's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Anyone think it's weird that the sniper's record is 9-11?(44 posts)

Anyone think it's weird that the sniper's record is 9-11?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 16, 2002 7:46 AM
Maybe I am just reading in to numbers too much. However, if the sniper stopped killing today, which I pray he does, his record would be 9-11.
means nothing...ClydeTri
Oct 16, 2002 7:51 AM
how could have he made sure only two of the victims would have lived?..both were near death...if either had lived he would be 10-11, or if more had lived he would be 7-11 or etc...
about as relevant as the lottery numbers nmDougSloan
Oct 16, 2002 9:03 AM
No. But I wouldn't be surpised if this was Qaeda at work.RoyGBiv
Oct 16, 2002 9:55 AM
It's just coincidence that's in 9-11. Same with all the other numerological musings about Sept. 11.
I'm starting to wonder, though, if this tragedy is the work of a foreign terrorist. There's been many reports of witnesses seeing two people in a white truck. That doesn't seem to fit the profile of a psycho gone over the deep end. Usually they act alone, don't they?
Yes, but...Wayne
Oct 16, 2002 10:15 AM
a terrorist act without claiming it is kinda pointless as well. Plus what good muslim (or christian) would claim "I am God" that sounds like a crazy not a politically motivated individual.
I don't think this will turn out to be the case here, but I think the Richard Reid case may show that Al Quaeda isn't above using a patsy.
Yes, maybe you're right.RoyGBiv
Oct 16, 2002 10:44 AM
I forgot about Columbine. There's an article in the NYTimes theorizing on three possible scenarios behind who's doing it: the aggressive hunter, the icy loner or teen-agers out for the thrill. The latter would fit with witness reports of two people in the truck.
Please refresh my memory on Richard Reid.
I hope I have that name right...Wayne
Oct 16, 2002 10:58 AM
he's the shoe bomber guy who tried to blow-up the plane shortly after 9-11, just plead guilty to a bunch of charges and although he claims to have acted alone I think the consensus is that there is no way he had the wear-with-all to pull it off by his lonesome.
I can't imagine 2 teenagers being independant and smart enough to have not gotten caught yet. It will interesting it we ever find out this guy's or guys' motivation. I wonder if it will just be totally scattered or somekind of coherent but totally twisted rational?
I hope he/they are capture alive.RoyGBiv
Oct 16, 2002 11:23 AM
Just so we can find out what makes people like this tick.
I like to believe, perhaps naively, that the more we can learn about such people, we can take steps to prevent others from turning into cold-hearted killers like this. Or at least develop methods for identifying potential killers before they act.
I remember Mr. Reid's deed, but I'd forgotten his name. Thanks.
Don't be so sureKristin
Oct 21, 2002 9:30 AM
They just caught the two guys who pulled the Brown's Chicken masacre's in Palatine, IL in 1993. After their capture the police did determine that this was a thrill killing committed by, then, two teenage boys. The robbery was just an excuse to terrorize and brutally murder 7 people. Oh, by the of the killers was a former employee. Believe me, if this is two teenage boys, they could stay lost for quite sometime.
Just making a terrorist conclusion...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 16, 2002 12:56 PM
... based upon total disregard for life - man, woman, and child. One of the few common threads was that they are all Americans.

If the killings stopped it would make for more of an urban legend than anything else.
I wouldMJ
Oct 17, 2002 12:19 AM
it's state facilitated domestic terrorism - you let everyone who wants a high powered sniper rifle have one and the next thing you know people get shot - how surprising

the blame lies solely with the NRA lobby - whether it be a foreign or domestic sniper you can be sure the weapon was picked up in the good ole USA
You mean you wouldn't blame the shooter at all! (nm)Wayne
Oct 17, 2002 6:47 AM
I would agree (right....)peloton
Oct 21, 2002 1:06 AM
it's state facilitated domestic terrorism- you let everyone who wants a gas guzzling car have one and the next thing you know people get killed in wrecks- how surprising

the blame lies solely on the transportation industry- whether it be a foreign or domestic driver you can bet the car was picked up in the good ole USA

We make more cars than any other nation. People get killed by cars. No one is responsible enough to own a car. Kind of the same argument- huh? You responsible enough to drive?Heck of a lot more deaths from cars than guns, but we don't get all fired up about that.
equating guns and cars is ridiculousMJ
Oct 21, 2002 5:32 AM
what is a gun designed to do vs what is a car designed to do? last I heard cars weren't for killing

people - particularly in the US have to have cars - they are a necissity - guns, with obvious exceptions, are not a necessity

how simple is this point? - how strained is your car vs guns analogy? - how many innocent people will be shot in the head before you figure this out?
Tell that to the people in Bali...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 21, 2002 7:08 AM
Of course cars are used to kill people - what about car bombs? Try using your argument in Bali where car bombs killed over 180 and see where it gets you.

Also, if you were driving a car and someone was in front of you shooting with a gun would you not run them over? Thus, using your car as a weapon?
how deranged is your logic? - you must be trollingMJ
Oct 21, 2002 8:31 AM
in Bali there was a bomb inside a car - the car didn't blow up the bomb inside it did - how difficult is this?

guns, particularly sniper rifles, are designed to kill - cars are not - cars are a necessity of everyday life - guns are not

you could use your lawnmower as a weapon just as you could a car - but that is not it's design function

are you really missing my point? - or are you trolling - if you are missing my point then you must be very thick (as in stupid) indeed

when people have weapons like this freely available is it any surprise that incidents like this happen?
are guns illegal where you live? nmjose_Tex_mex
Oct 21, 2002 9:04 AM
You MUST be British...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 21, 2002 9:29 AM
... I can understand how Brits would be against having a general populace armed - since their Empire inevitably died because of the ability of peasants/commoners to gain rifles.

Let's face it, as guns became more available and popular the British Empire directly decreased.

In the US we see things differently. Our view is that we would still be under the Brits if it were not for our guns.
you have a limitedMJ
Oct 22, 2002 12:22 AM
understanding of your history, world history and British history - though I appreciate your regular interest in Northern Ireland - it's always entertaining to see such a well travelled, comprehensive understanding of the situation

if you look back to Lexington & Concord and the rest of the American Revolution - the victory was given to the US by a lack of genuine interest from the UK in continuing the conflict - the war of 1812 was a halfhearted bit of adventuring - the last battle of which was fought almost 6 weeks after the conclusion of hostilities... I bet Sam Houston wished he'd had a DSL line

if you're able to put together a coherent point to address my argument re guns then please feel free - otherwise - am happy to continue reading your comedic high school level attempts at historical assertion

how old are you? do your parents know you're on the computer?
no guns allowed in Britain or N. Ireland, so what's your excuse?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 22, 2002 4:02 AM
Having an un-armed civilian populace is exactly what allows the Hitlers of the world to walk across entire countries in a day with little to no resistance.

It's because of a lack of guns that millions of European civilians, especially Jews, were rounded up like animals and killed. If guns had been available like they are in America they might at least have stood a chance.

So, you're British correct? Guns are illegal in the North of Ireland and Britain, correct? Yet somehow your society has had many, many deaths. But I suppose that's America's fault too.

Even isolating NI and looking at Britain you see many instances of gun violence, especially wrt schools.

Before you go criticizing this side of the Atlantic you might want to clean up your own back-yard.
you are incorrectMJ
Oct 22, 2002 4:55 AM
it is atypical (outside of serious drug gangs) to have guns involved in violent incidents in the UK
put a price on a lifepeloton
Oct 21, 2002 7:21 PM
The point is that cars kill and maim far more people than guns. We allow cars because we percieve the benefits to outweigh the negatives. We percieve the benefits to be worth the cost of a few lifes. Harsh reality. No one talks about cars being banned, and we all know that they can be lethal. Does anyone need a car that can do more than 65mph? I don't think so, but we do. Drunks get behind the wheel and kill. Morons on cell phone, people fixing hair and make-up, eating, adjusting the radio, and you could go on all kill. We don't let the actions of a few fools keep a largely responsible society from transportation. How are guns any different. They do have uses, and are needed for some tasks (police, security, some farm work, recreational activities). I'm no card carrying member of the NRA, but I don't see why a responsible person can't own a firearm despite the actions of a few morons who would kill with other means as well.

I own a car, and a firearm. The car is far more dangerous. That I'm certain of.
I take your pointMJ
Oct 22, 2002 12:34 AM
and it is valid (not that you need my permission...)

the problem I see with it is - as I pointed out above - guns are not a necessity except in very specific and limited pursuits/occupations

your responsibility has nothing to do with it - it's the widespread availability of assault weapons which ensures that anyone, not just responsible types, have access to firearms

the kind of people who shouldn't have access to guns but do (and they are more than just a few morons looking at stats) - do so by people like you continuing your blind faith in weapons - furthermore - it is wholly unrealistic and fairly naive to say that the level of violence in the US is not related to the widespread availability, use and acceptance of weaponry - (when was the last time you heard about a sniper picking people off anywhere else?) - the homicide figures for one major US city are almost all attributable to gun deaths - the homicide figures for most of western Europe are lower than such cities - I doubt very seriously if you could get the same statistics if people were left with bats, knives and boots (or cars) - do you honestly believe that the US homicide rate would be as high without guns?

such a situation is not in the spirit of the US constitution which has been distorted by an ongoing right (white) wing agenda which overlooks the major impact of gun crime in inner city and minority areas

cars and transportation are necessities that will never lose their societal imperative - I fail to see how guns fall in to the same category

until more people in the US do senseless US government and American society is facilitating domestic terrorism against itself
how about the South Armagh sniper?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 22, 2002 4:25 AM
... you asked, I provided. How many kills did this person have?
I think they had fourMJ
Oct 22, 2002 4:56 AM
kills - but thosse circumstances are not related to 'normal living' - most would consider Armagh (particulartly when the sniper was at work) to be a war zone in respect to the British military who were the only targets as I understand

again your logic and factual understanding of the situation is flawed
I appreciate it was not "normal" living...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 22, 2002 5:29 AM
... and will not put a label such as war on it - so as to avoid semantics and further arguments.

My point is that you appear to believe that crime will go away with stricter gun laws. I used Northern Ireland as an example where there have been some incredibly strict laws with respect to guns to highlight how in practice your belief has failed.

The Armagh sniper did not walk over to the local gun show and buy his rifle. In fact you could not buy such a weapon anywhere on the Island. However, it got there.

Lesson learned: when you criminalize guns only criminals will have guns.
to compare NI with suburban Washington is laughable - nmMJ
Oct 22, 2002 6:44 AM
Thank You. That's exactly the point...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 22, 2002 8:53 AM
...despite your beliefs having been implemented in the NI you still have a far more violent society. I'll take our present way of doing things over yours. Also, until someone shows me a better way of doing things on a large scale, why change?
my point isMJ
Oct 23, 2002 12:34 AM
that suburban Washington is not in the grips of what most would say is an ongoing (for over 30 years) civil war

furthermore - the targets of sniping in NI are exclusively military and paramilitary members

there is not widespread access to guns in NI outside the paramilitaries - as such there are very few gun related homicides outside the conflict

in Washington - you have somebody topping their gas tank up and they get splatted - that is unprecedented in NI - everyday in the US you have people using guns in street crime etc. - that is also unprecedented in NI

NI is not a violent society with the excpetion of the sectarian conflict which can not be sensibly compared to the US

again your 'argument' (particularly in relation to NI) is based on a failing grasp of history, logic and fact
Democracy does not change for the deviants...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 23, 2002 4:00 AM
Final word on my behalf. Perhaps, in your country you base your "democracy" on the actions of deviant psychopaths. Perhaps, you feel it is necessary and proper to suspend a gov't because of these deviants. However, in the US we feel otherwise.

Until you can implement your ideas and show that it can work on a large scale, I think I will stick to our method.
it's called risk managementMJ
Oct 23, 2002 4:14 AM
teh UK also has laws which protect children from sexual abuse

all rersponsible societies have laws which offer protection and regulation - where there is a problem (like with guns in the US) - it should be addressed

the UK political system is as democratic as the US
I think responsiblity is the pointpeloton
Oct 22, 2002 4:05 PM
I think personal responsiblity is the point to the arguments on firearms. Look at the Swiss. A (formerly, now UN) nuetral country in which all young men must serve in the army. Because of the nuetrality, their army must have been ready at quick notice if ever needed. Therefore, the young men of that country bring their equipment home. A fully automatic firearm in every home of every soldier. Not much talk of gun deaths there though despite very easy access to serious firepower. The Swiss are also generally known as ethical people.

I think when it comes to cars or guns personal responsbility is the main point. We aren't the only country with access to guns, but we have a lot of social ills such as murder. Why? Quite frankly, there are some people out there that just aren't good, and would treat others like sh!t no matter what. We have a social problem. Guns aren't the problem, but merely a manifestation of it. We don't need to cure the symptom, but gut the root of the problems. We need some responsiblity and some morals.

Blaming our murder rate on guns is shortsighted. We need to look at why we have people who would kill in the first place to take care of the problems.

At this point there are so many guns on the street anywya that we could never realistically get rid of them. I think that there are a lot of people who shouldn't have access to a gun, but I don't think they will turn them in if they are banned. What do we do about these people? We still need to look into the root of the problem, and it isn't guns.
you're rightMJ
Oct 23, 2002 12:24 AM
that there are too many guns on the street to realistically get rid of them

with such social problems - perhaps responsibility isn't a realistic prospect either - the Swiss argument doens't hold much water really - if gun crime were a problem in Switzerland and there were homicide rates comparable to the US which was directly linked to the machine guns people keep at home - the Swiss authorities would sensibly cut down on access - and perhaps not let everyone who trained in the military keep a machine gun at home

guns may not be why people kill other people - but they make it far easier - it's very simple - you don't get the same body count without guns - the murder rate is directly attributable to guns - again it is not realistic to say that the rates would be as high if people were forced to kick each other to death like they do here in the UK
what kills more in the US: guns or cars?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 21, 2002 9:20 AM
What is the purpose of banning guns? We have assumed herein that it is to save lives.

IF, saving lives is the purpose, then why not ban cars? Cars kill more people than guns and there are MUCH MUCH more safe ways to travel than by car.

So you think cars only "accidentally" kill people - does that make it okay? That's no worse than a child who "accidently" shoots themselves with a gun. Do you want to save lives or only save lives when it suits you.
Mr High School TrollMJ
Oct 22, 2002 12:37 AM
please see my post above

maybe you could take a logic class when you get to university - it will hone your razor sharp sense of gaining the upper hand in an argument
lose the insults and point out the flaw in my logic...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 22, 2002 4:04 AM
... I gave and if - then statement and you apparently disagreed - inferred by your insults.

If you have a point or counter please make it and I will address it.
addressed above - nmMJ
Oct 22, 2002 4:57 AM
this isn't trolling?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 21, 2002 9:06 AM
So the American gov't supports terrorism?

What makes you say that "anyone" who wants a sniper rifle can get one?
they faqcilitate it; because anyone can - nmMJ
Oct 22, 2002 12:36 AM
you are so misinformed...jose_Tex_mex
Oct 22, 2002 3:49 AM
...if you believe that anyone in the US can buy a sniper rifle or most any other firearm just by walking in to a store then you are just wrong.
at any gun showMJ
Oct 22, 2002 4:59 AM
you can make the purchase you 'need' - or have your friend/wife/etc. buy it for you - the restrictions are state by state - localised policing and restrictions only serve to make such gun 'controls' ineffective
I can say as I've noticedEager Beagle
Oct 22, 2002 5:11 AM
the rest of the world being struck by the difficulty of getting hold of lethal weapons in the US...
No. But I wouldn't be surpised if this was your mom at work.girchygirchy
Oct 21, 2002 10:14 AM
Methinks you're jumping to conclusions.
re: Anyone think it's weird that the sniper's record is 9-11?blehargh
Oct 16, 2002 10:24 PM

his record is officially 9-11-1. the one being a miss that didn't hit anyone.

plus the kid was hit in the center of his torso. how'd he know that he would survive?

making something out of nothing. stop it.