• 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 .
Unfortunately they had to wait until he had fired off thirty plus one-in-the-gun rounds because of the high capacity magazine he used. Why does America allow such things?

Man Im glad he was allowed to have a gun, just think if this looney toon didnt and decided to drive an SUV through the crowd they would have never have stopped him. BAN ALL SUVs!!!!!

Or made himself a human bomb! BAN ALL FERTILIZER!!!

Logical people blame the shooter, not the guns, bullets or clips LMAO
 
Unfortunately they had to wait until he had fired off thirty plus one-in-the-gun rounds because of the high capacity magazine he used. Why does America allow such things?



Actually. Because we are a free society....


Seems the sherriff and the college are refusing to realease files they had on this guy. Perhaps we should look there before we go on hoplophobic tantrums.
 
The signals that the the AZ shooter had serious mental issues that were ignored, and it happens too often these days.
 
I never said there were none when the high capacity magazines were banned. Have you seen the statements by the police that less people would have been shot before he was disarmed had the shooter been using a standard size magazine?

It's easy to use hindsight, but there's no way to prove that he couldn't have inserted a fresh magazine, locked, cocked and rocked.

It's all about reaction time. With a 30 round mag, the defenders had more reaction time than they would if he would have been firing a 15 round mag. based on that fact--and yes, it's a fact--there's no guarantee that they would have been able to to stop him from emptying, or nearly emptying the second 15 round mag. He scored 20 hits out of 30 rounds. That's not exactly expert shooting, considering the range and the fact that he was receiving return fire, but it ain't "maggie's drawers", either.

So, let's say that he scored the same percentage with a 15 round mag. He would have scored 10 hits. With a higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets.

It's highly possible that he didn't practice shooting, unlocking, reloading and recommencing fire, because he had a 30 round mag and didn't really think he would empty that mag, much less reload a second. Had he two 15 round mags and he was prepped to reload, he could have pulled it off.

Based on my own firearms experience, I doubt it would have made much of a difference.
 
Unfortunately they had to wait until he had fired off thirty plus one-in-the-gun rounds because of the high capacity magazine he used. Why does America allow such things?

So, if had only had a 15 round mag and shot ten people, instead of 20 people, you would be cool with it?
 
So, if had only had a 15 round mag and shot ten people, instead of 20 people, you would be cool with it?

Why don't you ask the additional 10 people who he was able to shoot because he had a 30 round mag, or at least their next of kin?
 
Last edited:
So, if had only had a 15 round mag and shot ten people, instead of 20 people, you would be cool with it?

Gun grabbers work in baby steps. So I am not too sure it actually matters to him.
 
Why don't you ask the additional 10 people or their surviving relatives he was able to shoot because he had a 30 round mag?

He may had a extra gun or used better aim. Plus there is no guarantee if he would have been stopped while quickly removing the empty magazine and sticking in a full magazine.
 
… BAN ALL FERTILIZER!!! …

We actually control access to fertilizer more than we do to handguns.

Logical people understand that these instruments in the wrong hands can cause enormous harm, indeed were made to do enormous harm, and hence should be carefully constrained. Today the constraints are laughable.
 
It's easy to use hindsight, but there's no way to prove that he couldn't have inserted a fresh magazine, locked, cocked and rocked.

It's all about reaction time. With a 30 round mag, the defenders had more reaction time than they would if he would have been firing a 15 round mag. based on that fact--and yes, it's a fact--there's no guarantee that they would have been able to to stop him from emptying, or nearly emptying the second 15 round mag. He scored 20 hits out of 30 rounds. That's not exactly expert shooting, considering the range and the fact that he was receiving return fire, but it ain't "maggie's drawers", either.

So, let's say that he scored the same percentage with a 15 round mag. He would have scored 10 hits. With a higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets.

It's highly possible that he didn't practice shooting, unlocking, reloading and recommencing fire, because he had a 30 round mag and didn't really think he would empty that mag, much less reload a second. Had he two 15 round mags and he was prepped to reload, he could have pulled it off.

Based on my own firearms experience, I doubt it would have made much of a difference.

How does using a 15 round magazine give the shooter a "higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets?" And what is about using a 15 round clip would lessen the possibilities of the shooter being tackled before he could reload?

If we could reduce the number of hand gun deaths, would it be worth the effort? What hardship does it present to average citizens to not have weaponry that is superior to standard issue for police officers?
 
It's easy to use hindsight, but there's no way to prove that he couldn't have inserted a fresh magazine, locked, cocked and rocked.

It's all about reaction time. With a 30 round mag, the defenders had more reaction time than they would if he would have been firing a 15 round mag. based on that fact--and yes, it's a fact--there's no guarantee that they would have been able to to stop him from emptying, or nearly emptying the second 15 round mag. He scored 20 hits out of 30 rounds. That's not exactly expert shooting, considering the range and the fact that he was receiving return fire, but it ain't "maggie's drawers", either.

So, let's say that he scored the same percentage with a 15 round mag. He would have scored 10 hits. With a higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets.

It's highly possible that he didn't practice shooting, unlocking, reloading and recommencing fire, because he had a 30 round mag and didn't really think he would empty that mag, much less reload a second. Had he two 15 round mags and he was prepped to reload, he could have pulled it off.

Based on my own firearms experience, I doubt it would have made much of a difference.

How does using a 15 round magazine give the shooter a "higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets?" Also, what is about using a 15 round clip would lessen the possibilities of the shooter being tackled before he could reload?

If we could reduce the number killed in a gun massacre, would it be worth the effort? What hardship does it present to average citizens to not have weaponry that is superior to standard issue for police officers?
 
He may had a extra gun or used better aim. Plus there is no guarantee if he would have been stopped while quickly removing the empty magazine and sticking in a full magazine.

Are you really arguing that we shouldn't bother banning the sale of high capacity magazines because he could always have done something else? It's bizarre. By conservative lights, there's no point in fixing something because something else will just go wrong!
 
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't bother banning the sale of high capacity magazines because he could always have done something else?

That and the fact I do not want you anti-2nd amendment loons getting a baby step.


It's bizarre. By conservative lights, there's no point in fixing something because something else will just go wrong!
Nothing needs to be fixed. It does not take long to eject an empty magazine and to load a full one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQB3Id_3go
 
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't bother banning the sale of high capacity magazines because he could always have done something else? It's bizarre. By conservative lights, there's no point in fixing something because something else will just go wrong!

Your opinion. There is no need to ban "high capacity magazines" as you put it. Nice spin on your last statement of, " there's no point in fixing something because something else will just go wrong!". We have adequate laws for the sell of firearms. Let me ask you something, we have laws against robbing banks, yet banks still get robbed. Will adding more laws stop bank robbers? Evil people will do evil things even with laws in place.
 
We actually control access to fertilizer more than we do to handguns.

Logical people understand that these instruments in the wrong hands can cause enormous harm, indeed were made to do enormous harm, and hence should be carefully constrained. Today the constraints are laughable.

Stricter controls on fertilizer? I can go right now and buy some no questions asked. Also a convicted felon or someone found to be mentally deficient can buy fertilizer.

You mist want to back up your statement with some proof.
 
Why don't you ask the additional 10 people who he was able to shoot because he had a 30 round mag, or at least their next of kin?

How about you send them an email and ask them to draw straws and see who would have gotten capped and who wouldn't?
 
We actually control access to fertilizer more than we do to handguns.

Logical people understand that these instruments in the wrong hands can cause enormous harm, indeed were made to do enormous harm, and hence should be carefully constrained. Today the constraints are laughable.

nice dodge, nice try, what about SUVs? Never been carded or asked questions to get fertilizer either lol
sorry i just don't buy into your "the sky is falling" rhetoric

what about gasoline? Kerosene? rat poison?

Like I said LOGICAL people blame the person, without a gun he could have found a number of ways to kill less equal or more people, thats just common sense you choose to ignore and focus on the wrong thing LOL
 
Last edited:
How does using a 15 round magazine give the shooter a "higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets?" And what is about using a 15 round clip would lessen the possibilities of the shooter being tackled before he could reload?

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.

If we could reduce the number of hand gun deaths, would it be worth the effort? What hardship does it present to average citizens to not have weaponry that is superior to standard issue for police officers?

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.
 
It does not take long to eject an empty magazine and to load a full one.

Just long enough for the shooter to have been taken down in this case.
 
… I do not want you anti-2nd amendment «insulting term» getting a baby step. …

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom