4 ms·

If that video is real, the shooter had incredibly accurate aim.

bena 1y ago
If a bullet hits, it has to hit somewhere. He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.
- BJones12 1y ago
  We can be sure that the shooter was not aiming for the neck. Chest is more likely, but head is possible.
RandomBacon 1y ago
Supposedly the shot was taken from 200 yards away. In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.
- greedo 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - shhsshs 1y ago
    Sarcasm noted. An apple would actually be more difficult to hit because of its reduced size.
    - greedo 1y ago
      Everyone is underestimating how hard it is to willingly kill a person. Shooting a paper target or apple at a range is nothing like sighting on a person, letting out your breath and pulling a trigger.
      - RandomBacon 1y ago
        I did not talk about killing a person at all. I talked about shooting a target. It is sad in this case that the shooter's target was a person. I would never want to try to see how difficult it would be, as you mention.
  - John23832 1y ago
    If they're both stationary targets, such as a sitting apple or a sitting person, at the same distance, they are. The person is probably easier frankly.
- gretch 1y ago
  How can it possibly be crappy aim? The shooter had 1 target, and he delivered a 100% kill shot. You could say "it wasn't impressive", but you can't say it was crap...
  - nemo44x 1y ago
    His target was probably higher.
  - RandomBacon 1y ago
    People can deliver crap and still get their task accomplished. It was crap. I highly doubt the neck was the target. If the head was the target, then the same distance but in another direction, would have missed. Regardless, it's still sad that someone died, especially in this manner (regardless of politics).
tracker1 1y ago
Given the distance, unless well trained it was probably luck more than anything.
- int_19h 1y ago
  Modern firearms don't really require that much training to hit a static man sized target at 200m from a supported position. This is well within the "point blank" range, meaning that vertical deviation of the bullet is too small to bother adjusting for, and wind effects on rifle (i.e. very fast moving) bullets at this range are also fairly limited. So long as the rifle is zeroed, lining up the scope with the target and pulling the trigger without jerking it is basically all it takes, and those kinds of skills can be acquired in a few trips to the range.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    The shooter wasn't likely aiming "anywhere on the body" as the target... they were likely either trying to hit the center of the head, or the chest. In either case, they were off quite a bit and that they made a deadly hit as much as they did was most likely still luck as much as anything.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      Aiming for the head is most likely. For reference, a military M16 is considered within spec if it can produce a 4 minute-of-angle group from a prone supported position (but aimed and fired by a human, not fixed in a gun sled). At 200 yards, that would be a circle of around 8 inches. However pretty much any hit with a rifle bullet within that circle is likely to be lethal if it's centered on the head... Anyway, the point is that it's really not a difficult shot at all, and only requires very rudimentary training that is readily available to anyone who can make a few trips to the range.
      - tracker1 1y ago
        I'm not sure that most people are disciplined enough to make that shot all the same. I don't know anything about the shooter in particular though. Mostly in that from the center of the head to the neck is still a bit away. It could just as easily have missed altogether.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
It was reportedly a 200 meter shot on a pretty static target. At that distance a competent shooter can place it within a couple inches all day with a decent rifle. This shot didn't require special skill.
- redhed 1y ago
  Especially when you can zero the scope to 200yds and make it basically point and shoot.
int_19h 1y ago
Not directly relevant, but it should be noted that we live at a time when someone who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a scope basically doesn't need to learn how to shoot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint Between that and cheap quadcopter drones, I expect political assassinations to skyrocket in the future.
topspin 1y ago
It's incredibly accurate as most such events go, with the grade of shooters and weapons typically seen. It's not terribly remarkable for a trained shooter with a good rifle. A 1 MOA or better rifle with a reasonable optic makes such shots highly feasible given a stationary target. So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.
- SheepSlapper 1y ago
  If the reporting is correct, the shot was at 200 yards. Anyone who hunts with a rifle is (or should be) capable of making that shot, it's not exceedingly far (and like you said, if your rifle isn't junk and you're shooting 1 MOA, that's only a 2" difference @ 200 yards). No serious training or equipment would be required for this close of a shot. I've taken deer over 200 yards away with my $500 rifle, no training other than shooting on and off since I was a kid.
  - topspin 1y ago
    I believe this underestimates the difficulty of such an attack and the value of training. This isn't deer hunting where little to nothing is at stake. It's a homicidal attack in the midst of an urban area, with armed law enforcement in the vicinity, the risk of discovery, the knowledge that aggressive pursuit will be immediate, and extreme consequences for the crime. High pressure. Under pressure, a poorly trained person is unlikely to be capable of this. It takes some degree of training to simultaneously deal with this pressure and still perform.
    - chasd00 1y ago
      Completely untrained yes but there’s lots of people with these skills. I do IDPA matches with my son at a tactical range near Waxahachie TX, people there do these kinds of drills constantly. There’s also lots of ex-military instructor led close quarter and urban combat training available to anyone. Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think. It’s sort of like martial arts, some people are just really into it.

bena 1y ago

If a bullet hits, it has to hit somewhere. He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.

BJones12 1y ago
We can be sure that the shooter was not aiming for the neck. Chest is more likely, but head is possible.

RandomBacon 1y ago

Supposedly the shot was taken from 200 yards away. In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.

greedo 1y ago
[flagged]
- shhsshs 1y ago
  Sarcasm noted. An apple would actually be more difficult to hit because of its reduced size.
  - greedo 1y ago
    Everyone is underestimating how hard it is to willingly kill a person. Shooting a paper target or apple at a range is nothing like sighting on a person, letting out your breath and pulling a trigger.
    - RandomBacon 1y ago
      I did not talk about killing a person at all. I talked about shooting a target. It is sad in this case that the shooter's target was a person. I would never want to try to see how difficult it would be, as you mention.
- John23832 1y ago
  If they're both stationary targets, such as a sitting apple or a sitting person, at the same distance, they are. The person is probably easier frankly.
gretch 1y ago
How can it possibly be crappy aim? The shooter had 1 target, and he delivered a 100% kill shot. You could say "it wasn't impressive", but you can't say it was crap...
- nemo44x 1y ago
  His target was probably higher.
- RandomBacon 1y ago
  People can deliver crap and still get their task accomplished. It was crap. I highly doubt the neck was the target. If the head was the target, then the same distance but in another direction, would have missed. Regardless, it's still sad that someone died, especially in this manner (regardless of politics).

tracker1 1y ago

Given the distance, unless well trained it was probably luck more than anything.

int_19h 1y ago
Modern firearms don't really require that much training to hit a static man sized target at 200m from a supported position. This is well within the "point blank" range, meaning that vertical deviation of the bullet is too small to bother adjusting for, and wind effects on rifle (i.e. very fast moving) bullets at this range are also fairly limited. So long as the rifle is zeroed, lining up the scope with the target and pulling the trigger without jerking it is basically all it takes, and those kinds of skills can be acquired in a few trips to the range.
- tracker1 1y ago
  The shooter wasn't likely aiming "anywhere on the body" as the target... they were likely either trying to hit the center of the head, or the chest. In either case, they were off quite a bit and that they made a deadly hit as much as they did was most likely still luck as much as anything.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Aiming for the head is most likely. For reference, a military M16 is considered within spec if it can produce a 4 minute-of-angle group from a prone supported position (but aimed and fired by a human, not fixed in a gun sled). At 200 yards, that would be a circle of around 8 inches. However pretty much any hit with a rifle bullet within that circle is likely to be lethal if it's centered on the head... Anyway, the point is that it's really not a difficult shot at all, and only requires very rudimentary training that is readily available to anyone who can make a few trips to the range.
    - tracker1 1y ago
      I'm not sure that most people are disciplined enough to make that shot all the same. I don't know anything about the shooter in particular though. Mostly in that from the center of the head to the neck is still a bit away. It could just as easily have missed altogether.

jandrewrogers 1y ago

It was reportedly a 200 meter shot on a pretty static target. At that distance a competent shooter can place it within a couple inches all day with a decent rifle. This shot didn't require special skill.

redhed 1y ago
Especially when you can zero the scope to 200yds and make it basically point and shoot.

int_19h 1y ago

Not directly relevant, but it should be noted that we live at a time when someone who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a scope basically doesn't need to learn how to shoot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint Between that and cheap quadcopter drones, I expect political assassinations to skyrocket in the future.

topspin 1y ago

It's incredibly accurate as most such events go, with the grade of shooters and weapons typically seen. It's not terribly remarkable for a trained shooter with a good rifle. A 1 MOA or better rifle with a reasonable optic makes such shots highly feasible given a stationary target. So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.

SheepSlapper 1y ago
If the reporting is correct, the shot was at 200 yards. Anyone who hunts with a rifle is (or should be) capable of making that shot, it's not exceedingly far (and like you said, if your rifle isn't junk and you're shooting 1 MOA, that's only a 2" difference @ 200 yards). No serious training or equipment would be required for this close of a shot. I've taken deer over 200 yards away with my $500 rifle, no training other than shooting on and off since I was a kid.
- topspin 1y ago
  I believe this underestimates the difficulty of such an attack and the value of training. This isn't deer hunting where little to nothing is at stake. It's a homicidal attack in the midst of an urban area, with armed law enforcement in the vicinity, the risk of discovery, the knowledge that aggressive pursuit will be immediate, and extreme consequences for the crime. High pressure. Under pressure, a poorly trained person is unlikely to be capable of this. It takes some degree of training to simultaneously deal with this pressure and still perform.
  - chasd00 1y ago
    Completely untrained yes but there’s lots of people with these skills. I do IDPA matches with my son at a tactical range near Waxahachie TX, people there do these kinds of drills constantly. There’s also lots of ex-military instructor led close quarter and urban combat training available to anyone. Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think. It’s sort of like martial arts, some people are just really into it.