• 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

Still waiting to hear about your knowledge of Arizona gun laws. For someone who accused me of dodging a point you are really putting on a show yourself.

federal gun laws are the same throughout the country and while a state can make it tougher, the federal laws are what controls most states.
 
A loan is not a constitutional right. That is all.

no one is saying you are denied the right to own a weapon ... only that you must offer the documentation to give basis to believe you are not medically incapacitated to use it properly in our society
being prohibited to personally own an arm consisting of a nuclear weapon does not deprive you of your right to bear arms
 
no one is saying you are denied the right to own a weapon ... only that you must offer the documentation to give basis to believe you are not medically incapacitated to use it properly in our society
being prohibited to personally own an arm consisting of a nuclear weapon does not deprive you of your right to bear arms

sorry-we aren't going to rape the constitution to keep the hoplophobes' shorts dry
 
no one is saying you are denied the right to own a weapon ... only that you must offer the documentation to give basis to believe you are not medically incapacitated to use it properly in our society

No one is saying you are denied the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure...only that if the police think you might be dangerous, you have to offer evidence to show that you're not doing anything wrong.
 
Hey, Wiseone, I live in a state bordering AZ and have to be familiar with your gun laws because I pass through AZ several times a year on my way to CA. Now... try to contribute intelligently to the discussion.

O ok I get so you say you are familar, and thats supposed to be enough? Well I lived in Arizona and I'm telling you there are ways it can be improved, of course I'm using your standard and simply stating it as a fact without providing an backing. Now we have two "facts" that contradict each other, how is that possible? And really, you drive through the state on your way to California and that makes you an expert on AZ gun laws?
 
O ok I get so you say you are familar, and thats supposed to be enough? Well I lived in Arizona and I'm telling you there are ways it can be improved, of course I'm using your standard and simply stating it as a fact without providing an backing. Now we have two "facts" that contradict each other, how is that possible? And really, you drive through the state on your way to California and that makes you an expert on AZ gun laws?

you seem confused-federal gun laws are the same in every state
 
you seem confused-federal gun laws are the same in every state

We are talking about Arizona state laws, specifically the ones which had a flaw, correctable or not, which allowed this man to purchase his weapon.
 
federal gun control laws control this
what you are claiming is that the federal laws are not strict enough
 
WBone:
I live in AZ. Guns laws are just fine. If you purchase from a dealer a background check is done. I do not feel that should ever be a requirement for a private seller selling his/her weapon. If someone really wants a weapon, they will find a way to aquire it (legally or illegally).
 
I would not challenge the effectiveness of gun regulation toward preventing incidents like this from happening. Mentally unstable people tend to be socially dysfunctional to the point that even going into a store and purchasing an item - any store, or any item - can be a challenge. Going through the channels and making the (often evasive and shady) contacts which enable them to obtain the required weapons illegally is a greater challenge for them than for psychologically typical citizens. It would be like somebody who has never used drugs and who doesn't know anybody in the culture trying to buy marijuana, but much more difficult and dangerous.

The people who don't buy guns commercially are the people who use them rationally; that is, crimes of "rational self-interest," in which not being caught by the police is a major factor. Such people are not likely to target crowds or politicians, which at the very least would cause the FBI to hammer down on them with all of its administrative and investigative strength.
 
Last edited:
federal gun control laws control this
what you are claiming is that the federal laws are not strict enough

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.
 
WBone:
I live in AZ. Guns laws are just fine. If you purchase from a dealer a background check is done. I do not feel that should ever be a requirement for a private seller selling his/her weapon. If someone really wants a weapon, they will find a way to aquire it (legally or illegally).

I agree but this man didn't use a private seller, I'm assuming you mean one individual selling to another not a private business. If thats what you meant sorry I'm just a little confused at what you're getting at. Anyway again all I'm trying to do is show how little AngryAmerican knows about Arizona gun law, and how his opinion is not fact which he seems to think it is
 
O ok I get so you say you are familar, and thats supposed to be enough? Well I lived in Arizona and I'm telling you there are ways it can be improved, of course I'm using your standard and simply stating it as a fact without providing an backing. Now we have two "facts" that contradict each other, how is that possible? And really, you drive through the state on your way to California and that makes you an expert on AZ gun laws?

Your last sentence demonstrates your misunderstanding of gun laws in general. As a CCW holder in my state, it is my responsibility to know other states laws if I wish to legally carry while traveling through any other state. Hence, I've had to thoroughly read AZ's firearm laws. It's not hard to understand, I promise. Frankly, however, I could care less if you believe me or not.

Here's the problem, you're saying that gun laws need to be improved, but you have no constructive idea how to do so. That's like saying cancer treatments need to be improved but we have no idea how. I would be the first person to turn in my gun in a society that was guaranteed to be completely free of violence, but until then, our best option is self-defense, NOT crippling our ability to protect ourselves with more government tape.

I'm quite flattered, though, at your desire to prove me wrong at all costs. Your devotion is quite touching. :lol:
 
Last edited:
It's a shame that a few bad apples have to ruin things for the rest of us....
 
Your last sentence demonstrates your misunderstanding of gun laws in general. As a CCW holder in my state, it is my responsibility to know other states laws if I wish to legally carry while traveling through any other state. Hence, I've had to thoroughly read AZ's firearm laws. It's not hard to understand, I promise. Frankly, however, I could care less if you believe me or not.

Here's the problem, you're saying that gun laws need to be improved, but you have no constructive idea how to do so. That's like saying cancer treatments need to be improved but we have no idea how. I would be the first person to turn in my gun in a society that was guaranteed to be completely free of violence, but until then, our best option is self-defense, NOT crippling our ability to protect ourselves with more government tape.

I'm quite flattered, though, at your desire to prove me wrong at all costs. Your devotion is quite touching. :lol:

I'm guessing you don't just talk people at their word for everything do you? But no apply a different standard for yourself, because you're special, ok bud.

And no you're right I don't claim to have a solution, even though I clearly see a problem. Its just like how I can say a truck is broken when I don't exactly whats wrong with it or how to fix it. What really bugs me is that you are so keen to not accept reality when it doesn't fit into your politics. Going all the way back again you've said the only solution to the problem of gun crime is to have gun laws. However its clearly been shown through the world that there are other ways to reduce gun crime without have looser gun laws, but you can't acknowledge it as a solution. You're stuck on your opinion as being right.

Going back to the example of China, they can pull off completely outlawing civilian ownership of weapons and still have a society nearly free of gun crimes. Why? Well part of the reason is the government keeps such tight control over its people, which is the reason I don't support that solution. However if we go by your words again "The only solution is less gun laws to reduce gun crime" than you're clearly wrong. A more intelligent argument would be there are other solutions however I don't think there are as good as mine because they limit the freedom of the people among other negative consequences.

Thats whats really been bugging me this whole time, not your politics because on this issue they are very close to mine, but the way you go about looking at the world as if you're opinion is fact.
 
I'm guessing you don't just talk people at their word for everything do you? But no apply a different standard for yourself, because you're special, ok bud.

I have no idea what the hell this argument is in reference to, but... uh... ok, whatever you say.

And no you're right I don't claim to have a solution, even though I clearly see a problem. Its just like how I can say a truck is broken when I don't exactly whats wrong with it or how to fix it. What really bugs me is that you are so keen to not accept reality when it doesn't fit into your politics. Going all the way back again you've said the only solution to the problem of gun crime is to have gun laws. However its clearly been shown through the world that there are other ways to reduce gun crime without have looser gun laws, but you can't acknowledge it as a solution. You're stuck on your opinion as being right.

"I don't know what the answer is, but I know you're not right." That's what I'm hearing here. Guns are a proven crime deterrent. This is not an opinion. This is not up for debate.

Going back to the example of China, they can pull off completely outlawing civilian ownership of weapons and still have a society nearly free of gun crimes. Why? Well part of the reason is the government keeps such tight control over its people, which is the reason I don't support that solution. However if we go by your words again "The only solution is less gun laws to reduce gun crime" than you're clearly wrong. A more intelligent argument would be there are other solutions however I don't think there are as good as mine because they limit the freedom of the people among other negative consequences.

