18yrs old - too young to own guns - yet 16yrs old - Old enough to stipulate gun policy?? - madness

originally posted by: Wildbob77
When I was 16 I knew that the war in Vietnam wan't something that I wanted to die in. I didn't believe in the domino theory of stopping the communists.

Just because you are 16, does not mean that you are simple and cannot understand the arguments for and against gun laws.

I think that we are witnessing the dawn of a new era. I think that the republicans are going to lose a lot of support if they continue to support the NRA view of the world.

To add to that, these 16 year olds are the ones in the schools that are being shot up. It's becoming common-place and they want to feel safe. No one understands where they are better than them.

They are not old enough to dictate policy. They just want change. They want this to stop. That's up to the adults. And the "same old story" isn't working any more.

And, yeah, soon enough they will be the adults. So, please, pay attention to these "snowflakes" who have likely seen more violence and insanity than most of us middle-aged folk.

a reply to: hunterTheory

I can agree with you there everything Government touches turns to poo. It's a tough problem and it doesn't seem to be a clear answer. I do know as a parent this month the thought of something bad happening has crossed my mind more than once while dropping my boy off at school.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
So, these kids are saying they want the legal age to buy guns raised and a person isn't mature enough at 18 to buy some/all firearms, but then how would a 14-18 yr old be mature enough to understand the complexities of the gun debate other than what they have been told. When I was 16 I watched a lot of football games, and played in a number, but I wouldn't even begin to think that I should make policy in NCAA or NFL.

Even if there were an "assualt weapons" ban, such as during 1999 when Columbine happened, did that stop that incident? How do these people think restricting one (or a few) guns is going to stop this, it's like banning a few models of cars because they have been involved in lots of traffic accidents (they are the most popular models & appeal to risky drivers) while 90% of the accidents were drug/drunk/texting related. Outlawing the car is analogous to banning the gun(s).

Do the marchers not understand this or do they just have deeper ulterior motives?

So in essence, you support the second amendment but want to suppress their first amendment rights because you don't agree with the message they're sending? Sorry but we can't arbitrarily determine what rights others have or shouldn't have, when we disagree with them. There are a lot of people and groups who I fundamentally disagree with but I, perhaps naively, believe in the principles of our constitution to the extent that giving everyone a voice is critical to our culture and society as Americans.

I believed in these principles strongly enough that I put my life, my safety and my security on the line and got my mother to sign the papers allowing me to enlist before I turned 18. And because I believed so strongly in the US constitution the Bill of Rights and the writings of James Madison who we can thank for the 2nd Amendment and most of the Bill of Rights, 27 years later I'm unable to work, walk with a cane and have had multiple surgeries so I'll be damned if someone is going to shut down another individuals or another groups rights to have their opinions voiced and heard simply because other people are scared of and feel threatened by a dissenting opinion.

Get a spine and use facts to falsify the opinions you disagree with. Because when you simply shut them down and deny them the same rights you wish to preserve for yourself, it just makes them climb a little higher and yell a little louder. In other words, you give their position more credence than it actually has on it's own by attempting to silence their voices instead of utilizing rational debate to support your own argument and show the errors in theirs.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

We need to raise the age on gun purchases, alcohol, voting, driving and getting an abortion all to 21. This makes sense if we also make the enlistment age to be in the military 21 as well. Let's just treat everyone like a child until 21.

a reply to: Admitted

I think that there is a sense of frustration among many people here in the US.

What have the politicians done in the past 20 years to put an end to school shootings?

Why do people with mental issues that make them a danger to themselves and others still allowed to purchase guns?

Where in the constitution is the right to high capacity magazines and or semi automatic weapons guaranteed?

I think it's time for a change.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

You want to see the mother of all protests? Make a connection with video games and cell phones with school shootings about now, then demand the kids give up their video games and electronic devices, see how that would play out.

I am hoping that since they have the eyes and ears of the world and being led by the media, that something good will come out of this, like teachers getting paid better wages, and parents being held responsible for knowing what their children are involved in and with, while living in their parents homes and right under their noses.

No sense in letting this platform go to waste.

a reply to: Wildbob77

That's it exactly. It's been that same old story for too long. Columbine happened 20 years ago and all we have are more mass shootings.

The kids of today can either believe that we can do something to change it...or...? We just keep going with what we have...

I think it's time for a change too.

a reply to: Admitted

Change to what though?

The war on drugs was supposed to save us all too as was Prohibition. What did they accomplish?

Evil originates with us, not the things around us. If you want change, then look within.

a reply to: ketsuko

I know the war on drugs is a total failure. Banning a thing doesn't make it go away, nor does it constitute or initiate change.

People will do drugs and people will kill people, no matter what our policies and laws.

The difference here is: with drugs the kids (and adults) kill themselves. And with guns, the kids (and adults) kill others.

Some may argue that drug dealers spread the death...well, ok...but the choice remains. You don't have a choice when a gun presents itself in your face.

Banning guns, or restricting them in a way most of us in the U.S. aren't accustomed to...will make the "getting shot" scenario far less likely. Not in the short term. But definitely down the road when guns are so expensive and rare that the people who get them will only use them when absolutely necessary. Not when "Todd" stole "Henry's" girlfriend.

a reply to: Admitted

Not really.

How many gun crimes are committed every day by people who shouldn't have had the guns they did (i.e. those guns were illegal already)?

As I already mentioned, this kid who shot up Parkland should have been so deep into the system that he was already in a facility somewhere, but because the system chose to look the other way, he was allowed to snap in a disastrous manner. The system created him by ignoring all the warning signs.

Do you know why most gun crimes don't become media cause celebres? Because they take place in the inner city and involve an illegal firearm, meaning the person who did the crime shouldn't have had the firearm because it was illegal already. You can't complain about lax gun laws when the gun laws weren't followed.

George Soros and company did NOT succeed at Occupy Wall Street, nor get HIllery into the White House, or the Pussyhat project, or any of the other manmade propaganda based unrealistic sometimes "Paid protestor" marches and so-called demonstrations and marches... When will people stop being used and see the big picture?

In Missouri, there were peaceful discussions on College campuses and high schools that were not covered by the msm, which were a great example of how these issues can and should be organized. Were they spontaneous events that were not under any control other than students meeting up with students versus paid and bought, scripted events? No heated debates that ended in anger and frustration.

Most students do feel terrible for the 17 and many more numbers that have happened over the past 9 years and deserve to have open forums regarding their thoughts and opinions on past shootings as well as think about how best to decide how their school can take steps to keep them safe without infringing unforgivably on others ideas.

Pardon me if this is incoherent as I am super tired but wanted to chime in on this discussion.

YOU GO KETSU!!! Some solid remarks made here.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Admitted

Not really.

How many gun crimes are committed every day by people who shouldn't have had the guns they did (i.e. those guns were illegal already)?

As I already mentioned, this kid who shot up Parkland should have been so deep into the system that he was already in a facility somewhere, but because the system chose to look the other way, he was allowed to snap in a disastrous manner. The system created him by ignoring all the warning signs.

Do you know why most gun crimes don't become media cause celebres? Because they take place in the inner city and involve an illegal firearm, meaning the person who did the crime shouldn't have had the firearm because it was illegal already. You can't complain about lax gun laws when the gun laws weren't followed.

ALL of the gun crimes committed every day by people who shouldn't have guns are committed BY PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE GUNS. That's the point.

Can we ensure that every criminal, or mentally deficient person doesn't acquire a gun? No. Yes, these things should have been prevented. The kid in Parkland was known to law enforcement. It was a failure.

The thing is...these failures will continue. People fail. The guns don't need to be available. If they aren't, over time...these failures won't be so horrible.

I understand the argument about inner-city gun crimes. It's the same and should get the same media attention. The current attention shouldn't be overlooked just because it originates from a school-shooting story.

originally posted by: hunterTheory
a reply to: Saiker

Mental Health will strip millions of law abiding Americans from their right to bare arms. This entire “mental health” problem has gotten way out of hand. There’s plenty of people “insane” that never been diagnosed, meanwhile law abiding citizens with a little anxiety or ADHD face loosing their rights to own a gun. I think better security for our schools seems like a better answer than stripping guns from citizens.

Here is the problem. Sadness, anxiety and depression are all normal responses to unpleasant events. In time they go away except in extreme cases. That is why depression and anxiety can be described as an episode or bout. Losing a job can destroy your sense of self esteem. Add to that the anxiety of financial fears and worry about the future. You are ready for an episode of depression. Land that next job, pay your bills on time, feel better about tomorrow and everything is fine. Except for the fact that you just lost your second amendment rights because you went to a therapist who recorded your depression which is now in the hands of the government.

Worse yet is the fact that people process grief, sadness, anxiety, etc, differently. It might take one person several weeks to fully recover from a major life setback. The next person experiencing the exact same conditions may take several months to fully recover. The next may have lingering issues for years but recover more than enough to function on a daily basis. Which of these, if any, to disqualify from second amendment rights is currently a very arbitrary decision. Rest assured that government, given access to these records, will err on the side of excess.

Now, for those who are ready to start typing and tell me about clinical depression, I know what it is. A diagnosis of clinical depression replete with chemical imbalance is still a potentially transient condition. Its not always a "once you get it you can never get rid of it" type of thing. So how do we handle people who had depression but got over it? Do they get their 2A rights back?

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
Maybe.. Many 18 year old's aren't responsible to own a gun is because they aren't half as responsible as the 16 year old's that fought in World War 2.

That's the parent's fault.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Admitted

Not really.

How many gun crimes are committed every day by people who shouldn't have had the guns they did (i.e. those guns were illegal already)?

As I already mentioned, this kid who shot up Parkland should have been so deep into the system that he was already in a facility somewhere, but because the system chose to look the other way, he was allowed to snap in a disastrous manner. The system created him by ignoring all the warning signs.

Do you know why most gun crimes don't become media cause celebres? Because they take place in the inner city and involve an illegal firearm, meaning the person who did the crime shouldn't have had the firearm because it was illegal already. You can't complain about lax gun laws when the gun laws weren't followed.

Are you forgetting the road rage incidents (legal gun owners) and the murder of women by their spouses (legal gun owners) and the murder of children by children whose parents own guns (the 9 year old who killed his sister, the 4 year old who shot the baby (in an NRA home, yet) and all the suicides?

Suicides account for 1/3 of the deaths (looking at CDC statistics for the 50 largest cities for 2006-2007) ... and I'm pretty darn sure that most of those were legal guns.

Gun deaths are so common that they rate only a small mention... because there are so many each day.

Congress will pass some small measure to show that they tried, and then move on.

a reply to: Admitted

So you are arguing with taking away a basic unalienable right to stop something you just admitted won't be stopped?

It sounds to me like your argument is:

I know it won't stop the murdering, but I think we should severely restrict if not remove your right to self-defense entirely because it will make me feel better about the murders that will continue to take place.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Admitted

Not really.

How many gun crimes are committed every day by people who shouldn't have had the guns they did (i.e. those guns were illegal already)?

As I already mentioned, this kid who shot up Parkland should have been so deep into the system that he was already in a facility somewhere, but because the system chose to look the other way, he was allowed to snap in a disastrous manner. The system created him by ignoring all the warning signs.

Do you know why most gun crimes don't become media cause celebres? Because they take place in the inner city and involve an illegal firearm, meaning the person who did the crime shouldn't have had the firearm because it was illegal already. You can't complain about lax gun laws when the gun laws weren't followed.

ALL of the gun crimes committed every day by people who shouldn't have guns are committed BY PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE GUNS. That's the point.

Can we ensure that every criminal, or mentally deficient person doesn't acquire a gun? No. Yes, these things should have been prevented. The kid in Parkland was known to law enforcement. It was a failure.

The thing is...these failures will continue. People fail. The guns don't need to be available. If they aren't, over time...these failures won't be so horrible.

I understand the argument about inner-city gun crimes. It's the same and should get the same media attention. The current attention shouldn't be overlooked just because it originates from a school-shooting story.

Here is something for you to consider. Legislation does not change the behavior of criminals. Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. It doesn't matter how many laws you pass, criminals are still going to break them. These laws do not prevent crimes from happening. They only give you a way to prosecute after the fact. What good is that if the goal is to save lives? Answer: none.