Reply #4: I'm failing to take the point of this post

[iverglas]

In the July 30 editorial "Tragedy Averted, Thanks to Vigilance," the Austin daily acknowledges the role of a Central Texas gun store clerk, Greg Ebert, in thwarting a likely attack on Fort Hood soldiers. The gun store, "Guns Galore," had previously sold a weapon to Major Nidal Hasan, currently facing courts martial for the murder of 13 soldiers at the world's largest military base.

The purchase was perfectly legal.

So the lives of the people who might have been killed depended on the quick thinking and individual initiative of a gun store clerk. I am assuming he had no legal obligation to make the report he made -- and that even if he had, another clerk or a clerk in another store or another place would not have made the report.

That's all a pretty sorry hook to be hanging the safety of the public on. The quick thinking and individual initiative of a gun store clerk -- and nothing else.

In other circumstances -- had it not been found in hindsight that the purchaser was apparently planning a mass murder -- who here would have applauded that clerk's actions?

A gun store clerk reporting a legal firearms transaction to police?

I can hear the yelping and howling now.

What's surprising about a media outlet that supports firearms control applauding the actions of this clerk? The clerk averted a crime/tragedy that would not have been averted by existing firearms control measures. Good for him, for sure. And a lump of coal for the legislators and members of the public who are responsible for the purchases by this individual -- including the purchase of the weapons the other items were for and in particular a semi-automatic handgun (I assume he purchased them legally since he hasn't been charged as otherwise) -- being legal.