Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eah, very weird. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps he was expecting others to follow and grab a weapon? Or maybe there was somebody else in the room reloading for a while and then booked before the cops got there? Other wise it makes no sense.


Actually it is easy to see where his head might have been, and he had days to bring in the guns, even though a few hours could have done it too. Look, he obviously was thinking he was going down with this ship, he really could not know how exactly that was going to happen. He probably envisioned some Davy Crokett at the Alamo ending, getting as many loaded weapons as possible around him so in the final minutes he would just grab and shoot, no more reloading. I'm guessing he got surprised by the quick response(relatively speaking because of the alarm) and he took the only thing left he could from the cops, his own life. Perhaps he figured he might be up there for 30 or 40 minutes before the end game, so he was ready for any scenario.


On the other hand he was a gun nut, they are finding a lot more around his house. Perhaps he just felt more comfortable having a bunch of his friends with him. Doubt he just came by all these weapons recently, been a hobby of his for awhile I would guess...
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
eah, very weird. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps he was expecting others to follow and grab a weapon? Or maybe there was somebody else in the room reloading for a while and then booked before the cops got there? Other wise it makes no sense.


Actually it is easy to see where his head might have been, and he had days to bring in the guns, even though a few hours could have done it too. Look, he obviously was thinking he was going down with this ship, he really could not know how exactly that was going to happen. He probably envisioned some Davy Crokett at the Alamo ending, getting as many loaded weapons as possible around him so in the final minutes he would just grab and shoot, no more reloading. I'm guessing he got surprised by the quick response(relatively speaking because of the alarm) and he took the only thing left he could from the cops, his own life. Perhaps he figured he might be up there for 30 or 40 minutes before the end game, so he was ready for any scenario.




On the other hand he was a gun nut, they are finding a lot more around his house. Perhaps he just felt more comfortable having a bunch of his friends with him. Doubt he just came by all these weapons recently, been a hobby of his for awhile I would guess...

Yeah, that's probably more likely.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
BTW, in reference to the post on the first page, and it's not a big deal, but the M60 does not fire the same round as a AK47. Same diameter bullet, but the AK round is lighter and slower. It's like comparing a 357 Magnum to a .38.


Thanks. I remember them both being 7.62, but it's been a long time since I had any reason to fire an M60.

Quote:
There's been several comments in this thread that an M16/14 is pretty uncontrollable in full auto. +1 from me. I joined up in '82 and the Marines still had the M16A1. It would happily do full-auto if you flicked the selector switch all the way. Maybe with enough practice folks can be effective with that sort of thing, but I couldn't have hit a barn at 10 paces. The recoil knocked the weapon all over the place.


Yep. Very light weapon compared to the kick. That's why I suggested he might have used a bipod or something like that to steady whatever weapon he did use.


NYT says 19 weapons, and "two rifles with scopes were mounted on tripods and positioned in front of the two windows in the hotel room." maybe they don't know the difference between bipods and tripods, but this confirms what you're suspecting.

EDIT: correction: 19 rifles in the hotel room.

AP says 19 rifles were found at his home, not in the hotel room (AP says 10 in the hotel room). IDK which report is accurate. AP is also reporting "explosive devices" were found at his home.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
BTW, in reference to the post on the first page, and it's not a big deal, but the M60 does not fire the same round as a AK47. Same diameter bullet, but the AK round is lighter and slower. It's like comparing a 357 Magnum to a .38.


Thanks. I remember them both being 7.62, but it's been a long time since I had any reason to fire an M60.

Quote:
There's been several comments in this thread that an M16/14 is pretty uncontrollable in full auto. +1 from me. I joined up in '82 and the Marines still had the M16A1. It would happily do full-auto if you flicked the selector switch all the way. Maybe with enough practice folks can be effective with that sort of thing, but I couldn't have hit a barn at 10 paces. The recoil knocked the weapon all over the place.


Yep. Very light weapon compared to the kick. That's why I suggested he might have used a bipod or something like that to steady whatever weapon he did use.


NYT says 19 weapons, and "two rifles with scopes were mounted on tripods and positioned in front of the two windows in the hotel room." maybe they don't know the difference between bipods and tripods, but this confirms what you're suspecting.

EDIT: correction: 19 rifles in the hotel room.


AP says 19 rifles were found at his home, not in the hotel room (AP says 10 in the hotel room). IDK which report is accurate. AP is also reporting "explosive devices" were found at his home.

yeah, i don't know. i just checked, to see if i had this wrong, NYT is still saying 19 rifles in the hotel room, but i've also seen written 10 in the hotel room. either way, that's a lot of rifles. a lot of round trips. you'd kind of wonder whether you were going to get stopped or checked making your way up there, i would think, unless these were collapsible or something. and, of course, how many rifles does it take?

as to motive, no real idea that i can find, but his biological father had a notorious past that it seems perhaps included psychosis manifesting itself in violent behavior. but he and his brother never lived with the father. otherwise, wow. seemed successful in business. fairly squared away. i don't know how much takeaway there's going to be from this, if we're all trying to learn something.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
BTW, in reference to the post on the first page, and it's not a big deal, but the M60 does not fire the same round as a AK47. Same diameter bullet, but the AK round is lighter and slower. It's like comparing a 357 Magnum to a .38.


Thanks. I remember them both being 7.62, but it's been a long time since I had any reason to fire an M60.

Quote:
There's been several comments in this thread that an M16/14 is pretty uncontrollable in full auto. +1 from me. I joined up in '82 and the Marines still had the M16A1. It would happily do full-auto if you flicked the selector switch all the way. Maybe with enough practice folks can be effective with that sort of thing, but I couldn't have hit a barn at 10 paces. The recoil knocked the weapon all over the place.


Yep. Very light weapon compared to the kick. That's why I suggested he might have used a bipod or something like that to steady whatever weapon he did use.


NYT says 19 weapons, and "two rifles with scopes were mounted on tripods and positioned in front of the two windows in the hotel room." maybe they don't know the difference between bipods and tripods, but this confirms what you're suspecting.

EDIT: correction: 19 rifles in the hotel room.


AP says 19 rifles were found at his home, not in the hotel room (AP says 10 in the hotel room). IDK which report is accurate. AP is also reporting "explosive devices" were found at his home.

l.a. times says "19 weapons" including 1 legal full auto.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

l.a. times says "19 weapons" including 1 legal full auto.

Not quite:


At least one of them had been modified with a legal “bump stock” style device that allows the shooter to rapidly fire off rounds without actually converting it to a fully automatic weapon, the source said.
The devices modify the gun’s stock so that the recoil helps accelerate how quickly the shooter can pull the trigger. The devices are legal in the U.S.












"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:

l.a. times says "19 weapons" including 1 legal full auto.

Not quite: At least one of them had been modified with a legal “bump stock” style device that allows the shooter to rapidly fire off rounds without actually converting it to a fully automatic weapon, the source said. The devices modify the gun’s stock so that the recoil helps accelerate how quickly the shooter can pull the trigger. The devices are legal in the U.S.

thanks for the clarification. do you think this alone could have accounted for the performance of the weapon caught on audio?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:

AP says 19 rifles were found at his home, not in the hotel room (AP says 10 in the hotel room). IDK which report is accurate. AP is also reporting "explosive devices" were found at his home.

They found tannerite and maybe a few pounds of Ammonium nitrate, unless that was part of the tannerite. Not sure if the Sheriff was saying it was one thing or two. Probably not at all unusual to own tannerite in the desert where you can use them in target practice.

19 rifles are a lot for someone who is not a hunter. I have a neighbor who hunts a lot of different things and he probably has more than that many rifles, but only a few hand guns. But this guy was not a hunter, so a bit unusual, unless they collectables. I hear he was a multimillionaire.
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but yes, I think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
vitus979 wrote:

l.a. times says "19 weapons" including 1 legal full auto.

Not quite: At least one of them had been modified with a legal “bump stock” style device that allows the shooter to rapidly fire off rounds without actually converting it to a fully automatic weapon, the source said. The devices modify the gun’s stock so that the recoil helps accelerate how quickly the shooter can pull the trigger. The devices are legal in the U.S.


thanks for the clarification. do you think this alone could have accounted for the performance of the weapon caught on audio?

Speaking from experience - yes.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [patf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patf wrote:
JSA wrote:


AP says 19 rifles were found at his home, not in the hotel room (AP says 10 in the hotel room). IDK which report is accurate. AP is also reporting "explosive devices" were found at his home.


They found tannerite and maybe a few pounds of Ammonium nitrate, unless that was part of the tannerite. Not sure if the Sheriff was saying it was one thing or two. Probably not at all unusual to own tannerite in the desert where you can use them in target practice.

19 rifles are a lot for someone who is not a hunter. I have a neighbor who hunts a lot of different things and he probably has more than that many rifles, but only a few hand guns. But this guy was not a hunter, so a bit unusual, unless they collectables. I hear he was a multimillionaire.

Couple things. 1) Tannerite would make perfect sense, as you note. 2) He had an Alaska hunting license. 3) I do not find 19 rifles that unusual, especially when you consider there are people are this forum with 6+ bikes.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but yes, I think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE

ah. well. after having watched that video, and speaking only as a novice observer, i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
patf wrote:
JSA wrote:


AP says 19 rifles were found at his home, not in the hotel room (AP says 10 in the hotel room). IDK which report is accurate. AP is also reporting "explosive devices" were found at his home.


They found tannerite and maybe a few pounds of Ammonium nitrate, unless that was part of the tannerite. Not sure if the Sheriff was saying it was one thing or two. Probably not at all unusual to own tannerite in the desert where you can use them in target practice.

19 rifles are a lot for someone who is not a hunter. I have a neighbor who hunts a lot of different things and he probably has more than that many rifles, but only a few hand guns. But this guy was not a hunter, so a bit unusual, unless they collectables. I hear he was a multimillionaire.


Couple things. 1) Tannerite would make perfect sense, as you note. 2) He had an Alaska hunting license. 3) I do not find 19 rifles that unusual, especially when you consider there are people are this forum with 6+ bikes.

plus, i'm pretty sure i've had that many in a las vegas hotel room at one time.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.

As regards function, I don't think there's a difference. I'm only pointing out that it was a semi-auto rifle with a legal stock installed to allow rapid fire. (Only because there's been a lot of speculation about whether he illegally converted a weapon to actual full-auto, or legally acquired a full-auto weapon, or illegally acquired a full-auto weapon somehow.)

This kind of stock sells for about 100 bucks. Installs in a minute or two. I don't expect it'll be legal much longer.










"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Hookers?

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
vitus979 wrote:

l.a. times says "19 weapons" including 1 legal full auto.

Not quite: At least one of them had been modified with a legal “bump stock” style device that allows the shooter to rapidly fire off rounds without actually converting it to a fully automatic weapon, the source said. The devices modify the gun’s stock so that the recoil helps accelerate how quickly the shooter can pull the trigger. The devices are legal in the U.S.


thanks for the clarification. do you think this alone could have accounted for the performance of the weapon caught on audio?


Speaking from experience - yes.
I've no personal experience with the bump stock, but the guy in the next office has and he says that the odd changing cyclic firing rate of the sound track is a good fit for a bump stock.

Re. why lots of weapons in the hotel room. We might be looking at that question too logically. The right way to do this sort of thing would be to take your most effective weapon and have a lot of full magazines at your elbow. Then have one back up weapon in case of a mechanical problem. But Hollywood and human nature is funny about this sort of thing. Both like extra weapons more than they like extra loaded magazines. Maybe because the latter lacks coolness, I dunno. So it's not so hard to imagine that some unstable knucklehead felt a largely irrational desire to turn his hotel room into an armory.

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but yes, I think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE


ah. well. after having watched that video, and speaking only as a novice observer, i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.

As a shooter, you could tell a slight difference. But, I can tell you, it is pretty damn close to full-auto.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but yes, I think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE


ah. well. after having watched that video, and speaking only as a novice observer, i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.

As a shooter, you could tell a slight difference. But, I can tell you, it is pretty damn close to full-auto.

Not directed at you......Why the fuck is that legal? For all intents and purposes it turns a semi-auto into a full auto. I don't understand why things like that and crank triggers are legal; you may not be able to achieve the same cyclic rate as a real full auto gun, but it sure looked and sounded like you could get lots of rounds down range in a big fat hurry. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could defend the need for the bump stock or a crank trigger.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a question for the experienced shooters here, how many rounds do you think he shot? I heard somewhere on the news talking about how he had so many magazines like 10 or more of 30 rounds each. But wouldn't it have to be like a 100 of those to inflict this kind of damage? I mean he hit around 600 people, so assuming one bullet one victim, how many misses are there typically for every hit in this kind of shooting? lots of people there interviewed were saying they saw bullets hitting the ground and stage, so certainly some misses..

I would think at least 5 misses for every hit, but maybe because of the density of people less? Could it have been 2k to 3k rounds shot off in 10 minutes with the weapon he had? What would a 100 magazines look like, how heavy, how big a bag??
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Deer. Lots and lots of deer.
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.

As regards function, I don't think there's a difference. I'm only pointing out that it was a semi-auto rifle with a legal stock installed to allow rapid fire. (Only because there's been a lot of speculation about whether he illegally converted a weapon to actual full-auto, or legally acquired a full-auto weapon, or illegally acquired a full-auto weapon somehow.)

This kind of stock sells for about 100 bucks. Installs in a minute or two. I don't expect it'll be legal much longer.

well, one could speculate. i figure the onus is no longer on the folks who lean toward making firearms illegal, as that has not born fruit. it's on the firearms advocates to decide what they want legal. i just try to keep my head down, figuratively and literally, and hope that the 2nd amendment advocates will choose wisely what should be legal.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Deer. Lots and lots of deer.

Maybe heavily armed deer. Wearing Kevlar.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but yes, I think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE


ah. well. after having watched that video, and speaking only as a novice observer, i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.


As a shooter, you could tell a slight difference. But, I can tell you, it is pretty damn close to full-auto.

my guess is that, to those on the receiving end, if feels pretty damn close to full-auto.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Quote Reply
Re: Full-Auto weapons, Time to Ban? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Slowman wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but yes, I think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE


ah. well. after having watched that video, and speaking only as a novice observer, i don't think i could distinguish between this and a fully automatic weapon, as regards function.


As a shooter, you could tell a slight difference. But, I can tell you, it is pretty damn close to full-auto.

How well does it actually work? I've seen once at the state range. Range officer wanted to see how it worked and not many were there. Usually not allowed.

It seem like the guy had trouble getting it to fire consistently and finish a whole magazine. It was probably new to him. But in your experience was it easy to use a bump stock?
Quote Reply

Prev Next