The Maryland Sniper

[Inkthinker]

Man, this is starting to sound like the plot from a bad movie... or dare I suggest, a comic book. Espescially this latest tidbit about a message on a Tarot card...

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20021009/D7MI1SPG1.html

This is scary stuff... I worry that other whackos are getting a copycat idea as the police prove how damn difficult it is to catch a sniper who doesn't stay on the proverbial water-tower...

[Beastie]

Originally posted by Inkthinker
Man, this is starting to sound like the plot from a bad movie... or dare I suggest, a comic book.

Thats exactly what I was thinking.

Its sick - but somehow feels familiar - simply because its like a story I'd read in a comic.

I hope he gets caught soon.

[in4pain]

Having two kids of my own this is making me sick. My heart goes out to the parents and kids who have lost loved ones. My biggest fear in life is that my kids will get hurt. This is truly a sad thing. I know when i look into my child's eyes my love for them cant be expressed with words. :confused:

[red7ine]

can't wait till they find this moron, just to see what this piece-of-trash with a god complex comes up with as an excuse. Then to see what soulless, dirtbag lawyer represents him.

I don't think there is any punishment or torture that would be excessive in this case.

vaught

ps: my money is on one of the following profiles-

1) male, mid twenties, white, college dropout loser
or

2) middle aged, white male, some military experience, midlife crisis-type deal

[Inkthinker]

Most people are banking onthe second. Military experience of some sort seems like a good bet, since he's not making any mistakes so far, that we know of.

Too movie-like... *shudder*

I doubt this guy will make it to trial. Either he gets popped upon capture, or someone decides that it's poetic for him to get shot from a distance himself...

[wadew]

the pansy will probably kill himself before they catch him(her?).
.......but the longer this person gets away with this crap, the more likely it is that some other asshole will copy him/her.

[red7ine]

Originally posted by wadew
the pansy will probably kill himself before they catch him(her?).
.......but the longer this person gets away with this crap, the more likely it is that some other asshole will copy him/her.

i agree, but i'd bet dollars to Krispy Kremes that it's a dude.


vaught

[Joel Harris]

I agree that he's most likely going to die, either by his own hand or by "cop-i-cide" before he's captured. Seems too good for him, doesn't it?

[harmonix]

The strange thing is that there is a movie called "Phone Booth" that has an almost eerie similarity to this whole situation.

Phone booth trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/phone_booth/)

[red7ine]

actually, if you are comparing real life events to movies, I'd say it's closer to 'Ernest Saves Christmas'

knowwuddimean?

vaught

[Jedmo9000]

This scares the crap out of me simply because it's happening in the metro dc area which is where I live. I leave for college and all this starts up. My family and everyone I love is still there. It's freaking me out. :(

[Paul M.]

When they find him they should set up some really ****ed up kind of torture for the guy. Like let him take it up the ass by a horse or something then show it on HBO. It can be like a special. Have him sit in a chair and let Mike Tyson punch him in the nose. Stuff like that...:mad:

[dfbovey]

My Grandfather lives 5 blocks away from the dude that got shot while doing yard work. He is out in the yard all the time himself and it just as easily could have been him.

They better catch this prick soon.

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by paulfresh
When they find him they should set up some really ****ed up kind of torture for the guy. Like let him take it up the ass by a horse or something then show it on HBO. It can be like a special. Have him sit in a chair and let Mike Tyson punch him in the nose. Stuff like that...:mad:
yeah... some kind of new age Code of Hammurabi. Our justice system can be way to soft on some of these fools who just go way too far.

[in4pain]

was the guy aiming for the kid though? one of the people was a thirteen year old kid. was this jackhole going after the kids or was it a wrong place wrong time type of thing?

[MC Fumunda]

i dunno. he's being random, and hitting all bases, young...old...male...female...

i think the child getting shot was completely intentional, which is the sickest part.

i know its been said a thousand times, but this is sooooo hollywood. that's the creepiest part. especially with the card. that's like red dragon kinda shit.

i know we're all writing the end of this "movie" for ourselves, but i'm going with Inkthinker's "poetic" approach.

[dfbovey]

He/she purposefully went out and shot a kid because the media had made a big deal that it was safe for kids to go to school after the initial wave of shootings.

Who ever is doing it is definately a sick loon.

[FIG]

Whatever the case you can bet that when they catch this person because they will catch him/her there will be some serious police brutality involved because he's been killing innocent people left and right?! This person is a coward.

[...o...k....]

These kind of people live on the excitment that they are tormenting those who are seeking them. He will keep doing what he is doing, getting more and more advantageous in the process. He will make a mistake eventually. Hopefully soon.

[Kingsley]

yeah and I live 20 minutes away from this psycho shooting people. Our school is on lockdown every day.

[in4pain]

kids why the kids? some thing are just off limits, for a real man anyhow. you just don't hurt kids. he/she will pay. one way or another they will pay.

[Bruce]

Moments ago on CNN.com

Police investigating shooting death at gas station in Manassas, Virginia, as possibly linked to sniper attacks. Details to come.

[InkDrop]

Today I went out on my bike and this sniper crap popped into my head. I started thinking about how easy it would really be. It was frightening. I'm starting to worry now that copy cats are gonna spring up in another couple weeks. Remember the school shooting craze after Columbine. Man it makes me sick.

[soulsyfn]

I am thinking this smells of terrorism, the shooter/shooters are diffeniately using terror tactics and covering a lot of ages and both sexes letting everyone know that know one is safe.

Just my opinion - but i wouldnt be surprised to see an arrest on this sniper and finding out it was a terrorist.

:rolleyes:

[Inkthinker]

And another this morning... 9:30 AM in Spottsylvania, Va.

It does seem as though he's targeting gas stations a lot, huh?

Although that may just be becasue people standing there, filling their tanks, make super-easy targets.

[Klawzie]

I would think that anyone is 'off limits for a real man', whether they're a child or not...

If he wants to be a sniper, he should join the military and go shoot at badguys who know the rules. Not school children, or housewives, or postal workers or whatever.

Why does it feel like half the world is going crazy and trying to take the rest of us with them? :P

[Jedmo9000]

i dont know about you guys but I'm a little bit disgusted by how much this is getting sensationalized in the media. The guy seems to be driven by the fame aspect of it and the journalists arent sensative to that at all. They just want the ratings so its like 24-hour sniper coverage. Its not very responsible of them in my opinion.

[Inkthinker]

That's the news media for you. They're like a pack of rabid, starving piranha...

I should know, the entertainment media business ain't much different.

[Klawzie]

You'd be surprised and sickened by how bad the news media really is. I'm studying Mass Communcations for my degree, which means I take a lot of journalism classes where the teachers tell us and show us (via doccumentaries and such) how bad it really is. It's absolutely horrible.

Then again, I've had a major grudge against the media ever since they video taped my family and I in our grief-stricken shock leaving the airport restraunt they cornered us in when my grandmother died in a plane crash. After, of course, they agreed not to tape us at all.

Insert two bitter cents.

[Logan]

i say if you're gonna go crazy and pop people, you should pull a boondock saints deal and blow away the people who really deserve it. It's kind of suprising actually, that i've never heard of any guys doing stuff like that. It seems like all they'e interested in are innocent people

[mwhite]

I don't think you can automatically just assume this guy was with the military. Honestly, I could make those shots with my dad's deer rifle and I'm not even that good of a shot. Too me, that's what is the most disturbing about it. It could be anybody.

Only a few(?) were head shots. The rest were mainly body shots. That's a lot of area to aim at. And most of them were only from like a 100 yards.

Another thing I heard mentioned was the ammo. He/she is using ammo "designed to wound people on a battlefiled" - rather than kill them. If he had chosen the type of ammo snipers normally use all those people would be dead - there wouldn't be anyone in the hospital.

[Pep]

a liberal stance against guns and arms is a wonderful thing at such times as these, don't you think?
people can find weapons on the internet, the street, where ever. Maybe plan a bomb and stick it somewhere - perhaps a shopping mall center in Helsinki just like last night (although I hope they are right about the explosion just being a gas container explosion and not an attempt at terrorism.)
I'm just waiting for the next kid who suddenly gets an idea to pop some of his teachers/bullies/classmates or the next soldier back from the war who can't tell battle from the every day life he used to live or just your average psycho with no inhibitions at all.

[Logan]

i think your post is kind of naive pep. i'm not tying to piss you off, but getting rid of guns is silly. we live in a scary world right now. the line between govenments and corporations grows more and more blurry everyday. Life outside of america is very dangerous and not very pretty at all. because we are so sheltered, americans foster the illusion that everything is wonderful, and that we live in a happy and progressive time. this is just an opinion, of course and not everyone shares it, but i'm glad we have guns. without them citizens wouldn't be able to fight back, ever. after the guns get taken away, what's next? other civil liberties are disappearing as we speak all in the name of "safety." call me jaded but i think there is no such thing as safety. anyone can die, anywhere, at any time for any number of reasons. all this talk about homeland security justifying the loss of my civil liberites seems like an excuse to screw over americans step by step. besides, murder has always been around. taking guns away won't solve anything. all that will happen is that criminals will possess all the weapons and imagine the crime sprees we'll see then. i think the answer isn't stricter gun regulations, but instead people actually caring about each other enough so that bastards like this sniper guy never get disenfranchised enough to go on a rampage. to quote bigot and racist archie bunker "Would it make ya feel any betta if dey was pusht outta windas??" ;bat; guns are not the issue. they just facilitate long distance murder. it could just as easily be a cross bow or a plane full of fuel.

[mwhite]

Originally posted by Pep
a liberal stance against guns and arms is a wonderful thing at such times as these, don't you think?
people can find weapons on the internet, the street, where ever. Maybe plan a bomb and stick it somewhere - perhaps a shopping mall center in Helsinki just like last night (although I hope they are right about the explosion just being a gas container explosion and not an attempt at terrorism.)
I'm just waiting for the next kid who suddenly gets an idea to pop some of his teachers/bullies/classmates or the next soldier back from the war who can't tell battle from the every day life he used to live or just your average psycho with no inhibitions at all.


It's easy to talk about things like 'gun control' in the abstract. Liberalism is perfectly rational and reasonable in the abstarct. In an ideal world liberal philosophy would be the order of the day, but it's not - this is the real world. In the real world things that are morally right can't always be achieved on the strength of their own virtue. I wish they could be, but they can't. In the real world everyone is not rational. There is poverty. There is crime. There is disease. There is greed. There is need. All these things motivate irrational thought. Irrational thought motivates irrational action.

If we ban the sale and manufacturing of guns for domestic use, they will still find their way to criminals - the people we want to discourage from having them. It's hard to close Pandora's box. Guns are on American streets. They're not going away. If we try to take them away the only people we'll be taking them away from are the people who might actually find them of use within the paramaters of established law - people who buy guns for self-defense, target shooting, hunting, etc. We'd also cripple a vital part of American industry. People would lose jobs. People would lose money. Loss of jobs & money = more poverty, disease, crime, etc. The cycle would start all over again. We'd create a breeding ground for new criminals to go along with all our old criminals.

In my mind, the best way to successfully curb the negative use of firearms - within the realm of reason, while still maintaining the individual rights of gun buyers & sellers, is to have a federally mandated screening process that is strongly enforced. That means background checks, waiting periods, etc. That means creating a database of firearms owners & firearms. That means 'fingerprinting' bullets. And doing ALL of that on a federal level - not just a state-by-sate level. But, even that's not all going to happen - that's reality. In some states a few (not all) of those things are already being done with some success.

BTW - just to be clear, what exactly is it you consider a liberal stance against guns & arms, Pep?

[DeForgeo]

If we ban the sale and manufacturing of guns for domestic use, they will still find their way to criminals - the people we want to discourage from having them. It's hard to close Pandora's box.

Just so ya know, Canada, Australia and most of Europe have all outlawed guns. . . And while criminals still find a way to get their hands on weapons, the amount of gun-related deaths is significantly lower than America's.

[Logan]

yea, but there was a huge increase in bludgeonings, knifings and vehicular manslaughter. not too mention criminals suddenly found themselves in heaven when cops with ****ing billy clubs asked them politely to stop robbing banks...;bat;

[DrVictorVonDoom]

Originally posted by Logan
yea, but there was a huge increase in bludgeonings, knifings and vehicular manslaughter. not too mention criminals suddenly found themselves in heaven when cops with ****ing billy clubs asked them politely to stop robbing banks...;bat;
So because there's going to be violence anyway, it's better to have it be gun-related violence than non-gun-related violence? If I'm going to be attacked, I'd certainly prefer to be attacked by someone wielding a weapon I could combat rather than one which could blow a hole in my head if I make a wrong move.

And I've no idea what you mean by that second sentence.

[Jedmo9000]

uh guys, this post is supposed to be about the current sniper shootings in the Washington DC metro area. Not the morality of gun ownership. Just a thought.

[HMG]

Guns are easy option killing tools, most other methods of killing require more effort and in some cases the victim can fight their way out of fatal damage.

What can you say about the sniper except that it's not a good thing, and keep a look out for that white van. the Sniper himself is not a debatable subject.

[DeForgeo]

yea, but there was a huge increase in bludgeonings, knifings and vehicular manslaughter. not too mention criminals suddenly found themselves in heaven when cops with ****ing billy clubs asked them politely to stop robbing banks...

Doom already summed up most of my thoughts, but I'd also like to point out that gun-free countries aren't full of rampant crime sprees or anything. It's not like police are completely helpless against criminals.

[mwhite]

I know about the policies of Canada, & Australia towards guns. But, Canada is not America. Australia is not America. They are not the same size (people per square mile). Both those countries are rather sparsely populated - and have strong ties to Britain & America - their proverbial big brothers.

They have some of the same western sensibilities, but their cultures are different. Their laws are different. Their political climates and popular sensibilities are different. Their economic situations are different. Their histories are different.

They do not have the same responsibilities. We are a superpower. Like it or not, the world depends on our economic strength - our stability. By removing one of the most revenue-generating elements of our economy, we would place that stability in jeopardy.

They are not the number one importer and exporter of arms - we are. For better or worse, that is the reality. People's jobs and livelihoods are tied into that industry. That's the reality. It's easy to just simplify things into terms of good & bad and right and wrong. But, it's a lot harder to tell someone that they don't have a job anymore - that they cannot put their children through school anymore.

Beyond all that, once you get a certain size - it becomes a lot harder to effect change expeditiously - especially in democratic societies. It usually takes some polarizing event to effect quick change - like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Some collective horror that knocks us out of our isolation from the system and the world at large. I don't think that the Maryland Sniper is that.

That's my 2000 cents.

--Marc

Edit: Typos are evil.

[Inkthinker]

Interesting update...

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20021015/D7MM46FG1.html

The latest victim (that makes 9 dead, now) was an analyst for the FBI.

Man if they weren't throwing all of their efforts into this before, they sure as hell will be now... They are going to run his ass into the ground.

[Dash Martin]

I bet ya anything these guys are video taping each attack with plans to sell em online. Some people are just plain sick.

[UncleForker]

I think gun control really is the answer here, after all, who can dispute these facts:


1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Rosie O'Donnell, Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc., etc.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you.

[Jedmo9000]

Yeah its personal for the FBI now isnt it. Odds are that he didnt know who he was shooting. Man this is hitting closer and closer to home. I live in Fairfax County. I guess that I can take some comfort in the fact that even more resources are now going to be thrown into this investigation.

[harmonix]

As a Canadian that has lived in the States for over 8 years, I can say that there are more similarities between the two counties than differences. There are two big differences thought. For the most part I think Canada has an identity crisis. We seem to be way to heavily influenced by what the US and Britain thinks (often this is by taking the opposite view of both to prove we’re different). When it comes to the States, it’s defiantly it’s love for guns. I just don’t get it. I think it has a lot to do with the history of the country and the glory of it’s past wars.

Most of my buddies have guns. When I asked them why them felt the need to own guns, they said to protect themselves and their family. This cracked me up considering we live in a town in Utah that has only one murder a year (and it’s always solved).

If for some reason I feel that my family is in danger for their lives where I live, I'll freaking move. Why in heavens name a person would bring a deadly weapon into their home when the stats say that there is a better chance that a family member will be hurt then an invader, is beyond me.

Never the less, this is the movie that everyone should see, on both sides of the fence.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/mgm/bowling_for_columbine/

[UncleForker]

Originally posted by harmonix
Why in heavens name a person would bring a deadly weapon into their home when the stats say that there is a better chance that a family member will be hurt then an invader, is beyond me.


Looks like you didn't do your home work on that one.

Firearms are used far more often to stop crimes than to commit them. In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder.

The 43:1 claim is derived from a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington. Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county, and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-firearm groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study, or how the ratio was derived.

To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide. Survey research by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, of Florida State University, has shown that firearms are used for protection against criminals as many as 2.5 million times annually. This is three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with firearms annually.

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by anti-firearm activist groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."

While the 43:1 claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 54% of firearm-related deaths are suicides. Gun control advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses.

In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann has continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.

This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing their work, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted that: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."

[Inkthinker]

Damn, dude... admit it, you sleep with your gun, don't you?

[thespian]

Firearms are used far more often to stop crimes than to commit them.

Tell that to the 9 dead people in Maryland.
Look, you can pull up all the stats you want, make lists and quote reports, but I can only tell you this. If I ever have to go up against a criminal, I'd feel better knowing that he is less likely to have a gun, because the laws of the land make it harder for him to get one. Yes people get beaten to death by bare hands all the time, but the reality is that takes some motivation. You have to want to beat that person to death. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger in a fit of anger or under the influence of a drug, than it is to kill someone by other means. You usually have to be pretty committed to the act of killing if it's hard to do. Guns are like a lot of other things in our instant gratification society - effort reduction devices. So yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people - those same people who might have thought twice about committing the act if it took more effort...

[penciljack]

If I ever have to go up against a criminal, I'd feel better knowing that he is less likely to have a gun, because the laws of the land make it harder for him to get one.
I'm really gonna stay out of this, but I just have to ask, Shawn - the laws in this country already make it "difficult" for a criminal to get a gun. If a criminal type is already ignoring the laws we already have, why would he or she obey new laws?

[Ra Havok]

fact of the matter is that criminals will get their hands on fireweopans, regardless of how severe laws are.

BUT 'normal' people -like the two kids at the columbine shooting- , who are also responsible for a serious percentage of the murders, wouldn't be able to go out shooting people so easily.
Just think about passion murders .

Women cheats on man, man finds out, man has gun, man shoots wife.

It's easier to shoot someone than to strangle her , for example.



PS, I hope this sniper dude gets found REAL soon. Every psychopath in this world is one too much.

[Paul M.]

*stays out of this thread*

[DeForgeo]

BUT 'normal' people -like the two kids at the columbine shooting- , who are also responsible for a serious percentage of the murders, wouldn't be able to go out shooting people so easily.
Just think about passion murders .

Women cheats on man, man finds out, man has gun, man shoots wife.

It's easier to shoot someone than to strangle her , for example.

Bingo. Sure, criminals are always going to find ways to get firearms. . .

But shouldn't we do something about the 10-year-old kid who steals one from his dad's closet?

(And with that, I'm outta here. I'll stick with "Anna Nicole is fat," threads thank you very much.)

[penciljack]

But what are you going to do about it?

I think what 'Forker is saying is that these instances where a kid steals guns from a parent, etc. are in the unbelievably vast minority of gun cases.

And the points 'Forker made about guns being used to prevent crimes is a good one. I don't understand why everyone seems to gloss over that point. Well, I do, but I wish they didn't.

[DrVictorVonDoom]

Originally Posted by Uncle Forker 1................................................. ...........................40.
AHAHAHAHAHA

I love how you show up only every so often, but whenever you do you bring elaborate lists of facts to back up your opinions.

[anim82000]

Originally posted by DrVictorVonDoom

AHAHAHAHAHA

I love how you show up only every so often, but whenever you do you bring elaborate lists of facts to back up your opinions.


Yeah,

I like number 27 the most. :D

[SifuHall]

I agree. Let's make guns illegal.

With any luck they will be just as hard to get as illegal drugs.

[Inkthinker]

Originally posted by penciljack

I think what 'Forker is saying is that these instances where a kid steals guns from a parent, etc. are in the unbelievably vast minority of gun cases.



And this can be largely laid at the feet of irresponsible, generally stupid parents.

[Logan]

maybe i'm the exception to the rule, but i got my first bb gun at six. my dad took me out all the time, and never failed to remind me how dangerous it was. at 10 i uprgraded to my first .22, after four years of practice with the bb. I have my own gun case, and it locks up tighter than shit. I got the only key, and after years of enjoying my guns, i have a small but neat collection. some are well over 200 years old, and have been in the family for years. now, why should someone come take my grandfather's rifle out of my house and melt it down? there are millions of responsible users out there who find themselves in the same situation, where suddenly they have to defend themselves. I only use my guns for target shooting and competitions at my local shooting range (amanoosic fish and game club). guys like me shouldn't have to give up prized family heirlooms just because a few people abuse them. besides, i don't like the idea of the US government being the only guys with weapons. spooky, really



And this can be largely laid at the feet of irresponsible, generally stupid parents.

i agree. most people i know in my hometown who ever forgot to take guns seriously were kids with incredibly stupid parents. ;bat;

[nate lovett]

okay, now nobody go and piss off logan......:D

[thespian]

I'm really gonna stay out of this, but I just have to ask, Shawn - the laws in this country already make it "difficult" for a criminal to get a gun. If a criminal type is already ignoring the laws we already have, why would he or she obey new laws?

I think that in a state where it is difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns, there will be fewer guns around. If everyone can buy a gun at Walmart, then more people will have them in their home for kids to accidentally shoot and criminals to steal. Everyone is talking about using guns to stop crime, but no one is mentioning that the criminals can and do strike when you are away from your guns too. If they (the guns) are not extremely well locked up, these types will steal those guns for their next "job". If guns are more inaccessible, fewer people would have them to be stolen.

To emphasize my original point (a society with fewer guns is a safer society) One of the most horrible stories I've ever heard was about an asian exchange student who was lost in a strange part of town late at night. When he aprroached a house he saw with lights on and knocked on the door he was shot by the owner of the house who feared a "home invasion". He was shot at point blank range with an automatic machine gun and was killed. This ties in with the idea that guns can be used to stop crime, in that there are often different view on what exactly constitutes a crime and when deadly force is acceptable. Furthermore, to elaborate on the consequences of using a gun to "stop crime", allow me another example. I'm sure many are familiar with this particular story, that of an elderly woman who was sued by a home invader after he climbed through her skylight in the kitchen and cut himself on one of her kitchen knives badly enough to require medical attention. He (the criminal) sued her (the victim)and won! I'm sure this latter story is an urban legend or something, but the idea remains...
I felt the need to clarify my points. Thanks.

[Pep]

I dunno about all this. I just think that if guns were frequent here and pretty much everyone had one then paranoia would spread like forest fire when people start thinking about all the other people with guns around and in the end accidentally shoot one of their own as has happened over there many times. Something is very very wrong when people accidentally shoot their own kids at home because they think they're being burglared.
Psychos like this megalomaniac killer on the loose doesn't really help the case either.

[UncleForker]

Looks like some of you have some pretty irrational fears.


Here is related example.

Did you know you are more likely to be killed by a coconut falling on your head than by shark attack? Yet there are many people that are irrationally afraid of becoming a shark attack victim. Some are even phobic.

No amount of rational reasoning will get through to these people.


Back on topic:

Several states in the U.S. have concealed carry laws, meaning you must attend a training course and after successfully completing this course you are permitted to carry a concealed firearm.

Based on some of your thoughts you would imagine the crime rate would skyrocket in these states, not to mention the dramatic increase in accidental shootings of family members.

However this could not be further from the truth. In these states crime has had s significant DECREASE. Additonally I would like for some of you to do some research on your own. Here is the challenge. In these states with concealed carry laws, what is the percentage of a person that is licensed for concealed carry to accidentally shoot a family member?

Finally, in response to the person that stated it is just too easy to kill with a gun, how many of these people that are licensed for concealed carry in the various states have actually shot someone (for example: someone cuts you off in traffic, a kid in the theatre keeps kicking your seat, someone skips line in front of you, etc).

Your research will really enlighten you, and knowledge is good.

[MutantLeprechaun]

This is ridiculous, every time some idiot kills someone with a gun, everybody has to blame it on the gun. Some guy just shot 9 people, we should outlaw guns! More people are run down by cars, should we outlaw those too...and they just hand those out to 16 year olds. Outlawing guns won't help, McVey didnt need a gun to kill a lot of people...wait, maybe we should outlaw fertilizer??? Come to think of it, airplanes should probably be outlawed after the whole 9-11 thing. The thought process here is ridiculous. Outlaw everything somebody can kill people with and soon all we'll have left is nerf toys and pudding, until of course people find a way to kill each other with those.

-Mutie

[legend of 8]

Ok, let me start off with the Sniper first. So as to get any and all doubts aside, the sniper is NOT professional. I have found out that all the targets have been standing still, within 200 yds, AND he was using a scope. Military are trained to fire at any target from at least 300 yds. WITHOUT a scope.

Now that that's out of the way, gun control:

You miss the biggest point of guns. The main reason they are left in America is so that, if the need suddenly arises and we reinstate the draft, most of the people will have handled a gun at some point in their life, thus meaning less training time will be instituted for the soldiers because they already know how to use the weapon.

That point aside, I will move on to something else.

Someone (Sorry, I forget who... I just read this whole freakin' thing) said that he was riding his bike when he realized how easy it would be. Not to scare you (although it more than likely will) I've known this for many years. The only thing that stops me from being that guy in Maryland is this simple little fact:

I may be crazy, but I'm not freakin' insane. I know it is not morally just to go around shooting people at random because I feel like it. If I were to go on a killing spree, it wouldn't be this clean. It would be loud and messy and quick.

But that's me. This guy is still scared. Soon, he will come out of his shell, and the shootings will become more often.

Also.... he's been following a slight pattern. Next hit should be either tonight or tomorrow.


Another scary thing: Just the other day, there was a shooting similar to the sniper on I-71, in Ohio. I don't live too far away from there, and quite frankly, I also happen to have a brother that uses that highway almost daily in order to get to work and back home every day. He was on his way to work around the time those shootings happened. Two people were shot and killed in their cars.

The whole point to this is..... they copy cats have already started. God help us if it happens anywhere else.

[anim82000]

I think that the sniper is actually a group of snipers, more specificly an al queda sleeper cell that has probably been in the states for long time just waiting for the right time to strike.

I've heard that sniper attacks have been happening over in the middle east for some time, and my guess is those were training exercises in preparation for what's now happining in the D.C. area.

That's just my theory. I wonder how close it is to the truth.

[Akira X]

FACT
You are more likely to be pummeled to death by a hurricane of puppies each shaved and signed by the re-animated corpse of Vincent Price than you are not to die.

[nate lovett]

Originally posted by Akira X
FACT
You are more likely to be pummeled to death by a hurricane of puppies each shaved and signed by the re-animated corpse of Vincent Price than you are not to die.


uh okay............

oh hahahaha........:D

[DrVictorVonDoom]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Vincent Price's re-animated corpse someday. It's Vincent Price, after all.

As to the sniper, I'd like to think it's Al Queda, just as I'd like to think the anthrax attacks of last year were Al Queda. Setting aside the fact that no one's taken credit for either (not exactly the modus operandi of typical terrorist attacks), it's an often-annoying fact that not all "bad guys" clump together, and so I tend to doubt that either is related to the other or to Al Queda.

[Carter]

Originally posted by UncleForker

Several states in the U.S. have concealed carry laws

Several? 32. For those of you that slept through your 12 years of public school, we have 50 states, and 32 is more than half.

--Carter--

[legend of 8]

In response to the sniper attack in Ohio I mentioned earlier....


All that has been found so far are some fragments from the bullet. Other than that, nothing.

This means it's a copycat.

As to the Maryland Sniper.....

Well, I believe that if anything, they would be working with one other person, and that is it. However, this is not likely. It's hard to keep a second person quiet.

So, I'm saying the sniper is alone. Remember, this is not truth, but it is my opinion. And I learned that the bullets used in the MD shootings can be bought at any military surplus store.

Scary, ain't it?

[UncleForker]

Originally posted by The Enemy Brain


Several? 32. For those of you that slept through your 12 years of public school, we have 50 states, and 32 is more than half.

--Carter--

Several was the incorrect term, however I count 44.

Perhaps you missed a few?

[Logan]

first... this sniper due probably isn't a professional. anyone with a .22 can hit a paper plate at 300 yds with or without a scope. i think that this guy was shooting from, what, under 150? guys an amateur.

secondly, my home state (VT) has lax gun laws. you attend a hunter safety class in order to get your hunting license, and it lasts for about 3 weeks or more. in it you learn everything you need to know about handling or shooting guns. afterward, and only afterward, if you pass the class you can get your license. when you got that, you can walk down main st. with 50 guns strapped all over, you, bandoliers wrapping from head to toe, legally. this is so hunters can track their prey without much fuss. you can get a permit for concealed weapons fairly easily, and it's ok to carry a loaded pistol for protection in your car. So following common sense, VT must be full of homocides and psycho killers, right? Actually it has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. go figure.

and third, as for "crimes of passion" how hard is it to get a gun, load it, and then walk into a room to shoot your wife? isn't it more fitting with "crimes of passion" to use whatever is handy? if you look at the statistics for that sort of thing it goes, knives, pillow, strangulation, ect. guns are kind of low on the list. it doesn't really matter though, the US government has been trying (pretty sucesfully, i might say) to convince americans that guns are "evil." i don't know about you, but that scares me. I wonder about our governments motives to get rid of guns. i don't think it's as altruistic as some think.;bat;

[legend of 8]

So, instead of guns, we should use phasers or cattle prods???

Actually, I kinda like the idea of having a cattle prod... heheheh. ZOT!!!! Mwahahaha.

Yes, I am disturbed.

[Devil Man 666]

It's seems as though it had to be two people: one shooting and one driving. The news media should keep their mouths shut while the "hunt" is on. They tend to tell waaaaay too much and end up helping the suspect(s) as a result. Why do they always do that? For ratings? Are they worried about who reports the info first? Yep!! They are such jackasses :mad:

[Carter]

Originally posted by UncleForker


Several was the incorrect term, however I count 44.

Perhaps you missed a few?

That was my f' up. I shot an email to my dad, and he said 32. I actually thought I heard 27 somewhere, so go figure. ;)

--Carter--