• 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!

Gun control poll--read and select all that apply

should this person be allowed to purchase a gun?

  • Yes; their 2nd ammendment rights should not be infringed no matter their stated purpose

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No; such statements are clearly beyond the protection of the 2nd ammendment

    Votes: 16 88.9%
  • Maybe; their comment should be given weight in the background check

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Other--please explain

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
9,204
Reaction score
3,228
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I am generally against gun control except in some common-sense cases (previous seriously violent offenders probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns). However, an idea came to me and I thought it would be interesting to consider. Suppose the following conversation happens at a sporting-goods store or gun dealership:

Customer: I need a really big gun.
Dealer: Rifle or shotgun?
Customer: No, a handgun, or maybe an assault rifle...I'm afraid I don't know much about assault rifles, though.
Dealer: So, a large-caliber handgun. We have several .45 caliber pistols, and we've got a .44 caliber magnum over here.
Customer: The bigger the better, because I'm going to kill a bunch of people and when I shoot them, I want to make sure they're dead.
Dealer: Uh, what?
Customer: I'm need a gun because I'm going to shoot a lot of people. I'm going to go into the mall downtown and just shoot people. Women and children, men, infants, old people, whoever happens to be there. I'm going to blow some people's heads off.

Should this person be excluded from purchasing a gun, given their stated intention?
 
I am generally against gun control except in some common-sense cases (previous seriously violent offenders probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns). However, an idea came to me and I thought it would be interesting to consider. Suppose the following conversation happens at a sporting-goods store or gun dealership:

Customer: I need a really big gun.
Dealer: Rifle or shotgun?
Customer: No, a handgun, or maybe an assault rifle...I'm afraid I don't know much about assault rifles, though.
Dealer: So, a large-caliber handgun. We have several .45 caliber pistols, and we've got a .44 caliber magnum over here.
Customer: The bigger the better, because I'm going to kill a bunch of people and when I shoot them, I want to make sure they're dead.
Dealer: Uh, what?
Customer: I'm need a gun because I'm going to shoot a lot of people. I'm going to go into the mall downtown and just shoot people. Women and children, men, infants, old people, whoever happens to be there. I'm going to blow some people's heads off.

Should this person be excluded from purchasing a gun, given their stated intention?

Duh. Ever hear of aiding and abetting?

The clerk should say his store has a 3-day waiting period for purchase; help the customer out; get as much information as he can from him; then call the police and turn over the store surveillance video. The guy's obviously two donuts short of a dozen.
 
Last edited:
Duh. Ever hear of aiding and abetting?

The clerk should say his store has a 3-day waiting period for purchase; help the customer out; get as much information as he can from him; then call the police and turn over the store surveillance video. The guy's obviously two donuts short of a dozen.

Agreed. It would be the responsible thing to do.
 
Well, if it's this guys intent to go to the mall and shoot lot's of people, then the store owner should definitely not sell him the handgun.

The assault rifle is obviously more suitable.

:neener
 
Several issues here:

The store has no obligation to sell. Just because they do offer weapons for sell doesn't mean they have to provide anyone that comes in with a weapon.

The OP's buyer has already committed a crime: Conspiracy to commit murder.


The appropriate answer is this (and I used to sell guns) fill out the paperwork, take it to the back to do the background check and call the police...have him arrested on the spot. Your testimony and the security footage should be enough to put the guy in jail and remove his 2nd amendment right.

Rights end when you violate a law.
 
Just like the 1st amendment does not give you the right to commit treason,air or leak classified info or yell fire in a crowed movie theater when there is no fire, Deny life saving medical treatment to a child or deny adequate education to a child based on religion, my second amendment rights does not give me the right to shoot a gun at 3AM for no reason what so ever, to shoot at random houses or to kill people.

That said, someone would have to be a complete dumbass to walk in a gun store telling the clerk they need a weapon to go murder a bunch of people. So the clerk would have to be an idiot to sell someone like the weapon because of the fact they do not know if that person will fire the gun on them.
 
Last edited:
The dealer has an affirmative duty to not sell the weapon. Its akin to a bar tender knowing someone is intoxicated. Years ago, I was training at a local range when a woman came in (before the Background checks or Brady waiting period) and wanted to buy a gun. The store owner looked at her and determined something was wrong and told the woman he was not going to sell her a gun. She claimed she would sue and he pointed to a sign noting he had the absolute right to refuse sales to anyone (of course if he did it for racist reasons etc he could be in violation of Title VII)/. So she screamed HTF am I going to kill the MF that beat the hell out of me if you don't sell me a gun.

This happens more than you would think
 
I am generally against gun control except in some common-sense cases (previous seriously violent offenders probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns). However, an idea came to me and I thought it would be interesting to consider. Suppose the following conversation happens at a sporting-goods store or gun dealership:

Customer: I need a really big gun.
Dealer: Rifle or shotgun?
Customer: No, a handgun, or maybe an assault rifle...I'm afraid I don't know much about assault rifles, though.
Dealer: So, a large-caliber handgun. We have several .45 caliber pistols, and we've got a .44 caliber magnum over here.
Customer: The bigger the better, because I'm going to kill a bunch of people and when I shoot them, I want to make sure they're dead.
Dealer: Uh, what?
Customer: I'm need a gun because I'm going to shoot a lot of people. I'm going to go into the mall downtown and just shoot people. Women and children, men, infants, old people, whoever happens to be there. I'm going to blow some people's heads off.

Should this person be excluded from purchasing a gun, given their stated intention?

I'm sure a dozen people have said this in this thread by now, but what you're talking about is already illegal on the federal level and no that law should not be changed.
 
Well, if it's this guys intent to go to the mall and shoot lot's of people, then the store owner should definitely not sell him the handgun.

The assault rifle is obviously more suitable.

:neener

Don't forget the black-market full-auto conversion kit. Have to make that up-sell.
 
This is a big DUH question.
 
Your example is not applicable.

If someone said that when attempting to purchase a weapon, no sane gun merchant would sell them even a pocket knife. The guy has committed a crime by apparently planning to kill people, I would think.

The suggestions of gathering info and making an excuse to go into another room to call police seem the best option.

Stupid, poll is stupid.
 
Duh. Ever hear of aiding and abetting?

The clerk should say his store has a 3-day waiting period for purchase; help the customer out; get as much information as he can from him; then call the police and turn over the store surveillance video. The guy's obviously two donuts short of a dozen.


That, exactly. Furthermore, that's what most (nearly all) gun store owners would do. Even if they were ruthlessly mercantile, they'd have enough sense not to want to incur and aiding-and-abetting charge in almost all cases.

I mean, come on. This is a bit silly.
 
Everyone keeps talking about a background check. There should not be a background check involved in the first place.

But I agree with the other posters who've said that the gun store owner has a responsibility not to sell to this deranged person, and to attempt to delay them long enough for the police to arrive.
 
OP, I don't think you're going to find anyone that believes that the Second Amendment protects your right to commit a crime.
 
OP, I don't think you're going to find anyone that believes that the Second Amendment protects your right to commit a crime.

You'd be surprised how many gun haters whine otherwise. for example, when someone mentions the second amendment lots of hoplophobes counter with their right to be safe from "gun violence"
 
I am generally against gun control except in some common-sense cases (previous seriously violent offenders probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns). However, an idea came to me and I thought it would be interesting to consider. Suppose the following conversation happens at a sporting-goods store or gun dealership:

Customer: I need a really big gun.
Dealer: Rifle or shotgun?
Customer: No, a handgun, or maybe an assault rifle...I'm afraid I don't know much about assault rifles, though.
Dealer: So, a large-caliber handgun. We have several .45 caliber pistols, and we've got a .44 caliber magnum over here.
Customer: The bigger the better, because I'm going to kill a bunch of people and when I shoot them, I want to make sure they're dead.
Dealer: Uh, what?
Customer: I'm need a gun because I'm going to shoot a lot of people. I'm going to go into the mall downtown and just shoot people. Women and children, men, infants, old people, whoever happens to be there. I'm going to blow some people's heads off.

Should this person be excluded from purchasing a gun, given their stated intention?

Are you for real??? Are you really for real??
 
You'd be surprised how many gun haters whine otherwise. for example, when someone mentions the second amendment lots of hoplophobes counter with their right to be safe from "gun violence"

That's because they don't realize that the best way to be "safe from gun violence" is to own and carry a gun. ;)
 
To answer some of the points raised:

1) I agree that the person should not be sold a gun (see below).

2) I was expecting that there might be at most one or two people that think he should still have the right to purchase a gun, but am not surprised that so far no one has said so.

3) The poll and question are not stupid, however. While this may seem like a very common-sense example, it raises some issues in a more general sense. First, I don't think that merely stating an intent to commit murder is actually a crime. If the hypothetical customer had had a confederate and had made concrete plans, and then taken any step to carry out those plans (including trying to buy a gun), then that would be conspiracy to commit a felony. If he had no confederates, however, it wouldn't be a crime--merely a statement of an intent to commit a crime.

Consider the analogous case which someone brought up, and which has featured so prominently in the history of American jurisprudence: freedom of speech does not give someone the right to start a panic by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But in this case, clearly the instrument to do so cannot be witheld from the person, and they can only be punished after the fact. In this instance, a person's rights can reasonably be curtailed before the fact. Even if stating an intent to commit a crime is a crime, what we're really worried about is the person taking their gun and then using it to kill people; if we decide they shouldn't be sold a gun, that is the reason why. We wouldn't be nearly so concerned about someone who said those sorts of things but then who we could know, via whatever means, would never use a gun to commit a crime.

I would put it to you all that it's probably not too difficult to find instances of someone selling a gun to someone they suspected or should have suspected might intend to commit a crime, and then who actually did commit a crime with that gun. So if we were to legislate so as to place some responsibility on the seller of the gun, what rule could we use that would prevent curtailment of rights in similar cases of suspected misuse? Would we not, if we just went with the commonsense method, open the door to punishing someone suspected of abusing the right to free speech before they actually did?
 
theangryamerican said:
That's because they don't realize that the best way to be "safe from gun violence" is to own and carry a gun.

There are two golden rules of a gunfight. The first is this: Guns do not make you bulletproof.

That said, I would definitely agree that if a criminal had a reasonable expectation that he'd be confronted with a gaggle of armed citizens if he tried something like bank robbery, it'd surely tend to deter petty bank robbery (but might also increase incidents of bank robbery plus slaughter).
 
There are two golden rules of a gunfight. The first is this: Guns do not make you bulletproof.

That said, I would definitely agree that if a criminal had a reasonable expectation that he'd be confronted with a gaggle of armed citizens if he tried something like bank robbery, it'd surely tend to deter petty bank robbery (but might also increase incidents of bank robbery plus slaughter).

When asked the best way to win a gun battle, the legendary gunslinger Wyatt Earp said, "That's easy, don't show up for it."

However, statistically, carrying a gun makes you FAR more likely to survive a violent encounter. No one is claiming to be bulletproof. We just stack the deck in our favor as best we can.
 
I would put it to you all that it's probably not too difficult to find instances of someone selling a gun to someone they suspected or should have suspected might intend to commit a crime, and then who actually did commit a crime with that gun. So if we were to legislate so as to place some responsibility on the seller of the gun, what rule could we use that would prevent curtailment of rights in similar cases of suspected misuse? Would we not, if we just went with the commonsense method, open the door to punishing someone suspected of abusing the right to free speech before they actually did?

Would you be surprised to find that the vast majority of guns used to commit crime are not being used by their original legal owner?
 
theangryamerican said:
Would you be surprised to find that the vast majority of guns used to commit crime are not being used by their original legal owner?

Of course not. However, not all are.
 
Back
Top Bottom