"Pennsylvania Gunman Used Same Gun Store As Virginia Tech Shooter"...

[BlooInBloo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/pennsylvania-gunman-used-_n_253850.html

"BRIDGEVILLE, Pa. — The gunman who killed three women and wounded nine others at a Pittsburgh-area health club bought accessories for a handgun from the same Wisconsin-based dealer that sold a gun to the Virginia Tech shooter.

Forty-eight-year-old George Sodini bought the accessories from TGSCOM Inc. of Green Bay, Wis.

Police investigating Tuesday's shootings at the L.A. Fitness center in Collier Township have said Sodini bought his weapons legally.

TGSCOM's president, Eric Thompson, confirmed the purchases after WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh obtained a receipt. Thompson says he's cooperating with investigators."


Guess this is the serial killer store.

[virginia mountainman]

1. What a misleading post...

Your subject line says "Bought Guns"

The article says "Bought accessories"

Their is a BIG BIG difference in "Guns" and "Gun accessories"

Are you being misleading on purpose?

[villager]

7. no shooting atrocity is too atrocious that our VM won't rush to defend the rights of whoever pulls

...the trigger!

Back off! They were only accessories. We need thriving little Second Amendment-y businesses like this to enhance the quality of life in every community!

And in any case, as the article noted, it was where the Virginia Tech shooter got his guns.

So they are involved in two prominent shootings.

But, you know, "collateral damage," right?

[virginia mountainman]

8. Are you saying false statements should NOT be rebutted??

Interesting...

[villager]

9. The store sold items -- guns, accessories -- to two notorious mass shooters

The OP has adjusted his version of the headline accordingly, but that truth still stands.

What's your stake in misleadingly trying to claim otherwise?

Interesting....

[MercutioATC]

11. So what? They were purchased legally.

What's the significance of a large gun store selling millions of dollars of shooting supplies that happened to include a gun to one person who used it to break the law and shooting accessories to another?

[TheMightyFavog]

12. Give the store a break!

It's not like this guy has a crystal ball or the ability to see into the future or anything like that.

[Xenotime]

24. Bullshit. They know what they are getting into by opening shop.

There would be no "break" to give if the guy just sold bath salts and scented candles.

[TheMightyFavog]

32. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of what he sells goes to people

who have no intention whatsoever to commit murder.

[villager]

13. "So what?" The extent of rabid gun nutters' empathy in the aftermath of a shooting

nothing to see here, no reason to question anything, anywhere, anytime, about the vending of weapons, ammo, accessories, etc., used in these crimes, no reason to rethink anything (other than more guns! Hey, if only those women were using "open carry" in class, they could've fired back, willy-nilly, in the dark!) about the saturation of guns in America.

"So what?"

Maybe you should go sneer your "so whats?" at them:

[MercutioATC]

16. The OP didn't address the tragedy of the shooting.

It addressed the fact that a large shooting supply company sold a gun to one person who used it to break the law and accessories to another...all completely legally.

Pointing out that 2 "bad" customers out of thousands that were legally sold merchandise is not an indictment of the store doesn't show a lack of compassion for those who suffered.

[villager]

18. however, normal and sensible investigative procedures might indicate

a second look at the degree to which the store is biding by what nominal strictures there are for disseminating weapons....

Of course, perhaps everything is "perfectly legal" according to the books.

Just more collateral damage in America, then.

"So what?"

[MercutioATC]

23. It WAS investigated. The police have said that the sales were legal.

There's no statistical anomaly here. They sell a lot of guns and accessories, but they do it legally.

ONE customer (of thousands) used a gun purchased from them to break the law. Another who bought "accessories" also broke the law.


What "normal and sensible investigative procedures" would suggest a second look?

[villager]

27. I know you love the idea of weponas in every possible sweaty palm

...regardless of outcome.

Why this store in Virginia, if you're planning a mass homicide in Pennsylvania?

It would be a good question to ask, and I'm not sure that's the the police -- who are still investigating, btw, the books aren't closed on this one yet -- have asked.

But then again, "so what?" Right?

