[CP5670]

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.

[Galemp]

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.

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.

[Blue Lion]

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?

[vyper]

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.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by an0n

Also, it's impossible to outlaw guns in the US, and , 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?

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.

[CODEDOG ND]

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!

[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...

[Ace]

Originally posted by an0n
Also, it's impossible to outlaw guns in the US, and , 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.

[heretic]

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.

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.

[Stryke 9]

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.

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.

[Sandwich]

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... ). 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...

, so true. I guess "sniper" because of his methods - single-shot kills from a secluded position.

[Stryke 9]

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.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Stryke 9



... 'Course, the recoil would break her collarbone, but she'd at least get one off.

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.

[Stryke 9]

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.

[heretic]

is the gas station down near the Bowl America and Red Roof Inn?

[Stryke 9]

Mmm... above the two, I think. By a good bit- it's across from the PetsMart, or just about so.

[heretic]

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

[Stryke 9]

[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.

[Mr Carrot]

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.

[Vertigo1]

banning guns.  Gee, it worked so well for alcohol and other drugs.