this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
121 points (76.9% liked)

Liberal Gun Owners

515 readers
1 users here now

A community for pro-gun liberals.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 82 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Funny comparing guns to cars. I need a drivers license to operate a car, something I will be tested for and have to renew regularly. A car has a registration number that is registered to me and a license plate with the state that gets renewed regularly. Also insurance is required, the cost of which goes up if I'm irresponsible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 57 points 2 months ago (55 children)

Man if only it was actually like how cars are regulated.

Required training, tests, insurance needs and has to be safe for others.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And you can't take an F1 car out anywhere.except a track.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean you can but it would need a lot of modifications first.

Not that you can get most of them going on your own anyway

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Pfft, what are cops gonna do, pull me over? Im in a freaking F1 car, good luck!

Follow me for more life-hacks.

[–] randomsnark@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

I can't follow you, you're too fast

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago

If only cars were actually regulated like we pretend they are...

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (13 children)

What an interesting concept. Insuring the gun owner could really have merit. Then you’d have a company who would be very heavily invested in the responsibility of the gun owner, as well as needing a record of firearms owned to be insured.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (17 children)

You'd also have pressure on firearms manufacturers and regulatory bodies because the insurance companies covering the owners would do everything in their power to shift blame away from their customers, so as to avoid paying out on the policies. Suddenly you have a lot of money behind preventing accidental discharge, etc

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (52 replies)
[–] Preflight_Tomato@lemm.ee 47 points 2 months ago (8 children)

...killed 10 people on the interstate.

Regardless of the rest, this is like saying that guns would be confiscated because someone shot 10 people at a shooting range.

If it were a regular occurrence that people were driving cars through classrooms, like it is with shooting into them, then the conversation around regulating cars would look a lot more similar to the one about guns.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The biggest difference is you need to have a license for a car and it needs to be registered, and in most places you have to have insurance to cover any damage you may cause. None of this is true for gun ownership, despite a car being nearly required for life in the US and a gun being a toy for most people, or at best a tool that is used for one particular job.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

The biggest difference is you need to have a license for a car

I agree and made a similar comment on this post but you can buy a car without a license in every US state. It's the driving part that requires a license. It's a nitpick but still applies given the conversation around gun control is focused mostly on the purchase side of things.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

To drive that car, she had to take a class, get experience under an instructor/valid driver, take a paper test, take a practical test.

This is not the gotcha you think it is. As a gun owner, I'm for responsible gun control, and this meme is anti-gc.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

also there are different licenses for different classes of vehicles.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And driving licenses are far too easy to get as well.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Just because jt was easy for you doesn't mean it was easy for everybody else.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] glorkon@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Not trying to compare these two things, but as a German it always stroke me as odd that many Americans will go to any lengths in order to defend their right to bear arms, but they all totally accept the fact that there's not a single highway in the US without a speed limit.

In Germany, it seems to be the other way round. Noone really cares that guns are strictly regulated but most people will fiercely oppose the introduction of speed limits with the same level of fanaticism of American gun nuts.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago

Tbf, the limit on how many bullets you can legally fire (outside of defense of life or great bodily injury) in public is "0" so technically there is a limit on that too.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Funny, the only politician I've ever heard actually talk about taking away/seizing guns was Donald Trump

They must all really hate him for that, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dry_Monk@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

But for real though, maybe we do also get rid of cars? Why not build more public transit and less drunk driving accidents? The only especially bad part of this is the police.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'm up for banning all cars slowly.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Right? Good policy means you look at issues and try to fix them systemically.

I don't think cars should be removed at gunpoint, but if we could have a more robust and clean public health transportation system which would naturally phase out cars, I'm for it. Give us fucking decent high-speed rail.

And for the guns, at minimum give people health care including mental healthcare

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Luckily there is not a word in the constitution about em!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Neon@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

make up stories

It's an analogy, that's how they work.

And it's not a really flawed one. But the big difference is that Cars are tools, they have legitimate and important usecases outside killing people and they are much harder to kill people with since it's relatively easy to flee from a car, they tend to get stuck in tight spaces

Which imo makes cars okay to own.

But yes, cars are also super dangerous, look at the Christmas-market attacks over here in Europe. And nobody wants to ban cars.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I like the implication that guns are equal to cars in terms of necessity. Some people can't leave their homes without driving, and some people (cowards) can't leave their suburban house without their emotional support weapon.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 10 points 2 months ago

I agree that cars are over-dispensed.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

This is some peak dumb shit.

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I enjoy and own guns. Ive used them for hunting, I’ve used one in self defense (no shots fired). Sensible laws regarding guns are just fine by me.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Yep, I own 4 pistols and 1 revolver, and I still think we need a lot more gun control.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] starlord@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

This argument is bad and you should feel bad

[–] ultramaven@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The 2nd amendment literally doesn’t provide them the right to a weapon.

If it did, particularly for the reason they say, literally killing a politician would be legal if you could prove “their tyranny”. That’s the biggest load of bullshit.

It’s a simple provision that provides the States with the right to arm their own militias.

So many chode Americans believe “theyre the miltia!!!”. The government also defines that, though, and it’s … not everyone. Its only males 18-45, and women in the Guard. That’s it. So the only people the 2nd amendment could even begin to logically and legally allow a weapon are healthy, able bodied males 18-45 and trained women. And they don’t really need to prove theyre able bodied, so every fat guy with a gun is breaking constitutional law

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›