But if you operate it negligently, or with malicious intent, you can have your license taken away.
Unfortunately, because cars are such an essential part of our lives, where not having a car can quickly mean unemployment and poverty for many, we set the standards far lower than they really should be. If we raised the bar, we could get accidents much much, lower, but then, there’d be quite a number of people not able to get to work.
Your confidence is heartening but undeserved.
Wind your neck in, you aren’t Oscar Wilde.
Instead of faux-wit why don’t you say which part of my statement confused you so?
The part where you announced that a gun at home is the equivalent of a car on the road. Which seems to me to be perfectly clear, inasmuch as objecting to that sentiment was what led us down this lamentable little rabbit hole in the first place, was it not? The normal scope of usage of a gun at home, frankly, is that it isn’t used at all. The normal scope of usage of a car on the road is that it endangers other people.
Eh, I suppose that’s not really true, is it? Presumably most cars don’t cause accidents in the same way that most guns don’t injure other people.
And many people aren’t allowed to buy guns due to various misdeeds.
But you are absolutely correct that vehicles provide a hefty economic benefit that needs to be weighed against restrictions. Firearms, much less so.
Then toss the “like cars” fiction. That’s not how we treat cars. A billion-dollar fee or tax or whatever is a de-facto ban without being called one. Or maybe you have something more modest in mind just to keep the poors from scaring you.
Because other people wielding cars pose a significant danger to me. People wielding guns do not.
Even when you are inside a school?
Places with large numbers of people, inadequate security and gun bans certainly do seem more dangerous now, don’t they?
So there is no point in having a gun at home?
I’m probably a bit safer from cars once I get there. Less so on the way there.
If that’s how you wish to parse the statement, knock yourself out.
Only because of the easy access to guns that is demanded by second amendment absolutists.
Of course, if we arm all the teachers, then guns will become an even bigger danger in the schools.
that’s right it would be, lucky I never said anything of the kind. If regulation of guns were of the same scope and scale as cars how would that act as a de-facto ban? Why would it need to be of a different order of magnitude in order be a disincentive for owning and using a gun or multiple guns?
Even people of modest means can buy and run multiple cars if they so wish, many choose not to because the benefits are outweighed by the fairly modest negatives. Are insurance, taxation and fees for vehicles a “de-facto ban”.
No I don’t think you need to concoct fairytales about billion dollar fees.
I’m not scared in the slightest, I live in a country where gun crime is extremely rare, just 50-60 homicides for the full country in a whole year. There aren’t enough “poors” (whatever the hell you are trying to imply with that term)* or* rich people with guns for me to pay attention to it.
And it isn’t done with *punitive *costs but the scrutiny, paperwork and hassle is enough to put people off so not many people own guns. Then of course when you realise that not many people around you own guns it rather dissuades you from thinking you need one yourself. Even the criminals don’t feel they need them which is strange because you’d imagine that in a de-facto “gun-free” zone such as the UK they’d run riot because they can get a gun and the public can’t. It is almost like there is something either preventing them or dissuading them from getting a gun in the first place.
But the figures suggest that they do pose a comparable danger to you. If you worry about cars then it seems perverse not to care about guns at all. The risks from both are in the same ballpark, the deaths caused by both are pretty much exactly the same.
What I can’t understand is the twisted logic that says a car, the primary purpose of which is to provide ease of transport, should be *more *heavily regulated than a gun, the primary purpose of which is to allow easy and instant physical damage and death.
Well clearly you think I’ve misunderstood so I’ll take it back. You must mean that there is a purpose for a gun in the house, even though you said that the normal usage for a gun is not to be used, you said
so…I’m no further forward here as to knowing exactly how to parse that.
You could of course explain.
The normal usage of my car insurance is that I give the insurance company money and otherwise don’t use it. I don’t think that make cars insurance pointless. But also, we could note that some people collect guns, and a lot of people have guns in the home and don’t use them except when the gun is not in the home. And I know we’ve discussed the distinction between things at home and things in public, but perhaps you just consider that distinction irrelevant in this context.
It occurs to me that I’m not sure what purpose the licensing/insurance/taxation/inspection scheme you advocate is trying to achieve - whether it’s to promote gun safety, or to decrease gun suicides, or to decrease gun crime, or to make it as hard as possible to own a gun even if it’s owned responsibly, or what. And if the latter, I’m also not sure why, unless it’s just kind of a nebulous “guns are bad and I don’t think you should be allowed to have them” kind of thing. Perhaps we could have a more productive discussion about the relative merits or demerits of your idea if I had some idea of what the goal was. Or perhaps you’ve stated the goal clearly already and I’ve just forgotten what it was.
That one is easy. Most guns sit in a safe, or a closet, or a drawer and are rarely messed with or used. Remember the line about how there are fewer gun owners owning more guns? Unless they have sprouted extra arms and hands, most of those guns are going unused and collecting dust.
I believe they’re comparing a gun to a fire extinguisher - in the normal course of events it will never, ever be used and hopefully that’s how it stays. But if it is needed, the fact it’s there can make all the difference to how a situation turns out.
We’ve been told it’s to make guns too expensive for anyone to afford.
It’s not going to have that effect, though. Most guns in Australia cost about the same as they do in the US once the exorbitant shipping costs and the unfavourable exchange rate are factored in.