Something of a concern in LGS's

[gamestalker]

I remember back in 1970 in the sleepy little town of Alamogordo, New Mexico our new TG&Y had recently opened. They had a pretty decent sporting goods dept and gun selection wasn't to shabby either. But one day a young man, I believe 16 years old came in and asked to look at a 30-06. The Clerk, who I knew, handed it to him, to which the young man asked to see a box of 30-06 ammunition, and the clerk handed that to him as well. Without any warning, the young man began loading the rifle and then began shooting, first the clerk, and then wildly through the store, killing multiple innocent shoppers.

My point is, that like many of us here, I frequent local gun shops and have noticed many will have firearms accessible to anyone who walks in the door. What bothers me about this is that in many of these shop the firearms are not made to be inoperable, no trigger locks or other such devices to prevent such an event as described above. I also don't think ammunition should be sold with a firearm purchase.

Now days I do see some good preventive policy in this respect, but there are still quite a few shops that don't consider this as dangerous and risky. Maybe it's just me, but when a gun shop displays and hands firearms to people they don't know, those weapons should be secured to the extent that they can't be easily loaded or fired. And I also don't think ammunition should be sold in the same transaction, or at the same time.

GS

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I also don't think ammunition should be sold with a firearm purchase.

So, people should buy a gun but be refused the ammunition to actually go out and shoot the darn thing? Really? That seems a little absurd.

Maybe it's just me, but when a gun shop displays and hands firearms to people they don't know, those weapons should be secured to the extent that they can't be easily loaded or fired.

That part I don't have a problem with. LGS in Little Rock tells a story where a gun asked to see a 1911 and inserts a loaded mag and racks the slide. Immediately he has a gun on him by the clerk who yells, "PUT THE GUN ON THE COUNTER NOW!"
The guy did, and was promptly told to leave and never return.

So yes, I see your concern. However, I do feel that refusing to sell ammo to someone who is buying a new gun is over the top. Hell, if they're buying a new gun, they prolly want to hit the range and see how it does.

 

[JohnKSa]

Some years ago, I had a store sell me a gun and refuse to sell me ammunition for it in the same transaction.

I actually had to take the gun outside, put it in my car and then go back inside to buy the ammunition. I don't believe anyone was safer for their refusal to sell me both at the same time. If I had been planning something nefarious, I could have easily bought my ammunition the day before (or even just an hour or two before) and taken it back into the store in my pockets when making the gun purchase.

As far making the gun harder to load & fire, the same thing applies. So the gun buyer has to take it out to his car to remove the trigger lock and load the gun. How is anyone actually made safer as a result of that minor delay?

 

[CSC_Saint]

Where I live, just about all the clerks are armed at the LGS's, at the sporting goods stores, notsomuch. I believe that if we all stooped to the level of not selling ammo and a gun together in a transaction, we demonstrate the same paranoia and fear that the anti-gunners have. Are there bad guys, yes, hence CCW, open carry, etc... Prohibiting the sale of two separate items together isn't going to solve or even mitigate the risk of a crazy hell-bent on taking or trying to take life. How easy is it to buy ammo, or gun first, and then buy other in a few minutes, go out to the car, load up multiple mags and then go on a spree? Multiple transactions truly do nothing to remove the risk of a bad guy.

 

[gamestalker]

I think SCS Saint really addresses it well, in that, if you work in the firearms retail business, I think it is prudent and a smart approach to this industry to have selected and trained members of the staff armed, and I see this in many gun shops. But I don't consider it to be enough preventive action, and that's because anything that can be done to avoid a shoot out in a populated business, that I might add often includes a number of armed customers, could quickly evolve into a very bad situation over all. In conjunction with other prevention methods it can be a good thing.

As for not selling ammunition that is matched to the firearm being purchased while the weapon is still in the hands of the purchaser, I don't think that should be considered as over doing it. I'm not suggesting that a customer should leave his new firearm in the car and risk having it stolen while buying the ammo. But rather using a more creative and less cumbersome approach by simply suggesting they make the ammo purchase first, remove it from the store, and then return to complete the firearm purchase. This is how I have approached this in the past with very minimal, if any negative reaction from the valued customer. I would then start the background and other pertinent procedures, while they go make their ammo purchase, and then of course remove it from the store. Usually by the time they have returned from their car, the firearm purchase has been completed and they are on their merry way and sporting a big smile.

But regarding firearms being available to anyone walking in the door that are fully operational by doing nothing more than simply loading it, is a bad and a risky business practice, period. Armed staff aside, that's almost the perfect robbery scenario for a bad guy who doesn't even own a firearm. All he needs is the ammo to act on his intentions.

GS

 

[JohnKSa]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you need to stop and ask yourself what practical benefit your approach will achieve.
If a person wants to come into the store, buy a gun and use it for a robbery, how will your refusal to sell him ammo prevent the robbery? Unless your store is the only source of that kind of ammo, he can simply bring his own and unless you frisk him at the door, you won't know he's done so.

If a person wants to come into a store, buy a gun and then load it and use it with evil intent, how will making them take it to their car first make anyone safer?

If anything, the people in the store will be LESS prepared since the person can get ready for his crime out of sight of the patrons and clerks and then come back in ready for battle. On the other hand, if a customer were to start loading a gun in the presence of a clerk, or even while walking around the store, it's much more likely that someone would notice such behavior and sound the alarm.

Instead of thinking solely about the risk (which admittedly exists), think about how your strategy will eliminate, or even reduce, the risk. If your strategy doesn't really effect any practical change in the risk--and I can't see how it possibly could make a practical difference--then the strategy doesn't make sense even if the risk exists.

Here's an example of what I'm trying to say. Let's say that someone has made a bomb threat against you stating that they will rig your car to explode. You consider the risk of injury and decide that from now on you will always wear your seatbelt and lock your car doors as soon as you get inside. Both of these are reasonable safety precautions in general, but they won't make any difference at all in terms of reducing your injury from a bomb planted in your vehicle. In other words, even though the risk exists, and the strategy you've come up with is a good safety strategy in general, it really makes no practical difference at all in reducing the specific risk that you're trying to address.

Same with your strategy of not allowing someone to buy a gun and the ammo for it at the same time. It might be a reasonable policy, it might not make the customers angry, but it's not doing anything to reduce the risk that you claim is the reason for implementing the policy in the first place.

 

[beatledog7]

Maybe it's just me, but when a gun shop displays and hands firearms to people they don't know, those weapons should be secured to the extent that they can't be easily loaded or fired. And I also don't think ammunition should be sold in the same transaction, or at the same time.

What are you trying to accomplish with this? As others have pointed out, nothing stops said looney from carrying a box of ammo, or even a loaded magazine (he can buy magazines and ammo in most sates with no background check, right?) for a particular gun into the LGS, asking to see that gun, popping in his mag and blasting away.

Sorry--I call slippery slope. Give up the freedom to handle guns in a LGS, or buy ammo for the gun you're buying, and the antis will see these as such good ideas (for our children!) that it just makes sense to require a background check for entry to the store (which is of course unworkable and ineffective at stopping crime, but antis don't care about that). And if after that we have another SH-style shooting, requiring a background check for entry clearly wasn't enough, so we'd better prohibit all open retail gun sales, and allow only some sort of "by-appointment" transactions: One FFL/clerk, one customer, one policeman... But even then you never know who might slip through a crack....

No. No more infringements. Gun owners have given in to too much of this sort of tyranny already.

 

[Averageman]

My point is, that like many of us here, I frequent local gun shops and have noticed many will have firearms accessible to anyone who walks in the door. What bothers me about this is that in many of these shop the firearms are not made to be inoperable, no trigger locks or other such devices to prevent such an event as described above. I also don't think ammunition should be sold with a firearm purchase.
Your attempt at making everyone "Safe" would restrict those normal folks who just want to walk in to the LGS and make a normal purchase.
In reality, if I walked in to a GS and the place looked like a "Liberal Dream World" where guns are locked, and ammo was restricted from purchase; I would walk out never to return.
Life isn't safe and attempts to make it so only restrict our freedoms.

 

[David E]

I also don't think ammunition should be sold with a firearm purchase.

I also don't think ammunition should be sold in the same transaction, or at the same time.

GS

Wow, you said it twice. It was inane both times.

But I did not know that Senator Schumer posted on THR...

 

[Risky]

Yes, make him take the gun or ammo out of the store first... so he can buy the other next and load it in his car before walking back in the store?

Are you going to draw down on every person that walks back into the store with the gun they just bought? FREEZE! Oh, sorry... I just had a question about how the safety works?! I'm sure he'll be back buying again real soon.

 

[MedWheeler]

I think the extreme rarity of such events makes this a non-issue.

Soon, people will be proposing that one cannot buy ammunition for their gun at the range..

 

[Kleanbore]

An Understatement!

Posted by Arkansas Paul: That seems a little absurd.

One crime forty years ago, which might have been delayed for a very short interval....unless the perp had brought his own ammunition.

 

[Certaindeaf]

They shouldn't sell a car with gas in the tank.

 

[Potatohead]

why didnt somebody shoot back? At my LGS, about 90% of the customers and ALL of the employees have a pistol on their hip. i always feel pretty safe at the LGS, outside of the obligatory muzzle sweeps!

 

[btg3]

...almost the perfect robbery scenario for a bad guy who doesn't even own a firearm. All he needs is the ammo to act on his intentions. GS

So... by extension of your logic, we'd need security at the door to make sure they aren't walking in to the LGS with a pocket full of ammo. :banghead:

Yeah, I'm going to file this under paranoia and not lose any sleep.

 

[Potatohead]

Also,
As has been stated, i'd rather them start loading up right there so at least the clerk will have a chance to see whats going on, instead of going out to the car and coming back in with kevlar and 6 loaded mags

 

[OptimusPrime]

I must have logged onto the wrong website

Who among the members here would actually advocate for more restrictions? I don't get it.

 

[Certaindeaf]

No ammo for you!

 

[easyg]

What bothers me about this is that in many of these shop the firearms are not made to be inoperable, no trigger locks or other such devices to prevent such an event as described above.

If the gun had a trigger lock or was inoperable, how would anyone actually check it out before buying?

I have to rack the slide, dry fire (always ask the clerk if it is OK before dry firing), manipulate the safety, slide lock, decocker, cylinder release , etc....before I buy any firearm.


Buying an inoperable firearm would be like buying a car without first test driving the car.

And think about that for a moment...
A guy could ask to test drive a car and then go on a rampage running down pedestrians!
We must ban test driving immediately!
After all, if it might save just one life....

No, making more laws and rules and regulations is NOT an answer.
A bird in a cage is "safe", just not free.
Only a fool will trade freedom for the illusion of safety.

I also don't think ammunition should be sold with a firearm purchase.

I'm think the total opposite...
I think you should get one complimentary box of cheap target ammo to go with the purchase of any gun.

A local gun shop (Shooter's Express in Mt. Holly, NC) will give you 1 hour free range time with the purchase of any firearm.
No free ammo however.
You can buy a gun, buy some ammo, and walk back to the range and shoot it right then and there.


Another thing you might not have considered....
If you just bought a firearm, but you could not immediately buy ammo for it, what would prevent a criminal from robbing you in the parking lot, as you walk to your car, and taking your new firearm?

This is why I always have a loaded weapon on my side when leaving a gun shop or a range.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'm not suggesting that a customer should leave his new firearm in the car and risk having it stolen while buying the ammo. But rather using a more creative and less cumbersome approach by simply suggesting they make the ammo purchase first, remove it from the store, and then return to complete the firearm purchase.

Then they take their firearm to the car where their ammo is waiting, load it there, then come back into the store and start shooting. Evil people bent on wreaking havoc are going to do it. Your solution would only delay the act by a minute or two.

I see what you are trying to accomplish, I just don't agree with your method. Your proposed solution is much the same as gun legislation, feel good rules that in actuality accomplish little or nothing.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I'm closing this one before it goes any further off the rails and people start getting themselves in trouble... I think the discussion has pretty well covered the subject.