• 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 .
And there it is, the slippery slope argument: We mustn't make our laws more stringent even when it is very, very clear that we have been too lax in our oversight because to do so opens the door to more and more reasonable handgun regulation. Hence, America must continue to suffer these assaults on our senses and insults to our intelligence because to acknowledge them, to act on them is to finally come to terms with our handgun obsession. And, for many Americans, they're just not ready to do that, some likely never will be.

or the other side of the coin suffer being attacked and DEFINITELY not having a means of defense, convenient how you leave that out.
The only person in this thread I think that has a handgun obsession is you :D

Its probably in the thread but tell me what your magical fix is? and where and why would it work?
 
Fact of the matter is crazy people do crazy ****, cant change that, and if guns laws would get too strict it would hurt more than help. it wouldnt stop the vast majority of criminals from getting guns, the checks and balances we have now are fine IMO. At least here in PA.

Make checks and balances and laws is not ALWAYS the answer if its just going to harm the avg person.

Its mainly like drugs, drugs are illegal, who has trouble getting them? LOL
 
… tell me what your … fix is? …

Let's start with answering the question: Should the AZ shooter have been able to purchase a high capacity 30-round magazine for his Glock 19?

My answer is no. There's no public need for such things; there should be laws banning stuff like that. As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone. What say you?
 
Because of the reaction times of the defenders. It would take the same amount of time for them to get passed the initial shock, determine where the fire was coming from and then react. So, one 30 round mag, or two 15 round mags; I don't think it would have made much difference, if any.

You really didn't answer my question about your claim, "How does using a 15 round magazine give the shooter a "higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets?"



History has proven that it won't reduce hand gun deaths. So, at the end of the day, all you've accomplished is violating the rights of American citizens.

Statistics and history show us that we have more handgun deaths than other countries with more strict gun control. What rights of American citizens are violated to ban high capacity magazines? Does the ban against anti-aircraft weapons present a violation of the rights of American citizens? What about cop-killing bullets, or plastic guns?
 
Let's start with answering the question: Should the AZ shooter have been able to purchase a high capacity 30-round magazine for his Glock 19?

My answer is no. There's no public need for such things; there should be laws banning stuff like that. As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone. What say you?


Ok Ill play the dumb question game, Already answered this but Ill do it again. I may not be up on the latest points of the story so I have to have a disclaimer. If what i know is true so far about AZ gun laws and him.

My answer is YES

also just to comment on you ridiculous ASSumption "As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone." this is PURE fantasy. This is called appeal to emotion even though there is NO supporting evidence what so ever. NONE
 
You guys are kinda silly with your magazine capacity ban talk.

1-Maybe what needs to change is the lay down and die victim mentality. Dont wait til the guy runs out of ammo.
2-Any practiced shooter can do a tactical reload with 15 round magazines and lay out 45+ rounds without a full second delay. We can count ourselves lucky this guy was a moron as well as an imbalanced narcissist and not someone truly dedicated to killing as many as he could.
3-Weve all seen the videos of two body armor clad bank robbers in Hollywood firing full automatic weapons (that were banned). Criminals get guns. They break laws. Like illegal drugs, criminals get machine guns, high capacity magazines, etc.

Face it. You dont like guns...ANY guns...and ANY excuse to attack them at any level you can. The magazine capacity bans of the past did NOTHING. It had ZERO impact (look up the word "pre-ban"). It WILL do nothing.
 
Really? Should the sale of high capacity magazines be allowed? Who needs such things?

who are you to ask? I'll ask again since you have not answered the question to which you pulled this response from. We have laws against robbing banks, banks are still being robbed will more laws stop bank robbing? My point is more gun laws will not imo stop or significanly reduce the types of events that happened in AZ. So why do you think more laws will stop the type of event?

To answer one of your questions to another poster. Who owns or wants a gun like the shooter has. I have a glock 17 and a glock 26. all are 9mm. I do a lot of hiking/backpacking into remote areas.
 
Last edited:
Ok Ill play the dumb question game, Already answered this but Ill do it again. I may not be up on the latest points of the story so I have to have a disclaimer. If what i know is true so far about AZ gun laws and him.

My answer is YES

also just to comment on you ridiculous ASSumption "As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone." this is PURE fantasy. This is called appeal to emotion even though there is NO supporting evidence what so ever. NONE

Soon there will be an accounting of each bullet fired by the AZ shooter and we will then know who was hit by bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. We will know their names and their fates. And your Yes vote will be one more straw that assures that the next shooter perhaps in your town will have a high capacity magazine so he can fire bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 without re-loading and we will know his victims names and fates, too, and hope that yours is not among them.
 
Soon there will be an accounting of each bullet fired by the AZ shooter and we will then know who was hit by bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. We will know their names and their fates. And your Yes vote will be one more straw that assures that the next shooter perhaps in your town will have a high capacity magazine so he can fire bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 without re-loading and we will know his victims names and fates, too, and hope that yours is not among them.

Do you really believe a law will stop criminals from somehow obtaining these types of clips?
 
Soon there will be an accounting of each bullet fired by the AZ shooter and we will then know who was hit by bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. We will know their names and their fates. And your Yes vote will be one more straw that assures that the next shooter perhaps in your town will have a high capacity magazine so he can fire bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 without re-loading and we will know his victims names and fates, too, and hope that yours is not among them.


LMAO!!!!! hahahahahahahahah
Like I said Im an adult, i dont buy into your scare tatics that rank up there with the boogie man

what if he just bought 2 guns? or got clips on the black market or off a friend, or stole them off a relitive etc etc etc
what if he couldnt get a gun and drove his moms explorer into the crowd?
what if he was a good shot and had a gun that held 10 bullets and one in the chamber and pulled off 10 head or kill shots?
is the fantasy what if game fun LMAO

again when you have some solid a hardcore let me know

So again how would you magically fix this so called problem with something that is proven to work?

The problem was HIM, not the gun, not the clip LMAO
HE was the problem.
 
I would like to change my answer to no. Turns out he was arrested for drug possession, something that would show up on a federal background check, but those charges weren't kept on his record. He also failed drug tests which kept him out of the Army. But in our society drugs are illegal but permissible. Even Obama's administration has decided not to enforce some federal drug laws, especially in states that have legalized forms of drug use. So no, he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun and wouldn't have been allowed to if the system had worked and local law enforcement had done their job.
 
Yes ?????
And with enough bullets to murdrer many , many people...
My first vote was "other", as I recall.
The question is this..
What is more important? ..A man's right to life or another's right to own a weapon?
 

Let's see? In 1998, a National Academy of Sciences panel of scientists and security experts recommended that Congress require buyers of ammonium nitrate to provide identification and that stores keep records of the purchases. But a law was never passed.

Some states regulate the sale, most don't. Any criminal could get it from those other states or many places outside the US.

Sorry you argument still holds no water at all and neither does your link.
 
Last edited:
Yes ?????
And with enough bullets to murdrer many , many people...
My first vote was "other", as I recall.
The question is this..
What is more important? ..A man's right to life or another's right to own a weapon?

Without the right to own a weapon, we would have a rough time protecting the other.
 
I would like to change my answer to no. Turns out he was arrested for drug possession, something that would show up on a federal background check, but those charges weren't kept on his record. He also failed drug tests which kept him out of the Army. But in our society drugs are illegal but permissible. Even Obama's administration has decided not to enforce some federal drug laws, especially in states that have legalized forms of drug use. So no, he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun and wouldn't have been allowed to if the system had worked and local law enforcement had done their job.

If it was a misdemeanor drug arrest as in the case of pot, it would not be on a Federal data base. The military drug test again is not kept in any data base. If it is not a felony conviction, it would not, and should not matter.
 
Soon there will be an accounting of each bullet fired by the AZ shooter and we will then know who was hit by bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. We will know their names and their fates. And your Yes vote will be one more straw that assures that the next shooter perhaps in your town will have a high capacity magazine so he can fire bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 without re-loading and we will know his victims names and fates, too, and hope that yours is not among them.
This may shock you, but I would far rather take the miniscule chance that someone will start killing people randomly with a large mag he purchased legally, than have any further restrictions on the purchase of firearms, ammunition, and the related materials and paraphernalia.

There are too many as it is.
 
It seems not all gun-rights advocates think a ban on high capacity magazines would conflict with second Amendment rights:


"A leading gun-rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent "looney tunes" from committing more gun massacres.

Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court's decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.

"I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines," Levy said in an interview with NBC. "Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute."

The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill tomorrow that would ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy's comments as a sign that at least some gun-rights advocates might be open to the idea."
First Read - Gun-rights advocate: High-capacity magazine restrictions 'makes sense'
 
I would like to change my answer to no. Turns out he was arrested for drug possession, something that would show up on a federal background check, but those charges weren't kept on his record. He also failed drug tests which kept him out of the Army. But in our society drugs are illegal but permissible. Even Obama's administration has decided not to enforce some federal drug laws, especially in states that have legalized forms of drug use. So no, he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun and wouldn't have been allowed to if the system had worked and local law enforcement had done their job.

What system? Who didnt do their job?
Is there more that Im missing that isnt in your post?
Laws are different state to state on guns and federal are for the country.
As far as I know if his drug possesion wasnt a felony it wouldnt be on a federal check.
Also failed drug tests arent on those check either that I know of?

So unless we are missing information getting caught with weed or failing a drug test for weed would not stop you from buying a gun so nothing failed.
 
It seems not all gun-rights advocates think a ban on high capacity magazines would conflict with second Amendment rights:


"A leading gun-rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent "looney tunes" from committing more gun massacres.

Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court's decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.

"I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines," Levy said in an interview with NBC. "Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute."

The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill tomorrow that would ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy's comments as a sign that at least some gun-rights advocates might be open to the idea."
First Read - Gun-rights advocate: High-capacity magazine restrictions 'makes sense'
I don't really know of this guy or care what this he thinks.
 
I don't really know of this guy or care what this he thinks.

nor does it answer how ristricting clips to 15 or 10 stops anything from happening.
 
I don't really know of this guy or care what this he thinks.

Yes, we know. You have already made your position shockingly clear ~ "There are too many as it is"
 
Yes, we know. You have already made your position shockingly clear ~ "There are too many as it is"
Most people who have any level of agreement with the 2nd amendment, or at least the "right to keep and bear arms" (unrelated to any other aspects interpretation) part, would agree that there are too many restrictions in many areas.

In my mind, restrictions should only be based on the person, not on the type of weapon - if someone is capable of properly caring for and handling an M-60, they should be allowed to purchase it.

Edit: Let me rephrase the above:
In my mind, restrictions should mainly be only based on the person, not on over the type of weapon - if someone is capable of properly caring for and handling an M-60, they should be allowed to purchase it.

Banning weapon types, specific weapons, weapon parts…just no.

That said, some levels of weaponry should require that you demonstrate a level of knowledge and skill in weaponry of that type that would prevent the majority of negative events related to your owning said weapon – such as someone stealing it, you accidently shooting someone with it, etc.

But perhaps I'm not making sense...
 
Last edited:
I didn't say our mass killings with handguns were more than the rest of the world combined. I said no other country had more than us.

Here is just a partial listing over the last 12 years ~
"-- In April 1999, two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

-- In July 1999, a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.

-- In September 1999, a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.

-- In October 2002, a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.

-- In August 2003 in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.

-- In November 2004 in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.

-- In March 2005, a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.

-- In October 2006, a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.

-- In April 2007, a student shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.

-- In December 2007, a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.

-- In December 2007, a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.

-- In February 2008, a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.

-- In February 2008, a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.

-- In September 2008, a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.

-- In December 2008, a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.

-- In March 2009, a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.

-- In March 2009, a heavily-armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.

-- In March 2009, six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.

-- In April 2009, a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.

-- In November 2009, U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, leaving 13 dead and 42 others wounded.

-- In January 2011, a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery in Tuscon, Arizona, killing six people including a nine-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head."
Backgrounder: Main mass shootings in U.S. since 1999

you have no clue about what goes on in Sub Saharan Africa apparently
 
Yes ?????
And with enough bullets to murdrer many , many people...
My first vote was "other", as I recall.
The question is this..
What is more important? ..A man's right to life or another's right to own a weapon?

Another person's rights do not trump my rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom