Guns

[Blood Eagle]

Why does there need to be a buyback? You can sell you bump stock right now to someone with a license to own it. Or perhaps you can export it to a country that allows it. It's not illegal to own, you just have to have an FFL.

I get where you're coming from here, and if the bump stock weren't so obviously nonsense to begin with, I'd be on your side. But if you bought one, you knew you were playing with fire.

A buyback or grandfather clause would sit better with me than the you have 90 days do as we say or become a criminal govt route. Yes, bump stocks are idiotic. No debate there. Lots of people buy things when there is a real or even perceived possibility of them becoming illegal that would be grandfathered in the event of new regulation. I don't see this as much different.

 

[Danoff]

A buyback or grandfather clause would sit better with me than the you have 90 days do as we say or become a criminal govt route. Yes, bump stocks are idiotic. No debate there. Lots of people buy things when there is a real or even perceived possibility of them becoming illegal that would be grandfathered in the event of new regulation. I don't see this as much different.

Again, it's not banned, it's legal to own with the right certifications. So instead of forcing people with dubious intent when it comes to the law to find a buyer or eat the cost, you want the taxpayer, who did not attempt to skirt the law with a product that obviously had a high chance of being banned and was fairly laughable when it came to firearms regulations, you want that person, the person who had absolutely nothing to do with it, to foot the bill?

People who have no idea what you're talking about have to subsidize the downside for people who were intentionally trying to get around firearms regulations? It would not sit as well with me.

 

[Northstar]

you have 90 days do as we say or become a criminal govt route.

I would imagine that as long as you started the process within 90 days you would be fine. Even if you did run into one of those 🤬 prosecutors, a pro-bono lawyer could probably get you off the hook so long as you have a clean record and were eventually given the FFL.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Again, it's not banned, it's legal to own with the right certifications. So instead of forcing people with dubious intent when it comes to the law to find a buyer or eat the cost, you want the taxpayer, who did not attempt to skirt the law with a product that obviously had a high chance of being banned and was fairly laughable when it came to firearms regulations, you want that person, the person who had absolutely nothing to do with it, to foot the bill?

People who have no idea what you're talking about have to subsidize the downside for people who were intentionally trying to get around firearms regulations? It would not sit as well with me.

Personally, I'd take a grandfather over a buy back. I mentioned buy back because people who think they have US gun control ideas figured out like the "But Australia" type people on this site could see it as a possibly fair compromise. Spitballing here. I don't see any compromise even being mentioned since I started this topic earlier today. Most pro 2A and firearm enthusiasts are willing to compromise. Me throwing ideas for compromise out there does not mean I support taxpayers footing the bill for dummies who bought a bump stock with mom's credit card. I actually really respect you as a poster and your libertarian views on things like property rights etc. I just think you are a being a little choosy about what rights people can or should have when it comes to something like this. AR15 sales went through the roof when people thought Obama was going to ban them after Sandy Hook. That turned out to be a perceived ban that never happened. Same with a bump stock, people bought it thinking no way Trump gon take my bump stock #maga! Now here we are. Laughable or not, this wasn't supposed to happen under Trump according to the bump stock type.

 

[Danoff]

I just think you are a being a little choosy about what rights people can or should have when it comes to something like this.

It's not being banned. I think that allowing someone to register their bump stock for continued ownership if they're in the process of filling for an FFL would be a decent compromise. I see no problem with the government requiring certifications for owning certain items. You only have rights if you can observe others'. A vetting process for your past behavior to determine whether you're a convicted felon, etc. before holding office, purchasing certain items, etc. seems consistent with that philosophy. I know that the FFL process is a bit more than that, but it's all a matter of degree.

I have a lot of respect for you as well, especially in regards to guns. I'd much rather have this debate with you than someone who is clueless on the subject.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Bump stocks illegal. The clarification of what is considered a "machine gun" is a very slippery slope. More of a technicality not based on internal working parts. Personally, I think they are stupid but doesn't really change the fact that a brand new regulation is now a reality and brought during an administration that is not supposed to be for this type of thing. Like politicians before who duped their supporters, you've been had.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

How have they been "had"? When did the current admin during the campaign trail go to bat for bump stocks? The type of stuff they said they'd not do was stuff like the mid 90s ban for example. This is as Danoff said a circumventing of the regs that had long been enacted. You're stretching of thought and grasping on certain elements to throw back at certain people is inane however...

 

[Danoff]

Ok, a couple of things i wouldn't mind seeing in terms of gun control. I know this one puts me at odds with folks that I'm usually chiming in with, but I'm interested to hear the blowback from these arguments.

I'd like 18 year olds not to be allowed to buy guns. Nobody going to high school should be allowed to legally purchase a gun for themselves. It's preposterous. I know I know, they can drive and that's a deadly weapon. Ok but I don't think they should get guns too. For crying out loud you can't drink till you're 21 in this country. Why can you buy a gun?

Maybe a ban on guns for 18 y.o. is too tough (they are supposed to live on their own afterall, and they do need to defend themselves). So how about no 18 y.o. who is currently attending high school? Or maybe this...

How about a gun license. It could be implemented at the national or state level. The license to buy a firearm could require mental health screening, registration, and could require upkeep. It could require safety courses, it could have various grades which would give you access to various levels of firearm, and it could be an easy (electronic) verification by a gun dealer to make sure that you weren't currently on an FBI watchlist (see recent events in denver) or undergoing psychiatric treatment. And it could be revoked based on criminal activity.

I need more documentation to buy a beer than to buy a gun. I need way more documentation to go on a car test-drive than to buy a gun.

Also I seriously think high schools need to ban backpacks.

So how about it, did I just turn commie?

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, a couple of things i wouldn't mind seeing in terms of gun control. I know this one puts me at odds with folks that I'm usually chiming in with, but I'm interested to hear the blowback from these arguments.

I'd like 18 year olds not to be allowed to buy guns. Nobody going to high school should be allowed to legally purchase a gun for themselves. It's preposterous. I know I know, they can drive and that's a deadly weapon. Ok but I don't think they should get guns too. For crying out loud you can't drink till you're 21 in this country. Why can you buy a gun?

Maybe a ban on guns for 18 y.o. is too tough (they are supposed to live on their own afterall, and they do need to defend themselves). So how about no 18 y.o. who is currently attending high school? Or maybe this...

How about a gun license. It could be implemented at the national or state level. The license to buy a firearm could require mental health screening, registration, and could require upkeep. It could require safety courses, it could have various grades which would give you access to various levels of firearm, and it could be an easy (electronic) verification by a gun dealer to make sure that you weren't currently on an FBI watchlist (see recent events in denver) or undergoing psychiatric treatment. And it could be revoked based on criminal activity.

I need more documentation to buy a beer than to buy a gun. I need way more documentation to go on a car test-drive than to buy a gun.

Also I seriously think high schools need to ban backpacks.

So how about it, did I just turn commie?

I'd like to add regular yearly mandatory training to that. Proper storage and safety protocals is something people "forget" when not trained or "refreshed" periodically. Similar to first aid.

 

[Rallywagon]

Ok, a couple of things i wouldn't mind seeing in terms of gun control. I know this one puts me at odds with folks that I'm usually chiming in with, but I'm interested to hear the blowback from these arguments.

I'd like 18 year olds not to be allowed to buy guns. Nobody going to high school should be allowed to legally purchase a gun for themselves. It's preposterous. I know I know, they can drive and that's a deadly weapon. Ok but I don't think they should get guns too. For crying out loud you can't drink till you're 21 in this country. Why can you buy a gun?

Maybe a ban on guns for 18 y.o. is too tough (they are supposed to live on their own afterall, and they do need to defend themselves). So how about no 18 y.o. who is currently attending high school? Or maybe this...

How about a gun license. It could be implemented at the national or state level. The license to buy a firearm could require mental health screening, registration, and could require upkeep. It could require safety courses, it could have various grades which would give you access to various levels of firearm, and it could be an easy (electronic) verification by a gun dealer to make sure that you weren't currently on an FBI watchlist (see recent events in denver) or undergoing psychiatric treatment. And it could be revoked based on criminal activity.

I need more documentation to buy a beer than to buy a gun. I need way more documentation to go on a car test-drive than to buy a gun.

Also I seriously think high schools need to ban backpacks.

So how about it, did I just turn commie?

Welp, the first issue I see is that there are kids that shoot at a younger age than 18 for sport. Also, cars aren't a good example to use one way or the other. Cars aren't protected by the constitution and driving on public roads is a "privilege", not a right. I could be wrong, but most states require background checks to purchase guns from a gun store (private sales and s hi ows excluded), and that would require an ID, so I am pretty sure you don't need more paperwork to buy beer.
All of that said, I do feel like we could use better enforced, common sense gun laws though. Maybe require a firearms training course before you can purchase a weapon like they require for hunting. I mean, it's kinda telling that, in this regard, the military requires hours of training with rubber weapons long before you are allowed to touch a real gun. I also think anyone that exhibits any sort of mental instability should be restricted from owning or using firearms until cleared by a psychiatrist.
As for being commie, if being concerned for the well being of your community where communist, then might as well toss a whole lot of Americans on that list.

 

[Danoff]

Welp, the first issue I see is that there are kids that shoot at a younger age than 18 for sport.

I didn't say they couldn't use them. I said I don't want them to be able to buy them.

Also, cars aren't a good example to use one way or the other. Cars aren't protected by the constitution and driving on public roads is a "privilege", not a right.

It's a weird mix of privilege and right. Because public roads are owned by the public, including the individual in question. So it is that person's access to their own property we're discussing when someone is choosing to drive on a public road that they themselves fund (which is all of them).

We restrict a lot of things on public property, including guns on particular public property. So if you're saying that because a person needs a license to drive a car on a public road that means it's not a right, well then because a person is not allowed to bring a gun into a public courtroom, then that's not a right either. Your logic doesn't work.

CA already requires a license to buy long and hand guns. Also DC. Also Hawaii... I'm sure there's more.

I could be wrong, but most states require background checks to purchase guns from a gun store (private sales and s hi ows excluded), and that would require an ID, so I am pretty sure you don't need more paperwork to buy beer.

For all I know they accept student IDs or possibly a credit card with your picture on it. Maybe a social security card, birth certificate, or some other sort of identification that you are the person you say you are. Then they run your name through so see if you've been convicted of a felony or have a warrant. If not, you get a gun. That's how someone on an FBI watch list was able to buy a gun in denver the other day.

To buy a beer I need a driver's license and to be 21.

 

[PocketZeven]

Welp, the first issue I see is that there are kids that shoot at a younger age than 18 for sport. Also, cars aren't a good example to use one way or the other. Cars aren't protected by the constitution and driving on public roads is a "privilege", not a right. I could be wrong, but most states require background checks to purchase guns from a gun store (private sales and s hi ows excluded), and that would require an ID, so I am pretty sure you don't need more paperwork to buy beer.
All of that said, I do feel like we could use better enforced, common sense gun laws though. Maybe require a firearms training course before you can purchase a weapon like they require for hunting. I mean, it's kinda telling that, in this regard, the military requires hours of training with rubber weapons long before you are allowed to touch a real gun. I also think anyone that exhibits any sort of mental instability should be restricted from owning or using firearms until cleared by a psychiatrist.
As for being commie, if being concerned for the well being of your community where communist, then might as well toss a whole lot of Americans on that list.

Having some progressive ideas does not mean your a commie and neither does believing guns are a right make you a alt-right NRA supporter. Americans do like to think in black/white, right/left, winners/losers etc. especially in media.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Ok, a couple of things i wouldn't mind seeing in terms of gun control. I know this one puts me at odds with folks that I'm usually chiming in with, but I'm interested to hear the blowback from these arguments.

I'd like 18 year olds not to be allowed to buy guns. Nobody going to high school should be allowed to legally purchase a gun for themselves. It's preposterous. I know I know, they can drive and that's a deadly weapon. Ok but I don't think they should get guns too. For crying out loud you can't drink till you're 21 in this country. Why can you buy a gun?

Maybe a ban on guns for 18 y.o. is too tough (they are supposed to live on their own afterall, and they do need to defend themselves). So how about no 18 y.o. who is currently attending high school? Or maybe this...

I could see banning ownership of guns for current high school students, but personally I think the 21 YO drinking age is a bit silly, and if you can join the military, drive a car, or smoke at 18 then I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you're, theoretically, responsible enough to own a firearm. Not everyone is, but then not every 50 year old is, either, which leads into the next topic:

How about a gun license. It could be implemented at the national or state level. The license to buy a firearm could require mental health screening, registration, and could require upkeep. It could require safety courses, it could have various grades which would give you access to various levels of firearm, and it could be an easy (electronic) verification by a gun dealer to make sure that you weren't currently on an FBI watchlist (see recent events in denver) or undergoing psychiatric treatment. And it could be revoked based on criminal activity.

I need more documentation to buy a beer than to buy a gun. I need way more documentation to go on a car test-drive than to buy a gun.

At the moment, I personally think this is the best route possible when it comes to gun use/ownership. You need a licence to operate a car, why not a gun? In order to drive a car, you have to demonstrate that you can safely operate one, so it makes sense to me to have to prove that you can safely operate a firearm before you're allowed to use one. As you say, a licensing system would allow relatively free ownership of firearms, just like it does with cars, though I do think a mental health screening/psychiatric evaluation should be a key part of obtaining a licence. I also like the idea of various grades, and requiring upkeep just like a driver's licence. As you say, it would make verification easier, so rather than a federal background check, you could simply check the licence and theoretically the background check should already have been done when the user obtained/updated the licence along with checks for any watchlists or medical issues. Theoretically I'd like to see a test that verifies that users A) are medically cleared to operate firearms (government subsidies for this might be helpful to keep access as universal as possible); B) have the theoretical (written) knowledge to operate firearms, deal with dangerous or unusual situations, deal with malfunctions, and work with law enforcement correctly in the event of an incident of any level of severity; and C) operate a firearm safely in a practical test including safe operating procedures, operation of safety devices such as safes or locks, the basic ability to hit a target reasonably well, and the ability to field strip a firearm.

For me, this view comes from the idea that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Guns and shooting can be a fun hobby or useful tools, but just like cars they're dangerous and aren't, in my opinion, essential for daily life. If gun ownership is an inalienable right like food or shelter, can you realistically draw the line and say that criminals aren't allowed to own them? I'm not sure you can, easily. But if you treat it as a privilege that you have to earn then it makes more sense to me. America has a strong gun culture, and I'd argue that it might help foster a larger and safer gun community. Even if I had no intent to buy a gun I'd want to go and get a licence so that I can if I'd like to, and that training experience would help educate me on firearms and probably help dispel some myths as well as make sure that I'm safe if I go shooting. I won't go as far as saying it's a win-win since it would, in one very literal scenario, require the creation of a Department of Firearms for each state and the hiring of staff which all would cost taxpayer money.

I'm always curious to hear what pro-gun people think of my views, since I've learned more about this area from discussion with pro-2A people as well as gun enthusiasts (hickock45 on Youtube, for instance) than I have ever done from people who feel that gun ownership should be heavily restricted and that firearm types, accessories, and ammunition should be heavily restricted.

So how about it, did I just turn commie?

Have I turned into a redneck?

 

[Rallywagon]

I didn't say they couldn't use them. I said I don't want them to be able to buy them.



It's a weird mix of privilege and right. Because public roads are owned by the public, including the individual in question. So it is that person's access to their own property we're discussing when someone is choosing to drive on a public road that they themselves fund (which is all of them).

We restrict a lot of things on public property, including guns on particular public property. So if you're saying that because a person needs a license to drive a car on a public road that means it's not a right, well then because a person is not allowed to bring a gun into a public courtroom, then that's not a right either. Your logic doesn't work.

CA already requires a license to buy long and hand guns. Also DC. Also Hawaii... I'm sure there's more.



For all I know they accept student IDs or possibly a credit card with your picture on it. Maybe a social security card, birth certificate, or some other sort of identification that you are the person you say you are. Then they run your name through so see if you've been convicted of a felony or have a warrant. If not, you get a gun. That's how someone on an FBI watch list was able to buy a gun in denver the other day.

To buy a beer I need a driver's license and to be 21.

Point 1. You can walk on most public roads (excluding freeways) but you can't just drive on a public road though. You have to have a valid driver's license, you have to register the car, and you have to have it insured. There are a number of barriers to accessing the public road ways that all must be accomplished first. Then there are all of the restrictions that are placed on you while operating on said roadways, not to mention courts having the ability to revoke that privilege. But by o means is driving a car on public roads a right.
Point 2. You can't access any Gov building with a fire arm. Places like courts and prisons, you also can't take cell phones. There are also all sorts of weird rules to what you can and can't do in airports, constitution be damned. These are things as a society we have decided to allow, that holds very little bearing on the topic at hand and doesn't validate the car example in the least.
Point 3. The key here is that, at places that require back ground checks and ID validation, it is required to be a gov issued photo ID. None of what you listed qualifies as such. It would have to be a valid drivers license or state issued ID card. That is to say, you need one of those to purchase from a licensed gun dealer in all states. As I said, in a number of states, this can be circumvented by purchasing from a gun show or private seller. You also are required to fill out a 4473 form and wait however may days for the all clear.

Edit:

@Beeblebrox237
Right now, constitutionally, it is an inalienable right, not a privilege. That said, we already shrug away many constitutional rights for the "greater good" depending on the circumstance and any constitutional amendment is just a vote away from changing.

 

[Danoff]

I could see banning ownership of guns for current high school students, but personally I think the 21 YO drinking age is a bit silly, and if you can join the military, drive a car, or smoke at 18 then I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you're, theoretically, responsible enough to own a firearm. Not everyone is, but then not every 50 year old is, either, which leads into the next topic:


At the moment, I personally think this is the best route possible when it comes to gun use/ownership. You need a licence to operate a car, why not a gun? In order to drive a car, you have to demonstrate that you can safely operate one, so it makes sense to me to have to prove that you can safely operate a firearm before you're allowed to use one. As you say, a licensing system would allow relatively free ownership of firearms, just like it does with cars, though I do think a mental health screening/psychiatric evaluation should be a key part of obtaining a licence. I also like the idea of various grades, and requiring upkeep just like a driver's licence. As you say, it would make verification easier, so rather than a federal background check, you could simply check the licence and theoretically the background check should already have been done when the user obtained/updated the licence along with checks for any watchlists or medical issues. Theoretically I'd like to see a test that verifies that users A) are medically cleared to operate firearms (government subsidies for this might be helpful to keep access as universal as possible); B) have the theoretical (written) knowledge to operate firearms, deal with dangerous or unusual situations, deal with malfunctions, and work with law enforcement correctly in the event of an incident of any level of severity; and C) operate a firearm safely in a practical test including safe operating procedures, operation of safety devices such as safes or locks, the basic ability to hit a target reasonably well, and the ability to field strip a firearm.

For me, this view comes from the idea that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Guns and shooting can be a fun hobby or useful tools, but just like cars they're dangerous and aren't, in my opinion, essential for daily life. If gun ownership is an inalienable right like food or shelter, can you realistically draw the line and say that criminals aren't allowed to own them? I'm not sure you can, easily. But if you treat it as a privilege that you have to earn then it makes more sense to me.

Food and shelter are not rights.

The rights listed in the bill of rights are items that the federal government "shall not infringe". Guns rights come from two bits of recognition. One is that guns are property, and the other is that self-defense is not a violation of the rights of others. It's enumerated in the constitution unlike say... a right to knives, or a right to frying pans (which can also be used in self-defense, see the movie Tangled for a realistic depiction)... because the framers of the constitution (who felt that enumerating rights was a bit redundant anyway since it was obvious that these things couldn't be infringed) saw the seizure of guns as a means to a tyrannical government. Same for freedom of speech. But make no mistake, knives, frying pans, and copulation are also rights... even though they're not enumerated in the constitution.

We deny people's rights all the time. Every day. We put cuffs on them and take them to jail. We sentence them to hard time in prison for years, seize their property, deny them access to firearms (in the cases of convicted felons), and make them wear ankle bracelets. This is because we recognize that people can be stripped of their rights by their own actions, when they commit crimes or otherwise demonstrate an inability to observe the rights of others.

A gun license is a check to make sure that you've not demonstrated an inability to observe the rights of others. It's like saying "hey do you still have your all of your rights? lemme see some verification of that". Because mental health problems, age, criminal activity, competency, and a willingness to reasonably consider the outcome of your actions are all indicators that we use to assess whether someone is able to engage in reciprocal behavior - which is the foundation of human rights.

Buying a gun and buying a car is a right, not a privilege. And it's a right that is only afforded to those who meet the criteria for having that right.

Have I turned into a redneck?

Maybe a little

Point 1. You can walk on most public roads (excluding freeways) but you can't just drive on a public road though. You have to have a valid driver's license, you have to register the car, and you have to have it insured. There are a number of barriers to accessing the public road ways that all must be accomplished first. Then there are all of the restrictions that are placed on you while operating on said roadways, not to mention courts having the ability to revoke that privilege. But by o means is driving a car on public roads a right.
Point 2. You can't access any Gov building with a fire arm. Places like courts and prisons, you also can't take cell phones. There are also all sorts of weird rules to what you can and can't do in airports, constitution be damned. These are things as a society we have decided to allow, that holds very little bearing on the topic at hand and doesn't validate the car example in the least.

Point 2 destroys point 1.

Point 3. The key here is that, at places that require back ground checks and ID validation, it is required to be a gov issued photo ID. None of what you listed qualifies as such. It would have to be a valid drivers license or state issued ID card. That is to say, you need one of those to purchase from a licensed gun dealer in all states. As I said, in a number of states, this can be circumvented by purchasing from a gun show or private seller. You also are required to fill out a 4473 form and wait however may days for the all clear.

Passport.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Buying a gun and buying a car is a right, not a privilege. And it's a right that is only afforded to those who meet the criteria for having that right.

I like that, I'm going to use it in the future.

 

[PocketZeven]

I like that, I'm going to use it in the future.

Depends though if its basic human rights or rights given by a constitution.

 

[Danoff]

I like that, I'm going to use it in the future.

It's true, we don't recognize that felons have the right to own firearms. Because they're felons. We don't recognize that people in a persistent vegetative state have a right to life, because they're in a persistent vegetative state. Someone who is clinically insane is not "free". Someone who is a murderer is not "free". And there is a reason for it.

Depends though if its basic human rights or rights given by a constitution.

The constitution doesn't "give" rights, it enumerates existing rights (and in some cases, it has enumerated rights that don't exist or blocked existing ones).

 

[PocketZeven]

It's true, we don't recognize that felons have the right to own firearms. Because they're felons. We don't recognize that people in a persistent vegetative state have a right to life, because they're in a persistent vegetative state. Someone who is clinically insane is not "free". Someone who is a murderer is not "free". And there is a reason for it.



The constitution doesn't "give" rights, it enumerates existing rights (and in some cases, it has enumerated rights that don't exist or blocked existing ones).

Not really, rights are not given as a birthright. They need to be defined by civilization. Not all nations define ownership of a gun as a right. That would suggest that other species have defined rights.

 

[Danoff]

Not really, rights are not given as a birthright. They need to be defined by civilization. Not all nations define ownership of a gun as a right. That would suggest that other species have defined rights.

It's been discussed at length in the human rights thread, but suffice it to say that a right is not a right because it is the law. What you have effectively said is "rights do not exist". You seem to define them as like... laws that are difficult to change. That's not a right, that's a law. Very different concepts.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I think it's time we officially decide what age one is considered an adult. I'm not sure how I feel about having to be 21 to be able to purchase long guns but would agree that a good portion of 18 year olds probably have no business buying anything that requires a large amount of personal responsibility. I think a bigger issue is the fact that you can go to certain states and buy a long gun without being a resident in said state. Misrepresenting residency on a 4473 form is a felony in itself I believe. The NICS background investigation is looking for residency discrepancies among other things. But you don't even need to lie or misrepresent anything if it's legal to just travel to a different state and buy one. It's a pretty big loophole as far as I'm concerned.

 

[stonesfan129]

I'm fine with age of consent being 21. They should raise the voting age, military service age, age to buy beer/cigarettes, to 21.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think it's time we officially decide what age one is considered an adult. I'm not sure how I feel about having to be 21 to be able to purchase long guns but would agree that a good portion of 18 year olds probably have no business buying anything that requires a large amount of personal responsibility. I think a bigger issue is the fact that you can go to certain states and buy a long gun without being a resident in said state. Misrepresenting residency on a 4473 form is a felony in itself I believe. The NICS background investigation is looking for residency discrepancies among other things. But you don't even need to lie or misrepresent anything if it's legal to just travel to a different state and buy one. It's a pretty big loophole as far as I'm concerned.

I'm fine with age of consent being 21. They should raise the voting age, military service age, age to buy beer/cigarettes, to 21.

That is highly subjective. I know a lot of very responsible teens and even more irresponsible 30+ year olds.

 

[Blood Eagle]

That is highly subjective. I know a lot of very responsible teens and even more irresponsible 30+ year olds.

There are exceptions to every rule. That’s not really the point. The point is that it’s time to officially decide what age one is officially considered an adult. Why is it currently 18 when there are some things you can’t do like purchase alcohol or buy a handgun? It doesn’t matter that you personally know responsible teens and irresponsible adults. What age should make one an official adult?

I'm fine with age of consent being 21. They should raise the voting age, military service age, age to buy beer/cigarettes, to 21.

18 is fine for military service. There are about 70% of today’s American youth who are not fit to serve in the military. Changing the standards even more would be a problem. If one really wants to join the military after they get out of high school they should be able to.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Double post.

 

[PocketZeven]

There are exceptions to every rule. That’s not really the point. The point is that it’s time to officially decide what age one is officially considered an adult. Why is it currently 18 when there are some things you can’t do like purchase alcohol or buy a handgun? It doesn’t matter that you personally know responsible teens and irresponsible adults. What age should make one an official adult?

Why? Its already established its 18 in probably every country in the world. In the majority you are allowed to buy alcohol at that age (US is one of the exceptions). Why do you think there is a need for discussion?!?! What could be up for discussion is the age for driving (18 around the world except in the USA)

Alcohol and guns are 2 very different things and askv very different kinds of responsibility. What should be up for discussion is that people that want to own and handle guns should prove their responsibility through a licensing system. This isnt taking away rights, but actually empowering them.

If you are exclusively referring to owning guns without restriction then I would suggest the age were gunviolence drops off significantly.

edit:
At least 25 and older.

source: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

"The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents. The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30times higher than in Japan, and the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993 (see figure 4). This contrasts with a 19-percent decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older. A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined.4"

 

[BobK]

What should be up for discussion is that people that want to own and handle guns should prove their responsibility through a licensing system. This isnt taking away rights, but actually empowering them.

What would you say to doing the same with voting rights?

 

[PocketZeven]

What would you say to doing the same with voting rights?

Not really the same, is it? So no.

Accidental gun deaths in Europe under 18 (or other ages) are virtually nonexistent. Guess why.

 

[Blood Eagle]

If you are exclusively referring to owning guns

I have heavily deleted most all of your post to bring it back to what’s being discussed. You continually sway discussions in completely different directions than intended and I’ll probably regret wasting part of my Saturday even acknowledging you. I initially said that it’s time to decide once and for all what age should be final for what’s considered an adult. 18 or 21? It’s really that simple.

 

[PocketZeven]

I have heavily deleted most all of your post to bring it back to what’s being discussed. You continually sway discussions in completely different directions than intended and I’ll probably regret wasting part of my Saturday even acknowledging you. I initially said that it’s time to decide once and for all what age should be final for what’s considered an adult. 18 or 21? It’s really that simple.

Dude chill. I already reacted directly to that question. It is 18, why would you want to change.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Dude chill. I already reacted directly to that question. It is 18, why would you want to change.

I never said I wanted to change anything. Others have. I have not taken a hard stance on that.