5 ms·

> Why not ban cars, more people are accidentally killed with automobiles than guns used for homicide or suicide. The auto fatality rate has been drastically re

> Why not ban cars, more people are accidentally killed with automobiles than guns used for homicide or suicide. The auto fatality rate has been drastically reduced through better regulation and better technology. Safety features, insurance, inspections, traffic regulations, registration and transfer documentation, taxation have all increased public safety and reduced the burden auto use has on society. Regulating guns like cars would be a great idea.

hga 11y ago
What, exactly, would you have us do to "regulate cars like guns"? What safety features are missing from them? How many accidents can be traced to a lack of inspections or the like (a few, I grant you). Can you make a case for insurance requirements? Seeing as how we shoot billions of rounds per year with few incidents, and only 600 accidental deaths per year. Guns are much easier to use safely than automobiles, and the 25% decrease in fatal accidents during a period in which the population and number of guns increased by roughly 50% indicates there's not a crying need here. We gun owners do, you know, teach gun safety and proficiency, that's what the NRA was about until the mid-'70s, when they couldn't ignore the political threat. Most of the rest exists, e.g. taxation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...), or is a non-starter in an environment where the people proposing these measures continuously demonstrate their bad will. Registration? Sure, go ahead if you want a 2nd Civil War, we know our 20th Century history. Never again are not empty words to us.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Treating possession of guns as a revocable privilege, with the necessary licensing and registration to make it meaningful, would very likely result in fewer gun deaths. I think it is pretty likely that this will continue to get more politically tenable over time (my hand wavy impression is that younger people are generally less interested in guns, at least, lower rates of young people care about them). Insurance might come into play in such a world, if people were made liable for (at least some) misuse of guns registered to them (the at least some means that I would hope such a thing would only really come into play if actual negligence were involved).
- mildbow 11y ago
  ugh. > Sure, go ahead if you want a 2nd Civil War, we know our 20th Century history. Never again are not empty words to us. That sort of sentiment and posturing is very core of what is wrong with the "gun-ownership" movement. Do you really think if the government wanted to put down a rebellion (or whatever you are ominously alluding to) your paltry weapons would really make a difference? The "suicide by cop" statistic would increment and things would carry on. There really needs to be a change on how easy it is to procure fire-arms in the US. That shouldn't be up for debate or sidelining through traditionalist arguments. We have a problem today where people are actually getting murdered. So, your rhetoric is pretty empty and over-used.
  - hga 11y ago
    It's not posturing, it's fair warning. Our adventures in the sandbox suggest your faith in our government's ability to suppress armed rebellion is grossly excessive. It also had a secure rear area. You're also assuming all the military will agree to this, despite what it'll cost them. I'm not alluding to anything, I'm frankly stating that, if you and yours succeed in this effort, me and mine will start killing you and yours (assuming you're in the US, of course). And if you think we're limited to out "paltry weapons". you suffer from an extreme lack of imagination. We've been debating this since at least the 30s, and I'm (not very) sorry to say that your side has decisively lost the debate. Sucks to be you, but in balance I like the result.
    - mildbow 11y ago
      You are doing it again. "killing you and yours"? Give me a break. If rebellion or change is what you really want to affect, then you would be better served to look into how Gandhi managed to win against overwhelming odds, rather than whatever hollywood(?) fantasy you envision living out. Yeah, I have guns just like I have other tools and toys. But I don't have the same chip on my shoulder. If there needs to be a rebellion, I will be reaching for my camera and my twitter account, not my walther.
      - hga 11y ago
- thinkcontext 11y ago
  > What, exactly, would you have us do to "regulate cars like guns"? Given what I have read about most guns used in crimes originating through straw buyers or stolen guns, I think substantial penalties for people who don't properly transfer guns if they wind up being used illegally would be the most effective way to reduce gun related violence. This, of course, would require a system of registration and proper transfer documentation, like we have for cars. This, along with secure storage requirements, I think could do a lot. I agree accidents aren't that big an issue when compared to intentional violence, I assume secure storage would substantially help with this along with suicide. I'd also be in favor of severe penalties for not using secure storage. In terms of new technology that could improve safety, fingerprint readers and id stamped ammo would help with both violence and safety. Insurance could play an important role. If you pass a test, get your refresher training and have proper storage you'd pay a low rate. If you have an accident or have a gun stolen insurance could pay part of your penalty but your rate should go up enormously. > ... non-starter in an environment where the people proposing these measures continuously demonstrate their bad will. Continuously demonstrate bad will? 10s of thousands die yearly and even modest proposals are dismissed with hysteria like: > Registration? Sure, go ahead if you want a 2nd Civil War, we know our 20th Century history. Never again are not empty words to us. Seriously, this is into "UN black helicopter", "Obama is an Al-Qaeda member" territory.

hga 11y ago

What, exactly, would you have us do to "regulate cars like guns"? What safety features are missing from them? How many accidents can be traced to a lack of inspections or the like (a few, I grant you). Can you make a case for insurance requirements? Seeing as how we shoot billions of rounds per year with few incidents, and only 600 accidental deaths per year. Guns are much easier to use safely than automobiles, and the 25% decrease in fatal accidents during a period in which the population and number of guns increased by roughly 50% indicates there's not a crying need here. We gun owners do, you know, teach gun safety and proficiency, that's what the NRA was about until the mid-'70s, when they couldn't ignore the political threat. Most of the rest exists, e.g. taxation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Fede...), or is a non-starter in an environment where the people proposing these measures continuously demonstrate their bad will. Registration? Sure, go ahead if you want a 2nd Civil War, we know our 20th Century history. Never again are not empty words to us.

maxerickson 11y ago
Treating possession of guns as a revocable privilege, with the necessary licensing and registration to make it meaningful, would very likely result in fewer gun deaths. I think it is pretty likely that this will continue to get more politically tenable over time (my hand wavy impression is that younger people are generally less interested in guns, at least, lower rates of young people care about them). Insurance might come into play in such a world, if people were made liable for (at least some) misuse of guns registered to them (the at least some means that I would hope such a thing would only really come into play if actual negligence were involved).
mildbow 11y ago
ugh. > Sure, go ahead if you want a 2nd Civil War, we know our 20th Century history. Never again are not empty words to us. That sort of sentiment and posturing is very core of what is wrong with the "gun-ownership" movement. Do you really think if the government wanted to put down a rebellion (or whatever you are ominously alluding to) your paltry weapons would really make a difference? The "suicide by cop" statistic would increment and things would carry on. There really needs to be a change on how easy it is to procure fire-arms in the US. That shouldn't be up for debate or sidelining through traditionalist arguments. We have a problem today where people are actually getting murdered. So, your rhetoric is pretty empty and over-used.
- hga 11y ago
  It's not posturing, it's fair warning. Our adventures in the sandbox suggest your faith in our government's ability to suppress armed rebellion is grossly excessive. It also had a secure rear area. You're also assuming all the military will agree to this, despite what it'll cost them. I'm not alluding to anything, I'm frankly stating that, if you and yours succeed in this effort, me and mine will start killing you and yours (assuming you're in the US, of course). And if you think we're limited to out "paltry weapons". you suffer from an extreme lack of imagination. We've been debating this since at least the 30s, and I'm (not very) sorry to say that your side has decisively lost the debate. Sucks to be you, but in balance I like the result.
  - mildbow 11y ago
    You are doing it again. "killing you and yours"? Give me a break. If rebellion or change is what you really want to affect, then you would be better served to look into how Gandhi managed to win against overwhelming odds, rather than whatever hollywood(?) fantasy you envision living out. Yeah, I have guns just like I have other tools and toys. But I don't have the same chip on my shoulder. If there needs to be a rebellion, I will be reaching for my camera and my twitter account, not my walther.
    - hga 11y ago
thinkcontext 11y ago
> What, exactly, would you have us do to "regulate cars like guns"? Given what I have read about most guns used in crimes originating through straw buyers or stolen guns, I think substantial penalties for people who don't properly transfer guns if they wind up being used illegally would be the most effective way to reduce gun related violence. This, of course, would require a system of registration and proper transfer documentation, like we have for cars. This, along with secure storage requirements, I think could do a lot. I agree accidents aren't that big an issue when compared to intentional violence, I assume secure storage would substantially help with this along with suicide. I'd also be in favor of severe penalties for not using secure storage. In terms of new technology that could improve safety, fingerprint readers and id stamped ammo would help with both violence and safety. Insurance could play an important role. If you pass a test, get your refresher training and have proper storage you'd pay a low rate. If you have an accident or have a gun stolen insurance could pay part of your penalty but your rate should go up enormously. > ... non-starter in an environment where the people proposing these measures continuously demonstrate their bad will. Continuously demonstrate bad will? 10s of thousands die yearly and even modest proposals are dismissed with hysteria like: > Registration? Sure, go ahead if you want a 2nd Civil War, we know our 20th Century history. Never again are not empty words to us. Seriously, this is into "UN black helicopter", "Obama is an Al-Qaeda member" territory.