Terrorists Couldn't Get Automatic Weapons.

[azredhawk44]

Getting a carry permit here is virtually impossible. I live near the Sun Valley Mall in Concord, Ca. Mall security isn't armed. I'm sure the Concord police have a plan but if a suicidal terrorist goes in there during the Christmas shopping season he could probably kill a few hundred people before running out of bullets, running out of targets or getting shot by police. I think 4 guys with high cap rifles could kill a thousand before being stopped.
If this scenario were played out 3 or 4 places across the US people wouldn't go shopping. It would likely put us into an all out depression. It's a scary thought.

I disagree. I believe you would see a LOT more folks talking about "concealed means concealed" and winking at each other.

It doesn't take a lot: AZ is considered a fairly strong bastion of 2A support and we're constantly lampooned by the left as a bunch of cowboys out looking for a high noon showdown.

However, at any given shopping mall in AZ, I'd be surprised if less than 1/2 of 1% of the shoppers present were armed. 1 in 200 people, maybe.

But: That 1 in 200 decision gives us enough respect that a potential terrorist would choose CA, NY, MD, DC, WI or IL over AZ, NH, UT, NM, TX (and the list goes on for quite a while).

Wideswept US outrage at a defenseless mall shooting? There will be LOTS of snub .38's and PPK's and P3AT's in purses, and Glocks/sigs/etc inside of belts.

Also, given the HUGE glut of gun sales in the last year, there are a lot of new gun owners. A bunch of 'em have no idea what the laws are in regards to carrying a gun... In my experience women gun owners often ignore CCW laws and will carry a small "rape-stopper" gun in their purse regardless of the law.

That perspective will flex and expand in times of domestic danger. I will say that I carried in ways that might be considered legally inappropriate in the aftermath of 9/11/01. I know many other people, men and women, who did as well.

People will do what they need to do, and don't like having their lives altered by criminals, disgruntled foreign nationals, terrorist networks or nefarious international criminal materminds.

 

[SigP6Carry]

USAF: I really didn't fall on my knife. If there were not FOID, waiting period or BG you could walk into any of 6 stores within 5 miles of where I'm sitting, buy a gun and break a law. That's much easier than getting an illegal weapon. I don't even know where to begin to look for an illegal weapon. Gun Control will never control illegal weapons, so why bring up illegal weapons when talking about gun control. I think that was needs to be discussed is the effects on law abiding citizens, not illegal weapon purchases.

There's a MUCH easier way, for the citizen, to set up the BG, waiting period and licensing than the government is doing it right now, but you also have to think about how much work and cost the government is putting in. Federal firearms licensing (not registration), a single BG per store per year and a single waiting period for that store per year (while the BG clears) would make a lot more sense, but it would be a lot of work to retrofit the system and create a small government agency or sub-agency within an already existing agency to license people.

As for the "self righteous vigilantism," I apologize for the connotation of the phrase, I didn't think through the word choice. Their best defense would be to call the police and work out something: frequent patrols in the area, a stationary car in front of the house, arresting the husband, etc. Guns are not a means to uphold the law, but to protect yourself. The waiting period doesn't put her in much danger, she could go and buy the gun and pick it up the next day or three days later. If there's a known immediate threat THAT NIGHT or the night after or after that, then it's a situation where the police can and will intervene. So if hubby says "I'm going to come and kill you tonight" or something to that effect, she should have him arrested, work out something with the police, etc. If it's just a violent ex that she has in general, the chance of the waiting period impacting her safety is slim to nil.

I'm not saying that I like the waiting period, but it makes sense to me. The only thing is: once I wait 30 days for a BGC, why do I then have to wait another 3 days for my pistol. And then another 3 days for the next one? It should be a one time waiting period or something.

 

[USAFNoDak]

USAF: I really didn't fall on my knife. If there were not FOID, waiting period or BG you could walk into any of 6 stores within 5 miles of where I'm sitting, buy a gun and break a law. That's much easier than getting an illegal weapon. I don't even know where to begin to look for an illegal weapon. Gun Control will never control illegal weapons, so why bring up illegal weapons when talking about gun control. I think that was needs to be discussed is the effects on law abiding citizens, not illegal weapon purchases.

Even with a FOID, waiting period, or BGC, you can do that exact same thing today if you are of such an inclination. Let's say I can't pass a background check, but I need a gun for whatever reason. My brother can pass a background check. So I give him $500.00 plus an extra $100.00 for his risk and effort and he goes and gets the gun for me. That's a straw purchase which background checks cannot stop.

You don't know where to get an "illegal" weapon because you don't need, and never have had a need, to go that route. Criminals in prison were polled and said they'd have no problem getting a gun within days, if not hours, after being released.

Why do we want to control law abiding citizens? That seems to be stupid. We need to control the ones who are not law abiding.

Why don't we do background checks on drivers to see if they have DWI's on their records before we let them buy a car from a car dealer? Drunk drivers kill more people than are killed accidently by guns. I'm not counting suicide because even without a gun, people intent on checking out will find a way to do so, as the nation of Japan demonstrates.

Gun control is always "sold" as a means to control illegal weapons. So why not talk about them? Don't trip and fall on that sword laying there.

 

[USAFNoDak]

As for the "self righteous vigilantism," I apologize for the connotation of the phrase, I didn't think through the word choice. Their best defense would be to call the police and work out something: frequent patrols in the area, a stationary car in front of the house, arresting the husband, etc. Guns are not a means to uphold the law, but to protect yourself. The waiting period doesn't put her in much danger, she could go and buy the gun and pick it up the next day or three days later. If there's a known immediate threat THAT NIGHT or the night after or after that, then it's a situation where the police can and will intervene. So if hubby says "I'm going to come and kill you tonight" or something to that effect, she should have him arrested, work out something with the police, etc. If it's just a violent ex that she has in general, the chance of the waiting period impacting her safety is slim to nil.

The problem with calling the police is that they may not get that chance. There are plenty of news stories where women had protection orders, but were surprised and killed by their abusive EX's. They don't always announce that they are going to "kill you tonight". You don't know when they will strike. Either do the police. The police can up patrols for a certain time, but they have a lot on their plate. They won't park a patrol car in front of your house 24/7, unless you know something I don't.

By the way, many waiting periods in some states are a week or several weeks long. I believe CA is 15 days, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Waiting periods have resulted in women who tried to buy firearms, being forced to wait, and being killed before the waiting period expired.

I'm sure many women would have their husbands arrested if they could. But for some reason, the justice system routinely issues protection orders and leaves it up to the woman to protect herself. There are plenty of instances where those women are subsequently killed by their abusive EX's. Waiting periods are no friends to those women. Waiting periods do what, exactly, to benefit society? Cooling off periods? There is no data to show that a waiting period has any positive effect on gun violence. If there is, please provide the data or a link to it. No VPC or Brady Center propaganda please.

As for calling police to work out something, that will be totally dependent upon the situation. If you live in a relatively low crime small town, you may be able to do that. In a place like Chicago, good luck.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

LAWS PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACK WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Story at Six.

Now argue for loosing up the laws on gun sales by some commentary on Bloomberg.

It doesn't work. Preventing the sarcasm to a neutral person would be highly ineffective.

Folks are convinced by a vivid single instance. Just like over in T and T where the numerous studies of the efficacy of OC are disregarded by the story of one guy who shook it off.

Also, the discussion is getting off track to the efficacy of waiting periods and NICS.

So does the OP want no background checks or unlimited access to fully auto guns? Then the terrorists would have shot up the mall - unless you were there with your J frame?

Excuse me but the rhetoric is not convincing here based on the original post and situation.

 

[USAFNoDak]

So does the OP want no background checks or unlimited access to fully auto guns? Then the terrorists would have shot up the mall - unless you were there with your J frame?

This will be my last post on this thread as I sense it's going to get an Al Gore lockbox put on it.


First of all, in a previous post, I stated that I don't believe BGC's prevent bad guys from getting guns, but we are stuck with them because the general public has a strong belief that BGC's do prevent bad guys from getting guns. I'm not fighting hard to get the NICS removed. But if it was removed, I doubt there'd be any spike in violent crime or acts of terrorism. As to full auto, I am OK with some extra regulations, but since we have a background check in place now, why not open up the registry again? Why not allow citizens to own NEW full autos if they go through the hoops?

Now, back on track to my OP.

The mainstream media and Michael Bloomberg say that we must close gun show loophole. They really want to eliminate gun shows and all private F2F sales in the US, but that's a tangent line.

What is their reasoning for wanting to close the gun show loophole? According to their own writing and statements, it's because criminals and terrorrists are able to buy virtually any firearm they want at a gun show because there are no background checks required. Glenn, do you disagree with me that this has been the message pushed out to the public? That's what I've been hearing.

So, when it's reported that some terrorists were known to have been blocked from getting their hands on automatic weapons, it seems to fly in the face of what the media has been falsely claiming as it relates to gun shows. The terrorists, if they were smart and had been listening to the MSM would have tried to get the weapons at a gun show. That would seem to be a logical plan of action on their part. Instead, they went to an acquaintence who had some links to gang members but who only had access to handguns.

So, to me, they were either stupid, or had been missing the message from the MSM and Bloomberg that there were ample supplies of all sorts of guns at gun shows, and they wouldn't even have to go through a background check.

Lock er up, boss.

p.s. Glenn Meyer posted:

LAWS PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACK WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Bzzzt. No news article I read regarding this said anything about the LAWS preventing a terrorist attack with automatic weapons. It said the terrorists were not able to acquire any automatic weapons. As it turns out, they only checked with one "illegal" source and then gave it up. This is a small but KEY point, Glenn.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ideally, the next target should also be novel, unexpected and soft. A shopping mall doesn't fit that category for several reasons.

First, this is America. Americans don't have a reputation for giving up easily. In fact, picking a fight with America has rarely been a smart idea. Open fire in a mall, and you will succeed in killing people, but there's a good chance you'll be overpowered and captured. Game over.

Second, you might just get shot. Americans like guns, and you might want to research the concealed carry laws in the area before you go on your little rampage.

Third, what do you do after you've shot the place up? It's going to be a huge, crowded ball of panic, and you're going to be easy to spot. A guy with a Kalashnikov screaming "Masha'allah!" tends to stick out in Peoria. Good luck getting out cleanly.

We've had mall shootings, and they've become harder targets. Mall security are generally better briefed, the police will be keeping their eyes peeled as the holiday season approaches, and did I mention a significant percentage of people carrying guns?

One: The huge majority of people in a mall would "give up" easily. Few if any would attempt to resist. If they did then they'd be easy targets, while everyone else was hiding they'd be coming at the gunman.

Two: Getting shot would be EXTREMELY unlikely, especially in the opening few minutes. The VAST majority of the US has an armed civilian rate way, WAY below 1%. WAAAAAAYYYYYYY below 1%. Probably near zero in many places. The ONLY concern would be the potential presence of police officers.

Three: See one and two. "Sticking out" doesn't mean a thing if no one can threaten you. Target rich environment, no threats. Also, note 9/11. "Getting away clean" is not always, or even often, high on the list. Terror is the point, survival is not.

Lastly: Malls have become harder targets? Really? Only about as much as switching from jello body armor to marshmallow body armor makes you a "harder target". Malls are crowded with oblivious, clueless, unarmed, unprotected and untrained civilians.

 

[MTT TL]

The problem is that they did not read the VPC website where they explain that AK-47 are easily available illegally everywhere and can be converted in minutes to fire fully automatic with simple hand tools. Had they read that they would have had no issues.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh - the point is that the OP decided to talk about Bloomberg and the gun show loop hole in a sarcastic mode that had nothing to do with the incident.

The OP stated:

So, it looks as though they did not try to get automatic weapons through any legal channels.

That is because the legal channels for fully auto weapons are quite involved. If you could buy fully auto weapons legally as easily as semis, would they have proceeded? That's what an antigunner would say, and I tried to point out repeatedly.

Maybe they were stupid and didn't realize that in most of the country you could buy very efficacious semi ARs or AKs. For some reason, they were fixed - thank you God for their ignorance.

So to cut the fluff - the failure of them to get guns is not really useful in discussing Bloomberg or arguing against NICS. The OP fails to realize this.

Last, Al Gore isn't shutting down a debate because one disagrees with a moderator. We shut down for rule violations. Like personal insults, profanity, our political rule set. If the OP doesn't want to continue the discussion, that is not my doing.