The police in Vegas stated that the noise was what led them to him, from guests reports and their own ears. When they got to the 32nd floor he stopped firing. Are the two events linked?
“I would like the people rescuing me not to suffer hearing damage.” I suspect your preferences would change in the light of a real event.
Depends on who’s shooting. If you’re going to talk about the population as a whole, good luck with that. But we are talking about one guy, just one. Right? We’re not going to set up fantasy matches between our favorite shooters are we?
It is logical to say that he killed more with a modified weapon, (by shooting into a massed crowd of 22,000) than he would have without.
Now what was your “good logic” to drive out the bad?
If firing into a crowd, if you miss one person, what do you hit?
You suspect wrong. I am 100% certain that I would not wish ill on my rescuers!
What the Hell are you arguing?
Never mind.
Of 5 people, you hit 2 in the arm 1 in the leg 1 in the torso and 1 in the head…maybe 1 dies. Or, you get 4 of 5 head shots and the bullets go through the victims to wound others.
We don’t know which guns he used and how many rounds he fired from each. So, until the facts are in…
That’s an idea. 
But without taking a definitive position on the importance of rate of fire, we do know (or are told as of now) the gunfire went on for something like 10 minutes. This would imply a very different target at the end than the beginning and a big difference in the hit rate as time went on. A large % of the rounds fired in the later minutes, if still ersatz automatic, would seem likely to have just hit by then empty ground or already dead victims, and a small % hit wounded but still living victims or entirely new victims still lying in the open or behind concealment that didn’t provide cover (ie would not stop a bullet).
In military use the benefit of fully automatic rifles, not machine guns steadied on the ground by bipods or tripods, is not universally recognized. The consensus is that full auto fire from weapons lighter than machine guns isn’t usually useful. The debate is whether the cases where it is useful outweigh the cases where it’s worse than useless, and whether to let soldiers make that decision case by case. As exemplified by the move to 3-round burst only capability in the M16A2 v later opposition to that idea, and general lack of its adoption by non-US militaries. But it shows that viewing true full auto fire from ordinary issue rifles as not worthwhile is not a ridiculous position.
In military use. Modern ground combat almost never features crowds of people as targets (massacre atrocities may occur, but aren’t the driver of weapons design), let alone fired on from above. Which is important in that a big argument against full auto hand held weapon fire is inaccuracy in elevation enough to send most of the bullets into the ground short of the target or in the air over it. That’s a lot less a factor firing down from a significant angle on a big area full of people.
Again while waiting for all facts, seems to me more likely than not the ersatz auto fire capability was important in this particular case, since it seems reasonable to assume most of the harm was inflicted near the beginning of a whole 10 minutes of firing.
That’s the first half second. Repeat for the second half second, and then the many seconds after that until the crowd disperses enough that a miss actually hits pavement.
Is your contention that he could have aimed at the crowd from 300 yards away, and hit people in more vital areas?
I don’t think that he had the training for that sort of shot, and that would be if he spent several seconds lining up each and every shot. If he had gone semi-auto, he would have hit exactly the same things he hit with full, just far fewer of them.
a) Gun deaths are not going down, gun deaths are rising.
b) And why do cigarettes have to be ‘first’ - what, we’re incapable of working on two things at a time? Besides, as already shown, we’re making progress on smoking.
We’re not making progress on gun deaths.
From the article:
Still waiting for those CDC studies.
Read further
Dude, even if it was a CDC study - which it’s not - it’s not a study of gun violence, it’s a study of existing research on gun violence and recommendations.
Still waiting.
I’ve heard that the shooter had stopped firing shortly after the hotel security guard had arrived at his hotel door. The shooter was supposed to have fired thru the door and struck the guard in the leg/foot. By the time police had arrived, the shooter had stopped shooting.
I’ve also heard that the room’s smoke detector(s) had been activated by all of the gun smoke. That would have been a pretty good indicator of where the shooter was firing from.
So the noise of a gun is not a significant factor in finding, and neutralizing an invisible long distance shooter? If you want to explain I’m all ears.
…we should not speculate?(!?) …we should replay the deaths in this thread over and over? What is it we should wait for?
I was perfectly clear. If you really were in a situation you would want the police to hear the gunshots and locate them as quickly as possible. And you would not think once of their health.
I thought you said you went into a fugue state when you were shot at. So how are you 100% certain of anything that happens once the automatic weapons start spitting at you?
Wear a hat?
Out of curiosity, who here arguing about gun noise thinks that silencers would actually make the guns make a quiet ‘thwip’ and be undetectable at a distance?
I mean, I’m a bleeding heart liberal who’d be totally down with all guns being banned (via magic, presumably), but even I know that a silencer wouldn’t have made any automatic weapon hard to hear or locate. This isn’t the movies, people. Those things are loud, and silencers aren’t silent.
Speaking as a guy who was in NRA in 1955, and several subsequent decades…
Bolt action rifles (or lever) should be the automatic-est rifles outside military.
5 round max per magazine.
Everyone should be required to carry a gun unless they have a permit not to do so,
issued by local authorities. This would raise the relative index of politeness
amongst the citizenry.
Thank you for reading this.
":<)
But I don’t want to carry a gun! It would be all heavy and stuff and hauling it around would make me tired!
You’re proceeding as if as long as you don’t admit your’re wrong and concede nothing, that means the debate is still unsettled.
Red is not blue. 2+2 does not equal 5. Silencers do not disguise or impede the recognition of automatic fire.
