CDZ I don't know whether Hodgkinson actually sought to kill someone.

[Mr Natural]

If nothing else, he was just an asshole who took his politics a bit too seriously.

No great loss.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

We don't know how much time this guy spent practicing with his riffle. Anyway. Here's the thing. We know very little about the gunman. A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

I agree with you. That is why I wrote the following in the OP:

I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?

I realize you may not have seen the second of those statements because I added it for clarity's sake after having posted the original OP text.

You know what else I may have not seen in your OP? How you define "professional" and your own "professional" status.

I'm a professional, but not the type whereby matters such as the one under discussion in this thread fall within my areas of expertise.

 

[TNHarley]

If this was a trump supporter, would the OP still be the same?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.
why try to downplay it? We have no idea what the motivation was. All we know for sure is that it was terrorism.
Frankly, I am upset you put this malarkey in the CDZ

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.

There is no doubt in my mind the man wanted to hurt someone. My questions have to do with whether he intended to fatally hurt people. That distinction went over your head, it appears.

It's not naive or moronic to not recognize and apply the difference between "hurt" and "kill," but I'm going to leave it to you to figure out just what be the right term for describing what it is. The rest of us already know.

I'm not going to argue semantics. You know dang well what I meant. Quit trying to downplay this lunacy.

There is no need here to argue semantics. In the unmodified version of my OP, I clearly and explicitly called attention to the distinction between "hurt" and "kill."

Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?

Insofar as I did make that distinction, it's not reasonable for anyone to think anything other than that you (1) as I alluded to before, don't know the difference between "hurt" and "kill" or (2) you meant "hurt."

 

[OldLady]

If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it.

The rest of the posters here may have ignored you, but I am pouting. Just so you know.

 

[Compost]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

We don't know how much time this guy spent practicing with his riffle. Anyway. Here's the thing. We know very little about the gunman. A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

I agree with you. That is why I wrote the following in the OP:

I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?

I realize you may not have seen the second of those statements because I added it for clarity's sake after having posted the original OP text.

You know what else I may have not seen in your OP? How you define "professional" and your own "professional" status.

I'm a professional, but not the type whereby matters such as the one under discussion in this thread fall within my areas of expertise.

You didn't answer my questions.

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Good thing he wasn't a good shot. Sometimes the stress of the situation along with Capitol Police returning fire creates erratic shots

 

[TNHarley]

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.
why try to downplay it? We have no idea what the motivation was. All we know for sure is that it was terrorism.
Frankly, I am upset you put this malarkey in the CDZ

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.

There is no doubt in my mind the man wanted to hurt someone. My questions have to do with whether he intended to fatally hurt people. That distinction went over your head, it appears.

It's not naive or moronic to not recognize and apply the difference between "hurt" and "kill," but I'm going to leave it to you to figure out just what be the right term for describing what it is. The rest of us already know.

I'm not going to argue semantics. You know dang well what I meant. Quit trying to downplay this lunacy.

There is no need here to argue semantics. In the unmodified version of my OP, I clearly and explicitly called attention to the distinction between "hurt" and "kill."

Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?

Insofar as I did make that distinction, it's not reasonable for anyone to think anything other than that you (1) as I alluded to before, don't know the difference between "hurt" and "kill" or (2) you meant "hurt."

You are trying to sound so smart that you are being annoying.
Enjoy your downplaying of terrorism. Good day

 

[Pete7469]

Did he intend to kill? Or just hurt people?

Are you fucking kidding?

This is why I encourage liberals to abort their children or just go queer.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

Since the shooter is dead, we may never know.

We may not.

Still I wonder, just how poor a rifleman must one be to shoot 50 odd bullets and kill nobody? That, to me, seems fairly hard to do, unless, of course, one intends to do that.

Well, it's not like the guy was leasurely shooting at a target at a range. It probably did not take long before security personnel were shooting back at him. So many of the shots were probably made without taking good aim. Also, consider the adrenalin rush the shooter must have been experiencing. It makes it much harder to hit a target.

It probably did not take long before security personnel were shooting back at him. So many of the shots were probably made without taking good aim.

I would think that so for the later shots rather than for the earlier ones. [1] How much later? How much earlier? I don't know. That would have a lot to do with a lot of situationally specific details and details about Hodgkinson's arms training and experience, details that I don't have, and that may not be made public.

Recognizing there may forever (for me) be that dearth of information, is part of why my inquiry is about what the behaviors are consistent with a shooter's intending to injure rather than kill, and vice versa. One must know and understand the relevant behavioral theory before examining what of the shooter's observed behaviors align with it and which of them do not. With the theoretical "ideal" behavioral model of killing vs. injuring intentions as the baseline, the question, then, the point of my OP inquiry, can be thought of in terms of how near or far from that baseline are the shooter's behaviors.

