Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So one of the attackers at the Garland Mohammad drawing contest lied on his firearm paperwork when he bought his gun. It has recently come to light that the dealer he bought the gun from was being used by the ATF to run guns under the Fast and Furious Program.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-garland-gun-20150801-story.html#page=1

It looks like the ATF missed a prime opportunity to prevent the attack.

Wait, this isn't about the movie..?

No, the fast and furious political gun-running scandal that got swept under the rug.

Gotta love that program Holder ran.

Yeah, because it's not as if he just couldn't get his guns anywhere else....

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, because it's not as if he just couldn't get his guns anywhere else....

Given his prior criminal history and drug use he was ineligible to purchase the weapon legally. The ATF run store turned a blind eye to this and approved the purchase.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, because it's not as if he just couldn't get his guns anywhere else....

Given his prior criminal history and drug use he was ineligible to purchase the weapon legally. The ATF run store turned a blind eye to this and approved the purchase.

"Legally" isn't the only way to acquire a gun, since someone who uses drugs and has a criminal history probably knows a guy who knows a guy.

And, given that this is Texas, where there is at least one gun show a month just in the DFW area, it wouldn't be that hard no matter what record you have.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, because it's not as if he just couldn't get his guns anywhere else....

Given his prior criminal history and drug use he was ineligible to purchase the weapon legally. The ATF run store turned a blind eye to this and approved the purchase.

"Legally" isn't the only way to acquire a gun, since someone who uses drugs and has a criminal history probably knows a guy who knows a guy.

And, given that this is Texas, where there is at least one gun show a month just in the DFW area, it wouldn't be that hard no matter what record you have.

You miss the irony here that he didn't have to go to a guy that knows a guy. The ATF program the Holder helped set up had all of his one stop illegal gun buying needs covered.

No, I didn't miss it. I just think it's a pointless connection. It's not as if the cartels wouldn't have got their guns anyway from any one of a hundred or more sources if the Fast and Furious operation had not existed.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, I didn't miss it. I just think it's a pointless connection. It's not as if the cartels wouldn't have got their guns anyway from any one of a hundred or more sources if the Fast and Furious operation had not existed.

Holder, however was more than happy to make sure he didn't have to associate with such shady characters.

Oi... it's amazing that this isn't a big dealio...

Not only did guns purchased in the Fast and Furious operation find their way into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, but they also found their way into the hands of a radical Islamic terrorist inside the US.

And the corruption and flagrant disregard for American laws goes on unabated. But God forbid somebody shoots a freak'in cat. Some country... huh?

 whembly wrote:
Oi... it's amazing that this isn't a big dealio...d

Not only did guns purchased in the Fast and Furious operation find their way into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, but they also found their way into the hands of a radical Islamic terrorist inside the US.

And the corruption and flagrant disregard for American laws goes on unabated. But God forbid somebody shoots a freak'in cat. Some country... huh?

It amazes me also that Fast and Furious shenanigans and it's fallout hasn't landed the initiators in hotter water than it did. Can you imagine the gak storm if multiple people had been killed at this convention because of this half asset program?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, I didn't miss it. I just think it's a pointless connection.

You think it's a pointless connection that the ATF ran a sting operation that ignored a person's ineligibility to purchase a firearm, approved it in contravention of their legal duties, and that person ends up trying to carry out a terrorist attack on US soil?

Your claim that he, or the Cartels, could have purchased weapons elsewhere is irrelevant. The fact is that Fast and Furious did exist. And the ATF used this program to provide these people with weapons. These weapons were then used by a Cartel member to kill a Border Patrol agent and possibly used in a terrorist attack on US soil (three handguns were being used and DoJ is still investigating whether or not the gun purchased from the ATF was used in the attack).

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, because it's not as if he just couldn't get his guns anywhere else....

Given his prior criminal history and drug use he was ineligible to purchase the weapon legally. The ATF run store turned a blind eye to this and approved the purchase.

"Legally" isn't the only way to acquire a gun, since someone who uses drugs and has a criminal history probably knows a guy who knows a guy.

