Interesting and not surprising. For those of us who are familiar with handguns, consider the effort involved if you were executing this massacre. You've got two semi-automatic handguns.
Familiar with handguns ... well, maybe ..... familiar with the actual events as they occurred ..... well, probably not so much - given that you weren't there and didn't observe them.
And he didn't have 2 semi-auto handguns.
In order to get off enough rounds to inflict multiple wounds in 51 people you'd have put down AT LEAST 100 rounds, and it's been confirmed in the media that more than this number was fired.
Oh - let's see if I understand this correctly - so now the MSM is ok and their facts are to be trusted ?
Jus' sayin' .....
Assuming he was doing the Bruce Willis thing with a weapon in each hand,
Why would you assume that ?
You saw it on TV and it looked good and seems to fit the picture ..... so therefore that must be what occurred ?
My advice: avoid the boobtube .... to avoid becoming a boob.
he would have to pop the clip and replace a fresh one on each weapon at least FOUR TIMES
First, it's been reported that one weapon was a revolver (a S&W .357 Magnum revolver - which the Feds aren't even sure was used in the shooting) and the other was a Herstal Five-seveN tactical pistol (automatic),
which has a standard magazine capacity of 20 rounds. Using an clip extension, the magazine capacity can be increased to 30 (which makes 31 rounds, with one in the chamber)
Given the ability of the Five-seveN to lay down a far greater amount of fire, per unit of time,
per instance of reloading, it's probably a safe assumption that it was used more than the revolver. I'd also think that as compared to a revolver (even when using a speed-loader), reloading the Five-seveN would be a tad bit quicker ..... don't you ?
It's a great premise, very colorful (Bruce Willis and all) .... but I'd say the resultant carnage argues for one hand free for reloading (a medic that treated him was quoted as saying that the pockets of his fatigues were full of clips)
A semi-auto pistol is certainly capable of laying down enough fire to keep folks at bay (depending on the exact circumstances) - particularly one with a mag capacity of 20 rounds, if you are prepared to immediately reload it - depending where the individual had positioned himself in the room, to prevent being subdued (think corner or back against a wall)
Second, the duration of the event has been reported to be around ten minutes - plenty enough time to reload 5, 10, 15, or more times ....
that's approximately eight reloads done in almost continuous motion without a free hand; doesn't make sense.
Nope - that's 5 reloads with the Five-seveN using the standard magazine, and 3 or 4 reloads with a clip extension.
With one hand free for reloading, you could probably reload and empty the standard magazine five times in around a minute and half, two minutes ..... although not likely very accurately, unless you well trained, or just a natural.
But then the Five-seveN does have a Picatinny rail for a laser sight which could have aided in the shooter's accuracy if so equipped.
Shooting for mass carnage is far different than trying to defend and stop an enemy who is trying to attack you - you aren't concerned necessarily with killing them, or even rendering the victims completely incapacitated (unless they are advancing on you) .... just with
inflicting as much damage as possible. And two or three squeezes of the trigger while you have someone sighted up will do exactly that .... and then onto the next target.
Add another 30 to 90 seconds for far greater accuracy - and it could be as little as about 3 1/2 to 4 minutes from start to finish. Of course, if no one is trying to stop you and there is no immediate threat, then you can take your time.
Don't forget - there was probably no shortage of targets (until near the end, where he was having to chase them) - and hitting them might have been all too easy if there were limited exits for the room - which may have caused people to bunch up at doorways while trying to flee. Easy pickings at that point.
Even using one handgun we're still talking about eight reloads of clips without missing a beat in a pandemonium atmosphere and making accurate shots.
No, we're not - 5 reloads at most (maybe as few as 3 or 4), not 8.
Yeah - it was a pandemonium atmosphere alright - who exactly do you think was in a state of pandemonium: the guy standing there with a gun in his hand and pockets full of magazines ....
or the unarmed people who people who had a hail of bullets headed in their direction ?
I'd say it's very unlikely one shooter could accomplish this without extensive training and experience.
Yeah well ..... a couple of highschool kids (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) managed to kill 13 and injure another 21 at Columbine ..... and they had no "extensive training".
And this nut-job was what ..... a 10 to 15 year veteran of the Army ?
I really doubt that given the nature of what the Army does, that there is any possibility that he would have been given any kind of weapons training ...... probably never seen a gun .....
If he did do it himself he had plenty of practice and preparation time with the weapons he used, which eliminates the ridiculous idea that he "snapped" and did this on the spur of the moment.
No - but what is ridiculous is your (apparent) premise that:
1. As a 10 to 15 year veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States couldn't have possibly had small arms training, and
2. That someone going off the deep end and "snapping" is somehow an event that requires
the point of departure from sanity to be
immediately coincident with the deranged activity that ultimately results.
In case you haven't noticed, there have been a number of shootings over the years where mass carnage has been wrought by individuals who were relatively "untrained" and are nuts. They are psychopaths - insane people who have caused mass death and destruction - often after plotting it out quite thoroughly.
Just because they are capable of plotting and executing a plan to harm others on a significant scale doesn't mean that they aren't bonkers.
It's much more plausible that there were multiple shooters attacking from different angles.
Is it ? .... I dunno .... sounds more like
potentially delusional wishful thinking to me ...
considering that there are no facts in evidence to support such a conclusion.
At any rate, there's no denying this was a terrorist attack at a military base on our home soil.
Yeah, you could it call it that .... and I know ya really, really wanna (in fact I'm sure that to
you that
"muslim terrorist attack" sounds even better ....)
You could also call it
the deranged acts of a madman ..... either could be correct (depending on how you define "terrorist")
But then you could also say that a variety of individuals who have perpetrated similar acts - such as Klebold and Harris - are also "terrorists" - not so much because it was part of their equation or mindset to
cause terror, but that as a consequence of their actions,
terror resulted.
Of course there's a lot of politics involved here and the Army will do their best to cover things up.
That may well be true - but I'm sure that layout , with his "inside sources" will give us the real dope .....
