Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LolThe point, of course, is the number of casualties were limited by the tools he used, in that he chose to use ARs when far more effective weapons were available.Are you trying to prove my point? A guy with not much experience was able to commit the deadliest mass shooting in our history because of the tools he used.44% is pathetic at best...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?
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is
Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.The point, of course, is the number of casualties were limited by the tools he used, in that he chose to use ARs when far more effective weapons were available.Are you trying to prove my point? A guy with not much experience was able to commit the deadliest mass shooting in our history because of the tools he used.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
The vast majority of mass shooters have no experience, they are just crazy.He had plenty of time to shoot a lot more with any firearm... People kill people not firearms.A broken clock is right twice a day, even a bolt action rifle and with center mass shooting, he would have had plenty of time to be much more effective.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.
University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia
Funny the University of Texas shooter didn't killer nearly as many people and it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so. Plus that guy actually had training as he was a Marine.
The LV shooter by contrast didn't have any training and all he had to do was point and shoot. Again, deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history and you guys are arguing he didn't do it very well.
Fucking morons.
Bump stocks are a fucking joke, he could’ve been much more effective with the bolt action with center mass shooting. He had all the Time in the world
Show me another mass shooter who did the same with less fire power and more experience? I'll wait.
LolThe point, of course, is the number of casualties were limited by the tools he used, in that he chose to use ARs when far more effective weapons were available.Are you trying to prove my point? A guy with not much experience was able to commit the deadliest mass shooting in our history because of the tools he used.44% is pathetic at best...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?
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is
Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Actually you don’t understand firearms from what you just said.
True, a pistol would not have been good with the range that involved at the Las Vegas shooting.
the vast majority of mass shootings are in Close quarters, in which a pistol... say a Clock would be much more effective than any rifle.
So? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.The point, of course, is the number of casualties were limited by the tools he used, in that he chose to use ARs when far more effective weapons were available.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
The vast majority of mass shooters have no experience, they are just crazy.He had plenty of time to shoot a lot more with any firearm... People kill people not firearms.A broken clock is right twice a day, even a bolt action rifle and with center mass shooting, he would have had plenty of time to be much more effective.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.
University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia
Funny the University of Texas shooter didn't killer nearly as many people and it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so. Plus that guy actually had training as he was a Marine.
The LV shooter by contrast didn't have any training and all he had to do was point and shoot. Again, deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history and you guys are arguing he didn't do it very well.
Fucking morons.
Bump stocks are a fucking joke, he could’ve been much more effective with the bolt action with center mass shooting. He had all the Time in the world
Show me another mass shooter who did the same with less fire power and more experience? I'll wait.
Pray and spray, Has very little effectiveness. There is a reason why the military dropped full auto and went to three round burst.
So? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
Because he doesn’t know jack shit about firearms… He watches too many movies made by a child molesting Hollywood types.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.The point, of course, is the number of casualties were limited by the tools he used, in that he chose to use ARs when far more effective weapons were available.Are you trying to prove my point? A guy with not much experience was able to commit the deadliest mass shooting in our history because of the tools he used.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weaponsSo? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
Because he doesn’t know jack shit about firearms… He watches too many movies made by a child molesting Hollywood types.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.The point, of course, is the number of casualties were limited by the tools he used, in that he chose to use ARs when far more effective weapons were available.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
And this defines him perfectly...
But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.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.
And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weaponsSo? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.
I still have not seen anything about his mental health condition. All the other shooter have mental health problems why not this guy. I really would like some info on his job and past arrest record.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.
He obviously was crazy, and he had time.... With a bolt action rifleThe vast majority of mass shooters have no experience, they are just crazy.He had plenty of time to shoot a lot more with any firearm... People kill people not firearms.A broken clock is right twice a day, even a bolt action rifle and with center mass shooting, he would have had plenty of time to be much more effective.
University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia
Funny the University of Texas shooter didn't killer nearly as many people and it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so. Plus that guy actually had training as he was a Marine.
The LV shooter by contrast didn't have any training and all he had to do was point and shoot. Again, deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history and you guys are arguing he didn't do it very well.
Fucking morons.
Bump stocks are a fucking joke, he could’ve been much more effective with the bolt action with center mass shooting. He had all the Time in the world
Show me another mass shooter who did the same with less fire power and more experience? I'll wait.
Pray and spray, Has very little effectiveness. There is a reason why the military dropped full auto and went to three round burst.
The example that was brought up, the Texas Tower shooting that guy was a Marine.
But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.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.
To remove the irrelevance.Why did you edit my post?And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weaponsSo? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.
And we're fortunate that he chose his weapon poorly - that is a fact, and the obvious point.The Las Vegas shooting was the largest ever in this country carried out with ARs. That is a fact.
This does not negate what I said.The casualty count is higher than anyone else. He got the high score in other words.But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.
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.So? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons. So?
To remove the irrelevance.Why did you edit my post?And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weaponsSo? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.
And we're fortunate that he chose his weapon poorly - that is a fact, and the obvious point.The Las Vegas shooting was the largest ever in this country carried out with ARs. That is a fact.
For some reason, you disagree.
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.So? How does that negate the points at hand?Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.Why do you disagree that he could have -easily- killed and wounded more people had he chosen a different weapon?I understand it, I just disagree.
Why do you disagree that the fact he chose a less effective weapon means he limited the number casualties he could create?
You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons. So?
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.
