My college professor aunt posted this; thoughts? I have a carry permit in Tennessee, but I’m admittedly ignorant to the rest of the country’s bureaucracies.
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1854/img09191.jpg
Thanks
Eh, a lot of the stuff wouldn’t really make sense if applied to guns, however the first like 4 things actually apply to both of them… It’s not exactly easy to get a legal gun. For a lot of it though it’s apples and oranges. Why the hell don’t they talk about “If shoes were as regulated as cars”
Also, I really like your avatar, it’s classy.
Its kinda pointless though to get regulations for that kind of thing.
its like saying, I need the state to demand that i take tests A B C so i can use X item.
Wouldnt an average consumer at least know how to use an item or at least intend to learn more about the item when he buys it?
Its not like people carry around guns without knowing what its used for or how to use it.
Also it ignores the fact that driving a car is far more complicated than using a gun.
Nothing stops one from buying a vehicle and not attempting to get a driver’s license (driver training, written test, practical test, health requirements) nor being forced to purchase insurance. It’s not illegal at all to buy a car and not insure it or have a driver’s license, and I don’t hear the left clamoring for that to be done. And then there is always the issue of used car sales, like where I sell a car to you for cash.
It’s a silly attempt to form an argument in favor of gun control, but will rally the cry for it from those that don’t attempt to critically examine the facts and attempted analogy. It’s total BS.
I want someone to make one “if government were tried the same way as private individuals” and include taxation, incarceration, regulation, etc, and then send it to your aunt.
Screw that, I’ll just make a petrol bomb. Probably kill more people too.
Neo said it.
Replace “guns” with anything. If “hammers” were as regulated as cars. If “computers” were as regulated as cars. If “baseball bats” were as regulated as cars. They’re all just as arbitrary as anything else some dumbass in the “Occupy movement” could come up with. I’m not even sure what the point is supposed to be. That guns are somehow more dangerous than cars, but easier to get?
I really don’t see how anyone could try to make that argument with a straight face.
I have some pictures for you:
http://countycitizen.com/files/2012/07/GunOwnersVote.jpg
http://www.middleamericanradical.com/images/more_money_for_ammo_bumper_sticker.jpg
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26271&d=1243858914
http://minutemanpatriot.homestead.com/files/RKBA/ak-next_war_not_with_muskets.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/2million.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ehy4Jc3Ox1q5/610x.jpg
http://vaguninfo.com/misc/gunfreezone.gif
http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/32136-2/yoursenator2.jpg
http://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/uk-guncontrol.jpg
Here is a data comparison of gun homicides per 100,000 people in the US, Switzerland and Japan.
Despite similarly loose gun regulations in the US and Switzerland, the US rate is about 6 time higher. In Japan, where gun regulations are much more restrictive than either country, gun homicides are scarce.
Guns should be regulated by private security firms. They will make their own cost-benefit analyses to decide to what extent gun owners should pay higher/lower premiums for increasing/reducing risks. Private owners of roads, parks, shopping malls, etc, will decide how they want guns to be transported on their property, if at all.
Since we’re turning this into a resource thread,
Here’s a playlist, and here’s a few clips:
(I definitely recommend the film Innocents Betrayed in the link above.)
