How to get the sniper
 

(Int'l folks, a lone deranged sniper is killing people randomly in the DC area)

I'm lucky in that I don't live in the affected area. But if I did, I have a theory. If you're out there pumping gas and the guy next to you gets hit, try to figure out where the shot came from, and sprint that direction.

Since the guy only takes one shot you may succeed at flushing him out.

Hey, it's something. Everybody feels powerless...

Re: How to get the sniper
 

Except that we're dealing with entirely the wrong state here ... that SHOULD be "Shoot in that direction".

I have, throughout, found it interesting that he/they chose to start in a state where you can't shoot back.

Re: Re: How to get the sniper
 

Maggie touched on this in another thread. But from what I've seen, I don't think it has anything to do with that. Maybe I'm asking a stupid question here, but who are you going to shoot at?

The guy with the gun

Stoopid me...I wasn't even giving consideration to the fact that this sniper could make a fuck up.

D'oh! My bad.

Ok so the theroy is if he was in a place where people carried firearms you're going to instantly be able to work out where a SNIPER is hiding, fast enough before he has time to move and then randomly let off shots in the rough direction the shot came from, in the hope of hitting him? Well gee that sounds like a damn fine way to wing a bystander or 10.

Which one? ;)

Re: Re: How to get the sniper
 

Ja, das ist wahr. But here in Virginia, we <b>do</b> carry.

(Though not myself personally, 'cause it would be kinda pointless, because I can't possess weapons on company property anyway. Again, not me personally - company-wide rule. :) )

Kind of makes you understand why we have gun control.
Not that the sniper himself doesn't give us a reason, but imagine everyone carrying around a gun in the Washington D.C. area, that would be scary, especially with everyone on edge.

Imagine if people were legally required to undergo very thorough training before being issued a CCP. And imagine that they had to undergo refresher courses every few years, and pass a test every few years that indicated they were mentally and physically healthy enough to carry a weapon. Sorta like a driver's license.

Imagine how much <b>safer</b> it would be.

ingenious, now why didn't our incredibly intelligent elected officials come up with that one.

Because the second most powerful lobby won't let them.

I live in VA and work in DC and cut through MD to get to work and lemme tell you - I'm nervous everytime I step out of my car. I long for the days of good ole' fashioned run of the mill serial killers. This guy has everyone scared - the randomness in victims, locations, time of day, etc. is just too much.

If the guy next to me goes down at the local Sunoco (and I recently gassed up at the site of the last killing), I'm gettin the helle out of dodge - and I'm no chicken either but I am NOT messing with a guy who can pop me from 150 yards.

This guy has killed 8 people with 10 bullets! He hasn't had to reload since he started!!

It's funny that Tony started this thread, 'cause I was thinking about it yesterday when Andrea and I were eating lunch, and I was thinking that if she got shot, I would try and figure where the shot came from... and then sprint in that direction. At least try to SEE something.

Ja, I might get killed. But what if I got the license plate number? Or if I got a good view of the shooter?

Now, he's already got this figured out... he's only shooting people that are by themselves. So no one can realize where the shot came from and then look in that direction. But... if that were to happen, that's exactly what I'd do.

By the way, I live in Fairfax City, and the guy at the Sunoco Wednesday night was some 8 miles from my house. So he's definitely close...

well, I live right in that area, near BWI.

I fel helpless because I don't have the means to shoot back, even though I have to agree with jag on this one point...I would not just randomly return fire into a blind range. I wouldn't take the chance of hitting someone else downrange.

But I don't do anything differently. I mow the lawn, I wash the car (at night so the water cops don't catch me) I walk my dogs and make my friends kid gas up my car. :rolleyes:

I do not fear the sniper. I take some comfort in knowing that he'll never be taken alive. He'll (notice the assumption of masculinity here) either kill himself when cornered or he'll be shot "trying to escape". Either way, he won't waste any more taxpayer money.

Brian

Ahh you all should move to Montana, not only can you shoot back, it's safer. As long as you stay off the highway :) .

He's quite possibly shooting from a truck, so "sprint THAT direction" or "shoot THAT direction" won't likely work. This seems more likely one which will be solved either

1) By accident -- e.g. sniper manages to get into collision by leaving scene

or

2) By cockiness -- sniper gets too bold with his little notes (like the tarot card) or starts taking multiple shots from a single location.

or

3) By old fashioned police work -- e.g. cops start canvassing service organizations and correlate locations of personnel with shootings. Or correlate a common factor in nearby ATM or security camera videos, that sort of thing.

Naw, but if you sprint in his general direction, even just by accident, you'll at least make him panic, and at most you'll get more information and other witnesses may get more information as well.

It's all about keeping your wits about you, though, isn't it. In the few occasions when I've had the occasion to make a police report, I have been an absolutely terrible witness. I guess I'm just naturally non-observant, blissfully unaware of my surroundings.

Either that or he'll fire a second shot. Has anyone though about just how hard it would be to work out the direction? The rifle is most liely supressed, and getting a direction qucikly and accurately on sound is hard enough, then you ahve the chaos after the shot, the body ins't going to be much use, iit's simply not that easy. As for dave's idea, i've heard time after time how criminals can get guns even when you legally can't, so having everyone carrying legally is just going to make it so much harder for crims to get one, right?

No. No one's ever argued that either.

I'm tempted to call you a "fucking retard" for making that comment, but I won't, because it does me no good. Instead, I'd like to ask you to think about what I actually wrote for more than three seconds. Of course criminals will get guns - criminals will ALWAYS have guns. The point is, why give them the upper hand by allowing <b>only</b> criminals to have guns?

Arming the citizenry with both firearms and good training on how to use them (as well as a respect for the weapon) is essentially equal to putting more undercover cops on the streets, protecting the less-than-adequately-armed from more baddies.

How exactly is this a bad idea?

There are plenty of trained, liscensed yet shitty, psycho, drunk, suicidal, asleep, and stupid drivers on the roads killing by operating equipment not specifically designed to kill. I dont see people brandishing guns, as they do cell phones, a terrific solution. Oh, but you specified "good" training, like a really, really hard test?
I like the idea of Columbia or Northface quickly introducing a bulletproof winter line of jackets, coats, and sporty body armor.

Dave did mention the fact that you should need to take a test every so often. I would think this should occur every year, or even every 6 months. . Drivers on the other hand get there liscense and unless they forget to renew it never have to take another test. Kind of a big difference there. Also driving tests are nothing, any person with a grain of commen sense can get there drivers license.

Then again this discussion is worthess, since the idea of liscensing and training gun owners is never going to make it's way through congress.

Please....anyone who drives can tell you that common sense is clearly not required for a driver's licence. They see counterexamples every day.
Based on how good a job the government does training cops to shoot, I prefer to do my own firearms training, thanks.

Where do people get the idea that more government is the solution to every problem? Oh, that's right...they went to a government school..:-)

Where do people get the idea that carrying a gun is a solution to every problem?

After another weekend without a sniper attack, everyone is wondering what the sniper does on the weekend.

It's possible he's "doin' time" on the weekend but is released on a Work Release Program throughout the week.

Imagine people like myself licensed to carry guns. I may appear harmless, and generally I am but there are those times that make my friends wish I still took the meds. And guess what I lied to get off them just as I could lie through any other mental health screening cause I know what they are listening for. It's not really that hard to do, I have been doing it for a long time in fact. Now I'm really not trying to be foolish here, I am trying to make a point: passing a mental health screening by no means garantees that a person is sane. I wouldn't want me to have a gun, that I can carry when ever I wanted to. Along the same lines I know people who have gone through the rigamorol to get a ccp in NY (no small task) and then proceed to carry the guns when they go out drinking. But if you think you're safer if you have a gun too, remember you have to survive the first shot to be able to shoot back...

So your idea has changed from what originally sounded like some kind of gun control scheme into making everyone sorta undercover cops.

Wonderful.

So why would it be so much safer then dave? I'm curious. I thought it was becase it would mean only sane, capable people would have guns, but that obviously isn't your point. So the idea is the nutters have guns, and the non nutters have guns, so basicly, everyone has and if someone starts shooting, you shoot back. Well fuck that sounds just wonderful, i've always wanted to see what it was like in the wild west. Cut the passive-agressive comments, too, i mean i'd call you a fucking moron for making them, but that would be counter productive.

I fail to see how it could be so "obvious" yet you have, yet again, misunderstood my position.

Yes, of course only sane, capable persons should have CCP's. And while this may be the case, insane and incapable persons are going to come across guns as well. Now, here's the fun part - they're doing that now anyway. Insane people get guns now if they want them.

So... if they are going to get them anyway... why, exactly, should we disarm those that are both sane and capable (and fully understand and appreciate the responsibility that carrying a firearm demands)?

I suggest you check your definition of passive-aggressive behavior. My comments may have been aggressive, but hardly passive-aggressive. Do you know what these big words mean, or do you just toss them around because you think you do?

Cut the fucking shit. You and I both know that licensing tests for the operation of motor vehicles are a <b>fucking JOKE</b>. Anyone can get a goddamned license. Answer a few common-sense questions, show that you can park a car without killing a baby and now you're legal to drive for the next five years.

Look, maybe you're just strong anti-gun at heart, but you know damned well that I wouldn't advocate some simple test every five years to "maintain" the "fitness" of someone to carry a firearm. Perhaps psychological evaluations would be a good place to start. Rigorous training in the use of a handgun. Government-issued handguns (that the citizen had to pay for, of course), so that it could be known when and where that gun was used (when coupled with a "fingerprinting" that would be done on every gun distributed, such that the authorities could easily match a fired bullet to a specific person).

You <b>know</b> that I'm talking about serious shit here, yet your defense is silly highschool rhetoric. Yes, you're right. The whole idea is bunk. Man, cops kill innocent people sometimes too. We should take guns away from them too! Of course!

Hey, here's a newsflash for everyone. Maybe this will help.

THE GUN CANNOT BE UN-INVENTED

Shittily enough, it is here to stay. Just like the NOO-KYOO-LAR bomb and biological weapons. They suck, and they should never have been invented, but they WERE and they're NOT GOING AWAY.

Now, what you're telling me is that, well hey, they should be removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Everyone, of course... but criminals give a fuck about laws? NO. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FUCKING CRIMINALS. THEY DO NOT GIVE TWO FUCKING SHITS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD NOT BE CRIMINALS.

Now. What is to deter them from attacking innocent people and doing as they please?

Yes, that makes about as much sense as the U.S. military disarming. No, that's not INVITING AN ATTACK.

Yeah, so Atticus Finch said "The easiest way to get shot is to carry a gun." Well, he forgot that "The easiest way to neutralize a rapist is to shoot him in the fucking head. And the easiest way to get raped is to have nothing to protect yourself when some escaped convict pulls a gun on you and orders you into his van."

This is fucking stupid, and here's why. I'm not going to convince you, because deep down, you are afraid of guns. It's not a rational thought, it is emotional. And it is not going to be changed. And you're not going to convince me, because your argument makes absolutely no fucking effort to present any type of valid point. It is all based on fear and a vague promise of some utopia that, in reality, will never exist because we don't have the power to undo such fuckups as the invention of the gun and the nuclear bomb and rape and murder.

Although I don't want to enter this argument for obvious reasons (despite assurances to the contrary, tempers are and will be riding high), I'd like to make two statements. Maybe it'll make some people think, maybe they are too tangential to the issue - make your own decision, as usual.

1. The genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle; gun ownership cannot be undone. Or can it? Britain outlawed all handguns and most rifles after a deranged man walked into an elementary school and indiscriminately shot about a dozen children about five years ago. There is some discussion whether gun-related crime has increased in the last few years, but it is certainly an incredible deterrent to 'random' gun-related murders and accidents.

The US isn't Britain, but to make a general statement that guns are here to stay is illogical: if there was a will, there'd be a way. The silent majority probably doesn't support giving any drug users in average higher jail sentences than rapists, but it happens anyway. Most people don't like the highway speed limits, but they are enforced anyway. Constitutional right or not - where there's a will, there is always a way. Freedom of speech is also a constitutional right, but it's being infringed upon and removed bit by bit as the pressure from authoritarians grows. (is the War on Drugs successful? Not really. Would a War on Guns ever be? Probably not; although - psychologically speaking - people want pleasure more than they need guns, the gun lobby is powerful enough to easily derail most anti-gun legislation)

2. If I am being attacked or robbed, with the assailant probably having to use a weapon in order to intimidate me (which is easily the most likely scenario if I was to be robbed), the attacker's default reaction if I were to go for a gun is to escalate the situation, and most likely either grievously injure me or kill me, in order to avoid getting shot himself. If I had a hip holster and publically displayed my guns, then maybe it would be a deterrent, since I could easily and quickly go for my gun. Maybe. But since the robber doesn't know for a fact that I am armed, he won't be deterred. Certainly, you can argue that robbery will descrease if everybody is armed, since most would-be robbers don't want to risk people pulling their guns, with the resulting consequences.

But that's nonsense. Theft and robbery will always exist, especially as a society's norms tend towards the violent and confrontational. If everybody was armed, robbery would become more violent, in order to forestall any retaliation. All that could be prevented would be an insignificant number of non-armed robberies. For a while. Until the escalation of violence would put citizens on the defensive, with no way of defending themselves.

Of course, I may be wrong, but guns seem on the most part to be a throwback to a society where violence escalation, not de-escalation, was the solution to its ills. The reality of everyday life may seem to demand protection, but should the solution not be in the enforcement of the social contract, rather than a throwback to an age where guns were necessary because they were the only realistic means of protection?

These days, it sometimes appears that guns are more a placebo, a comfort blanket providing protection from imaginary demons as much as real threats. There are quite possibly studies out there demonstrating that gun owners are more rarely the victim of robberies or violent crimes. Good for them.

But then I guess that every country in the world ought to have very short-range nuclear weapons as well. If another country abuses them, the neighbouring states can instantly destroy it.

What? You say that much evil can come of such weapons if placed in everybody's hands? You say that innocent people can be harmed by the actions of few?

I wonder what the shooting victims' families think of that.

X.

I really couldn't have said it better, X. I would like to add a few thoughts though.

I've seen the NRA try to use scare tactics a hundred times, but the most blatant was a recent report saying that mandatory waiting periods were inherently bad because they would not allow newly independent battered wives to protect themselves. (The press release degenerated from there into random and disgusting rhetoric that I don't feel like getting into.) What it doesn't say, though, is that these waiting periods are just as exclusionary toward the pissed off husband. It also doesn't consider the idea of a newly single woman who is completely clueless about a gun. Would it not be advantageous to train someone? Obviously, it would have to be a graduated program; first time gun buyers would go through something more intensive than someone with his third or fourth gun.

The other part of my idea is that a dramatic effort has to be made to convince people that there's no point in having guns. There are statistics to prove that most gun owners don't know how to use them, and that a significant percentage of robberies where the owner has a gun result in the owner's injury. The cat may be out of the bag, but that doesn't mean we can't skin it.

As a final note, I never used to care about guns. I had a boy's fascination with them in the "loud things that go boom" sense. But after having one held to my head, and having a slug's entry into the ceiling above me rain plaster onto my hair, and having another one enter the wall about an inch from my head, I cannot accept them as anything but tools of the weak to impose their disproportionate will on others. I may be a bit biased, but I am steadfast in that belief. If I could destroy every weapon on the planet, I would. I would dedicate my life to doing so. But in the meantime, I think the measures I described above are fair, and the only reason the NRA opposes it is the simple-minded fear of the slippery slope, as if everything was black and white.

I only see out of one eye because I got shot in the fucking face when I was 14.

Some<b>one</b> shot me. He used a gun in a wholly inappropriate manner and I paid the price. But it's not the gun's fault - it's his fault.

I sure as shit don't want that to happen again because I couldn't defend myself.

So there's my bias.

Sure. But how were you attacked? If you had a concealed firearm yourself, could you have prevented it? You say he used the gun inappropriately - how could 'everyone' having guns have prevented that?

The 'it's not the gun's fault' line is understandable, but perhaps misguided: Without the gun, it wouldn't have happened. He wouldn't have had a way of 'mishandling' anything to half-blind you from Lord knows how far away. (maybe he was standing next to you, I don't know) It's a lot more difficult (even accidentally) to kill, maim, or blind people without a gun. Sure, it can be a tool for good, but how often is it a tool for evil, even out of sheer negligence?

If everyone had guns, unless everyone had to undergo ridiculously stringent testing beforehand (which we know isn't going to happen), there would be more gun-related accidents, not less. Simply due to sheer numbers. More people would be injured. More people would abuse guns, use them in anger, use them when hit by an attack of anxiety or depression (often undiagnosed), or use them drunk.

More people would become victims. More people would lose their sight, or their lives.

X.

PS: I said what I had to say; going any further wouldn't sway anyone's opinion, and cause disagreement rather than consensus. I'll read, but I'll refrain from posting unless I consider something to be objectively wrong.

Yep, they've been using that line for quite a while.

Actually, some NRA writing on the subject addresses this point. They point out that an abusive husband is usually physically larger and stronger than the abusee. The person being abused is, as you later point out "weak" (in the physical sense), and might very well need a tool like a gun to impose her "disproportionate will" (to be left alone) on her abuser.

There's something which gets lost in all the 'training' propaganda put out mostly by anti-gunners, but also by well-meaning pro-gun people. And that's that the gun is a very simple machine to operate. Particularly a revolver, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to load a pistol either, or even load and cock a single-action pistol. And once that's taken care of, actually using the thing is just release safety (if applicable), point, and shoot.

There are? The figures I've seen show that resisting a robbery with a gun results in LESS injury than most other actions, including not resisting.

That's great. Impose a law. When things get WORSE instead of BETTER, tout the laws benefits ANYWAY.

Please read what I wrote, and get some information on the subject first before replying. The law was intended to stop 'random' murders. Britons very rarely carried guns for self-defense anyway, due to the CCP laws there. I mentioned that there is some "discussion" whether gun-related crimed increased or not. The correlation to individuals carrying weapons is completely unproven - Britons wouldn't normally pull out guns to defend themselves if mugged, anyway.

The laws benefits are obvious. Things didn't get 'worse'. That kind of uninformed attack is exactly why I'm not getting involved in this anymore.

I was trying to be fair by presenting all possible sides to the story. Live and learn, I guess.

X.

Laws preventing or restricting access to weapons affect only the law-abiding...to their great detriment, especially when confronting the lawless. Gun prohibition is no more effective than alcohol prohibition, or drug prohibition.

"Things" overall are indeed worse in the UK, and the accounts of people there being procecuted for defending themsleves against footpads and burgulars are apalling. When advocating a law you have to consider *all* consequences, not just the intended ones, before you can claim "things didn't get worse"...that's not "fairness", it's tunnel vision.

Yes guns are simple to operate, but that isn't the point of training, training should give people a healthy respect for guns. Every hunter that handles a firearm takes a hunters safety class. They are trained on not only how to use a gun, but also how to clean it, keep it from firing, the differences between different guns, and how not to handle a gun. There is much more to training, then just teaching someone how to pull a trigger, everyone who has ever watched TV can figure out how to shoot a gun.

Stop ranting dave, it jsut undermines your point.
How would you define passive-agressive? Generally i've seen it defined as a roundabout or indirect way of being agressive, but in a way that seems agreeable. Meh i used the term very loosely i agree. I'm not getting into this thread, its a waste of time.

I'd have to second Cam's thoughts here. I hate to use the car analogy, but it is appropriate - anyone can get behind a wheel and steer, but it takes training to figure out the rules of the road. Obviously, it would be pointless to require extensive training for someone's 35th firearm. It is the duty of government to protect its citizens from itself and each other. I think this is the appropriate medium.

And Rusotto...

The weak, in the case mentioned above, is the abusive husband, who is more likely to take up a gun in the first place simply because of psychology. It is the weak who must use a deadly weapon to enforce his/her will. It is not weak to respond as such. So, by that logic, it is the husband who is the weaker, and who can very easily run to the local Guns'R'Us in a blind rage. I really fail to see any plus side to not having mandatory waiting periods - but that's just me. Go ahead and try to convince me. I'm willing to listen.

[quote]Originally posted by hermit22

And Rusotto...

The weak, in the case mentioned above, is the abusive husband, who is more likely to take up a gun in the first place simply because of psychology. It is the weak who must use a deadly weapon to enforce his/her will.


You're using a strange meaning of the term "weak". I'm 5' 7" and 150 pounds. Fact is, should I choose to be abusive to e.g. a 5' 2" 110 pound woman, all other things being equal, I'm not going to NEED to use a gun to impose my will upon her. By the same token, a 6' 220 pound musclebound ex-con robber won't need a gun to impose his will on me. So yes, it's the weak who must use guns to enforce his or her will -- but that's "weak" in the physical sense, not in the pejorative one you're using.

What the heck do you mean you don't have the means to shoot back ... YOU?????

Actually, gun control is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Everyone in DC proper (okay, I'm exaggerating) is carrying a gun. Illegally. They have the highest murder rate in the country still, I believe. (too lazy/busy to look up stats at the moment. I'm at work, in between patients).

Allowing legal concealed carry has the effect of having the murder and crime rates to DROP.

Chicago's got highest murder rate.

I know, I know. Correlation does not imply causality, but ...

Illinois is an extremely restrictive state with respect to gun ownership and concealed carry.

Only the "bad guys" got guns there.

'sallgood. I just toss out facts whenever it looks like they could be used. My memory for numbers is particularly good, so I tend to remember things like murder rates, muslim populations, etc.

Yes. Me. I live near Baltimore now.

Grumble mumble communist politicians mumble grumble

Brian

...from

http://www.northbridgetraining.com/b...ct_sheets.html

<h3>Beltway Killer Attacks - Firearms Fact Sheet</h3><p>Much of the reporting on the Beltway Killer has contained numerous technical inaccuracies regarding firearms. While primarily due to the reporter's unfamiliarity with firearms rather than any intended bias, certain inaccuracies lead to inadvertent but serious distortions of the story. For example, media articles often report the killer as striking from a long distance using a high-powered assault rifle. In fact, the killer appears to be striking from a very short distance using a low-powered common rifle. In an effort to clarify some of the unfamiliar aspects of firearms and assist in accurate reporting that best serves the public, we have prepared this media fact sheet.

<h4>FACTS ABOUT THE WEAPON USED AND SHOOTING TECHNIQUE</h4><p>THE ROUND
<p>Ballistic information has apparently led the police to believe the killer is using a .223 caliber cartridge (5.56mm in metric), which is commonly used in rifles - although it is also used in some large handguns. All rifle cartridges are more powerful than smaller handgun rounds. However, the .223 is not a high-powered cartridge - rather it is the lowest power cartridge in large-scale commercial use. By comparison, the 30-06 (pronounced "thirty aught six") cartridge, the round fired by the rifle Sarah Brady bought her son for Christmas of 2000 (described in her book "A Good Fight"), is over twice as powerful and can penetrate approximately 18" of oak. The .223 is used primarily to hunt small (rabbit-sized) game and is illegal for hunting large animals in many states because it is not sufficiently lethal to reliably kill the game. <p>The United States military uses the military equivalent, the 5.56mm round, in its rifles. Our military chose this round specifically to wound, rather than kill, an enemy - wounded soldiers require care that consumes an enemy's battlefield resources. The Beltway killer is so lethal because he or she is shooting at close range, not because he or she is using a large round.
<p>THE RANGES
<p>The killer appears to be shooting from 30-150 yards (essentially, across a parking lot). While long for small handgun range, this distance is very short for rifle shooting. Military snipers usually shoot from 300 to 1000 yards. Rifle enthusiasts usually shoot around 200 yards and up. Police snipers, who shoot at much shorter distances, are the only group of trained shooters who regularly shoot rifles in the 100-150 yard range. A competent instructor can teach any previously untrained reporter to make shots similar to those the killer is making with an hour of instruction - see this story on Fox News in which reporter Alisyn Camerota, who has never fired a rifle before, makes a head shot at 25 yards on her first shot before receiving any instruction whatsoever:<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65868,00.html">
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65868,00.html</a>.
<p>THE WEAPON
<p>The killer's weapon is often described as possibly being an "assault rifle". However, it is highly unlikely that the killer has access to an actual assault rifle. An assault rifle is a military rifle capable of firing more than one round when the trigger is pulled - essentially a light machine gun. What the media often terms "assault rifles" are the semi-automatic commercial versions of military rifles. Like all other semi-automatic rifles, they fire one round every time the trigger is pulled. They may look like assault rifles, sometimes prompting the designation "assault style rifle", but there is no mechanical difference between a semi-automatic rifle with "assault style" cosmetic features and a semiautomatic hunting rifle. The correct designation for such a rifle, regardless of what it looks like, is a "semi-automatic rifle".
<p>Further, there is no indication that the killer is using a semi-automatic rifle. Bolt-action and single-shot rifles in .223 caliber are readily available and more common, and the killer has to this point never fired more than one round.
<p>Also, several long pistols fire the same round, also accept telescopic sights, and would produce similar results at the short ranges the killer is striking at.

<h4>FACTS ABOUT THE KILLER'S SKILL AND "SNIPERS"</h4><p>The killer's shooting skill is not unusually good. Shooting from a prepared position with a rifle, almost anyone who has had basic instruction can accurately hit a target at the short ranges the killer strikes from. However, the killer's skill at planning the attacks, hiding the weapon, and escaping without notice are unusual and it is these skills that make him or her such a fearsome criminal. <p>Real military and police snipers, who shoot for a living, are highly offended to be associated with the Beltway area killer. Actual trained snipers belong to a highly skilled subset of shooters and are capable of much more demanding shooting than the Beltway killers have used. Like black belt martial artists, they have invested great effort to acquire great power, and their ability is tempered with great responsibility. Military and police snipers shoot as a last resort to save the lives of innocent civilians or the soldiers behind them, not to wreak terror. They find referring to the Beltway area killer(s) as a "sniper" to be as offensive as referring to the September 11th hijackers as "pilots". <p>For reference, see the CNN article "Real snipers resent D.C. shooter": <a
href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/14/snipers.mind.ap/index.html">
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/....ap/index.html</a>

<h4>THE BELTWAY KILLER AND DEFENSIVE USE OF GUNS</h4><p>Nancy Hwa of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (recently renamed from Handgun Control, Inc.) has responded to the Beltway killer by claiming "This shows that carrying a gun doesn't make you safer." (MSNBC article,
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/819677.asp?0bl=-0">
http://www.msnbc.com/news/819677.asp?0bl=-0)</a>. There are several problems with this statement. Obviously, the beltway murders are an extremely rare type of crime that is not indicative of the common crimes people generally face, where defensive handguns can effectively end the crime. However, while
the initial victim of the Beltway shootings has no chance to defend his or herself and would not be helped by carrying a gun, these shootings take place at close range in suburban areas where there are often people around who can respond. A recent eyewitness claims to have seen the killer flee. Had the shootings taken place in a city where more citizens commonly carry
lawfully concealed firearms, such as Dallas, the killer would be less likely to be able to escape without return fire. At the short ranges that the killer strikes at, a lawfully armed citizen could realistically hit the killer with a handgun. <p>Armed citizens do regularly stop serial criminals - for example, in
Pittsburgh a woman recently shot a serial rapist who had terrorized the city with 6 prior attacks over a two week period
(<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021015arrest1015p1.asp">
http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_ci...rest1015p1.asp</a>). Armed citizens have even prevented terrorist attacks with explosives (see
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2002/06/17/ncguest2.htm">
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment...7/ncguest2.htm</a> for a description of an attack where an Israeli woman shot a supermarket bomber before he could detonate his bombs).
The Beltway killer has chosen to attack in an area with strict gun control, possibly to minimize the threat to his or her person.
<h4>ABOUT THE KILLER(S)</h4><p>We do not know if there is one killer or several, but police theorize that the killer(s) work in teams, with one shooter and one driver, who may change roles. We are not sure about the killer's gender (one eyewitness account has mentioned one male, but little information is available). We do not know the killer's ethnicity, national origin, or motivation. Even the ballistic evidence about the round may be incorrect, as the killer may be intentionally planting evidence from firearms not involved in the crime. This would give the killer the ability to use the police's ballistic imagery against them to beat court charges by raising reasonable doubt as to whether the firearm used in the crimes was really connected with the killer.

[b]And that's my whole point. Guns offer a sense of power that no person should have the right to wield: the power of life and death over another person. So, in a theoretical world, those tools should be taken away - because, all rhetoric aside, the guns and the bullets fired from them enable the gun-related murder. Several European states were able to remove guns from the civilian population, but, unfortunately, that would never work here. In the meantime, measures to prevent misuse are the only option we have. The people who complain that their rights are being trampled on because they can't walk around downtown with the gun they just bought are simply whining, weak people. maggie, your post noted that the Beltway is one of the areas that isn't so hot on concealed weapons. Do you really want the DC police to not be able to prosecute for carrying a gun near a presidential motorcade? Or someone who sees a senator they don't like in a local bar? Legalizing the universal use of concealed weapons is directly related to such crime. There are just as many statistics to prove this as there are statistics to prove otherwise. Since statistics then, are an invalid argument, we're all building our arguments on normative analysis. As such, I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me.

Please cite these sources which <I>prove</I> universal concealed weapons are <I>directly</I> related to the crimes you mention.

As soon as you cite the statistics that show otherwise. You said it first. :)

Actually, I haven't done research on it in a few years, although I'll look back into it if I get a chance. It's awfully hard to find unbiased statistics on the matter.

It's so simple why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
 

Put out a can of Sniper Food. My Sniper likes beef and cheese flavor.

Call out "Here Sniper, Sniper, Sniper! Come and get it!"

Go back in the house.

Works every time...

Actually, my buddy Kenny says that the numbers are the only thing both sides <b>can</b> agree on. The trouble is reading them without reading the spin.

PA/NMTA...
 

...except this: the rifle is probably not suppressed, but is merely being fired from inside a sizeable metal box: the van. This distorts and rather muffles the shot and makes it difficult to get a fix on exactly where the shot was fired. Compound the mischief with echoes of the report and the sonic "crack" of the supersonic bullet's passage all bouncing off various concrete surfaces and you've really got a tangle of stimuli to sort out. This guy is a middling good shot with a real knack for getting away fast and subtle. No wonder he's giving us a pain.

When everyone gives up their muscles, their fists, their feet, then I'll consider this. Until then, it's ridiculous.

Re: PA/NMTA...
 

If he's firing an unsuppressed rifle inside a van, we know one important thing about him: He's deaf.

Re: Re: PA/NMTA...
 

From a .223? I doubt it.

I dunno. I used to shoot my .22 in my basement (against a big stack of phonebooks, which always did a good job stopping the bullets) and it was pretty fuckin' loud, even for a basement. If it's a relatively empty van (not shielded to absorb noise, as it may be), then I can imagine the sound being pretty substantial. Also consider that a .223 packs a much larger charge than a .22, so it's a fair bit louder.

I haven't shot a .223 in my basement or anything, but I'm guessing that in an enclosed space, it will definitely make your ears ring.

You said that there are statistics "proving" that there is a "direct" relationship between the two. My point is that there is no <B>proof</B> that concealed-carry laws <B>directly</B> relate to crime.

There may be data that <B>supports</B> an <B>indirect</B> relationship, but if a direct relationship had indeed been proven, as you suggest, then this debate would pretty much be over.

If this guy's going so far as to plan his escape route and attack location so far in advance, don't you think he'd bring a set of ear plugs if he's shooting from inside the van?

And now you see the fallacy in the NRA argument. Thank you for falling into the trap.

NRA Fallacy? News to people who know guns
 

Uh, Hermit, there's a fallacy? Actually, it is pretty well proven, and would be even better proven if eighteen states wised up and liberalized their concealed-carry laws. The experience of all of the 32 states in the Union that have reworked their concealed carry of weapon (CCW) laws from "authorities may issue" to "authorities shall issue" CCW permits to all who meet the qualifications, which are mostly knowing when to shoot and when not to, is that crime goes down and stays down, for now there is a greater degree of "criminal control" being exerted, day to day. You are just plain safer when you yourself can dispose of deadly threats to your life, health, and property, then and there. Owning and carrying guns works for thoughtful people.

The gun-restrictors immediately raise the specter of the thoughtless and the certifiable wielding deadly force. What the restrictors avoid understanding (frequently moving heaven and earth to avoid understanding, to the regretful head-wagging of the knowledgeable) is that the very same properties that allow arms to serve the evil are the properties that allow arms to serve the good. An evil man wielding deadly force is not a big problemif and only if the good people have deadly force with which to reply. Problems tend to crop up only when the good folks can't avail themselves of the tools needed to solve that kind of emergency. We must retain the option of deadly force to cope with this end of the spectrum of trouble. What makes this a big deal is that at this extremity, deadly force is the only thing that will bring the desired outcome: the saving of innocent life. If we do not have this option for this extremity, than we aren't doing all we could be to save the lives of innocents. Now does that sound like the sane or the righteous way to go? -- I didn't think so, either.

Gun-restrictors, official or un-, it's really time for you to get the hell out of our way. We can save you; you can't save us, thanks to the demonstrable criminal determination to do wrong even unto mass murder. Stop biting the hand that saves you (and where do you come off being that resentful, anyway?); indeed, the morally superior path is to become one of the saviors, is it not, all things considered? We have that ambition, and you can too -- we've not used it all up.

The problem with all of that is even good people do bad things. You are using a flawed methodology : people are good or bad, no in between, and the good need guns to protect themselves from the bad. This is discounting the police and thousands of years of human nature that shows almost no one is strictly good or bad.

And finally, with the statistics - no, there is no such proof. There has been opposite proof released as well, it's just not shouted as loudly as the well-funded NRA shouts their proof. Why do you think that, despite all of the NRA's blustering, we still have gun control laws, and more are coming on the books? Statistics can be manipulated in any way, but sometimes people actually see past that.

I know I don't want to live in a world where anyone can carry a concealed weapon. That right should be reserved only to the few who need it. The average Joe walking around the IE doesn't need a glock in his belt, and I suspect the same applies most everywhere there is a large concentration of people.