Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The most Amercian news story you will ever see rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This story has everything ! saving an animal with a gun after the government cant help , holy 4th of July ! MURICA !!!

side note, why would anyone need 150 rounds of ammo.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Based on the thread title I thought it was going to be yet another tale of another mentally ill person blowing away fifty or sixty coworkers with an AR-15, several hundred rounds of ammunition, and a few Glocks for backup. Thankfully it wasn't.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Yawn. Troll.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:
Yawn. Troll.

Why do you hate freedom ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
jeremycobert wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
Yawn. Troll.

Why do you hate freedom ?
? No, I meant jon is a troll.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John O'Haver
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Pet photographer, that's me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He used a Ruger 10/22. I've owned a couple of the 5 million 10/22s that have been built since 1964. That rifle should be nicknamed Amercias rifle. And I could see it taking 150 rounds of .22LR to shoot through a branch like that. Makes me proud to be an Amercian gun owner.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I couldn't find it in the time I was googling but a more American story to me was one I recently saw accompanied by a picture of a young Muslim girl in a bead scarf with her hand over her heart proudly saluting the American flag in a show of patriotism.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
150 rounds fired and he didnt kill anything - yup thats American military doctrine for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
growlley wrote:
150 rounds fired and he didnt kill anything - yup thats American military doctrine for you.
X rounds fired should equal X casualties or 0 casualties.
Anything else is shitty marksmanship.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:
growlley wrote:
150 rounds fired and he didnt kill anything - yup thats American military doctrine for you.
X rounds fired should equal X casualties or 0 casualties.
Anything else is shitty marksmanship.

...you realize we fire around 300,000 rounds of covering fire for each confirmed kill in modern war situations, right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
Awesome story. But no one could get a firetruck with a big ladder or a cherry picker?

Indeed.

I admire the guy's marksmanship, but if an animal is trapped and scared, firing 150 rounds at it seems like a decent way to get it to rip its own leg off trying to get away. Seems like the "it's not my job" bureaucracy was in full force. Stupid.

Edit: Though, it's hard to tell -- there were a lot of agencies out there. I'm really not sure why there wasn't an official response.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Terwox wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
growlley wrote:
150 rounds fired and he didnt kill anything - yup thats American military doctrine for you.
X rounds fired should equal X casualties or 0 casualties.
Anything else is shitty marksmanship.

...you realize we fire around 300,000 rounds of covering fire for each confirmed kill in modern war situations, right?

Well, last I saw, it wasn't quite that high, but yup. I stand by what I said - shitty marksmanship.

The thing to remember is that your standard combatant isn't always trying to kill the enemy - sometimes they just want to control the enemy. So those numbers (whatever they are) don't really worry me.
But it's still crappy aiming.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
growlley wrote:
150 rounds fired and he didnt kill anything - yup thats American military doctrine for you.
X rounds fired should equal X casualties or 0 casualties.
Anything else is shitty marksmanship.

...you realize we fire around 300,000 rounds of covering fire for each confirmed kill in modern war situations, right?

Not really. Factually the estimate for the current Obama Wars are about 250,000 per confirmed. Which is 5x what we used to kill a Cong in VN. None of this speaks to accuracy as much as it does to the cost of ammunition and how wars are actually fought. I recommend you read a bit about field tactics before assuming that the idea of firing a bullet is to always strike a human and that if it doesn't strike a human then it's a failure.

That's not only not true, it's absurd. If two men box and the fight goes 10 rounds and each man throws 500 punches in the fight but only one results in a KO, does that mean there were 999 failed punches? That both men are incompetent buffoons because they don't get a KO with every punch they throw? Fighting a war has always been about much more than killing the enemy. It's about winning battles, winning the emotions of the fighters, taking ground, creating havoc and fear and fatigue. So in VN (a war which would have been cake for the US or really almost any contemporary military power to win the old fashioned way) it was 50,000 per confirmation by Army infantry but less than 1.5 per round by Marine snipers. I assume Army snipers had similar success.

In ancient warfare similar numbers are present if you count arrows, bolts, rocks and stones hurled at the enemy as well as think about close combat in the sense of boxing. Don't just grab some random stat off the intertubes and plop it out like a wet turd and smugly pronounce our military incompetent because they aren't as awesome as you are in whatever FPS you're currently playing. I recommend reading and maybe playing some war games and getting an actual feel for why wars are fought the way they are and what works and doesn't work. It's surprisingly interesting and you look a whole lot less like a moron when you've read something other than Wikipedia. I wholeheartedly recommend you start here:




There was also a PBS series based on this book but for my money you just get the highlights in one of those so the book is better. he has a bibliography and I forget if this is in it but it's also an eye-opener:




Glad I could help. Ignorance is heartbreaking and I always try and reduce it in others when i see it.

Oh, and I just recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Takedown and I have to say, it's a killer rifle. Especially with a scope.
6 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Myers
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Glad I could help. Ignorance is heartbreaking and I always try and reduce it in others when i see it.

Oh, and I just recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Takedown and I have to say, it's a killer rifle. Especially with a scope.

I'm a little unsure why you felt like correcting my old estimate of 300k rounds per confirmed kill to 250k was correcting ignorance, but I think I see what you were getting at...

I don't think that's wasted ammunition or poor marksmanship, there's a reason I said it was primarily covering fire. We are essentially making the same point.

I don't think our military is incompetent at all, all that lead helps protect people's lives through providing cover et al. It was just a response to the previous poster that said X shots = X casualties or it's poor marksmanship, which I don't agree with, especially when the current rate is X shots = X/250000 casualties.

Nice to see you posting again.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Glad I could help. Ignorance is heartbreaking and I always try and reduce it in others when i see it.

Oh, and I just recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Takedown and I have to say, it's a killer rifle. Especially with a scope.

I'm a little unsure why you felt like correcting my old estimate of 300k rounds per confirmed kill to 250k was correcting ignorance, but I think I see what you were getting at...

I don't think that's wasted ammunition or poor marksmanship, there's a reason I said it was primarily covering fire. We are essentially making the same point.

I don't think our military is incompetent at all, all that lead helps protect people's lives through providing cover et al. It was just a response to the previous poster that said X shots = X casualties or it's poor marksmanship, which I don't agree with, especially when the current rate is X shots = X/250000 casualties.

Nice to see you posting again.

I was sort of responding to both. One, I think it's important to be more accurate with numbers in situations like war because they are a important up to a point, and two the other guy, a profoundly conservative poster, so clearly in my camp, was just dead wrong about marksmanship. Such are the little things that irritate me on the internet. People always tend to reduce things to pure numbers and then sit back knowingly and pronounce war evil and military stupid because of this or that number. So if you took Afghanistan and observed that it cost a million bucks to kill a Taliban and then VN and point out it was under $100K to kill a guy in PJ's then you could take the podium and prove we were better men in the 60's than we are now because we killed 'em cheaper.

But that's stupid because wars are less about killing than they are about changing the balance of power or creating havoc so outside forces can effect internal changes. Or, if it's Great Britain, Spain or Germany (or really any member of the EU in the past) it's about subjugating an indigenous population, restructuring the way things are done and extracting resources back to the homeland.

Almost none of which has fuck all to do with marksmanship. No doubt you agree.

I have decided to post on gun related threads because the stupidity and rancor on the political and social crisis threads is, to me, beyond the pale. And knowing my history here that's really saying something. because I'm definitely an assertive and aggressive poster. But man, the hate on those other threads is nasty stuff.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
DWTripp wrote:
Terwox wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Glad I could help. Ignorance is heartbreaking and I always try and reduce it in others when i see it.

Oh, and I just recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Takedown and I have to say, it's a killer rifle. Especially with a scope.

I'm a little unsure why you felt like correcting my old estimate of 300k rounds per confirmed kill to 250k was correcting ignorance, but I think I see what you were getting at...

I don't think that's wasted ammunition or poor marksmanship, there's a reason I said it was primarily covering fire. We are essentially making the same point.

I don't think our military is incompetent at all, all that lead helps protect people's lives through providing cover et al. It was just a response to the previous poster that said X shots = X casualties or it's poor marksmanship, which I don't agree with, especially when the current rate is X shots = X/250000 casualties.

Nice to see you posting again.

I was sort of responding to both. One, I think it's important to be more accurate with numbers in situations like war because they are a important up to a point, and two the other guy, a profoundly conservative poster, so clearly in my camp, was just dead wrong about marksmanship.
Dude, it's shitty marksmanship and you know it and so does the military. The issue is that marksmanship is not the priority or they'd just send everyone to sniper school (or whatever). The army accepts those numbers and plans for overwhelming force, not an efficacy in ammunition.

Edit. Efficiency.
Phone spell check for the fail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Terwox wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Glad I could help. Ignorance is heartbreaking and I always try and reduce it in others when i see it.

Oh, and I just recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Takedown and I have to say, it's a killer rifle. Especially with a scope.

I'm a little unsure why you felt like correcting my old estimate of 300k rounds per confirmed kill to 250k was correcting ignorance, but I think I see what you were getting at...

I don't think that's wasted ammunition or poor marksmanship, there's a reason I said it was primarily covering fire. We are essentially making the same point.

I don't think our military is incompetent at all, all that lead helps protect people's lives through providing cover et al. It was just a response to the previous poster that said X shots = X casualties or it's poor marksmanship, which I don't agree with, especially when the current rate is X shots = X/250000 casualties.

Nice to see you posting again.

I was sort of responding to both. One, I think it's important to be more accurate with numbers in situations like war because they are a important up to a point, and two the other guy, a profoundly conservative poster, so clearly in my camp, was just dead wrong about marksmanship.
Dude, it's shitty marksmanship and you know it and so does the military. The issue is that marksmanship is not the priority or they'd just send everyone to sniper school (or whatever). The army accepts those numbers and plans for overwhelming force, not an efficacy in ammunition.
That seems like a super bizarre criticism then. You're criticizing them for not meeting a standard you want them to meet but they have no reason or desire to meet.

"Your truck gets shitty gas mileage"
"Well, yeah, I bought it to haul large loads so gas mileage wasn't my priority"
"Yeah but it's still shitty gas mileage and you know it!"
"..."
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Shelburne
Vermont
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
This story has everything ! saving an animal with a gun after the government cant help , holy 4th of July ! MURICA !!!

side note, why would anyone need 150 rounds of ammo.

Yeah, typical American:
Making a big deal of ONE BIRD rescued by a gun but staying silent about the 39 DEAD HUMANS killed by guns on the same day alone. (July 1st)
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deat...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
damiangerous wrote:
linguistfromhell wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Terwox wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Glad I could help. Ignorance is heartbreaking and I always try and reduce it in others when i see it.

Oh, and I just recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Takedown and I have to say, it's a killer rifle. Especially with a scope.

I'm a little unsure why you felt like correcting my old estimate of 300k rounds per confirmed kill to 250k was correcting ignorance, but I think I see what you were getting at...

I don't think that's wasted ammunition or poor marksmanship, there's a reason I said it was primarily covering fire. We are essentially making the same point.

I don't think our military is incompetent at all, all that lead helps protect people's lives through providing cover et al. It was just a response to the previous poster that said X shots = X casualties or it's poor marksmanship, which I don't agree with, especially when the current rate is X shots = X/250000 casualties.

Nice to see you posting again.

I was sort of responding to both. One, I think it's important to be more accurate with numbers in situations like war because they are a important up to a point, and two the other guy, a profoundly conservative poster, so clearly in my camp, was just dead wrong about marksmanship.
Dude, it's shitty marksmanship and you know it and so does the military. The issue is that marksmanship is not the priority or they'd just send everyone to sniper school (or whatever). The army accepts those numbers and plans for overwhelming force, not an efficacy in ammunition.
That seems like a super bizarre criticism then. You're criticizing them for not meeting a standard you want them to meet but they have no reason or desire to meet.

"Your truck gets shitty gas mileage"
"Well, yeah, I bought it to haul large loads so gas mileage wasn't my priority"
"Yeah but it's still shitty gas mileage and you know it!"
"..."

What are you talking about? I'm criticizing the Army for not having good marksmanship?

First, I'd like you to re-read my original comment. growlley made the comment that 150 rounds fired and zero kills was typical of American doctine. I then said "If you shoot X rounds, you should either hit with all of them or none of them." I'm assuming they hit the bird with none of them (or someone would be griping about that), which means there was GOOD MARKSMANSHIP in the example scenario.

As far as the Army itself, there is a level of marksmanship that is required. Wanna know what that is? Through three iterations of firing, in a prone supported position, a prone unsupported position, and a kneeling position, shoot 40 total rounds at targets ranging from 50 meters away to 300 meters away. You are considered a success if you hit 23 out of 40. That's not even an D in school - that's 57.5%!

That is the "minimum accepted success" in the Army, and I hate to tell you, but when you're going to war, you go with the Soldiers you have and not the ones you want. So if some Soldiers aren't hitting even the 23/40, then you bring them anyway because 10% of rounds hitting is better than no rounds being shot at all.

We go to war with the intent to act decisively and overwhelm the enemy. If we can do this precisely, than we do. But lots of Soldiers are not exactly precise shots. So leaders plan for this and understand that Soldiers will shoot a lot of ammunition in the attempt to take down the hostile force.

Is that criticism? If you say it is, then I guess I'm criticizing. From where I sit, it is understanding the nature of how we conduct war and accepting that one of the costs we pay is quite literal - the price of a lot of ammunition.

Does that make more sense?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Also, "no reason to meet"? You do realize that you're talking about a skill that can literally save your life, right? Moreso, when you are in the military and risk being deployed to a war zone. Trust me, if a Soldier is about to deploy, they have every reason to meet the standard.

Doesn't mean they will.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:

Dude, it's shitty marksmanship and you know it and so does the military. The issue is that marksmanship is not the priority or they'd just send everyone to sniper school (or whatever). The army accepts those numbers and plans for overwhelming force, not an efficacy in ammunition.

Edit. Efficiency.
Phone spell check for the fail.

I totally love it when I get to tell a conservative brother he's totally full of shit. Marksmanship is for the training or qualification range. It's school. The only stress is if you are feeling competitive. Jumping out of a Huey hovering 6 feet over a rice paddy with water and downdraft shrieking everywhere while VC in the treeline 100 yards away are firing automatic weapons at you is universes away from some shitty tin medal you might get to qualify or some 50 cent ribbon from your local range in your age group. The reason soldiers drill and practice and drill and practice is to build muscle memory and unthinking response because most experienced soldiers know when chaos happens the first shit to fly is that load into your BVD's. Training hopefully takes over after the initial shock.

You spray, they spray, you run, dive, mud in your throat, pop up with adrenaline squirting out your ears and a thousand gnats and flying grit missiles stinging you in the eyeballs, and you squat run, roll and crawl for cover every so often turning back and unleashing another clip randomly in the direction of what appears to be nothing but tiny sparks in the darker green of the trees.

Marksmanship my fucking ass. Dude.

There has been a long term ongoing discussion regarding how many soldiers actually fire their weapons when contact is made, how many actually aim and who truly does the killing in an average platoon. Not just US military either. I think it's fair to say that the 80/20 rule holds even when lives are at stake. 80% of the killing and aiming is done by 20% of the soldiers in combat. I have read no less than 10 different articles and chapters over the years on this subject as it fascinates me how people react (or not) when shit goes down, as they say.

Here's a decent summary, but as in all brief articles it draws conclusions that are the opinion of the person writing it. It's an amazing subject. And you're better off if you get some more information and read up before you further embarrass us and the tribe by spouting uninformed shite.

Friend.

http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers...

---- The OP

The guy shot 150 time, aiming up at a 45 degree angle, mostly into the sun, with a truck hood as a stabilizer. All while trying to save the life of a protected species. He held the branch up at the end. Unless he has some super hot custom loads he was most likely shooting lead target ammo or maybe copper plated rounds. The fact that he pulled it off in only 150 shots is, to me, pretty sweet shooting in the circumstances

Of course I could have done it with a .50 cal Barrett in maybe two shot from 200 yards with a sandbag rest and the sun behind my back. The eagle may have been killed by either splinter projectiles or just sheer shock wave trauma.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar

I'm not saying the Soldiers are wrong for shooting that much, I'm saying that if your target is 'that area over there', that's not aiming at something, that's pointing in a general direction and pulling the trigger.

Are you completely missing the point?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Also, you guys are giving me grief when - as I JUST pointed out - my original comment was trying to say that there was good marksmanship in the original story. Then there was the rabbit-hole tangent of so many hundreds of thousands of rounds per casualty.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rekinom
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
odie73 wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
This story has everything ! saving an animal with a gun after the government cant help , holy 4th of July ! MURICA !!!

side note, why would anyone need 150 rounds of ammo.

Yeah, typical American:
Making a big deal of ONE BIRD rescued by a gun but staying silent about the 39 DEAD HUMANS killed by guns on the same day alone. (July 1st)
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deat...

Interesting website. Thanks for the link. It even tracks Defensive Gun Use and there have been more than 800 so far this year. The first DGU I clicked on was a gay man who used a gun to defend himself this morning after being kidnapped.

As your total for July 1st includes a couple of officer-involved shootings, do you advocate police officers being disarmed? Or would you prefer to see only officer-involved shootings?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
linguistfromhell wrote:

I'm not saying the Soldiers are wrong for shooting that much, I'm saying that if your target is 'that area over there', that's not aiming at something, that's pointing in a general direction and pulling the trigger.

Are you completely missing the point?

Well that growlly guys complains about US military doctrine, as if a guy on a dirt road shooting a branch with a .22 is somehow representative of the US military. So he's an uninformed RSP moron until further notice. Then you go off on how shitty the marksmanship is and that X, Y, Z shots fired ought to have a rational calculable result in Z,X,Y number of kills. Which is what I called BS on.

That's not how things work in the military. Any military. That's how things work in actuary school, or middle management corporate accounting, or in the deranged scary minds of Star Trek fans who write 20,000 word treatises on how The Enterprise could actually exist.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |