Discussion on:

Inside the secret online marketplace for illegal weapons

I wish a concealed carry permit holder was in Aurora, Colorado a few nights ago. We would have never heard of the incident on the national news. Neil, I hope you are never in a situation where you need a weapon to defend yourself. There are no atheists in foxholes. Oh, BTW the wild west you spoke of. It's moved to Chicago. check it out.

I, and most of the people who live in the real world, understand that nothing could have been done to prevent this. He broke no laws in his preparations. Purchasing ammunition in bulk is done by most shooters because it is cost effective. No weapons were purchased off the internet and background checks were done(he passed). What "new" laws would you pass(other than depriving me the right to carry or own a weapon) to prevent something like this happening again??

Well you can;t buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in the UK, without arousing suspicion. Indeed most ammunition is on the prohibitive list, as the weapons are unlawful to own. Period.

Who needs 6,000 rounds of ammo, unless you have a minigun.

Competitive sport shooters can easily blow through 5 to 6 thousand rounds of ammo a month. I'm not competitive but my standard range routine consumes about 1,000 round a month; so I often buy 5,000 rounds at a whack. Its not cheap either.

Just for you Neil. The US has millions of recreational sport shooters that enjoy the sport of shooting. You do know that there is such a sport don't you? Check it out at the Olympics. All those shooters need ammo and to the extent that it is somewhat less regulated than guns, all those shooters engage in the legal acquisition of their ammo. You are obviously an anti-gun person and will never change your mind about guns, so thanks for your opinion.

Neil-

You have an almost childlike reverence to authority. "Properly licensed gun club" My gun club is run by regular people, not omniscient elders trained in psychology able to determine who will use their ammo for evil.

Not without lots of paperwork and tons of evidence you really really need it.

Has it stopped crime? Absolutely not. Illegal guns exist. Knives and other blades, and blunt instruments became the easier weapon to obtain, and they're doing MORE crime because of it... you see, the police aren't physically two feet away from everybody so it takes time for them to get there, Time in which you could be dead or severely injured.

Do your research, discover the statistics that prove where guns are not outlawed, crime, especially violent crime is less than areas where nobody can legally own a gun.

As seen from the Gun related death stats, the UK and many other guns outlawed countries are much less likely in thie respect. Guns being readily available, leads to there use.

Going out I feel safe in the UK in general. There are a number of area's I would choose to avoid, but I don't think I need to 'go out packing a piece' with the feeling I need it to be safe in my own country when I go to the cinema or down the Supermarket shopping. It's a desperately sad statement on American society if you don't feel safe without a gun.

By you argument, you would have less crime is you made Heroin legal - Is that a good idea.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

who are you to question someone else's needs? Or even to imply that a need is required in order to enjoy a right? I'm sorry someone told you some or all guns are prohibited, but think (rationally)for yourself.

Too bad wikipedia doesn't have a list of countries by firearm related death rate where the countries are compared in the same year. Then we can compare meaningful data. It is interesting to note that the countries with the highest homicide rates are the countries where the drug gangs are involved in intergang warfare. How many of the homicides you quote are the result of intergang warfare and how many are the result of the slaughter of innocent civilians? I would compare the Colorado shooting with the Norway massacre, if comparisons are made. The fact that we are a nation with numerous well armed criminals is not an arguement for gun control. Actually the opposite is true. When was the last time the police were known for stopping violent crime as opposed to investigating violent crimes after the fact? The police do their best, but they are greatly outnumbered especially in this economic environment when the public's safety is on the budgetary chopping block. What you are advocating is a nation of crime victims. I would prefer a nation of people who are willing and able to defend themselves.

If you can only feel safe in your society, by having a gun under your pillow, I think you need to get some perspective.

It's pretty sad.

At lease you ave some effective law enforcement, or it would be like Afghanistan or Iraq otherwise.

but, be prepared for the day when the criminal, knowing you can't fight back takes everything from you. By the time the cops arrive, they'll be gone, and you could have already lost your life, or the life of a loved one at their hands.

or not. Stop peddling fear to support your Gun habit.

Take a good look at Chicago... a very anti-gun city. Take a good look at the crime stats there. Compare those stats to say, Utah, Arkansas, ARizona, or any other state that doesn't make law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves.

All these regulations do is make it easier for the criminals, who will get guns anyway, to perpetrate their crimes on innocent people. Fear of someone fighting back, with lethal ability, will deter more crime than cause it.

There is a reason why we don't have the death penalty for every crime.
That reason is, it effectively backs the rat into the corner and they have
nothing left to lose, so they kill even more people.

Also, people with the authority to have weapons can decide to commit
crimes with them. Look at the situation at Fort Hood when a Muslim
major decided to start shooting unarmed soldiers. He claimed to be
doing it in the name of his religion, so it IS relevant.

Countries that want to control their people first take away as much
power as they can from them. One of the reason why the "Arab spring"
did not fully hit in Iran is that the regular citizen do not have access to
weapons. The reason why the Afghan central government has never
been able to take over its people (most who don't want it to exist) is
that they happen to be armed and are quite willing to kill those who
attempt to disarm them. And, since they ones that are sent to do the
disarming know this, it is rarely attempted.

Colorado is a right to conceal and carry state, but as I understand it, the cinema multiplex exercised its right to not allow weapons inside. So, as often happens, even the legally-armed citizens wouldn't have had their weapons on them because they were following the rules. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" applies perfectly to this situation. Ogre Holmes was operating entirely outside the law in all instances.

I can imagine that if there had been armed individuals that there is a good
chance that they would accidentally shoot a "good guy". We are talking a
dark confusing place and it would be easy to mistake a "good guy" trying
to take out the "bad guy" not to mention that you might miss and take out
an unarmed person.

What they really needed was a proper alarm system so that when the
fire door was opened that an alarm would have gone off and the lights
gone on.

This is a recipe for more deaths and mayhem. If there was a person with a legal permit and was carrying a weapon, the environment would add to the confusion and increase the probability that the counter shots would injure or kill bystanders. A trained police would not shoot back unless the gunman was clear of other bystanders.

One of the biggest questions that came up after Columbine is how come the police did not go after the shooter.

Police later caught hell, justifiably, for taking a non-confrontational approach while people were being shot and killed.

So to refut your statement, yes at least a trained police officer would have fired back. I know a dozen shooters I would trust to respond in such a situation.

If a person is already indiscriminately shooting dozens of people, a few stray rounds from someone firing back is of no concern.

Odds are pretty good the shooter will flee from a few very unexpected shots being fired back at them. The hesitation caused by a few rounds fired at him could have bought the seconds people needed to escape to safety.

Maybe a few people might have been hit in the cross fire, but I highly doubt the bottom line totals of killed and wounded would have been anything but lower if someone was firing back at him.

Every CCW holder learns the 4 golden rules for shooting; one of which addresses the issue you bring up. It is clear from your comment that you are not familiar with how responsible shooters are trained.

Nice to know they exist, but, how can you tell? The problem with guns in the US is that the responses are emotional and not rational. I was replying to the poster who made a comment that it would have been helpful if someone in the theater was able to shoot back at the gunman. The idea that having a gun is an effective counter, it can be but it must be handled right to reduce risk to bystanders. I think that throwing heavy objects like shoes would work better in this situation.

My father was a gun nut and my family was almost a news item where the topic is about a murder/suicide. I have had other gun nuts tell me that I could have handled the situation if I was armed. I managed to stop him from committing suicide in a moment of anger and I did not need a gun to do it.

There is a way to let those who are responsible to keep and use their guns and there is a way to slow down those who are irresponsible from causing this much grief. The extremes do disservice to their own positions while shutting down all dialog.

Your prejudice is evident from your characterization of gun owners as "gun nuts." Unless you are actually educated about the role of weapons in your life, you aren't really qualified to make a judgment about how, when, and why they are used.

Responsible gun owners know their capabilities and their limitations when it comes to the use of their weapons. And not all weapons are handguns. Anyone who carries concealed should have a good understanding of the awesome responsibility that is required in their judgment when pulling their weapon for defensive purposes. In many respects it is the same responsibility that law enforcement officers face every day in their line of work.

There already exists an overabundance of laws and regulations designed to weed out the individuals that shouldn't have access to weaponry. Yet determined individuals will always find a way to circumvent the law and will acquire whatever ingredients it takes to foster their plans to do evil things to society. If you want to have ultimate control of a population, the easiest way to do that is to take away their ability to provide the fundamental human right of self-defense. We are heading in that direction with each new regulation that attempts to correct a societal problem with a knee jerk reaction to idiots who perform unimaginable acts of terror and cruelty upon their fellow citizens.

Remember everybody dove to the floor. Those who stood up to run were shot once everyone realized it was no publicity stunt. The seats in a theater rise from the front to the back... It gives a chance to shoot OVER heads, not through them or bodies.

It's more likely that one person would have caught friendly fire and far fewer than 12 would be dead but that first shooter would be one of them. Even more likely, everybody else is crouching or otherwise not in your line of fire.

There likely was a concealed holder there. This movie chain apparently has a no guns policy.

I just wish someone was carrying. This permit you speak of - do you mean the right all Americans have with or without government permission?

It doesn't make any difference what century it is. Crime has been around since the beginning of time and always will be.Your always going to have criminals with guns. They will get them on the black market or somewhere. A gun ban to take away law abiding citizens guns would only make us easy pickens'. All you can do is stand there and wait to get shot. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens even the odds and make thieves and burglars think twice about what they're doing. Otherwise crime would run rampant. If your counting on the police or law enforcement, you'll be dead by the time they get there. The recent Aurora movie theater shooting is a good example. A gun in the hands of a concealed carry holder would have saved lives.
The gun ban didn't help in Australia. Crime percentages actually rose the following year.
Matches cause forest fires. Are you going to put a ban on matches too? What about knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, gasoline, wire, bows, cross bows, cars, pencils, screwdrivers, spears made from tree limbs, tire wrenches, crow bars etc., etc., etc. These things kill people too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

And Australia is waaaayyy below the US here.

Amen! These gun ban idiots will not listen to reason.

So, what is it, the Bill of Rights or the Bill of this Right, but not that one? Funny, I seem to remember a few anti-gun rights zealots ranting against gun ownership, yet they had no problem having their own armed security or guns themselves.

Glad you brought up Britain. Also, look at the cities of Chicago and Washington DC. Two of the most regulated gun-control cities in America, and also 2 of the highest gun-crime cities. Coincidence?

Anyway, here is the post I copied relating to Britain's gun control situation, since you mentioned it...

International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000:

Violent crime rates were lower in the UK than the United States in 1992. (Rated in percent of those interviewed responding ''yes'' to being victimized.)

Burglary with entry: UK ??? 2.5% U.S. ??? 3.5%
Robbery: UK ??? .9% U.S. ??? 1.7%
Sexual assault of women: UK ??? .3% U.S. ??? 1.5%
Assault with force: UK ??? 1.1% U.S. ??? 2.2%

The 2000 survey combined the three violent crimes of robbery, rape, and assault into one category entitled ''Selected Contact Crime.'' Here is what they report (post-ban for UK.)

Burglary with entry: UK ??? 2.8% U.S. ??? 1.8%
Selected contact crime: UK ??? 3.6% U.S. ??? 1.9%

These two reports were done with essentially the same criteria and methods, and they clearly show that while selected violent crime rates rose 100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the U.S. During this time, Britain outlawed private ownership of firearms, while over 70 million additional civilian firearms were sold in the U.S. (4) At the very least, a reasonable person is forced to conclude that availability of firearms to the general public is not a contributing factor to any increase in crime.

These trends are confirmed by Britain???s own Home Office. (5) In the period of 1997 through 2001, homicide rose 19% in the UK while it fell 12% in the USA. (6) Violent crime incidents rose 26% in the UK while falling 12% in the USA. (7) Robbery rates rose 92% in the UK and fell 15% in the USA. (8)

Here are some crime trends collected from UK police crime data for the period of 1995 to 2003. (10)
Homicide rose 41%.
Attempted murder rose 29%.
Total Violent Crime rose 219%.

Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.

According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06. Government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old.

2007 Reuters: US has 90 guns for every 100 citizens. Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

Gun Illegalization on Austrailia, after 12 months:

Homicides are up 3.2%
Assaults are up 8.6%
Armed-robberies are up 44%

In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"

You really are a dumb bastard if you believe this.

read the rest of his posts and you will see how right you are. In one, he refers to "in an ideal world, guns would be unnecessary" or some such utopian tripe. Well, guess what, we don't live in an ideal world and we never will. Evil has been and always will be with us in this world. If it's not guns, it will be something else. Should we ban everything that can possibly be used as a murder weapon? Then we will be pre-stone age. Not going to happen. We should stop feeding the troll as he will obviously not listen to reason.

Criminals conduct business over the Internet.


That's right, shocking isn't it? Criminals choose not to follow existing laws.

Criminal breaking the law. Shocking isn't it - LOL

Blaming the Onion Router is poor journalism, when you can go down Sams or Academy Sports and pick up shells off a pallet in the store.,

I'm not blaming TOR, I'm just pointing out that its encryption abilities is being used to allow internet users to engage in all sorts of criminal activity, with illegal arms trade being one of them.

TOR doesn't kill people, people kill people, right? Sounds like we need a TOR ban. When TOR is outlawed, only outlaws will TOR. That's the same kind of "logic" gun-banners use. Not saying that is your position as I don't know your position. I just couldn't resist. :=)
end sarcasm

They do? Lets ban the internet-We must !! Require a license, a permit and a background check to email or websearch. Infiltrate news corps and belittle and , on the air, demonize all surfers. Peace will thus prevail.

Neil,

The United States is a free country because of citizens' rights. One of these rights is the right of self protection. In terms of deterrence to foreign invasion, the right of the citizenry to bear arms has prevented our enemies from crossing our borders in the two World Wars and it was widely discussed during the Cold War that the Soviets feared a "rifle behind every tree". You may be content without the right of self protection, but I and my country are not.

Neil do you ever leave your house? Do you know what the real world is like? When you get a better "society", I may consider leaving my weapon in the box rather than on my hip. I have been defending your sorry butt for thirty-five years so you can feel safe, and think stupid. Re read the Constitution and the amendments. Until then, I will keep my weapon on my hip, out where YOU and everyone else can see it. I, will not be a victim.

Well since you live in the UK, we have been defending your ass since world war 1. Without the USA and our hated guns you'd be speaking German now.

If the USA had joined WW1 earlier, or for the early part of WW2 not "desired to 'avoid foreign entanglements and focus on domestic issues", the last 60 of history years may have been very different. Did not really do much for the rest of the world and more than anything allowed the German and Japanese to peak their agression and empire building.

Pearl Harbour would not have happened, and WW2 in Europe/Asia would probably have finished by 1941, Jewish Holocaust unlikely to have happened or would have been much smaller and crucially Soviet expansionist into Eastern Europe and the cold war would never have happened if you had 'manned up' from the start. I though guns were to protect freedom from 'the bad guy'?!

You can cascade Middle East, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam into this too as likely never have happened or would be vastly different now with the unfortunate mass loss of life on all sides in all of these conflicts avoided. You could even push the envelope on this alternate timeline and say 9/11 may not have happened.

US late entry into WW2 was a fundamental disaster for the world. As bad the the UK's policy of appeasement on the run up to the invasion of Poland. Both were weak, and allowed aggression to flourish.

Don;t say USA saved your arses on WW2 and have been ever since, as it is fundamentally wrong and it redneck gun-toting rhetoric, and is hugely disrespectful to the millions who have lost their lives or had them destroyed by years of unnecessary conflict.

We still saved your arse as you call it, and that is since WW1. If it wasn't for the USA being the police of the planet people like you would be subjects instead of citizens. You say its disrespectful of those who lost their lives defending an "unnecessary" conflict. It is your disrespect that I find particularly offensive.