The news is saying that 32 are dead and 15 wounded. That makes this guy one of the most cold blooded killers ever. Hell, military skirmishes don't have kill ratios of 2:1. This guy had to be an expert marksman to have a shot placement capable of killing with two shots out of three shooting at scrambling targets. Talk about having ice water in your veins.
2:1 kill ratio! Who was this guy??
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Travismaine
New member
Our military does not shoot sitting ducks. Hitting a person cringing and cowering on the ground is nothing like shooting when there is fire coming your way. The SS would line up people inside a hole and shoot them they tried for at least a 1 shot 1 kill ratio this does not by any means have anything to do with marksmanship!
If you aint CAV.....
Inactive
well 2 factors were involved, a. peoples instinct to surrender(as if the dude cared) and 2. the fish in a barrel situation. Btoh factors worked in his favor. You add a little training, little suprise, and you have a good chance of sucess.
Oh and for the record we have a pretty good ratio right now for military operations overall is about 100 to 3 direct fire and many, many more due to indirect.
Oh and for the record we have a pretty good ratio right now for military operations overall is about 100 to 3 direct fire and many, many more due to indirect.
PowderedSugar
Inactive
I guess a lot of them were cold-blooded executions from point blank........... 
Initial reports include chaining of doors and lining up of at least some of his victims....
Initial reports include chaining of doors and lining up of at least some of his victims....
Kreyzhorse
New member
I really fear that a lot of his targets simply watched him and offered no resistance. It seems he shot quite a few several times.
I find the palpable excitement in the original post distasteful.
That said, many of his murders were done after he had the students and teachers line up. Lord knows I've thought enough about this in my own classroom past. (Ah, the post-Columbine education of a gun nut!) Often, these rooms only have one door, are quite small, and have nothing of protection except maybe an oak desk.
Unless someone is nearby and is capable of bottlenecking an intruder, anyone inside who is not armed is helpless. Best thing you can do is throw something at him and rush, I feel (i.e. a desk). In that situation, closed in, without a firearm you are not in a good place. I think repeating that situation with unarmed targets was what allowed him to be so successful in his abominable goals.
That said, many of his murders were done after he had the students and teachers line up. Lord knows I've thought enough about this in my own classroom past. (Ah, the post-Columbine education of a gun nut!) Often, these rooms only have one door, are quite small, and have nothing of protection except maybe an oak desk.
Unless someone is nearby and is capable of bottlenecking an intruder, anyone inside who is not armed is helpless. Best thing you can do is throw something at him and rush, I feel (i.e. a desk). In that situation, closed in, without a firearm you are not in a good place. I think repeating that situation with unarmed targets was what allowed him to be so successful in his abominable goals.
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, some military skirmishes have much HIGHER kill rates such as battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even historic battles such as the Battle of San Jacinto in Texas that resulted in the routing of Santa Ana and his capture in 1836. Enemy casualties were 3:1 killed to wounded. See http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/batsanjacinto.htm
Charles Whitman was something of an expert marksman, hitting partially covered targets at 400 yards and targets in the open out to 600+.
I would not yet refer to the VT shooter as an expert marksman of any sort. As noted, these were all short range shots of targets in confined areas, many of which were NOT running around, but remaining in place. Additionally, many of his targets were shot multiples of times. In fact, several of the survivors suffered multiple gunshots. In a bunch of the cases, the shots were peripheral or involved one or more peripheral hits.
In fact,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html
The 2:1 ratio may actually be higher. If there were just 15 wounded, something to keep in mind is that at least 2 were wounded when jumping from windows and not from gunfire.
junkpile
How dare you! I was merely offering that this guy must have practiced a lot and was so devoid of emotion that he was able to calmly place his shots without flinching. Did you miss the ice water comment?
That said, I will place your comment where it belongs; on the junkpile.
How dare you! I was merely offering that this guy must have practiced a lot and was so devoid of emotion that he was able to calmly place his shots without flinching. Did you miss the ice water comment?
That said, I will place your comment where it belongs; on the junkpile.
I have always been a nitpicker. I am picking nits, as is my perogative. The double question mark indicated to me excitement. "Who is that guy", within the context of our language, can have two meanings. First, if asked in a neutral way, "Who is that guy, over there in the corner", then you are asking for identity. However, "Who is that guy??" more often than not carries a suggestion of amazement, as I believe we would both stipulate yours did. However, to me, your post has a tinge of admiration. "Cold-blooded", "ice water in his veins", "even military skirmishes don't have [such kill ratios]".
If any of what you had said, him being a good shot, and him doing it calmly is correct, then your post will have been well-placed, if not, in my opinion, well-phrased. That said, recognize that errors in interpretation may occur. If you were indeed not saying your comment in a mood of awe/admiration, then my interpretation was incorrect, and for that, if that, I apologize. That said, were that your intent, I found your post poorly phrased, though your clarification put it back in good order for me.
If any of what you had said, him being a good shot, and him doing it calmly is correct, then your post will have been well-placed, if not, in my opinion, well-phrased. That said, recognize that errors in interpretation may occur. If you were indeed not saying your comment in a mood of awe/admiration, then my interpretation was incorrect, and for that, if that, I apologize. That said, were that your intent, I found your post poorly phrased, though your clarification put it back in good order for me.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Jim you asked who was this guy? Apparently, nobody special in regard to gun skills. He purchased the Glock 36 days before the shootings. The found the receipt in his pack. He was a legal resident alien of 23 with no felonies, hence able to legally purchase a handgun.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
Sure enough, he was distraught, apparently troubled, you know, the quiet type who was something of a loner.
So far, no indication he was somebody like Charles Whitman with fairly extensive Marine shooting experience and qualifications. No indication that he had been in the military or otherwise had expert marksman pistol training. He just had close targets in confined areas.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
Sure enough, he was distraught, apparently troubled, you know, the quiet type who was something of a loner.
So far, no indication he was somebody like Charles Whitman with fairly extensive Marine shooting experience and qualifications. No indication that he had been in the military or otherwise had expert marksman pistol training. He just had close targets in confined areas.
I had the same thought
One thing that has always struck me is how few people actually die in these situations...even when a long gun is involved
You have an armed man with a bunch of unarmed victims and (usually) there are not that many casualties
Despite what you see in the movies (and on the internet) handguns are simply not all that powerful, and yet in a short period of time he dispatched a large group of people and wounded a bunch more
Surprising
One thing that has always struck me is how few people actually die in these situations...even when a long gun is involved
You have an armed man with a bunch of unarmed victims and (usually) there are not that many casualties
Despite what you see in the movies (and on the internet) handguns are simply not all that powerful, and yet in a short period of time he dispatched a large group of people and wounded a bunch more
Surprising
FAL-schutter
New member
Double Naught Spy wrote:
Then I read it again and saw what you meant.
On first reading this, I thought "A Glock 36 is .45 ACP, isn't it? I thought the guy used a 9mm..."
Then I read it again and saw what you meant.
He may not have been a crack shot or a sharp shooter or anything...the kill ratio was high because no one was fighting back....but what I want to know is how many rounds did he fire? He only bought the guns a month before the shooting, (according to the news as of now) not a long time to train well, but merely to become proficient with his weapon. Then of course he may have practiced with others/friends handguns before that. Some reports that I've seen stated he had 33 round magazines, so he could have spent several hundred rounds easily, but thats me speculating. -BamaXD
Interesting you say that. I was talking with a friend at the time, and we both posited that in that circumstance, with no high towers, it's possible that you'd actually kill fewer people with a long gun. Now this may just be due to my being a poor shot with a rifle (I don't think so), but I think that to shoot a moving human target (most of them laterally) in an urban area would be difficult, easy to get out of the line of fire.
That is to say, Whitman at UTexas killed so many because he was high up, could shoot along multiple roads. But if one isn't high up, range of vision isn't good enough. Were this a long gun, I feel that he would have killed less. Think--a trained marine in pre-swat/fast action response teams from a high killed less than this guy in a closed atmosphere.
Last edited: