Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Nebor
-snip-
You're attempting to impose military conditions on a civilian right.

Nevermind the fact that most defensive shootings happen at a distance of 10 feet or less. Requiring shooting at 25-50 yards is not only difficult, but absolutely pointless. That's beyond pistol range.

Yes, and if someone is gonna shoot a person 25-50 yards away they better have some damn good compeling reason why.

In my state it's gonna be very difficult to explain how at that distance you were in imminent danger and couldn't run away etc. I won't even mention the increased risk of collateral damage.

But I also like target shooting at that distance (25 yards), especially with my .22 handguns. I've got a couple of Colt single-action clones that are quite accurate.

Fern

 

[dmw16]

Originally posted by: Triumph


Let's look at the statistics, and the wording, and apply a little bit of rationality here. "A shocking 333 suicides" does not concern me in the least. Ignoring the massive overshadowing of number of suicide deaths by guns compared to other deaths, why does it matter to me or anyone else, how someone decides to off themselves? It has zero effect on me. Ban guns because of suicides? Might as well ban bridges, cliffs, knives, almost any OTC medicine, trains, etc. etc. etc. It has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Sure, suicide sucks, but if your family member or loved one committed suicide, it wasn't because they had access to a gun.

The Centers for Disease Control runs an accident statistic website, easily searched by anyone on the web, to include fatalities not only by guns, but cars, bee stings, swimming pools, etc. (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Look at the numbers yourself, and they are pretty revealing. There were 4,248 drowning deaths in the US in 2005. Just a raw number without any further detail, but no one gets up in arms about it - no body is calling for the outright banning of swimming pools, or waterfront regulations, etc. Now do a search for "unintentional firearms deaths", and do you know what the number was in 2005? 789. Unintentional deaths by poisoning? 23,618. Unintentional deaths by suffocation? 5,900. Unintentional deaths due to home fires? 2,816. The argument for "saving the children" from shooting each other when they find daddy's gun just doesn't make much sense, when the efforts could be much better spent elsewhere.

There were also 30,694 "firearms" deaths in 2005. Gee, sounds terrible, doesn't it? Refine your search and the picture becomes a little more clear in comparison. 17,002 of those firearms related fatalities were due to suicide. I have no problem with eliminating more than 50% of the "firearms" fatalities from my consideration. They do not matter to me in the slightest. That leaves about 13,000 firearms deaths due to homicide. That's a scary number indeed. But please people, at least use the right numbers when arguing for, or against, gun control.

Well said. I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: techs
Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

Not me personally. Though I have gone shooting before and really enjoyed it I'm not trained adequately to be able to use it effectively as a form of self defense. I'd probably end up shooting myself or my family while trying to use it to defend against an intruder. I know that doesn't sound macho but I'm just being honest. Now a baseball bat or even a big knife, well I think I can be pretty effective with those.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

yes and that is because you have the freedom to choose whether to have a gun or not, and that freedom should not be infringed upon because others can not or do not handle their freedom in a safe and productive manner.

If someone decides that they cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm, I encourage them not to have one. That is a choice they can make themselves. That's the meaning of freedom. As for myself, I choose my way.

Bullshyt. I know way too many 20 plus year olds that are still mentally adolescents. These are people who should be nowhere near a gun but insist on having as many as possible.

If you buy a gun reluctantly but go through a process of weighing benefits v. potential harm, more power to you. However, if you are just a dumbass insecure male that pets his 9mm sig sauer before sleeping, then you are NOT the proper party to be making such a decision.

Who are you to make that decision? If you feel so strongly, why don't you talk to these people you're concerned about? If that doesn't work, take their guns away from them, since they "should be nowhere near a gun" in your opinion.

These are the silly statements pro-gun people tend to make as I remarked in a previous thread. Who is the government to decide onvicted criminals can't have guns? Who is the government to decide you can't have apache helicopters? Who is anybody to say children can't have guns?

Just be quiet.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: techs
Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

Not me personally. Though I have gone shooting before and really enjoyed it I'm not trained adequately to be able to use it effectively as a form of self defense. I'd probably end up shooting myself or my family while trying to use it to defend against an intruder. I know that doesn't sound macho but I'm just being honest. Now a baseball bat or even a big knife, well I think I can be pretty effective with those.

