https://everytownresearch.org/repor...gun-in-public-with-no-permit-and-no-training/ the point is we are stricter on those with cars than with guns. Does kinda seem backwards.
I'd like to have a concealed boat permit. Then if I got into a difficult situation, I could pull my boat out and say "Do you feel like fishing? Well, do ya, punk?" barfo
But if you want to store them in a locked facility you don't need to register or license anything. So either you want guns to be the same way, which would take loosening laws on guns, or you don't.
Yes you can. There is no law requiring that. You can buy a car cash at a lot and have it towed home. Please show me the law that requires otherwise?
Ok you can have it towed or have someone with a licence drive it sure. Most dealerships won't let you leave without insurance. Not saying there is a law against it. I think it's a moot argument anyway
No. We're talking about the law. And I didn't bring it up. Most states already require more of gun owners (by law) than car owners. This can not be disputed. If you don't like the argument don't use it.
I suppose I could try to google it, and I'm not arguing or disputing, just honestly have no idea, what is exactly required of gun owners, let's say in Oregon?
This is a false statement. That is unless you can show the law which requires background check, registering or licensing to purchase a vehicle or complete a title transfer. Nobody has any problem with private businesses requiring whatever they want for gun sales. The concern is about the law.
but is that "more"? If one requires a background check, but no license or registration, and one requires a license and registration but no background check, it seems more like a different limit, but not necessarily more
The fuck!? I’m mocking the asshats who believe their rights to own guns is more important than that of the lives of kids. You’d think he’d know this about me.
In the United States, kids are 20x more likely to be killed by their parents than by a gun in school. Parents killing their children is typically referred to as filicide, so that's the keyword you'll want to use if doing more research. According to this CNN article (https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd/index.html ) and this research paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282617/), there are ~500 arrests yearly for filicide. This paper states ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922347/ ) it's around 8\100,000 for infants, and 1.5\100,000 for school-aged children (death rate). With 56 million K-12 students (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 ), that's ~840 murders each year. The original FBI Active Shooter (Phase 1) report ( https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf ) identified 160 active shooter scenarios. This resulted in a total casualty rate of ~1000 and an average casualty rate (injury and death) of ~6.5 per incident. The FBI report's numbers were 2 deaths\2 injuries median per incident, the average are mine based on the reported numbers. For context, that's all scenarios they felt were active shooters (not just school shootings) between 2000 and 2013. Historically when I make this argument, I think I've generally used a liberal estimate of ~25 student deaths per year due to shootings, which I think is fairly evident from this short review is way too high. An important caveat to all this is that these numbers are incredibly low to begin with. We have years were there are no shootings, or a shooting results in 60 people dying at once, so any changes is volatile to the numbers.
