Las Vegas shooting - a point not yet made

[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.

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.

Lol
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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had. Whether there are weapons that could do even more damage does not bolster a case against an AWB. Btw which is something I'm not for but I choose at least to live in realty.

 

[Rustic]

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.

The vast majority of mass shooters have no experience, they are just crazy.

Pray and spray, Has very little effectiveness. There is a reason why the military dropped full auto and went to three round burst.

 

[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.

Lol
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.

Neat. Now if you want to point me to another mass shooting in this country who killed more people not using an AR and had more experience than the novice this guy was that would be great. I'll wait.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

The vast majority of mass shooters have no experience, they are just crazy.

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons. So?

 

[Rustic]

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?

Because he doesn’t know jack shit about firearms… He watches too many movies made by a child molesting Hollywood types.

And this defines him perfectly...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons

And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

Because he doesn’t know jack shit about firearms… He watches too many movies made by a child molesting Hollywood types.

And this defines him perfectly...

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You haven't proved anything. While I can demonstrate that a guy with several ARs, extended clips and bump stocks can commit the largest mass shooting to date.

But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons

And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.

Why did you edit my post?

The Las Vegas shooting was the largest ever in this country carried out with ARs. That is a fact.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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 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.

 

[Rustic]

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.

The vast majority of mass shooters have no experience, they are just crazy.

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.

He obviously was crazy, and he had time.... With a bolt action rifle

 

[HappyJoy]

You haven't proved anything. While I can demonstrate that a guy with several ARs, extended clips and bump stocks can commit the largest mass shooting to date.

But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.

The casualty count is higher than anyone else. He got the high score in other words. The AR was used in the country's worst mass shooting to date and several others that rank very high as well. Because there might be something more effective is kind of irrelevant other than to say whoever is in favor of an AWB would probably want to ban those weapons as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons

And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.

Why did you edit my post?

To remove the irrelevance.

The Las Vegas shooting was the largest ever in this country carried out with ARs. That is a fact.

And we're fortunate that he chose his weapon poorly - that is a fact, and the obvious point.
For some reason, you disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But limited his casualty count by his choice of weapon.

The casualty count is higher than anyone else. He got the high score in other words.

This does not negate what I said.

 

[Rustic]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons. So?

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.
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.

 

[HappyJoy]

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons

And, in choosing a less effective weapon, he chose to limit the casualties he could create.
See? I knew you'd eventually get it.

Why did you edit my post?

To remove the irrelevance.

The Las Vegas shooting was the largest ever in this country carried out with ARs. That is a fact.

And we're fortunate that he chose his weapon poorly - that is a fact, and the obvious point.
For some reason, you disagree.

I don't call the most prolific mass shooting to be fortunate, especially by those who were the victims. If you don't want to ban ARs that's fine but to attempt to reduce the tragic event to "it could have been worse" isn't going to win you any awards.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

Because he committed the biggest mass shooting with the multiple weapons that he had.

So? How does that negate the points at hand?

You really haven't made a point other than to say there are more powerful weapons. So?

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.
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.

I'm not the one who brought up 'more powerful weapons'. I'm saying the AR was used in the most deadly mass shooting in this country's history as well as many if not most of the runner ups. It's something I don't believe you're compensating for in your argument.