(August 23, 2019 at 12:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(August 23, 2019 at 12:24 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It still amounts to an ease of access issue.
I mentioned it shortly after the El Paso shooting that a police official was asked by a reporter at a press conference what the public could do to spot a threat. He RIGHTFULLY SAID, "I am not a psychologist, that is not my field of expertise"...... I agree, so what the fuck makes the gun shop owner who sold him the weapon a psychologist when confronted said, "He looked fine to me, he looked happy."
It still amounts to it is fucking stupid and dangerous for firearm companies, and shop owners to say "OK" just to make a buck.
Again, firearm CEOs and shop owners would have far more credibility if they gave a fuck and cared where their products ended up.
Ok, so how is a gun shop owner supposed to KNOW how the guns he sells are going to be used? If a person passes a background check and doesn't appear to be agitated when purchasing a weapon, on what grounds should the shop owner refuse the sale?
Boru
Holy shit, nobody is expecting a shop owner to read minds, that is precisely why they shouldn't simply say " no record"...
Did you not read what I just posted. The shop owner ASSUMED the guy who bought the weapon was ok because of no record. If it worked like that in reality "no record" would always mean the buyer after a legal buy would never go on to get violent.
The guy literally said "He looked fine to me"..... Obviously that was not the case.
"No record" at time of buy does not prevent the buyer from getting violent after a legal buy.
I agree they don't know what is in the mind of the buyer, which is why they should give a fuck and not simply say, "OK".
Otherwise why not let any Joe Shmo have a passenger Jet licence to fly merely because they have never crashed a plane.
