Please justify to me why 18-20 Year Olds shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a firearm?

[ttwtt78640]

Talking points ... get you nowhere fast.

We had a ban on Assault Weapons for 10 years and that ban did make people feel better.

States have been doing just that - do you think they feel better for it?

 

[minnie616]

It's been pointed out that through Caetano, Heller and Miller that any and all restrictions aren't allowed either, even those that some may consider "common sense". The Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia". If your restrictions can meet those guidelines, and are effective, enforceable and necessary, have at'em.

And the courts could decide that people younger than 21 cannot buy a long gun. ( people have to be 21 to buy a handgun).

It could be decided that states or even the Federal government can ban Assault Weapons as not having a common use for lawful purpose.

 

[minnie616]

That's not sufficient reason for a law, especially one that infringes upon a protected right. There are plenty of neighborhoods where the residents would feel good if Black youths were forbidden to visit. Is that a good reason for a law?

It is NOT infringing on a right.

You have a right to keep your guns and individuals will still have rights to buy guns even if an Assault Weapons ban is in effect.

It would just prevent new Assault Weapons and parts from being manufactured or resold.

 

[minnie616]

rights are not dependent on the whims of the low wattage masses. You are on record wanting to ban some guns just to make people feel better when you ignore you would anger millions of people who take their rights seriously

Clinton figured his moronic gun ban were going to be popular

it was with Hatch and Newt who became majority leaders when gun owners gave the donkeys a serious ass kicking in the 94 midterms

And midterms are often a shakeup....it is that way with politics.

 

[TurtleDude]

And midterms are often a shakeup....it is that way with politics.

yep but your beloved Billy admitted it was his idiotic jihad against honest gun owners (rather than criminals) which cost his party control and led to his impeachment debacle

 

[Manc Skipper]

It is NOT infringing on a right.

You have a right to keep your guns and individuals will still have rights to buy guns even if an Assault Weapons ban is in effect.

It would just prevent new Assault Weapons and parts from being manufactured or resold.

Heller doesn't say what he thinks it does. There is no blanket permission to own guns, or bars on regulation.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The NRA used to be a movement advocating for legal, responsible ownership of firearms. That's long gone

 

[Rucker61]

The NRA used to be a movement advocating for legal, responsible ownership of firearms. That's long gone

Absolutely wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is NOT infringing on a right.

You have a right to keep your guns and individuals will still have rights to buy guns even if an Assault Weapons ban is in effect.

It would just prevent new Assault Weapons and parts from being manufactured or resold.

unconstitutional

if your church was banned would you still have first amendment rights if you could attend the church of another faith. If you were told you would be jailed for criticizing Trump, do you still have free speech if you can criticize Joe Biden?

 

[TurtleDude]

The NRA used to be a movement advocating for legal, responsible ownership of firearms. That's long gone

England used to not have collective bed wettings over people owning firearms too

 

[Manc Skipper]

The 2nd Amendment is meant to ensure that the people have a "well-regulated militia". The NRA has ensured that there are perhaps 300,000,000 untraceable firearms in the USA, with no national criteria for purchasing them, which does not resemble in any way what the founding fathers envisioned.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Absolutely wrong.

True they lost the plot when the gunmakers funding started. Now they're about selling guns and rolling back the pitiful regulation that still exists.

 

[TurtleDude]

The 2nd Amendment is meant to ensure that the people have a "well-regulated militia". The NRA has ensured that there are perhaps 300,000,000 untraceable firearms in the USA, with no national criteria for purchasing them, which does not resemble in any way what the founding fathers envisioned.

another blatant lie

 

[minnie616]

she's anti right wing Christian Conservative males and their politics.

Who is the she you are referring to? If you are talking about me than you are very wrong. Of all the people on this DP gun control forum, I thought you knew me better than to make blantany wrong comments about me.

 

[Perotista]

Honest question. Can anyone please justify this? The NRA is suing on this one, and I fail to see a logical reason why someone could be sent to war but not purchase a firearm. And before someone attempts to say “well if you get special training...” remember that you don’t need to be in the military to get rights. That is not the point of the constitution.

Guns is a hot issue where probably little logic exists among those on both sides of the issue. I grew up in a different era, the 1950's. My grandpa had guns back then, placed in racks above the fireplace with ammunition for them on the mantle. My dad had guns in the hallway closet with ammo on the back shelve. Seeing pickups back then with shotguns and rifles in racks on the back window was common and few if any locked their pickup when in town or at home. My dad gave me my first gun at the age of 12, a .410 and I still own guns to this day. No gun control laws back then outside one had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. I used to ride my bike into town to the Western Auto to buy shells for my .410 at the age of 13. No problem. Yet there was one lone mass shooting that entire decade and no school shootings at all. School shootings didn't become common until around 1998 when we have had 15 since then. There were a total of nine prior to 1998 with the first being in 1764.

