Not No Way, Not No How

Add caption

UPDATE: Here's a well-done analysis of ballistics in the Las Vegas case.

In high school, I had a trigonometry teacher named Fr. Cylwicki.  He would demonstrate parabolas with a water pistol, both to dramatically show what a parabola was, and to wake us up during the 8am slog through such tedium.

Trigonometry is used to calculate ballistics.  Arrows, bullets, artillery, and even Kim Jong-Un's rockets follow parabolic arcs.

What that has to do with the Las Vegas massacre and Stephen Paddock should become apparent shortly.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I was a competition shooter and a pretty good one, by most accounts.  I won awards and patches and a couple of nice guns, too.

Because of that, I have an intuitive sense of trigonometry.  I hated the class, but I understand the physics of it.  I know how to calculate where an arrow or bullet will go, based on my elevation, wind speed, muzzle speed and other variables.  I also know that one of the hardest shots to make is when the shooter is above the target - even a few feet.

Shooters know that at level, the arrow or bullet will travel in an arc - a parabola - from the muzzle to the target.  Depending on distance, air desity, wind speed, etc., the arrow or bullet will fall slower or faster, depending on these factors.  Even at 100 feet (30 meters) from the target, arrows and bullets will drop a significant amount, all other conditions being perfect.

Non-shooters generally don't know this.  Someone who picks up a gun for the first time with try to aim directly at the bull's eye, and will invariably hit low.  They also won't compensate for recoil, muzzle speed and the like, so the arrow or bullet may end up far to the right of left of center, and significantly below.

That's at the same level as the target.

A figure now called Stephen Paddock, who supposedly had no firearm training, was not known for shooting or even having and interest in it, and who certainly would not have sniper training that included elevated positions, would very likely have no idea how to compensate for all the listed factors in order to target even a large crowd.

Most folks will look at those last two words and think, "How hard can it be to hit thousands of people in a small area with a machine gun?"

Answer: incredibly.

The alleged sniper's nest was on the 32nd floor of a hotel that is 0.7 miles (over half a kilometer) from the venue.  The window is therefore a minimum of 320 feet (90 meters) above eye level, not counting any floors that aren't part of the numbering convention that gives us 32.

At that distance, the entire venue would have been about the size of a bull's eye on a standard target at 100 feet.  Without a very high-powered scope, the sniper would not have been able to see individual souls.

On the night of 1 October 2017, between the hours of 10:05p and 10:15p PDT, according to "official" records.  Sundown was around 5:15p, meaning it was 5 hours after dark.  The minimum temperature that night was 79F/26C, with a maximum humidity of 20%, air pressure was 999hPa, with no measured rain.  Wind speeds were measured at 3.1 miles/second, or 7mph/11kph, out of the South West, with visibility up to 10miles/16km.

Because the window was a minimum of 320 feet/90m up, there would have been a temperature gradient of roughly 5F/10F, meaning the air density would have changed moving downward, from cooler to warmer air.

According to Google Earth, the sniper's nest window faced South East, meaning the wind was from the back, but would likely have had some swirl effect around the edge of the building and into the cavity formed by the two wings.  The wind was blowing across the venue from audience right to audience left, with the stage facing the hotel.  The sniper's nest direct line of fire would have been to the far audience left of the seating area, meaning the shooter would have had to angle a bit to target the direct center of the venue.

So, a direct shot out the window, all other factors aside, would have hit the back left corner of the venue.  A cross wind, even a small one over 0.7 mile, would have hit wide of the venue into the street beyond.  There are no reports I have seen that say bullets landed outside the venue.

In clear, midday conditions, this would be a hell of a shot, even just spraying with a machine gun, at night it would be near impossible but for the best sharp-shooters.  No witnesses mentions tracer rounds (glow in the dark), so the shooter would have to way to confirm what was being hit.  A scope would be almost useless with a machine gun, since the constant jerking back and sweep to the side would make it impossible to look through, not to mention dangerous to one's eye.  The shooter would have no way to verify hits without a spotter (second person to verify hits).

Since I can find no reports of exactly what gun was used in Las Vegas, and the sound matches several that I know of, I can guess at what it was like to fire the rifle.

Machine guns are designed for close-range target suppression, not long range accuracy.  The muzzles expel gasses to the shooter's left, so that the gun automatically sweeps to the right.  The normal way to fire such a gun is to begin on one's left and let the momentum of the gasses carry the muzzle to the right, so that the bullets spread out over an arc.  They are not designed for use in full-auto mode when shooting with precision over long distances.

And 0.7 mile, or more than half a kilometer, is a long distance.

Back to our parabolas.  Since the shooter was supposedly up 320 feet, we can imagine that being the peak in the arc of a parabola.  The shots would fall off rather quickly and if one was aiming at something 0.7 mile away, would hit well short of the target.

Add in a cross-wind at 3.1 miles/second, changing air density, dry conditions (humidity), temperature gradients, low light levels, and very likely a high heart rate and adrenaline causing muscles to quiver,   In addition, the window makes for a small operational area, and the sweeping motion of the machine gun would limit the length of time one could hold the trigger (certainly not the 100+ rounds recorded on audio).

Add up all these factors and you basically have an unbelievably difficult situation for even a weekend warrior.  Certainly 58 kills and 500+ injuries in 10 minutes, given all these factors and variables, would put this shooter in a rare class indeed.  It doesn't sound like anything a millionaire accountant could pull off, even with two weeks' practice in the desert.

More than all the other unbelievable information coming out with the Las Vegas massacre story, this one assumption completely destroys the whole narrative, in my opinion.  Either the shooter was not Stephen Paddock, or what we are told about him is completely false.

And even once we've considered the logistics of using a machine gun at 0.7 mile from the target, there's the matter of the bullets.

You see, with standard ammunition, half a mile is pushing it for most loads, and one mile is about the limit for hot loads.  Most of the energy behind the bullets would have been spent by the time they reached the target, in this case.

Once one begins picking this story apart, the pieces don't add up.

Lead Poisoning

It's times like these when you wish they still taught civics in high school.  Apparently, no one knows the laws in the US, nor are they able to look them up.

As the debate about gun control rages across the US, and even across the world (China for instance), it behooves us to go back and take a look at the laws that allow US citizens to own guns, and why.  First, a look at the Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So far, so good.  Now we ask ourselves, how is the militia defined in law?  For that, we turn to 10 USC Sub. A, Part I, Chap. 13, Sec. 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Source

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7),Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a),Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

While you're checking my facts, keep in mind that the US Constitution and Bil of Rights was written on hemp paper, just in case you think hemp should be illegal and that the Constitution allows government to do that.

Now, a quick history lesson.  During the American Revolution (Part I), the regular army was hopelessly outmatched in every way by the British army.  Oh sure, they had some good strategists, but they were broke and ill-equipped, so when they marched onto the field of battle, they were mostly mowed down like a hay harvest.

What made the difference?  A bunch of farmers with hunting rifles ambushing the British and wearing them down bit by bit.  It was guerrilla warfare, much like what is kicking the US army's butts in Afghanistan and other places.  Instead of everyone wearing pretty uniforms and lining up in a field and blowing each other to bits until the last man standing, the militia looked like farmers and non-combatants.  They could blend into the population, be anywhere in a town or on a country road, and they knew the land in a way that a general with a map could never know it.

The writers of the Bill of Rights knew this and knew that governments that had a monopoly on power (like the one they had just defeated) inevitably become totalitarian police states.  One only need to scan a history book to discover that fact.

So they made it a codified right that every member of the unorganized militia should be armed and have some basic training and practice in order to protect the nation from invasion...and from out-of-control governments.

Now, some people read the "well-regulated" part and think in terms of rules and regulations, but that is not the meaning intended here.  In military terms, well-regulated means trained and equipped.

Back in the old days, when I was a kid, we were trained as militia.  I received my first gun for Christmas at 8 years old.  It was a Browning .22 rifle, and boy was I excited!  However, in order to quality for that gun, I was trained to shoot from the age when I could hold a gun.  From my earliest memories, I was going out to the farm with Dad and other friends and relatives to plink can and bottles down at the creek.  I distinctly remember my first real lesson.  I was handed a .12 gauge shotgun and told to shoot a coffee can thrown in the air.  I had a bruise the size of Rhode Island on my shoulder for a week.  I learned really fast to respect guns.

Then there were the NRA camps.  We would spend a summer learning to carry, clean and shoot all sorts of guns.  We went to competitions to earn patches and pins for 50-yard, 100-yard and 150-yard targets.  I earned my Marksman patch at 12.  For a time, I could put a bullet through the hole made by the previous bullet at 50 yards.  If it weren't for the spotters, you might have thought I missed the target.

My first year in high school was in a small town called Shiner.  We all drove to school, though us freshmen and sophmores didn't have licenses.  They sheriff didn't bother us unless we were being crazy.  Pretty much every car and pickup in the parking lot had at least two guns and plenty of ammo.  It was a way of life.

The next year, I transferred to a school in downtown Houston.  Every Thurday, the skeet club met after school.  Those days, there were probably 30 or 40 shotguns with ammo at school.

Never once was there a problem.  No one every pulled a gun in anger or made threats.  No one ever went on sprees down the hall killing and maiming.  Maybe some folks thought about it, but given the fact there were dozens of other guns in the school, they would have been a damn fool.  If someone ever tried it, they wouldn't have made it ten steps down the hall without having their brains decorating the wall.

Then there's folks like my idiot liberal sister.  She's one of those bleeding-everything pacifists that would gladly hang a sign in her yard saying, "This is a gun-free home."  Even mentioning the word 'gun' gets her all hypoplectic.  Yet, when push comes to shove, she's more than happy to throw a cop at it, which is nothing more than gun violence by proxy.

Whether I point a gun at you, or I have someone else do it for me, the result is the same.

Now comes the question of things like body armor.  Well, as I read the Second Amendment, it says, "well-regulated," meaning equipped.  Therefore, any member of the militia should be able to own guns, body armor, silencers, etc.  If the army can have it, then the militia can have it...by law.

So what's the solution to so-called 'gun violence' that doesn't cross the boundary of law?  Easy!

All males 17 to 45, and females in the National Guard, should be required to attend training for some amount of time and be certified as militia members.  Then, they should have to attend annual refresher courses.  Finally, they should all be required to keep and bear arms at all times, just like the Swiss.  If the simple requirements of the law were followed, no one would ever think of going on a shooting spree.  They wouldn't make it ten feet without a couple of dozen militia members putting a quick stop to it.

Imagine if the law was actually followed.  There'd be millions of trained and armed citizens everywhere.  Anyone who thought of robbing a store or shooting up a mall would have to remember that they'd likely be mowed down before they could take two shots.  The theater shooters would face down 20 armed militia members.  A mall shooter would have dozens of well-regulated individuals ready to stop them.

The problem here is not the need for more laws, but proper enforcement of existing laws.  The only reason why the current laws would not be enforced is because there is an agenda to rid the common man of his means of defense.  And the only reason to do that is to allow government free reign in the public sphere without fear of reprisal.

At the moment, there are millions of law-abiding gun owners in the US.  This fact alone has forced the government to attack rights by stealth and by propaganda.  Without all those gun owners out there, the bastards who like treating people like slaves would have free reign.  They wouldn't have to nibble at the people's rights, they could gulp until satiated and no one could stop them.

Like the old saying goes, "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals would have them."  We can safely assume that government wants to ban guns in the hands of everyone except government agents.  So what does that make the agents?  Why, criminals of course.

One last note...there is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'.  Any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon, whether it's piano wire, water boards, electricity to the gonads, or a gun.  In the hands of a law-abiding citizen, all rifles are defensive, just like a shield.  Stop using 'their' terms and think for yourself.  That's the first step in becoming a free individual.

By the same token, any government that bans guns is protecting itself, not the people.

A free man defends himself.  A slave is defended by his owner.  We are either property, or we are free individuals.  Take your choice.  The battleground is the right to be armed and defend yourself and your family.

And if you are worried about school shootings, then home school your children.  You will all be better off.  After all, the first school shooting in the US was Kent State, and the 'authorities' were the bad guys.