Gun owners stridently refuse to pay their own way with taxes and licenses and insurance, relying on the taxes of the rest of the citizenry to pay the high cost to society of gun ownership, the additional gear the police need to use, the hospital costs, loss of employment opportunities in violent neighborhoods, hours arguing on Facebook (well not really so much), additional security costs entering just about any public facility these days, etc.

As a non-gun owner I would prefer that my money not be used to subsidize all these things.  But anytime anyone raises the issue of maybe, I dunno, requiring the stuff for guns that we do for cars, folks get all crazy about the second amendment and how this supposedly cramps their rights.

No, we certainly don’t want to cramp your rights but we do think you should pay for them especially as they tend towards the expensive elective forms of gun ownership.  There frankly doesn’t seem to be a rational reason why you’d need those modern high-powered killing machines for “sporting” or any other purpose.  But we’re not quibbling with that. We’re just suggesting you pay proportionately.

If you choose to own a super fast sports car like a Lambo or a Ferrari we assume you can also factor in the cost of insuring the thing.  And it seems pretty reasonable the cost of insuring a Lambo would be quite a bit greater than the cost to insure a Civic.  You can’t drive that super car on public roads anywhere near it’s capacity, but we don’t fret about that as long as you pay the insurance premiums.  Your decision to own a vehicle like that instead of doing something a little more useful with the money, not our concern.

But gun owners don’t wanna.  They want the public to bear the costs of their sports car ownership.  Should everyone pay for someone to drive a Lambo?  Didn’t think so.