"So... communism is a great model for what we should do in the United States? We should give up the majority of our freedoms for the illusion of safety. Got it. Btw, I notice you don't list Germany as an example any more, after I called you on their failed attempt at gun control last time you tried that example.

Thats whats really been bugging me this whole time, not your politics because on this issue they are very close to mine, but the way you go about looking at the world as if you're opinion is fact.

Cry me a river. Our views are clearly nothing alike. If you don't wish to take personal responsibility for your safety, that's fine, but don't force your misguided moral code on me and my family.
 
I am simply amazed.

Is ANYONE really stupid enough to belive that someone such as the individual in question would simply have abandoned his plans if he couldnt get a firearm? Has there been ANYTHING written that implies a magazine capacity ban would prevent this particular unstable individual from executing his rampage?

This is pathetic and typical. Tragedy occurs...seize it and use it to advance your own political agenda.

Should we deny a drivers license based on the same grounds? Should there be a national data base to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing sharp objects? Spray paint? Should we allow landlords access to that same database to be more selctive with who the rent to? EMployers to ensure they dont hire this type of individual and put their own employees at risk? Where does it stop? Or do you want those changes in law to ONLY apply to your particular political bent?

The bodies arent even cold yet. Hell...they hadnt stopped bleeding before people started using it for political attacks...maybe you should give it a few days before you whore out the dead for your causes.
 
I have no idea what the hell this argument is in reference to, but... uh... ok, whatever you say.

Its a reference to the fact that you are asking me to simply take your creditably on Arizona gun law simply because you say they are present. And I'm saying I'm assuming you don't just take everyone at their word when they say they have a certain degree of familiarity with a subject, therefore you're apply a different standard to yourself as you do others.

"I don't know what the answer is, but I know you're not right." That's what I'm hearing here. Guns are a proven crime deterrent. This is not an opinion. This is not up for debate.
You're over simplifying the issue again, we both know guns can work either way for example look at Somalia or Mexico. We also know you are specifically talking about legal guns, not just guns in general. If it were just guns that deterred crime in general, it wouldn't matter if they were acquired legally or illegally. However a central pillar of your argument is that criminals will get guns one way or another, and its the availability of guns to the responsible population that really matters. Its these qualifiers and explanations of your positions you constantly leave out.


"So... communism is a great model for what we should do in the United States? We should give up the majority of our freedoms for the illusion of safety. Got it. Btw, I notice you don't list Germany as an example any more, after I called you on their failed attempt at gun control last time you tried that example.
I was simply trying to show there were other solutions to gun crime, something you refused to admit because of politics. If I'm simply trying to show there is not only one of something, I only need to demonstrate and show there's just one other. A second example wasn't necessary but Germany still works perfect as a case where stricter gun laws and stricter control has led to less gun crime. Germany Reevaluates Gun Laws After School Shooting | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 23.11.2006

Also, for the I don't know how many-ith time, I'm not advocating any form of policy and I'm certainly not saying we should adopt a Chinese style system. I am, again explaining this after I dunno many how times, simply trying to show its foolish to simply state no additional or changed gun law will work, especially considering you're clear lack of demonstrated knowledge on Arizona gun law.


Cry me a river. Our views are clearly nothing alike. If you don't wish to take personal responsibility for your safety, that's fine, but don't force your misguided moral code on me and my family.

How many times do I have to say I'm not pushing policy? Listen to me carefully, I'm from Arizona, I own a weapon, and I love my state's gun laws. We suffer low crime in part due to them and much of our crime comes from other sources such as south of the border, but its deterred in places like Phoenix due to people owning weapons. I don't disagree with any of that, I just think its silly to suggest that ANY change and ANY additional gun laws will hurt people.
 
The point is the improbability that any gun laws of any kind would have stopped this individual from doing what he did.

If he were unable to buy a gun legally from a licensed dealer, he could have bebopped down to his local drug dealer and got hooked up with a gun within 24 hours. Not a problem.

Most mass-shootings have taken place in areas where it was already a crime to be in possession of a gun. Those "gun free zones" have never stopped a single shooter.

It just isn't likely that there's any legislative solution that would have prevented this crime, short of turning our society into a draconian police-state.
 
The point is the improbability that any gun laws of any kind would have stopped this individual from doing what he did.

If he were unable to buy a gun legally from a licensed dealer, he could have bebopped down to his local drug dealer and got hooked up with a gun within 24 hours. Not a problem.

Most mass-shootings have taken place in areas where it was already a crime to be in possession of a gun. Those "gun free zones" have never stopped a single shooter.

It just isn't likely that there's any legislative solution that would have prevented this crime, short of turning our society into a draconian police-state.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I've been asking the other guy almost this entire topic. What knowledge of gun laws, both Arizona state and now Federal, do you have which allows you to justify an opinion such as there is no way to improve the law, or that its very improbable? Are you that confident there's no loophole which may be closed? Or no additional item added to the check, like say history of mental illiness and criminal activity which may be important to know when selling a firearm? Or if those things are already on the list, which most mental illinesses and criminal activity is, could there not have been a mistake or an error somewhere down the line that allowed this man to purchase this weapon? Are you so confident nothing can be done that no investigation or look over of state gun laws may be worthwhile, even if not to change or add onto them but to ensure they are enforced more effectively?

And you're right an individual can acquire a gun illegal through different means, its not impossible by no means. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws which govern guns. Just like how people will always speed doesn't mean we just shouldnt bother with speed limits. The capacity and ability of people to commit a crime, for example an illegal sale or purchase of a firearm, doesn't mean there should be no or less laws governing the legal sale of firearms.
 
that is a magazine, not a clip and it was most likely 33 rounds=G 18 magazine

so what-I can reload a glock in under a second and a half
or carry two

So what back at you. ;) What difference does it make what it's called? :mrgreen: 33 bullets is a lot freaking fire power especially when a coward goes ballistic (no pun intended) against defenseless civilians.
 
I don't think it was a matter of accurracy, just a tightly packed group. People couldn't get away in time, from the sound of it.

But, but, in the movies and TV series the bad guys fire machine guns at the protagonist and he doesn't even get hit! :shock: Sadly I guess there's Hollywood and there's real life. :(
 
I'm going to ask you the same thing I've been asking the other guy almost this entire topic. What knowledge of gun laws, both Arizona state and now Federal, do you have which allows you to justify an opinion such as there is no way to improve the law, or that its very improbable? Are you that confident there's no loophole which may be closed? Or no additional item added to the check, like say history of mental illiness and criminal activity which may be important to know when selling a firearm? Or if those things are already on the list, which most mental illinesses and criminal activity is, could there not have been a mistake or an error somewhere down the line that allowed this man to purchase this weapon? Are you so confident nothing can be done that no investigation or look over of state gun laws may be worthwhile, even if not to change or add onto them but to ensure they are enforced more effectively?

And you're right an individual can acquire a gun illegal through different means, its not impossible by no means. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws which govern guns. Just like how people will always speed doesn't mean we just shouldnt bother with speed limits. The capacity and ability of people to commit a crime, for example an illegal sale or purchase of a firearm, doesn't mean there should be no or less laws governing the legal sale of firearms.

You should ask that question of the ACLU. They are the ones that have fought laws throughout the country to prevent evidence of mental health problems from being in the public record. If there is no record of mental health problems in the federal database, then the purchase of a gun cannot be stopped.

Want to change the law? Contact the ACLU and tell them to stop their campaign that puts more importance on the privacy rights of mentally incompetent people than the safety of other citizens.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on the subject. I tend to think that mentally incompetent people like this character shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, but I also have a problem agreeing with the ACLU on anything.
 
Last edited:
so people's medical records should be divulged without court action

If you want the privledge of a weapon perhaps if you're nutjob yes. We already have background checks don't we? BTW I know a couple of people that carry permits and they are one oar shy of a boat. No criminal record though. I wouldn't want them around me with a gun.
 
Last edited:
So what back at you. ;) What difference does it make what it's called? :mrgreen: 33 bullets is a lot freaking fire power especially when a coward goes ballistic (no pun intended) against defenseless civilians.

Do you refer to a computer as a television ??? If not, why do you insist on calling an ammo magazine something its not?
 
Back
Top Bottom