You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I wonder if the SHOOTINGS are TERRORIST related?!?!
- Thread starter M4A3
- Start date
Dangus,
The downside is that durn few people seem to have even gotten a good look at the shooters here. There's a single "BANG!" from a random direction, and while everyone's standing around trying to figure out where exactly it came from, the bad guy(s) motor(s) away.
I ain't saying that it's not a fantastic idea to carry a pistol whose capabilities at extreme ranges you are comfortable with. I ain't saying it couldn't help in taking down some hypothetical rifle-armed yahoo intent on racking up a body count all in one place. I am saying that there are some scenarios that being "armed to the teeth" (as our young friend SR_15_M4 put it) has very little relevance to, such as a rifle-armed man willing to take one pop from cover and disappear.
When someone attacks you like that, other armed citizens can save you, or avenge you at the very least and stop further attacks.
The downside is that durn few people seem to have even gotten a good look at the shooters here. There's a single "BANG!" from a random direction, and while everyone's standing around trying to figure out where exactly it came from, the bad guy(s) motor(s) away.
I ain't saying that it's not a fantastic idea to carry a pistol whose capabilities at extreme ranges you are comfortable with. I ain't saying it couldn't help in taking down some hypothetical rifle-armed yahoo intent on racking up a body count all in one place. I am saying that there are some scenarios that being "armed to the teeth" (as our young friend SR_15_M4 put it) has very little relevance to, such as a rifle-armed man willing to take one pop from cover and disappear.
y'all are hypothising about having a gun to defend yerself in Maryland?
The only way thats going to legaly happen is if you are on your own property
yer not even allowed to stop at Mickey Ds on the way to the gun range, with an unloaded rifle in the trunk in Montgomery County.
a loaded magazine is not allowed in the car either.
Al Kida prolly knows this
dZ
The only way thats going to legaly happen is if you are on your own property
yer not even allowed to stop at Mickey Ds on the way to the gun range, with an unloaded rifle in the trunk in Montgomery County.
a loaded magazine is not allowed in the car either.
Al Kida prolly knows this
dZ
Sure, being armed to the teeth does not always help, but to just give up and surrender is un-American. The thinking that nothing can be done about it is precisely the kind of attitude that hurts our movement. We are about taking some responsiblity for our protection and the protection of the community around us. Armed citizens could stop attacks like this, but they have to be ready to, and they have to be plentiful enough to make sure they are in the right place at the right time. When shots have been fired, of course nobody went and found the shooter, they were disarmed and scared. In that state it's all a hypothetical anyway as dZ has reminded us. Al Queda probably does indeed know precisely which states are easier targets and which are not. Don't be suprised at all if this is linked to them.
d!abolic,
BTW, and FWIW, the last tally for $$ figures for these three topped 19 billion. That's a lot of damage for doing basicly nothing but sending a bunch of emails.
Just prior to 9/11/01 and just after 9/2001, there was a rash of malicious code aka virus, that targeted mainly gvt systems via e-mail. Virus' aren't anything new (duh!) and they've been going around for years. What made the Code Red, Code Red II and Nimda different than others were the targets. Most hackers and or/script kiddes write a virus to see how far it can propagate in how short a time. CR, CR II and Nimda were directed 99% at the US, and mostly at all gvt systems. No doubt in my mind at all that these 3 were part of a greater plan to disrupt US systems. The timing and the target systems are too much for coincidence.What exactly have they hacked?
BTW, and FWIW, the last tally for $$ figures for these three topped 19 billion. That's a lot of damage for doing basicly nothing but sending a bunch of emails.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Dangus, the people may have learned that if someone is attacked, other folks around them respond themselves. That is a really fantastic and prudent concept to follow. There is a big problem, however. In the DC, Maryland, Virginia shootings, there wasn't anybody directly around the victims to return fire.
Giving up or surrendering may be un-American, but Dangus, your suggestions as to what might have helped out the victims simply does not pan out. Having guns is great and having friends with guns is great, but if you are all alone then who returns the fire for you after you go down? Plus, for those people who were in the vicinity, they didn't even know a gun was being fired. People simply don't return fire when they don't know they or others around them are being shot at. Go figure.
Giving up or surrendering may be un-American, but Dangus, your suggestions as to what might have helped out the victims simply does not pan out. Having guns is great and having friends with guns is great, but if you are all alone then who returns the fire for you after you go down? Plus, for those people who were in the vicinity, they didn't even know a gun was being fired. People simply don't return fire when they don't know they or others around them are being shot at. Go figure.
Two things.
First, the only way CCW would help in this situation is if somebody was "lucky enough" to be close enough to the shooter to realize what is going on and have the presense of mind to respond. Other then that one shot would be mighty hard to figure out wher it came from.
Second, why do we have to label violence against each other in differnet ways. Whether or not this is muslim terrorism, home grown terrorism, run of the mill wacko terrorism, or whatever, it is all terrorism.
Anytime something like this happens we should all be appalled, angry and willing to track down and punish the guilty in the most harsh mannor possible. Again to me whther or not our guy or guys or woman or whatever is a serial killer or a terroist makes no difference and shouldn't when it come time for them to pay.
Whether you shoot somebody robbing a liquor store, hit somebody over the head with a Louisville slugger or take an AK into a loaded mall you are the same, a simple animal in need of being put down. Your color doesn't matter, your belief system doesn't matter, your mental state doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that you are a murderor and that simply cannot be tolerated.
First, the only way CCW would help in this situation is if somebody was "lucky enough" to be close enough to the shooter to realize what is going on and have the presense of mind to respond. Other then that one shot would be mighty hard to figure out wher it came from.
Second, why do we have to label violence against each other in differnet ways. Whether or not this is muslim terrorism, home grown terrorism, run of the mill wacko terrorism, or whatever, it is all terrorism.
Anytime something like this happens we should all be appalled, angry and willing to track down and punish the guilty in the most harsh mannor possible. Again to me whther or not our guy or guys or woman or whatever is a serial killer or a terroist makes no difference and shouldn't when it come time for them to pay.
Whether you shoot somebody robbing a liquor store, hit somebody over the head with a Louisville slugger or take an AK into a loaded mall you are the same, a simple animal in need of being put down. Your color doesn't matter, your belief system doesn't matter, your mental state doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that you are a murderor and that simply cannot be tolerated.
Dangus said:
No one is saying we should just give up and surrender. We're just being realistic. If you're unlucky enough to be the target of this wacko, it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to defeat him. Your first warning will be the impact of a likely fatal shot. In the event you survive the first shot, he knows where you are, you don't know where he is, he's likely inside a vehicle (and thus in a shadow), you're in broad daylight, he's got a rifle and is at extended range, you've got a pistol. Anything is possible, but the percentages are all in his favor.
It's awfully hard to locate a single shot by sound, particularly if he's inside a vehicle (which will significantly reduce the sound of the muzzle blast). Add to that the way that sound bounces around in an urban area. It's not going to be easy to find this guy. The one mistake he's making is by being so bold as to make multiple attacks in a day at nearby locales. Hopefully, he'll screw up and the dragnet will catch him.
M1911
Sure, being armed to the teeth does not always help, but to just give up and surrender is un-American.
No one is saying we should just give up and surrender. We're just being realistic. If you're unlucky enough to be the target of this wacko, it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to defeat him. Your first warning will be the impact of a likely fatal shot. In the event you survive the first shot, he knows where you are, you don't know where he is, he's likely inside a vehicle (and thus in a shadow), you're in broad daylight, he's got a rifle and is at extended range, you've got a pistol. Anything is possible, but the percentages are all in his favor.
It's awfully hard to locate a single shot by sound, particularly if he's inside a vehicle (which will significantly reduce the sound of the muzzle blast). Add to that the way that sound bounces around in an urban area. It's not going to be easy to find this guy. The one mistake he's making is by being so bold as to make multiple attacks in a day at nearby locales. Hopefully, he'll screw up and the dragnet will catch him.
M1911
MO is pretty odd...
It could be a terrorist... from my experience in the field of forensics, you typically do not see a sniper serial killer. Serial killers usually like to be up close and personal to their victims. Most serial killers prefer to kill in melee range.... strangulation, stabbing, blunt force trauma, etc.
This situation seems more like a military sniper gone nuts or some sane person trying to spread chaos.. serial killers are usually cold and calculating, but they are insane, and that insanity typically is what gets them caught. This killer seems pretty cold and calculating.. but hasn't given himself away yet, so may very well be some sane terrorist trying to disrupt everyone.
It could be a terrorist... from my experience in the field of forensics, you typically do not see a sniper serial killer. Serial killers usually like to be up close and personal to their victims. Most serial killers prefer to kill in melee range.... strangulation, stabbing, blunt force trauma, etc.
This situation seems more like a military sniper gone nuts or some sane person trying to spread chaos.. serial killers are usually cold and calculating, but they are insane, and that insanity typically is what gets them caught. This killer seems pretty cold and calculating.. but hasn't given himself away yet, so may very well be some sane terrorist trying to disrupt everyone.
There's a difference between this guy and the "Palestinian Gunman" scenario. Palestinian Martyr wannabes tend to spray and pray, not using cover concealment or much of anything other than determingation and a large magazine. This guy shoots one round (possibly from the concealment of a van) and leaves. As long as he keeps to that, he'll be really tough to locate and kill.
Giving up or surrendering may be un-American, but Dangus, your suggestions as to what might have helped out the victims simply does not pan out. Having guns is great and having friends with guns is great, but if you are all alone then who returns the fire for you after you go down? Plus, for those people who were in the vicinity, they didn't even know a gun was being fired. People simply don't return fire when they don't know they or others around them are being shot at. Go figure.
At the Michael's store, that was not an abandoned shack in the middle of nowhere. It was a populated area. At the gas station, same thing. At the school, same thing. I'm not saying ANY of these cases would have been helped by armed citizens, but I am saying they COULD have been. These shooters are using a 5.56mm weapon, they can't be THAT far away. Especially getting one shot kills, they must be within ranges that fragmentation is occuring heavily. That means these guys are not sitting in a corn field outside town sniping away at anything that moves, they are in the area and sooner or later, someone will actually see them up close without actually being their target. If that person is armed, it would certainly improve their chances of at least living long enough to turn these maniacs in.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Dangus, maybe sooner or later somebody will see the shooter, but it probably isn't going to be the victim the way things are going. And if the shooter is shooting inside the window of lethality and getting heavy fragmentation, he is probably within 300 yards. No surprise. So please tell me what pistol you are going to use at that distance to make a difference.
Sooner or later somebody will see the shooter is another wonderful idea. So far, sooner or later hasn't worked for 8 people, 7 of which are dead and in the last case, the shooter did choose a heavily occupied area and shot a school kid and yet NOBODY has any idea where the shot came from. Having guns is great and I am all for it, but it is really hard to effectively applied a firearm against a singular (probably singular) targe about which you don't know from which direction it was shooting, from how far away, what it looks like, and whether or not it is now moving.
I think you are operating under the fallacy that having a gun protects you somehow and it really doesn't. Cover protects you by stopping whatever is thrown at you. A gun provides a means of stopping a person from attacking you if you can scare them with it or disable them, but it does not actually provide much protection beyond the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think soldiers wear Level IV ballistic armor these days (Point Blank's Interceptor OTV over Level IIIA soft)? Their M-16s do a poor job of actually protecting them from incoming rounds.
Sooner or later somebody will see the shooter is another wonderful idea. So far, sooner or later hasn't worked for 8 people, 7 of which are dead and in the last case, the shooter did choose a heavily occupied area and shot a school kid and yet NOBODY has any idea where the shot came from. Having guns is great and I am all for it, but it is really hard to effectively applied a firearm against a singular (probably singular) targe about which you don't know from which direction it was shooting, from how far away, what it looks like, and whether or not it is now moving.
