A rare editorial for a gun-control paper:

[SteveM]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/tragedy-averted-thanks-to-vigilance-1671623.html

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.

Some highlights:

"...law enforcement officials...moved quickly after Greg Ebert of Guns Galore notified police of Abdo's peculiar purchases and behavior."

"Those purchases were legal..." purchases of six 1-pound canisters of smokeless gunpowder, a spare magazine for a semi-automatic handgun and three boxes of 12-gauge shotgun shells."

"'His questions suggested he really didn't know what he was buying,' Ebert told the American-Statesman."

Though not mentioned in the editorial, one of the questions suspect Abdo had was an inquiry as to the purpose and use of the 6 lbs of smokeless powder.

I mentioned this incident to a fellow at a coffee house yesterday, and he was upset that the clerk sold the powder to Abdo anyway. I said that if he had refused the sale, Abdo might have been tipped off. It didn't matter since the clerk immediately informed police. Abdo was subsequently arrested at a local motel.

And another editorial remark: "But the fact is that the overwhelming percentage of weapons sold at gun shops wind up legally used by people legally qualified to use them."

The Statesman has in the past supported various gun-control schemes, and hasn't been exactly forthcoming when their "hand is called" about errors in their writings.

[ileus]

1. legally used by people legally qualified to use them...+1

[DWC]

2. Kudos to The Statesman - finally - n/t

[spin]

3. K&R (n/t)

[iverglas]

4. I'm failing to take the point of this post

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.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

6. oh, bellcrank, we hardly knew ye

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=273314

[GreenStormCloud]

7. He purchased a spare magazine, not a gun. N/T

[iverglas]

8. I failed to take the point of your post too

I apologize for wandering off for supper and forgetting to say; just found the tab still open.

I didn't say he purchased a gun in the instance in question

I pointed out that he had already purchaesd a gun or guns.

My point was actually that the clerk in this instance did something that would have gun militants squealing to high heaven in any other situation: running to the authorities with a tale of a LEGAL PURCHASE of firearms supplies.

People's guns are supposed to be a matter bewteen them and their conscience, aren't they?