GUNS IN THE NEWS--August 18, 2004

[MrBenchley]

As CO Liberal sez:
Please try to adhere to the following voluntary guidelines, in order that we can have an orderly discussion of gun-related news topics:
1 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. EXCEPTION: On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.
2 - Both pro-gun and anti-gun stories, editorials, and press releases are welcome in this thread, as long as they're current. Please do not post links to items from a few years back that support your position.
3 - Bear in mind that any links to extremely right-wing sites (such as Newsmax, CNS, or the Washington Times) or intentionally pro-gun or pro-control sites (such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.
4 - Please try whenever possible to provide links to web sites that do not require you to subscribe to the site to read the story. If a subscription site is the only source you can find for a story, please note that fact in your message so people can decide whether they want to follow the link to read the entire story.
5 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.
6 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.
7 - The person adding a news story to the "GITN" thread is allowed (and encouraged) to comment on that story, indicating their position on the topic being discussed. These comments can appear either at the beginning or end of the post; if possible, place comments in a different typeface so readers can separate the comments from the story. Others who wish to comment on a posted story can do so by replying to that story; this allows other readers to follow the comments by scrolling through the subthread.
8 - Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any message that appears to be a personal attack against another DU-er or a violation of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.
9 - If you object to these guidelines (or the basic concept of the "Guns In The News" thread), do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

[MrBenchley]

1. Militia leader pleads guilty to gun charges (PA)

Bet this buffoon could recite every bit of "gun rights" rubbish our "pro-gun democrats" spout here from memory....

"Militia leader George Bilunka was getting ready for the second coming of Jesus Christ and the end of the world, but now he'll have to wait for both from behind bars.
The self-proclaimed leader of the Christian American Patriots Survivalists, Bilunka admitted that he possessed two machine guns and two homemade bombs at his homestead on March 25.
He was arrested that month along with Darrell Sivik, 56, a gunsmith from Meadville who is accused of selling a homemade machine gun to an undercover agent for $300. Federal authorities said Bilunka introduced the agent and Sivik, and also bought a machine gun for himself to add to his collection in arming for the apocalypse.
Sivik, the leader of another outfit called the Braveheart Militia and who is accused of stockpiling guns in preparation for his own showdown with the government, is being held without bond pending trial. "

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04231/363366.stm

[Vladimir]

3. But I thought gun control didn't work

on criminals? Now I'm confused...

[MrBenchley]

5. Sure seems to have nabbed those two fuckwits....

Can't wait until some "pro gun democrat" tries to explain these were just "innocent collectors"....

And how often are we told that our "pro gun democrats" require assault weapons for the same reason these two charmers were stocking up?

[FeebMaster]

34. Oh, gun control works alright.

Here's a guy selling a Sten gun for $300 illegally. That $300 would barely cover the transfer tax on a legal Sten. Plus, since the supply is frozen, the gun itself will probably cost you at least 5 times as much, not including the tax. Yeah, gun control works.

[Vladimir]

35. He got arrested

do you expect laws to stop people from trying to break them? That would be a neat trick...

[FeebMaster]

36. Huh?

What does that have to do with what I said?

[Vladimir]

I assumed your post was making the point

that gun control legislation was "working" in the sense of making guns so prohibitively expensive that one would have to buy them illegaly. Or was tat not your point?

[FeebMaster]

39. More or less.

Although, my point wasn't so much that you'd have to buy them illegally just that it is far cheaper to do so thanks to the strange laws regulating machine guns.

[Vladimir]

41. So my reply was that

that was indeed an example of the law at work - the guns become prohibitive to buy, and in this case buying one illegaly gets you arrested.

[FeebMaster]

43. They're only prohibitively expensive for the

law abiding. Buying one illegally got this guy arrested, unless you were claiming that everyone who buys or sells them illegally gets caught?

[Vladimir]

45. Not everyone, but then no law is perfect n/t

[iverglas]

49. I'm still just not getting this line of argument

They're only prohibitively expensive for the
law abiding.

Yes ... and I think I could say the same thing about, f'r instance, jewelry set with large diamonds.

If I want to acquire a big diamond ring legally, I will pay a large amount of money in exchange for the legal owner's agreement to part with it.

If I want to acquire one cheaply, I will go hang around the bar down the block and let it be known what I'm after, and someone will either offer me one from his/her stock of illegally acquired diamond rings, or go acquire one illegally for me. That is, steal it from the legal owner. Either way, it's gonna cost me a whole lot less cash than going to a retail store.

The thing is, there's more to the cost of both rings than is apparently meeting the eye.

The legally acquired ring actually cost me all the hours I had to work in order to acquire the money to buy it -- and all the pleasures I had to forego in order to do that work.

The illegally acquired ring involved potential costs in the form of risks. Just as, say, shares bought on the stock market do: they may cost $100, but if they tank, I will have spent $100 for nothing instead of for something, and $100 for nothing is a very expensive nothing. Or, for another example, just as a ride on a roller coaster does: it may only cost $10 cash, but if I suffer a subdural haematoma on the ride (as my father did), the price of the roller coaster ride will have been much higher than $10.

Buying one illegally got this guy arrested, unless you were claiming that everyone who buys or sells them illegally gets caught?

Some people don't factor the risk into their evaluation of the cost, because they don't know about the risk. My father didn't factor the risk of subdural haematoma into the cost of the roller coaster ride, because he didn't know about it. (His was the first case reported in the medical literature; there have now been more, but still very few people know about that risk.)

Some people regard the risk as a very small component of the cost; they either think or know that the risk is unlikely to materialize, or they simply don't care whether it materializes. Losing $100 on the stock market wouldn't bother most investors, for instance.

People who are persuaded that the risk is unlikely to materialize, or who don't care whether it materializes, are difficult to dissuade by making an activity risky. That's pretty much how come there are so many people in prisons. Pretty obviously.

What I'm failing to see, as usual, is how the fact that some people break a law should be taken as good reason to do away with the law.

What it should indicate is that what is needed are laws and/or policies that make it not just risky, but difficult to break laws.

You are acting as if price is the only factor in the difficulty of illegally acquiring something that cannot be acquired legally.

Surely the main factor in that difficulty is availability, at whatever price. In fact, diamond merchants are well aware of that fact. And there's the difference between diamonds and banned firearms, it strikes me.

If a diamond merchant were approached by a customer wanting to buy, legally, several thousand large diamonds at the price the diamond merchant now charges for individual diamonds, the merchant would in all probability order some more diamonds to be dug up from its mine, and there would now be more diamonds on the market, without the resale price being likely to go down. (Except that there might eventually be more stolen diamonds on the market, competing in price with diamonds that have to be bought retail.)

If a banned firearms merchant were approached by a customer with the same request, s/he could not just produce a few thousand more out of thin air. Ditto if several thousand people wanted to buy one banned firearm each. The would-be buyer(s) would be deterred from buying, not by price, but by availability.

Do we really imagine that there are not large numbers of people in the US who would very much like to have a few of what this guy had, and who would have assumed the risks as part of the price they were willing to pay for them, and who were not able to acquire them, at any price?

Sure, any particular individual could probably acquire one, if s/he tried long enough and hard enough, and paid enough to win out over the competing would-be buyers. Just like any particular unemployed individual could probably find a job, if s/he tried long enough and hard enough, and accepted a wage low enough to win out over the competing would-be workers. That would still leave quite a few million people who want jobs unemployed -- and quite a few people who want banned firearms with none.

Undoubtedly there are still far too many in circulation, and still far too many entering circulation from outside the local market. But I completely fail to see what good removing any restrictions on availability would accomplish, as far as the general public whose interests are in issue is concerned.

[FeebMaster]

50. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between

diamonds being expensive due to natural scarcity and legal machine guns being expensive due to an artificial scarcity.

[MrBenchley]

51. Next time there's a drive-by shower of diamonds

I suggest we all waste time fussing over feeb's "difference"

Until then.....

[FeebMaster]

52. What are you talking about? (nt)

[iverglas]

53. I'm sorry you don't know

diamonds being expensive due to natural scarcity

... what you're talking about.

Do you do nothing on the internet but make cryptic pronouncements about firearms?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=diamonds+scarcity&meta=

Nearly 12,000 things to read about diamonds scarcity; should get you started.

Why on earth do you imagine that I chose diamonds as my "f'r instance"??

Could it be because they are not naturally scarce, and their price is artificially sky-high because their availability is tightly controlled?

legal machine guns being expensive due to an artificial scarcity.

I gotta admit, the concept of "legal machine gun" kind of eludes me. Would the dangerously and viciously loony individual in issue in this case really have been able to purchase a machine gun legally, if only he could have found one and had enough money?

If so, then I guess I'd need another example for my "banned firearm" scenario. Surely there is *some* banned firearm in the US ...

[FeebMaster]

54. If the concept of legal machine gun eludes you

why did you feel the need to insert yourself into this subthread discussing price differences between legal and illegal machine guns?

Would the dangerously and viciously loony individual in issue in this case really have been able to purchase a machine gun legally, if only he could have found one and had enough money?

Why on earth would the individual in this case purchase a legal machine gun for at least 5 times the price when he was obviously willing to engage in an illegal machine gun purchase for $300?

"Surely there is *some* banned firearm in the US ..."

Nothing comes to mind.

[iverglas]

56. your crypticism is such fun

I can never really understand the motivation of people who speak in order to attempt to confuse rather than in order to attempt to enlighten, but there you are.

If the concept of legal machine gun eludes you
why did you feel the need to insert yourself into this subthread discussing price differences between legal and illegal machine guns?

Can you explain these to me?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=76306

I believe there are no transferrable M14 rifles. They're legally machineguns and AFAIK none has every been owned by a civilian. ...
- I think you are absolutely correct...
however I did see one in use at a local range here not more than 2 years ago.
Maybe the owner had the federal license to go with it.

Those appear to have been written by firearms scholars.

Now, I don't know; does this contradict that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35140

You make it sound like machine guns are banned or something. They aren't. Except for in a few states just about anyone can buy a machine gun if they care to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax. They're pretty expensive though, what with the government artificially inflating the prices on them.

That was you, of course. And ... might I assume that what you meant to say was "about anyone can buy a machine gun if they care to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax and if they can find one to buy"?

Well, here we go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=66212

the FOPA basically said any only machine guns registered under the NFA legally by May 19, 1986 could be transfered by civilians. No machine gun manufactured after that date can legally be transfered to a civilian.

The master again, of course.

And yet, it just seems to me that I hear, so often, "The AWB didn't ban machine guns! Machine guns were already banned!!!" Don't I?

Anyhow ... isn't the question really whether this individual could have legally obtained a machine gun? And if he could ... well ...

Christmas is coming, the geese are getting fat.
Please to put a penny in the old man's hat.
If you haven't got a penny then a ha'penny will do,
If you haven't got a ha'penny then God bless you.

If you really don't have a law in the US prohibiting an insane loon like this one with enough money from buying a machine gun, may the dogs preserve you all.

But leaving aside the fish and dogs, and getting back to our sheep ...

Are you really, really saying that the legislation regarding machine guns in the US, whatever it may be, has not reduced the availability of machine guns from what it would have been absent that legislation?

In other words, does your little question:

Why on earth would the individual in this case purchase a legal machine gun for at least 5 times the price when he was obviously willing to engage in an illegal machine gun purchase for $300?

do anything to answer my own question, which was whether all of the insane loons like him would be able to purchase such a machine gun, under the existing legislation, if they only had and were willing to spend the money?

[skippythwndrdog]

57. Only $300.00???

Is that U.S. or Canadian? Either way, I want to shop at the same trunk where you're shopping.

Homemade isn't necessarily the quality of factory fresh. I'm assuming, of course, that you're buying the original article.

[iverglas]

59. need new specs????

Only $300.00???"
Is that U.S. or Canadian? Either way, I want to shop at the same trunk where you're shopping.

Did you imagine that *I* was the author of:

Why on earth would the individual in this case purchase a legal machine gun for at least 5 times the price when he was obviously willing to engage in an illegal machine gun purchase for $300?

Here's a hint: the stuff you read in my posts that is in boldface was written by the person I am replying to. I'd thought that was fairly obvious, and that perhaps, for example, you might have recognized your own words in boldface in my posts replying to yours in the past.

In this case, the info that so astounds you came from the article that started this little discussion:

He was arrested that month along with Darrell Sivik, 56, a gunsmith from Meadville who is accused of selling a homemade machine gun to an undercover agent for $300.

(You see, when I am quoting a third-party source, I use the "blockquote" function to indent it.)

Homemade isn't necessarily the quality of factory fresh. I'm assuming, of course, that you're buying the original article.

Yes, well, you might want to take that up with FeebMaster, since he's the one who said the thing that you're so taken with.

[skippythwndrdog]

66. Humor. A difficult concept.

Lt. Saavik.

[MrBenchley]

67. One clearly beyond skippy's limited powers...

"1. The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness: could not see the humor of the situation.
2. That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement: a writer skilled at crafting humor.
3. The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd. See synonyms at wit1.
4. One of the four fluids of the body, blood, phlegm, choler, and black bile, whose relative proportions were thought in ancient and medieval physiology to determine a person's disposition and general health. "

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/29/h0322900.html

Well, on second thought, phlegm, choler, or bile might fit the post....

[skippythwndrdog]

68. You want humor? Here's a belly laugh.

[MrBenchley]

72. Yeah, it is....

Bob's a pro-gun dimwit with all the standard talking points, too. You know, I even cruise places like highroadrage.com and AR15fetishists.com just to see what really stupid right wing loonies sound like...

[FeebMaster]

58. I'm sorry if my post was cryptic,

I can never really understand the motivation of people who speak in order to attempt to confuse rather than in order to attempt to enlighten, but there you are.

that was not my intention.



Can you explain these to me?

Sure.

I believe there are no transferrable M14 rifles. They're legally machineguns and AFAIK none has every been owned by a civilian. ...
- I think you are absolutely correct...
however I did see one in use at a local range here not more than 2 years ago.
Maybe the owner had the federal license to go with it.

The author of that post was mistaken as I believe was later pointed out in that thread. There are legal M-14s, the real machine gun version, on the NFA registry. There are also semi-automatic only M-14 clones made by a number of manufactures. There is also the semi-auto only M1A from Springfield Armory which externally looks just like an M-14, although there may be some internal differences, I'm not sure about that. The author was also mistaken about federal licenses. There is no federal license requirement to own either a machine gun or a semi-automatic rifle.


"Now, I don't know; does this contradict that?

'You make it sound like machine guns are banned or something. They aren't. Except for in a few states just about anyone can buy a machine gun if they care to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax. They're pretty expensive though, what with the government artificially inflating the prices on them.'

That was you, of course. And ... might I assume that what you meant to say was "about anyone can buy a machine gun if they care to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax and if they can find one to buy"?"

Yes it contradicts that, because the author of the former post was incorrect. I did leave out the 'if they can find one to buy' part and it is possible that they might be unable to find what they are looking for, but machine guns are still widely bought and sold so someone looking to buy one should be able to find one unless they're looking for something rare.


"Well, here we go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

'the FOPA basically said any only machine guns registered under the NFA legally by May 19, 1986 could be transfered by civilians. No machine gun manufactured after that date can legally be transfered to a civilian.'

The master again, of course."

Where is the confusion? All of the machine guns currently owned by civilians in the US were manufactured and registered prior to May 19, 1986. Civilians can still legally buy and sell those machine guns.


And yet, it just seems to me that I hear, so often, "The AWB didn't ban machine guns! Machine guns were already banned!!!" Don't I?

I wouldn't know. I certainly have never claimed that machine guns are banned beyond being banned from civilian manufacture. I can't be responsible for the mistakes of other posters although I do try and point those mistakes out to them when I notice them.

The AWB didn't ban machine guns, though, and in fact had nothing to do with machine guns. The AWB specifically mentions semi-automatic weapons in it's definition of Assault Weapon.


"If you really don't have a law in the US prohibiting an insane loon like this one with enough money from buying a machine gun, may the dogs preserve you all."

I don't see what having enough money to buy a machine gun has to do with this case since the illegal transfer in question involved $300 which is far, far less money than any legal machine gun will cost in the US.


Are you really, really saying that the legislation regarding machine guns in the US, whatever it may be, has not reduced the availability of machine guns from what it would have been absent that legislation?

The legislation regarding machine guns in the US has reduced the legal availability of machine guns from what it would have been absent that legislation. As for the availability of illegal machine guns, I couldn't really say how that has been affected by the various laws regulating machine guns. If an unregistered Sten gun can be purchased for $300, I would guess, and it is only a guess, that legislation regarding machine guns has not significantly reduced the availability of illegal machine guns.



do anything to answer my own question, which was whether all of the insane loons like him would be able to purchase such a machine gun, under the existing legislation, if they only had and were willing to spend the money?

I don't understand what the existing legislation has to do with this particular purchase of a machine gun since the machine gun in question was unregistered and being sold outside of the legal channels for purchasing a machine gun.

Assuming this wasn't the only Sten gun being sold illegally for $300, I don't see why other insane loons out there wouldn't be able to purchase one outside of legal channels as well.

[MrBenchley]

60. Feeb's contention

would seem to be that loons like this not only ought to be able to purchase these guns legally, but that the scumbags in the gun industry ought to be allowed to produce machine guns in such quantity that the price be down below $300....

But that sounds as idiotic as it is...hence this dainty toe dance....

[FeebMaster]

61. Yes that is my contention.

"Feeb's contention is that loons like this not only ought to be able to purchase these guns legally, but that the scumbags in the gun industry ought to be allowed to produce machine guns in such quantity that the price be down below $300...."


I think it's pointless to force people willing to obey the laws to pay thousands of dollars to buy registered machine guns that are at least 20 years old when criminal and insane loons buy and sell them for $300.


"But that sounds as idiotic as it is...hence this dainty toe dance...."

What dainty toe dance are you referring to? I've advocated the repeal of all the federal firearms laws since I started posting here.

[Vladimir]

62. The criminal in fact runs a much higher cost than 300

dollars, since he always runs the risk of being caught, shot by his supplier and so on. All these have to be factored into the equation when determining the 'cost' as opposed to price of the weapon. By comparison the citizen runs a cost equivalent to the dollar price, so the two are not in the slightest comparable.

[FeebMaster]

69. If you say so. (nt)

[Vladimir]

70. I'm not the only one

look up Gary Becker (Nobel Prize Winner for Economics 1992), Crime and Punishment, Journal of Political Economy 76, no.2, 1968. Its a very good discussion of the theory of detterents and optimal strategies to minimise criminal behaviour.

on edit: As a very simple example, considering downloading files over Napster. The cost to you is 0 dollars + (the probability of getting caught multiplied by punishment meted out per offence). Assuming monetary punishments, depending on the system, its possible to end up with a higher cost of illegal downloads than legal purchases.

[iverglas]

74. and of course moi (reply to all)

That having been the thesis of my post #49, "I'm still just not getting this line of argument". (I started my career doing statistical analysis of criminal justice data, and even had something published while I was in law school, and do have a little background in economics.)

The problem is that criminals tend not to factor in those costs -- they tend either (a) not to be able to assess risks the way an ordinarily reasonable person does, or (b) not to care.

That why they break the law. Well, actually, they break the law because they want to do something that happens to involve breaking a law. But that's why they don't not do it simply because it's against the law.

And that's why so much law-making, and so much of the punishment handed down for law-breaking, is so completely pointless. The potential offenders at whom the laws are aimed just are not deterred by the things that would deter the nice, reasonable people making the laws. As we hear so often around here.

There is still another problem with FeebMaster's thesis. He says:

If an unregistered Sten gun can be purchased for $300, I would guess, and it is only a guess, that legislation regarding machine guns has not significantly reduced the availability of illegal machine guns.

He is asserting that the fact that the price of illegally owned machine guns is evidently so low is evidence that there are masses of them in circulation. If they were scarce, the people who have them would be charging higher prices for them. Like the (artificially scarce) diamond rings in jewelry stores.

Well, a stolen diamond ring down at my local bar is also a whole lot cheaper than a legit diamond ring at the jewelry store in the mall - generally, it would be a fraction of the price. Is this because there are far more stolen diamond rings in circulation than there are diamond rings in jewelry stores? I don't think so.

It's because

- the person in possession of the stolen diamond ring paid little to no cash price for it, so has no cash investment to make back and can set the price according to his/her other needs, e.g. a quick fix; and

- the market for stolen diamond rings is in fact far smaller than the market for the jewelry store's diamond rings, and so there is no demand competition to put upward pressure on prices, and support high prices.

In fact, the market for stolen diamond rings is pretty small. The "producers" may be criminals, but the ultimate consumers have to be mainly us "law-abiding" people. And a lot of us aren't willing to take the risks of buying stolen property -- the total price of the diamond ring really is too high for us, and the cash price would have to be low enough to persuade potential buyers that the risk is worth it. "What the market will bear" has a very low ceiling.

So I don't think that the low price of illegal machine guns is proof that they're plentiful (i.e. that any old criminal who wanted one could get one). I think it's evidence that there isn't much demand for them -- because the demand, in this case, is from criminals: people who don't regard risk as a significant component of the total cost, and so would be willing to pay higher cash prices.

Maybe I don't have any better hard evidence for my thesis than FeebMaster does. But I'd think that if there really were that many illegal machine guns kicking around the market, there would be a little more actual evidence of that than there seems to be, and we wouldn't need to be inferring it from the fact that prices are low.

Now, if people like buddy in the story reported here really could just wander into the local gummint office, fill out the paperwork, and buy a machine gun legally, that would indeed put downward pressure on the price of illegal machine guns and cast some doubt on my thesis. Even criminals aren't going to take the risks involved in an illegal purchase if they can do the same thing legally, for the same price, generally.

But would it reduce the price of illegal machine guns to a fraction of the price of getting one legally? Well, criminals (and insane loons) might well have good reason for not wanting to do the paperwork -- i.e., not wanting to have their possession of a machine gun on record. The "price" of the legal machine gun to the criminal has just gone up -- that in fact is one actual purpose of requirements like registration. So sellers of illegal machine guns would again have a considerable advantage over sellers of legal machine guns, since the "price" of their product to their customers would not include "the government knowing that I have a machine gun". And they could charge higher prices accordingly.

All in all, I'm just not persuaded that there are masses of machine guns in illegal circulation and that the law in question has not had at least some effect in reducing criminals' (and insane loons') access to machine guns.

[FeebMaster]

78. Let me know when the government

registers all diamonds and requires a $200 tax to be paid every time one changes hands. Then let me know when they ban the importation of all diamonds from overseas. Then let me know when they say no one can ever register a new diamond again.

[iverglas]

80. and you be sure to let me know

Let me know when the government
registers all diamonds and requires a $200 tax to be paid every time one changes hands. Then let me know when they ban the importation of all diamonds from overseas. Then let me know when they say no one can ever register a new diamond again.

... when any of that noise has ANYTHING to do with what YOU said in YOUR first post in this discussion, and what has been the subject of the discussion ever since:

Oh, gun control works alright.
Here's a guy selling a Sten gun for $300 illegally. That $300 would barely cover the transfer tax on a legal Sten. Plus, since the supply is frozen, the gun itself will probably cost you at least 5 times as much, not including the tax. Yeah, gun control works.

For your pretence that something irrelevant to the discussion was relevant to it, you get this week's


http://winace.andkon.com/pics/

smelly fish award.

You might even end up with a double prize, for your efforts to divert the discussion from its subject:

[FeebMaster]

81. Oh I forgot.

That $300 Sten gun didn't really cost $300.

[iverglas]

82. hey, you're right

That $300 Sten gun didn't really cost $300.

It didn't.

Because -- as I recall -- one of the people in this case was in fact trying to SELL it for $300, to COPS.

And I very much doubt that the cops paid anything at all for it.

Now, as far as what it cost the individual who was in then possession of it and evidently agreeable to selling it --

The self-proclaimed leader of the Christian American Patriots Survivalists, Bilunka admitted that he possessed two machine guns and two homemade bombs at his homestead on March 25. ... He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, although he probably won't get that much.

-- that would be

X + Y

where X = whatever he paid for it, or whatever he paid for the materials he used to make it if he was the one who made it + the value of his labour

and where Y < 10 years in prison but > no years in prison.

I guess the actual cost just depends on how much one values whatever the final figure is between 1 and 10 years of one's life. More than $300? Matter of opinion, I suppose, and depending on the valuation method used. I tend to think that "value to owner" might be the appropriate valuation method.

[MrBenchley]

63. And I rest my case....

with a big big laugh....

[turnkey]

6. So you would put all gun rights activists in the same catagory...

as this moron?

[MrBenchley]

7. Yup...Just look at the Second Amendment Caucus, Larry Pratt,

Ted Nugent, or Mr. Gun Rights himself, racist incompetent John AshKKKroft...

It's a dishonest puddle of pus being promoted by some of the slimiest characters in public life.

[turnkey]

10. pretty sad commentary....n/t

[MrBenchley]

14. Nope...an accurate assessment

of a disgraceful right wing extremist group...

[Endangered Specie]

71. What idiot would buy a Sten gun anyhow?

legal or otherwise? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

73. You'll notice these idiots' motives were

the same motives many of our "pro gun democrats" have stated themselves...plugging their fellow Americans when things go smash....

[Endangered Specie]

79. Except this gun has a way of jamming.

Most British soldiers did not like that thing.

[MrBenchley]

2. Suspect in gun slaying is indicted on 2 counts (OH)

"Roderick Upperdite, accused in the shooting death of a Toledo man, was indicted yesterday by a Lucas County grand jury.
Mr. Upperdite, 31, was indicted on one count each of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. The charges include specifications that a gun was used in the crimes."

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040818/NEWS03/40818024/-1/NEWS

[Vladimir]

4. City's guns make peace fountain

More than 2,000 guns used in serious crime on Greater Manchester's streets have been flown to the US where they will be made into a peace fountain.

The weapons will be melted down to create blocks for the fountain which will be erected in Ohio.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3574364.stm

now that's what I call legitimate gun use...

[MrBenchley]

8. Good for them....

Hope Ohio returns the favor some day...

[NorthernSpy]

9. ugh!

More than 2,000 guns used in serious crime on Greater Manchester's streets have been flown to the US where they will be made into a peace fountain.

The weapons will be melted down to create blocks for the fountain which will be erected in Ohio.

And who's helping to inflict this presumptuous piece of swords-to-plowshares municipal art on the public? Why, two megagovernments -- themselves armed to the teeth -- who have spent the past year and a half waging war on the people of a far-away country that had not attacked them.

Was it Mark Twain who said that in light of the Old Testament, the Beatitudes are clearly just sarcasm?


Mary

[Vladimir]

11. Still beats any other use those guns could be put to... n/t

[iverglas]

26. where?

And who's helping to inflict this presumptuous piece of swords-to-plowshares municipal art on the public? Why, two megagovernments -- themselves armed to the teeth -- who have spent the past year and a half waging war on the people of a far-away country that had not attacked them.

You may be right, but my googling hasn't confirmed or denied this. The federal governments of the US and UK are contributors to this effort?

Looks like a municipality-to-municipality thing to me, from the very little information available on line.

And even if the federal govts contributed financially -- if the initiative came from the municipal level, and the decisions were made at the municipal level -- so?

Municipal councils in the UK tend to be on the left side of Labour, I think, and unlikely to be supporters of the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/localdemocracy/committees/council/2003/0503.htm

City Council Minutes
5 March 2003

... The Motion and second amendment then being put as the substantive motion -

Unanimous Decision

Council endorses the letter written by the Leader of the Council to the Prime Minister and to Manchester MP's stating Manchester City Council's Labour Group's strongly held views on the current situation regarding Iraq. That is:

1. We totally condemn the current totalitarian regime in Iraq - a regime that has butchered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, that has driven thousands of Iraqi supporters of democracy and freedom into exile, and that continues to deny basic human rights to its citizens the majority of whom live in poverty despite the potential wealth of the country.

2. We would not support unilateral action by the US or UK governments and demand that both governments continue to work within the framework of the United Nations to develop a lasting peace in Iraq which should start by ensuring that the weapons inspectors are given adequate time to carry out their work.

3. We do not want the UK to go to war. We consider a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is neither necessary nor justified and that it would produce incalculable risks to international peace and stability.

4. In particular that should be no military intervention in Iraq other than as a result of a specific second resolution of the UN Security Council.

Council instructs the Chief Executive to make copies of this motion available at Council premises throughout the city in a way that will allow Manchester citizens to signify whether or not they support the motion.

Council notes that on March 8th there will be an antiwar rally taking place in Manchester and agrees to take what action it can to support the rally and to urge Manchester residents and citizens of the wider area to support the rally.

Council urges the United Kingdom government to do everything in its power to curb the war mongering of the present United States government.

We also support the CND Peace Camp at the Peace Gardens behind the Town Hall. This will enable Mancunians also wish to attend an around the clock vigil against the war in Iraq.

Once again, progressive politics seems to include ... well, I dunno; using materials obtained from things that were previously used to cause considerable harm to individuals and the public, to build a fountain? I'm not even sure what's being objected to here.

btw, just for accuracy:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3366365

More than 2,000 guns used in serious crimes in the UK have been flown to the United States to be made into a peace fountain.

The weapons were gathered from police forces across the UK and left Manchester for Ohio on Tuesday.

I suspect it might take a long time to gather up that many firearms used in serious crimes in Manchester alone.

[Vladimir]

29. Actually most municipal councils

in the UK are sadly under Tory control... but you are right, this is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

[iverglas]

32. yeah, that's why I checked Manchester

I would have been right a mere few years ago, but was pretty sure that the fact no longer held true.

When we were visiting the ancestral home in East Ham 10 years ago, my mum and I dropped in on the local library / municipal offices. We chatted a while with the women at the reception desk. This was a few days after the local council elections in May 1994. I inquired how things had turned out in Newham.

"Well," the woman said, "last time, all but one of the councillors were Labour. Things went better this time."

Aargh, I groaned inwardly. I'm talking to a Tory.

"This time," she said, "they're all Labour."


(edit: 1994, not 1984. Time doesn't fly quite that fast.)

[Vladimir]

33. Yeah, local elections

are seen as a chance for a free protest vote against the government a lot of the time, so Labour has ben getting bashed in them and recently recorded the worst result by a sitting government since Soddom and Gomorrah or something. When you factor in the reality that most Lib Dem controlled councils cannot afford to operate from the left because most of their swing areas are against the Tories, its not a pretty picture.

[enfield collector]

12. wait a minute, the facist govt in the UK grabbed all handguns

in 1996. how were they able to round up 2000 guns in manchester a city of 400,000 people 8 years later?

[MrBenchley]

13. The answer to some questions are so simple as to seem silly...

[LibLabUK]

18. Umm....

"wait a minute, the facist govt in the UK grabbed all handguns""

FACIST??

[MrBenchley]

20. Everyone in the gungeon knows

you slaves of the queen are cowering in your homes from the ongoing British bloodbath, vainly phoning members of parliament begging them for handguns and assault weapons....

But your plight is as nothing compared to the poor opressed masses huddling on Pitcairn Island, who have to watch breadfruit go unshot...

[LibLabUK]

22. Oops!

"you slaves of the queen are cowering in your homes from the ongoing British bloodbath, vainly phoning members of parliament begging them for handguns and assault weapons...."

Sorry, I keep forgetting....that old knock on the head from an ass' jawbone leaves me a little befuddled sometimes.

Anyway, back to cowering behind the setee and praying for the day when the NRA liberate us. Oh such parties we will have when they topple the Albert Memorial live on CNN. And when the pull Tony Blair from his "spider-hole" where he will have been hiding for weeks, we will fall down upon our knees and weep, for we shall truly be free!

[MrBenchley]

23. LOL!!

Then the coalition of the willing (Eritrea, the Solomon Islands and the rest) can move on to "facist" Australia and Soviet Canuckistan...

[enfield collector]

47. spielberg, iceberg what's the difference?

[iverglas]

40. you seem to be confused

wait a minute, the facist govt in the UK grabbed all handguns in 1996

(This sort of thing makes me wonder whether the govt of the UK is an adherent of whatever cult Michael Jackson belongs to ... facists ...)

Actually, the govt of the UK made it unlawful to possess handguns. Do you really imagine that when they did that, all the handguns in the country were, like, magnetically attracted to police stations, and just flew in, over hill, dale and chimneypot, where they were "grabbed" by the waiting coppers? Or that someone, in fact, located all the handguns in the country and "grabbed" them?

Where did you get whatever strange impression it is that you evidently have?

how were they able to round up 2000 guns in manchester a city of 400,000 people 8 years later?

Yes, well, that was a good question. Much like the question I had when I read that the Australian police had "outlawed" toy Glocks.

As in: how can this be? The little screech of the cognitive dissonance brakes going on. The little instinct that makes reasonable people think: there must be some mistake here.

So *I* was not surprised to read, in another report of the same story:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3366365

More than 2,000 guns used in serious crimes in the UK have been flown to the United States to be made into a peace fountain.

The weapons were gathered from police forces across the UK and left Manchester for Ohio on Tuesday.

Now that makes more sense, eh?

Is that you I hear saying "oh ... that's different; never mind"?

[enfield collector]

44. all the handguns owned by law abiding citizens were registered.

so all the police had to do was go to the owners and ask for them to be surrendered. the law abiding citizens did this.
now you see why us law abiding citizens are against gun registration?
I could put those guns to much better use than melting them down for a sculpture.

[iverglas]

46. mmm ...

now you see why us law abiding citizens are against gun registration?

Nope. Not unless you "law-abiding citizens" are of the view that you should not actually have to abide by the democratically made decisions of your society.

And if you are, I can't see why I'd care what you're for or against.

all the handguns owned by law abiding citizens were registered.
so all the police had to do was go to the owners and ask for them to be surrendered. the law abiding citizens did this.

Yes ... and this supports your assertion, the one I was querying (emphasis added, spelling as in the original):

the facist govt in the UK grabbed **all** handguns in 1996

... how?

Whom do you suppose that this clumsy footwork confuses?

[LibLabUK]

17. Hmm...

Is sending guns to the US the same as taking coals to Newcastle?

[Vladimir]

19. Its probably closer to

sending belt-skirts to Essex...

[iverglas]

27. okay

I know all about coals to Newcastle (good one) (although you should assume few others do) -- but what the hell's this? --

sending belt-skirts to Essex...

Ah ...

http://chat.dailymail.co.uk/dailymail/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=196&thread=9642446&message=10457670

By Pikie in South essex we are talking about scruffy unwashed people of which we have a large number, they leave rubbish everywhere threaten people they may live in houses they may live in wooden constructions on large peices of land but they are the same. The women tend to be bleached blond and wear lots of gold and very short belt skirts and scream at their children in public.

The men wear baseball caps nasty jeans and look rough as they come and love burbury

The children are aggressive and do not attend school. ...

I think I can even tell what a belt skirt must be, from that.

And I guess we're still waiting for an explanation of "facism" ...

[Vladimir]

28. Oh give me a break iverglas

What I was actually referring to was a television programme here in the UK called Essex wives. Which has nothing at all to do with the daily mail. The joke may not be that great, but just sometimes you might want to pause before opening fire.

[iverglas]

30. opening fire??

I suppose this is where I say "gimme a break", because I don't have a clue what you're talking about. For one thing, I wouldn't characterize what I posted as having anything "at all to do with the daily mail".

I didn't know what a belt-skirt was. I didn't know what it had to do with Essex. I asked google for belt-skirt essex, and that was the one and only thing it gave me. It seemed to answer my question. It also seems to have offended you. Oh well.

I gather that the Essex Wives you were alluding to (I love a good "in" joke as much as the next person) are at the opposite end of the social scale from the ones I found, but your witticism seems to hold true at both ends.


Perhaps you thought that my comment about "facism" had something to do with all that. Actually, it was just a comment I threw in there on the ridiculous misspellings of things we are subjected to here by people who throw the concepts they're misspelling around, and the ludicrous but common references to "facism" by people who are meaning to talk about "fascism", and LibLabUK's previous comment on that -- the humourous initial misspelling apparently having escaped the notice of some, and his rather cryptic comment on it having done the same.

Sorry if I confused you, I'm sure.

[Vladimir]

31. I think we have misunderinterpreted each other

pardon my defensiveness, all the Chavez threads have been snipping away at my fuse...

[MrBenchley]

15. Second victim in Utica shooting dies (NY)

UTICA, N.Y. -- A second victim of a multiple shooting here on Sunday night died early Tuesday morning, medical officials said.
Ricky Powell, 22, died at St. Elizabeth Medical Center as a result of multiple gunshot wounds, Oneida County coroner Mike Bentz said.
Powell's death came about 25 hours after his best friend, Brian West, was shot multiple times in the chest in the same shooting on a city street corner.
Separately, Simon Davis, 33, was injured in another shooting in Utica at 4 a.m. Sunday, police said. All three shooting victims are from Utica. "

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny-brf--doubleshootin0817aug17,0,808543.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

[MrBenchley]

16. Man dies of gunshot to head (TX)

registration required
"FORT WORTH _ Police are investigating the death of a 25-year-old man found with a gunshot wound to the head late Monday.
Kente McGhee, 25, was pronounced dead at John Peter Smith Hospital about 11:30 p.m.
Homicide Sgt. J.D. Thornton said McGhee was found inside a friend's home in the 2500 block of Weiler Boulevard."

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/9425665.htm

[MrBenchley]

21. Man killed by shotgun blasts; suspect in custody (TX)

registration required
"Christopher Kelly, 23, was shot in the living room of a residence in the 700 block of North Las Vegas Trail, according to a police news release.
A man was arrested in connection with the shooting and was in the White Settlement Jail on Tuesday night, the release stated. Police did not provide further information about the suspect.
Before the shooting, the suspect was having a "civil conversation" with Kelly while modifying a shotgun, the release said.
"The suspect ... shot the victim in the side of his torso with the shotgun," the release said. "As the victim attempted to shield himself with his arms the suspect shot the victim a second time, knocking him to the floor." "

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/9430765.htm

[MrBenchley]

24. Columbia man shot to death (SC)

"COLUMBIA, S.C. - A Columbia man has been shot to death and sheriff's deputies are searching for a man who argued with the victim.
Mustafa Muhammad, 28, died at the scene of the shooting Monday outside a home, Richland County Coroner Gary Watts said.
Warrants have been issued for Corey Xavier Johnson, 25, sheriff's spokesman Joseph Pellicci said."

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/9432038.htm

[MrBenchley]

25. Prison term for Norwich shooting spree (CT)

"(Norwich-AP, Aug. 18, 2004 7:45 AM) _ A Norwich man has been sentenced to 48 years in prison for a shooting spree in which one man was killed and three others were wounded.
A jury in June acquitted the 28-year-old Davis of murder charges but found him guilty of first-degree manslaughter with a firearm. The jury also found him guilty of three counts of first-degree assault and carrying a pistol without a permit.
Davis was charged with killing Joseph DuBose, a New London resident, and shooting and injuring Joseph Ellis, Xavier Cluff and Jermaine Floyd, all of New London. "

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2188844&nav=3YeXPz1f

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[MrBenchley]

65. LOL! "Danger, Jim Robinson"

Always amazing to me that "pro gun democrats" who pretend they have dough to throw away on guns can't spare any for DU....

But then it's always amazing to me what "pro gun democrats" pretend...

[iverglas]

75. okay, I figured out belt-skirts and essex

Now who's Jim Robinson?

... googling ... googling ... oh, okay, something to do with freerepublic.

Jeez, the DU folk do take those other folk seriously. I haven't understood that from the very beginning, I'm afraid; seems like setting one's sights pretty low.

I suppose they aren't quite the laughable fringe loons that their cousins up here are ... but still, they're laughable and they're loons.

[MrBenchley]

76. Yeah, he's the bull goose loony over there....

It struck me as funny...especially considering how many of them come skulking over here....

As Gore Vidal once said: "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail."

[iverglas]

77. yeah

I just went off on a muse about how het up so many people get about the other place (as the members of the Cdn House of Commons must say in referring to the Senate, after the fashion of the Commons and Lords in the UK).

But yes, haha!, it was quite amusing.

Urgh; a muse, amusing ... and that wasn't even intended ...

[MrBenchley]

38. Witness recount strange night of Boone murder (MS)

"PASCAGOULA -- A car accident, a handgun and a reported burglary triggered a series of events leading to the arrest of Henry Lonzo Boone III, 53, in the 2002 shooting death of his father, Henry Lonzo Boone Jr., witnesses testified Tuesday.
Boone III is charged with capital murder in the November 2002 slaying. "

http://www.gulflive.com/news/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/news/109282411550960.xml

[MrBenchley]

42. Armed gunmen rob Bulls Gap drug store (TN)

"BULLS GAP—Authorities are searching for two armed gunmen who reportedly robbed Cunningham’s Pharmacy Monday evening, taking drugs and money and then making their getaway in a stolen car.
According to the Hawkins County Sheriff’s Department, shortly after 5:30 p.m. authorities were notified of a possible armed robbery at the drug store located at 412 Highway 11E.
A report filed by Deputy James Woods states a female employee of the store observed a man with what appeared to be a gun and she was able to leave the store undetected and notify authorities.
A second female employee was working in the pharmacy behind a counter when a white male, described as “having band-aids on his face and a growth of beard” produced a silver semi-automatic handgun and jumped across the counter, the deputy’s report states."

http://www.hawkins.xtn.net/index.php?template=news.view.subscriber&table=news&newsid=113906

[MrBenchley]

48. St. Robert man arrested after altercation with shotgun (MO)

"A St. Robert man was arrested on Monday by Waynesville Police for one count of burglary in the first degree, one count armed criminal action and one count unlawful use of a weapon as the result of a Saturday incident.
According to Waynesville Police Chief Don McCulloch, on Saturday at 11:53 a.m., Robert Ray Castro, 39, entered the residence of his former girlfriend who resides on Viren Lane, pointed a loaded 12-gauge shotgun at the head of Joseph K. Thomas, and stated, "I'm going to kill you.""

http://www.waynesvilledailyguide.com/articles/2004/08/17/news/local_news/news01.txt

[MrBenchley]

55. Couple pleads innocent to slayings of neighbors (KY)

"GRAYSON, Ky. -- A Carter County couple pleaded innocent to charges stemming from the shotgun slayings of their neighbors.
Clyde Reddicks, 60, and his wife, Kathy, were arraigned Monday in Carter County Circuit Court.
They are charged in the July 16 shooting deaths of Jeffrey "Bub" Flaugher, 26, and his girlfriend, Teresa Leadingham, 29. Each died of a single shotgun blast to the chest.
Authorities say the shootings resulted from a feud between the two couples. "

http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2189830

[MrBenchley]

64. 5-year-old may have seen couple gunned down (TX)

"Police say a 5-year-old boy may be the only witness to a shooting that left a woman dead and her fiance wounded at their northeast Houston home.
Police say the unidentified woman and her fiance, Oscar Lopez Jr., 29, were at their home with his young son around 9:50 p.m. Tuesday when several people went into the house and ransacked it.
The woman was shot several times inside the house, and she died later at Memorial Hermann Hospital. Detectives say friends found the man in his driveway with gunshot wounds to his upper arm. He is listed in serious condition at Memorial Hermann. "

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2743802