Gun Store Owner Refuses to Sell Weapon to Man Suspected of Planning Mass Shooting at Ohio University

[SecularMotion]

A gun store owner is being credited with possibly stopping a mass shooting at Ohio University after he refused to sell a gun to a man who passed a background check, CNN reported on Sunday.

James Howard passed a background check when attempting to buy a long gun last Monday, but sounded as if he might be planning to hurt himself or others, John Downs, owner of Downs Bait and Guns, told local TV station WSYX.

"I just said, you know what, bud, I have a really bad feeling about this. I just can't sell you the gun," Downs said.

The former Ohio University student and hockey player left the store angry, and later returned, according to Downs.

http://ktla.com/2016/03/27/gun-store-owner-refuses-to-sell-weapon-to-man-suspected-of-planning-mass-shooting-at-ohio-university-2/

[beergood]

1. what your saying is

the current system works, therefore there's no need for new laws or regulations.

[shenmue]

2. The current system *is* a new regulation.

You know, like the Second Amendment says to do.

[beergood]

3. sorry

what do you mean?

[beevul]

4. The second amendment restricts only government.

That's all it has the power and jurisdiction to do.

[JonathanRackham]

5. Say Amen Sister!

The f'n system finally worked and someone was alert.

[gejohnston]

6. While we are applauding the store owner's sixth sense,

or whatever New Agers' are calling it today, some issues should be asked. Why wasn't the FBI told about the would be buyer's involuntary commitment? This seems to be a recurring theme. One more question, it would be very easy to prove two counts of violating the Gun Control Act. Will the feds prosecute him for lying on the 4473 and being a prohibited person in possession?

[flamin lib]

7. There are a couple of answers to your questions.

Under staffed and under funded.

On another note, 90% of crime guns traced back to a dealer come from 5% of all dealers. Should be easy to notify the manufacturers and have them stop selling to those dealers, right? It would be a way around the PLCAA.

[theatre goon]

8. On yet another note...

...if those 5% of dealers were breaking any laws, they could be prosecuted directly, and the PLCAA would have nothing to do with it. The fact that they are not being so prosecuted seems to be a pretty good indicator that they're not breaking any laws, particularly considering that pretty recently a dealer was prosecuted for breaking the law -- it was in the news and everything.

[flamin lib]

9. It is almost impossible to prove straw purchases unless they are completely

outrageous. Examples would be the case of two police officers awarded $6 mil when injured by a gun straw purchased. The buyer entered the store with the shooter who selected the gun and left. When the buyer was short of cash the store clerk and the buyer went into the parking lot to get the extra cash from the eventual shooter and complete the sale. Pretty blatant, right? The award is being appealed under the protections of the PLCAA.

Second example of an award is the woman in Kansas who got $400 k from a gun store who sold a shotgun to the mother of a felon who then used it to kill his ten year old son and himself. During the sale the clerk asked "have you been a good boy?" to which the felon answered "no, that's why she's filling out the forms." Even with that testimony it took 10 years to work it's way to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Straw buyers are almost impossible to prove. It comes down to he said, they said and that's just not going to fly in a criminal court. The same is true of guns trafficked through "theft". Should a gun store be audited and come up several hundred guns short on the inventory the dealer just declares them stolen. They must have been stolen, right? No record of sale or anything. How else did they go missing? How is the ATF to prove the guns were trafficked under those conditions?

So, yeah, the PLCAA is a hindrance to prosecution of dealers AND shields the manufacturers from responsibility for selling to unscrupulous dealers. Without the PLCAA a manufacturer could be civilly sued if they sold to a FFL that they "knew or should have known" was illegally dealing in guns. As it is the manufacturers don't care to police their dealers because there is no penalty for not doing so.

[theatre goon]

10. So, if one were to accept your assertions...

...assertions which you have not actually proven, by the way, with a couple of anecdotes -- then just because a crime is difficult to prove, then we can assume people are guilty of that crime, even if it has not been proven?

No, thanks -- I'm a firm believer in punishing only those who have been proven guilty, not assumed guilty because that guilt can't actually be proven.

If a gun dealer can be shown to be breaking the law, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- the PLCAA does not prevent that. If they have not broken any laws, then they should be allowed to carry on conducting their business within the law. Pretty simple stuff, when one can overlook any personal biases they might have.

[flamin lib]

11. 95% of gun dealers do the right thing when something doesn't feel right about a sale.

That's a pretty damn good ratio doncha think? They pay attention to behavior, body language and circumstances. They train employees to do the same. They refuse sales just on gut feel. They do the right thing.

However a few don't care either because they feel so fervently that guns are the solution to everything and shouldn't be denied to anyone or because they want to make another sale and damn the cost to society.

Gun manufacturers are in a unique position to look at their distribution system and make a difference in gun violence by simply doing the right thing.

Your hard line stance regarding the application of market solutions to gun violence aligns you perfectly with that 5% of gun dealers.

No sales outlet is required by law to sell anything to anyone. They all have the option to do the right thing.

[theatre goon]

12. That's a fine strawman you've erected there...

...but since I said nothing whatsoever about "market solutions" to anything, then your response really has nothing to do with what I stated.

As you might have noticed, what I actually referred to was the laws regarding the subject, not "market solutions." That's a pretty large misunderstanding on your part, I must say. It seems too large a misunderstanding to be accidental, but who am I to say?

I never made any claim that any sales outlet is required by law to sell anything to anyone -- another instance in which you are referring to statements not actually made.

All that being the case, your entire argument here is based on responding to things not stated -- not a particularly compelling tactic, and fairly often a dishonest one. I also notice that you didn't respond at all to the points mentioned about punishing someone for a crime even though they have not been proven to have committed that crime. With your now repeated failures to respond in any meaningful way to the points brought up, then, I'll just drop this discussion here.

You have yourself a lovely day, though.

[flamin lib]

14. This is so fucking tedious. You insist in talking past me not to me.

I understand that when it comes to guns you side with the dealers who believe that if it can be gotten away with it SHOULD be gotten away with.

YOU didn't say anything about market solutions, I did. It is a way that RESPONSIBLE gun dealers and manufacturers can cut down on straw purchases.

That's why I hate myself for coming to this place, you guys are so head up and locked that any possible little tiny bit of reason about guns is seen as a full frontal assault on ownership.

I never made any claim that any sales outlet is required by law to sell anything to anyone -- another instance in which you are referring to statements not actually made.

No, I did. Believe it or not there are TWO sides to a conversation and YOU don't own both of them.

With your now repeated failures to respond in any meaningful way to the points brought up, then, I'll just drop this discussion here.

And well you should because you keep running off into some rabbit hole of gun nuttiness and imagining that you control the whole conversation.

edit:
Ya been here before haven't ya. It's easy to see. Become a member of DU, go immediately to an obscure group, and post there withing a few minutes of joining. Ya, enjoy the stay 'til ya' get mirted.

[theatre goon]

16. Nope, never been here before.

But, your insistence on clinging to strawmen, repeatedly attributing statements to others that they never made (a couple more in this last post -- I guess you just can't help yourself), and now baseless accusations of being someone other than who I am... well... it may help explain why your tactics aren't actually winning you anything. I guess if you can't mount a real argument, that's the sort of thing you have to resort to.

Again, have yourself a lovely evening.

[gejohnston]

13. ATF doesn't have to do anything

the locals can hand it over to the local US attorney. Locals often do when it comes to felon in possession, but the US attorneys refuse to prosecute.
Given that the time to crime is over a decade, the problem isn't the dealer. Chances are the gun was stolen five to seven years after purchase.

[flamin lib]

15. Sorry, GE, but ya' lost me on that one. nt