Today's Mass Shooting

[ponderingturtle]

How could it possibly be that short?

The cops were there and shot him right away. As for shooting that much in 30 seconds that is the point of such weapons. Pretty basic, he chose a target rich environment but one that had a few too many cops for a real high body count. And unlike at schools or the concealed carry people in walmart the cops here shot him.

 

[William Parcher]

How could it possibly be that short?

I am skeptical that it was that short but it was widely reported as that.

There is a video of him running (not shooting) before he is shown being shot dead. So a portion of that 30 seconds would have to include some time running and not shooting.

I doubt that the 30 seconds time frame is accurate. It even sound like an estimation being exactly "30 seconds".

 

[William Parcher]

The cops were there and shot him right away. As for shooting that much in 30 seconds that is the point of such weapons. Pretty basic, he chose a target rich environment but one that had a few too many cops for a real high body count. And unlike at schools or the concealed carry people in walmart the cops here shot him.

I consider the claim of 30 seconds to be an extraordinary claim.

 

[William Parcher]

It's reported that he wore a mask. So his idea was to kill a bunch of people and then run away and nobody would know who it was?

 

[Arcade22]

It's reported that he wore a mask. So his idea was to kill a bunch of people and then run away and nobody would know who it was?

No doubt he wanted to dress up all cool and edgy looking, like in the murder simulators the kids are playing these days

 

[William Parcher]

Here's a less-blurry image of the kind of drum-magazine the Daytona shooter was using with his weapon. Look at this damn thing.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBJuZAGWsAciB5u.jpg[/qimg]

Some absolute penis is selling these things while saying "self-defense!" with a wink and a grin, like the makers of all these kinds of mods do.

I don't recall any previous mass shooter using this magazine. We don't know how many have been sold but obviously they aren't popular for mass killings. All the buyers (except this guy) must be using them for some purpose other than killing lots of people.

I can imagine many people buying them for self defense because they imagine a heavily armed attacker or numerous attackers. There are people who think a day will come when large gun battles happen. It seems to be something that would appeal to some paranoid gun freaks.

 

[Belz...]

No doubt he wanted to dress up all cool and edgy looking, like in the murder simulators the kids are playing these days

That was sarcasm, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't recall any previous mass shooter using this magazine. We don't know how many have been sold but obviously they aren't popular for mass killings. All the buyers (except this guy) must be using them for some purpose other than killing lots of people.

I can imagine many people buying them for self defense because they imagine a heavily armed attacker or numerous attackers. There are people who think a day will come when large gun battles happen. It seems to be something that would appeal to some paranoid gun freaks.

aurora theater shooting

" He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[17] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting

 

[William Parcher]

I didn't know about that one. Are there others?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't know about that one. Are there others?

Not sure, but of course they suck in general so I wouldn't be surprised at not seeing them used. Magazines are one of the harder things to get right in a firearm, it needs to have enough spring pressure to advance the last bullet in the cycle time of the weapon and not too much for the first one out. So such large magazines are often not reliable.

If you were planning a mass shooting wouldn't reliable be desired?

 

[BStrong]

I don't recall any previous mass shooter using this magazine. We don't know how many have been sold but obviously they aren't popular for mass killings. All the buyers (except this guy) must be using them for some purpose other than killing lots of people.

I can imagine many people buying them for self defense because they imagine a heavily armed attacker or numerous attackers. There are people who think a day will come when large gun battles happen. It seems to be something that would appeal to some paranoid gun freaks.

It's a Beta-C mag and it's been around for years.

The Aurora shooter used one:

https://kdvr.com/2014/02/12/herpin-a-good-thing-that-james-holmes-had-100-round-magazine/

It's an expensive paperweight..

 

[lobosrul5]

I don't recall any previous mass shooter using this magazine. We don't know how many have been sold but obviously they aren't popular for mass killings. All the buyers (except this guy) must be using them for some purpose other than killing lots of people.

I can imagine many people buying them for self defense because they imagine a heavily armed attacker or numerous attackers. There are people who think a day will come when large gun battles happen. It seems to be something that would appeal to some paranoid gun freaks.

Its mostly just because they're "kewl", honestly. Those kind of drum magazines are fairly prone to jamming. So, serious shooters usually stick to 30 round mags and learn how to quickly reload.

 

[BStrong]

So why aren't they part of the individual right to wage war on the state? That is what an individual right second amendment is for so why are we restricting it so much? Sure there are costs, with the first amendment you get nazis marching in the streets and the second you get them violently fighting the militia(standing armies being for oppressive monarchies and having not place in america).

If the second amendment is an individual right then it is about political violence and we need to accept these shootings as the side of effect of our constitutional rights.

People making the above argument - you.

It's not much of a rational argument.

 

[ponderingturtle]

People making the above argument - you.

It's not much of a rational argument.

Hey they just don't want to follow their logic to its clear conclusion. The second amendment was about the dispersal of miltary force, either to the individual or collected in militias. That is simply what it is. And all this individual rights yet they refuse to accept that as such it would require permitting the use of weapons for a proper insurgency. Not these BS handgun crap but serious insurgencies, we are certainly talking bombs and the like. But they think that is foolish and refuse the logical conclusion.

That is why turning the second amendment from a collective right to an individual one was kind of problematic, but fortunately those in favor of it are not overly bound by logic and thinking things through.

 

[William Parcher]

If you were planning a mass shooting wouldn't reliable be desired?

I guess so. But then it's hard for me to separate the whole thing from delusion and deep mental illness. The kind of mentality that is commonly associated with terrible decisions and ideas.

Unless you get away completely and without detection then you are essentially throwing away your whole life. Full escape of justice (and death) is rare for a mass shooter. The idea that your planned spree slaughter is worth spending your life in prison is something that immediately suggests mental illness.

It's a form of life suicide even if you survive the police response.

 

[Dr. Keith]

There is, however, also a vaguely relevant XKCD cartoon to study.

Dave

Nice! Add that to my vast collection of 3rd Amendment analysis.

 

[BStrong]

Hey they just don't want to follow their logic to its clear conclusion. The second amendment was about the dispersal of miltary force, either to the individual or collected in militias. That is simply what it is. And all this individual rights yet they refuse to accept that as such it would require permitting the use of weapons for a proper insurgency. Not these BS handgun crap but serious insurgencies, we are certainly talking bombs and the like. But they think that is foolish and refuse the logical conclusion.

That is why turning the second amendment from a collective right to an individual one was kind of problematic, but fortunately those in favor of it are not overly bound by logic and thinking things through.

Insurgent uses handgun, shoots trooper armed with a carbine, steals troopers gear, hands down handgun to the next guy in line and they do likewise.

At some point it isn't a carbine that gets liberated.

You also ignore the fact that explosive materials themselves are legal for civilian possession and use, where permitted.

If you have secondary high explosives and a detonator an IED is right around the corner.

 

[Venom]

You do understand what the word "prehistoric" actually means don't you?

On a more helpful note...

Right.

Those look more like organized warfare than an individual going on a rampage though.

 

[Ranb]

Well 2nd amendment is about people having military power. In today terms that means full auto guns, tanks, fighter jets, even nukes. Yet people can't have any of those.
There are some people who actually fight for cancelling of National Firearms Act from 1934. And with 2nd amendment in place, it IMHO makes sense.

There are no laws banning any of the above except for the nukes. Full auto and destructive devises are legal but regulated; check out sites like www.subguns.com for legal sales.

 

[quadraginta]

The cops were there and shot him right away. As for shooting that much in 30 seconds that is the point of such weapons. Pretty basic, he chose a target rich environment but one that had a few too many cops for a real high body count. And unlike at schools or the concealed carry people in walmart the cops here shot him.

I consider the claim of 30 seconds to be an extraordinary claim.

I consider the nitpick of whether it is an extraordinary claim or not to be totally irrelevant and a distraction from the actual point. (I don't know if it is an intentional distraction or not.)

It was pretty close to thirty seconds. It was near enough to thirty seconds to not really matter how exactly thirty seconds it was.

It was damned quick.

Thirty seconds? Forty five seconds? Less than a minute?

Why do you think it really makes a difference?