The Concealed Carry Fantasy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

What kind of excuse is this? Most of these people have once passed a driver's test. Whether they become disabled or too old to drive, they once were. And teens who own cars but can't yet drive? Come on, what kind of bs excuse is that?

I seriously doubt there is a large group of people with a need to buy a gun but who never plan to shoot one. Maybe those celebrities you are talking about. But more likely they hire security firms who own their own weapons. I suppose that a licensing requirement could theoretically thwart an evil mastermind who wants to arm his minions but who is philosophically opposed to taking a firearms safety course in order to do it. And maybe you feel bad for that evil mastermind. But I would feel good knowing that each gun owner is properly trained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

What kind of excuse is this? Most of these people have once passed a driver's test. Whether they become disabled or too old to drive, they once were. And teens who own cars but can't yet drive? Come on, what kind of bs excuse is that?

I seriously doubt there is a large group of people with a need to buy a gun but who never plan to shoot one. Maybe those celebrities you are talking about. But more likely they hire security firms who own their own weapons. I suppose that a licensing requirement could theoretically thwart an evil mastermind who wants to arm his minions but who is philosophically opposed to taking a firearms safety course in order to do it. And maybe you feel bad for that evil mastermind. But I would feel good knowing that each gun owner is properly trained.

I'm simply pointing out the fact you don't need a license to own a car. You only need a license to operate a car on public roadways. This is very similar to firearms where you also don't need a license to own one. In both cases they are simply considered property. It's in the ways of using them that may or may not require a license. To hunt or conceal carry you typically need a license. To fool around on private property you don't need a license to use a car or a firearm. Although in most urban areas it is illegal to discharge a firearm. You can't go outside and shoot a bird out of a tree in city limits for example even if it's on your own private land.

In short, it's certain uses of a car/firearm that require a license not ownership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

What kind of excuse is this? Most of these people have once passed a driver's test. Whether they become disabled or too old to drive, they once were. And teens who own cars but can't yet drive? Come on, what kind of bs excuse is that?

I seriously doubt there is a large group of people with a need to buy a gun but who never plan to shoot one. Maybe those celebrities you are talking about. But more likely they hire security firms who own their own weapons. I suppose that a licensing requirement could theoretically thwart an evil mastermind who wants to arm his minions but who is philosophically opposed to taking a firearms safety course in order to do it. And maybe you feel bad for that evil mastermind. But I would feel good knowing that each gun owner is properly trained.

I'm simply pointing out the fact you don't need a license to own a car. You only need a license to operate a car on public roadways. This is very similar to firearms where you also don't need a license to own one. In both cases they are simply considered property. It's in the ways of using them that may or may not require a license. To hunt or conceal carry you typically need a license. To fool around on private property you don't need a license to use a car or a firearm. Although in most urban areas it is illegal to discharge a firearm. You can't go outside and shoot a bird out of a tree in city limits for example even if it's on your own private land.

In short, it's certain uses of a car/firearm that require a license not ownership.

If you operate a car without a license, you will probably get caught. It's a little late to catch someone after they shot somebody. But hey, maybe we should go the insurance route. If you have a gun, you should be required to carry insurance in case you harm someone and you are at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

What kind of excuse is this? Most of these people have once passed a driver's test. Whether they become disabled or too old to drive, they once were. And teens who own cars but can't yet drive? Come on, what kind of bs excuse is that?

I seriously doubt there is a large group of people with a need to buy a gun but who never plan to shoot one. Maybe those celebrities you are talking about. But more likely they hire security firms who own their own weapons. I suppose that a licensing requirement could theoretically thwart an evil mastermind who wants to arm his minions but who is philosophically opposed to taking a firearms safety course in order to do it. And maybe you feel bad for that evil mastermind. But I would feel good knowing that each gun owner is properly trained.

I'm simply pointing out the fact you don't need a license to own a car. You only need a license to operate a car on public roadways. This is very similar to firearms where you also don't need a license to own one. In both cases they are simply considered property. It's in the ways of using them that may or may not require a license. To hunt or conceal carry you typically need a license. To fool around on private property you don't need a license to use a car or a firearm. Although in most urban areas it is illegal to discharge a firearm. You can't go outside and shoot a bird out of a tree in city limits for example even if it's on your own private land.

In short, it's certain uses of a car/firearm that require a license not ownership.

If you operate a car without a license, you will probably get caught. It's a little late to catch someone after they shot somebody. But hey, maybe we should go the insurance route. If you have a gun, you should be required to carry insurance in case you harm someone and you are at fault.

If you illegally use a firearm you will probably get caught as well, even if you don't kill someone. Home/renter liability insurance already covers accidental damage and injury on your property, even firearm accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

What kind of excuse is this? Most of these people have once passed a driver's test. Whether they become disabled or too old to drive, they once were. And teens who own cars but can't yet drive? Come on, what kind of bs excuse is that?

I seriously doubt there is a large group of people with a need to buy a gun but who never plan to shoot one. Maybe those celebrities you are talking about. But more likely they hire security firms who own their own weapons. I suppose that a licensing requirement could theoretically thwart an evil mastermind who wants to arm his minions but who is philosophically opposed to taking a firearms safety course in order to do it. And maybe you feel bad for that evil mastermind. But I would feel good knowing that each gun owner is properly trained.

I'm simply pointing out the fact you don't need a license to own a car. You only need a license to operate a car on public roadways. This is very similar to firearms where you also don't need a license to own one. In both cases they are simply considered property. It's in the ways of using them that may or may not require a license. To hunt or conceal carry you typically need a license. To fool around on private property you don't need a license to use a car or a firearm. Although in most urban areas it is illegal to discharge a firearm. You can't go outside and shoot a bird out of a tree in city limits for example even if it's on your own private land.

In short, it's certain uses of a car/firearm that require a license not ownership.

If you operate a car without a license, you will probably get caught. It's a little late to catch someone after they shot somebody. But hey, maybe we should go the insurance route. If you have a gun, you should be required to carry insurance in case you harm someone and you are at fault.

If you illegally use a firearm you will probably get caught as well, even if you don't kill someone. Home/renter liability insurance already covers accidental damage and injury on your property, even firearm accidents.

Gee if that's true then how do all the bad guys still have guns? Btw you need a liability insurance policy to cover a firearm injury. Homeowners insurance will fix the floorboards not your bleeding friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about everyone who wants to own a gun AT LEAST have to pass a test (like a driver's license test) and get a gun license? And then what about limiting the number of bullets that can be purchased, stamping each one to know where the bullet was sold, etc.?

Almost all states require the successful completion of a hunter/gun safety/education course before you can purchase a hunting license. So almost all states already have something equivalent to a driver's license test.

http://www.ihea.com/hunting-and-shooting/requirements/hunter-education-requirements

Well yes, but that is for a hunting license. Lots of people buy guns and never get hunting licenses.

Yes, and lots of people buy cars and never get a drivers license. What's your point?

Could you point to data supporting this ludicrous statement.

I'll give you a few easy examples.

Disabled - many disabled still own vehicles but cannot drive and don't have a drivers license.
Elderly - many elder still own vehicles and don't have drivers licenses.
Young - many pre-license teens will own a car before they get a drivers license.
Celebrities/Rich - Some own cars but never drive themselves.
Businesses - many companies own vehicles.

You don't need a driver license to buy or own a car. There's obvious reasons why and thus not a ludicrous statement.

What kind of excuse is this? Most of these people have once passed a driver's test. Whether they become disabled or too old to drive, they once were. And teens who own cars but can't yet drive? Come on, what kind of bs excuse is that?

I seriously doubt there is a large group of people with a need to buy a gun but who never plan to shoot one. Maybe those celebrities you are talking about. But more likely they hire security firms who own their own weapons. I suppose that a licensing requirement could theoretically thwart an evil mastermind who wants to arm his minions but who is philosophically opposed to taking a firearms safety course in order to do it. And maybe you feel bad for that evil mastermind. But I would feel good knowing that each gun owner is properly trained.

I'm simply pointing out the fact you don't need a license to own a car. You only need a license to operate a car on public roadways. This is very similar to firearms where you also don't need a license to own one. In both cases they are simply considered property. It's in the ways of using them that may or may not require a license. To hunt or conceal carry you typically need a license. To fool around on private property you don't need a license to use a car or a firearm. Although in most urban areas it is illegal to discharge a firearm. You can't go outside and shoot a bird out of a tree in city limits for example even if it's on your own private land.

In short, it's certain uses of a car/firearm that require a license not ownership.

If you operate a car without a license, you will probably get caught. It's a little late to catch someone after they shot somebody. But hey, maybe we should go the insurance route. If you have a gun, you should be required to carry insurance in case you harm someone and you are at fault.

If you illegally use a firearm you will probably get caught as well, even if you don't kill someone. Home/renter liability insurance already covers accidental damage and injury on your property, even firearm accidents.

Gee if that's true then how do all the bad guys still have guns? Btw you need a liability insurance policy to cover a firearm injury. Homeowners insurance will fix the floorboards not your bleeding friend.

That is simply not true. Almost all home owners insurance also includes a liability component. So if your friend slips on your rug and breaks a hip, your homeowners insurance would cover them. If your Homeowners insurance doesn't then you have poor coverage.

Some bad guys with guns get caught, same as some unlicensed drivers get caught.