{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/6/2016 4:30:09 AM
22
Great, lets make sure that everyone who has a gun is tested, licensed, and insures and registers their weapons.
English
-
[quote]Great, lets make sure that everyone who has a gun is tested, licensed, and insures and registers their weapons.[/quote]
-
Except none of that is required to own a car...just to drive one.
-
Why would somebody want to own a car that they can't drive? Lol
-
They can drive them without any of those things on private property. We can take the cars-gun comparison even further if you'd like. Let's say, first, we regulate guns like cars: You could get a carry permit at 16 in most states. Guns could be freely sold across state lines between private citizens with no government oversight All states would have to recognize carry permits from all other states, regardless of difference in regulation and standards. No background checks required for gun purchases, no groups of people prohibited from gun ownership. Registration, licensing, and insurance requirements only apply to guns carried in public and not to guns on private property. Or we can look at regulating cars like guns: Background check required for all cars bought from a federally licensed dealer. Private car sales between citizens of separate states would be illegal. No state is required to recognize any other state's drivers license. Instead, each traveler would have to deal with a patchwork of reciprocity agreements between individual states. Felons, those determined mentally defective, and several other groups would be permanently barred from car ownership. Weird, it's almost like the regulations on guns are actually stricter than those on cars. Odd how that works when you actually know what you're talking about, huh?
-
Edited by Demagogue: 1/7/2016 3:39:15 AM[quote] Weird, it's almost like the regulations on guns are actually stricter than those on cars. Odd how that works when you actually know what you're talking about, huh?[/quote] It's almost as if one of these things is essential to daily life for most Americans, and the other is a hobby item designed to kill people.
-
And the one that's [i]not[/i] designed to kill people kills more people than the one that is. Strange.
-
You forgot to comment about insurance. You're also forgetting about mandatory safety measures that comsumers and car manufacturers must abide by.
-
Which can't be applied to guns? There's no spot for an airbag or seatbelt on a gun. As for an insurance requirement, that creates an undue cost on a constitutionally guaranteed right. Pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled against poll taxes. Besides, it wouldn't really do much, given that there are fewer than 700 accident fatalities, and accidental injuries aren't even close to car accidents.
-
Which CAN be applied to guns... not specifically seat belts or airbags but smart guns seem to be a viable alternative. Same deal with insurance... not necessarily viable but perhaps stricter penalties for gun owners who negligently allow their unsecured weapons to be used criminally.
-
Unfortunately, smart guns are being held back by New Jersey. They've got a law on the books that would mandate all guns sold in New Jersey be smart guns once a single smart gun is on the commercial market. Due to the insane cost of "market-ready" smart guns, that would make gun ownership something that only the very rich can afford, which isn't how constitutional rights ought to be treated.
-
At the moment sure, but once the price to manufacture goes down it'll be more affordable like everything else. The problem is, the gun lobby fights tooth and nail over every reasonable measure to make guns harder for the wrong people to acquire. If it were left in the hands of the NRA, everyone in the country would have unfettered access to as many firearms as their hearts desire. They won't support the idea and it'll never catch on.
-
Edited by Woupsea: 1/6/2016 5:25:41 AMRightfully so, guns are designed specifically to kill living beings. Cars aren't
-
Yet you indicated an ill-informed belief that the regulations on cars were stricter.
-
I'd say they're about equal when you take into account what their functions are. I wouldn't want people coming into my state with tools of death, cars on the other hand are designed to travel long distances and utilize roads that we pay taxes for regardless of where they're built
-
Yet guns are still used to kill about 1/3rd of those who die by automobile.
-
Thousands of people use cars multiple times daily for long periods of time, people don't use their guns anywhere near the amount of time that they use their cars. That's not even mentioning that people die in traffic collisions largely by mistake, not murderous intent
-
Intent doesn't matter, dead is dead. Fact if the matter is that cars hold a much higher death toll.
-
By that logic we should ban guns altogether seeing that they're useless for any purpose other than killing other human beings and result in an unnecessary death toll
-
You act like killing can't be justified man. Guns are used defensively way more than offensively. Even conservative (technical sense, not political) studies conclude that snot 55,000 defensive gun uses happen each year. Banning doesn't make much sense when they are [i]the[/i] most effective tool for self defense. Based on the death toll differencrs between cars and guns, we would do more good banning cars.
-
Intent doesn't matter, dead is dead
-
I see what you did there. Intent of design. I should have specified, sorry about that.
-
Because most are lazy and don't want to take the effort to drive. There are a few that would actually benefit from this as those who are handicapped and cannot operate a car without modification or specially customized car (that tend to be very expensive).
