Tucson shooter's incredible marksmanship

reply to post by starviego


Want to know why? I think you have some jacked up numbers here.
For example. Susan Hileman was shot 3 times and not 4. I'll check the rest in time.

Also, these bullets didn't just fall out of the air after going through people, especially the ones that just grazed people. He was close, the shots could have hit multiple people and in most cases probably struck walls and windows. It even says one guys head was grazed, the bullet could have easily hit someone else as it undoubtedly traveled on.

The glock range of pistols is one of the most stable semi auto types out there. They are not like the uzi used by the secret service where the recoil would jerk widly after each round capable of twisting your hand. The glock is as smooth as knife cutting through butter, with slight recoil IF held firmly in both hands, spitting out death within seconds from a focussed mind undistracted by anything else.

Not many are aware of such fine tuning marksman techniques and the weapon used. It takes a lot, and i do mean a lot of practice and training, not based on theories, to achieve that kind and level of proficency in welding a gun effectively, as effectively and deadly as the defendent had.

One or 2 shot may be lucky shots, but not 31 shots, even at close range, for a novice.

Thus for the him to be able to shot that accurately, even at close range, goes to show that he had training in firearms. Who taught him, and where?

And another thing about ballistics are that the 9mm round, at close range, would not have achieved it maximum velocity speed to be able to penetrate through multiple bodies. Through one body perhaps, if did not meet any bones, but its speed would have dropped and only pinch the other person, not penetrate through, unless fired upon a target at est. 20m beyond, the the penetration would be lethal through many bodies.

Originally posted by starviego
Even assuming rounds that passed through one victim and then impacted another, it is a truly incredible piece of marksmanship from some guy who had no known professional training and probably very little practice.

So many people have said this, but how many people really know how much practice he had? How do they know what experience he had with his gun?

I said in another thread, i saw one witness saying that the way Loughtner used his weapon, he looked like he had definately put in a lot of time at the range. The witnessed specifically stated thet the shooter "was getting headshots".

Fair enough that was just one guys opinion too, but when no-one really has any idea, there are too many people jumping to conclusions.

In a place where there are lots of people, like a crowd, is it really that hard to hit people 30 times with as many rounds? If they were all headshots and torso shots, i'd be impressed, but if they are just random wounds to various parts, then i'm saying he just couldn't miss with that many people around.

CX.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Well until you have every bit of info on the injuries you can't say much. Maybe some of the injuries were very shallow (more than a pinch is assumed). Also bullets reach their maximum velocity when they leave the barrel so that other bit you said was nonsense, close range would have made these bullets go through people easier.


EDIT: Also to squash one of the most retarded parts of this AZ assassin conspiracy, everyone here does know that his name is pronounced like LOFFNER right? The GH make an ff sound like a lot of words in the english language. I knew this immediately and was blow away that some of the people here (including that woman in the video on one of the other pages) don't know how to correctly pronounce english.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I think you have some jacked up numbers here.
For example. Susan Hileman was shot 3 times and not 4.

I am getting different info on that:

radioviceonline.com...
Susan Hileman, shot in the leg, hip, abdomen and chest (That's 4)

www.nytimes.com...
Ms. Hileman: ... there were six bullet holes in her chest, abdomen and legs.


The statement of a witness indicates the victims were not merely grouped into a tight crowd, but rather spread out in a line, which makes it less likely a bullet hit more than one person:

www.nytimes.com...
The victims dropped where they stood, forming a row 20 or 30 feet long.

Interestingly the media has made almost no mention of damage to the building behind the victims. Just these tidbits, which seem to indicate at least one clean miss was also fired:

www6.lexisnexis.com...:1337525584&isRss=true
Witness Ken Penner: There were bullet holes through the glass(of the store).

www.kvoa.com...
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik came to help support Safeway employees.
Dupnik says, "They were part of the shooting. One of the rounds was all the way through the Safeway."

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Well until you have every bit of info on the injuries you can't say much. Maybe some of the injuries were very shallow (more than a pinch is assumed). Also bullets reach their maximum velocity when they leave the barrel so that other bit you said was nonsense, close range would have made these bullets go through people easier.

You sure do have a inflated ego, in that you believe you are only right and if anyone who challenges or disagree with your assesment, it is nonsense.

