They're At It Again...

MBtGE sent me a link to this typical Washington Post poll:

Are gun stores responsible for crime?

It's the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument - since B follows A, B must have been caused by A. Because gun stores sell guns, and guns are used in crimes, gun stores must be selling the guns used in crimes. In very few cases do gun stores actually violate the law and sell firearms to prohibited persons - and when they do they should face the full penalty of law. Most often, though, the guns are either stolen outright, either from the gun shops themselves or from law abiding folks (and printing the names of folks who have concealed carry permits might be helping in this endeavor) or bought through straw purchases, where a person eligible to own a firearm buys it and then sells it to someone who is ineligible.

Before we talk about holding gun stores responsible for acts committed by criminals, let's go after straw buyers. One of the most famous examples of a straw purchase is Robyn Anderson, who purchased three of the four firearms used in the Columbine shooting. She purchased two shotguns and a Hi-Point 9mm carbine, and then handed them over to the two shooters, both ineligible to purchase firearms due to age and mental condition. She was never prosecuted for her actions.

Think about that for a second. The person who provided 75% of the firearms used in the Columbine shooting was never prosecuted for her role in the massacre. Instead, she became a shill for the gun-grabbers, tearfully testifying how easy it was to acquire firearms because of the "gun show loophole" - even though she could have purchased all three firearms at any gun store regardless of any non-existent "loophole." Never prosecuted. They claim to want to pass more laws with the intent of stopping "gun crimes", yet won't prosecute the laws already on the books.

Should we hold individual gun stores responsible for guns used in crimes? Well, if it can be proven that the store in question knowingly sold the firearm to a prohibited person, certainly. Beyond that, do we really want to open that particular Pandora's box? Should Bob Smith Ford be responsible for every person that drives one of their Explorers while drunk? Or in excess of the speed limit? Or do they just want to make it so onerous for a store to engage in the business of selling firearms that fewer and fewer actually do? They don't need to ban firearms if there's no one left to sell them, do they?

Not that it matters, but if you feel so inclined, take a moment and vote in the poll - at the very least, deny them the ability to say that people support this idea.

That is all.