How to get the sniper

[hermit22]

[b]

Originally posted by hermit22

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.

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.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by hermit22
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.

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

[hermit22]

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.

[Nothing But Net]

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

...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.

[russotto]

Originally posted by hermit22


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.

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

[russotto]

Originally posted by Urbane Guerrilla
...except this: the rifle is probably not suppressed, but is merely being fired from inside a sizeable metal box: the van.

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

[That Guy]

Originally posted by russotto


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

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.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by hermit22
As soon as you cite the statistics that show otherwise. You said it first.

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.

[That Guy]

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?

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

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.

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

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally posted by hermit22


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

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.

[hermit22]

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.