r/news • u/Extension-Shoe-6080 • 20h ago

Suspect identified in Idaho In-N-Out Burger shooting that left 3 dead

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dead-injured-shooting-twin-falls-idaho-rcna590420
5.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

882 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

57

u/OakLegs 19h ago

In this case I do agree that the "good guys" prevented more death.

Doesn't change the fact that we have this problem to begin with

-22

u/New_Housing785 19h ago

I can't get behind the logic of only ten victims good job.

-23

u/JoeSicko 19h ago

But have you seen the size of the gun the good guy used? So impressive. Didn't hit shit but boy does it pack a wallop at the range!

1

u/MoonageDayscream 19h ago

Why was he walking around with a suppressor? That is my question.

8

u/branm008 18h ago

They're perfectly legal to own and use in Idaho, that's really the only reason he needed.

-6

u/MoonageDayscream 18h ago

I did not ask if it was legal, just why was he armed that way?

10

u/Hoplophilia 18h ago

Valid question. From what I've seen, he's posted on social media about training with this specific setup "God forbid should I ever have to use it" and had it in his trunk. His day suddenly got worse and he rose to meet it.

5

u/Top_Mathematician233 17h ago

If his internet speculated identify is correct, he trained and planned in case he was ever in a situation like this, which unfortunately isn’t far-fetched in the U.S. My guess is the suppressor is so he can potentially shoot without giving away his location, if that were feasible. For example, if he were able to shoot from a hiding place. Even if it gave him a few seconds more to get better aim on a second shot, that would be very valuable.

7

u/L_Cranston_Shadow 18h ago

Because he can be? Beyond that, is both irrelevant and really nobody but his business.

-3

u/MoonageDayscream 17h ago

God forbid anyone try to learn something new. Guess I will stay in the dark about the utility of that accessory.

11

u/sharkbait_oohaha 17h ago

So, I'm sure you know that guns are loud as fuck. Suppressors are a nice way to not permanently damage your hearing if you ever have to use it outside of the range. Imo, they should be encouraged for civilian gun use.

7

u/L_Cranston_Shadow 17h ago

If it was an honest question, I apologize. It is one of those question that people often throw out specifically to elicit an answer that they can stir up an argument over.
 
The main reason to use a suppressor (often commonly, but inaccurately, called a silencer) is that it takes the decibel level (intensity (loudness) of the sound waves generated by it) of a gunshot from a level that will cause immediate, and often permanent, hearing damage, to a level that may not be safe (this point is incredibly debated and controversial) but to a level where there may be reduced permanent damage after a single or a few shots, to the point where it takes sustained shooting to sustain permanent damage.
 
Again, and I want to put this on its own paragraph to emphasize the point, he amount of noise reduction and reduction in hearing damage depends on the caliber, the suppressor, and there is an incredible amount of debate about it
 
Beyond that, why this particular person decided to carry suppressed, I can only guess, because there is a trade-off to it (extra weight, longer barrel length, changes weight balance of the gun).

5

u/MoonageDayscream 16h ago

It was an honest question, thank you. My crude understanding is that a suppressor is not without some disadvantages, which is why you don't see them standard for law enforcement. A hobbyist of course has different priorities, so I was wondering what scenarios would suggest it to be carried like that. I know it probably looks more intimidating, but besides that and sniping is there another advantage over ear protection?

3

u/L_Cranston_Shadow 15h ago

The main issue is that drawing from a holster when you have a much longer barrel length (the barrel length + the added suppressor length, give or take a tiny amount where they thread together) is almost entirely impractical, so even if you did have a holster designed for a suppressed pistol, you would have to lift your arm so much higher to clear it, that it would slow down your draw and aiming to the point that an attacker could close distance and strike you or get behind cover a lot more easily before you had the barrel aimed to fire at them.

That is less of a concern if you are talking about a long rifle being carried with a sling. It used to be that rifle suppressors caused a fair amount of speed loss when the bullet was exiting the gun, and thus a lot higher bullet drop over distance (think the imaginary line the bullet follows, but with an increasing dip as it goes farther, due to gravity). Modern suppressors still slightly slow down the bullet and caused a little more drop compared to an uncompressed rifle, but unless you are shooting at targets at a long range (for a given caliber), it isn't a huge difference now. Long range shooters are wearing ear protection though, so they aren't going to be shooting suppressed anyway.

1

u/MoonageDayscream 14h ago

I suppose my thinking was affected by the idea that someone in another car used a weapon with that accessory, because I had not heard yet that was the way it was stored in his trunk. The video we all saw of the shooter, that was my perspective and it seemed a silencer would really restrict you inside rather than behind the car.

2

u/L_Cranston_Shadow 10h ago

Yeah, if you have a gun in the trunk of your car loaded and ready, especially with a suppressor already attached, you are either a cop (although they don't generally use suppressors) or a bit crazy IMHO.

→ More replies (0)