politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They also said he was a terrible shot.
I'm not even kidding. He tried out for the school shooting club and they asked him not to come back because they considered his poor shooting and gun handling dangerous.
Maybe they should name it something else...
No, I think that's an accurate description
LMFAO! I had a feeling he was conservative. It don't know about a terrible shot, he got damn close but if his school had a shooting club he was probably still better than someone untrained but could still be bad enough not to make the team. Like when I got cut from golf, a no cut sport, half way through the first day
He's a bad shot because anyone with any bit of training or even youtube experience knows to aim center mass. More chance of hitting. I picked up shooting for sport in 2017 and can hit center mass with iron sites at the distance this kid was. With my cheapo scope, I can hit out to 300 yards.
He tried lolz x-gamer headshot and failed miserably.
Maybe he did aim for the center...
And that would be even worse for a stationary target.
He had a lot of shots, at least three, so I'm not even sure he aimed at the head. If the story about the policeman distracting him is true, it means a boy on adrenalin tried his best to keep his aim straight in a hurry. I believe hitting Trump at all was an accident.
This. I'm guessing that police man actually saved trumps life because the attempt had to be carried out in a rush and with at least a mild shock still in the system.
Trump was almost certainly wearing a vest
A hit to a vest definitely has a real chance to kill him. Vests distribute the impact, but they're still massive chest trauma for a 70-something dude.
Absolutely it could. Vest or no vest, I don't want to get shot. But "aim for center of mass" is only the rule of thumb when the center of mass is unprotected. Otherwise, it becomes "aim for the material specifically designed to stop bullets" which is not a great rule of thumb.
It also depends on the bullet and rifle, I kinda doubt there are many bullet proof vests that can br qord under clothes that can hold up against a .308.
But im gonna hazard a guess that some 20 year old trying to do an assassination was probably using an AR-15 chambered in 5.56. Which I would coin flip on if the vest could handle it or not.
No way would USSS be able to get his fat ass to wear a vest consistently, let alone the plates needed to stop a rifle round. In this heat?
Though I'm sure now he may reconsider, or be forced to.
Like all bullies, trump is a coward. Wouldn't blow my mind if he wore a vest before he even ran for president.
There is no bulletproof tuxedo like in the movies. There is 5.56 ammo that will go through any soft armor.
Nothing that would line a suit and still have it look anything like a suit wouldn't protect against anything worth being protected against. A bulletproof vest isn't magic armor that makes you invulnerable. A shot from anything realistic would easily break multiple bones and cause internal damage. And that's with the bullet stopping at the vest.
That seems marginally better than getting shot with no protection at all. It wouldn't blow my mind if they had some sort of protection on him.
No one said armor prevents any damage at all,
You're pulling that out of your ass. In fact other posts in this thread are talking about how even without penetration, the distributed force from armor stopping a bullet could still be fatal for a 70+ year old.
Back on the actual topic, Hacksmith made a bespoke suit that could stop small arms with publicly accessible materials for $100k. And all of their testing was at pretty close range.
It is not infeasible for a former President and current candidate's suit used during outdoor public events like this to have some sort of material to mitigate embedded in it, even if it isn't obviously won't provide the same protection as full armor. Every little bit helps.
Lined with what? As far as I've seen that's not really feasible with current materials.
Have you seen Trump's suits? Dude could be wearing half inch plate under that monstrosity.
People act like a bulletproof vest/suit is outlandish when we're talking about a guy who has a bulletproof car and like 25 snipers watching his back lol. When he was president he had anti aircraft guns on the roof of his house. The secret service takes their job really seriously.
I'm perplexed by the lack of a scope. I honestly think it was a machismo move. Wanted to try n headshot him with iron sights so people would talk about it or whatever. Maybe it was all he had, but I doubt it. There are articles saying he was a member at a local range and practiced there all the time. I'm sure he owned a scope. Maybe he didn't think he'd have time to line up a shot with a scope? Idk, it was just weird.
What merit is a person's political affiliations if they're mentally ill?
In this context, young men with mental health issues are the exact kinds of people to fall down the alt-right propaganda pipeline that the social media grifters are spewing, most commonly.
In my opinion though, his political affiliation is more important in the sense that it gives the copycat shooters and cultists less justification for the uptick we'll see in the coming weeks of attempted assassinations, death threats, and mass shootings (especially against democrats and minorities), though that's never stopped them before.
I'm very glad LGBTQ* Pride was last month.
Removed, misinformation.
Actually, super relevant. It shoots down (pun intended) any attempt to blame this on Dems.
Straight to finger pointing, classic. Yes, let's figure out what political party the mentally ill child belonged too so we can blame it on that sides politics. Lol
They specifically said it was to refute those claims, not use them as a weapon.
Imagine if his motivation was to prove he had great aim and that they did him wrong. Maybe he just wanted to become the most well known sniper-assassin in the modern world. Maybe that's the reason he didn't use scope, he wanted his memory to be that of the rifle maverick. I wonder what went through his head after he realised he missed. I mean, other than a bullet.
He didn't use a scope?
I've heard that "no scope" detail elsewhere too. But would love to confirm it or have it disproven.
It is the detail that I keep coming back to that would indicate something about his state of mind, lack of rationality, lack of time, something.
Nope. He used an ar style rifle and nailed that shot 300 yards away. A fly fart could have been the difference between Trump's loss of hearing and his loss of brain.
I heard it was shrapnel and not a bullet that got Trump's ear.
It's like if Hitler was allowed to become an artist, except it's a kid wanting to shoot guns.
Do you have a source on the 'no scope' detail?
I'm not sure where exactly I've read or heard that, sorry. Those past 2 days were very information dense. I'm sure I've heard it being referenced a few times though, along with the gun having only iron sights.
Maybe he was aiming at a suspiciously Antifa-looking person in the crowd and missed?
"Those damn Antifas and their damn anti-fascist ways."
I need the sauce cause that's hilarious if it's true.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/classmate-trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-074729136.html
Thank you CaptianKickass!!
Oh that makes it even funnier holy shit
Yeah, I was discussing this with a friend. It's been 15 years since I fired an assault rifle, but 100 meters with iron sights was pretty easy.
He must either be an awful shot, or his sights must've been screwed up.
The first shot was pretty good, almost headshot at 100m+ is not bad at all with an iron sight, moving target and in "not firing range" condition. If he tried a headshot on purpose thats pretty good, not the smartest decision but still good accuracy.