A great big straw man argument again.

A bomb would have worked just as well (as it recently did in Finland). Or poisoning consumer products (remeber Tylenol?). Derailing a train. There's lots of ways to kill randomly without guns. Happens all the time.

Recent news suggests strongly that the perps of these shootings are attempting extortion--they may not actually be insane, but rather simply sociopaths.

Rant as you will, *I* don't think it's an accident at all that most of the early shootings happened in Maryland rather than Virginia. Of course, now that their confidence is up after so many successful shootings they're now getting cocky and operating closer to home. I think they're ultimately going to be apprehended there.

Or shot. Depends who gets to them first.

I see your point, but I stand by my remarks -- and recommend that you avoid writing paragraphs that are that easily misinterpreted, especially when read within the context of your entire post in this entire thread.

And such injustices amount to active support of evil by the legal apparatus and judiciary of the United Kingdom. What periwigged sons of bitches. What idiocy. What immorality.


When violence is occurring, countervailing violence is not at all wrong -- pacifists notwithstanding. People with martial-arts backgrounds such as myself understand this. One gets it in any self-defense class, armed or otherwise, and the principle is the same regardless of the tools used.

Pacifism isn't a sustainable philosophy. It is only practicable within bounds guarded by non-pacifists, for one; but what really keeps pacifism from taking over the world is that under lethal assault, either the pacifism or the pacifist must die. If you can manage to crowd a pacifist hard enough, they hoist the Jolly Roger anyway.

You quoted my post where I said 'from a distance', and then went on to answer like you did...
And that's a good reason for giving a means to anonymously and easily murder from afar?

Ah, I forgot - guns can be used for good as well as evil.

It would have been a lot harder for him to do so. (you cite breaking into somebody's house at night as comparable, which it isn't: it requires personal physical involvement and locational presence, both of which are absent in the sniper case)

If I got a rifle with a noise/flash suppressor and got on the roof of my house, I could easily kill several people, and most likely nobody would ever find out that I did it. The sniper is doing something very similar. I can get a rifle from a local gun show, no questions asked. All that stops me from being a successful serial murderer is the motive. All the tools are right there, it'd only take me a couple of minutes to do it.

It was only a matter of time until somebody cunning started exploiting a very obvious means of terror. Now that it's begun, and that everybody realises how pathetically easy it is to terrorize millions and millions of people using only a rifle and a van, whilst displaying the inability of state and federal law enforcement to deal with it, the genie will never be stuffed back into its bottle.

A bomb requires knowledge of assembly and materials involved, as well as the know-how to make it, place it, get away unnoticed, and detonate from afar. While a smart individual can do most of that reasonably easily, I can - as mentioned above - become a successful murderer with much greater ease using a rifle.

There are no 'Bomb Shows' for private citizens - they are reserved for heads of state and ministers of war. I wonder what the FBI would do if I built a couple of bombs and started selling them to the highest bidder in my backyard. Apples and oranges.
Strange. I don't see CNN reporting 24/7 about that. Terror is being inflicted right now in your backyard, and all it takes is a gun and a van. Pandora's box has been opened, and it contained FMJ rounds.

Sure, you can easily derail a train. But what tool is being used to intimidate millions, kill (potentially) dozens, and get a nation to hold its breath? It's not al-Qaeda training camps, it's not American Airline jets flown into buildings, it's not WMDs being stockpiled by a dictator at a secret Middle East location. It's a guy with a rifle.

As an aside, I think your flame baiting ("rant as you will", which is an obvious provocation) requires a bit of moderation. Maybe dave/dhamsaic is willing to mod this forum, and bring his well-exercised tempering approach to your posts. ;-)

X.

PS: I'd love to see some of the people voicing their pro-gun beliefs going up to the families of the murdered victims, looking into their eyes, and saying "Guns don't kill people." Especially to the husband who saw his wife dying right in front of his eyes, or the six (?) children of the man shot at the Manassas gas station.

I wouldn't want to be one of these guys right now!
 

from Reuters

He said he could not confirm widespread media reports that one of the two was John Allen Muhammad, a former U.S. soldier, also known as John Allen Williams. "Attempts to verify their identities are being made right now," he said.

So are we talking Gulf War Vet?

If thats the case, do we ever consider the impact on American society of constantly submitting fragile psyches to war making. X is right to a point about the circularity of violence. He IMHO is wrong however when it comes to allowing ourselves to be victims or in not trusting people to make their own decisions.

(Of course these two may have been setup by the real sniper, time will tell.)

One of the pics i saw (Wired Mag Online report i think) the guy was wearing a camo top, looked like a military mugshot.

No, it didn't.

Well, fortunately, *this* forum is still part of The Cellar. A curious notion of "tempering", but then others have observed your philosophy leans toward coercive collectivism in other ways too.
Not true. Take multiple shots from your roof and pretty soon the cops will be at your door; they know how to draw lines on a map. The shooter's location is known for each of these murders...these perps have evaded as long as they have through mobility.

There are all kinds of way of comitting mayhem.. When they occur, they all get their "15 minutes of fame" on CNN, whether train wreck or Tylenol. Too bad your memory is so short.

Now that suspects are in custody, perhaps anger can be properly focused on *them* rather than inanimate objects, which is as pointless as getting angry at the hammer after hitting your thumb with it.

I quoted your post where you said anonymously. And if you really want to get technical change what I said to bow and you can have your distance.

I don't think there was much "dying". She was alive, and then she was dead. Such is the nature of getting shot in the head with an expanding/fragmenting round.

The man with six children was Kenneth Bridges, shot near Fredericksburg, many many miles from Manassas. The shooting in Manassas was of Dean Harold Meyers, of whom no children have been mentioned.

I know it's nitpicking, but I've been following the case closely. Plus, two of those people were shot ~8 miles from my house. So that kinda automatically puts me into the "interested in the case" group.

...submitting to the US military... as opposed to the people who are supposed to defend the country if the military doesn't: the militias? I'm sure you don't want to go there;

...or as opposed to paramilitary groups who are ANTI-U.S. -- as may be the *actual* case in this situation?

...and don't you maybe have it backwards: maybe the warlike are attracted TO the military instead of CREATED BY it, in which case:

...isn't firing rifle rounds at the enemies of the US really the most ideal place for them, especially for a guaranteed amount of time during their most angry youth? And isn't rigid order likely to improve their chance to learn to make it through life without killing those who aren't the perceived enemy? And anyway,

...if a handful of random people are killed, whilst 300 million people who represent the biggest voice for freedom in the entire world are defended, is that such a big problem?

It is my position that sending Americans into Iraq had no connection to defending the US but actually weakened us.

Lets consider the psycho, he joins the US Army for whatever reason, (maybe because he is warlike) he and his unit go to Iraq, he eventually realizes that he has been tooled. He starts noticing the big thank you the other Vets are getting when their GW Syndrome is denied, maybe notices the civilian body count in Iraq. He starts to wonder, who are the good guys? What drove him from sheep dog to wolf?

I understand the theory about defending the US. But don't quite see how it weakened us. It gave us more soldiers with real experience, that can't weaken the military.

That's an awful lot of fantasy masquerading as proof.

Assuming he's capable of, interested in, and motivated by such complicated moral calculus, the truth is that he could have come to similar conclusions following *any* military activity. There will be no world violence in where there is a 100% clear moral situation, especially for those who are directed to kill.

And no peace unless there is a set of people who are willing and trained to kill. Negotiations are backed up by force; that's how it works, that's how has to work.

But the US Military is 100% volunteer, and everyone who enters into it knows that they may be put into harm's way for political purposes.

Gulf War 1 created more enemies for the US, so we're weakened even if our military isn't IMHO. It could be argued that we used up a lot of equipment, weakening us as well, but I'm more concerned with our helping to radicalize the mid-East .