Company: Gunman, Virginia Tech shooter used same Web dealer

[whopis01]

Source: CNN

A firearms dealer in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Friday confirmed a bizarre link between the graduate student accused of killing five people at Northern Illinois University and the gunman in last year's deadly shootings at Virginia Tech.

A Web site used to buy gun accessories by Steven Kazmierczak is owned by the same company that operates a site patronized by Seung-Hui Cho, the company said.

Kazmierczak ordered two 9 mm Glock magazines and a holster for a Glock handgun from the Web site February 4, said a statement released by TGSCOM Inc.

He received them February 12, two days before the NIU shootings, it said.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html

[bobthedrummer]

1. "The coincidence is uncanny" by Bill Glauber and Gina Barton

(2-15-2008 Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

State gun dealer sold to both NIU, Va. Tech gunmen
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718679

[Bobbieo]

3. Sure, it is tough for poor Eric Thompson and his company to go through this tragedy

But somehow I think they will survive and be able to keep on selling guns to whomever wants them for more campus shootouts. Bet he is a Republican!!

Of course he is a McCain fan if he came from Arizona and sells guns.

[bobthedrummer]

4. Gee Bobbieo, just think-he and his family moved here from Phoenix, AZ

to avoid crime and violence and corruption.

Fwiw, we've got the offspring of real NAZIS up here, some of them holding political office with their American cousins-and that isn't an uncanny coincidence.

[MetaTrope]

100. Phoenix?

Did he get uncomfortable with all the al-Qaeda college students in his home town?

[bobthedrummer]

104. "Escape to Wisconsin-like Nazis, neocons, organized crime and black ops did"

(active thread started by me, bobthedrummer, July 27, 2007) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x21683

[DUlover2909]

2. Guns don't kill people, they just make it too easy.

Freaking ridiculous that any nut can arm himself so easily.

[SteveM]

69. What would you suggest? How do you define "nut?"

[DUlover2909]

84. It's a tough question and I really don't know the answer.

[krispos42]

5. Not particularly surprising

Due to the diversity in designs of handguns, and to the diversity in styles, materials, designs, and manufacturers of holsters carrying a complete selection in a store is hard. Online is much easier to catalogue, and even the less-common stuff sells, so you don't have inventory sitting around for years.

In both shootings a Glock pistol was used.

[EFerrari]

11. Right. And if they used similar search terms, the odds of the same

vendor coming up would seem to be good.

[pitohui]

14. this is true

i haven't heard anyone say the seller didn't do the required checks, i heard the opposite, that he did the checks and neither person came up as being blocked from buying a gun

given that a business person can't be asked to be a psychic, not sure what else he could have done


some days it just don't pay to get up in the morning, through no fault of one's own

now if it comes out that school shooter hobbyists have a club where they swap the names of the "easy" sellers, it would be a different matter, but i don't believe it without evidence -- what we appear to have is that two men did a "google" searching for the same thing and they probably found the same seller because the guy has good advertising placement or better prices than others online or both

[onehandle]

6. Hooray Guns!

Whenever I'm really really angry, I just cuddle my Glock and I feel much much better.

America, Fuck Yeah!

[SteveM]

72. I own 7 guns and have never "cuddled" one. Since you have, how does it feel?

[Elspeth]

7. The question is who is the gun dealer tied to ?

:tinfoilhat:

[Exultant Democracy]

9. This is a whisper the echos in my worst nightmares, thankfully as of yet it look pretty far fetched.

But we do know that some people benefit when we amp up the fear factor.

[bobthedrummer]

10. Well, if Mr. Thompson is a Republican the former Brown County (GB) Republican

Party Chairman, Donald Fleischman, was charged with sex crimes against "runaway" adjudicated children and others that were ensconced in a rural property of Mr. Fleischman. But those charges were "dropped".

If Mr. Thompson is a Republican he might have had some dealings with Mr. Fleischman, especially as a small businessman dealing in firearms.

Here's just a couple of articles about the former Brown County Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Donald Fleischman.

"Green Bay GOP Party Chair Indicted on Child Sex Crimes" (posted by goofticket 10-13-2007 on uppitywis.org)
http://www.uppitywis.org/green-bay-gop-party-chair-indicted-on-child-sex-crimes

"Teen Gay Sex Charges Dropped Against Brown County GOP Ex-Head" by Michael Horne (11-8-2007 Milwaukee World)
http://www.milwaukeeworld.com/blog/2007/11/teen-gay-sex-charges-dropped-against.html

[rAVES]

8. They both used guns too

[bobthedrummer]

12. bttt

[bobthedrummer]

13. This aspect alone is now world news-the fact that the same gun dealer, Eric Thompson, sold to two

mass murderers from his Green Bay business.

Kick.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. Same gun dealer sold to 2 campus killers

Source: Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. - The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.

Eric Thompson said his Web site, http://www.topglock.com, sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide.

Another Web site run by Thompson's company, http://www.thegunstore.com, also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

"I'm still blown away by the coincidences," Thompson said Friday. "I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting_gun_dealer

[file83]

16. A merchant of death "can't believe" that someone would actually kill with his hardware?

What an idiot.

Maybe he's not surprised his stuff was used to kill, just that his stuff was used in two mass killings at college campus'.

Still, he's an idiot.

[MercutioATC]

19. "Merchant of Death"???

The guy sells guns....legally.

I have personal experience with Topglock...they're a great company. This is NOT a shady operation.

[villager]

29. Yup, "Merchant of Death," as in "guns are designed to kill things."

n/t

[MercutioATC]

34. Guns are designed to facilitate the launch of a projectile....nothing more.

...as are bows...and your arm...

There are legitimate uses for guns that have nothing to do with taking human life (hunting) or any life (target shooting).


A gun is no more dangerous than a car in the hands of a sane, careful person...and cars kill many more each year than guns.

[villager]

36. The purpose of a gun is to kill -- either humans or animals. Although yes, you can practice with it.

But that's not *why* they are made. If you only wanted target practice, you could use paintballs or something else.

Gun folk love their guns, but also love to weasel out of owning the idea of what guns are made *for*.

[Pavulon]

51. What is the purpose of a 20w

carbon dioxide laser. COMPLETELY unregulated. I work for a company that manufacturers very high end laser (among other) cutting rigs. This device is UNREGULATED. A co2 laser is unregulated and is not visible to the human eye. However it will burn a hole through your head in about a second.

This device has many potentially illegal uses. However it is a tool. Just like a firearm.

[file83]

59. A firearm is a tool, but it's only purpose is to kill living creatures.

There is no other function it can serve, unless you want to get smart and say shotguns can be used for shooting old branches off trees. While that might be true, it's not it's main purpose, that is not why the shotgun was designed.

The same can NOT be said for a CO2 laser. A CO2 laser is a just one type of laser in general, which have been developed to perform many DIFFERENT functions ranging from reading the binary patterns off your DVD, to surgery, to weaponary, to aiding autonomous robot vehicles in navigation (LIDAR).

Lasers: designed AND applicable for many functions
Guns: designed for ONE function

[SteveM]

75. I hunt and kill game animals to eat. Got a problem with that?

[file83]

96. No, what gave you that idea?

All I said is that guns are for killing. You seem to agree, and that's the only point I was making.

As for the morality of killing, I'm not judging as every context is different. I just don't like it when people try to make believe that guns were designed for anything but killing.

[NickB79]

105. I seriously doubt Olympic-class target rifles were designed to kill

Unless you count the trees cut down to make the paper targets.

If the only point of guns is to kill, then they do a horrible job of it, considering the 4 BILLION rounds of ammunition sold in this country each year for 200 million guns to fire. We should all be dead hundreds of times over.

[ptolle]

81. BS

Maybe if you were laying under the thing, but can you carry one onto a campus and into a classroom and dispatch someone at say 20-25 meters with one. I call BS on a disingenuous weasel.

[Riktor]

60. Guns are inanimate objects...

... and their sole purpose is whatever their owners dictate. I could very well leave a gun atop my desk, and it's ultimate purpose would be to act as an overpriced paperweight. Killing just happens to be one of the more common purposes guns are assigned.

Now, on the subject of killing, you speak as if all situations in which a human life comes to an end are ultimately equal. That is to say, you are equating a situation in which a disturbed individual struts into a crowded room and unloads into everyone he sees, and, say, a police officer who defends himself, or others, in the line of duty (such as the situation that took the life of "Dimebag Darrel" Abbot). Clearly, these situations, while sharing somewhat similar outcomes, are not the same. Therefore, one may sell weapons with the expectation, however improbable it may be, they will not be used to take the life of an innocent person.

[Paladin]

67. Helpful Hint

Everybody---even the most rabid gun banner---recognizes that guns do not, in and of themselves, kill things. When somebody says something like "Guns are designed to kill," what they mean is "Guns are utilized by individuals to kill." You guncentrics seem to think this whole "Guns are like paperweights" argument makes the other side look stupid; the exact opposite is in fact true.....

[SteveM]

73. Another hint...

Are you sure "even the most rabid gun banner (many of whom are on these pages) recognize that guns do not, in and of themselves, kill things"? If that were the case, then why do so many gun banners advocate prohibition?
We have criminal laws and police and reasonable self-defense to deal with the criminals; yet so many gun banners still cling desperately to prohibitionism of an object.

Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder. Read through some of the antis here and elsewhere for examples -- like prohibition.

[Riktor]

87. Your presumption will get you nowhere

I am not a "guncentric". I have never owned a gun, and never will. However, that is entirely beside the point.

The fact of the matter is that your ilk goes out of their way to pander to people's softer side with broad generalizations and appeals to emotion. "Guns are designed to kill" is a generalization and a play on words designed to present an air of moral superiority and derision, i.e., fallacy. I'm not for for against guns, I'm against people perpetuating the state of a lazy and illogical national discourse.

[SteveM]

70. There are tens of millions of us. Do you really hate us all, Villager?

[krispos42]

98. Yup, that's right

They are made to deliver lethal force.

Now it's your turn to admit that delivering lethal force is not always a bad thing.

[Lorien]

39. Lol! You have GOT to be kidding us

guns ARE designed for one thing and one thing only: KILLING.

I had a friend who was a sane, careful person once. But not careful enough; his four year old son got a hold of his gun and played with it until the gun did what it was designed to do; it killed him. My friend then very efficiently took his own life with a gun a few years later. It's a tool for killing, period.

[MercutioATC]

41. See, this is what gives guns a bad name....careless owners.

I'm truly to hear about your friend and his son.

That said, any gun owner who makes it possible for a child (or anybody) to handle a loaded gun without instruction or supervision is NOT being "careful".

A gun is a tool. It's no more dangerous than a car or a chainsaw in the hands of somebody who is educated and careful.

[Nevernose]

58. Funny, I've never cut down a tree w/ a gun before.

A car is a tool for getting to work on time.
A chainsaw is a tool for cutting down trees.
A gun is a tool for killing things.

There are quite a few automobile deaths every year, but very few automobile or chainsaw related murders. When we forget that guns are meant for killing, we get careless and complacent. Anything designed for killing deserves more respect than that.

There are a lot of better arguments you could make for the private ownership of guns. "The Gun Is Just a Tool" ain't one of them.

And yes, I not only know how to shoot (very poorly, I might add), but own several firearms.

[Riktor]

61. Not exactly...

A gun is a mechanical instrument used for the explicit purpose of launching projectiles at very high speeds. Where those projectiles land is entirely up to the user. Some people purchase a gun with the expectation of placing those projectiles into the meatier parts of their fellow man, while some purchase a gun for the relatively mundane purpose of putting those projectiles into a tin can.

I've fired a few rounds in my life, but I've never owned a gun, an probably never will. Nevertheless, there are a contingent of people out there who shoot as a hobby, and have no intention, nor expectation, of shooting anything other than paper, tin, or clay. Guns are not solely made for killing, and there are plenty of Match grade pistols and rifles, all of which are completely unsuited for self-defense, to support this claim.

[northzax]

68. oh, this is precious

Detailing a gun as simply a machine to propell a projectile at high kinetic energy in a specifed direction is ignoring the essential nature of that projectile, which is to destroy what it hits. Technically, of course, you are completely correct, but it is like describing a gps-navigated bomb as 'a way to ensure an object, using only gravtiyy for propulsion, lands in a specified place.' you are ignoring why you would want such an object to land there, and what it does once it hits, which is destroy. When people start ignoring the essential purpose of a device in describing its technical specs, I wonder what they are hiding from.

[SteveM]

71. So, tell us what tens of millions of Americans are "hiding from?"

[northzax]

88. anyone who does not understand that the primary purpose of almost all

guns (I say almost all because some have specialized other tasks, like target shooting, which is simulated killing anyway) is killing another living creature should not own a gun. Can you think of a single reason to have a gun that does not involve violence, the threat of violence or simulated violence? I can't. Save perhaps historical collections, but even that is the memory of violence. Guns, when used for their intended purpose are for killing things, threatening to kill things or pretending to kill things. Please do share, if you think there are millions of people in the US who have guns who don't think they are for killing, what are they for?

Please note: very few handguns are ever used to kill someone, or even shoot someone, the whole point in owning them, however, is that they could. If you don't get that, I hope to god you don't own one.

[krispos42]

99. Yes, exactly

And nearly all gun owners are law-abiding people that either only visit violence against harmful or tasty animals, or only use the threat of gun violence against a criminal aggressor or other threat.

Threatening violence can be either good or bad, depending on the circumstances. Too many people see it as a univeral bad, which results in "zero tolerence" thinking.

[northzax]

103. no doubt

I am just concerned when a putative adult makes the claim that firearms are not inherently objects of violence. Violence is not inherently wrong, but people need to understand the logical consequences of the use of a firearm. When used as designed, something gets hurt, that's kind of the point of them. And if someone needs to make tortured arguements about why that isn't the case, they are to immature to have that life or death responsibility.

[Riktor]

86. You are making a glaring omission...

...in the claim that because firearms were invented as a means of killing, that killing is their purest "purpose". However, modern guns, like knives, are designed with a variety of applications in mind. You could buy a knife suited for cleaving, boning, or simply applying butter to your bread. Or, you could buy a knife suited for throwing or fighting. Would you run around Macy's warning people against the evils of flatware because the gladius was once the most effective killing device until the invention of the firearm?

Face it, a .22LR rifle was invented for plinking, not for killing. Just like the butter knife was not invented for skinning animals.

[northzax]

90. plinking? What's the point of plinking?

besides training for hunting? It is simulated hunting. Sure, that gun won't kill much, but it is a good way to train before moving up to something else that can. It's a toy. The presence of go-carts didn't affect the purpose of automobiles, they just demonstrate it on a different scale.

And tell me, if you and a friend were both carrying .22LRs, do you point them at eachother? Or only point them at something you want to shoot? The latter, right? Not because you think it will kill anyone, but you respect its ability to injure, right?

[Riktor]

91. Right, and...

... video games are murder simulators? Axe throwing competitions are really Viking-in-training programs?

[northzax]

92. some video games

are certainly combat simulations. After all, if a good poker simulator can make you a better poker player, and a good flight simulator can make you a better pilot, why can't a good combat simulator make you a better combat soldier? And yes, the only reason you would need to throw an axe is to hit a target capable of either fighting or fleeing. Trees are not especially well known for moving, you can often just walk up next to them and hit them. As it happens, few people carry axes designed as offensive weapons, but a tomahawk, for instance, is not that good for chopping wood.

[Riktor]

97. Armchair psychology, at best

You are overlooking the human ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. While violent video games have shown, with some accuracy, to excite the aggression response in the brain, that excitation is short lived, dissipating soon after the average gamer shuts the game down. Thus, shooting at tin cans does not necessarily imply a rooted desire to kill anything.

[northzax]

101. no, you misread what I wrote.

practice doesn't make you more likely to kill some (or pilot a plane, or enter the world series of poker) it makes you more likely to succeed if you ever do attempt to use those tools in the ways they were intended. This is why there are pistol ranges. learning to shoot is as much a martial art as judo. I practiced kendo in japan, was I ever planning to take a katana and kill someone? Of course not. But there was a time when I certainly could have, technically.

[Riktor]

106. The question here is motivation

Earlier in this thread, it was stated there is no point to plinking, other than simulating the act of killing. While that might be a motivating factor in some weapons enthusiasts, the art of shooting isn't that much different than any other sport. It is a competitive behavior, testing the hand-eye-coordination of those who partake. For some, the very competitiveness of the activity may be motivation enough to become enthralled with it. For others, the desire to master an inherently difficult activity may lead to the same end. Regardless, school shooters and the like typically don't display a refined ability with firearms. They burst into rooms with high-capacity weapons and unload as many rounds as possible. Similarly, gang bangers unload on their targets... "spray and pray", if you will.

Learning to shoot, like learning a martial art, can teach discipline if properly instructed. That's where I'm coming from.

[SteveM]

77. I hunt. So what's your problem with that? Like your cats.

[LeftyMom]

76. Guns aren't just for killing people! They're also for killing animals and practicing killing!

Do you guys really believe in this shit, or do you just think the rest of us are really gullible?

[SteveM]

78. See my posts above re: hunting. Got a problem with it? Tell me.

[LeftyMom]

79. I just did. Killing for fun is a hobby for psychos.

[SteveM]

82. You have labeled tens of millions of fellow Americans "psycho:"

Just to clean up a few details: when I shoot deer, squirrels, dove, ducks, etc., field dress them, quarter and self-butcher them, I am assured that I will not get a chemistry lesson from the characters in your comic strip.

As for the broader picture, I'm willing to bet that far, FAR more damage is done to animal populations by huge agricultural tracts than by some hunter who is killing and eating an animal living in relative balance within its ecosystem. But the vegetarian must pay for fuel to harvest, fuel to ship, fuel to produce utilities for the store, fuel for you to go fetch your product. Yet, you will go blithely along, unaware of the havoc which 3,000 square MILES of bottom land habitat cleared for ag in one area of Louisiana alone has visited upon the animals, birds, reptiles and flora which USED to live in that bottom land. We all kill to live. You don't want to own up to that. That is why you must project your own "guilt" for killing onto others by calling them "psycho."

Got soybeans?

[LeftyMom]

83. Yep, never heard that stupid argument before...

:eyes:

I'm sorry, you seem to have got off track. We're talking about the mental illness implications in investing one's self-worth in an object whose only purpose is killing.

[panzerfaust]

95. most HANDGUNS are MADE to KILL PEOPLE

Very few are just for targets.

And save your breath. I live in Texas, have over half-a-dozen guns: And yes, my .357 mag with 440 grain, hollow point, hand-loads ain't fer rabbits - I've never killed anyone with it, but would not hesitate an instant if my family were threatened.

I've got a nice .22 cal target pistol too.

[lanlady]

50. I'm with you, villager

Guns have one purpose only, and that's to kill. In the Middle East, guys strap bombs to themselves, blow up innocent people, and we call them terrorists. In this country, we prefer to shoot innocent people en masse, This, too, is terrorism, and is just as indefensible as its Middle Eastern variant. In my book this gun shop owner is an accessory to murder and to terrorism.

[MercutioATC]

17. Topglock is a great site....tens of thousands of satisfied customers...

Thegunstore is also a large site (though I have no personal experience with it).

The point I'm trying to make is that this is like McDonalds selling Bic Macs to two people who later died of congestive heart failure...

[ulysses]

20. no, it's actually more like McDonald's selling Big Macs

to two people who later killed two other people with congestive heart failure. The analogy doesn't quite follow.

[MercutioATC]

23. Either way, it doesn't apply....

These companies operate legally. They're selling a legal product.

As long as applicable laws were followed (and I'm sure they were) this is an example of an unmedicated mentally ill person breaking the law. There is no "Merchant of Death" issue here...

[ulysses]

24. I'm not arguing the legality.

I have no reason to believe that the transaction wasn't legal. The moral question is another issue, however.

I'm not against private gun ownership, but the fact that both shooters bought from the same source should make us pause and question.

[MercutioATC]

26. My point was that the source here is like McDonalds....

...tens of thousands of customers. It's not odd that this would happen, despite Eric's statement.


...and if you look at what these sites sold them ( a .22 and some magazines), I don't see the "morality" issue...regardless of how anti-gun somebody may be

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. The free publicity is good for business

All these links in all these news articles bring a lot of "foot traffic" into his stores.

Business is booming.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. He's "blown away" by the coincidences

Poor choice of words, Eric.

[onehandle]

22. "I'm still blown away by the coincidences"

He should be jailed just for that comment.

[michreject]

62. On what charge?

[boilinmad]

64. Of being...

....a gun loving idiot, perhaps? If only.

[RamboLiberal]

25. I've purchased from TopGlock - Big F'in deal

The guy has the business acumen to have a big group of internet sites that sells guns & gun accessories legally. There is no law against purchasing gun accessories like magazines, holsters, mag pouches, sights, even ammo via the net except in some localities which these sites observe. And for a gun he still has to ship it to an FFL where the paperwork and the background check has to be done, not to the buyer.

[doc03]

27. So if two wackos purchase guns at

Cabela's and then kill someone Cabela's is a merchant of death. If the Chevy dealer sells a car to a guy then he gets drunk and kills someone with the car it's the dealer's fault. Or should we prosecute the guy who sold him the beer. That's f---ing stupid. :crazy:

[villager]

30. The purpose of a Chevy isn't to kill (well, except maybe planet), but the purpose of a gun, is.

I've never understood the cowardice of gun folk in copping to this simple fact: Guns are designed to kill.

Even if you target practice with them, that's not their purpose.

You want to own the gun? Then own its intentions.

[doc03]

32. An chainsaw is also designed to kill pretty effectively

It takes a f---ing nut to use it for that purpose.

[villager]

35. Newsflash: A chainsaw is actually designed to cut lumber, branches, etc.

A gun is actually designed for killing.

Unless you perforate your wood with a submachine gun, I dunno...

[merwin]

43. The purpose of a gun is not to kill innocent people.

The purpose of a gun is for hunting and protection. Saying that it's for "killing" is too broad. It could also be used for killing snails, but that doesn't mean that its purpose is for killing snails.

Somebody using a gun to purposely kill innocent people is equal to someone using a car to purposely kill innocent people, which does happen on occasion.

[boilinmad]

65. My GOD....

...why cant you gun lovers just own up to what Villager is saying. The ONLY purpose of a gun is to KILL. PERIOD. GUNS FUCKING SUCK.

[merwin]

93. The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile.

What the person chooses to do with it is his own decision. Just because you can use a gun to kill people doesn't mean that it's only purpose is to kill. I personally like to target shoot, not hunt.

[bobthedrummer]

28. This is a duplicate thread.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

31. Sorry. I searched and didn't see the another.

Do you have the link? I'll alert the mods.

[bobthedrummer]

33. It's in LBN started by whopis01 at 11:04 am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3184867

[Lone_Star_Dem]

37. Thanks!

I'm alerting now. :hi:

[pitohui]

40. oh i didn't see that, i also sent a request to merge these two thread s EOM

m

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. Thank you, pitohui

Being Saturday night the mods are (hopefully) enjoying a bit of R&R. I'm sure they'll fix my mistake as soon as they're able though.

[truthisfreedom]

38. More and more evidence that gun sales are out of control in this country.

We need a new system, or we need massive gun control.

[merwin]

44. Because a few wackos go around and kill some people?

Why not go for knife control laws as well? Those kill thousands of people every year as well.

The only reason this is getting so much attention is that it killed/injured a number of people at once. The media is going to focus on an event that kills 10 people at once instead of 10 separate events that kill one person at a time. It's the same reason a huge fuss is made about the FAA and airplane safety when a plane crashes, even though traveling by plane is by far the safest method of travel.

[billbuckhead]

47. Why not stronger knife laws?

Stronger regulation of cars, explosives, doctors, etc, why not?

[boilinmad]

66. ARHGHHHHHHH....

.....:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[truthisfreedom]

74. Show me the knife statistics. You just made that sh*t up.

Thousands killed with knives MY ASS.

[SteveM]

80. You might like this joke, attributed to Dick Gregory the comic:

"Wait a minute, wait a minute, officer. You have the nerve to ask me how come Negroes do so much cutting? 'Cause you don't sell us no damn guns!" -- FACT (magazine), Vol. 1, issue 2, March-April, 1964.

Some folks might think Gregory's joke was self-inflicted racism. Actually, it is a look into the profoundly racist history of gun-control laws in which ante-bellum Southern states specifically barred blacks from owning guns, enacted more such laws under the "Black Codes" and the Jim Crow era, and have continued with more restrictions in black areas today. (See Washington D.C., Chicago.) You might want to check out the www.georgiacarry.com brief, submitted in the Heller case. That should clean things up.

People of all races will kill with whatever is on hand. What do you propose, gun prohibition?

[benEzra]

107. 1,822 in 2006, and 1,914 in 2005 (which is about ten times as many as from "assault weapons" FWIW).

Show me the knife statistics. You just made that sh*t up.

Thousands killed with knives MY ASS.

The number of people murdered with edged weapons was 1,822 in 2006, and 1,914 in 2005. Which, FWIW, is about ten times as many as from "assault weapons." Back when the murder rate was higher than it is now (e.g., 1980s, early '90s), the annual knife murder rate would have been well over 2000/yr.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

[HuffleClaw]

42. so?

hey, here's a headline!

'Research finds x% of drunk drivers bought their gas at a Shell station"

[lanlady]

46. can someone please sue this gun dealer's ass?

He's selling WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION to disturbed young people, and we're supposed to shrug this off as a second f****ng amendment right? BULLSHIT. Shut him down and sue his ass.

[Pavulon]

48. Be sure to Sue Southern States AG supply

They sell ammonium nitrate. I mean just because an inert fertilizer can be used to make a high explosive makes it a WMD.

A 22 is not a WMD. I would bet he killed his victims with the shotgun. Far deadlier than a peashooting 22.

[lanlady]

53. how many shots did the Va Tech killer get off?

200+ shots in a couple of minutes. That's some pea shooter.

[Pavulon]

54. From the .22

a weapon that is useless unless pressed to your head?

Mcveigh killed more. Not much more effort required.

[BadgerLaw2010]

56. Sue for what?

Empty clips and holsters aren't even background check material and the buyer would pass any check regardless because he had no record.

There's not even negligence here, let alone anything else.

[MercutioATC]

85. He's LEGALLY selling a LEGAL product.

What exactly has he done that merits legal action?

[ToughLuck]

49. So is he going to finally wise up and not sell online??...asshole

[Pavulon]

52. FFL transaction..

for the ignant this means you have to show up at a dealer ans complete the yellow form and under go the required checks to purchase in your area.

not ebay.

[sendero]

63. You sure find out in a hurry here..

... that folks who haven't jack squat of an idea what they are talking about have no problem making that fact known.

To elaborate on your post, there is no difference in background checks whether you purchase at a local brick and mortar or over the net.

Because to legally sell a gun through the mail, the firearm must be shipped to a licensed dealer, someone holding a "FFL", Federal Firearm License, and you have to go to that dealer and pick it up.

The FFL holder must have you fill in the background check form, and they call the FBI and get a go or no go.

[pop goes the weasel]

55. probably got the url from the earlier shooting

I suspect Kazmierczak saw the web site name and url in a newstory on the Virginia Tech shootings.

In any case, guns aren't the problem. I live in a small town in a rural county. People with guns outnumber people without guns, yet somehow we manage to not have a gun violence problem. Or even much of an accidental shooting problem (there was ONE incident in the last decade). It could very well be that the reason we don't have a gun violence problem is that folks around here think of guns as something to shoot varmints with, or to protect the homestead for the thirty minutes it will take for the sheriff to get out to wherever you are.

The problem is people. People who get involved in crime. People abusing drugs. People with mental health crises. People. You can't fix all the people either, without endangering civil liberty. But you can do something to improve the social environment so that fewer people get caught up in crime or drugs or have mental health problems. Because if you leave the social problems as they are, but limit gun ownership, all you are doing is ensuring that violent people will find another way of causing mayhem. But fix the social problems, and gun violence will go down regardless of gun ownership.

[IsItJustMe]

89. If I was him, I would get the hell out of the business? Just saying, damn.

[panzerfaust]

94. "I'm still blown away by the coincidences"

Actually, the victims were "blown away"

This could be a reliable niche market?

Gosh. Maybe you should not be able to buy guns by mail?

[bobthedrummer]

57. bttt

[Steerpike]

102. Reminds me of that quote....

"When you abso-fucking-lutely have to kill everyone in the room!"