General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease tell me what would be so bad to have guns treated exactly like cars
I had to get a drivers license
I had to take a test and get a license that I have to renew ever five years.
If I buy a car, I have to get a title register it and insure it so if I hurt someone with it, they are protected.
If I sell my car, to a stranger or to my own child, there is a title that must change hands.
The government doesn't care how many cars I own and use as long as I register them and insure them.
People CAN be killed with cars BUT the primary use of a car is not to kill people.
So I honestly don't understand the problem
Get a gun license that is the same as a drivers license.
You take a test, and renew it every five years.
When you buy a gun you have to get a title for it and register it and insure it.
If you sell it, you have to transfer title.
A gun must be insured in case someone is hurt if it is used improperly.
I cannot imagine how anyone with any sense would have a problem with that. It seems to me a responsible way to manage deadly weapons.
I think this should be the bare minimum.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)sheesh. Some people.
More guns!
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)Now I get it 
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)We all know God did not write the constitution.
Gun ownership is a basic human right ... it is the most important human right!
More guns!
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... it comes down to if you want an honest answer or a thread of people going "Yup, that's right"
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Pelican
(1,156 posts)Mostly it comes down to the fact that the right to bear arms belongs to the people and that infringement by the govt is specifically prohibited. It's also a private property issue.
So now down the list...
Testing - Would you accept a license test for any other right? I'm sure our public discourse would have a totally different feel if one had to prove that they met certain requirements in intelligence and capability before speaking their mind. Same goes for voting or search and seizure. Same issues apply to renewal. Prove to the govt that you still meet their requirements to speak and they will decide if you are allowed.
Your insurance and registration is only necessary on public roads. You don't need them to walk down the street.
Registration is a scary thing to many folks. Primarily, it is seen as none of the governments business how many of X you own in your own private home. How many knives do you own? How many bottles of bleach, antifreeze etc.. etc..
The second big part is the fear that registration leads to confiscation. I don't think that most people fear that some sunny fine day, the government will just come down with their battering ram. The concern is that during a time of crisis, the list will be used against them. This person is a potential threat. This person must report and give over their private property. This property is forfeit during this time of crisis (see Katrina for examples)
I'll be honest. I just don't understand the primary use argument. If people were being beaten to death with big rubber dildos would you feel less bad than if they had been shot? The purpose of a gun is to propel a piece of metal, at velocity, in a straight steady direction. Everything after that is on the operator.
Even if you claim that guns only use is to kill, there are many legitimate reasons that killing might be necessary.
These are the broad strokes and I'm sure many will disagree but that's the other side of the coin.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)Actually, you aren't allowed to buy as much sudafed as you want, so I don't have a problem with guns being regulated. And I do think it is perfectly reasonable for things that can kill you to require a test so you can prove you know how to operate them safely. That goes for a car, a forklift a baler or a gun.
People being paranoid about the government are PRECISELY why I want to see guns regulated because I am more concerned about those people than any external terrorist threat. The "Doomsday Preppers" ARE the biggest threat we face because we are at the mercy of their paranoia at what they THINK is going to happen. Its the "what's coming" I keep hearing about that reasonable people know is ridiculous but in these people's Glen Beck Rush Limbaugh soaked mind is already damaged by their hatred and fear of the "black man in the whitehouse" and the "destruction of marriage" anything could set them off.
I have had the misfortune of having discussions with some John Birchers and they are the real deal Black Helicopter, FEMA camp, believers. THey believe towns teaching sustainability is a plot to take people's private property. These are some of the most frightening people you will ever talk to because their version of what the Constitution says is not what I was brought up with and probably not what you were either.
How many cars have been confiscated because they were registered?
The rest is just straw men just to obscure the discussion. We are having a problem in this country right now and we need to be able to discuss everything.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)I don't know what you are talking about with the prepper stuff.
I don't really care what folks do in their private lives. I guess you do.
As to how many cars have been confiscated? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
I would suggest that if you want to have an honest discussion then address the points made and don't just pff them away as "straw men" They were specific and regarding the points you brought up.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)pointless to talk to you
Pelican
(1,156 posts)You said that you wanted an honest answer and I gave you one.
You immediately went to black helicopters, doomsday preppers and consigned the rest of it to strawman category when it clearly addressed what you asked.
How do you expect to have a rational discussion?
CapnSteve
(219 posts)...and it would not infringe the 2nd Amendment (as commonly interpreted for 100s of years by several supreme courts...). The nutshell is rights like the one in the 2nd Amendment are "common" or "community" rights (rights that are held by a group of people - a well regulated state militia in this case). They are ALWAYS trumped by individual rights (the most well known: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
OF COURSE, we should license, insure and register guns like we do automobiles; after all, guns kill more people in the US than cars!
The most important part of this is making gun makers liable for the damage their products do - those high capacity clips and ARs would disappear from the market in a perfect storm of lawsuits.
Keep speaking the truth, Robyn66. Don't let the trolls get you down!
Cap'n Steve
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)The Bill of Rights, all of the first ten amendments to the constitution, are all individual rights. They are not 'permissions' granted by the government - they are rights intrinsic to being a human being, and shall not be infringed upon by the government. You don't need the government's permission to worship or assemble.
By the way, the phrase "... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't even appear in the Bill of Rights. It's in the Declaration of Independance.
SCOTUS rulings have held that the government can regulate the firearms that individuals own, and I believe that it is appropriate to do so.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)gun rights are also subject to reasonable regulation. Just what "reasonable regulation" is when it comes to gun rights is not clear.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)having this discussion 200 years from now.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)soliciting a prostitute while driving a $2,000,000 Bugatti Veyron, the police will takemitmand sell it, regardless that the fine for soliciting is far less than that.
People have lost their homes, boats, aircraft, etc under the auspices of the War on Deugs.
So yes, the government does confiscate private property all the time.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)involved killing. In more modern times, hunting animals and target practice became a secondary use for guns. They are used for protection, gaining an advantage over others in crimes (threats, murders) and in suicides. Those things mostly involve killing.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Sometimes there is a need to kill... Sometimes there is a need to threaten...
IOW, they have a variety of legitimate and legal uses and also many illegitimate and illegal ones. Just like 1000s of other things.
What's the point?
Is someone shot to death more dead than someone beaten or poisoned or stabbed or run over or drowned etc.. etc.. ad naseum?
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)be used primarily for killing. To say that I am suggesting that someone killed by a gun is "more dead" than by some other means is unfair to my statements. You said that, not me. I'm only saying that the invention of the gun was for killing, in wars to begin with.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Either taking a life is legal and justified or it isn't and we punish the person. Those laws already exist. What exactly do you want to change?
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)a gun. To say it was not invented with the primary use of killing is inaccurate. You are trying to make some other point out of what I'm saying here. I'm not even talking about laws.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)It is just trotted out as a reason that things need to change and I just see it as a distinction without a difference.
rwsanders
(2,598 posts)in the Constitution. It is a made up category so that the government could impose on people's right to drive.
According to the Constitution, just because a right is not specifically listed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As we as a society have chosen in the majority of our country to center transportation systems almost exclusively around the automobile, people have the right to drive as long as they are responsible in the use of that right.
Driving down the street with a unique identifier pinned to our cars was the first step in accepting constant surveillance that has us in the mess we are in now.
Denial of this is accepting all of the post-constitutional perversions of our rights that are part and parcel of the right-wing ideology.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)As for the difference between the two...
You must prove to the government that you are capable and willing to conform to their standards before you are allowed to drive. They grant the privilege.
You must prove that you are unfit to own a firearm by committing a felony or something similar. You forfeit the right by your actions.
rwsanders
(2,598 posts)I wouldn't be challenging anyone's bravery or intellect.
Sorry, but driving is a right. Any perversion of the constitution that you accept to the contrary doesn't validate your argument.
Unless you are going to accept that we don't have a right to privacy because it isn't specifically ennumerated. So are you going down the road Scalia is trying to lead us down?
So I think you are making the argument for regulation when you look at the entire 2nd amendment and "well regulated" you have quite handily defined as "capable and willing to conform to their standards".
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Typo sniping is trying to score points in a discussion when another person makes an obvious typo in order to make yourself look and feel superior.
The reality is that it makes you look petty and childish and shows that you have nothing of substance to say.
Beyond that, I'm not really sure where to go with you if you are going to proclaim things that just aren't true in that word salad.
Something is not a right if you have to prove to the government that you deserve it. That is just simple.
rwsanders
(2,598 posts)so first I'd recommend some remedial reading classes.
Once you get past those, you can work on reading comprehension.
So once you are done with those and if you take the time to read the constitution, you will find in the 10th amendment that it states that just because a right is not listed DOES NOT mean that it does not exist.
Your test of a right is nonsensical. Are you saying that because African-American had to march to prove that they were entitled to equal rights means that those weren't rights?
And I'm sorry, it doesn't take attacking a typo to let me know I have a better understanding of logic and the constitution.
Congratulations, you can be the second person that I can add to my ignore list.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)That was your petty crap... at least own it.
Beyond that I don't think the words you use mean what you think they mean. You,in a very literal sense, have no clue what you are saying.
People marching and the government administering tests to bestow a privilege are two very... very.. different things.
Crack a book and get back to me...
LWolf
(46,179 posts)You don't need a car OR a gun to walk down the street.
The only cars that get confiscated are those that are being repossessed for non-payment or those confiscated from people committing crimes. Why is there an assumption that guns are different?
As for that "right..." the clear purpose of the 2nd amendment is to arm a well-regulated militia, not to make guns the only private property one has a "right" to.
I call my state's well-regulated militia the "National Guard."
Don't mistake me; I am not against private gun ownership. I don't see regulating that ownership as an infringement on that "right."
ileus
(15,396 posts)unless you plan on driving them on public roads...
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Also, if your car stays on private property, you don't even need a license to drive it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The registration of automobiles does not prevent automobile-related deaths.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)election in which the Democratic control of Congress for decades switch to Republican control.
Somehow, I don't think that is desirable whether we are talking about automobiles or firearms.
For anyone who thinks that banning firearms is "liberal" or "Democratic" issue, that is as nonsensical today as it was in 1994.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Well, congress agrees with you, so there's that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But obviously we as a nation are OK with recognizing cars as dangerous enough to track them, give them numbers, give tests to allow people to drive them. This cuts back some on the deaths, or at least makes it easier to investigate them (probably the real motivation.) We require people to show they can operate them safely before giving them a license.
So with guns that should be just as reasonable.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)If I only use on my property and not the public roads.
Response to treestar (Reply #99)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Paladin
(28,255 posts)You folks really need to ditch that line of argument. It was ludicrous from the start, and it sure as hell hasn't improved with age.....
ileus
(15,396 posts)Normally trailer it to the trailhead (mostly private property, but some public ORV trails)....most of the guys in our club don't have street legal rigs.
Paladin
(28,255 posts)I presume your Jeep is covered for that 5% of public road usage?
Whatever---it's still not a very compelling argument for your side of the issue.....
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That went over real well.
hooptie
(25 posts)If guns were treated like cars, I could:
Get a license that would allow me to take any of my guns anywhere in the Several States and use them. for any lawful activity in any public place.
This license would be inexpensive, available to anyone over 16 years of age (regardless of criminal history). The classes to get this license would be taught in public schools.
I could own and operate as many guns as I wanted (well, that I could afford anyway) in any private venue without any licensing, registration or insurance requirements.
I would be required by law to install sound muffling devices on any gun I used in public. They would probably come from the manufacturer with a muffler installed.
My insurance would insure me against my negligent acts. If someone steals my gun and uses it to commit a crime, I would not be liable for that crime.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I have no problem with that. People still won't be allowed to shoot their guns in most areas, since that is unlawful.
Teaching gun safety in schools could easily save lives.
I don't know how you would get them home after you bought them. Perhaps the gun seller can make house calls.
Funny.
Sounds beneficial to me.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But at least you're being reasonable about it.
:handshake:
demwing
(16,916 posts)to get four wheels on a gun. You would have to turn the whole thing upside down, and it probably wouldn't balance very well. Oh yeah, and where would you sit?
On the trigger?
yowch
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Additionally, your analogy is defective on it's face. Here is a short list of differences you should consider:
- I can build my own cars without restriction
- I can fabricate car parts without consideration as to the material being used
- I can own cars without registering them
- I can use cars without a license on my own property
- I can own cars without a license
- I can own cars without insurance
- I can move by cars between states without restriction
- I am allowed to modify my cars without restriction provided they remain in my property
- The government does not limit cars used on my property
People on both sides have given up and the automotive analogy for good reason.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)and implicitly pointing out the faults in the analogy and the original post.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)Of course guns and cars can't be compared. I am merely considering the method of licensing. A federal gun license renewed every five years, and guns that need to be registered upon purchase with a title to trace owners and gun history.
If you mix in the minutia of cars vs guns you miss the point which is there is federal licensing and it does work. And for something that's primary function is to kill it seems a reasonable step to take.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)If my license to own is good in Wyoming, it should be good in NYC or Washington DC. Same with a license to carry. That is what you are effectively advocating. I don't NYC or Wyoming going along with that for diametrically opposed reasons.
What I brought up was far from minutiae...the OP is incorrect in the way cars and guns are already regulated. Key is that on my property, I can pretty much do what I want with a car, but all of the current firearms restrictions, state and Federal, are all imposed on things that are only on my property.
hack89
(39,171 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Licensing guns would be a slippery slope.
We should just repeal the 2nd Amendment.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you have to get an license to purchase a gun. That way you ensure that owners have the proper background checks and training without a record of what guns, if any, they own.
A lot of states do that and it works well.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)but I'd still prefer repeal. If ever there were a misguided, out-dated and counterproductive law on the books, that one is it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Doesn't mean it shouldn't.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)If you put fees on something that you have a consititional right to, then you may block the right, if the person can't afford it. Like a fee to vote.
Second...do we really need one more thing we have to pay a fee for? And register? It's just another way for the govt to get money out of us. And it wouldn't stop the criminals...they wouldn't register their guns, which are often illegal to begin with.
A car travels the public roadways. So there's a public policy to regulate them. And there's a reason for the fees...to make sure the several thousand pound metal machine being operated in public is in good working order, AND to help pay for the maintenance of the roadways that the cars are tearing up.
It's also hard to hide a car that is being used. It's easy to hide a gun. It would be impossible to enforce the registration of guns among those who don't obey laws. Heck, we can't even get background checks passed.
Finally...there's the fear among millions of a national database of gun owners. That's what registration would do...create a database of law abiding citizens who own guns. (Criminals wouldn't be in the database, of course. That's why they're called criminals.)
I don't see this as something that will happen.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)what would be so bad to have guns treated exactly like fire extinguishers?
In the Heller case, a cop who was authorized to carry a firearm in the District of Columbia was irrationally prohibited from owning a gun in his District of Columbia home for self-defense or to even deter a need for self-defense. The Supreme Court disagreed with the irrational law.
It certainly would not be rational for the District of Columbia to bar him from owning a fire extinguisher in his home in the event of a fire. Such things have been known to happen. Illegal home invasions have also been known to happen in the District of Columbia.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Cars should be regulated, guns and ammunition should strictly prohibited.
cars are regulated more strictly-that is my point.
lolly
(3,248 posts)One of the first arguments ALWAYS made when anyone proposes any sort of regulation of the slaughter machines is "but--CARS kill people too!"
Yes, of course it's a sketchy analogy--but if they want to make it, take it farther. Require skills tests, safety exams, insurance, and tracking.
Then they whine about the analogy.
And of course, once again the peculiar logic applicable only to gun regulation comes in:
1) If anybody, anywhere, has ever been killed by anything other than a gun, then we can't have gun regulations.
2) Unless any proposed gun regulation would absolutely, positively prevent any gun death in the future (or would have prevented every single gun death ever) then it is pointless and should not be passed.
Other rights are regulated--the right to free speech includes limits against slander and incitement to riot,for example. The right to freedom of religion doesn't extend to abusing children or denying them medical care. But there should never, ever, be any sort of limit or monitoring of the right for anybody anywhere to buy as many slaughter machines as he/she can.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Cars are also not regulated as described in the OP
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)
What state regulates cars on your own property? Your analogy is based on driving on the public roads, not keeping it on private property. All the states that I know of don't care about registration, insurance, or licensing on private property. On the gun side, all federal and state laws apply, even on private property. Its why your analogy fails on many levels
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)but if that is what you need...i dont have junk cars. i have vehicles i intend ti drive
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The entire regimen you describe is not applicalbe on private property for vehicles. However the full weight of federal and state law is when it comes to guns.
Vehicles that do not go out on public roads are not just junk cars. Think show cars, race cars, off road cars and bikes, and specialty vehicles.
At the homestead I have one truck that I can take off the place and 4 vehicles that I use regularly that I cannot.
beevul
(12,194 posts)NickB79
(19,236 posts)lolly
(3,248 posts)Because we regulate them.
We have laws about the types of bumpers you can have on your car.
We have speed limits.
We have emissions rules.
We require safety glass in cars.
etc etc
But, as I said above, the peculiar logic of the slaughter machine arguments requires that if anyone ever has been killed by something other than guns, then that proves definitively that we should not regulate guns.
Oh--and due to these safety regulations, the death rate from autos will soon drop below that of guns. So I'm sure that argument will be dropped, right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's something Orwellian about how the most important criminological trend of the past half century is completely ignored in a discussion about crime.
lolly
(3,248 posts)So, it's OK to sell slaughter machines to mentally deranged people who let their sons get hold of them.
Because people are killed by cars, it's OK that people are killed by guns. Makes perfect sense.
kappa maki
(8 posts)at higher velocity. Whoever operates those devices is responsible for their potential impact on casual bystanders.
Is the person killed by a car less dead than the person killed by the gun?
Why is the gun the culprit in one situation and the driver the culprit in the other?
doc03
(35,332 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)would ever confiscate them.
Firearm registration is illegal in Florida.
The 2012 Florida Statutes
CHAPTER 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS
790.335?Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
The Legislature finds and declares that:
1.?The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4.?Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
.....
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)But I'm still not going to move to Florida.
spin
(17,493 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)it was the first step to car confiscation. It's a slippery slope, don'tchaknow.
spin
(17,493 posts)I did some research and was unable to find any resistance to registering cars when it was first implemented. My Google-fu must have failed.
Response to Robyn66 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"You take a test, and renew it every five years."
Used to be they taught gun safety and shooting in schools. My dad took his gun to school for gun club.
"When you buy a gun you have to get a title for it and register it and insure it. "
Again, federal or state?
"If I sell my car, to a stranger or to my own child, there is a title that must change hands. "
So if you own a junker and live on 7 acres you can't give it to your kid to drive around on your own property? Sorry, but you can.
What else should we apply this to? Pressure cookers, ball bearings, bb's, black powder (and all the things you can buy at the store to make it at home)?
Guns are for hunting, sport, and protection - using them harm others is already against the law.
How about we pony up some money to enforce laws we have and see how that goes? Empty the prisons of people who smoke pot and make room for violent criminals?
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)"You take a test, and renew it every five years."
Used to be they taught gun safety and shooting in schools. My dad took his gun to school for gun club.
Ok, so lets say they set up under the ATF a Federal Licensing Bureau (which I don't expect would ever happen) where you would go take your Federal Gun License test. You would have to prepare on your own, just like when you learn to drive. You go to the DMV for the test, they aren't responsible to teach you.
"When you buy a gun you have to get a title for it and register it and insure it. "
Again, federal or state?
Federal. My personal belief is all gun laws should be Federalized.
"If I sell my car, to a stranger or to my own child, there is a title that must change hands. "
So if you own a junker and live on 7 acres you can't give it to your kid to drive around on your own property? Sorry, but you can.
And if we let the 14 year old drive the lawn tractor she can too but that isn't the point. The point is if you are talking a bout a car that you plan to use you have to register it etc. But I am NOT equating guns with cars. They have nothing to do with each other. I only suggest there could be a similar method of licensing.
What else should we apply this to? Pressure cookers, ball bearings, bb's, black powder (and all the things you can buy at the store to make it at home)?
No, just guns.
Guns are for hunting, sport, and protection - using them harm others is already against the law.
Yes, and Sudafed is for colds, making Crystal Meth is already against the law yet it is regulated.
How about we pony up some money to enforce laws we have and see how that goes? Empty the prisons of people who smoke pot and make room for violent criminals?
I agree with you 100%!!!
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"You go to the DMV for the test, they aren't responsible to teach you. "
No, but schools have drivers' ed courses.
"Yes, and Sudafed is for colds, making Crystal Meth is already against the law yet it is regulated. "
And how is that working out? I didn't like it then either. We punish the many based on what the few do.
Put those people behind bars longer and they won't be out doing the things they do. But instead we fill our prisons with non-violent offenders.
"No, just guns."
I ask this all the time but never get an answer. What percent of gun owners use their guns to harm others. Not what percent of crimes involve guns, etc, but out of the 50 million who own guns what percent use them in an criminal way?
Maybe we just get brainwashed by the news who only covers stories about those who misuse them. If we had stories every day about people who didn't we wouldn't have any time for any other stories.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)In my opinion, the statistics of what percentage of gun owners don't harm others is irrelevant, and this is why, I don't believe in statistics when it comes to this. When it comes to elementary schools getting shot to pieces, and malls, movie theaters and public meetings with multiple people getting wounded and killed I think whatever we have to do to try to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys is important. Now I know, the bad guys will still get the guns. BUT Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding citizen, if the Bush Master he used to kill her was illegal, she wouldn't have had it. Would it have stopped the carnage from happening? NO but maybe there would have been a few less killed and every one of those lives is precious.
I am not anti-gun. We have guns in our house, and i have no problem with that. But I also have an uncle who has had two armed stand offs with the police in a state where he can go out tomorrow and buy more guns because there are not any background checks or any regulations at all.
I agree jail is not the place for nonviolent offenders, and I am well aware of people who don't misuse guns but I am also well aware of those who do.
This is just my opinion, you can join the crowd and tear it to shreds but this is how I feel and I think that a federal licensing program could be a good way of managing a serious problem.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)The 'whatever' part is where some of us have problems.
It is like after 9/11 when people said that whatever we needed to do we should do.
For most of my life I could walk up to the boarding area of planes and see off loved ones. Not any more. You could take many things on to a plane. Now you cannot.
The many were punished for what a few - a very few - have done.
DO we need to do something to keep guns out of the hands of idiots and such? Yep. I am all for working to do so. But I don't think reacting on emotion is going to solve problems that are far more systemic. We have a violence problem in this country and guns are but one small part of it.
Domestic violence, drug fueled stealing and rages, alcohol induced actions, etc.
I know many 'pot heads' (if you will, and I am for legalizing pot) whole steal to support their habit. And several of them are 14-17 year old kids here in my hood. They get into fights, robberies, etc and only one of them I know owns a gun (well, he did, he sold it).
The causes of violence are many, trying to restrict the many when a few use such tools as guns does not help the situation at all.
Background checks won't help much, you can be all ok today, buy a gun and years down the road have issues. It sounds nice and all, and can help some. I am for it, but as I have said before not on a federal level.
What we need to do is examine why our violent crime rate is so high - poverty, drugs, war on drugs, etc.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)All I can say is, in my mind a federal solution to gun licensing makes all gun laws across the board so if you live in maine and want to hunt in MA you can do it without any problems. I know COPS who cant carry their sidearms from NH to MA.
I am also for legalizing pot.
There is no one idea that will work, and reall, we have to accept as a society that a certain amount of this is America as it now exists. We have to admit we can't stop small attacks like Boston Happening most of the time, we just cant. Its the same with some gun violence. That being said, I want to see Background checks and I would love to see any magazines over 10 rounds out of existencience and military weapons exclusive to the military.
I know demestic violence. I was raped at 14 and was severely emotionally abused and given ptsd by my father, an alcoholic "responsible" gun owner cop who actually tought gun saftey and on the outside was the picture of responsibility but in private liked to drag me by my hair and put a gun in my face or kick my bedrook door in and unload a gun fulll of blanks at me, which gave me ptst.
I dont want to eliminate guns i just want a reasonionable discussion to find reasonabe solutions, thas all.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Are you suggesting that with your licensing scheme, people who were licensed under it would be able to carry a gun openly or concealed anywhere in the nation like they can with drivers licenses?
Or are you suggesting that a public usage license (motor vehicles) is comparable to a license to own (guns)?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Similar proposals have been made for guns for years, but have always been vehemently opposed by the pro-death gun lobby - The NRA & extremist RW gun weirdos.
Also, motor vehicles are subject to a great deal of federal & state regulations & safety standards. Even to the extent that if they don't meet those regulations and standards, the sale of the vehicle for use on public roads would be prohibited.
If such regulations & safety standards were applied to firearms, must would fail outright. So, again such suggestions are vehemently opposed by the NRA and their allies..
kappa maki
(8 posts)can you point it out please?
By the way, the sale of a vehicle is not contingent on where it may or may not be driven. As it should be; we do not (yet) have to prove innocence before accusations of guilt, although many anti-gun people would apparently like to require it.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And what part of "Well regulated" do you not understand?
justanidea
(291 posts)Last I checked there weren't any firearms on the market today that suffer from safety issues such as exploding and blowing the owners hand off when fired, etc.
Unless of course your intent with that statement is to say that safety standards could somehow be twisted to ban any gun capable of harming any person even if intentionally misused in order to do so.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)For most consumer products it's the CPSC. But in the late '60s that regulatory responsibility was taken away from it - and given to, well to nobody. The ATF regulates firearms, but only for their unlawful use & manufacture, not for their safety. That means, if a fully-licensed gun maker produces & markets a shitty product that causes the user to be injured at an unacceptably high rate, there's no way to order a recall. And gun makers also enjoy protections from lawsuits for the use of their products, so if your gun explodes in your hand due to a manufacturing defect, and you get maimed & blinded, then you're SOL.
Gun manufacturers have no incentive to make their products any safer than they were a century ago. No integrated gun locks, no requirement to prevent unintentional discharges, no tagents in the gunpowder, no ID chips in the frame, no mechanism to to prevent unauthorized use... There's a thousand ways to make guns safer, but the industry - just like any other corporate entity - will never make those changes unless they're forced to.
justanidea
(291 posts)- To buy a gun, just walk into a store and buy one. After all this is the current law for buying a car. You don't need a license, registration or insurance to BUY a car. You can even use the car, provided it is on your private property.
- NO prohibited persons list. Felons, the mentally ill, etc., would all be able to buy guns. After all, last I checked, there was no prohibited persons list for purchasing a car.
-All guns from a muzzleloader to a belt-fed machine gun could be purchased with just cash. The same way the process for buying a Honda Civic and a Lamborghini Gallardo are the same.
-If you want to carry the gun in public you'll need a license (same as how you need a drivers license to drive on public roads). Of course the licensing standard would now be weaker. 16 year olds could carry and the test would (if PA's drivers tests are the standard) would just be a short 10 minutes multiple choice test and being able to fire a gun in the general vicinity of a target. 
This licensing structure would be weaker than what is currently in place in most states for concealed carry.
-That license would allow you to carry everything from a muzzleloader to a machine gun. Same as how a basic drivers license allows you to drive any type of passenger car from a Hyundai to a Ferrari.
-The registration and insurance would be stricter than current gun laws since the former only exists in couple states and the latter currently doesn't exist at all.
-Getting barred from gun carrying would be difficult. I mean you can get drunk behind the wheel, cause an accident resulting in injuries, and still get your license back in a year or two. However under current law, getting drunk with a gun and causing an accident would likely have you barred not only from carrying a gun but also firearms ownership in general for LIFE.
-There are no laws that I am aware of that require a car to be locked up away from minors. I don't believe there are any laws requiring parents to lock their car keys in a safe to prevent access by their children. However there are currently laws on the books in some jurisdictions that require guns to be kept reasonably secure from minors. These laws would now be done away with.
So are you still sure you want to regulate guns like cars? 
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)considered a "right". That does not mean it shouldn't be allowed. But it should be defined and regulated by federal law and modified as necessary. We don't need constitutional amendments to have workplace safety laws, environmental laws, etc. The federal laws do a perfectly fine job (and if they don't they can always be changed).
Silver Swan
(1,110 posts)and I don't own a gun.
What kind of American am I?
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)Somehow those who scream about how the 'right to keep and bear arms' means no limitations whatsoever. All of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution have limitations. Freedom of Speech - can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Religion - you can't shoot heroin and claim it is a religious practice. And so on. There is nothing special about the right to keep and bear arms, contrary to what some people would have you believe.
If the government decides to impose limitations, then it is certainly the right of the people to appeal to the courts to decide whether that limitation is Constitutional. That's how our government works. But it is entirely within the right of the Legislative to set limitations on any right guaranteed in the Constitution.
Somehow the gun lobby seems to feel that any restriction whatsoever would be a violation of the Constitution. Unfortunately for them, 'taint necessarily so.
ednky
(1 post)Repeal the second amendment and outlaw private ownership of guns. Mass murderers would turn to their vehicles and begin driving their hummers into crowds of children waiting for school buses. Jealous lovers would stalk their flames with pickup trucks (not very different than is done now). Suicides would drive off cliffs or bridges. The price of gasoline would determine murder rates. The NRA would defend our right to turbochargers. Bank robbers could rev their engines to terrorize tellers.
The size of your car would be inversely proportional to the size of your ? Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me.
sarisataka
(18,636 posts)we can gloss over that the 2A is going nowhere and the logistic impossibility of confiscation...
How will you stop the car nuts from running amok? Will we start doing background checks on car buyers? Cities like Chicago will try to regulate cars on their streets but criminals will go to states with weak car laws and buy them cash, no questions asked.
We already have like 20,000 existing car laws; could we try enforcing them before banning assault cars
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Between the two furthest possible extremes, of either banning all firearms from private ownership - which would never happen in this country and isn't even the case in countries as strict as say, Britain - or placing no restrictions on owning any gun, which is frankly a rather terrifying thought, there has to be some kind of workable "compromise" position. Properly licensing gun owners, while some will complain about it, sounds like a good start.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The laws surrounding the use of cars were written for cars. There are laws aplenty surrounding the ownership and use of guns. Some people want more laws, others want less. The question is not "why can't we regulate guns like cars" but rather "how can we regulate guns without infringing on the rights of people who will not misuse them".
Invariably, people who don't like guns compare them to booze, drugs, and dangerous pathogens. People who like guns compare them to fire extinguishers and other safety equipment. Here's why: Guns were made to kill, but we won't know who the gun is going to kill until somebody pulls the trigger. So the problem is how much can we infringe on somebody's rights in the interest of public safety? Regulating anything costs time and money. It costs government to implement and maintain the infrastructure to enforce laws, and it costs citizens time and money to operate within the regulations. In the case of a gun, which can be used as a last ditch measure to save one's life from assault, people get pretty picky about how they get regulated. Guns have tremendous actual utility and symbolic significance in this country. And that's why they are in the middle of the culture wars.
Stretch714
(90 posts)Just like all that stuff does not stop people from killing each other with cars.
You are aware of the relevant statistics concerning the dramatic drop of deaths in cars related to greater regulation over the last 4 or 5 decades, yes? 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I would point out though that generally speaking, in our society, the possession of a gun by a private citizen is a choice not critical to one's livelihood whereas the ownership of a car for many is essential.
The car to guns argument only feeds into the delusions that slow progress in these issues. Seriously, how is it logical to put lax restrictions on guns ahead of saving lives? How many studies do we need that show that effective regulation produces positive results?
Would you suggest that people have the choice under the law not to wear seat belts?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The drop in aggravated assaults is nearly as dramatic. Medical care certainly is responsible for some of the decrease, but it doesn't seem to be responsible for most of it. The lions share comes from the fact that far fewer people are shooting each other with handguns today than were 20 years ago.
Would you suggest that people have the choice under the law not to wear seat belts?
No more than I would suggest we should undo the Brady Bill or let the "Ring of Fire" gunmakers start back up again.
How many studies do we need that show that effective regulation produces positive results?
We've had immensely positive results in the absence of any real changes in regulations. I was for extending background checks to all purchases; while I think that wouldn't do any harm I also doubt it would do much good in transactions that are borderline illegal to begin with: some of the transactions would stop and I believe the majority would just go onto the full black market.
I would point out though that generally speaking, in our society, the possession of a gun by a private citizen is a choice not critical to one's livelihood whereas the ownership of a car for many is essential.
I split my time between DC, where a car is a total luxury, and my grandfather's ranch in West Texas, where a gun is a safety necessity. Those are both corner cases, sure, but they are real, and part of America.
Stretch714
(90 posts)I live in a small town in NE Ohio. Just over 30,000 people. Last month we had a car crash that killed six teenagers. It was on the national news. So far this year we have had two gun murders, both drug related. Based on those two things cars in this town are 3 times more dangerous than guns.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I drive my car just about every day of the week, what do you do with your gun that often?
Stretch714
(90 posts)Saving lives is what this whole debate is about, right?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Nice try. Really. 
Stretch714
(90 posts)If saving lives is what is important to you or any one else we would be getting rid of all kinds of stuff.
What is funny is that when it comes to saving lives guns are the only thing that is on the table. Deaths from cars and what ever else are ok or acceptable.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)you only need insurance for public use (and not even then in some states)
unlimited private transfers in all 50 states, including interstate transfers
if you get drunk and kill somebody, most states cap the sentence at 4 years (the first time you do it)
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)and I am only going to say it one more time in the most simple way. I am sick of having what I say twisted and over blown.
A license test administered by a govt agency SIMILAR to the WAY drivers licenses are issued to be renewed every 5 years or so
Guns have titles and require insurance
That is about all
Hopefully make all fed regs the same.
THAT is the level of detail I got in to. Unfortunately for me I hoped we could have a reasoned discussion but instead I got absurd aggressive statements that were not interested in having a dialog just people wanting to take the idea to an absurd place in each level. So never mind, sorry I tried and sorry I thought I could have a conversation here.
and not once did I equate guns with cars
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think that's a good idea. But I also stress that it only works for cars because they're driven on public roads. The truck you keep on your farm you don't need a license to drive. 99% of cars spend their lifetimes on public property; that's not true for guns. It's also immediately obvious when someone is driving a car; it's not immediately obvious when someone is carrying a gun.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The reason the "public roads" part still exists with vehicles is because 99% of cars spend their lifetimes on public property.
Obviously a gun law would have different details, but similar in broad concept - registration, licensure, insurance and testing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Guns kill plenty of people by accident, too.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)To some people, the movie "Red Dawn" was a good film.