I realize that what I'm pursing is a structured approach to obtaining answers to my questions, but that's how do things. I don't, when it's not necessary, answer questions by going with gut feelings based on serendipitously gathered anecdotal information.

Note:

1. As I wrote this, audio (video) of the shots fired came over the news. The first three shots almost certainly seem to have clearly gone unanswered by security and first responders returning fire. The next set of shots, four or so, came in rapid succession, but I cannot tell from what type of weapon they were fired.

consider the adrenalin rush the shooter must have been experiencing.

I did, actually. What came to mind is that adrenaline tends to ameliorate one's performance in high-stress situations by "synchroniz[ing] the mind and body to take on the stresses of the outside world." If anything, that suggests to me that the man was more likely to be a better shot than a worse one.

 

[Stasha_Sz]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

Hi Xelor, I am afraid that your inquiry has a few built in fallacies that render an answer to your satisfaction nearly impossible to give. Firstly, you only want a "professional" to answer. A professional marksman? Those rare birds are generally only found in the serving military. I doubt there are many, if any amongst our posters on USMB. A professional psychiatrist? A psychiatrist would not give an off the cuff opinion on the sanity of a person under any circumstance without a one on one evaluation, not counting again the fact that there are probably none here. The only person that can speak to motivations of the shooter was the shooter himself, and he will shortly be pushing up the daisies. His cookie crumb trail speaks to his desire to kill.

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

Please keep in mind that other than visually, there are very few similarities between a commercial version of either of these weapons and those used on the battlefield.

Both types of weapons were developed as a result of real world feedback regarding the use of individual firearms on the battlefields of WWII. The traditional military rifle, the bolt-action, was a reliable, robust weapon that could theoretically hit targets up to a 1000 meters away. One shot at a time, with a full sized, heavy cartridge. During the war it was discovered that soldiers were not engaging targets at ranges much beyond 300 meters or less. Further it was learned that well aimed single shots were not as effective as volume of fire. The full sized cartridge was in fact too powerful.
Thus the Germans developed the first "assault rifle", the STG44, the grand-daddy of all modern military rifles. Gas operated, special small cartridge, stamped metal components.
The requirements:
1) Portability
2) Volume of fire
3) Ammunition load-out
4) Economy of manufacture
5) Economy of maintenance
6) Accuracy
Please note that these are not in any particular order, indeed, which requirement that was considered the "key" by each designer plays an important part in my conclusions.

The Kalashnikov variants, in true Russian fashion, rely on economy of manufacture and maintenance followed by volume of fire as the main requirements. Accuracy, not so much. They were designed to be operated by illiterate grunts after being drug through the mud and dust for days without cleaning. They make up for lack of accuracy with a greater rate of fire and they fire an heavier round with more ballistic energy. They tend to cause through and through wounds. Russian doctrine: saturate an area with fire, close for the kill. Finally, they are inexpensive.

The Stoner variants are a whole different animal, despite coming from the same requirements. The M16 series call for portability, ammunition load out and accuracy as the most important requirements. The US Army, while agreeing that realistic battlefield ranges were only 300 meters, they still wanted to be able to hit that target at that range. Thus the M16 series were built with tighter tolerances with lighter weight components to fire the smaller round designed for it. They tend to cause more grievous non through and through wounds. US doctrine: destroy the target at a distance. Finally, they are expensive.

Now, both types are commercially available in civilian versions. The AK's are much cheaper than the AR's. One is just as plentiful as the other. The AR is much more portable and a lot more accurate than the AK.

Therefore, presuming the shooter was not a total loon, if all he wanted to do was spray lead without hitting anyone or anything, he would have more likely chosen an AK over the AR. He wanted to hit and kill, thus requiring the more accurate weapon.
Despite Hollywood's enamorment with "assault rifles" hitting and killing anything they are pointed at, hitting a man-sized moving target is no easy thing at any distance. The victims were lucky this man was apparently a poor shot, because his weapon was capable of delivering a body count.

My conclusion: he wanted kills, a lot of them too.

 

[2aguy]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

He was a bad shot, and had never tried to kill human beings before......he picked an open field.....and shot from a distance....unlike the orlando shooter who trapped his victims in a confined space where over penetration would have helped hit more than one person....and where they couldn't get away from him......



Guns are not death rays...you have to aim them and have the mental calm to shoot while under fire, as this guy was when the security detail fired back at him.....

These rifles, with magazines, have been used to murder 167 people.........in 34 years......there are over 8 million of them in private hands......

knives are used to murder 1,500 people every single year.....

 

[2aguy]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

He fired a rifle in the direction of human beings......he had the intent to kill.....

 

[2aguy]

I have to wonder if the OP has ever fired a weapon. 50 shots at how many targets, all moving left, right, diving to the ground. Trying to swing a rifle about, pull the trigger, pick another target, all the while trying to shoot through a chain link fence while walking to his right.

Unless he was professionally trained, it's amazing he actually hit anyone at all.

However, if you have a credible source that suggests he may not have been seeking to kill (this is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the political damage), I'd be willing to read it and entertain their conclusions.

Add into that equation the Whip's security detail was shooting back..........mass public shooter may even practice shooting, they can't practice getting shot at......this is the one aspect that anti-gunners don't understand......armed reponses to mass shooters saves lives...it forces the shooter to divide his attention, and prevents them from shooting well...saving lives......

They are so lucky the Whip was there, had he not been there, no one would have been armed....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Firstly, you only want a "professional" to answer. A professional marksman?

Nope. The kind of professional who can (1) accurately discern what the theme and topic of the OP is and (2) therefore tell that the theme/topic falls into his/her area of expertise. The last sentence of the first bullet point of the OP's preface is sufficient for any professional to know whether their specific expertise is germane to the topic I've presented. I will be able to tell whether their area of professional expertise is germane to the topic, theme, and/or questions based on nature and extent of scholarly theoretical content they note and then apply to the situation under discussion.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A professional psychiatrist? A psychiatrist would not give an off the cuff opinion on the sanity

That's okay for such an individual would also recognize that an "off the cuff opinion on the sanity" of anyone isn't what I requested.

The only person that can speak to motivations of the shooter was the shooter himself, and he will shortly be pushing up the daisies.

Well, that's also okay for that's also not what I solicited.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

I have to finish reading your remarks; however, so I have the correct context in mind, how do either of those two weapons correspond to the description I've thus far seen of the weapon, that being "like an M4?" All that, along with "M16" and "AK family" means to me is:

• Rifle not handgun/pistol
• Semi-automatic or automatic
• Fires bullets at a high velocity compared to some other fire arms.

I'm going to await your reply to the comment above for I don't want to read about AKs and M16s only to later find out that they are materially different from an M4.

 

[Divine Wind]

...I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people....

Dude, I have little doubt Hodgkinson was mentally ill just as I have little doubt he was trying to kill everyone he shot at. Just because he was incompetent doesn't absolve him of attempted murder.

Example, much has been made about the PLO/Hamas/Islamic terrorists kill ratio compared to the IDF's. Sure, a lot more Palestinians have died in retaliation for suicide bombing and rocket attacks on Israel than have been killed in those attacks. It's a matter of competence and efficiency. Still, despite the lopsided death ratio, that doesn't absolve the PLO, Hamas and other terrorists from initiating the attacks in the first place. Hodgkinson repeatedly fired at people, hitting at least four. I strongly doubt he was just trying to warn them to make a political point.

 

[Divine Wind]

That all being said, I believe I can shed a bit of illumination on the thought process of the shooter through his selection of weapons.
There are two main popular types of "assault rifles" available on the market commercially.
1) Kalashnikov types based on the AK family
2) Stoner types based on the M16 family (AR)

I have to finish reading your remarks; however, so I have the correct context in mind, how do either of those two weapons correspond to the description I've thus far seen of the weapon, that being "like an M4?" All that, along with "M16" and "AK family" means to me is:

• Rifle not handgun/pistol
• Semi-automatic or automatic
• Fires bullets at a high velocity compared to some other fire arms.

I'm going to await your reply to the comment above for I don't want to read about AKs and M16s only to later find out that they are materially different from an M4.

An M4 is a variation of the M-16/AR-15. Same round, same mechanism, many similar parts, but a shorter configuration such as a shorter barrel and a collapsible stock. To quote Hillary Clinton "What difference does it make?"

M4 carbine - Wikipedia
The M4 carbine is a shorter and lighter variant of the M16A2 assault rifle. The M4 is a 5.56×45mm NATO, air-cooled, direct impingement gas-operated, magazine-fed carbine. It has a 14.5 in (370 mm) barrel and a telescoping stock.

 

[Iceweasel]

He always had the option to stay at home and continue his leftist hate on social media but tell the victims and cops he didn't want to kill. I guess they are guilty of murder then.