First, I understand 100% that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution as a right, whereas driving a car is a privilege. However, no one on the other side cares about that, and many just willfully misunderstand the 2nd Amendment.
So…
I’d appreciate some help unpacking the argument that guns should be regulated for safety purposes the way cars are regulated.
Here are what I think are the big ones:
Registration. Vehicles are licensed and registered, but is that addressing a safety issue, or is it just a way for .gov to establish ownership for admin and fee purposes?
Operator License. Definitely a safety issue, but one that is caused by the size of vehicles and their very close proximity to each other during normal operation. Bypassing Constitutional protection for now, is there a way to counter the argument that guns should likewise require an operator license that is only granted once you pass a practical exam?
Vehicle Classes. Your operator license must have additional certifications for motorcycle or commercial vehicle operation, both of which have exam requirements. I don’t see a direct correlation to readily available firearms, but would we be OK with a law that allowed you to own and operate a Carl Gustav IF you had the proper operator license for it?
Insurance. This is a big issue with cars because of the frequency of accidents and the societal/economic costs associated with them. Gun accidents are not as frequent nor do they cause nearly as much damage, but does the thought that gun owners should carry insurance make any sense?
Product Liability. Car manufacturers can be forced to recall defective cars and are liable in court for damages cause by said defects. I know gun manufacturers are rightly protected from lawsuits that try to blame them for crimes committed using guns, but is there any sense to making sure gun manufacturers are held responsible for faulty or defective products? Taurus and Remington come readily to mind for defective products.
Safety Equipment. Cars have seat belts and airbags because manufacturers were forced to install them. There is no denying these are related to safety. I know the argument that gun safety equipment like biometric sensors are just not realistic because they’re not reliable and guns must be reliable above all else. However, is there a good answer for folks that want massive R&D in the direction of “safer” guns and a .gov mandate to go with it?
Again, leaving aside the right vs privilege thing, I’m positive there is some combination of answers that completely negates the gun vs car safety argument. I’m just not smart enough to know what that is… I’d LOVE to be able to SHUT DOWN anyone arguing that we should be regulating guns like we regulate cars.
I’ve recently done the opposite with anti-2A’ers and suggested that motor vehicles be as regulated in ownership/usage as firearms. Background checks, proof of training, waiting periods, manufacturers being targeted for bans, etc. Oddly enough when spun that way people tend to get defensive of their privilege to drive. Few change their view on 2A restrictions though
I’m going to give you the Cliff Notes version of this argument.
Driving a vehicle requires a lot more interaction between you and all the other drivers, moving 2,000 lb hunks of steel, plastic and glass down Public roads. Gun ownership really doesn’t have to have interaction with other people or gun owners. The gun can sit in your home, or in your vehicle, or on your person for open carry States (like New Mexico), or hidden with a CC license.
Also just the statistics show that vehicle accidents result in around 18,000 deaths per year, when gun related murders only account for a little over 10,000 per year. Just analyzing risk, operation of a vehicle on Public roads is actually a more risky thing than the pistol or rifle which may or may not move around a lot. More chances for accidents in the car than with a gun. This means the gun is actually in fewer possible encounters that would require it’s use.
Would any of the OP’s points reduce gun crimes in any way? No. Criminals are not going to abide by any of those points to obtain and keep a firearm. They are going to purchase them illegally or steal them. People don’t typically buy vehicles on the black market to commit crimes with. The criminals that do are doing so on purpose and will not follow the majority of the above points anyways.
This is classic leftist logic. Take one thing as an established fact and force other things into it.
Question the premise and question it hard. Why do people need permission from the govt to drive a car? (Or an adult to buy beer at age 18). I would argue that it’s a human right. Only it’s not a protected human right.
The right to keep and bear arms is a human right too. Only it’s also protected by law. Permission and hurdles to exercise being human is a degree of slavery.
Move the questioner into a sacred domain, like whether women need permission and a license to have sex, or whether all Democrats must undergo a background check and mental screening before they are allowed to talk to anyone outside their home.
Product liability is easy. Gun companies are only protected from misuse. If for example a company makes a gun that can fire when dropped you can get a lawyer and sue them.
Personally I just change the context with dumb arguments like these. Why don’t we regulate speech more like driving? Why do I have to pay to take a safety class, take the time to go get fingerprinted, (and have an ID) and then pay to get my CCW, when getting a free State ID is far to difficult for someone to vote?
The top line is that autos are the wrong model because as you pointed out you are comparing a right to a privilege. Voting is a better one because of the Left’s apoplectic seizures on voting regulations. Freedom of speech may be a best model. Pass all those things to post on a blog? Oh, you say that blogs and online activity aren’t a danger, then why all the hub-bub about Russian Trolls. Cyber-bullying. If it saves just one life…
Registration isn’t about tracking the cars, it is about paying taxes. The taxes are for the roads. Are they going to put a range in my front yard like they do with roads. Get back to me when they do.
Can you own a car if you are a felon?
What about if you are here illegally?
Slapped your wife around?
If you ex bitches about you, do they take your car?
Ban the importation of cars or make them use so many American parts if you want to repair it?
Leave your car at the border when you go to another state?
Pass a background check when you buy it?
Not be able to buy a car until 18 and a small, sporty one until 21?
Make you put smaller tires on it when going to NY, CA or NJ?
This is all that needs to be said. Arguing semantics with the left is doomed to fail from the start and only digs a deeper hole.
Which is exactly why these conversations with such individuals are of absolutely no value whatsoever. You can’t argue with people who blatantly ignore facts.
We’d all be much better off if we told them to piss up a rope and stay out of our damn business.
Actually, driving a car and traveling freely through the country is a right, not a privilege. And so long as you are not driving on public roads, you do not need to register your vehicle, have it insured, and you don’t need a license. And most states have no way of knowing whether you have insurance or a license until you’re either getting pulled over or you’re in an accident. Countless souls have three or more DUIs and are both uninsured and unlicensed, but still get pulled over for DUI’ing - and driving without a license and insurance - and then continue to be pulled over for DUI, driving w/o license, driving w/o insurance until a judge finally decides to take their car (which isn’t often, or wasn’t around here, anyway, because then they can’t get to work and if they can’t get to work, they can’t afford their fines, cruel & unusual punishment, &c., &c., &c.).
For those of us who carry firearms in public - concealed, anyway - there is already a system or systems of licensing in most states. And at least in this state, when you buy a hunting license, you have to pay extra (a whopping $2) to hunt on public land, so there’s a system for ‘licensing’ the carrying of firearms openly on public land, too.
SO:
A-Driving is a right, not a privilege.
B-We already have licensing systems in place for firearms that most people who lawfully carry have to follow.
C-The government already cannot track who is not licensed and insured with cars, which are large, tend to be colorful, have clear and legible identifying markings allowing police to nearly instantly search state databases to find out who the car is registered to (but not whether they’re licensed or insured), and are impossible to hide. How would we do likewise with firearms?
you cant cause those folks are idiots and blind to reality
I just laugh these days ask them why 11 parents each day are murdering there children and nobody cares by giving them keys and a cell phone
why do people allow 2000 babies a day to be butchered ?
why do so many doctors kill so so so so many people !
why when we know crap food is killing thousands every day do we not ban McDonalds
ban guns and laugh and say how bout we just make it illegal to kill people and that law alone will take care of every single death in our country caused by someone else since you seem to think a law can do that
Should a woman have to get a background check and psych evaluation prior to receiving a permit to abort a pregnancy? (assuming there is no immediate risk to the mother due to complications of the pregnancy).
I don’t remember any “right to abort” being specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, but “right to keep and bear arms” is there specifically. Ironic that one has become a “hands off, supreme court has already ruled” issue but the other is still being debated.
That example works too. It’s like the blunt end of a stick.
And for those saying you can’t argue with “those people,” keep in mind that there are many hearing the car analogy who haven’t made their mind up. They are just thinking “now that makes sense, what’s wrong with it?” when they bump into you. I’ve been in those conversations and have won them over. But you have to drop the attitude and be willing to show you are not a bully like gun controllers are. Your posture is as important as your arguments.
My daughter just went through this in a school debate. She pointed out, in a paper and speech she had to give,that licensing and registration of drivers and automobiles has done very little to stop vehicle deaths. Mandatory insurance just makes sure that the banks and hospitals get paid. Her final paragraph pointed out that licensing of guns and owners only is good for two things… enabling control of gun owners by the government and confiscation of firearms. She also pointed out that cars used in racing (on private property or public property designated for their use) are not licensed or insured and do not require a licensed driver to operate them. Gun owners carrying guns in public are generally licensed in most states… just like car drivers (except for those free states that have seen the light).
All driving regs only applies to when driving on public roads. I can build any vehicle i want to drive on my own property.
Gun manufactures, like everyone else, are responsible for defects causing injury. Its not an issue even remotely close to being something that needs looked at.
Safety: 30,000 people die each year from car accidents vs 3,800 for gun accidents.
At the end of the day, its a right, so anything that infringes on that right is a no-go.
Edit: added comments in read- Joemamas post made me think of a few more.
Don’t forget to add interlocks to every vehicle, if we are truly about saving lives we can all deal with that inconvenience right? We should strip everyone’s RKBA for murders with a rifle that numbers in the low 100s per year tops but we ignore 10k plus MVA fatalities related to alcohol?
This is a very important point with guns and vehicles that people usually do not bring up. If you owned a large farm, you could drive an old beat up vehicle (truck, tractor, etc.) on it without all of the required accessories (like headlights or mufflers). You can even make changes to the vehicles and you would not have to “register” anything. You could even have your 14 year old child (unlicensed) drive on it. All of that is perfectly legal.
It’s once you get onto public roads that you have a large set of rules you have to comply with.
I think that’s a good analogy with guns. You should be able to buy, use, and modify what you want. Once you go out in public, maybe there are some rules you should follow. Those rules are up for discussion, but not rules on your property.
Every day I come across someone driving in a dangerous manner. Intoxicated, distracted, unaware of their surroundings or just in a general sense a dangerous hazard to others
The most dangerous places to drive in my little town are in school zones during pick up and drop off times and anywhere after ten pm Fri-Sun.
This isn’t a mystery, these things are rather well known, but for the most part little actions are taken.
There are hundreds of thousands of little towns like mine, occasionally someone gets. DWI or a Soccer Mom gets a rare ticket, but no one has rallied a cry to take everyone’s car away because a drunk ran in to a bus filled with church goers and killed a dozen or so.
We allow these things to happen because we accept the reality of some people acting negligent with their freedom’s to own and operate motor vehicles.
So it isn’t logic that feeds this movement, one might even say it is illogical in light of numbers and lives impacted.
