Quoting:

How can they be so sure that the victims were picked at random?  I mean, it seems that they were, but have they investigated whether there is anything connecting the victims?
End Quote

I am sure they are investigating every angle.  If there is a connection, they are probably trying to keep it quiet.  I know they wanted to keep the tarot card quiet but some idiot leaked it.  I hope they catch this guy before he gets number 9.

Quoting:The authorities have just come out with a wanted poster on the white box truck, and there's a Reuters' story reporting that more people are worried about a sniper attack than a terrorist attack.End Quote

Ok, sure, let's not worry about terrorists attacks and worry more about the snipers.  In the meantime, let's get bombed again!

Quoting:
And while we're at it, let's tighten up some of our gun control laws.  In particular ballistic fingerprinting, which the NRA has fought and successfully stalled.  
End Quote

No, let's not.  I'll be packing no matter what MD says if I move thru that area again - or, God forbid, it spreads up here - not implausible being only 15-20 min away.  It's obvious little can be done by "authorities" to stop these as*es, and people there seem to be failing even to observe who/what specifically is involved whenever a shooting happens rite in front of them.  Seems to me the chance of finding and incarcerating these a*ses is slim; time to take aim and fire when they strike rather than hiding (and not even seeing details!).  It'll probably save alot of lives and money in the process.

Monty Co is about the most liberal gun-control part of a liberal gun-control state (and so is PG Co).  Obviously, it didn't help.  And certainly, ballistics firing data isn't going to stop anyone - that's AFTER the fact that it might help find perps.  AFTER someone's dead.  (Thanks, guys!)  Besides, it doesn't take much to alter your (legally-purchased) firearm - change parts, add deformities w/metal files, etc. (not to mention wear&tear degradation).  This is perhaps the least logical of the "gun-control" mantra.

Quoting:


No, let's not.  I'll be packing no matter what MD says if I move thru that area again - or, God forbid, it spreads up here - not implausible being only 15-20 min away.  It's obvious little can be done by "authorities" to stop these as*es, and people there seem to be failing even to observe who/what specifically is involved whenever a shooting happens rite in front of them.  Seems to me the chance of finding and incarcerating these a*ses is slim; time to take aim and fire when they strike rather than hiding (and not even seeing details!).  It'll probably save alot of lives and money in the process.

End Quote

I don't want to sound like a flamer, OLine, but what earthly good will carrying a loaded weapon do you against this guy?  It's bad enough having a nutcase out there... a neighborhood full of untrained, armed and trigger happy vigilantes only compounds the problem.  

Quoting:

And while we're at it, let's tighten up some of our gun control laws.  In particular ballistic fingerprinting, which the NRA has fought and successfully stalled.  
End Quote

Yah, lets just take away everyones freedom, because one person can't control themselfs.  I am glad the NRA fought this, and I don't even own a gun.  Not one gun that has been fingerprinted has been used in a crime, and crime in finger printed states has not gone down. Once again lawful citizens would be asked to give up there rights.  

Quoting:
If guns are outlawed?  Who suggested outlawing guns?  If guns were outlawed, only the properly trained and the publicly employed would have guns.  

End Quote

This is a niave statement, and you know it.  How do you explain that not one one fingerprinted gun in Maryland has been used in a crime? is it because criminals got there guns Illegally? or bought them in another state? This law has not caused crime to go down.  The only thing it has done is made it harder for responsible people to get a gun.  

Quoting:

As far as taking away everyone's freedom... what freedoms are we talking about?  My freedom to get caught between an overwrought gun owner with dreams of Dirty Harry and a delivery driver walking out of a white box truck?  My freedom to get a call telling me that my son or daughter was shot because your kid "didn't know the gun was loaded"?  
End Quote

 All gun owners let their kids, and the niebor's kids play with thier loaded weapons.  They are always irresponsible. That's why I got to listen to that public service anouncement over and over again.  "I just wanted to make her a princess" (If you ever heard it, you know what I am talking about).  What about you right to defend yourself and protect your property?

I am sure this  

Quoting:
If guns were outlawed, there would have been no Columbine massacre.

End Quote

You don't know this for sure. how much harder would it have been to get the guns from an Illegal source? There are many things that could of prevented Columbine. Maybe if someone actually cared about these kids.  Maybe if there parents had noticed the garage of their $1.3M home being used as a bomb factory.  

Quoting:


I don't want to sound like a flamer, OLine, but what earthly good will carrying a loaded weapon do you against this guy?  It's bad enough having a nutcase out there... a neighborhood full of untrained, armed and trigger happy vigilantes only compounds the problem.  
End Quote

Obviously, being unarmed has helped alot, hasn't it?    ;)

Please don't characterize everyone w/firearms as "trigger-happy" - that's a tired old epithet that can't be true when you figure there are some millions of firearms and owners in this country.  If all were so stupid and careless, there would be alot more firearm deaths, believe me.  As it is, they account for little.

Not fond of the "untrained vs trained" statements, either.  Firing a weapon is not brain surgery.  In fact, even 300 years ago when firearms started appearing in earnest, it was noted very quickly that they didn't take all the practice and effort that archers and swordsmen needed.  That was part of their advantage, despite many other troubles early crude firearms had.  "Any old Joe" could fire them w/o having to be in practice all the time - and so you had more militia rather than relying solely on professionals, of which the erstwhile state armies would have consisted, exactly cuz training had to be the latter's very jobs.

Quoting:
As far as taking away everyone's freedom... what freedoms are we talking about?  My freedom to get caught between an overwrought gun owner with dreams of Dirty Harry and a delivery driver walking out of a white box truck?  My freedom to get a call telling me that my son or daughter was shot because your kid "didn't know the gun was loaded"?  
End Quote

Steve, this is a strawman argument.  (Not to mention hysterical characterization of firearm owners, again.)  Everything in the world is dangerous.  We take risks just getting out of bed.  As many and more people die from other categorized incidents - both accidental and intentional - than from "gun play".

Face it.  Other weapons, or items made to be weapons, were used to hijack 4 planes last year.  Those planes were used as Kamikaze dive bombers, and killed thousands AT ONCE.  You laugh and dismiss this comparison, but there is a real analogy.  Noone is talking yet about banning box-cutters (except on planes - along w/everything else!  stupid, I say).  Noone's banning planes or even 767s specifically.

The point is, accidents can happen, and deliberate crime happens too, regardless of the means.  Sometimes it's your own hands!  Sometimes, even those precious authorities accidentally shoot an innocent

And frankly, let's look at how our armed-populace scenario might play out, given what we know so far.  After shooting 5 people in Monty Co, Jackasses go over to DC for some fun.  People living in and moving thru DC are aware of this nightmare, and not sure if it might hit them.  Well, sure enough, an old man moving along a street gets shot.  No authorities around, as usual.  Several see this happen, at least 1 person (armed) notices the truck moving off and that they shot the man and it matches the descriptions given so far just 15 min north.  That armed person can see Jackasses in the truck, takes his weapon and fires a few times.  Let's say he hits another person running to the old man, just for you.  Let's also assume that person dies, as well as both the Jackasses, rather than just being wounded.  OK, what's the stack-up so far?  Ignoring the Jackasses, about whom I couldn't care less:

fantasy scenario:  7 dead, none wounded, killers dead, little money expended on saving their a$$es from jail as well as death row
real scenario:  10 dead, 3 wounded - and not over?

Sorry to be so cold, but I'll take reducing the number of dead to a fantasy that "noone needs to die!!!" and go on our merry way letting Jackasses shoot who knows how many more.  The police aren't everywhere - they can't be, and even when they are, they too are people who make mistakes.  Look at the last Fredericksburg shooting.

Hey, if we get really lucky, we won't need to use a firearm and can kill the bastards some other way (which itself hopefully won't kill others).  I don't care how it's done, I'd just like them to die.

And we'd be spared the crapola of sentencing these Jackasses to 20 years and them getting out in 5, all the while living a cushy life in so-called prison.

Quoting:
If caught I hope that he is thrown to a pack of citizens and torn to bloody shreds.
End Quote

Yeah, right, that will ever happen!  In my fantasies!   >:(

The Perps would get off on "mommy didn't kiss my boo-boos" and probably get the scenario I mentioned, 20years and 5 on parole.   >:(

Quoting:
And we'd be spared the crapola of sentencing these Jackasses to 20 years and them getting out in 5, all the while living a cushy life in so-called prison.
End Quote

You ever been in a prison?  Certainly the best of those I've been inside could under no stretch of the imagination be described as "cushy"; but this is not the thread for a discussion on prison reform.

The sniper has got to be a pro, ex-pro or serious gun-nut (i.e. someone who's had regular practice) - his accuracy and the speed at which he seems to be able to shoot and piss off is kind of scary - terrorist? in theory not by conventional definition, but scary nonetheless.

Phil
PS just time to make the "Gun control" gag about the guy who thought that gun control meant using two hands ;-)

Quoting:


Steve, this is a strawman argument.  (Not to mention hysterical characterization of firearm owners, again.)  Everything in the world is dangerous.  We take risks just getting out of bed.  As many and more people die from other categorized incidents - both accidental and intentional - than from "gun play".

Face it.  Other weapons, or items made to be weapons, were used to hijack 4 planes last year.  Those planes were used as Kamikaze dive bombers, and killed thousands AT ONCE.  You laugh and dismiss this comparison, but there is a real analogy.  Noone is talking yet about banning box-cutters (except on planes - along w/everything else!  stupid, I say).  Noone's banning planes or even 767s specifically.

The point is, accidents can happen, and deliberate crime happens too, regardless of the means.  Sometimes it's your own hands!  Sometimes, even those precious authorities accidentally shoot an innocent

End Quote

I agree.  Accidents do happen.  That's why there are circuit breakers and chickenwire on freeway overpasses.  A plastic knife can easily be made a lethal weapon.

And no, nobody's talking about banning plane travel... but it is regulated, and the number of regulations has increased since last year.  Planes are potentially lethal, guns are immediately lethal.  

We regulate the air industry.  We regulate, heavily regulate, who has access to anthrax spores and enriched uranium.  We go ballistic when gun regulation is proposed.  Why is that?

Quoting:
If guns are outlawed?  Who suggested outlawing guns?  End Quote