The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Salesman Who Sold Gun To Las Vegas Shooter: 'Could I Have Stopped This? No'

Like many Americans, Chris Michel woke up Monday morning to the horrific news of the massacre in Las Vegas, which left 58 people dead as well as the shooter Stephen Paddock and nearly 500 injured.

Michel, who owns Dixie GunWorx, tells NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro that he remembers Paddock coming into his store on three occasions earlier this year. Michel says he spends a lot of time talking with his customers, so he can screen them. To him, Paddock didn't seem suspicious, or off in any way. So Michel sold him a gun.

Authorities have identified 47 firearms owned by Paddock — and one of them, a shotgun, was sold to him by Michel.

Now in the aftermath of the mass shooting, Michel is doing some soul searching. He discusses with Lulu all that has been going through his mind since he heard the identity of the shooter.


Publishers Notes: As a right wing conservative and strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment Rights, one does have to seriously question why people cannot buy nail polish remover and Sudafed without scrutiny? I'm not suggesting we stop law abiding Americans from purchasing weapons and I firmly agree with the statements out there that bad guys get guns anyway. The big question that needs to be answered is, what is the fair and balanced answer to the purchase of assault weapons, IF there is in fact ANY answer? I look forward to your replies/suggestions/answers.


Jim said...

You are right that this is complicated. But the right to keep and bear arms is explicit and clear in the Constitution. It doesn't mention nail polish remover or Sudafed, so that is a question for the courts, I guess.

And when you start to set limitations and qualifiers for the 2nd amendment right, well-meaning as they may be, it creates a slippery slope.

You would certainly think that some stipulation regarding mental health or violent history would be OK, but who gets to define that? If some liberal doesn't like what you stand for, are you "mentally unstable?"

It's a tough question. But it MUST be focused on the shooter, not the weapon.

Anonymous said...

First you have to get the definition of the word assault weapon. The definition is "any weapon used to assault someone". This doesn't apply to a specific weapon. The media and the left have labeled the AR-15 as an assault weapon so they can make it sound scary and insight fear into people to accomplish their agenda. Since there has been a lot of attacks in Europe using vehicles, maybe we should start calling them assault trucks/cars. Then we can regulate the sale or rent of them and do background checks and fingerprints just to own a vehicle. As Dianne Feinstein said her Liberal self, "there's no law that would have stopped the shooter in Vegas".

JoeAlbero said...

4:16, I was clearly talking about weapons like the AR-15.

Anonymous said...

It's always been my understanding that military personnel are given their weapons. If I'm wrong please correct.
With that in mind you can never eliminate these powerful weapons.
I myself don't like guns but firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment. We need to live in a country where citizens can protect themselves and their neighborhoods.
I would opine that the right thing to do would be to legislate in a way similar to a car. License, insurance, registration, etc. Just like the state has a database on vehicles, so should they on weapons. From there if anyone has a felony charge, then law enforcement can at least be aware.

Anonymous said...

is it because of the looks?
or is any semi auto 223 and assualt weapon?

Anonymous said...

I would say it's the intent of the 2nd amendment. The intention is to protect from a tyrannical government therefore we should be able to buy any weapon available. Grant it there isn't a weapon out there available to us citizens that can stop the government but we should be given at least a chance.

Anonymous said...

I'm goin to give it to ya like the liberal speak youve chosen {assault weapons, shame on you!} You wanna ban assault hammers like the guy used on those children in Princess anne not long ago? You exercise your first amendment right just like the guy at the gun bait and free publicity, its your right even tho I and others dont like it...should we be screaming to our reps to ban your 1st ad rights?. That gun store owner has no more guilt than the car salesman that sells a vehicle that wrecks and kills a young family. Far far more people are killed in vehicle accidents, plane crashes, ban them too big guy? I'll tell ya whats fair and balanced...leave our 2nd ad rights alone. DO your damn research and you'll see this was a gun running gone bad, not an average joe massacre. Much easier inhaling the propaganda tho huh sheeple. This isnt coincidence....every time there is a backed Bill to be voted on that gives back some of our 2nd ad freedom...a mass shooting occurs just a few days prior...research it. Which politicians jumped on it? How do they benefit from un-arming Americans? The Bill of Rights guaranties us the same weapons as the military and leo's...banning all guns will not stop law breakers nor criminals...but it will advance criminal politicians and progressive globalist! BAN our defenses and you will lead the sheeple to slaughter.

Anonymous said...

AR-15, Bushmaster, AK-47, H&K MP7, UZI, MAC-10 all are semi-automatic assault weapons in my book and can be made to replicate or converted to full auto. They serve no function other than to put as much lead down range as fast as possible and therefore have no legitimate purpose in the hands of non leo/military hands. Full disclaimer: I own several.

Anonymous said...

And yet, the exact same thing is true of unaltered semi-automatic rifles. Did you really forget the Norway attack that took even more lives than the Las Vegas one?

Do you think that there is a "legitimate need" to "regulate" semi-automatic rifles? Your logic demands that you do. So either you must abandon your justification for "regulating" bump-fire stocks, or you must support the same kinds of "regulations" against semi-automatic rifles.

machine guns are "regulated" because the government thought "regulating" them would make it easier to go up against organized crime organizations back in the 1930s. As if criminal organizations give a crap about laws. No, the NFA is exactly the same kind of response to the evil things that people have done that the national AWB was, and is no more legitimate. It is only because machine guns are "scary" and "powerful" that even some so-called "pro-gun" people are supportive of banning them.

Machine guns are not like explosives -- they are still directed-fire weapons.

Claims of "public safety" have to be proven for them to have any merit in the first place. Where's the data that shows that public safety is substantially higher with the NFA in place than without it? My bet is that you have none. And that means your position has no merit at all.

Anonymous said...

Come'on its baseball playoff season. Dontcha know that sports/kneeling is WAY more important than guns/killing! Priorities ladies and gentlemen, Priorities!!!!!!!

(so everyone is clear - sarcasm now OFF!)

lmclain said...

Why does a citizen need "permission", pay a fee, take a class, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, and go through an interview where they want to know all kinds of things? To use a RIGHT that is GUARANTEED to us (with all those hoops we have allowed to be placed upon us. By our "leaders"). So, PLEASE tell me what new laws will prevent the next crazy guy from killing?
The above-noted actions are what I call "infringement" and fits the textbook definition of the term. THAT is clearly prohibited. Quite clearly, actually.
Are you ready for a permit to say something controversial? A fee or a permit to travel to New York (because terrorists like New York, we HAVE TO KNOW who is coming and going - and there is a cost, comrades)?
Don't be so willing to give up your rights. Totalitarianism doesn't happen overnight. People get used to the little nicks and cuts until their freedom is bled dry. Patriot Act. NDAA. There is ALWAYS a good "reason" to take our rights; Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, for God's sake. Lincoln!
History is replete with examples.
This hoopla is about nothing more than FURTHER restricting another weapon or class of weapons. "Taking advantage of a crisis" is what I think they call it. One more little nick.
And you cheer like it's a brilliant new line of thinking.
All the way to the ovens.

Keep cheering.

Anonymous said...

FYI: The most recent machine gun regulations were enacted in 1986

Anonymous said...

imclain has once again laid out the bare naked truth..drop the mike....hoo ra

Anonymous said...

Anyone catch Steve Wynn's interview on Fox yesterday. He let slip about the service elevator. Said in his hotels a security guard has to accompany a guest if they need to use the service elevator.
Also at today's press conference the Sheriff changed the timeline. The security guard was shot at 9:59 which is approx 5 min before Paddock opened fired on the crowd.

Obama Crooked Bastardo said...

Very good point. That whole story smells like rotten fish. Many obvious holes in it, raising many more questions. So this is what they selling and Im not buying it.

Anonymous said...

Before yesterday the sheriff was calling the security guard a hero. Yesterday he shifted some of the blame to him saying I guess to explain his change of story as he was injured and shaken up.

Anonymous said...

I am a gun enthusiast and strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. I do not however condone the sale of assault rifles to the general public. They are in no fashion a hunting rifle and frankly I think anyone who purchases one should be documented and in some way held accountable for any misdeed (directly or indirectly) involving those weapons. That is what they are, military weapons.

Anonymous said...

8:24 am

is a rem 7400 a legit hunting rifle?
if so then so is an ar10

Anonymous said...

ALL weapons are assault weapons, if used in that manner. That's the problem with classifying a weapon as an assault weapon. There is no end to it, and that is just a means to overturn the second amendment. Even knives are assault weapons, if used that way. A baseball bat can be an assault weapon. And yeah, even a hunting rifle, or shotgun, can be an assault weapon, if used that way.

Get it? Banning assault weapons is just a back door to a total ban on guns. If you can ban one, you can ban them all. If you believe otherwise, you are naive.

Anonymous said...

Answer: Quit protecting a mental patient's "right to privacy" that allows them to purchase weapons like very other citizen. The federal gun control act of 1968 would have prevented Hinckley from obtaining the weapon that shot Reagan. All of the mass shootings in this country have a common thread...mental illness (even terrorism, which is tied to fanaticism, is a form of mental illness).

New laws will never be any better than the ones we already have. The ones we have are not enforced. THAT'S the problem. Enforce the gun control act of 1968, and the mentally ill will not get guns. HIPPA makes us all unsafe in the world of the mentally ill.

Anonymous said...

Blogger JoeAlbero said...
4:16, I was clearly talking about weapons like the AR-15.

October 9, 2017 at 4:35 PM

The Armalite Rifle is a semi-automatic rifle. Just like any other semi-automatic rifle. The main differences in all semi-automatic rifles are the caliber, method of feed, amount of ammo it carries and cosmetic differences.

A true ASSAULT rifle is one that has the ability to fire automatically or 3 shot bursts.

A hammer can be an ASSAULT hammer if someone hits you on the head with it.

Too much ado over all this nonsense. Any weapon is a TOOL. The person using it determines whether it is a good tool or a bad tool.

Except for looks and weight the average firearm has not changed. The people shooting them have changed. Humanity would be better served in studying why society, in general, has changed.

Stop giving everyone a pass and blaming their faults on an inatimate object.

DIZEMAN aka Jon Dize said...

The AR-15 is a single action weapon, not unlike many hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols.

The fact is, more people are murdered each year with Hammers and blunt objects than with ALL RIFLE CATEGORIES COMBINED, but nobody wants to ban or register hammers.

The weapon is not the issue whatsoever.

The issue is the SOCIOPATH that has decided they will kill somebody today.

We avoid dealing with the SOCIOPATH, because we know we cannot deal with them effectively.

You blame the semi-auto rifle used in several killings and the fact is, IT IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE ONE.

When you take the semi-auto rifle away from the SOCIOPATH, have you quelled the problem? NO.

You don't blame the HAMMER when a Carpenter beats his wife and child to death with it.

You don't blame the BOEING 737 when terrorists fly it into a skyscraper killing 3,000 innocent employees.

YET YOU BLAME THE GUN when some SOCIOPATH uses it as a tool to kill innocents?



There is no law written that will stop a criminal from slaughtering innocents.


And when you present the ABSOLUTE FACTS, the CLEAR AND UNDENIABLE FACTS to people... they cannot resist doing the YEAH BUT... BOOGIE.

The facts are, GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE. You cannot ban guns any more than the feds could ban alcohol during the PROHIBITION. How well did that work out, thousands murdered, alcohol was everywhere.


DIZEMAN aka Jon Dize said...

Part 2 of 2

Cocaine is banned, heroine is banned, not restricted, they are BANNED ENTIRELY. How is that working out for Americans so far?


How did banning murder work out for those murdered? See? THIS ENTIRE IDEA OF BANNING OR REGULATING ANYTHING IS FOOLISH AND IS ENTIRELY AN EMOTIONAL DISCONNECT FROM REALITY that allows us to FEEL as though we have DONE SOMETHING, when in reality, we have done nothing at all. Murder is already banned, the tool used is MOOT!

Gasoline and two matches 87 dead, That was all Julio Gonzalez needed to set the Happy Land social club in Brooklyn on fire in March of 1990. After starting the fire near the entrance, he pulled down the metal gate and left 87 people inside to burn or suffocate to death within minutes.

The reason? Gonzalez had gotten into a heated argument earlier that evening with his girlfriend, who was checking coats inside the club.


Gasoline and a lighter 133 dead. On February 18, 2003, a 56 year-old unemployed taxi driver boarded a subway train with the intention of killing himself.

But when he emptied two cartons of gasoline and dropped his lighter, the fire spread quickly throughout the train and onto a neighboring train. The death toll was 133.


Machetes 500 dead. In one of the bloodiest massacres in Nigerian history, more than 500 Christians were butchered by machete wielding Muslims in March of 2010. The attack, which didn't spare toddlers or infants, was reportedly in reprisal for Christian attacks on Muslims two months earlier.


People say, "Well, with a gun, it's just easier, spur of the moment."

Does anyone believe the Las Vegas shooter used guns to kill 58, because it was easy, spur of the moment? It took a long time to plan this. He scouted out several locations, rented several hotel rooms in several hotels.

He had to conceal and drag a couple of dozen long guns into a hotel's VIP SUITE, which I know for a fact to be very restrictive in what you can take in and who can occupy the suites.

There was a lot of planning and a lot of time involved in setting up this slaughter, it was not easy, nor was it spur of the moment.

MURDER is BANNED and yet, it has never stopped any murder from taking place.

But by some magical mystery fantasy, banning guns will make the pain go away?

Humans are weird creatures, the one thing we do better than all other things we do?

WE RATIONALIZE so that we feel good by lying to ourselves.