Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
36. Whatever you buy, it is assumed you will use it for it's intended purpose
Fri Aug 4, 2017, 08:05 PM
Aug 2017

If you buy a car, it's assumed you will drive it, which is a dangerous activity, and there are laws about when, where and how you will drive it. There are laws about who can drive a car and who can't. Police spend a lot of time enforcing these laws. If you keep your car in your garage, then there is no danger, and so you don't need a license.

A car is difficult to conceal. If didn't intend to drive your car when you bought it, but drove it anyway without license plates, the police are likely to catch you. If you are also drunk and don't have a driver's license, they will arrest you. You may go to jail. You may be restricted from getting a license in the future.

Most of this regulation is at the state level, and that seems to be adequate because all states have similar laws and enforcement is fairly uniform. However, if you did, say lose your license due to DUI in one state, there is a national database that will prevent you from getting a license in another state.

Regarding guns, if you buy a gun, it is assumed you will shoot it, which is a dangerous activity, even if you only did it in your own home. People have shot themselves or others by mistake or on purpose in their homes. People have shot through walls and killed their neighbors. People have shot visitors to their home. Visitors have shot their hosts. Children have played with guns and shot themselves or their parents. Children have shot visiting children. There is a risk with having a gun in your home that is much greater (such as it is) than keeping a car in your garage.

Also, guns are easy to conceal. If you did decide to take it out of your home, it is much less likely the police will catch you, than if you drove a car without license plates. If you wanted to commit a crime with your gun, it is much easier to dispose of or hide the gun than it would be with a car. It's much easier to take that gun across state lines and violate laws in other states. So it follows from this, that there should be laws about who can have a gun and when, where and how you can use it. If you commit gun crimes in one state, you should not be able to go to another state, buy another gun and commit the same crime. Also, gun laws vary greatly from state to state, much more so than for cars. Some sort of national framework is necessary, even if it is limited to a background check to make sure you didn't commit a gun crime in another state.

There is one, and only one case I can think of in which you might buy a gun and I would not assume you intend to shoot it, and therefore create potential danger to your family, friends, neighbors or enemies. That would be if you didn't buy any bullets. So from a theoretical perspective at all, I'd be okay if we didn't regulate guns at all, but only regulated bullets. But I don't think that would satisfy you at all and probably would be harder to enforce.

As the suspects fled. RandySF Aug 2017 #1
From your own excert they were running away. flamin lib Aug 2017 #2
Artical is not clear on the details... virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #3
Why would you have to shoot at someone running away? Eko Aug 2017 #4
Me? out on the street? I wont.. Unless you're pointing a gun at me as you run... virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #5
Whatever, Eko Aug 2017 #6
Revenge code don't apply to me. virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #9
And I wold never, ever, ever Eko Aug 2017 #7
Who said I would shoot at an "unknown target"? virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #8
Dunno if you noticed, but this Monroe guy isn't even named AS THE HOMEOWNER ... mr_lebowski Aug 2017 #14
It says " sarisataka Aug 2017 #11
Not only does it not say Monroe is the homeowner ... it doesn't even say he's not one of the 3 mr_lebowski Aug 2017 #15
The article doesn't say sarisataka Aug 2017 #10
"Shots were fired as the suspects fled." Straw Man Aug 2017 #12
I must say I find the 'gist' here rather hard to believe ... mr_lebowski Aug 2017 #13
Judging by the discussion on this, the NRA will have a field day using this as "proof" of what will Nitram Aug 2017 #16
I suppose you could oppose any restriction sarisataka Aug 2017 #17
I don't. Nitram Aug 2017 #21
IMHO, you, me or anyone... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #18
guns already are regulated in the US, gejohnston Aug 2017 #19
"the most tightly regulated consumer product in the US." That is patently false. Nitram Aug 2017 #22
Cars and guns. Straw Man Aug 2017 #23
There are no restrictions on openly carrying a firearm in public in Virginia. Nitram Aug 2017 #24
yes but owning a gun is a right, driving is not gejohnston Aug 2017 #26
In a "well regulated militia." Nitram Aug 2017 #55
And who is the militia? discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #58
"When properly formed..." Nitram Aug 2017 #60
yes and no, gejohnston Aug 2017 #61
No, the National Guards were what became of the militias, which were originally conceived to protect Nitram Aug 2017 #63
I said that gejohnston Aug 2017 #66
No, you did not say that. You said, "The National Guard and Reserves are simply reserve forces..." Nitram Aug 2017 #67
They are, gejohnston Aug 2017 #68
It does not say THE PEOPLE have a right. It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary Nitram Aug 2017 #69
The New Yorker is wrong, gejohnston Aug 2017 #70
Like the guy who has 5 cars that he never drives off his property so he doesn't have to Nitram Aug 2017 #72
Your point? gejohnston Aug 2017 #73
Interpreting of laws relies on certain principles discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #71
that isn't a restriction, gejohnston Aug 2017 #59
It isn't a restriction, it is a right. Every property-owning white man (as the Constitution Nitram Aug 2017 #62
wrong on the history. gejohnston Aug 2017 #64
You have a point, gejonston. Nitram Aug 2017 #65
But there are restrictions on concealed carry. Straw Man Aug 2017 #47
Then why do you need to pay for insurance for every vehicle you own? Nitram Aug 2017 #54
You don't. oneshooter Aug 2017 #56
If you have to use that silly argument that you don't have to pay insurance except on vehicles Nitram Aug 2017 #57
Let me type this slower. oneshooter Aug 2017 #74
That was so slow I fell asleep halfway through. Nitram Aug 2017 #76
Because comprehensive insurance also covers damage to the vehicle. Straw Man Aug 2017 #75
no it isn't. gejohnston Aug 2017 #25
Oh come on marylandblue Aug 2017 #27
many people buy a gun without ever intending to carry in public discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #28
It is in fact assumed you'll drive it public, so laws are all about driving marylandblue Aug 2017 #31
You asserted that it is assumed that most all car buyers will drive in public. discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #33
Whatever you buy, it is assumed you will use it for it's intended purpose marylandblue Aug 2017 #36
huh? gejohnston Aug 2017 #37
Huh right back marylandblue Aug 2017 #39
the CDC website under accidents gejohnston Aug 2017 #40
Yes I saw the statistics. marylandblue Aug 2017 #42
that is why I said near zero gejohnston Aug 2017 #43
Near Zero isn't zero marylandblue Aug 2017 #44
Maybe you could cut to the chase here and list what you want as law discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #48
I don't like the term "control" either marylandblue Aug 2017 #49
honest question, gejohnston Aug 2017 #50
There would only need to be one check marylandblue Aug 2017 #52
NICS is a federal program gejohnston Aug 2017 #53
Please see my embedded comments below discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #51
collectors and people who live on farms. gejohnston Aug 2017 #29
Okay, lets do it like they do in Norway marylandblue Aug 2017 #34
Actually, no gejohnston Aug 2017 #35
You raised a lot of issues at once: Some questions and responses about that marylandblue Aug 2017 #38
I read and study the issue more gejohnston Aug 2017 #41
You brought up Brazil and Mexico, so fine they aren't relevant marylandblue Aug 2017 #45
Brazil and Mexico is relevant because of their GINI coefficents gejohnston Aug 2017 #46
Stories like this is why we must remain progressive on the 2A here in the USA. ileus Aug 2017 #20
Define "progressive on the 2a" please... eom Purveyor Aug 2017 #30
pardon the intrusion discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Unreal, Canadian being fu...»Reply #36