• 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!

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

jimbo said:
The flaw in the argument is the fact that U-21's commit only around 10 - 15% of the mass murders. According to Mother Jones 2018 list that lists 19 2018 mass murders, just 2 were under 21. Vox, another far right publication shows:

https://www.google.com/search?q=age.....69i57j0.152330j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Average age - 34.
There are more mass murders committed by the over 60 group than the under 21.

Age is not a factor in mass murders.
Click to expand...

Nor in murder generally, where the murder rate goes up till about 40s, then drops. If we really wanted to target a group, it would be men. Just restrict weapons to women only.
 
minnie616 said:
I know the early types were defeated with a few magnets.

That’s why we need newer technology like we have on our smart phones.
Click to expand...

Actually the current types have been defeated with magnets.

Its hard to argue that there is really a large need for such technology however, considering how safe firearms already are.
 
ultmd said:
Weak arguments, all. Let us all know when an epidemic of disgruntled, troubled or hate-filled teens using cars to mow down innocent people erupts, ok? .
Click to expand...

Weak argument? Let us all when an epidemic of troubled , disgruntled or hate filled teens start using AR 15 to mow down innocent people erupts okay? As has already been pointed out..the number of mass shootings in America is extremely low.. hardly an epidemic.. in facts its so crazy and rare that it makes headlines.. and when its done. the vast majority are done by people over the age of 21.. hardly teens.

The fact is.. the number of teens that kill themselves or others in car accidents are far and away more than teens that go on a shooting rampage.

Are you seriously implying that "disturbed, emotionally labile" young people should be allowed to buy guns (as the Trump administration and the NRA advocate)?
Click to expand...

if they are adjudicated as being dangerous? Of course not and neither does the NRA. I oppose your labeling every teenager.. "disturbed, and emotionally labile" and too dangerous to own a firearm.

Pay attention, Jaeger. I said "NRA nuts among us". No NRA spokesperson would be stupid enough to say that in public. But a lot of their low-information supporters believe that their 2A rights are absolute.
Click to expand...

Pay attention UltMD.. you made a claim and now you can't back it up. I defy you to find ONE.. "low information supporters that believe 2a rights are absolute"... you find one person that thinks felons in prison should be given firearms because its their right to have them even in prison (absolute rights remember).. and you might have a point. But you know you can't. You simply made another claim that you can't back up.

Great. You are now in agreement with your hero, Justice Scalia, as well as most Constitional scholars.
Click to expand...

Not only that.. everyone in America, all our founding fathers, etc.

And..........we're back. I new it wouldn't last too long. This is just 100% WRONG, and you know it. Assault weapons bans are legal, whether or not one is considered "safe" in the possession of such a weapon.
Click to expand...
Of course they are not constitutional nor legal.

We have been down this road.. it was tried for 10 years.. and there was no statistically significant effect on violent crime etc. You simply cannot get around the facts of the research. No matter how much you try to wiggle around it.

In your opinion. I think that much is clear. Unfortuately, your opinons aren't very persuasive.
Click to expand...

With folks that are ignorant of firearms, and are being illogical because of emotion.. nope.. the facts are not very persuasive.

And most Americans....even most responsible gun owners (like me)
Click to expand...

that's funny. I hardly doubt you are a gun owner. Honestly.. based on your ignorance of firearms that you have displayed.. I would suggest that you NOT be a firearms owner, or that you go out and get some serious training. Actually based on the behavior that you have displayed.. you perhaps should not own firearms at all.

means that facts and objective arguments mean nothing to you unless they re-affirm your existing biases and emotions.
Click to expand...

See above. You basically accuse me of behavior that you display. Its an interesting form of projection.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually the current types have been defeated with magnets.

...
Click to expand...

I know the gun manufacturers have not updated the technology.

It would be like trying to live stream a movie using a Commodore 64 tape driven computer.
 
minnie616 said:
I know the gun manufacturers have not updated the technology.

It would be like trying to live stream a movie using a Commodore 64 tape driven computer.
Click to expand...

Does your smart phone work correctly every single time you need it to?
 
minnie616 said:
Yes , very safe ....like the gun that the teacher accidentally fired during a gun safety lesson.


Teacher accidentally fires gun and injures student during safety lesson.

Teacher accidentally fires gun and injures student during safety lesson | WQAD.com
Click to expand...

Yes.. very safe:

The NSC’s “Injury Facts -2017 Edition” shows a 17 percent decrease in accidents involving firearms from 2014 to 2015, a period when gun sales soared.

There were 489 unintentional firearms-related fatalities during that time period, the lowest total since record-keeping began in 1903, accounting for less than 1 percent of accident deaths. This decrease, which was the largest percentage decline of any category cited in the NSC’s report, came in a year that saw record-high firearm sales.
Click to expand...

Oh.. and what an idiot. on the teacher/mayor/ reserve police officer. Oh and by the way.. if he had a smart gun.. the accident would still have happened.

Here is another example:

Physics teacher avoids the chop after swinging axe into co-worker's genitals | Daily Mail Online

A physics teacher accidently swings an axe into a coworkers genitals.
 
minnie616 said:
I know the gun manufacturers have not updated the technology.

It would be like trying to live stream a movie using a Commodore 64 tape driven computer.
Click to expand...

they have tried to update the technology.. the problem is reliability. The more you make it difficult to counter.. the more likely you are that it won't work when the chips are down.
 
Harshaw said:
I was referring to that post. How should you know I was referring to that post? BECAUSE I QUOTED THAT POST.
Click to expand...

And I responded to that post. Unlike you, I don't run from direct questions. That (i.e. avoidance) seems to be a common issue with the conservatives on this board.

I've never encountered you before this, so I don't know if this gross obtuseness on your part is dishonesty or incompetence, but either way, life is too short to deal with this kind of schoolkid nonsense. Whatever you said after this, I simply don't care.
Click to expand...

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so I'm sure you understood (well before you chose to type the above) how little concern I would have for your personal opinion of me. And I won't bother you with what I think about your conduct in this thread.

Goodbye.
Click to expand...

LOL, can we get a drama queen emoticon on this board?

You have a great day, yourself. You were free to go a long time ago. If you can't defend your point of view, just hush up. No need to announce that you are hushing up.

To no avail, it seems, I've been trying to get you to defend your point of view for the last two pages of this thread. But you just can't do it. Like a lot of your ilk, you seem to be less interested in substantive debate than in anonymous personal message board duels and name-calliing. I believe that's what this tangent is all about. And I really don't have any interest in anything you have to say, beyond a substantive debate about the topic of this thread (i.e. gun control).
 
blackjack50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The project of raising adults has been colossally bungled, at least when they go into the military they get broken down and rebuilt into something better, and can be managed and trained, civilians dont have that.
 
blackjack50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

'Cause at that age, if you're male, you're much more prone to butcher your contemporaries, from violence being a key aspect of primal human mating behavior. As we can see with the grotesque number of school shooting in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males

At least in the armed forces, you should be under orders from someone older and wiser, minimizing the risk of shaming yourselves. Even though that's no guarantee, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
 
jaeger19 said:
Weak argument? Let us all when an epidemic of troubled , disgruntled or hate filled teens start using AR 15 to mow down innocent people erupts okay? As has already been pointed out..the number of mass shootings in America is extremely low.. hardly an epidemic.. in facts its so crazy and rare that it makes headlines.. and when its done.
Click to expand...

You just demonstrated my previous point regarding the stupidity of equating driving age with the age to own an AR. So while there is ZERO signs of an epidemic of young drivers using their cars to commit mass murder, the FACTS show that there is approximately one mass shooting in the U.S. every day. EVERY DAY. EVERY. FREAKING. DAY. And this has been independently reported in multiple studies by multiple academic and news/media sources, so I'm amazed that you would not know about it.
Newsweek:Mass Shooting Almost Every Day in America
Gun Violence Archive
NYTimes: 511 Days, 555 Mass Shootings
PBS: More than One Mass Shooting Per Day in 2015

the vast majority are done by people over the age of 21.. hardly teens.
Click to expand...

Deflection. The FACT is that different studies have used different parameters. Some group shooters from "12-17", "18-24" and "25-35" (this is the study that shows that the 12-17 and 18-24 groups are as large as every other age group in the population, combined)......others from "10-14, 15-24 and 25-35"........others with "under 15" and "15-34"......etc. And I've yet to see any study with a statistical group of "under 21". What I have seen are statistics for "under 20", and that shows that 1/3 of all the 30K+ gun death victims in the US each year are "under 20", and another that shows that 1/2 are "between 18 and 35".

So my question which you and other continue to dodge is still unanswered. Since we KNOW that such a large proportion of all gun crimes involve teens and young adults............. can ANY of you make a credible argument against new laws to restrict access to ARs for 18-21 year-olds? That's the question that you all don't seem to be able to answer credibly.

The fact is.. the number of teens that kill themselves or others in car accidents are far and away more than teens that go on a shooting rampage.
Click to expand...
Repeating the same specious argument over and over again will not make it more appropriate, Jaeger. Since mva fatalities are NOT intentional and fatalities by mass shooting or homicide ARE intentional, it's SILLY to equate teens driving with teens owning ARs. We're trying to decrease the number of murders in our society. We are not talking about reducing the number of accidents.

I oppose your labeling every teenager.. "disturbed, and emotionally labile" and too dangerous to own a firearm.
Click to expand...
Red Herring alert! I never said every teenager, and you know it. That said, I'm sure you do believe that emotionally disturbed people should be allowed to own firearms. And that's the problem. If you truly believe that emotionally disturbed teens should be allowed to purchase firearms.........you are part of the extreme fringe of the 2A debate, and are thus a part of the problem.

Of course they are not constitutional nor legal.
Click to expand...
:roll:Great. Show us the USSC decision that ruled that AR bans are illegal, please. When you decline (because no such case exists), let's just agree in advance that you were talking out of your hind parts again, ok? On the other hand, if you'd like for me to post Scalia's majority opinion from the Heller decision again, I'd be happy to do so again. Of course, you don't want that. You'll ignore it and try mightily to change the subject again, like you always do

You basically accuse me of behavior that you display. Its an interesting form of projection.
Click to expand...
Stop whining. I've accused you of being an ideologue on this issue (true) and completely unequipped/unable to back up anything you say with FACTS or objective sources or case history (also true). So don't get angry repeat my previous words to you, when I point out the obvious about you.

Your entire 2A defense is based upon personal opinion and blind ideology. I post facts. You post personal opinions and ideological bilge. And you double down on that ignorance with each new response. You know that your 2A position is personal and emotional. If you had the facts (i.e. case history, statistics, research, etc.) to support your point of view, you've have directly answered my questions/challenges by now. But you won't do that.....because you cannot do it.
 
ultmd said:
You just demonstrated my previous point regarding the stupidity of equating driving age with the age to own an AR. So while there is ZERO signs of an epidemic of young drivers using their cars to commit mass murder, the FACTS show that there is approximately one mass shooting in the U.S. every day. .
Click to expand...

Yep.. ONE A DAY.. JUST ONE EVERY DAY... JUST ONE.

How many people die in car accidents? hmmm.

PLUS.. as pointed out.. those people committing those mass shootings.. ONLY ONE PER DAY.. are generally over the age of 21.

Since we KNOW that such a large proportion of all gun crimes involve teens and young adults
Click to expand...

Well.. your numbers are pretty suspect.. but lets go with them. A large portion of gun crimes DOES NOT MEAN.. that teens are causing them. .. you used "gun death victims"..

So.. as I pointed out. in the mass shootings.. the perpetrators were well over 21.. but killed children.. .so you are using those statistics to claim that under 21 year olds should not get firearms.. when it was the under 21 year olds that were shot.. and they were shot by people OVER 21.

You don't even seem to understand your own data.

Since mva fatalities are NOT intentional and fatalities by mass shooting or homicide ARE intentional,
Click to expand...

Death is death. Its seems silly to believe that intentional death is somehow different than unintentional death. Are you somehow less dead with unintentional death? Please.

I never said every teenager, and you know it
Click to expand...

Sure you do.. you are making the case that everyone under 21 is incapable of owning or using a firearm. that's what you do when you say they shouldn;t be able to purchase if they are under 21. and you made statements implying that they are all "disgruntled. and emotionally labile".

I'm sure you do believe that emotionally disturbed people should be allowed to own firearms
Click to expand...

if they are adjudicated as dangerous.. no I don't. So stop lying.

But if they are not a threat to anyone including themselves.. then people should have the same rights as everyone else. Its called due process. And you seem to think that the government should be able to take someones rights away without due process. I simply don't. whether that's voting rights, or gun rights, or the right to abortion, or free speech or freedom from incarceration.. it doesn;t matter. now if you think believing in due process is "extreme"... well sir.. that's on you.

Show us the USSC decision that ruled that AR bans are illegal,
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority fallacy.

I've accused you of being an ideologue on this issue (true) and completely unequipped/unable to back up anything you say with FACTS or objective sources or case history (also true).
Click to expand...

And none of that is true.. I am neither an ideologue and I am have demonstrated expertise in this issue and the ability to back up everything I say with facts and research and logic. You sir are the one that has demonstrated that you are an ideologue.. and that you can't back up your premise with facts or research or logic. Cripes.. you just made the mistake of conflating people committing crime with people being victims of crime.. (I doubt you are able to understand that you did that.. but you did).

You have an interesting habit of projecting your weaknesses and bias .. on to others.
 
minnie616 said:
Yes,it does.
Click to expand...


You've never had an error message? Or it lock up on you? Had service unavailable in a location? Lost a call? Either you haven't had a phone for a longraqa wqq time or you're not being 100% trauthful.
 
Last edited:
blackjack50 said:
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.
Click to expand...


When that 18 year old is in the military, he is in a highly supervised, restrictive, focused environment.

All 18 year olds not in the military are just boys, really.

I'd support a law that says, if you are under 21, and want to purchase a fire arm, join the military, and you can own one, after training.

I do not want guns in children's hands. 18 year olds are only legally adults, not necessary mentally. I know I wasn't.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
'Cause at that age, if you're male, you're much more prone to butcher your contemporaries, from violence being a key aspect of primal human mating behavior. As we can see with the grotesque number of school shooting in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males
Click to expand...
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?
 
OscarLevant said:
When that 18 year old is in the military, he is in a highly supervised, restrictive, focused environment.

All 18 year olds not in the military are just boys, really.

I'd support a law that says, if you are under 21, and want to purchase a fire arm, join the military, and you can own one, after training.

I do not want guns in children's hands. 18 year olds are only legally adults, not necessary mentally. I know I wasn't.
Click to expand...

This is called projection. If 18 year old citizens aren't legal adults for one right, then they aren't legal adults for any rights. No free speech, no contracts, no marriage, etc.
 
blackjack50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They can go to war but they can't drink. Think about it.
 
blackjack50 said:
As many as people over that age? Why are we still allowing them to vote and go to war if they aren’t mature enough handle the responsibility?
Click to expand...

Those are valid questions. Questioning age restrictions may just open a can of worms.
How many adults are mature and responsible enough to handle weapons, alcohol, or vote? I know young people who do more thinking, are more analytical, than many adults who are being floated by emotions and instant gratifications. So where does that leave us? I don't think there is an easy answer.
 
OscarLevant said:
When that 18 year old is in the military, he is in a highly supervised, restrictive, focused environment.

All 18 year olds not in the military are just boys, really.

I'd support a law that says, if you are under 21, and want to purchase a fire arm, join the military, and you can own one, after training.

I do not want guns in children's hands. 18 year olds are only legally adults, not necessary mentally. I know I wasn't.
Click to expand...

Its legal and very common children as young as 10 to be allowed to hunt with a firearm without supervision. All states allow someone 18 to hunt with a rifle alone.

If they can do this.. and have been doing this for years.. why are they not safe to own a firearm until they are 21?
 
Rucker61 said:
This is called projection. If 18 year old citizens aren't legal adults for one right, then they aren't legal adults for any rights. No free speech, no contracts, no marriage, etc.
Click to expand...


Free speech, contracts, marriage, etc., do not kill.

Laws adhering to a broader principle must be adjusted by practical reality where the outcome is best for society, in my view.

SCOTUS has already ruled that rights are not absolute, and are subject to regulation

So, it's a question of regulating a right according to the needs of society, monitored by practical reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom