Los Vegas shooter used "bump stocks"

[bookburn]

Evidently the massacre occurred as a consequence of the shooter firing what they are saying are automatic weapons, or assault rifles, but it seems a fairly unfamiliar technique of customizing rifles is involved, called a "butt stock."

(quoting from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html)

“bump stock,” an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire faster.

The device replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires. The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.

The bump stock is not banned under federal law even though it allows a weapon to fire nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm.
(unquote)

Question raised by the shooter's use of butt stocks is about what problem he had with that in terms of mis-fires, because they say the rifles strewn around the apartment show evidence of similar hang-ups. Not sure if the butt-fire concept is useful generally or not.

Probably the left wing will take up the cause of making butt stocks illegal now.
I wish they would concentrate on messing with legislation withing their own states and counties, instead of trying to go against the 2nd Amendment. bookburn

[rbowman]

On 10/05/2017 01:21 AM, bookburn wrote:
> Evidently the massacre occurred as a consequence of the shooter firing what they are saying are automatic weapons, or assault rifles, but it seems a fairly unfamiliar technique of customizing rifles is involved, called a "butt stock."

Most rifles have buttstocks, fixed, folding, or adjustable. That's the
part you use to administer a horizontal butt stroke.

The bump fire stocks have been around a while, long enough to be banned
from one of the local ranges. Another range allows fully automatic
weapons on selected ranges and I don't know if they've taken a position
on the bump fires.

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:

>Probably the left wing will take up the cause of making butt stocks illegal now.

Already has. Arizona's own beloved left-wing RINO, Jeff Flake, said
yesterday Republicans will work with Dems on gun control and outlawing
the bump stock is one of the first things everyone can agree on.

Luckily, he's not running again. Unluckily, there are a number of
totally whacked-out, but well known, politicritters looking to take
his seat.

>I wish they would concentrate on messing with legislation withing their own states and counties, instead of trying to go against the 2nd Amendment. bookburn

Legalizing/de-controlling "silencers" was moving along. Looks like the
Dems first move is to demonize them. If the Vegas shooter didn't have
one (he didn't) they could have found him and stopped him faster.

[Winston Smith]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:

>“bump stock,” an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire faster.

Supposedly a crime scene photo of the weapon in question
https://media.tmz.com/2017/10/03/1003-modified-ar-15-vegas-shooter-weapon-sub-3.jpg

[rbowman]

On 10/05/2017 10:03 AM, Winston Smith wrote:
> Already has. Arizona's own beloved left-wing RINO, Jeff Flake, said
> yesterday Republicans will work with Dems on gun control and outlawing
> the bump stock is one of the first things everyone can agree on.
>
> Luckily, he's not running again. Unluckily, there are a number of
> totally whacked-out, but well known, politicritters looking to take
> his seat.
>

From what I've been reading the NRA is cashing in that chip. While I
think a Bump Fire is as useful as tits on a bull first they came for the
Bump Fires...

[Winston Smith]

I heard a piece on the radio this afternoon. The Dems already have
legislation written. (Funny how that always happens but black flag
thoughts are tin foil stuff.)

Watch the details. It outlaws anything that makes a trigger easier to
pull. That would include upgrade triggers and probably adjustable
triggers.

Neatly managed. If the Rs oppose the broad stroke attempt, the Ds will
just lie and say they want to protect bump stocks.

[PaxPerPoten]

Are these the same Democrats that gave $millions of Dollars worth of
stingers to Isil in Benghazi, Got our Ambassador killed while the
Democrat in charge(Hillary) got her beauty rest? That didn't work either.

Anyon remember Fast and Furious... The Democrats are proud of that one.
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[rbowman]

Yeah, the Dems are all about mission creep. Ironically one of the bump
fire stock manufacturers, Slide Fire, recommends against competition
triggers on the AR platform. Too light a pull can cause light primer
strikes, FTFs, and other problems.

Adjustable triggers have become common on many rifles out of the box.

Legislation is not needed. The BATF gives, and the BATF takes away.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mr-bill-akins-and-the-akins-accelerator/

They approved the bump fire systems, they can rescind the approval.

There is another argument that the Dems wouldn't be able to comprehend.
Given the situation I believe the shooter could have caused greater
fatalities with aimed fire.

[Ed Huntress]

No way, Hose-A. He hit almost 500 people in ten minutes at a range of
300 to 500 yards, many of them running. You need to be settled down
for each shot at that range.

The Las Vegas massacre was a job for spray-and-pray with full-auto,
into a packed crowd that doesn't know where you're shooting from.

The bump stocks fulfilled the fantasy for which they are made.

I predict, though, that there will be YouTube videos on how to
bump-fire without the special stock, using a thick foam-rubber
shoulder pad, like the first experimenters who started bump-firing.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:20:46 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:07:22 -0600, rbowman wrote:

>>There is another argument that the Dems wouldn't be able to comprehend.
>>Given the situation I believe the shooter could have caused greater
>>fatalities with aimed fire.
>
>No way, Hose-A. He hit almost 500 people in ten minutes at a range of
>300 to 500 yards, many of them running. You need to be settled down
>for each shot at that range.

Packed in like that crowd, and from above, I could hit fifty of them
in one shot with pack of marbles in a sling shot. Where ever a bullet
landed, there was a person, very likely a head.

Clearly we need to ban outdoor concerts.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 12:26:05 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:20:46 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:07:22 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>
>>>There is another argument that the Dems wouldn't be able to comprehend.
>>>Given the situation I believe the shooter could have caused greater
>>>fatalities with aimed fire.
>>
>>No way, Hose-A. He hit almost 500 people in ten minutes at a range of
>>300 to 500 yards, many of them running. You need to be settled down
>>for each shot at that range.
>
>Packed in like that crowd, and from above, I could hit fifty of them
>in one shot with pack of marbles in a sling shot.

Pffft. No you couldn't. They were over 300 yards away. But if you
tried, then they'd come kick your ass.

> Where ever a bullet
>landed, there was a person, very likely a head.

Nope. They started running in a matter of seconds.

Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit. I
don't know how much shooting you've done at that range, but that's
right in my old varmint-hunting wheelhouse, and I smell some smoke
blowing .

>
>Clearly we need to ban outdoor concerts.

Go ahead, Winston. It won't be any dumber than the stuff we hear from
the GOA.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:09:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit.

No need to get snippy. My only point was that he did NOT need to be a
crack shot.

As long as we are getting picky, do you support outlawing bump stocks
in light of your assessment he had to have been a crack shot and he
had to have used carefully aimed fire? If that's the case, bump stock
is a red herring issue.

Or are you of the opinion you can use a bump stock AND be a crack shot
at the same time?

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:46:17 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:09:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit.
>
>No need to get snippy. My only point was that he did NOT need to be a
>crack shot.
>
>As long as we are getting picky, do you support outlawing bump stocks
>in light of your assessment he had to have been a crack shot and he
>had to have used carefully aimed fire? If that's the case, bump stock
>is a red herring issue.

Let me answer the parts of this individually. Yes, I support outlawing
bump stocks. That's a mass-killing fantasy device, part of Gun Culture
2.0. I'm opposed to many aspects of Gun Culture 2.0, which has
perverted Gun Culture 1.0, which is the one I grew up with and which I
consider to be a good thing:

https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/the-sociology-of-u-s-gun-culture-article-published-and-available-free-online/

Second, I didn't say he'd have to be a crack shot to kill people. He'd
have to be a crack shot to kill a *lot* of people. Otherwise, what he
would have would just be a very slow version of what he used. Most of
those 500 would have gotten out of range. In no way would he have had
time to kill 58. He wouldn't have killed, or shot, very many people
unless he was very, very good at long-range moving targets. That's one
of the most difficult ways to shoot a rifle.

Remember what Robert had said: that there would be "greater
fatalities" with a semi-auto. That's the part that's horseshit.

>
>Or are you of the opinion you can use a bump stock AND be a crack shot
>at the same time?

You could be both, but not at the same time. Crack shots aren't crack
shots while they're shooting sloppy and cranky pseudo machine guns,
which is what he had.

This is interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000005473223/las-vegas-shooting-guns.html


--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 10/06/2017 02:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit. I
> don't know how much shooting you've done at that range, but that's
> right in my old varmint-hunting wheelhouse, and I smell some smoke
> blowing .

Yeah, and the smoke is blowing right out of your ass. Given a 1 MOA
rifle, which many are right out of the box these days, if you can't hit
a paper plate at 400 yards you must have really terrified the varmints.

Why I even let myself be trolled by you really is a head scratcher.

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:04:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:46:17 -0700, Winston Smith wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:09:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>>Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit.

Never heard of it. Working from common sense and geometry here.

>>No need to get snippy. My only point was that he did NOT need to be a
>>crack shot.
>>
>>As long as we are getting picky, do you support outlawing bump stocks
>>in light of your assessment he had to have been a crack shot and he
>>had to have used carefully aimed fire? If that's the case, bump stock
>>is a red herring issue.
>
>Let me answer the parts of this individually. Yes, I support outlawing
>bump stocks. That's a mass-killing fantasy device, part of Gun Culture
>2.0. I'm opposed to many aspects of Gun Culture 2.0, which has
>perverted Gun Culture 1.0, which is the one I grew up with and which I
>consider to be a good thing:

Fantasy, yes. Killing device, not if the aim is wild and erratic.
Certainly not "mass" if you can't aim it.

>
>https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/the-sociology-of-u-s-gun-culture-article-published-and-available-free-online/
>
>Second, I didn't say he'd have to be a crack shot to kill people. He'd
>have to be a crack shot to kill a *lot* of people.

Not packed shoulder to shoulder; crotch to butt.

>Otherwise, what he
>would have would just be a very slow version of what he used. Most of
>those 500 would have gotten out of range. In no way would he have had
>time to kill 58. He wouldn't have killed, or shot, very many people
>unless he was very, very good at long-range moving targets. That's one
>of the most difficult ways to shoot a rifle.
>
>Remember what Robert had said: that there would be "greater
>fatalities" with a semi-auto. That's the part that's horseshit.

I never mentioned it. I never heard of it. That makes it your straw
man.

>>Or are you of the opinion you can use a bump stock AND be a crack shot
>>at the same time?
>
>You could be both, but not at the same time. Crack shots aren't crack
>shots while they're shooting sloppy and cranky pseudo machine guns,
>which is what he had.

AND implies at the same time. If you dispute that, it's still what I
meant to write. In fact, I added "at the same time".

>This is interesting:
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000005473223/las-vegas-shooting-guns.html

Unless I mis-read you, you are saying he needed the bump stock to get
off the volume of lead to establish the number of hits, at the same
time you are saying he needed precision, aimed fire because they had
dispersed.

Ignoring that they had difficulty dispersing because most ways out
were blocked (for security purposes), you are still saying two
mutually exclusive conditions are true at the same time.

[Winston Smith]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:04:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>Let me answer the parts of this individually. Yes, I support outlawing
>bump stocks. That's a mass-killing fantasy device, part of Gun Culture
>2.0. I'm opposed to many aspects of Gun Culture 2.0, which has
>perverted Gun Culture 1.0, which is the one I grew up with and which I
>consider to be a good thing:
>
>https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/the-sociology-of-u-s-gun-culture-article-published-and-available-free-online/

Here we go with the first classic liberal mantra - appeal to
authority.

I count something like 80 links to other papers; probably some are
duplicates. Each one conclusively proves some point he wants to make.
He never bothers telling us what the proof is.

You would have to read and digest all of them to even begin deciding
if his paper makes any sense.

Then again we have the author.
>>||David Yamane is Professor of Sociology at Wake Forest University.
>>||He is author or editor of seven books, mostly in the sociology of
>>||religion. In a recent departure from his previous work, Yamane has
>>||begun studying guns

So after we study 80 other papers, probably themselves reference
infested, we >might< have the basis to understand a professor (bad) of
sociology (bad) who is basically founded in religion but has made his
first foray into guns in society.

Thanks for playing. See what you can do with the other liberal mantra
- "everyone agrees that ....".

[bookburn]

The single shot vs. automatic issue is likely to be complicated by ammo used, if .308 with jackets, then you might consider whether at 300 yds. MORE THAN ONE would have been hit, factoring in the angle of fire. I read .308 mentioned as one used. In a bump stocked semi-auto rifle, that would be close to the WW-II Browning BAR automatic, which was .30-06.

An exponent of the .308, which is also the NATO round, says about it as the perfect all-around cartridge for North America,

(quoting from http://www.petersenshunting.com/big-game/perfect-north-american-big-game-cartridge/)

The first that comes to mind is the .308 Winchester. It will work splendidly on whitetails – I’ve done that – and its sufficient for moose – I’ve done that, too. It’s compact and allows for a properly sized rifle with an ample magazine capacity. With good bullets, 20 inches of penetration is easily obtained, even with 2x bullet expansion. When properly zeroed it will allow you to hold dead on out to just the other side of 300 yards. And, in an 8-pound rifle it will generate less than 20 ft./lbs. of free recoil energy.
(unquote) bookburn

[PaxPerPoten]

Sucker.. :-)

[rbowman]

On 10/06/2017 10:03 PM, bookburn wrote:
> The single shot vs. automatic issue is likely to be complicated by ammo used, if .308 with jackets, then you might consider whether at 300 yds. MORE THAN ONE would have been hit, factoring in the angle of fire. I read .308 mentioned as one used. In a bump stocked semi-auto rifle, that would be close to the WW-II Browning BAR automatic, which was .30-06.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dz-sNBLg5A

[bookburn]

Found a .308 bump stock test at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8EomJzXP1I

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:29:50 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:04:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:46:17 -0700, Winston Smith wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:09:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>>Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit.
>
>Never heard of it. Working from common sense and geometry here.

That's the content of the post I responded to. And my post to him is
what you responded to.

>>>No need to get snippy. My only point was that he did NOT need to be a
>>>crack shot.
>>>
>>>As long as we are getting picky, do you support outlawing bump stocks
>>>in light of your assessment he had to have been a crack shot and he
>>>had to have used carefully aimed fire? If that's the case, bump stock
>>>is a red herring issue.
>>
>>Let me answer the parts of this individually. Yes, I support outlawing
>>bump stocks. That's a mass-killing fantasy device, part of Gun Culture
>>2.0. I'm opposed to many aspects of Gun Culture 2.0, which has
>>perverted Gun Culture 1.0, which is the one I grew up with and which I
>>consider to be a good thing:
>
>Fantasy, yes. Killing device, not if the aim is wild and erratic.
>Certainly not "mass" if you can't aim it.

The fantasy is about mass killing, as in "the great cull," "the coming
revolution," etc.

It's a fantasy, not a reality, and the bump stock is part of it.

>>
>>https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/the-sociology-of-u-s-gun-culture-article-published-and-available-free-online/
>>
>>Second, I didn't say he'd have to be a crack shot to kill people. He'd
>>have to be a crack shot to kill a *lot* of people.
>
>Not packed shoulder to shoulder; crotch to butt.

But they weren't, after about five seconds. They aren't going to stand
there like sardines while you shoot 500 of them.

>
>>Otherwise, what he
>>would have would just be a very slow version of what he used. Most of
>>those 500 would have gotten out of range. In no way would he have had
>>time to kill 58. He wouldn't have killed, or shot, very many people
>>unless he was very, very good at long-range moving targets. That's one
>>of the most difficult ways to shoot a rifle.
>>
>>Remember what Robert had said: that there would be "greater
>>fatalities" with a semi-auto. That's the part that's horseshit.
>
>I never mentioned it. I never heard of it. That makes it your straw
>man.

Jesus. It was the subject of my post, which you responded to.

>
>>>Or are you of the opinion you can use a bump stock AND be a crack shot
>>>at the same time?
>>
>>You could be both, but not at the same time. Crack shots aren't crack
>>shots while they're shooting sloppy and cranky pseudo machine guns,
>>which is what he had.
>
>AND implies at the same time. If you dispute that, it's still what I
>meant to write. In fact, I added "at the same time".
>
>>This is interesting:
>>
>>https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000005473223/las-vegas-shooting-guns.html
>
>Unless I mis-read you, you are saying he needed the bump stock to get
>off the volume of lead to establish the number of hits, at the same
>time you are saying he needed precision, aimed fire because they had
>dispersed.

No, I'm saying he needed a high volume of fire, because he sure as
hell wasn't going to have much success shooting at crazed and running
people at an average distance of 400 yeards, with aimed fire.

>
>Ignoring that they had difficulty dispersing because most ways out
>were blocked (for security purposes), you are still saying two
>mutually exclusive conditions are true at the same time.

No. I'm saying he needed one condition -- the high volume. The other
condition -- that he was a crack shot with moving targets at 400 yards
-- is unlikely in the extreme.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:44:44 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:04:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>Let me answer the parts of this individually. Yes, I support outlawing
>>bump stocks. That's a mass-killing fantasy device, part of Gun Culture
>>2.0. I'm opposed to many aspects of Gun Culture 2.0, which has
>>perverted Gun Culture 1.0, which is the one I grew up with and which I
>>consider to be a good thing:
>>
>>https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/the-sociology-of-u-s-gun-culture-article-published-and-available-free-online/
>
>Here we go with the first classic liberal mantra - appeal to
>authority.

I'm not appealing to authority. I just thought you'd appreciate the
definitions. I find them to be accurate.

>I count something like 80 links to other papers; probably some are
>duplicates. Each one conclusively proves some point he wants to make.
>He never bothers telling us what the proof is.

His point is distinguishing the two gun cultures of recent history.
The "links" are citations. That's the way most scientific papers are
written; you try to stand on the shoulders of previous research.

When I was doing medical editing, one metastudy might have more than
200 citations. My team and I had to fact-check all of them. It's a
tedious business, but without it, it's all bullshit -- like most
Usenet posts.

>
>You would have to read and digest all of them to even begin deciding
>if his paper makes any sense.

Or live through it.

>
>Then again we have the author.
>>>||David Yamane is Professor of Sociology at Wake Forest University.
>>>||He is author or editor of seven books, mostly in the sociology of
>>>||religion. In a recent departure from his previous work, Yamane has
>>>||begun studying guns
>
>So after we study 80 other papers, probably themselves reference
>infested, we >might< have the basis to understand a professor (bad) of
>sociology (bad) who is basically founded in religion but has made his
>first foray into guns in society.

He's making some distinctions in an attempt to understand the
transition from Gun Culture 1.0 (people like me) to 2.0 (the people
who hang lots of junk on their Picatinny rails. I like the
gas-operated expresso makers and recoil-activated martini shakers,
personally.)

>
>Thanks for playing. See what you can do with the other liberal mantra
>- "everyone agrees that ....".

Try the thought that Yamane quotes from [classical liberal -- ie.,
conservative] Baruch Spinoza: "I have sedulously endeavored not to
laugh at human actions, nor to lament them, nor to detest them, but to
understand them."

You could try doing a little anthropological investigation, like
spending some time on misc.survivalism. Just don't try it before
lunch, and make sure you wash your hands after leaving. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

He was shooting .223 ammo.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 19:46:30 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

>On 10/06/2017 02:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit. I
>> don't know how much shooting you've done at that range, but that's
>> right in my old varmint-hunting wheelhouse, and I smell some smoke
>> blowing .
>
>Yeah, and the smoke is blowing right out of your ass. Given a 1 MOA
>rifle, which many are right out of the box these days, if you can't hit
>a paper plate at 400 yards you must have really terrified the varmints.

You haven't done it. You're talking about 500 hits in ten minutes -- a
hit of roughly one per second at 400 yards. That's horseshit.

NRA high-power RAPID FIRE service rifle or tactical rifle (service
rifle with scope) is 10 rounds prone -- in 70 SECONDS! Did you ever
see an NRA SR-3C (300-yard) target? The 10-ring is 7 inches. The
aiming ring is 19 inches. Go look up some typical scores.

If you follow these discussions on RCM, you may remember I was a
certified rifle instructor and a DCM range officer through the '80s
and into the '90s. I've seen a lot of good shooters. I never saw one
who could shoot a service rifle one shot every second and not look
ridiculous. You're blowing smoke.

And you say there would have been "greater fatalities" than with the
rapid-fire bump stock(s). Double horseshit. And the people were
running after the first few shots. Triple horseshit.

>
>Why I even let myself be trolled by you really is a head scratcher.

I suspect that your problem is that you're so used to talking to
smoke-blowers that you've acquired a warped sense of what good rifle
shooting is.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 00:59:51 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 10/6/2017 8:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 10/06/2017 02:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit. I
>>> don't know how much shooting you've done at that range, but that's
>>> right in my old varmint-hunting wheelhouse, and I smell some smoke
>>> blowing .
>>
>> Yeah, and the smoke is blowing right out of your ass. Given a 1 MOA
>> rifle, which many are right out of the box these days, if you can't hit
>> a paper plate at 400 yards you must have really terrified the varmints.
>>
>> Why I even let myself be trolled by you really is a head scratcher.
>
>Sucker.. :-)

The shooter should have used one of your magical .410s, Pox. They can
reall reach out there, right? Or maybe your nonexistent .475
Weatherbee <sic>. d8-)

See my comment to Robert about spending too much time talking to
smoke-blowers. You were uppermost in my mind when I typed that.

Do you think you can consistently hit a paper plate at 400 yards,
shooting one shot per second? You probably do.

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

Several points regarding this thread.

Anyone can kill hundreds if he blindly shoots allot of rounds into a tightly packed crowd.
Accuracy is not required when shooting fish in a barrel with a shot gun.
Hell, you don’t even have to have sights.
Just walk the impacts up to the target.

Another point is that he did not even need a simi auto rifle to accomplish this many kills.
The same kill count could have been accomplished by using a single shot 30-06 rifle that was fired level with 4 feet off the ground.
Each round would then go through several people, giving about 5 kills for every round fired.
Fired from the trunk of a car, for example.

Final point is that Ed is a troll or a complete idiot.
The only question is if he is actually so stupid that he never gets anything right.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

...says the moron who thinks the Gambler's Fallacy is, itself, a
fallacy.

Next time you run into a mass killer, Canopy, give him your
suggestion. Or, if you decide to try it for yourself, report back to
us.

Meantime, you're welcome to try anytime you want if you intend to
correct something I've said. Good luck.

--
Ed Huntress

[k4HAg⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛cCNnR]

Ed Huntress wrote on 10/7/2017 11:58 AM:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Several points regarding this thread.
>>
>> Anyone can kill hundreds if he blindly shoots allot of rounds into a tightly packed crowd.
>> Accuracy is not required when shooting fish in a barrel with a shot gun.
>> Hell, you don’t even have to have sights.
>> Just walk the impacts up to the target.
>>
>> Another point is that he did not even need a simi auto rifle to accomplish this many kills.
>> The same kill count could have been accomplished by using a single shot 30-06 rifle that was fired level with 4 feet off the ground.
>> Each round would then go through several people, giving about 5 kills for every round fired.
>> Fired from the trunk of a car, for example.
>>
>> Final point is that Ed is a troll or a complete idiot.
>> The only question is if he is actually so stupid that he never gets anything right.
>

The shooter managed to make a living as a gambler. For sure he had a way
to beat the house.

You still cannot understand that if the probability is 50-50 in a game
like roulette or coin toss, the outcome of 100 events is always close to
50-50.

Apparently the shooter placed his bets and beat the house based on this
simple fact.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 12:12:27 -0400, k4HAg?? NEYUK? AOiUS??cCNnR
<LG...@9RalI.com> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote on 10/7/2017 11:58 AM:
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Several points regarding this thread.
>>>
>>> Anyone can kill hundreds if he blindly shoots allot of rounds into a tightly packed crowd.
>>> Accuracy is not required when shooting fish in a barrel with a shot gun.
>>> Hell, you don’t even have to have sights.
>>> Just walk the impacts up to the target.
>>>
>>> Another point is that he did not even need a simi auto rifle to accomplish this many kills.
>>> The same kill count could have been accomplished by using a single shot 30-06 rifle that was fired level with 4 feet off the ground.
>>> Each round would then go through several people, giving about 5 kills for every round fired.
>>> Fired from the trunk of a car, for example.
>>>
>>> Final point is that Ed is a troll or a complete idiot.
>>> The only question is if he is actually so stupid that he never gets anything right.
>>
>
>The shooter managed to make a living as a gambler. For sure he had a way
>to beat the house.

He played one of the two games, aside from poker, that you can
actually win -- video poker. So they tell me, anyway. I've never
played it.

>
>You still cannot understand that if the probability is 50-50 in a game
>like roulette or coin toss, the outcome of 100 events is always close to
>50-50.

It usually does. But you don't understand why.

>
>Apparently the shooter placed his bets and beat the house based on this
>simple fact.

Probably not. There's something interesting about video poker, but,
not being very interested, I haven't looked into it.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2017 05:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> You haven't done it. You're talking about 500 hits in ten minutes -- a
> hit of roughly one per second at 400 yards. That's horseshit.

You're supposed to be literate. Do you know the difference between
'fatality' and 'wounded'? 59 is the current number.

Do you know what the original Mad Minute was? If not

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/15/mad-minute-tfb-contest/

Wallingford must have been a phenomenon, but 36 hits on a 12" target at
300 yards is pretty good. With a SMLE. With stripper clips. With iron
sights.

Now translate that to an AR-15 semi-automatic with a 30 magazine, good
glass, and 22,000 targets cheek to jowl at 400 yards and tell me what
you could do in 10 minutes. Take that 12" paper plate, hold it front of
your chest, and think about it. A 1 MOA EoTech might even work, possibly
with a magnifier. The guy was old enough that he probably could use some
magnification.

Have you ever been to a concert that size? Do you think those 22,000
people are all going to be in motion like a herd of pronghorns bugging
out into a few hundred square miles of eastern Montana? How many of
those 22,000 do you think know the difference between concealment and
cover, would seek and could find cover?

It's not like he was shooting from field positions at unknown distances.
He had all the time in the world and reportedly enough money to buy the
best. All the 'ooooh, 1200 feet! And it was a really steep angle!' talk
shows complete ignorance. Spend $300 for a Vortex Ranger 1000 or similar
that does the math for you. Even if it doesn't work through the glass in
the hotel window, wander across the street. You're just an other tourist
taking a video of that really cool hotel.

Think about it instead of doing the liberal knee jerk 'Impossible
bullshit!'

[N3yt0⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛ZYadk]

You can beat a poker game too if you know how.

You know the number decks of cards the dealer has, so you know how many
cards are remaining, then you can calculate the odds of the next card.

But according to you, everything is random so every card is equally
likely to come out next.

Roulette is a much simpler game for him to make money, but apparently
the only reason he preferred video poker was that he could sit alone and
play quietly.

“He was a math guy,” Eric Paddock, his youngest brother, said. “He could
tell you off the top of his head what the odds were down to a tenth of a
percent on whatever machine he was playing. He studied it like it was a
Ph.D. thing. It was not silly gambling. It was work.”
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/stephen-paddock-gambling.html>

[Ed Huntress]

You can beat poker PLAYERS if you know how. You can bet VIDEO POKER if
you're really sharp at probabilities and have icewater in your veins.
Don't ask me how; I've never bothered to look.

>
>You know the number decks of cards the dealer has, so you know how many
>cards are remaining, then you can calculate the odds of the next card.
>
>But according to you, everything is random so every card is equally
>likely to come out next.

Absolutely not. You nmissed the discussion of single-deck blackjack.

Those games are not truly random. Roulette is truly random.

>
>Roulette is a much simpler game for him to make money, but apparently
>the only reason he preferred video poker was that he could sit alone and
>play quietly.

And he knows that you can't beat roulette.

>
>“He was a math guy,” Eric Paddock, his youngest brother, said. “He could
>tell you off the top of his head what the odds were down to a tenth of a
>percent on whatever machine he was playing. He studied it like it was a
>Ph.D. thing. It was not silly gambling. It was work.”
><https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/stephen-paddock-gambling.html>

Yup. Video poker.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2017 06:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Do you think you can consistently hit a paper plate at 400 yards,
> shooting one shot per second? You probably do.

Two seconds? Do I hear two seconds? Semi-automatic .223 with a bipod? If
you can't go on home. Do you know how long two seconds are? If not, buy
a shot timer and find out. You might even be able to get more than 30
hits a minute if you're good at mag changes.

For maximum accuracy three seconds or so would be even better. Then you
could get into the rifleman's cadence and fire at the respiratory pause.
Still, with practice...

Different situation but in USPSA courses of fire with handguns after a
shot you can watch the sights come back into alignment on the target in
say, 0.30 seconds and fire again. It depends on the caliber of course. A
1911 will have more recoil and take a little longer to drop down. Still,
you're doing a double tap in less than a second, transitioning to
another target in less than a second unless the next target involves
changing your position, double tap, rinse and repeat. A lot happens in a
few seconds. Watch some of the videos. Then translate that to firing an
AR-15 from a supported position where there will be less movement, and
figure it out.

[Land Ho]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 12:12:27 -0400, k4HAg?? NEYUK? AOiUS??cCNnR
<LG...@9RalI.com> wrote:

>The shooter managed to make a living as a gambler. For sure he had a way
>to beat the house.

LOL There's no evidence of that. Ever heard of rich people losing
tons of money at casinos... because they can afford it! Ask yourself
the obvious question about the case at hand... why would casinos be
treating this guy as a "whale" if he was costing them money? It seems
much more likely that he's been doing well in real estate, and was
spending the profit at casinos. If you gamble mega bucks then you're
likely to win some big bucks occasionally. The system is designed to
keep you motivated, but suck up your last dollar if you're dumb enough
to risk it. See also: "If you want to make a million at x, start with
ten million."

BTW, I knew a guy who fit the likely profile here. He had a lot of
money, I suspect he inherited it. He loved to gamble, and he won
plenty, including an expensive car at one point. His favorite casino
treated him like a king. He claimed he was breaking even, but after
about ten years of the lifestyle he was in trouble and trying to
liquidate some holdings to stay afloat. Last I heard he was still
trying to sell those assets, and his lifestyle had been severely
reduced. If it turns out the shooter was on the same trajectory, I
won't be surprised.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:09:17 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

>On 10/07/2017 05:57 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> You haven't done it. You're talking about 500 hits in ten minutes -- a
>> hit of roughly one per second at 400 yards. That's horseshit.
>
>You're supposed to be literate. Do you know the difference between
>'fatality' and 'wounded'? 59 is the current number.

You don't determine if someone dies. You determine if someone gets
hit.

>
>Do you know what the original Mad Minute was? If not
>
>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/15/mad-minute-tfb-contest/
>
>Wallingford must have been a phenomenon, but 36 hits on a 12" target at
>300 yards is pretty good. With a SMLE. With stripper clips. With iron
>sights.

A myth -- one that I heard about when I was shooting in DCM
competition, 30 years ago:

"The “Second Class Figure Target” was 48" square (approximately 1.2 x
1.2 meters), with 24” inner (61 cm) and 36” magpie (92 cm) circles.
The aiming mark was a 12” x 12” (30 x 30 cm) silhouette figure that
represented the outline of the head of a man aiming a rifle from a
trench. Points were scored by a hit anywhere on the target. Although a
12” target is often mentioned in connection with the Mad Minute
practice, this seems to have been an error originating in Ian Hogg’s
book, ‘The Encyclopedia of Weaponry’. No other source mentions a 12"
target. Thus according to the myth the target size would have been a
1.11 mil circle (3.82 moa), while in reality the target size was a 4.5
mil square (15.3 moa) making the area counting scoring hits over 15
times bigger.

"The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse
Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards
(4.5 mils/ 15.3 moa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

>
>Now translate that to an AR-15 semi-automatic with a 30 magazine, good
>glass, and 22,000 targets cheek to jowl at 400 yards and tell me what
>you could do in 10 minutes.

They were "cheek to jowl" for less than a minute.

>Take that 12" paper plate, hold it front of
>your chest, and think about it. A 1 MOA EoTech might even work, possibly
>with a magnifier. The guy was old enough that he probably could use some
>magnification.
>
> Have you ever been to a concert that size?

Sure. Several.

> Do you think those 22,000
>people are all going to be in motion like a herd of pronghorns bugging
>out into a few hundred square miles of eastern Montana? How many of
>those 22,000 do you think know the difference between concealment and
>cover, would seek and could find cover?

They just ran and became moving targets. From the videos, they got
spread out in a hurry.

>
>It's not like he was shooting from field positions at unknown distances.
>He had all the time in the world and reportedly enough money to buy the
>best. All the 'ooooh, 1200 feet! And it was a really steep angle!' talk
>shows complete ignorance. Spend $300 for a Vortex Ranger 1000 or similar
>that does the math for you. Even if it doesn't work through the glass in
>the hotel window, wander across the street. You're just an other tourist
>taking a video of that really cool hotel.
>
>Think about it instead of doing the liberal knee jerk 'Impossible
>bullshit!'

How much experience do you have with this stuff that you're talking
about? For example, were you ever involved in DCM shooting? Did you
ever DO any service rifle shooting at long ranges, in rapid fire, with
5.56/.223?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:41:55 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

>On 10/07/2017 06:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> Do you think you can consistently hit a paper plate at 400 yards,
>> shooting one shot per second? You probably do.
>
>Two seconds? Do I hear two seconds? Semi-automatic .223 with a bipod? If
>you can't go on home. Do you know how long two seconds are? If not, buy
>a shot timer and find out. You might even be able to get more than 30
>hits a minute if you're good at mag changes.
>
>For maximum accuracy three seconds or so would be even better. Then you
>could get into the rifleman's cadence and fire at the respiratory pause.
>Still, with practice...

I shot in DCM for about 12 years, both M1 and, at the end, AR-15s. I
also had five bars on my NRA Sharpshooter badge, but that was a long
time ago.

>
>Different situation but in USPSA courses of fire with handguns after a
>shot you can watch the sights come back into alignment on the target in
>say, 0.30 seconds and fire again. It depends on the caliber of course. A
>1911 will have more recoil and take a little longer to drop down. Still,
>you're doing a double tap in less than a second, transitioning to
>another target in less than a second unless the next target involves
>changing your position, double tap, rinse and repeat. A lot happens in a
>few seconds. Watch some of the videos. Then translate that to firing an
>AR-15 from a supported position where there will be less movement, and
>figure it out.

I've shot rapid fire in DCM. Once the targets are moving, however, all
bets are off.

This is one of those things where I'll believe it when you do it.
Meantime, speculation about guns, ranges, performance and rates of
fire is a subject in which I've learned to be skeptical.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2017 10:12 AM, k4HAg⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛cCNnR wrote:
> The shooter managed to make a living as a gambler. For sure he had a way
> to beat the house.
>
> You still cannot understand that if the probability is 50-50 in a game
> like roulette or coin toss, the outcome of 100 events is always close to
> 50-50.
>
> Apparently the shooter placed his bets and beat the house based on this
> simple fact.
>

It was reported his game was video poker, not roulette. I must be
missing something since I've found video poker to be as boring as it gets.

fwiw, about 20 years ago when Visual Studio 1.5 with MFC 2.5 came out I
wrote a poker application to familiarize myself with the IDE so I do
know something about the back end.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/stephen-paddock-and-the-world-of-video-poker

There are a few variants that have a theoretical payout of slightly over
100% but if you're a professional gambler there are better ways to make
a living. If you play a version where the house has a 0.5% edge, then
you're just a sucker killing time.

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2017 11:10 AM, N3yt0⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛ZYadk wrote:
> You can beat a poker game too if you know how.
>
> You know the number decks of cards the dealer has, so you know how many
> cards are remaining, then you can calculate the odds of the next card.

Poker doesn't work that way, bunky. The blackjack variants are dealt out
of a shoe but in poker every round is a new shuffle. The biggest problem
with the machine version is the generation of truly random numbers. The
last thing you want in a computer is random behavior so commonly they
generate pseudo-random numbers which are good enough for most things.
Most real random generators reach out to hardware and use something like
thermal noise or variations in oscillators.

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2017 12:27 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> How much experience do you have with this stuff that you're talking
> about? For example, were you ever involved in DCM shooting? Did you
> ever DO any service rifle shooting at long ranges, in rapid fire, with
> 5.56/.223?

You know what Appleseed is? Most event's are scaled down to 25 meters
and use .22LR. Not many people can afford to a couple of hundred bucks
worth of ammo for an event. The scaled down 400 yard target is about 1".
Same deal, all positions, 2 and 8 rounds in the mags like the original
M1 comps.

I never had the desire for an AR-15 so I haven't done long range
shooting with one. I do shoot .223 at 400 meters with a bolt action
however and know what the round is capable of.

I also shoot UPPSA. Different situation but speed and accuracy are
required.

All that is a lot more recent than shooting DCM 30 years ago. What have
you done lately?

[Ed Huntress]

Very little with rifles. Since I quit my club and my friend sold his
farm, I have no place to shoot them. So I sold my beloved Browning
1885 .223 (with Unertl 12X Varminter <sob>), my Savage 99 (.300
Savage), and I gave my (low-number) '03 Springfield and Krag to a
friend who collects. Neither one was a shooter, IMO. I have a couple
of single-shot actions, in case I ever get ambitious, and I gave one
of the Martini actions to Gunner.

I still have a .22. It's easier to shoot pistols in NJ, so I have some
of them, including my 3-gun Bullseye set, and my Ruger SSM that I
bought for hunting javelina in AZ, and a couple of others. And I have
some shotguns, which I can use in NJ.

However, I put a lot of government ammo through M1 Garands, and worked
many weekends as a range officer, when I was active. I've seen a lot
of good shooters, uncluding two National Match shooters from my old
club, and I think I know what can be done with rapid fire.

Knowing that the targets in the example you gave us actually were 48"
square, normalcy and reason have not been challenged. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
>

[PaxPerPoten]

On 10/7/2017 7:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 00:59:51 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2017 8:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2017 02:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit. I
>>>> don't know how much shooting you've done at that range, but that's
>>>> right in my old varmint-hunting wheelhouse, and I smell some smoke
>>>> blowing .
>>>
>>> Yeah, and the smoke is blowing right out of your ass. Given a 1 MOA
>>> rifle, which many are right out of the box these days, if you can't hit
>>> a paper plate at 400 yards you must have really terrified the varmints.
>>>
>>> Why I even let myself be trolled by you really is a head scratcher.
>>
>> Sucker.. :-)
>
> The shooter should have used one of your magical .410s, Pox. They can
> reall reach out there, right? Or maybe your nonexistent .475
> Weatherbee <sic>. d8-)

Seems I am not the only one that believes in so-called Magical .410.
They are selling very well at all outlets where real hunters live.
A new very popular one is made by Hatfield in both a bolt action model.
Also Home security loads of Ammunition.

>
> See my comment to Robert about spending too much time talking to
> smoke-blowers. You were uppermost in my mind when I typed that.

Cuntinadress Dick suckers... It was you I had in mind!

>
> Do you think you can consistently hit a paper plate at 400 yards,
> shooting one shot per second? You probably do.

I don't waste expensive Ammunition on frivolous endeavors.
But you can keep right on bellowing how great and smart you are with all
kinds of expertise on firearms. To bad you talent wasn't given to be
used in defense of our Country. But I suppose we should have our quota
of liars and cowards. You cover both bases.

[Leper]

On 10/7/2017 1:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> Still, with practice...
>
> I shot in DCM for about 12 years, both M1 and, at the end, AR-15s. I
> also had five bars

More then likely hit 5 bars before writing this lying fiction.

on my NRA Sharpshooter badge, but that was a long
> time ago.

The NRA must really be going downhill. I wonder if I should shitcan my
lifetime membership in protest of Dung like you tossing around its once
great name?

God Grief...We all thought Jonathon was the El Supremo liar and along
comes old Cunt-In-A_dress and tops anything he ever said. All this from
a draft dodging freak in adress. Next the chest pounding idiot will
claim he has a CIB without ever seeing the inside of a Military
establishment.

--
Machiavelli wrote:It is necessary for the state to deal in lies and half
truths,
because people are made up of lies and half truths. Even Princes.' And
certainly, by definition all Ambassadors and politicians

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:49 -0500, Leper <Le...@LanaiColony.com>
wrote:

>On 10/7/2017 1:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Still, with practice...
>>
>> I shot in DCM for about 12 years, both M1 and, at the end, AR-15s. I
>> also had five bars
>
>More then likely hit 5 bars before writing this lying fiction.
>
> on my NRA Sharpshooter badge, but that was a long
>> time ago.
>
>The NRA must really be going downhill. I wonder if I should shitcan my
>lifetime membership in protest of Dung like you tossing around its once
>great name?
>
>God Grief...We all thought Jonathon was the El Supremo liar and along
>comes old Cunt-In-A_dress and tops anything he ever said. All this from
>a draft dodging freak in adress. Next the chest pounding idiot will
>claim he has a CIB without ever seeing the inside of a Military
>establishment.

Jesus, Pox, how did your sock puppets become so obnoxious? Don't you
feed them? Do you make them share the washing machine loads with your
underwear?

You really ought to treat them better and show them some love and
affection. Otherwise, they may turn on you some time -- especially if
they're hungry. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 05:49:11 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:29:50 -0700, Winston Smith wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 20:04:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:46:17 -0700, Winston Smith wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:09:58 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit.
>>
>>Never heard of it. Working from common sense and geometry here.
>
>That's the content of the post I responded to.

The post you responded to was me.

>And my post to him is what you responded to.

Who is "him"? Go back six posts from here and it's just you and me.
Look at your reader. Look at the list at the top of THIS post.

>>>Remember what Robert had said: that there would be "greater
>>>fatalities" with a semi-auto. That's the part that's horseshit.
>>
>>I never mentioned it. I never heard of it. That makes it your straw
>>man.
>
>Jesus. It was the subject of my post, which you responded to.

See above.

[Red Prepper]

Enjoying your cunt?

[N3yt0⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛ZYadk]

"After inserting money (or a bar-coded paper ticket with credit) into
the machine, play begins by placing a bet of one or more credits and
pressing the "deal" button. The player is then given 5 cards (as the
game plays similar to five-card draw) and has the opportunity to discard
one or more of them in exchange for new ones drawn from the same virtual
deck. After the draw, the machine pays out if the hand or hands played
match one of the winning combinations, which are posted in the pay
table. Unlike the table version, the player may discard all 5 of their
original cards if they so choose."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_poker#The_game>

According to this particular video poker game, the gambler can make a
decision on which and how many cards to swap out for new ones. That
means the gambler can calculate the odds to his advantage in reference
to the payout table posted with the machine.

Apparently the shooter could manage to live a high life on the casino
floor.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:41:55 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

Very well stated.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ar+15+shooting+high+speed

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q5zl-3BbkY

Training is not that difficult, as the last video shows.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:09:17 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/15/mad-minute-tfb-contest/
>
>Wallingford must have been a phenomenon, but 36 hits on a 12" target at
>300 yards is pretty good. With a SMLE. With stripper clips. With iron
>sights.

Its not difficult. One simply has to practice a bit. Im out of
practice, since the price of ammo went into orbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

[Leper]

On 10/7/2017 7:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:49 -0500, Leper <Le...@LanaiColony.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2017 1:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Still, with practice...
>>>
>>> I shot in DCM for about 12 years, both M1 and, at the end, AR-15s. I
>>> also had five bars
>>
>> More then likely hit 5 bars before writing this lying fiction.
>>
>> on my NRA Sharpshooter badge, but that was a long
>>> time ago.
>>
>> The NRA must really be going downhill. I wonder if I should shitcan my
>> lifetime membership in protest of Dung like you tossing around its once
>> great name?
>>
>> God Grief...We all thought Jonathon was the El Supremo liar and along
>> comes old Cunt-In-A_dress and tops anything he ever said. All this from
>> a draft dodging freak in adress. Next the chest pounding idiot will
>> claim he has a CIB without ever seeing the inside of a Military
>> establishment.
>
> Jesus, Pox, how did your sock puppets become so obnoxious? Don't you
> feed them? Do you make them share the washing machine loads with your
> underwear?

