Reply #33: We have been informed by others(pro-gun control) [View All]

[Glassunion]

here that you cannot compare firearms with automobiles. They are designed for different purposes.

But that said, since you brought it up...

Advocates of increased gun restrictions like yourself try to promote the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied.

First is that you cannot overlook the fact that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property.

Another thing that is mostly overlooked when making the comparison is that no proof of "need" is required. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions(I bought my first car at 12) for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated.

Even though the total of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no arsenal license equivalent(registering collectors as firearms dealers) is asked of automobile collectors(Jay Leno) or motorcycle racing enthusiasts.

Also, I have yet to see anyone suggesting that we should have laws in place for the ability to sue the manufacturers of automobiles when they are misused by criminals, or cause harm from their negligent use.

Would you care if someone suggests banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the speed limit?

But since you brought up the comparison, I feel that I was given the green light to actually do that. So here is my comparison... Cars have good uses and so do firearms. I do not think that either should be regulated solely on the acts of criminals.