• 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 know, it just pisses me off that there are those who would stand-up for a child and mass murderer.

Stand up how? Is he not entitled to have his case heard? Is he not entitled to defense? Is it not his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? To have a trial by a jury of his peers? I don't think anyone will say that what this man did was good. But he is most certainly entitled to his rightful legal recourse.
 
Of course you do, you do not think the people should have the right to bear arms.

I describe what I think is a minimal and reasonable standard by which a person should be able to obtain a handgun and you declare that I don't think people should be able to bear arms at all. I take it that in your view any restriction on fire arm purchases is a threat to eliminate every and all such purchases.
 
Stand up how? Is he not entitled to have his case heard? Is he not entitled to defense? Is it not his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? To have a trial by a jury of his peers? I don't think anyone will say that what this man did was good. But he is most certainly entitled to his rightful legal recourse.

Why should there be a trial. He was arrested during the act, there were countless witnesses, what is his defense? He is dead to rights guilty. If it were Texas he would be in the fast lane to the electric chair or leathal injection.
 
Why should there be a trial. He was arrested during the act, there were countless witnesses, what is his defense? He is dead to rights guilty. If it were Texas he would be in the fast lane to the electric chair or leathal injection.

Situations are rarely ever this black and white, yet passions can run high. If we carve a path for this sort of activity for what may seem reasonable today, will be a tragedy tomorrow.
 
If you want to discuss the trial, start your own thread about it.

Please don't wander off the topic: Should the AZ shooter have been able to buy a gun?
 
No, because he should have been diagnosed as mentally ill. His family should have acted long ago. Absent that, the school or the military or some other organization should have had the authority to have him evaluated, or perhaps those who wish to buy guns should have to demonstrate that they are sane.
 
I think those around him, his family and community failed him. And that's the real source of the tragedy, not the fact he laid a CC down on a gun counter.
 
Why should there be a trial. He was arrested during the act, there were countless witnesses, what is his defense? He is dead to rights guilty. If it were Texas he would be in the fast lane to the electric chair or leathal injection.

He has the right to a trial, that's it; case closed. He gets his day in court. It MUST be that way. We cannot allow the government to dictate which people do or do not get a trial. Everyone who is arrested is entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers. That's it. No and's if's or but's about it. That is the right of the individual, and we must abide by the rights and liberties of the people.
 
No, because he should have been diagnosed as mentally ill. His family should have acted long ago. Absent that, the school or the military or some other organization should have had the authority to have him evaluated, or perhaps those who wish to buy guns should have to demonstrate that they are sane.

I don't understand this stuff. First off, is it really a problem? This happens every so often, but it's not like it's an epidemic. Which seems to state that we have a lot of gun control laws now which significantly reduce this number. You should understand that the number is never going to be zero. That's the problem I see with a lot of these hindsight arguments. In this case, this guy who may have had certain things in his past got a gun and shot up a lot of people. So we say, the parents should have been required to to have him diagnosed as mentally ill. Oh, the military who refused him should have done it. Oh, some "organization" should have had him evaluated. I don't know if people stop to think about what it is they are saying. The guy is a nut job, but does one have to be a nut job to be rejected by the military? If the military doesn't want someone, do they have the rightful power to make them have a psychological evaluation? I mean, that's pretty nuts. Did the school have responsibility to this?

In the end, the amount of government power and databasing required to do as you people want will only serve as a roadblock to ourselves. Maybe we don't want crazy people talking in public. What if one incites a riot? There are consequences and repercussions for choosing freedom. One of which is that we cannot full blast let the government go for every sensationalized or over-emotionalized case we come about. Another is that we will have a certain amount of crime. Crazy people getting guns, that's not going to stop. In some perfect world, maybe all the stop gaps are in place...maybe there's just no crazy people. But in our world, the government is limited and the rights and liberties of the individual are recognized. We cannot just start making "organizations" who make people have mental evaluations in order to exercise a right. That's crazy. Maybe people who suggest that should be forced to be diagnosed as mentally ill. Hell of a lot more dangerous than a lone gunman.
 
I don't understand this stuff. First off, is it really a problem? This happens every so often, but it's not like it's an epidemic. Which seems to state that we have a lot of gun control laws now which significantly reduce this number. You should understand that the number is never going to be zero. That's the problem I see with a lot of these hindsight arguments. In this case, this guy who may have had certain things in his past got a gun and shot up a lot of people. So we say, the parents should have been required to to have him diagnosed as mentally ill. Oh, the military who refused him should have done it. Oh, some "organization" should have had him evaluated. I don't know if people stop to think about what it is they are saying. The guy is a nut job, but does one have to be a nut job to be rejected by the military? If the military doesn't want someone, do they have the rightful power to make them have a psychological evaluation? I mean, that's pretty nuts. Did the school have responsibility to this?

In the end, the amount of government power and databasing required to do as you people want will only serve as a roadblock to ourselves. Maybe we don't want crazy people talking in public. What if one incites a riot? There are consequences and repercussions for choosing freedom. One of which is that we cannot full blast let the government go for every sensationalized or over-emotionalized case we come about. Another is that we will have a certain amount of crime. Crazy people getting guns, that's not going to stop. In some perfect world, maybe all the stop gaps are in place...maybe there's just no crazy people. But in our world, the government is limited and the rights and liberties of the individual are recognized. We cannot just start making "organizations" who make people have mental evaluations in order to exercise a right. That's crazy. Maybe people who suggest that should be forced to be diagnosed as mentally ill. Hell of a lot more dangerous than a lone gunman.
I don't think it's that crazy. Nobody is suggesting any school or military or other organization should be able to force someone to be medically diagnosed on a whim. I'm sure protections can be built into a system to ensure that individual rights are not unduly infringed. It's far more difficult, of course, to come up with all the little details that would make such a system feasible and appropriate, than it is to come into a thread and twist around words and declare posters unstable.

Trying to discern ways to make a decent system better is never pointless.
 
Last edited:
Somehow the military recruiters understood who they were dealing with.

Yes a pot smoker. He was rejected because he flunked the drug test.
 
I don't think it's that crazy. Nobody is suggesting any school or military or other organization should be able to force someone to be medically diagnosed on a whim. I'm sure protections can be built into a system to ensure that individual rights are not unduly infringed. It's far more difficult, of course, to come up with all the little details that would make such a system feasible and appropriate, than it is to come into a thread and twist around words and declare posters unstable.

Trying to discern ways to make a decent system better is never pointless.

It's pointless if it's not possible. The guy failed a drug test with the military, should he have been mentally evaluated? In the end, there's a lot of if's and but's coming from hindsight. But as the events turned, there was no major provocation or warrant to exclude him from practicing his rights.
 
No, because he should have been diagnosed as mentally ill. His family should have acted long ago. Absent that, the school or the military or some other organization should have had the authority to have him evaluated, or perhaps those who wish to buy guns should have to demonstrate that they are sane.

How un-constitutional would that be?
 
Somehow the military recruiters understood who they were dealing with.

People who smoke pot should all forced to have a mental evaluation done?
 
It's pointless if it's not possible. The guy failed a drug test with the military, should he have been mentally evaluated? In the end, there's a lot of if's and but's coming from hindsight. But as the events turned, there was no major provocation or warrant to exclude him from practicing his rights.
I agree with you re: the military dismissal, if that's all there was too it, but I'm not sure what basis you have to make a conclusion like the rest of your post. If he was dismissed from a community college because students and teachers felt unsafe, or fired from a job specifically because someone feared what he might do or that he was unstable, that too me sounds like a good enough reason to require some sort of extra precaution before a gun license would be issued. I don't know how these types of things might be notated or investigated in the future, but I'm not willing to simply dismiss it because it might take longer than two seconds to think about it.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you re: the military dismissal, if that's all there was too it, but I'm not sure what basis you have to make a conclusion like the rest of your post. If he was dismissed from a community college because students and teachers felt unsafe, or fired from a job specifically because someone feared what he might do or that he was unstable, that too me sounds like a good enough reason to require some sort of extra precaution before a gun license would be issued. I don't know how these types of things might be notated or investigated in the future, but I'm not willing to simply dismiss it because it might take longer than two seconds to think about it.

So if some stranger or X employer wants to get revenge what have you. All they need to do is say you scare people and need an "evaluation?" You realize how this can never work correct?

We do not have the thought police.... yet.
 
So if some stranger or X employer wants to get revenge what have you. All they need to do is say you scare people and need an "evaluation?"
Not necessarily saying they should then have to undergo a medical evaluation. However, the firing is probably something worth investigating if that person then seeks a gun license.

I'm not sure where you pulled the "stranger" part from in my post.
 
Last edited:
Of course he shouldn't have been sold a weapon, a more important and less obvious question is "Was there a way this man could have been identified as a threat before the sale?" And I don't mean like in the gun store before, I much going back much further.
 
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?

So far... if you look at the poll, the majority says yes. I hope you are willing to accept it. He has the right to buy a gun plain and simple.
 
Not necessarily saying they should then have to undergo a medical evaluation. However, the firing is probably something worth investigating if that person then seeks a gun license.

I'm not sure where you pulled the "stranger" part from in my post.

So you want to look into people's employment records and look for firings in order to get a gun? What else should be searched in order to exercise a right?
 
I think it's bat**** insane in itself to sell a gun to someone with a history of mental illness, though I am not sure if the AZ shooter was ever professionally diagnosed. I don't understand the American love of guns, and never will... but I don't judge either. It is what it is. But I really think that things could be better as the rate of gun violence is . Not perfect, but better.

So what does a person have to do to get a gun in the US? What are the requirements?
 
I voted Yes on the poll.

As things stood at the time he purchased a gun, yes, he should have been able to purchase it.

Hypothetical and/or unconstitutional laws suggested after the fact have no bearing on that.

-----------------
Possibly, his friends and family should have persuaded him to get mental help. Then he might not have even reached this point.

But other than that, I don’t see any reasonable way to have pre-empted this action, unless there were more people with firearms around at the time who could have stopped him either through threats of or use of force.
 
87941_600.jpg
 
Last edited:
No, this again illustrates the need for gun control revision. It makes no sense to me to allow a known unstable person to purchase gear that most police are not even issued.
 
Back
Top Bottom