Las Vegas shooting - a point not yet made

[Dalia]

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.

I did not know that I had to ask your permission to ask a question? and you are wrong, I said that Paddock had health problems and that he would have had trouble getting from one window to another (if he did drink and took medication). as I said in one of my posts that you could read, he drank and was on medication and no Admiral Rockwell Tory, I was not there to see if he had really taken his medicine

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

I did not know that I had to ask your permission to ask a question? and you are wrong, I said that Paddock had health problems and that he would have had trouble getting from one window to another (if he did drink and took medication). as I said in one of my posts that you could read, he drank and was on medication and no Admiral Rockwell Tory, I was not there to see if he had really taken his medicine

How do you know? He obviously was capable enough.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

$22k? Looks heavy. He apparently didn't need to spend that much. You're point still smacks right into the fact that what he did was worse than anyone else before him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

$22k? Looks heavy. He apparently didn't need to spend that much.

He spent $30k or more on the guns he had, and they weighed more.

You're point still smacks right into the fact that what he did was worse than anyone else before him.

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

$22k? Looks heavy. He apparently didn't need to spend that much.

He spent $30k or more on the guns he had, and they weighed more.

He used multiple windows, was this old man supposed to haul around a 30 + lb weapon back and forth while also defending his hotel room door with a weapon he would have been unfamiliar with?

You're point still smacks right into the fact that what he did was worse than anyone else before him.

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

How do you know this? You're not an expert on what weapons can do in the hands of people with various skill levels in a mass shooting.

The only fact we have is that he used ARs, bump stocks and extended clips to become the deadliest mass shooter in U.S. history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He spent $30k or more on the guns he had, and they weighed more.

He used multiple windows...

He didn't need to. A single 1917, on a tripod, from one window, is all he needed.

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

How do you know this?.

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.
Do I need to explain to you how this would significantly increased his casualty count?

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[HappyJoy]

He spent $30k or more on the guns he had, and they weighed more.

He used multiple windows...

He didn't need to. A single 1917, on a tripod, from one window, is all he needed.

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

How do you know this?.

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.
Do I need to explain to you how this would significantly increased his casualty count?

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

He spent $30k or more on the guns he had, and they weighed more.

He used multiple windows...

He didn't need to. A single 1917, on a tripod, from one window, is all he needed.

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

How do you know this?.

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.
Do I need to explain to you how this would significantly increased his casualty count?

Fact remains: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

Editing my posts again? You're not an expert. What were the views he had between the two windows? How about the door? How about the fact that this guy did more than anyone else and you're trying to explain he wasn't successful. The high body count says otherwise and you haven't presented an argument to get past that.

 

[2aguy]

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.

What skill do you have to have to shoot into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people in a surprise attack, from a concealed position with the concert hiding the sound of your shooting?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Editing my posts again?

Fact:
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.
Why do you refuse to understand how this would significantly increase his casualty count?
Fact:
The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[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.

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.

Wrong...hand guns are the most popular gun for mass shooters, not rifles.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

What skill do you have to have to shoot into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people in a surprise attack, from a concealed position with the concert hiding the sound of your shooting?

I don't. Neither do either of you as you've never done it. I go off the end result. 1 guy, multiple ARs, bump stocks and extended clips killed more people in a mass shooting than anyone else in this country. If his desire was to kill people he was more successful than anyone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What skill do you have to have to shoot into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people in a surprise attack, from a concealed position with the concert hiding the sound of your shooting?

Leave him be - he has 2 days to get is talking point quota in and he's WAY behind.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong...hand guns are the most popular gun for mass shooters, not rifles.

Deadliest mass shootings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1 guy, multiple ARs, bump stocks and extended clips killed more people in a mass shooting than anyone else in this country. If his desire was to kill people he was more successful than anyone else.

None of this changes the fact the number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[2aguy]

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.

You just need the right paperwork and you can get that weapon....since he obviously didn't have a criminal background that would pinged and would keep him from getting one, since he obviously had the time and the money.

 

[HappyJoy]

What skill do you have to have to shoot into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people in a surprise attack, from a concealed position with the concert hiding the sound of your shooting?

Leave him be - he has 2 days to get is talking point quota in and he's WAY behind.

You haven't presented an argument other than trying to tell us the guy who was responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history used ineffective tools. The end result defies you. Other than implying you're some sort of expert on the topic (you're not) doesn't add anything.

 

[HappyJoy]

Editing my posts again?

Fact:
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.
Why do you refuse to understand how this would significantly increase his casualty count?
Fact:
The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

Fact, he didn't need to.

 

[2aguy]

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!

You just have to fire into the crowd without the muzzle raising because of the bump stock....simply firing semi-auto would do the trick........all of your rounds would hit the crowd, none would rise over and miss the concert area.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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.

Wrong...hand guns are the most popular gun for mass shooters, not rifles.

Deadliest mass shootings.

One.... 58....

32, Virginia Tech... 2 pistols. More than parkland and sandy hook

24, Luby's Cafe, 2 pistols..... more than parkland, 2 less than sandy hook...

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What skill do you have to have to shoot into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people in a surprise attack, from a concealed position with the concert hiding the sound of your shooting?

Leave him be - he has 2 days to get is talking point quota in and he's WAY behind.

You haven't presented an argument...

And now, you've moved from talking points to outright lies.

Fact: The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
Why do you refuse to understand this?