Las Vegas shooting - a point not yet made

[2aguy]

Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? More powerful weapons? What the fuck does that even mean. a .223/5.56 is not a powerful weapon, It’s a cartridge... 22 caliber.
Nothing high powered about it, in fact it’s modestly “”powered”...

Quit listening to the Clinton news network and quit watching movies made by child molesting Hollywood types.

I'm not the one who brought up 'more powerful weapons'. I'm saying the AR was used in the most deadly mass shooting in this country's history as well as many if not most of the runner ups. It's something I don't believe you're compensating for in your argument.

STFU you gun-banning faggot. Evil men are going to do bad things.

^Wingnut closet mating call. I'm not advocating for banning guns, I'm saying the argument presented in the OP is stupid.

If anything, gun regulations should be lessened in America.

We can't be cranking out quasi-state-babies though.

A lot of questions are unanswered about that shooting, people seeing shots coming from different angles n whatnot.

Very strange things. Also, many Filipinos are Muslims.

Here's my conspiracy theory: 2-3 perpetrators had him tied up in a corner while they did the shooting, then shot him and cut him loose and bailed.

There isn't even a whiff of evidence that more than one person is responsible. Jesus, the conspiracies, at what point will you ever say to yourself "How come this stuff never turns out to be true?". Eh, maybe it's the mind controlling fluoride in the water.

Agreed – a truly inane thread premise.

I notice your inability to meaningfully argue against it.
As per the norm.

Here....let me respond as clayton....

post hoc....blah blah blah.......2nd amendment jurisprudence....blah blah blah.....

 

[2aguy]

^Wingnut closet mating call. I'm not advocating for banning guns, I'm saying the argument presented in the OP is stupid.

And yet, you still cannot, with specificity, demonstrate how the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting address, let along negate, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
You know this, of course.

He used multiple ARs, bump stocks and extended clips, what else do you want to know? Are you into this idiotic conspiracy crap too?

And yet, you STILLcannot, with specificity, demonstrate how the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting address, let along negate, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.

Why do I need to describe with specificity? Seems irrelevant. He did it. I don't think he'd have the same success with a bolt action rifle. Or a handgun. I'm sure you think you could beat his record though nobody else has.

In the time he had a bolt action rifle would have worked to kill more people....he could have used a bigger bullet and actually hit more people with fewer bullets used.........he wouldn't have been firing over the crowd because he wouldn't have been using a bump stock.....

 

[2aguy]

^Wingnut closet mating call. I'm not advocating for banning guns, I'm saying the argument presented in the OP is stupid.

There isn't even a whiff of evidence that more than one person is responsible. Jesus, the conspiracies, at what point will you ever say to yourself "How come this stuff never turns out to be true?". Eh, maybe it's the mind controlling fluoride in the water.

Agreed – a truly inane thread premise.

I notice your inability to meaningfully argue against it.
As per the norm.

C_Clayton_Jones was succinct and to the point....

And, like you, provided absolutely no substance in his response.

I have actually. I've pointed out that there was no evidence of multiple shooters and this guy has killed more people in a mass shooting than anyone else and I don't think with his limited skill he could have done it with just any weapon.

What is the premise of your argument? If you were the mass shooter what would you have done differently that would have created 500 casualties?

He was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people who didn't know they were being shot at.........

He would have killed more people with a bolt action rifle because he wouldn't have wasted bullets with muzzle lift due to the bump stock.

 

[2aguy]

How many people have you managed to murder in a mass shooting? Zero? OK, let me know when you're an expert on the subject, so far you're just a hack.

Why do you refuse to understand that regardless of the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon?

For starters you haven't proven otherwise and I already told you, this guy wasn't a marksman. He was able to use a few ARs, bump stock and extended clips to his advantage and just spray everyone, I don't think he would know how to do anything else. It was very successful, more so than any other mass shooting.

And thus, you further demonstrate your lack of knowledge and understanding of the issue.

Oh, OK. I guess you think he'd do better with no skills and a bolt action rifle. I doubt that.

Its sad how you are so limited in your understanding of the subject that you think his other options were handguns and manually-operated rifles.
You should be embarrassed of your ignorance.

How so? You don't seem to be able to provide any argument except if he used something other than an AR...but you don't go further than that.

If he hadn't used the bump stock, more people would be dead.

And location selection had the biggest effect on the death rate......at Virginia Tech the shooter used 2 pistols and killed 32.... the Vegas shooter firing into a crowd of over 22,000 only killed 58........and Luby's cafe the shooter killed 24 with 2 pistols......

Target location and other factors create more deaths....not weapon type....

The Russian Polytechnic shooter used a 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun and killed 20 injuring 40.....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't really think that would have been that large of a factor.

I believe so, There is the distance of the two windows and the number of shots for someone of this age and also not in perfect health.

Was there something wrong with his trigger finger?

What exactly were his health issues?

During his last months, Paddock reportedly smelled of alcohol from early morning, and appeared despondent. He was reported to have filled three prescriptions for the anti-anxiety drug Valium, in 2013 and again in 2016, and finally 50 tablets of 10-milligrams each in June 2017, four months before the shooting.The chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center said the effects of the drug can be magnified by alcohol

Really? Exactly how does each of those drugs affect physical capabilities? The answer is none, in any way, shape or form.

He was already drinking in the early morning while taking medication for anxiety so his senses were affected by alcohol and the drugs also affected him for sure in his vision when he was supposedly shooting out of the two windows

You think he was so inebriated that he could not see a crowd at a concert venue 1200 feet from his room on the 32nd floor?

How do you know he was taking his meds? Did you watch him take them? Did the toxicology reports say he was incapable of firing weapons?

I have medications that are for three months that have 360 pills. I don't take them all in one day.

 

[HappyJoy]

^Wingnut closet mating call. I'm not advocating for banning guns, I'm saying the argument presented in the OP is stupid.

And yet, you still cannot, with specificity, demonstrate how the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting address, let along negate, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
You know this, of course.

He used multiple ARs, bump stocks and extended clips, what else do you want to know? Are you into this idiotic conspiracy crap too?

And yet, you STILLcannot, with specificity, demonstrate how the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting address, let along negate, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.

Why do I need to describe with specificity? Seems irrelevant. He did it. I don't think he'd have the same success with a bolt action rifle. Or a handgun. I'm sure you think you could beat his record though nobody else has.

In the time he had a bolt action rifle would have worked to kill more people....he could have used a bigger bullet and actually hit more people with fewer bullets used.........he wouldn't have been firing over the crowd because he wouldn't have been using a bump stock.....

Doubt the guy had the skills.

 

[HappyJoy]

How many people have you managed to murder in a mass shooting? Zero? OK, let me know when you're an expert on the subject, so far you're just a hack.

Why do you refuse to understand that regardless of the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon?

For starters you haven't proven otherwise and I already told you, this guy wasn't a marksman. He was able to use a few ARs, bump stock and extended clips to his advantage and just spray everyone, I don't think he would know how to do anything else. It was very successful, more so than any other mass shooting.

And thus, you further demonstrate your lack of knowledge and understanding of the issue.

Oh, OK. I guess you think he'd do better with no skills and a bolt action rifle. I doubt that.

Its sad how you are so limited in your understanding of the subject that you think his other options were handguns and manually-operated rifles.
You should be embarrassed of your ignorance.

How so? You don't seem to be able to provide any argument except if he used something other than an AR...but you don't go further than that.

If he hadn't used the bump stock, more people would be dead.

Based on your opinion? Not good enough. He used a bump stock, several ARs and extended clips to become the most successful mass shooter in our country's history without having any extensive training.

And location selection had the biggest effect on the death rate......at Virginia Tech the shooter used 2 pistols and killed 32.... the Vegas shooter firing into a crowd of over 22,000 only killed 58........and Luby's cafe the shooter killed 24 with 2 pistols......

Yes and he couldn't have accomplished his task without randomly spraying a crowd, sure the venue made a difference, combined with equipment he used.

Target location and other factors create more deaths....not weapon type....

The Russian Polytechnic shooter used a 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun and killed 20 injuring 40.....

It's odd because that weapon type more often than not is used in many if not most of our deadliest mass shootings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you refuse to understand that regardless of the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon?

For starters you haven't proven otherwise....

You refuse to understand the facts I laid out because I haven't disproved those facts?
Wow. Desperate you are.

You should be embarrassed of your ignorance.

How so? You don't seem to be able to provide any argument except if he used something other than an AR...but you don't go further than that.

Allow me to, again, lessen your ignorance.
The shooter had more than $30,000 worth of rifles in his room.
With that amount of money, time and effort, he could have easily bought a water-cooled M1917 machine gun w/ a tripod and fired 4-5 thousand rounds of .30-06 into that crowd in that same 10 minutes.
I shall grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand how significantly this would have increased his casualty count.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The other idiot did and you didn't bother to call out his moronic argument over it.

After you take the time to actually red the OP, report back here with the my argument.
Thanks

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't proved anything. While I can demonstrate that a guy with several ARs, extended clips and bump stocks can commit the largest mass shooting to date.

But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.

Bullshit. Is that what you were going for? That makes no sense.

Sure it does.
He could have easily chose weaponry that would have greatly increased the number of casualties.
Thus, the damage he caused was limited by the weapons he chose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you aim a quarter mile away with no scope?

Add 2.5 minutes elevation.

He could not see that far. You seem unfamiliar with how he sprayed and prayed to hit people. He could no more see his targets than Dolly Parton can see her shoes!

Um...
You think you can't see man-sized targets at 400yds, and hit them with iron sights?
Yes, he sprayed and prayed, but that doesn't mean he couldn't see what he was shooting at.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With specificity, how does the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting address, let along negate, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon?

How many times are you going to post this retarded statement?

It's a question.
How many times will you avoid it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just did. He committed a violent act that killed more people than anyone else has been able to. He couldn't have done it without the weapons he chose.

With specificity, how does the fact an AR was used to create the most casualties in any mass shooting address, let along negate, the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon?

How many times are you going to post this retarded statement?

Yeah, I'm not sure what this guy's deal is.

English must not be your first language.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Based on your opinion? Not good enough. He used a bump stock, several ARs and extended clips to become the most successful mass shooter in our country's history without having any extensive training.

And, had he chosen a more effective platform, he would have created more casualties.
Thus, the number of casualties was limited by his choice of weapon.

 

[Paulie]

He could have used a tripod-mounted gun.

Yes, but if he did shoot from the two broken Windows there is also a distance between the two.

OK, but I'm not sure of your point.

I do not think he could have shoot from one window to another because of his age and also his state of health.

I don't really think that would have been that large of a factor.

I believe so, There is the distance of the two windows and the number of shots for someone of this age and also not in perfect health.

You’ve asked questions that indicate you don’t even understand the AR15 and then you go on to pontificate and opine on how he would’ve been able to handle that weapon. Why don’t you just go research firearms and learn about them yourself? It’s ridiculous that you’re giving opinions on something you’ve clearly indicated you don’t even understand.

 

[Paulie]

The LV shooter fired 1100 rounds, with 480 hits (58 Killed, 422 wounded) for a 43.6% hit rate,
This is impressively low, given the target and distance.

Indeed, the casualties caused by LV shooter were -limited- by the fact he used a number of AR15s with bump stocks - he could have easily killed and wounded significantly more people with a different choice of weapon.

Now, no one knows for sure why this guy did what he did, and what he did made no sense at all - but it is clear, he deliberately chose to buy and use AR15s in lieu of other more effective weapons - weapons he certainly knew about and had access to.

The question: Why?
We'll never know, of course.
But, given what could have happened, we should be thankful he chose his weapons poorly.

I'm not sure I really care about this argument. But for a guy going on his first rampage how did you come to the conclusion that 43.8% is low? Did that include the number of rounds he fired aimlessly through the door of his hotel room?

50% hits on a point target is considered "effective". He fired into a densely-packed group.
I don't know if the 1100 includes the 35 or so he fired through the door; either way, not much changes.

How about for someone who didn't train for this? It's quite odd that you say the deadliest shooting in U.S. history was ineffective. The guy had no military experience, he went to the shooting ranges which in no way is preparation for a mass shooting yet he managed to be better at it than anyone else. Not because he was skilled but because of the tools he had.

Better at it than anyone else? I’m not aware of anyone else firing rifles from an elevated position over an entire concert full of thousands of people, are you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You haven't proved anything. While I can demonstrate that a guy with several ARs, extended clips and bump stocks can commit the largest mass shooting to date.

But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.

Bullshit. Is that what you were going for? That makes no sense.

Sure it does.
He could have easily chose weaponry that would have greatly increased the number of casualties.
Thus, the damage he caused was limited by the weapons he chose.

How would ge get access to that type of weaponry? Care to explain?

That's why your argument is bullshit. You made a claim and failed to provide any support for your asinine logic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How do you aim a quarter mile away with no scope?

Add 2.5 minutes elevation.

He could not see that far. You seem unfamiliar with how he sprayed and prayed to hit people. He could no more see his targets than Dolly Parton can see her shoes!

Um...
You think you can't see man-sized targets at 400yds, and hit them with iron sights?
Yes, he sprayed and prayed, but that doesn't mean he couldn't see what he was shooting at.

You are shooting those man-sized targets in the dark while they are moving?

The stench of bullshit in your posts is overpowering!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't proved anything. While I can demonstrate that a guy with several ARs, extended clips and bump stocks can commit the largest mass shooting to date.

But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.

Bullshit. Is that what you were going for? That makes no sense.

Sure it does.
He could have easily chose weaponry that would have greatly increased the number of casualties.
Thus, the damage he caused was limited by the weapons he chose.

How would ge get access to that type of weaponry? Care to explain?

M1917A1 for sale. 2, actually.
M1919s and M60s, too.
Belt Guns | DealerNFA

That's why your argument is bullshit. You made a claim and failed to provide any support for your asinine logic.

Do I -really- need to explain the capacity of such a weapon to increase the number of casualties in this incident?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you aim a quarter mile away with no scope?

Add 2.5 minutes elevation.

He could not see that far. You seem unfamiliar with how he sprayed and prayed to hit people. He could no more see his targets than Dolly Parton can see her shoes!

Um...
You think you can't see man-sized targets at 400yds, and hit them with iron sights?
Yes, he sprayed and prayed, but that doesn't mean he couldn't see what he was shooting at.

You are shooting those man-sized targets in the dark while they are moving?

The area was lit by the surrounding ambient light, and he was elevated.
There's no reason to think he could not see what he was shooting at.

The stench of bullshit in your posts is overpowering!

I'm sorry you aren't familiar with firearms at the basic level.