this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
692 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2535 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CaptainKickass 191 points 5 months ago (7 children)

They also said he was a terrible shot.

I'm not even kidding. He tried out for the school shooting club and they asked him not to come back because they considered his poor shooting and gun handling dangerous.

[–] YarHarSuperstar 111 points 5 months ago (1 children)

school shooting club

Maybe they should name it something else...

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 11 points 5 months ago

No, I think that's an accurate description

[–] Snailpope 49 points 5 months ago (2 children)

LMFAO! I had a feeling he was conservative. It don't know about a terrible shot, he got damn close but if his school had a shooting club he was probably still better than someone untrained but could still be bad enough not to make the team. Like when I got cut from golf, a no cut sport, half way through the first day

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 26 points 5 months ago (4 children)

He's a bad shot because anyone with any bit of training or even youtube experience knows to aim center mass. More chance of hitting. I picked up shooting for sport in 2017 and can hit center mass with iron sites at the distance this kid was. With my cheapo scope, I can hit out to 300 yards.

He tried lolz x-gamer headshot and failed miserably.

[–] davidgro 42 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe he did aim for the center...

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 14 points 5 months ago

And that would be even worse for a stationary target.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He had a lot of shots, at least three, so I'm not even sure he aimed at the head. If the story about the policeman distracting him is true, it means a boy on adrenalin tried his best to keep his aim straight in a hurry. I believe hitting Trump at all was an accident.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 22 points 5 months ago

This. I'm guessing that police man actually saved trumps life because the attempt had to be carried out in a rush and with at least a mild shock still in the system.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Trump was almost certainly wearing a vest

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A hit to a vest definitely has a real chance to kill him. Vests distribute the impact, but they're still massive chest trauma for a 70-something dude.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely it could. Vest or no vest, I don't want to get shot. But "aim for center of mass" is only the rule of thumb when the center of mass is unprotected. Otherwise, it becomes "aim for the material specifically designed to stop bullets" which is not a great rule of thumb.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It also depends on the bullet and rifle, I kinda doubt there are many bullet proof vests that can br qord under clothes that can hold up against a .308.

But im gonna hazard a guess that some 20 year old trying to do an assassination was probably using an AR-15 chambered in 5.56. Which I would coin flip on if the vest could handle it or not.

[–] Carmakazi 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No way would USSS be able to get his fat ass to wear a vest consistently, let alone the plates needed to stop a rifle round. In this heat?

Though I'm sure now he may reconsider, or be forced to.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago

Like all bullies, trump is a coward. Wouldn't blow my mind if he wore a vest before he even ran for president.

[–] Raiderkev 1 points 5 months ago

I'm perplexed by the lack of a scope. I honestly think it was a machismo move. Wanted to try n headshot him with iron sights so people would talk about it or whatever. Maybe it was all he had, but I doubt it. There are articles saying he was a member at a local range and practiced there all the time. I'm sure he owned a scope. Maybe he didn't think he'd have time to line up a shot with a scope? Idk, it was just weird.

[–] voldage 25 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Imagine if his motivation was to prove he had great aim and that they did him wrong. Maybe he just wanted to become the most well known sniper-assassin in the modern world. Maybe that's the reason he didn't use scope, he wanted his memory to be that of the rifle maverick. I wonder what went through his head after he realised he missed. I mean, other than a bullet.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] Magnergy 5 points 5 months ago

I've heard that "no scope" detail elsewhere too. But would love to confirm it or have it disproven.

It is the detail that I keep coming back to that would indicate something about his state of mind, lack of rationality, lack of time, something.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nope. He used an ar style rifle and nailed that shot 300 yards away. A fly fart could have been the difference between Trump's loss of hearing and his loss of brain.

[–] Lyrl@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

I heard it was shrapnel and not a bullet that got Trump's ear.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago

It's like if Hitler was allowed to become an artist, except it's a kid wanting to shoot guns.

[–] Magnergy 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a source on the 'no scope' detail?

[–] voldage 2 points 5 months ago

I'm not sure where exactly I've read or heard that, sorry. Those past 2 days were very information dense. I'm sure I've heard it being referenced a few times though, along with the gun having only iron sights.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe he was aiming at a suspiciously Antifa-looking person in the crowd and missed?

[–] MeekerThanBeaker 8 points 5 months ago

"Those damn Antifas and their damn anti-fascist ways."

[–] Lavitz@lemmings.world 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I need the sauce cause that's hilarious if it's true.

[–] nexusvoyager@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 months ago

Oh that makes it even funnier holy shit

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I was discussing this with a friend. It's been 15 years since I fired an assault rifle, but 100 meters with iron sights was pretty easy.

He must either be an awful shot, or his sights must've been screwed up.

[–] Hlodwig 7 points 5 months ago

The first shot was pretty good, almost headshot at 100m+ is not bad at all with an iron sight, moving target and in "not firing range" condition. If he tried a headshot on purpose thats pretty good, not the smartest decision but still good accuracy.