Trump Shot on Campaign.

A fellow (Cory Mills) was on TV yesterday explaining how in service he had trained to make "T" shots and that anyone who knows how to breathe and press a trigger could have made the shot at several hundred yards.

Maybe for an excellent shot like Cory Mills (whoever that is) it would be easy.

I would not call it easy, especially with the stressors you mention.

But........it was a couple of inches and fluke turn of the head from success.
 
From one who used to be in the field of private security, the lapses in judgement were inexcusable. How can you not provide constant monitoring on the ground of a place that allows access to the target a mere 130-150 yds away? If other stories I have heard are true, such as tha CS team being assigned the day before the event, and the CS team having access to the shooter three minutes prior to opening fire, and not receiving the approval to engage the target until he had opened fire, then it really makes me wonder just what was going on. The lead on that detail should have been dismissed promptly and never allowed to work in the field again. Pretty dismal from a professional perspective.
 
Better solution than banning ARs would be to rethink security measures at events of this nature. Had it been Taylor Swift this probably would not have been possible.
 
A WORD TO THE WISE:

There was discussion -- and some disagreement -- among the forum staff as to whether this thread should even be allowed to run. It's a difficult task to draw a line between politics and civil rights when the primary subject of discussion is the attempted assassination of a presidential candidate, but we ask that comments be kept to general discussion of the shooting itself and the broad civil rights implications.

DO NOT delve into any conspiracy theories or other political side trips, or we will have to close this thread. Some posts have already been removed due to being more political in nature than informative.

Think twice -- and then think again -- before you hit the "POST" button.
 
And the technical gun experts weigh in on the subject.
Gun the Trump Shooter Used Can Make Anyone a Good Shot

Was Thomas Crooks a Good Shot? He Didn’t Need to Be.

This fellow claims the 'AR-pattern rifles' can make up for a shooter's deficiencies.

Most AR-pattern weapons are customized for a particular shooter in a process called zeroing. Zeroing adjusts either the weapon’s scope or its iron sights to the shooter’s individual style. The process ensures that windage (the left-to-right adjustment of the rear sight) and elevation (the up-and-down adjustment of the front sight) are dialed in so that the gun hits as dead center as possible.

Just about anybody willing to hurt people with an extremely powerful weapon can do so with an AR-pattern rifle, without much expertise at all.

You can read the short version here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...TS&cvid=fbbb85e40d484613a448e9277785db97&ei=9

or the longer version here:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-crooks-ar-15-expertise-military.html?via=rss

or maybe just ignore these experts altogether.
 
Then there is the boffin who says Crooks was just a distraction for the real sniper. Who also missed. Geez, the Mission Impossible scriptwriters could do better than some of the stuff coming out.
 
No need DaleA

All I need to see is the name of the "publication" to avoid reading these "experts" there are a lot of Ex-Spurts these days. We are now hearing from these Ex-Spurts.
 
Most AR-pattern weapons are customized for a particular shooter in a process called zeroing. Zeroing adjusts either the weapon’s scope or its iron sights to the shooter’s individual style.

Why would I waste my time reading anything that begins with this level of inaccurate drivel??

or maybe just ignore these experts altogether.

No one writing this level of biased and inaccurate crap meets my standards for being an expert, not in shooting, and not in accurate communication of facts in English.

Zeroing a firearm is not "customizing it", any more than adjusting the driver's seat and rearview mirrors is customizing your car.

"Most AR-pattern...." really? Got to point that out, and not bother to mention that all firearms normally are zeroed by the user the before use, and most of us re-zero or verify zero frequently. And, it has nothing to do with a shooter's style, directly.

The author is choosing to use misleading language, either by intent, or incompetence, and either way, this means his words and opinions are of no value, and not worth my time to read.

Based on results, the "kid on the sloped tin roof" was not an expert (or particularly skilled) and the AR-15 he used did not make him one.
 
Can anyone direct me to an actual official with the authority to do so has publicly confirmed what weapon was used in this shooting?

I’ve looked and the only thing I can find is news articles where unnamed sources say it was a DPMS AR15.
I’ve seen images of phone, remote, ladder, bike, Trump’s shoes, dead guy, tractors, water towers, bullet in flight, bullet strikes, speakers and on and on, but not one image of the gun.

I’m not going tinfoil hat here, I just want to see where a named official with the authority to do so has confirmed the weapon used.
 
Well, I don't know about the quick dismissal of zeroing as being totally irrelevant. It's conceivable to me that a shooter might in fact want to set a zero for their scoped weapon given their anticipated most likely maximum point blank range settings that allows for minimum to no adjustments thereby enhancing quicker set and shoot without fudging with doping the shot. My feeling is Trump could in fact be dead if he had not moved his head at precisely the right moment. The head shot would have been a lower probability shot IMO than a center-of-mass shot (and Trump's mass is pretty large) because on most animals heads continue to move even when the body is still.
 
And the technical gun experts weigh in on the subject.
Gun the Trump Shooter Used Can Make Anyone a Good Shot

Was Thomas Crooks a Good Shot? He Didn’t Need to Be.

This fellow claims the 'AR-pattern rifles' can make up for a shooter's deficiencies.





You can read the short version here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...TS&cvid=fbbb85e40d484613a448e9277785db97&ei=9

or the longer version here:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-crooks-ar-15-expertise-military.html?via=rss

or maybe just ignore these experts altogether.

Just a wild ass guess, but is the reporter trying to squash rumors that there was another shooter? A better shooter?
 
Well, I don't know about the quick dismissal of zeroing as being totally irrelevant. It's conceivable to me that a shooter might in fact want to set a zero for their scoped weapon given their anticipated most likely maximum point blank range settings that allows for minimum to no adjustments thereby enhancing quicker set and shoot without fudging with doping the shot.

An actual shooter would, but I don't know that it applies in this case. The process of zeroing the rifle is not completely irrelevant, but an article that makes it sound like the rifle makes it impossible for even an inexperienced person to miss is not only irrelevant, its falsehood.

As to the rifle, I haven't seen anything but a very blurry pic from a distance. Not even clear enough to tell if there was an optic sight, of some kind, only that there does not appear to have been a full size scope on it.

The FBI reported that the ATF trace on the rifle came back as a DPMS made AR, bought by the shooter's father in 2013.

Now, there are only a couple of possibilities, neither of which is proven at this time. First possibility is that the kid had authorized access to the rifle, had used it, and likely had it sighted in, for himself.

The other possibility is that it was his father's rifle, which the kid took, without permission, and it was likely sighted in for and by his father.

Different people look through sights differently and a rifle that is "on" for one shooter can be "off" by inches at 100-150 yds or more.

It has been reported that the shooter bought 50 rounds of ammo, "just hours" before the shooting. IF true, its likely he was using that ammo, (which has not been identified as to what exactly it was) and its very unlikely that he took the time to shoot, and zero the rifle for that ammo, before shooting at Trump.

At this time, there is nothing to suggest he even knew he needed to do that to be accurate with what he bought.

Different loads, even different lot#s of ammo can have different points of impact, and it is unclear how much the shooter actually knew about how firearms and ammo actually work.

Additionally, it appears that he was rushed, and unlikely to be making his best shots, assuming he was actually capable of doing so.

Because he is dead, there are a lot of questions we can never know the answers to, and speculating on things where the basis is an unknowable thing is a waste of time, unless you are in the media and getting paid to do just that. :rolleyes:
 
I’m pretty sure the shot in the ear was a result of Trump’s last minute head movement, unless the person was aiming at a completely different area of the body. We probably won’t ever know for sure. My opinion is that the shooter wanted a graphic image of the shooting and chose the head as a target.

We all know that many factors could have led to the near-miss. If the rifle was zeroed or not, either way the elevation was spot on if indeed the target was the head.
 
Nonetheless--whatever the speculation may be--he was concievably less than one MOA from a likely fatal shot.
 
Last edited:
We just don't, and won't ever know what his point of aim was. MAYBE it was the head, and he nearly missed. MAYBE it was COM and he missed by a lot, just clipping Trump's ear.

He's dead, and not talking to internet commentators.
And all the speculation based on what we, as experienced shooters might have done, or would have chosen is of less value than what we're paying to hear or read it.

He was 20, and there is no indication he grew up in a household that taught him shooting. We don't know if his father, or anyone else taught him anything. Possibly someone did, or maybe he just watched a lot of TV & movies and figured if it worked for them, it would work for him. We just don't know, and may never know.

The bigger, and more important question is what are our politicians going to do, and not do, and use the attack as their justification.

The President is again renewing his call to ban "assault weapons" (no surprise there) but I don't think that will pass muster. A complete ban, that is, additional regulations and restrictions might.

Remember there are quite a few people who feel that as long as we can own some kind of gun (single shot preferred) our Second Amendment right has not been violated. I, and most of us here think differently, but their votes count exactly the same as ours, one per person.
 
No one writing this level of biased and inaccurate crap meets my standards for being an expert, not in shooting, and not in accurate communication of facts in English.

The following is my opinion and my opinion only:

I think todays journalists are ignorant of firearms. Moreover they are PROUD of their ignorance and would consider any attempt to inform them of firearms knowledge as an attempt to swing them into 'right wing ideology'.
 
You're not the only one with that opinion.

The actual knowledge of some people writing under the guise of experts is exceeded by the nutritional value of rice cakes.

And not just in the firearms field alone....
 
Again, when it comes time for the SS and police security review--ALL that is going to matter IMO is that a shooter was able to get off multiple rounds--one of which was just a few cms away from being a kill shot on Trump and of course caused collateral injuries and fatalities. I think it's highly likely the shooter was a relatively low-skilled lone-wolf perp; kinda silly IMO to argue that he didn't have the necessary skills or equipment since he clearly came very close to defeating the security measures and hitting his target.

Not a political commentary--but all those people walking around with patches on their ears are being jack-$#%#@ IMO, makes fun of something that could have ended up being the most iconic video of a head shot in history. That dubious distinction still rests with Nguyen Ngoc Loan for those of you old enough to remember the Vietnam war.
 
Last edited:
I’m looking for more confirmation, but a Florida Representative states that the shooter had 3 encrypted foreign bank accounts.
 
I’m looking for more confirmation, but a Florida Representative states that the shooter had 3 encrypted foreign bank accounts.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/just-trump-would-be-assassin-thomas-matthew-crooks/

There will be more on the subject. I posted this even though much of it reads as opinion. Facts should be coming out as we speak, I'm guessing they won't. We will probably hear this is an ongoing investigation, but it's pretty hard to try a dead man.


Trump’s would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks had two cell phones and used three encrypted accounts overseas to communicate.

The FBI found Crooks’ second cell phone at his home with only 27 contacts, The Daily Mail reported.

Congressman Mike Waltz told Fox News host Jesse Watters that according to an FBI briefing, Crooks had multiple encrypted accounts and said more will come out Monday.

Rep. Waltz said the Trump shooter had the overseas accounts at the same time we heard about the Iranian assassination plot against Trump.

Crooks did not work alone.

Police found a cell phone and a bomb detonator next to Thomas Matthew Crooks after a Secret Service sniper fatally shot him on a rooftop outside of Trump’s Butler, Pennsylvania rally.
 
Back
Top