You can keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, but you’re not accomplishing anything. We know how the victims reacted in Newton, so it’s a simple fact that your conclusions about how they should have reacted just don’t hold up. The reason is simple: you are drawing conclusions based on an imagined scenario that obviously isn’t in line with the reality of how things happened.
You’re obsessing, trying to get me to admit that there is some valid basis to some component of your imaginary scenario, when the entire thing is easily seen to be faulty, if you are not emotionally devoted to believing in it in the first place.
You obviously have never fired a weapon at a moving target.
The reason is simple: you are drawing conclusions based on an imagined scenario that obviously isn’t in line with the reality of how things happened.
I'm not drawing conclusions on what really happened: I'm saying it's damn strange.
Things don't add up.
And this whole line of argument came from my considering a greater-than 90% hit-rate bizarre, even in a school-shooting; which I unfortunately termed an instance of urban-warfare' and you reacted to that. (Rapid-dominance* and CQB** were my attempts to clarify my reasoning that a 90% hit-rate is amazing in the circumstances, even if shooting fish in a barrel.
)
* - I've never been involved in an actual rapid-dominance operation; but I do know the theory, the training mostly room-clearing ops.
** - I actually have some CQB training; I was deployed to Iraq. (Accurately shooting while moving is hard; accurately shooting something that's moving while you're moving is damn hard.)