All of which I 100% agree with. But since none of that is law, and we’re talking about Texas, my question remains – was there any reason for the dealer to think that this purchase might be over-the-line nutso?
Or, directly the the point, was there any reason the gun shop owner should have refused the sale?
Common sense. Just like a bartender, you have the authority and obligation to prevent this. We allow civil suits against bar owners and bartenders if a person legally purchases and consumes more alcohol than is safe and proceeds to get into a drunk driving incident…why is this different?
People arguing in bad faith keep pointing at technicalities which is standard practice for how the scum on the right deal with child murder.
It’s not a technicality to suggest that, in Texas, the gun store owner might not have had any way to distinguish this particular purchase from a whole host of other perfectly mundane purchases.
The problem is that such purchases may indeed be both mundane and lawful, not that this particular sale went through like all the others that didn’t culminate in mass murder (unless of course there really were cues, like insane rambling or threats that should have alerted this particular seller).
With that in mind, I say none of those sales–even the mundane ones–should go through. Fuck compromise. That’s the problem with liberals today (as opposed to proper leftists). They’re too damn worried about compromising with the fascist-loving elements of the Republican party to actually wield the levers of power effectively. Ban assault rifles. If that means that the 22 caliber carbine that ranchers like to have with them to shoot rattlesnakes (and that all the “whatabouters” just love to point to) also get banned, then so be it. For that matter, let’s require states to have well-regulated militias (according to standards enacted uniformly by Congress requiring actual military-level training of volunteers) and make membership and good standing in such an organization a pre-requisite to fire arm ownership. For starters.
And stack the Supreme Court if you have to.
And then let’s amend the Constitution to unfuck the second amendment to recognize we are well past a militia maintaining us as a free state (to the extent we are or were ever truly free).
Cite that there is any state where a bar/bartender can be held liable for legally serving someone a drink who then goes out and gets into a drunk driving incident regardless of whether the bartender had any reason to believe the person was intoxicated. I suppose it’s possible that there is one, but it is certainly not most. Remember that many states which impose liability on a bartender or bar prohibit serving a visibly intoxicated person, so that sale wasn’t really legal to begin with.
Sure. Assuming he sells guns at all he shouldn’t sell the type of guns most dangerous to other people without a background check, without a rational need for that type of gun, and with proof of the experience and training needed to safely handle such a gun. But unless it was illegal he was going to ignore all reasons to refuse the sale.
I knew a gunsmith and owner of a sporting goods store that sold guns. He’d never have guns like an AK-47 for sale although he might show you an Uzi or other automatic weapon he was repairing for FBI and Mossad agents. So it’s not every gun shop that leads to the problem, but I’m also sure there was another one not far away that would have sold an AK-47 or similar gun to anyone who could pay for it.
So with no way to tell the difference between someone who isn’t going to go on a murder spree in the next few day and one who will the solution is to sell them to anybody?
Of course. We cannot irresponsibly take the risk that a potential good guy with a gun might be inadequately armed for a brief period.
Please read the rest of my post, and then get back to me. I’d hate to think you are quoting me out of context on purpose.
I would like to know how many 18 year olds in or out of Texas actually buy $10,000 worth of guns and ammunition on their 18th birthday. It’s an amount that seems excessive. Yes, they’re of legal age, but the behavior must stand out, yes?
Not that it would change my mind (I will still believe that no one should be able to buy an AR-15, and the second amendment is both interpreted too permissively as written, and also that the second amendment should be overridden or substantially amended by a new amendment, even as I question just how much of a filter current gun laws really require a firearms dealer to be), but where is this $10,000 figure coming from? Is there a source for that?
While I am not defending anyone involved, but the shooter got a job and saved a large amount of money working at a minimum wage job. I would submit that a long waiting period wouldn’t haven’t helped here. He already waited and planned for months, what difference would a few more days make?
I agree that a waiting period helps in many situations, I disagree that someone as motivated as the shooter was would be deterred by waiting another week.
Apologies, I should have mentioned I was pulling that quote out of context, and on purpose, but not to reflect on the rest of your post. The phrasing of your first line just struck me.
Thank you. No doubt it would have come across as ironic/satirical in a spoken medium.
You are defending it. We’ve been over this over and over again and every fucking time a reasonable restriction is proposed the gun nuts come out of the woodwork to point out that said regulation wouldn’t PEFECTLY prevent every incident and therefore no steps should be taken. It’s one of the most common bad-faith arguments and the fact you’re vomiting it again here puts you squarely in league with child murders. Deal with it.
Also, the popular narrative is that the kid saved up $10k at some minimum wage job to buy these guns. We don’t know if that’s true or not. We don’t know if that money was supplemented by parents/family with 18th birthday presents. We don’t know if the kid sold a baseball card collection. He may have charged the majority on a credit card. We as of now have no idea where he came up with all that money for this. Likely at the least his parents provided his room and board making this kind of savings not that difficult in a short time. Still, it is a intentional distraction to be debating this point. Doesn’t matter where the fuck he got the money or how long it took him to get it. If it’s “normal” for a fresh 18 year old to buy this much death, we need to reassess things and stop finding idiotic excuses to maintain the status quo…like you just did.
Do your own homework…I’m not going to waste time in this thread debating another bullshit distraction from the actual problem.
This is surprisingly difficult to pin down. I was using a number from upthread, but I’ve done some research. The rifles (per this ABC story) cost $2000 each, plus scope adds $725 each, plus 1600 rounds of ammo (per this story). I’m not sure of the ammunition costs, so $8000, which is the earlier estimate that I had seen, may be more accurate. Either way, it seems like a lot for most teenagers to have access to.
Of course you are right. A three day waiting period would have saved all of those children.
Did I ever say that no steps should be taken? I was speaking about this case only.
Grandparents, he didn’t get along with his mother and moved out.
Look, I don’t know all the facts. YOU don’t know all the facts. However, I am now convinced that YOU are right and that a waiting period would have saved those kids.
@Sunny_Daze pretty accurately describes the current situation. There’s no official number that I’ve seen published with a receipt or anything (I’m sure the piece of shit gun salesman’s lawyers would try to keep this quiet). But it’s pretty easy to back into a close estimate based on the stuff reported as being carried by the shooter. He had something like $1200 worth of mags (not including ammo). Say what you will about someone buying that many guns or that much ammo, there’s no excuse for buying 60 fucking mags on the first day you buy the gun. That shit is willful negligence.
Ah, so the evidence is he did have a couple of high end ARs. So that might explain how it gets even close to 10k. But then again, that same ABC story you link to (thank you, by the way) notes that some places offer financing. So he might have only spent a few hundred dollars up front on each rifle, and that would actually make a lot of sense to take that option since he was planning to go out in a murderous rage anyway.
So… maybe the retail price of his purchases would have amounted to close to 10k. But then again, maybe he only had to shell out a few hundred dollars out of pocket. In which case, it’s no less surprising than a teenager working his first steady job assuming massive debt to buy a $40k new truck (happens all the time with new sailors, so much so we had training counseling against it, and yet still it happens).
Point being, doesn’t seem like the sort of purchase that would necessarily stand out in a rural Texas town where gun culture is pervasive.
The solution is to ban the sale of assault rifles and greatly limit the sale of other fire arms, not to rely on individual dealers to be the final backstop in a broken system.