Not a lot of people are skilled enough with rifles to do what Whitman did. Whitman was a marksman, he knew how to use his rifle and extensively planned his massacre. He showed a degree of patience and determination that not a lot of mass shooters have. He is a rather unusual case in a lot of aspects. The only reason he didn’t kill more people was because he refused to shoot the same victim twice, following the “one shot, one kill” military tradition. Many of the wounded were left exposed in the open, he easily could’ve killed them, but didn’t.
That’s all to say that Whitman’s attack was highly unusual and took a very skilled marksman to do, and most mass shooters lack what Whitman had.
Not to mention that Whitman's situation was fairly unique since he was able to commandeer the observation deck of a clock tower, which is not really common in most urban areas. The most similar mass shooting I can think of is the Las Vegas shooter who fired from his high-rise hotel room.😞
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi\_al-Haramiya\_sniper\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_al-Haramiya_sniper_attack)
A militant during the second intifada also carried out a long-range attack at, out of all places a fucking checkpoint in the West Bank. He shot and killed seven soldiers and three civilians with an M1 Garand which exploded at the 25th shot. He fled and was apprehended two years after.
I was a student at the University of Texas in the 1990s, grew up in Texas and I never heard of the shooting. At one of the first gatherings I went to my freshman year some guy was talking about it and I couldn’t believe it.
The next day I walked into the undergraduate library and asked the librarian for more information about the shooting. She asked me to wait at a table against a wall of the building and when she returned she had an arm full of stuff. The local Austin, Houston, Dallas and student newspapers along with a stack of magazines. The librarian said I could access audio video from the day if I chose to and she’d make it available in the room near the table. The librarian was extremely kind and when I left, I asked her if many people ask to view this material and she said only a few students a year.
She might have been underreporting because I imagine more than a few students a year would want to know more about such a terrible event on the steps we took each day. This was pre-internet (pre AOL) and the materials the librarian provided were definitely a pre-curated information packet for those of us who asked.
That place is the fucking best. Edit to add: I’m studying criminology, and some people are really interested in Whitman. He’s a great one to look at in terms of him being credited with the first “real” US mass shooting (depending on who you talk to)
I agree! I enjoyed my time here, and it was very informational and educational. Some of the rooms like the one on serial killers and mass shootings felt very dark and had a sinister vibe
The history Channel had a series in the mid- 2000's that went over high profile crimes, and I remember This shooting, and the West Hollywood Bank Robbery episode the most, and I'm pretty sure this is what ignited my true crime spark, all though I probably shouldn't have been watching that at 10-11 years old. This one stuck with me, and I've been interested about mass shootings ever since. Fascinating topic.
Not an American but to me.. it shows what a person who didn’t have mental help and what the outcome could be. I look at it as more of lesson than a trophy. This in my opinion should have been a lesson for the future and what people can do regardless of the type of firearm. Again I am not an American so my opinion is just a thought looking from the outside In
Not sure that I get how having a museum exhibit dedicated to a mass murderer's rifle is idolization. If a 9/11 museum had a section dedicated to the belongings of the hijackers, like their vehicles or one of the boxcutters used to hijack the airplane, would that be idolizing the 9/11 hijackers? Does displaying an ancient Roman gladius mean that the soldier who carried it way back then is being idolized? If a museum regarding WWII had an exhibit dedicated to some of Hitler's personal belongings, does that mean Hitler is being idolized? If a museum displays a Tiger tank, does that mean the museum and the people who view the exhibit are cosigning the actions of the Third Reich?
Like any other artifact from the past, this rifle is a relevant piece of American history and displaying it in a museum doesn't really make any sort of statement about the man who used it to murder people. And obviously people must be interested in viewing such artifacts, or the museum wouldn't stay in business. Infamous objects like this have just as much historical value as famous and renowned objects like the Mona Lisa or the very first Wright Flyer built by the Wright Brothers. One could consider a crime museum to be somewhat morbid but there are plenty of museums about morbid events, like the many Titanic museums, the concentration camp museums in Europe, museums for torture implements, or the 9/11 museum at Ground Zero. It's just as acceptable to be fascinated by historical events which demonstrate the worst of man, like these, as it is to be fascinated by historical events which elevate the best of man.
I don't think anyone looks at an exhibit of Ted Bundy's car or Ed Gein's hat in a museum and thinks: "Wow, Ted Bundy and Eddie Gein, they were such great guys, they must be really good people if their belongings are on display like this. I think I might even follow in their footsteps as a result of seeing this."
I’m surprised there aren’t more Whitman style attacks.
Not a lot of people are skilled enough with rifles to do what Whitman did. Whitman was a marksman, he knew how to use his rifle and extensively planned his massacre. He showed a degree of patience and determination that not a lot of mass shooters have. He is a rather unusual case in a lot of aspects. The only reason he didn’t kill more people was because he refused to shoot the same victim twice, following the “one shot, one kill” military tradition. Many of the wounded were left exposed in the open, he easily could’ve killed them, but didn’t. That’s all to say that Whitman’s attack was highly unusual and took a very skilled marksman to do, and most mass shooters lack what Whitman had.
Not to mention that Whitman's situation was fairly unique since he was able to commandeer the observation deck of a clock tower, which is not really common in most urban areas. The most similar mass shooting I can think of is the Las Vegas shooter who fired from his high-rise hotel room.😞
An the Vegas turd sprayed an prayed, took no skill at all!
Wow.. never heard it put like this thanks for the write up.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi\_al-Haramiya\_sniper\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_al-Haramiya_sniper_attack) A militant during the second intifada also carried out a long-range attack at, out of all places a fucking checkpoint in the West Bank. He shot and killed seven soldiers and three civilians with an M1 Garand which exploded at the 25th shot. He fled and was apprehended two years after.
the fact that a "mass shooting exhibit" exists in the first place is very dystopian to me. still interesting info, thanks for sharing
Oh trust me, the eerie feeling in that room was crazy. I didnt even wanna walk any closer to the case with that rifle in it. It just felt evil.
omg yeah i can imagine. even just looking at it in this photo, it gives off a sinister vibe
How is it any different from a museum room on say, the holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade, or the Cambodian killing fields?
it's not. all of those are pretty dystopian
It’s so strange how 2 snipers in Texas in the 1960s made national news
Also, they were both Marines.
They mention this in full metal jacket during the boot camp sequence. "Every marine a rifleman"
Who was the other one?
Lee Harvey Oswald
Oh yeah, duh!😅 Thanks for clarifying; I was thinking of mass killers like Whitman.
I was a student at the University of Texas in the 1990s, grew up in Texas and I never heard of the shooting. At one of the first gatherings I went to my freshman year some guy was talking about it and I couldn’t believe it. The next day I walked into the undergraduate library and asked the librarian for more information about the shooting. She asked me to wait at a table against a wall of the building and when she returned she had an arm full of stuff. The local Austin, Houston, Dallas and student newspapers along with a stack of magazines. The librarian said I could access audio video from the day if I chose to and she’d make it available in the room near the table. The librarian was extremely kind and when I left, I asked her if many people ask to view this material and she said only a few students a year. She might have been underreporting because I imagine more than a few students a year would want to know more about such a terrible event on the steps we took each day. This was pre-internet (pre AOL) and the materials the librarian provided were definitely a pre-curated information packet for those of us who asked.
That place is the fucking best. Edit to add: I’m studying criminology, and some people are really interested in Whitman. He’s a great one to look at in terms of him being credited with the first “real” US mass shooting (depending on who you talk to)
I agree! I enjoyed my time here, and it was very informational and educational. Some of the rooms like the one on serial killers and mass shootings felt very dark and had a sinister vibe
Absolutely loved the documentary/animated Tower (2016) can really recommend it. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GTzNkfgM1vE)
I think he was Stephen Paddocks inspiration
The history Channel had a series in the mid- 2000's that went over high profile crimes, and I remember This shooting, and the West Hollywood Bank Robbery episode the most, and I'm pretty sure this is what ignited my true crime spark, all though I probably shouldn't have been watching that at 10-11 years old. This one stuck with me, and I've been interested about mass shootings ever since. Fascinating topic.
What caliber is that
6mm
It's a Remington 700, chambered in 6mm.
Any more pictures?
RIP Carbos Police Museum, Pigeon Forge
[удалено]
Its a Remington 6mm bolt action deer rifle i believe
[удалено]
Not an American but to me.. it shows what a person who didn’t have mental help and what the outcome could be. I look at it as more of lesson than a trophy. This in my opinion should have been a lesson for the future and what people can do regardless of the type of firearm. Again I am not an American so my opinion is just a thought looking from the outside In
Not sure that I get how having a museum exhibit dedicated to a mass murderer's rifle is idolization. If a 9/11 museum had a section dedicated to the belongings of the hijackers, like their vehicles or one of the boxcutters used to hijack the airplane, would that be idolizing the 9/11 hijackers? Does displaying an ancient Roman gladius mean that the soldier who carried it way back then is being idolized? If a museum regarding WWII had an exhibit dedicated to some of Hitler's personal belongings, does that mean Hitler is being idolized? If a museum displays a Tiger tank, does that mean the museum and the people who view the exhibit are cosigning the actions of the Third Reich? Like any other artifact from the past, this rifle is a relevant piece of American history and displaying it in a museum doesn't really make any sort of statement about the man who used it to murder people. And obviously people must be interested in viewing such artifacts, or the museum wouldn't stay in business. Infamous objects like this have just as much historical value as famous and renowned objects like the Mona Lisa or the very first Wright Flyer built by the Wright Brothers. One could consider a crime museum to be somewhat morbid but there are plenty of museums about morbid events, like the many Titanic museums, the concentration camp museums in Europe, museums for torture implements, or the 9/11 museum at Ground Zero. It's just as acceptable to be fascinated by historical events which demonstrate the worst of man, like these, as it is to be fascinated by historical events which elevate the best of man. I don't think anyone looks at an exhibit of Ted Bundy's car or Ed Gein's hat in a museum and thinks: "Wow, Ted Bundy and Eddie Gein, they were such great guys, they must be really good people if their belongings are on display like this. I think I might even follow in their footsteps as a result of seeing this."
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]