this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
217 points (76.9% liked)

Liberal Gun Owners

507 readers
1 users here now

A community for pro-gun liberals.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 180 points 4 weeks ago (18 children)

Man if only it was actually like how cars are regulated.

Required training, tests, insurance needs and has to be safe for others.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 58 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

And you can't take an F1 car out anywhere.except a track.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 32 points 3 weeks ago

If only cars were actually regulated like we pretend they are...

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

What an interesting concept. Insuring the gun owner could really have merit. Then you’d have a company who would be very heavily invested in the responsibility of the gun owner, as well as needing a record of firearms owned to be insured.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

You'd also have pressure on firearms manufacturers and regulatory bodies because the insurance companies covering the owners would do everything in their power to shift blame away from their customers, so as to avoid paying out on the policies. Suddenly you have a lot of money behind preventing accidental discharge, etc

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You'd also have a lot of people who simply couldn't afford to be covered because they are obviously unstable jackasses that have no business owning a fucking sharp pencil, let alone a gun, and an insurance company would be able to spot that in about five seconds.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Right, and my life insurance should be able to hold a claim against their insurance, or everything they own. That way my insurance doesn’t go up with their recklessness and my heirs don’t need to deal with the legalities

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

You're just creating a tax on the poor for them to practice a constitutional right. Insurance providers 1. Aren't going to pay out anyway, that's their whole thing, so much like health insurance, it's money being thrown away every month, and 2. You're adding another middleman from an industry most people think is greedy/corrupt AF, and why would that ever be a good thing? Plus, you know damn well once the insurance companies get involved, all of a sudden minority gun ownership numbers are going to drop because, mysteriously, all of their premiums shot up overnight for totally ~~racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic~~ unknown reasons.

I'm all for requiring more training, or licensing, background checks should be required for every gun sale, I'm just saying this to show I fully support gun control measures.

Require more training, but it needs to be made affordable. Every gun control bill is just banning firearm models, or limiting magazine capacities, or whatever. None of them every talk about subsidizing firearms training for those who need or want it. Even my blue state only requires one 8-hour class and one live-fire test to get your conceal carry permit, and the instructors even talked about how people ask about taking further training, but when they hear the cost and time (almost all the classes require taking time off work, which some can't do) involved, they just say they can't afford it and they'll just watch YouTube or whatever.

Edit: Not sure how "creating an unnecessary monetary barrier turns a constitutional right into a constitutional privilege for the rich, all while enrichening a corrupt industry that will absolutely fuck this up" is such a controversial take, especially when I've added that training courses should be mandatory and subsidized so that finances aren't a barrier...

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I agree. Gun insurance is the future. You want to have your guns? Fine. Underwrite the risk.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

The required training for a driver's license is a bit of a joke.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago

I'd rather a joke with a little training and safety classes to lower your liability insurance than the current solution of ignoring the problem

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 12 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

It is more than is needed for gun ownership. The arsenal I inherited required nothing. The one I have purchased required a 48 hour wait I think it was. In none of the cases did I have to prove I knew how to handle a firearm.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

Sadly depends on the state. Would also love if we did more like other countries for driving instruction. Although would need more public transport before that would possible

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't need any of that if you don't go on public roads. Many a farm truck has been driven by kids.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

And no one cares about what you do with your guns if you're out in the boonies where you can't hurt anyone else.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh I promise you that there are plenty of people who do.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

There are 300 million people in America. I'm sure you can find dozens who care.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

God I wish we could apply that to every right, y'know? Like, wouldn't it be great if we could test people before they could vote, so that we knew that they understood the functions of the different branches of gov't, the limitations, the history of legislation, the origins of common law and where our style of government comes from... It would be so wonderful if rights weren't really rights at all, but were privileges only given to the most well educated and intelligent people.

Maybe even some literacy tests.

Oh, or if you needed a license and credentials in order to speak in public! That would be awesome! Or if you needed to be an attorney to assert your right to remain silent!

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"providing evidence that you won't be a danger before being allowed to have a weapon? HOW DARE YOU!"

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

...That's a logical impossibility though. You can't prove a negative.

And now we're right back to laws that prevented non-white people from owning firearms.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

Require weapons training, licensing and certification, require passing a background check, require renewal of said certification & license (ideally with refresher tests required. I'd like to see the same for drivers licenses too), revoke licenses when certain law enforcement actions happen (again, just like a drivers license), and most importantly actually remove the property when there is nobody licensed to have it (this needs to happen with cars too!) easy peasy

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

Don't argue semantics.

You can provide evidence that you are capable of safely using and storing your weapon.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Wouldn't be great if the police could just search anyone for any reason (or no reason) at any time unless they have obtained a privacy permit? Think of how many criminals they could catch, including people who shouldn't have guns, if they could just set up road blocks and strip search everyone who comes through (except those with permits, obviously). For good measure they should make us all take off our shoes too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

Gun ownership is a right protected under the 2nd amendment. If cars had been around during the revolutionary war then perhaps there would have been an amendment as well. But as it is cars can be regulated to a larger degree as they are not a protected right under our constitution.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)