Today's mass shooting in the US

Look at the headline, 7 words in before they could mention Trump! Is there an election next year by any chance?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

Compare that with this, 9 paragraphs down before we find out he's an extreme leftist, they even mention that the shooter in El Paso had anti-immigrant motives before they mention the shooters motivates that the actual story is based on. Incredible.
 
Or people panicking and reporting anything vaguely suspicious though does look a bit dubious.

Carrying gun(s) in a pickup is not exactly unusual in Texas.
 
Gerard said:
Latex gloves on as well for no reason.
Click to expand...

Well aside from deliberately being a ****, the gloves, location etc... are rather deliberate but he’s staying within the law and exercising “muh gun rights”. Maybe he can fight some “tyranny” while out and about, perhaps a redcoat will appear and start oppressing him. (To be fair I did go to butlins as a kid and so I can sympathise with shooting redcoats)
 
Roar87 said:
Look at the headline, 7 words in before they could mention Trump! Is there an election next year by any chance?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

Compare that with this, 9 paragraphs down before we find out he's an extreme leftist, they even mention that the shooter in El Paso had anti-immigrant motives before they mention the shooters motivates that the actual story is based on. Incredible.
Click to expand...

The difference is that one wrote a manifesto about his attack, and the other was left-wing but the shooting wasn't politically motivated.

Hence only the El-paso shooting being classed as domestic terror.
 
dowie said:
They started replacing the SLR in the mid 80s so unless his unit was way down the list in terms of getting new equipment then I’d assume he was using 5.56 by the early 90s.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right dowie, he was in The Royal Corps of Transport, so I guess that long guns didn’t figure much in his unit.
The younger son has since replied, he said 7.62 high velocity, I think that he added high velocity, as he felt that he lived in the shadow of his big brother, and high velocity gave him a bit of cachet.
There again, he was in The Royal Corps of Signals, I wouldn’t have thought that they carried long guns as a rule, maybe in Northern Ireland, although I have a photo of him, in a forest in Germany, SLR rifle in one hand, bottle of beer in the other, he wrote under it, “If Ivan looks friendly, I’ll offer him a beer, if he looks a bit mean, I’ll shoot him!”
 
They generally would carry the same rifle as issues to most of the rest of the British Army, Royal Signals are combat support, Royal Corps of Transport don't exist anymore, they're part of the Royal Logistics Corps now.

There is a carbine version but that is mostly used by tankies and pilots.
 
Werewolf said:
However there is also an aspect of in war you are as much about wounding an enemy so you tie up an additional 1-4 troops on the front line providing first aid or pulling the wounded to safety (as well as stretching their logistics in treating them behind the lines) as outright killing them.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this, would it mean that... in a theoretical battle between two sides with equal numbers - with both sides using 5.56... would the side that is ordered to not help the wounded win?
 
Threepwood said:
I've been wondering about this, would it mean that... in a theoretical battle between two sides with equal numbers - with both sides using 5.56... would the side that is ordered to not help the wounded win?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, it's psychological warfare as well as stretching their logistics. I imagine its a whole lot harder to concentrate on what you're meant to be doing if your buddy is lying next to you screaming in pain. And things are going to go down hill real fast if you try to help them and an officer starts yelling at you.

There's the story from WW1 (I think) talking about how land mines were meant to maim people rather than kill them, because its a lot harder to drum up support for a war at home if every few days young men are coming home in a horrific state.
 
Sure, I do understand that... I was just wondering if it was always that cut and dry from a tactics point of view, because one would have thought that, if not letting your men get tied up helping the wounded would mean a win Vs a loss, or a draw with many wounded on both sides, well, I just thought that would be a go to, with better results in the long run. Come to think of it, wouldn't no helping of the wounded be the thing to do if you were outnumbered also? I'd have thought that if the men fighting understood why not to help the wounded, the negatives would offset a bit and be worth it? Having a chance to survive vs total defeat?

( I know nothing btw, but I have fired an SA80 :p )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom