Is That Legal?

in today's climate, with an exhausted national guard, i think you'd be more likely to see the guardsmen (and women) side by side with the students, rather than facing them.

Some quibbles.

The trigger pull on an M-16 is 7.5 lbs. As a general rule, the trigger pull on rifles/shotguns is in the range of 5.5-8 lbs.

Target shooters will reduce the trigger pull to as little as, about, 2 lbs, for competition triggers.

The M-16 actually has a very heavy, two-stage trigger, which has about 1/8th inch of slack, a hard stop to the sear, and then a very hard (what is called "dragging") break as the sear is released.

The energy required to pull the trigger actually requires significant re-training of recruits who already know how to shoot, because they tend to haul on the trigger so firmly they move the point of impact so far to the right that at more than 100m they miss the target.

The only time the M-16A2/M-4 Carbine have a reduced wieght of pull is when the shooter fails to maintain the trigger to the rear while firing in Burst mode. In that case the sear engages, stopping the firing sequence; with 1-2 rounds left to fire. In this case, because the weapon is powered buy a coil-spring (resembling the spring which keeps a two-piece clothespin shut) the pressure on the sear-face is reduced.

But, when National Guard troops are issued rifles there is a blocking pin, which prevents the rifle from being placed on Burst.

Shotguns, as issued by the Army, have a weight of pull of 5.5 lbs. (the M-1/M-14 , by way of comparison to both of the above, had a trigger pull of 6.5 lbs, and a much smoother release than the M-16, though sitffer than the shotgun).

That deals with the mechanics of the weapons the soldiers would be carrying.

To look at the actual interaction. Armies are different from groups. They act in concert, which has a huge effect on what happens.

Assuming, arguendo, the students in Utah were to have a huge protest, and the Guard was called out, they wouldn't be organized; as regards shooting.

The Guardsmen would. As a group they seem larger, while the individual feels singled out, even when part of the crowd (this is because the action of using [even just exposing] a weapon makes the user different from the rest of the group.

The lack of training also plays into it. Soldier are trained that they will be shot at. Students aren't.

The LAPD engages in riot training, and I've been fortunate that my unit really does do the required four hours of annual riot training, in a serious way; using LAPD instructors, and instruction.

The crowd control teams the LAPD builds (ad hoc, as things unfold) are only ten cops strong. By acting in concert, without weapons, they can (and do) break up crowds tens of times their size.

If the crowds were to act in concert, the cops would be overwhelmed. But they don't.

So the image of a pitched battle between students and soldiers is hard to really picture. Their might be one exchange of fire, but that would probably be it; not least because there isn't a commander/senior NCO, who wouldn't be worried about a repeat of Kent State.

T. Karney
SSG Calif. National Guard
Unit Armorer

Another quibble:

It is a 12 gauge shotgun, not a .12 gauge shotgun.

Many rifles and pistols are referred to by the diameter of the bullet - such a .38 or a .357 or a .45. (If this is not confusing enough, a .38 actually shoots a bullet that is .357 in diameter - but that's another story.)

In contrast shotgun gauges are determined - historically anyway - by the number of metal balls that fill the diameter of the barrel that it takes to make up a pound. Hence a 12 gauge would require 12 such balls while a 20 gauge (which is smaller) would require 20 balls.

I have at least two problems with this. First, the statement that "The events at Kent State marked the end of the rebellious '60s and the restoration of law and order" is a gross misreading or misremembering of the events following the Kent State massacre. There were widespread protests and Nixon even considered taking illegal actions against student protest groups. This hardly restored "law and order."

I also think the logic is flawed. You imagine that peace protesters would engage in armed conflict with the National Guard, but I doubt that seriously. When citizens carry firearms, they carry pistols. Maybe this is the caution of age, but I don't know anyone who would draw down with a pistol on NG armed with rifles, especially not a large group of NG.

I certainly would not argue for arming students. I think a campus is a very nice place not to have firearms in the hands of students or campus police. A campus is especially a very nice place not to have NG shooting innocent students who just happened to be passing some distance from the protests.

If you look at the actual events of Kent State instead of a far-fetched fantasy, it seems like a better idea to keep arms out of the hands of the "well regulated militia" rather than the hands of law-abiding citizens. Or at least out of the hands of a militia that is no better trained than the one the did the shooting at Kent State.

Don't confuse me with facts, you evil rethuglicans! Guns are bad (except, of course, when used by members of oppressed minorities and appropriately progressive revolutionaries against pigs and/or Dick Cheney in response to centuries of racist paternalism, or by Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard

Terry Karney -
the correction factual errors of various factual errors in weaponry was interesting, especially as my detailed knowledge of the subject is very, very limited.

But I think you may be missing the point of the post - if both the Guard and students had been armed, there would have been more than 4 dead individuals.

It isn't really a question of whether it would be 3 Guardsmen and 78 students - the point would be that a political protest in the U.S. involving a disagreement over government would have resulted in a larger number of dead Americans.

Somehow, such a simple appreciation of the reality that results from this little exercise in speculation is worth considering, even if there a number of facts to correct.

I wasn't missing the point of the post; and I think, in light of the clarification you are making things worse.

I've looked at a lot of stuff on Kent State (something about my line of work, political beliefs, and age [40], which puts all of that pretty far forward in my mind). The situation wasn't as cut and dried as all that.

The troops should never have been there, but a replay of Kent State, with guns, isn't realistic.

The students were pressing the troops (lacking the crowd-control/riot training the events at Kent State made mandatory; and which isn't, in my personal opinion, as well trained as it ought to be; as a rule) tried backing away, and the students got more aggressive.

Some of them threw rocks, and some member of the Guard (a far less professional force then) discharged a round. It was probably while flinching from being hit with one of the rocks.

If this were being done in the present day:

The soldiers wouldn't have rifles, they'd have batons (white oak, 3 ft. long, 2 inch dia.).

There would be some soldiers, behind them, who were armed, but it wouldn't be all, and they would probably be carrying "Condition Amber" (Loaded magazine, weapon on safe, no cartridge in the chamber).

The question you asked (guns on campus, armed soldiers) posits one of a few sequences.

1: Accidental discharge of a Guard weapon.

2: Attack by Guardsmen on students, after minimal provocation.

3: Deliberate attack by students.

In the first two the idea that the students would respond by returning fire, is, from a psychological standpoint, almost inconceivable. None of those students is likely to think that there are enough armed, and like-minded students, to make a difference. Each of them would have to decide that the pistol they are carrying is going to be useful against an organised group; wielding rifles.

The first reaction of soldiers, when fired on, is to take cover, and then return fire. I find it unlikely the students would move to the second stage of that equation.

The third is even less likely. Again, because it would be individuals, and deciding to take a pistol out, and shoot at a group of people carrying rifles is tantamount to suicide.

Would such an indcident lead to lots of dead students? Maybe. That would depend on the reaction of the commander on the ground. In some ways the present Guard, with a large percentage of combat vets, is less likely to over-react than the '70s era guard, of those who were trying to avoid Viet-nam.

I happen to agree with you, in general, that arming students isn't the proper response to the events at VT, but I don't think this is a good argument against it; because it plays to fears and misunderstandings of how such a situation would play out.

On a different note, if you have questions about weapons, or other matters military, feel free to drop me a line, and I'll be glad to help; or to point you to someone/someplace, who can.

I don't find scenario 3 implausible. People in crowds throw rocks all the time. Its not inconceivable that one might take a pistol shot, secure in his anonymity.

The Kent State killings took place in 1970 (on Monday, May 4), not 1971.

I also have a comment about this sentence: "The events at Kent State marked the end of the rebellious '60s and the restoration of law and order."

While I think there's some truth to this, I think it is a little off. That is, while Kent State happened on May 4, subsequent to that, a national student strike took place. Hundreds of universities were shut down, either for a day or two, or for the rest of the semester. That month -- again, this is *after* Kent State -- was the time of the largest mass protests at that point in U.S. history. Stopping "business as usual" was what the students desired, and to the extent that they were able to shut down much of U.S. higher education that month, they were successful. So far from ending rebelliousness, the Kent State killings actually helped sustain it. And as Mark wrote above, Nixon's response to the May 1970 upheaval involved a lot of the "White House horrors." Nixon entertained the Huston Plan the following month, and the line to much of the Watergate scandal had begun.

But after students went home for the summer, much of the sixties movement ended. The street fighting largely came to an end, as did much of the mass protests. There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which was the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. But the tragedy of Kent State also sobered a lot of the protesters. So in that sense, I would agree that May 1970 (but not the May 4 killings at Kent State) did signal the beginning of the end of the sixties movement.

Generally speaking, those students who obtain the CCW permits would more than likely line up on the side of the National Guard. It would take a huge political shift to imagine the students who took the classes and paid the money to get their CCW to rise up against the military. I just dont see this as a possibility. It's an interesting scenario, actually a very interesting scenario, but just not very probable. Assuming something like that did happen, what do you suppose would be the fallout? Would the public rise up against pistol? Against the students? The National Guard? I would have to think if it got to the point where American citizens were engaged in a gun battle against the government as represented by the National Guard (who are the same age and from the same community) then the Government is in serious trouble.

Interestingly enough, there have been a number of events where maniacs/mass-murderers with guns were apprehended by armed students and teachers.

And statistics are very clear about what is safer - armed populaces are much safer than unarmed ones. Crime rates in England skyrocketed after civilians lost the right to bear arms. The inverse is proved true here in the states too, towns wich adopt progressive carry-concealed laws experience significant drops in crime.

It might also be good to remember that usually the first thing a dictatorship does is take away the arms, the better to corrall and kill the ones that must be done away with.

Disarming the 25,000 people at VT set them up for slaughter, in my humble opinion.