Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
id wager any amount that this is where multiple shooter theories came from.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
id wager any amount that this is where multiple shooter theories came from.
Here's another one:Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by BiffCo99
All Ive heard on the subject are blind attributions and not one single verifiable post/comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ35V0etHiM
also to be clear i 100% accept that youre going to lose hostages to friendly fire in these scenarios. like pretty much always. but i feel like if you asked me to pick a scenario where the cops would more or less deliberately strafe anything moving, id say 'florida mcswatfags airing out a gay club' would be the literal top of my list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiffCo99Here's another one:Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ35V0etHiM
so, someone apparently admitted that they held an exit closed from the outside, apparently they just lost their shit and were worried the gunman would come through the door and get them (seriously). and this guy didnt see two gunmen, he heard two guns going off at once, which could be the gunman with a gun in each hand or the cops shooting at him etc.
so im just not convinced, i think there would be a lot of real conclusive statements out there. like at bataclan, there was no confusion, everyone in the club was like "this guy was here, that guy was there, the third did this" etc.
Since you want to grasp at straws and argue semantics, the reporter would still win? because there was no AR - 15 used like Grayson claimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatireSorry, Conservatives, Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders Are Right About Automatic WeaponsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
Quote:
Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson is being mocked for saying that the AR-15 used in Sunday’s mass shooting in Orlando could fire 700 rounds per minute, with one conservative even offering to donate $50,000 to charity if Grayson could achieve that rate of fire with a semi-automatic AR-15. The basis of this criticism is that no human being could possibly pull the trigger fast enough to squeeze off that many rounds. As is often the case, reality is not the conservatives’ friend:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4...c-weapons_news
Some of the people in these videos are using an accessory, called a “slide stock,” that helps the shooter to fire more quickly, while others are using a technique called “bump fire” that uses the kick from the weapon to quickly fire rounds, but none of the semiautomatic weapons in that video were modified for automatic fire. Pay up.
Anyway, Ok, now you have to fire 700 rounds a minute. Try it. I'll even send you a bump stock and a bunch of 30 round mags. A 30 round mag on full auto drains ridiculously fast. Then you have to change it. Its not like in the movies. Not to mention the fact that bump stocks (if he even had one) make the gun much less accurate at placing rounds (just like regular full autos). This is why the basic rifle the military use is not fully automatic.
Yes, you can argue more semantics such as "well, it wouldn't matter with all of those people", but we could grasp at straws and argue semantics all day long. We could also say that all he had to do was modify the trigger (which is highly illegal) and he could make the weapon more automatic, but now you are modifying the AR-15 to get it to do what you want it to
My opinion - if they were going to ban automatic weapons, they should have included bump stocks. You either have it one way or the other.
So I'm to believe that Matten shot 100+ people in the time it took for an off-duty cop outside to hear shots and rush in and engage Mateen in a firefight, trapping him in the bathroom?Quote:
So far, authorities have determined Mateen, a 29-year-old security guard from Fort Pierce, walked up to the club at 2:02 a.m. Sunday armed with an AR-15 rifle and a Glock handgun.
An off-duty Orlando police officer working at the club was investigating an underage drinker outside when he heard gunshots inside, according to the law enforcement source. The off-duty officer ran inside the club and traded gunfire with Mateen, backed up soon by three other Orlando police officers, the source said.
Together, the officers fired at Mateen, who retreated into a bathroom toward the rear of the club.
My ass may be dumb but I aint no dumbass.
personally i believe every man woman and child should be equipped with a chicago typewriter
Quote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatirepersonally i believe every man woman and child should be equipped with a chicago typewriter
as opposed to a chicago creepy writer
Lets spend another 3 pages arguing about semantics, and Matten's motivations. And lets not consider anything but own confirmation bias. Tight life faggots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by BiffCo99
All Ive heard on the subject are blind attributions and not one single verifiable post/comment.
Well to get to your point, if the the gay terrorist was shooting an AR and the SWAT team was using M4's, the bullets are all the same kind. So it would come down to rifling marks on the bullets to see if one bullet or another killed someone, but only from bullets that were still in the victims - and those bullets have a tendency to go right through people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by BiffCo99
so, someone apparently admitted that they held an exit closed from the outside, apparently they just lost their shit and were worried the gunman would come through the door and get them (seriously). and this guy didnt see two gunmen, he heard two guns going off at once, which could be the gunman with a gun in each hand or the cops shooting at him etc.
so im just not convinced, i think there would be a lot of real conclusive statements out there. like at bataclan, there was no confusion, everyone in the club was like "this guy was here, that guy was there, the third did this" etc.
geeez. holy shit that dudes flaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by BiffCo99https://www.youtube.com/embed/VvDFI2Ll4pIQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Well to get to your point, if the the gay terrorist was shooting an AR and the SWAT team was using M4's, the bullets are all the same kind. So it would come down to rifling marks on the bullets to see if one bullet or another killed someone, but only from bullets that were still in the victims - and those bullets have a tendency to go right through people.
My understanding is that swat teams deliberately use rounds chosen to disperse foot-pounds within the body of the target, and they avoid hyper velocity/full jacket rounds for exactly that reason. So really the odds of them using the same round are actually pretty thin. Caliber, maybe.
My point being... I mean your point is well taken but I think its hardly a rebuttal to the assertion that an impartial audit of who shot what would be not just possible but telling here, and that correctly identifying weapons/rounds/attribution is essential if one intends to frame the incident in proper context for discussion.
Is that your personal opinion....looks oddly familiar. I've read this exact statement word for word online about 10 times today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muck FiconIs that your personal opinion....looks oddly familiar. I've read this exact statement word for word online about 10 times today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
http://ingunowners.com/forums/genera...nt-add-up.html
lol Gordman. Shut it down.
Quote:
The Math that doesn’t add up:
A man walks in to a night club with an AR-15, shoots 103 people in under 7 minutes at 2am. The majority of the victims were shot multiple times, some as many as 12 times, with reports of several dozen rounds fired in the air and several dozens of rounds missing. 3 hours later, engages in a gun battle with 9 police officers that lasts nearly an hour.
So let me get this straight…one lone shooter in under 7 minutes reloaded his AR-15 30 times with 30rd magazines in under 7 minutes, firing nearly 1,000rds of .223 ammunition while in a nightclub surrounded by 320 people, managing to kill and injure 1/3 of them, takes a 3 hour break, and then engages in another gun battle lasting nearly and hour in what was described as a “hail of bullets” with a SWAT team?
Having years and years of experience with AR-15s, it would take me nearly 7 minutes to reload 30 times…let alone having time to aim and shoot 1,000 rounds semi-automatic in between firing dozens of rounds in the air screaming “Aloha Snack Bar”…just saying…something doesn’t add up…
Let’s not even mention the fact that he managed to have 30, 30rd AR mags loaded and at the ready in order to do it under 7 minutes. If he is holding an ammo can in one hand (that weighs 40 pounds) and an AR in the other…what was he doing…reloading and firing with one hand at the same time? Either that, or he had a tactical vest from Hell that was able to hold 30 mags!! Something ain’t right folks…
I don't always rebut, sometimes I agree. Considering the sound of the weapons exchange from the video of the club, I have to agree. The point was more about any conclusive evidence of your hypothesis ever coming to light. I just don't see that happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
My understanding is that swat teams deliberately use rounds chosen to disperse foot-pounds within the body of the target, and they avoid hyper velocity/full jacket rounds for exactly that reason. So really the odds of them using the same round are actually pretty thin. Caliber, maybe.
My point being... I mean your point is well taken but I think its hardly a rebuttal to the assertion that an impartial audit of who shot what would be not just possible but telling here, and that correctly identifying weapons/rounds/attribution is essential if one intends to frame the incident in proper context for discussion.
Crying on camera but no visible signs of tears is becoming a thing of late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2ZIDHP24n4
Nothing to see here folks. Carry on drinking that kool-aid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muck FiconIs that your personal opinion....looks oddly familiar. I've read this exact statement word for word online about 10 times today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
oooh you got me
I saw that post and cross referenced the timeline since i thought most of it was pretty spot on, plus I already knew pretty much the technicals of what this guy would have had to do to pull it off. did you see me copy/paste it? I could have easily done that, but some of his wording I didn't 100% agree with. So I took a good portion of the situation from that post, big deal. Does that make it more or less true? Is that all you have? Exactly how often have you seen me even do something like this - im guessing pretty much never.
I mean, if you are going to hammer on me with this, then you sure as hell be on pretty much every one of Mumbles posts.
And quit fucking derailing like some of the other posters here
Calm down lol. I was just pointing it out....and for the record, I basically tell Mumbles to drive his truck off a bridge on a daily basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by GordmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Muck Ficon
oooh you got me
I saw that post and cross referenced the timeline since i thought most of it was pretty spot on, plus I already knew pretty much the technicals of what this guy would have had to do to pull it off. did you see me copy/paste it? I could have easily done that, but some of his wording I didn't 100% agree with. So I took a good portion of the situation from that post, big deal. Does that make it more or less true? Is that all you have? Exactly how often have you seen me even do something like this - im guessing pretty much never.
I mean, if you are going to hammer on me with this, then you sure as hell be on pretty much every one of Mumbles posts.
And quit fucking derailing like some of the other posters here