How to get the sniper

[russotto]

Originally posted by hermit22

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.

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

What it doesn't say, though, is that these waiting periods are just as exclusionary toward the pissed off husband.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Xugumad
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.

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

[Xugumad]

russotto
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.

[MaggieL]

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.

[Cam]

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.

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.

[jaguar]

Stop ranting dave, it jsut undermines your point.

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?

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.

[hermit22]

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.

[russotto]

[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.

[wolf]

Originally posted by BrianR
I fel helpless because I don't have the means to shoot back

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

[wolf]

Originally posted by Cam


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.

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.

[wolf]

Originally posted by dave
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.

[BrianR]

Originally posted by wolf


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

Yes. Me. I live near Baltimore now.

Grumble mumble communist politicians mumble grumble

Brian

[MaggieL]

...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.