The firearms subreddit is really unhinged

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

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
- Pfft, what are cops gonna do, pull me over? Im in a freaking F1 car, good luck!
  Follow me for more life-hacks.
  
  I can't follow you, you're too fast
  
  Or they'll wait for tires to go off or it to rain if on slicks 😂
  
  Not a vehicle on the planet faster than a radio.
  
  There is a saying from the “olden days” that nobody outruns Motorola (the radio company).
  
  I already got a free tank because of you.
  This guy is legit!

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

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.

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
- You'd also have a lot of people who simply couldn't afford to be covered because they are obviously unstable jackasses that have no business owning a fucking sharp pencil, let alone a gun, and an insurance company would be able to spot that in about five seconds.
- You'd also increase the cost of responsible ownership considerably, while irresponsible owners would be largely unaffected...
  
  Irresponsible owners would have the highest rates. I think they’d be the most affected.
  
  I think he means that criminals are going to not pay anything and that you’re punishing a percentag of the gun owners that are doing it legally.
  
  I mean... yeah, any meaningful regulation isn't really going to have the greatest effect on those who do their best to skirt it. But as our society is based on financial incentive, it gives those with economic power more reason to invest in proper enforcement.
  You won't have perfect enforcement of anything. But giving up because of the minor inconvenience it might impose on the "good guy with a gun" is counterproductive.
  
  But those criminals would then have an additional, easy to prove charge against them. Directly to jail.
  
  There's no such thing as criminals and non-criminals. Humans are fragile and their mental state constantly changes. That's the problem with gun ownership.
  
  Is that how it works with cars? Or do they just drive around without insurance?
  
  That’s how it works with cars. Moving violations increase the cost of insurance. Driving an uninsured vehicle could cost you your license.
  
  Yet it still happens often enough that "uninsured motorist" coverage is not only available, but commonly accepted as essential.
  
  Since we’re doing cars here despite that not being close …. -Just like unlicensed drivers, uninsured motorists, unregistered vehicles result in jail time, so would the lack of firearm insurance.
  just like car insurance is enforced at registration, tax, time of purchase, so can firearm insurance
  it even solves unregulated sales: insurance ends when you prove you no longer have it, such as a receipt for selling it or a police report for it being stolen.
  
  If uninsured drivers is such a solved problem, why is it necessary to have "uninsured motorist" coverage? And it may frighten you to know that when I was young and unlicensed, I stole my mom's car and went on a week long multi state joyride without being caught.
  
  It certainly happens. Uninsured motorist coverage is part of the solution, as is giving licenses to undocumented aliens . However most importantly, if you did get caught doing anything, that’s a couple more infractions you’d be up for, and likely jail time (and good dint need any effort to prove it)
Right, and my life insurance should be able to hold a claim against their insurance, or everything they own. That way my insurance doesn’t go up with their recklessness and my heirs don’t need to deal with the legalities
You're just creating a tax on the poor for them to practice a constitutional right. Insurance providers 1. Aren't going to pay out anyway, that's their whole thing, so much like health insurance, it's money being thrown away every month, and 2. You're adding another middleman from an industry most people think is greedy/corrupt AF, and why would that ever be a good thing? Plus, you know damn well once the insurance companies get involved, all of a sudden minority gun ownership numbers are going to drop because, mysteriously, all of their premiums shot up overnight for totally ~~racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic~~ unknown reasons.
I'm all for requiring more training, or licensing, background checks should be required for every gun sale, I'm just saying this to show I fully support gun control measures.
Require more training, but it needs to be made affordable. Every gun control bill is just banning firearm models, or limiting magazine capacities, or whatever. None of them every talk about subsidizing firearms training for those who need or want it. Even my blue state only requires one 8-hour class and one live-fire test to get your conceal carry permit, and the instructors even talked about how people ask about taking further training, but when they hear the cost and time (almost all the classes require taking time off work, which some can't do) involved, they just say they can't afford it and they'll just watch YouTube or whatever.
Edit: Not sure how "creating an unnecessary monetary barrier turns a constitutional right into a constitutional privilege for the rich, all while enrichening a corrupt industry that will absolutely fuck this up" is such a controversial take, especially when I've added that training courses should be mandatory and subsidized so that finances aren't a barrier...
- Just like the constitutional right to free speech, you’re not free of the consequences of your speech. Be a responsible owner and your. Insurance rates stay low but when you’re not, you’re the one paying for your mistakes
  
  Ok... I didn't say you were free from consequences, I said by adding insurance to the equation, you're putting an unnecessary financial burden on the poor amd minorities to practice a constitutional right, all while creating an opportunity for some middleman to get obscenely rich off something that won't change gun violence at all. By adding mandatory insurance, and letting insurance companies handle all of it, you're taking rights out of the hands of minorities and the poor alike. And there are already consequences for improper gun ownership: they're called prison sentences, so maybe focus more on your elected officials who aren't prosecuting irresponsible gun owners instead of adding insurance premiums and costs to an equation that doesn't need them.
  If there is an unreasonable monetary barrier for an individual to practice a constitutional right, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege. So congratulations, you've taken away the rights of minorities/poor folks, and allowed those who already have the means to face no consequences continue to face no consequences. Just like the firearm's stamps: the prices are high enough to keep those weapons out of the hands of the poor, but not out of the hands of the wealthy, so only the wealthy have the privilege to own more dangerous weapons.
  And once again, all you are interested in, clearly, is just taking firearms from people. You proposed an idea (firearm owners insurance), I pointed out why that may be a bad idea, and you immediately doubled down on it while making a comparison to another constitutional right that doesn't have any financial barriers like you describe.
  Plenty of people have been hurt and/or killed by the speeches/words of others, yet not once have you said there should be speech insurance, so your premiums can go up the more inflammatory your speech is, that would be fair, right?
  You also completely dismissed everything I had to say about subsidizing firearms training for those who want/need it. So let's not try and educate our populace, no no, we'll just create another privilege for the wealthy and the poors can just deal with it. 🙄
  
  If you’re not agreeing to any regulation or safety standards, then insurance is a non-government way of minimizing the burden on responsible owners while ensuring the irresponsible ones have consequences for their recklessness, and ensuring at least some recompense/justice for their victims
  
  Got it, so gun ownership is for the wealthy and privileged only, according to you, got it. Insurance will not solve this problem, full stop. Auto insurance doesn't stop people from driving illegally or without licenses, and driving is a privilege, so let's apply the same logic and standard to a constitutional right.
  It'd be a lot faster if you just said, "I don't think anyone should own guns," instead of parroting this fake altruism that insurance will make people face consequences. There are already laws in place to issue consequences to those who are reckless, and I would say that should constitute recompense and justice for their victims. So instead of introducing some useless middleman that, again, will only impact the poor and minorities, go after your state AG's for not prosecuting gun crime.
  Or, as I've said repeatedly, subsidize firearm training and make it required twice per year to maintain your licensure. That's on top of the required class to get your conceal carry license, and everything else associated with it. Insurance providers will only make those requirements and monetary hurdles worse, so again, you're making a constitutional right a privilege for only those with money.
  Make our current medical insurance providers (y'know , the ones who don't provide the services you pay for when you need them for arbitrary reasons) actually pay for mental health care so maybe people can have healthy ways to deal with any issues they have instead of shooting up a school/mall/whatever. Get rid of the social stigma around mental health in general, and require background checks before every gun sale.
  There's literally a myriad of other directions we could and should take gun control, but introducing and requiring insurance for something that is a right makes it a privilege for those with money. This reeks of the same justifications people used to pass the first big wave of gun control laws when the Black Panthers started showing up to rallies with firearms. It even reminds me of the voter ID laws being pushed, since the only people burdened by them are those who can't afford to get an ID, y'know, the majority of whom are minorities.
  
  And you don't think requiring licensure won't be abused to disenfranchise minorities and the lower class? There is a reason poll taxes and anything beyond simple registration was ruled unconstitutional for voting, and even simple registration gets badly abused. Any enumerated right cannot have hoops to jump through to actually be rights instead of privileges.
  Training is great, and should be part of our compulsory education starting from elementary school due to the fact that there are more guns than people in this country. Free training should also be offered for adults to be able to regularly (annually or more often) attend, and needs to be available so people who cannot take time off work can attend. I think this might be something that the Guard and Reserves might be tapped for, subsidized training.
  Keep up and beef up the universal background checks, and they need to be made free and fast so private sales can also use them.
  Mental healthcare needs a huge bump, and honestly we need a universal healthcare system because of the disaster our insurance industry has become. Healthcare at this point should basically be a right, and a universal system is the way to go at this point. Trust busting and anti-competition laws need to be enforced to fix the monopoly and oligarchy situations we have causing mass wealth inequality and killing free market capitalism. With better economic conditions and mental healthcare, that will do the most to improve violence.
  
  Look, like a lot of things - this works great on paper.
  However, reality is a whole different beast.
  This doesn't "minimize" the burden of responsible owners.
  A responsible owner wouldn't 'need' insurance in the 1st place, so any premium they pay would be a burden.
  Plus - just look at insurance rates.
  I guarantee you that little old black lady who has never been in a car accident is still paying more than the little old white lady who lives next door and also has been in an accident.
  Nevermind that rich folk technically don't even need to pay for insurance because there are multiple loopholes those with money can access.
  Its the same ole shit - nickle and dime the less fortunate while bending over backwards to let the rich get richer.
I agree. Gun insurance is the future. You want to have your guns? Fine. Underwrite the risk.
No thank you. Guns ownership is a protected right under the constitution and can not be controlled to the degree that car ownership can.
Yes but... A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance. Steal guns, ghost guns, or simply not give a fuck about the law since they're going to break it anyways.
In my opinion, the root issue is a moral/mental one. Do the shooters believe they are killing? Are they "saving"? Are they not real people? Etc. If you don't believe people are real, you're not really hurting anyone.
- A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance
  Just like a lot of people who accrue lots of driving violations don’t bother insuring their own cars.
  And yet, a lack of insurance is easily the difference between a ticket and ending up in jail with a massive fine, even more points on your license, and your car impounded for $200/day. So pretty much everyone short of those who have their licences revoked, or those who cannot even be insured anymore, will still try to get insurance any way they can.
  It’s no different.

The required training for a driver's license is a bit of a joke.

I'd rather a joke with a little training and safety classes to lower your liability insurance than the current solution of ignoring the problem
It is more than is needed for gun ownership. The arsenal I inherited required nothing. The one I have purchased required a 48 hour wait I think it was. In none of the cases did I have to prove I knew how to handle a firearm.
- Do you really think requiring more training before getting a driver's license wouldn't be used to disenfranchise minorities?
  
  Not necessarily no.
  
  I would. They'd disenfranchise them in a heartbeat.
  
  You can say that about every law.
  Doesn't mean we should just stop improving the system.
  
  It absolutely would but only by conservatives.
Sadly depends on the state. Would also love if we did more like other countries for driving instruction. Although would need more public transport before that would possible

You don't need any of that if you don't go on public roads. Many a farm truck has been driven by kids.

And no one cares about what you do with your guns if you're out in the boonies where you can't hurt anyone else.
- Oh I promise you that there are plenty of people who do.
  
  There are 300 million people in America. I'm sure you can find dozens who care.
- You say that, but your support of gun control says otherwise.
  
  Apparently you've read everything I've ever posted, so why don't you pull out the exact quote where I demand that ALL guns be confiscated? I seem to have forgotten that one.
  
  Ah, didn't realize you weren't the other guy.
  But gun control isn't just "all guns should be confiscated", there's a hell of lot of stuff before you hit there, and it's all aimed at controlling guns.

God I wish we could apply that to every right, y'know? Like, wouldn't it be great if we could test people before they could vote, so that we knew that they understood the functions of the different branches of gov't, the limitations, the history of legislation, the origins of common law and where our style of government comes from... It would be so wonderful if rights weren't really rights at all, but were privileges only given to the most well educated and intelligent people.

Maybe even some literacy tests.

Oh, or if you needed a license and credentials in order to speak in public! That would be awesome! Or if you needed to be an attorney to assert your right to remain silent!

"providing evidence that you won't be a danger before being allowed to have a weapon? HOW DARE YOU!"
- ...That's a logical impossibility though. You can't prove a negative.
  And now we're right back to laws that prevented non-white people from owning firearms.
  
  Require weapons training, licensing and certification, require passing a background check, require renewal of said certification & license (ideally with refresher tests required. I'd like to see the same for drivers licenses too), revoke licenses when certain law enforcement actions happen (again, just like a drivers license), and most importantly actually remove the property when there is nobody licensed to have it (this needs to happen with cars too!) easy peasy
  
  Don't argue semantics.
  You can provide evidence that you are capable of safely using and storing your weapon.
  
  You can’t prove
  Where did I say prove?
  
  Oh, gee, sorry, I assumed you were speaking in good faith.
  "Provide evidence that you won't be [...]"
  You can't provide negative evidence.
  
  You can't provide negative evidence.
  Yes, you can. I can provide evidence that my walls aren't painted black by uploading a picture of them.
  I can provide evidence that Leprechauns don't exist by showing the science that you can't just scale down a human body to that degree and have the organs function.
  And I can provide evidence that you aren't speaking in good faith because I said "Provide evidence for" and you responded with "You can't prove".
  Evidence is not proof. Every single criminal trial the defendant provides evidence that they did not commit a crime.
  
  This is... Not how evidence works. I know that you think it is, but you're simply not correct.
  Evidence provides a positive proof, not a negative. If a coroner says that a murder occurred at 5pm on Saturday, and I have tickets, video evidence, and eyewitness accounts showing that I was across the country at 5pm on Saturday, that does not prove that I didn't commit the murder. It proves--probably--that I was across the country at 5pm on Saturday. Perhaps, for instance, the coroner was incorrect about the time the murder occurred.
  But, even if we accept your premise, you run headlong into two issues: first, you're saying that civil rights aren't rights at all, and secondly, who defines "risk"? I can tell you for certain that there are a whoooooooooole lot of people on the right that don't think that anyone that is trans- or gay should be allowed to own any firearms, because they're all 'mentally ill'. What about political ideology? Should that be a valid reason to deny rights too? If you won't pledge allegiance to the American flag, should you lose your right to speech, religion, and so one? (That, at least, was clearly decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 1943.)
  As an aside, the number of people that claim to be liberal gun owners, yet still advocate for revocation of their own rights is... Sadly, not very surprising.
  
  that does not prove that I didn't commit the murder.
  I agree, but it is evidence that you did not commit the murder.
  It proves--probably--that I was across the country at 5pm on Saturday
  I don't think you know what "prove" means. "It proves --probably-- " is nonsense, either something is proven or or isn't. Nothing is "probably" proven. It is however common to have evidence that something is probable or not probable.
  first, you're saying that civil rights aren't rights at all
  All rights have limitations on them:
  Free speech/expression: you cannot display your pornography collection on the street outside an elementary school.
  Right to vote: felons cannot vote, 17 year olds cannot vote
  Freedom of movement: private property
  Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: any idiot can purchase a gun, not handle it safely, and shoot you.
  There is no civil right that all civilians can take part in any time they want with no restrictions. (This ignores the fact that guns do not need to be a civil right).
  secondly, who defines "risk"?
  And here you dive into a slippery slope fallacy. Drivers licenses are regulated with restrictions on who can acquire them, somehow no one has tried to deny drivers licenses to minorities or political opponents. Creating a reasonable restriction does not necessitate the creation of unreasonable ones. Each can be taken on a case by case basis.
  Is it reasonable to require training before being allowed access to a deadly weapon? "What about LGBT?" What about them? We're talking about training here.
Wouldn't be great if the police could just search anyone for any reason (or no reason) at any time unless they have obtained a privacy permit? Think of how many criminals they could catch, including people who shouldn't have guns, if they could just set up road blocks and strip search everyone who comes through (except those with permits, obviously). For good measure they should make us all take off our shoes too.
The 2nd amendment doesn't give the right to all Americans to have guns, it simply provisions a well regulated militia. Right now we don't have sufficient regulation to keep gun violence at a reasonable rate, so we clearly don't have a well regulated militia as detailed in the constitution
- Categorically false. When you look at the circumstances surrounding the drafting of 2A, it's clear what the framers intended. (EVERY able-bodied, white, adult male was a member of the militia. They were obligated to provide their own militarily-suitable arms, and were likewise obligated to train themselves in their use. Moreover, the existence of the right was a holdover from English common law, which recognized the right of people to be armed. Oh, and the first battle of the American Revolution? It was because the British were trying to seize arms, including a cannon, that the people had been using to protect themselves from First Nations peoples.) When you look at the debate that surrounded the National Firearms Act of 1934, it's clear that they knew a ban wouldn't pass court review; hence the reason that the opted for a tax. (And, BTW, they originally intended to include pistols; that fact that 'short barrel rifles' are part of the NFA today is because they were sloppy in making the edits prior to passage.) When you look at nearly 250 years of precedent, it's clear that it's an individual right. And when you look at SCOTUS rulings--Heller v. D.C., McDonald v. Chicago, Bruen v. NYSPRA--it's definite.
  BTW, "well regulated" at the time was understood to mean trained, specifically people that knew how to use the arms they had the right to possess.

Gun ownership is a right protected under the 2nd amendment. If cars had been around during the revolutionary war then perhaps there would have been an amendment as well. But as it is cars can be regulated to a larger degree as they are not a protected right under our constitution.

Constitution doesn't say anything about banning regulations on guns.
Almost calls for it by saying we need to make sure they're well maintained
- If it is not stated in the constitution then the right falls to the states. Fortunately gun rights are guaranteed for both state militias and citizens under 2A in the constitution.
  2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
  
  They also wanted the document to continuously be updated.
  Turns out shit changes between flintlock guns to what we have now
  
  They did indeed leave a mechanism to update the constitution. You are free to propose an amendment and if the majority of the country agrees, it can supersede an existing amendment.
  The only thing that has changed are unconstitutional laws infringing upon our rights.
  
  Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.
  https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/jefferson-memorial-education-each-new-generation.htm
  
  Nice quote, I’m glad you agree with me that change is good and that there is a mechanism to change the constitution. It is of course called an amendment.
  👍
  
  No it means replacement not amending. Amending is just addition not updating.
  
  They also attempted to draft a version of the Second Amendment that contained the rights you think it contains, and it was unanimously a rejected at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. Perhaps you could look to the constitutions of the original colonies to see if any of them thought that an individual right to bear arms was so essential, but you will find that not a single one of them had an individual right.
  You will not also not find a single original work in the English language in which the phrase bear arms is used in any context outside of a military one, until dumbasses started perverting that phrase fifty odd years after the Constitution was written.
- SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
  
  Define arms and militia
  
  Arms: weapons
  Militia: in a different clause. If you paid attention in 1st grade English, you'd know better
  
  Figured insults wouldn't happen until later.
  Funny how it changed to be anyone instead of militia, in the beginning of your shall not be infringed, once we also started to stop caring about strength of the nation in favor of individuals all out for themselves.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
  Cause anyone with a brain could tell our founders meant a force to protect from threats not anyone can have a nuke
  
  "To protect the security of the state...."

Washington State just legislated a legal requirement that all gun purchases must include proof of a completed gun safety course. Unfortunately in typical government fashion, they did it in the stupidest way possible. It's an online class that can be finished in 5 minutes, you have to bring printed proof of it every time instead of storing the status somewhere, and there's no exemption for law enforcement, military, or scouts. It would be great if it was an actual gun safety course and they exempted people with a proven history of gun safety training.

You may think you want guns regulated like cars, probably because you heard it somewhere and thought, "yeah, that seems reasonable".

But if you stop and think about how cars are actually regulated vs how guns are actually regulated, I think you'll maybe see that it's perhaps not so reasonable an idea after all.

First and foremost, guns are already regulated in significant ways that cars are not. For example, requiring background checks, prohibiting purchasing/owning by particular groups of people (e.g., felons, drug addicts, domestic abusers), and numerous places where you're not allowed to take them.

None of those restrictions apply to cars (though maybe they should), so "regulating guns like cars" implies rolling back those restrictions on guns. (Otherwise it wouldn't actually be "like cars", would it?)

Second, a lot of restrictions on cars are for common use, and the minute you fall outside of that, many of those regulations don't apply.

For example, in many (maybe the majority of? Not sure) states, the whole license/registration/insurance requirement only applies to vehicles that are operated on public roads (of course, your bank will require insurance if you finance, regardless).

So a farmer could buy a brand new pickup for cash, sign an affidavit saying it won't be operated on public roads, have it delivered by flatbed truck to his farm, then his 14 year old kid could drive it around all day with no license, registration, or insurance, and everything is (potentially, depending on the state) completely within the law as long as it stays on the farm.

There are parallels that can be drawn with gun purchases for use on private property, but hopefully you get my point by now.

So for sure, if you want more/better gun regulations, then by all means, advocate for that. But please don't suggest that we regulate guns like we do cars because that's a terrible idea.

When people say "regulate guns like cars" all they mean is to add the requirements of a licence, tracking ownership and sale, and proof of training.
It's a short hand, meant to be snappy, like all political phrases (BLM?). So next time you see the phrase be sure to respond to that argument because that's all anyone is really talking about when they use that phrase.
- Tracking ownership?! Have you thought this through?!
  I'm an outspoken liberal gun owner. I sure as hell don't want on a Trump list of bad guys.
  
  Then use your car to drive over them.
- I want a background check similar to the one done for security clearance. Just go ask their friends and family if they are the kid who was voted "most likely to be a school shooter". Maybe that guy is the one we shouldn't hand a gun to.
- I want insurance, like with a car, to ensure at least some restitution for their mistakes, so irresponsible gun owners find it more expensive to encourage better practices, and easy to prove jail time for no insurance
  No one really cares about tracking weapons, except it’s the only way to find irresponsible owners. An insurance mandate might be a better way
- So, yes. I'm well aware of that. But thank you (and I mean that sincerely!) for pointing that out. I'll explain...
  But first, as an aside, I'll say I'm not a fan of snappy when it's also grossly imprecise (or worse, dishonest). There's too much dishonesty and "spin" in politics as it is, and we could do with less. But I digress...
  Anyway, while you're correct about it being shorthand, I submit that there are people that don't follow gun-related politics, but have heard "regulate guns like the cars" and take it to mean exactly that because they're unaware that it has a deeper meaning.
  In fact, there are 2 (unrelated) people in my friend group that believed this, until I told them basically what I wrote above. I didn't do it as some sort of gotcha - they're my friends - I want them to be able to make informed decisions based on facts. And they're not dumb people - they were just ignorant of the issue and parroting said snappy phrase without understanding it was shorthand for something different. Now they have a better understanding of the topic, and a better understanding of what kind of regulations they do and don't support. I don't agree with their positions 100%, but that's fine. My goal was to educate and get them thinking about it, not convert.
  So, with respect, I intend to ignore your suggestion about how to respond to this phrase in the future, for as long as it keeps being used in the same way without any additional explanation. Not because I'm trying to be an agitator (I'm not), but because I think this discourse is helpful for bystanders that aren't steeped in this stuff, so that they don't misunderstand.
  After all, if there were 2 people in my little friend group that didn't understand the phrase as shorthand, there are probably plenty more out there.
  And to that end, thanks again for helping by posting the missing "additional explanation".
Required training, tests, insurance needs and has to be safe for others.
You didn't make a point. You talked about some unrelated things with operating vehicles on private roads, which is nonsense, because plenty of laws still apply to the manufacture and sale of the vehicle initially, and also all laws of civil liability still apply to it.