Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: YodaSean on October 18, 2002, 11:28:40 pm
-
"The video games that are being recalled feature snipers targeting and killing innocent people. Wal-Mart officials said they pulled at least seven video games off store shelves, including Terminator, Dawn of Fate, Tribes Aerial Assault and Rainbow Six, and Rogue Spear. "
umm...since when do people flying around in jetpacks with high explosives qualify as "innocent people"? (talking about tribes)
article:
http://www.msnbc.com/local/knsd/a1359298.asp
-
you knew it would happen sooner or later
-
Changing US gun laws would be a better strategy.
Last time I checked computer generated sniper bullets dont make it out of the computer sceen and are a minimum risk to the public.
-
Cause you know when they find the guy.....
"Well you know, I wouldn't have been so good if it hadn't been for Rainbow Six"
-
Funny how these things are perfectly acceptable when they're a few thousand miles removed, but as soon as someone actually puts one of these guns to their indended use in real life, it's nothing anyone wants to think about...
People suck.
-
It makes me so angry when they blame the games and the music.
It feels to me that the company is just doing it for show to make stupid people think they care. I bet they are not willing to risk profits by removing all games with sniper stuff in them.
Thats like every good FPS shooter thats come out since HL.
-
personally.. if wal mart would just get rid of any/and all versions of Deer Hunter ... that would "solve" most of their problems..
now dealing with the East Coast Sniper Crisis by removing FPS's.. now that's just reatarded.. as usual. But hey, how many of you buy from Wal mart?
Red-necks suck
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
But hey, how many of you buy from Wal mart?
Yar, its not really thats its going to cause problems for me, all you can find at walmart anyways are deer hunting games and software thats guarenteed to sell at least a million copies. Its their ignorance that really bothers me...
-
I don't know what wal-mart is (hear of it...) but Thats so stupid its laughable... are they going to remove Conflict Desert Storm when bush mashes up Iraq?
Oh and by the way... that game is rubbish! ARRH!!! its SOOOO! CRAP! At the time people said it was a OFP beater! Its like a cartoon!
-
They have not been able to catch the guy, so they need some excuse to look like they are actually doing something against him; the games are the obvious target. :p
Funny how these things are perfectly acceptable when they're a few thousand miles removed, but as soon as someone actually puts one of these guns to their indended use in real life, it's nothing anyone wants to think about...
not the case for me... :D
-
They're doing it to please the mental rejects that actually believe that games are responsible for violence. Please... :rolleyes:
If that were true, I would've blown up the ****ing highschool when I was 16.
-
Originally posted by MD-2389
If that were true, I would've blown up the ****ing highschool when I was 16.
ah, that leaves me still one year.
*fires up Soldier of Fortune 2 and practices the use of the M-16*
-
I need to do it before my next birthday then; better get started... ;7
-
not the case for me... :D
it's not liek you go outside anyways...:p
-
lol actually I meant that I am not one to make a big deal over any game-like incidents in real life; both are perfectly acceptable to me. :D
-
I think it's quite OK. Why should young people be taught the american way? By which I mean, killing people, waging war. That stuff isn't funny dude. Do you even know how it is when you are home and there is war outside. You are waiting for the bomb to fall on your house and such. It's horrible dude. Ok now you will say that this is OT, but I am talking about war games in general.
-
Nothing wrong with killing people and waging war; that is the way the world works. Yes it is funny; everything is funny if you look at it as such. :D
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Changing US gun laws would be a better strategy.
:lol:
oh please, do tell how outlawing guns will stop criminals! or how forcing even more registration will stop an illegal/stolen gun.....I -love- it when people say that.
-
Heretic: guns are illegal in this country, and many other European nations. We have a much lower incidence of gun violence here than elsewhere. I concede that it doesn't stop everyone, and those who are committed to getting a gun can probably do so. However, it cuts off the easiest route of supply. Only those who connive to get a gun can do so.
Why was this done? Because seven years ago, a guy walked into a Scottish school with a legally-owned gun, and shot a dozen or so six-year-olds and their teachers. Since the outlawing of handguns, no such incident has been repeated.
The point is you can make it harder for criminals to get guns. It won't stop everyone, but it does stop most of 'em - here, at least. Now, if you're prepared to argue that Americans are in some way different to that, genetically or socially... :p
Besides, I bet if I dug up the figures, most gun violence, like other violence will have been committed within the home, by members of the same family to one another. Most gun violence involves legally-owned guns.
-
show me that your homicide rates have dropped. the ones in the US have.
also, don't forget, that guns cannot be made illegal in the U.S., no matter what is tried.
but take the u.k.
50% of burglaries happen while the person is at home... hell, the crooks KNOW the homowner won't shoot back.
in the US, it's like 3%.
-
Originally posted by heretic
oh please, do tell how outlawing guns will stop criminals! or how forcing even more registration will stop an illegal/stolen gun.....I -love- it when people say that.
Are you really that stupid? Yes of course the UK has gun problems, but nothing on the scale of the US, even if you take into account the population difference.
The more guns you have in a country the more they will be used, the more people will get shot. Its so simple its crazy.
-
This is just bloody stupid. Its like taking Flight Sim off the shelves after 9/11.
As for UK's problems. Lets get something clear - the problem of home owners being unable to defend themselves is little to do with gun-laws. Home owners are unable to act because they themselves be arrested if they strike the burglar. :rolleyes: Thats the problem - not gun laws.
A gun is designed for one purpose - to kill. It used to be UK law that if you carried a loaded firearm, you intended to use it. We cannot have weapons designed purely to kill in the hands of the general populous save we get people like the Washingotn Sniper.
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Heretic: guns are illegal in this country, and many other European nations. We have a much lower incidence of gun violence here than elsewhere. I concede that it doesn't stop everyone, and those who are committed to getting a gun can probably do so. However, it cuts off the easiest route of supply. Only those who connive to get a gun can do so.
Why was this done? Because seven years ago, a guy walked into a Scottish school with a legally-owned gun, and shot a dozen or so six-year-olds and their teachers. Since the outlawing of handguns, no such incident has been repeated.
The point is you can make it harder for criminals to get guns. It won't stop everyone, but it does stop most of 'em - here, at least. Now, if you're prepared to argue that Americans are in some way different to that, genetically or socially... :p
Besides, I bet if I dug up the figures, most gun violence, like other violence will have been committed within the home, by members of the same family to one another. Most gun violence involves legally-owned guns.
Sorry Kellan, but I'm gonna harp on all this gun-law crap, and your post is the one I'm gonna use as a punching bag. ;)
Gun laws only work to prevent law-abiding citizens from aquiring a gun. What criminal is gonna say, "Oh, it's illegal for me to have/get a gun, so I'd better not" ?!?!? :wtf:
7 years ago, eh? And did this type of incedent occur once every 7 years or so previous to the instatement of the gun-law? No, didn't think so. So this "statistic" about it not recurring means absolutely nothing.
I don't quite see how this could be applied to any other society, but here in Israel, an overwhelming majority of people go through military service. One of the main points I recall about my basic training was about our weapon, our gun. They said it was your girfriend: it went everywhere you did. Sleep, eat, etc. THey also were quite emphatic about not fooling around with the gun - it was a weapon of death, meant to be used only when death was the point. When you go home, you don't showcase your new "toy" - you lock it up where small children and adults alike cannot get to it. You do not show off with it, you do not demonstrate to your family how fast you can disassemble and reassemble it. You recognize the incredible responsibility of having the power to kill in your 18-year-old hands, and you act with maturity. And, they said, all of the IDF's saftey rules have unfortunately been written in blood. Lessons learned the hard way, hopefully never to be repeated.
So anyway, here you have a society of gun-toting civillians; roughly one in twenty owns a weapon. Crime rate? Virtually nil. Yeah, you get the drug-related shootings every few months or so, but a crook breaking into someone's house? If that person has a gun, he can legally shoot-to-kill that crook for breaking into his house. School violence? Bah - we go on about the physical violence in our schools - kids beating others up, and yeah, it's pretty bad/sad/horrible. But thank God we don't have the school violence that you do in the West.
-
still not as bad as in Greece.... :doubt:
-
Guns kill people... not games.
And how many murders in the US could be avoided by criminalising guns? Look at the high school shootings by kids using their fathers guns, for example..... if you have a situation where it is easy to legally buy a gun, it makes it ahell of a lot easier for wannabe criminals... it gives them an easy, effective weapon (otherwise, they'd need to use a knife, etc, which is a lot less dangerous / avoidable). Not to mention that it gave the IRA an easy source for weaponry in the 80's (while we're on the war on terrorism).
Sandwhich - the situation in Israel is totally different to the US, I believe; you have a lot of people who have been trained to use and understand the lethality of a gun, and thus to respect that. in the US, most people wouldn't, and there seems to be a whole sort of very strong gun culture there...during this sniper thing, there were seemingly glowing praise for the the snipers skills at the same time as condeming him from an NRA PR guy. and the point of a gun law is that it should STOP the legal import of arms(beyond those for government agency /army, etc) into a country... that alone makes it hard for a crim to obtain a gun on the black market, and forces them to search fro more difficult / expensive sources.
Oh, and sandwich - are guns legal in the Gaza strip (et al)?
-
Personally, I'd much rather be shot in the face than be beaten to death with a baseball bat.
Also, it's impossible to outlaw guns in the US, and infact, the current regulations are inviolation of of the original, unammended US constitution. 'Right to bear arms' anyone?
The reason that US gun-death rates are higher is because in just about every large US city there is some kinda of big-ass ghetto full of illegal immigrants, gangsters and mentally ill people who've been overlooked by the system. If there were no guns, then there'd just be dozens of stabbings and hit'n'runs every day.
-
Here in the UK, they banned guns and Gun crime soared. American gun laws are good, because everybody knows who has guns etc, remove the ability to get guns legally and people get them off the black market. Its not that hard to get a illegal gun in the UK, its always been easier than getting a legal gun.
In britian, if you punch a robber, the son of a biatch can sue you. man got sued successfully because his fence was too close to a canal and the robber fell in. Laws in the UK are fubared.
As for Wal-mart, let them. This Sniper is a crazed terrorist or ex-marine with a fubared brain.
-
Gun crime soared because of social factors Zero, not because we outlawed guns. Our culture is suffering from a loss of moral grounding, people feel opressed in thier own country, and drug related crime continues to rise. These factors are the main cause of all crime in the UK, not outlawing guns.
-
In the Netherlands guns are illigal but (soft) drugs aren't... :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
In the Netherlands guns are illigal but (soft) drugs aren't... :p
I thought that they were illegal but it was more of a blind eye approach, and that the sale of cannabis was taxed.
::must visit amsterdam::
(http://www.randomsnacks.org/board/images/smilies/bongsmi.gif)
-
Eh... not really. Most of you are just flat-out wrong in one way or another.
1. The US is never gonna be like the UK. We've got a ****ed-up, violent culture strung together by thousands of semi-psychotic man-children. I won't go into detail (some things I'm a bit foggy on, and it'd take a largish book to explain the national consciousness of the States, which I have no intention of writing, because typing cramps hurt like all hell), but basically, people here generally don't recognize each other as any more human than a piece of furniture, unless they know the individual person well and like them. Combine that with feelings of inadequacy, testosterone buildup from vicariously living the lives of supermen with guns who kill bad dudes by the gross, and the sort of childishness you see out here (You can't take away my rights! And I have a right to a semiautomatic rifle!!!), and you get: tons and tons of psychoes. If you took away the guns, people would go at each other with machetes, and those things ****ing HURT when you get a good whack from one- way more than a handful of bullets would, and taking a much longer time and larger quantity to kill you. No. Thanks.
2. Black market guns are ****ing expensive. Maybe one citizen in a hundred can really afford one, and maybe one citizen in a thousand is the sort who'd use one on someone else- and they're rarely the same one citizen. Criminals are normally pretty damn poor- you don't see your local mugger buying a Lexus, and you sure as hell don't see any street-level drug dealers sporting Kalashnikovs- it's the same economic range, one that's beyond the resources of the average crook.
3. The "deterrent value" thing... meh. It's kind of ****ed up to kill someone for stealing your TV, no matter how you look at it ("Bastard! That thing cost me $2500 and I'm gonna miss the Simpsons! Die!" *blam*). If the individual in question is also intent on killing you, well, it might work to some degree. I'm not gonna trust my quick-draw when some dude's got a stiletto pointed at my back, much less a largish Glock in my face, and I think that few criminals would expect you to.
4. Why not ban guns? Because guns are damn cool. They make loud noises, if you point them at something it explodes/dies, it makes a convienient phallic symbol, and guns hows are less disgusting than pissing contests... what more could you want in life? Aside from a bigger gun?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Sorry Kellan, but I'm gonna harp on all this gun-law crap, and your post is the one I'm gonna use as a punching bag. ;)
Feel free, I've bashed religion based on your posts before. I put my views out in public expecting them to be challenged. :)
Gun laws only work to prevent law-abiding citizens from aquiring a gun. What criminal is gonna say, "Oh, it's illegal for me to have/get a gun, so I'd better not" ?!?!? :wtf:[/b]
I never said that gun laws would stop those who were determined to acquire firearms. I said as much, in so many words, in the post. However, casual criminals are far less likely to go in armed if it's difficult to get a gun. Crimes of passion are less likely to end with shootings if there's no gun in the drawer. Kids are less likely to fool around with Dad's gun and get themselves killed if he doesn't have one.
7 years ago, eh? And did this type of incedent occur once every 7 years or so previous to the instatement of the gun-law? No, didn't think so. So this "statistic" about it not recurring means absolutely nothing.[/b]
I had considered writing in this kind of disclaimer to the post, but I couldn't be bothered. I thought the point I was trying to get across would be clear without resorting to pedantry. :p
But no, it didn't happen often. It was just the most graphic example of gun violence I had to hand. However, if you really WANT me to spell it out, that event was like our Columbine. Since then, we've had no more "Columbines" because guns are illegal. However, the U.S. had events like that before Columbine, and it has had very similar ones since. Thanks. :D
THey also were quite emphatic about not fooling around with the gun - it was a weapon of death, meant to be used only when death was the point. When you go home, you don't showcase your new "toy" - you lock it up where small children and adults alike cannot get to it. You do not show off with it, you do not demonstrate to your family how fast you can disassemble and reassemble it. You recognize the incredible responsibility of having the power to kill in your 18-year-old hands, and you act with maturity.[/b]
To select one part of this long passage, I would add the qualification that you act with maturity. Not everyone does, as your "lessons in blood" show. There are countless examples of family members shooting one another thinking they're intruders, or kids finding Daddy's gun, etc etc. In fact, IIRC they make up the majority of gun-related deaths in the US. That's too great a risk to take for me.
And yes, I realise that guns have their place in the military. :)
So anyway, here you have a society of gun-toting civillians; roughly one in twenty owns a weapon. Crime rate? Virtually nil. Yeah, you get the drug-related shootings every few months or so, but a crook breaking into someone's house? If that person has a gun, he can legally shoot-to-kill that crook for breaking into his house.[/b]
Yes, but respectfully - people in Israel have rather more to worry about than breaking into people's homes and stealing their stuff. It's not exactly a complete reason, but it could be a factor - especially in the Settlements.
School violence? Bah - we go on about the physical violence in our schools - kids beating others up, and yeah, it's pretty bad/sad/horrible. But thank God we don't have the school violence that you do in the West. [/B]
We don't have that kind of violence because we don't have guns here. Simple.
-
On the gun law issue, I can see about equal benefits and losses for both arguments, and I am not heavily in favor of either side there. I think a much better solution to fighting crime is simply to make punishments ten times as harsh. The death sentence should be far more common and prison luxuries need to be drastically reduced; we are not paying taxes so that these cutthroats can live a great life for free. :p When you have tough penalities for everything, people will obey the laws out of fear for the alternative, and everything will go well.
people here generally don't recognize each other as any more human than a piece of furniture
come to think of it, how are they any more "human" than the furniture or anything else? :rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
Also, it's impossible to outlaw guns in the US, and infact, the current regulations are inviolation of of the original, unammended US constitution. 'Right to bear arms' anyone?
"...As part of a well-organised militia", Mr. Warbird? :D
Originally posted by Zeronet
In britian, if you punch a robber, the son of a biatch can sue you. man got sued successfully because his fence was too close to a canal and the robber fell in. Laws in the UK are fubared.
...And shooting their face off wouldn't be considered a crime? :lol:
Also Stryke, that whole thing was very funny.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I thought that they were illegal but it was more of a blind eye approach, and that the sale of cannabis was taxed.
I consider that legal....
-
Actually, forget about guns; how about bombs? are they legal or illegal in most countries? (not that it will really matter, but I am just curious :D)
-
Highly illegal. Hell, you can't even go deer-hunting with landmines out here!
-
The reason that US gun-death rates are higher is because in just about every large US city there is some kinda of big-ass ghetto full of illegal immigrants, gangsters and mentally ill people who've been overlooked by the system. If there were no guns, then there'd just be dozens of stabbings and hit'n'runs every day.
yup, that would be like the whole south west side of my little city .
I've taken to call it lil' mexico
you'll never be able to get rid of guns here (US) i mean.. the NRA has Charlton Heston.. :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I consider that legal....
I don't think either your Government nor mine does however. Drugs are bad m'kay? :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
Drugs are bad m'kay? :D
How come? Some doctors even proposed to use cannabis as a pain relieving medicin.
-
It would be nice to see all the alcoholic drugs banned but we all know what happened when that was tried in the US; a different approach must be taken, where you want to uproot the culture by gradually replacing it rather than suddenly imposing a new one.
How come? Some doctors even proposed to use cannabis as a pain relieving medicin.
That's a different thing - medical prescriptions are of course allowed, even for any drugs otherwise considered illegal, but the question is whether they should be sold as a standard consumer products that do not require any such thing.
-
Backing up a bit, isn't it funny how stores can pull products off the shelves where you can virtually shoot simulated people; yet gun stores are still selling products where you can really shoot real people. :blah:
I think if you have a gun, you intend to use it. Guns are used to kill. Therefore if you have a gun you intend to kill. Therefore guns should not be legal.
4. Why not ban guns? Because guns are damn cool. They make loud noises, if you point them at something it explodes/dies, it makes a convienient phallic symbol, and guns hows are less disgusting than pissing contests... what more could you want in life? Aside from a bigger gun?
Sad, but true. That's civilization for you.:sigh:
-
Originally posted by heretic
also, don't forget, that guns cannot be made illegal in the U.S., no matter what is tried.
What? Since when?
-
Indeed some doctors did propose using it for medicinal purposes. However, do you really believe thats all it would be used for? A better idea would be to find whatever compound within the ol' weed causes the medicinal effect, and then synthesising it so it can be prescribed in a more direct method than smoking the whole thing.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Also, it's impossible to outlaw guns in the US, and infact, the current regulations are inviolation of of the original, unammended US constitution. 'Right to bear arms' anyone?
The original unammended 2nd Ammendment? The second change to that document we didn't change? :rolleyes:
And I seem to recall some part in there about a black person being 3/5ths of a white person. I don't see that in there anymore. The Constitution can, and in a sense, should change.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Changing US gun laws would be a better strategy.
Last time I checked computer generated sniper bullets dont make it out of the computer sceen and are a minimum risk to the public.
Enforcing existing ones would be better.
And I don't think they can change anything in the Bill of Rights.
I have a gun...well I have several guns. If you come in my house and try to steal my TV will I shoot you? Of course. If I came in your house and tried to steal your TV I'd expect you to shoot me too. Do I give a **** about people who steal from other people because they are too ****ing lazy to get off their asses and work? Hell...NO!
-
And who the hell started calling this guy a "sniper"!?!?!?!
This maybe a little blunt/harsh, and completely unemotional towards the victims, but if you think hitting somebody at 175 yards with a friggin AR-15 is good shooting then you must be really ignorant about shooting, or just a terrible shot. 500 or 600 yards would be a different story. Whoever started calling him a sniper is a complete and utter moron! My granny to take somebody at that distance with a AR-15! Geez...
-
Originally posted by an0n
Also, it's impossible to outlaw guns in the US, and infact, the current regulations are inviolation of of the original, unammended US constitution. 'Right to bear arms' anyone?
Considering the fact that firearms are not allowed on public school or government property even for legal adults, the law has how should we say loopholes.
However, actually enforcing current gun laws I do agree with, if those fail than taking a more effective approach is requried.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
Are you really that stupid? Yes of course the UK has gun problems, but nothing on the scale of the US, even if you take into account the population difference.
The more guns you have in a country the more they will be used, the more people will get shot. Its so simple its crazy.
First sign of ownage, when the ownt resorts to insults. :rolleyes:
The Washington Times
By: Paul Craig Roberts
July 30, 2002
Blaming violence on guns and fanning hysteria over accidental deaths to children from firearms are staples of antigun propaganda. Media help gun-control zealots spread false information that gun ownership and self-defense are certain paths to injury and death. Handgun Control Inc., gives erroneous advice that if you are attacked, the best way to avoid injury "is to put up no defense." Anti-gun zealots blame the actions of criminals on guns and argue that disarming law-abiding gun owners is the best way to reduce the crime rate.
Scholars such as Gary Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have demonstrated the falsity of these claims. Now comes an important new book from Harvard University Press. "Guns and Violence" by Bentley College history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm brings new evidence that guns reduce violence.
Professor Malcolm's carefully researched book is a study of guns and violence in England from the Middle Ages through the present day. When the English were armed to the teeth, violent crime was rare. Now that the English are disarmed, violent crime has exploded. Indeed, crime in England is out of control.
Offering instruction for the U.S., the English experience will be covered in a subsequent column. Professor Malcolm presents many facts about guns and violence in America, and it is to these we turn first. Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm? In 1996, 805 children died from accidental drownings and 42 died from firearm accidents. (Gun control zealots inflate "child" firearm deaths by including teenage drug gang members killed in turf battles.)
Bathtubs are twice as dangerous to children as guns. Fire is 18 times more dangerous to children than guns. Cars are 57 times more dangerous. Household cleaners and poisons are twice as dangerous.
Did you know defensive gun use prevents far more crimes than the police? National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals. In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon.
As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in less than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.
Did you know that the testimony of incarcerated felons supports the large number of defensive gun uses? Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed.
Convicted felons say they are more deterred by armed victims than by the police. In the U.S. where roughly 50 percent of households are armed, only 13 percent of burglaries occur with residents at home. In contrast, in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 50 percent of home burglaries take place with the residents present.
Gun control zealots claim that the availability of guns is the primary cause of homicides. Between 1973 and 1994, the number of guns in private ownership in the U.S. rose by 87 million. During this period, both the homicide rate and the percent of homicides committed with firearms dropped.
Another test of the relationship between guns and violence is provided by the concealed-carry laws now in force in 33 states. Gun control zealots predicted that traffic accidents and other altercations combined with an armed public would result in a bloodbath. Professor Malcolm confronts this false prediction with empirical evidence:
"In all the decades of experience with concealed-carry laws in an increasing number of states, there is only one recorded incident of the use of a permitted handgun in a shooting following a traffic accident, and that was determined to be a case of self-defense."
The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies, and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.
Professor Malcolm disproves the claim that family members are the main victims of gun ownership. This myth results from FBI reports that most victims are "known" to the murderer. In the category of "known to the murderer," the FBI includes members of rival drug gangs, prostitutes and their pimps, and even cabdrivers killed in robberies by "customers."
Far from the picture of hot-tempered spouses turning the family firearm upon one another in moments of rage, it turns out that 90 percent of adult murderers have prior criminal records involving major felonies. Three-quarters of juvenile murderers and their victims have an average of 10 prior criminal arraignments.
The English Bill of Rights guarantees English citizens "arms for their defense." Politicians and bureaucrats stole this right from the people by subterfuge. In England today, only outlaws have guns.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
...if you think hitting somebody at 175 yards with a friggin AR-15 is good shooting then you must be really ignorant about shooting, or just a terrible shot. 500 or 600 yards would be a different story. Whoever started calling him a sniper is a complete and utter moron! My granny to take somebody at that distance with a AR-15! Geez...
... 'Course, the recoil would break her collarbone, but she'd at least get one off.:D
I think the point is that it's long-distance as compared to normal shootings in civilian life, which are pretty much always point-blank.
I live right IN Manassas, where one of the shootings was, and I go by the gas station it happened at regularly- I KNOW it'd be next to ****ing impossible to hold a line of sight for more than a half-minute, from any angle- never mind the high visibility. It's surrounded by roads and parking lots, with an insane amount of traffic, and no real place to shoot from with an easy escape route anywhere nearby.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Look at the high school shootings by kids using their fathers guns, for example.....
Then the father is, no offense to anyone here, an idiot, and I mean that in the fullest sense of the word. Can't keep his gun in a safe place - a safe, perhaps? Don't get a gun then.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and sandwich - are guns legal in the Gaza strip (et al)?
Gaza Strip...? I'm a bit confused, but I guess it isn't apparent to the rest of the world that only eats up CNN propoganda. Gaza Strip is as much a part of the State of Israel as DC is part of the US. Sooo.... Yes, guns are legal everywhere in Israel, but you need a liscence to carry one - you can't just walk into a gun store and pick up a Glock (or a Desert Eagle... ;7). And to get a liscence is not just a matter of paying a bit of money, either. You have to be approved, have to have a legitimate reason to own a gun (if you live in Judea, Samaria or Gaza, for example, as those areas are more dangerous), etc etc.
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And who the hell started calling this guy a "sniper"!?!?!?!
This maybe a little blunt/harsh, and completely unemotional towards the victims, but if you think hitting somebody at 175 yards with a friggin AR-15 is good shooting then you must be really ignorant about shooting, or just a terrible shot. 500 or 600 yards would be a different story. Whoever started calling him a sniper is a complete and utter moron! My granny to take somebody at that distance with a AR-15! Geez...
:lol:, so true. :p I guess "sniper" because of his methods - single-shot kills from a secluded position. :p
-
Sandwich: See previous post. Under the conditions he operates in, it's pretty damn good. It's roughly comparable to accurately firing one of two shots at 200 yards, nearly straight down, from a helicopter that's under rocket attack, or (to be literal) shooting across a four-lane highway at rush hour, with all the cars doing an average of seventysomething miles an hour, and driving erratically, with people all the **** over the place, walking around, and the target moving about a good bit, too. If he wasn't VERY good, he'd have shattered a few windshields, maybe killed a driver in front of the gas stations, that's it.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
... 'Course, the recoil would break her collarbone, but she'd at least get one off.:D
I think the point is that it's long-distance as compared to normal shootings in civilian life, which are pretty much always point-blank.
I live right IN Manassas, where one of the shootings was, and I go by the gas station it happened at regularly- I KNOW it'd be next to ****ing impossible to hold a line of sight for more than a half-minute, from any angle- never mind the high visibility. It's surrounded by roads and parking lots, with an insane amount of traffic, and no real place to shoot from with an easy escape route anywhere nearby.
Depends on if he's shooting across from Sudley road or not. Because remember, as you head down to I66, it's all downhill, plus you have the Wells Fargo building and a ton of other rooftops to get a vantage point.
And I live in Fredericksburg, where 2 of them occured.
-
If he went on top of the Wells Fargo building or Hollywood Video (the two real places where he COULD go, and still have a clear shot, and not be as obvious as he could without jumping up and down and firing into the air), he wouldn't have made it back down. In both places, you'd have to go through lots of people, and it wouldn't be too easy to smuggle a 4-5-foor rifle through the office tower.
Plus, I'm pretty sure they still lock the roof door.
-
is the gas station down near the Bowl America and Red Roof Inn?
-
Mmm... above the two, I think. By a good bit- it's across from the PetsMart, or just about so.
-
I still think he could have used a rooftop, because they are accessable from the outside, usually behind the building. and if he's hundreds of yards away, then the attention would have been far back.
then again, who's to say that this rifle can't be disassembled like the current M16A2, which can be torn apart in less than a minute
-
[shrugs]
It's possible, but highly unlikely, from what I've seen of it. You can't even get on the PetsMart roof, for example.
-
Id like to point out that gun laws in this country are bloody good.
I for one own several rifles/shotguns for hunting and target shooting (i live on a farm so need something high powered to take out foxes at range).
However the knee jerk reaction to Dunblaine wasin my opinion stupid the vast majority of non-urban gun crime is with shotguns. LEGALY owned pistols had the lowest incidence of criminal use other then match rifles.
The reason that gun crime in this country has soared is down basicaly to the massive rise in gang warfare due to the influx of Eastern European and arab/pakistani gangs in the mid 90's. Where as before in the 80s you were limited to old fasioned organised crime in the North e.g. Manchester and black on black yardie crime in London. Now you have issues like Russian Mafia on Jamacans etc. it even looks like the Yakuza are muscling in. Outside the offices where i work 2 people were killed one was asian with gunshot wounds and one was black from stab wounds.
In America the massive prevelance of guns adds a validity to the ownership of a gun for your own protection. However the shear range of gun types you can choose from is just silly. Though now illegal for new ones to enter the market, assault weapons serve no purpose then to be an effective millitary rifle inorder to take on formations of enemy troops. The same is with magazine sizes, when are you going to need a high cap 21 shot pistol mag to defend yourself from 2 burglars? Banning guns is just silly but some of the guns that you can legaly buy are just as silly.
-
banning guns. Gee, it worked so well for alcohol and other drugs. :)
-
it wouldn't be hard for anyone to sneak any ak47s in the US. just bring them in with the drugs. even if a few get found, about 100 times more made it through
i want a d-eagle
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
it wouldn't be hard for anyone to sneak any ak47s in the US. just bring them in with the drugs. even if a few get found, about 100 times more made it through
i want a d-eagle
Or just ship them to mexico and drive them across the border. Not like they check every 18 wheeler that crosses the border.
-
sandwich will get a kick out of this:
from the jfpo (http://www.jpfo.org/) - jews for the preservation of firearms ownership
(http://www.jpfo.org/allinfavor.gif)
-
hahah
-
Originally posted by MD-2389
banning guns. Gee, it worked so well for alcohol and other drugs. :)
w3rd.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
... 'Course, the recoil would break her collarbone, but she'd at least get one off.:D
I think the point is that it's long-distance as compared to normal shootings in civilian life, which are pretty much always point-blank.
I live right IN Manassas, where one of the shootings was, and I go by the gas station it happened at regularly- I KNOW it'd be next to ****ing impossible to hold a line of sight for more than a half-minute, from any angle- never mind the high visibility. It's surrounded by roads and parking lots, with an insane amount of traffic, and no real place to shoot from with an easy escape route anywhere nearby.
If he was smart he would get him a H&K PSG-1 and buy one of those airsoft pistols with the supressor on it, remove the supressor and change out the carbon core on it, and go play in the outskirts of the suburbs, but then again this guy is a physco, probably a loner that works for a place like the U.S. Postal Service and lives in an apartment with the blinds shut all the time, no lights, and the neighbors dog tells him to kill people because they have demons in them...sounds familar to me.
-
Once again, I don't think the point is to kill the maximum quantity of people possible. Do you have ANY ****ing idea how easy it would be to kill half a million people with one bomb? The only reason most of the most populous places in the world are intact is because nobody really wants to just kill people- any people, any method, so long as it's a lot?
-
I think a lot of this anti-violent video game stuff in America was fueled by the recent school shootings. Many of the people doing the shooting played first person shooters. Its very stupid to link FPS games to shootings, though, since many teenage males(who made up most of the school shooters) in America have played first person shooters.
-
'Zactly. Video games don't turn the other 99% if us into psychos, now, do they?
And I doubt Jack the Ripper or Albert Fish played "Doom" in their youths. :doubt:
-
Tribes is an awesome game
-
Yo, check CNN. They pulled over somone who could "possibly" be the shooter
-
lol, how are they ever going to know who the shooter is? no one's even seen anything OF him except his discarded shells, which i'm sure have no fingerprints, etc. on, and i'm sure 10,000 other guys in Washington have guns which can take those bullets!
-
Whitevan.. firearms inside.. Drunken with drugs and 3 hoes.. they could find on-the-scene evidence.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Drunken with drugs and 3 hoes..
Such as... fermented marijuana juice? I don't know where the farming implements come in...:p
-
I don't think you wanna know :wtf:
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Kinky.
-
well is there a more generic term for takeing shots at people throught a scope from a distance (as opposed to pressing the gun to there head)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well is there a more generic term for takeing shots at people throught a scope from a distance (as opposed to pressing the gun to there head)
Marksman
-
As a side note, this 'marksman' (ahem) doesn't know his tarot either. Death means transformation, not physical destruction. The death card in a standard tarot deck is The Tower.
(Saying this because I'm bored of gun control). :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
Marksman
Nope. Marksman fire M16's as well as other rifles. A person who only uses scoped rifles is usually called a Sniper.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Nope. Marksman fire M16's as well as other rifles. A person who only uses scoped rifles is usually called a Sniper.
Must we resort to pedantry? We all know what is being talked about. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Nope. Marksman fire M16's as well as other rifles. A person who only uses scoped rifles is usually called a Sniper.
Ummm....no.
-
A marksman is attached to infantry formations or comes under platoon level command.
A sniper is ANYONE with a projectile weapon that sits away from concentrations of friendly troops and shoots at the enemy. They could be some crack pot armless viet cong women shooting at marines with a pistol using her tongue. They dont have to be accurate simply causing large amounts of disruption and demorilising enemy troops is good enough.
-
Wonder who he is anyway, would an insane dude take his break on weekends? I wonder.
-
Not anymore; apparently, he shot someone yesterday.
-
Personally, I doubt the tarot is a genuine item. Seems too, well, Hollywood to be anything other than a reporter making the news in the absence of anything better.
But yes. Actually, there are several disaster cards- i think it's the six of swords (at least, on the deck I foud, it's swords, I can't remember the official type) is the real death card- the Tower is more generalized disaster.