Guns are like cars, right? Right??

[TheFeniX]

The fact that a state licensing agency tests for basic safety knowledge and it isn't done at the dealership doesn't make the comparison a red herring. It changes nothing that is pertinent to the argument.

Yes it does because licensing is not a requirement to own a vehicle. Just like licensing (in many areas) is not a requirement to own a firearm.

I don't know if mandatory gun insurance is the right way to go about it (this thread is the first time I've encountered the idea), but something needs to happen to reduce the flow of legally-purchased guns that end up in the hands of criminals. A mandatory course that teaches how to safely operate and store firearms for first-time buyers might be all that is needed.

Going after legitimate gun owners will not make nearly the dent (if any) than going after straw buys and corrupt FFLs.

I've never met anyone who considers law-abiding gun owners to be "little better than criminals", and I live in San Francisco. As far as I can tell, this is an oft-repeated "big lie" designed to encourage a siege mentality amongst voting gun owners to resist any and all gun legislation. As a gun owner myself, I can confidently say that not everyone who shoots is opposed to reasonable restrictions, despite NRA portrayals.

How about politicians who think they're the equivalent of child molesters? No problems in giving people public access to information that you own expensive property. And I've read more than a few quips from politicians trying to score brownie points that the only reason to own an assault weapon is "to kill a bunch of people." So, basically, I'm a murderer in training because I have three accessories on a glorified hunting rifle.

[whackadoodle]

Conversely, the states with the highest gun ownership tend to be very rural, and while they may be poorer than dirt, they don't have the same problem with concentrated, economically hopeless and shitty populations that give rise to extreme urban crime rates... and therefore have minimal need for gun control.

<br sab="891">So, why is Chicago's problem rural America's problem? I don't ask this of you, specifically, but rather those who would try and impose a national solution to what are local problems.

Chicago is on the border of Indiana and Wisconsin, two states that are moderately rural and where people can make straw purchases of handguns far more easily than in Chicago. It's not like Chicago is East Berlin circa 1974. :V

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

And this is why I chose Chicago as my example. Chicago complains about its gun problem, but what Chicago has is a crime problem. Rather than tackle the difficult and politically sensitive problems of crime, effective law enforcement, and poverty, Chicago's leaders would export it's poverty to Milwaukee via Section 8 exile, and complain about Wisconsin's and Indiana's lenient gun laws. Large cities can tackle crime; just compare NYC under David Dinkins and NYC today.

The residents of the suburban and rural areas don't have a murder problem. Why should urban areas get to pass the buck along to them?