Reasonable Gun restrictions - need some help here...

**Xavsnipe** · 09-12-13, 12:21 PM

From personal experience, I see a problem when a foreign student who´s been in the U.S. no more than 2 weeks can walk into Walmart, knowing about 3 words in english, and walking out with a Benelli 12 gauge shotgun, a .22 marksman pistol and a shitton of ammo in less than 40 minutes. This happened a few years ago, but still...c´mon. Let´s at least be reasonable here.

**SpecOpsScott** · 09-12-13, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

If they´re not, they´re not. What´s the use of having them only to clog up the judicial system?

Because in politics... selling a solution to a real or imagined problem means power.

**TrueKings3** · 09-12-13, 12:21 PM

I am not crazy.. I am not a felon... I know how to clean my guns and store them in a safe.. How come I can't own a pistol or an automatic weapon? Oh wait I am not mature enough. I can die for this country but I can not legally own a pistol, automatic weapon, or drink beer. Yep.. Sounds about right.

**BrockSamson** · 09-12-13, 12:35 PM

I skipped about 10 pages of this thread but figured I would give my opinion, apologize if I am rehashing:

If you have not done something to lose your rights as a citizen the government should stay out of your business. The penalty for committing a crime that injures someone or their property needs to be a lot higher in my opinion. The crime isn't someone who is blind having a firearm. The crime is a person shooting someone or damaging their property because they irresponsibly handled a firearm. A firearm is a serious thing and if you believe in freedom you have to apply it to everyone until they prove otherwise. The thought that there should be legislation saying you need an eye test to purchase a firearm is to me, crazy. There aren't masses of blind people running out buying guns then hurting anyone or anything. In the cases of an elderly blind citizen I agree it is extremely irresponsible for them to handle a firearm, but it is their right. If I was that person's family member or friend I would do everything I could to convince them to reconsider that decision and maybe go as far as to remove the firearm from their home and contact a mental health professional if there was a sign of dementia or paranoia.

If I say the sentence "Blind people should have guns." it sounds crazy, but what I am trying to say and create enough context for is "We can't predict which good non-felon tax paying citizens will commit a property or violent crime in the future so we shouldn't limit anyone from their constitutional rights."

**iravedic** · 09-12-13, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Sorry for three posts but I strongly believe that a law abiding citizen should be allowed to own the same weapons as the DHS, Police or any other non-military organization.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm curious as to why? Not trying to be argumentative in the least, but why?

**WickedTribe** · 09-12-13, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I am not sure if you realize what you have just inferred with your statement here, so I'll clarify for you and anyone else reading:

1. You are comparing the crime of voter fraud to murders using guns in crimes of passion within 48 hours of purchase.

Yes, in that they're both crimes happen increadibly rarely.

2. The only way to gather statistics on instances of a crime committed is instances where someone is caught committing that crime. Statistical analysis does not cover the gambit of unreported crime or crimes where the criminal got away with it.

Also correct.

3. Therefore, by comparing statistical analysis of the two, you are inferring that a roughly equal percentage of people get away with crimes of passion using guns within 48 hours of purchasing them as those who get away with voter fraud.

No, I'm inferring a lack of data. I don't know anything about the missing data, and neither do you. For all that we know, there could be millions of cases of uncaught voter fraud, and gun crimes using a legally-obtained gun within 48 hours of purchase could make up 100% of all unpunished crimes.

I think your comparison is... Flawed. I won't be insulting about it, but damn, this one was tempting. Just being honest.

I appreciate you making your comment without insulting me, I know how hard that is for you, but the comparison is fine. You disagree with possibly restricting gun-owners' rights for a type whose existance isn't supported by data. You're happy to restrict the rights of voters for a similarly unsupported crime.

**Alundil** · 09-12-13, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I am not sure if you realize what you have just inferred with your statement here, so I'll clarify for you and anyone else reading:

1. You are comparing the crime of voter fraud to murders using guns in crimes of passion within 48 hours of purchase.
3. Therefore, by comparing statistical analysis of the two, you are inferring that a roughly equal percentage of people get away with crimes of passion using guns within 48 hours of purchasing them as those who get away with voter fraud.

I think your comparison is... Flawed. I won't be insulting about it, but damn, this one was tempting. Just being honest.

Your analysis of the comparison is flawed. Wicked already pointed out why. Saves me from typing. Yay!