Las Vegas shooting - a point not yet made

[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?

Fact, he didn't need to.

I'm sorry - you didn't address the questions I aksed.
I'll put them in bold so you don't miss them this time

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?

Well?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You just have to fire into the crowd without the muzzle raising because of the bump stock....

A little rigging will keep the muzzle from rising.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.


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.

1. Las Vegas, NV - 58 killed (400 + wounded by gunfire)
2. Orlando, FL - 49 killed (53 wounded)
4. Sutherland Springs, TX - 26 killed (20 wounded)
5. Sandy Hook, CT - 26 killed (2 wounded)


4 out of the top 5 were committed with ARs. I guess I was right, gee, how did that happen? They are also on average more recent than your 2 examples.

 

[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...

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?

I haven't lied. And that's not a fact, that's an opinion. He used the guns he was somewhat at least comfortable with and he did it without any training.

 

[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.

I'm sorry - you didn't address the questions I aksed.
I'll put them in bold so you don't miss them this time

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?

Because the question is irrelevant. I'm not arguing there aren't more effective means, I'm saying the means were effective enough to make him the most prolific mass shooter in U.S. history. Somehow you think that negates an argument for an AWB, It doesn't at all. It's like saying cherry bombs should be legal because of grenades.

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

Well?

He could have chose a hand gun or a pump action shot gun, he didn't. He chose weapons that got the job done well enough to put him on top of the heap.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes.....he had to fire into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, firing from surprise and concealment.....vs Virginia tech 32 killed with 2 pistols.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Yes.....he had to fire into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, firing from surprise and concealment.....vs Virginia tech 32 killed with 2 pistols.

Yeah, I guess we can assume that an AR shooting into a crowd of people is more deadly than some little shit creeping around a college campus with two pistols. That's a great argument to use against an AWB, idiot.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I'm sorry - you didn't address the questions I aksed.
I'll put them in bold so you don't miss them this time

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?

Because the question is irrelevant. I'm not arguing there aren't more effective means, I'm saying the means were effective enough to make him the most prolific mass shooter in U.S. history. Somehow you think that negates an argument for an AWB, It doesn't at all. It's like saying cherry bombs should be legal because of grenades.

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

Well?

He could have chose a hand gun or a pump action shot gun, he didn't. He chose weapons that got the job done well enough to put him on top of the heap.

The Assault weapon ban is stupid....does nothing to save lives. Again, they will kill 20 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun., injured 40....so he could have killed more...... could have killed more with better location choice...

Virginia Tech, 32 killed with 2 pistols....

Luby's Cafe 24 killed with 2 pistols....

The only reason Vegas was worse was he learned from the ones from before, hence shooting into a crowd that size and from that location....

 

[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?

I haven't lied.

The above state is another lie; the first lie is that I have not presented an argument.

And that's not a fact, that's an opinion.

Another lie, as both of my statements...
- 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.
- The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
...are indeed facts

All you have are lies and talking points.

 

[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.

I'm sorry - you didn't address the questions I aksed.
I'll put them in bold so you don't miss them this time

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?

Because the question is irrelevant. I'm not arguing there aren't more effective means, I'm saying the means were effective enough to make him the most prolific mass shooter in U.S. history. Somehow you think that negates an argument for an AWB, It doesn't at all. It's like saying cherry bombs should be legal because of grenades.

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

Well?

He could have chose a hand gun or a pump action shot gun, he didn't. He chose weapons that got the job done well enough to put him on top of the heap.

The Assault weapon ban is stupid....does nothing to save lives. Again, they will kill 20 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun., injured 40....so he could have killed more...... could have killed more with better location choice...

Virginia Tech, 32 killed with 2 pistols....

Luby's Cafe 24 killed with 2 pistols....

The only reason Vegas was worse was he learned from the ones from before, hence shooting into a crowd that size and from that location....

I'm not defending or promoting an AWB, I'm saying the moronic argument in the OP is lame and misses the mark. Where as you two will argue anything no matter how stupid it is to protect your interests. In other words you'll lie to make a point.

 

[2aguy]

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

Yes.....he had to fire into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, firing from surprise and concealment.....vs Virginia tech 32 killed with 2 pistols.

Yeah, I guess we can assume that an AR shooting into a crowd of people is more deadly than some little shit creeping around a college campus with two pistols. That's a great argument to use against an AWB, idiot.

Hey, shit stain, you don't know what you are talking about...the 5 shot, pump action shotgun, killed 20, the guy with the rifle at Gilroy only 3, and parkland, with a rifle 18....you shit pile...... you don't know what you are talking about....32 killed with 2 pistols in Virginia Tech....24 at Luby's Cafe with 2 pistols.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because the question is irrelevant...

All you have are lies and talking points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not defending or promoting an AWB...

All you have are lies and talking points.

 

[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...

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?

I haven't lied.

The above state is another lie; the first lie is that I have not presented an argument.

And that's not a fact, that's an opinion.

Another lie, as both of my statements...
- 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.
- The number of casualties he created was limited by his choice of weapon.
...are indeed facts

All you have are lies and talking points.

You haven't presented an argument. Or at least not a good one given the outcome of the Las Vegas shooting. "It could have been worse" in the face of the country's deadliest mass shooting is something I would hardly call an argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't presented an argument.

Another lie.
All you have are lies and talking points.

 

[HappyJoy]

$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.

Yes.....he had to fire into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, firing from surprise and concealment.....vs Virginia tech 32 killed with 2 pistols.

Yeah, I guess we can assume that an AR shooting into a crowd of people is more deadly than some little shit creeping around a college campus with two pistols. That's a great argument to use against an AWB, idiot.

Hey, shit stain, you don't know what you are talking about...the 5 shot, pump action shotgun, killed 20, the guy with the rifle at Gilroy only 3, and parkland, with a rifle 18....you shit pile...... you don't know what you are talking about....32 killed with 2 pistols in Virginia Tech....24 at Luby's Cafe with 2 pistols.....

From what distance was that shotgun used? Do you think it would have been that effective from the 32nd floor? No? Thanks.

You can argue guns used. The AR is responsible for 4 out of the 5 with the highest casulty count.

 

[2aguy]

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.

And you say it was the weapon....I say it was the location of the attack.......

He had 22,000 people...tightly packed...and he only killed 58....

At Virginia Tech the shooter had to run around and still managed to kill 32 with 2 pistols........

You don't understand the issue.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm not defending or promoting an AWB...

All you have are lies and talking points.

Haven't lied once.

 

[2aguy]

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?

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.

Yes.....he had to fire into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, firing from surprise and concealment.....vs Virginia tech 32 killed with 2 pistols.

Yeah, I guess we can assume that an AR shooting into a crowd of people is more deadly than some little shit creeping around a college campus with two pistols. That's a great argument to use against an AWB, idiot.

Hey, shit stain, you don't know what you are talking about...the 5 shot, pump action shotgun, killed 20, the guy with the rifle at Gilroy only 3, and parkland, with a rifle 18....you shit pile...... you don't know what you are talking about....32 killed with 2 pistols in Virginia Tech....24 at Luby's Cafe with 2 pistols.....

From what distance was that shotgun used? Do you think it would have been that effective from the 32nd floor? No? Thanks.

You can argue guns used. The AR is responsible for 4 out of the 5 with the highest casulty count.

No, dip shit...... the weapon isn't the issue.....the location is....the shotgun shooter picked the location for his attack......

Had the shooter in Vegas used a bolt action rifle, he could have killed more....since none of his shots would have gone over the crowd into the empty field....and the slower shooting would not have drawn the attention of the crowd the way the bump stock fire did, causing them to scatter....

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not defending or promoting an AWB...

All you have are lies and talking points.

Haven't lied once.

That's the -5th- lie, just on this page.
But then, you have are lies and talking points.