Las Vegas shooting - a point not yet made

[HappyJoy]

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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Was there something wrong with his trigger finger?

What exactly were his health issues?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Is walking that difficult?

No, but shooting for 13 minutes (I think) from one window to another, which is kind far away, still needs to be in better shape than Paddock.

How far apart do you think those windows are?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Train at what? Shooting fish in a barrel?
Given the target, how did he get so many misses?

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.

It was, by any standard, nowhere near as deadly as it could have been, not in least part because of the firearms he chose.
He -could- have fired 4-5-6 times as many rounds, and he -could- have chosen 7.62 over 5.56.
But, he -chose- to use ARs. and in doing so, limited the damage..

 

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
Center mass never Occurred to the fucking loser...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Lol
Center mass never Occurred to the fucking loser...

To be fair, he wasn't picking and choosing.

 

[Rustic]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

 

[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.

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

Thanks, snortygore, I appreciate the help.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

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.

 

[Rustic]

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.

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

 

[Rustic]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

Thanks, snortygore, I appreciate the help.

University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia

It has nothing to do with the type of weapon dumbass
He could’ve used any weapon and randomly shot out those windows with the same effect... He had plenty of time

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

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.

Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

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.

Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?

 

[Rustic]

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.

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.

He had plenty of time to shoot a lot more with any firearm... People kill people not firearms.

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

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.

Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?

I understand it, I just disagree.

He killed more people than any other mass shooter, he had next to no experience.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The media slipped up and referred to the country music concert as a "Trump Rally"

What source said this? I never heard it spun this way. It was always the Route 91 Harvest Country Music Festival in every article I read.

The FBI with all it's vast psychological resources couldn't (didn't want to) determine that the shooter was a left winger with a psychological hangup against conservative (mostly) kids.

Oh bullshit.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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.

He had plenty of time to shoot a lot more with any firearm... People kill people not firearms.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

44% is pathetic at best...
He obviously had no idea what center mass even is

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.

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.

Almost all the big mass shootings use ARs. If he used a hand gun he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Why do you refuse to understand the point of this topic?

I understand it, I just disagree.

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?