You could likely shoot 5 rounds at 150 yards and have them within 5 inches of each other on your first try.
At almost every event I go to in Nashville there are multiple sniper teams. The fact that all of the locations pointed out here weren't swarming with police or had a sniper detail is absolutely wild to me.
Heck, look at the top of the press box/suites and nearby buildings next time you go to a football game in the Swamp
Depends on the person. There are a lot of factors. In general if you sat down at a range and took your time, it's likely you could be very accurate first try. You could just naturally have a still hand and be a good shot right away. Some breathing and proper trigger pulling is involved (and obviously weather conditions) but thats more so about being able to pin multiple shots in the same place every time as opposed to simply being good enough to place your shots within a small 10in target at that distance fairly easily. Now you have to add in the actual factors from the situation. He was 150 yard away, supposedly being questioned by a cop and shot multiple shots without being able to get back on target. If you're firing multiple shots the recoil from the gun will make the others off target. A true marksman would have placed that first shot in Trumps forehead. This is why automatic weapons and bumpstocks are actually not great for mass shootings. You can be much more deadly accurate with semi fire. Even in the military the only one that goes full auto are usually the gunner teams but thats more for offensive and defensive maneuvers and cover fire.
I disagree about bumpstocks. I mean if your goal is accuracy (hitting one specific person) then sure they aren't ideal. However if your goal is to get off as many rounds as you possibly can directed at a field full of people then they certainly provide benefit. Just look at the Vegas shooter.
If you just want to hurt a lot of people, sure. The Vegas shooter was kind of an outlier for mass shootings. He was 32 floors up and 1,100 feet away from the concert. He had over an hour so I'd argue if he was good enough he may have been able to do more damage kill wise. For most mass shootings if the intention is death over damage, I'd say semi auto is the way to go. JMO though.
The report about the cop encountering the shooter before the shooting is confirmed by the local sheriff Local officer tried to stop gunman on rooftop, but was unable to engage him, Butler County sheriff says | CNN Politics
Perhaps it was private property not affiliated with the event? I had someone point that out to me earlier. It seems obvious to take over the building and put someone on the roof, but they’d need authorization to do that. It’s possible secret service presented that risk but didn’t have the power to overrule the campaign. I’m not saying this is most likely scenario, but without knowing what security options were actually presented it might be hasty to assume. Maybe they relied too much on local PD, and local PD was out of position or just failed to react - Uvalde style. I see some of the crazies trying to blame the secret service sniper for being too slow (some nutbar conspiracy theorists even suggesting he was in on it) but that hardly seems fair without knowing what he could actually see and when.
The Biden administration has repeatedly denied Trump's requestss for more protection. Last I heard RFK Kjr is getting no SS protection. It's as if the administration wants them dead.
The cop hanging on the rooftop never had a chance. No way to reasonably engage him from that position. That said, he may have indeed contributed to the gunman missing his shot
According to the Sherriff he was hoisted up by another cop and the gunman saw him peering over the ledge. He wasn’t on anything stable like a ladder.
The reporting I saw was that he was trying to climb up when the shooter pointed the gun at him, so he dropped back down because there was no way to engage from that vantage point. That doesn’t seem unreasonable. The better question is what were those officers doing while this goofball was wandering around, and ultimately climbed a building. I know there were plenty of people walking around, but with several spectators pointing him out he must have been quite conspicuous.
I haven’t argued that her goal caused some loser to try to kill a presidential candidate, only that focusing on gender is probably the wrong focus of an agency with such an important mission. I agree with what she said in the article that offering opportunities to a diverse recruit base is important. Anyone qualified should be allowed to compete and be considered. Hiring recruits, however, with diversity holding any more importance than pure ability to perform the demanding requirements of the job is asinine. I have no idea where in the chain of command and coordination the protection at the event yesterday went wrong, but it certainly appears it went wrong with dire consequences. Since there is no way of knowing who or what was the weak link, I haven’t suggested that a female or minority or non-minority person is a cause. Only that the focus of the SS should be nothing other than ensuring that the best candidates are in every position from top to bottom regardless of any boxes needing to be checked other than physical and mental ability to get the job done. You cannot argue with that and mean it even though your training is to argue whatever point benefits your client. Equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcome. BTW, I did notice a SS officer too short to shield a tall presidential candidate yesterday. Maybe one or more of the first layer of protection is only supposed to shield the lower half of a protected person.