Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!

[ZombieFromDU]

Good post. I mostly see the comparison of gun and cars from gun enthusiasts, which I think is strange. Cars are extremely regulated because they are dangerous, so the comparison seems counterproductive to pro-2A arguments for the reasons you have posted.

[gallo]

Good post. However, with regard to vehicle registration it seems the reason horses were not registered was because nobody in his right mind would swallow the lie that owning a horse and using it as a trasnportation means was a privilige.

[hso]

Cars are extremely regulated

How so? When you purchase a car you have to register the vehicle and get a tag proving that a tax was paid for the vehicle to use the road. The tag has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with paying for the road? There requirement to have the lights work is a safety regulation that is universal for a vehicle on the road, but isn't for one that is used on private property.

While I think the car analogy is weak and tiresome I don't understand where the idea that a car if highly regulated.

[k_dawg]

A better analogy would be a voter ID card.

Shall issue to everyone who can legally vote, required in a minimum amount of time, and for no charge.

[Xelera]

Two words: Property Tax.

Most states make money off of annual taxes on what you own based on it's value. Even if you never drive it on a road, they like having money to fix the roads you may some day drive on, and if not, then they come out ahead, because you are paying money for roads and not using them up.

So I guess one word would be even more appropriate... "Revenue".

[ZeSpectre]

We see a lot of hotly contested "debate" about the nature of guns and regulations and a lot of it veers into the ditch pretty quickly. I thought this, somewhat more "ivory tower" discussion might make for interesting reading.

PLEASE, don't "bomb" the site, if you want to participate keep it civil or don't bother.


Talking Philosophy: The Philosophers' Magazine Blog
Are Guns Analogous to Cars
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6756

[JRH6856]

It is not so much an in depth comparison of cars and guns as it is a discussion of argument by analogy that happens to use cars and guns as the example. But it is useful in explaining the proper use analogy.

[MachIVshooter]

It's a good article, but the car-gun analogy is still a worthless one. Both sides use it, and it's just as ridiculous either way. The only thing they have in common is that they are machines, they can be fun to operate, and they can be deadly if used carelessly or maliciously. From there, the comparison falls apart.

[ApacheCoTodd]

At least as far as registration is concerned.
A look at California's attitude about cars and their registration shows that once registered, the owner is almost turned into a caretaker of the car for the state. I believe there are those in power that truly believe once something is "registered" it gives the government right to hold sway over that item's use and in fact possession.
Look at how many of them believe that since currency is printed and distributed by the government that it and its representation as the "fruit of one's labor" can be controlled as though they hold full power over not only the cash but what it represents.
Back to cars in California... Have one registered, take it off the road for whatever reason and just try to not get "Non-Op" plates while it sits. They can and have exercised perceived rights to confiscate said car for failure to maintain registration whether it's driven or not.

Then there's the whole right - privilege argument wafting over the car and gun debates. Many on the opposite side will mis-state that automobile ownership is a privilege while in fact the USE of one on a public road is the privilege and the ownership is more of a right... Not in California! They'll tell you whether or not you can have one based upon whether or not they choose to issue a registration - off road too.

Now guns - there are a great many anti gunners (by sentiment anyhow) who will concede limited rights to ownership while trying very hard to restrict or otherwise control use - very much like cars.

I saw so many of the same tacks used in the attempt to restrict "classic cars" in California in the 90s that I've always seen in anti gun movements. "Who needs a *** capable of...?" What's a ***** good for other than....?"

[JRH6856]

Now guns - there are a great many anti gunners (by sentiment anyhow) who will concede limited rights to ownership while trying very hard to restrict or otherwise control use

In fact, it has been pointed out to me numerous times in the past that the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms, but the right to use arms for any reason is unprotected and can therefore be regulated or even completely prohibited. Heller put that to rest at least in regards to the use for self defense.

[Kramer Krazy]

I love the car registration argument because here, we only have to register them if we intend to drive them on local roads. I have three motorcycles that are not registered and have been in my possession for a few years. I won't register them (or even transfer the title) until I am done working on them and intend to have them on the road. Even then, if I don't plan on riding them once registering them, I simply quite paying for the registration and let them sit. I know of a car that currently has been in the same owner's hands since 1983 and it hasn't been registered since 1979. I don't even think he's transferred the title, yet.

The government has absolutely no idea where these motorcycles and that car are....until WE decide to title or register them.

[MachIVshooter]

I love the car registration argument because here, we only have to register them if we intend to drive them on local roads.

That's a real quick way to shut them up, about the licensure aspect too.

"We should treat guns just like cars. You need a license to drive, and we register cars"

"So if I'm not going to use my gun on public property, I don't need any license or registration for it?"

"Uhhhhh.........."

[beatledog7]

Analogies are useful even when they're not perfect. In fact, none are perfect.

The use of analogy does not require that every aspect of the two things be analogous, only the key things being compared. It is sometimes in the ways that the things are not analogous that the truth comes to light, and the mind is stimulated to learn more.

One of my favorite aspects of the car/gun analogy is this:

If you can find a reference the right to own and drive a car (or a wagon or a horse or any form of private conveyance) in the Constitution of the United States or in that of a state, then you can say that guns and cars must be regulated similarly in that state.

[FROGO207]

Yep the automobile ownership/use is a privilege and the firearms ownership/use is a constitutional right. NOT THE SAME. End of argument.

[ApacheCoTodd]

Originally Posted by FROGO207

Yep the automobile ownership/use is a privilege and the firearms ownership/use is a constitutional right. NOT THE SAME. End of argument.

Absolutely NOT the end of the argument.
The use of firearms while possibly implied is not a protected right as is the ownership whereas the ownership of a car (as personal property) has implied protection as a right yet USE of same on public roads is in no way a right but a strictly regulated privilege.

The analogy certainly stands especially when you factor in;
Relative numbers of deaths.
Liability arguments.
Mis-use.
Factors involving governmental control of alteration, modification, augmentation, safety requirements, etc...
Reckless use scenarios.

[-Xero-]

You don't have a constitutional right to automobiles.

This took a half dozen posts. Should have been the FIRST reply.

[DarrinD]

Originally Posted by -Xero-

This took a half dozen posts. Should have been the FIRST reply.

But you do have a constitutional right to travel; by extension you could argue that reasonable regulation of firearms is similar to regulation of automobiles (the implements of travel).

[joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by DarrinD

But you do have a constitutional right to travel; by extension you could argue that reasonable regulation of firearms is similar to regulation of automobiles (the implements of travel).

We already have 20,000 "reasonable" restrictions on firearms, but I have never heard of a ban on automobiles, confiscation of automobiles for lawful owners or 10 year prison sentences for illegal modifications of automobiles. You want more?
Auto's are not the only method of travel. Do we prohibit people who have committed misdemeanors from riding on trains, buses and planes? Boats?
Did you have to sign an affidavit and pass a background check to travel for the holidays? If the bureaucracy fails you, you have to submit your social security number, fingerprints and another affidavit and background check to travel.
Do you face 10 years in prison if you cut your travel too short? Or sell your cruise tickets to another.

Did you register your sneakers before you can hike in a National Forest? Is there a federal agency devoted to enforcing cosmetic restrictions on your shoes with mandatory minimum sentences?

Would these be "reasonable" restrictions on a Constitutionally protected right? The same document that empowers the government also restricts it. The 2nd Amendment is one of those specific restrictions upon it's power.

[GlowinPontiac]

CT has proposed requiring a license, registration and insurance for each gun you own. To be renewed anually.

Sounds exactly like a car.

Sent from my C5120 using Tapatalk 2

[michaelbsc]

Originally Posted by joeschmoe

Do we prohibit people who have committed misdemeanors from riding on trains, buses and planes? Boats?
Did you have to sign an affidavit and pass a background check to travel for the holidays? If the bureaucracy fails you, you have to submit your social security number, fingerprints and another affidavit and background check to travel.
Do you face 10 years in prison if you cut your travel too short? Or sell your cruise tickets to another.

Not *YET* , but I think the day is coming that you'll have to get travel permission.

Stage a few more rallies on the Capitol mall and they'll talk about it openly. The tresspas act will expand greatly.

I expect the younger members will see it.

[Carl N. Brown]

Most car registration and licensing laws were passed with a view to simply regulate automobile safety on the public streets in the least intrusive manner possible and to raise just enough revenue to pay for the enforcement of those laws.

My experience is that gun registration, permit and licensing laws are promoted by prohibitionists with a view to make it as hard as possible to own a gun short of outright prohibition. Read their venom: they hate guns, they want to repeal the Second Amendment and they loath NRA. At least FDR's Attorney General Homer Cummings was honest about the 1934 National Firearms Act, federal registration and $200 tax (in 1934 dollars) on pistols, concealable rifles and shotguns, machineguns, and silencers: he wanted to prohibit them, but his interpretation of the Second Amendment was he could not outright ban, so he wanted a tax and register law that amounted to defacto prohibition. Pistols were removed from the NFA before it passed (NRA is blamed for that). We must remember that the Australian confiscation and destruction of 600,000+ semi-auto and pump-action long guns in 1996 was only possible because they were first registered with the government.

[TylerS]

One of my favorite quote, "I don't entertain hypotheticals, the world is vexing enough as it is." True Grit, 2011

[larryh1108]

The main reason, that I see, that this comparison is used is because most people who wish to ban guns have absolutely no idea about them, never held or shot one and believe every gun has an evil soul.

We use the comparison because most people do drive and can understand how a restriction or change in the car laws would affect them. Banning guns does not affect them in any way but ban driving over 55mph and these same people will cry foul. It's not about the right to own guns, or cars, but about giving the antis something they can relate to when trying to make unneeded changes that affect them. It's more to give them something important to them to see our point.

[Match10]

Originally Posted by MachIVshooter

C) You are not required to register a vehicle that you're not going to operate on public streets. So I submit to the pro gun registration crowd, are you OK with only registering those firearms that will be used on public ranges? If so, how do you go about enforcing this?.

Not true at all....

Most localities derive a significant property ad valorem tax income from a registered vehicle, and that tax is due because you own it. The tax is due on every vehicle whether road worthy or not.