There are already a plethora of regulations and requirements you need to fulfill in order to own a vehicle; (an instrument whose primary purpose is to act as a form of transportation - instead of having a primary purposes of maiming) much more so than there are in regards to firearms. Lets examine a few... -You need to have insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle. The logic being that accidents do happen and whether or not you are the primary owner of said vehicle, you should be held responsible for your mistakes and victims do deserve compensation. How often do victims of firearm violence receive compensation? Very rarely can you hold family members who own the firearm responsible for the actions of those who carry out the violence (though they often neglect investing even in the barest modicum of security such as a firearm lock or safe). You can never hold the manufacturers of firearms accountable due to federal legislation (although you can hold vehicle manufactures responsible for some accidents). It seems, then, in this respect everyone involved in the process of vehicle ownership takes responsibility for errors that occur. Why can't firearm users bear the same burdens? -You need to renew a vehicles registration every year. Renewing the registration includes (but is not limited to) a throughout safety inspection of your vehicle. Where is the yearly firearm owner registration? Are your firearms checked by a licensed official every year to make sure they are still functioning safely? Is your background checked every year to make sure you haven't done anything which would preclude you from owning a firearm? The answers are, of course, no. Again, vehicles - instruments designed for transportation - are held to a higher standard of safety and regulation than are firearms. To be fair, most states require a firearms license to be renewed every 2-4 years (which is supposed to include a background check). However, since most states choose to be non-POCs (more on that later), and do not submit their records at a federal level, I would hesitate to say the background checks do very much of anything. I've already written quite a bit on vehicle regulations (though there are many more). But enough about that, let's turn to the glaring inadequacies of firearm regulations. -Under current federal law, only federally licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct a background check prior to purchasing a firearm. All in all around 40% of firearm purchases are not accompanied by a background check. As a result, those "adjudicated as a mental defective", "committed to a mental institution”, or “addicted to any controlled substance” under 18 U.S.C sec. 922 can still obtain firearms from unlicensed dealers who are not required to conduct background checks under federal law (and/or state law). -Due to changes in federal law, residents who possess concealed weapons permits issued on or after July 12, 2006 may obtain a concealed weapon without having to undergo a Brady Background Check. This allows those who would not be able to purchase a firearm under federal law, but for some reason have not yet had their permit revoked by the state, to obtain a firearm. Since states are exceptionally lax when reporting their records to criminal databases, those who should not be able to purchase firearms can use old permits to exempt themselves form a background check. -Although many people assume that states are required to submit their records to the federal NICS, that is not the case. States can choose to be non "Point of Contact" (POC) and, by doing so, are not required to submit their records on a federal level (and, more often than not, destroy the records after 24 hours) and do not conduct their own background checks. For example, Kentucky is currently a non-P.O.C. state. This means that if Kentucky does not submit all of their records to the federal government, persons who would be excluded from purchase under federal law may still be allowed to obtain a firearm (since the federal databases would not have access to and/or contain the entirety of Kentucky’s criminal records). Additionally, you can see how well states report violations (when there is no punishment for lax reporting) which would preclude people from owning firearms [url=http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/pr_032_11_charts.pdf]here[/url]. Generally the point of satire is to identify a problem in the world and mock the ridiculousness of both having the problem in the first place and allowing it to continue. Generally satirists are intimately informed about both sides of the issue and thus are able to comment on the issue more pointedly than others. Since you believe public safety should be an object of satire and that firearms and vehicles are worthy of analogy, I have to conclude that you are thoroughly misinformed about the subject as a whole and would urge you to inform yourself and try again.

Alright, it's obviously satire now, and not even a good bit of it at that. You could've done much better.[spoiler]test[/spoiler]

Can't tell if satire. If satire: it makes no sense and it's stupid. If not: you make no sense and you're stupid. e: The average horse gallops at 20-30 miles per hour, fyi.

No, what we should do is ban cars that can go 40mph and have any of the following features: -Spoilers -Adjustable seats -Tinted windows -Flames painted on the side Think of the children, support the Assault Vehicles Ban!

Ban breathing. OT: This would be stopping what the car was initially invented for. Quick, easy travel.

why don't we ban ovens as well, because people can burn themselves on them? I don't really think a law that increases taxes, forces you to get up early and drive tediously slowly will be very popular... I think if these laws passed, Jeremy Clarkson would spend the rest of his life hunting you down and killing you...

-blam!- off. This is lame, and you are not funny.