^ that happens here too but not that often.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?sectio...id=8481748

(July 29, 2012 at 3:40 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 3:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Please explain what this...


Has to do with this...


I'll give you a hint. The first quote is true. The second quote is false.

Are you saying they don't sell m-60's at gun shows?

Not in the way you appear to be implying.

M-60's are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (as are all full-auto guns). NFA firearms are not legal to transfer person-to-person, they MUST be performed by a dealer licensed to deal in NFA firearms (which most licensed dealers are not).

In addition, transfers of NFA firearms have to go though the ATF, and must be signed off by the chief law enforcement officer in the purchaser's jurisdiction (which for practical purposes is either a city Chief of Police or county Sheriff). Incidentally, whether or not they will sign is entirely discretionary, which can mean that even in jurisdictions where possession and transfer is legal under the letter of the law, it is de facto not possible because the CLEO will not sign for anybody.

The transfer paperwork is processed at ATF, and the transfer tax is paid. Once all of the paperwork is completed, and the transfer form is returned to the dealer with the tax stamp affixed, the transfer can take place. This process can take literally months, and is NEVER fast.

There is NO cash and carry for NFA firearms, no instant check, and no legal person-to-person sales, period - and they're illegal in many states, period.

Merely possessing certain parts of NFA firearms without a valid ATF approved transfer form with the tax stamp affixed is a serious federal felony.

In addition, should an NFA firearm show up at a crime scene or elsewhere, the ATF is going to know exactly who the most recent legal owner is, and they will investigate and prosecute.

This is an entirely different kettle of fish from non-NFA firearms.

There's also the issue of FOPA 1986 (Firearm Owner's Protection Act), which states that only legal NFA firearms manufactured prior to some date in 1986 can be transferred or possessed by citizens at all. As a result, prices are sky-high. I haven't looked in a decade or so, but something like an M-60 is probably going to run at least $20,000. Most NFA-covered firearms are in the hands of serious well-financed collectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

(July 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 3:40 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Are you saying they don't sell m-60's at gun shows?

Not in the way you appear to be implying.

Look CD................ I know your afraid of an upcoming race war and all that so you and your neo-nazi buddies buy fully autos ak 47's, by the truck full, and you, and the klan don't want some hippy liberal zionist-lover like me fuckin up all your plans for white supremacy. But I know your makin good money selling Ak 47's to 13 year olds in the inner city but you wouldn't need all that money in the first place, if you and your paranoid inbred hillbilly ass white nationalist group, didn't insist in having an underground bunker in the mountains to defend yourself against the anti christ.

....It's just silly

(July 30, 2012 at 1:47 am)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not in the way you appear to be implying.

Look CD................ I know your afraid of an upcoming race war and all that so you and your neo-nazi buddies buy fully autos ak 47's, by the truck full, and you, and the klan don't want some hippy liberal zionist-lover like me fuckin up all your plans for white supremacy. But I know your makin good money selling Ak 47's to 13 year olds in the inner city but you wouldn't need all that money in the first place, if you and your paranoid inbred hillbilly ass white nationalist group, didn't insist in having an underground bunker in the mountains to defend yourself against the anti christ.

....It's just silly

Oh, goodie. I get to report a post without having to decide anything about it. Thanks, turd.

Quote:Do you reckon the Colorado guy could've got hold of that type of weaponry in the UK?

I don't.

Nor in Australia.

Plus a fact for gun apologists: 2007: 31000 gun related deaths in the US. of that figure, over HALF, 17,000, were suicides. Around 12,000 were homicides.

The Wiki demographic breakdown of gun related deaths (who shoots who and where) is fascinating and give the lie to the self-serving rhetoric of the NRA. The full article is worth reading

Here in Oz armed robberies involving firearms are unusual. It IS true our criminals like to shoot each other,which suits me just fine.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Homicides
Homicides by weapon type, 1976-2004. Gun-involved homicides have increased since falling to a low in 1999.[17]
Homicide offenders by age, 1976 - 2004.[18]
Gun and overall homicides in Washington, D.C. are concentrated in crime hot spots located in neighborhoods (including Shaw, Sursum Corda, Trinidad, Anacostia, and Congress Heights) with socio-economic disadvantage, while homicide is rare in other neighborhoods.

While people during the 19th century were concerned about violent crime, it often took the form of riots and other forms of disorder in cities.[19] Gun violence, however, sometimes played a role in these riots (see Haymarket riot). Homicide rates in cities such as Philadelphia were significantly lower than in modern times.[20]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States (see graphs at right).[21] Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame.[22] The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[12][18] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[23][24][25]

Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.[22][26][27]

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[28] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[29] According to FBI statistics, the highest per capita rates of gun-related homicides in 2005 were in D.C. (35.4/100,000), Puerto Rico (19.6/100,000), Louisiana (9.9/100,000), & Maryland (9.9/100,000) .[30] The Bureau of Justice statistics from 2004 do not include D.C or Puerto Rico. see "Gun violence in the United States by state". Wikipedia. 2004.

Homicide rates among 18- to 24-year-olds have declined since 1993, but remain higher than they were prior to the 1980s.[18] In 2005, the 17 through 24 age group remains significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms.[31] In 2005, 17- through 19-year olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the United States.[32] This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed by firearm homicides.[33] This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses.[34] The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population,[32] while accounting for 22.5% of those killed by firearm homicides.[33] The 20 through 24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses.[34] Those under age 17 are not overrepresented in homicide statistics. In 2005, 13- through 16-year-olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the United States, but only accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims,[33] and 2.7% of overall homicide offenses.[34]

People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims.[12] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[35] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[12][36] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[37]

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.[38] Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[39] The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[40]

Approximately 6,500 homicides were committed using handguns in 1999; since there were roughly 70 million handguns, the chance of any particular gun being used in a homicide is very low.[41]

The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than most other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[42]
Further information: Gun violence in the United States by state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenc...ted_States

(July 30, 2012 at 1:47 am)cratehorus Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not in the way you appear to be implying.

Look CD................ I know your afraid of an upcoming race war and all that so you and your neo-nazi buddies buy fully autos ak 47's, by the truck full, and you, and the klan don't want some hippy liberal zionist-lover like me fuckin up all your plans for white supremacy. But I know your makin good money selling Ak 47's to 13 year olds in the inner city but you wouldn't need all that money in the first place, if you and your paranoid inbred hillbilly ass white nationalist group, didn't insist in having an underground bunker in the mountains to defend yourself against the anti christ.

....It's just silly

Really. Knowledge of the law makes me a racist, neo-nazi, white-supremecist klansman hillbilly?

Seriously?

Why I wasted my time trying to give you factual information is beyond me.

Go fuck yourself with a rusty pitchfork, troll.

(July 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: This is why the argument Tiberius and others make about the "black market" is a canard -- already within any market comes attempts at selling from consumer to consumer. That is inevitable.

Sorry, but the black market exists; it is not a canard. Further, my "argument" was a response to a question about whether someone could get that kind of weaponry in the UK. The answer is resoundingly yes, if you know where to look. Building sites might be used to get minor smuggled weapons, but if you want major, you have to go online.

Quote:The real question here that Tiberius and Co. should be asking (instead of bullshitting about some criminal obtaining a weapon), does gun control effectively reduce the secondary consumer-to-consumer resale market (that set includes the black market. It also includes grey zones, etc )? Is there something that will? Can this ever be solved?

How exactly am I bullshitting? I can provide you screenshots of assault rifles for sale on the Dark Web if you really want me to, but a simple Google search would reveal exactly the same thing. Hell, the BBC even reported on it earlier this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16801382

As to your "real question"; I thought I answered that in my first post pretty well. Laws stop law-abiding citizens; they do not stop criminals. If they did, criminals wouldn't exist. Banning guns in this country has ensured that the only people with guns are the government and the criminals; neither of whom I really want to see with all the guns.

I'm not against all forms of gun control though. I think the main reason the UK doesn't have the same kinds of shootings as the US is because access to such guns is more complicated. In most mass-shootings in America, the perpetrators often don't have a criminal record; they just snap and grab as many high powered guns as they can. In the UK, the same person would do the same thing, but would be limited by what was on offer (unless as I suggested, they turn to the Dark Web). Regular criminals that want to hold up banks don't need such weaponry though, given that banks aren't allowed to use weapons either. An armed robber can get away with just as much money with a shotgun as a robber in America could armed with an assault rifle. Police in America are armed with guns; police in the UK aren't.

That all being said, my point still stands. In a planned attack (which this seems to have been, seeing as Holmes spent 4 months building his arsenal), an individual could get hold of all manner of weaponry from various illegal sources. The only reason criminals don't all have such weaponry is because (a) it's too complicated to get to be worth it, and (b) it's not needed since the populace aren't armed and neither are most of the police.

Edit: This shooting happened last year. The perpetrator killed just as many people as Holmes did, and all with a (legal) shotgun and rifle.

(July 30, 2012 at 6:53 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 30, 2012 at 1:47 am)cratehorus Wrote: Look CD................ I know your afraid of an upcoming race war and all that so you and your neo-nazi buddies buy fully autos ak 47's, by the truck full, and you, and the klan don't want some hippy liberal zionist-lover like me fuckin up all your plans for white supremacy. But I know your makin good money selling Ak 47's to 13 year olds in the inner city but you wouldn't need all that money in the first place, if you and your paranoid inbred hillbilly ass white nationalist group, didn't insist in having an underground bunker in the mountains to defend yourself against the anti christ.

....It's just silly

Really. Knowledge of the law makes me a racist, neo-nazi, white-supremecist klansman hillbilly?

Seriously?

Why I wasted my time trying to give you factual information is beyond me.

Go fuck yourself with a rusty pitchfork, troll.

obviously calling a devout atheist a nazi wasn't outrageous enough to be automatically considered sarcasm.

Look I don't know every tiny detail about gun control, or gun laws in the US but I do know thousands of guns per year end up in criminal hands and thousand more get killed by those guns. The way I see it I have to side with either the NRA (founded by the klan) or the anti gun activist groups who care about things like their dead children, so I'll side with them

Or, you can side with neither.....works for me.


(it is much easier, btw, in my experience, to get your hands on illegal weapons, or weapons procured illegally -here in the US- than it is to go to gander mountain and buy a rifle on the up and up. I shit you not.)

(August 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Look I don't know every tiny detail about gun control, or gun laws in the US but I do know thousands of guns per year end up in criminal hands and thousand more get killed by those guns. The way I see it I have to side with either the NRA (founded by the klan) or the anti gun activist groups who care about things like their dead children, so I'll side with them

Guns end up in the hands of criminals when there is gun control. Gun control only stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns.

If you split this argument into two sides, the NRA (who were not founded by the KKK btw) and anti-gun activist groups, then you are creating a false dichotomy. There are people who like guns but want gun control laws to make it harder for certain types of people to get guns, and there are people who hate guns who respect the rights of gun owners. It's not as black and white as you seem to want it.

Accusing someone of being a racist, however "sarcastic" you claim it was, is stepping way over the line. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour.