We should treat guns like we treat cars! Yeah!

[NYcarbineer]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

The village that I work in has an ordinance that you cannot have an unregistered motor vehicle on your property.

Bye-bye.

 

[The Rabbi]

Does this mean we could take away guns from people who use them while drunk or in other irresponsible manners?

Boy I hope so.

Just about every rabid gun owner I've ever talked to, seems to have delusions of stopping some imaginary crime with their gun and them being a hero.



Perhaps since we are comparing guns to cars, we should discuss mental competency tests to insure potentially unstable gun buyers aren't able to obtain access to a gun.
I'd like to see some minimum mental standards for firearms possession implemented.

Since lawful gun owners stop something like 100,k crimes a year it is hardly a delusion.
Would you like to see minimum mental standards for auto possession? My guess is no, since you have a car but dont have a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Boy I hope so.

Just about every rabid gun owner I've ever talked to, seems to have delusions of stopping some imaginary crime with their gun and them being a hero.

Perhaps since we are comparing guns to cars, we should discuss mental competency tests to insure potentially unstable gun buyers aren't able to obtain access to a gun.
I'd like to see some minimum mental standards for firearms possession implemented.

Well, if you get drunk and drive, they take away your driver's license.
If you get drunk and shoot your gun, should we take away your gun license?

Many people would argue that if you get drunk and use your gun, you should lose your gun.

BUT... those that argue that we should treat guns like we treat cars believe that the person should keep his gun, but lose his license tp use that gun on public property -- but ONLY if he was drunk and used his gun on public property.

See, you don't lose your car when you get caught driving drunk, and you don't get charged for drunk driving while parked in your garage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

The village that I work in has an ordinance that you cannot have an unregistered motor vehicle on your property.
Bye-bye.

Good to see you are happy to maintain your irrelevance.

 

[BlindBoo]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

When you use a gun on private property you could easily injure or kill someone not on public property.

I have no problem with vehicle registration at the time of purchase. It's the yearly fees that I object to.

Then again I have no problem with registation of fire arms at the time of purchase too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

When you use a gun on private property you could easily injure or kill someone not on public property.

I have no problem with vehicle registration at the time of purchase. It's the yearly fees that I object to.

Then again I have no problem with registation of fire arms at the time of purchase too.

So... you disagree with those that beleve we should treat guns the same way we treat cars. Thank yoiu.

 

[candycorn]

Just about every rabid gun owner I've ever talked to, seems to have delusions of stopping some imaginary crime with their gun and them being a hero.

Perhaps since we are comparing guns to cars, we should discuss mental competency tests to insure potentially unstable gun buyers aren't able to obtain access to a gun.
I'd like to see some minimum mental standards for firearms possession implemented.

Well, if you get drunk and drive, they take away your driver's license.
If you get drunk and shoot your gun, should we take away your gun license?

Many people would argue that if you get drunk and use your gun, you should lose your gun.

BUT... those that argue that we should treat guns like we treat cars believe that the person should keep his gun, but lose his license tp use that gun on public property -- but ONLY if he was drunk and used his gun on public property.

See, you don't lose your car when you get caught driving drunk, and you don't get charged for drunk driving while parked in your garage.

Which is why I said "gun license".

It's an interesting topic of which I haven't made up my mind.


I will say this though. I don't see any benefit of having a revolver vs a pistol that has a clip. Can someone fill me in on any benefit there is to a revolver?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, if you get drunk and drive, they take away your driver's license.
If you get drunk and shoot your gun, should we take away your gun license?

Many people would argue that if you get drunk and use your gun, you should lose your gun.

BUT... those that argue that we should treat guns like we treat cars believe that the person should keep his gun, but lose his license tp use that gun on public property -- but ONLY if he was drunk and used his gun on public property.

See, you don't lose your car when you get caught driving drunk, and you don't get charged for drunk driving while parked in your garage.

Which is why I said "gun license".

It's an interesting topic of which I haven't made up my mind.

Fair enough.

I will say this though. I don't see any benefit of having a revolver vs a pistol that has a clip. Can someone fill me in on any benefit there is to a revolver?

Revolvers are simpler to operate with a significantly lower rate of malfunction and so are better for those who do not have a lot of practice/training with firearms.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Straw. man.
No one has said any such thing, and such things are not the issue at hand.
Take your red herrings elsewhere -- and, if you think you can, address the issue at hand.

Straw Man? No, a question is not a straw man argument.

How about you ask a question that's relevant to the argument presented, rather than try to lead the conversation away from its point?

Driver's license's are taken away from "habitual drunkards, etc" and those diagnosed with narcolepsy and seizures. Guns and ammo can be purchased by "habitual drunkards, etc" and persons who have a record of misdemeanor convictions for DUI's, domestic violence, battery, etc unless they are active on probation or parole and have a term and condition which prevents such custody, control or ownership.

Why do you object to requiring a license to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm to prevent persons who have a demonstrated inability to exercise personal responsibility from legally doing so?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

I own a gun. No problem with people owning guns. I don't think guns laws are the solution to our problem - and only a fool would say the USA doesn't have a gun violence problem.
I think our problem stems from enforcement. You may be able to own a car under all those circumstances but you can't sell it - and that's a good thing - otherwise the illegal sale of stolen cars would run amok.
The FBI says on their website that the single largest source of illegal gun sales is
"home dealers". Anyone with a clean record can get a license to deal arms and have less than a 1% chance that they will ever be given so much as a glance by any kind of regulatory agency whatsoever. Apparently there are an awful lot of people who licenses to deal and sell off the books. Shocking to anyone?
So laws are only deterrents but if there is no enforcement, they're not even that.

Oh, and I would have no problem with registration and licensing prior to gun ownership. It could waived for those of us who received training in the military but I've seen idiots at the range point a weapon at others with the safety off while they were "chatting"! Lucky they don't blown their own danm foot off. I think a day at a range with a pro would benefit a lot of people and prevent a huge number of accidental deaths.

 

[The Rabbi]

1: Not necessarily, for several reasons
2: The licensing/regustration applies to only use/operation, not ownership/posession/transportation, on public property.

So, I have undermined nothing.

Bullshit
If you take a car from the dealership to your house, you are on public property.

If you DRIVE the car. Thats operation/use.

That's transportation, not operation/use.

You use a gun any time you carry one.

No.. you TRANSPORT it.
And, in your car, in, say, your trunk, you are not carrying it - you are, inarguably, transporting it.

This is a stupid weak argument. The whole analogy is dumb. A car isnt a gun. Their use is very different. Their place in society is very different.

So... you disagree with those that believe that guns shoudl be treated the same as cars.

If you park the car, it must be registered. If you push the car, it must be registered.
Guns arent much different. Using a gun means more than pulling the trigger.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"So, an habitual drunkard, a drug addict, a felon, a paranoid schizophrenic, a wife/child beater, a sexual preditor all have the right to buy and own a gun without restrictions? Anyone of them can parade on a front lawn, yards or feet from a public sidewalk with the firearm of their choice with a speed loader or magazines of unlimited capacity; they and others, should be able to store ammunation in enormous capacities in a home in residential areas."

Rights and prevleges are taken from people eveyday through due process of law.
It's not nice to deny rights because someone might (in your opinion) commit a crime.
Modern ammo is not really very dagerous in a fire. If very close a person would risk being peppered with brass fragments that might or might not be moving fast enough to penitrate the skin. Guns work because the round is confined in all ways but one small one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

The village that I work in has an ordinance that you cannot have an unregistered motor vehicle on your property.
Bye-bye.

Good to see you are happy to maintain your irrelevance.

I proved that if you treat guns like cars, then passing laws against the owning of either unregistered guns perfectly fits the analogy.

So your entire premise is shot down.

Keep in mind people, this poster is the one who thinks felons should be able to buy guns by not having to be subjected to a background check.

In short, he's an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

The village that I work in has an ordinance that you cannot have an unregistered motor vehicle on your property.
Bye-bye.

Good to see you are happy to maintain your irrelevance.

Notice that he has NOTHING to refute it.

The ownership of unregistered vehicles even on private property is subject to regulation. Therefore the ownership of unregistered guns is subject to regulation.

Therefore to treat guns like cars would subject guns to regulation even on private property.

Case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone miss that this idiot also wants to end the licensing of hunters?

lolol

 

[Dr.Drock]

Straw Man? No, a question is not a straw man argument.

How about you ask a question that's relevant to the argument presented, rather than try to lead the conversation away from its point?

Driver's license's are taken away from "habitual drunkards, etc" and those diagnosed with narcolepsy and seizures. Guns and ammo can be purchased by "habitual drunkards, etc" and persons who have a record of misdemeanor convictions for DUI's, domestic violence, battery, etc unless they are active on probation or parole and have a term and condition which prevents such custody, control or ownership.

Why do you object to requiring a license to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm to prevent persons who have a demonstrated inability to exercise personal responsibility from legally doing so?

A habitual drunkard has proven not to give a damn about the law.

Why would a habitual drunkard then suddenly give a damn about the law and legally purchasing a gun rather than just buying it on the black market?

 

[eflatminor]

Did anyone miss that this idiot also wants to end the licensing of hunters?

lolol

More licensing is the answer. I think we should license gatherers too. Pick vegetables from a garden? You need a license! Can you image the horrors of unlicensed gardeners dropping heavy squashes on the heads of little kids? Come on people, it's for the children!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Since anywhere between the gun shop and your home is public property you seem to have undermined your own argument.

Get it delivered by a licensed carrier

 

[M14 Shooter]

Straw Man? No, a question is not a straw man argument.

How about you ask a question that's relevant to the argument presented, rather than try to lead the conversation away from its point?

Driver's license's are taken away from "habitual drunkards, etc" and those diagnosed with narcolepsy and seizures. Guns and ammo can be purchased by "habitual drunkards, etc" and persons who have a record of misdemeanor convictions for DUI's, domestic violence, battery, etc unless they are active on probation or parole and have a term and condition which prevents such custody, control or ownership.

Why do you object to requiring a license to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm to prevent persons who have a demonstrated inability to exercise personal responsibility from legally doing so?

I see you are still unwilling to discuss the topic at hand.
Or... perhaps... you fail to understand what that topic is?
Either way, get back to me when you're willing/able to address the issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Several times over the last several weeks, several people have presented an argument to the effect that ‘we require licenses and registration for cars, so we should do the same for guns’.

To this, I habitually respond:
-You don’t need a license to buy or own a car, or to operate it on private property
-You don’t need to register a car to own it or operate it on private property
-You don’t need a license to transport a car, nor register a car that you transport
-The only time you need a license is to operate a car on public property
-the only time you need to register a car is to operate it on public property

SO... if we have the same requirements for guns as we do for cars, as these posters gleefully suggest, the only time you need a license or register a gun is if you use it on public property.

This never receives a response.

I own a gun. No problem with people owning guns. I don't think guns laws are the solution to our problem - and only a fool would say the USA doesn't have a gun violence problem.
I think our problem stems from enforcement. You may be able to own a car under all those circumstances but you can't sell it - and that's a good thing - otherwise the illegal sale of stolen cars would run amok.
The FBI says on their website that the single largest source of illegal gun sales is
"home dealers". Anyone with a clean record can get a license to deal arms and have less than a 1% chance that they will ever be given so much as a glance by any kind of regulatory agency whatsoever. Apparently there are an awful lot of people who licenses to deal and sell off the books. Shocking to anyone?
So laws are only deterrents but if there is no enforcement, they're not even that.

Oh, and I would have no problem with registration and licensing prior to gun ownership. It could waived for those of us who received training in the military but I've seen idiots at the range point a weapon at others with the safety off while they were "chatting"! Lucky they don't blown their own danm foot off. I think a day at a range with a pro would benefit a lot of people and prevent a huge number of accidental deaths.

I'm not really sure how this addresses the topic.
Perhaps you could clarify?