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.

I don't think so. History is history and no amount of speculation on your part will change what might have happened. As mentioned by others, it is your disrespect for the sacrifice by millions of others that you are now able to voice your opinion.

How typical, and at the same time predictable Americanizied opinion can be!
No disrespect meant, but did you read this in the Americapedia!

The US (and the rest of the world) is so lucky the Russians did overcome the nazis in WWII, otherwise all of us might be speaking German now!

Come on guys, dont mix truth with fiction.

Tuan! Come On man... Biddle from Gizmodo.
He probably needs a wake up call. Our government, illegally selling arms?
Oliver North testified in my generation, Fast and Furious is your evidence.
There's one big hole in this article. Every site I've ever visited to reseach firearm price and availability required a willing FFL (Federal Firearms Liscense) holder to even receive a firearm, irregardless of the shipping method. USPS, UPS, FED-X etc etc.

Oh, and I do excercise my 2nd ammendment right to own and bear a firearm. Grenades! Too powerful. The ones our Army trained me with have a 5-15 meter kill radius. Way too powerful for homeowner use. Impractical. ;O)

Marcus,

You have a good point, but the arms dealers get around this licensing problem by sending the order in shielded packages in disassembled parts in order to not raise suspicion. Make no doubt, all of this is not legal in any way.

Since you have not made a purchase you have no idea how the shipping is actually handled. By the way do you have any idea how to "shield" a package? The amount of lead necessary to prevent an x-ray would make for one oddly heavy package. Also if the x-ray can not penetrate the package wouldn't the inspector flag it for opening? Why yes he would. Your attempt to sensationalize this issue by presenting partial information, assumptions and unverified facts makes me question your integrity.

Tuan, how do you shield against the 'aroma' of the explosives in a grenade?

BTW, in the US it is against the law to posess the PARTS to make a weapon fully automatic unless you have been vetted and fully licensed and paid your tax. You don't even have to possess all of the weapon for it to be a Federal Offence (read that as a very long prison term).

The fallacy in all of these anti-gun arguments is that taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. Even if you could 'magically' get rid of all of the guns in the world, the crime rate would probably rise because the criminals would then have nothing to fear.

I know of two places in the world where gun ownership is required of the residents: Kennesaw, Georgia, USA and Switzerland. Both have relatively low crime rates.

@USCitizen1: if you read the blogs on this site long enough, you will realize that most posts have not been researched and or express opinion as fact. I read this site to have a good laugh with my co-workers. The problem is, a lot of readers have drank the kool-aid and actually believe this crap.

Good morning my friend Tuan. While I do like your editorials/posts, this one was a bit off. May I ask what in that particular store is illegal?? As for the deadliest arms known, may I point out that the lowly knife and hatchet have been used extensively since Cain & Able. they have accounted for millions

A final point, just suppose that a single CCP holder had been in that theatre's audience, how many shots could that deranged shooter fire before being engaged and neutralized himself.

No, my friend, that was a very biased post/editorial; written for it's emotional impact, not truth, and capitalizing upon a unpreventable tragedy. He could just as easily have constructed a home made bomb or a chemical weapon

The Armory enables users to buy or sell just about any weapon online, legal or illegal. Anyone who obtains a banned weapon or gear that's intended only for the military, can go on there to negotiate deals.

Sorry, if you think my post was biased or unfair. That was never my intention. I just wanted to point out how criminals are using sophisticated technology engage in illegal arms trade that's hard to stop.

Since you did not complete any transaction you can only assume your claim to be accurate. Had you made an illegal purchase, and actually obtained an illegal weapon I would give your claims credence. As it is now only an assumption.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

Wikipedia is NOT a trusted research resource. It's subject to bias, incorrect information, multiple editors, and a staff who appear to determine on a whim, what constitutes violations of their allowable entries rules.

Just because you got a gun, doesn't necessarily mean you will be more likely to use it. Don't rely on deceivingly combined category stats. They don't tell the whole story.

As a side note, the Brady Campaign is also biased to the point they rely on emotion more than absolute fact. If I accept your gun advocates are biased view, that means the truth has to be somewhere in the middle.

Wikipedia is more or less in the right place.

Don't just say it's wrong, and can be ignored. If you have issues with it's accuracy, do the research, and update it so it is correct.

If you adjust for population those numbers change dramaticly.

I see you listed the Zimmerman case. Are you implying that the man trying to savagely beat another man to death should have lived? One of them was going to die. It wasn't the man with the gun protecting his neighborhood.

George Washingtons "Army" was mostly militia. Just a load of trigger happy rednecks. In your second para, do you really think Bad Guys obey the rules?? You want to penalize the Law Abiding Citizen and offer them up to the BGs on a plate.

Easy way to resolve this.

Ban guns. If you have a gun afterwards, you go to jail. Period. Zero tolerance.

You and your family are beaten, raped, and killed while all your possessions are taken from you by those who will refuse to obey the law no matter what. Think the cops will be there quick enough to stop it all? Think again. They are Law Enforcement, not your personal bodyguard detail.

Gut-toting Advocacy Rhetoric.

"In much of the rest of the Westernized World where general weapon carrying is unlawful, neither the perpetrator or any 'nice' CCP would have been allowed."

The perp went in with full intention of breaking the law by murdering people, discharging a firearm in a reckless manner, etc. His actions alone say that if he couldn't have legally obtained his weapons, he'd have found a way to illegally get them. Or if he had no real statement to make, he could have just as easily brought some of his illegal bombs with him to do the job.

Nothing but empty gun-toting advocacy anecdotes.

How about abandoning the war on drugs, and legalizing all illegal drugs, and selling them under prescription in Walgreen's.

Drug problem gone with easy care-free anecdotes.

Exactly.

His apartment was rigged with bombs. It took the cops a LONG time to get in and see all the elaborate booby-traps (robots first, officers after)

He did...had anyone gone into his apartment, it would have come close to blowing up the whole building - the place was booby trapped to the hilt. Some speculate he was hoping that someone would come in and turn down the loud music he left going (left the door ajar), hit the trip wire and the explosion would have diverted emergency services during his deed. Luckily the one person that went to ask him to turn down the music didn't go inside. Took the nearly 2 days to disarm the place.

thats all this is .nothing more

Could not beleive Fox News did an apparent tribute in the studio this morning with 'Shooter' Jennings. Are they dumb as 5h1t or what.

I too am a CCW holder with much defensive training and experience. The vast majority of responsible gun owners use the legal means of weapons procurement for legitimate purposes. However, there is always a segment of every population comprised of truly evil individuals who will distort reality for their purpose. There is a nationwide discussion about legal and illegal aliens immigrating into the US. The same should be true with legal and illegal weapons.

As to whether someone with a handgun and a CCW could have changed the outcome of the theater shooting is debatable, given the degree of protection this idiot had prepared himself with. The 21 rounds of 9mm that I normally carry, probably would not have penetrated this guys armor; however, it might have distracted him enough to allow some of the other victims to escape the carnage. The most fortunate part of this whole episode was that the guy didn't apparently practice enough with a new weapon to adequately break it in to prevent or minimize jamming.

The other problem here is the lack of swift and certain justice on the part of the US citizenry. We have become such a liberal society that the prospect of being put to death for 1st degree murder is highly unlikely, which makes it no longer a deterrent. What should happen is to set a trial for next month, take about a week for the trial, find him guilty of multiple counts of 1st degree, sentence him to death for the following month, and carry out the sentence. What will actually happen is he won't go to trial until sometime in mid 2013, the trial will take months, he will be found either guilty of some lesser charge or not guilty by insanity, will begin serving his sentence of life imprisonment and will be taken care of for the next 20 years by the taxpayers of Colorado, followed by multiple appeals which will result in some sort of release back out to the community. Now if he was poor or black, he would be on death row pretty much guaranteed.

If you depend upon the government to protect you by taking away your right of self defense, then you are nothing more than a target for the deranged people who know the score. The best examples are the locations like Washington DC where only the police and criminals possess firearms and the carnage has become the norm rather than the exception. A gun is a tool. It is the use of that tool by people that make it safe or dangerous. Driving a car is a lot riskier than carrying a gun. Should we make driving illegal?

Well Neil I do need a gun because my life as an animal advocate has been threatened repeatedly over the years and I decided not to be a "sitting duck" for the pleasure of a farmer, rancher, or hunter that believes their right to kill is absolute. You might not believe that the wild west still exists, but it does. I have made a conscious effort to train myself to minimize the prospect of becoming a victim.

Every one of the people in that theater were victims of a disarmament policy that is exploited by those individuals who don't give a rat's behind about laws. I understand from a prior post that had I been attending the movie, I would have left my weapon at home because the theater had a posted policy of no firearms. As a law abiding citizen, I follow the law. So no help there. Good luck if you are willing to bet your life on the availability of a law enforcement official to be present at every dispute that threatens your life. Having a concealed weapon comes with great responsibility but it can also provide peace of mind when confronted with a dangerous situation that requires immediate action. A two minute response time by the Aurora police is phenomenal but not the norm in most stressful situations.

I agree with the concept of robust enforcement, but we have sufficient laws that currently can't seem to get enforced, so how is adding additional weapon restrictions going to help that?

I don't live in a Pollyanna world.

There are numerous stories of scientists in the UK involved in scientific animal research who have been threatened, sometimes unfortunately attacked or having letter bomb's sent to them by Anti Vivisectionists.

They seem to manage without guns, *on both sides*, and the perpetrators get caught, put through the justice system and go to jail through due process - not a lynch mob mentality.

How is this different from you, except they deal with it without resorting to fear and being tooled up with weapons.

For responsible people, a weapon is a defensive tool; not something to be used as an offensive implement. Evil people are by definition offensive. But not every offensive person warrants a defensive response using a weapon. You make it sound like I have a boat load of weapons. I have a single handgun which I use to practice my defensive skills on a regular basis. And I hope and pray that I will never need to use it. Such is the case with the vast majority of those in the US who possess permits to carry their weapon concealed. Be prepared or become a statistic, that is my choice.

" Neil foolishly said..."If weapons were lawfully restricted to Law Enforcement Officials, Military and Strictly licensed and audited Farmers, do you or anyone really have any need for a weapon ?" Two reasons my sheltered friend..(1) Self Defense.. I do not have to tell you how long it takes to get a LEO to show up. "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.' It is because they show up after the "event". (2) For the same reason we used it in 1776, to protect me for a tyrannical government. Grow up young man, it is an evil world out there.

LEO - Look at the issue, it is to do with ineffectuallaw enforcement, not guns. The guns are a symptom of a cancer in the society that no-one has any balls to do anything about.

Sort out the lack of law enforcement, and guns will be irrelevant.

Many, many other enlightened countries around the world can do it.......

The very fact these kind of events occur in the US - as well as countries with extremely severe firearms laws, should tell you that reliance on any gov. for your protection is simple minded folly. This was the same kind of reasoning the heralded the civilian firearms confiscation in pre-WWII Germany - and then as they say the rest is history. If you really think human behavior has radically changed in the last hundred years or that the ratio of law enforcement officers per the number of people they are charged with protecting is better - again, you need better critical thinking skills.

Don;t do revisionist history on Germany, and boil it down to a single issue to support your argument.

Pre-WW2 Germany has numerous issues impacting on it, not least war reparations punative damages/actions from WW1.

They seemed almost not to learn this second time around with the initial attempt at post-WW2 De-Industrialization of the area, thankfully stopped as plain dumb in 1946.

I've never had to use a weapon in self-defense, and I hope I never have to, and in my neighborhood it's not really likely, but you must understand: The police are under no obligation to protect you.

If you have a specific death threat, they might maybe run an extra patrol past your house - maybe, but you are pretty much on your own when the assailant comes.

I'm a pretty big girl, but guys twice my weight aren't uncommon, and even though I've been studying a martial art for a while, I'll need years and years more study before I'm likely to be able to stop a big guy from doing me serious harm while unarmed. Hence my gun.

Are you kidding me? I've been in the East end late at night, and since it's not allowed there I shouldn't have heard any shots. It certainly wasn't anyone passing gas. Also, why is it that the Bobbies have begun carrying weapons? Then there are the muggings in the alleys around the clubs on the West side.. You may live in the UK, but it sure seems as though you have no idea of what's going on...

Unless all criminals are eliminated, threats remain. Our founding fathers did not write the 2nd amendment to protect hunters or to keep criminals at bay. They wrote this amendment to protect us from government. Fire regulations are very strict, yet many homes have fire extinguishers.

... so why is no-one really afraid of the Government, and feels the need for weapons to protect them from 'the bad guys'.

It's a very different time since the days the Constitution and amendments were drafted.,,,,,,,,,

I particularly like the 19th Amendment where Women's suffrage in the United States was achieved gradually, at state and local levels, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, culminating in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provided: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Nuff said.

My reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the founding fathers rejected the idea of a standing army and instead wanted to rely on citizen soldiers to muster whenever a threat warranted it. They also put in the Constitution that no appropriation for the Army could be for more than 2 years. I suspect they would be shocked at the current situation.

This article says, "a paper trail revealed that the [Aurora massacre] suspect built his arsenal through purchases made via a host of unregulated web sites." That's extremely misleading. The two Glock pistols, AR-15, and pump shotgun used in the massacre were purchased legally in Denver stores. (At least some of the ammunition may have been from the Web).

It's already common knowledge to anyone following the Aurora killings to know ALL the guns were bought legally and locally by the perp (as you note hscohen), Each time he bought one, he passed the legally required screening to get it. Which leads me to believe this story/editorial is completely fabricated to produce hits to bring in advertising revenue and/or a tool by anti-gun advocates.

I don't know about the Armory y'all are talking about, but I've been the the-armory.com many times, and everything is on the up and up - Yes, they'll sell you a rifle, pistol or even a machine gun, but they won't deliver it except through your local licensed dealer, and that dealer won't give it to you 'till all the paperwork is done andthe FBI says it's OK. (BATFE for fully automatic weapons.)

One thing to be noted, assault rifles have NEVER been available to the public without going through extensive federal paperwork, 'cause by definition, an assault rifle fires multiple shots with one pull of the trigger which invokes the whole machine gun regulation bit, and the whole category wasn't invented 'till after the National Firearms Act of 1934, which requires obtaining a federal tax stamp for many weapons, including fully automatic (machine) guns, short shotguns, destructive devices, etc.

What have been available are assault STYLE semi-automatic rifles - semiautomatic rifles which LOOK like their select-fire brethren, but can only fire a single shot per pull of the trigger. Some very early assault style semi-automatic rifles could be converted to fully automatic by simply exchanging some internal parts, but these were removed from the market in the late '70s or early '80s, and are very rare today.

Every time some nutcase kills a bunch of people this kind of fluff hit the "news". Sensationalism, pure and simple. Did you actually purchase and have ANY weapon delivered to you?? Are you intentionally attempting to scare the uninformed public. Your "article" is no different than chicken little saying the sky is falling. No proof, no evidence, just a good deal of misleading information. Shielded packages and grenades in the mail??? really??

Homicidal maniacs are tragic whatever means they use to inflict injury on the innocent. However, this article and its original Gizzmodo source are of the worst kind of yellow journalism - totally focused on exaggerated circumstances (undercover arms purchases) sensationalism to sell their articles regardless of the tragic nature of the event that it centers on.

The fact is that any non-felon can quite legally buy enough weapons and ammunition to arm far more than a 20 man militia - as pointed out at Walmart and many other places. In fact, all the gun related laws (now over 10,000) in the US haven't prevented deranged people from acting out their rages whether with guns or simple fertilizer in Oklahoma City. We live in an environment where there are large amounts of dangerous and reactive chemicals and where any moderately intelligent person can unleash havoc and chaos with even minimal thought and effort. Not long ago I read about a home being blown to bits in Colorado when someone connected their garden hose to their outside propane gas heating tank and routed it through the homes basement window. When their gas hot water heater cycled on it ignited the basement full of propane. Perhaps we should consider that the problems like this lie not with the tools used, but with the users - and the environments that produce them - while shunning those that try to benefit themselves from sensational tragedies.

"which led Biddle to eventually conclude that site had all the markings of a legit, covert operation." They may have purposely acted this way to make Biddle think it is.

One interesting note: I have observed for over 30 years that when a bill for gun-confiscation comes up or is about to come up in the Legislature, gun attacks on crowds occur. This is accomplished with "sleeper agents" who are hypnotized to do these things and not recall being so. Sirhan Sirhan once remarked, "I must have murdered those people, because everyone said they saw me do it, but I just don't recall doing it."

A U.N. bill ("The Small Arms Treaty") that would permit the Govt to confiscate all firearms on behalf of the U.N. is coming before Congress this week, and this planned-tragedy in Aurora was pulled to make the citizenry react emotionally (as it always does) and force the Legislature to approve the bill. That is exactly why this massacre in Aurora happened.

A world govt that did this to over 70 people to get its way --- what kind of world govt to come is that? Ans: The most evil and despicable type that is as much like Hitler's Third Reich as it can possibly be, that's what kind.

BTW: David Rockefeller and George Soros have admitted their goals for global govt. Both let the cat out of the bag during recent speeches. Rockefeller was at a dinner to thank the news media for not making this scheme known to the public, and Soros wanted to tell the world so as to make it easier for humanity to adjust to it when it arrives.

The old krap about "paranoia" and "conspiracie theories" is, with these 2 admissions, rendered totally moot .

I now see, with the tremendous response this article has generated, why intelligent people are frequently the ones who go berserk like the nut from California. Why such interest in the subject? I hope "The Armory" is a giant government sting to identify and apprehend murderers before they commit the act. I am in favor of ownership of hunting rifles and shotguns, and handguns for self defense. I do not see the logic in owning large magazine semi automatic or automatic weapons but unfortunately the "Cat is out of the bag". As far as grenades go, anyone with a rudimentary science background can make one. We must work on American Culture to prevent the creation of crazy people, not just weapons of mass murder. Maybe if one of the people was carrying a piece, e.g. an off duty Cop, they could have been able to neutralize Mr. Joker.

Controling gun sales is fine but when you get to say ppl shouldnt carry guns or even have them is wrong. Like many people here have pointed out , owning a gun was initally included in the constitution for us to protect ourselves from ANY wrongful harm. In Chicago , there was a gun ban,, and guess what ,, only criminals were able to get them. IT DOESNT WORK for normal people.

TOR, The Onion Router, developed through the support of the US Navy.

If the U.S. Navy had a hand in developing it, then you can just about guarrantee that they have a means of tracking through it.

Every time an incident like Aurora happens the un-educated come out crying for more "Gun Control"! Let's go back prior to all of these mass shooting events, pass all the "Gun Control" legislation they think or imagine is needed! That in and of itself will NOT prevent these events from occurring!!! The shooter in Aurora had no "RECORD" in fact the people who could have put him in the watch category failed to do anything. It's like saying Joe Paterno could have prevented the Sandusky Scandal! NOT TRUE!!! What's needed is a better background investigation method and people to do their part to make it complete! Psychiatrist's could put their patients on this list without violating patient confidentiality without going into details. Who else would know better who represents a danger to the PUBLIC?! This guy was definately a Public Danger! Let's try to figure out who the problem people are and put the limitations on them instead of the "LAW ABIDING" Citizens who are only trying to survive in this Maniacal World! I support "Liscensed to Carry" programs because in the time it takes for a police response to any incident involving GUNS more people will be killed who didn't need to DIE! There just aren't enough Police to cover the worst locations(?) let alone enough locations to prevent or LIMIT periferal damage! Several of the so-called intelligent social elite want to ban ALL Guns which is ludicrous because when Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Guns!

I'll sell you dollar bills that you can spend at stores and WILL beat those counterfeit inspection pens.
WE SELL THE HIGHEST QUALITY FAKE BILLS FOR OVER 20 WORLD WIDE RECOGNISED CURRENCIES/ USD/CANADIAN AND USA/POUNDS/EURO/RANDS ETC
CONTACT US FOR DETAILS OH HOW TO BUY.
WE SHIP WORLDWIDE ANONYMOUS DELIVERY AND SHIPPING
SAFE SERVICES ALL ROUND.
DELIVERY WITHIN 3 TO 7 DAYS.

email us at/ hornbills@hushmail.com

or paper2paper@hushmail.com

www.qualitydocument.ucoz.com
We are the best producer of quality fake documents.
We offer only original high-quality fake passports,
driver's licenses,Citizenship , fake degrees,permit and all type of fake documents,
ID cards, stamps and other products for a number of countries like:
USA, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Italia, Finland, France,
Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, United
Kingdom. This list is not full, we produce many other. Contact for more details.

To get the additional information and place the order
through email - paper2paper@hushmail.com

BUY FAKE PASSPORT BRITISH(UK) FOR SALE DIPLOMATIC CANADIAN FALSE ID
CARD ONLINE UNITED STATES(US) FAKE ID CARD SELL DRIVERS LICENSE