Skip to main content

View Diary: Firearms should be regulated like cars (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  actually, that's not what I said. (5+ / 0-)

    the author wants gun laws mirror cars? fine. no federal registration, and no state regulation or registration at all unless its brought on public property.

    •  No, but we do have a system for insurance (6+ / 0-)

      that works pretty well for most cars.

      Honestly, if a gun lives in a private safe and never comes onto public land, is it really a problem?

      I actually think that a variant of what the author is proposing could work.

      •  I don't think a car needs to be insured and a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, gerrilea

        person doesn't need to be licensed to carry it on public roads. I see them all the time.

        There are just about now laws or requirements at all for carrying a car on public roads. As long as it's attached to whatever you are carrying it with and you are carrying it with a trailer of suitable capacity, you're good.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:15:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, lets add this into the mix: Homeowner's ins. (7+ / 0-)

          IF you have a mortgage, you MUST have insurance. Why? To protect the holder of the paper if the home is lost to accident.

          That's a material thing that isn't used to harm another (you don't take a house to a gun fight).

          Yet in the case of weapons, they not only STEAL MONEY from someone when they are killed (their life's net worth, particularly in the case of a bread winner), they steal the life itself.

          It seems to me if we are going to force insurance for inanimate things not used to harm, we should insure for things MADE to harm.

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:53:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bad example (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Remembering Jello

            Whether I need title insurance or not is at the discretion of the mortgage giver, a private decision, not a matter of law.

            We can have change for the better.

            by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:34:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not title insurance, homeowners' insurance (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ebrann, radical simplicity

              Title insurance is only to make sure the house is really mine and the bank's, in the event I go to sell it (title insurance is a must with all the foreclosures these days - my HOA foreclosed on a home 3 years ago and the idiots at the bank keep trying to serve the non-existent homeowner, because somebody STILL hasn't updated the title work - stupid because in public records it clearly shows the HOA is the owner).  

              I'm required to carry liability, property and windstorm by my mortgage company - it protects me if somebody is injured on my property and protects the asset that I own with the bank in the event of fire or hurricane, so we can rebuild it and they get to keep collecting their mortgage payments.  

              My mother has no mortgage, but I keep liability, property and sinkhole insurance on her house.  My insurance is $3,000 / year, her's is $800 / year (windstorm is the difference).  

              If somebody trips and falls while working in / on my house or her house (or some crazy golfer beans one of guests in the backyard and knocks them out), our liability coverage takes care of any potential claim (and in Florida, one of the "sue me" states, you better believe a suit would be filed, even by the best of friends).

              My dad owned two .38s and a shotgun (I have them now).  He had a CC permit, I do not.  I keep the .38s in a locked box, hidden in a "safe pocket" in my house (that's not locked but it requires moving a large item and taking out a hidden door to get to it).  I don't need to get to them quickly and I don't want anybody else to get to them easily.  My liability insurance is a little bit higher than it was before I brought them home and registered them in my name after he passed away.  My mom's GL went down a little bit after I cancelled his CC permit and removed them from her house.  The difference is less than $50 for each of us.  

              My brother in law (an Iraq vet) used to work at a gun shop, before he got on with the Fire Department.  He told me I should trade in the .38s for a Lady Glock.  I do not feel the need.  I don't foresee ever using them - probably should just sell them, but since I can't guarantee that the registration would be updated, I don't want one of them being used in a robbery and coming back to me.  So I just keep them locked away where they can't be used against me physically or theoretically via paperwork / lawsuit.  

              "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

              by Ricochet67 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:54:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Errr... the mortgage holder has the right to (0+ / 0-)

            ensure that if the property they are still owed money for is destroyed, they can collect the money owed...

            I really don't see the parallel with gun ownership here, unless someone has to take out a mortgage on a gun...

    •  So.... (4+ / 0-)

      You buy your gun at a store...then it goes on public property to get to your bunker..Therefore the gun was on public property ...register and insure...

      Do something...marinedefenders.com

      by profewalt on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:33:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh good grief. This is silly. (7+ / 0-)

      Guns aren't cars.

      Sometimes this acts to the bennifit of gun owners.

      For example, just like some miniscule number of car owners might benifit from never driving their cars on public roads, so too gun owners would benifit by being not being required to have their guns equipped with seat belts and air bags.

      Talking about regulating guns like other consumer products such as cars doesn't have to mean engaging in silliness.

      It just means that we recognize that guns are dangerous consumer products.

    •  How about this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      guns don't need insurance unless their range is such that the bullet can reach public areas.

      If you use them in the middle of a huge ranch ... no insurance.

      If you can shoot them up in the air and the bullet can land in a public place possibly injuring someone then liability insurance is necessary.

      Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

      by Da Rock on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:53:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  and no licenses to own (0+ / 0-)

      My mom inherited my dad's car, and learned how to drive at a later date.

      We can have change for the better.

      by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:33:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (22)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site