Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Mo. retailer who sold to Co. shooter getting backlash
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
By JIM SALTER
Associated Press
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A suburban St. Louis-based online retailer who sold gear to Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes is being inundated with “hostile and threatening” messages, the company’s CEO said Tuesday.
TacticalGear.com filled an order received on July 2 from Holmes, who allegedly opened fire inside an Aurora, Colo., theater on Friday, killing 12 people. Holmes paid $306.79 for an urban assault vest, two magazine pouches and a tactical knife.
Chief Executive Officer Chad Weinman said despite its name, the urban assault vest is not bulletproof, but is simply a vest made for carrying accessories.
Weinman posted a statement on the company website Monday, saying the firm has received numerous calls and emails claiming it has “blood on our hands.” In an interview, Weinman said some of the calls and emails have been threatening, hostile and hurtful, sometimes leaving customer service workers in tears.
“It definitely puts a lot of stress on our call center when people just trying to go about their jobs are made to feel like they had something to do with what happened in Colorado,” Weinman said.
TacticalGear.com, a privately-held company in Chesterfield, Mo., has 40 employees. Weinman said about 80 percent of sales are to law enforcement and military customers. Corporate security, hobbyists, survivalists and paintball-gun enthusiasts make up most of the rest.
The company put out a statement on the day of the shooting noting that it did not sell guns or ammo to Holmes. Weinman said that since then, many gun rights supporters have also been critical, believing the company’s statement showed a soft stance on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“That was not the spirit of what we were communicating,” Weinman said. “To set the record straight, we do not condemn the firearms dealers or ammunition dealers. It’s just one of those things that I’m not sure how much you can do to prevent it when you have somebody with this kind of mindset.”
Marry Me
Comments
Sequoia 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Good! I can't condone threats, but if people feel this company, which makes lots of money selling military-style equipment to anyone who wants it, carries some responsibility for this crime, then they should let the company know.
Regarding the right to bear arms, this company actually made is more difficult for an armed citizen to make a difference, because they sold the killer military-style body armor that would have made it more difficult for a citizen with a handgun to use it for protection.
This company is no supporter of the right to bear arms, because this company actually restricts people's ability to use handguns for protection.
John 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Your comments are so wrong and so convoluted in so many ways that it is impossible to debate it. with you.
The guy bought a body-armor vest and a knife. Knives can be bought nearly anywhere, even the local kitchen appliance store. Body armor can be legally purchased in this country. If you cannot locate what you want you can build it.
It is your kind of logic that was used to close the business of the fellow who rented a truck to the bomber in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Sequoia 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Fact is, this company makes money selling body armor. Ask yourself why anyone would want body armor. Not saying they did anything illegal, but the decision to make your living in that way comes with responsibility. Maybe it should be illegal, but that's not my point.
My point is that the community has the right, and, I would suggest, the responsibility, to let a company know if they believe that company is acting contrary to the public interest.
There's a huge difference between selling body armor (which has very little practical use besides a standoff with police) and a truck, which has lots of legit uses. Not sure why my logic has anything to do with that.
TraceyT 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The fact is this company didn't sell body armor to the shooter. As the article clearly states, the vest that was purchased from the company is not bulletproof.
cynrb1955 10 months, 4 weeks ago
The person responsible for this crime is getting ready to stand trial!!! You can't blame this business for selling these articles. Instead of blaming everyone else for the acts that these "loonies" perpetrate, blame the individual... HE is solely responsible!!
muleman 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Chief Executive Officer Chad Weinman said despite its name, the urban assault vest is not bulletproof, but is simply a vest made for carrying accessories. Did you take the time to read the whole article before your fingers went into overdrive?
JMO 10 months, 4 weeks ago
I often agree with Sequoia, but in this case I just don't. If they sold him the 6000 rounds of ammo, I would have a greater problem with it. I mean, really? Who needs that much ammo? But a piece of body armor is different. For all they knew, he was planning on going into business as a body guard, or maybe a bouncer in a really bad part of town. I'm stretching a bit, but there are law-abiding reasons to own body armor. Some small police forces make cops buy their own weapons, and I'd assume body armor and things like ammo pouches.
No, this is way too much like blaming the liquor store for a drunk driver.
Littleinvestor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
6,000 rounds of ammo is not much if you are trap shooter (shotgun shells). At a tournament you can run through a 100 rounds in a couple of hours. An serious trap shooters stock up when there is a sale if they are not reloaders.
JMO 10 months, 4 weeks ago
6000 rounds would still give you enough for 180 hours by your estimation. Sitll, he wasn't buying shotgun shells. I'm not generally big on the idea of gun control...but there just should be some limit on much guns and ammo someone should be able to stockpile.
spelchek 10 months, 4 weeks ago
"there just should be some limit on much guns and ammo someone should be able to stockpile." -- Why? For whom? Your slope is slippery.
John 10 months, 4 weeks ago
My question to spelchek is, "why?" Why should there be some limit on guns and ammo? I own 7 handguns and have somewhere near 4000 rounds for all of them, save two. For the other 2, I have over 10,000 each. I also will shoot most of those in a year's time. I own 13 lang guns and have anything from 200 rounds up to 5000 rounds. I will likely fire those within a year. However, I will also replace them with similar or higher quantities as I fire them.
Citizen1 10 months, 4 weeks ago
COMPLETELY DISAGREE with Sequoia! If the company would have run a background check he would’ve came back squeaky clean. A person has the right to purchase just about anything over the internet including body armor. Soldiers and law enforcement personnel often purchase their own equipment, so to hold a company liable is ridiculous.
I agree with John, next the liberals and gun control activists will use this to fuel their fire and go after the manufacturers of the ammunition or weapons.
We’ve taken things so far out of context these days and made a mockery of our courts. When I have to show ID to purchase “Pseudoephedrine because one of my children has an allergy, it’s gone too far!
Hold the guy accountable, learn from our mistakes, don’t let politics get involved and let’s move on.
whatif 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Wow, Sequoia your logic escapes me. To continue with that line of thinking then we should close down bars and liquor stores because you never know when a person gets drunk what they will do, maybe go home and beat the c rap out of their spouse or children, if they even make it home and didn't have an accident on they way and kill themselves or someone else. And we all know that the bar owners are making money at this kind of business - heaven forbid. Or lets close the sporting good stores that sell guns/rifles/bow&arrows because you never know which person buying these things will use them as weapons for mass distruction. We could go on and on with that kind of scenario......because you never know!!!!
Sequoia 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Hey, I never said anything about closing the business down, or holding the company legally liable. I just supported those who let this company know how they felt.
A couple comments on your replies. I'm talking about moral responsibility. A lot of these replies talk about legal culpability. Certainly you're not suggesting that "legal" and "moral" are the same thing? Just because the company acted legally does not mean it acted morally.
Let's look at the bartender example. I believe there is a law prohibiting a bartender from serving visibly intoxicated people. But, EVEN IF THERE WERE NOT A LAW, I think a bartender has a moral, social responsibility to pay attention to what they're doing. If a guy is falling down, can't stand up, acting aggressive, the bartender who can see that and think rationally has the moral obligation to cut him off. Maybe not the legal duty, but the moral obligation. I'm not saying the bar should be closed, or the bartender should be punished, if that guy gets in a car crash. But I am saying that maybe the bartender should have trouble sleeping at night. Maybe patrons should let that bartender know how they feel about his social responsibility.
Similarly, I believe that a business selling body armor has a moral responsibility to find out, as best they can, why a customer needs body armor. If it is for police or military service, or a private security guard, that's easy enough to prove.
And let me clear up a mistake that has been repeated here. YOU DO NOT HAVE A "RIGHT" TO BUY BODY ARMOR. Every private business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason (I'm sure you've seen that sign on bars before, right?). The 2nd amendment prevents the GOVT from infringing, but it does not mean that a gun store MUST sell you a gun or any weapon just because you want one... a gun store owner always has the right to refuse to sell to someone if they get a bad feeling.
