Guns and cars

[TragicMonkey]

Another license for a motorcycle? That maybe something in your area. I don't think we have such a thing here. I know a 15 year old can get a motocycle license. However I think class D (standard) is required for that. A different class is required for an 18 wheeler, but I believe it is a little training and maybe a test.

Drivers' licensing is regulated on the state level, so the rules differ.

 

[merphie]

Drivers' licensing is regulated on the state level, so the rules differ.

Thought as much.

 

[Zep]

Actually, it's DRIVING licenses we are talking about in comparison with gun licenses, NOT cars.

And another thing - I see that SOME people STILL can't get it into their incredibly thick skulls that we are talking gun CONTROL, NOT GUN BANS!.

Oh well - one day...

 

[Kerberos]

Good now read what I said ealier. Assuming not deaths.

I did, but you, apparently, didn't read the link, the police officer didn't die.

I wasn't talking about intent to kill

Which makes you statement a load of meaningless drivel. You're don't get charged with attempted murder for accidentially running into somebody? guess what you are never charged with attempted murder unless the police believe that you intended to kill.

If you bump into someone and only cause damage to their car then you don't go to jail. If you are sober and not on drugs and kill someone in your car (not intentionally) you don't go to jail.

And if you accidentially shoot somebody while out hunting you won't go to jail either, unless you were careless,b ut that counts for cars too.

Pointing a firearm at someone (Unless in lawful self defense) is a felony. Pointing your keys/car at someone is rude.

So pointing a lethal weapon at somebody is a crime and pointing a non-lethal everyday object isn't? Do you have some sort of point?

Giving a gun to a felon is a felony. Giving your car to a felon is probably a bad iddea.

Possession of a firearm on school property is a felony. Having your car on school property is a convience.

If you carry a gun on places that is restricted it is a misdemeanor. Taking your car to a restricted place is a parking fine.

Discharging your gun in a public place or building (etc) is a felony. Starting your car. . . .Depends on the car.

Any other meaningless comparisons you'd like to share?

How about: Intentionally hitting people with a car will get you charged with (attempted) murder, hitting people with a gun will most likely get you charged with assualt.

 

[merphie]

And another thing - I see that SOME people STILL can't get it into their incredibly thick skulls that we are talking gun CONTROL, NOT GUN BANS!.

Oh well - one day...

There is very little difference between gun ban and gun control. Gun control usually leads to gun bans. Washington DC is an example of this. I believe such things have happened in other countries, but I would need to do more research on that.

Gun control is feel good legislation that has no effect. There is not reasonable reason for the "1994 Clinton Ban".

 

[merphie]

I did, but you, apparently, didn't read the link, the police officer didn't die.

I wasn't talking about criminal intent. I guess I should have included that since you are finding any little point you can argue.

Which makes you statement a load of meaningless drivel. You're don't get charged with attempted murder for accidentially running into somebody? guess what you are never charged with attempted murder unless the police believe that you intended to kill.

You do with guns.

And if you accidentially shoot somebody while out hunting you won't go to jail either, unless you were careless,b ut that counts for cars too.

Maybe, maybe not. They charge people for killing in self defense with a gun.

I guess you are right.

Story

Prosecutors say Berseth, 44, an experienced hunter who had hunted the area before and lived just a half mile away, should have known better. He is charged with second-degree reckless homicide, and could spend a maximum of 15 years in prison if convicted.

So pointing a lethal weapon at somebody is a crime and pointing a non-lethal everyday object isn't? Do you have some sort of point?

Keys are non lethal? So pointing a non-lethal everyday knife is ok? A gun which is unloaded is non-lethal.

Any other meaningless comparisons you'd like to share?

How about: Intentionally hitting people with a car will get you charged with (attempted) murder, hitting people with a gun will most likely get you charged with assualt.

And Brandishing a weapon
use of a weapon during commission of a crime
maybe pointing a firearm.
perhaps attempted murder as well

 

[gnome]

-Cities would be allowed to allowed to sue vehicle manufactuers for criminal misuse of their product.

Just once again tagging my favorite pet peeve...

This statement is a misconception of the lawsuits against manufacturers. The typical lawsuit is not concerned with holding the manufacturer responsible for criminal misuse of the weapon, but for negligent distribution leading to criminal misuse.

As much as the news would have you believe otherwise, it is NOT just because a gun was used criminally that makes the manufacturer potentially liable.

 

[epepke]

Did I forget anything?

Of course you did, and you know it!

It would be illegal to start or drive a car within city limits.

It would be illegal to transport a car openly in populated areas, except on private property or on specially designated car ranges. When transporting a car to and from such a range, it would have to be securely locked, and all the gasoline and engine oil would have to be removed.

Large cars would be permitted in rural areas for hunting purposes. Motorcycles, Minis, ATVs, and VW Beetles would be forbidden in most areas.

It would be possible to get a license to carry a concealed car in many states, but it would require fingerprinting.

The gas tanks in cars, up until recently, would only be permitted to hold 1/2 gallon of gas. It would be permissible to carry additional gas in approved containers. In some states, the gas would have to be carried separately from the car.

 

[epepke]

Hmmm. What do you all think about compulsary gun insurance!

If your gun injuries someone, or is stolen, or is used by someone else who causes damages, we'd have the insurance company to foot the bills. Why shoudl soceity bear the costs of the havoc.

This treating guns like cars thing just might work after all.

Gun insurance actually exists. If you join the NRA, you get gun insurance as part of the cost of membership.

Compulsory gun insurance doesn't make sense, because you aren't allowed to operate guns on public places anyway. If you operate it at a range, the range fees cover insurance. If you operate it on public land, as for a Civil War re-enactment, there is compulsory insurance. You can operate a car on your own property without insurance.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Guns and cars

Just once again tagging my favorite pet peeve...

This statement is a misconception of the lawsuits against manufacturers. The typical lawsuit is not concerned with holding the manufacturer responsible for criminal misuse of the weapon, but for negligent distribution leading to criminal misuse.

As much as the news would have you believe otherwise, it is NOT just because a gun was used criminally that makes the manufacturer potentially liable.

Then, let me rephrase. . . . Sue the manufacturer for illegal distribution with no supporting evidence of their claims.

Story

The statement I made is not factual in the sense of what is filed in the court papers. However since they have no evidence of wrong doing my statement was correct in what they are doing.

 

[PogoPedant]

All modern economies would collapse if the car became a rarity. It would be, uhm, less dramatic if say 95% of all guns were removed.

 

[merphie]

All modern economies would collapse if the car became a rarity. It would be, uhm, less dramatic if say 95% of all guns were removed.

That justifies everything!

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Guns and cars

Your opinion.

No it's not really a matter of opinion. Cars were made so that people could get from point A to point B in a short amount of time. Guns were made so that someone standing at point A could destroy something located at point B. See the difference?

I don't agree. A car 200 yards away can travel that distance in a short amount of time.

We've already covered this. To run over someone with a car, you have to be in their immediate vicinity at sometime or another. Not so if you happen to have a rifle. You can easily snipe someone from a distance of 200 yards, and there's a good chance you will get away with it, unless you do something stupid.

 

[clk]

Keys are non lethal? So pointing a non-lethal everyday knife is ok?

I would consider a knife a lethal weapon. It's a 1000 times easier to kill someone with a knife than it is to kill them with a key.

 

[Kerberos]

I wasn't talking about criminal intent. I guess I should have included that since you are finding any little point you can argue.

Then, as I said, it's meaningless.

You do with guns.

I doubt that very much, If you'd be charged with attempted murder for a nonfatal accident then why wasn't the guy in your link charged with murder?

Maybe, maybe not. They charge people for killing in self defense with a gun.

If they don't agree that it was selfdefense or that the amount of force used was justified, you can also get charged for defending yourself with other weapons, including cars.

Keys are non lethal?

I figure the number of murders commited with car keys is fairly low yes.

So pointing a non-lethal everyday knife is ok?

I'm fairly sure I've pointed butter knives at people and I've never gotten charged for it.

A gun which is unloaded is non-lethal.

Sure it is, but does the other guy know that? Death treats are illegal even if you can't carry them out. Would you get charged with handing a guy a nonloaded weapon barrel first?

 

[H3LL]

Which states would you be allowed to carry a concealed car?

How about where you are only allowed to transport your car if securely locked in the trunk?

 

[a_unique_person]

Just as silly as the suggestion that guns should be as restricted as cars.

No, I have always argued they should be more restricted, so this whole thread is just a waste of a lameass strawman.

 

[a_unique_person]

That justifies everything!

Including my pink fluffy bunny slippers.

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Re: Guns and cars

Then, let me rephrase. . . . Sue the manufacturer for illegal distribution with no supporting evidence of their claims.

Story

The statement I made is not factual in the sense of what is filed in the court papers. However since they have no evidence of wrong doing my statement was correct in what they are doing.

Thanks... but you "can" sue for anything without evidence... you'll just lose. It's no different for guns or cars than with anything else. Is your objection the ability to sue, or a pattern of such lawsuits winning?

 

[Tmy]

Car companies are sued waaaaaaaaaaaay more than the gun makers.

Im sure if you look under your states laws youll find alot more dealing with automobiles than guns.