• 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

I didn't say more legislation was the answer, I simply said there was something wrong with the system specifically its not working as designed. My idea in this situation would be to exaimine the enforcement of the law, as it clearly did not live up to expectations in this case. I don't know specifically what I'm looking for but there's a place to start. I mean if a felon can purchase a weapon from a gun store, which is supposed to be illegal than clearly something needs to be done to ensure the law is actually enforced?

The system was enforced and worked exactly like it was designed. The guy did NOT have a criminal record and did NOT have any mental issues on his record.

Law enforcement can't use a crystal ball or read tea leaves to determine what someone might do in the future.
 
Your opinions do not trump fact: permit holders tend to be more law-abiding than the general population and very rarely cause any trouble.

A good example would be the guy on the scene with a gun who chose to tackle the shooter rather than killing him.

I have carried a pistol for about forth years and was one of the first to get a license when Texas changed the law. I have been stopped by cops a few times and in most cases the cop was more comfortable with me after they knew that I had a pistol on me. The reason is that they know that if they are looking at my carry license they are looking at a man who has no criminal record and follows the rule of law.

If he truly had no recorded criminal history, there was no reason for the shop not to sell him the gun.

I believe that the liberal horde is assuming that this guy bought the weapon in question but I have not seen evidence of that. I have six hand guns and I only bought one of them after the checking requirements started. I have four that my dad gave me before he died and I have had a 9mm auto loader for many years.
 
The system was enforced and worked exactly like it was designed. The guy did NOT have a criminal record and did NOT have any mental issues on his record.

Law enforcement can't use a crystal ball or read tea leaves to determine what someone might do in the future.

Precisely.

I didn't say more legislation was the answer, I simply said there was something wrong with the system specifically its not working as designed. My idea in this situation would be to exaimine the enforcement of the law, as it clearly did not live up to expectations in this case. I don't know specifically what I'm looking for but there's a place to start. I mean if a felon can purchase a weapon from a gun store, which is supposed to be illegal than clearly something needs to be done to ensure the law is actually enforced?

Here’s the problem, as several people have explained to you: There was NO flaw in the system. The guy apparently didn’t have a record, so there was no reason to refuse the sale of a gun to him. No one dropped the ball, per se, because no one had any way of knowing what this guy’s intentions were. It was certainly a tragedy, but perhaps the only way it could have been prevented was if those closest to the shooter, his friends and family came forward with concerns for his mental health or intentions.

I agree, there's certainly a easy way around this law by using multiple persons and a law which isn't effective at its stated goal probably shouldn't exist. I brought this up not because I agree with it, but because I'm open to reading and learning about new ideas which is how I can justify my opposition or support of them. You on other hand, in the belief you know all you need to know already, won't learn anything new or look at new ideas and systems and may miss something which is a better way of doing things than.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by attempting to attribute statements to me that I’ve neither directly said nor even implied. I never claimed to know everything about this subject but I DO spend a fair bit of time researching the issues and do not hesitate to point out problems where I see them. The fact is that the current ideas for gun legislation fall in to two categories. They’re either laughably ineffective, like the idea you mentioned, or they’re a gross suppression of rights, such as the CA “assault weapons” ban. Regardless, the impact they have on a criminal attempting to get a weapon is minimal, at best, while the law-abiding citizen is the one that is heavily affected. This is why I'm immediately skeptical of any talk about increasing restrictions on guns. As I've said before, crime can not be legislated out of existence and the government cannot ensure your safety.
 
Last edited:
No in this case state law controls the type of sale this man completed, specifically the state laws which govern the sale of semi-automatic pistols. They differ state-by-state on many levels and what I was saying is that AngryAmerican does have anywhere near the knowledge required on the subject of Arizona gun laws to make a statement such as "There is no way we can improve their laws."

I'm not talking about holes in the Federal law which might have allowed this guy to slip through, but I'm talking about Arizona law. And so is he for a matter of fact since the last thing he posted on the subject was about Arizona law not federal law.

what would you propose

most states do not have additional requirements or restrictions over the federal mandates
 
Care to explain what could have been done differently?

i don't know. but why is it a bad thing to take a look at what's done currently and see if improvements can be made? for example, semi automatic availability?
 
i don't know. but why is it a bad thing to take a look at what's done currently and see if improvements can be made? for example, semi automatic availability?

Wait...you think semi-automatics should not be available? :doh Please clairfy what you mean here. What type of weapon should someone be able to legally carry?
 
Last edited:
Wait...you think semi-automatics should not be available? :doh Please clairfy what you mean here. What type of weapon should someone be able to legally carry?

non auto/semi long arms ... what might be expected to be used for hunting and self defense

handguns should be allowed only for leos and the military
 
non auto/semi long arms ... what might be expected to be used for hunting and self defense

handguns should be allowed only for leos and the military

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance on the matter. According to you we should all be carrying bolt action rifles down the street. :lol:
Btw, the government loses a significant quantity of guns every year. According to an Associated Press article published in 2001:
Loose inventory controls are notorious in government agencies, as shown by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that has “misplaced” 539 weapons, including a gas-grenade launcher and 39 automatic rifles or machine guns. Six guns were eventually linked to crimes (two guns had been used in armed robberies, one confiscated in a raid on a drug laboratory and two others during arrests. One was being held as evidence in a homicide investigation). And in July of 2001, it was reported that the FBI lost 449 weapons, including machine guns.
Who do you think has those now? I'd wager it's not law abiding citizens... So nevermind the fact that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you or stop crimes, you're just plain advocating giving superior weaponry to bad guys. Got it. Thanks, that's all I needed to know about you.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance on the matter. According to you we should all be carrying bolt action rifles down the street. :roflmao:

Btw, the government loses a significant quantity of guns every year. According to an Associated Press article published in 2001:

Who do you think has those now? I'd wager it's not law abiding citizens... So nevermind the fact that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you or stop crimes, you're just plain advocating giving superior weaponry to bad guys. Got it. Thanks, that's all I needed to know about you.

under no legal obligation to protect us or stop crimes? seriously?
 
Wait...you think semi-automatics should not be available? :doh Please clairfy what you mean here. What type of weapon should someone be able to legally carry?


i have no issues with hunting, nor do i have issues with a gun used for personal protection, although i do believe in strong regulation. not knowing a lot about guns, can you tell me a why a person would need to get off that many rounds that quickly? a plausible situation, i mean.
 
under no legal obligation to protect us or stop crimes? seriously?

I encourage you to do some actual research and not believe every little thing you've been told. This has been discussed at length in other threads on these boards. Forgive me for not wanting to rehash all those pages again. Bottom line, court cases have ruled that someone can be raping you in your home and the police don't have to respond to the call or enter the house even if they do decide to drive down your street.
 
non auto/semi long arms ... what might be expected to be used for hunting and self defense

handguns should be allowed only for leos and the military

So you want the government and criminals to have hand guns and semiautomatic weapons? I would rather law abiding citizens have those kinds of weapons. The government and criminals are the last two groups who should be trusted with weapons that have an advantage to what the civilian population has.
 
So you want the government and criminals to have hand guns and semiautomatic weapons? I would rather law abiding citizens have those kinds of weapons. The government and criminals are the last two groups who should be trusted with weapons that have an advantage to what the civilian population has.

we are no longer the wild, wild west.
 
It's not about gun ownership? That's the problem with the idiotic NRA all-or-nothing argument!

It's about tracking how this jackass got his guns and his bullets and blocking that. No one gives a turd about your legally purchased guns. Waste your money shooting at cans and unarmed deer. We want to stop the flood of guns into the grey/black market.

If the idiots at the NRA would get that and join with the rest of us with some pragmatic solutions to prevent guns getting to those who would misuse them, then we could get somewhere?

But NO-OOOOOOO! They're a bunch of paranoid assholes who won't budge an inch off their backwards all-or-nothing stance. The blood of that 9-year-old girl is on their hands. And anyone who refuses to even have the conversation.

I dont know...Id say the blood on the hands belongs to the individual that did the killing. However the blood on the shoes belongs to people dancing and splashing in it while they use this tragedy to pursue their own political agenda. Talk about some sick twisted ****s...
 
So you want the government and criminals to have hand guns and semiautomatic weapons? I would rather law abiding citizens have those kinds of weapons. The government and criminals are the last two groups who should be trusted with weapons that have an advantage to what the civilian population has.
the hand guns are too easily concealed ... that makes them prime weapons of choice for offensive rather than defensive purposes. semi/auto also have an offensive purpose
combined with that would be absolute enforcement of laws prohibiting the carrying of handguns - with stiff prison time penalties for those found carrying those weapons
yes, then the only ones carrying handguns would be those intending to perpetrate crime
eliminate victimless crime laws and then refill the prisons with those who insist on carrying handguns
 
i have no issues with hunting, nor do i have issues with a gun used for personal protection, although i do believe in strong regulation. not knowing a lot about guns, can you tell me a why a person would need to get off that many rounds that quickly? a plausible situation, i mean.

Thank you for honestly admitting your inexperience with this issue. I'll be glad to politely address your question.

It's obvious that a single shot weapon takes significantly longer to fire than a semi-auto. I assume you know this and this is why you think that it would be safer to do away with semi-autos. Obviously the semi-auto fires each time you pull the trigger, whereas the single shot must be cocked before each shot.

Now, a typical assault happens in a matter of seconds... not minutes... and from a distance of less than 7 yards. People who are not trained in self-defense often claim they didn't even see it coming. Training can certainly improve your reaction times. Without the ability to react quickly, you put yourself in extreme danger, even if you are carrying a gun. When a gun is fired in self-defense, statistics show that firing about 3 shots is fairly average to end the confrontation. So...three shots in a matter of seconds... I guarantee you that in the time you fire a single shot pistol and miss with your first shot, the bad guy will be able to close the 7 yard distance. The ability to react fast and fire quickly is what protects someone in a life threatening situation.
 
we are no longer the wild, wild west.

Nah...its much less civil nowadays...far greater need for people to be able to take care of themselves.
 
That was just an idea I had, I wasn't advocating it as a solution because I knew there would be things that would crop up when it was confronted, like for example it would mean divulging medical information to additional parties. But it was just an idea, what I'm really here in this topic for is to get AngryAmerican to acknowledge he's let his opinions get the better of him.
In other words, you are trolling and baiting. Are there not rules about that on DP?

.
 
if you want credit, you will authorize the prospective lender access to your credit records

if you want a gun permit, you will authorize the issuing party access to your medical records
And if you want a job, you will authorize the potiential employer have access to your medial records, right? :roll:

.
 
the hand guns are too easily concealed ... that makes them prime weapons of choice for offensive rather than defensive purposes. semi/auto also have an offensive purpose
combined with that would be absolute enforcement of laws prohibiting the carrying of handguns - with stiff prison time penalties for those found carrying those weapons
yes, then the only ones carrying handguns would be those intending to perpetrate crimeeliminate victimless crime laws and then refill the prisons with those who insist on carrying handguns

...and what stops them when they wish to perpetrate their crime on you?
 
...and what stops them when they wish to perpetrate their crime on you?

the same thing that stops them now, since i do not carry

but their number would diminish once it became illegal for them to possess small arms; they would become easily identifiable as criminals, which is not the instance today
 
the same thing that stops them now, since i do not carry

What? Total submission?


but their number would diminish once it became illegal for them to possess small arms; they would become easily identifiable as criminals, which is not the instance today


Most crimes are committed with illegal guns, making all guns illegal wont change that fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom