What if cars were regulated like guns?

Post Reply New Topic

Not true. The Utah Concealed Firearm Permit instruction is required to be a minimum of four hours in duration. Most instructors choose to include range time as well, so add another hour. Several instructors who I know split the instruction time into two classes a week or two apart. The instruction includes the study of physical attributes of firearms, the state laws which govern firearms including use-of-force laws, and the penalties for violating firearm laws or those laws which would jeopardize the ability to own and possess a firearm. Real-life examples are described in detail and at length. Some instructors use first-person-shooter interactive videos that are used in LEAs. The class also includes photographing, finger printing and registering each student for their federal criminal-background reviews.

The class is NOT just "a couple hours" chatting.

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.

The Supreme Court also determined that slaves can never be citizens of the US.

I stand corrected. It's four hours chatting and some formalities.

We still have one of the weakest systems in the nation.

And yet the district still has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

And Heller was still denied registration of his semi-automatic pistol.

no as they will consider any and all guns dangerous being the liberals they all the price of insunce will be high. I've heard estimate of 300 dollars per gun you own each month.

also when cops ask you for proof of registration ,its after you broke a law and they pulled you over. they don't' have the right to just pull people over randomly. carrying a gun isn't illegal so they have no right to harass people. watch youtube. people say "am i being detained" cop says no and has to let them go. they broke no laws. no law says you can't carry no law says you have to identify yourself. if you don't break a law then they have no reason or law to bother you.

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.

how are they deriving $300/gun/month? Lets see the actuarial tables.

estimates given by anti guners in favor of it. insuarnace is just to make ti so poor people can't use their rights. you know like the kkk made it so black people in the south couldn't vote.

why should legal gun owners pay for what crazy monster's do? people currently can pay for actually insurance that will replace their guns. or theres defense insurance that will hire them a lawer and bring experts to defend themselves. but thats not the insurance you want. you don't have to have insurance for a car that sits on private property.

One thing that the non gun carrying public often seems unaware of is that a carried gun is only really dangerous when it's being manipulated, i.e. out of the holster, and most gun carriers only do that when they put the gun on or off at the beginning and end of the day, or of course draw during a defensive use. Even a dropped gun is unlikely to go off, there are so many passive safety devices that block hammers and lock firing pins in place until the trigger is deliberately pulled that a fall related discharge requires an unlikely amount of bad luck. A car, on the other hand, is dangerous at all times when it's in motion, being a 2 ton bludgeon moving at high speed, and there is a lot less social stigma, to say nothing of legal consequences, for reckless driving versus reckless public gun handling. I can swerve my sedan all over the road and get off with a ticket, but waving a .45 around, even an unloaded one, will quickly result in arrest or worse. Same thing regarding access; no one would blame me if I left my car keys lying around my house and a kid used them to go for a joyride or a burglar took the vehicle and used it criminally, but if it were a handgun on my nightstand and a kid or criminal got a hold of it, the scorn would be thick and merciless. As usual, a lot of it comes down to ignorance, people don't accurately assess dangerousness, and know less about guns than they do about cars.

I think its really terrible that so may people die in car accidents.

The thing about analogies is they serve to complicate, not simplify.

A car is a means of transportation, but a car can also be used as a weapon. Guns are used more often though as a means to kill than cars are. It is difficult to decide, well, I want to kill this person. I am going to run him over with my car!

A gun is a weapon, but can also be claimed to be a tool that can shoot a hole in an object. These people are f*****g crazy. A gun is a weapon. Just accept it. If you want a weapon fine, but don't claim you are holding a tool. It is a weapon. And guns kill people because HUMANS MAKE THEM. If you want your second amendment rights, just admit Don't play the victim and say that more people are being saved by second amendment rights. It's such f*****g BS.

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.

Comparing guns to cars is a stretch anyway. The two have nothing in common except people can die either by gunshot or by being in a car wreck and they have metal parts.

Car wrecks might be prevented by being better educated about cars and safety.

Whenever folks drive recklessly, speed or drive under the influence, and a cop notices them, they get ticketed and, in some cases, their license privileges are revoked.

Accidental shootings might be prevented by requiring potential gun owners to be better educated about gun safety much like the educated driver might be less likely to be involved in a collision.

Just because two things can potentially be lethal doesn't mean they are worthy of comparing. Would you compare guns to cancer because cancer, in some cases, can be lethal just like guns but is it a good comparison? Just because it can end in death doesn't make it so.

Have you surveyed all 50 states' concealed-permit laws and rules to convince you that your statement is true?

Like the few rogue states (Alabama, Louisiana et al.) that resisted same-sex marriage after Obergefell until federal courts forced them to do so under threat of federal contempt charges, the District of Columbia is still in the federal courts trying to convince them that their stalling tactics are, themselves, constitutional. The legal group, Second Amendment Foundation, that financed the Heller and McDonald cases to victory at the U.S. Supreme Court sued the District of Columbia AGAIN for its unconstitutionally restrictive ordinances ( http://www.saf.org/?p=5242 ). So, if you watched marriage equality unfold, you saw states willfully resisting federal mandates. You are seeing it also in the District's refusal to act constitutionally. If you support the District behavior, do you similarly support Alabama's and Louisiana's behavior? You should be cheerleading them. Support their (non-)right to District (non-)sovereignty. Go ahead. See where that ends up.

But, your previous post questioned "[w]hether gun ownership is a right or a privilege is not as clear as you make it seem." I answered correctly that the U.S. Supreme Court determined it as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, did I not? For someone who b*****s about "moving the goalposts," you should recognize when you move your own goalposts.

Hey the Supreme Court makes mistakes as was proven in Dred v Scott. It erred.

And the fact cars aren't in the constitution shows the document is antiquated. How can this document possibly reflect our world today when cars aren't even in it anywhere? Cars are the most important thing we have at the moment.

Now before this is taken in a way it's not intended, I am not against gun ownership or gun rights. I just think this comparison to cars is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. YES they are both round but what else? Fruits? *nods*

So? What does it matter? An apple will never be an orange and an orange will never be an apple.

You put the cars with the cars and the guns with the guns. And that's that!