And, given that this is Texas, where there is at least one gun show a month just in the DFW area, it wouldn't be that hard no matter what record you have.

That "gun show loophole" doesn't actually exist...you know that, right?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, I didn't miss it. I just think it's a pointless connection.

You think it's a pointless connection that the ATF ran a sting operation that ignored a person's ineligibility to purchase a firearm, approved it in contravention of their legal duties, and that person ends up trying to carry out a terrorist attack on US soil?

Your claim that he, or the Cartels, could have purchased weapons elsewhere is irrelevant. The fact is that Fast and Furious did exist. And the ATF used this program to provide these people with weapons. These weapons were then used by a Cartel member to kill a Border Patrol agent and possibly used in a terrorist attack on US soil (three handguns were being used and DoJ is still investigating whether or not the gun purchased from the ATF was used in the attack).

You seem to be making some pretty big false assumptions about what I said. The fact that the guns could have been acquired by other means is quite relevant. It is merely a coincidence, albeit a tragic one, that these guns came from F&F. These events would still have occurred if there had been no F&F, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. People who want guns will get guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, because it's not as if he just couldn't get his guns anywhere else....

Given his prior criminal history and drug use he was ineligible to purchase the weapon legally. The ATF run store turned a blind eye to this and approved the purchase.

"Legally" isn't the only way to acquire a gun, since someone who uses drugs and has a criminal history probably knows a guy who knows a guy.

And, given that this is Texas, where there is at least one gun show a month just in the DFW area, it wouldn't be that hard no matter what record you have.

That "gun show loophole" doesn't actually exist...you know that, right?

You do know that there are a ridiculous number of deals made in the parking lots and other nearby areas to these shows, right?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

That "gun show loophole" doesn't actually exist...you know that, right?

You do know that there are a ridiculous number of deals made in the parking lots and other nearby areas to these shows, right?

Not by licensed dealers.

And just for gaks and grins, where does one find stats on this 'ridiculous number of deals'? Or do you just assume this is true with no evidence?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
You seem to be making some pretty big false assumptions about what I said. The fact that the guns could have been acquired by other means is quite relevant. It is merely a coincidence, albeit a tragic one, that these guns came from F&F. These events would still have occurred if there had been no F&F, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort, rather I am taking exception to your minimizing the ATF's role in breaching the Federal law that they are tasked with upholding. The fact is that the ATF has been caught not only allowing weapons to be exported to Mexican cartels, but also permitted the purchase of a firearm to a prohibited person who then went on to attempt an act of terrorism. That is not coincidence. That is the ATF breaking the law.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
People who want guns will get guns.

Should we continue with background checks then?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
You do know that there are a ridiculous number of deals made in the parking lots and other nearby areas to these shows, right?

You mean private transfer of firearms? That isn't a loophole. It is a feature of the law, not an unintentional consequence.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
You seem to be making some pretty big false assumptions about what I said. The fact that the guns could have been acquired by other means is quite relevant. It is merely a coincidence, albeit a tragic one, that these guns came from F&F. These events would still have occurred if there had been no F&F, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort, rather I am taking exception to your minimizing the ATF's role in breaching the Federal law that they are tasked with upholding. The fact is that the ATF has been caught not only allowing weapons to be exported to Mexican cartels, but also permitted the purchase of a firearm to a prohibited person who then went on to attempt an act of terrorism. That is not coincidence. That is the ATF breaking the law.

And now you're making even more extraordinarily huge false assumptions about what I said, because I did no such thing. I do not, and never did, suggest, state, nor imply that the ATF did not break any laws. What I said is that the connection is pointless, as it is a tragic coincidence that the ATF provided guns were used in these events, but it still just a coincidence as these events would still have occurred even without F&F's existence. Feel free to stop willfully misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I am saying at any time.

Anyway, I'm done here, as it just isn't worth my time debating with people who twist my words to pursue their own agendas.

And with this thread, folks, we see how Holder and the administration were able to walk away from this without any consequence, even though people got killed because of it.
The old "someone else would have done it anyway"defense.

Relapse wrote:
And with this thread, folks, we see how Holder and the administration were able to walk away from this without any consequence, even though people got killed because of it.
The old "someone else would have done it anyway"defense.

You mean the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" defense?

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
And with this thread, folks, we see how Holder and the administration were able to walk away from this without any consequence, even though people got killed because of it.
The old "someone else would have done it anyway"defense.

You mean the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" defense?

If the Obama administration didn't do it, someone else would have sold those killers the guns, defense.

So like I said, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 d-usa wrote:
So like I said, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Whatever, the fact remains that Holder and the administration got off scot free because, somehow, liberals are willing to let them slide by on anything.

Edit: let me expand on my point.

To start of with: I think Fast and Furious was a clusterfeth and even if it was a good idea at some point it should have become very clear very fast that the plan wouldn't work and it should have been shut down at that time. There should have been way more fallout from that mess than what we have seen.

The problem with this particular story is that it is resulting in the same flawed talking points that we saw when the border patrol agent was killed: being able to buy this specific gun directly resulted in this murder and if he couldn't have purchased this weapon nobody would have died.

The problem with that argument is that it goes directly against the argument that we have been presented with over the past 20 years: that guns don't kill people and that people kill people. And that the gun is simply a tool, and if a bad guy can't get the gun he will just get another gun somehow, or murder you with a knife, or a hammer. And that the gun really is an insignificant part of the crime itself because he criminal is the problem and not the tools.

Trying to point out that F&F was a horrible operation: I agree with you.
Trying to turn this attack into something that wouldn't have happened without the guns in order to go "thanks Obama": counterproductive to the pro-2nd amendment crowd.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And now you're making even more extraordinarily huge false assumptions about what I said, because I did no such thing. I do not, and never did, suggest, state, nor imply that the ATF did not break any laws.

I never claimed that you did. Disagreeing with you for minimizing the ATF's role in this does not mean that I attributed the statement "the ATF did not break any laws" to you.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
What I said is that the connection is pointless, as it is a tragic coincidence that the ATF provided guns were used in these events, but it still just a coincidence as these events would still have occurred even without F&F's existence. Feel free to stop willfully misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I am saying at any time.

Anyway, I'm done here, as it just isn't worth my time debating with people who twist my words to pursue their own agendas.

He was ineligible to purchase a firearm legally due to his criminal background. The ATF approved him in spite of this.

When you say that this attack would have still occurred without the Fast and Furious program that is possible. But it refuses to take account of the actions of the ATF.

 d-usa wrote:
The problem with this particular story is that it is resulting in the same flawed talking points that we saw when the border patrol agent was killed: being able to buy this specific gun directly resulted in this murder and if he couldn't have purchased this weapon nobody would have died.

I didn't see that argument advanced prior in the thread, but on reflection after reading your comment had the ATF done their job correctly and arrested him for lying on Form 4473 (a felony) then it is conceivable that the Garland attack would never have taken place. At the very least there was a greater chance that he would have been on law enforcement radar (although having a housemate attempt to go to Somalia to wage Jihad didn't hinder him)

 d-usa wrote:
The problem with that argument is that it goes directly against the argument that we have been presented with over the past 20 years: that guns don't kill people and that people kill people. And that the gun is simply a tool, and if a bad guy can't get the gun he will just get another gun somehow, or murder you with a knife, or a hammer. And that the gun really is an insignificant part of the crime itself because he criminal is the problem and not the tools.

The criminal is the problem. As is the government agency that breaks the law to supply a weapon to the criminal.

 d-usa wrote:
Trying to turn this attack into something that wouldn't have happened without the guns in order to go "thanks Obama": counterproductive to the pro-2nd amendment crowd.

Except that does not seem to be the case here. People have been critical of the ATF, which I think is entirely justified in the circumstances.

The point isn't 'without the ATF this shooting wouldn't have happened,' but rather that 'this attack that happened turns out to have been at least partially facilitated by ATF negligence/malfeasance,' which is a valid point of conversation.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The point isn't 'without the ATF this shooting wouldn't have happened,' but rather that 'this attack that happened turns out to have been at least partially facilitated by ATF negligence/malfeasance,' which is a valid point of conversation.

So "guns don't kill people, people kill people" becomes "people kill people, but the killings are at least partially facilitated by guns"?

And that is the problem: the moment you argue that without his access to this specific gun the attack might not have happened you are supporting the argument that with harder access to guns the risk of crimes goes down.

The usual reply to any other case or scenario is "it won't matter, guns aren't the problem, criminals will get their guns anyway, the only person that suffers is the person that buys guns legally.

Mandatory waiting periods? It won't affect criminals, they will just buy their guns from other criminals, they will just steal the guns, they will find another way to attack someone.
Mandatory background checks between a private seller and buyer? It won't affect criminals, they will just buy their guns from other criminals, they will just steal the guns, they will find another way to attack someone.
Any other possible version of any gun law whatsoever? It won't affect criminals, they will just buy their guns from other criminals, they will just steal the guns, they will find another way to attack someone.

People in this thread, on Facebook, and the other usual places are now pretending like the ATF is somehow responsible for this attack (like they have previously done with the dead agent), implying that without that particular weapon it wouldn't have happened.

So without Fast & Furious a criminal doesn't get a gun? Now they won't just buy their guns from other criminals, they won't just steal the guns, and they will not find another way to attack someone.

And that is the danger you run into when you expand the argument from "Fast and Furious was a horrible program and heads should roll because of it" to "Fast and Furious is responsible for these attacks".

 d-usa wrote:
And that is the problem: the moment you argue that without his access to this specific gun the attack might not have happened you are supporting the argument that with harder access to guns the risk of crimes goes down.

How about the argument that had the ATF arrested the individual on a felony charge for purposefully concealing materials facts on his 4473, instead of approving it, then this may have prevented or deterred the attack?

Guns kill people when used as a tool by other people. They do not act of their own free will and volition. That the federal agency responsible for firearms has placed a firearm in the hands of someone ineligible to possess it (like a cartel member, or someone with a history of drug use and assault) raises a lot of questions, especially about their fitness for purpose.

You won't find me defending the program itself, that's for sure.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
The point isn't 'without the ATF this shooting wouldn't have happened,' but rather that 'this attack that happened turns out to have been at least partially facilitated by ATF negligence/malfeasance,' which is a valid point of conversation.

And that is the problem: the moment you argue that without his access to this specific gun the attack might not have happened you are supporting the argument that with harder access to guns the risk of crimes goes down.

Nobody argued that, though.

People in this thread, on Facebook, and the other usual places are now pretending like the ATF is somehow responsible for this attack (like they have previously done with the dead agent), implying that without that particular weapon it wouldn't have happened.

Nobody said the ATF was responsible for this attack, though. I didn't, at any rate.

So without Fast & Furious a criminal doesn't get a gun? Now they won't just buy their guns from other criminals, they won't just steal the guns, and they will not find another way to attack someone.

And that is the danger you run into when you expand the argument from "Fast and Furious was a horrible program and heads should roll because of it" to "Fast and Furious is responsible for these attacks".

Who changed the argument to that, though? Again, I certainly didn't. I don't think anyone here (certainly not me) is saying 'the ATF is responsible for this violent crime.' The man who pulled the trigger bears responsibility for that.

What the ATF is responsible for is facilitating the sale of a firearm, illegally, to a criminal who went on to use it for a violent crime. I don't think Eric Holder should be tried for the Garland shooting. That would be absurd. But someone within the ATF made a decision through malfeasance or criminal negligence that led to a violent crime being committed. This decision, separate and distinct from the violent crime itself, is also a crime, and should be punished.

If I had to speculate, I would say that the confusion comes from the prevailing attitude towards negligence/malfeasance that could facilitate criminal actions often equating to 'no harm, no foul.' If no one had actually been harmed as a result of Fast and Furious, I don't think most people would really care. But in this case, there is a foul, there was harm, and someone needs to be held accountable. Not for the actions of a drug addict and violent criminal, but for the illegal actions they actually undertook/ordered to be undertaken.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.