Even Pox knows what an idiot you are.

>
> You really ought to treat them better and show them some love and
> affection. Otherwise, they may turn on you some time -- especially if
> they're hungry. d8-)

With all that hot air you should work for the Wind farmer East of me.
You could be generating many Gigawatts of blow hardiness. With that
Flapping jaw of yours you could actually fly like the vulture you are
over to that farm. Your continious unrestrained lying should be setting
world records...Especially on your Gambling expertise and you vast
expertise with firearms. Your marksmanship is so good that I see no
reason to continue having a military at all.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:39:26 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 10/7/2017 7:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 00:59:51 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/6/2017 8:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2017 02:09 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit. I
>>>>> don't know how much shooting you've done at that range, but that's
>>>>> right in my old varmint-hunting wheelhouse, and I smell some smoke
>>>>> blowing .
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, and the smoke is blowing right out of your ass. Given a 1 MOA
>>>> rifle, which many are right out of the box these days, if you can't hit
>>>> a paper plate at 400 yards you must have really terrified the varmints.
>>>>
>>>> Why I even let myself be trolled by you really is a head scratcher.
>>>
>>> Sucker.. :-)
>>
>> The shooter should have used one of your magical .410s, Pox. They can
>> reall reach out there, right? Or maybe your nonexistent .475
>> Weatherbee <sic>. d8-)
>
>Seems I am not the only one that believes in so-called Magical .410.
>They are selling very well at all outlets where real hunters live.
>A new very popular one is made by Hatfield in both a bolt action model.
>Also Home security loads of Ammunition.

NO, no, you bullshitter. You're not getting off the hook. That has
nothing to do with what you said. Here are your words:

>Geese will seldom give you a close up
>shot also. The .410 Shotgun used to be considered a goose gun for its #2
>shot and tight choke pattern. It was the only thing that could read high
>flying geese until the 12 gauge magnum came out.

What a bunch of crap!

What happened to the "high reaching" .410 goose gun, Pox? Now you're
doing a Texas two-step, telling us it's a defense gun. Against what --
attacking geese? d8-) (BTW, as an aside, why in the hell would one
choose a bolt-action .410 for "home security"? I thought you dingbats
wanted semiautos that throw lots of lead.)

>>
>> See my comment to Robert about spending too much time talking to
>> smoke-blowers. You were uppermost in my mind when I typed that.
>
>Cuntinadress Dick suckers... It was you I had in mind!

See, that's how you expose yourself as a bullshitter. You made a
mistake common among people who don't have much experience with
shotguns. You apparently believe, from your comments above, that the
different gauges shoot different-size patterns. You aren't the first
one to make that mistake, and it could have been easily corrected
without rancor.

But you keep doubling-down with homoerotic slurs, slander, and your
bullshit distractions. When you act like a prick, don't expect a
helpful correction.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 22:45:22 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Tips from the all-time firearms bullshitter, Mark Wieber, handgunner
extraordinaire:

"In my circle..we dont bother to take out a rifle until the range to
ground squirrels gets past 175-200 yrds." -- Gunner

Between Pox's magical .410 and Gunner's magical handguns, readers on
the survivalist NGs should make sure their hipboots are handy.

--
Ed Huntress

[PaxPerPoten]

On 10/8/2017 5:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>> Seems I am not the only one that believes in so-called Magical .410.
>> They are selling very well at all outlets where real hunters live.
>> A new very popular one is made by Hatfield in both a bolt action model.
>> Also Home security loads of Ammunition.
>
> NO, no, you bullshitter. You're not getting off the hook. That has
> nothing to do with what you said. Here are your words:

I am merely pointing out that a Know it all SOB like you posted anti
.410 Bloviations and the General public immediately started buying them.
It appears they know what a lying and windy sack of Cuntinadress POS
that you are. ;-p

Now you wandered in here, panhandling and begging for Gay sex...So now
you can wander right the Hell back out. You have not had one intelligent
post to anyone here in a long time.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 19:20:56 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

Oh my God. Here's the conversation. My objection was *entirely* about
Robert's assertion:

=============================================
[Robert]

"Given the situation I believe the shooter could have caused greater
fatalities with aimed fire."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.survival/ZW0uVpuburw/Qc80yQ_MAAAJ

[Ed, responding to Robert's post above]

"No way, Hose-A. He hit almost 500 people in ten minutes at a range of
300 to 500 yards, many of them running. You need to be settled down
for each shot at that range."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.survival/ZW0uVpuburw/cxv6ezXQAAAJ

[Winston, replying to my post above]

"Packed in like that crowd, and from above, I could hit fifty of them
in one shot with pack of marbles in a sling shot. Where ever a bullet
landed, there was a person, very likely a head."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.survival/ZW0uVpuburw/dFeFXJjdAAAJ

[Ed, replying to Winston]

"Listen crackshot, Robert's "greater fatalities" idea is horseshit."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.survival/ZW0uVpuburw/elT_0f3fAAAJ

[Winston'sreply to me]

"No need to get snippy. My only point was that he did NOT need to be a
crack shot."

[Ed's reply to Winston]

"Remember what Robert had said: that there would be "greater
fatalities" with a semi-auto. That's the part that's horseshit."

[Winston's reply to me]

>Remember what Robert had said: that there would be "greater
>fatalities" with a semi-auto. That's the part that's horseshit.

I never mentioned it. I never heard of it. That makes it your straw
man.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.survival/ZW0uVpuburw/Ug8Rqv73AAAJ


DUH! That's what the conversation was ABOUT!

<slapping forehead with palm of hand....>

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

> Ed Cuntdress

You forgot about chokes. The fumes eminating from your cunt could
cause a flock of geese to choke and just fall out of the sky.

[Red Prepper]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 06:43:49 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
> On 10/8/2017 5:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


> >> Seems I am not the only one that believes in so-called Magical
.410.
> >> They are selling very well at all outlets where real hunters
live.
> >> A new very popular one is made by Hatfield in both a bolt action
model.
> >> Also Home security loads of Ammunition.
> >
> > NO, no, you bullshitter. You're not getting off the hook. That has
> > nothing to do with what you said. Here are your words:


> I am merely pointing out that a Know it all SOB like you posted
anti
> .410 Bloviations and the General public immediately started buying
them.
> It appears they know what a lying and windy sack of Cuntinadress
POS
> that you are. ;-p


> Now you wandered in here, panhandling and begging for Gay sex...So
now
> you can wander right the Hell back out. You have not had one
intelligent
> post to anyone here in a long time.

He didn't just wander in, he sashayed in in his finest cunt dress and
Winston welcomed him with open arms and open legs.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 22:50:58 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:09:17 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/15/mad-minute-tfb-contest/
>>
>>Wallingford must have been a phenomenon, but 36 hits on a 12" target at
>>300 yards is pretty good. With a SMLE. With stripper clips. With iron
>>sights.
>
>Its not difficult. One simply has to practice a bit. Im out of
>practice, since the price of ammo went into orbit.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8

Oooh...I'll bet that was a nice, tight group, too. Maybe ten feet at
100 yards? It was at least six inches from the butt to the muzzle.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 10:58:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Several points regarding this thread.
> >
> >Anyone can kill hundreds if he blindly shoots allot of rounds into a tightly packed crowd.
> >Accuracy is not required when shooting fish in a barrel with a shot gun.
> >Hell, you don’t even have to have sights.
> >Just walk the impacts up to the target.
> >
> >Another point is that he did not even need a simi auto rifle to accomplish this many kills.
> >The same kill count could have been accomplished by using a single shot 30-06 rifle that was fired level with 4 feet off the ground.
> >Each round would then go through several people, giving about 5 kills for every round fired.
> >Fired from the trunk of a car, for example.
> >
> >Final point is that Ed is a troll or a complete idiot.
> >The only question is if he is actually so stupid that he never gets anything right.
>

> ...says the moron who thinks the Gambler's Fallacy is, itself, a
> fallacy.
>
> Next time you run into a mass killer, Canopy, give him your
> suggestion. Or, if you decide to try it for yourself, report back to
> us.
>
> Meantime, you're welcome to try anytime you want if you intend to
> correct something I've said. Good luck.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Back at idiot again eh Ed?
You haven’t made a accurate one yet and constantly saying the same idiot shit doesn’t make you smart.
YOU are the one falling for the gamblers fallacy because you can’t comprehend math or English.
That is also why you still don’t know the meaning of consensus even after you look it up.
But I do agree with you regarding how useless it is to try to teach idiot Ed anything, as you will constantly lie to cover up your inaccuracy.

Take this tread for instance.
You call me inaccurate because you are clueless regarding the subject and too stupid to think your way threw it for yourself.

That is why you think you can accurately fire full automatic, especially with a bump fire.
Whereas I have actually fired a M-16 full automatic and know for a fact that you get shit for accuracy like that.
That is why most snipers don’t use a full auto when working.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 06:43:49 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

[snippage restored]

>On 10/8/2017 5:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>> Seems I am not the only one that believes in so-called Magical .410.
>>> They are selling very well at all outlets where real hunters live.
>>> A new very popular one is made by Hatfield in both a bolt action model.
>>> Also Home security loads of Ammunition.
>>
>> NO, no, you bullshitter. You're not getting off the hook. That has
>> nothing to do with what you said. Here are your words:
>

>Geese will seldom give you a close up
>shot also. The .410 Shotgun used to be considered a goose gun for its #2
>shot and tight choke pattern. It was the only thing that could read high
>flying geese until the 12 gauge magnum came out.
>

>I am merely pointing out that a Know it all SOB like you posted anti
>.410 Bloviations and the General public immediately started buying them.

Well, here's my secret: I'm actually an undercover copywriter for the
.410 shotgun lobby. Conning people into buying bolt-action .410
shotguns for home defense was my crowning achievement.

>It appears they know what a lying and windy sack of Cuntinadress POS
>that you are. ;-p

Aw, wipe the spittle off your chin, Pox. It will get into the breech
of your .410 wonder gun and your patterns will go all to hell.

>
>Now you wandered in here, panhandling and begging for Gay sex...So now
>you can wander right the Hell back out. You have not had one intelligent
>post to anyone here in a long time.

<sigh> It's awful to be so underappreciated. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

> Ed Cuntdress

If you like 6 inches in your butt you should have never traded in
your 3 inch pecker for a cunt. You could have used the gun you gave
Gunner as an extension to get the other 3 inches.

[Red Prepper]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 09:03:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

> Oooh...I'll bet that was a nice, tight group, too. Maybe ten feet at
> 100 yards? It was at least six inches from the butt to the muzzle.
> d8-)

> Ed Cuntdress

It would take about ten feet for it to feel tight for you Cunt in a
Dress. You stretched that smelly old cunt trying to keep your rifle
from falling out.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 06:29:00 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

I'll agree that math and English have been big problems here.

>That is also why you still don’t know the meaning of consensus even after you look it up.

Uh, you didn't do so well on that one, actually.

>But I do agree with you regarding how useless it is to try to teach idiot Ed anything, as you will constantly lie to cover up your inaccuracy.

Point to a lie. Just one.

>
>Take this tread for instance.
>You call me inaccurate because you are clueless regarding the subject and too stupid to think your way threw it for yourself.

[This actually is kind of comical...]

>
>That is why you think you can accurately fire full automatic, especially with a bump fire.

I never said you could. I said you can fire *fast*. And if you're fast
enough, you can catch a lot of a crowd while they're still packed up,
and accuracy isn't going to matter a whit.

>Whereas I have actually fired a M-16 full automatic and know for a fact that you get shit for accuracy like that.

Not a surprise.

>That is why most snipers don’t use a full auto when working.

??? It's not the "most" I'm wondering about. It's the rest of the
snipers you're leaving out when you use the word "most." Can you still
call them "snipers" if they fire full auto when working?

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 09:31:16 -0400, Ed Cuntdress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 06:43:49 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:


> [snippage restored]


> >

> >>> Seems I am not the only one that believes in so-called Magical
.410.
> >>> They are selling very well at all outlets where real hunters
live.
> >>> A new very popular one is made by Hatfield in both a bolt
action model.
> >>> Also Home security loads of Ammunition.
> >>
> >> NO, no, you bullshitter. You're not getting off the hook. That
has
> >> nothing to do with what you said. Here are your words:
> >
> >Geese will seldom give you a close up
> >shot also. The .410 Shotgun used to be considered a goose gun for
its #2
> >shot and tight choke pattern. It was the only thing that could
read high
> >flying geese until the 12 gauge magnum came out.
> >
> >I am merely pointing out that a Know it all SOB like you posted
anti
> >.410 Bloviations and the General public immediately started buying
them.


> Well, here's my secret: I'm actually an undercover copywriter for
the

> .410 shotgun lobby. Cunting people into buying bolt-action .410

> shotguns for home defense was my crowning achievement.


> >It appears they know what a lying and windy sack of Cuntinadress
POS
> >that you are. ;-p


> Aw, wipe the spittle off your chin, Pox. It will get into the breech
> of your .410 wonder gun and your patterns will go all to hell.


> >
> >Now you wandered in here, panhandling and begging for Gay sex...So
now
> >you can wander right the Hell back out. You have not had one
intelligent
> >post to anyone here in a long time.


> <sigh> It's awful to be so underappreciated. d8-)


> --

> Ed Cuntdress

It's not that you're underappreciated as much as the rest of us are
disgusted by the stench that comes out from under your cunt dress
every time you sashay into our newsgroup.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 04:07:38 -0500, Leper <Le...@LanaiColony.com>

wrote:

>On 10/7/2017 7:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:49 -0500, Leper <Le...@LanaiColony.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/7/2017 1:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still, with practice...
>>>>
>>>> I shot in DCM for about 12 years, both M1 and, at the end, AR-15s. I
>>>> also had five bars
>>>
>>> More then likely hit 5 bars before writing this lying fiction.
>>>
>>> on my NRA Sharpshooter badge, but that was a long
>>>> time ago.
>>>
>>> The NRA must really be going downhill. I wonder if I should shitcan my
>>> lifetime membership in protest of Dung like you tossing around its once
>>> great name?
>>>
>>> God Grief...We all thought Jonathon was the El Supremo liar and along
>>> comes old Cunt-In-A_dress and tops anything he ever said. All this from
>>> a draft dodging freak in adress. Next the chest pounding idiot will
>>> claim he has a CIB without ever seeing the inside of a Military
>>> establishment.
>>
>> Jesus, Pox, how did your sock puppets become so obnoxious? Don't you
>> feed them? Do you make them share the washing machine loads with your
>> underwear?
>
>Even Pox knows what an idiot you are.

That's a perception problem on Pox's part.

>
>>
>> You really ought to treat them better and show them some love and
>> affection. Otherwise, they may turn on you some time -- especially if
>> they're hungry. d8-)
>
>With all that hot air you should work for the Wind farmer East of me.
>You could be generating many Gigawatts of blow hardiness. With that
>Flapping jaw of yours you could actually fly like the vulture you are
>over to that farm. Your continious unrestrained lying should be setting
>world records...Especially on your Gambling expertise and you vast
>expertise with firearms. Your marksmanship is so good that I see no
>reason to continue having a military at all.

I think you just out-jawed me. Try hiring yourself out the wind
farmer.

BTW, see if you can come up with a "lie" that I've said. The Pecker
has failed; Pox has failed; and Canopy has failed.

Want to try your luck, or are you just more comfortable slandering in
an empty rain barrel?

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

> Ed Cuntdress

Can they still call you a Cunt in a dress when you're working?

Answer: Yes. Yes they can indeed.

[Red Prepper]

> Ed Cuntdress

You lied when you said there is no cunt dress. You lied when you said
you don't sashay. You lied when you said you don't lie. Three strikes
for the cunt in a dress.

[Ed Huntress]

Pecker's inner-pubescent foul-mouth is working overtime.

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 10:12:33 -0400, Ed Huntress

> Ed Cuntdress

Ed's cunt is smelling up the place overtime and all of the time.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 07:49:48 -0500, Red Prepper <r...@red.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 06:43:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:39:26 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>

<snip>

>
>
>> >Geese will seldom give you a close up
>> >shot also. The .410 Shotgun used to be considered a goose gun for
>> >its #2 shot and tight choke pattern. It was the only thing that could
>>>read high flying geese until the 12 gauge magnum came out.
>
>
>> What a bunch of crap!

<snip>

>>
>> You made a
>> mistake common among people who don't have much experience with
>> shotguns. You apparently believe, from your comments above, that the
>> different gauges shoot different-size patterns. You aren't the first
>> one to make that mistake, and it could have been easily corrected
>> without rancor.

>>

>> --
>> Ed Huntress

>You forgot about chokes.

Jeez, Prepper, you're making the same neophyte mistake that Pox is
making.

Will someone puleeze explain chokes to these two dimwits, so we can
put this issue to bed? I've explained it at least three times over the
past year and it just isn't sinking in.

Ignore Prepper and Pox's juvenile slurs. That's what they do when
they're caught bullshitting. Just explain that a full-choke .410 and a
full-choke 12-gauge shoot the same size pattern at the same distance.
Then they may be able to figure out the rest of it.

In the off chance you'll get it on your own, Prepper, here are a few
leads:

"At any given range, the full choke .410 pattern is no bigger than the
full choked 12 gauge pattern. At 20 yards, the killing pattern of a
full choke 12 gauge gun is about 20 inches wide. At 20 yards, the
killing pattern of a full choke .410 is that same 20 inches wide."

http://www.fourten.org.uk/mwchoke.html


"...the pattern from a .410 full choke (for instance) is the same size
(diameter) as the pattern on a 28 gauge or any other gauge with a full
choke (excluding outliers), right? If that's the case, shouldn't it be
just as hard to hit something with any gauge as with the .410, given
the same choke? Now, I'm not talking about 45 yards away or something,
let's stick within the typical effective range of a .410, which seems
to be generally agreed on to be 20 yards, 25 yards MAX..."

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=254210


"It is definitely true that the size of a shotgun’s bore has nothing
to do with the overall size of its pattern."

https://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-gun-nuts/shotguns-understanding-pattern-size-and-gauge


"Even though I love the .410, I am quick to admit it is not for every
hunter. In the hands of a good shotgunner it will cleanly take birds
up to the size of pheasant out to 30 yards, but beyond that distance,
pattern density starts to become too thin for consistent kills. Anyone
who cannot turn down more distant shots at birds should hunt with a
bigger shotshell."

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ammunition_st_rightshotgungauge_060210wo/

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:24:11 -0400, Ed Huntress

> Ed Cuntdress

The pheasant choke on your cunt fumes too.

[Ed Huntress]

Maybe you'll get it when you grow up -- if you ever do.

--
Ed Huntress

[Duane Trevino]

That is not going to happen - guaranteed.

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2017 10:29 PM, N3yt0⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛ZYadk wrote:
> According to this particular video poker game, the gambler can make a
> decision on which and how many cards to swap out for new ones. That
> means the gambler can calculate the odds to his advantage in reference
> to the payout table posted with the machine.

And? If it's a short pay machine you're slowly losing money. For some
full pay machines you may have a couple of tenths of a percent margin if
you play perfectly.

Do you really think a casino has hundreds of machines that lose them
money? There are people who can game the system but according to his
contemporaries Paddock wasn't one of them. He played better than Aunt
Sophie but not good enough to make a living from video poker.

[Red Prepper]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:54:38 -0400, Ed Huntress

> Ed Cuntdress

Quit trolling for minors.

[CanopyCo]

He has only two options.
Either he is a troll and said things that he knew was wrong just to keep people trying to educate him, or he actually is stupid enough to believe his drivel and is actually too stupid to educate.

Funny that he preferred idiot to liar.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:41:00 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

Everything I've said here is documented. You, on the other hand, are a
world-class moron.

My wife teaches special ed. I know those kids and I like them. That's
why I'm so gentle with you. If I thought you knew better, I would hold
you up for ridicule for claiming, for example, that the Gambler's
fallacy is all wrong, when it's been known and lamented since the days
of the ancient Jains and Vedics of India. Probability even appears in
Vedic music.

That you don't get it tells us about a weakness in your ability to do
abstract reasoning. In general terms, that's a consquence of general
intelligence: IQ. That you won't flip some coins to prove it to
yourself tells us that you're a victim of your own confirmation bias.
That's a consequence of being a butthead. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

--
Ed Huntress

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

It looks like Chicago needs to institute some dry county liquor laws to
lower the weekend shootings. To cut down on drive by shootings.

The St. Valentines day massacre is dwarfed by today's drug and alcohol
infused violence and weekend shootings.....

The history of 1920's gangs is tame compared to what happens today, so
why is it even history, seems like they would call the gangsters and
machine guns *THE GOOD'OL DAYS* instead of history, doesn't it?


Remember the good'ol days before machine guns were banned. When
Chicago was relatively safe?




--
That's Karma

[bookburn]

I can remember when moral standards in the U.S. were reflected in laws preventing:

1) advertising hard liquor;
2) television or movies portraying killing or even pointing a gun at the camera or someone;
3) use of foul language;
4) nudity in TV, advertising, and movies;
5) even pulp fiction was clean of gross porn;
6) movies not allowed to portray unmarried sex, or kisses longer than 3 seconds.

Now, since the advent of the '60s Californication by flower culture and free speech movement, we have standards typical of what Jack Valenti decided was code in '66. Movies show terrorism and massacres, killing of all kinds, ads promote not only drinking but use of previously illegal drugs. California comedians, like George Carlin, delight in rubbing the public nose in what was censured.

Not sure how far you can go with dividing us all into liberal or conservative on the basis of loose moral standards, depending on how you interpret "loose." Interesting how differently Brit standards allow all kinds of language and personal libels censured in the U.S., but don't allow commercial products to be criticized, or something. Of course we have different standards for women and children, I suppose. bookburn

[CanopyCo]

It is documented.
Too bad you are too stupid to understand the documentation.

> My wife teaches special ed. I know those kids and I like them. That's
> why I'm so gentle with you. If I thought you knew better, I would hold
> you up for ridicule for claiming, for example, that the Gambler's
> fallacy is all wrong, when it's been known and lamented since the days
> of the ancient Jains and Vedics of India. Probability even appears in
> Vedic music.
>

I now see that your wife married one of her students.

You are still falling for the gamblers fallacy because you can’t comprehend math formulas and there meaning.

Maybe we should call you special Ed?
;-)

> That you don't get it tells us about a weakness in your ability to do
> abstract reasoning. In general terms, that's a consquence of general
> intelligence: IQ. That you won't flip some coins to prove it to
> yourself tells us that you're a victim of your own confirmation bias.
> That's a consequence of being a butthead. d8-)
>

I do get it, and that it the entire point.

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:23:16 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:

>I can remember when moral standards in the U.S. were reflected in laws preventing:
>
>1) advertising hard liquor;
>2) television or movies portraying killing or even pointing a gun at the camera or someone;

Remember Superman? When the villain emptied his gun at him, he stuck
out his chest. When the villain threw the empty gun at him, he ducked.

Something to ponder.

[CanopyCo]

:-D

Didn’t want to ruin a perfectly good gun by dinting it when it hit him?

;-)

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

Where is it? Show us your "documentation" that the Gambler's fallacy
is itself a fallacy.

Nothing exists, except some noise between your ears.

>
>> My wife teaches special ed. I know those kids and I like them. That's
>> why I'm so gentle with you. If I thought you knew better, I would hold
>> you up for ridicule for claiming, for example, that the Gambler's
>> fallacy is all wrong, when it's been known and lamented since the days
>> of the ancient Jains and Vedics of India. Probability even appears in
>> Vedic music.
>>
>
>I now see that your wife married one of her students.
>
>You are still falling for the gamblers fallacy because you can’t comprehend math formulas and there meaning.

More empty woofing. You never showed a formula or even referred to
one.

>
>Maybe we should call you special Ed?
>;-)

Ha! Very good. <g>

>
>> That you don't get it tells us about a weakness in your ability to do
>> abstract reasoning. In general terms, that's a consquence of general
>> intelligence: IQ. That you won't flip some coins to prove it to
>> yourself tells us that you're a victim of your own confirmation bias.
>> That's a consequence of being a butthead. d8-)
>>
>
>I do get it, and that it the entire point.

I'm a little surprised that you think you've found an error in the
binomial distribution formulas that have been developed and tested by
expert mathematitions over the course of many centuries. They are the
basis of the Gambler's fallacy, which also is known by several other
names, including the Monte Carlo fallacy.

It's either an act of extreme presumptuousness on your part, or an act
of stupidity.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 10/10/2017 02:23 AM, bookburn wrote:
> Now, since the advent of the '60s Californication by flower culture and free speech movement, we have standards typical of what Jack Valenti decided was code in '66. Movies show terrorism and massacres, killing of all kinds, ads promote not only drinking but use of previously illegal drugs. California comedians, like George Carlin, delight in rubbing the public nose in what was censured.

Ask yourself what the driving force behind Californication was. I'll
even give you a hint: Weinstein.

[CanopyCo]

God but you are a idiot.
As I have repeatedly stated, you are falling for the gamblers fallacy.
The gamblers fallacy is that the odds of getting 10 in a row suddenly becomes a good bet as the tosses proceed.
However the math clearly shows that the odds of getting 10 in a row are shit, regardless of how many you already have.
At no point is the odds of getting 10 in a row .5, regardless of how many you already have.
You thinking that it become .5 is you falling for the gamblers fallacy.

> >
> >> My wife teaches special ed. I know those kids and I like them. That's
> >> why I'm so gentle with you. If I thought you knew better, I would hold
> >> you up for ridicule for claiming, for example, that the Gambler's
> >> fallacy is all wrong, when it's been known and lamented since the days
> >> of the ancient Jains and Vedics of India. Probability even appears in
> >> Vedic music.
> >>
> >
> >I now see that your wife married one of her students.
> >
> >You are still falling for the gamblers fallacy because you can’t comprehend math formulas and there meaning.
>
> More empty woofing. You never showed a formula or even referred to
> one.
>

Why should I waste my time showing you the same formulas again that you already showed you are too stupid to understand?

> >
> >Maybe we should call you special Ed?
> >;-)
>
> Ha! Very good. <g>
>
> >
> >> That you don't get it tells us about a weakness in your ability to do
> >> abstract reasoning. In general terms, that's a consquence of general
> >> intelligence: IQ. That you won't flip some coins to prove it to
> >> yourself tells us that you're a victim of your own confirmation bias.
> >> That's a consequence of being a butthead. d8-)
> >>

Why don’t you flip some coins as I suggested and explain why you will never get 5 in a row?
But you will get 3 in a row and in your thinking getting the next two to match is will happen 50% of the time.

The fact that you refuse to try it is a strong indication that you already know that you are pushing a false idea, or as many call it lying.
Otherwise you would try it and prove me wrong by getting 10 in a row.

Of course, the other option is that you are so retarded that you are not allowed to handle your own money.
If so, try marking a washer and use that.

> >
> >I do get it, and that it the entire point.
>
> I'm a little surprised that you think you've found an error in the
> binomial distribution formulas that have been developed and tested by
> expert mathematitions over the course of many centuries. They are the
> basis of the Gambler's fallacy, which also is known by several other
> names, including the Monte Carlo fallacy.
>
> It's either an act of extreme presumptuousness on your part, or an act
> of stupidity.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

The error was not in the formula.
The error was in your understanding of it and its outcome.

[GxeoV⚛← NEYUK╬ AOiUS→⚛QYevR]

CanopyCo, I have come to a conclusion that Ed Huntress is an idiot
totally devoid of logic.

[CanopyCo]

I keep bouncing back and forth between lying troll and idiot.
The revaluation regarding his association with a teacher of the mentally retarded tends to strengthen the idiot part.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

After you've gotten 9 heads, the probability that the next flip will
be a head is 0.5.

>At no point is the odds of getting 10 in a row .5, regardless of how many you already have.
>You thinking that it become .5 is you falling for the gamblers fallacy.

No, you have it backwards. It's time for you to re-read a description
of the Gambler's fallacy. Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica
are both good for that.

>
>> >
>> >> My wife teaches special ed. I know those kids and I like them. That's
>> >> why I'm so gentle with you. If I thought you knew better, I would hold
>> >> you up for ridicule for claiming, for example, that the Gambler's
>> >> fallacy is all wrong, when it's been known and lamented since the days
>> >> of the ancient Jains and Vedics of India. Probability even appears in
>> >> Vedic music.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I now see that your wife married one of her students.
>> >
>> >You are still falling for the gamblers fallacy because you can’t comprehend math formulas and there meaning.
>>
>> More empty woofing. You never showed a formula or even referred to
>> one.
>>
>
>Why should I waste my time showing you the same formulas again that you already showed you are too stupid to understand?

You never showed us one to begin with, but I showed you several of
them.

>
>> >
>> >Maybe we should call you special Ed?
>> >;-)
>>
>> Ha! Very good. <g>
>>
>> >
>> >> That you don't get it tells us about a weakness in your ability to do
>> >> abstract reasoning. In general terms, that's a consquence of general
>> >> intelligence: IQ. That you won't flip some coins to prove it to
>> >> yourself tells us that you're a victim of your own confirmation bias.
>> >> That's a consequence of being a butthead. d8-)
>> >>
>
>Why don’t you flip some coins as I suggested and explain why you will never get 5 in a row?

Well, your chance of getting 5 in a row is roughly 1:32. You'll
eventually get it, if you stick with it for a while.

>But you will get 3 in a row and in your thinking getting the next two to match is will happen 50% of the time.

No, I never said that. If you get 4 heads in a row, your chance that
the next flip will give you another head is 0.5.

But if you get 3 heads in a row, the chance that both of your next two
flips are heads is 0.25. That is, 0.5 * 0.5. Each of the next two
flips will have a chance of 0.5.

>
>The fact that you refuse to try it is a strong indication that you already know that you are pushing a false idea, or as many call it lying.

Wow. Don't catch the Pecker disease. It may be terminal. d8-)

>Otherwise you would try it and prove me wrong by getting 10 in a row.

WTF are you talking about now? 10 in a row is roughly 1:1,000. Are you
going to pay me for my time? <g>

Tell you what. You flip the first 9. When you get 9 heads or tails in
a row, check in here and I'll flip the 10th for you. The probability
of the 10th being a head or a tail will be 0.5. It doesn't matter what
the previous flips were; the 10th flip is independent of the others.

>
>Of course, the other option is that you are so retarded that you are not allowed to handle your own money.
>If so, try marking a washer and use that.

Pfffft.

>
>> >
>> >I do get it, and that it the entire point.
>>
>> I'm a little surprised that you think you've found an error in the
>> binomial distribution formulas that have been developed and tested by
>> expert mathematitions over the course of many centuries. They are the
>> basis of the Gambler's fallacy, which also is known by several other
>> names, including the Monte Carlo fallacy.
>>
>> It's either an act of extreme presumptuousness on your part, or an act
>> of stupidity.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>The error was not in the formula.
>The error was in your understanding of it and its outcome.

Why don't you call a high school math teacher and ask him or her? This
stuff is taught in 7th and 8th grade.

(If anybody out there is willing to tell Canopy how this works, please
jump in!)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-5, GxeoV?? NEYUK? AOiUS??QYevR wrote:
>> CanopyCo wrote on 10/11/2017 11:59 AM:

<snip>

> > However the math clearly shows that the odds of getting 10 in a row are shit, regardless of how many you already have.
> > At no point is the odds of getting 10 in a row .5, regardless of how many you already have.
> > You thinking that it become .5 is you falling for the gamblers fallacy.

>> CanopyCo, I have come to a conclusion that Ed Huntress is an idiot
>> totally devoid of logic.
>
>I keep bouncing back and forth between lying troll and idiot.
>The revaluation regarding his association with a teacher of the mentally retarded tends to strengthen the idiot part.

Oh, Jesus, this really is comical. Here we have two idiots who think
they've outsmarted every statistician in the world, by thinking
they've found the "fallacy" in the Gambler's fallacy. One thinks it's
a "guiding hand." The other one just thinks that the outcome of a coin
flip depends on previous flips -- that the tenth flip, after getting
nine heads in a row, is not going to be 50:50 heads or tails.

Canopy says:

"At no point is the odds of getting 10 in a row .5, regardless of how
many you already have."

...while every source says that's wrong. Here's one from a collection
of logical fallacies:

==============================================:

Gambler’s Fallacy

Description: Reasoning that, in a situation that is pure random
chance, the outcome can be affected by previous outcomes.

Example #1:

I have flipped heads five times in a row. As a result, the next flip
will probably be tails.

Explanation: The odds for each and every flip are calculated
independently from other flips. The chance for each flip is 50/50, no
matter how many times heads came up before.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/98/Gambler-s-Fallacy

==============================================

That's the exact opposite of your quote above, Canopy. There are
hundreds of examples and explanations online that say the same thing.
I've supplied them from a variety of sources, but you blockheads
refuse to believe them.

So, when are you two geniuses going to get together and write your
white paper so you can wow them at the next meeting of the American
Statistical Association? I'll bet it would be good for some prize
money. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Red Prepper]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo
<Junk...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:10:05 AM UTC-5, GxeoV =

> NEYUK AOiUS QYevR wrote:
> > CanopyCo wrote on 10/11/2017 11:59 AM:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress
wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo
<Junk...@aol.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 10:27:19 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress
wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:41:00 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo

<Junk...@aol.com=

> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 9:05:01 AM UTC-5, Red Prepper
wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 09:57:20 -0400, Ed Huntress
> > >>>>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 04:07:38 -0500, Leper
<Le...@LanaiColony.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 10/7/2017 7:19 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:49 -0500, Leper

<Le...@LanaiColony.com=

> >
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/7/2017 1:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Still, with practice...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I shot in DCM for about 12 years, both M1 and, at the
end,
> > >>>>>> AR-15s. I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> also had five bars
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> More then likely hit 5 bars before writing this lying
fiction.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> on my NRA Sharpshooter badge, but that was a long
> > >>>>>>>>>>> time ago.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The NRA must really be going downhill. I wonder if I
should
> > >>>>>> shitcan my
> > >>>>>>>>>> lifetime membership in protest of Dung like you
tossing around
> > >>>>>> its once
> > >>>>>>>>>> great name?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> God Grief...We all thought Jonathon was the El Supremo

liar an=

> d
> > >>>>>> along
> > >>>>>>>>>> comes old Cunt-In-A_dress and tops anything he ever
said. All
> > >>>>>> this from
> > >>>>>>>>>> a draft dodging freak in adress. Next the chest
pounding idiot
> > >>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>> claim he has a CIB without ever seeing the inside of a

Militar=

> y
> > >>>>>>>>>> establishment.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Jesus, Pox, how did your sock puppets become so

obnoxious? Don'=

> t
> > >>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>> feed them? Do you make them share the washing machine

loads wit=

> h
> > >>>>>> your
> > >>>>>>>>> underwear?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Even Pox knows what an idiot you are.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> That's a perception problem on Pox's part.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You really ought to treat them better and show them

some love a=

> nd
> > >>>>>>>>> affection. Otherwise, they may turn on you some time --
> > >>>>>> especially if
> > >>>>>>>>> they're hungry. d8-)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> With all that hot air you should work for the Wind

farmer East o=

> f
> > >>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>> You could be generating many Gigawatts of blow
hardiness. With
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> Flapping jaw of yours you could actually fly like the

vulture yo=

> u
> > >>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> over to that farm. Your continious unrestrained lying
should be
> > >>>>>> setting
> > >>>>>>>> world records...Especially on your Gambling expertise

and you va=

> st
> > >>>>>>>> expertise with firearms. Your marksmanship is so good
that I see
> > >>>>>> no
> > >>>>>>>> reason to continue having a military at all.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think you just out-jawed me. Try hiring yourself out
the wind
> > >>>>>>> farmer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> BTW, see if you can come up with a "lie" that I've said.

The Peck=

> er
> > >>>>>>> has failed; Pox has failed; and Canopy has failed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Want to try your luck, or are you just more comfortable

slanderin=

> g
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>> an empty rain barrel?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Ed Cuntdress
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You lied when you said there is no cunt dress. You lied

when you s=

> aid
> > >>>>>> you don't sashay. You lied when you said you don't lie.

Three stri=

> kes
> > >>>>>> for the cunt in a dress.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> He has only two options.
> > >>>>> Either he is a troll and said things that he knew was wrong

just to=

> keep people trying to educate him, or he actually is stupid enough

to beli=

> eve his drivel and is actually too stupid to educate.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Funny that he preferred idiot to liar.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Everything I've said here is documented. You, on the other

hand, are=

> a
> > >>>> world-class moron.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> It is documented.
> > >>
> > >>> Too bad you are too stupid to understand the documentation.
> > >>
> > >> Where is it? Show us your "documentation" that the Gambler's
fallacy
> > >> is itself a fallacy.
> > >>
> > >> Nothing exists, except some noise between your ears.
> > >>
> > >
> > > God but you are a idiot.
> > > As I have repeatedly stated, you are falling for the gamblers
fallacy.
> > > The gamblers fallacy is that the odds of getting 10 in a row

suddenly b=

> ecomes a good bet as the tosses proceed.
> > > However the math clearly shows that the odds of getting 10 in a

row are=

> shit, regardless of how many you already have.
> > > At no point is the odds of getting 10 in a row .5, regardless

of how ma=

> ny you already have.
> > > You thinking that it become .5 is you falling for the gamblers
fallacy.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>> My wife teaches special ed. I know those kids and I like

them. That'=

> s
> > >>>> why I'm so gentle with you. If I thought you knew better, I

would ho=

> ld
> > >>>> you up for ridicule for claiming, for example, that the
Gambler's
> > >>>> fallacy is all wrong, when it's been known and lamented

since the da=

> ys
> > >>>> of the ancient Jains and Vedics of India. Probability even

appears i=

> n
> > >>>> Vedic music.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I now see that your wife married one of her students.
> > >>>
> > >>> You are still falling for the gamblers fallacy because you

can =

> t comprehend math formulas and there meaning.
> > >>
> > >> More empty woofing. You never showed a formula or even
referred to
> > >> one.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why should I waste my time showing you the same formulas again

that you=

> already showed you are too stupid to understand?
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe we should call you special Ed?
> > >>> ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Ha! Very good. <g>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> That you don't get it tells us about a weakness in your

ability to d=

> o
> > >>>> abstract reasoning. In general terms, that's a consquence of
general
> > >>>> intelligence: IQ. That you won't flip some coins to prove it
to
> > >>>> yourself tells us that you're a victim of your own

confirmation bias=

> .
> > >>>> That's a consequence of being a butthead. d8-)
> > >>>>
> > >

> > > Why don t you flip some coins as I suggested and explain why yo=

> u will never get 5 in a row?
> > > But you will get 3 in a row and in your thinking getting the

next two t=

> o match is will happen 50% of the time.
> > >
> > > The fact that you refuse to try it is a strong indication that

you alre=

> ady know that you are pushing a false idea, or as many call it
lying.
> > > Otherwise you would try it and prove me wrong by getting 10 in
a row.
> > >
> > > Of course, the other option is that you are so retarded that

you are no=

> t allowed to handle your own money.
> > > If so, try marking a washer and use that.
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> I do get it, and that it the entire point.
> > >>
> > >> I'm a little surprised that you think you've found an error in
the
> > >> binomial distribution formulas that have been developed and
tested by
> > >> expert mathematitions over the course of many centuries. They
are the
> > >> basis of the Gambler's fallacy, which also is known by several
other
> > >> names, including the Monte Carlo fallacy.
> > >>
> > >> It's either an act of extreme presumptuousness on your part,
or an act
> > >> of stupidity.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ed Huntress
> > >
> > > The error was not in the formula.
> > > The error was in your understanding of it and its outcome.
> > >
> >
> > CanopyCo, I have come to a conclusion that Ed Huntress is an
idiot
> > totally devoid of logic.


> I keep bouncing back and forth between lying troll and idiot.
> The revaluation regarding his association with a teacher of the

mentally re=

> tarded tends to strengthen the idiot part.

What does he have to gain by constant trolling for gay sex and lying
though?

[Leper]

Welcome to that exclusive club that numbers in the mere millions. ;-)



--
Machiavelli wrote:It is necessary for the state to deal in lies and half
truths,
because people are made up of lies and half truths. Even Princes.' And
certainly, by definition all Ambassadors and politicians

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:03:14 -0500, Leper <Le...@LanaiColony.com>
wrote:

Like you, Canopy, and the rest of the numbnuts with IQs the same as
their shoe size? Yes, there are millions of them, and they're sure
they're right -- which they aren't.

There are plenty of idiots who think like you and Canopy about the
Gambler's fallacy. That's how casino owners get rich.

--
Ed Huntress

[Bad as Me]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 11:18:32 -0700, Land Ho <L...@td.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 12:12:27 -0400, k4HAg?? NEYUK? AOiUS??cCNnR
><LG...@9RalI.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The shooter managed to make a living as a gambler. For sure he had a way
>>to beat the house.
>
>LOL There's no evidence of that. Ever heard of rich people losing
>tons of money at casinos... because they can afford it! Ask yourself
>the obvious question about the case at hand... why would casinos be
>treating this guy as a "whale" if he was costing them money? It seems
>much more likely that he's been doing well in real estate, and was
>spending the profit at casinos. If you gamble mega bucks then you're
>likely to win some big bucks occasionally. The system is designed to
>keep you motivated, but suck up your last dollar if you're dumb enough
>to risk it. See also: "If you want to make a million at x, start with
>ten million."
>
>BTW, I knew a guy who fit the likely profile here. He had a lot of
>money, I suspect he inherited it. He loved to gamble, and he won
>plenty, including an expensive car at one point. His favorite casino
>treated him like a king. He claimed he was breaking even, but after
>about ten years of the lifestyle he was in trouble and trying to
>liquidate some holdings to stay afloat. Last I heard he was still
>trying to sell those assets, and his lifestyle had been severely
>reduced. If it turns out the shooter was on the same trajectory, I
>won't be surprised.

Looks like you were right, me. :)

"Since September 2015, he's lost a significant amount of wealth, and I
think that might have been a determining factor on what he was
determined to do," Lombardo said in his Wednesday night interview.

"This individual was status-driven based on how he liked to be
recognized in the casino environment and how he liked to be recognized
by his friends and family. So obviously that was starting to decline
in the short period of time and that may have had a determining effect
on why decided to do what he did," the sheriff said.

"He was going in the wrong direction."
http://beta.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-sheriff-20171102-story.html

I am amazed at the number of people who believe gamblers who say they
know how to beat the house. Casino houses tend to do well, and
gamblers' houses tend to be on a downhill path to foreclosure.

[Winston_Smith]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:

>Evidently the massacre occurred as a consequence of the shooter firing what they are saying are automatic weapons, or assault rifles, but it seems a fairly unfamiliar technique of customizing rifles is involved, called a "butt stock."
>
>(quoting from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html)

Two months later, it turns out officials say he did not use a bump
stock. Another liberal fit of histeria over nothing.

[Don]

Can you quote a citation supporting that?

[Winston_Smith]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:22:46 -0900, Donwrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:14:34 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:

>>>(quoting from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html)
>>
>>Two months later, it turns out officials say he did not use a bump
>>stock. Another liberal fit of histeria over nothing.
>
>Can you quote a citation supporting that?

Nope, it was on a radio news report.

[Borma Shave]

Oh well. A typical case of the Internet completely missing a big news
story. Fortunately it was preserved for history on Usenet.