Oh please. The wording was put in like that because they had to keep up appearances. "Absolutely no research into anything related to gun violence or gun safety’ would have been too obvious.
In the real world, where the adults live, we realize the actual result the amendment has had is to stifle any and all gun violence research. As noted - even the author of the amendment regrets it - are you saying he regrets limiting research that promotes gun control? Because that would be…odd.
I think you’re missing another element to this, which is that the shooter in this case wasn’t a trained killer and wasn’t necessarily a marksman. Remember: the shooter planned this scenario, right down to the weaponry he used to murder and maim – and let’s not overlook the maiming part of this massacre, which is just as traumatic. If nothing else, fully-automatic, as opposed to semi-automatic firearms, enabled him to hit more targets in a shorter amount of time. He was able to squeeze off more rounds before anyone even realized that they were being hit with real bullets. He also knew that it maximized his chances of inflicting injury and death before security and police manpower moved in on him.
See, this is why your argument is absurd: It’s not just iiandyiii who disagrees with your assessment; Stephen Paddock did as well. He knew he wasn’t a marksman. He didn’t want to waste precious time trying to aim at people, knowing that his adrenaline or lack of expertise might make him miss and waste precious time. He wanted to unleash as much fury in as little time as possible. He knew that even once people realized that there was a gunman, there would still be thousands upon thousands of targets in motion, which again makes a fully-automated weapon the weapon of choice, as it’s kind of common sense that running targets are harder to aim at.
And you are completely ignoring the information I provided and responding as if a silencer works like in a movie. It doesn’t.
I’m not going to repost everything I wrote. The net effect is the silencer would not have changed the audible level of the shots for anyone in the target area. If you want to dispute that, go ahead, but please don’t ignore it and just repeat yourself like it wasn’t said.
Wtf, man? I’ve been arguing that an automatic makes a huge difference. I’ve been arguing that autos and even semi auto rifles should be banned. Why are you suggesting that I am saying they make no difference?
A silencer will have negligible effect on anyone downrange of the weapon. You have a real misconception of what they do and how they work. I’ve explained it, and the physics behind it and why it works that way. There’s tons of video and info, some of which I believe has been linked to. To insist that a silencer is going to stop someone down range from being able to identify gunfire as such, at this point is ridiculous. If you want to dispute it, be my guest. provide evidence. Stop pretending silencers do something they don’t
Except those 2013 and 2015 as studies, right?
Huh. You are right that I didn’t understand the video, but not the content,m but rather, why it started about 15 seconds earlier than I bookmarked it at, so I apologize. She does fire off a few 3 round bursts, but in about 15 seconds, she goes directly to exactly as you call it “rip and pray”. Try watching the video for a few more seconds before telling me I don’t know what I am looking at.
A little bit later in the video, she is repeating the performance, playing with settings on the stock, and on the last, she even says “Full Auto” before ripping away.
Now, the video that you showed me is labeled as the world’s fastest shooter. I don’t know if that claim is accurate, but it was your video, so if you doubt your own cite, you tell me. And he gets 5 rounds a second. You claim to be able to beat that. His accuracy is pretty poor too. You see how wide the grouping is on his target maybe 15 feet away?
I have walked you through this a couple of times, I even showed you my math, which you clearly ignored, when you said, "As I’m sure you’ve already worked out for yourself, my 1000 rounds in 9 minutes is actually a bit less than 2 rounds a second. " you proved that you don’t actually read my post, as I specifically broke it down in that post as 1.85 rounds per second.
You can’t claim that I didn’t explain myself well, when you prove that you didn’t read my post.
The last 7 minutes of his spree didn’t matter, maybe not even the last 8. It was the first minute, and really first 30 seconds where most of the damage was done. After that was just hitting the occasional target of opportunity.
Those first few seconds though, those were critical for increasing the body count. You are making an erroneous assumption that the carnage was evenly distributed over the 9 minutes. That just as many people were being shot at 8 minutes, 30 seconds, after people had run to cover, dispersed, and made themselves harder targets as it was in the first 30 seconds when it was just one big mass of people. Probably 75% of the casualties were in the first 30 seconds. If he had a lower rate of fire while the crowd was still at its optimal density, he would have fired fewer rounds, and killed fewer people.
I don’t know why you go on about accuracy. What do you think he was aiming at? You think he was aiming at individual people? No, he pointed the gun into the center of the group. Having a dozen foot or more grouping at that range in that situation is a feature, not a bug.
You claim that he could have beaten the world’s fastest ar-15 shooter (according to your video) by a factor of 3, while aiming accurately through a scope. That’s unrealistic. And really, at those distances, with the level of training that he likely had, even single aimed shots with a scope were very likely to miss for a stationary target. A moving target, as they crowd would be after the first few moments of panic and confusion, very unlikely to hit.
You are claiming that a person can select a target, aim at the target, and fire accurately enough to hit the target hundreds of yards away twice a second sustained for 9 minutes, including clip changes, checking on the door camera.
You say you kinda suck, but you also claim that you can hit 50% (I assume man size) of targets that you aim at from hundreds of years away while sustaining an average of 2 rounds a second over 9 minutes.
I’d say that you should sign up for sniper school. Not as a student, as a teacher.
I did walk you through it, but you proved that you didn’t actually read my post, so I don’t know what else to do there. Claiming that I don’t understand a video, when it is obvious that you didn’t watch more than a few seconds of it makes no sense. If you had stayed a bit longer, as I said, you would have even seen her claim it was “full-auto” as she fired it off.
Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me a “tyro”. Now, I will admit that I have no experience firing at full auto. I have mostly fired handguns and bolt action rifles. I did once fire a dozen rounds out of a friend’s SKS once, semi-auto, obviously. But, even if I had the capability of full auto, I am way to economically conscious to pull a trigger that costs several dollars a second, so in that respect, maybe I am not as versed, but I do not see how you get to the concept that I have no idea what I am talking about, especially when you prove that you don’t actually read what I wrote.
You want me to “walk your through” some “legislature” (legislation, you mean?). Make bump stocks illegal. It’s not that hard a concept, and it was what I tried walking you through previously, but you went off on your tirade on how bump stocks don’t have any effect whatsoever, and in fact may even be a detriment to the goal of killing as many in a crowd as possible. Now, can people still make them? Sure. Is there a glut on them because this latest shooting acted as an advertisement for them? Yep. But, if they are illegal, then at least people can’t go walking around with them all day. If anyone had seen this guy’s guns, there would not have been a thing to do about them. Making Ar-15s and other rifles like it harder to get ahold of would put another obstacle in front of our next would be spree shooter.
Right now, I can walk into a gun store, and buy everything that this guy had. I could replicate everything he did without breaking or bending a single law up until the moment I pull the trigger. Putting barriers in the way of someone following his roadmap would make it less likely for this sort of thing to happen again.
I do concentrate on spree killings to a large extent, as that is the form of gun violence that is most likely to impact me. I don’t know or associate with any criminals, I live in a relatively safe area, I’m pretty stable mentally, so I don’t think suicide is likely anytime soon. I do occasionally (though not much in the last few years), go to concerts and hockey games. I go to my niece’s and nephew’s sports games. I was even thinking of attending a football game this year specifically so that I could kneel for the anthem. All of these are places that would be targeted by a spree shooter. So, the most likely way for me or someone I love to get a bullet involuntarily embedded into our bodies is because of a spree shooter like this.
By all means, please point me to those CDC studies on gun violence.
I’m just trying to see where you are coming from. You say that you and some 'dopers did some calculations. Could you elaborate? By your own figures you can fire a semi-automatic around 120-150 rounds per minute. In the first minute when the crowd is essentially just standing there what did you figure your hit percentage would be? In the second minute with the crowd just starting to panic and bumping into each other, what did you figure your hit percentage would be? In the following minutes, with the crowd bumping into itself, with people down on the ground, with others trying to help, what did you figure your hit percentage would be? I don’t see how any reasonable working of the numbers comes out at 1/3 the hits, which is what you claimed unless I read you wrong. In your first minute, assuming you hit 100 people (which seems reasonable to me), and assuming even half of those hits someone else you are nearly at 1/3. So, I’m trying to see what possible assumptions you are making.
I don’t mind being wrong. Perhaps I’ve overstated things. But thus far all I’ve seen is people telling me I’m wrong and, frankly, not backing that up with anything. Automatic weapons fire from those sorts of ranges is just not effective, even against a crowd. They are good for one thing at those ranges, suppression. My guess is if this guy really was firing at full auto they are finding bullets in buildings, in cars and all over the place.
No, he wasn’t a trained killer or trained professional. He was an amature. Which is why he made the same mistake most of you who are arguing this are making. He THOUGHT (probably based on his vast experience watching Rambo movies) that an automatic weapon would be ideal. He THOUGHT that it would be all about rate of fire. But he was 300 yards away with a gun that was modified to shoot something like full auto. Even a gun DESIGNED to shoot full auto is going to be wild at those ranges. Bullets are literally going to fly in every direction, ESPECIALLY IF THE GUY HAD NO TRAINING. Now, the converse. He wasn’t a marksman. Granted. But he wasn’t trying to snipe one person. He was shooting into a crowd. Aimed fire where the majority of the bullets are actually going into the crowd is going to be MUCH more effective than bullets sprayed in every direction. The video I linked to had a guy who was a pistol expert. He admitted he wasn’t a rifle guy. He was firing at 6 rounds per second and consistently hitting a target. If you made that target a barn, say, I’m pretty confident I, someone who is definitely not an expert, could hit it 70-80% of the time with a rate of fire of 3-4 rounds per second, including magazine swaps. So, think about the numbers. In the first minute, maybe the first two he’d have been shooting down into masses of people who were at first just standing there, and they were milling around, they were panicked and bumping into each other in large groups as they tried to flee. This would be after he could have potentially fired something like 400 rounds down range. Many of those bullets would have gone through multiple people. This is almost certainly what they are going to find with the actual shooting. Meaning this guy missed a hell of a lot of shots, assuming he was firing at full auto for the whole 9 minutes.
Could our theoretical shooter using just stock guns have done as much damage? I think yes…in fact, I think he would have been more effective. Maybe he would have been slightly less (I don’t think so, but fuck it, this isn’t what I wanted this thread to be about). But he wouldn’t have been a lot less effective. Those early shots especially would have been VERY effective, with a fairly high rate of fire and directed right at the crowd instead of sprayed all over the place. The point of all f this is that it wouldn’t have stopped Vegas. MAYBE it would have meant that instead of 500 people wounded it would have ‘only’ been 400. But maybe the death toll would have been higher if he’d had more concentrated aimed fire as well. When you are just spraying bullets they are going to hit more or less randomly at 300 yards. When you are aiming, even if you don’t know what you are doing they are going to go in more or less the direction you are pointing at and they are all mostly going to go that way.
At any rate, I’m done. If you guys want to continue this feel free. I’ll look at your replies, especially Scylla’s if he goes into his calculations as I’m really curious how that works out, but I’m done with this. I’m tired of people telling me I’m wrong, tired of this whole discussion that I never looked for in this thread and just, well tired.
So, an amateur* shooting at a crowd of 20,000+ people like shooting fish in a barrel would be *more *dangerous firing fewer bullets?
This.
*Is ‘amature’ an actual word? I’ve seen it recently. I hope I haven’t been misspelling amateur all these years…
XT:
Talking about how to most efficiently kill a crowd of people is uncomfortable for me. I do it once, to make sure I understand what happened and I’m not drawing false conclusions. Harping on it or going over it again and again doesn’t feel good to me. The difference is between squirt guns and fire hoses. Yes, there are some additional subtleties involved, but they don’t begin to overcome the inherent gap between the two.
Going over it again feels icky and disrespectful of the tragedy to me. To me. That’s no reflection on anyone else who’s still trying to understand or work it out. I’m sorry to leave you hanging on this.
Yeah, it hasn’t exactly filled me with joy either. More like makes me feel ill. When a bunch of people gang up on me and say I"m wrong, I’m clueless, I’m all the other things that were said in this thread it sort of riles me up, especially when they offer nothing to prove that. If you want to drop this, I’ve already dropped it. I don’t feel you’ve made a case at all, nor most of the others, you and they obviously disagree. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that I didn’t put the first paragraph in and go from there.
I didn’t use spell checker. 
To answer your question, yes. Firing more shots doesn’t matter if you get less hits. Now, can we drop this? You don’t have to agree (you almost certainly don’t), and you don’t have to even understand the logic if you don’t want to. Let’s just move on or let the thread die or be moved to the Pit so you all can REALLY say what an idiot you think I am. Anything but continuing this discussion.
XT:
You’ve made a lot of good points. No reason to get hung up on the contentious one.
At least no one called you a “tyro”. I am sorry you feel that way, even though doing a ctrl-f returns 0 results for the word “clueless” in this thread. (Well, 1 now[or even 2].)
The noise a gun makes during an event like this provides vital information, for police and possible victims. It shouldn’t be mitigated in any way at all.
Are you OK with your attacker having a silencer simply because you know you will hear the shot just as loud? What about everybody else trying to save your life? What do they hear?
You are speaking like a gun industry shill on the topic of the automation of gunfire. “What does it really matter anyway?” How can you be taken seriously? Your “logic” is shiftier than sand.
Any bad actor will do more damage with more bullets, rather than less, given that he is the same person with the same abilities. You are really arguing about different people at different times. Which is impossible.
Here is the 2013 study Handguns, suicides, mass shootings deaths, and self-defense: Findings from a research report on gun violence. ill let you find the 2015 one yourself if you have time between looking for spelling errors.
Bad logic. More bullets/less accuracy is less dangerous than fewer bullets/greater accuracy.
I am not ok with being attacked but I don’t care about a silencer. Everyone concerned will unmistakably hear gunfire. Some people close by will be less likely to suffer hearing damage. I would like the people rescuing me not to suffer hearing damage.
Sure it is going down, but so are gun deaths. In any case, still, ten times as many people die from tobacco as guns.
So if you really care about people dying, lets ban smoking first. It has no Constitutional protection, and less people smoke than own guns.