If Stephen Paddock Had Used an Automatic Rifle: Would the Death Toll Have Been Higher?

The tragic events in Las Vegas conducted by Stephen Paddock with the spray and pray technique using bump stocks are still a topic of discussion. Some experts argue that had he used a fully automatic weapon, the death toll could have been significantly higher. However, is this theory supported by expert analysis and actual outcomes?

Comparison Between Bump Stocks and Fully Automatic Weapons

Stephen Paddock used the spray and pray method of firing, which implies a low accuracy and a disorganized approach. In contrast, a fully automatic weapon would allow for a tighter and more controlled concentration of fire on a target area. A fully automatic weapon has a much higher rate of fire, allowing for more shots to be fired in a shorter period, with more precision and less effort required from the shooter compared to using bump stock adapters.

Accuracy and Control Issues with Bump Stocks

Bump fire stock adapters, while allowing a semi-automatic rifle to simulate semi-automatic fire, are markedly less precise and more cumbersome. To maintain consistent fire on a specific target with bump firing, the shooter must apply constant and precise pressure. This can cause fatigue and inaccuracy over time. Moreover, the use of bump firing stock adapters often leads to a higher rate of mechanical failure due to the high rate of fire. This is not the case with fully automatic weapons, which are built with higher quality and more durable internal parts, reducing malfunctions and jams.

Semi-Automatic Fire vs. Fully Automatic Fire in Action

From the videos of the incident, one can see that Paddock used about 11 magazines during the 10-minute event. Each salvo lasted about 5 seconds, making an average of 60 shots per minute. This rate of fire was not limited by the type of gun action, suggesting that in a semi-auto mode, he could have potentially inflicted more damage. A fully automatic weapon would require less maintenance and magazine changes, potentially increasing the rate of fire further.

Versatility and Cost-Effectiveness of Semi-Automatic Weapons

Furthermore, the use of bump stock adapters is both cost-increasing and time-consuming. Paddock would have needed to maintain multiple semi-automatic rifles and bump stocks, causing delays in repositioning. A fully automatic rifle would allow for a continuous barrage with less pause for activities like changing magazines. Coupled with the availability of high-capacity magazines and drums, the cost would have been significantly lower, leading to more efficient shooting.

Conclusion: The Inevitable Outcome

Based on expert analysis and practical outcomes, it is highly unlikely that using a fully automatic weapon would have resulted in a significantly higher death toll. The rate of fire, accuracy, and ease of use of a fully automatic weapon would have certainly improved the shooter's efficiency, but the actual rate of fire and magazine changes suggest that a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a skilled operator can achieve similar results.

Lastly, it is important to note that the current evidence does not definitively confirm Paddock as the shooter. There is much more to the story than media reports often present.