• 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!

Age restriction for certain types of guns

Should there be an age restriction for certain types of firearms?

  • Total voters
    39
Roadvirus said:
I started thinking about this issue this morning. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment, but i'm also open-minded towards possibilities regarding improvements in our nation's gun laws so long as they don't interfere with law-abiding Americans' right to own firearms.

So i figured this idea could be somewhat of a compromise on the issue: Placing age restrictions on certain guns, such as the AR-15 and other firearms of it's kind.

Nicholas Cruz was 19 years old and he had been able to purchase legally an AR-15. Even i think that someone that age should not be allowed a weapon of that power. Maybe someone who is 30 years old, but not 19.

So....what say you? If an AWB is not possible, should we at least have age restrictions?
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a bad idea.
 
Kreton said:
Doesn't change anything I posted.
Click to expand...

given no one is buying assault rifles made in the last 34 years and those that can be bought are over 10,000 dollars each its non issue in a gun control debate (other than attacking how stupid the Hughes ban is) I believe your post proved you didn't understand what weapon you were talking about
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't think this is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

we have one case of an 18 year old legally buying a semi auto rifle and committing crimes

not grounds to change the buying age.
 
TurtleDude said:
given no one is buying assault rifles made in the last 34 years and those that can be bought are over 10,000 dollars each its non issue in a gun control debate (other than attacking how stupid the Hughes ban is) I believe your post proved you didn't understand what weapon you were talking about
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Your replies don't address my post in any way. You are just talking. I would like you to show me how any of this relates to anything I posted that you replied to.
 
Kreton said:
No it doesn't. Your replies don't address my post in any way. You are just talking. I would like you to show me how any of this relates to anything I posted that you replied to.
Click to expand...

no legally owned assault rifles have ever been used for murder or other violent crimes in USA history when owned by private citizens. Why would you even be discussing them?
 
TurtleDude said:
no legally owned assault rifles have ever been used for murder or other violent crimes in USA history when owned by private citizens. Why would you even be discussing them?
Click to expand...

You are still addressing absolutely nothing that I stated or even alluded to. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. Please do show me the relevance of your series of posts and how they relate to my post.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Obviously it is not easy to import large numbers of guns illegally into a developed country (a failed state yes), because if it were, we would see much higher numbers of mass shootings in Europe. Terrorists there rent a truck because they can't easily come by AK-47s, and yeah I get that central American drug cartels get their guns, but a lot of those come from the United States.

Why do you think that murder rates are 1/4 to 1/6 what our's are in the rest of the modern developed world? Its because the best tool of murder, a gun, is harder to come by there.

Now, that all said, I am not for taking everyone's guns away. I have had guns my entire life. I just don't like weak arguments, and this notion that the AR would quickly be replaced by guns illegally imported into the United States is nonsense. That doesn't bear out in any developed nation on earth.
Click to expand...

I don't like weak arguments either.......and yours is weak enough to be useless.

Read and learn.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-how-ak-47s-get-to-paris

France outlaws most gun ownership and it’s almost impossible to legally acquire a high-powered rifle such as an AK-47, so where did the weapons in the Nov. 13 terror attack—not to mention the bloody January assault by Islamic terrorists on the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the 2012 shootings by a militant in Toulouse—come from?
Click to expand...

On to your next problem.......You ask: "Why do you think that murder rates are 1/4 to 1/6 what our's are in the rest of the modern developed world?"

That's easy. They don't have scores of huge and primitive urban poverty ghettos........areas where black and brown thugs are killing each other and innocent bystanders in huge numbers every day and every night.

Nobody's getting killed in my town because I'm in legitimate AMERICA.......where killing is the rarity rather than the norm.

You need to take a look at REAL LIFE and in real life Europe just has nations that are mostly white.......America, with its history of slavery, civil war, economic and racial oppression is SO DIFFERENT that comparisons are simply NOT VALID.

Educate yourself.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
1. Try not being a farmer and all of a sudden purchasing enough fertilizer for a large bomb today and see who comes and pays you a visit.

2. Any criminal profiler will tell you that a psychopath chooses their tool of death for a reason. The kind of psychopath that builds bombs is not the same kind of psychopath that buys an AR and commits a mass shooting. How they kill people is more important to them than how many people they kill. Read a book like Mindhunter.

Let's say we figured out a way to make mass shootings incredibly hard, I don't think we will, but lets just say we did. That does not mean that murders by bombings would go up proportionately. What it would mean, is the kind of psychopath that gets off by shooting a bunch of people would all of a sudden have a harder time doing that.
Click to expand...

Getting your hands on enough material to make a destructive device is never the problem. Such materials are as close as your local hardware store.

And if guns were available in other countries then most bombings would have been shootings. Either way lots of people die. There is no evidence that shooters are a special class of people. Killers are killers.
 
Waddy said:
Getting your hands on enough material to make a destructive device is never the problem. Such materials are as close as your local hardware store.

And if guns were available in other countries then most bombings would have been shootings. Either way lots of people die. There is no evidence that shooters are a special class of people. Killers are killers.
Click to expand...

Dude, there is a mountain of evidence that there are different classes of killers. For everyone other than the terrorist, the means and manner of death is what is important, the death itself is just a side effect of what they want. The mass shooter gets off by shooting people, that's why they do it. The bomber has an entirely different M.O. The mass murder and serial killer, kill in the manner they killer because that is what is gratifying to them. Hell a lot of them get an erection while engaging in the act of murder. Seriously, why do you think we have criminal profilers? The psychology of a guy like Ted Kacynski vs a guy like Nikolas Cruz is entirely different. Nikolas Cruz would not get off by hiding bombs to kill people, a guy like him wants to be there, seeing his victims, picking them out, seeing them riddled with bullets. He used an AR because shooting people is what got him off and that was the best way to shoot the maximum number of people.
 
Vox said:
I don't like weak arguments either.......and yours is weak enough to be useless.

Read and learn.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-how-ak-47s-get-to-paris



On to your next problem.......You ask: "Why do you think that murder rates are 1/4 to 1/6 what our's are in the rest of the modern developed world?"

That's easy. They don't have scores of huge and primitive urban poverty ghettos........areas where black and brown thugs are killing each other and innocent bystanders in huge numbers every day and every night.

Nobody's getting killed in my town because I'm in legitimate AMERICA.......where killing is the rarity rather than the norm.

You need to take a look at REAL LIFE and in real life Europe just has nations that are mostly white.......America, with its history of slavery, civil war, economic and racial oppression is SO DIFFERENT that comparisons are simply NOT VALID.

Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of racism in that post. Shows a lot about that would click like on it too.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Quite a lot of racism in that post. Shows a lot about that would click like on it too.
Click to expand...

You are apparently among those who think stating FACTS about race problems is in itself racism.

You block progress and make things worse by denying reality.
 
Vox said:
You are apparently among those who think stating FACTS about race problems is in itself racism.

You block progress and make things worse by denying reality.
Click to expand...

You made the following statement:

That's easy. They don't have scores of huge and primitive urban poverty ghettos........areas where black and brown thugs are killing each other and innocent bystanders in huge numbers every day and every night.

Nobody's getting killed in my town because I'm in legitimate AMERICA.......where killing is the rarity rather than the norm.
Click to expand...

It may as well have been written by the Klan.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You made the following statement:

It may as well have been written by the Klan.
Click to expand...

The Klan may sometimes write facts, but I know that I always do. When I write this about the difference between European and American violence I am stating facts.

"That's easy. They (Europe) don't have scores of huge and primitive urban poverty ghettos........areas where black and brown thugs are killing each other and innocent bystanders in huge numbers every day and every night.

Nobody's getting killed in my town because I'm in legitimate AMERICA.......where killing is the rarity rather than the norm."

FACT. BODY COUNT IS INEVITABLY FAR HIGHER IN AMERICA.......DUE TO THE KILLING IN THOSE SCORES OF URBAN POVERTY GHETTOS.

IT IS TRUE THAT EUROPE HAS FEWER GUNS......BUT THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT EUROPE HAS FAR FEWER KILLERS.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Dude, there is a mountain of evidence that there are different classes of killers. For everyone other than the terrorist, the means and manner of death is what is important, the death itself is just a side effect of what they want. The mass shooter gets off by shooting people, that's why they do it. The bomber has an entirely different M.O. The mass murder and serial killer, kill in the manner they killer because that is what is gratifying to them. Hell a lot of them get an erection while engaging in the act of murder. Seriously, why do you think we have criminal profilers? The psychology of a guy like Ted Kacynski vs a guy like Nikolas Cruz is entirely different. Nikolas Cruz would not get off by hiding bombs to kill people, a guy like him wants to be there, seeing his victims, picking them out, seeing them riddled with bullets. He used an AR because shooting people is what got him off and that was the best way to shoot the maximum number of people.
Click to expand...

You're totally off base. Of course a mass killer has a preference. But if all guns were banned, the shooter would definitely switch to another tactic, as his need to kill is so strong. By your logic, if his preferred tool for killing, which are guns, weren't available, he would remain a law abiding citizen. "Well, gee, if I can't get my hands on a gun, then I guess I'll give up on the whole idea and just go to church on Sunday". No, he has to have an outlet for his rage, he has to kill, and he would find a way to express that rage; which means killing large numbers of people. He would simply switch to plan B.
 
Grand Mal said:
The argument I get most here is that until he pulled the trigger, anything the cops did about him would have violated his constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Yes but we already restrict gun rights for the mentally ill and this kid obviously was. I'm sure everyone has noticed that the vast majority of school shooters were either on mind altering drugs or on the autism spectrum. Truly, the amount of shootings committed by people on the autism spectrum is much higher than the average person, only that no one wants to point out that it can be a potentially dangerous condition. Autism activist groups try to hide the truth on the issue, smh

Anyways, all signs so far point to Nicholas Cruz being on the autism spectrum, and our new policy should be that if you are autistic, extra steps in mental health evaluations are given.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, and let's talk about the breakdown of Rick Scott's police, which got at least 30 calls, and his Social Services agency, which made at least one visit and assessment. How much responsibility does he bear here?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, everything is terrible and it almost seems intentional that they never did anything. With so many signs, how could they just ignore it? Perhaps Nicholas Cruz had a family member in the police force? We'll have to wait until more information comes out because its either the police were grossly incompetent, or there's a missing link in the story. And considering the moon is made of cheese and women are made of sand, I wouldn't be surprised if Nicholas Cruz had something hiding as well XP
 
If your old enough to die for the country your old enough to shoot a gun.
 
Yes. 18

If you are old enough to be in the service and use one, you are old enough to own one outside of service. Training in safe use should be mandatory as well as having a permit and background check.
 
Waddy said:
You're totally off base. Of course a mass killer has a preference. But if all guns were banned, the shooter would definitely switch to another tactic, as his need to kill is so strong. By your logic, if his preferred tool for killing, which are guns, weren't available, he would remain a law abiding citizen. "Well, gee, if I can't get my hands on a gun, then I guess I'll give up on the whole idea and just go to church on Sunday". No, he has to have an outlet for his rage, he has to kill, and he would find a way to express that rage; which means killing large numbers of people. He would simply switch to plan B.
Click to expand...

Its possible he would, its also possible that the method he chooses is far less efficient and he kills a couple of people rather than dozens or more. The Vegas shooter probably would have targeted a crowd from a high rise even if he had not been able to come by ARs and bump stocks, but he would not have been able to shoot and kill nearly as many of people in the same amount of time with a typical rifle.

Similarly, I have been in more than enough Chinese train stations to know that had those Muslim separatists had access to ARs, the number of dead would not have been 33, it would have been several hundred at least.
 
Waddy said:
I see no point in banning AR15's. Lots of rifles operate just like them. One pull, one shot. Tim McVay didn't need one to bring down a building. He just used fertilizer. Easier to get than even an AR15. Apparently there is a social cost to fertilizer. Once again; when people want to kill they will use what's available, and make the most of it.
Click to expand...

It was because of the Oklahoma bombing and the threat of terrorism that ammonium nitrate is now heavily regulated.


https://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-statutes-and-regulations
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Recruits in the military use real "assault rifles" at age 18. Should we have a military of only 30 and older folks?
Click to expand...

Well then, if some youth feels the overwhelming need to shoot a military quality arm, then loose weight, get into shape, and join the military.
 
WarmPotato said:
I agree with you, everything is terrible and it almost seems intentional that they never did anything. With so many signs, how could they just ignore it? Perhaps Nicholas Cruz had a family member in the police force? We'll have to wait until more information comes out because its either the police were grossly incompetent, or there's a missing link in the story. And considering the moon is made of cheese and women are made of sand, I wouldn't be surprised if Nicholas Cruz had something hiding as well XP
Click to expand...

I think Rick Scott has to answer those questions, all of which are very legitimate.

I'm a woman. I don't think I'm made out of sand.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its possible he would, its also possible that the method he chooses is far less efficient and he kills a couple of people rather than dozens or more. The Vegas shooter probably would have targeted a crowd from a high rise even if he had not been able to come by ARs and bump stocks, but he would not have been able to shoot and kill nearly as many of people in the same amount of time with a typical rifle.

Similarly, I have been in more than enough Chinese train stations to know that had those Muslim separatists had access to ARs, the number of dead would not have been 33, it would have been several hundred at least.
Click to expand...

Or it's possible he detonates a truck bomb or flys an airplane into a skyscraper. Or lobs grenades from his high rise perch. Maybe the death toll goes much higher. There is simply no way of knowing what these guys will do. How inventive they can be. How determined they are.
 
Moot said:
It was because of the Oklahoma bombing and the threat of terrorism that ammonium nitrate is now heavily regulated.


https://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-statutes-and-regulations
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. There is no end to what we will have to strictly regulate or ban in an effort to keep potential lethal weapons out of the hands of crazy people. The hardware store an endless number of products that can be made into bombs. Even good old sugar makes a great bomb. And buying at the warehouse in quantity means big bombs. Crap. we can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, what makes you think we can keep guns off the black market once they're banned.... you're chasing your tail.

BTW; I'll bet a person could still accumulate enough fertilizer to fill a van.. just sayin'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom