Terrorists Couldn't Get Automatic Weapons.

[USAFNoDak]

My Comcast.net news blurb had this little nugget:

BOSTON — A 27-year-old Massachusetts man has been charged with conspiring with others to carry out terror attacks against shoppers in U.S. malls and against U.S. military in Iraq.

Authorities in Boston say Tarek Mehanna (TEH'-rek meh-HAH'-nah) of Sudbury sought training in terrorist training camps and worked with others from 2001 to May 2008 on the conspiracy "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" people in foreign countries and to kill prominent U.S. politicians.

Federal prosecutors say Mehanna and his conspirators tried to get automatic weapons for a mall attack, but their plans were foiled when they could not get the weapons.

These must be some of the dumbest terrorists in the US. Everyone knows you can go to any gun show, which is nothing but an arms bizarre, and get any guns you want, without even going through a federal background check. What's with these terrorists? Have they been living under a rock? The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, proved with some recent sting operations that ANYONE can buy ANY kind of gun at a gunshow without any federal background checks. This is all because of the gun show loophole, which the NRA won't allow politicians and lawmakers to close. Well, let's thank God that these terrorists didn't listen to the liberal news all that much.

[chris in va]

arms bizarre

Freaky firearms in those shows for sure.

I think you mean 'bazaar'.

[armsmaster270]

What about all those M-16's we are importing to Mexico for the cartel's couldn't they buy one of those

[Tom Servo]

Federal prosecutors say Mehanna and his conspirators tried to get automatic weapons for a mall attack, but their plans were foiled when they could not get the weapons.

Probably meant semiautomatic weapons.

An odd thought occurs. A friend with the TSA once told me he wasn't too worried about another hijacking because, well, it had been done. They'd gotten away with it once, after which we saw a huge overhaul in the way airports were secured.

So, from a terrorist's point of view:

A second attempt on an airliner would not be feasible, given the possibility of exposure, capture or other sort of mission failure.

That means changing means and venue.

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?

I don't mean to suggest that we're not vulnerable, nor do I think that a mall shooting is out of the question: I just think it's an unlikely venue.

[Ricky]

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 firmly believe that all of us without a criminal record should have the right to carry. Unfortunately at least for now it's not the popular opinion here. That opinion might change after such an attack but it would be a terrible shame that so many would have to die in order to give us the right to self defense.

[Tom Servo]

Never been south of Petaluma, unfortunately. Gorgeous country in the northern parts. Really sorry about the gun laws.

You've got a point about urban malls being very soft targets, with a high potential for collateral damage. I was speaking in very broad terms, and though such an attack could do a great deal of damage, I imagine they'd choose locations under less scrutiny.

(I'd also like to think that, even if outgunned, someone in the crowd would attempt to overpower the gunman, but Virginia Tech disproved that idea)

[Ditto_95]

You are missing the point that these folks don't care if they are KIA. Most would welcome that.

I have to agree though that there are many armed people out there. I am unsure if they are at the mall.

[SigP6Carry]

USAF, I'm confused by the tone of your post. Isn't it a good thing that they were too ignorant to go to a gun show? Or maybe that the reason they didn't go to a gun show is because a couple of middle eastern guys buying tons of AK 47s would (unfortunately, this is the racist nation we live in) raise suspicion? Or perhaps they simply did not have any US IDs or had out of state IDs. There's a lot of variables to try and pin down with very little to do on for that article. But your instant gripe was "why didn't they watch liberal news to learn that you can buy guns at a gun show" from "they didn't attack because they couldn't get guns."

Edit: I also noticed that a MA man was arrested for plotting a terrorist conspiracy that was supposed to take place in Iraq. Now you tell me how gun shows in the US effect a terrorist attack in Iraq.

[USAFNoDak]

My tone was meant to point out the absurd claims by the media and Michael Bloomberg that gun shows are arms bazaars (sorry about my earlier spelling mistake) where ANYONE can by ANY type of firearm WITHOUT a background check. If that was really true, then why didn't these guys just go to a gun show to get automatic weapons? Also, if they couldn't get automatic weapons, then why wouldn't they settle for semiautomatic weapons? According to the media and the anti gun crowd, semiautomatic weapons are just as deadly as full auto and are to be considered weapons of war, meant only for the battlefield, not for civilian use. All of this "misinformation" about firearms has been readily and steadily put out there for decades by the media and the anti gun folks. In fact, they are on record stating that the public's confusion over the term "assault weapon" (semi auto vs. machine guns) will only serve to assist in banning a whole new class of firearms.

I hope that clears it up for you a little. I was using sarcasm in an attempt to make a point that gun shows must not be the arms bazaars that the media and Michael Bloomberg claim they are.

[USAFNoDak]

I have traveled quite a bit and I've always been uneasy about how unsecure the baggage claim areas are. In many airports, one can easily walk around the baggage claim area without ever having gone through security. Who would notice someone carrying a suitcase which happened to be loaded with high explosives. By carefully watching and documenting times of day at select airports where the baggage claim areas are packed with travelers, terrorists could plan out a synchronized attack involving multiple airports with suicide bombers carrying suitcases full of explosives. What would this do psychologically to Americans and airline travel? Most people in airports cannot and will not be armed for obvious reasons. While you must go through security to get to the gate areas and to board a plane, that is not the case for the baggage claim areas. If I can figure this out, how long will it take for someone else with evil in mind to do so as well.

Right now, we have to hope that they have an extremely hard time getting their hands on explosives. How hard is that for them to accomplish? I don't rightly know. Of course, they could also smuggle guns into the baggage claim area and kill as many as they had ammo for before being taken down themselves. If they are suicide terrorists, they don't care about being taken out in the end. They would be focused on killing as many people as they could before they go down.

[SigP6Carry]

Ah, I understand now. I just didn't see how that vague of news blurb led to a "liberals say gun shows are the most dangerous thing in the world" point. I personally see no bias or misinformation in that post, but I can see how a news blurb can remind you of media politics. It's just, the opening post had a lot of confusing points coming from nowhere and with the lack of information from the new blurb I couldn't make sense of it.

Personally, I'm 100% in support of background checks with any gun purchase made in a public setting (FTF's shouldn't need to be BGC'd), but I hate that it has to be done EVERY time. I also think that the Illinois FOID card is a great system, as well. Though, I don't understand why I had to have a BGC from the state to be told I could buy guns and then I have to have a BGC done everytime I buy a gun plus the waiting period.... there's too many redundancies.

Sorry if it's off topic, but that's just my opinion on gun shows and what not.

[USAFNoDak]

Personally, I'm 100% in support of background checks with any gun purchase made in a public setting (FTF's shouldn't need to be BGC'd), but I hate that it has to be done EVERY time. I also think that the Illinois FOID card is a great system, as well. Though, I don't understand why I had to have a BGC from the state to be told I could buy guns and then I have to have a BGC done everytime I buy a gun plus the waiting period.... there's too many redundancies.

The things I don't like about background checks are:

1. What happens when the government decides they need to collect money (taxes) to "allow" law abiding citizens to purchase a gun? Does Ill. charge a tax for the FOID?

2. What happens when government computers mysterially are "down" and you can't get a background check accomplished? What if you need a gun ASAP, such as a woman who has recently been threatened by a violent significant other? A right delayed is a right denied. This is why waiting periods are violations on the right to self defense.

3. Background checks, FOID programs, waiting periods, and other form of gun control are put in place for what stated purpose? To reduce violent crimes or to reduce gun accidents. Can you point to any gun control law which had a direct affect on dropping violent crime rates or reducing gun accidents? Gun accidents continue to decline and had been declining long before background checks and FOID were implemented. How did FOID reduce crime in places such as Chicago? These programs do nothing but affect the law abiding, for the most part. Strawman purchases, theft, buying guns on the black market, etc., all make BG's and programs such as FOID, essentially worthless in bringing about their advertised intentions. Do you disagree? If not, then please provide at least one documented example where any such program resulted in a direct reduction in violent crime rates.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

To go the OP - I would like a little more information on the actual attempt to buy weapons.

1. What kind - to get past misinformation or mistakes in nomenclature.

2. Why did they not get what they wanted?

3. Legal barriers or practical barriers (money, time?).

If some legality stopped them - for example, they really wanted full - auto but couldn't do the NFA dance - then - this would be a great example for antigun folks. Laws stop terrorist attack.

Thus, the original OP sarcasm falls flat.

Also, trying to make the point that semis or full weapons have differential lethality and thus one should be harder to get is a slippery slope argument in favor of fun things like the AWB. Thus, the public's confusion is not a good thing for gun folk to argue.

Saying semi military derivative are less lethal is to negate the reason for having such guns. Go all the way and have just single shot rifles. They certainly would serve most sporting purposes.

Carry in the malls is not going to deter terrorist attacks. The terrorists expect to run into heavily armed opposition in a few minutes and then die. Captain J-frame isn't a factor. However, it may get you or someone close out of trouble. That's the reason for carry.

That the terrorist suspect was thwarted is not a good thing for the RKBA. Depending on the thwarting reason - a reasonable person would say - why, of course, those laws are a good thing.

You have to think a touch more deeply here. Bloomberg is probably quite happy with this type of report.

[SigP6Carry]

1. What happens when the government decides they need to collect money (taxes) to "allow" law abiding citizens to purchase a gun? Does Ill. charge a tax for the FOID?

-Illinois does in fact charge a FOID tax: a one time ten dollar fee. It's essentially a processing fee, though.

2. What happens when government computers mysterially are "down" and you can't get a background check accomplished? What if you need a gun ASAP, such as a woman who has recently been threatened by a violent significant other? A right delayed is a right denied. This is why waiting periods are violations on the right to self defense.

-there hasn't really been any documented (that I know of) failures of the computer system to allow background checks. I don't think that it would exactly prevent anyone from getting a gun, but I have heard of issue where people with similar names are denied because one of them are convicted felons and the other isn't. Accidents happen, but it does help to keep guns out of the hands of ne'er-do-wells. It's not a fool proof system, and I feel that it doesn't really effect most law abiding citizens from getting guns, but in terms of a "I NEED IT NOW!" situation, that's a situation where LE should be involved, not self righteous vigilantism.

3. Background checks, FOID programs, waiting periods, and other form of gun control are put in place for what stated purpose? To reduce violent crimes or to reduce gun accidents. Can you point to any gun control law which had a direct affect on dropping violent crime rates or reducing gun accidents? Gun accidents continue to decline and had been declining long before background checks and FOID were implemented. How did FOID reduce crime in places such as Chicago? These programs do nothing but affect the law abiding, for the most part. Strawman purchases, theft, buying guns on the black market, etc., all make BG's and programs such as FOID, essentially worthless in bringing about their advertised intentions. Do you disagree? If not, then please provide at least one documented example where any such program resulted in a direct reduction in violent crime rates.

They essential make it more of a hassle to buy a gun, so that people less inclined to get a gun just don't try. The FOIDs, BGs and waiting periods just make it a nuisance to legally get a gun. I don't like the waiting periods, but I believe the idea is that someone who wants to buy a gun to go shoot someone has to wait a day or three before they can get their gun and they have time to cool down. The BGs obviously flag anyone with who's a danger so that they may not purchase a firearm. The FOID cards are essentially the same thing, only in card form.

See, my issue is that I've already been BGC'd by the ISP and had to wait 30 days for the card, but everytime I buy a gun, I still have to get BGC'd and wait. If a federal FOID card were issued and the waiting period and BGC rescinded, it would essentially be the same.

[blume357]

Gecko45,,.... is protecting all the Malls in the U.S. and thought better of it.

[B. Lahey]

I see this one as a feel-good win for both sides. The antis can say gun laws work. Gunnies can say that it's evidence that we have more than enough gun laws as-is. Both are arguably correct, and the terrorists didn't get whatever they were looking for.

It may not be a step forward in the fight to get dumb laws off the books, but it's not really a step backwards either, and the psychos are in jail without any bloodshed.

[Edward429451]

proved with some recent sting operations that ANYONE can buy ANY kind of gun at a gunshow without any federal background checks.

maybe raghead types wanting automatic rifles would make the spidey sense of Americans and get them refused service. It could happen. Even with a lost sale A lot of Americans are opinionated and may just say no to the wrong type looking guy(s).

[USAFNoDak]

-there hasn't really been any documented (that I know of) failures of the computer system to allow background checks. I don't think that it would exactly prevent anyone from getting a gun, but I have heard of issue where people with similar names are denied because one of them are convicted felons and the other isn't. Accidents happen, but it does help to keep guns out of the hands of ne'er-do-wells. It's not a fool proof system, and I feel that it doesn't really effect most law abiding citizens from getting guns, but in terms of a "I NEED IT NOW!" situation, that's a situation where LE should be involved, not self righteous vigilantism.

I believe the computer system did go down at least once for approximately 3 days. I'll have to do some research on that.

Some folks were denied for unpaid parking tickets or traffic fines, early on. The Clinton Justice department was keeping the names of buyers on file for 180 days until they were forced to stop it. The background check system is ripe for abuse by an anti gun government, though so far, it has not been too harmful. That could change in the future if the political winds change. We've seen that happen before.

Someone who needs a gun "now" is not necessarily a vigilante. Defending your own life has nothing to do with being a vigilante. As for LE being involved, how many times have women with protection orders been killed by their abusing "significant" others? Cops cannot be on personal guard duty 24/7. I take issue with your remarks about vigilantes and self defense and your willingness to compare them as being equal. A woman who fears for her life from an abusive EX may need protection right away. She is not being a "self righteous vigilante". That remark is very condescending to any woman who has been put into a situation where the government told her that she can't get a gun for weeks and that she should call the cops if she feels endangered. Many times, those poor women end up dead and the cops end up arresting the violent abuser. That doesn't do the abusee much good, does it?

-They essential make it more of a hassle to buy a gun, so that people less inclined to get a gun just don't try. The FOIDs, BGs and waiting periods just make it a nuisance to legally get a gun. I don't like the waiting periods, but I believe the idea is that someone who wants to buy a gun to go shoot someone has to wait a day or three before they can get their gun and they have time to cool down. The BGs obviously flag anyone with who's a danger so that they may not purchase a firearm. The FOID cards are essentially the same thing, only in card form.

You sort of fell on your own knife here. People less willing to get a gun might be detoured from getting one because of the laws. Do we really need to worry about those people? I believe we need to worry about the bad guys who are indeed willing to get a gun and are willing to break a myriad of laws to do so.

Let me correct one of your statements above.

"The BGs obviously flag anyone with who's a danger so that they may not LEGALLY purchase a firearm. The FOID cards are essentially the same thing, only in card form."

BGC's and foid cards do nothing to stop anyone who's a danger from getting a gun ILLEGALLY. If this wasn't true, then Chicago wouldn't be plagued with so much gun violence. Same with LA. California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, plus all of the federal laws. How does LA compare to say Fargo, ND where gun control laws are less of a hinderance to the law abiding?

[USAFNoDak]

Here'sa link to an article which discusses the NICS and some of the problems it has caused.

http://www.rangeinfo.org/resource_li...m&CAT=Business

I don't believe the NICS has done anything to reduce crime rates. However, I have resolved myself to the fact that the general public believes in the system so deeply, we are now stuck with it.

Keep in mind, before you are subjected to the NICS, you still have to fill out a 4473 form. On that form, it states that if you lied about anything which would disqualify you from purchasing or possessing a firearm, you have just committed a felony, punishable by up to 1 year in a federal prison. So what happens when someone who is prohibited because of a disqualifying action by them in their past, fills out a 4473 saying they are "legal" to purchase, but then the NICS flags them as being "illegal" to purchase. Have they not just committed a felony by lying on the 4473 form? How many of these people are ever prosecuted? How many of these people end up stealing a gun or buying one from the black market? If they had been prosecuted and put in prison for a year, that would stop them from getting a gun at least for a year. Unfortunately, we are not pushing those prosecutions very hard, if at all. I heard that Clinton/Reno prosecuted less than a dozen people. Also keep in mind, it's a felony under federal law for a "prohibited" person to even attempt to purchase a firearm. So, there's another area where we are lax on prosecuting people committing felonies.

[USAFNoDak]

To go the OP - I would like a little more information on the actual attempt to buy weapons.

1. What kind - to get past misinformation or mistakes in nomenclature.

2. Why did they not get what they wanted?

3. Legal barriers or practical barriers (money, time?).

If some legality stopped them - for example, they really wanted full - auto but couldn't do the NFA dance - then - this would be a great example for antigun folks. Laws stop terrorist attack.

Thus, the original OP sarcasm falls flat.

There wasn't a lot of information regarding that aspect of the news blurb. I did find this at one location:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/21/...obe/index.html

In an effort to get automatic weapons, one of Mehanna's co-conspirators approached Daniel Maldonado, a convert to Islam who was said to have contacts with gang members, according to the criminal complaint.

The co-conspirator traveled to New Hampshire to meet with Maldonado, who said he had access only to handguns. The alleged mall plan was subsequently abandoned, Loucks said.

So, it looks as though they did not try to get automatic weapons through any legal channels. I think we all know that would be very difficult as the feds have a tight grip on "legally" getting full autos. Still, the media would have us believe that getting machine guns is not all that difficult. According to the media's portrayal, terrorists can just go to a gun show and get anything they want. So I don't believe my sarcasm does fall flat, Glenn. My sarcasm was meant to point out the media's (and Michael Bloomberg's) portrayal of gun shows as third world arms bazaars where anything is for sale and anything can be bought without a background check. They want to close down gun shows. That is their ultimate goal.

Luckily, they didn't have any additional contacts who could have "illlegally" supplied them with full autos, such as the North Hollywood bank robbers had. I never heard how those guys acquired their full autos. Anyone have any info on that? Also keep in mind that the Chinese got caught smuggling full auto AK47's into California back in 96 or 97. Luckily, we caught one shipment. How many came in before and how many have come in after? We may never know.

[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.