In the 1700's there was one
1800's two
1900-1997 six

This brings me back to age. Many 12 and 13 year olds back in my day were mature enough to handle and have guns of their own. That is probably still the case today. I also have known 50 year olds I wouldn't trust with a plastic dinner knife let alone a gun. I don't think age has anything to do with being responsible or mature enough, both as an individual and with owning or buying guns.

Perhaps upbringing does. There's no doubt that society has changed since I was a kid. Some for the better, some for the worst, but it has changed. I don't think guns are responsible for either these school shootings or mass shootings. I think the individual who does it is responsible. That with or without the availability of guns, a tool, the motivation to kill and kill in mass quantities will still be there.

The deadliest school killing was done in Michigan, not by guns, but using a bomb, dynamite to kill 45 kids. Gasoline and a match killed 87 I believe in a Brooklyn club. Far more deadly than with a gun. Oklahoma City 168 dead as a result of a truck bomb. My point, leave the motivation in place, do nothing to find the reason or the cause, mass and schooling killings will continue. The means, the tool, will change, sometimes more deadlier, sometimes not. But mark my word, banning an AR-15, raising the age to 21 to buy guns, will do nothing to stop what has been happening at a much higher clip in the last 20 years than prior to that.

 

[Rucker61]

The 2nd Amendment is meant to ensure that the people have a "well-regulated militia". The NRA has ensured that there are perhaps 300,000,000 untraceable firearms in the USA, with no national criteria for purchasing them, which does not resemble in any way what the founding fathers envisioned.

How did the founding fathers intend for firearms to be traced?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

What's that "much more prone" factor? What's the ratio of school shooters to total males in school, or total males in the age range of the shooters?

What's the gender ratio of the school shooters?

 

[minnie616]

Individuals ages 18 to 20 commit homicides using guns at a rate that’s four times higher than the rate for those over 21, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, using F.B.I. and census data.

 

[Rucker61]

What's the gender ratio of the school shooters?

Even if they are all male, and they aren't, you're going to have to have ratios higher than 5 in 50 million to use the phrase "much more prone"?

 

[Rucker61]

Individuals ages 18 to 20 commit homicides using guns at a rate that’s four times higher than the rate for those over 21, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, using F.B.I. and census data.

What percentage of those criminals are using legally owned guns? Will not allowing law abiding 18-20 year old citizens to purchase or own guns do anything to prevent criminal age 18-20 from acquiring or using guns in crime?

 

[minnie616]

What percentage of those criminals are using legally owned guns? Will not allowing law abiding 18-20 year old citizens to purchase or own guns do anything to prevent criminal age 18-20 from acquiring or using guns in crime?

The Parkland shooter who is/was 19 at the time of shooting bought his gun legally.

 

[Rucker61]

The Parkland shooter who is/was 19 at the time of shooting bought his gun legally.

You realize that anecdote doesn't equal data, right. We have no idea how many of the homicides committed by 18-20 year olds were committed with legally owned firearms. We know that the vast majority of homicides are committed with handguns which this age group can't legally purchase.

VPC knows this. They aren't interested in being accurate. They're interested in their propaganda.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Individuals ages 18 to 20 commit homicides using guns at a rate that’s four times higher than the rate for those over 21, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, using F.B.I. and census data.

The murder numbers by the (known) age of the perp rises at age 17 and does not drop below that until age 30. Using above age 21 is as dishonest as using the rate. Murder rates do not drop at age 21 - that is attained by including those 30 and above with those aged 21 to 29 to place many more people (aged 30 to 100) into the murder rate calculation.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-in-the-us-by-age/

 

[Rucker61]

The murder numbers by the (known) age of the perp rises at age 17 and does not drop below that until age 30. Using above age 21 is as dishonest as using the rate. Murder rates do not drop at age 21 - that is attained by including those 30 and above with those aged 21 to 29 to place many more people (aged 30 to 100) into the murder rate calculation.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-in-the-us-by-age/

VPC can include all those 65 and older in their numbers. They really aren't honest at all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

VPC can include all those 65 and older in their numbers. They really aren't honest at all.

Yep, all kinds of games can be played with statistics. The site that I used is fairly honest but their graph uses standard 5 year age groups except for those aged 17-19 (only a 3 year group) - we do not know how many of the 374 murders would be added to that groups total if that group included those age 15-19 (a 5 year group). For example, since males commit almost all violent crime you can cut the male violent crime rate almost in half by simply adding in females and using all people.