Slashdot Mirror


TV Journalists Try Buying AK-47 On Dark Web, Fail (deepdotweb.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "It was supposed to be a great story about terrorism, uncertainty and the evils of the DarkNet," writes Deep Dot Web, describing an investigative report titled "Fear of Terror -- How Endangered is Germany?" After interviewing security experts, federal investigators, and a survivor of the Paris terrorist attack, a TV news crew in Germany attempted to buy an AK-47 on the dark web -- only to be scammed out of $800. "If he had done a little research he could have known that most weapon dealers on the DarkNet are actually scams," the article points out, adding that German customs officers say they would have intercepted any AK-47 had a delivery been attempted.
Motherboard reported in November that the high number of scams -- some of which are undercover agents -- prompted several dark web markets to stop offering guns altogether, though they suggest the German news crew was trying to recreate the purchases of "disabled" weapons which were then converted back into their original form.

8 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Media, meet reality by habig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A similar meme here in the US: "you can buy a gun on the web without a background check! The horror. Must close that loophole."

    Any journalists trying to do this for a story would quickly realize that only is possible if buyer and seller are able/willing to meet physically, otherwise the act of shipping the firearm, which must go through a licensed dealer, gets backgrounds checked. And a physical meetup between individuals is pretty hard to regulate with or without an internet.

    1. Re:Media, meet reality by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if they would stop and THINK for a moment they'd understand WHY.

      The person willing to sell the weapon IN VIOLATION OF MANY FEDERAL LAWS (in the USofA) understands that he will ... probably ... be selling to someone LESS inclined to break those laws.

      So WHY would the seller be inclined to take that risk for $800? Does he plan to make enough profit in volume? Repeat customers? Or does he just like the idea of spending time in prison?

      This reads like "journalists" who spend too much time watching TV and movies.

  2. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    See this handy chart:

    http://i.imgur.com/ueu7x5T.jpg

  3. Re:only in america by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, imagine that, one person agrees to exchange private property with another person for some money. Is that not how a free society, a free economy, works?

    Oh, but it was a *GUN* they traded? I'm reminded of a cartoon of three frames. First frame, man with a bat and a bloodied dead person at his feet, an observer to this shouts, "Someone needs to stop this madman!" Second frame, man with a knife and a bloodied dead person at his feet, an observer shouts, "Someone needs to stop this madman!" Third frame, man with a gun and a bloodied dead person at his feet, an observer shouts, "Did you see that? We need to ban guns!"

    Oh, but guns are only good for murdering people, right? Is that why police officers carry them? Tell me, if we ban the private sale of firearms who will enforce it and how? I know the answer, it will be police officers carrying guns. If the police officers show up to stop people with guns from exchanging them then how is that going to play out, huh? That's right, dead police officers and guns getting into the hands of murderers.

    Guns are good for killing people and that is why people want them. Killing is different than murder because there is such as thing in law as "justifiable homicide". This is why police officers carry guns and this is why law abiding citizens need unrestricted access to them.

    This summer I'm taking a history course at the local university. We start with the French Revolution. For centuries the people of France were kept in perpetual slavery by kings and nobles. This was largely possible by keeping the people poor, uneducated, and disarmed. Anyone with a sword, bow, or arrow without the permission of the king would be killed on sight by the mercenaries and soldiers under the employ of the king. The king's rule was brought to a very brutal end when the people stormed the armory and took weapons to be used against the king. The people that took over were unfortunately just a brutal as any king, they were able to rule by terror on the rest of France because they now had the weapons. Next week's lectures will be over how Napolean fucked things up.

    People are only free if they are just as well armed as the government. That means being able to buy an AR-15 from some guy in a parking lot with cash.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  4. Re:Stupid by DaHat · · Score: 2

    Even in the US a gun registration can make a gun unsuitable or unattainable many crimes

    Most states don't 'register' guns, and the feds are barred from doing so (other than NFA items).

    Worst case, you make the mistake of buying something new from an FFL, use it in a crime & leave it behind. The PD/BATFE will contact the manufacturer to learn which distributor, then which FFL sold it, and a 'quick' search through mounds of paperwork will turn up who it was sold it and you are going to have a bad day.

    A used gun sale at an FFL requires a bit of guessing as to which FFL sold it and when, but still can eventually turn up the last FFL sale (in the area).

    No need even for the 'black market' though. In most states, private sales are legal to another person (who resides in the state and is legally able to acquire the firearm), and it doesn't take too much effort to find a seller in your state, meet them in a parking lot, show a drivers license to prove residency, hand over cash and, receive the gun and shake hands... this also is the same source that the many a 'throw down gun' has come from.

  5. Re:TV "journalists" watch a movie by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, you don't really want the gov't, or really anyone else, to be setting some kind of bar to indicate who can be part of the 'press', because then it becomes very open to abuse. And that's generally worse than bad reporting by your grandma.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  6. Re:That's a relief! by Nikkos · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a problem all right, but it's not a gun problem. It's a failure to address the real problems (poverty, education, etc), coupled with a 'whitewashing' of the predominate demographic/cultural characteristics of the perpetrators. This is a problem with idiotic Democrats, who seem to think that removing weapons will solve the problem, and this is a problem with Republicans (and Libertarians) that worship rampant capitalism without any checks and balances of social welfare

    The general myth that more guns = more violence is not supported by any real-world examination. The only place you can find such claims are in statistically overtweaked research put out by biased sources.

    Case in point:
    Total murders 1980 - over 20,000. Number of firearms in America - ~170mil. US Population 220mil.
    Total Murders 2014 - ~15,000. Number of firearms in America - ~350mil . US Population 320mil.

    100 Million more people, 180 million more firearms. 25% less murders.

    Arguing that more guns = more murders/violence simply can't be supported, because over the last 35 years that theory has been completely disproven. It's a complete farce, just like the 'Video game and violence' theory, which again is disproved simply by looking at how youth violence has decreased by over 50% since 1990 (FBI), while violent video games have become one of the most profitable entertainment mediums today.

    Go look at any of the gun violence sites that plot the incidents on an actual map. You will quickly see that the vast vast majority of gun violence (not suicides) occur in predominately in low-income, low-education areas of large metropolitan regions that are also predominately inhabited by minorities (and of that, predominately black.) Even if you try to point out 'white' states like Nebraska, Oklahoma, or even Minnesota have crime issues, you will still find the above claim regarding the overall demographics to be true.

    Suicides are the other 'big lie' by the Anti-Gun crowd. 2/3rd of gun deaths are suicides, but the idea that reducing firearms reduces suicides is not supported. (There is a study out there that says reducing guns reduces gun suicides, but that's like saying removing electricity reduces electrocutions)
    In fact, the US has lower or equivalent suicide rates to countries that have strict gun control. Removing guns will just change the method, not the outcome.

    Guns are a strawman and the NRA is just a boogieman to a group of people who can't look up basic numbers, understand basic research methods, or think past their organic, probiotic, cave-man, paleo-vegan diet.

  7. Re: Stupid by bigfinger76 · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're not modified to be semiauto - they are semiauto. These are civilian versions - crippled replicas, essentially.