I recently posted this comparison between cars and gun control...

[Bung]

I want to know what you think about it. Of course, now that I've had more time to think on it I have a lot to add to it, but I think it does well on it's own. If we can tweak it, I plan to save it in a text file so I can copy/paste it as a standard reply to the liberal argument that we should regulate guns the way we regulate cars, which is why I made this reply.

I can counter that argument. Let us say your car is a gun, when you get into your car you are responsible enough to wear your seat-belt and watch the road as you drive, right? Despite this there is a law that will take money from you for not wearing your seat belt. Of course, not wearing the belt only harms you, but now the state harms you even though you haven’t done anything to anyone at all. Let us now bring gun control proposals to your car. Now the law says in order to even use your car (and when you purchase it, it comes with these features standard so you have no say) it has to have a child safety lock, you can be fined if a child gets your keys, you can be fined if you don’t wear a helmet when driving, despite the burden you have to have a 5-point safety harness in your car (not sure if you have ever used one but it is a real PITA to get in and out of but is much safer than the standard seat belt), you have a limit of 4 gallons of gas so that you can’t drive very far at once, you can’t go faster than 45 mph because speed kills (high powered rifle), you can’t have cosmetic (race car style, as in military style) enhancements on your car; e.g. rear wing, pin-stripe, nice wheels, better tires then the car was issued with, any aftermarket part that makes the car faster or quieter or easier to drive. As for the license you need to drive it; that requires 12 hours of instructional training, a proficiency exam, a mental health evaluation, but before you do all of that you have to convince a bureaucrat that you have a real need for a car. To top it off if you want to drive your car through another state, you have to research the laws of that state to make sure you don’t overlook a small law (if in fact that state even recognizes your home state license) that could get you landed in jail and barred for life from having a car legally. Something as small as not having turn-signals on your mirror could get you jail-time or not covering your car so that no one else can see what kind of car it is (even if that isn’t illegal in your home state) would be a felony and bar you for life from having a license in any state.

THAT IS GUN CONTROL! The difference is your car isn’t Constitutionally protected and our Founders didn’t fight off the British with a Ford.
Don’t get caught speeding in your gun, the cops will shoot you with no questions asked. Of course this is after a pursuit that only puts the public at more risk then you alone.

 

[Tanfodude]

I don't use the car argument as the 2 are different. Even I get tired of hearing the car argument. There are better counter arguments out there. I'm too lazy to explain right now since I'm on the phone and at work. LOL.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You realize that an automobile is much more regulated than a firearm, yes? If I were an anti-gunner I'd turn your argument on you so fast you'd need that 5 point safety harness. I'd start with the requirement to register cars, titles being exchanged through gov't offices, the plethora of safety equipment regulations, etc.

 

[SteveM4A1]

You realize that an automobile is much more regulated than a firearm, yes? If I were an anti-gunner I'd turn your argument on you so fast you'd need that 5 point safety harness. I'd start with the requirement to register cars, titles being exchanged through gov't offices, the plethora of safety equipment regulations, etc.

Not the mere ownership. If we are talking the use of each in public areas, ok. Then again, it isn't normal to stand opposite another individual and fire, as we do with cars. I wonder why there are so many regulations on automobiles?

 

[Drail]

Cuz it's easy money for the State. For 20 years I have driven a Jeep with a roll cage and a 4 point harness installed. The 4 point harness is illegal for use on the street but I have driven through a whole bunch of "seatbelt checkpoints" and had cops stare real hard at that harness - and then let me go. If they wanted to they could bust me and fine me. They either don't know or don't care. I would fight it in court and most probably lose (even though the harness is SO MUCH safer than the stupid 3 point DOT belt used by the manufacturer.). More laws don't solve anything if they're not enforced (and they're stupid laws that infringe on my rights - but make money for the State)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not the mere ownership. If we are talking the use of each in public areas, ok. Then again, it isn't normal to stand opposite another individual and fire, as we do with cars. I wonder why there are so many regulations on automobiles?

How do you transfer ownership of a car vs a gun?

How many deaths by firearm vs car? How much has mandatory safety equipment saved in lives?

 

[SteveM4A1]

How do you transfer ownership of a car vs a gun?

How many deaths by firearm vs car? How much has mandatory safety equipment saved in lives?

I believe you are missing the point that they aren't comparable.

You can transfer ownership of a car without a title and not have it registered...it is one possibility. It really is irrelevant though.

An average vehicle at 30mph carries at least 100 times the kinetic energy of one round of 5.56. I would hope we can all agree that mandatory safety equipment is a good thing when we have objects with that much energy passing by us on a regular basis, just as is no texting laws, DUI laws, etc. Since shooting past one another in public isn't common (and I would hope never be), the two are incomparable in this respect. If for some reason it were common to be shooting in public past other indviduals, I think we can agree that similar laws and restrictions be in place. Please don't text while shooting at the target next to me

 

[Winamac]

Driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right given to citizens in the second amendment. That is another difference.

 

[dsol]

Actually, I would not mind guns being treated like cars.

I can buy any kind of car, with any engine, any exhaust, any (none) emission controls, any kind of wheels and tires at any age. I can use it to my hearts content on private land. I can drive my registered licensed insured car in any state in the country. Including Mexico or Canada even. If I do not want to drive my car on public roads (such as a race car or off roader), I do not have to insure it, title it, plate it, or have any emission controls. I only have to trailer it to the location or use it on my own land.

This would equate to being able to buy any sort of gun, full auto, large bore over half an inch, short barreled rifle or shotgun and enjoy it to my heart's content on my land or a private range anywhere in the country provided it was transported in a locked case. My (one and only) registered and licensed handgun could sit on my hip and go with me to any state with no restrictions. Maybe I would have a second or third handgun registered and licensed just in case I wanted to change it up a little.

 

[jmpupillo]

Actually, I would not mind guns being treated like cars.

I can buy any kind of car, with any engine, any exhaust, any (none) emission controls, any kind of wheels and tires at any age. I can use it to my hearts content on private land. I can drive my registered licensed insured car in any state in the country. Including Mexico or Canada even. If I do not want to drive my car on public roads (such as a race car or off roader), I do not have to insure it, title it, plate it, or have any emission controls. I only have to trailer it to the location or use it on my own land.

This would equate to being able to buy any sort of gun, full auto, large bore over half an inch, short barreled rifle or shotgun and enjoy it to my heart's content on my land or a private range anywhere in the country provided it was transported in a locked case. My (one and only) registered and licensed handgun could sit on my hip and go with me to any state with no restrictions. Maybe I would have a second or third handgun registered and licensed just in case I wanted to change it up a little.

I think you may be on to something...

 

[Bung]

Actually, I would not mind guns being treated like cars.

I can buy any kind of car, with any engine, any exhaust, any (none) emission controls, any kind of wheels and tires at any age. I can use it to my hearts content on private land. I can drive my registered licensed insured car in any state in the country. Including Mexico or Canada even. If I do not want to drive my car on public roads (such as a race car or off roader), I do not have to insure it, title it, plate it, or have any emission controls. I only have to trailer it to the location or use it on my own land.

This would equate to being able to buy any sort of gun, full auto, large bore over half an inch, short barreled rifle or shotgun and enjoy it to my heart's content on my land or a private range anywhere in the country provided it was transported in a locked case. My (one and only) registered and licensed handgun could sit on my hip and go with me to any state with no restrictions. Maybe I would have a second or third handgun registered and licensed just in case I wanted to change it up a little.

This is what I was getting at. But, of course, some states like CA have emissions and their own standard equipment standards. Yet, they are still polluted and people die on their highways. In CA you can't modify your car unless it has a CARB stamp, but people do it anyway. Of course the consequences of doing anything slightly illegal in a car are no where near as dire as doing something slightly illegal with a gun.

 

[Bung]

You realize that an automobile is much more regulated than a firearm, yes? If I were an anti-gunner I'd turn your argument on you so fast you'd need that 5 point safety harness. I'd start with the requirement to register cars, titles being exchanged through gov't offices, the plethora of safety equipment regulations, etc.

Drivers licensing is a cinch compared to gun licensing. Yes, they try to bring up that cars need registered and insured and then I point out that cars still kill more people than guns. Sure, car titles have to be transferred if you do it legally, but there is still a thriving market for stolen cars and parts. You bring up the points they usually do, but I already have a counter for it, as you can see.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I believe you are missing the point that they aren't comparable.

As stated in my first post, I was playing the part of the hypothetical anti-gunner who this is supposed to be convincing argument to. I am agreeing that it's a lousy argument.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sure, car titles have to be transferred if you do it legally, but there is still a thriving market for stolen cars and parts.

Sounds like a good reason for universal background checks, transfers have to go through FFLs and a firearms registry be implemented, and any pre-VIN...oh, sorry, pre serial number gun must have a unique engraved serial number and be registered. Microstamping of S/N on parts as well, to combat that black market for stolen goods, just like hidden VINs on vehicles.

Speed limits are for safety, and are less than the mechanical capability of the cars. Reduced capacity magazines and California style "tool required" magazine releases will slow down active shooters and increase safety.

New vehicles are not allowed to be sold without airbags, seat belts, etc. How many 'safety measures' can we put on firearms? I'm thinking mandatory magazine disconnects, manual thumb safeties, the drop safety test could be much more onerous, loaded chamber indicators, etc

Did you know vehicles have mandatory anti-theft protection? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.114 Probably ought to implement those smart gun to prevent unauthorized access, and California style secure storage laws.

Driver's licenses require testing and the ability to show you can operate the vehicle safely, and are also tiered. You want to ride a motorcycle, you need a motorcycle license. You want to drive a semi, you need a CDL and the relevant endorsements. So, yeah, direct comparison to "gun licensing". You can get your single shot rimfire license pretty easily. Training and testing requirements will be implemented for the next tier of firearms. You want semi-auto? Oh, that's an endorsement and the test is significantly harder, as we want to make sure your recoil control is adequate to ensure the safety of those around you.

Probably going to have to ban lead ammunition, too, as much like leaded gas it's rough on the environment.

Vehicles are regulated right down to how the hood latches. You SURE you want firearms regulated like automobiles?

 

[Drail]

deleted

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

One part of the car/gun comparison that I think about is the "legal purpose" argument. Some people say that we should outlaw "assault rifles" since they are only designed to kill people and have no other legal purpose, yet we don't ever hear about anyone being concerned about cars that are designed to go 150 mph.

For what legal purpose is a vehicle that goes 150 mph?

And, why does the government mandate that I pay extra for all those important safety features to make my car as safe as possible, and yet also allow me to purchase a high-performance vehicle that is decidedly less safe due to the speed it can reach. When Nikki Catsouras stole her father's Porsche in California in 2006, and wrecked it at high speed, killing herself and almost killing others, the big story was the police leaking photos of the carnage to the internet. But I don't remember anybody trying to lobby for laws to keep unsafe drivers from having access to cars that go fast.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

One part of the car/gun comparison that I think about is the "legal purpose" argument. Some people say that we should outlaw "assault rifles" since they are only designed to kill people and have no other legal purpose, yet we don't ever hear about anyone being concerned about cars that are designed to go 150 mph.

For what legal purpose is a vehicle that goes 150 mph?

Remember mandatory 85mph speedometers?

You may want to look into the history of the agreement of motorcycle companies to use governors on their super-bikes as well, which was a move to stave off gov't regulation.

It also ignores that I can have my Corvette at a track day and legally do the top speed, but am required by law to artificially limit my speed on public roads. Oh, and of course most racing organizations require a license...

These arguments are arguments to preach to the choir, something for gunowners to sit around nodding about how unfair everything is. If you want to convince an anti- to change position, arguing something else is more dangerous isn't the way to do it. Arguing guns aren't for killing people isn't the way to do it, as that's a pretty easy claim to refute. Take them shooting. Get them involved in the hobby. Argue the merits of self defense and get them to a training class. This has, in my experience, been vastly more successful than these odd analogies to swimming pools, bathtubs, cars, etc. that are easy to devolve and to counter by someone with a mind to. Someone who isn't even willing to give a range day or a safety class a try isn't someone you can convert anyway just yet.

 

[Tombs]

Licensing, clearly visible tags, keys, taxes, registration, insurance requirement, emissions inspections, performance testing, health requirements... The list goes on and on.

Every time someone uses the car argument, they make gun owners collectively look stupid. If we had 1/10th the regulations that cars have, we'd be borrowing a single shot 22lr from a police supervised range, and only allowed to shoot blanks at paper targets.

Don't use comparisons when arguing guns. If you're forced to use a comparison, your argument is probably pretty poor in the first place.

 

[Bung]

Licensing, clearly visible tags, keys, taxes, registration, insurance requirement, emissions inspections, performance testing, health requirements... The list goes on and on.

Every time someone uses the car argument, they make gun owners collectively look stupid. If we had 1/10th the regulations that cars have, we'd be borrowing a single shot 22lr from a police supervised range, and only allowed to shoot blanks at paper targets.

Don't use comparisons when arguing guns. If you're forced to use a comparison, your argument is probably pretty poor in the first place.

I don't agree.

I don't bring up the car argument, I just try to counter it. I also point out, despite all the regulations and laws, more people still die because of cars. Despite all the laws and checkpoints looking for drunk drivers, they still slip through and kill people. Despite all the licensing requirements, people still drive without them. Despite all the laws about titles, insurance, and anti-theft; cars are stolen (sometimes with forged titles) and there probably isn't a person here that knows someone that drives without insurance. The point of the comparison is that no law is going to stop a determined or evil person. Another point to make is that you don't have to be careful what state you drive though and you don't have to spend hours researching different state laws so you don't get a felony for not having the proper air pressure in your tire.

 

[Drail]

Yes but we need to bear in mind that the people who lead our country have an EXTREMELY limited skill set. Passing more laws in the ONLY thing they know how to do. (OK, that and make lots of money) But if they can't pass more laws - they're no longer really useful at all and serve no purpose whatsoever to "we the peons" except take our stuff away from us (for their own use) and strip us of our Rights. A totally corrupt two party system has always led only to one place - where we are now. If our Government would just limit their stupidity to what the Constitution allows them and with intense scrutiny and accountability of everything single thing they do - the Republic can survive. If not then our country is headed to the same place every "Democracy" in history has gone. To the bottom of the slough. No one in Government "knows what's best for us". That's not their decision to make in a "free" Republic based on a Constitution. We the people are supposed to be free - not the Government. The Government needs heavy shackles and chains placed on them - our Founders were quite clear on that. But our current Government looks like a pack of drunk school kids careening through red lights on Saturday night in their Mommy's car. Maybe we need to setup road side checkpoints for crooked politicians. Bring lots of cable ties - it'll be a long night..........