• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teens and protests

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If teens have not yet fully developed brains, and lack the maturity and mental capacity to think and reason properly to a logical and rational conclusion... which is what we're told and have studies to back up... then why should we listen to them on these current protests and their call for gun control?

The question is somewhat Devil's Advocate, but not entirely. Fair is fair. Consistent is consistent. They're either worthy of inclusion in debate on complex and sensitive topics, or they're not, but cherry-picking based on whether they're saying the same thing as you isn't logical or rational in itself.

What's that? You say this is different? No, it's not different. The question, or is it the answer, is just inconvenient.
 
Yep, folks under 21 are too uniformed and irresponsible to have legal access to guns or beer but are the perfect arbiters of national gun policy and, of course, should be able to vote.
 
If they are old enough to legally own a gun they should be included in the debate. If people believe they are not mentally developed enough to protest maybe they should not be able to own a gun either.
 
radcen said:
If teens have not yet fully developed brains, and lack the maturity and mental capacity to think and reason properly to a logical and rational conclusion... which is what we're told and have studies to back up... then why should we listen to them on these current protests and their call for gun control?

The question is somewhat Devil's Advocate, but not entirely. Fair is fair. Consistent is consistent. They're either worthy of inclusion in debate on complex and sensitive topics, or they're not, but cherry-picking based on whether they're saying the same thing as you isn't logical or rational in itself.

What's that? You say this is different? No, it's not different. The question, or is it the answer, is just inconvenient.
Click to expand...


So they lack the maturity and mental capacity to discuss guns, but legally they have the capacity to own and shoot one?
 
Maybe the fact that students were the most recent target of a mass shooting event would give some weight to their opinions?

Some "skin in the game" so to speak....
 
tres borrachos said:
So they lack the maturity and mental capacity to discuss guns, but legally they have the capacity to own and shoot one?
Click to expand...

Yes... Because the ability to own and shoot a gun is a part of a fundamental right to self defense. If you don't let 19 year old's be able to have a gun, they are completely at the mercy of those who do. If you can live by yourself with no guardian, they you have the right to own a gun.


But here lies an interesting argument/modification we can have to the laws... Maybe we should not let people own guns if they are claimed as a dependent or as a guardian. Because, if you are not independent, you are arguably, not an adult... and the responsibilities of owning a gun goes to your guardian.
 
radcen said:
If teens have not yet fully developed brains, and lack the maturity and mental capacity to think and reason properly to a logical and rational conclusion... which is what we're told and have studies to back up... then why should we listen to them on these current protests and their call for gun control?

The question is somewhat Devil's Advocate, but not entirely. Fair is fair. Consistent is consistent. They're either worthy of inclusion in debate on complex and sensitive topics, or they're not, but cherry-picking based on whether they're saying the same thing as you isn't logical or rational in itself.

What's that? You say this is different? No, it's not different. The question, or is it the answer, is just inconvenient.
Click to expand...


The opinions of most adults are fairly worthless; maybe 20% have something to say worth hearing, on any given topic. The opinions of teenagers are worth some percentage less, given their more limited minds and lack of experience.
 
Last edited:
MrPeanut said:
If they are old enough to legally own a gun they should be included in the debate. If people believe they are not mentally developed enough to protest maybe they should not be able to own a gun either.
Click to expand...

Or vote.
 
The way I see it is they are the ones forced to go to these schools where they are like fish in a barrel for would-be shooters. So,adult or not, if your life is the one that is on the line then I think you should at least have a voice in the debate.
 
Rexedgar said:
Maybe the fact that students were the most recent target of a mass shooting event would give some weight to their opinions?

Some "skin in the game" so to speak....
Click to expand...

Hmm... wasn't the FL mass shooter also a "student"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Or vote.
Click to expand...

That would just be an extension of the original argument. I believe that if someone is old enough to own a gun then they are old enough to share their views on guns. Same goes for politics, and many other things.
 
Most young people are idiots, and the science shows that this is due to their brains being underdeveloped in several areas, most significantly in the area of risk assessment. However, as I, TheGoverness, Luftwaffe, Winston, TheDemSocialist, and countless other young forum members have shown over the years, even someone as young as 15 or 16 is capable of contributing to political debate. Maybe not as effectively as most adults, but it's certainly a skill we're capable of starting to develop at a very young age.

While I wouldn't assume for an instant that a single one of these kids knows the first thing about the gun control debate beyond which side is which, I'm not going to write off their opinions solely because of their youth, even though I certainly disagree with a lot of what they have to say about this subject.
 
tres borrachos said:
So they lack the maturity and mental capacity to discuss guns, but legally they have the capacity to own and shoot one?
Click to expand...

I think this is more about how various groups use and value teens opinions as long as it supports their agenda. But also dismiss their opinions using their age and immaturity as a key reason.

Teens supporting anti gun rights are to be heard and listened to. Yet also say Teens who support more gun rights and less control are immature brains not fully able to grasp the issue so take their opinion with s grain of salt. Or vice versa This is how I see the OP's point.
 
Rexedgar said:
Maybe the fact that students were the most recent target of a mass shooting event would give some weight to their opinions?

Some "skin in the game" so to speak....
Click to expand...

If anything, that prevents them from looking at the issue with any semblance of objectivity. I certainly wouldn't trust a PTSD-riddled Kurdish teenager's opinion on human rights for Syrian Muslims.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... wasn't the FL mass shooter also a "student"?
Click to expand...

So, I'm not sure I understand your point. Because the gunman was from their demographic, their thoughts/opinions have no merit? I would imagine that the survivors of this tragic event have now a 'life experience' that few others have had. If one looks for thoughts/opinions, wouldn't those who have had the 'experience' be better able to speak on the topic?
 
celticwar17 said:
Yes... Because the ability to own and shoot a gun is a part of a fundamental right to self defense. If you don't let 19 year old's be able to have a gun, they are completely at the mercy of those who do. If you can live by yourself with no guardian, they you have the right to own a gun.


But here lies an interesting argument/modification we can have to the laws... Maybe we should not let people own guns if they are claimed as a dependent or as a guardian. Because, if you are not independent, you are arguably, not an adult... and the responsibilities of owning a gun goes to your guardian.
Click to expand...

If they aren't mature enough to discuss guns, then they aren't mature enough to own them.

I'm going by what the OP said.

It doesn't make a bit of sense to me, sorry. It can't be both ways.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The way I see it is they are the ones forced to go to these schools where they are like fish in a barrel for would-be shooters. So,adult or not, if your life is the one that is on the line then I think you should at least have a voice in the debate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but those that they seek to disarm (to keep themselves a bit safer?) are not inside government facilities with publicly funded security. While it is true that my home is not a good mass shooter target it would be a much more attractive crime target if I was not legally able to be armed.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The way I see it is they are the ones forced to go to these schools where they are like fish in a barrel for would-be shooters. So,adult or not, if your life is the one that is on the line then I think you should at least have a voice in the debate.
Click to expand...

hundreds (if not thousands) more kids are killed with guns outside of schools every year than inside of schools. Just wanted to remind everyone of that.
 
MrPeanut said:
That would just be an extension of the original argument. I believe that if someone is old enough to own a gun then they are old enough to share their views on guns. Same goes for politics, and many other things.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I see too. If someone has a right to something then they have the right to an opinion on something. Maybe I'm not understanding this at all, but I don't get it.

You can own a gun. You can shoot a gun. But you can't have an opinion on it because you aren't mature enough.

Huh?
 
radcen said:
If teens have not yet fully developed brains, and lack the maturity and mental capacity to think and reason properly to a logical and rational conclusion... which is what we're told and have studies to back up... then why should we listen to them on these current protests and their call for gun control?

The question is somewhat Devil's Advocate, but not entirely. Fair is fair. Consistent is consistent. They're either worthy of inclusion in debate on complex and sensitive topics, or they're not, but cherry-picking based on whether they're saying the same thing as you isn't logical or rational in itself.

What's that? You say this is different? No, it's not different. The question, or is it the answer, is just inconvenient.
Click to expand...

The reason the media is giving these kids credence is because these kids protesting agree with their anti-2nd amendment message. They hope that they can use these kids as emotional blackmail and nothing more.

If these kids were protesting for armed teachers more armed security at the schools or protesting in favor of 2nd amendment rights then the media wouldn't give them any attention. And should any right wing media does give them the time of day then every leftist who is opposed to the 2nd amendment would dismiss their opinion as youthful ignorance.
 
Rexedgar said:
So, I'm not sure I understand your point. Because the gunman was from their demographic, their thoughts/opinions have no merit? I would imagine that the survivors of this tragic event have now a 'life experience' that few others have had. If one looks for thoughts/opinions, wouldn't those who have had the 'experience' be better able to speak on the topic?
Click to expand...

What they experienced was being (trapped?) inside a "gun free" government facility unable to keep them safe. The shooter passed a NICS BGC and evaded detection after multiple contacts with LEOs and school "officials" - do they wish to deny 2A rights to those that have no felony criminal records and legally bought their guns?
 
Jesse Booth said:
hundreds (if not thousands) more kids are killed with guns outside of schools every year than inside of schools. Just wanted to remind everyone of that.
Click to expand...

True, but the difference is that the government requires them to go to school. Therefore the government should be responsible for ensuring their safety when there.
 
radcen said:
If teens have not yet fully developed brains, and lack the maturity and mental capacity to think and reason properly to a logical and rational conclusion... which is what we're told and have studies to back up... then why should we listen to them on these current protests and their call for gun control?

The question is somewhat Devil's Advocate, but not entirely. Fair is fair. Consistent is consistent. They're either worthy of inclusion in debate on complex and sensitive topics, or they're not, but cherry-picking based on whether they're saying the same thing as you isn't logical or rational in itself.

What's that? You say this is different? No, it's not different. The question, or is it the answer, is just inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Their butts are on the line. Government officials all have adequate protection. School children don't. Schools are a soft target.

To date kids are at least attempting to do more to mitigate mass shootings in schools than Congress or the President. Good on them. Hopefully they will remain politically active. Hopefully they will force a national discussion of mass shootings. No, the kids don't have all the answers. Right now, however, they have power and the nation might just benefit from it if the momentum continues.

I'm afraid that people are fixated on guns being the problem. As I said in another thread, we don't really know what the problems - that's plural, peoples) are. We do not know why America is plagued with mass shooters.

There should be an ongoing national dialogue excluding politics and special interests. Good luck with that! :roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What they experienced was being (trapped?) inside a "gun free" government facility unable to keep them safe. The shooter passed a NICS BGC and evaded detection after multiple contacts with LEOs and school "officials" - do they wish to deny 2A rights to those that have no felony criminal records and legally bought their guns?
Click to expand...

Sorry I seemed to have mislead you? My response was to the OP asking if the student's opinions should be taken into account. I don't think I ever mentioned guns or gun control. I have never hidden the fact that I do not agree with most of the hardcore 2nd A folks. Take a deep breath and read the OP again? "Teens and protests" was the title?



EDIT: my bad, I do now see that gun control was mentioned in the OP!
 
tres borrachos said:
Yup, that's what I see too. If someone has a right to something then they have the right to an opinion on something. Maybe I'm not understanding this at all, but I don't get it.

You can own a gun. You can shoot a gun. But you can't have an opinion on it because you aren't mature enough.

Huh?
Click to expand...


If they're under 18 they can't own a gun. Most HS students are under 18.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom