• 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!

Should the AZ shooter have been able to buy a gun?

Should the AZ shooter have been able to buy a gun?


  • Total voters
    51
  • Poll closed .
I can see by your posts in this thread that I'm so wrong. Please show me where you advocate for gun ownership.

He could be a advocate for gun ownership.He might be okay with someone owning a gun if they submit a DNA sample, submit fingerprints, provide a list of all your friends and family, buy a license, pay 6 million dollars for a single bullet and buy a 20 pound zip gun(yes zip guns can be made to be light as possible) that only fires one shot a time and has to be completely disassembled and stored in the sheriffs office.
 
Somehow the military recruiters understood who they were dealing with.

When you can prove to me that each and every person that military recruiters have rejected went on a shooting spree, you will have a point. Until then, you have none. Try to give us at least a LITTLE challenge on this issue.
 
Well, unless someone has been declared to have a mental illness, has been convicted of the misdemeanor of domestic disorder, has a criminal record of something that has more than a 1 year sentence, or has a restraining order taken out against him, he's not disqualified from owning a gun.

So, yes. If he wasn't disqualified by any of those things, he had every right to have a gun. Same rules apply to everyone.
 
I'm not asking them whether he should have been able to purchase the gun, I'm asking you, all of you. Was this the kind of customer that should be given that privilege? Don't go hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, either; this isn't about your legal opinion, this is about your judgment. Should this man have been able to buy a Glock 19 pistol in your judgment?

Unless you are a physic how do you know whether or not you should refuse to sell someone a firearm? Nobody except for anti-2nd amendment retards will walk into a gun store, a walmart,K-mart, a pawnshop, a gun show or anywhere else that sells firearms saying they want purchase a firearm to murder someone or to kill a bunch of people.

What do you want people who sell firearms to make customers fill out a questionnaire? Do you want gun dealers to call a physic or maybe be required to have a quack come down to the store to evaluate every customer who wants to buy a gun?
 
When you can prove to me that each and every person that military recruiters have rejected went on a shooting spree, you will have a point. Until then, you have none. Try to give us at least a LITTLE challenge on this issue.

The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.
 
I'm not asking them whether he should have been able to purchase the gun, I'm asking you, all of you. Was this the kind of customer that should be given that privilege? Don't go hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, either; this isn't about your legal opinion, this is about your judgment. Should this man have been able to buy a Glock 19 pistol in your judgment?

Well now lets see...whenh he walked into the gun store was he spouting moonbat left wing hate filled rhetoric? Was he announcing his intentions? Or was he behaving in a manner that most people would consider 'normal'.

Golly...if we knew then what we know now...IMAGINE what we could change.
 
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.

Now you're just making crap up. Quote any law that says this.

Oh, wait... you used the word "should". :lol:
 
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.

The constitution and guns laws disagree with you about 100000000000%
 
So here's a man who was rejected by the military; who was ejected from his community college because he frightened them, but who is completely unhindered to purchase one of the deadliest instruments available. Got it.

None of which are crimes. Got it?
 
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.

Actually, the burden is on the seller, per Federal law, to demonstrate that the buyer shouldn't be eligible to purchase a gun.

Define, "capable".
 
Chappy, the basis of your argument seems to be he didn't deserve a gun because you're assuming he was turned away from the military because he either frightened the military recruiters into turning him down :)lamo) or he was mentally incapable or something like that.

If you can show why he was discharged (last time I checked, the military considers those documents confidential), you might have a case.

A more likely point already brought up was that he was turned away because he failed a drug test...a pot head failing a drug test...hmm...

Aside from that, if he had the proper licenses and met regulation for the gun, he should have been able to buy the gun.
 
No, he shouldn't have. He was kicked out of college and denied entrance to the military due to his mental problems. He shouldn't have been sold a gun unless he was checked by a licensed psychiatrist and declared sane (for lack of a better explanation).
 
Because, to me, it's so freaking obvious that he should never have been allowed to purchase a gun that I need someone intelligent to explain it to me why they think it is even conceivable that this deeply disturbed human being should ever have been allowed to possess a gun.


So, if it was so obvious to you, why didn't YOU stop him from buying a gun?


Oh, that would be because you knew nothing about him prior to the shooting. Neither did I. Neither did the licenced dealer who sold him the gun. NICS didn't turn up anything in his records that currently constitutes a red flag.

This whole thread is just a "have you quit beating your wife, answer yes or no" bait thread, based on hindsight.

Okay, let's say you have it your way. Hi-cap magazines are banned. You can't buy a gun unless a shrink certifies that you're sane.

Oops... you know, hi-cap magazines have been banned before. Know how many I had during the last ban? 10. "Assault weapons" were "banned" once... I still had one. Yeah it was legal too.

There remain hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. IF this guy couldn't buy one legally, he could have asked his pot dealer and gotten hooked up with an illegal gun probably within a day or two.

More law would not have stopped him, and there's a lesson for you from this: CRAZIES will not be stopped by unenforceable laws! Neither gun laws nor gun-free zones nor laws against murder will prevent them from doing their thing. The only thing that stops them is when people on-scene take action and put them down.
 
Was there a reason to have prevented him from buying a gun? I criminal record maybe? No? Then how was the gun store supposed to know? Anyone advocating use of government force here is insane. What, if you don't make it through the army recruiter, you can't get a gun now? Should every little thing be databased? If you get kicked out of college, should you be subjected to loss of rights?

No, obviously not. It's ridiculous to even suggest it. The rules and regulations necessary to have caught this guy this time would be too extreme and would infringe too heavily on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. At some point we must recognize the consequences of freedom.
 
No, because he had a mental record, and should not have been able to purchase a weapon.
 
No, because he had a mental record, and should not have been able to purchase a weapon.


I think that present law, to my knowlege, requires that you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse before you are barred from buying.
 
I think that present law, to my knowlege, requires that you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse before you are barred from buying.

I am not sure either, but I wager you are correct.
 
Even though I tried, I cannot think of a mechanism that would have theoretically succeeded without sacrificing some rights that I consider to be important for people and society. This is a situation where you have to pick which is more important, knowing that whatever you choose will allow harm to come. I think not modifying our current practices will cause vastly less harm.
 
Even though I tried, I cannot think of a mechanism that would have theoretically succeeded without sacrificing some rights that I consider to be important for people and society. This is a situation where you have to pick which is more important, knowing that whatever you choose will allow harm to come. I think not modifying our current practices will cause vastly less harm.

I am with you to a point. But I think there needs to be some mechanism to keep the mentally unstable from buying weapons.
 
I'm not asking them whether he should have been able to purchase the gun, I'm asking you, all of you. Was this the kind of customer that should be given that privilege? Don't go hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, either; this isn't about your legal opinion, this is about your judgment. Should this man have been able to buy a Glock 19 pistol in your judgment?

based on the law yes.
 
I think that present law, to my knowlege, requires that you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse before you are barred from buying.

yep

and if we changed the law, many people would forego treatment
 
I am with you to a point. But I think there needs to be some mechanism to keep the mentally unstable from buying weapons.

I hear ya... but define "mentally unstable".

Is a vet with PTSD mentally unstable?
What about someone who just has occasional anxiety attacks?

Drawing the line could be quite tricky... and there's the question of violating doctor-patient confidentiality, unless the Dr actually thinks the patient is dangerous.
 
I hear ya... but define "mentally unstable".

Is a vet with PTSD mentally unstable?
What about someone who just has occasional anxiety attacks?

Drawing the line could be quite tricky... and there's the question of violating doctor-patient confidentiality, unless the Dr actually thinks the patient is dangerous.

society is full of balancing acts
 
Back
Top Bottom