Trump assassination attempt
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Ooh, this got re-railed to gun thread as opposed to....whatever derail it is...the usual suspects are on about.
Trump's historically made a big deal about wearing ballistic vests in public, and there would be no reason to suspect he wasn't wearing one that day. On the other hand, the sort of ballistic vest that can be worn underneath a suit barely stops a low-caliber pistol round, let alone 5.56 at a distance of 120y. Either way, it's a layer of protection that needs to be accounted for.
Same for the fact he's a former president and current presidential candidate, and as such would have received immediate intervention on the spot, and priority transport and care at the nearest and most appropriate trauma care center. Or to put it a less-tactful way, it would have had to be more a "Kennedy" situation than "Reagan", where Trump would have had to be wounded in such a way no degree of intervention would have been likely to change outcome. So in the center-of-mass category we're talking a heart shot, aorta or superior vena cava, upper thoracic spinal column; a lung or liver shot may well have been fatal, but far from guarantee considering the scope and rapidity of emergency response we'd have been likely to see.
The Reagan assassination attempt is good material for comparison on this: Hinckley would have saved the country a whole lot of trouble, had Jerry Parr not realized Reagan was bleeding internally and countermanded the call to take him to the White House. As it was, Reagan crashed in the ER and nearly died complaining about the attending staff ruining his tailored suit.
Trump was right side-on at a range of 120y from an elevated position, so those locations would have been a tough shot (thanks to being behind several inches of dense bone and muscle tissue). Crooks would have had to wait for Trump to raise his arm, shot him under the right armpit, and hoped for the best. Paradoxically, the head shot was the better shot for the best chance to actually kill the bastard.
Not that I think Crooks was operating on that level of risk analysis. More likely was he was a dumbfuck kid who grew up on a steady diet of the likes of Call of Duty.
As far as an AR-15's accuracy, at 120y 1 MoA works out to just over a 1" spread. 3 MoA is about 3.1". "Trump got lucky" is definitely the best explanation on this one.
I'm usually the conductor of the "always shoot CoM, dummy" train around these parts, but I think this situation is the exception. I'm about to get real nitty-gritty on this, and purely for the sake of covering my own ass I'll say none of this is a statement of intent, ideation, or advice and should be considered or construed in no such way.
Trump's historically made a big deal about wearing ballistic vests in public, and there would be no reason to suspect he wasn't wearing one that day. On the other hand, the sort of ballistic vest that can be worn underneath a suit barely stops a low-caliber pistol round, let alone 5.56 at a distance of 120y. Either way, it's a layer of protection that needs to be accounted for.
Same for the fact he's a former president and current presidential candidate, and as such would have received immediate intervention on the spot, and priority transport and care at the nearest and most appropriate trauma care center. Or to put it a less-tactful way, it would have had to be more a "Kennedy" situation than "Reagan", where Trump would have had to be wounded in such a way no degree of intervention would have been likely to change outcome. So in the center-of-mass category we're talking a heart shot, aorta or superior vena cava, upper thoracic spinal column; a lung or liver shot may well have been fatal, but far from guarantee considering the scope and rapidity of emergency response we'd have been likely to see.
The Reagan assassination attempt is good material for comparison on this: Hinckley would have saved the country a whole lot of trouble, had Jerry Parr not realized Reagan was bleeding internally and countermanded the call to take him to the White House. As it was, Reagan crashed in the ER and nearly died complaining about the attending staff ruining his tailored suit.
Trump was right side-on at a range of 120y from an elevated position, so those locations would have been a tough shot (thanks to being behind several inches of dense bone and muscle tissue). Crooks would have had to wait for Trump to raise his arm, shot him under the right armpit, and hoped for the best. Paradoxically, the head shot was the better shot for the best chance to actually kill the bastard.
Not that I think Crooks was operating on that level of risk analysis. More likely was he was a dumbfuck kid who grew up on a steady diet of the likes of Call of Duty.
As far as an AR-15's accuracy, at 120y 1 MoA works out to just over a 1" spread. 3 MoA is about 3.1". "Trump got lucky" is definitely the best explanation on this one.
Last edited:
Pure chaos theory and luck do play a part, probably a much bigger one than I'm giving it credit for.
I'm not sure what frame of mind led you to think that list was a good idea. You think an article from Catholic.com that says men can be caregivers and women can be breadwinners supports your claims? You think articles on Fox that express the idea that masculine and feminine coded traits are both necessary for happiness is an endorsement of sex-locked gender roles? You think a study that circularly defines "men's domination over women" as a conservative stance is straight from the horse's mouth.
I would hope that you'd be able to read all of these and start to question if your view is accurate. Instead, you seem unable to see the truth beyond your preconceived notions.
My god, it's as if you have zero comprehension of messaging. They are very obviously and explicitly associating those traits more heavily with one or the other gender. And you've just looked straight past all that, taking none of it in.
Let's look at that paragraph from the Catholic website in entirety.
"There are differences in the roles they naturally play. Women are more natural caregivers for children, and men more naturally work outside the home. Yet women can and do work outside the home and men do act as caregivers for children (changing diapers, feeding babies their bottles, burping them, walking with them when they are crying at night–men do all these things, just as women do). Their roles tend to be focused in one area (caregiving for women and working outside the home for men), but one can fill in for the other whenever needed."
So, yep: it says men can be caregivers and women can work... which it describes as "filling in for the other". It says this after clearly saying the roles are "naturally" better fitted to specific sexes.
If you tell me you read that passage and concluded they're saying men and women are equally suited to those roles, you're being dishonest or illiterate.
Secret Service director steps down after assassination attempt against ex-President Trump at rally
The director of the Secret Service has resigned in the aftermath of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.
apnews.com
Honestly not my preferred solution. She just makes it look like the Secret Service will continue to be asshats. She could have easily explained in the detail the budget deficiencies and time constraints that led to a failure to properly plan. Fuck I coulda talked congress into a coma and I wasn't even there. Falling on your sword ain't helping anybody.
A) Do you actually think men and women, on average, are equally suited to every role?
B) Do you think women typically being caregivers means that being a caregiver makes you a woman? Cause even without the explicit statement that it's not a hard rule, that conclusion does not follow.
We'll never truly know if her stepping down was the right thing to do because it got turned into a clownshow so damn fast. If people had held their horses, made thorough inquiries, and treated the matter with a sense of decorum the correctness of the decision to step down wouldn't be in question. But instead the loons started howling DEI and making accusations without knowing all, or any, of the facts.
Secret Service director steps down after assassination attempt against ex-President Trump at rally
The director of the Secret Service has resigned in the aftermath of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.
Honestly not my preferred solution. She just makes it look like the Secret Service will continue to be asshats. She could have easily explained in the detail the budget deficiencies and time constraints that led to a failure to properly plan. Fuck I coulda talked congress into a coma and I wasn't even there. Falling on your sword ain't helping anybody.
Deflection. I'm not going to follow tangents onto questions irrelevant to the topic we were discussing. In fact, that second question is just a bizarre non-sequitur-- that 'conclusion' is something you've cooked up as another cheap strawman.
If you can't have a conversation in these terms, then we go back to your list of sources. Where is the conservative saying women belong in the kitchen? I will make no attempt to interpret your post, you're going to have to connect the dots entirely on your own for how those sites support your claims.
He didn't say that about women who haven't given birth. He said that about Democratic politicians (including at least one man).
Falling on her sword to protect those higher on the food chain, and "resolve" the matter with minimal controversy so as to move onto the next 24-hour news cycle, was her job.
Cheatle will probably be back at Pepsi (or a more lucrative position elsewhere) once her name's out of the headlines.
I didn't watch the entire hearing thing (just saw highlights and clips on The Internet dot com) but I don't get why she was just so...combinative. Like it was an incredible indignity that she had to justify (or at least explain) how some dude was able to get multiple shots on a potential presidential candidate. Maybe she was just protecting her crew and figured being an asshole would put all the heat on her or maybe we'll learn something a bit more sinister happened (I'd lean way more towards A than B, incompetence rather than malice but there's a LOT of shady shit around here as we learn more and more about the events).Secret Service director steps down after assassination attempt against ex-President Trump at rally
The director of the Secret Service has resigned in the aftermath of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump.
Honestly not my preferred solution. She just makes it look like the Secret Service will continue to be asshats. She could have easily explained in the detail the budget deficiencies and time constraints that led to a failure to properly plan. Fuck I coulda talked congress into a coma and I wasn't even there. Falling on your sword ain't helping anybody.
I have a feeling this is going to get buried since Trump was perfectly fine and with the shooter being a Republican who actually had liked Trump previously, they'll have a hard time spinning it in a way to lash out at Democrats. Which is a shame cause I'm super curious how this kind of epic fuck-up happened.
I don't know honestly. Could be she was really an incompetent figurehead and was told to stfu and take her parashoot money.
I get combativeness if it means something but by neither taking responsibility or discussing mistakes and improvement she gave the whole organization a bad name.
You're substituting what I've actually said with these reductionist strawmen, and then demanding I show how the sources make those cases.
Gonna end the "traditional gender roles" tangent there-- as others want to get back to the attempted assassination, and you won't engage with the substance anyway.