October [2004] showed a 3% rise to 10,590 incidents in England and Wales in the year to June — an average of 29 a day. Gun crime has more than doubled since Labour came to power in 1997."

I only just noticed, these are figures from 2004. Interesting that you should pick this year, as since then, year on year we have seen falling gun crimes numbers as can be seen here;

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

Page 36.

So what does this mean for your clearcut correlation?

61 per cent of respondents believe the war with Iraq was not worth fighting

I bet 61% of the public couldn't point out the territory occupied by Iraq on a sat photo of the middle east that lacked any labels, etc.

If they could, they wouldn't say such stupid stuff.

"I bet 61% of the public couldn't point out the territory occupied by Iraq on a sat photo of the middle east that lacked any labels, etc."

Well, if you don't like democracy, move somewhere where decisions are made by an unelected elite.

"I only just noticed, these are figures from 2004. Interesting that you should pick this year, as since then, year on year we have seen falling gun crimes numbers as can be seen here;"

"Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 by galloway

While gun ownership in the UK is perhaps more tightly controlled than in any other European country, with gun crime constituting less than 1% of total crime, it is a fact that guns and incidents involving firearms are a quotidian feature of modern city life. So much so that out of the almost 11,000 firearms offences committed each year in England and Wales, most are not even reported in the media."

http://galloway.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/gun-crime-in-the-uk/

"Gun crime on the rise
Exclusive by John Scheerhout and Mike Slingsby
25/ 5/2007

SPIRALLING gun crime is blighting Greater Manchester with more than 3,000 firearms incidents in the last 15 months, the MEN can reveal today."

You were saying?

Sorry it didn't take the whole quote.

"And actual shootings, not including crimes where guns were not fired, increased nine per cent in the last 12 months alone, with 120 confirmed discharges."

There are other parts of the UK where gun crime has risen by almost 50%.

Matt, you'll never convince Rafar, he's got a great set of leftist blinders. He sees only the "facts" he wants to see, all others are actively ignored.

"So much so that out of the almost 11,000 firearms offences committed each year in England and Wales, most are not even reported in the media.""

Have you looked at what those firearms offenses constitute? The vast majority are for air guns.

Anyway, this is utterly irrelevant to what I said. I just corrected the minor point that Uk policemen do not routinely wander around with submachine guns. In response to the post talking about gun control leading to more gun crime I pointed out (as I thought that being ignorant of the UK you wouldn't mind some additional information) that people in the UK do not and have not carried handguns for personal protection, so the ban did not remove armed civilians from the streets, thus negating the correleation offered. These points are pretty much indisputable as they are observably true to anyone who lives here.

In fact, one of the things that is increasing gun crime (particularly amongst youths) is the desire to carry handguns for person protection leading to more revenge shootings (where previously they would have been stabbings or beatings).

People are just as violent, gang driven, murderous and thieving here as there, it is just harder for them to get guns to do it with. This is another obvious point borne out by the number of imitation weapons used. Why use an imitation gun? because you can't get a real one.

You seem to imagine that I care what you do in your country. I don't. I was just correcting some groos (but understandable) errors in your comments. The idea that UK police are heavily armed is laughable. The idea that a handgun ban meant that criminals were free to molest civilians without fear of being shot at is also laughable. You did not knon that because you don't live here.

You want to have freely available guns in your country, great, go for it. We do not want to have freely available guns in our country. The handgun ban was put in place primarily to prevent mass shootings, which are almost exclusively done with legally held firearms. Since it has been in place we have not had any. Maybe it is because of the ban, maybe not, it is hard to tell.

"And actual shootings, not including crimes where guns were not fired, increased nine per cent in the last 12 months alone, with 120 confirmed discharges."

My goodness, 120 discharges! Panic in the streets, the slaughter!

"Matt, you'll never convince Rafar, he's got a great set of leftist blinders. He sees only the "facts" he wants to see, all others are actively ignored."

So far the only facts that I have claimed are that;

1) Uk police do not routinely go around with submachine guns.

2) People in the UK do not carry handguns for personal protection and never have.

Do you dispute them?

It doesn't help much when police tactics are to wait outside of the building, terrorizing escaping students, and generally waiting until the bad guy either runs out of ammo or kills himself.

Give them rape whistles for all the good that they have been doing.

"Have you looked at what those firearms offenses constitute? The vast majority are for air guns."

Where does it say that? I didn't see it in the articles I posted. Did I miss something? If not then you need to provide corroborating information so we know that you are not just full of it. If you do not provide information backing your claim then you dump what creditability you have, and that calls into question everything you have said.

"Anyway, this is utterly irrelevant to what I said. I just corrected the minor point that Uk policemen do not routinely wander around with submachine guns."

Ok very well. Because I do not live there, I do not get a chance to see them on a daily basis, but when I was site seeing after a JSOF conference in London I saw some police walking around with MP5A5s and Glock 17s. Several different times in fact. Maybe they were simply an ARV Team. But if so why did I not see a vehicle near by? And why was neither the watcher nor the driver in said vehicle?

"that people in the UK do not and have not carried handguns for personal protection, so the ban did not remove armed civilians from the streets,"

So what you are telling me is, that before the ban, NO ONE carried? Not one sole carried legally, or illegally for personal protection. That is a mighty bold claim. Care to back it up?

"People are just as violent, gang driven, murderous and thieving here as there, it is just harder for them to get guns to do it with."

True, it is more difficult for honest civilians to get firearms over there. But I can just about promise you that it is not too tough to get them illegally. All banning weapons does is keep honest people honest. Also, by your own admission, if you take guns away, and make it hard for them to get guns, then they find another way to hurt and kill. So once again, banning guns does not stop crime. It just makes it evolve.

[quote]The idea that a handgun ban meant that criminals were free to molest civilians without fear of being shot at is also laughable.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that if you make it really hard for the criminals to get guns, but allow people to have them, that the bad guys would not think twice about trying to stab someone?

"We do not want to have freely available guns in our country."

Funny. I have met a few people on my travels that would disagree with this statement. One buddy I worked with the last time I was in Afghan was really ticked that he could be trusted to carry a weapon into combat, and to die for his country, but could not own a personal. Earlier you talked about how we should not make assumptions about a country we do not live in, should you make assumptions as to what everyone in your country wants?

"My goodness, 120 discharges! Panic in the streets, the slaughter!"

Make light of it, cool go right on ahead. But since the ban, firearm crime has gone up. And it will continue to go up.

"1) Uk police do not routinely go around with submachine guns."

We have a civilian working for my command as a historian. She grew up in in Northern Ireland, she disagrees with you.

"2) People in the UK do not carry handguns for personal protection and never have."

Can you provide sources saying that no one carried?

I guess you are just going to wait till this drops off the board. Good way to prove yourself.

"I guess you are just going to wait till this drops off the board. Good way to prove yourself."

Actually I wrote a rebuttal which was not accepted when submitted, even though I tried multiple times. I'll make this one short and then give up if it still doesn't work (In which case you won't be reading this)

1) "Where does it say that? I didn't see it in the articles I posted. Did I miss something? If not then you need to provide corroborating information so we know that you are not just full of it."

Read the report I posted, starting at page 36. It is all there in black and white.

2) "Ok very well. Because I do not live there, I do not get a chance to see them on a daily basis, but when I was site seeing after a JSOF conference in London I saw some police walking around with MP5A5s and Glock 17s. Several different times in fact. Maybe they were simply an ARV Team. But if so why did I not see a vehicle near by? And why was neither the watcher nor the driver in said vehicle?"

I worked in London for 7 1/2 years, and still go there regularly. I have never seen armed police wandering about except in certain exceptional circumstances (Demos and Marches usually) or at specific security risks (Buck house, Airports, 10 downing street,, etc) Maybe the JSOF was considered a high risk?

3) "Not one sole carried legally, or illegally for personal protection. That is a mighty bold claim. Care to back it up?"

Don't be silly. I am sure that a vanishingly small number of people did, but they would be considered nutcase by the general population and criminals by the police, since "Presonal protection" is not a valid reason for getting a firearms certificate.

To make it simple, your idea that people carried firearms for personal protection in any meaningful number is as absurd as me saying that there are virtually no Christians in Texas. It is just absurd ont the face of it. You don't have to believe me, of course, but it is worth noting that it is estimated that only 0.1% of the population was affected by the handgun ban ("Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[24] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[25] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom, yes it is Wiki, but it is referenced)

Considering the strong social and legal impetus to not walk about with firearms what proportion of that 0.1% carried routinely for personal protection? Even if they all did (and knowing and working for many gun enthusiasts not one of them ever did, and would have considered the idea absurd) then there is still basically no chance of a criminal coming across one in which case there cannot have been a deterrent effect.

"if you take guns away, and make it hard for them to get guns, then they find another way to hurt and kill. So once again, banning guns does not stop crime. It just makes it evolve."

Yes, it doesn't change human nature (shocking that) but it does limit access to a very powerful way to express that human nature.

"So what you are saying is that if you make it really hard for the criminals to get guns, but allow people to have them, that the bad guys would not think twice about trying to stab someone?"

No, I am saying that since people did not carry guns around before the ban, the ban cannot have had the effect of making criminals feel safer.

"Earlier you talked about how we should not make assumptions about a country we do not live in, should you make assumptions as to what everyone in your country wants?"

The pro-gun lobby in the Uk is powerless, tiny and irrelevant. That is not to say that it is completely absent. It has about as much clout as the vegan lobby, ie, none.

"We have a civilian working for my command as a historian. She grew up in in Northern Ireland, she disagrees with you."

True, and an indictment of my prejudices. NI was a low level guerilla war so yes, police were armed. I should have said "Mainland Britain" and excluded NI. My apologies.

So, to mess up the language some but put in the required caveats;

1) Outside of exceptional circumstances, high value terrorist targets and low level wars, Mainland UK police do not go around routinely armed with submachine guns.

2) The porportion of people who even owned handguns, let alone carried them is so vanishingly small that the removal of those guns cannot have had any influence on crime rates due to increased confidence in criminals.

Happy with the caveats? Will you concede them now? I honestly cannot see how you cannot. They are obviously, incontrovertably, observably true after all.

wow, it worked! Didn't end up short though.

"The pro-gun lobby in the Uk is powerless, tiny and irrelevant. That is not to say that it is completely absent. It has about as much clout as the vegan lobby, ie, none."

Re-reading this, apart from the rapid typing typos, for which I apologise, I note that this is not clear enough. I should have said something like;

"The pro-carrying-guns-for-personal-protection-lobby"

ugly though it is.