Eric Thompson, gun violence, gun website, guns, Illinois shooting, mental illness, school rampage, School Shooting, school shootings, Seung-Hui Cho, shooting northern illinois university, The Gun Source, The Gun Source website, Virginia Tech Shootings
Eric Thompson, gun violence, gun website, guns, Illinois shooting, mental illness, school rampage, School Shooting, school shootings, Seung-Hui Cho, shooting northern illinois university, The Gun Source, The Gun Source website, Virginia Tech Shootings

Same Gun Dealer Sold to 2 Campus Killers

SCOTT BAUER | February 16, 2008 08:46 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

MADISON, Wis. — The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.

Eric Thompson said his Web site, , sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide. http://www.topglock.com

Another Web site run by Thompson's company, , also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself. http://www.thegunstore.com

"I'm still blown away by the coincidences," Thompson said Friday. "I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this."

His company, TGSCOM Inc., based in Green Bay, shipped the order Monday, and records of the sale provided to The Associated Press by Thompson show Kazmierczak received the order Tuesday.

Kazmierczak carried a shotgun and three handguns into the classroom Thursday. Thompson said he had no idea whether the shooter used the holster or magazines purchased on the Web site.

Each magazine can hold 33 bullets, Thompson said. He said his site did not sell Kazmierczak any bullets or guns.

Kazmierczak bought two of the weapons used in the shooting _ the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun _ legally on Feb. 9 in Champaign, Ill., where he was a student, authorities said.

Thompson said he checked his sales records after the name of the shooter was made public Friday. The records show $105.62 in items were shipped to an apartment in Champaign and signed for by someone other than Kazmierczak.

Thompson said he contacted the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives within five minutes of realizing the latest connection Friday morning.

The Glock Web site is well-known among gun users on the Internet, so it is not surprising that someone looking for accessories for a Glock would find it, Thompson said. But being tied to both of the shootings is "unnerving," he said.

"I still feel just absolutely in shock," he said. "I feel like I was run over by a truck."

Thompson said he has no way of knowing whether Kazmierczak found out about his Web site from the publicity it got after the Virginia Tech shootings, but the thought crossed his mind. Web traffic increased after that shooting, along with phone calls and threats, he said.

It was not clear whether one site linked to the other.

(This version CORRECTS a reference to a rifle to say shotgun.)

Comments for this post are now closed


 
 

Comments
831
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

Gun Control: Ghandi was against it, Hitler was for it.

What else do you need to know?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:09 PM on 02/21/2008
- moodyring See Profile I'm a Fan of moodyring

he doesn't feel in shock. he likes the damn publicity.

please explain to me why people can buy guns online?! how ridiculous is that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 AM on 02/19/2008
- shedances See Profile I'm a Fan of shedances

Thanks, moodyring, for bringing this important issue up of people being able to buy such parts easily online. I agree with you, too, that this kid gun-dealer doesn't look at all like he's in a state of 'shock' or regret ... but more like he's scared; because he might be in hot water for selling such firearms parts to would-be killers. I'm interested to see if the feds investigate such dealings & what they discover.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 02/20/2008
- Thirdpower See Profile I'm a Fan of Thirdpower

Obviously they found nothing Kelli or he would have been shut down following VT. But that really doesn't matter to you does it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 02/20/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

Moodyring, it's no different than buying a gun at a local dealer in your own state. You can order and pay for a gun online, from a federally licensed dealer (FFL) in another state. You must provide him with the name and address, etc. of a local dealer in your own state, along with a copy of your local dealer's FFL.

The out of state dealer, then ships the gun to your local FFL dealer. You must go to him to have your NICS (background) check, present any necessary permits, etc.. Then you take posession of the gun. In person.

So, instaed of your local dealer getting this in his inventory from a distributor or the factory, he ordered it (in effect) from another dealer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 02/19/2008
- MSorgy See Profile I'm a Fan of MSorgy

moodyring:

People can not buy guns on line unless they have an FFL or a C&R (Curio and Relic) license. Anyone else who wants to buy a gun has to work through an FFL who will run the NICS (background check) on the buyer. The only exception to this are guns made before 1899 which are exempt and can be mailed directly to the buyer.

Ordering guns through the mail stopped with the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Michael

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 AM on 02/19/2008
- poeticjustice4all See Profile I'm a Fan of poeticjustice4all

Simply possessing a firearm is useless in a school shooting situation -- unless you're sitting in your geology class taking notes with one hand while the other is wrapped around a loaded gun hidden in your lap, ready to be fired at a moment's notice. Of course, if you're THAT nervous and on-edge about the remote possibility of a sudden attack, then YOU are the only real threat of a school shooting.

Supplying each student with a gun would obviously be the exact opposite of a deterrent to suicidal thrill killers -- it would up the thrill. And undoubtedly, arming every crazy kid on campus would create killers who wouldn't otherwise have the means.

The answer is dramatically increased campus security, starting with restrictive electronic pass-keys and well-trained police officers -- uniformed and plain clothed -- on every floor of every building. Instead of giving every student a Glock, give every student a bullet-proof backpack.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 02/18/2008
- MSorgy See Profile I'm a Fan of MSorgy

poeticjustice4all:

First of all, you are incorrect in your assumption that you have to have a gun in hand for it to be effective. (If that was the case, wouldn't police officers walk around with them in hand all of the time?) Wearing it on your hip or (in a woman's case) having it in your purse is close enough assuming one is vigilant.

The mere presence of a gun is often enough to stop crime. It happens hundreds of thousands of times every year here.

Michael

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 AM on 02/19/2008
- 1will See Profile I'm a Fan of 1will

I disagree with you notion that having a gun in a backpack is useless. The Illinois shooter shot up the room for 2 minutes. He emptied his shotgun and reloaded a pistol once. Sit there and clock two minutes. I imagine it went pretty slowly as you watched the clock.
Cho went from room to room at Va Tech. I don't remember how long the shooting lasted but I believe someone in a classroom nextdoor or down the hall from him could have ample time to get a gun out of a backpack.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 02/18/2008
- Thirdpower See Profile I'm a Fan of Thirdpower

Tell me which happens first. Hundreds of new security in each building w/ millions spent on electronics. Or allowing those who choose to to protect themselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 02/18/2008
- poeticjustice4all See Profile I'm a Fan of poeticjustice4all

What happens first -- is a lot more innocent students will be gunned down in the middle of the day. We lose hundreds of students every year, and nobody in the N.R.A. seems to care as much about that as they care about their right to own a gun. Whatever. The gun-lovers in this country are determined to live free even if it means killing kids, so do what you want. But spare us the clever statistics. These innocent students are not statistics, they are someone's son, daughter, sister, brother -- best friend. Not statistics.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 PM on 02/18/2008
- jmbrooks2 See Profile I'm a Fan of jmbrooks2

Mike101 says:

"I know you anti-gunners are afraid of the truth, but here are some statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report."

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my information to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...Secondly, Mike101 states that "From 1960 to 2006, crime per 100,000 inhabitants of this country has increased 313%. This is what 40 years of gun-control have done for you. I remember life before gun control. Lot's of people carried guns. We didn't have Old West shootouts, or home-invasions, or mass shootings at school, or "gun free zones". It seemed to work out pretty well."

Really, well that isn't what the Dept. of Justice website claims, perhaps you will want to see what they have to say here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 02/18/2008
- Thirdpower See Profile I'm a Fan of Thirdpower

Disaster center source:

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

Just for you:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 02/18/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

Thanks Thirdpower. Nice catch.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:09 PM on 02/18/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my information to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...

So what? Disaster center doesn't have an axe to grind. They compile stats for all kinds of disasters, natural and man made.

So you're implying that my figures are not accurate? Yours are DOJ figures for "violent crime". My figures are FBI figures for ALL crime.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 02/18/2008
- TXfemmom See Profile I'm a Fan of TXfemmom

The Constitution guaranteed individuals to bear arms in a militia..meaning that one could carry arms in an organization..which may have been a way to tell the government that we brought down one form which oppressed us, and we intend to protect ourselves from any other despot. Since it doesn't work, as proven by the fact that Bush/Cheney are still in office, it has failed.

However, times change and situations change. A firearm should be EARNED, just like a car license. We spend billions, with much of it wasted, to protect us from Islamic terrorism, while we are faced with gun terrorism from within, which exceeds that of Islamic terrorism.

Legitimate databases should have to be maintained listing felons, those with certain types of misdemeanors, and those who are mentally ill and refuse to remain in treatment. Then, those databanks should be maintiained and up to date, and all individuals seeking to purchase or obtain guns should have to pass that test, with fingerprints, retinal or other biometric testing.

Slowly, we should be able to get this violence under control, and those who want to possess guns for hunting or other legitimate activities should be willing to submit to the background checks, prove that they have secured the weapons, and take and pass courses for handling of those guns. No one who should want to hunt, and deserves to possess guns, should be barred in it, or for target practice, etc. if they are not disturbed, violent, or criminals. Those who are any of the above should be thwarted in every possible means.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 02/18/2008
- Bandofotters See Profile I'm a Fan of Bandofotters

I noticed that "self-defense" was never explicitly mentioned as a legitimate activity. Why was that?

Also, your argument loses credibility when you compare gun usage/ownership to the ownership and usage of an automobile. The latter being a priveledge, not a right. Personally, I would like to see some licensing regarding "freedom of the press" based upon the truthfullness of content but I have too much respect for our Bill of Rights to ever support such a measure. I would love nothing more to get all 'bad' guns out of circulation but I haven't a clue as to how to get guns out of the hands of the people most likely to use them against me and against you.

Let's keep the bogus analogy going for a bit regarding cars. What amazes me about the NICS background check for a firearm purchase is that no one is suggesting that the NICS verification be applied to obtaining or renewing a drivers license. All it takes is for one crazy to run into a group of students at a pep rally with a vehicle equiped to inflict maximum damage. We will then have a bunch of copy-cats, especially in a utopian world where we somehow prevent crazies from obtaining firearms. Then there will be an outcry. I am just weeks, months or years ahead of my time. All drivers who fail the background check would be required to wear an ankle bracelet. All cars would be equiped with a kill-switch that would be activated upon detecting a signal from the bracelet. We could expand NICS, when used for driver screening to include all registered alcoholics, all people undergoing a divorce or under legal separation.

Regarding your suggestion that certain misdemeaners should be included in the NICS screening. I don't disagree but at the same time treating all felons alike is rather absurd don't you think? An architect in Massachusetts who sets up shop without a license is now a felon. Violent felons, Yes. Felons of convenience, No.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 02/19/2008
- Thirdpower See Profile I'm a Fan of Thirdpower

So you trust a gov't database that historically has a 10%+ error rate?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 PM on 02/18/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

2A doesn't say anything about the right of the militia. It does mention the "right of the People".

Since 31 states, and the majority of representatives in both houses of Congress, have just filed briefs in favor of Heller, I would say that there is some disagreement with your interpretation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 02/18/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

Jeff1958 said:

"Give everybody guns, that way, there will be FEWER senseless shootings??? Somehow, the NRA logic fails my smell test. The NRA stinks."


I know you anti-gunners are afraid of the truth, but here are some statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

From 1960 to 2006, crime per 100,000 inhabitants of this country has increased 313%. This is what 40 years of gun-control have done for you. I remember life before gun control. Lot's of people carried guns. We didn't have Old West shootouts, or home-invasions, or mass shootings at school, or "gun free zones". It seemed to work out pretty well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 02/18/2008
- jmbrooks2 See Profile I'm a Fan of jmbrooks2

Mike101 says:

"I know you anti-gunners are afraid of the truth, but here are some statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report."
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my information to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...Secondly, Mike101 states that "From 1960 to 2006, crime per 100,000 inhabitants of this country has increased 313%. This is what 40 years of gun-control have done for you. I remember life before gun control. Lot's of people carried guns. We didn't have Old West shootouts, or home-invasions, or mass shootings at school, or "gun free zones". It seemed to work out pretty well."
Really, well that isn't what the Dept. of Justice website claims, perhaps you will want to see what they have to say here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:56 PM on 02/18/2008
- Thirdpower See Profile I'm a Fan of Thirdpower

Hmm. Let's look at the Disaster Center source:

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 02/18/2008
- FadeIn See Profile I'm a Fan of FadeIn

But you refuse to acknowledge all the deaths caused by guns? You are an incredible piece of work -- sorry, I mean piece of shit. Let's here it for violence! According to you, it works every time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 02/18/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

Now, that was a lucid, well thought out, eloquently expressed rebuttal. But where did I say any of that? It's amazing. You people have nothing but insults and BS to offer.

Are you refusing to acknowledge the absurd increase in crime over the last 40 years? Did you look at the stats at all?

I read something on another forum, that I think is fitting to remember here.............

"Arguing with an anti is like running in the Special Olympics. You might win the race, but you're still retarded".

Idiot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 02/18/2008
- Jeff1958 See Profile I'm a Fan of Jeff1958

You are making wild assumptions and proving nothing.

Coincidentally, my brother was born in 1960. Perhaps he is responsible for the 313% increase. My (intentionally ridiculous) logic is no different than yours.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 02/18/2008
- fact finder See Profile I'm a Fan of fact finder

Jeff1958; If you will take the time to look at the ststa you will see that gun violence increased most dramatically in the 1980's when the drug trade be came a big business. Most gun violence is due to criminal activity. Is your brother a gan member. ? If so then yes he is. If not then he is not. 1776

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 PM on 02/18/2008
- JohnKemp See Profile I'm a Fan of JohnKemp

Actually he's simply describing reality.

"Binge drinking" is a paralell; when I was a teen-ager I frequently had a beer with my Father who thought nothing about it. My girlfriend's family served wine with lunch & dinner; no big deal.

Now, one can vote, work dangerous jobs & even go to Iraq but is prohibited from having a beer or glass of wine with dinner.

Voila! Binge drinking.

Lib policies ALWAYS produce the ass-opposite of their stated intention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 02/18/2008
- mike101 See Profile I'm a Fan of mike101

Oh, there is no proving anything to you people, because you refuse to look at the evidence. I'm not making any assumptions. It's all there in black and white. Read it.

It's perfectly logical. Back then, even lunatics knew that if they broke into someone's home, there was a good chance of being shot. We had felons and crazy people then too, you know.

Ask yourself this question. If you were a mugger, where would you rather go to ply your trade? Washington DC, where the law-abiding population has been disarmed, or Dallas Texas, where there is a good chance that your potential victim has a bigger gun than you do?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 02/18/2008
- realityisbetter See Profile I'm a Fan of realityisbetter

The whole point of the right to bear arms is to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

The whole reason it exists is to make sure we can revolt against a tyrannical government. It wasn't written in 2008 under today's circumstances. It was written after we took up arms against the preceeding government to insure we could do it again, if necessary.

That may be an appaling thought today, but it wasn't when the constitution was written.

I'm liberal, but I don't go with the party on gun control. The framers wanted the government to be afraid of the people, and this was one of the ways they did it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 02/18/2008
- innerpeace See Profile I'm a Fan of innerpeace

There is nothing like fear to get people to give up their rights.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 02/18/2008
- FadeIn See Profile I'm a Fan of FadeIn

I doubt that you mean like, The Patriot Act, but it fits your theory.

And to that I add... There is nothing like fear to make people cling to something that doesn't exist, simply because the truth is too frightening to contemplate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 02/18/2008
- A Meat Beetle See Profile I'm a Fan of A Meat Beetle

innerpeace:

There is noting like fear to make people think that guns will make them safer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 02/18/2008