Ban military-style semi-auto firearms?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You REALLY need to do more reading. Almost EVERYTHING you say about guns is 100% wrong.

You need to do better than just say random numbers how much I'm wrong.

Quote

They obtained BOTH guns and explosives illegally. You do know that both Harris and Klebold were both not old enough to buy the guns they used right?

Sure they weren't, so they asked someone else to buy guns for them. Hopefully you do understand a difference between obtaining a gun illegally by asking someone else to buy it for you (this is just not possible if the guns are banned), and obtaining a gun illegally from an illegal arms dealer. Would be much difficult if the guns weren't available that easy, right?

Quote

In addition they modified the weapons in ways that violated the 1934 National Firearms Act.

I don't see your point. Cho didn't modify his guns, and still killed twice more.

Quote

Further they built almost 100 explosive devises. And you know that it is ILLEGAL to make explosives, right?

But apparently because making an explosive device is not as easy as making a sawed-off, as their explosives didn't really show their potential.

Quote

And since you brought up Columbine... you do know that the United States Secret Service and the Department of Education released a report in May 2002 called THE FINAL REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE SAFE SCHOOL INITIATIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF SCHOOL ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES?

Key point is on page 12: "Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention."

Hopefully you do not assume that "stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention" mean "a gun owner shot them". Columbine guys and Cho also were stopped by "other means", but those means did not include any gun owners.

Quote

Really, almost 100% of your information about firearms and the laws regarding them is wrong.

It depends. As far as I see, a gun owner would not mind to lie just to prevent even an imaginable threat to his guns, so indeed I'm not taking your words seriously. You need to do better than shooting numbers.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

Quote

You need to do better than just say random numbers how much I'm wrong.

I have, read my replied to you in just this thread... Each one I correct an obvious mistake in your knowledge of firearms or firearms laws. That's a 100% ratio.

Quote

Hopefully you do understand a difference between obtaining a gun illegally by asking someone else to buy it for you (this is just not possible if the guns are banned), and obtaining a gun illegally from an illegal arms dealer.

I understand that BOTH are illegal. And it is pretty clear I know more about guns and gun laws than you.

Quote

Would be much difficult if the guns weren't available that easy, right?

Guns are banned in Mexico, yet they have an insane amount of gun violence (And you do know that most of the weapons are NOT coming from the US right?).

Hey, you know that drugs are illegal in the US right? Well, then how does the US have a drug problem? I mean if banning something makes it difficult to get and all, how can almost anyone on a DZ find drugs if they just ask?

Quote

I don't see your point. Cho didn't modify his guns, and still killed twice more.

The point is that they broke several laws, and those laws didn't stop them one little bit.

1. They were too young to own firearms.
2. They used a straw purchase.
3. They modified those guns in violation of the NFA of 1934.
4. They took those guns onto school property.
5. They built explosives in violation of Federal Law.
6. They killed people.

Rules and laws don't matter to criminals. Gun bans don't stop a criminal.

Quote

But apparently because making an explosive device is not as easy as making a sawed-off, as their explosives didn't really show their potential.

This shows how little you know about explosives. And their problem was with the detonation device, not the explosive.

But hey, you know that explosives are illegal right, yet they still had them.... So much for your "ban".

Quote

Hopefully you do not assume that "stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention" mean "a gun owner shot them". Columbine guys and Cho also were stopped by "other means", but those means did not include any gun owners.

I know exactly what it means, I have read the report... Have you?

There are PLENTY of examples where people WERE stopped by civilians.... Joel Myrick in Peal, MS for example... So you do know that "Other means" CAN and DOES include civilian intervention right?

Quote

It depends. As far as I see, a gun owner would not mind to lie just to prevent even an imaginable threat to his guns, so indeed I'm not taking your words seriously. You need to do better than shooting numbers.

And I can clearly see you are willing to ignore the nose on your face as long as you get to continue your ignorance position about weapons and weapon laws. No matter how many times I have proven you wrong, you just claim to your line about how "I would not mind lying"... Never mind I have shown data and facts to back up my positions each and every time... You have just brought your uneducated opinions.

You need to do better than just ignorant opinions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Choose as long as you like - you did not live here and it seems don't know what it means to walk the streets w/o beeing armed

Data to back up your comment? I don't mind not being armed.... But then again, I am a 37 year old fit male with a black belt. Still, I recognize that criminals prey on the weak and they are more likely yo attack my 70 year old father.

Also, I realize that as soon as the attacker brings a gun or a buddy I am at a disadvantage.

Quote

Some teenagers might try to challenge you, they'll use thier fists ...

Ah, so it is better for women to be rapped and old men to be robbed than the woman or old man to be armed in your opinion?

BTW, I let this go... But now I am back on it.

Quote

I bought a hand gun in Fort Lauderdale in '00 by just by showing my credit card ...

I call BS.

I LIVE in FLL and to buy ANY gun from a dealer there is a MANDATORY 3 day wait in FLL and 5 days in MIA, unless you have a FLORIDA CHL (my TX CHL would not work, and I had to get a FL Drivers License).

I also lived in FL from 1980-1987, 1996-1999, 2002-2005 and having a FLORIDA DL was required all those years as well, and from May 5, 1991 to present there has been a mandatory 3 day wait except for LEO/CHL.

And a ATF 4473 has been required since 1968.


http://www.rpfoley.com/lawyer-attorney-1225994.html

Quote

Chapter 790 (b): Weapons & Firearms: 790.065 - 790.10

1790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.--

(1) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may not sell or deliver from her or his inventory at her or his licensed premises any firearm to another person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, until she or he has:

(a) Obtained a completed form from the potential buyer or transferee, which form shall have been promulgated by the Department of Law Enforcement and provided by the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, which shall include the name, date of birth, gender, race, and social security number or other identification number of such potential buyer or transferee and has inspected proper identification including an identification containing a photograph of the potential buyer or transferee.

(c) Requested, by means of a toll-free telephone call, the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct a check of the information as reported and reflected in the Florida Crime Information Center and National Crime Information Center systems as of the date of the request.

However, if the person purchasing, or receiving delivery of, the firearm is a holder of a valid concealed weapons or firearms license pursuant to the provisions of s. 790.06 or holds an active certification from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a "law enforcement officer," a "correctional officer," or a "correctional probation officer" as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), the provisions of this subsection do not apply.

(2) Upon receipt of a request for a criminal history record check, the Department of Law Enforcement shall, during the licensee's call or by return call, forthwith:

2(a) Review criminal history records to determine if the potential buyer or transferee:

1. Has been convicted of a felony and is prohibited from receipt or possession of a firearm pursuant to s. 790.23;

2. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and therefore is prohibited from purchasing a firearm; or

3. Has had adjudication of guilt withheld or imposition of sentence suspended on any felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless 3 years have elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled or expunction has occurred.

(b) Inform the licensee making the inquiry either that records demonstrate that the buyer or transferee is so prohibited and provide the licensee a nonapproval number, or provide the licensee with a unique approval number.

(c)1. Review any records available to it to determine whether the potential buyer or transferee has been indicted or has had an information filed against her or him for an offense that is a felony under either state or federal law, or, as mandated by federal law, has had an injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against the potential buyer or transferee under s. 741.30, has had an injunction for protection against repeat violence entered against the potential buyer or transferee under s. 784.046, or has been arrested for a dangerous crime as specified in s. 907.041(4)(a) or for any of the following enumerated offenses:

a. Criminal anarchy under ss. 876.01 and 876.02.

b. Extortion under s. 836.05.

c. Explosives violations under s. 552.22(1) and (2).

d. Controlled substances violations under chapter 893.

e. Resisting an officer with violence under s. 843.01.

f. Weapons and firearms violations under this chapter.

g. Treason under s. 876.32.

h. Assisting self-murder under s. 782.08.

i. Sabotage under s. 876.38.

j. Stalking or aggravated stalking under s. 784.048.

If the review indicates any such indictment, information, or arrest, the department shall provide to the licensee a conditional nonapproval number.

(12)(a) Any potential buyer or transferee who willfully and knowingly provides false information or false or fraudulent identification commits a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) Any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer who violates the provisions of subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(d) Any person who knowingly acquires a firearm through purchase or transfer intended for the use of a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

So while I did not live in FL in 2000.... The law has been in place since 1968, and a MANDATORY 3day wait has been in place since May 5, 1991.

Besides, why would a you be buying a handgun in the US anyway if all you need are hunting rifles locked up hundreds of miles away? And if YOU should be allowed, why would *I* not be allowed?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Here

He just did it again http://www.dropzone.com/...post=3759327#3759327

Seriously.... You need to actually start reading before you start claiming things. Or maybe try a RIF class.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Seems improbable, though I'm interested to hear from residents there.

To buy a weapon in FL you need:

Florida ID
Fill out a 4473
Pass the background check/call
Handgun you have to wait 3 days (5 in some areas) Unless you are an FFL, C&R, or have a CHL or are trading in another handgun.
For a rifle/shotgun FLL has a 3 day wait.

Some details:

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

Quote

No licensed gun dealer, manufacturer or importer shall sell or deliver any firearm to another person until he has obtained a completed form from the potential buyer or transferee and received approval from the Department of Law Enforcement by means of a toll-free telephone call.

Exempt from the instant check are licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, collectors, persons with a concealed carrying license, law enforcement, correctional and correctional probation officers.

Excluding weekends and legal holidays, there is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun from a retail establishment. Exempt from the waiting period are concealed weapons permit holders and those trading in another handgun.

More info:

http://www.rpfoley.com/lawyer-attorney-1225994.html

Quote

Chapter 790 (b): Weapons & Firearms: 790.065 - 790.10

1790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.--

(1) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may not sell or deliver from her or his inventory at her or his licensed premises any firearm to another person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, until she or he has:

(a) Obtained a completed form from the potential buyer or transferee, which form shall have been promulgated by the Department of Law Enforcement and provided by the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, which shall include the name, date of birth, gender, race, and social security number or other identification number of such potential buyer or transferee and has inspected proper identification including an identification containing a photograph of the potential buyer or transferee.

(b) Collected a fee from the potential buyer for processing the criminal history check of the potential buyer. The fee shall be established by the Department of Law Enforcement and may not exceed $8 per transaction. The Department of Law Enforcement may reduce, or suspend collection of, the fee to reflect payment received from the Federal Government applied to the cost of maintaining the criminal history check system established by this section as a means of facilitating or supplementing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The Department of Law Enforcement shall, by rule, establish procedures for the fees to be transmitted by the licensee to the Department of Law Enforcement. All such fees shall be deposited into the Department of Law Enforcement Operating Trust Fund, but shall be segregated from all other funds deposited into such trust fund and must be accounted for separately. Such segregated funds must not be used for any purpose other than the operation of the criminal history checks required by this section. The Department of Law Enforcement, each year prior to February 1, shall make a full accounting of all receipts and expenditures of such funds to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of each house of the Legislature, and the chairs of the appropriations committees of each house of the Legislature. In the event that the cumulative amount of funds collected exceeds the cumulative amount of expenditures by more than $2.5 million, excess funds may be used for the purpose of purchasing soft body armor for law enforcement officers.

(c) Requested, by means of a toll-free telephone call, the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct a check of the information as reported and reflected in the Florida Crime Information Center and National Crime Information Center systems as of the date of the request.

(d) Received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the Department of Law Enforcement, and recorded the date and such number on the consent form.

However, if the person purchasing, or receiving delivery of, the firearm is a holder of a valid concealed weapons or firearms license pursuant to the provisions of s. 790.06 or holds an active certification from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a "law enforcement officer," a "correctional officer," or a "correctional probation officer" as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), the provisions of this subsection do not apply.

(2) Upon receipt of a request for a criminal history record check, the Department of Law Enforcement shall, during the licensee's call or by return call, forthwith:

2(a) Review criminal history records to determine if the potential buyer or transferee:

1. Has been convicted of a felony and is prohibited from receipt or possession of a firearm pursuant to s. 790.23;

2. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and therefore is prohibited from purchasing a firearm; or

3. Has had adjudication of guilt withheld or imposition of sentence suspended on any felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless 3 years have elapsed since probation or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled or expunction has occurred.

(b) Inform the licensee making the inquiry either that records demonstrate that the buyer or transferee is so prohibited and provide the licensee a nonapproval number, or provide the licensee with a unique approval number.

(c)1. Review any records available to it to determine whether the potential buyer or transferee has been indicted or has had an information filed against her or him for an offense that is a felony under either state or federal law, or, as mandated by federal law, has had an injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against the potential buyer or transferee under s. 741.30, has had an injunction for protection against repeat violence entered against the potential buyer or transferee under s. 784.046, or has been arrested for a dangerous crime as specified in s. 907.041(4)(a) or for any of the following enumerated offenses:

a. Criminal anarchy under ss. 876.01 and 876.02.

b. Extortion under s. 836.05.

c. Explosives violations under s. 552.22(1) and (2).

d. Controlled substances violations under chapter 893.

e. Resisting an officer with violence under s. 843.01.

f. Weapons and firearms violations under this chapter.

g. Treason under s. 876.32.

h. Assisting self-murder under s. 782.08.

i. Sabotage under s. 876.38.

j. Stalking or aggravated stalking under s. 784.048.

If the review indicates any such indictment, information, or arrest, the department shall provide to the licensee a conditional nonapproval number.

(12)(a) Any potential buyer or transferee who willfully and knowingly provides false information or false or fraudulent identification commits a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) Any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer who violates the provisions of subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(d) Any person who knowingly acquires a firearm through purchase or transfer intended for the use of a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Now the laws were different before May 5, 1991. And they were very different before 1968.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I have, read my replied to you in just this thread... Each one I correct an obvious mistake in your knowledge of firearms or firearms laws. That's a 100% ratio.

Well, you may believe whatever you want, but to me your posts look quite ignorant.

Quote

I understand that BOTH are illegal. And it is pretty clear I know more about guns and gun laws than you.

I agree they BOTH are illegal - however your post makes impression that you see no difference between asking a buddy to buy you a gun, and obtain a gun from an illegal arms dealer. Can you confirm this is really the case, and you see no difference in efforts, risks, price and so on in those two illegal methods of obtaining a gun?

Quote

Guns are banned in Mexico, yet they have an insane amount of gun violence (And you do know that most of the weapons are NOT coming from the US right?).

The ban itself means nothing if there is no or limited enforcement. Pretty much like dry law ended up being in the USA. Why don't you compare with (a lot of) countries which have a gun ban which actually works instead of cherry-picking?

Quote

Hey, you know that drugs are illegal in the US right? Well, then how does the US have a drug problem? I mean if banning something makes it difficult to get and all, how can almost anyone on a DZ find drugs if they just ask?

Drugs are different. Those who're buying drugs (where banned) mostly do that for their own consumption, which typically does relatively little harm to local society. Those who're buying illegal weapons (where banned) typically would use it for criminal purposes, so the potential threat is higher. That's my understanding why the laws against some drugs (i.e. pot) are not really enforced here, and I would also disagree that U.S. has a drug problem. However if you get into country where the laws against drugs are enforced - try to get caught with drugs in Singapore by CNB (their equivalent of DEA) - the things will change dramatically.

Quote

The point is that they broke several laws, and those laws didn't stop them one little bit.
1. They were too young to own firearms.
2. They used a straw purchase.
3. They modified those guns in violation of the NFA of 1934.
4. They took those guns onto school property.
5. They built explosives in violation of Federal Law.
6. They killed people.

Yes, because it was very easy for them to obtain guns illegally. However if the guns were banned, things would change dramatically:

1. They would need to think about guns first. For a someone who never seen a pistol it might not be the first thing they'd consider, because they would lack the experience.

2. Then they would need to find someone dealing arms illegally. While this might not be an issue for a professional hitman, this is definitely out of reach for average car thief or shoplifter, not to mention a 17yo kid. As soon as they'd start their search by asking friends/connections, someone would likely to hint local authorities about it who'd set up the entrapment and arrest to-be-shooters. The second realistic thing, after being caught during their search, would be to find someone who'd agree to send them a box of secret guns developed by their military engineers in Nigeria as soon as they send the deposit via Western Union.

3. Assuming they found a real dealer, they will have to pay money. It is common sense that an illegal gun in a country with strict law enforcement would cost much more than a legal gun, even 10x increase doesn't look significant (my friend, who is a cop in Russia, said that illegal Kalashnikov costs at least $6K in Russia for a one made in China (crappy), no ammo included). Same for ammo - it also costs more, and they would need a lot of it for training.

4. Assuming they found a dealer, paid money and got guns and ammo. Assume the dealer didn't cheat them, and they got something of good quality which doesn't explode during the first shot (they're not gun expert and cannot bring one, and illegal dealers offer no warranty and you cannot file a chargeback on your credit card as they tend to accept cash only). Now they need to train. Remember, guns are banned and they cannot just go to a local shooting range ten minute drive. They need to drive far away, so nobody would report a bunch of kids with guns to authorities who'd probably treat it as very high priority. Depending on area it might mean an hour one way drive. Since they do not have an instructor, they need to practice a lot, which means a lot of driving with illegal guns and ammo - with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident (young people tend to have more accidents), and have the guns found by police. How long someone, who have never had a gun before, should train to become semi-proficient, recharge fast, be able to hand some basic malfunctions, I do not know - but I guess it would take more than four weeks on weekends.

If you don't think this is significantly more difficult than using a straw purchase and "modifying" them, then further discussion makes no sense at all.

Quote

Rules and laws don't matter to criminals. Gun bans don't stop a criminal.

They do not stop ALL of them, but they do stop MOST of them. Indeed, there is much less gun crime in Europe, even though the number of criminals percentage-wise is probably the same as in USA. And if you consider a ban, which do not stop every criminal, useless - then all bans would be useless.

Quote

This shows how little you know about explosives. And their problem was with the detonation device, not the explosive.

So how much do you know about explosives? Any first-hand experience? Military or household?

Quote

But hey, you know that explosives are illegal right, yet they still had them.... So much for your "ban".

Hey, drunk driving is also banned, but there are still criminals doing it. So much for the ban, right? Probably it is also useless, and we should legalize it.

Quote

I know exactly what it means, I have read the report... Have you?

So why did you quote that part then, if you already knew it is irrelevant, and doesn't prove your point at all?

Quote

There are PLENTY of examples where people WERE stopped by civilians.... Joel Myrick in Peal, MS for example... So you do know that "Other means" CAN and DOES include civilian intervention right?

"Plenty" is how many out of total shootings? 0.5%? 10%? 90%? So far in only one case you brought it can be technically considered that a shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. Joel Myrick didn't stop shooting, he arrested a shooter who already was leaving the scene. For the most it looks like the shootings usually stopped themselves, either because the murderers committed a suicide (seems to be vast majority of them), or they were out of ammo or out of targets.

Quote

And I can clearly see you are willing to ignore the nose on your face as long as you get to continue your ignorance position about weapons and weapon laws. No matter how many times I have proven you wrong, you just claim to your line about how "I would not mind lying"... Never mind I have shown data and facts to back up my positions each and every time... You have just brought your uneducated opinions.

First, I'm sorry, but unless you're licensed attorney in all (or at least in your) state, your opinion about the weapon laws worth no more than mine.

Second, I'm not discussing weapon characteristics, so your knowledge of weapons as pieces of metal is completely irrelevant here. I'm discussing people, and their behavior with guns, and I believe I have enough knowledge on the subject to discuss it. If you don't think so, you're welcome to end this discussion.

Third, so far there were very few things you proven, and most of them were irrelevant. Most time your "proof" ended up being just puff. I have to admit, however, that unlike some others, you're not avoiding answering questions, which at least makes some sense to continue the discussion.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, you may believe whatever you want, but to me your posts look quite ignorant.

Which ones... The ones I correct all your errors, or the ones that I provide facts and data that prove you wrong?

I see you can't debate the facts and have now turned to insults.... Pretty normal for a guy that has run out of intellectual ammo.

Quote

I agree they BOTH are illegal - however your post makes impression that you see no difference between asking a buddy to buy you a gun, and obtain a gun from an illegal arms dealer.

Both are illegal and both are felonies.

Quote

Can you confirm this is really the case, and you see no difference in efforts, risks, price and so on in those two illegal methods of obtaining a gun?

There are differences.... Black market guns can cost LESS than straw purchased guns in most cases.

As for risk... well anytime you deal in the black market you engage in risk... But that does not really stop anyone or else the black market would not exist.

Again.... Guns are illegal in Mexico, yet they have massive gun crime. Drugs are illegal here, yet we have drugs everywhere.... This is clear evidence that bans don't work.

Quote

Why don't you compare with (a lot of) countries which have a gun ban which actually works instead of cherry-picking?

Name one..... Fact is that places that have bans still have gun crime. Again, my FACTS beat your opinion.

Quote

Drugs are different.

Of course they are different, but the fact is the bans don't work since bans don't work.

Quote

Yes, because it was very easy for them to obtain guns illegally. However if the guns were banned, things would change dramatically:

You mean like the explosives they had? Or like the guns that had that were already banned?

Quote

They would need to think about guns first. For a someone who never seen a pistol it might not be the first thing they'd consider, because they would lack the experience.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. A gun is not a difficult device to figure out. It is not like a criminal is going to need to take gun classes at Front Sight to shoot a person. Plus, wasn't it YOU that said just having a gun was enough to stop the attack in MS and the knife attack just last week?

Just having a gun is enough to scare a person into giving you everything or letting them rape you.... and you don't need any training for that.

Quote

Then they would need to find someone dealing arms illegally.

And people find drug dealers ALL the time. These kids found someone who would buy for them, gang bangers get guns ALL the time. People in England get guns, people in Russia get guns.

Quote

As soon as they'd start their search by asking friends/connections, someone would likely to hint local authorities about it who'd set up the entrapment and arrest to-be-shooters.

Again, you are wrong. Those two had WEBSITES where they talked about going on killing sprees. Really, you need to do more research before you have "expert" opinions.

Quote

Assuming they found a real dealer, they will have to pay money. It is common sense that an illegal gun in a country with strict law enforcement would cost much more than a legal gun

Machine Guns made after 1986 are illegal in the US except in special circumstances.... You can still buy them and they cost LESS than legal versions. So no... your point is not made.

So, how many black market guns have you bought to come up with your data?

Quote

Same for ammo - it also costs more, and they would need a lot of it for training.

Again nonsense. Training can help, but a gun is not a complex device. How often do you see LA gang bangers out at the range?

Quote

Now they need to train. Remember, guns are banned and they cannot just go to a local shooting range ten minute drive. They need to drive far away, so nobody would report a bunch of kids with guns to authorities who'd probably treat it as very high priority.

Then you would think all the EXPLOSIVES they detonated would have made them get caught... But they didn't. Your point has dissolved right there... They did use ILLEGAL explosives and they didn't get caught. They had to drive far out into the mountains to use those illegal explosives, and they didn't get pulled over and arrested, they didn't get into an accident either.

Really, you might want to read up on them a bit before you make these easy to prove false claims.

Quote

They do not stop ALL of them, but they do stop MOST of them.

Data to back up your opinion? Because the bans in Russia, Mexico, England...All don't seem to be stopping anything. In fact all three are seeing a RISE in gun crime.

Quote

So how much do you know about explosives? Any first-hand experience? Military or household?

Military, I was one of two in my infantry unit sent to learn explosives. Several improvised devices were covered, built, and detonated. How about you?

Quote

Hey, drunk driving is also banned, but there are still criminals doing it. So much for the ban, right? Probably it is also useless, and we should legalize it.

See, even you agree a ban does not work.

Quote

So why did you quote that part then, if you already knew it is irrelevant, and doesn't prove your point at all?

Did you read the report, yes or no?

It clearly WAS relevant.

Quote

"Plenty" is how many out of total shootings?

It does not seem to matter how many I bring forth.... You just continue to claim to know more than everyone else.

Quote

So far in only one case you brought it can be technically considered that a shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. Joel Myrick didn't stop shooting, he arrested a shooter who already was leaving the scene.

The POLICE disagree with you. They know more than you.

Quote

For the most it looks like the shootings usually stopped themselves, either because the murderers committed a suicide (seems to be vast majority of them), or they were out of ammo or out of targets.

Actually most committed suicide when faced with armed opposition. That opposition was not always LEO and the report said that.

It is clear you didn't read the report and it is also clear you have not let that stop you from claiming to "know" everything about it.

Quote

First, I'm sorry, but unless you're licensed attorney in all (or at least in your) state, your opinion about the weapon laws worth no more than mine.

Except for the fact that I actually seem to know them, and you don't.

Quote

I'm discussing people, and their behavior with guns, and I believe I have enough knowledge on the subject to discuss it.

Your posts do not back that position up.

Quote

Third, so far there were very few things you proven, and most of them were irrelevant. Most time your "proof" ended up being just puff.

My "puff" beat your ignorance into pieces. You have not provided ONE shred of data, only opinions.

You clearly have ZERO knowledge of the events being discussed, nor the laws being discussed.

Quote

I have to admit, however, that unlike some others, you're not avoiding answering questions, which at least makes some sense to continue the discussion.

Now if you would just do the same and actually READ UP on the events being discussed you will stop using the lame arguments you are claiming.

Again, your "they are illegal and hard to get", and "they would have to drive far" argument has CLEARLY been proven false with the explosive example. And for every theory you have provided I HAVE PROVIDED ACTUAL REAL WORLD DATA THAT PROVES YOU WRONG.

As long as you continue to provide ZERO data, and as long as you continue to fail to understand the ACTUAL events we are discussing... There is no point.

This is just an exercise in futility... You bring nothing, I bring facts and data yet you just keep ignoring them and claiming victory.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I think you read something that wasn't there, John. Ron clearly states that the ban was cosmetics and that pro-gunners choose functionality over looks.

So are you saying they ARE more functional? In that case maybe a ban IS justfied

Or are you agreeing with the following gun enthusiasts who have assured us in previous threads that a ban is silly because it's purely cosmetic: johnrich, kelpdiver, tankbuster, and mnealtx?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Glitch 0]

Hey Ron, ever get the feeling, or heard the phrase, that 'ya can't fix stupid'?

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I agree they BOTH are illegal - however your post makes impression that you see no difference between asking a buddy to buy you a gun, and obtain a gun from an illegal arms dealer.

Both are illegal and both are felonies.

.

So, according to you it is possible for the buddy to be a "law abiding citizen" and a felon simultaneously.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I agree they BOTH are illegal - however your post makes impression that you see no difference between asking a buddy to buy you a gun, and obtain a gun from an illegal arms dealer.

Both are illegal and both are felonies.

.

So, according to you it is possible for the buddy to be a "law abiding citizen" and a felon simultaneously.

I know this is pissing into the wind, but the difference is about due process and the presumption of innocence. Things you claim to support when it comes to death penalty and Patriot Act discussions, but not when it comes to guns.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

1. They would need to think about guns first. For a someone who never seen a pistol it might not be the first thing they'd consider, because they would lack the experience.

They've seen TV. If someone made light sabers, I'd want one of them too.

Quote

2. Then they would need to find someone dealing arms illegally. While this might not be an issue for a professional hitman, this is definitely out of reach for average car thief or shoplifter, not to mention a 17yo kid.

3. Assuming they found a real dealer, they will have to pay money. It is common sense that an illegal gun in a country with strict law enforcement would cost much more than a legal gun, even 10x increase doesn't look significant (my friend, who is a cop in Russia, said that illegal Kalashnikov costs at least $6K in Russia

Nonsense.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23419742-i-bought-a-sub-machinegun-within-24-hours.do

Quote

The ease of buying firearms in London was exposed today by a student who bought a deadly sub-machine gun within 24 hours.

Derrick Bennett was able to acquire the automatic weapon after informing his street contacts he wanted one.

Less than a day later, the 20-year-old was led to a seller who offered him the gun and ammunition for £200.

Quote

4. Assuming they found a dealer, paid money and got guns and ammo. Assume the dealer didn't cheat them, and they got something of good quality which doesn't explode during the first shot (they're not gun expert and cannot bring one, and illegal dealers offer no warranty and you cannot file a chargeback on your credit card as they tend to accept cash only). Now they need to train.

More nonsense. It's not that difficult to use a handgun, and it's trivially easy when your intended use is to shoot defenseless lambs at point blank range.

Criminals, by and large, do not go to gun ranges to train. Ranges typically ask for ID, have cops around. As you suggest, just shooting in the back alley gets attention. So they get their practice while committing crimes. It doesn't make them less of a threat. It does contribute to the number of bystanders that get shot.

You do highlight a major reason why taxing bullets is a retarded idea.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Or are you agreeing with the following gun enthusiasts who have assured us in previous threads that a ban is silly because it's purely cosmetic: johnrich, kelpdiver, tankbuster, and mnealtx?

I've never said anything else, to my knowledge.

Of course, if you *were* actually about 'posting the truth' (as I believe you referred to it), you would have already done the research and would be agreeing with us on the issue.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Besides, why would a you be buying a handgun in the US anyway if all you need are hunting rifles locked up hundreds of miles away? And if YOU should be allowed, why would *I* not be allowed?

Excuse me? I'not that sure I understand your question. "... if all I need are hunting rifles locked up hundreds of miles away??"

If the safe in my home is according to safety regulations, I can keep them here, no need to leave them somewhere else. It's just a question of comfort to store rifles in a safe in my hunting area. Why to keep them in my house, where I do not need them?

I do not know if you're a hunter. As I am, also hand guns are essential for hunting. They are locked in a safe for hand guns at my home.

If *you* are allowed or not to buy weapons, is beyond my knowledge.

The guy in the Fort Lauderdale shop just asked me if I have cash, no need for a credit card. Don't worry, the hand gun never left the US. It's still in the home of my friend in Charlottesville.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Ron 10]

Quote

Excuse me? I'not that sure I understand your question. "... if all I need are hunting rifles locked up hundreds of miles away??"

Why would you buy a handgun here in the US in 2000 when you claim you don't need them except for hunting?

Also, as my data shows, it is highly unlikely that you bought a handgun in FL after 1991 by only showing a credit card.

Quote

The guy in the Fort Lauderdale shop just asked me if I have cash, no need for a credit card.

So which was it... Did you pay with a CC like you said before or cash like you are claiming now?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

So, according to you it is possible for the buddy to be a "law abiding citizen" and a felon simultaneously.

No, and no logical person would have jumped to that conclusion from what I have written.

Seriously.... Start actually READING what is written or maybe get some new reading glasses.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

So are you saying they ARE more functional? In that case maybe a ban IS justfied

Wow you just make things up don't you?

Because they serve a different purpose, does not mean any ban is justified.... Except it seems in your own world where you make up things at your whim.

Quote

Or are you agreeing with the following gun enthusiasts who have assured us in previous threads that a ban is silly because it's purely cosmetic

Try to stay with me for a second.

Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet?

Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference?

Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES?

Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned?

Really John... The more you type, worse you look. I am willing to bet you would not accept this same type of logic from your students.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,148]

It's pretty clear that you change your tune according to the argument of the week.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Or are you agreeing with the following gun enthusiasts who have assured us in previous threads that a ban is silly because it's purely cosmetic: johnrich, kelpdiver, tankbuster, and mnealtx?

I've never said anything else, to my knowledge.

Of course, if you *were* actually about 'posting the truth' (as I believe you referred to it), you would have already done the research and would be agreeing with us on the issue.

Indeed, YOU haven't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or are you agreeing with the following gun enthusiasts who have assured us in previous threads that a ban is silly because it's purely cosmetic: johnrich, kelpdiver, tankbuster, and mnealtx?

I've never said anything else, to my knowledge.

Of course, if you *were* actually about 'posting the truth' (as I believe you referred to it), you would have already done the research and would be agreeing with us on the issue.

Indeed, YOU haven't.

If you're speaking of the remarks of Ron's that you linked above referencing cosmetics and utility, they support what he/I have said, not your interpretation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ron 10]

Quote

It's pretty clear that you change your tune according to the argument of the week.

Comments like that just show you have not even bother to read anything I have posted.

Seriously, you are starting to look worse with every post.

Still waiting for your answers BTW:

Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet?

Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference?

Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES?

Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned?

Try to READ them and answer them if you can. Otherwise just admit you don't have a leg to stand on.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,148]

I suppose next you'll be telling us that someone making a straw purchase is a law abiding citizen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I suppose next you'll be telling us that someone making a straw purchase is a law abiding citizen.

In the eyes of the law they are, up until the point that they turn over the weapon to the person that couldn't buy for themself.

At that point, they're double-dipped; not only have they broken the law by providing a weapon to someone barred from possession, but they have lied on the ATF form.

Next stupid question?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It's pretty clear that you change your tune according to the argument of the week.

1000 outa 10

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Which ones... The ones I correct all your errors, or the ones that I provide facts and data that prove you wrong?
I see you can't debate the facts and have now turned to insults.... Pretty normal for a guy that has run out of intellectual ammo.

The ones you claim you "corrected" all my errors, or when you claim that you provided facts while in fact you didn't. Add there those where you claim I'm 100% wrong and use other insults, and you'll get to a nice figure.

Now regarding your "proof" and your "facts", please scroll down through all your posts on this page where you replied to me, and point out those where you provided a single reference to a creditable source? As far as I see, you only provided one (and not on this page), which is not quite relevant, and you're talking about "facts"? Gimme a break!

Quote

***Can you confirm this is really the case, and you see no difference in efforts, risks, price and so on in those two illegal methods of obtaining a gun?

There are differences.... Black market guns can cost LESS than straw purchased guns in most cases.


Really? This is kinda how you "correct my errors"? So tell me please, what your statement is based on? Have you bought any illegal guns on a black market? Did you follow gun prices in the countries, where they were legalized recently (Estonia, Latvia)?

Quote

As for risk... well anytime you deal in the black market you engage in risk... But that does not really stop anyone or else the black market would not exist.

Looking on the countries where guns are banned you can see that this stops enough people.

Quote

Again.... Guns are illegal in Mexico, yet they have massive gun crime. Drugs are illegal here, yet we have drugs everywhere.... This is clear evidence that bans don't work.

Again... DUI, murder and rape are illegal in U.S., yet there are murderers and rapists. Following your logic, this is clear evidence that the bans do not work, and therefore the government should not touch one's personal freedom to murder and rape whoever he wants, right?

Quote

Name one..... Fact is that places that have bans still have gun crime. Again, my FACTS beat your opinion.

They have LESS gun crime, which means the ban works. Only a naive person would expect all the crime to go away just because there is a law against it, but it does not mean that we should repeal all the laws.

And again, do you read your own posts after you post it, as maybe your firewall removes all the links to the external references you entered? Where are those FACTS?

Quote

Of course they are different, but the fact is the bans don't work since bans don't work.

Bans do work. They just don't work 100%, but they indeed reduce the issue. When we had an alcohol ban in Russia in eighties, the number of people who drank alcohol dropped significantly (from 60 to 90% depending on region).

Quote

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. A gun is not a difficult device to figure out. It is not like a criminal is going to need to take gun classes at Front Sight to shoot a person. Plus, wasn't it YOU that said just having a gun was enough to stop the attack in MS and the knife attack just last week?

You didn't even understand what I'm talking about. This is CULTURE, there were people who brought up and never seen a real gun in their life. A probability for them to consider a massacre with a gun is much lower just because of that.

Quote

And people find drug dealers ALL the time. These kids found someone who would buy for them, gang bangers get guns ALL the time. People in England get guns, people in Russia get guns.

Good. Now show me the FACTS which prove that "people in Russia get guns", and how many of them did. To be statistically significant, you need more than a couple of references, of course, as the population of Russia is 145M, but I'd agree even for 0.1% of the population. You bragged so much about how many facts you provided to me, so go ahead and do it at least once (references in Russian are accepted too).

Quote

Again, you are wrong. Those two had WEBSITES where they talked about going on killing sprees. Really, you need to do more research before you have "expert" opinions.

So are you saying that having a website when an abstract nickname discusses things like a suicide or massacre is basically the same as the real Bobby asking various crooks to find a real illegal arms dealer? You must be kidding.

Quote

Machine Guns made after 1986 are illegal in the US except in special circumstances.... You can still buy them and they cost LESS than legal versions. So no... your point is not made.

In this case you're not paying extra for the gun, you're paying extra for legalization. I wonder why can't you understand this with all your experience.

Quote

So, how many black market guns have you bought to come up with your data?

None. And you?

Quote

Again nonsense. Training can help, but a gun is not a complex device. How often do you see LA gang bangers out at the range?

C'mon, you should do better than that. Parachute is not a complex device either, nor is a car, but apparently you need training for both.

Quote

Then you would think all the EXPLOSIVES they detonated would have made them get caught... But they didn't. Your point has dissolved right there...
They did use ILLEGAL explosives and they didn't get caught. They had to drive far out into the mountains to use those illegal explosives, and they didn't get pulled over and arrested, they didn't get into an accident either.

They might have been, but since it is legal to drive with a propane tank in a trunk, it wouldn't matter. Second, how many explosives did they explode during preparation versus how many bullets would they have been shot during preparation?

Quote

Really, you might want to read up on them a bit before you make these easy to prove false claims.

Just to make it clear: so far you did not prove anything. Lack of references to a third-party credible source means you just shared your own opinion.

Quote

Data to back up your opinion? Because the bans in Russia, Mexico, England...All don't seem to be stopping anything. In fact all three are seeing a RISE in gun crime.

So tell us, how many school shooting there have been in Russia and England since, like, 1980 versus the number of school shootings in U.S.? Then we will see whether the ban works, or not.

Quote

Military, I was one of two in my infantry unit sent to learn explosives. Several improvised devices were covered, built, and detonated. How about you?

Similar, also military, also a couple of classes. As far as I remember it, it was basically nothing. You can read more in a book, and I learned much more talking to sappers when we had a field training.

Quote

See, even you agree a ban does not work.

No, what I am trying to say that bans work. They did not stop everyone, but they do result in having less people doing the banned stuff. If DUI was legal, I would guess there would be much more people on the road driving under influence. I did hear it myself zillion times like "I have to stop drinking because I've got to drive, and while I don't feel drunk, I don't want to get caught as the penalties are severe" - so the ban apparently works. There are less gun crimes in Russia. There are less pot smokers in Singapore. There are less alcohol consumers in Iran.

Quote

So why did you quote that part then, if you already knew it is irrelevant, and doesn't prove your point at all?

Did you read the report, yes or no?
It clearly WAS relevant.


So tell me how exactly it was relevant?

Quote

It does not seem to matter how many I bring forth.... You just continue to claim to know more than everyone else.

No, it does! You conveniently skipped out the second sentence, which said "0.5%? 10%? 90%?" Obviously it does matter if 90% of school shootings were stopped or prevented by an average Joe with a gun, but if it's only 0.5%, then it does not matter at all.

Quote

The POLICE disagree with you. They know more than you.

So how exactly the POLICE disagree with me? Please provide the FACTS.

Quote

Actually most committed suicide when faced with armed opposition. That opposition was not always LEO and the report said that.

Even a crazy gunner would guess that at some point they would face armed opposition, so this is moot. But back to the case, give me the number - how many were STOPPED by an average gun owner Joe?

Quote

- Except for the fact that I actually seem to know them, and you don't.
- Your posts do not back that position up.
- My "puff" beat your ignorance into pieces. You have not provided ONE shred of data, only opinions.
- You clearly have ZERO knowledge of the events being discussed, nor the laws being discussed.

That's just your opinion, and not facts. You didn't provide facts either. Your opinion is not a fact, no matter how high you think about it, and worth very little to me as establishing any kind of authority. As I have said, you need to do better than that if you want to talk about FACTS.

Quote

Again, your "they are illegal and hard to get", and "they would have to drive far" argument has CLEARLY been proven false with the explosive example.

Don't start bragging about something "being proven" just because you wrote a reply. Nobody put you as a judge here, and your opinion worth no more than mine, no matter what you think about it.

Quote

And for every theory you have provided I HAVE PROVIDED ACTUAL REAL WORLD DATA THAT PROVES YOU WRONG.
This is just an exercise in futility... You bring nothing, I bring facts and data yet you just keep ignoring them and claiming victory.

So where is all that data? Where are the facts? So far I only see statements like "gun crime in Russia rises" - do you consider this bullshit "data" or "facts"? Wow.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *