Odessa shooter failed gun background check

[Deplorable Me]

Odessa shooter failed gun background check, Gov. Greg Abbott says

Hey CNN and DNC, GFY.

 

[Hillbilly77]

Maybe if we had just one more law.

 

[kev74]

That's why we need "universal" background checks!!!!

 

[Acer-m14]

then he went to ShiRaq and got it for 1/2 the cost ..

 

[Kirk_STNY]

Here is a common sense representative:
No gun restrictions after the Odessa incident

After West Texas shooting, Texas House Rep. says "NO" to gun restrictions

 

[MothMan]

The suspected mass shooter, Seth Aaron Ator, 36, appeared to have taken advantage of a loophole in federal gun law by purchasing the AR-type assault rifle used in the rampage at a private person-to-person gun sale, effectively bypassing a background check


Texas gunman had been ruled 'mentally unfit' to buy firearms, used loophole on background check: report

 

[subsonic]

That's why we need "universal" background checks!!!!

Well they are reporting now that he bought the AR in a private sale.

So question; what responsibility if any do you think the seller has?

Would you be okay with selling a gun (receiver) in a private sale to someone you knew nothing about and who hadn’t done any background check? (Assume you both live in Texas or Pennsylvania for this purpose.) Would you be okay with their representation that they are not a prohibited person or would you feel some obligation to investigate further?

 

[fresch]

He bought the rifle in 2014!
No, I do not feel I would be responsible,
Would you feel responsible if you sold a truck to someone who 4 years later used it to mass run over people? Didn't think so.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Same here.

Though personally I have no interest in selling anything to someone I dont know, guns or otherwise.

 

[PDR_AR15]

I think they are assuming it was a “private sale” so that they can rant about the non background check and pile on about how they have to fix this “gun show loophole”. How do they know he did not steal it? Or got it from someone who stole it? If he stole it they could not complain about getting around the background check...

 

[fresch]

It was reported on the news today 9/3/19 he bought it in 2014.

 

[spat]

Same here.

Though personally I have no interest in selling anything to someone I dont know, guns or otherwise.

I have no interest in selling any of my guns at all.

I'm an acquisition only sort of guy....

 

[subsonic]

I think they are assuming it was a “private sale” so that they can rant about the non background check and pile on about how they have to fix this “gun show loophole”. How do they know he did not steal it? Or got it from someone who stole it? If he stole it they could not complain about getting around the background check...

If it’s reported correctly, then law enforcement did what they always do and traced the serial from the manufacturer to the dealer, pulled the dealers log, and then went and had a chat with the buyer, who presumably indicated that he sold it to this guy in 2014.

 

[subsonic]

Personally, while I don’t want mandated background checks on private sales, I do think there has to be some seller accountability, or those laws are going to become inevitable.

And not singling put guns here either. If someone sold this character a load of nitrate fertilizer into a U-haul truck and he blew up a building, the idiot that sold it should have to pay. Wouldn’t you want that if your loved ones were the victim?

I think it’s reasonable to hold people responsible (civilly at least) if they are willfully blind when selling guns to someone who is in fact obviously dangerous and would fail a background check. If you don’t get a background check, then know your customer, or assume the risk.

 

[fresch]

How do you tell if someone is not suitable?
If you sell fertilizer won't the buyer need a trailer?
What happened to the shooter in his life?
Did his sister kill herself for what reason; mental health issues that run in his family?

 

[Darth]

Well they are reporting now that he bought the AR in a private sale.

So question; what responsibility if any do you think the seller has?

Would you be okay with selling a gun (receiver) in a private sale to someone you knew nothing about and who hadn’t done any background check? (Assume you both live in Texas or Pennsylvania for this purpose.) Would you be okay with their representation that they are not a prohibited person or would you feel some obligation to investigate further?

I would be 100% OK with it.

And if the next day he shoots up a school, I'd still be 100% OK with it .

The responsibility is solely on the shooter.

Same if I sell a car and a guy decides to get drunk and kill a bunch of kids heading home from prom.

 

[Darth]

Personally, while I don’t want mandated background checks on private sales, I do think there has to be some seller accountability, or those laws are going to become inevitable.

And not singling put guns here either. If someone sold this character a load of nitrate fertilizer into a U-haul truck and he blew up a building, the idiot that sold it should have to pay. Wouldn’t you want that if your loved ones were the victim?

I think it’s reasonable to hold people responsible (civilly at least) if they are willfully blind when selling guns to someone who is in fact obviously dangerous and would fail a background check. If you don’t get a background check, then know your customer, or assume the risk.

I could not possibly disagree more.

I would despise that if it was my family. Taking the blame away from the sole person responsible just to "blame someone we can get our hands on."

 

[spat]

Personally, while I don’t want mandated background checks on private sales, I do think there has to be some seller accountability, or those laws are going to become inevitable.

And not singling put guns here either. If someone sold this character a load of nitrate fertilizer into a U-haul truck and he blew up a building, the idiot that sold it should have to pay. Wouldn’t you want that if your loved ones were the victim?

I think it’s reasonable to hold people responsible (civilly at least) if they are willfully blind when selling guns to someone who is in fact obviously dangerous and would fail a background check. If you don’t get a background check, then know your customer, or assume the risk.

The *only* way this would work that is remotely acceptable would be for the ATF to publicly publish a list of all prohibited persons and make it illegal to sell to someone who is on that list at the time of the sale.

That would accomplish every *stated* goal of the gun grabbers (it would specifically *not* be able to turn into their unstated goal of a national registry, which is their only real goal).

I kinda wish someone closer to our side would propose it actually.

It would also eliminate the entire cumbersome NICS process.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Personally, while I don’t want mandated background checks on private sales, I do think there has to be some seller accountability, or those laws are going to become inevitable.

And not singling put guns here either. If someone sold this character a load of nitrate fertilizer into a U-haul truck and he blew up a building, the idiot that sold it should have to pay. Wouldn’t you want that if your loved ones were the victim?

I think it’s reasonable to hold people responsible (civilly at least) if they are willfully blind when selling guns to someone who is in fact obviously dangerous and would fail a background check. If you don’t get a background check, then know your customer, or assume the risk.

I can't believe you're saying this. This is in the same vain of suing a gun manufacturer for someone using their product to do evil. Where would it end with this type of thinking? Guns, knives, bats, cars, hammers, bricks, staplers?

 

[spat]

Personally, while I don’t want mandated background checks on private sales, I do think there has to be some seller accountability, or those laws are going to become inevitable.

And not singling put guns here either. If someone sold this character a load of nitrate fertilizer into a U-haul truck and he blew up a building, the idiot that sold it should have to pay. Wouldn’t you want that if your loved ones were the victim?

I think it’s reasonable to hold people responsible (civilly at least) if they are willfully blind when selling guns to someone who is in fact obviously dangerous and would fail a background check. If you don’t get a background check, then know your customer, or assume the risk.

All these mass shooters had something else in common too. They were all either given access to a vehicle, or actually driven to the site.

I say those people are really the ones responsible.

Or wait, not them, every one of those vehicles was assembled in a factory. There's the deep pockets that *really* signify responsibility in our system.

Don't worry about the shooters, any responsibility you apportion to them comes off what you can direct to the automakers, and nobody has deeper pockets than automakers....

 

[fresch]

What about the person who inseminated?

 

[subsonic]

Alright, good luck with that guys. So what if your customer is rambling to themselves, has spent a month in a mental hospital, and their shopping list is a pallet of Hi-Points, 40 pounds of black powder, a few bags of buckshot and a few pressure cookers, $20 is $20 and what he does is his responsibility, freedom of commerce, cover your ass be damned.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I'm against universal background checks as well. However, I do wish that the NICS system was open for private, optional, use. If I were to ever sell a gun (I never have), I'd definitely use a system like that.

 

[subsonic]

I'm against universal background checks as well. However, I do wish that the NICS system was open for private, optional, use. If I were to ever sell a gun (I never have), I'd definitely use a system like that.

It sort of is. Even in New York you can get a NICS check done at an FFL and then complete the transfer/private sale yourself, which keeps the transfer off the FFL’s books and inventory; they’ll have no record of sale. In NY this is required if they aren’t qualifying immediate family, but you can do this optionally if you want in states like PA and TX. But you do have to go through an FFL to get the check done.

 

[Darth]

Alright, good luck with that guys. So what if your customer is rambling to themselves, has spent a month in a mental hospital, and their shopping list is a pallet of Hi-Points, 40 pounds of black powder, a few bags of buckshot and a few pressure cookers, $20 is $20 and what he does is his responsibility, freedom of commerce, cover your ass be damned.

Correct.

If you think your rediculous scenario is one that happens enough to warrent your "hold SOMEBODY responsible" system, then yes sell to them too.

 

[NirvanaFan]

But you do have to go through an FFL to get the check done.

Which can be a pain in the ass, costs money, and that stops people from using it.

 

[subsonic]

Which can be a pain in the ass, costs money, and that stops people from using it.

Would you really want the government to open the NICS database to any identity thief that knows your name and date of birth? Careful what you wish for.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Would you really want the government to open the NICS database to any identity thief that knows your name and date of birth? Careful what you wish for.

If they already have my name, DOB, and SSN, they can already get access to whatever they want.

 

[subsonic]

If they already have my name, DOB, and SSN, they can already get access to whatever they want.

That’s not strictly true, and you don’t need an SSN to do a NICS check.

 

[NirvanaFan]

That’s not strictly true, and you don’t need an SSN to do a NICS check.

So, make that or a UPIN required.