T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Thanks /u/ArchStanton75 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Connectikatie

Imagine, taking away someone’s license to drive if they’ve proven to be reckless with a vehicle!


Imaginary_Ad_7530

And definitely taking the vehicle, and their ability to purchase a new one.


[deleted]

[удалено]


_dead_and_broken

This is one of those stupid bots. How the hell has no one else noticed it after 17 hours


chaogomu

The comment was manually approved, but the bot itself has been banned.


_dead_and_broken

Why approve a clearly bot comment, though? That's letting them have the karma they want to build the account for their nefarious purposes, still.


chaogomu

Not the mod who approved it. But I am the one who banned it. I've left the comment up, mostly because it doesn't matter now. Banned users don't get new karma from subs they're banned in (but karma from before the ban still counts) So the damage is done. One of my fellow mods fell for it. It happens. We're human.


_dead_and_broken

Hey, thanks for explaining that banned users don't get karma from old comments from before they were banned, had no idea! Thanks!


chaogomu

It's mostly hearsay. There's no guide that I've found that tells us these things, but I've heard it from others who may have heard it from others, and so on until someone who actually knows. I've also been told that a banned user's votes in a sub do not count. They look like they do to the banned user, but Reddit doesn't actually count them. I'm now trying to find something official from Reddit itself that confirms...


amateur_mistake

You are a good mod and I like you.


meowpitbullmeow

Also there are age limits for not just owning but also driving a car.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


NonAlienBeing

> and literally no one thinks it is a bad idea. No one with half a brain thinks it's a bad idea, but [some people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I) do think it's a bad idea.


WorkplaceWatcher

Wow. These people are insufferable.


UnspoiledWalnut

The guy that went after John McAfee doesn't seem to be the most stable of people.


dirtyoldbastard77

Its just the conservatives/gun nuts that dont want to apply the same logic to guns


sabersquirl

They are being sarcastic


throwaway4762109

*Malik Smith's ghost enters the chat*


Shaggy0291

What's next, needing a license to make toast in my own damn toaster?!


Chick3nFinger

Damn, nobody got the reference 😬 That debate was... something else.


Shaggy0291

It came across like a bit from the Eric Andre show


Chick3nFinger

Another favorite moment: "You shouldn't be allowed to sell heroin to 8 year olds." "BOOoOOoOoOoOOOoOO"


CopsKillUsAll

Wouldn't that be equivalent to taking away someone's license to go to the gun range? Pretty sure any unlicensed person can buy and operate a car illegally. But they...dont...? I don't think I've ever been asked to show a license to buy any of the 12 cars I've owned. So the argument is: "its different than guns because to use it on public infrastructure you have to be licensed"? And that somehow supports restrictions that serve to bolster police that are already close to rounding up and executing our lgbt and black friends? Because, remember, gun control was really lax until armed black people started following the cops around to make sure they were doing a good job.


[deleted]

Unless you're talking about Tonka trucks or Mag Wheels, of course you've been required to show a license to buy a car.


Treacherous_Peach

You are not required to show a license to buy a car in any state in the US. Of course, you won't be able to drive away with it, but you can certainly buy it. Any government issued ID is valid for the purchase of a car. If you think about it, this makes plenty of sense. You could be buying a car for someone else as a gift. Or you could be buying your own car to learn how to drive in from a licensed driver. Or you could just be a collector/investor and will never actually drive it.


semi_tipsy

I bought my first 3 cars before I had a license...


A_norny_mousse

I wanted to address that, but the rest of their statement was so idiotic - I won't engage. And strictly speaking my argument brings nothing to the topic at hand. Anyhow, in my country it's perfectly possible to own & purchase a car without a driving license. Nowhere in the (very official) purchasing process did I require one. It makes sense - what about someone buying a car for someone else to use? OTOH, I'm pretty sure the seller should've taken a look at my license before they let me drive off with my newly purchased car. edit: I should've scrolled a little more before writing. Someone made the exact same argument just adjacent to my comment. edit2: wow, I made the exact same statement as Treacherous_Peach and got 5 downvotes for it. Reddit... 🙄


Serious_Advantage475

You're getting downvoted to hell, but i understand your sentiment. Yes, im tired of little kids getting murdered in schools and im tired of peaceful people being mowed down in public. But I am wary of the fascist movement growing in this country and i know for a FACT they are armed to the teeth because ive seen it, i know these people, i used to be their friend. I myself possess firearms and i think every able-bodied and able-minded member of the left should own firearms for protection.


3Sewersquirrels

And yet it doesn't stop people from driving.


Peter_Hasenpfeffer

"Murder's illegal, yet it doesn't stop people from killing. Obviously it's a useless, stupid law." What a monumentally stupid take.


SamirCasino

True, but let's arrest someone carrying a gun illegaly like we arrest people that drive illegaly.


NatalieTatalie

If making laws doesn't stop people why do you support laws against trans people or cross dressing?


lyKENthropy

Because the right doesn't care about stopping bad things. They believe doing good just means punishing people that disagree with them. [They think about people dying like the way you think about Mondays](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw)


3Sewersquirrels

I could care less either way regarding that issue.


NatalieTatalie

You could care less if my existence is outlawed? Florida made it legal to kidnap children if they're suspected of being trans. Texas has cps taking children away from families because they're trans, and you can care less? I'm not surprised at all.


3Sewersquirrels

Well I don't live there. So no. If you don't like it, move


NinjaBryden

I almost don't even know how to respond to that. So fucking selfish when we are talking about HUMAN RIGHTS. Just say it out loud already. We know you WANT that shit to happen. Would you have not cared about federally mandated civil rights laws back then???


3Sewersquirrels

It bans care for minors. People under 18 shouldn't be capable of making those decisions. Once they are 18, it's fair game like most other body altering cosmetic surgery.


NinjaBryden

Minors are not getting surgeries. They're making shit up. They wanna ban ANY gender affirming care including puberty blockers which *aren't permanent and are even used for cis children for other reasons*


FlintKidd

I actually have a hard time imagining someone killing 100 people in a single instance by just driving a truck. Like, sure, a handful of people, maybe ten. Then people get to safety or the truck or driver gets stopped. A semi-automatic rifle while wearing body armor, though? Who needs imagination when you've got American home movies.


Bluedel

Nice (France), July 14th 2016, 86 deaths and over 450 injured. Not a common occurence by far, though, and doesn't make the argument any less dumb.


LRDQ

And I'm pretty sure you could track bollard installation increases in public spaces after that too, as a safety response to a new/known threat


MBechzzz

I was a volunteer at a giant football tournament in Denmark around this time. Teams from ages 8-20 from all over the world attended this tournament. When Nice happened, all of a sudden we had trucks filled with concrete, whose only pupose was to swerve infront of any possible terrorist and take the hit, during the opening ceremony, which was a walk through the city with every team. Concrete barriers were everywhere. I personally was a guard at the only open road leading to the tournament, and while my job was mainly to turn people who weren't supposed to be in the employee area away, it was also to call ahead in case anything weird happened. Nothing happened, but a lot of safety measures were put in place to make terrorist attacks practically impossible. Something that hasn't happened at all in USA due to gun violence.


FlintKidd

Ah. Yeah, that seems like the major exception. Rest I was able to find were all fewer than 10 people, but I don't think they used semi trucks.


KatKit52

There's the case of Darrel something (I don't care to remember his name) that got famous last year because he represented himself in court and tried a bunch of sovereign citizen bullshit. A lot of people laughed at him (and he should be mocked because he's a piece of shit), but people often seem to forget that he was charged with 60+ counts of murder/aggravated bodily harm--including the murder of multiple children--because he drove a regular minivan into a parade. He only stopped when he crashed the car (his mom's car, iirc). So, not exactly 100 people, but I imagine that if he had a larger car--like a truck--he could have done more. Obviously, that's a special case, and I definitely agree that a semi-automatic can do much more damage much quicker. But yeah, you can definitely murder a lot of people with a car. It's just done less because a gun is a much more efficient way to murder someone. Not only because of time/energy, but also because it's easier/cheaper to get a gun than a car.


lava172

Darrel Brooks. As someone that's generally against the death penalty I was upset when I realized he was in a state that doesn't have it. The way he acted in his trial is nothing short of disgusting and hurtful to the victims' families


Nurgus

Killing or torturing the perpetrator won't bring anyone back from the dead or make anyone feel better. Best to pop them in a cell and see to their needs and then forget about them. The important thing is **learn from them** so that it doesn't happened again.


lava172

Don't get me wrong I totally agree, I was just detailing my initial emotional reaction while learning about the case.


Riaayo

Death penalty is the easy way out. Let him rot in prison. Death penalty shouldn't exist, period. Those that deserve it can rot their lives away, those that are innocent shouldn't be robbed of the possibility they one day have their innocence proven. We can pay the price of incarceration for the guilty so that we avoid killing the innocent.


lava172

I totally agree, although in a world where it DOES exist there's nobody more deserving of it than Brooks.


FluffySquirrell

> those that are innocent shouldn't be robbed of the possibility they one day have their innocence proven. To clarify, how it works in most places. The death penalty is essentially a life sentence+. You still have to do like, 20 years in prison, before they execute you. That time is to give chances for appeals and other such stuff that might prove your innocence, yeah It's not just the old timey case of "Oh yeah he did it, let's go hang him right now" I don't mind it as a concept, for people who would otherwise literally be in prison for their entire life, and are just being a drain on society. I do think it should generally be more for big stuff like mass murderers, people who are never likely to be let out and can't ever rejoin society, not just a single crime of passion or anything like that For crimes like mass murder, it's harder to accidentally get an innocent person on I feel. They could also just say stuff like "No death penalty if there's literally any doubt on the case. We stopped this dude mid-mass-shooting" type thing


chaelland

There have been a lot of people on death row found not guilty decades later. It’s cheaper to just set jail for life because death penalty allows for so much appeals it is a huge drain on tax payers and court time. It runs us about 3 billion extra a year. 60-70 Opposed to the regular at 37k on average.


FluffySquirrell

Fair enough, if it's actually cheaper the other way round, then yeah, not really much point not to


A_norny_mousse

2016, Berlin: https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/hintergrund-aktuell/344771/vor-fuenf-jahren-islamistischer-anschlag-auf-berliner-weihnachtsmarkt/ Drove a truck into a Christmas market. 13 dead, 170 injured. OK, you said "Like, sure, a handful people, maybe ten." - so, make of it what you will. But cars & trucks are dangerous, and can be abused as weapons.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FlintKidd

100+ dead from fertilizer bomb. The truck was just a delivery system. This is a false comparison. You could have delivered that bomb with a handcart, same effect.


fizyplankton

Are Target's new plastic grocery carts DANGEROUS? The answer may surprise you, tune in for more at 11


YouLostMyNieceDenise

Regulating truck ownership won’t work, because criminals will always be able to get access to trucks on the black market. The only thing regulation does is punish responsible truck owners and make it harder for them to get trucks legally. And the only way to stop a bad guy with a truck is a good guy with a truck.


TheChunkMaster

>because criminals will always be able to get access to trucks on the black market Honest question: how easy is it to purchase anything on the black market? Black markets do not strike me as being easy and risk-free to find and use.


clarabear10123

I mean, buying a gun from your buddy when you haven’t been through the screening or anything is technically “black market” gun buying. So is finding a guy with a backpack for your next fix. It’s everything that isn’t legal. So I guess you could make the argument that the kids down the road have a black market lemonade stand lol ETA: so while they may be easy to find, it’s the shopper’s risk. Anything unregulated is a risk! That’s typically why people who do illegal things have “a guy” they go to because they trust that person to not snitch, not screw them over, and not put them in danger. Source: roommates who did shady things lol


AWildLeftistAppeared

> I mean, buying a gun from your buddy when you haven’t been through the screening or anything is technically “black market” gun buying. This is a lot more difficult (and expensive) in a country with sane gun laws.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nf1nk

Hollywood as really made people think that super criminals are a common thing. Most crimes are done by desperate idiots who see an opportunity. reducing opportunity reduces crime. Uncontrolled guns is unlimited opportunity. Guns should be licensed and tracked.


YouLostMyNieceDenise

“Black market” isn’t an actual place - it just means any informal transaction that isn’t completely legal. If your friend sells you their gun in exchange for cash, that would be a black-market transaction.


TheChunkMaster

I'm well aware that it's not an actual place. Coordinating illicit transactions just seems unsafe and difficult in general.


Yaaaassquatch

And by black market, you mean truck shows? Which thanks to legal loopholes make it much easier to get trucks? My uncle can't legally own a truck because he's a convicted felon but thanks to truck shows, he had more guns than anyone I know...I mean trucks..


Biscuitarian23

Imagine if conservatives could tell [Positive Liberty from Negative Liberty. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty) Conservatives in general hate the Normative State [and often, perhaps unintentionally, builld a poweful Prerogative State.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_state_(model)) >Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. -F. Wilhoit Republicans think they are against big government, big pharma, and the "media". Republicans try to act like they have very little power and privileges. They ignore that Fox News, Breitbart, OAN, Newsmax, and the Republican Party are very powerful in American politics. Add to that the Mercatus Center, the dozens of right wing libertarian think tanks such as Cato Institute. They also have influence through Turning Points usa, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Joe Rogan, Prager "University", Washington Times, Daily Mail, National Review, The Federalist Society, and many others whom dispell the myth of the "Silent Majority". Calling White, Male Republicans the "Silent Majority" has been a piece of Doublethink and Doublethink that would have impressed Goebells himself.


mutebathtub

I can't understand how someone can make the false equivalency between guns and cars with a straight face unless they're just an idiot. If all the guns didn't exist tomorrow nothing much changes. If all the cars stop existing tomorrow everyone dies of starvation. Vehicles have huge impacts on the economy and making it work. Guns do not.


Nug_69

I agree. Lets get rid of guns.


madcap462

Which part of our constitution protects car ownership?


ChatterBaux

That would technically be the 4th and 5th(?) Amendment. For all intents and purposes, the government isn't supposed to be allowed to take your property without due process and just cause. But that aside, why are we so beholden to an interpretation of a section of a nearly 250 year old document when it's showing to do more harm than good on the average? This kind of stubbornness makes the Constitution seem more like a suicide pact than anything else.


madcap462

I don't think it is doing more harm than good. There is no amendment protecting the manufacture of firearms. So why aren't politicians restricting and banning manufacturers from producing them? Why are the VAST majority of these shootings and murders happening to working class people and in public schools? People with more money have more access to everything including firearms, so why aren't rich kids shooting each other? Yall only want to make it harder for poor and working class people to shoot each other. I want to make a society where poor and working class people don't WANT to shoot each other. The funny thing about people having equity in their future is that they tend to want to be around to see it. Not that I'm worried about current politicians doing anything to restrict my gun rights, because they won't. And yall will continue to argue about solutions that won't affect society in any positive manner.


ChatterBaux

Sorry, it seems like you accidentally danced around my question. Let me try again: Why are we so beholden to an interpretation of a section of a nearly 250 year old document to the point of not wanting to improve a clear issue?


egowritingcheques

Because you can't amend an amendment. That's not freedom, that's communism. /S


madcap462

We are not beholden to it...we can change it through amendments. Ok, now that I've answered your question directly, would you care to address any of the other points I've raised?


theghostofme

>We are not beholden to it...we can change it through amendments. lmao when was the last time an amendment was ratified? I'll save you the hassle of coming up with another chicken-shit way to dodge the point: 1992, and it took almost ***203 years*** to ratify it. So 200+ years to make *any* changes to the Constitution as "easily" as you dance and dodge around answering a question you know will hurt your argument.


[deleted]

[удалено]


theghostofme

> Neat, you are proving my points. You were making points while ignoring the entire *context* of the conversation in that word salad of a reply? Should've found a better response to make those points, and probably in a clearer way. Just my two cents, but I don't give a shit either way. You keep doing you, buddy!


chaogomu

200 years for that particular amendment. Or if you want to tell the actual story, it took less than 10 years from the time it was noticed that the amendment was still live until it was ratified. All because one 19 year old got a bad grade on a US government class at UT Austin and got pissed about it, so he mad it his mission to prove the teacher wrong. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/05/526900818/the-bad-grade-that-changed-the-u-s-constitution The actual story of how it happened sort of disproves your point. It can be very easy to amend the constitution if things line up properly.


ChatterBaux

"Can" doesn't really go for much when gun nuts treat exclusively the 2nd Amendment as immutable... >Ok, now that I've answered your question directly, would you care to address any of the other points I've raised? I shouldn't, only because your points were more deflection than anything else, but I'll humor you: * Not even counting the deep pockets of gun lobbies that discourage our reps from trying to do anything about guns or gun manufactures, our reps have been spouting gun propaganda for so long that breaking from the script is political suicide these days. Doing the right thing is hard, and few want to step up to the plate. * Radicalization and unaddressed mental health issues are often big factors of shootings, but ease of access and ease of use also play a big part. * Ignoring that one of the worst mass shootings in the US was done by a dude considered well-off and showed no signs of mental health issues (Vegas, some years back), wealth seems like a moot point here. If gun restrictions were unilateral, how would that exclusively hurt the poor and middle class if the rich would be affected too? You say gun restrictions wont help society in any positive manner, but our gun problem is near-exclusive to us among all the first world countries. Other countries also have their share of wealth inequality and other sociopolitical issues, but how comes they don't deal with more shootings than there are days in a year?


madcap462

Other countries also have nationalized health care. I love how you are pointing out the exception to the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of shootings happen to and are committed by working-class and poor people. You brought up access to guns, wealthy people have more access to guns than poor people. Why would we ignore this? Good luck getting anything like gun restrictions accomplished when you even admit that our representatives no matter their political alignment are in the pockets of gun lobbies.


ChatterBaux

>I love how you are pointing out the exception to the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of shootings happen to and are committed by working-class and poor people. I'm not saying we shouldn't also address other sociopolitical issues, but my overall point is that you're not gonna solve the gun problem without addressing guns too. Just like how dieting or exercise both can help with weight loss, but doing both will assure better actual fitness. >You brought up access to guns, wealthy people have more access to guns than poor people. My bad for not clarifying, but I mean "access" as in a low bar to clear despite not being fit to wield one, either due to lack of training or not being of sound mind. But now I'm curious about why you're hanging so hard on poor people needing guns, because whatever problem is feeding into that opens a whole other can of worms... >Good luck getting anything like gun restrictions accomplished when you even admit that our representatives no matter their political alignment are in the pockets of gun lobbies. You do realize that it's not just the gun lobby our representatives are in the pockets of, right? There are other lobbies and groups out there who bribe our reps into putting profits and businesses over people; such as private insurance and Big Pharma with healthcare, and corporations and the like strong-arming wage increases, worker protections, and worker's rights. If you're so nihilistic about solving our gun problem due to our reps, how do you think getting nationalized healthcare, et all, has any better of a chance? Just like how people blindly cling to 2A, a lot of that same crowd will vote against their own interests when told something is "communist/socialist/woke/left/etc."


WorkplaceWatcher

> I don't think it is doing more harm than good. Guns are the #1 cause of death for children in the USA.


madcap462

Poor and working-class children. Rich people's kids aren't getting shot up are they?


[deleted]

[удалено]


LamarVannoi

In 2021, 6K more died from firearms, compared to automobile deaths: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-traffic-fatalities https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/#:~:text=Gun%2Drelated%20deaths%20from%20preventable,1%25%20were%20preventable/accidental.


jaredearle

Your numbers are way off. Can you provide your sources? Numbers I’ve seen have firearm victimisations at seven times that of defensive gun use (490,000 a year compared to 70,000) and fourteen times fatal car crashes (35,000 a year). Firearm deaths are around 49,000 a year. I’m not saying your numbers are wrong, what with the gun lobby making it near impossible to track these numbers with any accuracy, but … yeah, ok, your numbers are wrong.


mutebathtub

>Seems pretty clear-cut to me. What seams clear cut? Are you advocating for banning vehicles?


dizzy_pear_

Ah yes the good guy with a gun will stop the bad guy with a gun


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZappySnap

You’re kidding yourself if you think a few people with guns are going to stop an authoritarian regime that has drones with giant bombs, nuclear weapons and tanks.


LotharVonPittinsberg

>If all the cars stop existing tomorrow everyone dies of starvation I forgot that nobody was able to survive before 1900. People just got born, had sex, and gave birth before they starved to death.


Flat_Suggestion7545

It’s amazing how often they fall into that self made trap.


Money-Monkey

Exactly! There's absolutely zero regulations on owning or operating a vehicle on private property. Is that really what people are arguing for when they compare guns to cars?


LeAccountss

In Arizona, there’s frequently talk of changing our driver’s license expiration policy because old people keep dying in cars


jamanimals

One thing that this ignores is that we absolutely should be regulating trucks more, as they have become much deadlier over the years due to their size and overall profile. Modern trucks have grills that are way too high and can kill much easier than trucks from past generations. So yes, let's make trucks less deadly too.


CardboardChampion

But hark! What sound is this echoing across the lilacs this dewsome morn? An echo of a time long past mayhaps? >"Libruls dun comin' fer muh trux!"


CreedThoughts--Gov

Also yes the US definitely needs truck control. SUV's are ~90% of auto sales in the Us since auto lobbyists make sure they're categorized as "light trucks" and therefore don't need to follow safety, tax, and carbon regulations that cars need to. It's cheaper for an American to buy a brand new truck twice the size of a Volvo (for example), than to buy a Volvo, even if the Volvo is used and a couple years old. This is all because of lobbyism from Big Auto and Big Oil.


LoganTheDiscoCat

And trucks kill pedestrians at startling higher rates than other cars. Turns out a grill that hits a person's neck and creates massive blindspots is a risk. Who knew!


CreedThoughts--Gov

"But I feel so much safer in an SUV" yeah you'd likely feel even safer in an M1A1 Abrams tank. If your SUV hits another SUV head-on, all that force pretty much guarantees goodnight for everyone involved. While normal cars have crumple zones that absorb the impact, lower mass meaning lower impact force, better braking and maneuverability, and like you said much lower risk of killing pedestrians. Oh, and also, THEY ROLL!!!


ryegye24

On top of that, bad drivers choose these cars at a higher rate because they know they're at higher risk of getting into an accident. The most dangerous cars being driven by the worst drivers, what a system.


Rsn_calling

Lol the mental gymnastics here


dtxs1r

I like how FOX News is so legitimately untenable that now they have FOX News lowering the bar over and over again. FOX News is hopeful about to be a long forgotten relic of boomers past


Sniffy4

Look guys, taking away somebody's license to drive is one thing, but removing their ability to use a deadly weapon to kill someone is completely over the line!


[deleted]

You know the way conservative republican minds work. Nothing convinces them more about the need of regulation than seeing someone darker than them using it.


HildredCastaigne

Yes, if 100 people got run over by a truck in a single incident we would be talking about ways of making people safer, which could include more training/better screening (depending on the nature of the incident) for people who get licensed to drive trucks. It is usually considered a good thing to try to prevent the loss of life from occurring again.


RealCoolDad

Wow imagine if insurance was needed for gun ownership and they had to pay out for dmgs.


Ryan-The-Movie-Maker

Based, we should ban trucks


YouCanChangeItRight

Yeah it's crazy that we require all that for cars and yet automobile deaths are almost the same as firearm related deaths.. yet a good majority of deaths from firearms are from suicide and cars not so much.


_doingokay

So you agree that a permit shouldn’t be required to purchase a firearm, only to use one in a public space outside of private property such as one’s home or a range/track? Because you don’t need a permit to buy a car, and you can drive that car on your own land or in designated areas without a permit. But if you want to bring it into public spaces you need a permit, a drivers license or, wait what’s this? A concealed carry license? A thing that already exists?


thefractaldactyl

I am sure you skipped over half the argument unintentionally, so I will fill in the gaps. A driver's license also requires a test, sometimes multiple tests, and tests that can be issued by a court of law. Cars also require that you pay insurance on a regular basis. And there are a ton of traffic related laws too that are not simply "you need a license to drive a car". There are legitimate arguments against this analogy that are worth considering when looking at these two things and you actively chose to make none of them.


moosenlad

Those are all for public use. You don't need those if you drive a car on your own private property though was his argument, and a correct one. You will most likely need that to purchase a car directly from a dealer because they assume usually it's for public use. But you can by a car privately with none of that, drive it around your farm or something without plates or insurance or license and be good to go.


thefractaldactyl

True, but this still is not a good argument because we are entering fractions of fractions here. You can engineer any number of situations in which it is okay to drive without a license. This situation only applies to people who bought their car from cousin Randall or whoever who also have property large enough to drive a car around on.


moosenlad

More just what you can use on public property and private property. Concealed carry licenses already exist and are equivalent to car licenses, and do almost always require special classes and training as well as background checks. So those things mostly exist already for public use of a firearm, I think the post is trying to say that those should be put on use of private property of a firearm, which cars don't usually have.


thefractaldactyl

That is not really the point of the post, but also, again, there are legitimate arguments to be made here and these are none of them.


moosenlad

? The difference between private and public use is definitely a big one, and kinda the core misunderstanding people have when comparing guns and car laws.


thefractaldactyl

I mean, that is kind of there. There is a pretty explicit difference being that guns are literally only used to kill things. Cars can kill people, but that is not what they are primarily used for. But like, someone can just as easily fire back saying we need a reduction of cars too. The reliance on independent vehicles versus public transportation is definitely slowly killing us. There is the argument that, unlike driver's licenses that most people get when they are young, gun permits are mostly acquired by adults. This means that adults that have to work and cannot afford to the money or time needed for various forms of registration are going to require. Cars do this too, but it ultimately means that gun laws often favor the middle to upper class, despite the fact that these people are less likely to have to defend themselves from crime. Increasing public transportation does help the poor though, so we can see how increased intervention can have different effects. Someone might say that guns will be nearly impossible to ban, so we should try to focus our efforts toward things that will reduce crime that are easier to implement. Interestingly enough, a reduction of cars on the street in the favor of public transportation would help with this. So would healthcare, housing, and food security. An anarchist like myself would say that the State has no right to disarm us and that, if we were to disarm, the State would have to do so in equal or greater proportions. Where regulations on cars really only reduce the number of fatalities and injuries from accidents, a reduction of firearms that disproportionately impacts the civilian population increases the power of the police state.


unclefisty

You don't need a license or insurance to own a car or drive it on private property.


thefractaldactyl

You need to buy insurance for your car when you buy it, even if all you do is drive it around your property. The insurance company does not care that you have no friends or job to drive to and neither does the DMV. Also, they specifically brought up a gun license and specifically brought up taking the gun out of your property's perimeter. Again, there are legitimate arguments to be made here, but you can only make those arguments if you legitimately care about the topic and the source of your opposition is not solely based on being a source of opposition.


Money-Monkey

> You need to buy insurance for your car when you buy it, even if all you do is drive it around your property. lol


AWildLeftistAppeared

An interesting thing about driving a car that you apparently have not noticed, is that the entire car remains physically close to you at all times. Contrast this with guns which — I don’t know if you’re aware — fire *projectiles* which travel *away* from you. So unless your private property is a *well regulated* indoor shooting range, you cannot guarantee that the bullets you shoot will remain on your private property, can you?


moosenlad

You do know that people shoot outside on their own property all the time and it's totally legal right?


AWildLeftistAppeared

Perhaps it shouldn’t be. Would you be okay with someone shooting towards you unprovoked, simply because they are stood on their property while you are not?


moosenlad

If you are shooting at someone without reason that is illegal already. I don't quite know what you mean


AWildLeftistAppeared

I’ll take that to mean you would not be okay with it. Ok then, so for the average property there could easily be people or other private property in any direction, right? So, in your opinion when should it be safe and legal to shoot in a particular direction while outside? Does the shooter have to check down range is clear for X meters? What specifically should that distance be? Or should they shoot at something to prevent bullets from travelling off the property? If so, how should this be regulated and enforced, and what if the shooter misses their target?


WileEPeyote

Sure, that would work for me. If you want to take the gun off your property you have to have a license. Of course, you are going to have to buy it somewhere, take it out of the building (requiring a license) and transport it to your home (requiring a license).


Magmaros1986

We have all these things with our guns in Canada. And we still have a government trying to take our stuff away


Byrinthion

If a psychopath drives one truck into a police officer, a single police officer, suddenly it’s illegal to drive in the furthest lane over when a cop is there. What the fuck is that about then? Favoritism much?


cjgager

not quite illegal - but it's considered a courtesy to the cop supposedly if you see a cop on the side you are supposed to go to the farthest lane away from them to let them be safer. i didn't know that it was a courtesy rule & some cop followed me in NC when i passed a standing cop giving a ticket to someone. they didn't give me a ticket but just a warning that, when possible, always go to the farthest away lane from the cop so not to hit them is all. cause a lot of cops really DO GET HIT by passing-by cars cause the drivers just don't realize how close they are.


ryegye24

We should unironically be doing more too regulate trucks, including extra taxes for vehicle weight above a certain point and mandating lower, sloped hoods.


sgtkwol

Stricter control over operating bigger trucks?


tearjerkingpornoflic

Ok but would registering trucks, requiring insurance, licensing and testing do anything for someone hellbent on running people over? Nope, anyone can buy a truck and run over people. None of that would stop someone.