I was raised in large part in France. My grandfather left me a collection of 63 guns/rifles/shotguns - everything from mausers (sp) guns to uzi's. You would not believe the problems I had trying to import these into the US (many were outlawed here). I eventually gave up trying and sold them off. I don't own a gun now, but I sure am glad I could if I wanted to. As others here, I believe guns are just a way to throw a very small rock very far at a great speed. Nothing more. If you're the type of person who would throw the rock in the first place, you would find a way to throw it harder/faster/more accurately regardless.

Incidently, the only place I've ever been threatened with a gun was in the UK about three years ago (Newbury to be exact). Brits have VERY strict gun control laws, but people own them nonetheless.

Just my $.02

As others have stated....guns don't kill people....PMS does

Paxx: Guns are used in the Olympics for heaven's sake, and oddly no one is killed in the process. When you say "what it means to us", understand that you are talking about you, and people who share your opinion, not the world as a whole.

In Canada, Europe, etc., gun ownership is legal, though regulated in varying degrees. A requirement to take a safety course and get a permit is not a social judgement of wrongness.

The more I read this, the more I think a gun control discussion on this thread really dilutes the outrage one should have about someone who could do this. The gun seems to be to blame, and the sniper seems to be its tool. Again, lets just quit it.

Kinrik, from then up to a few years ago (actually, 5 years this December) is hardly ancient history.....
As a reserve WO1 on a monthly basis one can remain pretty current, counting exchange tours and reserve time just over 30 years probably wouldn't qualify me to comment ....... but my limited experience seems to be of some value in a backwater country like Australia.
At present the Regiment use Steyr 5.56 Bullpup and Steyr 7.63 'Match' rifles.
The 'pups' have the auto locked out, and the 7.63s are bolt action, no place for reconaissance by fire in our training regime.
No such piece as a SAW either.
Our backward doctrine is based on closing without being seen or heard and doing the job without being noticed.
Not much stock placed in the John Wayne Spectacular routine, never has been come to think of it.
Rather OT but relevant, it appears the charge used in Bali was not Semtex but C4, where would an OBL cell get hold of that I wonder??
"Who Dares Wins"

still missing bits i meant to cover, sorry...

my reference to the vietnam era was in reference to your comment about the Corps grumbling about using the M-16 (which we still do a bit of). In the beginning, and for a bit after, it was always prone to locking up in the feed because of the shoddy gas release after rechambering the round on full-automatic. then they switched out the triggering system and removed the full-auto (which is still easy to get around with a metal file and some time...), and fixed the gas recycling. still jams when dirty and used a lot, but not nearly as much as they apparently had thrity years ago. also, i'm just going off of what i have read/been told during training, since i wasn't alive way back then. my sources abviously could be wrong/blowing smoke to make the story sound cool...

Sounds like a good idea but I doubt the various lobby groups would go for it.
You might find the "tumbling" 5.56 is a bit of a myth, the original reason was bad QC and unstable ballistics, while the general wound trauma results from high velocity shock added to the round deflecting off bone .... not nice.
Similar effect to armour 'spalling' inside an AFV after a non penetrating hit .... I never liked armour!!
FYI, even today, all of the men of 1SAS are capable of field stripping and using the assorted Kalashnikovs, (and several other types) as it is a good idea to have the ability to use what ever is around, one can only hump a certain weight and most ops are one way only chopper insertions.
'Extraction' is the old and time-honoured method, walking out..... some things never change.

hmmmm I am trying to understand other points of view. If all drugs were legal the would still be regulated under law just like everything else. Even then those drugs would have rules as to what happens when used illegally.

Same with guns.

I still think better gun laws are needed but keep in mind that those laws are for the people and not for the non-living gun. Newer laws taking advantage of newer technologies to track a bullet or a gun would be helpful. As much as I would be suspisious of that I think this is not the days of the old west and therefore the open end freedoms of shooting and not knowing where the bullet came from are gone.

You should be able to buy a gun with out a gun liscensce. Maybe even not have a gun with out insurance, much like a car.

There could be ways to better the gun laws and make better guns and stop illegal gun shows or legal ones that sell guns as if it was a pair of pants (you give me money and I give you gun)

I agree with Karmagirl that it is the people but the laws are for the 'people' so better laws would be better. Never the less, it will only stop some and not all who are like this man.

OK,Bakerstreet, I apologizde for the tonne of my last post. I got carried away. I made it sound like everybody was shooting everybody. I know it's not the case. But I stay convinced that 90% of your homicides would be avoided if there was no guns, or if guns were heavily regulated. That's my opinion.

sig: As I said, there are exceptions where some people have a gun for their duty. In this particular case, apparently many conservation officers carry handguns for protection. It seems that "if you're working in a narrow stream, you need it if a grizzly bear starts coming at you". (I'm quoting an article)

Finally, Bakerstreet, I don't want to play on semantics again with you. You say guns here are regulated, I say they are illegal. That's just semantics. Drugs too are regulated then, not illegal. So, I'll not argue with words, it's pointless.

Anyway, end of this topic for me. I think in some time in the future, America will have to reevaluate its position, when it will become a matter of survival, a choice between security or freedom. But, only time will tell. For now, that's it for me.

Over and out.

72 hours...no sniper shootings. I hope this is the way it stays!

The problem with "fingerprinting" a gun is that, just like in cars, the marks can be altered. Their proposal has been to place inscribers in the barrel of the gun, so when a bullet is shot, it is fingerprinted to the gun. Problem: the more the gun is shot, the less accurate this is. A simple file can remove enough of the mark to make it inaccurate within a "reasonable doubt" and make the evidence not stand up in court. Without a "lo-jack" type chip (which could be removed, too) they still wouldn't be able to find the killer, especially if the gun was stolen. (Did you know that a lot of pure bred dogs come with a lo-jack type chip in them? If my Dukey Dog was ever stolen, we could track him down! (mini-dachshund, if you wondered..))

There are gun laws already. There is a waiting period on handguns. There are laws about loaded weapons (did you know that leaning a loaded rifle against your truck while hunting is against the law?) But are they enforced? Are the people who commit the crimes punished enough? I would say "no." You can make all the laws you want, but what it will do is force the honest people to pay more and be inconvenienced while the people who really want to kill will steal or obtain the guns illegally.

When we catch this sniper, we need to make an example of him/her (we assume it is a man, but who knows?) We need to prove without reasonable doubt that he/she committed the crime, and punish them to the full extent of the law. Make an example. Make people know that this will not be tolerated.

If everyone lost a hand for stealing, then I doubt that people would steal. If you are found without a reasonable doubt of murdering somebody with a gun, and the punishment would be that you were to be shot the same way, you would probably think twice (or a billions times) before shooting somebody. Yeah, I really am a "measure for measure" kind of person......

well, i have followed all of this.

i live in England, and have NO experience with guns.

i dont have strong views on gun control either.

in my experience people can be nasty, mean and violent without any tools (eg, big stick, knife, gun).

the problem isnt the tool, it is the person.

if the punishments were more servere, then perhaps most people would be less likely to do "evil" things.

however, if this snipper is "insane" then perhaps the threat of stronger punishment wouldnt deter them.

i offer no solutions, only deep conolences for those who have lost loved ones to this, and other, tragities. also i hope that the person responsible is stopped before anyone else is harmed.

Good one mosh.
I watched a death row inmate being asked why the death penalty didn't keep him from tying up and shooting a convenience store operator. He said that he was too drugged up to be afraid, and wanted no witnesses. Then he said that this was his 14th robbery, and that the first 13 clerks were alive today only because he did fear the death penalty.

Bangkokboy- that would be kinda' funny

Yes, I do have different views than other people. That's what makes me "me." Love my views or hate my views, they are at least my honest views, and I'm not "wishy washy" with them. People know where I stand. I also can respect other people's views, because that is what makes everyone different. If everyone thought the same way I do.....well, the world would be a boring place...

I guess President Bush will add the sniper to the "Axis of Evil" now....Great....How do we expect to win the war overseas when the military and FBI can't even win a smaller war back home?