How to get the sniper

[russotto]

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[jaguar]

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?

Originally posted by jaguar
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?

[warch]

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.

[Cam]

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Cam
Also driving tests are nothing, any person with a grain of commen sense can get there drivers license.

Please....anyone who drives can tell you that common sense is clearly not required for a driver's licence. They see counterexamples every day.

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.

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..:-)

[Nic Name]

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.

"He's a weekday warrior. Even snipers have jobs," said criminologist Jack Fox of Northeastern University in Boston. "They have to make time to kill, and obviously he doesn't have time on the weekends."

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

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by dave
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.

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...

[jaguar]

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.

Originally posted by jaguar
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.

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)?

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 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?

warch
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?

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.

[Xugumad]

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.

[hermit22]

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.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by dave
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.