Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.
For a pro-gun sublemmy, there are a lot of anti gun comments.
Man if only it was actually like how cars are regulated.
Required training, tests, insurance needs and has to be safe for others.
I mean you can but it would need a lot of modifications first.
Not that you can get most of them going on your own anyway
Pfft, what are cops gonna do, pull me over? Im in a freaking F1 car, good luck!
Follow me for more life-hacks.
What an interesting concept. Insuring the gun owner could really have merit. Then you’d have a company who would be very heavily invested in the responsibility of the gun owner, as well as needing a record of firearms owned to be insured.
You’d also have pressure on firearms manufacturers and regulatory bodies because the insurance companies covering the owners would do everything in their power to shift blame away from their customers, so as to avoid paying out on the policies. Suddenly you have a lot of money behind preventing accidental discharge, etc
You’d also increase the cost of responsible ownership considerably, while irresponsible owners would be largely unaffected…
You’re just creating a tax on the poor for them to practice a constitutional right. Insurance providers 1. Aren’t going to pay out anyway, that’s their whole thing, so much like health insurance, it’s money being thrown away every month, and 2. You’re adding another middleman from an industry most people think is greedy/corrupt AF, and why would that ever be a good thing? Plus, you know damn well once the insurance companies get involved, all of a sudden minority gun ownership numbers are going to drop because, mysteriously, all of their premiums shot up overnight for totally racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic unknown reasons.
I’m all for requiring more training, or licensing, background checks should be required for every gun sale, I’m just saying this to show I fully support gun control measures.
Require more training, but it needs to be made affordable. Every gun control bill is just banning firearm models, or limiting magazine capacities, or whatever. None of them every talk about subsidizing firearms training for those who need or want it. Even my blue state only requires one 8-hour class and one live-fire test to get your conceal carry permit, and the instructors even talked about how people ask about taking further training, but when they hear the cost and time (almost all the classes require taking time off work, which some can’t do) involved, they just say they can’t afford it and they’ll just watch YouTube or whatever.
Edit: Not sure how “creating an unnecessary monetary barrier turns a constitutional right into a constitutional privilege for the rich, all while enrichening a corrupt industry that will absolutely fuck this up” is such a controversial take, especially when I’ve added that training courses should be mandatory and subsidized so that finances aren’t a barrier…
Just like the constitutional right to free speech, you’re not free of the consequences of your speech. Be a responsible owner and your. Insurance rates stay low but when you’re not, you’re the one paying for your mistakes
Yes but… A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance. Steal guns, ghost guns, or simply not give a fuck about the law since they’re going to break it anyways.
In my opinion, the root issue is a moral/mental one. Do the shooters believe they are killing? Are they “saving”? Are they not real people? Etc. If you don’t believe people are real, you’re not really hurting anyone.
A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance
Just like a lot of people who accrue lots of driving violations don’t bother insuring their own cars.
And yet, a lack of insurance is easily the difference between a ticket and ending up in jail with a massive fine, even more points on your license, and your car impounded for $200/day. So pretty much everyone short of those who have their licences revoked, or those who cannot even be insured anymore, will still try to get insurance any way they can.
It’s no different.
It is more than is needed for gun ownership. The arsenal I inherited required nothing. The one I have purchased required a 48 hour wait I think it was. In none of the cases did I have to prove I knew how to handle a firearm.
Do you really think requiring more training before getting a driver’s license wouldn’t be used to disenfranchise minorities?
God I wish we could apply that to every right, y’know? Like, wouldn’t it be great if we could test people before they could vote, so that we knew that they understood the functions of the different branches of gov’t, the limitations, the history of legislation, the origins of common law and where our style of government comes from… It would be so wonderful if rights weren’t really rights at all, but were privileges only given to the most well educated and intelligent people.
Maybe even some literacy tests.
Oh, or if you needed a license and credentials in order to speak in public! That would be awesome! Or if you needed to be an attorney to assert your right to remain silent!
“providing evidence that you won’t be a danger before being allowed to have a weapon? HOW DARE YOU!”
…That’s a logical impossibility though. You can’t prove a negative.
And now we’re right back to laws that prevented non-white people from owning firearms.
Wouldn’t be great if the police could just search anyone for any reason (or no reason) at any time unless they have obtained a privacy permit? Think of how many criminals they could catch, including people who shouldn’t have guns, if they could just set up road blocks and strip search everyone who comes through (except those with permits, obviously). For good measure they should make us all take off our shoes too.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t give the right to all Americans to have guns, it simply provisions a well regulated militia. Right now we don’t have sufficient regulation to keep gun violence at a reasonable rate, so we clearly don’t have a well regulated militia as detailed in the constitution
Categorically false. When you look at the circumstances surrounding the drafting of 2A, it’s clear what the framers intended. (EVERY able-bodied, white, adult male was a member of the militia. They were obligated to provide their own militarily-suitable arms, and were likewise obligated to train themselves in their use. Moreover, the existence of the right was a holdover from English common law, which recognized the right of people to be armed. Oh, and the first battle of the American Revolution? It was because the British were trying to seize arms, including a cannon, that the people had been using to protect themselves from First Nations peoples.) When you look at the debate that surrounded the National Firearms Act of 1934, it’s clear that they knew a ban wouldn’t pass court review; hence the reason that the opted for a tax. (And, BTW, they originally intended to include pistols; that fact that ‘short barrel rifles’ are part of the NFA today is because they were sloppy in making the edits prior to passage.) When you look at nearly 250 years of precedent, it’s clear that it’s an individual right. And when you look at SCOTUS rulings–Heller v. D.C., McDonald v. Chicago, Bruen v. NYSPRA–it’s definite.
BTW, “well regulated” at the time was understood to mean trained, specifically people that knew how to use the arms they had the right to possess.
You don’t need any of that if you don’t go on public roads. Many a farm truck has been driven by kids.
And no one cares about what you do with your guns if you’re out in the boonies where you can’t hurt anyone else.
Gun ownership is a right protected under the 2nd amendment. If cars had been around during the revolutionary war then perhaps there would have been an amendment as well. But as it is cars can be regulated to a larger degree as they are not a protected right under our constitution.
Constitution doesn’t say anything about banning regulations on guns.
Almost calls for it by saying we need to make sure they’re well maintained
If it is not stated in the constitution then the right falls to the states. Fortunately gun rights are guaranteed for both state militias and citizens under 2A in the constitution.
2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Washington State just legislated a legal requirement that all gun purchases must include proof of a completed gun safety course. Unfortunately in typical government fashion, they did it in the stupidest way possible. It’s an online class that can be finished in 5 minutes, you have to bring printed proof of it every time instead of storing the status somewhere, and there’s no exemption for law enforcement, military, or scouts. It would be great if it was an actual gun safety course and they exempted people with a proven history of gun safety training.
You may think you want guns regulated like cars, probably because you heard it somewhere and thought, “yeah, that seems reasonable”.
But if you stop and think about how cars are actually regulated vs how guns are actually regulated, I think you’ll maybe see that it’s perhaps not so reasonable an idea after all.
First and foremost, guns are already regulated in significant ways that cars are not. For example, requiring background checks, prohibiting purchasing/owning by particular groups of people (e.g., felons, drug addicts, domestic abusers), and numerous places where you’re not allowed to take them.
None of those restrictions apply to cars (though maybe they should), so “regulating guns like cars” implies rolling back those restrictions on guns. (Otherwise it wouldn’t actually be “like cars”, would it?)
Second, a lot of restrictions on cars are for common use, and the minute you fall outside of that, many of those regulations don’t apply.
For example, in many (maybe the majority of? Not sure) states, the whole license/registration/insurance requirement only applies to vehicles that are operated on public roads (of course, your bank will require insurance if you finance, regardless).
So a farmer could buy a brand new pickup for cash, sign an affidavit saying it won’t be operated on public roads, have it delivered by flatbed truck to his farm, then his 14 year old kid could drive it around all day with no license, registration, or insurance, and everything is (potentially, depending on the state) completely within the law as long as it stays on the farm.
There are parallels that can be drawn with gun purchases for use on private property, but hopefully you get my point by now.
So for sure, if you want more/better gun regulations, then by all means, advocate for that. But please don’t suggest that we regulate guns like we do cars because that’s a terrible idea.
When people say “regulate guns like cars” all they mean is to add the requirements of a licence, tracking ownership and sale, and proof of training.
It’s a short hand, meant to be snappy, like all political phrases (BLM?). So next time you see the phrase be sure to respond to that argument because that’s all anyone is really talking about when they use that phrase.
Tracking ownership?! Have you thought this through?!
I’m an outspoken liberal gun owner. I sure as hell don’t want on a Trump list of bad guys.
I want insurance, like with a car, to ensure at least some restitution for their mistakes, so irresponsible gun owners find it more expensive to encourage better practices, and easy to prove jail time for no insurance
No one really cares about tracking weapons, except it’s the only way to find irresponsible owners. An insurance mandate might be a better way
So, yes. I’m well aware of that. But thank you (and I mean that sincerely!) for pointing that out. I’ll explain…
But first, as an aside, I’ll say I’m not a fan of snappy when it’s also grossly imprecise (or worse, dishonest). There’s too much dishonesty and “spin” in politics as it is, and we could do with less. But I digress…
Anyway, while you’re correct about it being shorthand, I submit that there are people that don’t follow gun-related politics, but have heard “regulate guns like the cars” and take it to mean exactly that because they’re unaware that it has a deeper meaning.
In fact, there are 2 (unrelated) people in my friend group that believed this, until I told them basically what I wrote above. I didn’t do it as some sort of gotcha - they’re my friends - I want them to be able to make informed decisions based on facts. And they’re not dumb people - they were just ignorant of the issue and parroting said snappy phrase without understanding it was shorthand for something different. Now they have a better understanding of the topic, and a better understanding of what kind of regulations they do and don’t support. I don’t agree with their positions 100%, but that’s fine. My goal was to educate and get them thinking about it, not convert.
So, with respect, I intend to ignore your suggestion about how to respond to this phrase in the future, for as long as it keeps being used in the same way without any additional explanation. Not because I’m trying to be an agitator (I’m not), but because I think this discourse is helpful for bystanders that aren’t steeped in this stuff, so that they don’t misunderstand.
After all, if there were 2 people in my little friend group that didn’t understand the phrase as shorthand, there are probably plenty more out there.
And to that end, thanks again for helping by posting the missing “additional explanation”.
Funny comparing guns to cars. I need a drivers license to operate a car, something I will be tested for and have to renew regularly. A car has a registration number that is registered to me and a license plate with the state that gets renewed regularly. Also insurance is required, the cost of which goes up if I’m irresponsible.
Yah and the right to bear arms is not absolute. You can’t and shouldn’t be able to own just a bunch of rocket launchers. Just like with the first amendment, you still can’t threaten people. You can have sensible laws around rights.
Also, running the country off ideas people had hundreds of years ago is so backwards.
…killed 10 people on the interstate.
Regardless of the rest, this is like saying that guns would be confiscated because someone shot 10 people at a shooting range.
If it were a regular occurrence that people were driving cars through classrooms, like it is with shooting into them, then the conversation around regulating cars would look a lot more similar to the one about guns.
The biggest difference is you need to have a license for a car and it needs to be registered, and in most places you have to have insurance to cover any damage you may cause. None of this is true for gun ownership, despite a car being nearly required for life in the US and a gun being a toy for most people, or at best a tool that is used for one particular job.
The biggest difference is you need to have a license for a car
I agree and made a similar comment on this post but you can buy a car without a license in every US state. It’s the driving part that requires a license. It’s a nitpick but still applies given the conversation around gun control is focused mostly on the purchase side of things.
About 45,000 people are killed in motor vehicle crashes each year, and that’s nearly double the number of homicide–which includes negligent homicides–committed with firearms.
How many hours of car driving are there before a death?
How many of those deaths from cars are intentional?
What would happen to the economy if we remove cars Vs guns? (Public mass transit would hopefully get better)
What would happen to the economy if we remove cars Vs guns?
If you did it all at once? The economy would crash, and we’d have a depression that would make The Great Depression look like the Dow having a minor downtick. Too much of the US population lives too far from where they work to get to work without a car, and building the infrastructure so that even suburban areas could get to jobs would be difficult.
On the other hand, personal cars–and commercial vehicles–are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, both from burning fossil fuels, and from the production of the vehicle itself. Even switching to all electric vehicles will not make them emission-free over their lifetime (although it will certainly help), nor would going to solely mass-transit. Looking at projections for climate change, and taking into account the direct emissions alone from motor vehicles, the number of deaths indirectly caused by them is going to be sharply increasing. So, IMO, banning all personal internal combustion engine vehicles would make a lot of sense, even if it would crash the economy for a decade or three, because that would significantly help with climate change.
I enjoy and own guns. Ive used them for hunting, I’ve used one in self defense (no shots fired). Sensible laws regarding guns are just fine by me.
When you say “sensible laws”, you’re saying that anyone who disagrees is not sensible. It’s shorthand for, “Agree with me or you’re a fool.”
Think on that argument, think on those words.