Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What if cars were regulated like guns?

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 10:54 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
If you are going to compare guns to cars, it's only fair the owners of guns are required to go through the same steps to own and operate a gun as everyone is a car. The only reason cars aren't in the constitution is they weren't invented yet.


I don't think the founding fathers intended to cover everything because it shouldn't be necessary nor is it possible to address every possibility. Also, they were not dummies and from that we can surmise that they foresaw future technological advancements in weaponry since there already had been advancements even during thier lifetimes.

Why don't you stop tap dancing around it and just admit you're anti-gun.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Jul 2015, 10:59 am

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
If you are going to compare guns to cars, it's only fair the owners of guns are required to go through the same steps to own and operate a gun as everyone is a car. The only reason cars aren't in the constitution is they weren't invented yet.


I don't think the founding fathers intended to cover everything because it shouldn't be necessary nor is it possible to address every possibility. Also, they were not dummies and from that we can surmise that they foresaw future technological advancements in weaponry since there already had been advancements even during thier lifetimes.

Why don't you stop tap dancing around it and just admit you're anti-gun.



All I am saying is these comparisons and arguments relative to, do not seem to have much to do with anything since you cannot even find cars listed anywhere in the federal constitution and how do you know, if they were around back then, they wouldn't be in the constitution? So you can't even make the claim both guns and cars are in the same document because they clearly are not!
In other words, maybe we should all stick to our guns about this here :wink: :!:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 11:31 am

blauSamstag wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
...what if you were required to go through the same hoops to operate a gun as you do a car? That's the question you should be asking.

One is a constitutively protected right whilst the other is a licensed privilege. There is actually a big difference.


Whether gun ownership is a right or a privilege is not as clear as you make it seem.

Since the 'right' to keep and bear arms is often removed from some people under some circumstances, most legal experts are pretty sure it's a privilege.

I doubt that this is the place for an argument over what the 2nd amendment means. It boils down to what you think that first comma is about.

Freedom in general can be revoked under some circumstances. Ever heard of jails and prisons?
And, yes, the 2nd amendment is relevant here.

blauSamstag wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Perhaps Gun Ed is needed,
Why not teach it in public schools?


I agree completely. Gun safety and basic marksmanship should be taught in school, probably in Jr. High, where the students are unlikely to learn anything that doesn't involve motor control. Frankly i don't think they should bother to teach any academics for 7th and 8th grade.

Start 'em off with .22 calibre rifles, move on to .22 calibre pistols, eventually move on to target shooting with bolt action rifles that have some kick.

And take safety and respect for the gun very, very seriously throughout the courses.


Not necessary for them to actually fire the weapons. All that would be needed is a 2-3 hour initial class at the school and an annual refresher video.
The subject’s covered would be;
• Safe handling
• How to unload / verify clear the most common firearm types
• Effects of gunshot wounds (e.g. images and/or video of actual shootings and wounds)
• Criminal and civil considerations
• etc.

blauSamstag wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
and no one is allowed to operate a gun under a certain age just like a car.

Cars are actually more dangerous and they are operated on the open road in very close proximity to otehr cars. I've seen a buttload of nasty bloody accidents but I've yet to see my first nasty bloody gun incident.


People go driving a lot more frequently than they go waving a gun around.

Who do you see guns being waved around? I don’t know what planet you live on but anywhere I’ve lived or been to that would lead to a trip to jail and the revocation of one’s carry permit.

blauSamstag wrote:
It might be interesting to see comparative statistics for how many incidents of a loaded weapon being drawn outside of a shooting range result in a casualty, vs. driving on a public road.

Oftentimes when a gun is presented in a defensive scenario the conformation ends there and the would be assailant breaks and runs. In that case there would be no record since calling the cops would be unnecessary or even unwise in some jurisdictions.

blauSamstag wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
After passing a written exam, a learner's gun permit is obtained and you have to keep your gun at a shooting range and can only shoot it there. After a period of say, six months from the time you pass you written exam, you can take the "driving" or in this case, "shooting" part and once you pass this, you are allowed a full license and can keep a gun at your residence, or business, if applicable.
Sounds like a plan to me.

I'm sure it does seem like a plan to you but let me tell you what's wrong with it. Do you ever hear screams for anti-car legislation in the wake of a nasty multi- car pileup on the freeway? I never have.
However, after any noteworthy shooting that's the first thing we hear about. With the licensing and scrutiny on anything seen as icky like guns there will be abuse at every opportunity.


Yes actually. Every time there is an ugly accident there are people calling for lower speed limits, even though speed is usually not a factor, as much as speed vs. road conditions.
The clamoring for lower speed limits is a short lived drop in the bucket by comparison .

blauSamstag wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Just what exactly is your justification for all these additional controls on inanimate objects? By now I'd hope you've gotten past your little personal crisis over the two year old shooting his mother in Bumf#ck Idaho or wherever it was....


I think it has something to do with it being an inanimate object that is great at putting holes in things at a distance.

It has to do more with ignorance, pussification, and the need to control others.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 11:37 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
sly279 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
If you are going to compare guns to cars, it's only fair the owners of guns are required to go through the same steps to own and operate a gun as everyone is a car. The only reason cars aren't in the constitution is they weren't invented yet.


you mean like reading a book , taking a short test, then going for a drive and being watched. ok
so i sat through 8 hours of lecture, anwsered some questions then shoot under supervision and was scored for accuracy. so looks like it already is. its so easy to get a driving license. so i don't get what your problem is , its quite harder to be able to carry a gun in some states then drive a car. imagine if your state required you to be able to drive like a racer and pull really hard turns off before you could drive? some states have outrages accuracy requirements, so much so most their police wouldn't even pass.



Maybe where you live but in most states, you pass a background check and if you have the money, the gun is yours, no questions asked. No exams taken. No license given.

The license often referred to is the carry permit.
You do not need a carry permit to buy the gun.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 11:45 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
If you are going to compare guns to cars, it's only fair the owners of guns are required to go through the same steps to own and operate a gun as everyone is a car. The only reason cars aren't in the constitution is they weren't invented yet.


I don't think the founding fathers intended to cover everything because it shouldn't be necessary nor is it possible to address every possibility. Also, they were not dummies and from that we can surmise that they foresaw future technological advancements in weaponry since there already had been advancements even during thier lifetimes.

Why don't you stop tap dancing around it and just admit you're anti-gun.



All I am saying is these comparisons and arguments relative to, do not seem to have much to do with anything since you cannot even find cars listed anywhere in the federal constitution and how do you know, if they were around back then, they wouldn't be in the constitution?

Are horses, waggons, and buggies covered? They DID have those back then.

Quote:
So you can't even make the claim both guns and cars are in the same document because they clearly are not!
In other words, maybe we should all stick to our guns about this here :wink: :!:

Take your own advice since it seems you know even less about one than the other.....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Jul 2015, 11:51 am

So now you are saying horses, wagons and buggies can be compared to guns? Is there anything that is not? What is the point of this is all I am asking. Everyone is going to rehash the same arguments over and over. Guns and cars are two different things. If you are going to compare these two, at least start with them being in the same document otherwise there's no point. Cars can be regulated because they are not in the constitution but due to facts on the ground, they cannot be too regulated, can they? So it's hardly a fair comparison, is it?



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

13 Jul 2015, 12:03 pm

The OP was about government (over)regulation using firearms and motor vehicles as examples, i.e., the Congress has for decades played softly with Detroit allowing for some extremely dangerous s**t to exist. But, Communist/progressive/liberal whack-nuts see only guns.

Thank you for proving the point.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Jul 2015, 12:10 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
The OP was about government (over)regulation using firearms and motor vehicles as examples, i.e., the Congress has for decades played softly with Detroit allowing for some extremely dangerous s**t to exist. But, Communist/progressive/liberal whack-nuts see only guns.

Thank you for proving the point.



So which would you rather it be, like guns or like cars because with cars, sure, anyone with money can buy a vehicle but to be able to actually drive it anywhere but your own yard, you must obtain the license, tag the vehicle and in some states, get it inspected otherwise the cops will hound you again and again once they are on to you driving dirty. Actually, it's much, much easier to own and operate a gun in your own home than to legally drive a car on public streets. All you need to do is pass a background check, most people can pass it except for the felons and certified mentally ill but there's a plan in place allowing an incompetent person to go before a judge and be declared competent so they can have their gun rights restored.

Are you against what folks have to go through to obtain the concealed and open carry permits? That is just common sense. People who buy guns should take classes. If you don't know about your own gun, how can you use it for protection? If you don't know about how to use it, it's actually more dangerous for you to have it because it can easily be used on you defeating the purpose entirely. So, I am not sure what it is you are criticizing since it's not so bad now.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 12:13 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
The OP was about government (over)regulation using firearms and motor vehicles as examples, i.e., the Congress has for decades played softly with Detroit allowing for some extremely dangerous s**t to exist. But, Communist/progressive/liberal whack-nuts see only guns.

Thank you for proving the point.


It helps to remember that some people are intentionally obtuse. These threads about gun control, whether that was the intent of the OP or not, provide a buffet of examples to hold up.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 12:15 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Are you against what folks have to go through to obtain the concealed and open carry permits? That is just common sense. People who buy guns should take classes. If you don't know about your own gun, how can you use it for protection? If you don't know about how to use it, it's actually more dangerous for you to have it because it can easily be used on you defeating the purpose entirely. So, I am not sure what it is you are criticizing since it's not so bad now.

So where's the evidence supporting this "common sense"?
"I want" and "I thnk" arent evidence or rationale.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Jul 2015, 12:16 pm

So you are saying no regulations on either guns or cars? Well, according to the constitution, there is nothing stopping anyone from regulating cars, if we go by that alone. However, the over regulation would cause public outcry. Gun owners are the lucky ones because, if you ever bought a car, you would know - the tag, title and taxes, fees upon fees. You don't have that when you go to buy a gun.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Jul 2015, 12:17 pm

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Are you against what folks have to go through to obtain the concealed and open carry permits? That is just common sense. People who buy guns should take classes. If you don't know about your own gun, how can you use it for protection? If you don't know about how to use it, it's actually more dangerous for you to have it because it can easily be used on you defeating the purpose entirely. So, I am not sure what it is you are criticizing since it's not so bad now.

So where's the evidence supporting this "common sense"?
"I want" and "I thnk" arent evidence or rationale.

It's in what I posted! If you are not educated on guns and up against someone who is, the one who is has the advantage and can easily get the gun out of your hands therefore defeating the purpose entirely. No longer is it used for your self defense, instead your demise. So, it's in your best interest to allow training in this area.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 12:20 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Are you against what folks have to go through to obtain the concealed and open carry permits? That is just common sense. People who buy guns should take classes. If you don't know about your own gun, how can you use it for protection? If you don't know about how to use it, it's actually more dangerous for you to have it because it can easily be used on you defeating the purpose entirely. So, I am not sure what it is you are criticizing since it's not so bad now.

So where's the evidence supporting this "common sense"?
"I want" and "I thnk" arent evidence or rationale.

It's in what I posted! If you are not educated on guns and up against someone who is, the one who is has the advantage and can easily get the gun out of your hands therefore defeating the purpose entirely. No longer is it used for your self defense, instead your demise. So, it's in your best interest to allow training in this area.

Where's the evidence supporting this?
By this I mean actual occurrences in significant numbers.
Spewing the same "the sky is falling just because it can" isn't a supporting argument.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 12:26 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
So you are saying no regulations on either guns or cars? Well, according to the constitution, there is nothing stopping anyone from regulating cars, if we go by that alone. However, the over regulation would cause public outcry. Gun owners are the lucky ones because, if you ever bought a car, you would know - the tag, title and taxes, fees upon fees. You don't have that when you go to buy a gun.

I feel like I'm arguing with a fencepost. :roll:
Taxes paid on a vehicle help cover the wear and tear on roads and bridges.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Jul 2015, 12:28 pm

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
So you are saying no regulations on either guns or cars? Well, according to the constitution, there is nothing stopping anyone from regulating cars, if we go by that alone. However, the over regulation would cause public outcry. Gun owners are the lucky ones because, if you ever bought a car, you would know - the tag, title and taxes, fees upon fees. You don't have that when you go to buy a gun.

I feel like I'm arguing with a fencepost. :roll:
Taxes paid on a vehicle help cover the wear and tear on roads and bridges.


Well, you know...taxes on guns could help cover hospital bills due to gun injuries - but it doesn't happen. So why are you complaining? It could be so much worse and WOULD be if guns were treated like cars. You would have to pay taxes every single year on your gun. You would need a title and a tag and stickers over and over every single year you have it. Which is worse?

See, in my state, you go to a Pawn Shop, pick a hand gun out, tell the clerk that's the one you want to buy. He has you fill out a form. You fill it out. He enters the info into that background checker and if it says okay, you are in the clear. You hand over your money, he gives you a receipt, puts the gun in a sack and you walk out the door to your car. You can stick your gun in a room in your house and forget about ever paying another dime on it again. With a car, if it is in your driveway, you can do the same but if you ever want to put it on any public street, must have a current tag and sticker. If the cops see it sitting in the street without a current sticker, they can issue a citation. Most people don't buy a car just to keep in their driveway, anyway.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Jul 2015, 12:45 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
So you are saying no regulations on either guns or cars? Well, according to the constitution, there is nothing stopping anyone from regulating cars, if we go by that alone. However, the over regulation would cause public outcry. Gun owners are the lucky ones because, if you ever bought a car, you would know - the tag, title and taxes, fees upon fees. You don't have that when you go to buy a gun.

I feel like I'm arguing with a fencepost. :roll:
Taxes paid on a vehicle help cover the wear and tear on roads and bridges.


Well, you know...taxes on guns could help cover hospital bills due to gun injuries - but it doesn't happen. So why are you complaining? It could be so much worse and WOULD be if guns were treated like cars. You would have to pay taxes every single year on your gun. You would need a title and a tag and stickers over and over every single year you have it. Which is worse?

See, in my state, you go to a Pawn Shop, pick a hand gun out, tell the clerk that's the one you want to buy. He has you fill out a form. You fill it out. He enters the info into that background checker and if it says okay, you are in the clear. You hand over your money, he gives you a receipt, puts the gun in a sack and you walk out the door to your car. You can stick your gun in a room in your house and forget about ever paying another dime on it again. With a car, if it is in your driveway, you can do the same but if you ever want to put it on any public street, must have a current tag and sticker. If the cops see it sitting in the street without a current sticker, they can issue a citation. Most people don't buy a car just to keep in their driveway, anyway.


I drive my car EVERY DAY so therefor it does take a toll on roads and bridges and utilises taxpayer provided resources as all cars do. I do not I shoot my guns every day but when I do it is at a shooting range where I pay annual dues to cover wear and tear. If I have to shoot someone it's going to be their fault, not mine, and I could care less about their medical bills.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson