On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.
If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.

I agree, those gun nuts are having a knee jerk reaction. They think
we need to make it easier and cheaper to get silencers. I guess they
figure they need to hide it by calling it a hearing protection act.
Funny, for 250 years people were able to engage in sport shooting,
hunting, but now suddenly people need easier access to silencers.




If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.

What's the urgent, compelling need to make getting a silencer easy
and cheaper?

On 10/3/2017 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.
If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.


It had nothing to do with the shooting but it does make it harder to
catch the shooter jf the shot is not heard. In the case of the LV
shooter, if his gun was not heard right away the carnage may have been
worse. It took some time as it was before people know what was
happening. With an automatic weapon like he was using, seconds mattered.

As for gun control, we are 200 years too late. There are plenty of guns
out there and criminals will continue to get their hands on them even if
all gun production stopped today. No easy answer. Maybe no answer at all.

Have you ever watched Live PD on TV? Every week they are finding
illegal guns, mostly stolen usually carried by unsavory characters.

On 10/3/17 7:01 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/3/2017 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4


It had nothing to do with the shooting but it does make it harder to
catch the shooter jf the shot is not heard.Â* In the case of the LV
shooter, if his gun was not heard right away the carnage may have been
worse.Â* It took some time as it was before people know what was
happening.Â* With an automatic weapon like he was using, seconds mattered.
The more important in this would be the muzzle flash. Especially
since the audio would have echoed around the area. Some suppressors also
suppress muzzle flash, though, so that would be an issue.

On 10/3/2017 4:00 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.

I agree, those gun nuts are having a knee jerk reaction. They think
we need to make it easier and cheaper to get silencers. I guess they
figure they need to hide it by calling it a hearing protection act.
Funny, for 250 years people were able to engage in sport shooting,
hunting, but now suddenly people need easier access to silencers.

Point of order. Silencers are NOT cheap and they likely won't be
cheaper if legalized, but that's another issue.

Okay, for 250 years folks have enjoyed hunting and shooting sports
without access to silencers.

For a lot longer than that we have had laws on the books in every state
of the union making it a crime (in many instances, a capital offense) to
murder someone. How's that working out and why do we also have laws
that "enhance" the penalties for certain classes of victims. Murder
child, a senior citizen, a police officer, a fire fighter, a politician.
All enhanced penalties which are wholly unnecessary if we merely
enforced the law on the books and handed down by God whether you believe
it him/her or not.

It's all freakin' window dressing and doesn't mean a damn thing. Only
the honest man will follow the law and the only one we clamp down on are
those same individuals.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.

I agree, those gun nuts are having a knee jerk reaction. They think
we need to make it easier and cheaper to get silencers. I guess they
figure they need to hide it by calling it a hearing protection act.
Funny, for 250 years people were able to engage in sport shooting,
hunting, but now suddenly people need easier access to silencers.




If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.

What's the urgent, compelling need to make getting a silencer easy
and cheaper?

We are only talking about making them easier to get legally. I can
make you a very capable suppressor in about 15 minutes from things I
can get at Home Depot, or maybe even out of a construction dumpster if
the plumbers are done.
The hearing loss issues are very real too and it is more likely to be
younger shooters who do not recognize the danger. That was certainly
true of my generation. Can't we just do it "for the children"? :-)

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:01:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/3/2017 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.
If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.


It had nothing to do with the shooting but it does make it harder to
catch the shooter jf the shot is not heard. In the case of the LV
shooter, if his gun was not heard right away the carnage may have been
worse. It took some time as it was before people know what was
happening. With an automatic weapon like he was using, seconds mattered.

As for gun control, we are 200 years too late. There are plenty of guns
out there and criminals will continue to get their hands on them even if
all gun production stopped today. No easy answer. Maybe no answer at all.

Have you ever watched Live PD on TV? Every week they are finding
illegal guns, mostly stolen usually carried by unsavory characters.

130 dB (the sound a typical .30 cal suppressor makes) is far from
silent.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:15:42 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:


Okay, for 250 years folks have enjoyed hunting and shooting sports
without access to silencers.

Yes and deafness is an ongoing problem in our older population. How
many of them had their hearing damaged from shooting?
If you can believe my doctor, every one of them who did not have
significant hearing protection. That would be just about every shooter
before the 70s when it became a thing to use, particularly on a range.
I still see plenty of hunters going without any ear protection. It
also includes most veterans if they actually got close to a firing
range (or a war).

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:00:31 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.

I agree, those gun nuts are having a knee jerk reaction. They think
we need to make it easier and cheaper to get silencers. I guess they
figure they need to hide it by calling it a hearing protection act.
Funny, for 250 years people were able to engage in sport shooting,
hunting, but now suddenly people need easier access to silencers.

If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.

What's the urgent, compelling need to make getting a silencer easy
and cheaper?


Gun Nuts should always be protected by a properly fitted cup and athletic supporter, especially during extreme sports. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Armed Monster

On 10/3/2017 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:15:42 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:


Okay, for 250 years folks have enjoyed hunting and shooting sports
without access to silencers.

Yes and deafness is an ongoing problem in our older population. How
many of them had their hearing damaged from shooting?
If you can believe my doctor, every one of them who did not have
significant hearing protection. That would be just about every shooter
before the 70s when it became a thing to use, particularly on a range.
I still see plenty of hunters going without any ear protection. It
also includes most veterans if they actually got close to a firing
range (or a war).


I was giving him his point. I agree that the hearing issue is real. I
have a note from my doctor to that effect. Permanent damage that is not
correctable with hearing aids. If I keep my right side towards SWMBO I
can get away with a lotg

Check this out. In the Washington Post no less.

http://tinyurl.com/Washington-Post-on-Gun-Control

On 10/3/17 7:05 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

Check this out.Â* In the Washington Post no less.

http://tinyurl.com/Washington-Post-on-Gun-Control

It said two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. I never would've
thought
that given all the shootings in Chicago on the weekends.

On 10/3/2017 7:20 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/3/17 7:05 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:

Check this out.Â* In the Washington Post no less.

http://tinyurl.com/Washington-Post-on-Gun-Control

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It said two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.Â*Â* I never would've
thought
that given all the shootings in Chicago on the weekends.


Suicide is what they call it if you join a gang and walk around the
Englewood neighborhood.

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message
On 10/3/17 7:01 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/3/2017 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4


It had nothing to do with the shooting but it does make
it harder to catch the shooter jf the shot is not heard.
In the case of the LV shooter, if his gun was not heard
right away the carnage may have been worse. It took some
time as it was before people know what was happening.
With an automatic weapon like he was using, seconds
mattered.
The more important in this would be the muzzle flash.
Especially since the audio would have echoed around the
area. Some suppressors also suppress muzzle flash, though,
so that would be an issue.


They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

In article . com,
says...



Point of order. Silencers are NOT cheap and they likely won't be
cheaper if legalized, but that's another issue.

Okay, for 250 years folks have enjoyed hunting and shooting sports
without access to silencers.



Now most silencers are not cheap,but there is no reason that they can
not be. Just like computers. When they first came out they were
expenisve, but now not so much. If there were no regulations on them
and no $ 200 transfer fee from the feds they could be under $ 100.
After all they are just similar to a lawn mower muffler. A piece of
pipe and some baffles.

Some other countries that have strict gun control laws actually require
supressors for the hunting guns.

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 10:30:39 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article . com,
says...



Point of order. Silencers are NOT cheap and they likely won't be
cheaper if legalized, but that's another issue.

Okay, for 250 years folks have enjoyed hunting and shooting sports
without access to silencers.



Now most silencers are not cheap,but there is no reason that they can
not be. Just like computers. When they first came out they were
expenisve, but now not so much. If there were no regulations on them
and no $ 200 transfer fee from the feds they could be under $ 100.
After all they are just similar to a lawn mower muffler. A piece of
pipe and some baffles.

And the bill eliminates the $200 fee, hence my point that it does
in fact make them substantially cheaper. It's just incredible to
me the insensitivity of the gun nuts and GOP. With mass shootings
happening at an increasing rate, they think now is the time to be
making silencers more available? If they keep this up, before long
the consequences will be a revolt that throws them out of office
with the Democrats passing very strict gun control laws.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:41:48 AM UTC-4, BurfordTJustice wrote:
As for silencers - they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce
gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage
for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a
silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.



Gun Digest and elks disagree:


https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/supp...t-silent-woods

Suppressor Hunting: The Sweet Silent Woods

oe Metzger and his hunting guide spotted the elk herd in a small canyon, just below a ridgeline, near Craig, Colo. There were about 15 bulls and cows milling around and feeding. Using boulders for cover, Metzger and his guide got to within 220 yards of the elk. Metzger had a cow tag. Selecting a yearling cow, he lined up the crosshairs on his custom .308 bolt-action rifle and squeezed off a shot.
Providing reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photoProviding reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photo

The young elk reared up on her back legs for a moment and then fell over backwards, sliding down the snow-covered slope. The other elk were momentarily startled, jumped a bit, looked around but within a minute went back to feeding.

€œIf thered been another hunter with me, he couldve filled his tag, too,€�

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:01:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

As for gun control, we are 200 years too late. There are plenty of guns
out there and criminals will continue to get their hands on them even if
all gun production stopped today. No easy answer. Maybe no answer at all

Politicians just talk and talk. ~ 1/3 of Americans fought in the
American Revolution, starting in the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

The Founders knew about liberty and freedom. If the gun grabbers are
so smart, why haven't they repealed the Second Amendment.... They
never talk about banning firearm manufacturing, because they know it
will never happen. Aside, it would interfere with the Commerce Clause
(IMO). Not a battle they can win or want to fight. They just want to
bark about taking rights away. They also know that Americans can put
down a tyrannical government. Gun control is a talking point they pull
off the shelf after some event. They have a whole shelf of talking
points. When one narrative stops working, they move to another
narrative. See the shiny object.

The founders also had to deal with Colonies which already had the
right to keep and bear arms..

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:04:07 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

A recent war Vet was two floors under the shooter and heard the gun
fire. He called 911 and told police where the guy was. A valet
parking attendant heard glass falling, hitting the ground. The smoke
alarm was a strong indication of the exact room. Security notified
police of that location. Hence the rapid response.

On 10/3/2017 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:47:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

I'd say that anyone who opposes closing the private sale background check
loophole, who opposes putting people on the no-fly list on the list of
blocked sales, and anyone who thinks we should make silencers less
expensive and more available meets the definition.

How many people have EVER been killed by a suppressor? The bullets
still come out the same way, suppressed or not. This is knee jerk
opposition to a non issue.

I agree, those gun nuts are having a knee jerk reaction. They think
we need to make it easier and cheaper to get silencers. I guess they
figure they need to hide it by calling it a hearing protection act.
Funny, for 250 years people were able to engage in sport shooting,
hunting, but now suddenly people need easier access to silencers.




If I used that logic I would ban cell phones instead of just having a
law saying they are illegal to use in the car.

What's the urgent, compelling need to make getting a silencer easy
and cheaper?

We are only talking about making them easier to get legally. I can
make you a very capable suppressor in about 15 minutes from things I
can get at Home Depot, or maybe even out of a construction dumpster if
the plumbers are done.
The hearing loss issues are very real too and it is more likely to be
younger shooters who do not recognize the danger. That was certainly
true of my generation. Can't we just do it "for the children"? :-)


If they are too stupid to wear hearing protection, they are too stupid
to have a gun.

On 10/3/2017 10:30 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article . com,
says...



Point of order. Silencers are NOT cheap and they likely won't be
cheaper if legalized, but that's another issue.

Okay, for 250 years folks have enjoyed hunting and shooting sports
without access to silencers.



Now most silencers are not cheap,but there is no reason that they can
not be. Just like computers. When they first came out they were
expenisve, but now not so much. If there were no regulations on them
and no $ 200 transfer fee from the feds they could be under $ 100.
After all they are just similar to a lawn mower muffler. A piece of
pipe and some baffles.

Some other countries that have strict gun control laws actually require
supressors for the hunting guns.


You still have to machine threads into the gun barrel. Some guns may
not accept them. That would probably be most semiautomatic pistols.
They are making barrels for them now that extend beyond the slide and
are capped with a threaded cap which can be removed for the suppressor.

There are also local laws that forbid them like in my state of Delaware.

I personally would not buy one. Every single shooter at the range would
need one which is highly unlikely. Even then residual noise could be
painful.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:14:11 -0700, Bob F wrote:

If they are too stupid to wear hearing protection, they are too stupid
to have a gun.

Go hug a tree, Bob.

Stink Eye: Give me your money!

Victim: Wait, let me put on hearing protections, so I can kill your
ass right now.

911: What is your emergency?

Victim: Send the damn Coroner over and get this dead ******* of my
property!. Do it in a hurry! Click.

"Oren" wrote in message
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:04:07 -0400,
"Phil Kangas"
wrote:

They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

A recent war Vet was two floors under the shooter and
heard the gun
fire. He called 911 and told police where the guy was. A
valet
parking attendant heard glass falling, hitting the ground.
The smoke
alarm was a strong indication of the exact room. Security
notified
police of that location. Hence the rapid response.

Now _that_ is teamwork, eih? :}

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 2:58:12 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:04:07 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

A recent war Vet was two floors under the shooter and heard the gun
fire. He called 911 and told police where the guy was. A valet
parking attendant heard glass falling, hitting the ground. The smoke
alarm was a strong indication of the exact room. Security notified
police of that location. Hence the rapid response.

It's not clear what exactly ended the shooting and when
exactly the guy killed himself. It wasn't the
police blowing the door, that's for sure. From what I've seen,
the shooting was over in 11 mins, apparently the police didn't
arrive on the 32nd floor until much later, the door was blown
like an hour and ten minutes after the shooting began.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:14:11 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 10/3/2017 4:30 PM, wrote:

We are only talking about making them easier to get legally. I can
make you a very capable suppressor in about 15 minutes from things I
can get at Home Depot, or maybe even out of a construction dumpster if
the plumbers are done.
The hearing loss issues are very real too and it is more likely to be
younger shooters who do not recognize the danger. That was certainly
true of my generation. Can't we just do it "for the children"? :-)


If they are too stupid to wear hearing protection, they are too stupid
to have a gun.

How many other thinks do we say that about?
There are lots of things we do to protect stupid people ... by law.
If you are too stupid to safely use a lawn mower you shouldn't have
one, yet there are a dozen mandated safety features on mine, just to
protect stupid people. I am just saying why not allow a safety feature
on guns that protects hearing

On 10/04/2017 12:11 PM, Oren wrote:
Politicians just talk and talk. ~ 1/3 of Americans fought in the
American Revolution, starting in the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

I think the turnout was smaller and declined over time as more of the
states asked who was paying for the picnic. The creation of the District
of Columbia was a result of the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 when about
400 soldiers surrounded Congress and asked for their paychecks. In 1782
Robert Morris decided to save some money by stop paying the army.

Even before that there was some private little wars going on. The Green
Mountain Boys fought at Bennington but declined to go to the party at
Saratoga partly because Vermont had its own little war going with New
York. It took 14 years for the Vermont Republic to join the US.

Then there was the politics between Schuyler, Arnold, and Gates. New
York didn't care much for the high muckety-mucks from Massachusetts
trying to run the show either.

On 10/04/2017 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:04:07 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

A recent war Vet was two floors under the shooter and heard the gun
fire. He called 911 and told police where the guy was. A valet
parking attendant heard glass falling, hitting the ground. The smoke
alarm was a strong indication of the exact room. Security notified
police of that location. Hence the rapid response.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...-mass-shooting

10:05 First shots fired by the suspect. This was seen on
closed-circuit television from the concert venue.

10:12 First two officers arrive on the 31st floor and announce the
gunfire is coming from directly above them.

so far, so good.


11:20 The first breach was set off and officers entered the room. They
observed the suspect down on the ground and also saw a second door that
could not be accessed from their position.

11:27 The second breach was set off allowing officers to access the
second room. Officers quickly realized there was no one else in the
rooms and they answered the radio to confirm that the suspect was down.

The shooter was only active for about 10 minutes so probably nobody else
died while they were assembling their SWAT team and holding the
briefing. It's not clear just when the shooter checked out.

On 10/04/2017 01:14 PM, Bob F wrote:

If they are too stupid to wear hearing protection, they are too stupid
to have a gun.

Have you ever shot anything other than your mouth?

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:44:50 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 10/04/2017 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:04:07 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

A recent war Vet was two floors under the shooter and heard the gun
fire. He called 911 and told police where the guy was. A valet
parking attendant heard glass falling, hitting the ground. The smoke
alarm was a strong indication of the exact room. Security notified
police of that location. Hence the rapid response.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...-mass-shooting

10:05 First shots fired by the suspect. This was seen on
closed-circuit television from the concert venue.

10:12 First two officers arrive on the 31st floor and announce the
gunfire is coming from directly above them.

so far, so good.


11:20 The first breach was set off and officers entered the room. They
observed the suspect down on the ground and also saw a second door that
could not be accessed from their position.

11:27 The second breach was set off allowing officers to access the
second room. Officers quickly realized there was no one else in the
rooms and they answered the radio to confirm that the suspect was down.


Not sure about the second door. This was ~1800 sf, two bed room suite
with windows 45 degrees each other, a corner room. A perfect lair to
perch.

The shooter was only active for about 10 minutes so probably nobody else
died while they were assembling their SWAT team and holding the
briefing. It's not clear just when the shooter checked out.


He checked out via self inflicted injuries about the time Po Po
breached the hallway door. No police abuse was necessary :-\

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:46:46 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 10/04/2017 01:14 PM, Bob F wrote:

If they are too stupid to wear hearing protection, they are too stupid
to have a gun.

Have you ever shot anything other than your mouth?

He shot-the-**** with friends at the local gun grabber convention.
After dinner they went out and hugged a tree.

They have a bunch of trees in his state.

Put ear protection on so you do not hear the rattlesnake about to
strike or the bore hog about to tear your pants off.

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 3:13:29 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:44:50 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 10/04/2017 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 22:04:07 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

They knew his location right away. The fire alarm for
that room was tripped by the smoke.

A recent war Vet was two floors under the shooter and heard the gun
fire. He called 911 and told police where the guy was. A valet
parking attendant heard glass falling, hitting the ground. The smoke
alarm was a strong indication of the exact room. Security notified
police of that location. Hence the rapid response.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...-mass-shooting

10:05 First shots fired by the suspect. This was seen on
closed-circuit television from the concert venue.

10:12 First two officers arrive on the 31st floor and announce the
gunfire is coming from directly above them.

so far, so good.


11:20 The first breach was set off and officers entered the room. They
observed the suspect down on the ground and also saw a second door that
could not be accessed from their position.

11:27 The second breach was set off allowing officers to access the
second room. Officers quickly realized there was no one else in the
rooms and they answered the radio to confirm that the suspect was down.


Not sure about the second door. This was ~1800 sf, two bed room suite
with windows 45 degrees each other, a corner room. A perfect lair to
perch.

The shooter was only active for about 10 minutes so probably nobody else
died while they were assembling their SWAT team and holding the
briefing. It's not clear just when the shooter checked out.


He checked out via self inflicted injuries about the time Po Po
breached the hallway door. No police abuse was necessary :-\

If you have a cite for that, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
The latest I've seen is that the shooting only lasted 10 mins,
at the time it ended, per Rbowman's timeline, the police were
still on the 31st floor and the police say they don't know
at what time he killed himself.

Just the facts.