[Pavulon]

33. Low prices on mags or holster, or whatever he bought..

would be my bet. Market economy and all.

[Statistical]

38. Why do people buy from amazon when there are stores down the street.

The store does substantial business online and has low prices.

Crazy idea that people from all over the country might shop there.
I bet they sell to all 50 states! Gasp.

[villager]

43. Then maybe -- given the need for background checks -- it's the online component

....we should be debating?

[Statistical]

44. No background check is required for gun oil, or a clenaing kit.

The shooter bought ACCESSORIES from the store.

Firearms sold online or mail order do require an IN PERSON background check and verification of ID.
The store ships it to an FFL (a local gun dealer).
That FFL conducts an NICS, fills out a 4473, and verified ID just like they would if they sold a firearm locally.

So what is the issue again?

[villager]

45. then the "coincidence" is simply left to show us the recurring high cost of weapons proliferation

...in America.

If they are a large enough dealer, with a "thriving" enough business, they will doubtless be involved in vending to more serial/mass killers down the road.

And it might well all check out, still be legal, and after those next shootings, you and the other gun fetishizers will swarm whatever threads exist then, to exhibit not a shred of empathy for the victims, but nothing but love and reverence -- a kind of spiritual tumescence -- for your beloved guns.

"So what?"

Unless, of course, it comes to Lord God Gun.

[Statistical]

49. Where did you show any empathy for the victims?

You didn't.

You are trying to defend some tabloid level "journalism" who's goal is simply to create fear with partial truths.

You got called on it and now it is 100% obvious that some guy buying a can of gun cleaner, or a trigger lock, or some desiccant online isn't a danger to society.

The store didn't do anything illegal and there is no need to change the law on selling accessories any more than there is to check ID when buying an oil filter for a car (which requires a license to operate).

Carry on with your strawmen however.

[villager]

60. I was originally responding to a response to the OP (which wasn't mine)

What's more telling is the over-the-top outrage by gun violence apologists -- who, like yourself, are constitutionally bereft of empathy for shooting victims -- for the mere fact of its posting.

That's what I was responding to.

While I never maintained the store did anything illegal, the fact that two mass shooters have had truck with them is in fact revelatory of the business they're in, the product they sell, and the pervasive damage those products are doing to this country, and its psyche.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. What are weponas?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. It is amazing how testy anti gun bigots get when called on their errors of fact

[provis99]

28. anti-gun bigots? How can you be bigoted against a THING?:???

thats as stupid as saying anti-cheesburger bigot. No wonder you gun-loving tools are losing credibility across the nation.

[MercutioATC]

34. Noah Webster wrote the book for a reason...

* Main Entry: big·ot
* Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
* Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Yes, one can be an "anti-gun bigot"...or an "anti-cheeseburger bigot".

Reading is fundamental...

[Political Heretic]

65. No, you are not correct.

As the rest of the definition says points out that it "especially" refers to one who regards or treats members i.e. persons of a group (further clarifies - racial or ethnic - that's persons) with hatred and intolerance.

Originating in the 1600's it would never have occurred to anyone to interpret or use the word in the misguided way that you are attempting, and other definitions of the word by additional sources, also continue to confirm, not undermine, the truth that the word refers to attitudes towards persons.

No one ever expected that some lunatic would ever be confused about the fact that the word refers to persons, just like no one ever imagined that corporations could claim rights under the 14th amendment as "persons."

There's really no reasons to get into a tizzy about this. If you want to call me bigoted against gun OWNERS or gun ADVOCATES (people) because of their love of guns or their defense of gun rights, that would be consistent with the definition.

So I mean, if you want to namecall, you can still call me a bigot and not look like an idiot who doesn't get what words mean. So I'm not taking any power away from you to insult me. Still free to call me a bigot.

The bigotry however, is against people for their membership in some class or group, not against and inanimate object. Gun's don't belong a racial or ethnic group. You can't be "bigoted" against a thing, only a person.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Look at Daley, Fenty, or Bloomie...unreasoning prejudice in action, which is the

definition of bigotry

[Political Heretic]

66. That's bigorty against persons, not objects.

You could say that those guys are bigoted against gun owners, gun lovers, gun advocates - people. Not that I would agree with you, but you wouldn't be fundamentally misapplying the word.

[MercutioATC]

2. Sounds like a healthy business to me.

Since the guns were purchased legally, I don't see an issue here.

[krispos42]

3. Your headline is misleading

He got the "accessories" from the same on-line seller, not the guns themselves.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Agreed. Changed to be the headline of the actual artice. My bad.

[gratuitous]

4. Does the receipt have an imprint?

"Be sure to off yourself after carrying out your surprise massacre of unarmed persons. Have a Nice Shooting!"

[slackmaster]

6. He could have bought the same accessories by mail order or anywhere else

Why is this story worth reporting?

[leftofthedial]

10. they could start a themed series of billboard ads!

the gun nuts would love it!

[Doctor_J]

15. "Preferred supplier of mass murderers"

:thumbsup:

[kegler14]

14. Cho bought one of his guns elsewhere. He would have gotten guns

even if this business didn't exist.

[Myrina]

17. I don't have an opinion either way on the store's liability BUT

... I think there should be some things one simply cannot buy 'online' ... if a crim check and a mental health history check is supposed to be done before a gun purchase, I would think the potential purchaser should have to do it in-person so no false names/PO Boxes etc can be used.

I am sure there are a hundred ways around an in-person verification too, but ... "buy a gun online"? WTF?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. That is already in place...they bought accessories, not the firearms on line

Sort of like pipes or different grips for your Harley,

[MercutioATC]

25. You actually can't "buy a gun online"....

You can make the transaction with the dealer, but the gun must be shipped to to somebody who has a Federal Firearms License (who does the NICS check)...and you have to pick it up in person from them.

So, the person doing the check DOES have face-to-face contact with the buyer...even in online purchases.

[Statistical]

39. Your right you can't buy firearms online. Well technically you can...

however they can't be shipped to you. They are shipped to an FFL who does the background check.

1) You buy firearm online and provide FFL you wish to use
2) Store ships firearm to FFL
3) FFL calls you to come in with proof of ID.
4) Background check done.
5) You take possession of firearm.

Of course despite the ranting of the OP in this case it was accessories that were purchased.

Holster, gun cleaning kit, oil, etc. None of which are controlled items.

[Caliman73]

59. Any firearm bought online has to go to a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer.

Unless the licensed person who receives the firearm and who is required to do any background checks and follow federal and state laws for the transaction, is complicit in breaking the law, then there is no real way around in person verification. If you are on the list of "ineligible" persons then you get denied whether you bought the gun from a store or online. I believe the even person to person private sales out shipped out of state have to go through an FFL dealer. In California even in state private party sales except for those between immediate family members (IE parent or grandparent to adult offspring or between spouses) have to go through a dealer and go through the process. That has not stopped crimes from happening.

I have purchased firearms online because the only shop that sells firearms in the county has extremely high prices and poor customer service at times. Why would I purchase a rifle for 700 dollars from the shop if I could get the same rifle for 400 plus shipping from an online dealer and still have to go through the background checks and wait period? With the fees for the service I still end up saving $275 dollars.

[joeybee12]

21. Hooray for our second amendment rights! Freedom!

Actually, any sane person knows the verbiage in the second amendment clearly does not give a private citizen the right to own guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Fortunately the vast majority of Americans disagree with you as does SCOTUS

Private ownership of firearms is a progressive value.

[joeybee12]

30. Yeah, that makes sense...

...and you agree with 5 nutjobs on the SCOTUS who probably have never read the constitution...

[X_Digger]

36. How about the majority of folks gallup polls, or congress?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx



http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/support-gun-control-laws-time-lows.aspx

Or congress, in 1866, 1903, 1982-

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

February 28 1866, Senator James Nye of Nevada:

"In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they {blacks} have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

[joeybee12]

48. This is such garbage as are your posts...

specifically I point out your 1982 Senate findings when it was controlled by right-wing Repukes...and some nut job from Nevada who knows nothing is hardly a person to quote.

[X_Digger]

56. That 'nutjob' from Nevada..

.. was a New York lawyer, District Attorney, Judge, and appointed by Lincoln as Nevada's first governor (as a territory).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Nye

Have some fun sometime, visit memory.loc.gov and read the congressional debates surrounding the reconstruction era constitutional amendments.

You really should do a little research before making yourself look stupid.

The 'collective rights' nonsense interpretation didn't come around until the 1960s.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Actually we are the sane and progressive ones. Anti gun bigots want to restrict rights & freedoms

[joeybee12]

46. OMFG! If you're for sane gun control measures you're a bigot!

Un-fucking-beleivable how twisted that is.

[Statistical]

51. We already have "sane gun control measures".

Firearms are one of the most regulated industries in the country.

What "sane gun control legislation" would have prevented this attack?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. The zeal to disarm and make helpless a free people is clearly a form of bigotry

The gun control measures in place by and large are about right, though there are some extremes in Chicago, Wash DC and NYC that need to be lifted.

[Statistical]

40. I guess only 20% of the country is "sane".

Welcome to the 21st century; the "collective right" junk has been totally debunked.

[TheWraith]

50. Actually a plain text reading shows you're wrong.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part of the sentence is a preamble, not a limiting clause: there's 200+ years of jurisprudence to back that up, including the historical records of the founding fathers which clearly state that private firearms ownership was EXACTLY what they had in mind.

[Pavulon]

26. Main street ford sells car parts on DWI vehicle...

verizon cell phone used to make call in drug deal.

[Paladin]

29. Helpful Hint To Our Resident Gun Militants:

Folks, your posts on this thread are not making you or your movement look good. Many, many thanks to you for your phenomenal and seemingly permanent lack of awareness......

[Pavulon]

31. Great point, when someone tries to bury the 5th amendment or any other

I am sure we will all just go along. The article is stupid pot stirring trash. The guy bought "accessories" that could be a gun case, cleaning kits, or magazines that were legal in his state.

Not a gun, he certainly did not buy his motive online did he?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Helpful hint to our anti gun bigots...your desire to limit rights and freedoms of others

discredits any other post you may make.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. You think so? I was thinking the opposite.

I'd think that somebody completely neutral on the issue would come to the other opinion giving things like the dishonest headline, ad hominems like "resident gun militants" and so on.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

37. "Guns Don't Kill People, Gun Oil and Cleaning Patches Kill People."

You did notice the word "accessories" in there, right? That means the gym shooter bought neither guns nor not ammunition there, but the reporter wants to freak you out anyway.

It could mean holsters, but the loser didn't appear to use any. Could also mean gun oil, cleaning supplies, sights, and whatnot.

[Obama2012]

47. Apparently, so

Next they'll be calling for a ban on assault cleaning patches.

[proteus_lives]

53. Meh.

And I bet there a possibility that Oswald and Ruby ate at the same greasy spoon in Dallas.

[RamboLiberal]

55. This is one of the biggest after market Glock accessory store

on the online market. Many of the accessories he stocks you can't buy in retail stores. Sights, magazines, holsters, parts, etc.

He sells to tons of legitimate Glock owners.

I'm sure most car dealers in the country have sold a car to someone who crashed while drunk & cost innocent lives. Do we publicize a car dealer cause 2 drunks killed people with cars he sold?

Your comment of "serial killer store" is stupid and offensive!

[benEzra]

57. If that's the case, the loser could have bought a holster or sights via the web

and never set foot in the store.

[Rocknrule]

61. Ain't the 2nd Amendment the bestest thing ever?

Man, guns are so AWESOME! They make me feel so manly and powerful! Guns are truly God's greatest gift to mankind!!! :sarcasm:

Oh yea...unless you're the family of someone who died in one of these sensless rampages

[michreject]

62. Victim shoulda had a gun

Would have had a chance to survive.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Never miss an opportunity to turn a tragedy into your personal political soapbox.