[FreeTally]

Hence, only time will tell when suddenly concealed carry laws are lifted (or simply not enforced), so that the soldiers in this new war (the citizens), may have the means of neuturalizing such threats upon discovery.

Some other freepers pointed out on another thread hoe much of a bogus argument this is. The author here refutes himself too by calling the perp a "Soldier". A handgun under the shirt of a person near a victim is going to do no good stopping an "invisible" sniper a couple hundred yards away.

The author's heart is in the right place, but is silly to say that anti-concealed weapon laws make it any less safe for people in this specific situation where you have a sniper gunning down people from long range.

[SLB]

Let's say you are out for a stroll in your favorite park. You come up over a knoll and whta do you see, but the D.C. sniper getting ready for a shot. Are you armed? If so - easy. If not - does he make two shots and two kills? Or do you try calling 911 on your handy dandy cell phone. The abolishment of concealed carry laws would tend to make all criminals think twice, not just this one.

[Ag88]

The advantage would be to have an armed citizen, other than the sniper's target, within handgun range when the sniper fires. Then the perp can be successfully engaged. That's why they won't try sniping here in Texas. Too easy to counter-snipe. Terrorists may be cowardly, but they're not stupid.

[dirtboy]

The author's heart is in the right place, but is silly to say that anti-concealed weapon laws make it any less safe for people in this specific situation where you have a sniper gunning down people from long range.

I concur for a different reason. No one has gotten a good ID on the perps yet. If you can't ID them, you ain't close enough to take them on with a handgun.

[harpseal]

A handgun under the shirt of a person near a victim is going to do no good stopping an "invisible" sniper a couple hundred yards away.

Going prone and using a handgun one can hit a human sized target out to 100 yards. Several of the shots have been at about 100 yards distance. Further if someone who is armed comes upon a rifleman sighting in some other direction and sees said rifleman take a shot and an innocent fall then pumps five or six rounds into the shooter that would be an instance where a handgun would do some good.

[freddy]

What part of the "Right to Carry" do you NOT understand...???

Let me clarify part of it for you...

If the BAD guys think or know that 80 to 90% of the people in any given area...or State like Vermont...may,...just may be carrying a weapon that they can defend themselves with...
The BAD guys just simply do NOT bother with that area or state(like Vermont)...

Get it now..???

[cynicom]

Your take on this would be much like the police have said for a long time, if someone wants to rob you, dont resist in any way, let him have what he wants. Just possibly, now and again, a gun in the robbers face would be effective. With this passive attitude, rape, mugging, etc is out of sight.

Just perhaps, an armed citizen might run across this killer. Notice "ALL" of the police were well armed????

[AdamSelene235]

A handgun under the shirt of a person near a victim is going to do no good stopping an "invisible" sniper a couple hundred yards away. The author's heart is in the right place, but is silly to say that anti-concealed weapon laws make it any less safe for people in this specific situation where you have a sniper gunning down people from long range.

What about a hangun in the hands of a guy who hears gunfire coming from a van as he strolls past it 50 feet away?

Its a moot point, D.C and Maryland have suspended the Bill of Rights.

[suijuris]

The author's heart is in the right place, but is silly to say that anti-concealed weapon laws make it any less safe for people in this specific situation where you have a sniper gunning down people from long range.

Only a fool would try to take on a rifle with a handgun at long range; but you overlook the fact that some determined citizen may actually witness the sniper; possibly be nearby as the sniper attempts to leave the scene; and take him out. Sui

[texson66]

Your point is well taken for a victim, but an armed citizenry would be in the vicinity to react FORCEFULLY!

[Dixie republican]

What about a handgun under the shirt of a person near the shooter???

[30-06 Springfield]

FreeTally - How many snipers operate freely in Israel, not the occupied parts of the West Bank, but in downtown Tel Aviv. Israeli citizens have one of the highest rates of firearms possession in the world. What happens when Ahab the Arab pulls out his trusty AK? Your friendly neighborhood rabi blows him away and Ahab knows that. Therefore, the only snipers you see are where they can be halfway protected by others such as the Hezbollah.

AdamSelene235 - You claim a .223 is the wrong cartridge for that purpose. Tell that to the families of the dead! It might not be the ideal (30-06 obviously would be a better choice and there are many cartridges that would be even better), but for what this madman is doing .223 has fit the bill exactly. Low signature, low recoil, probably a very light weaponof some type with some fairly decent optics on it and against a light skinned target it works fine. It might be a little on the smallish side for deer sized targets, but humans are much more frail and therefore easier to kill than deer.

[El Gato]

Some other freepers pointed out on another thread hoe much of a bogus argument this is. The author here refutes himself too by calling the perp a "Soldier". A handgun under the shirt of a person near a victim is going to do no good stopping an "invisible" sniper a couple hundred yards away.

What makes you think the gal or guy with the handgun can only be near the victim? While all these shootings have taken place in moderately open areas, they have also been in quite built up, urbanized areas. Guys with handguns took K-98 Mauser's away from (slightly dead) "Soldiers" in slug grey greatcoats back in the 40s. Evem if they don't kill or even wound the sniper, they might mark his vehicle or cause him to make a mistake, or merely delay his egress long enough for the authorities to show up.Surely being unarmed targets is not a viable option either.

Although you do have a point that taking a handgun to a rifle fight is not real smart. However rifles are not allowed in polite company in those parts either. Even a deer hunter with a shotgun loaded with slugs (sabots preferred) could certainly put a crimp in these guys plans.

As far as "long range" goes, the ranges reported, or maybe only speculated, are not all that long for serious or even not so very serious rifle shooters.