Gawd....50 meters....and there was I at 600 yards...

Baker...the problem is that the guns are already 'got'....so it's too late.
And I am right, and you know it....

There will always be some poor misguided fool who believes it is a God-given right to own and use a gun, and they will always pipe up with some piddling argument about deterents, etc.

Why ever did anyone worry about the Cold War Arms Race in the 50's, 60's and 70's when US society has an Arms Race of its own?....'you got an assault rifle?, I better get a bazooka, then'...

The right on the spot death sentence comment. I meant after a fair trial. Who ever said it was a God given right to own a gun?

I am convinced this guy is a trained professional. My guess goes to maybe some paramilitary wacko. Cold-blooded shot. Directly to the head. Never missed. Always only once. Sorry, but a human head is no chestnut. A parking lot is not an open field. Extreme calm and concentration is needed dispite the fact that anybody can see you, despite the fact that the police could show up any time. Dispite the fact that the target is moving, unlike the chestnut. I know I can shoot an apple from 50 yards no problem, But a human head in the middle of a busy parking lot? I'd probably miss 3 times out of 3.

Interesting thoughts. I think I would have to agree that it is NOT al-Qaida. I would also have to agree that this person or persons would have some type military background.

Jafo...No type of gun control would stop a crazed killer like this. But, it would curb or slow down things like children going into daddy's closet, playing with his shiny silver handgun and accidently blowing his sister away. Or for that matter, the teenager that goes to his daddy's closet to get some guns to kill his classmates because they taunted him one to many times. For those reasons...yes gun control is an option to look at.

However, as you said earlier, it's too late now. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't go back. My dad and my brother are both card carrying members of the NRA. (If they saw my post I would, at least, get sceamed at, and at most, get force-fed a nuckle sandwich.) If George and the boys on capitol hill told everyone that certain hand guns were going to be illegal tomorrow. They, and the rest thier NRA fans, would by as many as they could today, and bury them in thier back yard. The fact is...there is no simple answer. Maybe no answer at all. If you want to carry a gun around you have to pay the price. My question is this...Is a dead child, mother, father, husband, wife, worth the right? I think not! But the fact is...we are paying it!

BTW, last time I looked, the bible never said anything about everyone's right to have a gun. It's not in my bible...maybe it's in Ossama's quorin bible thingy?

Jafo, you know I love you , but I think your dead wrong on the whole gun issue. And, this is one opinion that I have that nobody will ever change, so don't even try.

I truly believe that the person that is doing this is not some Joe Schmo that took his legally bought hunting gun out of his basement and just decided one day to start picking people off. He is trained. He may have been an ex-cop or was trained in a military or has spent many hours of target practice at a range. The gun that he is using is probably modified, and may not even have been legally obtained.

This would not happen if Americans did not have the right to have guns? How can you take away guns? I know how to make a gun. I also know how to make knives and hatchets. I know how to shoot a compound bow and arrow, shot many types of guns (including muzzle loaders), and I know how to throw knives and hatchets with great accuracy. I grew up with hunters as grandfathers, uncles and father. My Grandparents belonged to muzzler loader associations, and my father is a card carrying NRA member. (Put one of those stickers on your window- it's better than any alarm system you can buy!)

I have never used a weapon to injure or kill anything. I know their power and I respect them. Rifles have their place. They are necessary for our hunting seasons for population control of animals. I would never kill an animal (heck, I don't even like to eat that much meat.....and I never eat anything that is still attached to the bone) but I understand why hunting is a necessary evil. I respect it. I know that you don't point a gun at something unless you want to kill it.

Guns are not the problem. *People* are the problem. Certain people do not value human life. So what if guns were illegal? You can't get rid of violence. People would make bombs or set fires. They will run over people with their cars. If somebody is going to kill people, they will do it. It has nothing to do with the gun.

How many people die a year during *elective* surgery? (Should we ban it? If it's elective, it's not needed.) How many people die because of car accidents? (should we not be allowed to drive?) How many people die of alcohol related problems? (guess there should be no more drinking) How many people die because of smoking? (that should go, too!) All these things are legal, and each one individually cause more deaths per year in the US than guns do.

This guy is a nut. It has nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with mankind.

Amen KarmaGirl!!

Don't want to get into a gun control argument, but it will always amaze me how guns are considered just an every day product in the USA.
Grocery list:
- Bread
- Milk
- New gun

It even more amazes me how the subject of gun control is as sensitive as religion. It kills people for crying out loud. Anyway, this is a dead topic, the same way a religious debate is.
I'm just amazed, that's all. And it's the reason why I would never ever ever live in the USA. My wife is American, and when we decied to get married, the question of where to live was very quick to make. America may be richer, but Canada is safe.

Jafo: yup, you're right. So are the ten commandents, enforcement is the problem...

What amazes me is that people understand that, though they are illegal, anyone can get drugs anytime they want them, anywhere in the world. Those same people, though, think that outlawing guns will make them impossible to get.

I know people who would make the argument to legalize marajuana and outlaw guns in the same breath. For some reason regulating pot is safer, and guns will simply melt into the earth the moment society shuns them. Granted, it is easier and cheaper in some places to build a bomb than to buy a gun...

Mexico has much stronger gun laws than the US. Carrying a single round of ammunition into Mexico can get you jailed for 5 years. If you have the time, look into their crime statistics.

This is one of the rare arguments that I *know* is pointless. Gun ownership is a given everywhere in the world, some people simply refuse to acknowledge it. I own more than one, and if they were outlawed I wouldn't bury them, I'd obey the law. Only honest people would, though, and frankly honest people aren't the problem.

Paxx, Canada probably is safer, but I don't think that guns are the only factor. One large factor that people don't look at in the US is where these crimes take place. They happen in places that are over populated and usually have a massive gap between the rich and poor. Any time that you push too many people together, you will see crime (this is why Japan has such extremely strict laws on weapons). It goes back to human nature, and possibly the environmental factors of being so populated in a certain area. (For example: I never knew what "road rage" was until I moved away from my small hometown). There was also no crime in my small home town. I know of two people who took their lives with shotguns, and one brother who shot the other in the leg due to him stealing his dog. That was all in the 21 years that I lived there.

Here is a good link:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

One thing to keep in mind, this is there to promote guns laws in Canada, and I am sure the statistics are used in a way to show that point of view (as we all know that statistics can be molded into what you are trying to prove). Yes, the US has a much higher rate of gun violence. We also have a much greater rate of violence in general (twice that of Canada). What else is missing from this is: how are the rest of the crimes committed in Canada? It doesn't say.

I would like to see some real data per country throughout the world on crimes committed. Not just by guns, but all crime and compare them. It would also be nice to see the other factors involved, such as population, race of the community (I know we would rather ignore that one, but...), education of the people involved, how the person who committed the crime was raised (single parent, foster care, happy home..) I think you get the point. There are so many factors involved in crime. It's easy to point the finger at the gun, but we should really be looking at why these people commit the crimes- all crimes.

And, you are right Paxx, it is a debate that will never end. It's just like all politics, religion, abortion laws, etc. There will never be one "right" opinion.

Someone murdered someone in my town with a steak knife. Should we make steaks illegal or steak knifes illegal? Someone also assualted someone with a baseball bat. Do we make the game of baseball illegal, the ball, or the bat? Or all of them? Talk amongst yourselves.

btw - with such a good description of the vehicle out now, my guess is that *if* they try again it will be from a new vehicle. I say *if* because there is always that slight chance that they will stop... Like the Zodiac.

Come on now...

Two cities with about the same population, similar demographics:
Philadelphia, homicides per year: approx. 400
Montreal, homicides per year: approx. 80

Anyway. It's your country, it's none of my business.

Ah forget it.
Ignore the above post. I don't want to argument.

Paxx, you were actually making one of my points, though. Why does the US have so much crime? It's easy to point to the guns as the problem, but I think we need to dig further. We need to look at why the people do it. As I stated above "We also have a much greater rate of violence in general (twice that of Canada)." So, why is that? And, actually, that "twice that of Canada" is non-gun related crimes. So why are we more violent? I somehow doubt that giving Canadians guns would make them more violent. I am pretty sure that they can easily get them from the states if they really wanted to. My major point is: Don't blame the guns, blame the people.

It is certainly a debate that will never end. I did not mean for the thread to go there, but frankly, it's good to hear everyones side. I'm just happy to see that we have gone over 24 hours without another attack from this (these) idiot(s). My heart goes out to the victims and their families.

May God Bless them!

I am troubled. I jsut read an article that is very confusing to me:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/27522p-26160c.html

Witnesses they are citing are convinced the weapon was an AK-47. The trouble is that that weapon is not produced in .223 (5.56mm) caliber. There is enough differece in the metallurgy and size of the two calibers that there would be no way that the bullets could be confused forensically, not even in fragments, imho. The odd push toward the Kalashnikov comes at the same time as the identification of the shooter as 'middle-eastern'.

If anyone knwos of a Kalashnikov chambered for a 5.56mm, speak up. I hope that all the images of middle-eastern terrorists firing AK-47s haven't seeped into the public subconscious enough to cause that kind of mistake. Everytime they show bin Laden he is holding one or one is leaned up near him. This makes me wonder if the police were not sharing all the facts about the weapon earlier.

A stubby AR-15 with a bananna clip looks a lot like an AK, and a dark-haired guy with a tan looks a lot like an Arab. I hope both are cases of mistaken identity. It is odd they would release information they know to be false, though. I dunno what will happen if this is not home-grown terrorism.

It's quite possible that the people who were identifying the gun have no idea what different guns look like. I also wonder how much of the "facts" are reported. Hopefully, the police know more than what we are hearing about.

It would be very irresponsible for the police to elude details that would be 'leading' to the public. Heck, the average american with only a short glimpse probably couldnt' even guess the right continent, much less the right ethnic group. 'Dark skinned' is just causing people to assume. The AK-47 statement is leading, imho, and needless if it is the wrong caliber. If this goes on it might be very uncomfortable, again, for Arabic citizens in D.C.

If I were the police I would try my best to tone that angle down for now. I with the press would stop talking to witnesses as well. The day after the police chief said that he though kids were safe at school the 13 year old boy was shot. Whoever this is, he is adjusting his crimes to what he hears. How expensive is dark makeup and a dark wig, or light makeup and a blonde wig? If anything they should be humanizing the victims as much as possible, instead of making the nut famous.

with=wish

The original Kalshnikov was chambered for the German derived Soviet 7.63 Short round.
Around the early to mid 70s variations of the AK47 appeared in 5.5 give or take a few mm.
Depending on the origin, as in Czechoslovakia, China, Hungary or Bulgaria, as well as the various 'Russian' State arms factories, these could have turned down foregrips, bayonet lugs, no bayonet lugs, semi or full automatic fire, standard length or cut down barrels ..... tailored to suit the end user.
I think the small calibre was just a 'fashion' thing, certainly the 7.63 Kurz was a better round and the Soviet State produced arms a decent quality, not as good as the Czech (Skoda I think?) rifles but far above the ChiCom units.
I've yet to see an AR16 or version of same that was any good in the hands of the average grunt, nasty plastic things they were..... a 'mechanical musket' if ever there was one.
Not the weapon of choice for single round kills at any range.
It really is irrelevant, the damn thing is being used on civilians, to all intents and purposes by a psycopathic pro!
As for the 50 yards story .... the report and muzzle flash would be a dead give away.
Be nice if the perp attempts to resist when the Federales catch up with him, Exedrine (???) Headache 9mm!

My AR-15 was very accurate, and as long as I used the forward assist it never jammed. I'm not sure if the Colt varied in quality from the Armalite or the other clones. It seems like a idiotic choice for this purpose, though.

I still find it hard to believe that he is not using something closed-breach and suppressable; I had just assumed that it was the supersonic 'crack' that people were hearing. Amazing how little people hear in an urban area. Then again, a single shot just makes you duck anyway, and he seems a bit too sneaky to make a second for people to home-in on.

As long as no one is hurt, it would be better for all concerned if he 'resists arrest'. I don't think I could handle a courtTv monstrosity, or another vacation trip to camp X-Ray.

jammed = misfired. apologies. Thinking and typing... walking and chewing gum... i suck...

Guns are a weapon of convenience, you don't even have to get bloody and up-close.
Weapons of remote or mass killing are the issue, not knives or baseball bats, NRA fanatics will always come up with those as arguments. Such tripe....let's ban paper, just in case someone decides to slash people to pieces with paper-cuts....

Simply imagine a world with NO guns and you'll have a world with no shootings, then ask yourself what is the LEGITIMATE motive for owning them.

The interesting side of this indiscriminate sniper is that he could just as easily kill an NRA gun-toting thug and guess what? The toting of that gun won't save you at all.

Excluding Boing 737's, what are the 'weapons of choice' of the mass murderer?
According to the pro-NRA, that would be knives and bats.....yeah, right...

The news I just heard said they think the gun was a AK-74. Yea, that's right, I wrote 74. According to the news cast it is a modified and updated version of the AK-47. However, I think the newscaster was on drugs. Most of them are ya know!

Jafo: My Father is a lifetime member of the NRA. He doesn't 'carry guns' to Home Depot, it is illegal, but even if he did it wouldn't help him if someone wanted to kill him. Nor would telling the sniper that he can't have a gun. Where there's insanity there's a way.

The most beloved figures in my life have been members of the NRA, men that taught me to hunt, to respect life, and men that I couldn't hold a candle to. When I hear them called 'thugs' it doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad. I feel sorry for those who would hatefully antagonize and villify good people who do, and wish, no harm. No NRA members I know horde ammunition or have bunkers. The liberal view of the average NRA member is no different than the sterotypical view bigots have of minorities; just as needless, and just as productive.

I know you feel strongly about it Jafo, and I don't hold it against you, but you are throwing out a lot of babies with very little, propaganda-soiled bathwater.


****My last gun-control comment****

Here are the top 15 causes of death for the year 2000:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html

Please note that 'Homicide' isn't only gun deaths, and that there are probably some gun deaths in the accident section. I couldn't find the total firearms deaths for 2000, but in 1999 it was 21,143.

It would be much more valid to say that America has a car-accident (41,804) problem, or an Alzheimer's disease (49,044 deaths)problem. That is twice the number of deaths due to a disease that many haven't heard of and most people can't spell.

The question isn't whether guns kill people, but whether the absence of guns would make any difference. I am unconvinced of that fact. You would simply divert the cost of illegally purchased weapons to the illegal activities that are the true cause of our 'gun problem'.