But then I am not here to challenge you, for you and my opinion is not important anyway. We are nobodies here afterall. All that ego building or brusing is for nothing and a waste of time. What is more important is for full justice to be served.

But on the fallacy of your qoute, the barrel of the gun is a short one. The grooves inside are to help the bullet spin so that it can maintain its accuracy as well as perform more damage. The typical muzzle velocity is 800ft per second, which means within one second the bullet would have reached 800ft.

Unfortunately, at 3-6 feet from the barrel, the bullet would have took less than one second to travese that speed, which means that its effective velocity and spin had not been reached enough to penetrate through several bodies..Which is why if a kevlar suit is worn at close quarters, the bullet would just bounce off and not penetrate through, but if a rifle is fired from several hundred feet away, it will punch a hole and tear that body behind it apart and may even penetrate through the back kevlar and into another body, but only at hundreds of feet away, not a few feet away..

reply to post by matrix12


Ben Bernanke?

Why does that video mention his name?

I'm split on this one..

Depends what the arguement really is..? are we argueing his capability to shoot so accurately? or are we argueing that someone else was shooting as well?

I would sure hope they will dig for every bullet and do the best forensics they could, instead of shipping the metal off to china. If there happens to be more holes than bullets, well they should continue to investigate..

Now was he that good? sounding from the distance and the ease of the weapon, perhaps.. but I've never shot a glock so couldnt provide a decent opinion. Though reading the list of wounds... does seem peculiar.

I have a Glock 31 (.357) wich has alot more kick than a 9mm. I have NEVER missed a man sized target within 25 yds. and I am not even that great a shot. I know alot of people that shoot way better than i do. When you are as close as he was you dont even have to aim, just point the gun and squeeze the trigger.

reply to post by starviego



You did an incredible job of summing this all up,

when the news first broke, i was shocked they claimed there was only one shooter.

Originally posted by starviego

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I think you have some jacked up numbers here.
For example. Susan Hileman was shot 3 times and not 4.

I am getting different info on that:

radioviceonline.com...
Susan Hileman, shot in the leg, hip, abdomen and chest (That's 4)

www.nytimes.com...
Ms. Hileman: ... there were six bullet holes in her chest, abdomen and legs.


The statement of a witness indicates the victims were not merely grouped into a tight crowd, but rather spread out in a line, which makes it less likely a bullet hit more than one person:

www.nytimes.com...
The victims dropped where they stood, forming a row 20 or 30 feet long.

Interestingly the media has made almost no mention of damage to the building behind the victims. Just these tidbits, which seem to indicate at least one clean miss was also fired:

www6.lexisnexis.com...:1337525584&isRss=true
Witness Ken Penner: There were bullet holes through the glass(of the store).

www.kvoa.com...
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik came to help support Safeway employees.
Dupnik says, "They were part of the shooting. One of the rounds was all the way through the Safeway."

edit on 16-1-2011 by starviego because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2011 by starviego because: (no reason given)

Let's do the math here. In the second article from the New York Times, it says the x-ray showed no bullets in her body. So they were all through-and-through shots. Now if there were 6 holes total, that would mean 3 bullets entering and exiting the victim.

If you do a quick google search, you will find several reports which state that she was shot 3 times. Even her husband is quoted as saying she was shot 3 times. So who is wrong? Them or you?

I am not going to quibble about one bullet wound. The point is the shooter had a stunningly high ratio of hits-on-target to shots fired. Way too high for a brain-addled goofwad with no training or experience.

I suspect there are two kinds of posters on this topic. Those who have some real-life experience firing handguns, and those whose opinions are formed by watching Hollywood movies.

This guy only killed 6 and injured 13. Compared to similar incidents, that is relatively low for a single gunman.

Just look at the 1991 Luby's Massacre in Killeen, Texas. One guy armed with a Glock-17 and a Ruger P89 slams his truck through the front of a restaurant, opens fire and kills 23 people, injures 20, and then kills himself.

During the recent Fort Hood shooting, also in Killeen, Texas, one guy armed with a FN Five-Seven ends up killing 13 and injuring 30 before being shot in the chest and paralyzed from the chest down.

In 1984, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre was done by one man armed with a semi-aut Uzi, a pump action shotgun, and a Browning HP. He killed 21, wounded 19 before killing himself.

In 1999, Mark O. Barton, a daytrader, lost over $100,000 in the stock market so he went on a shooting spree at two investment firms with a Glock-17 and Colt 1911a1, killing 9 and injuring 13.

Can anyone clarify the part in the Gifford's youtube Channel video (at 3.34) where the girl is saying that "He was married but he was gay and... he tried to kill himself and he did so by shooting himself in the head..."

What?!! Is that right?
I can find stories about photos of him in a gstring, but he shot himself in the head and survived?

Really? Sure would explain a lot... Uhunh! *Nods to self*

Does anyone know where she got the "Loughner was a disabled homosexual" info from?


Okay after a bit more digging found it was disinfo.

reply to post by allenidaho

Each individual case must be evaluated on the evidence from that case. But I would like to point out a few other instances in which the shooter displayed "beyond-the-realm-of-probability" shooting abilities:


4-28-96 Port Arthur/Broad Arrow Cafe, Tasmania, Australia, Martin Bryant, 28
"In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head, fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter. The awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on intellectually impaired Martin Bryant."

4-26-02 Gutenbourg Gymnasium, Erfurt, Germany, Robert Steinhauser, 19
Steinhauser killed 16 people with 40 shots.

4-16-07 Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, Cho Seung Hui, 23
--135-odd hits for 174 rounds fired is an astoundingly high percentage
--Deacon Ellerbrock said recalling the awe that struck him in the first minutes afterward as he stood on the lawn of the classroom building where the massacre took place. "It's beyond comprehension how one person could kill so many with just two guns."

11-7-07 Jokela High School, Tusuula, Finland, Pekka Auvinen, 17
The victims were shot in the head or the upper body - some only a few times, others almost 20...

12-4-07 Omaha/Westroads Mall, Robert Hawkins, 21
"...the shooter made head shots with his rifle on the move at 55 yards, made kill shots from the 3rd level to the first and second levels, and shows that he was tactically proficient with his weapon system."

3-11-09 Winnenden/Albertville-Realschule, Germany, Tim Kretschmer, 17
Most victims had single gunshot wounds to the head.

4-30-09 State Oil Academy, Baku, Azerbaijan, Farda Gadirov, 29,
"Azeri military expert Uzeyir Jafarov said it is quite obscure to him (how) the inexperienced assailant could kill and injure so many persons with a Makarov pistol."

Originally posted by starviego
I am not going to quibble about one bullet wound. The point is the shooter had a stunningly high ratio of hits-on-target to shots fired. Way too high for a brain-addled goofwad with no training or experience.

Well that would depend on being inside the shooter's head to know what his targets were to claim a high ratio of hit targets.How many of the rounds were grazing wounds, or wounds to the arms or legs? Do you think that JLL was aiming at someones arm or aiming only to graze?

I suspect there are two kinds of posters on this topic. Those who have some real-life experience firing handguns, and those whose opinions are formed by watching Hollywood movies.

edit on 16-1-2011 by starviego because: (no reason given)

I would be among the first group there. There were times in my life when I was on the range every day for 2-3 weeks at a time spending no less than 3-4 hours apiece there. I still think this is kind of a ridiculous claim of a high ratio of intended hits on target, given the amount of shots that by your OP state were grazing, thigh hits, other leg hits or arm hits.

What if he knew of the shooting and was trying to stop it but couldn't find the shooter so he just started shooting to clear the area? Might be a stretch but also possible.

My natural inclination is to say "He was just crazy with a good gun" and that he was obviously highly functioning if insane.

Then I'd write it off.

But the way this incident has been used! The way that crazed picture has been splattered everywhere like on my TIME magazine - just....something ain't right!

I couldn't see any disorganized mass media effort maneuvering this much agenda in place SO FAST without something nefarious going on, you know?

reply to post by starviego


Star that doesnt exactly look good for making your case.

You were assering that JLL had above average skill level, but then point out a large number of similar instances where the skill level is perceived to be above average as well. If those cases showeed a low skill level, it would have been more effective.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
And another thing about ballistics are that the 9mm round, at close range, would not have achieved it maximum velocity speed...

All ballastics achieve maximum velocity at or near the weapons muzzle. They do not speed up in flight.