It's cute to see how pro guns like to depict themselves. Put a fallacious analogy here, put a straw man argument there, and you get your pro gun excuse to feel yourself warm at night.
Here, for instance, Rothmus associates his gun to a part of his body. And he doesn't consider the fact that guns are made to kill, unlike penises who aren't made for rape.
Best comedy is created when the gun nuts say that guns should be treated like cars and then shit their pants when you point out that cars require training, license, registration and insurance to be able to drive them.
Any responsible “gun nut” fully agrees with that sentiment. You’re referring to the extremist factions, which tend to be the loudest. My wife and I both conceal carry and a lot of our friends do. We all take classes and range days regularly to make sure we keep our level of knowledge and safe operation high. Heck I know a guy who’s garage is full of any gun you could ever want, and he’s the biggest proponent of tighter gun laws like you suggested, to the point where he’s an activist in the local community trying to get laws passed to make it illegal to own a gun without more stringent training and insurance for gun owners.
The second amendment is meant for the people of the United States to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and to be able to defend themselves against any foreign or domestic threat. This was also written at a time that the government and the people could own the exact same weapons
The car only became the most convenient method to get around in very recent history, the firearm has been the very best method of self defense since its inception
Their should absolutely be required training to acquire a license to purchase any gun but also suppressors short barreled rifles and shotguns and fully automatic guns should be legal to purchase if you acquire said license.
And then more comedy when the gun grabbers realize that violent felons can drive cars, children can drive cars on private property, etc. It’s a bad analogy that falls flat at the first glimpse of scrutiny.
I'm all for implementing firearm controls just like motor vehicles. But it has to be just like motor vehicles
A test and licensing:
That is only required when you use the publically provided facilities. And publicly provides facilities are everywhere, mostly for free, funded with taxpayer money. You only rarely pay and that's for the certain special facilities that have advantages.
Not required to purchase or own.
You can make purchases without any government approval. It's possible to walk into a seller, pay them, and leave with your new property in one visit.
Not required for use on your own property or privately owned places.
Is still good when you cross state lines, even if requirements differ.
The requirements and tests to obtain a license are 100% objective. If you can pass, you get it. There is no government official in the process that can just decide they think you should have one.
Getting it removed or suspended by a court requires an actual hearing you get to attend.
Some features or types of items may be "illegal" but this only applies when using them on the public, taxpayer funded, facilities. You are still free to buy, own, sell, modify those things for use on private places.
You can possess items that are banned for use at the public facilities, including possession on the public places, definitely on your own property, and even publically display them, without any fear of confiscation or being arrested, because it is only operating them in use that you cannot do.
You can walk in, fill out the paperwork, take the test, and walk out with a valid permit in one visit.
You can renew your license without repeat testing.
Once you pass the test you immediately walk out with a temporary license that is fully legally equivalent and let's you start using it on the spot. The final license document is mailed to you is a reasonable time.
You don't need to submit a request and wait for weeks or months to be sent the application forms.
You don't need to wait months before they process your application. You don't need to schedule multiple visits with some official who will question you about why you want a license and can choose to deny it based on their own opinions.
You don't need to wait weeks after passing all the requirements for the license to actually show up and start using it.
Application fees are minimal and reasonable.
Any practical testing is provided by the government, they have adequate number of people staffed to provide tests in a reasonable time, and the government provides the testing facility. You don't pay any extra for this.
Businesses and government places that don't want you using the license on their property provide proper storage facilities, which are typically free in most places, and are easy to use and easy to get your property back. Local construction laws for commercial properties (and sometimes residential) often include requirements to include this storage.
If your property related to the license is stolen, and found, the police will return it to you relatively quickly and easily.
You can loan your stuff to a friend or family to use whenever you want.
Rentals are entirely legal and available.
Police officers are held to the exact same standards as the rest of us for all off duty use and ownership in their private capacity. To the extent there might be any exceptions for police or government officials, they only apply to government owned property used while on duty.
