njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 2:13 pm
I’m not a hunter. The point I was trying to make is what type of gun had he borrowed in the past from his father? If only the AR, then if he asked for the hunting rifle that day, that might have raised suspicions. If he regularly borrowed both, then perhaps it wouldn’t have.
But we, rational folks, are trying to figure out what an obviously irrational guy was thinking and doing.
Man, do I feel for these parents. Losing a son is one thing.....losing a son like this has got to be something you never recover from.....
Sounds like responsible folks to me...at least from what we've learned so far, with their calling the police and reporting a gun is missing, too.
Let's hope we find out that they are indeed good eggs, and in no way to blame for this mess.
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 3:11 am
It depends on how you define a mass shooting. Was his objective to kill as many people as possible or to eliminate Trump ?
Re oversight of rooftops, there is a water tower with a railed walkway that could be used by a 2 man overwatch counter-sniper team with a clear view of numerous rooftops, including the one used by the shooter.
Don't think the problem was locations for sniper teams - one of the teams dispatched the shooter within minutes. The issue is why the elevated location of where the shooter was located wasn't properly covered.
If a sniper team or just an overwatch team of a couple police with binoculars & radios, were placed on the water tower -- multiple rooftops could have been surveilled, including the rooftop the shooter used. The issue is not having enough snipers -- it's insufficient overwatch.
Here is my analysis....based on what we now know:
The pitched roof where the gunman was positioned, provided him cover from the CAT (Counter Assault Team) as he was able to stay low enough below the peak pitch of the roof to stay unseen, until he popped up and got close enough to the top peak of the roof to take aim. Had the CAT team and/or overmatch team, been at a higher elevation than the gunman, they all would have not been handcuffed by visibility of the roof pitch.
My guess, is that when the local cop got on the roof, and the gunman had to turn and point his weapon at the cop making the cop retreat, that provided the CAT a chance to identify the shooter and begin to lock in on him.....it just so happens the gunman must have hurried after he reset from the altercation of the local cop event on the roof. So there was a simultaneous event taking place, in a very short window of time, as each were gaining lock on their target.....that is when the gunman fired first, the CAT sniper jumped at first shot, had to reset and focus, the gunman was able to get off a multiple shots as the CAT sniper was relocking and ultimately fired for the kill shot.
The only portion of this that is fuzzy to me, is how the CAT sniper made his kill shot after the multiple rounds from the gunman. My guess, is that b/c of the elevation change between the CAT and the gunman, the CAT sniper never had a clean shot until the gunman actually tried to retreat after his shots, assuming his head was bobbing up and down as he was crawling back to exit roof.....or the CAT sniper made one phenomenal shot with the limited visibility to of the gunman and roof pitch. The gunman also had to know he was a dead-man regardless, b/c there were law enforcement waiting for him on the ground....so the gunman may have intentionally put himself in a position to be taken out after his shooting spree.
Reading that the shooters parents called police the day of event....no details what prompted the call.
If true, that would likely be ANOTHER ball dropped by the local police
The father called the police after the shooting, but don't let that stop you from speculating the worst.
Boy you can’t read can you? He said “if true,…
"if true" makes it speculation.
How ironic that the guy who speculates all the time around here (and even in this thread about deer rifles) now has an issue with "speculation"
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 3:11 am
It depends on how you define a mass shooting. Was his objective to kill as many people as possible or to eliminate Trump ?
Re oversight of rooftops, there is a water tower with a railed walkway that could be used by a 2 man overwatch counter-sniper team with a clear view of numerous rooftops, including the one used by the shooter.
Don't think the problem was locations for sniper teams - one of the teams dispatched the shooter within minutes. The issue is why the elevated location of where the shooter was located wasn't properly covered.
If a sniper team or just an overwatch team of a couple police with binoculars & radios, were placed on the water tower -- multiple rooftops could have been surveilled, including the rooftop the shooter used. The issue is not having enough snipers -- it's insufficient overwatch.
Here is my analysis....based on what we now know:
The pitched roof where the gunman was positioned, provided him cover from the CAT (Counter Assault Team) as he was able to stay low enough below the peak pitch of the roof to stay unseen, until he popped up and got close enough to the top peak of the roof to take aim. Had the CAT team and/or overmatch team, been at a higher elevation than the gunman, they all would have not been handcuffed by visibility of the roof pitch.
My guess, is that when the local cop got on the roof, and the gunman had to turn and point his weapon at the cop making the cop retreat, that provided the CAT a chance to identify the shooter and begin to lock in on him.....it just so happens the gunman must have hurried after he reset from the altercation of the local cop event on the roof. So there was a simultaneous event taking place, in a very short window of time, as each were gaining lock on their target.....that is when the gunman fired first, the CAT sniper jumped at first shot, had to reset and focus, the gunman was able to get off a multiple shots as the CAT sniper was relocking and ultimately fired for the kill shot.
The only portion of this that is fuzzy to me, is how the CAT sniper made his kill shot after the multiple rounds from the gunman. My guess, is that b/c of the elevation change between the CAT and the gunman, the CAT sniper never had a clean shot until the gunman actually tried to retreat after his shots, assuming his head was bobbing up and down as he was crawling back to exit roof.....or the CAT sniper made one phenomenal shot with the limited visibility to of the gunman and roof pitch. The gunman also had to know he was a dead-man regardless, b/c there were law enforcement waiting for him on the ground....so the gunman may have intentionally put himself in a position to be taken out after his shooting spree.
Reading that the shooters parents called police the day of event....no details what prompted the call.
If true, that would likely be ANOTHER ball dropped by the local police
The father called the police after the shooting, but don't let that stop you from speculating the worst.
Boy you can’t read can you? He said “if true,…
"if true" makes it speculation.
How ironic that the guy who speculates all the time around here (and even in this thread about deer rifles) now has an issue with "speculation"
It's not speculating to point out that it was not necessary to have an AR-15.
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 3:11 am
It depends on how you define a mass shooting. Was his objective to kill as many people as possible or to eliminate Trump ?
Re oversight of rooftops, there is a water tower with a railed walkway that could be used by a 2 man overwatch counter-sniper team with a clear view of numerous rooftops, including the one used by the shooter.
Don't think the problem was locations for sniper teams - one of the teams dispatched the shooter within minutes. The issue is why the elevated location of where the shooter was located wasn't properly covered.
If a sniper team or just an overwatch team of a couple police with binoculars & radios, were placed on the water tower -- multiple rooftops could have been surveilled, including the rooftop the shooter used. The issue is not having enough snipers -- it's insufficient overwatch.
Here is my analysis....based on what we now know:
The pitched roof where the gunman was positioned, provided him cover from the CAT (Counter Assault Team) as he was able to stay low enough below the peak pitch of the roof to stay unseen, until he popped up and got close enough to the top peak of the roof to take aim. Had the CAT team and/or overmatch team, been at a higher elevation than the gunman, they all would have not been handcuffed by visibility of the roof pitch.
My guess, is that when the local cop got on the roof, and the gunman had to turn and point his weapon at the cop making the cop retreat, that provided the CAT a chance to identify the shooter and begin to lock in on him.....it just so happens the gunman must have hurried after he reset from the altercation of the local cop event on the roof. So there was a simultaneous event taking place, in a very short window of time, as each were gaining lock on their target.....that is when the gunman fired first, the CAT sniper jumped at first shot, had to reset and focus, the gunman was able to get off a multiple shots as the CAT sniper was relocking and ultimately fired for the kill shot.
The only portion of this that is fuzzy to me, is how the CAT sniper made his kill shot after the multiple rounds from the gunman. My guess, is that b/c of the elevation change between the CAT and the gunman, the CAT sniper never had a clean shot until the gunman actually tried to retreat after his shots, assuming his head was bobbing up and down as he was crawling back to exit roof.....or the CAT sniper made one phenomenal shot with the limited visibility to of the gunman and roof pitch. The gunman also had to know he was a dead-man regardless, b/c there were law enforcement waiting for him on the ground....so the gunman may have intentionally put himself in a position to be taken out after his shooting spree.
Reading that the shooters parents called police the day of event....no details what prompted the call.
If true, that would likely be ANOTHER ball dropped by the local police
The father called the police after the shooting, but don't let that stop you from speculating the worst.
Boy you can’t read can you? He said “if true,…
"if true" makes it speculation.
How ironic that the guy who speculates all the time around here (and even in this thread about deer rifles) now has an issue with "speculation"
It's not speculating to point out that it was not necessary to have an AR-15.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
Sure, assuming this was all he wanted to do we quite agree. But we don’t know if he intended more or not. It was just the absolute surety that you expressed that drew my response.
I quite agree that a hunting rifle would have been a better weapon if just trying to assassinate Trump.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
Sure, assuming this was all he wanted to do we quite agree. But we don’t know if he intended more or not. It was just the absolute surety that you expressed that drew my response.
I quite agree that a hunting rifle would have been a better weapon if just trying to assassinate Trump.
Old Salt seems to want to paint this guy in a positive light. Strange.
From Senate briefing today
—The shooter visited the rally site a few days in advance to scope it out
—62 mins elapsed between the time the shooter was photographed as being suspicious and when he fired the shots
—20 mins elapsed between the time he was spotted by snipers & when he fired the shots
—FBI Director Wray said there’s no known foreign nexus but no established motive as of now. Shooter used encrypted comms and had little to no social media presence
So, an ex-President is afforded Secret Service protection.
I know for a fact that the former President and former First Lady Clinton's have pretty good protection; but sometimes do not listen to their SS and police escorts when out and about and will get out of vehicle or roll window down to chat with Chappaqua, NY neighbors and pals. This was extremely frustrating to a pal of mine who was on detail and is now retired. Couldn't take the cush assignment at end his career.
I don't know what written or spoken reports to believe on the incident.
But and that is a big but, if there was intelligence on Iran planning to eliminate former President Trump, then why the heck was former President Trump not afforded more copious resources? This makes no sense to me.
BTW, I am writing in for president this year because the Dems and Reps really screwed the pooch if they expect me to believe these two maroons are the best they could come up.
The idea that Iran has certain plans on tRump has about as much credibility as the stupid notion of WMD in Iraq. Not a word of truth in that garbage. But you bet that plenty of right wing delusionals believe in it so that they can "justify" having another profitable war. You pay, they profit as always.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Jim Malone wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 4:24 pm
Some of y'all wear me down with these posts.
So, an ex-President is afforded Secret Service protection.
I know for a fact that the former President and former First Lady Clinton's have pretty good protection; but sometimes do not listen to their SS and police escorts when out and about and will get out of vehicle or roll window down to chat with Chappaqua, NY neighbors and pals. This was extremely frustrating to a pal of mine who was on detail and is now retired. Couldn't take the cush assignment at end his career.
I don't know what written or spoken reports to believe on the incident.
But and that is a big but, if there was intelligence on Iran planning to eliminate former President Trump, then why the heck was former President Trump not afforded more copious resources? This makes no sense to me.
BTW, I am writing in for president this year because the Dems and Reps really screwed the pooch if they expect me to believe these two maroons are the best they could come up.
He apparently had more than is typically provided to a major campaign but these are fraught times. So, more was appropriate. But not “enough “, apparently.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
Sure, assuming this was all he wanted to do we quite agree. But we don’t know if he intended more or not. It was just the absolute surety that you expressed that drew my response.
I quite agree that a hunting rifle would have been a better weapon if just trying to assassinate Trump.
Old Salt seems to want to paint this guy in a positive light. Strange.
You're strange. I'm willing to wait for the facts. I don't find that the evidence known so far, points toward him being a mass killer rather than an assassin out to kill Trump. Maybe he chose an AR-15 because his dad had one that he'd practiced with & it was readily available to him.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
Sure, assuming this was all he wanted to do we quite agree. But we don’t know if he intended more or not. It was just the absolute surety that you expressed that drew my response.
I quite agree that a hunting rifle would have been a better weapon if just trying to assassinate Trump.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
Sure, assuming this was all he wanted to do we quite agree. But we don’t know if he intended more or not. It was just the absolute surety that you expressed that drew my response.
I quite agree that a hunting rifle would have been a better weapon if just trying to assassinate Trump.
Old Salt seems to want to paint this guy in a positive light. Strange.
You're strange. I'm willing to wait for the facts. I don't find that the evidence known so far, points toward him being a mass killer rather than an assassin out to kill Trump. Maybe he chose an AR-15 because his dad had one that he'd practiced with & it was readily available to him.
Speculation, right?either way. Just a discussion of possibilities. Trying to stay in range of possible.
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:45 pm
The assault rifle ban argument does not hold up here. It was not a mass shooting.
Any deer hunting rifle with a scope could have made that shot. It would probably have done more damage.
There are a lot of deer hunters in PA. Good luck banning their hunting rifles.
Not a mass shooting? Firing rounds into a crowd and at a candidate for POTUS? What planet are you on
Maybe the shooter was just a poor marksman.
He could have done the same thing with a deer rifle, only it would probably have taken off Trump's entire ear, or worse.
He was a good shot. Trump just happened to turn his head & then duck.
Did someone else call it a mass shooting before you denied it was? I haven't found that post yet.
I see discussion of use of AR-15 and so many shots taken in so little time, questions about accuracy, but I think you may have been the first to bring up "mass shooting".
My point is that we don't know, yet, what the shooters' intent was. Maybe it was just to kill Trump. Maybe it was just to pretend to be shooting at Trump but not kill him, making him a martyr (I doubt this one!). Maybe it was to kill Trump and as many of his supporters as he could...maybe it was "to be someone"...
We won't know unless he wrote it down or told someone. We'll know more to make better guesses but that's what they'll be unless something is found definitively.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
The reason most often used to call for an assault weapon ban is to prevent mass shootings.
ohh, I understood the relationship to the AR-15, just not the assumption about this kid's intentions being so absolute. I dunno how quick those 8 shots were, but seems like it was very fast, which certainly the AR-15 is built to do. Yes, a hunting rifle would have been better if purely for assassination and one or two pulls of the trigger with emphasis on accuracy and singular damage.
We'll probably learn more about the kid and his dad's 20+ weapons, proficiency etc. If a deer hunter, which would be pretty typical for that region and being a gun person, then it would make sense to be proficient with a hunting rifle and not have chosen the AR-15 unless he was looking to kill many quickly or be in some sort of pitched battle. Clearly this was a deranged kid, so who the heck knows what was in his mind as he planned this thing.
Do You read any posts other than your own ? I've posted a link of a hunting rifle, several times, that could fire 8 shots in the time frame on the audio.
Sure I did. But so what?
That just the makes the case more likely to be intent to do more than just kill the President. Yes, that automatic rifle fires 10 shots pretty quickly, but why choose the AR-15 if not intending to do a heck of a lot more...assuming you have access to the one you linked...or for that matter any high power scoped hunting rifle?
Assassinating a President from distance would have a lot more in common with a hunting rifle intended to bring down a single deer, preferably with one shot or at most two...firing off 10 shots should NEVER happen when hunting deer.
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
Good grief ! I posted that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It did not have to be an AR. When challenged, I posted a link to a hunting rifle that could do. An assault weapons ban would not necessarily have prevented this, if he could not have gotten an AR-15. Sheesh !
Sure, assuming this was all he wanted to do we quite agree. But we don’t know if he intended more or not. It was just the absolute surety that you expressed that drew my response.
I quite agree that a hunting rifle would have been a better weapon if just trying to assassinate Trump.
Old Salt seems to want to paint this guy in a positive light. Strange.
You're strange. I'm willing to wait for the facts. I don't find that the evidence known so far, points toward him being a mass killer rather than an assassin out to kill Trump. Maybe he chose an AR-15 because his dad had one that he'd practiced with & it was readily available to him.
Stop lying. You pick and choose when you want to wait on facts. Old Benghazi. Maybe he picked an AR-15 because he originally planned to kill a lot of people? Who knows? I know at least one person that doesn’t know.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 1:55 pm
so, why choose an AR-15 if you have a hunting rifle, any good hunting rifle, available instead?
I’ve seen reports that the father owns something like 30 weapons. Speculating, but I’ll bet some were hunting rifles. Apparently, the father had allowed the kid to borrow the AR before to take it to the range for target practice. The kid asked to borrow the AR saying he wanted to take it to the range that day. The father said OK. Don’t know if the kid ever borrowed a hunting rifle from his father. It makes sense to me that the kid would ask the father for a rifle that he most plausibly could say he was taking to the range.
We are all speculating, of course. Indicators are the kid may have been a Trump supporter: registered Republican, conservative views per his classmates, conservative Republican parents. Why would a Trump supporter try to kill Trump? Don’t know. Mark David Chapman was a Beatles fan yet he killed John Lennon.
You may be on the right track. If he takes out Trump, then Melania thinks he a hot tomato and they live happily ever after.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:22 pm
Michael Steele is a fuggin idiot. Bloviating that they haven’t seen medical records of Trumps ear injury.
That does sound silly, however Steele has a sense of humor, so perhaps it's very tongue in cheek?
youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 8:22 pm
Michael Steele is a fuggin idiot. Bloviating that they haven’t seen medical records of Trumps ear injury.
That does sound silly, however Steele has a sense of humor, so perhaps it's very tongue in cheek?
It's not unreasonable to expect a doctor's health update on a presidential candidate after an assassination attempt. That kind of thing can change a man physically and mentally.
Especially when they're so hyper-focused on the health of the other candidate.
...there were previous posts about it being an AR. I pointed out that it was not a mass shooting & that it could have been done with a deer rifle. It does not need to be an AR-15 to get that number of shots off in a short time. I even linked an example of a none-assault weapon/hunting rifle which could do the same thing & even use larger caliber rounds.