I think you are operating under the fallacy that having a gun protects you somehow and it really doesn't. Cover protects you by stopping whatever is thrown at you. A gun provides a means of stopping a person from attacking you if you can scare them with it or disable them, but it does not actually provide much protection beyond the volume of space it occupies. Why do you think soldiers wear Level IV ballistic armor these days (Point Blank's Interceptor OTV over Level IIIA soft)? Their M-16s do a poor job of actually protecting them from incoming rounds.
I'm putting money on this being terrorist related. Nobody in the media wants to say it, and the LEO's won't say it even if they find out it was done by half a dozen Yemen nationals. It doesn't jibe with any typical serial killer, is too well orchestrated to be the work of kids, and appears to be directed against random targets of opportunity rather than blacks, whites, women etc.
To find a model for these attacks you need only look to Israel, where they have been a standard part of life for many years. They aren't as well known or as common as the "Allahu Akbar" suicide attacks with bombs and AK-47's blazing, but they tend to be far more lethal. Several checkpoint guards were killed in a particularly nasty attack a while back. Besides, it's HIGHLY unlikely we're dealing with Palestinians. Muslim extremists from different nations, such as Yemen, practice shooting all the time, and not just in the air wildly.
We shall see.
What's going to make me EXTREMELY angry is when the LEO community refuses to call it by the T-word even if they find it was done by half a dozen Yemen nationals! Just like that "random" shooting and stabbing at the El Al counter at LAX.
To find a model for these attacks you need only look to Israel, where they have been a standard part of life for many years. They aren't as well known or as common as the "Allahu Akbar" suicide attacks with bombs and AK-47's blazing, but they tend to be far more lethal. Several checkpoint guards were killed in a particularly nasty attack a while back. Besides, it's HIGHLY unlikely we're dealing with Palestinians. Muslim extremists from different nations, such as Yemen, practice shooting all the time, and not just in the air wildly.
We shall see.
What's going to make me EXTREMELY angry is when the LEO community refuses to call it by the T-word even if they find it was done by half a dozen Yemen nationals! Just like that "random" shooting and stabbing at the El Al counter at LAX.
Good lord man, did you even READ my last post?
I stated very clearly that chances are low that the victim will make the killing shot.
Let me put this in an example form so you can understand it.
If they are sitting in a parking lot full of cars, as has been suggested, and they aim and fire a shot off to kill someone, they may not be spotted by anyone downrange of them, but lets suppose a person happens to be walking through the lot at that time and sees them in the vehicle, AR sticking out slightly with all their other windows tinted really dark. Lets suppose that person happens to be carrying a concealed weapon. Now do you really think it would be very hard for that person to make a killing shot? Would it be hard for them to at least do enough damage to injure one of the assailants?
I still do not agree that the targets should not bother being armed. That's defeatist and stupid. Even if it only saves their life on the freak chance that it actually hits the gun itself, it's still better then absolute surrender. Some small chance is vastly better than no chance.
I stated very clearly that chances are low that the victim will make the killing shot.
Let me put this in an example form so you can understand it.
If they are sitting in a parking lot full of cars, as has been suggested, and they aim and fire a shot off to kill someone, they may not be spotted by anyone downrange of them, but lets suppose a person happens to be walking through the lot at that time and sees them in the vehicle, AR sticking out slightly with all their other windows tinted really dark. Lets suppose that person happens to be carrying a concealed weapon. Now do you really think it would be very hard for that person to make a killing shot? Would it be hard for them to at least do enough damage to injure one of the assailants?
I still do not agree that the targets should not bother being armed. That's defeatist and stupid. Even if it only saves their life on the freak chance that it actually hits the gun itself, it's still better then absolute surrender. Some small chance is vastly better than no chance.