• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"At some point we need to ask the question: How did this man with this history of mental instability end up with this weapon," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on CNN's "State of the Union" today.

"How did he go through the process and end up with this gun and this ammunition?"

Color me surprised that it took less than 24 hours for someone to turn a tragic event into a political grandstand against gun ownership. :doh

Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales
 
Fighting guns in the hands of criminals and morons is noble but realistically impossible.

I am not in agreement with you usually but agree with you here that there would be the automatic knee jerk reaction to discuss gun control.

Now, I am waiting for the automatic knee jerk reaction by a gun owner (which I am one) that if someone had a gun there the damage could have been shorten. That reaction I question. In this particular case if you had been there with a gun could you really have stopped the carnage. In a crowd like that I don't know about firing a shot. You would have to be point blank on him and what are the odds of that. And if you were up that close to him I think the best solution would have been the one taken by the man and woman who tackled him and disarmed him.

I am still impressed with the unidentified woman who wrestled away his magazine from him. That states a lot about the power adrenaline gives you . That lady is a hero in my book.
 
When something goes wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking why.

There's nothing wrong with asking why. What's objectionable is when a bunch of idiots are convinced that they KNOW why things went wrong and then try to push their particular brand of bull****, using the tragedy as fodder.
 
Fighting guns in the hands of criminals and morons is noble but realistically impossible.

I am not in agreement with you usually but agree with you here that there would be the automatic knee jerk reaction to discuss gun control.

Now, I am waiting for the automatic knee jerk reaction by a gun owner (which I am one) that if someone had a gun there the damage could have been shorten. That reaction I question. In this particular case if you had been there with a gun could you really have stopped the carnage. In a crowd like that I don't know about firing a shot. You would have to be point blank on him and what are the odds of that. And if you were up that close to him I think the best solution would have been the one taken by the man and woman who tackled him and disarmed him.

I am still impressed with the unidentified woman who wrestled away his magazine from him. That states a lot about the power adrenaline gives you . That lady is a hero in my book.

Well said. I pretty much agree with you. As far as another gun owner stopping the shooter, I won't comment on that one way or the other, as I don't know what the situation really was in this particular circumstance. There have been instances where a responsible civilian gun owner has stopped an active shooter, but like you stated, in a tight crowd is not the place to be returning fire. I heartily commend the heroes who stopped this bad guy before he could do more damage. With the amount of ammunition he had available, this could have been far worse.
 
I think it raises the reasonable question as to why his history does not show up in the proper database in order to flag him. A college booted him and said he needs to show a mental health evaluation stating he's not a danger to himself or others before he could return. Then the military rejected him as unqualified to serve. These are red flags on record, but if you don't check they obviously wont show up.
 
I think that people should have to undergo a through background check to get a gun. Guns do not kill people, people kill people yes, but we need to try to make sure that something like this does not happen again.

The solution to gun crime is never more gun legislation.

I think it raises the reasonable question as to why his history does not show up in the proper database in order to flag him. A college booted him and said he needs to show a mental health evaluation stating he's not a danger to himself or others before he could return. Then the military rejected him as unqualified to serve. These are red flags on record, but if you don't check they obviously wont show up.

It's not often that I agree with you, but of all the forms of gun control, detailed background checks are the ones that I, personally, have the least problem with.

I would far prefer, that the average person just be more educated on firearms and that they were more capable of protecting themselves. Any measure of control can easily lead to a slippery slope of gun confiscation and banning. It's a very fine line to tread.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with asking why. What's objectionable is when a bunch of idiots are convinced that they KNOW why things went wrong and then try to push their particular brand of bull****, using the tragedy as fodder.

I completely agree, if the guy comes up with a pre-packaged solution or if its obvious its just for politics than its shameful. However its a real analysis of how the law might be changed to ensure less people with criminal intent, before the purchase, are allowed to purchase a weapon than there's nothing wrong with it.
 
The solution to gun crime is never more gun legislation.

How about better gun legislation? Making a blanket statement like that really shows your ignorance. Using that statement you could infer that you are suggesting the solution to gun crime is always less legislation.
 
The problem with background checks is not everybody buys a gun from a dealer.

One drastic measure would be life imprisonment for any crime committed with a gun. Wouldn't prevent first timers but would take out some repeat criminals.
 
There's nothing wrong with asking why. What's objectionable is when a bunch of idiots are convinced that they KNOW why things went wrong and then try to push their particular brand of bull****, using the tragedy as fodder.

I don't see that as happening here, though. The quotes in the article are standard political vague nonsense, with the one exception of pointing out a legitimate issue of inconsistent computer checks.
 
I think it raises the reasonable question as to why his history does not show up in the proper database in order to flag him. A college booted him and said he needs to show a mental health evaluation stating he's not a danger to himself or others before he could return. Then the military rejected him as unqualified to serve. These are red flags on record, but if you don't check they obviously wont show up.


Beyond committing a crime people do have a right to privacy.
 
How about better gun legislation? Making a blanket statement like that really shows your ignorance. Using that statement you could infer that you are suggesting the solution to gun crime is always less legislation.

:doh :doh

Define "better" gun control before you go spouting off about ignorance.
 
You already have to go through the NICS (National Instant Check System) when buying a gun legally from a dealer. Any red flags (mental, substance, criminal) are supposed to pop up and prevent the sale.

However, he might have stolen the gun, or bought it from a drug dealer, likely as not. :shrug:
 
Beyond committing a crime people do have a right to privacy.

Which you voluntarily waive for the purposes of purchasing a gun, or any number of other things that require a background check.
I mean, your credit history has a lot of data on you too. Doesn't mean you have a right to keep it hidden from someone trying to give you a loan.
 
You already have to go through the NICS (National Instant Check System) when buying a gun legally from a dealer. Any red flags (mental, substance, criminal) are supposed to pop up and prevent the sale.

However, he might have stolen the gun, or bought it from a drug dealer, likely as not. :shrug:


The gun was legally purchased according to the article.
 
Color me surprised that it took less than 24 hours for someone to turn a tragic event into a political grandstand against gun ownership. :doh

Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales

In this case, it is absolutely correct to question Arizona's gun laws. I hope they change them. He purchased the gun on November 30th. This past fall, he was refused admittance to community college until he provided a mental health evaluation. He was turned down when he tried to enlist....military citing "unqualified." Psych eval sucked?

Arizona gun law? Anyone over the age of 18 can own one. How about a background check and three references? "That sure doesn't seem unreasonable to me," says the gun owner from Chicago. They absolutely should be looking at how this guy was able to buy a gun -- with his history, turning him down would be a no-brainer.

However, I'd also tell Durbin that he could purchase one illegally on the inner-city street corner of any major city regardless of any law. Smoke that, Senator.
 
:doh :doh

Define "better" gun control before you go spouting off about ignorance.

Better would be something which would have caught this guy, or in general would ensure this is less gun crime, of course 'better' is entirely subjective. I'm not suggesting I have a solution, and I know there's no such thing as a perfect solution. I was merely attempting to point out the sillyness of implying the only solution is less gun legislation and all and every additional gun legislation is wrong.

Personally, being from Arizona and a gun owner, I like our state's gun laws. However I don't think there perfect. One idea I got from looking at the article comes from the first paragraph "Jared Loughner's behavior was so disturbing, he was forced to withdraw from community college classes last fall, told he could return only with a mental health evaluation showing he "does not present a danger to himself or others." Now I don't know who decided this man couldn't return to school for mental health reasons, if it was a medical professional or just some person working there. However if a medical professional did decide an individual needed a mental health evaluation to show he "does not present a danger to himself or others" it would be a good reason in my opinion to throw up a red flag during your pre-purchase check at the gun store.

Course that's a pretty simple example and I'm by no means saying its what we should do, its just an idea to look into to help ensure less of this crimes occur.

I'm trying to think about how to improve our laws to avoid crimes like these, as opposed to just throwing up my arms and saying "well I guess there's nothing we can do!"
 
You already have to go through the NICS (National Instant Check System) when buying a gun legally from a dealer. Any red flags (mental, substance, criminal) are supposed to pop up and prevent the sale.

However, he might have stolen the gun, or bought it from a drug dealer, likely as not. :shrug:

He purchased it legally, meaning the NICS didn't flag him.

The question is, could his university mental health issue or his military service denial be something kept in a database that is added to the NICS system.
 
He purchased it legally, meaning the NICS didn't flag him.

The question is, could his university mental health issue or his military service denial be something kept in a database that is added to the NICS system.


No it is not. Beyond being a convicted felon there is nothing keeping a person from exercising their second amendment right.
 
Better would be something which would have caught this guy, or in general would ensure this is less gun crime, of course 'better' is entirely subjective. I'm not suggesting I have a solution, and I know there's no such thing as a perfect solution. I was merely attempting to point out the sillyness of implying the only solution is less gun legislation and all and every additional gun legislation is wrong.

Personally, being from Arizona and a gun owner, I like our state's gun laws. However I don't think there perfect. One idea I got from looking at the article comes from the first paragraph "Jared Loughner's behavior was so disturbing, he was forced to withdraw from community college classes last fall, told he could return only with a mental health evaluation showing he "does not present a danger to himself or others." Now I don't know who decided this man couldn't return to school for mental health reasons, if it was a medical professional or just some person working there. However if a medical professional did decide an individual needed a mental health evaluation to show he "does not present a danger to himself or others" it would be a good reason in my opinion to throw up a red flag during your pre-purchase check at the gun store.

Course that's a pretty simple example and I'm by no means saying its what we should do, its just an idea to look into to help ensure less of this crimes occur.

I'm trying to think about how to improve our laws to avoid crimes like these, as opposed to just throwing up my arms and saying "well I guess there's nothing we can do!"

Does Arizona not already run a criminal background check? If he passed the check, legally he should have been allowed to buy the gun. Unless the store owner had any idea that he was going to do something criminal with the firearm, procedurally they did the correct thing by taking his money and giving him the gun, and that it not something that needs to be changed.

What happened was a tragedy, but it was NOT a flaw in the system.
 
Does Arizona not already run a criminal background check? If he passed the check, legally he should have been allowed to buy the gun. Unless the store owner had any idea that he was going to do something criminal with the firearm, procedurally they did the correct thing by taking his money and giving him the gun, and that it not something that needs to be changed.

What happened was a tragedy, but it was NOT a flaw in the system.

Not a flaw? You call someone purchasing gun, with the intent to use it to murder several people, not a flaw in the system?

Yes under the current law he could purchase a weapon legally, however thats not an argument because I'm proposing looking at ways to make the law better to catch more better like this. What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with looking at how to change the system to ensure, AGAIN, less people with an intent to kill are able to purchase a weapon.

What solution do you have? Does this situation and event even warrant a look at gun crimes and gun laws in the US or the state of Arizona? And again can you really defend your position that no solution to gun crime involves additional or changed gun laws?
 
Well if you must insist on having your guns.Obvously it to late for gun control now but i hate to think having many murderers are now in jail that use to call themselves "responsible gun owners".
 
What happened was a tragedy, but it was NOT a flaw in the system.

Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this. We really probably shouldn't be selling guns to crazy people. I realize that they could probably get them illegally, but that's no reason to make it easier for them. The fact that he was denied admittance to school and wasn't allowed to join the army due to mental problems should have probably been a red flag in the system when he went through the background check.
 
Back
Top Bottom