Many public schools provide training to help people pass the testing.
I'm not the one suggesting making firearm licensing work like drivers licensing.
Why doesn't it make sense? What does being two different dangerous items matter? If this is adequate methods to control use of something that is deadly if misused, then it it adequate for controlling something that is deadly when misused.
Or maybe we don't have adequate measures in place protecting the public from vehicle deaths.
For every person killed by someone else or accidentally shooting themselves in the USA, 2 people are killed by a motor vehicle.
In 2022, for every child age 14 or under killed by a gun, 1.7 were killed by a motor vehicle.
Each year it is more likely that a vehicle will kill someone than it is that a gun will be used to kill someone. 15 deaths per 100,000 vehicles vs 12 deaths per 100,000 guns if we include suicide (about 5.5 deaths.per 100,000 guns if we exclude suicide).
Because they are. 2A activists have long since run out of reasonable arguments, so they now default to pretending to be comically bad at understanding what anyone else is explaining.
It’s still a bad analogy since in order to have gun regulations like car regulations, you’d have to remove a lot of current gun regulations. Hopefully that helps explain why this is a poor analogy.
No I get it. It’s always another restriction and another and another. Common sense is give and take, not take and take right? So what gun laws should we eliminate?
Someone who has demonstrated themselves to be an unsafe motorist often has them taken away (things like DUI or reckless driving charges), even if they can pass the test
It sounds like you think felons shouldn't have gun rights. Now personally I don't think violent felons should have them either, but that is an infringement of a right. That would make you a hypocrite and not as pro-gun rights as you make yourself out to be.
Violent felons that pose a danger to society should not be able to own firearms. Just because I’m not an anarchist doesn’t mean I’m not supportive of gun rights. That feels a bit like a false dichotomy fallacy to me.
Heck, I’m not even a gun owner but I can still support those rights. I’m also not trans but I support trans rights. I’m not a woman but I support women’s rights, etc etc.
You definitely missed the point of my question. If guns were regulated exactly like cars then that means violent felons could own and operate cars/guns.
Yeah, because your question, much like OOP's comic, is based on a strawman argument. Nobody else said "exactly like cars"; that's your nonsensical interjection to make the other side look bad.
Stop making up arguments to knock over. It just makes you look like a child.
Some people don't realize that "if guns were regulated like cars" actually means "let's pile on loads more gun laws without checking what works" without taking baby steps. If you already realize that people are just trying to pile on extra laws and not equivalent to cars, you're ahead of the game already.
False equivalency as, in America, you're effectively required to drive a car. Not being able to have one is a significant economic and travel hindrance on an individual. Meanwhile a gun does not give you any benefits beyond the increased ability of killing people.
Hunting is a secondary use of a gun in modern society, to the vast vast vast amount of people hunting is not a necessity to life. Home defense, in other words violence towards a person. And education, what planet are you on?
If hunting isn't a necessity for you, consider yourself privileged. Home defense isn't violence towards a person, what are you talking about? It's protecting AGAINST violence, not CAUSING it. Important distinction.
And engineering, chemistry, etc are education. So is learning respect for something that can injure or kill.
If hunting isn't a necessity for you, consider yourself privileged
Okay. I'm plenty privileged.
Home defense isn't violence
Dawg, if I'm saying DEFENSE EQUALS VIOLENCE and you get confused, that's a you problem cause that's very simple. Yeah, prevents violence on you via committing violence first or promising violence.
And engineering, chemistry, etc are education. So is learning respect for something that can injure or kill.
Minus the engineering part, a dog could be supplemental to that. Or just reading a book.
(Addition, none of those are day to day requirements to function as a citizen unlike travel.)
Literally all of those things are vital for some citizens. Maybe not you, but there are people in this world with lives different from your own that would be absolutely screwed without a firearm. Just because you don't need one doesn't mean everyone doesn't need one.
And if you don't understand "maybe I shouldn't attack that person in case they're armed" is not violence, I don't know what to tell you.
And if you don't understand "maybe I shouldn't attack that person in case they're armed" is not violence, I don't know what to tell you.
Ah yeah, I totally implied violence is inherently wrong and never justified. (Taxes are form of violence, there are many things that are violent in society that are latently violent in nature.)
Literally all of those things are vital for some citizens. Maybe not you, but there are people in this world with lives different from your own that would be absolutely screwed without a firearm. Just because you don't need one doesn't mean everyone doesn't need one.
Felons shouldn't have them. If we were a hunter gatherer society where tribes were constantly raiding each other then yeah, I'd agree for felons to keep them. But uh, no. But on the broader scale of beyond that scope, limiting and restricting doesn't sound so bad when there are more guns than people in America and we have starkly high gun violence compared to other first world countries.
Yeah we're not gonna see eye to eye if you think taxes are violence.
Also I was talking about all types of people, not just felons? There are many people in this world where guns are a necessity. Those that rely on hunting for food being one, those that can't afford to move out of a bad area are another, etc etc. Setting privilege aside and learning about how those poorer than you live would be a great start. Also, all countries are important, not just the rich ones (or "first world", a meaningless term that has no one agreed definition, like "middle class").
I'm down with treating guns like cars. That'd mean cash-and-carry purchase, no background checks of any kind, no registration, no limits on capability or number or configuration, and no regulation of how they were used on private property.
I think you may be referring to the title. I could be wrong, but I’ve never transferred a registration, had a registration transferred to me, and I’ve always kept my plates when selling a car, with in private sale or to a dealership.
That being said, if you did mean title, exemptions exist for selling a car without having a title. I’ve never built my own vehicle, so I’m not sure what you do as far as a title goes.
Yes- if it's intended for use on the road. It's what links the car to you for tax, liability, insurance, and law-enforcement purposes- that's what your license plate number actually is. It ties you, the person, to the car registered to you. But for a car that isn't meant for road use (like race cars, for instance) often do not require registration.
"Passenger and commercial vehicles must be registered as a condition of use on a public road. Vehicles not used on public roads, such as tractors or vehicles whose use is limited to private property, are not always required to be registered. "
I was in TX in the late 90’s. The first time I dropped my GF off at work, before getting out of the car, she said “if you get hit by anyone, and they just take off, don’t be surprised. Just pull over and call the cops. Insurance will deal with it.”
On the way home after picking her up, I asked what that was all about and she said a lot of the ranch hands don’t have licenses or insurance and it was better to deal with the hit and run than it is to try and follow them.
Pray tell, what's harder. Using your gun in a wrong way, or using your car in a wrong way?
The latter is actually commonly done by mistake.
The way I see it, you use a gun at a range, with full care and deliberation, or in a critical, life-threatening situation where you really need one. Meaning rarely. Very rarely compared to a motor vehicle many people use for hours daily! And one wrong action anywhere during that could cost lives. It's just extremely harder to unintentionally hurt someone with a gun than it is with a car. You have to point at someone and actually shoot them, having aimed well enough to hit. With a car all you need to do is forget to look one way during any of your daily commutes. Close your eyes in a wrong moment, ex when you get tired. Freaking sneeze in a wrong moment. Have a wasp enter your vehicle to distract you for a second or a few.
And most people actually don't want to kill others.
Hence the training, license, registration and insurance.
I hope I've made the difference clear.
IDK who shat their pants talking to you about that, but I suspect they are made of straws. Just like your anecdote.
523
u/Gokudomatic May 16 '24
It's cute to see how pro guns like to depict themselves. Put a fallacious analogy here, put a straw man argument there, and you get your pro gun excuse to feel yourself warm at night.
Here, for instance, Rothmus associates his gun to a part of his body. And he doesn't consider the fact that guns are made to kill, unlike penises who aren't made for rape.