Appeals court rules 21-year minimum age for handgun purchases is unconstitutional

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's dead on accurate.

a reply to: Freeborn

Why is somebody in England so interested in the US Gun Laws?

a reply to: davegazi2

At the time I enlisted (1982) the Air Force had a recruiting hold. I wanted my Aircraft Mechanic's License, but, there were no openings in the Air Force. I was working on getting into the Warrant Officer program in the Army to fly helicopters, but, they had an incident with one of the recruiters who was falsifying the field that some people thought that they were getting. That left the Navy.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Why shouldn't I have an opinion?

Why shouldn't I express that opinion and discuss it with other people, after all, that is at the very core of this site?

Is it a problem for you that I am English?

Reminder that 40 percent of Democrats admitted they want to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment. I have no doubt the real number is actually higher, but some were savvy enough not to reveal that to a pollster.

The "no one wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'commonsense' reforms" argument holds no water. We know what they want. They've told us.

Beto "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15" O'Rourke.

Remember the Parkland girl? "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile." I'm sure she was told after that not to be so honest about their intentions, but the truth is out there.

Some will say you can't listen to her because she was just a teen activist. Since when? We've been told over and over we need to listen to these teen activists. She got cheers from a crowd of thousands. It wasn't an extreme idea, the whole crowd agreed with it.

We've seen what these people do when they get the power to pass all the "commonsense" reforms they want. They pass so many restrictions and regulations and fees and hoops that it effectively bans the average person from being able to own a gun. This isn't theory. It's not a what-if. They've done it in many cities and a few whole states around this country. Anyone who tells you this isn't their intention is uninformed or lying.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: JIMC5499

Why shouldn't I have an opinion?

Why shouldn't I express that opinion and discuss it with other people, after all, that is at the very core of this site?

Is it a problem for you that I am English?

You are exactly correct....the internet is a marketplace of ideas where we oftentimes cast aside the lenses of culture that this marketplace is viewed through. The simplest way to put this is: common sense gun reforms were made. That ship sailed, as several reforms have been made along the way. Sometimes those reforms are in more localized areas like Chicago, where we see the utter failure of these reforms.

And while it would be correct to assert that the availability of guns in general is what makes guns laws in Chicago not work. I will not dispute that at all. Strict authoritarianism will almost always achieve its goal of suppression of anything but ideas. But as an American, viewed through the lens of my culture, I see that as pure folly. For one, its well established that the primary thing preventing any sort of military action against the US within the US borders is that our citizens are ridiculously armed, and represent a standing army in the hundreds of millions. Beyond that, we have ample background evidence to support a fear of disarming in places like Cambodia, Cuba, and Nazi Germany.

While you Brits may trust your government...most Americans do not. Again, for good reason. This government has medically experimented on us. There is zero reason to trust them.

a reply to: Freeborn

I have no problem with you having an opinion. I've actually enjoyed the conversation. If my question came across as adversarial, please accept my apology, because that was not my intent.

a reply to: JIMC5499

No need to apologise at all.

I'm no hypersensitive, woke, snowflake....not by any stretch.

And I like straight talking.

Its good to have open and frank discussions with people, especially people with different viewpoints.
I try my best not to have a locked in perspective on things and absolutely refuse to be stereotyped and pigeon holed.

Surely one of the main attractions of this site is the exchange of ideas and opinions.....which is why I'm continually dismayed with the amount of people who refuse to consider alternative thinking to their own inflexible take on things.

We're all guilty of it sometimes, but there's those who take it to the extreme.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are exactly correct....the internet is a marketplace of ideas where we oftentimes cast aside the lenses of culture that this marketplace is viewed through.

I really can't see why someone would want to be a member of this site if they don't appreciate the exchange of ideas and opinions and consider new theories etc....well, apart from maybe Flat Earth Theory!

The simplest way to put this is: common sense gun reforms were made. That ship sailed, as several reforms have been made along the way.

With that in mind and the meme you posted earlier I think I'll have to go away and read up on gun control reform in the US.

But I still think that certain people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun.

Sometimes those reforms are in more localized areas like Chicago, where we see the utter failure of these reforms.

Chicago is always portrayed as some sort of hell hole here on ATS.
It's the 3rd largest city in the US, surely it can't be ALL bad?

What reforms have been specific to Chicago?

For one, its well established that the primary thing preventing any sort of military action against the US within the US borders is that our citizens are ridiculously armed, and represent a standing army in the hundreds of millions.

Are you sure?
I'd suggest its the logistical nightmare faced by any invading force.
And the strength and magnitude of your military would still ensure that the invaders faced an almighty task.
How many armed personnel would be required to successfully invade the US?
How would they get there?
How would they be fed?
Of course the armed citizenship is a consideration, but I don't think it'd be the primary concern.

Beyond that, we have ample background evidence to support a fear of disarming in places like Cambodia, Cuba, and Nazi Germany.

I'd never advocate UK like gun laws in the US - its apple's and pears.
Gun ownership is engrained in the American psyche.
And there's that many guns over there that any sort carte blanche ban would only disarm law abiding citizens whilst the criminals retained their guns etc.

Only a complete idiot would fail to recognise that.

But, and its a massive BUT - something has to change because what you have at present is utter madness.

I don't know what needs doing.
It'll take far cleverer minds than mine to work that out.....but that doesn't alter the fact that things need to change.

I will however offer the thought that maybe all the gun related deaths and crime are a sign of a far deeper malaise in American society?

While you Brits may trust your government....

I trust no-one who seeks to govern me.

The vast majority of Brits are either apathetic or extremely cynical.
Very, very few trust the government, quite the opposite.

...most Americans do not.

I suspect that the opinions of most Americans won't be that dissimilar to those of us Brits.

This government has medically experimented on us.

A discussion for another time and place methinks.

There is zero reason to trust them

On that we are in 100% agreement.

originally posted by: Gothmog

Appeals court rules 21-year minimum age for handgun purchases is unconstitutional

I agree under certain conditions.
Not trying to sound like a gun control nut (exact opposite of who I am) , but I really do feel there should be some sort of psychological evaluations first.

Someone popping out kids (thug criminals) willy nilly will do more damage to society than a "potentially deranged" 18 year old with a gun. Psychological evaluations for child birth? How about driving a car? Walking down the street?

a reply to: Freeborn

I don't think its utter madness. Our murder rate is a little higher, mostly due to southern states and challenges that are pretty unique to them (sharing a border with Mexico, combined with the lasting effects of reconstruction). But if you look at our northern states, its pretty in line with Europe.

I think part of what you see is a quick change by media. They open a piece talking about "gun violence", but then begin discussing multiple types of violence beyond just guns. You often see a lead of "gun violence", then a seamless shift to "murder rate", with the insinuation being that they were all shot and killed.

To effect gun deaths in America, the first and best solution relates to our veterans. Half of all gun deaths in the US are veterans comitting suicide. Half. Talk about low hanging fruit, right? And you touch on it...not everyone should own a gun. But here's the rub: do people really have a right to take someones gun from them? If so, then do we also think its ok to declaw a cat? Because they are the same thing: humans have every right to defend themselves, even if they are insane.

Its incredibly serious business, seizing rights from someone. And i fear that psychology, as it exists today, is as unscientific as one can find. It is technically a liberal art, and the reality of it is its "sciency", and prone to dogma ruling it. An old fart with lots of papers published, and has tenure at a place like Harvard, could easily make up whatever nonsense they want to become the "expert of choice" when folks want to seize weapons from citizens through the courts. That is a very slippery slope that I am not willing to accept, especially when the risk seems to be mostly with the person shooting the gun and their old physical well being.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

And i fear that psychology, as it exists today, is as unscientific as one can find.

As someone who struggles with mental illness and deals with psychologists a lot, you are right on target here.

I love science, but when you boil it down, most science is educated guesses. They get stuff wrong all the time. Things that were accepted as proven fact are disproven over and over. There are few things in science that are known with 100% absolute certainty.

a reply to: face23785

That is the difference between "law" and "theory". You are right...lots of theories work but are not proven out. As an accountant this makes total sense...just because it balances doesn't mean its right.

With psychology is even more off. First, much of the prior 25 years has been rocked by various p-hacking scandals that call into question several key assumptions people make. And don't get me wrong, i see the value of p-hacking datasets to look for other avenues to explore. But to use this method to make determinations is so far outside of the scientific method that it stupefies.

Whats worse is when i discuss this with people within psychology, their cognitive dissonance steps in and controls the response. That they don't see the issue with this within their field is even more worrying, as it makes me wonder if this field of study ever has a chance of being scientific.

I prefer the terms that one of my Professors used. "Hard Science and Soft Science". The definition that he gave was that "Hard Science" referred to things like Physics and Chemistry, while "Soft Science" was Biology and Psychology. The "Hard Sciences" have defined terms and laws that can be proven by experimentation with reproducible results. "Soft Sciences" do not.

I've stated before, I agree that some people shouldn't be allowed guns. The problem is how do we determine who those people are? I mentioned the Air Force being sued, but, did you know that the Virginia Tech shooter wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, if the people at Virginia Tech had done their job, by the Law? It's not just guns. The man who ran over several people a few years ago, should have had his license revoked and a warrant issued for his arrest, but, Massachusetts State employees didn't do their jobs.

Anybody know what all of those had in common? Public Sector Union employees who have no fear of being fired. How about we enforce the current laws and see how they work before making any new ones.

Freeborn, we have laws in place to prevent certain people from having guns, but, they are only as good as the people applying them. The same can be said about any new laws.

Gun laws only affect the people that you don't have to worry about in the first place.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Soft science are areas like social sciences where you study history, culture, politics, behaviors, behaviorial studies, etc.

Hard science has defined laws... engineering, physics, math, etc. Pretty much any experiment is reproducible and generally not subject to nuance, interpretation, or other outside influence.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

I mentioned the Air Force being sued, but, did you know that the Virginia Tech shooter wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun, if the people at Virginia Tech had done their job, by the Law?

Very true, and this is by no means unique to that case. The Parkland shooter had red flags in his past that should have prevented him from buying a gun, but none of it was properly documented because that school system and local leadership had a soft-on-crime policy that kept these things off offenders' records.

Many of these mass shooters turn out to have extensive backgrounds that, if it had been properly documented, would have prevented them from being able to legally purchase a gun. Why add more restrictions that will simply not be enforced, as the current safeguards are not being enforced? Maybe try fixing what we already have first. This is why "universal background checks" are a waste of time. If there's no data in the system to flag dangerous individuals, it doesn't matter how "universal" your background check system is.

However, this is all a moot point anyway, because the majority of guns used in crimes are not legally purchased. Straw purchases, which are already a federal felony, are the primary method through which criminals obtain their guns. If any of these mass shooters failed a background check and couldn't purchase the gun themselves, they could've just had someone else buy it for them, or done like the Newtown shooter did and stole the guns from someone they knew.

You'd have to outright ban guns to prevent these things from happening. So I say to the anti-gunners, have the courage of your convictions and advocate for that. Everything else is just smokescreen and red herrings, and it's why many gun rights proponents like myself simply can't take you seriously. Most of the things you advocate for would have no impact on preventing mass shootings or gun crime in general.

ETA: I'd also like to add that even if you banned guns, we have a wide open border that coincidentally many gun control advocates are staunchly opposed to securing. You guys like to argue that the reason Chicago and other places with strict gun control are still so violent is the guns come in from outside. Well, the same thing would happen to the country as a whole if you banned guns here. They'd just keep coming over the border, and a lot of you guys are for open borders, so again, there's zero logical consistency. Ya'll either haven't thought these things through, or you're just purposefully dishonest.

a reply to: face23785

I was laid off a few years back. While I was looking for work, I decided to expand the CAD software that I knew. While I was doing that, I did detailed models, drawings and reverse engineered all of my guns.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

so when is drinking beer legal how about smoking ?

a reply to: john34555

make 18 legal to drink beer and smoke 18 used to be legal drinking age

a reply to: john34555

i remember buying smokes from a machine