Terrorists Couldn't Get Automatic Weapons.

[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]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.