Pretty creepy ... the latest one is like 5-10 minutes from me ... It's pretty disconcerting having cops at your exit every day patrolling looking for a serial killer. Of course your odds of dying are thousands of times higher just driving your car at all, but it's still creepy.

Yeah, I was joking about him hitting my area when I went home for the weekend, and the one on Monday was really close to me. Scary stuff.

Well, about the sniper.
I think he may have some small military training I think. He is not chosing victims by itself. But he is chosing them after places. Like a gas station, where the "objects" are slow or non moving are easy targets. Anybody being within the area of affect is chosen just because. And about a real sniper wont leave any victis alive or he would shoot them in the head is totally wrong. A real sniper would shoot towards the chest and aim to the heart. There is just to much that could go wrong aiming at the head (Wind, breathing, tick) a shot from 400 yards will be missed if not all the factors are perfect. That is why you aim at the chest, its a bigger target. Its better to injure and possibly kill the enemy than missing him. And about using a kevlar west. Well I´m not sure about how much .228 cal is. Where I live we count the caliber in millimeters. And with a weapon capable of "sniping" from 400 yards I dont think a west would help very much. The best way would be to run zig-zag and to be covered from as many directions as possible. (I am from sweden btw).


And about the WTC terrorism. Of course its wrong to kill 2800 poeple and call it jihad. But its equally wrong to invade any country at all (kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan) Of course you could debate all about the purpose of invading Kuwait and Iraq, but why the hell would you invade Afghanistan??? Invade and surpress an entire country on behalf of what 1 renegade organisation did!!!! Thats just sick! I think that entire war was because Bush had to do SOMETHING. And in the meanwhile maybe collect an extra vote or two.
I think that war, injustice, murders are wrong in ALL ways. No matter what banner or name/philosophy you´re marching under.
And about the propaganda, BOTH countries have done their share of it. The big difference is that USA is a hell of alot better at it than Bin Laden is. Remember that the best propagande is the propagande you dont notice!

Not that its wrong or anything, I just think that USA is probably one of the most patriotic countries in the world, because of really "good" propaganda through the years.

Its better to injure and possibly kill the enemy than missing him.

When you're fighting a war, it's generally better to injure the enemy, rather than kill him. Killing one guy deprives the opposition of one guy. Injuring one guy deprives the opposition of that one guy, the two or three guys required to get him back to medical assistance, the dozen or so medics back at the hospital...

This is why anti-personnel landmines maim, rather than kill, people.

Well I´m not sure about how much .228 cal is. Where I live we count the caliber in millimeters.

First, it's .223 caliber. And, while I'm not an expert at this sort of thing, I believe that that's basically the US term for 5.56 NATO ammo, which is what's used in M-16s, but not the 5.56 Long ammo that's used in AK-47s. Actually, .223 and 5.56 ammo is slightly different, but they're close enough that some people use them interchangeably. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was impossible to tell the difference once the bullet has hit something. Anyway, the cartridge and charge behind .223 and 5.56 is very similar -- much different than that behind a .22 bullet.

And about a real sniper wont leave any victis alive or he would shoot them in the head is totally wrong. A real sniper would shoot towards the chest and aim to the heart

Well, I'm not sure what experience or knowledge you're basing that on, but this latest shooting was in the gut, which isn't as critical an area. It takes a long time to die from a gut wound, I think.

well.... I recieved alot of ansers..;) And about the Nato caliber, wich was what I was looking for. Thank you!

And as written I live in Sweden where the news about this is not as good as it should be. No real details, just the info about somebody being shot autside a school and so on. So my info about these shootings in themselves are pretty limited. I was talking about snipers in general.
I have about 1 year of military training here in Sweden. I had about 2 days worth of sniping exercise, so I´m not that experienced.
And about injuring rather than killing. Well (I think) in most cases is that you are going after officers with the sniper. And its true you (if you wound them) that it takes alot of more manpower away from the action. But as it probably is an officer you would probably want him dead so he wont come back. But I guess thats a matter of opinion, anyway they dont shoot at the head wich was my point. And I dont think a bulletproof west would help that much against a 5.56 bullet. But I could be wrong about that.

On the protective ability of bulletproof vests:

http://www.armocom.ru/English/classif.htm
http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html

Basically, the best vest available is spec'ed to stop a 5.56 NATO round.

I stand corrected.....

In reply to:

---

Of course your odds of dying are thousands of times higher just driving your car at all, but it's still creepy.

---

It's actually 4 times higher. We calculated it at work. I've told this to a lot of people and it's odd how comforting everyone finds it.

But I agree, it's scary regardless of the numbers. I have to get gas this morning and I must admit I'm nervous. I'm not one who typically gets flustered by news events but this one has me a bit shaken.

-Dylan

"Invade and surpress an entire country on behalf of what 1 renegade organisation did!!!!"

The taliban "suppressed" the afghani people. They also catered to terrorists and Osama Bin Laden was the commander of the taliban's military. We dropped off food and medical supplies to the afghani people and then killed the guys that were taking away their freedom. I'd say we helped them.

Not to mention that it is illegal to own body armor in the US. It might actually just be illegal to wear it in public. And that might be local law, but still.

What????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

So in states with Open-Carry laws, it's legal to wear something that spits out a high velocity bit of semi-molten metal, but not to wear something to stop it? That's got to be just about the most arse-about-face thing I've ever heard.

Local news agencies are reporting that police have surrounded a white van and made an arrest in Richmond...

Hopefully they got the SOB and this madness can end.

Well, the idea is that no one would actually wear body armor unless they expected to be in a situation where they would need it, and the only such plausible situations are extraordinarily likely to be criminal.

However, I tend to agree, in that there are legitimate uses for body armor outside armed robbery and expected police shootouts, peace of mind in northern Virginia these days being one of them, hunting accidents being another, and I have major problems with laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

This one, in particular, I'm a little iffy about, because I can't imagine anyone actually using body armor in relation to non-illegal acts; I don't think that there are very many hunters out there that would wear body armor if it were available to them (not that I have a consensus on this), and I doubt that your average citizen would be willing to spend a thousand dollars to buy one for each member of the family when it's easier to just stay home.

In addition, I seem to have overstated it a little. It would appear that in many states it's illegal for felons to purchase body armor. In some states, it is illegal to purchase it at all. I believe that that is more accurate than my earlier statement.

In reply to:

---

reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

---

Whaa? I think I know what you mean, but I can't follow that sentence. Must be nearly home time

CNN appears to be reporting on an arrest - looks like they may have grabbed the sniper! You can tell I'm working hard:-)

I have major problems with laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

You are Umberto Eco and I claim my five pounds.

Peter

I have major problems with laws that attempt to reinforce already-illegal acts by making illegal acts that might lead to them that also make illegal the same acts that wouldn't lead to illegality.

Let me see if I can parse this:

Reinforcing already-illegal acts by making further acts (that might lead to these already-illegal acts) illegal is wrong when these laws also make these acts illegal in situations when they don't lead to one of the original illegal acts.

To suggest an example:

1. Bank robbers might use body armour.
2. So make body armour illegal.
3. Despite there being good (legal) reasons for wearing body armour.
4. and robbing banks already being illegal.

How am I doing?

I cannot believe that I wrote that sentence. It was even harder translating it from the Italian.

Let me see if I can parse this

Maybe I should diagram that sentence....

As I said, I'm a little up in the air on the body-armor issue, so let me use a different example that I and we are likely to have definitive views on.<ol type="1">

People ``stealing'' music might rip CDs

So make ripping CDs illegal

But empeggers rip their own CDs to make the music to which they own usage rights more accesible to themselves and no one else, which is certainly not illegal

``stealing'' music is already illegal</ol>So why make ripping CDs illegal? Wasn't the illegality of ``stealing'' the music enough in the first place? Making ripping illegal is intended to compound upon ``stealing'' penalties. But it makes people who were infringing on no one else's rights criminals for no reason. And if the penalty for ``stealing'' music was not enough in the first place, then modify that law.

On the other hand, handguns, for example, have no legitimate use outside of a firing range. In addition, making them illegal while in public stands the chance of preventing harm. So I cannot come up with a compelling reason that having a handgun outside a firing range (except for transport) should not be illegal. (I've got irrational problems with that argument, but it's a good counterpoint nonetheless. Also, this is not intended to start a gun control debate; it's just an example.)

Edit: I just tried to diagram that, and it's very big. Nightmare, really. But rest assured that it's gramatically correct, even if it is impossible to read.

But rest assured that it's gramatically correct

Oh, I wasn't questioning that. I even agree with the sentiment! I think the problem was that everyone first reads the three consecutive words "making illegal acts" as "committing illegal acts" not "making acts illegal", and only realises much later on that it was ambiguous and thus needs to be reparsed.

Peter

"this is not intended to start a gun control debate"

Well we can have a quick one. Don't you think defense is a legitimate use for handguns?

On a side note, a friend of mine has an old kevlar vest and he has had people shoot him with a .22 while he is wearing it. I haven't tried it but he says you can barely feel it. He also draped it over a door and shot it with a 9mm - it stopped the bullet but it broke through the door.

Sounds like a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Okay. This is all I'll say about guns: I think that handguns are largely evil. There is some legitimacy in using handguns for defense, but I think that you'll seldom find that a valid argument out on the streets somewhere -- only in the home. I don't believe that the same sort of gun control that works in the UK could work in the US based largely on the fact that the US is more spawling than the UK and the mindset of the average person is affected by that. It's also more difficult to police wide-open areas.

Also, it's interesting to note that the standard sidearm for the US Army changed from a .38 revolver to the Model 1911 .45 semiautomatic when fighting the Moros in the Philippines. The reason for this is that the Moros would get into an altered state before battle and, essentially, the .38 bullets would pass through them unnoticed. The .45 bullets knocked them down, which is what it took to stop them.

Actually, there is increasing amount of commentary that gun control isn't working in England very well anymore. England's crime rate is approaching that of America, and the ban on handguns is largly not affecting criminals.

He also draped it over a door and shot it with a 9mm - it stopped the bullet but it broke through the door.

The part of the body armour image Hollywood leaves out is that while it may "stop" the bullet, broken ribs and severe bruising are to be expected when bringing a bullet from 1500 fps muzzle velocity to a dead stop in less than a second. A .223 can do plenty of damage as their velocity is higher than say a .30-06, the standard cartridge of an M-1 Garand used in WWII and early part of the Korean War, which is bigger but slower. I've seen a .223 go in the chest of a deer and out the hindquarter before at over 100 yards.

For the record, the factory load .223 pushes about 3200 fps.

http://www2.whidbey.com/deadeye/223Rifle.htm

For the record, the factory load .223 pushes about 3200 fps.

Oops, it's been awhile, I switched to fishing, slightly less expensive.
Either way, it'll probably bruise and break things even if it doesn't penetrate unless the target is at an extreme distance. Maybe I was thinking velocity at 100 yards or something like that.

But in BF1942 headshots are the key...

d33zY wrote: "The taliban "suppressed" the afghani people. They also catered to terrorists and Osama Bin Laden was the commander of the taliban's military. We dropped off food and medical supplies to the afghani people and then killed the guys that were taking away their freedom. I'd say we helped them."

Then how come just about everybody hates your people in the middle east? Some people doesnt want to be "freed".
I dont deny that they were in alot of misery. But you DID go over there and overthrew their government and put your own in their place. That is NOT good, that is not the democratic way. And the people who replaced the taliban regim isnt that better. And who can say that all afghani and talibans are pro terrorism. Sure, it was a good thing to drop off food and supplies. But i´ll bet the afghani people are no better off now. What you did was go in, kill alot of people and putting a government that ows USA alot of things. The civilians never win in war. Sure it helped USA in the short run, but you also made alot of people angry at the USA foreign policy! Wich I personally isnt very impressed by. Its a tragic how a world leading nation can be so behind in some things and so leading in others.