See, you're not the type of person I would worry about. I'm on the fence about the gun issue but maybe the answer is some people are emotionally and mentally mature enough to have guns and some ARE NOT. People keep comparing guns to vehicles, so how about a robust system of testing for guns as well?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: techs
Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

Not me personally. Though I have gone shooting before and really enjoyed it I'm not trained adequately to be able to use it effectively as a form of self defense. I'd probably end up shooting myself or my family while trying to use it to defend against an intruder. I know that doesn't sound macho but I'm just being honest. Now a baseball bat or even a big knife, well I think I can be pretty effective with those.

See, you're not the type of person I would worry about. I'm on the fence about the gun issue but maybe the answer is some people are emotionally and mentally mature enough to have guns and some ARE NOT. People keep comparing guns to vehicles, so how about a robust system of testing for guns as well?

I'll agree to that, as soon as we also have a robust system of testing before people can exercise free speech. People really should need to be licensed to speak in public.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
People keep comparing guns to vehicles, so how about a robust system of testing for guns as well?

as well? as well as what? a robust system for licensing drivers? please. if you could get a gun as easily as a driver's license we'd have people shooting themselves in the foot while trying to tie their shoes in the morning.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: techs
Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

Not me personally. Though I have gone shooting before and really enjoyed it I'm not trained adequately to be able to use it effectively as a form of self defense. I'd probably end up shooting myself or my family while trying to use it to defend against an intruder. I know that doesn't sound macho but I'm just being honest. Now a baseball bat or even a big knife, well I think I can be pretty effective with those.

See, you're not the type of person I would worry about. I'm on the fence about the gun issue but maybe the answer is some people are emotionally and mentally mature enough to have guns and some ARE NOT. People keep comparing guns to vehicles, so how about a robust system of testing for guns as well?

Except that, as pointed out in other threads, you do not need to have a license to legally own and operate a vehicle. As long as said vehicle remains on your own private property (or on another person's private property with their permission, such as a racetrack) you do not need to have a license and you do not need to register the vehicle.

A 10 year old can legally buy and operate as many vehicles as he can afford provided that he operates said vehicles only on private property.

ZV

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

yes and that is because you have the freedom to choose whether to have a gun or not, and that freedom should not be infringed upon because others can not or do not handle their freedom in a safe and productive manner.

If someone decides that they cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm, I encourage them not to have one. That is a choice they can make themselves. That's the meaning of freedom. As for myself, I choose my way.

Bullshyt. I know way too many 20 plus year olds that are still mentally adolescents. These are people who should be nowhere near a gun but insist on having as many as possible.

If you buy a gun reluctantly but go through a process of weighing benefits v. potential harm, more power to you. However, if you are just a dumbass insecure male that pets his 9mm sig sauer before sleeping, then you are NOT the proper party to be making such a decision.

Who are you to make that decision? If you feel so strongly, why don't you talk to these people you're concerned about? If that doesn't work, take their guns away from them, since they "should be nowhere near a gun" in your opinion.

These are the silly statements pro-gun people tend to make as I remarked in a previous thread. Who is the government to decide onvicted criminals can't have guns? Who is the government to decide you can't have apache helicopters? Who is anybody to say children can't have guns?

Just be quiet.

The government has no right to decide convicted criminals can't have guns (and in most states, they can. In Texas your gun rights are automatically restored 5 years after a felony, and you can petition to get them back sooner.) You can have Apache helicopters. A simple google search would show you a wide array of modern military jets, tanks and helicopters in civilian hands. I would argue that those aren't protected as "arms" in the 2nd amendment, but I see no reason to prohibit them, though they could be if such a need arose. And children aren't people. They don't get any of the rights that adults get. That's pretty well established.

I like your dismissive tone though. It turns me on.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Am I safer?
Yes.

yes and that is because you have the freedom to choose whether to have a gun or not, and that freedom should not be infringed upon because others can not or do not handle their freedom in a safe and productive manner.

If someone decides that they cannot handle the responsibility of a firearm, I encourage them not to have one. That is a choice they can make themselves. That's the meaning of freedom. As for myself, I choose my way.

Bullshyt. I know way too many 20 plus year olds that are still mentally adolescents. These are people who should be nowhere near a gun but insist on having as many as possible.

If you buy a gun reluctantly but go through a process of weighing benefits v. potential harm, more power to you. However, if you are just a dumbass insecure male that pets his 9mm sig sauer before sleeping, then you are NOT the proper party to be making such a decision.

Who are you to make that decision? If you feel so strongly, why don't you talk to these people you're concerned about? If that doesn't work, take their guns away from them, since they "should be nowhere near a gun" in your opinion.

These are the silly statements pro-gun people tend to make as I remarked in a previous thread. Who is the government to decide onvicted criminals can't have guns? Who is the government to decide you can't have apache helicopters? Who is anybody to say children can't have guns?

Just be quiet.

The government has no right to decide convicted criminals can't have guns (and in most states, they can. In Texas your gun rights are automatically restored 5 years after a felony, and you can petition to get them back sooner.) You can have Apache helicopters. A simple google search would show you a wide array of modern military jets, tanks and helicopters in civilian hands. I would argue that those aren't protected as "arms" in the 2nd amendment, but I see no reason to prohibit them, though they could be if such a need arose. And children aren't people. They don't get any of the rights that adults get. That's pretty well established.

I like your dismissive tone though. It turns me on.

First of all, feel free to do my work for me. I had no idea that civilians could have fully functional advanced military equipment.

Second, children don't get guns because they are considered irresponsible. Why should certain people who are in essence children get guns just because they are past a certain age? I know people who have firearms, who get drunk and play with said firearms, who sleep with loaded firearms under their pillow, who have randomly pulled firearms on people for fun. How do you plan on preventing this?

As for the rest of you who responded to me, why do you take your own stupid analogy and extend it to its illogical conclusion? I could understand an extrapolation of a principle but i'm surprised somebody hasn't said, "I'd rather die then have the government force me to perform a smog check on my assault rifle!"

I'm not so sure, at least in california, that anybody can acquire title to a vehicle without a valid driver's license. If some backwater state that lacks California's sophistication does allow it, not my problem.

Now, let's actually get back to the point. Let's say a person is legally blind, and has had 14 at fault accidents, and 40 speeding tickets over 100 mph. This person will most likely not get a license renewed. Naturally there are limitations on the rights of convicts to own weapons, but what's wrong with being proactive in determining who should have a gun? The person I described above was able to purchase a gun with no hitches despite a very spotty past.

 

[Nebor]

I know people who have firearms, who get drunk and play with said firearms, who sleep with loaded firearms under their pillow, who have randomly pulled firearms on people for fun. How do you plan on preventing this?

You should stop hanging around these people. You are the one creating the danger by being around them. I don't associate with dangerous idiots. They can be plenty dangerous without a gun.

As for your other points, it all comes down to: There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. Arms are specially protected for a good reason. Amend the constitution then, you can start talking about restrictions. But for now, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Nebor

I know people who have firearms, who get drunk and play with said firearms, who sleep with loaded firearms under their pillow, who have randomly pulled firearms on people for fun. How do you plan on preventing this?

You should stop hanging around these people. You are the one creating the danger by being around them. I don't associate with dangerous idiots. They can be plenty dangerous without a gun.

As for your other points, it all comes down to: There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. Arms are specially protected for a good reason. Amend the constitution then, you can start talking about restrictions. But for now, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Another specious argument. There is no constitutional power to have a standing army either. Speaking of that, if you read the 2nd amendment it's pretty clear that was NOT a blanket right to possess arms. Constitutional scholars disagree on the issue, which is fine by me. Except, when Roe. V. Wade came down, somehow that disagreement is asinine despite the logical basis for the "penumbra" of rights. Besides which, how is it that despite the first amendment there are still such strict restrictions on speech? And on assembly?

You also fail to understand that if in 10 years the supreme court changes their mind and decides the 2nd amendment is not an unqualified grant of the right to bear arms, what happens to your argument? No amendment needed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Now, let's actually get back to the point. Let's say a person is legally blind, and has had 14 at fault accidents, and 40 speeding tickets over 100 mph. This person will most likely not get a license renewed. Naturally there are limitations on the rights of convicts to own weapons, but what's wrong with being proactive in determining who should have a gun? The person I described above was able to purchase a gun with no hitches despite a very spotty past.

what does speeding have to do with anything?

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Another specious argument. There is no constitutional power to have a standing army either.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
so they have to pass a new funding bill every 2 years.

Speaking of that, if you read the 2nd amendment it's pretty clear that was NOT a blanket right to possess arms. Constitutional scholars disagree on the issue, which is fine by me. Except, when Roe. V. Wade came down, somehow that disagreement is asinine despite the logical basis for the "penumbra" of rights.

i don't have any idea where you're going on that one.

Besides which, how is it that despite the first amendment there are still such strict restrictions on speech? And on assembly?

what strict restrictions?

You also fail to understand that if in 10 years the supreme court changes their mind and decides the 2nd amendment is not an unqualified grant of the right to bear arms, what happens to your argument? No amendment needed.

they just said that for individuals there is a qualified right, not an unqualified right. licensing is a qualification of a right, and the supremes are allowing licensing for the time being. after getting that wrong i have no idea where you're going, again.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I know people who have firearms, who get drunk and play with said firearms, who sleep with loaded firearms under their pillow, who have randomly pulled firearms on people for fun. How do you plan on preventing this?

Oh, I don't know, maybe by enforcing the laws against brandishing weapons that are already in place.

ZV

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I know people who have firearms, who get drunk and play with said firearms, who sleep with loaded firearms under their pillow, who have randomly pulled firearms on people for fun. How do you plan on preventing this?

Oh, I don't know, maybe by enforcing the laws against brandishing weapons that are already in place.

ZV

And the laws against sleeping with loaded firearms under your pillows, and the laws against playing with firearms when inebriated.

Also, could you please show me which states allow ownership of a vehicle without a proper license? I don't have access to any state's vehicle code besides California.

 

[BoberFett]

Don't be so stupid. You have to have a a license to drive a vehicle. There doesn't have to be a law stating you can own one without a license. Absence of law is implicit allowance.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Don't be so stupid. You have to have a a license to drive a vehicle. There doesn't have to be a law stating you can own one without a license. Absence of law is implicit allowance.

Again, I'm pretty sure you cannot own a vehicle in CA at least without a valid license.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Triumph


Let's look at the statistics, and the wording, and apply a little bit of rationality here. "A shocking 333 suicides" does not concern me in the least. Ignoring the massive overshadowing of number of suicide deaths by guns compared to other deaths, why does it matter to me or anyone else, how someone decides to off themselves? It has zero effect on me. Ban guns because of suicides? Might as well ban bridges, cliffs, knives, almost any OTC medicine, trains, etc. etc. etc. It has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Sure, suicide sucks, but if your family member or loved one committed suicide, it wasn't because they had access to a gun.

The Centers for Disease Control runs an accident statistic website, easily searched by anyone on the web, to include fatalities not only by guns, but cars, bee stings, swimming pools, etc. (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Look at the numbers yourself, and they are pretty revealing. There were 4,248 drowning deaths in the US in 2005. Just a raw number without any further detail, but no one gets up in arms about it - no body is calling for the outright banning of swimming pools, or waterfront regulations, etc. Now do a search for "unintentional firearms deaths", and do you know what the number was in 2005? 789. Unintentional deaths by poisoning? 23,618. Unintentional deaths by suffocation? 5,900. Unintentional deaths due to home fires? 2,816. The argument for "saving the children" from shooting each other when they find daddy's gun just doesn't make much sense, when the efforts could be much better spent elsewhere.

There were also 30,694 "firearms" deaths in 2005. Gee, sounds terrible, doesn't it? Refine your search and the picture becomes a little more clear in comparison. 17,002 of those firearms related fatalities were due to suicide. I have no problem with eliminating more than 50% of the "firearms" fatalities from my consideration. They do not matter to me in the slightest. That leaves about 13,000 firearms deaths due to homicide. That's a scary number indeed. But please people, at least use the right numbers when arguing for, or against, gun control.

Well said. I think that pretty much sums it up.

great!

Lets give every drunken asshole a gun so we can get those numbers UP!!!! 789 is just to damn low! Now maybe when it goes over 4K deaths we can start ringing the alarm bells!




You people are pathetic!

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Don't be so stupid. You have to have a a license to drive a vehicle. There doesn't have to be a law stating you can own one without a license. Absence of law is implicit allowance.

Again, I'm pretty sure you cannot own a vehicle in CA at least without a valid license.

I do think you need a valid license to own a car, but then again you can't fart outside your home in California without a license/filter. I am not sure of the rule or driving on private property.

Going back to the OP, this type of study has been debunked once because they counted every gun that was in the home--as a gun in the home--even if the burgler brought it in with him/her. It's kinda like saying more people die in hospitals than anywhere else.

Then there is the question of how many times guns are used for protection in this country? Upward of a million maybe two million times a year. Even if you 10% of a million that is 100,000 times a year a gun is used to protect yourself or loved ones.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Triumph


Let's look at the statistics, and the wording, and apply a little bit of rationality here. "A shocking 333 suicides" does not concern me in the least. Ignoring the massive overshadowing of number of suicide deaths by guns compared to other deaths, why does it matter to me or anyone else, how someone decides to off themselves? It has zero effect on me. Ban guns because of suicides? Might as well ban bridges, cliffs, knives, almost any OTC medicine, trains, etc. etc. etc. It has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Sure, suicide sucks, but if your family member or loved one committed suicide, it wasn't because they had access to a gun.

The Centers for Disease Control runs an accident statistic website, easily searched by anyone on the web, to include fatalities not only by guns, but cars, bee stings, swimming pools, etc. (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Look at the numbers yourself, and they are pretty revealing. There were 4,248 drowning deaths in the US in 2005. Just a raw number without any further detail, but no one gets up in arms about it - no body is calling for the outright banning of swimming pools, or waterfront regulations, etc. Now do a search for "unintentional firearms deaths", and do you know what the number was in 2005? 789. Unintentional deaths by poisoning? 23,618. Unintentional deaths by suffocation? 5,900. Unintentional deaths due to home fires? 2,816. The argument for "saving the children" from shooting each other when they find daddy's gun just doesn't make much sense, when the efforts could be much better spent elsewhere.

There were also 30,694 "firearms" deaths in 2005. Gee, sounds terrible, doesn't it? Refine your search and the picture becomes a little more clear in comparison. 17,002 of those firearms related fatalities were due to suicide. I have no problem with eliminating more than 50% of the "firearms" fatalities from my consideration. They do not matter to me in the slightest. That leaves about 13,000 firearms deaths due to homicide. That's a scary number indeed. But please people, at least use the right numbers when arguing for, or against, gun control.

Well said. I think that pretty much sums it up.

great!

Lets give every drunken asshole a gun so we can get those numbers UP!!!! 789 is just to damn low! Now maybe when it goes over 4K deaths we can start ringing the alarm bells!




You people are pathetic!

Let's give every drunken asshole an SUV, let's give every drunken asshole a chance to vote, let's give every drunken asshole the right to do A, B, and C.

The problem with your argument is that you are just stereotyping a part of society, and using them as an argument to strip something from the rest of society. I think that is the thing that really convinced me in the gun debate, before I even learned the facts I realized the people who wanted them banned were the ones who were using stereotypes to convince others that "those people" should not be trusted. I guess I just didn't like being on the side of people who don't respect other members of society.

The fact of the matter is that drunken idiots are only a small section of society, and if we were to limit every persons freedoms based on "it would be bad because this small group of people wouldn't be responsible" we would not have many freedoms at all.

But, just for arguments sake, lets try emotion from the gun advocates side. Listen to this audio and please tell yourself: I want this woman to be killed or raped because the police still have not arrived after 4 minutes, and I want her to be defenseless. This woman crying and asking for help, would also be without her gun if you got your way, so lets not forget those who are not drunken idiots.

911 call audio.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: Triumph


Let's look at the statistics, and the wording, and apply a little bit of rationality here. "A shocking 333 suicides" does not concern me in the least. Ignoring the massive overshadowing of number of suicide deaths by guns compared to other deaths, why does it matter to me or anyone else, how someone decides to off themselves? It has zero effect on me. Ban guns because of suicides? Might as well ban bridges, cliffs, knives, almost any OTC medicine, trains, etc. etc. etc. It has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Sure, suicide sucks, but if your family member or loved one committed suicide, it wasn't because they had access to a gun.

The Centers for Disease Control runs an accident statistic website, easily searched by anyone on the web, to include fatalities not only by guns, but cars, bee stings, swimming pools, etc. (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Look at the numbers yourself, and they are pretty revealing. There were 4,248 drowning deaths in the US in 2005. Just a raw number without any further detail, but no one gets up in arms about it - no body is calling for the outright banning of swimming pools, or waterfront regulations, etc. Now do a search for "unintentional firearms deaths", and do you know what the number was in 2005? 789. Unintentional deaths by poisoning? 23,618. Unintentional deaths by suffocation? 5,900. Unintentional deaths due to home fires? 2,816. The argument for "saving the children" from shooting each other when they find daddy's gun just doesn't make much sense, when the efforts could be much better spent elsewhere.

There were also 30,694 "firearms" deaths in 2005. Gee, sounds terrible, doesn't it? Refine your search and the picture becomes a little more clear in comparison. 17,002 of those firearms related fatalities were due to suicide. I have no problem with eliminating more than 50% of the "firearms" fatalities from my consideration. They do not matter to me in the slightest. That leaves about 13,000 firearms deaths due to homicide. That's a scary number indeed. But please people, at least use the right numbers when arguing for, or against, gun control.

Well said. I think that pretty much sums it up.

great!

Lets give every drunken asshole a gun so we can get those numbers UP!!!! 789 is just to damn low! Now maybe when it goes over 4K deaths we can start ringing the alarm bells!




You people are pathetic!

What exactly are you trying to argue? 789 accidental deaths out of 60,000,000 gun owners makes guns one of the SAFEST things in your home. Safer then your bathtub, safer then bleach, safer then swimming pools etc....

If your worried about drunk people causing injury/death might I suggest you stop wasting time worrying about drunk people with guns and instead devote that energy towards drunk drivers. You will save many many more lives.

Of course someone will say "but but but none of those things where DESIGNED to kill". Doesn't change the fact that the numbers don't lie. If your goal is to save lives then your attention is focused on the wrong thing.

Seriously people, 1/3rd of American homes have guns in them. In rural Missouri where my folks are from EVERYONE has a gun and most have numerous. 10 year olds get shotguns for their birthdays. Yet, gun crime is almost non-existent and the last serious accident was a few years back (hunting accident). According to some people they should be dropping like flies.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Don't be so stupid. You have to have a a license to drive a vehicle. There doesn't have to be a law stating you can own one without a license. Absence of law is implicit allowance.

Again, I'm pretty sure you cannot own a vehicle in CA at least without a valid license.

You may be "pretty sure", but that doesn't make you right. Even in CA you do not need a license to operate a vehicle on private property.

Many dealerships will not deliver a vehicle to you unless you have a license and insurance, but those are dealership policies that exist for liability reasons (if a person lies and does not use the vehicle exclusively on private property a dealership may be held liable), but there is no actual law that prevents a person from owning a vehicle without having a license.

You don't even need a license to register a car for use on public roads. My WA registration even has a place on the renewal form to note specifically that you do not have a driver's license. Even if you make that note on the form, they will still renew your plates.

But again, you don't even need plates if you are not operating the vehicle on public roads. I know many people who own racecars that are never driven on the street and therefore are not registered with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in their respective states.

ZV

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Don't be so stupid. You have to have a a license to drive a vehicle. There doesn't have to be a law stating you can own one without a license. Absence of law is implicit allowance.

Again, I'm pretty sure you cannot own a vehicle in CA at least without a valid license.

You may be "pretty sure", but that doesn't make you right. Even in CA you do not need a license to operate a vehicle on private property.

Many dealerships will not deliver a vehicle to you unless you have a license and insurance, but those are dealership policies that exist for liability reasons (if a person lies and does not use the vehicle exclusively on private property a dealership may be held liable), but there is no actual law that prevents a person from owning a vehicle without having a license.

You don't even need a license to register a car for use on public roads. My WA registration even has a place on the renewal form to note specifically that you do not have a driver's license. Even if you make that note on the form, they will still renew your plates.

But again, you don't even need plates if you are not operating the vehicle on public roads. I know many people who own racecars that are never driven on the street and therefore are not registered with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in their respective states.

ZV

Agreed. Drivers licenses are like concealed handgun licenses: they license you to operate in public. You can have and operate cars and guns in your home and on your property without a license.

 

[ElFenix]

you have to have a license to own a vehicle subject to registration in the state of california, if you're a minor:

15500. It is unlawful for any minor who does not possess a valid
driver's license issued under this code to order, purchase or lease,
attempt to purchase or lease, contract to purchase or lease, accept,
or otherwise obtain, any vehicle of a type subject to registration.

otherwise i don't find any requirement. then again i'm not looking very hard and they may do it some backdoor way like through insurance requirements.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you have to have a license to own a vehicle subject to registration in the state of california, if you're a minor:

15500. It is unlawful for any minor who does not possess a valid
driver's license issued under this code to order, purchase or lease,
attempt to purchase or lease, contract to purchase or lease, accept,
or otherwise obtain, any vehicle of a type subject to registration.

otherwise i don't find any requirement. then again i'm not looking very hard and they may do it some backdoor way like through insurance requirements.

There's also a difference between purchasing and owning a vehicle or holding title to the vehicle. I can't find anything one way or the other in my perusal of the vehicle code, but I'm not going to waste time looking too deep.