Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Va Tech Ballistic Evidence Released

anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed

170 ROUNDS FIRED RESULTING IN 32 KILLS-extremely accurate!

He wanted to make the rich spoiled brats pay for their hedonistic ways, but for some reason chose to employ his retribution at the "engineering" hall as opposed to the English literature school where he
was enrolled???...are engineering majors more hedonistic than English majors???... maybe he preferred anonymous retribution???

Invalid Link Removed

Ok, so 1 shot every three seconds with a 9mm and a 22, with a kill for every 5.7 shots...about a kill every 18 seconds! This guy was f-ing Rambo! Who trained him?
 
anabolicrhino said:
Invalid Link Removed

170 ROUNDS FIRED RESULTING IN 32 KILLS-extremely accurate!

He wanted to make the rich spoiled brats pay for their hedonistic ways, but for some reason chose to employ his retribution at the "engineering" hall as opposed to the English literature school where he
was enrolled???...are engineering majors more hedonistic than English majors???... maybe he preferred anonymous retribution???
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about the accuracy. The coroner said that there were zero injuries in the victims consistent with any of them fighting back against the attacker. Couple this with the survivor's accounts that say the same thing (no one fought back) and it looks like this guy (for the most part) just walked from person to person putting three bullets in each as they hid under their desks.
 
yeahright said:
I'm not so sure about the accuracy. The coroner said that there were zero injuries in the victims consistent with any of them fighting back against the attacker. Couple this with the survivor's accounts that say the same thing (no one fought back) and it looks like this guy (for the most part) just walked from person to person putting three bullets in each as they hid under their desks.
Click to expand...

I guess you are right. It's just that I have a hard time excepting that so many people would just wait to be shot, with no escape plan, no resistance. I find that kind of "victim culture mentality" more disturbing than the actual shooting.

Everyone reacts differently in times of extreme stress, but golly I
know that any plan is better than just waiting to be offed like a sacrificial lamb...with all do respect to the deceased,

I ain't going out like no punk!

The three bullet thing really bothers me! That is classic assassin style "two in the chest one in the head"
 
Yeah, the number of victims is what confused me as well. In these type of things, the shooter usually kills a couple people and then wounds maybe twice as many as he kills. This just struck me as bizarre so I read all the survivor accounts and the statements by the coroner. It appears that almost everyone just hid on the floor and waited to die. In fact, that's precisely what some of the survivors have stated.

Matt Webster, a 23-year-old engineering student from Smithfield, Va., was one of four students inside when the gunman appeared. Webster ducked to the floor and tucked himself into a ball. He shut his eyes and listened as the gunman walked to the back of the classroom. Two other students were huddled by the wall. He shot a girl, and she cried out. Now the shooter was three feet away, pointing his gun right at Webster. "I felt something hit my head, but I was still conscious," Webster recalled. The bullet had grazed his hairline, then ricocheted through his upper right arm. He played dead.

and

The first thing Violand saw was a gun, then the gunman. "I quickly dove under a desk," he recalled. "That was the desk I chose to die under." He listened as the gunman began "methodically and calmly" shooting people. "It sounded rhythmic-like. He took his time between each shot and kept up the pace, moving from person to person." After every shot, Violand thought, "Okay, the next one is me." But shot after shot, and he felt nothing. He played dead. "The room was silent except for the haunting sound of moans, some quiet crying, and someone muttering: 'It's okay. It's going to be okay. They will be here soon,' " he recalled. The gunman circled again and seemed to be unloading a second round into the wounded. Violand thought he heard the gunman reload three times. He could not hold back odd thoughts: "I wonder what a gun wound feels like. I hope it doesn't hurt. I wonder if I'll die slow or fast."

This just utterly bewilders me. If only a couple people had rushed the guy or even just thrown their textbooks at him, this could have turned out entirely different.

I'm also stunned that a classroom full of young healthy people jumped out the windows letting a 73 year old man (Holocaust survivor no less) hold the door against the gunman. Isn't it the young and strong who are supposed to stand up to danger in defense of the frail and weak?

I just don't understand this at all. I've had guns pulled on me on a couple of occasions and my instinct was always to confront the danger (not drop into the fetal position and wait to die). I'm not really blaming the students, I'm sure they all just reacted out of instinct. I just can't understand why their instinct was to turn into prey.
 
As much as I hate it when people play armchair quarterback on these things because you can never know what you'll do...I find it hard to believe there were no heroes(in the trad. sense) other than a old man who barricaded a door with his body so his students would play dead under desks.
 
Jayhawkk said:
As much as I hate it when people play armchair quarterback on these things because you can never know what you'll do...I find it hard to believe there were no heroes(in the trad. sense) other than a old man who barricaded a door with his body so his students would play dead under desks.
Click to expand...


I find it hard to believe as well which is why I've been reading all the accounts. There are only two people who appeared to have taken aggressive action.

The first was the resident advisor in the dorm during the morning shooting. There's not really any evidence about why he died but my assumption is that he heard something (commotion, gunshot, scream, etc.) and as an RA should, rushed to the scene and became the second victim. That's really just speculation but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The second guy was in the engineering building but on a higher floor. He was a military veteran and recognized the sound of gunfire. He told the people he was with to lock the door behind him and he went to intervene. He was shot as he exited the stairwell (bad timing, came out of the stairwell while the shooter was walking between classrooms).

Everyone else either (1) got caught by surprise when the shooter first walked into the room (one professor and some students sitting in the front row of a classroom), (2) jumped out windows; or (3) hid under desks and waited to be executed.

It's just utterly bewildering to me and I've searched the survivor accounts and other information looking for an explanation. There just isn't one. The shooter had no specialized training. He was scrawny and short. He was only armed with two pistols and one of those was only a 22. It's not like he had a weapon with a rapid rate of fire and a large magazine.

It appears that most of the victims just froze (kind of a deer in the headlights reaction) and huddled under their desks even when they could hear the shooter pausing to reload.
 
But they fire a professor who tries to explain why this happened? Armed or not(for those who are riding the gun issue) this guy should of been stopped or there should be many more accounts of people attempting to stop him. All in my humble opinion.

I won't go all out on what i think happened and why just yet since all the reports aren't in but it just doesn't look good to me. These are also the types signing into the military and because of their education are usually in leadership positions.
 
It not like this kind of thing has not happened before, most of these students were high school age when Columbine(1999) went down! O k the first couple of people were surprised but, geez the old "duck and cover" is for bombs, not lone gunmen with semi auto hand guns!!!

How about during freshman orientation, they teach how not to be defenseless victim!
 
Jayhawkk said:
Next to the fire extinguisher there's an emergency firearm :)
Click to expand...


I know you're joking but I'm still hung-up on this. There's been lots of blather about how the shooter would have been stopped if the students were armed.

I wonder if that is really true? Having a gun doesn't change who a person is. Almost none of these people apparently had any instinct to confront the shooter. If your instinct was to confront the danger, you would do it with whatever you could (textbooks, fire extinguisher, bare hands). Yes, if you had a gun you'd use that. My point is that the world is full of weapons but a person has to have the instinct/will to use them. Hell, there's a decent chance that a thick textbook would actually stop bullets from a 22.

In this case, when confronted by a violent predator, almost everyone's instinct was to act like prey animals (run away or hide & blend into the terrain).

Almost none of them appear to have had the instinct to use a weapon even if they had had one.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. After the initial confusion went away and it was clear that the shooter was walking from person to person shooting them, why did they just lay there and wait to die? That's precisely what the survivors have testified happened. I keep searching for an explanation but this crop of people appears just to have reacted in a very atypical fashion.
 
My stance from a professional standpoint and one who is trained in teaching firearms is that putting guns into more people's hands without increasing the required training is asking for a hell of a lot of trouble. The hit rate for those trained is somewhere between 30-40% depending on which stats you go with but it is still low.

The requirements to own and fire a gun is pathetically low and many people do not understand enough about a gun and how it operates and what happens when you hit someone to make them into automatic defensive experts. People don't go flying through the air when hit and they don't explode...That's if you're lucky enough to hit the aggressor vs. an innocent bystander.

Even with my training and the fact i fire over a thousand rounds of ammunition a month I know I have limitations. I've been in a lot of situations in my life where I would of been justified in shooting at/taking someone's life but because I wasn't armed it never happened. Two people get into an argument and one pulls out a gun there's much less of a chance of a shooting than if both pull one out on each other.

My stance on firearms is that the requirements to owning and carrying a firearm to more than a shooting range should be higher than that of getting a driver's license. that way people cqan honestly evaluate their abilities and can shove any Hollywood scenerios out of their heads.
 
That guy is an idiot. He thinks you have to have a gun in hand to not be passive? Better alert all the POW's and those Jews in WW2 in the death camps who stood up to those who were armed to the teeth. I'm not saying these kids were in the same situation by any means but the point is that you don't have to be equally armed to be able to defend one's self.

One of the things you learn is the 21 foot rule and how in that distance or less the chance to pull a weapon and fire it at your aggressor is very low. There are self defense classes and other means of self defense(mace etc) that could of been learned and employed if people were so intent on being able to defend themselves. A gun, in everyone's mind, seems to be the cure all. As long as you have it you can stop crime and defend the weak and kill off all enemies.
 
Jayhawkk said:
That guy is an idiot. He thinks you have to have a gun in hand to not be passive? Better alert all the POW's and those Jews in WW2 in the death camps who stood up to those who were armed to the teeth. I'm not saying these kids were in the same situation by any means but the point is that you don't have to be equally armed to be able to defend one's self.

One of the things you learn is the 21 foot rule and how in that distance or less the chance to pull a weapon and fire it at your aggressor is very low. There are self defense classes and other means of self defense(mace etc) that could of been learned and employed if people were so intent on being able to defend themselves. A gun, in everyone's mind, seems to be the cure all. As long as you have it you can stop crime and defend the weak and kill off all enemies.
Click to expand...

That's my point above. If one's instinct is to confront aggression, then you do it with what is available.

If your instinct is to flee or cower from aggression, then a gun in your pocket isn't going to change anything.

People who only know about guns from TV/movies have bizarre notions about how easy they are to use, how powerful they are, and how they somehow transform individuals into action heroes.

In the interests of full disclosure, I don't actually own any guns. They don't fit into my current lifestyle so I don't have any. However, I have fired lots of weapons and unfortunately had them pulled on me on 4 different occasions (my teenage years were kinda wild).
 
Same here YR. I actually own them but they are collector pieces and locked up. I am also one of the few that don't carry off duty. Knowing their limitations and also knowing mine and my temperment, it's best that way. Now for those who wish to carry I don't have a problem as long as their training is sufficient and to me that means more than showing up once a year to shoot 50 rounds at a paper non moving target while both feet are planted on the ground.

And of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are people who are indeed deadly with a gun and there are situations where a gun would of stopped the person or actually did. My belief though, is that those situations are rare enough that it shouldn't be used as proof to make the standard.
 
Same here YR. I actually own them but they are collector pieces and locked up. I am also one of the few that don't carry off duty. Knowing their limitations and also knowing mine and my temperment, it's best that way. Now for those who wish to carry I don't have a problem as long as their training is sufficient and to me that means more than showing up once a year to shoot 50 rounds at a paper non moving target while both feet are planted on the ground.

And of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are people who are indeed deadly with a gun and there are situations where a gun would of stopped the person or actually did. My belief though, is that those situations are rare enough that it shouldn't be used as proof to make the standard.
 
Same here YR. I actually own them but they are collector pieces and locked up. I am also one of the few that don't carry off duty. Knowing their limitations and also knowing mine and my temperment, it's best that way. Now for those who wish to carry I don't have a problem as long as their training is sufficient and to me that means more than showing up once a year to shoot 50 rounds at a paper non moving target while both feet are planted on the ground.

And of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are people who are indeed deadly with a gun and there are situations where a gun would of stopped the person or actually did. My belief though, is that those situations are rare enough that it shouldn't be used as proof to make the standard.
 
...another thing is that a 9mm slug unless it hits you in the head or heart or spine, generally does not kill. There is an escape; crawl, run , whatever just don't freaking lie there and wait to be shot again.

of course a more controversial opinion is that; the nature of the universe is to make itself stronger by eliminating the weakness. If you don't want to fight for your life than, you may have to die this way. It is a cold hard lesson from the universe.

"All life is precious and cannot be replaced"- Master Po
 
The lives lost are indeed a tragedy. I'm just glad some people are willing to discuss how to go about learning from this versus just using it as a political foothold or a reason to make 20 youtube tributes.
 
I posted it b/c he makes some valid points. He pissed off all at the local radio station and they took him off the air.
I think he hit the nail on the head wondering how the situation might have been changed if kids grew up in a system where self defense is encouraged rather than being punished.
That we are creating a culture of passivity that will not fight back when our freedom is threatened. Students are taught since grade school not to retaliate when attacked, and if they do not only the attackers punished the victim that defends himself is also.
The local paper released his credit card purchases for the last month. He had been target practicing at the same range I shoot at PSS in Roanoke, This range is ran bye a couple of ex cops and a ex marine who was a rifle range instruction at 29 palms. He could have received some training there.
 
God bless the families but this shows how TRULY weak our society has become!! The only ones that fought back somewhat were the older guys! It makes you wonder if we (as a whole) could defend against an invasion or would we just give up! I have served in the army and I believe as awhole our society has turned into mostly anti-war feminists!

Just watch tv and it's obvious! Instead of the A-team they have American idol with a bunch of girly boys! I really hate to say this but it is so true! You would think their would be at least ONE person who would try to rush him while he was reloading! Hate to sound like that but I'm just a CONCERNED american giving JMHO!!!!!!!!!
 
brass monkey said:
That we are creating a culture of passivity that will not fight back when our freedom is threatened. Students are taught since grade school not to retaliate when attacked, and if they do not only the attackers punished the victim that defends himself is also.
.
Click to expand...

This is what is being referred to as the "victim culture" and it implies that we, as members of the victim culture have little or no power over our own lives. This to me is the biggest problem facing our society.

No accountability, No responsibility...just cause and effect!

The fact that this "victim culture" agenda is being indoctrinated by our educational systems into the minds of future generations
is criminal

The big-pharma, corporate medical system reinforces the victim mentality by prescribing a drug for everyday problems.

People are depressed so they take an ant-depressant instead of addressing the reality of their problem,...an unfulfilled life!

Kids are easily bored by the mindless drivel that passes for education, so the system gives them ADD drugs(speed) so they can pay attention and not make critical assessments as to why their schools bores them!!!

This is why the Nazi's passed out the
"bennies" to the troops during WWII, the mechanism of the speed disables the critical mind by making it more receptive to repetition and hierarchy structures!!!

The killer was not responsible...he was chemically imbalanced!
...F-that!

The victim is a slave to his own bio-chemistry?

Most of the readers on this board know a lot about chemicals in terms of bodybuilding and life.

What's the first thing we tell a noobe, who wants to get huge on roids?...There is a lot more to fitness and bodybuilding then the chemicals.

Arnold had the same chemicals as all those other guys in the 60's and 70's. He was different because he had vision and the discipline to achieve his dreams.

The Va Tech casualties were taught that very same lesson, but as a reverse negative!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top