This is the link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a … ge_id=1811
I have quoted the article below. The colors are mine, and they are addressed below, in the same color.
Yes, it is technically possible to possess an automatic weapon. This article, however, suggests that it is easy. And that's textbook irresponsible journalism.
An AK-47 and an Uzi are both examples of automatic weapons. They cannot be bough over the counter. Now, that's not to say that a knockoff that is semi-automatic isn't legal. It is. But by using what I'll call "scare words," the author is obfusciating a point that should have been made clear. Again, bad journalism. It's a case of a UK paper reporting an editorial as fact.
This is just wrong. The required check is with the NCIC computer system, which is the federal database. Some state's also require checking the state database as well. Mine does not.
The problem here is that the author makes it sound like a private dealer is someone legitimate. Anyone in the firearms business is licensed by the ATF, and therefore required to perform a background check. The "private dealer" he refers to is what we call here in the states a "criminal." Someone who is illegally selling weapons. You can pass a law that makes him do a background check. As he's already breaking a solid 6 or 7 federal laws as it is, what's another one?
Ah, yes. Gun shows. The poster child of the anti-gun lobby. An example of everything that's wrong with gun control in America.
I have bad news for you guys. I went to a gun show a couple of months ago. You know how many of the dealers there weren't licensed by the ATF? One. It was some dude who had inherited his grandfather's rifle collection, and was selling it off to pay off his morgage. There were probably 40 or 50 booths there selling firearms, and of those, only one was not licensed, and therfore didn't have to perform a background check.
As an interesting note, the entire passage I hilighted in yellow was lifted verbatim from the brady campaign's website. Check it our for yourself. How's that for responsible journalism? Who doesn't love a guy so lazy he can't even rearrange their words? And here's another "here in the states:" We call that plagarism, and look very poorly upon it.
You know what kills me? I actually agree with some of the tenets of the Brady Campaign. I believe very strongly in cracking down on illegal gun transactions and criminal dealers. Now, I don't think that their methods will work worth a shit, but it's a noble goal.
I guess that's it for my rant for the moment.
Discuss.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a … ge_id=1811
I have quoted the article below. The colors are mine, and they are addressed below, in the same color.
First and foremost, we'll start with the whole machine gun thing. This is one that really pisses me off. The sale and possession of automatic weapons has been highly regulated and tracked since June 26, 1934. The process you have to go through to legally obtain a Title II weapon (a category that includes automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns and rifles, silencers/suppressors, and destructive devices) is thorough, difficult, and time consuming. You have to pay a special fee, pass an exhaustive background check, get the permission of the ATF, your county sheriff, and the local police chief, submit an application with fingerprints and a photograph, and register the weapon with the ATF. The weapon can never be out of your indirect possession. If you let someone else shoot it, you have to be there with it. Not to mention, the importation and manufacture of automatic weapons is limited to that required for military and LEO use, so the pool of weapons is small and getting smaller, thereby driving up price. All told, to legally buy a machine gun in the US, you can expect to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 to $15,000 on the low end.Stupid UK Newspaper wrote:
Despite repeated school shootings, it is still ridiculously easy to obtain a gun in the US.
Anyone aged over 18 and without a criminal conviction can legally buy a rifle or shotgun.
Under US Federal Law only those aged over 21 can buy a handgun.
The process often takes less than half an hour and requires a simple background check.
Unlike the UK, gun owners are not required to store their weapons in a locked safe and there is no limit on the number of weapons they are allowed.
Even though the Columbine school massacre in 1999 led to a partial ban on automatic weapons, many states - including Virginia - still allow the sale of such lethal weapons.
According to a anti-gun group the state of Virginia has some of the weakest laws in the nation.
They were awarded a C grade by the Brady Campaign, the leading organisation aimed at combating gun violence in America, which rates the toughest laws as an A grade.
In Virginia not only are purchasers allowed to buy a gun a month if they wish, but there is no restriction on the type of weapon that is available.
AK-47 assault rifles and Uzi sub machine guns can be bought legally over the counter. Gun buyers must undergo a computerised background and this often takes place on the spot.
Some states do require a three day "cooling off" period while detailed checks are carried out to see if the buyer has a criminal record. Most checks are carried out at a state level, although the more detailed checks use the FBI criminal database. Anyone with a criminal conviction is automatically barred from buying a firearm. Last year in Virginia 2,568 gun buyers failed criminal background checks. However, there is nothing to stop those who failed the criminal checks from buying weapons from a private dealer.
In Virginia there is no state requirement that any checks be carried out on people buying guns at gun shows or from a private individual. Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.
There is also no state requirement that gun owners register their firearms. Police do not know how many guns are in Virginia or who has them. The lack of registration data makes it more difficult for police to trace guns used in crime, identify illegal gun traffickers or hold gun owners accountable for their weapons. The degree of control varies from state to state.
California has limited gun sales to one firearm per customer per month and outlawed some assault weapons according to their characteristics rather than the make and model. Illinois now requires owners to lock away firearms and fit child safety locks. The American Constitution, which sets out the country's rights and freedoms, says people are allowed to "keep and bear arms". This has deterred lawmakers from enforcing gun control and they often face opposition from the influential National Rifle Association. The NRA insists Americans have the right to bear arms.
Yes, it is technically possible to possess an automatic weapon. This article, however, suggests that it is easy. And that's textbook irresponsible journalism.
An AK-47 and an Uzi are both examples of automatic weapons. They cannot be bough over the counter. Now, that's not to say that a knockoff that is semi-automatic isn't legal. It is. But by using what I'll call "scare words," the author is obfusciating a point that should have been made clear. Again, bad journalism. It's a case of a UK paper reporting an editorial as fact.
This is just wrong. The required check is with the NCIC computer system, which is the federal database. Some state's also require checking the state database as well. Mine does not.
The problem here is that the author makes it sound like a private dealer is someone legitimate. Anyone in the firearms business is licensed by the ATF, and therefore required to perform a background check. The "private dealer" he refers to is what we call here in the states a "criminal." Someone who is illegally selling weapons. You can pass a law that makes him do a background check. As he's already breaking a solid 6 or 7 federal laws as it is, what's another one?
Ah, yes. Gun shows. The poster child of the anti-gun lobby. An example of everything that's wrong with gun control in America.
I have bad news for you guys. I went to a gun show a couple of months ago. You know how many of the dealers there weren't licensed by the ATF? One. It was some dude who had inherited his grandfather's rifle collection, and was selling it off to pay off his morgage. There were probably 40 or 50 booths there selling firearms, and of those, only one was not licensed, and therfore didn't have to perform a background check.
As an interesting note, the entire passage I hilighted in yellow was lifted verbatim from the brady campaign's website. Check it our for yourself. How's that for responsible journalism? Who doesn't love a guy so lazy he can't even rearrange their words? And here's another "here in the states:" We call that plagarism, and look very poorly upon it.
You know what kills me? I actually agree with some of the tenets of the Brady Campaign. I believe very strongly in cracking down on illegal gun transactions and criminal dealers. Now, I don't think that their methods will work worth a shit, but it's a noble goal.
I guess that's it for my rant for the moment.
Discuss.