• 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

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even more frustrating is when another bunch of idiots overzealously fights even the mere suggestion of a pragmatic solution.
 
It's still too early to try to springboard political agendas from this tragic event.

Those who do, on any side show terrible judgment an a lack of human mercy.
 
theangryamerican said:
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
Click to expand...

I was watching CNN earlier and they were talking about we need to tone down the political rhetoric. Not only were anti-2nd amendment loons using this tragedy to gain ground there was also anti-free speech loons trying to use this tragedy to gain ground.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that neither of those two things are a legal designation of crazy, nor should they be. Real time in a psychiatric ward, a court order, or something of that nature should be the sort of thing that disqualifies a person from owning a gun. Being rejected for a job should never be.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...
The military rejected him for a failed drug test and I certainly don't see a college transcript or file being a reasonable prerequisite for gun ownership.

Are these really things we want in a database? We seem to be losing enough privacy as it is these days.
 
Wiseone said:
Not a flaw? You call someone purchasing gun, with the intent to use it to murder several people, not a flaw in the system?
Click to expand...

Unless gun dealers are psychic, then there is no way someone selling firearms is going to know the intent of the person buying a firearm.The only people who would walk into a firearm store saying they want to murder someone are anti-gun nuts trying to screw with people exercising their 2nd amendment rights by playing gatcha games. This talk of yours is just lame ass excuse to infringe on the rights of everybody else.
 
megaprogman said:
The problem is that neither of those two things are a legal designation of crazy, nor should they be. Real time in a psychiatric ward, a court order, or something of that nature should be the sort of thing that disqualifies a person from owning a gun. Being rejected for a job should never be.
Click to expand...
Agree totally and will add a criminal record as being something to consider for disqualification.
 
Taylor said:
Agree totally and will add a criminal record as being something to consider for disqualification.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the nature of the crime and the recitivism rate. But essentially, yes.
 
Wiseone said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you took even the slightest look at the facts instead of relying on biased opinions and hyperbole, you'd know that only a fraction of a percentage of guns are bought with criminal intent in mind. In the cases where a legally purchased gun is used by the rightful owner in the commission of a crime, the “time-to-crime” of a firearm ranges from one to 12 years. It is exceptionally rare that a newly purchased firearm is used in a crime. It is not the job of the gun shop owner or the government to predict the future.
 
jamesrage said:
Unless gun dealers are psychic, then there is no way someone selling firearms is going to know the intent of the person buying a firearm.The only people who would walk into a firearm store saying they want to murder someone are anti-gun nuts trying to screw with people exercising their 2nd amendment rights by playing gatcha games. This talk of yours is just lame ass excuse to infringe on the rights of everybody else.
Click to expand...

All I said was that there's a reason to re-examine the effectiveness of our current gun laws, I'm not saying its possible to always tell who has and does have the intent to kill. However if you look how we attempt to judge the risk of a gun purchaser its by looking at their past and their medical record, I was merely saying it may be a good idea if we are to analyze how to improve our gun laws, again only to help ensure someone with murderous intent cannot purchase a firearm, to see if we should add a record of being requested to seek metal health attention to the list of things which pop up during a background check.

And again thats just an idea I'm not advocating it as a solution. My original post here was to simply point out the silliness of making a blanket statement that no solution to gun crimes involves additional gun laws.

I'm not here to advocate policy, I'm just an analyst I'm paid and educated to look at every solution from as many possible angles as I can which is why I find it absurd to make a statement which writes off so many potential ideas for no other reason than personal ideology.

I do not want to get into an argument about how to improve gun laws so less gun crime happens because it inevitably comes as result of this horrible event, and while I normally dislike advocating policy I especially hate it when its a personal tragedy we all kick around. I'm coming dangerously close to that, so I'm no longer to post about gun law because it frankly makes me uncomfortable doing so.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
All I said was that there's a reason to re-examine the effectiveness of our current gun laws, I'm not saying its possible to always tell who has and does have the intent to kill. However if you look how we attempt to judge the risk of a gun purchaser its by looking at their past and their medical record, I was merely saying it may be a good idea if we are to analyze how to improve our gun laws, again only to help ensure someone with murderous intent cannot purchase a firearm, to see if we should add a record of being requested to seek metal health attention to the list of things which pop up during a background check.

And again thats just an idea I'm not advocating it as a solution. My original post here was to simply point out the silliness of making a blanket statement that no solution to gun crimes involves additional gun laws.

I'm here to advocate policy, I'm just an analyst I'm paid and educated to look at every solution from as many possible angles as I can which is why I find it absurd to make a statement which writes off so many potential ideas for no other reason than personal ideology.

I do not want to get into an argument about how to improve gun laws so less gun crime happens because it inevitably comes as result of this horrible event, and while I normally dislike advocating policy I especially hate it when its a personal tragedy we all kick around. I'm coming dangerously close to that, so I'm no longer to post about gun law because it frankly makes me uncomfortable doing so.
Click to expand...

...because you're obviously far more misinformed than you want to let on. ;)

Gun crime is not something that can be legislated out of existence by any means. Bad guys will get guns, period. The solution is more guns in the hands of an educated populace. This is the only option proven to work.
 
I think the shooter hacked her YouTube profile before he set out to assassinate her.

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

Look at her Subscriptions list in on the left side of the screen. All her Subscriptions are deleted except the shooter's YouTube profile and Congressman Ike Skelton's page.
 
Wiseone said:
When something goes wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking why.
Click to expand...

What went wrong in this particular case, is Loughner was convicted of a drug charge while he was still a minor and the conviction din't show up on the FBI background check, when he bought the piece.
 
theangryamerican said:
...because you're obviously far more misinformed than you want to let on. ;)

Gun crime is not something that can be legislated out of existence by any means. Bad guys will get guns, period. The solution is more guns in the hands of an educated populace. This is the only option proven to work.
Click to expand...

See this I can respond to because I'm not going to advocate anything other than a honest view of reality. You say its the only solution, but its not. What it is the only solution your political bias and personally ideology will allow you to see. If I was judging you as if you were an analyst, I'd say at best it simply means you've looked at all the options and have made an opinion, something no analyst is supposed to do, but still looked at every option. At worst you had an opinion and then looked at the options you liked. Of course you aren't an analyst and have every right to an opinion, however its my opinion that stating with an opinion then finding whatever suits your opinion is the wrong way to go about business. And thats what I'm going to argue.

So back to the original point, its NOT the only solution is simply the one you like best. For example you have China which has found a different solution to the problem of gun crime, and if we only look at gun crime as a measuring stick its far more successful. Of course you and me consider personal freedom and the power of government much heavier than the Chinese do, but my point is that its a solution.

Staring Down the Barrel: the Rise of Guns in China - WSJ.com


And just as a side note, just how familiar are you with my state's gun laws? You seem extremely confident that there's no improvement that can be made, I'm just curious how much you felt you had understand about our gun laws in Arizona before you felt confident enough to make that statement. For example I wonder if you could tell me how old an individual has to be before buying a semi-automatic pistol in Phoenix, and what specifically goes into and what does not go into the check a gun store owner does before a purchase. If I was right in front of you I'd ask those questions, but since you have google at your command its an easy task to simply find the answer and pretend you knew it all along. So do this for me instead, ask yourself could you have answered those questions? And ask yourself just how much you know about our gun laws in Arizona, and then honestly think "Do I really know AZ gun law so inside and out that I can honestly say "There's no improvement to be made" and actually have that statement backed by my personal knowledge?"

Its up to you to be honest with yourself.
 
apdst said:
What went wrong in this particular case, is Loughner was convicted of a drug charge while he was still a minor and the conviction din't show up on the FBI background check, when he bought the piece.
Click to expand...

Then I think we can all agree that should be looked into to ensure the system results in less errors yes? And thanks for digging that up.
 
theangryamerican said:
...because you're obviously far more misinformed than you want to let on. ;)

Gun crime is not something that can be legislated out of existence by any means. Bad guys will get guns, period. The solution is more guns in the hands of an educated populace. This is the only option proven to work.
Click to expand...
ok, show us the proof that this 'more guns on the streets' approach works to curb gun crimes
 
Wiseone said:
See this I can respond to because I'm not going to advocate anything other than a honest view of reality. You say its the only solution, but its not. What it is the only solution your political bias and personally ideology will allow you to see. If I was judging you as if you were an analyst, I'd say at best it simply means you've looked at all the options and have made an opinion, something no analyst is supposed to do, but still looked at every option. At worst you had an opinion and then looked at the options you liked. Of course you aren't an analyst and have every right to an opinion, however its my opinion that stating with an opinion then finding whatever suits your opinion is the wrong way to go about business. And thats what I'm going to argue.

So back to the original point, its NOT the only solution is simply the one you like best. For example you have China which has found a different solution to the problem of gun crime, and if we only look at gun crime as a measuring stick its far more successful. Of course you and me consider personal freedom and the power of government much heavier than the Chinese do, but my point is that its a solution.

Staring Down the Barrel: the Rise of Guns in China - WSJ.com


And just as a side note, just how familiar are you with my state's gun laws? You seem extremely confident that there's no improvement that can be made, I'm just curious how much you felt you had understand about our gun laws in Arizona before you felt confident enough to make that statement. For example I wonder if you could tell me how old an individual has to be before buying a semi-automatic pistol in Phoenix, and what specifically goes into and what does not go into the check a gun store owner does before a purchase. If I was right in front of you I'd ask those questions, but since you have google at your command its an easy task to simply find the answer and pretend you knew it all along. So do this for me instead, ask yourself could you have answered those questions? And ask yourself just how much you know about our gun laws in Arizona, and then honestly think "Do I really know AZ gun law so inside and out that I can honestly say "There's no improvement to be made" and actually have that statement backed by my personal knowledge?"

Its up to you to be honest with yourself.
Click to expand...

That was a lot of fluff to simply dodge addressing my point. ;)

justabubba said:
ok, show us the proof that this 'more guns on the streets' approach works to curb gun crimes
Click to expand...

I've posted the statistics many times. :shrug:
 
Wiseone said:
You said, there's only one option. I showed you there was actually more than one. Get it now?
Click to expand...

If you took even the slightest look at the facts instead of relying on biased opinions and hyperbole, you'd know that only a fraction of a percentage of guns are bought with criminal intent in mind. In the cases where a legally purchased gun is used by the rightful owner in the commission of a crime, the “time-to-crime” of a firearm ranges from one to 12 years. It is exceptionally rare that a newly purchased firearm is used in a crime. It is not the job of the gun shop owner or the government to predict the future.
Click to expand...

Try again.
 
theangryamerican said:
Try again.
Click to expand...

Whos dodging points? I'm just simply trying to show there is more they one way to go about looking at this problem, and for someone whos posted no facts or figures for themselves or addressed the undeniable fact, as shown throughout the world, there are ways to make a society safer with less guns you like to talk about my problems with being too opinionated.

I'll take it back to the beginning. You said there was only ONE solution to the problem of gun crime, I said no there's actually several you just think there's only one because of your political opinion. To demonstrate that I showed you an example, China, where they've eliminated almost all gun crime by adopting a very different solution. My goal being NOT to advocate one solution over the other, certainly not China's over ours, but simply to show you that you are allowing your opinion to affect what you see.

All I'm trying to do is get you to say "In my opinion, this is the best solution" not "As a fact, this is the best solution." The fact that you use the word best should tell you its an opinion since the words, good, better, best, are entirely subjective. Like me saying "The best food in the world is pasta" and you saying "No the best is pizza" its just an opinion.
 
justabubba said:
ok, show us the proof that this 'more guns on the streets' approach works to curb gun crimes
Click to expand...

Cut and paste the tiny handful of studies/papers that have be debunked by economists and sociologists.

Even the GW deniers have one wingnut at an Ivy League school. So what?
 
Wiseone said:
Whos dodging points? I'm just simply trying to show there is more they one way to go about looking at this problem, and for someone whos posted no facts or figures for themselves or addressed the undeniable fact, as shown throughout the world, there are ways to make a society safer with less guns you like to talk about my problems with being too opinionated.

I'll take it back to the beginning. You said there was only ONE solution to the problem of gun crime, I said no there's actually several you just think there's only one because of your political opinion. To demonstrate that I showed you an example, China, where they've eliminated almost all gun crime by adopting a very different solution. My goal being NOT to advocate one solution over the other, certainly not China's over ours, but simply to show you that you are allowing your opinion to affect what you see.

All I'm trying to do is get you to say "In my opinion, this is the best solution" not "As a fact, this is the best solution." The fact that you use the word best should tell you its an opinion since the words, good, better, best, are entirely subjective. Like me saying "The best food in the world is pasta" and you saying "No the best is pizza" its just an opinion.
Click to expand...

One example: Remember the Rodney King riots in that city of Los Angeles? Do you remember every major news network repeatedly showing footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, holding what the media termed “assault weapons?” Those were the stores that survived being set on fire by rioters and none of those store owners were dragged into the street and beaten like others were.

I've given you these same statistics before in another gun thread, which you quickly evacuated after being proven wrong. Would you like me to copy and paste them here so you can try again? You've had plenty of time to work up rebuttals.
 
theangryamerican said:
One example: Remember the Rodney King riots in that city of Los Angeles? Do you remember every major news network repeatedly showing footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, holding what the media termed “assault weapons?” Those were the stores that survived being set on fire by rioters and none of those store owners were dragged into the street and beaten like others were.

I've given you these same statistics before in another gun thread, which you quickly evacuated after being proven wrong. Would you like me to copy and paste them here so you can try again? You've had plenty of time to work up rebuttals.
Click to expand...

I told you I'm not going to use this incident as a means to advocate policy. I am AGAIN simply trying to get you to acknowledge that there are solutions, even if you don't think they are the best, which would involve stricter gun laws. There's nothing wrong or against your political opinions by saying "Yes thats a solution, it decreases gun crimes, but it also does X, Y, Z, which I don't like."

You keep thinking I'm arguing for stricter gun laws when in fact I'm not, and I'm not arguing for any kind of policy or law here.
And I'd like to go back a few posts and ask again for you to explain how you understand my state's gun laws so well that you know for a fact there's no way to improve them.
You see Im not arguing against your opinions on gun laws, Im simply disagreeing with how you arrive at them. And what I think is a clear lie that you understand my state's gun laws enough to justify a statement like "there's no way we can improve them."
 
theangryamerican said:
One example: Remember the Rodney King riots in that city of Los Angeles? Do you remember every major news network repeatedly showing footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, holding what the media termed “assault weapons?” Those were the stores that survived being set on fire by rioters and none of those store owners were dragged into the street and beaten like others were.

I've given you these same statistics before in another gun thread, which you quickly evacuated after being proven wrong. Would you like me to copy and paste them here so you can try again? You've had plenty of time to work up rebuttals.
Click to expand...
yes, please post your cites which would prove that more guns on the streets will reduce the volume of gun crimes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom