[ExI] The future of the Second Ammendment
msd001 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 30 20:23:33 UTC 2012
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com> wrote:
>> when I/others fail to operate the vehicle safely) Why is gun ownership less
>> burdensome than car ownership? I make this case because more people are
>> killed by auto than by wanton gun violence... so it seems we would get more
>> "utility" by revoking the right of automobile ownership - but _that's_
>> outright absurdity, yes?
> I am surprised to read this on this list.
> In the United States, you may legally own and operate a car
> without any licensing or scrutiny of either you or the car, if you
> are on private property. There may be jurisdictions where this
> is not true, but it generally holds. Certainly it is true in the
> five states I've lived in.
> So to treat guns like cars, those would be the only requirements
> for ownership, carry, and use of firearms on private property.
I don't know anyone with a 500,000 acre ranch. Many kids in urban and
even suburban areas lack enough private property to park a car, much
less learn to drive one.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that gun ownership should be modeled
solely on car ownership - only to compare with the
registration&insurance nonsense associated with a car, that it might
be made similarly (or more) annoying to own guns.
If gun clubs wanted to rent assault rifles to patrons for the thrill
of burning up hundreds of dollars worth of ammo, I think they should
be allowed to do so. In that context, they're likely to have even
more strict rules for who is allowed and what level of responsibility
they must prove in order to afforded access. I would also expect that
the guns registered to a club would create for them a liability if
they were ever 'misplaced' and used in a crime - so they'd likely put
considerable effort into securing their weapons too. (aside even from
the fact that such items would be capital expenses or operating costs)
I live in a state (PA) that still has "state stores" to control the
purchase of wine and distilled spirits. We also can't even purchase
OTC meds with pseudoephedrine on the chance someone is clever enough
to use them in a manner inconsistent with labeling and cook 'em down
into meth. This is another example where 99% of the population uses
products as-intended, but then loses the opportunity to do so because
a small minority violates the responsible usage expectation.
More information about the extropy-chat