The Maryland sniper

[BTs_Colin]

actually thats not that bad an idea colin #2

interesting thought

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Heh, looks like the people at CNN finally looked at my forum post and qualified what an expert marksman was  

From the same article, I quote the story "The Bushmaster is the civilian version of the Colt-manufactured M-16 used by the U.S. military. They have the same capability, rounds and functions. "

That my friend is no varment gun. While it may not tbe the exact one that I linked to, you sure as hell bet that my original assesment of the gun was correct in it being a military style rifle. Also, if you read on in the article, he had a pretty scary set up - folding rear seat into the trunk where the scoped gun and tripod were kept, with a mechanism that allowed the trunk to open up enough to stick the barrel through. He also had holes in the trunk to see out of his sniper lens.

What puzzles me is where is this mysterious white van that they were always talking about, or was that a figment of everyone's imagination at the rest of the sniper scenes after it was first reported?

[electronicjo]

     I think the entire "white van" issue was just a coincidence.  Since people that were in the general area, where someone was shot, happened to notice that type of vehicle. The police, asking every witness of small details and what not, probably noticed a van in each report. Given that, they setup road-checks everywhere; looking for the "white van."

[|MP|Buccaneer]

btw, i heard that the sniper demanded a ransom of 10 million bucks before he was "caught"

here is a speculation:  The U.S. realized that catching the sniper would be impossible and secretly gave the 10 million ransom to the sniper while planting one of their own guys as the "caught sniper".  Now the sniper will stop and the American people have their criminal...

Just a thought...

hmmm.  LMAO.  I would believe that if they were using the ransom to catch the guy, but to put their own guy to death (this could well be a death penalty case, depending on who gets the trial) I don't think so.  Like I said before, they were going to get lucky eventually with a tip of some sort (in this case, a tip regarding a previous crime that had a finger print of one of the men and same sort of weapon).  

Assassin, yes, that was a scarry layout with the van.  If it wasn't for a stupid little slip-up they made previously, this could have dragged on for a long time.  Thank goodness for such very thurough police work to put that connection together.

As for the white van thing.  I was counting on my way home earlier.  I saw at least two white mini-vans every mile on the way home (more if you count full size).  That must be one of the most common colors for vans and mini-vans.

[Colin]

no, i don't think they will put their own guy to death.  I think they will kinda make him dissappear once they tell the media that he is in jail or something.  But then again, i could also be completely wrong....

[|MP|Cringe]

Colin! Stop giving the govt more good ideas that they couldnt come up with on their own. (lol jk)
That and if they wanted to make their guy dissapear they already have a whole program dedicated to that kind of stuff -> The Witness Protection Program, which basically makes u a completely new person with a new id, location, name, etc.

[Deadeye]

i was trying to search for something bondo wrote a while back, about the un rankins on the best countries to live in, and, if i remember correctly, the usa came in 3rd.  another north american country was one of the two abover it.  just to talk about how he keeps casting the usa in the sahdow of europe and throwing around un reports.

when i was, i came across this old quote from a voice in the past.  it seems this isn't the first time the gun ban issue has been raised here.:

First, China did kick our asses.... twice.  If we invaded China today, we'd get our asses handed to us.  

If half the population of the US rose up against a forign or domestic threat.... yeah, they'd pretty much kick any ass involved there too....  The US Armed Forces is pretty damn small compared to the population of the country.  And it's not like Air Power would make that much of a difference in a war of that sorts.  Or the Navy.

Now, let's go to your argument against GUNS.....

People can use alcohol without getting drunk or driving, but the use of pistols is in defense (to shoot attackers) or in crimes (to shoot hostages if needed).  This is all outside of hunting.  Considering that the only use then is a possible (once again I never said a majority have been used to shoot someone, just that a majority are owned with the main purpose that it might be used to shoot someone, whether in defense or not).  Getting shot is a violation of rights greater than the ownership of guns, therefore guns should be illegal.


First, one of your premises is still false.  Guns are not purchased just to shoot people.  I've never even thought of using a hand gun to shoot anyone... in defense of my home or not.  I have taken it to a gun range and shot the shit out of paper targets though (and no, not human shaped targets, just bullseyes).  So I contest that most people that own guns don't plan on ever using them... and don't.

As for those that do, here's another example of one of the truths behind guns that the "gun control" advocates don't like being brandied about.

Take this for example:

Another study, by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, showed that by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry handgun laws, 31 states have reduced murders, on average, by 7.7 %, rapes by 5 %, aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens would have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies.

As Prof. Lott characterized his findings: "Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats." "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal, p. A13, August 28, 1996.



The last stitistics I could find were from 97... (and according to everything I've read, gun related deaths are down from then.. but no hard numbers).  In 97, there were 31,000 deaths from guns (of all types) in the US.  In that same year there were over 60,000 deaths from Automobiles.... it's estimated that half of those involved drugs or alcohol (I couldn't find a hard number anywhere on it yet).  Add to those numbers how many people die from OD's and other Alcohol / Drug related causes (shooting yourself while drunk or high counts as both a gun death and an alcoholl related death... no?)...  So why would you be for things like legalized drugs and alcohol and not for guns??  Alcohol can be used without killing someone... so can guns... what's your point??  Both are dangerous.

It's the same with alcohol, drugs, driving, hunting, guns... all of it.  Why in the hell should my liberties be cut off just because some people aren't responsible enough to handle it??  Punish the guilty, not the innocent.  Hell, automobile accidents cause twice the number of deaths in the US then guns.... let's get rid of them!  Or, most of those are by people under the age of 26... let's make the new driving age 26!!  Stupid, isn't it.

The government doesn't need to protect me from myself... I don't need to be told to wear a helmet, seatbelt, what I can't drink or smoke, who I can sleep with (and what it will cost) or if I can own a gun.  I am an adult and can be responsible for myself.

i really like that point about not letting people under 26 drive, since they cause most of the fatal accidents.  what's the matter guys?  it would save thousands of lives every year of people under 26 weren't allowed to drive.  don't you care about those lives??