Hey, a mod being reasonable, and not acting like ACFAH!
Huh ? Man .. either you or I, or both of us, are off or something because I am just not getting you lately ..heh . Maybe we need some counseling or somethin'.
Hey, a mod being reasonable, and not acting like ACFAH!
Did you not get the abbreviation?Huh ? Man .. either you or I, or both of us, are off or something because I am just not getting you lately ..heh . Maybe we need some counseling or somethin'.
If she really wants to, you think physically pulling her back from the edge of the bridge will stop her ?Most of the suicides don't involve terminally ill or dying people, they also don't involve a government ban. If a teen age girl wants to jump of a bridge, because her boyfriend broke up with her, should one physically stop her or let her make that choice.
People who should not be allowed to be armed should not be free to walk the streets. It is that simple.In a modeling exercise, they would [theoretically] model the process and the data (data model, support model, process model, service model). So they would have to model the whole process so there were checks and balances, such that an error in a DSM-V code could be contested. The whole thing needs to be thought through by greater minds than ours; but I think we can all agree that it would be nice if shit like Sandy Hook never happened again. There are people that should be armed, people that should not be armed, and a clearly broken process determining the who and what of the situation. There are already laws on the books to keep felons and mentally defective nutjobs from getting their hands on weapons; but obviously the laws are not working as designed.
In most cases yes.If she really wants to, you think physically pulling her back from the edge of the bridge will stop her ?
Then she didnt really want to.In most cases yes.
Then she didnt really want to.
Walmart made me show my carry permit to buy ammo last week. This world is getting weird. A carry permit for 45 ACP ammo from Winchester? Really?
Changed the thread title to the name of the linked article simply because..well, the title "Pure Bullshit !" (regardless of how appropriate or not of a response to its content) isn't especially descriptive to what it's about.
I think the guy should have refused the sale. She wanted to buy the same gun that is a little odd. Well what happened to the last one he should have wondered. Plus the call from the mother why he would get involved in that is beyond me. Look at how it turned out.
Your have a point but as a cop you probably know some people give off a vibe. I'm sure there is some people that you just know something is wrong with. One of my customers just creeps me out. If I owned a gun store would that be enough on its own not to sell him a gun, no. I would prob sell him a gun but the phone call from the mother plus a duplicate purchase would be enough for me to refuse the sale.I own multiples of some of my guns. Just saying. Maybe she wanted two the same as well.
I think the guy should have refused the sale. She wanted to buy the same gun that is a little odd. Well what happened to the last one he should have wondered. Plus the call from the mother why he would get involved in that is beyond me. Look at how it turned out.
I agree completely. The possibility of a buyer who is not fit to possess a firearm is reason enough to refuse a sale. If the buyer does not like the dealer's attitude, she can go to another FFL who sees no problem with the sale.2. An impassioned phone call to a local gun store is not indicative of anything necessarily other than a reactionary family member. Though, this combined with the observable state of the customer who was the subject of the call could be a reason to decline sale. Slippery case, with no real good answer, as it can go either way easily. It could just as well have been a perfectly sane and healthy person with a senile and deranged parent off their meds.
Observing her nervousness at time of purchase, coupled with the call warning about her condition, I DEFINITELY would not have allowed this woman to purchase any firearm at my place of business. That is because I, unlike most FFL dealers, have a conscience and am interested in preventing crime MORE than I am interested in making a buck at the expense of others. Ta ta
Understood. However, the phone caller tipped the scales. Caller could have been lying, or whatever, or could have been truthful. Weighing the $60 profit benefit against the possibility odds (50-50) of caller being bogus or truthful, I would have opted for truthful. I would have lost $60 but prevented the possible loss of license or even worse. I also get nervous when doing certain things. Nervousness was not the issue here, if not for the phone call.As an FFL is it common for people to get nervous when they fill out the paperwork? I don't know why I get nervous every time I fill out a 4473. I've never been denied but I don't know why I get nervous filling the paperwork out. I was a fireman and did all sorts of crazy stuff during training and never got as nervous as I do when I fill out the stupid form. Just curious if I'm the only oddball.
Just curious if I'm the only oddball.
Understood. However, the phone caller tipped the scales. Caller could have been lying, or whatever, or could have been truthful. Weighing the $60 profit benefit against the possibility odds (50-50) of caller being bogus or truthful, I would have opted for truthful. I would have lost $60 but prevented the possible loss of license or even worse. I also get nervous when doing certain things. Nervousness was not the issue here, if not for the phone call.
I think you missed this part.call the gun store but not the police ?/....OR...the authority that permitted the permit?? Tragic event but fingering the store alone is the easy way
I think you missed this part.
She called the police. Then ATF. After that, the FBI.
Honestly If her mom called him to say don't sell her a gun she has mental illness do t sell the girl the gun. Yes of course she will
Go 10 miles away and buy another one and kill herself. Sure it's sad, but not the fault of the gun owner. Honestly this looks really bad for the industry. For the money he received he should have passed on the sale. He got $60.00 and it cost him 2.2 million.
Yes the woman is the murderer, and the transfer was technically legal. What you do not get is that the 4473 clearly states in section D that when the transferor (seller) signs his name to the form, he is certifying that "...(3)...it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in section A". Therefore, the transferor has made a professional evaluation, based on all information presented to him before the completion of the transfer (4473 replies, NICS results, and ANY OTHER INFORMATION PRESENTED TO HIM), that the transfer is NOT UNLAWFUL. Based on that evaluation, which requires a conscious weighing of information and factors, the dealer has warranted that he/she has evaluated all factors pertaining to the legality of this transfer, and has decided to either deny or proceed with the transfer based on that evaluation. This decision is open to question by the plaintiff, based on information the dealer had been given. Plain and simple. The dealer gambled that his decision would not be challenged, and lost. Buying a knife or a baseball bat from Walmart does not involve the seller in the same way that a firearms dealer is involved when making a decision to transfer or not transfer. You are a cop, you should see this point.The store owner did nothing wrong. Nothing. The pay out should not have been made. This woman is a murderer. Nothing more, nothing less. There is only one victim and only one person to blame for this.
The victim is the Father, the Blame falls 100% on this woman.
If she bought a knife at Walmart or a baseball bat from Dicks to use as the murder weapon, would you all blame those stores as well?
Yes the woman is the murderer, and the transfer was technically legal. What you do not get is that the 4473 clearly states in section D that when the transferor (seller) signs his name to the form, he is certifying that "...(3)...it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in section A". Therefore, the transferor has made a professional evaluation, based on all information presented to him before the completion of the transfer (4473 replies, NICS results, and ANY OTHER INFORMATION PRESENTED TO HIM), that the transfer is NOT UNLAWFUL. Based on that evaluation, which requires a conscious weighing of information and factors, the dealer has warranted that he/she has evaluated all factors pertaining to the legality of this transfer, and has decided to either deny or proceed with the transfer based on that evaluation. This decision is open to question by the plaintiff, based on information the dealer had been given. Plain and simple. The dealer gambled that his decision would not be challenged, and lost. Buying a knife or a baseball bat from Walmart does not involve the seller in the same way that a firearms dealer is involved when making a decision to transfer or not transfer. You are a cop, you should see this point.
The transfer was not unlawful.Yes the woman is the murderer, and the transfer was technically legal. What you do not get is that the 4473 clearly states in section D that when the transferor (seller) signs his name to the form, he is certifying that "...(3)...it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in section A". Therefore, the transferor has made a professional evaluation, based on all information presented to him before the completion of the transfer (4473 replies, NICS results, and ANY OTHER INFORMATION PRESENTED TO HIM), that the transfer is NOT UNLAWFUL. Based on that evaluation, which requires a conscious weighing of information and factors, the dealer has warranted that he/she has evaluated all factors pertaining to the legality of this transfer, and has decided to either deny or proceed with the transfer based on that evaluation. This decision is open to question by the plaintiff, based on information the dealer had been given. Plain and simple. The dealer gambled that his decision would not be challenged, and lost. Buying a knife or a baseball bat from Walmart does not involve the seller in the same way that a firearms dealer is involved when making a decision to transfer or not transfer. You are a cop, you should see this point.