Utopia is still not an option.

What came to my mind was the political last resort, armed federal troops escorting black teenagers into Little Rock High School or interstate greyhound passengers in the face of state and local kkk militias. Fed power, in my mind, used for good.

but back to topic kinda- Like Syc said, he's a predator, he is hunting. Riflesport. How easy is that line to cross?

It's been interesting to note the spread of the opinion amongst people who have been studying the operational aspects of these attacks that there are at least two people involved: a shooter and a driver/lookout, who may exchange roles from one incident to the next.

So "How to get *the* sniper" may be a misnomer.

If there *are* two or more in this ongoing operation, how likely is it that they are nutcases sharing a common delusion? Or is it more likely that they're part of a larger organization? The *methods* are surely terroristic, whether there is a clearly stated political goal or not.

OK, that's the major premise.

Minor premise:
See: "Osama 'gave Bashir money for Bali bombs''"
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/top...150180,00.html

As a footnote to a story claiming that Al-Queda financed the purchase of three tons of C4 by JI from a source in the Indonesian military, this article reports:

<i>" The Sunday Times said Faruq had also told the CIA of other plots which had been considered. These included: The random shooting of Israelis and Americans at hotels across Indonesia. This was abandoned because it would have only 'minimal impact'..."</i>

Perhaps they found a way to have more than "minimal impact".

Again, bows and knives are less efficient tools for killing then guns, both from a physical and from a psychological point of view. Physically there is less power to these other weapons and a single strike is less likely to kill especially with modern medical procedures. Psychologically (except for sociopath individuals) it much harder to stick a knife into a person than it to shoot him at a distance (I know this from personal experience -Vietnam- and from scientific studies such as On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
by Dave Grossman)

Banning guns would reduce the killing by making killers less efficient. However the fact that banning guns will not eliminate murder entirely is no argument against a ban. Never the less the right to carry arms still must be defended for political reasons. And further everone must have the right or no-one has it.

Which is standard sniper doctrine, as I understand it.

If there's more than two people, I'd say almost a certainty there's a larger organization. If there's two, I think there's probably a larger organization.

Stab wounds are actually slightly more lethal than bullet wounds, I believe. As for the psychological argument, that goes straight to hell because of your parenthetical note. What's the point of making it harder for everyone BUT the sociopaths? It's the sociopaths who are doing the murdering!

Yes, they are less efficient, but if that is all anyone has to either commit the crime or defend themselves it becomes a moot point. If I have a gun and you have a bow and you want to kill me it requires much more effort on your part to actually commit the murder. If I on the other hand only have a bow it comes down to whether I have the training to stop you.
I would guess, though I have no statistics right now, and any statistics would be invalid, that before guns were mass-produced more murders were committed per person then there are now. Guns make killing easier yes, but once again only if the killer has a gun and the victim does not. If every person on the street possibly has a gun concealed on his or her person, a random killer would most likely think twice about just randomly striking. If everyone only had a bow or a knife on them, it makes it easier to just walk up and kill someone because the chances of them being fast enough to use these weapons is minimal and they are far less likely to strike a fatal blow.
Of course, in the case of the sniper it does not matter because he is striking from a distance and the victim has no chance to defend him or herself.

Warch, it's a hard line to cross when it's your own species. I've been in an unpleasant situation -- psycho roommate -- where I thought I might have to pull a pistol out of a drawer and cap the guy. It felt terrible. I was praying I wouldn't have to. Fortunately, I never had to, and a couple weeks later, psycho roommate checked into Saint Elizabeth's, the DC-area mental hospital for the not well fixed.

Cocaine is not your friend. That's all I've got to say.

If what you say is true and the reason for not banning fire arms is self defense then everyone should carry - like in a Heinlein book. That means there will have to be gun subsidies for the poor to make it fair. Every one should get a nine mm auto of some sort so as fire power would be equal. If the government issued them to everyone when they turn 18 then they could buy in bulk and save a bundle. There will have to be ammo subsidies too so everyone gets and equal chance to practice.

The gun ban in my mind is hypothetical i.e. you don't have a gun but neither do I. If that happened the number of killings would go down for the same reason that farmers would grow less food if they went back to plowing with a mule. (The ban is hypothetical in this country because the government wouldn't enforce it. The government doesn't even bother to keep drugs out of prision.)

The argument that people need to carry against random killers is absurd. Most murdered people are murdered by someone they know The argument for the right to bear arm is political. It is not a crime issue! The crime issue is meant to be divisive and it works. It helps keep the people from realizing they could band together to force the government to provide health care instead of cluster bombs for instance.

Boy, it sure stopped being "like a Heinlein book" really fast. Like in the very next sentence.

See here: it's nort my job to feed, clothe and house the poor, and it's not my job to arm them either. You've perhaps mistaken this for a socialist country. I do understand your confusion.

If you are in favor of arming the poor, do you support repealing the "make guns too expensive" type of prohibitionism? Like frivolous tax-funded liability suits against manufacturers, the "smart gun" (boy, there's a misnomer) requirement currently being proposed in the People's Republik of New Jersey, and the "Saturday Night Special" bans? Or are you only in favor of "arming the poor" when it's at taxpayer expense?

What's absurd is arguing that it's the *only* reason. I don't have fire extinguishers in my house *just* in case it's hit by lighting, but itf it *is* hit by lightning I'll be glad I have them..
Nonsense.
You really *are* a Socialist at heart.

The government doesn't "provide" anything. The taxpayers do. This is why they don't band together to insist the government "provide" health care...because so far enough of them still realize who will actually *pay* for it.

You do realize that completely validates my point. If guns were banned then most murders would not be prevented. If in the heat of the moment someone decides to kill a person, they know then they are just as likely to use a knife or other weapon, as they are to use a gun. Guns don't commit the crime the person does, Banning guns does nothing other than make people find other ways to do what guns do, that's the downside of human ingenuity.

It does not matter if the government enforces it. Anyone who thinks that the government can stop people form getting guns thinks that all people are idiots and that the government has all the answers. This is obviously not true.


Once again, human ingenuity comes into play. If I decide to kill someone, I am going to do it unless that person or someone else stops me. If I have a knife and get to the person I'm trying to kill he's just as dead as if I shot him. If that person has a knife and tries to stop me, it just depends on who is more skilled. All guns do is give you another tool. Killing may go down, but it is unlikely, because as you pointed out most murders are not random, but are acts of rage against an acquaintance.


Now you’re just blowing what I said out of proportion. The possibility of someone carrying a gun is a deterrent. If you walk down the street and see me and know I could have a gun your as unlikely to try and attack me as if you know everyone has a gun. It is what neighborhood watch accomplishes. You do not know if someone is watching you but you cannot be sure. The same applies to removing your faceplate from your car stereo. There is a good chance the person stuck their face into their glove box but the idea that they took it with them is enough to deter most thieves.

This Reason piece about the increasing crime rates in GB goes into the differing beliefs about ones right to self defense.

An awesome piece it is.

Ovbiosuly an NRA propogadna piece.

Dave is ovbiosuly giving us Jaguar's propogadna, while he's busy with his studies.