MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 9:06 am
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 1:32 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 10:54 am
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.
How do we actually know what his objective was??
I agree that it certainly seems most likely that he was targeting Trump first and foremost, but we don't know that for a fact...yet.
and we do know that he fired a flurry of bullets, at least 8 shots in rapid-fire, and was immediately stopped by a single shot (at least that's the reporting).
But it's definitely plausible that he intended to keep on firing as long as he could, killing as many as he could. The weapon he chose is much better for that purpose than would have been a sniper rifle, though both were capable of a straight assassination attempt.
So, unless we absolutely know he only intended to kill one person, sure fits mass shooting profile as well.
It doesn't matter. The legal definition of a mass shooting is 3 or more deaths.
Intention matters. If his intent was to kill as many as possible, he fits the mass shooter profile, just failed.
That doesn't mean he actually intended to kill more than Trump, if Trump, it is just is an open question.
Right now there appears to be more evidence of such intent than not.
You guys have really been in the weeds on 1) rifle used, and 2) defining this shooting as mass or not. Edit to add: weeds are fun and inherent to places like this.
Regarding 2) If the intent was to perpetrate a mass public shooting, why go on the roof? The chances of being seen, intercepted on the ground, and/or taken out (if one could actually make it onto the roof) before even having a chance to fire a single shot (all things that did/should have happened) are sky high with a roof positioning choice. Makes no sense for MPS intent. Wouldn't a mass public shooting intent by the shooter suggest stealth/cover as a strategy choice? Positioning behind/in trees, at edge of building, in a car parked in the adjacent lot? All of these would provide clear sight view to packed stands, and low probability of intervention (at least initially) due to stealth/cover strategy. Makes sense, no, if MPS was intent?
Regarding 1) You had asked many days ago, MD, “Any thoughts on the weaponry?”
JHU72 posted Sunday: “Can't be that American society should not be allowed to own this type of weapon.”
It would be helpful to have clarification from you as to what you’re are really asking. Was your question a lead in to “An AR was used, so we should ban them”? Or “An AR shoots so fast (as if other semi-auto rifles aren’t equally “fast capable”), and we should ban them"? I just want to be clear. I have been chipping away (busy week) on a belated response which shares some of my thoughts as the predictable "ban AR dialogues" are unfolding in the wake of Saturday’s event.
The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. John Stuart Mill On Liberty 1859