In fact, in the Colorado case, a target range owner refused to allow the culprit to use his range, because he thought the guy was suspicious based on a phone call. Too bad the body armor dealer didn't take a few minutes to make a phone call. I argue he had the moral responsibility to do so.
Saying "yeah, well, he followed the law," well, that's what Paterno said too. Trying to dodge moral responsibility by pointing to the law is for weasels.
Sequoia 10 months, 4 weeks ago
And, let me just suggest that we wouldn't need so many legal regulations on business if the people who run companies would take more individual, moral responsibililty for what they do, and what impact it has on society.
The reason we have so many regulations is not because people sit around thinking up rules to make... it is because too many people aren't responsible enough to be careful and responsible on their own.
asb 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Wasteful and counterproductive leftist regulations? Like safe highways, clean air ('cept fer good ol' carbon dioxide), clean water, sewers and treatment plants, hazardous waste protections, workplace safety, product safety and other consumer protection, fire safety, food quality, medical standards . . . sigh, really Grace? These are bad things? The public gives government these powers, and people with money and untoward influence water them down and litigate them until they're sometimes useless (think oil rig safety), but really? They're bad? Let me answer for you, No, government regulations are demanded by the public, nearly always done correctly, and until they're neutered by cash they have their intended protective effect. Yes, that nasty protective role of government rearing its ugly head.
muleman 10 months, 4 weeks ago
. YOU DO NOT HAVE A "RIGHT" TO BUY BODY ARMOR Show me that law
Sequoia 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Muleman, you don't have a right to buy anything. The 2nd amendment applies to the government, not private business. The government can't make a blanket ban on handgun ownership (that's the Heller case, I believe). But any private business can ALWAYS decide whether to sell to you or not. You can pass all the background checks, etc., but a private business always has the right to sell or not. That's their gun, and they can sell it or not. That's their right to do what they want with their property.
Look at it this way. A sketchy suspicious dude walks into a gun store. Gun store owner says, "I don't feel right. I'm not going to make the sale." The dude can't say "2nd amendemnt!"
The constitution restricts government action, not private action. A gun store owner is under no obligation to respect your constitutional rights.
gsbcmo 10 months, 4 weeks ago
JMO, I would consider having limits placed on my 2nd Amendment Rights for how much and when I can buy ammo when you let me put limits on your 1st Amendment Rights to spout off with ideas like these.
You all need to read the words in the story. The company says " the urban assault vest is not bulletproof, but is simply a vest made for carrying accessories.". That means NOT ARMORED.
JMO 10 months, 4 weeks ago
I just think that one person owning 50 guns or thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo is a tad excessive and such a person should be considered a bit of a worry. (And yes, I know that he didn't have that many guns, I'm just saying...) In all seriousness, outside of collectors of antiques, etc., what law-abiding person needs dozens of guns or tons of ammo? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, someone educate me on how that can possibly be a good thing?
And you're right, it says that about the vest. I got stuck on Sequoia's body armor comment and missed that. So that is even more reason why they didn't have any reason to check things out.
connor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
I have never met anyone who owned 50 or more guns who wasn't a collector, even 12 or more makes you a collector really. As for a need there are so many different firearms out there that if you enjoy shooting them the need is no different than it is for any other hobby or past time. As for ammo I can run through a few thousand rounds easy of multiple types at the range in a short afternoon. More if there are others at the range who want to try shooting whatever weapon I brought as well. Not to mention it is much cheaper when you load your own to buy in bulk. I recently got a sweetheart deal on 5 thousand bullets because I bought in bulk I may take a weekend and press them all into their cases and I will eventually shoot them.
Some people collect every weapon they can legally own from a theme, like WWII or Modern Russian etc. I wanted an AR that was the most like the M-16 I carried in the Army. Not some M-Forgery but one that was the most like the one I carried that I could legally buy for nostalgia purposes.
There are many civilian uses for all types of small arms, even automatic military style weapons for defense against both two and four legged animals. If you think for one minute a rancher or any agricultural worker cannot be placed in a situation were automatic fire is a good thing than I would like to see you in his or her shoes in one of those circumstances. I have seen a pack of feral dogs rip a calf apart while the farmer plinked away with a bolt action rifle so slowly he didn't make a difference but yet you would like to limit him to whatever weapon you "Think" he should use for hunting?
Ever wondered what a beekeeper would do when he walks up to his hives nestled in the woods to find them torn apart and he is standing there 20 foot from a bear? You want to stand there and confront that bear (Which are now all over Missouri) with the single or slow shooting pop gun that some city dweller thinks is all he needs?
Perhaps you think scenarios like I submitted are fantastic or very rare. Well they are not all that rare and they are a constant possibility and a legitimate reason to carry the best weapon you can and haven't even touched on the true reason civilians have the right to firearms.
JMO 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Thank you for answering my question. I understand the amount of ammo now and have less of a problem with it, although it still seems like an awful lot. I'm not all that sure you've sold me on the need for automatic weapons. Although I assume you mean semi auto, since full auto is illegal, right? If you mean full auto, we'd have to agree to disagree. But I don't really have a problem with guns in general. I grew up with guns. There are guns in my home now. I took a rifle range class in college. I agree that people in rural areas have a need for weapons, but I suspect not many bee keepers go armed to the hives :-) but the point is taken. My own father hunted bear in Northern California with a 44 magnum revolver, I always thought that was pretty radical. LOL But he didn't like running thru the woods with a rifle. I myself went deer hunting once and my gun was an AK47. I liked target shooting it, didn't actually kill anything, and sold it shortly after and have kicked myself ever since because I'd paid $100 for it, got less and the price went thru the roof shortly thereafter.
Anyway, that's all a different discussion. But thanks for your reasonable response.
connor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
JMO - I will say it is refreshing to see someone with an open mind. I commend you on that.
As far as rounds go another scenario is an enthusiast who picks up what I will call the flavor of the year firearm for lack of a better word. Say China or some other country recently dumped 1000's of surplus rifles on the market, recently the Moisin-Nagants became popular and cheap. You can get one for under 100 bucks easy. One thing as you mentioned with your AK47 is that the firearms and the ammo start going up in price and never stop due to our constantly inflating economy and also just the nature of weapons in general. So why not pick up as many rounds for that weapon as you can when they are at their cheapest? They are only going to go up in price and especially surplus ammo will keep forever. In many cases you buy the firearm and then enough ammo to last you a lifetime if you can manage it.
Personally I think any weapon readily available to the military and then by default also available on the black market should be legal for a non-felon citizen to own but that's another discussion. I will say I go to my bee hives armed. You have to remember that coming up on a feeding bear or one with cubs is a far different scenario then hunting one so if full auto weapons were available, or I could buy the license for one that came available, I would carry one.
muleman 10 months, 4 weeks ago
AK47 for deer? If you ever go again you might want to invest in a surplus rocket launcher or maybe even a cannon you can load with grape shot. A AK47 is not a deer rifle
JMO 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Oh, I'll never go again. I went because my ex-husband wanted me to. He was just hoping we'd be able to have two deer in the freezer. And we got it cheap, which is why I had what I had. It was a cool gun though, and how many middle aged mom's can say they've shot an AK47? LOL
John 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Muleman has no clue as to what he is writing. Actually, she probably fired a civillian version of the Automat Kalishnikov rifle, one that has been fitted to SEMI-automatic fire. The rifle very likely is what you call a "deer rifle." There are much higher powered rifles used for a "deer rifle." The liberals are scared of how something looks and care not a whit for the actual mechanics of it.
JMO 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes, my AK47 was definitely only a semi-auto. I don't imagine it was any more powerful than a 30.30. I think it's less powerful than many high-powered hunting rifles like the 30.06.
And that's the extent of my firearms knowlege without Google.
John 10 months, 4 weeks ago
No, fully automatic firearms are NOT illegal. Yes, there are federal requirements for those who would own fully automatic firearms, but they are NOT illegal.
cavscout_99 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Ok, ok, set me straight... My family owns thousands of acres in Missouri. Recently purchased. There is a creek/river that runs through some of our property. Should we be worried of bears. I know we have black panthers, and other large predatory animals, but bears?
muleman 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Bears are as common as hens teeth in Missouri now. Cougars are very rare and not black. A rabid coyote or badger would probably be the worst animal you would ever encounter.
tonto_goldberg 10 months, 4 weeks ago
I agree with muleman. You could go to the Runge Center and look at the information there. We don't really have very many large predators around here, except for humans.
Littleinvestor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
It is unlikely you have "black" panthers. You almost certainly have regular panthers, also known as cougers or mountain lions. There are a few Central American jaguars in the states, mostly Arizona, and they have a black phase but have never been found in Mo. You absolutely will have bears, coyotes and probably lots of bobcats. Mostly they stay away from you if you make noise. I only see the large preditors when still hunting or just sitting in the woods looking for wildlife. I have a gun with me, just in case.
connor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
It would all depend on what you are doing with it and the resources on it. For instance with this drought and the creeks all drying up a section of my land with a spring that it still running has now become the most wild life populated spot around.
In other cases those landowners who are feeding their stock are also creating gathering areas. A simple garden that has never been bothered in the past right now is like an oasis to animals that are usually afraid to come that close.
Yet gun control liberals want to legislate everyone according to their day to day reality or the norms of their location. They belittle others needs and think only of their own. The height of arrogance if you ask me.
Southwest Missouri sees alot more bears than Northeast. There have been a few sightings even around Jefferson City. Feral hogs are also a real problem in some parts of the state and everytime the economy takes another downturn abandoned and feral dogs become an issue for rural areas as well.
Sequoia 10 months, 4 weeks ago
I have to disagree with this statement: "Yet gun control liberals want to legislate everyone according to their day to day reality or the norms of their location. They belittle others needs and think only of their own. The height of arrogance if you ask me."
I think it is the other way around. I've never heard "gun control liberals" oppose owning firearms for sport. They all readily agree that gun control laws that are needed in, say, urban Chicago or D.C. are not the same laws that are needed in rural Illinois or Virginia. Most so called "gun control liberals" support city-specific, narrowly tailored gun regulation.
But whenever a "gun control liberal" makes a reasonable argument about regulation to limit the availability of cheap handguns in Chicago, the over-hyped NRA types try to say that it is an attempt to take guns away from hunters. They act like every effort to get the guns out of the hands of criminals is an effort to get guns out of the hands of hunters, which is a total phantom argument, and, in my opinion, is a much more accurate example of "belittling others' needs and thinking only of their own."
That's what the NRA does. They take a reasonable argument, turn it into an unreasonable one, then argue with that.
connor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
LOL "Only in Cities" For one thing again unless you live the life you have no clue and guns are for self defense in many situations. Many people have a valid reason for owning a weapon no matter where they live yet those who don't at the moment are the ones who want to place blanket restrictions.
The last weapons ban by Clinton didn't limit itself to just cities either.
As usual you attempt to limit rights by making micro excuses and then hope to keep taking little bites until that right is gone for good. Also by trying to tie in the old "sporting weapons" thing you again attempt to take a small bite out of the whole. There is a valid scenario for any and every type of firearm out there today beyond mass murder depending on your lifestyle and how you earn a living.
LuckNLove 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Sequoia, I do agree with you one many ideas but I whole heartily believe in the firearm ownership to those who wish to own. How exactly would you be able to limit no guns in the city? Would the government have the right do a weapon sweep in every major city? What about privacy? How would we ensure no firearms are coming within the city limits… a check point on every city entry point? How much money would it cost to do such a massive sweep and check point maintenance? Although, we would have to employee people for the check points so I guess it would make up for the jobs lost at the firearms distributions/sellers/etc. What are the outcomes of moving guns out of the cities? Would terrorist/ criminals be more likely to exploit this loop hole? Didn’t the Unabomber live in the woods before and after his capture for many, many years? Would firearms be only purchasable to people who lived in the woods/rural areas? If so how would we keep those areas safe since black market criminals would live there to make a profit? We can hardly keep are children safe from the meth makers in those areas already…
Littleinvestor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
And if you come across a band of feral hogs or dogs you had better have plenty of ammo if you decide to start shooting them. The survivors will turn on you if you run out of bullets. And last night, I went to the garden to pick tomatoes and okra about 8 p.m. and there stood a couple of deer, plotting a way through the 8 foot tall electric fence. So far it has kept them out but I expect any day for them to break in. I sort of wished for a machine gun last night. But those two young bucks will be good eating this fall.
JMO 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Conner, I'm glad you said there had been sightings around here. Several years ago, my husband and I were hiking up above the covered pavilion at Binder, in the snow. We came across tracks that were definitely bear tracks. I know my tracks. It was after 5 on a Saturday by the time we were home and we didn't know who to call until Monday, when I called conservation. By then the snow had melted though, tracks with it and I don't think they even bothered to look. But darn it, there was a bear in Binder!
spelchek 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Where's all the outrage over our Government handing assault rifles over to KNOWN criminals? Where's all the outrage over said guns being used to kill a US agent in the line of duty? Where's the outrage over our POTUS trying to cover up something he allegedly knew nothing about? Where's the outage for the Mr. Terry's family being denied answers by the contemptuous AG and his protector Obama? Anyone agreeing with a lame brain attacking this STL vendor over this tragedy is a lame brain.
asb 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Fast 'n Furious was bad. Mr. Terry's death was terrible, and would've been no less likely or terrible no matter the source of the weapons. The easy availability of weapons worldwide absolutely makes arming terrorists, insurgents, drug cartels, and holy warriors like buying candy. I didn't like any past president's use of executive priviledge, but it's legal and usually has some merit beyond steming embarrasment. Outrage over bad management? I haven't that much outrage available, I'll save it for real wrongs, like the concentration of wealth at historic levels and through insane de-regulation of our financial institutions, the purchase of our congress by an oligarchy who've set up the tea party as their red herring and straw dog screamers, and their success at convining millions of the middle and lower classes to vote against their own interests ou of fear of mostly ghosts.
spelchek 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Using Sequoias logic, we should all start threatening smart phone vendors. They hold responsibility for those who decide to cause serious injury and sometimes death when they decide to use their purchase while driving a one ton missile down the road. It's all for the betterment of our society, right Sequoia?
connor 10 months, 4 weeks ago
So in this case legitimate uses for a tool means no restrictions should apply? Perhaps you should just ban phone use in vehicles inside cities? A typical response from a liberal... If it effects me I am against it but if it effects someone else then it's all about what I think is right.
Sequoia 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Surely you guys see the difference between cell phones and military style weapons. Cell phones can be used in aid of distracted driving, but that's not what they're FOR. They're just FOR communication.
Military style weapons, on the other hand, are designed for killing as many pepole as possible in a short amount of time. Mass killing is what those guns are DESIGNED for. That's their purpose: mass killing. They're not FOR shooting at targets or wild animal groups... they're FOR killing many people at once. Yes, they can be used for other reasons, but that's not what they're FOR. Can't you see that difference?
Yes, we use tools. Tools also use us. In its own way, by its design, a tool "desires" to be used for its intended purpose. A military weapon yearns for fulfillment in mass killing in the sense that it is designed for that purpose.
More concretely, the people who sell these things are paying to use politics and law to create a society where there is a large demand for all its products. Whether you agree with the NRA's vision of society or not, make no mistake it is all about lobby dollars as an investment in the market.
That's why I'm saying we all need to take extraordinary care.
JCLifer 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"A military weapon yearns for fulfillment in mass killing in the sense that it is designed for that purpose."
Please explain more how an inanimate object has feelings, wants, and desires.
I guess this explains why I am a little overweight. Those donuts "yearn" to jump in my mouth and do what they were designed to do. I am a victim of a donut's yearning.
asb 10 months, 3 weeks ago
So Lifer, metaphors make you nervous?
JCLifer 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
asb 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm saying that yearning doughnuts and tools screaming to be used for their intended purposes are metphors, and that if you make fun of them you must've run out of actual arguments.
JCLifer 10 months, 3 weeks ago
It seems that if a person resorts to using crazy talk like this, then THEY have run out of actual arguments.
John 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Sequoia, just what do you mean by "military-style weapons"? Are you wrtiing about the supposed "assault weapon"?
1) Assault weapons are fully automatic, The civillian version is semi-automatic. 2) The military version has a bayonet mount. The civillian version does not. 3) Most of those you can purchase have several other radical distinctions from the civillian version. 4) The most common similarity between true "assault weapons" and the civillian version is the forestock and butt, oh, and yeah, a carrying handle. The stock and butt similarity you ask? Yes, it is made of plastic instead of wood or carbon. 5) For a few dollars, one can buy various items that make the firearm APPEAR as an assault weapon. The pieces can be used to dress up that cute little .22 cal. rifle my dad bought me when I was 9 or so. I am so tired of hearing you people who have NO CLUE as to what you are talking about badmouthing firearms instead of going after the people who break the laws.
JCLifer 10 months, 3 weeks ago
So what is up with the latest call to "ban assault weapons"? I thought automatic weapons were already outlawed.
Sequoia 10 months, 3 weeks ago
All I've ever said on this issue is that gun owners are in the best position to judge the demeanor and character of the person who is purchasing their guns. And, because military style guns (by military style, John, I mean equipment designed to shoot a large number of people in a short amount of time) are so dangerous, gun store owners have a moral obligation to be careful whom they sell to.
That's all I said. You guys take that and go off on me for wanting to ban guns, or badmouthing firearms, or being a liberal... BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO ARGUE WITH. You ignore what I said, substitute in something you know how to defeat, argue with that, then act like you've scored a great victory. I'm making a moral case for vigilance among gun store owners to watch for crazy people. All you guys are so into gun owners being vigilant to stop crime, so HOW CAN YOU DISAGREE WITH ME? Oh yeah... it kinda sounds liberal-ly, so you better make some noise. Sheesh.
Do any of you here disagree with this statement: Gun dealers ought to take the individual responsiblity to be careful who they sell guns to. If a guy is sketchy, a gun dealer has the MORAL obligation to be careful, even if the LAW does not require care. DOES ANYONE DISAGREE WITH THAT? You've been commenting on this story for days, so I guess not.
As for the cities banning guns, I'm talking about the Chicago and D.C. handgun bans that were struck down by judicial activism. There is certainly a lot of evidence that local handgun bans didn't work. reason.com/archives/2010/03/04/chicagos-pointless-handgun-ban, although the other side of that argument is that, given the judicial activism against state, regional, or national gun control laws, what is a city supposed to do about all the handguns?
But my point in bringing that up is that people who are concerned about gun violence are trying to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, not hunters and sport shooters, like you guys keep trying to say.
But you guys never talk about how to get guns out of the hands of criminals. You go off on these pointless topics to show off how much you know about rural life or the forestock and butt and bayonet mount. All that stuff is great, but totally off the point of how to get guns out of the hands of cirminals, and the moral responsiblilty gun dealers have toward that end.
spelchek 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"But you guys never talk about how to get guns out of the hands of criminals." -- Yes we have, I give you Fast and Furious as Exhibit A.
cavscout_99 10 months, 4 weeks ago
Ok firstly let it be known that the reason nothing is ever accomplished is because people would rather duke it out than discuss situations. "like this one" Can every just agree to disagree and get on with something else important... Next subject: the animal that we have observed is the same one over and over again... My folks live on 150 acres outside the tipton area. On there land my dad, sister and myself have all witnessed a long black cat with a very long tail. He would probably stand close to six foot if he stood on his hind legs. He has a massive wide head. He lives up in a cave like den that overlooks the river/creek that runs through the land. My parents have close to 200 sheep in an electric fenced (which I found to be very shocking tonight) in area guarded by several donkeys. This cat thing is beautiful when you look at him throu the binos, but I do not want to get any closer than I have to. I considered calling the conservation and letting them trap him because it scares me knowing that my neices and nephews are little enough to be prey. Heck, with something that big any of us could be prey. So what is the general thought about what we can do and what this cat might be?
eileen10 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The only big black cat I can think of is the black jaguar.
eileen10 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Do you know if live stock are being killed? If there are plenty of deer they eat those. I'm thinking that if it should get sick or if its an older cat it would have to go after something that doesn't run fast and isn't strong which could mean a human but I'm no expert and am only guessing but to be on the safe side I'd call in the experts.
cavscout_99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Nope, no livestock being killed... But this land is also loaded with deer. They have a natural spring on their property and a creek/river. So we see all sorts of animals out there. Deer, coon, the black cat thing, fox. You name it and I am sure it has a home out there. Thanks for trying to answer my question. I think at some point I will try to convince my parents to call the conservation department. Again, I appreciate youur thoughts on the situation.
JMO 10 months, 3 weeks ago
It's possible someone released or had an escape of an exotic pet that survived. That being the case, you could have a black panther, but that would be the only way. You've been seeing it thru binoculars; are you absolutely sure about the size? A Maine Coon can be over three feet long, head to tail, and is one big domestic cat. Definitely should have conservation check it out. Even if it's only a "regular" mountain lion, they need to document it.
eileen10 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Your welcome and I hope you can convince your parents to call conservation.
cavscout_99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh yes, I am certain of his size! My dad got a digital video of it. As for me, yes, I have only seen him in binos but he still looks enormous. I talked to my Momma about calling someone to check on it so hopefully it will be taken care of. When I figure something out I will definately keep you informed. I think its pretty interesting. Wish there was a way for me to post a picture of him on here.
connor 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Well it didn't take the usual suspects long did it?
Sen. Schumer (D. Ill.) has attached a gun control measure to the Senate cyber security bill that would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity magazines, belts, feeding strips or drums which hold more than 10 rounds. It would apply to any weapon of a larger caliber than .22
Oh but don't tell Sequoia this would be more than a city-wide ban once again.
JCLifer 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The criminals would all have these things despite a ban. Why do these clowns think the world will be safer by disarming innocent people?
tonto_goldberg 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The wannabe cowboy vigilantes wouldn't be shooting innocent bystanders or themselves if they didn't have guns. Pistol-packing citizens who thwart crimes is a great fantasy but not very close to reality. The number of guns is directly related to the number of gun crimes, especially in cities where more guns can only lead to more gun crimes.
John 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Spoken like another "gun-control liberal," you won't admit the facts when they hit you squarely in the face. When CCWLs are allowed, the violent crime rates drop nearly 47% . . .
RobHunterJohnson 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Tonto, did not someone with a CCW save himself and a group of people on Capital Avenue a couple of years ago! Rob
muleman 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The AR-15 and M-16 knock offs are .223 caliber, that means .22
John 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Actually, that is not quite accurate: they are .223, not .22. It is a heavier round, longer and copper jacketed. However, there are heavier calibers available in different "assault weapon style" (whatever THAT means) However, regardless of the caliber, it is a semi-automatic rifle just like those that have been around for 10 decades and longer. Difference is the plastic stocks for fore-stocks.
muleman 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The bullet diameter on .22 magnum is .224, whereas the bullet diameter of .22LR is .223
John 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Notice I said "not quite accurate"? A Those rifle bullets are much longer than the pistol bullets. Therefore, writing that it is just another .22 round is a misnomer. That is why, the pistol and standard .22 rifle rounds are listed as .22s and the rifle is listed as .223. It paints a misunderstood picture to claim they are all only .22. Weight is vastly difference, speed is different, impact is defferent, jacketing is usually different.
online_editor 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Just in general: Be sure to keep the focus on the issues of this discussion. We try to remove insults directed at other participants to discourage the discussion from descending into personal bickering. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID