Gun Control: 21 as Minimum Age to Own Semi-automatic Guns
Could a 21-year-old minimum-age requirement to buy semi-automatic weapons help stop school shootings?
Data says the average age of school shooters is 18. It also says the majority of them passed background checks and purchased their guns legally.
Could changing the min. age to 21 reduce the likelihood of a school shooting? Could it do this without infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights? I think the answer to both questions is "yes."
Holding that position means rethinking the '18 is old enough for the military' rationalization. I am. The key to this thought is purchase and ownership, not possession. I can also see fair exceptions for experienced military folks, (1 - 2 years?).
I don't think this has to be an all-or-nothing restriction. I can also see exceptions for well-trained and qualified civilians. The purpose is to restrict the average off-the-street teen's access.
GAI think this would be a good step in the right direction. Some studies show that while adolescents do or may reason as well as adults, their emotional maturity lags.
Adolescents (not all) could be more apt to take into consideration peer pressure when making decisions and in some cases do not appreciate the riskiness of dangerous decisions.I have trouble with that as it violates a pet peeve of mine.
18 year olds can enter into binding contracts.
18 year olds are treated as adults and can be executed for a crime, which is not the case for a minor.
18 year olds have the right to vote
18 year olds are trusted to defend the nation riskin their lives in the process.
18 year olds are well out of school and need adult options to support themselves and young families.
Yet,
18 year olds cannot be in possession of or consume alcoholic beverages and in Hawaii not old enough to consume tobacco products.
I have a problem with creating a second class citizen with all the obligations of being an adult but with none of the prerogatives.
I resist the idea of this no man's land, either you are an adult at 18 or 21. I complained about this very thing while I was of that age.
Consequently, I would not lump all 18 years olds together no more than I would lump the behavior of 55 year olds together on a presumption made by those outside of that "caste".
Even though the evidence regarding the tendency for these shooters to be youthful is damning, I would prefer an approach of more thorough background checks, reasonable waiting periods, identifying red flags of extreme ammunition purchases and body armor purchases for anyone as a matter of course.
If we discovered that the 50 year olds were responsible for most of the incidents of DUI, would we deny them all a driver's license? It is always easy for one class of people to justify denying rights to others as long as it is not them.
A clear delineation needs to be made between status as an adult or status as a minor.I agree. It is unreasonable to demand "adulthood" from a person and then declare them to be ineligible for a "right" given to adults.
On a separate matter, your suggestion of large purchases may have merit. Interestingly, I heard on TV news that the Uvalde gunman had 1,000 rounds of ammunition, 2 AR15's and a pistol, all purchased very recently. Unless he used a dozen or more purchases, from different locations (I don't believe he did) then requiring notification of such a purchase, or simply making it impossible to do legally, might have helped some. Not with the guns (can't shoot more than one at a time, at least not accurately), but perhaps the ammunition. He is reported to have fired, I think 312 rounds. While there are reasons to purchase more than that, they don't much apply to a simple citizen. Cops, security, perhaps an Olympic target shooter, etc., but not the man on the street.
Had police known (or preferably the FBI) it could have ended differently. If they took action, anyway; neither is noted for doing so.
Of course, the purchases could have been spread out over a few months, but I doubt a mentally ill person would every complete that project.We are in agreement.
I am not recommending any confiscation or denial of the right to purchase firearms or even ammunition.
You need to be over 18
Subject to a background check to preclude the possibility of having been disqualified from purchase and ownership due to a felony conviction or otherwise on parole, or such.
A waiting period not to exceed 1 week.
Let's use your 1000 round standard, if anyone purchase more than this, it should recorded and reported to authorities. I am not even speaking of prohibiting the sale more than I am making the point that authorities should consider this a red flag. That flag would prompt them to go into the purchasers background in more depth as to whether the profile assigned to this sort of shooter is found with the purchaser.
Report for inclusion in a data base any purchase of body armor, Kevlar stuff.
We have facial recognition technology that does not even require a face to recognize and identify. Surely, with this sort technology available we can get a handle on this problem and still be fair to everyone.
Collate databases and identify those individuals that pose a substantial risk for this sort of violence. The information should be instantaneous and so should the response be from law enforcement. No need to arrest or confiscate, just keep the individual under surveillance.
That is how I go about solving problem without taking anyone's gun.Slow down a bit. Your idea is just one step short of a 'Minority Report' solution. I didn't mean to send you down this road. Talk like that reinforces that conservative view I have been trying to get you to recognize.
GAHow so?
This problem requires us to be proactive if we want to avoid restricting and confiscating. No one is to be arrested or accused, just good police work to indentify possible perpetrators before they cause harm.
"Minority Report" is still science fiction, no one today can be accused of a crime that they have yet to have committed.......
It is much more fair than restricting the prerogative of an entire group of citizens because of the excesses of a handful.With the exception of the Kevlar, I think I could support this. We DO need a "red flag" system and these things could be a part of it. I would, though, require that records be destroyed after surveillance finds no reason for alarm - it is not reasonable to keep a police record of a suspicion that turns out to be not BUT suspicion.
My thought on the Kevlar is that we may well find more and more ordinary citizens buying it just to to the corner grocery. Just a thought, given the way our society is deteriorating and the inability (and unwillingness) of police to actually protect.How is Kevlar different from body armor? The stuff these teens used to protect themselves are the items that I believe need to be reported as part of the "red flag".
After the suspicion has been proven to be just that over a reasonable period of time, not necessarily long, as these shooters tend to gather their materials and act quickly, I could see removing this derogatory information from an individual's file.One and the same; I just didn't want to type the longer version. I'm just concerned that an attempt to protect ones self from a shooter would result in being put under the police microscope.
Besides, body armor is not the "trigger" we're looking for; that would be guns and ammo.
Oh no, not so fast, my progressive credentials is still intact.
As this article indicates purchase of body armor by civilians should be a part of the red flag, trip wire, early warning system.
https://news.yahoo.com/why-mass-shooter … 20329.html
I am trying to find a fair median between confiscating and prohibiting sale of certain weapons verses allowing anyone to buy what ever firearm they desire without restriction, neither is palatable nor acceptable.
The mental illness angle is a red herring, no one is going to volunteer such information in advance and who can justify what levels of illness would support taking the right away to own a firearm?
While I would prefer that innocents not be subject to constant surveillance, through your behavior and actions when you cross the trip wires, you can expect the unwanted attention from the authorities. That is just the way it has to be in the reality of the frequency and magnitude of these shootings.The point is that buying a Kevlar vest to protect ones self from our violence ridden society is not reason to institute police surveillance. Nor is that purchase a primary flag to a potential killer - that remains guns and ammunition. It's a matter of how far to go - should we include a car purchase under the theory that a shooter needs to get to the scene of the crime? A backpack to hold his spare ammunition? You might want to add in purchase of several magazines, though.
Given those two things I'm not seeing the purchase of such equipment as a "trip wire" to bring surveillance, that's all.
For the most part, (not the 2nd-class citizens thing), your response is where I firmly stand. We agree. That's why I am working on this. I am trying a simple view of just one segment of gun violence or mass shootings: school shootings.
It appears that the data says the typical school shooter is a teenager, typically 18 years old. It also suggests support for the view that these shooters practically live their lives online and that is where they draw their validation, from online peers(?).
That 18-year-old isn't the 18-year-olds of my generation's perception. And it is that 18-year-old that this new idea, (for me), is directed.
The constitutionality of this idea is a problem, it involves a restriction of a segment instead of the whole. Could the specifics of its target offer any form of construction that could pass constitutional muster? Could it be time to accept that our world demands a little gray from validly 'black & white' positions?
Here's what I am thinking. A minimum age of 21 to buy any semi-automatic weapon, with circumventing qualifiers, (exceptions), built-in.
Something like an exception for one year of military service. That would provide a year of training and real life-experience that probably removes the person from the profile of the typical school shooter.
Or maybe a non-military substitute of training that serves the same weapon and life-experience expectations.
Or, I think I'm talking myself out of this idea. There's no escaping its bones: no matter how idealistically simple or rational it seems, it's still penalizing the many because of the actions of a few. Oh well, harden the schools. Better start working on the Roller Rinks next.
Maybe someone can see a direction.
GAThis is a forum that’s just academic to me in that in the UK guns are banned anyway; period!
However, I found your list of age related restrictions interesting, when comparing the similarities and differences to the UK:-
• Yep, in the UK 18 year olds can enter into binding contracts.
• No, we abolished the death penalty in the UK in 1965.
• In Scotland and Wales the voting age is 16.
• No, in the UK you can join the military from the age of 16.
• You leave school at 16 in the UK, but can then optionally go to college for two years from 16 to 18 before going onto university at the age of 18.
• In the UK you can legally drink alcohol on private premises from the age of 5, drink alcohol from the age of 16 in public if it’s with a meal and someone over the age of 18 buys it for you; and you can buy your own alcohol from the age of 18.
• You can fly a glider or balloon at the age of 16 in the UK, fly a plane at the age of 17; you can drive a car at the age of 17, or from the age of 16 if you are disabled e.g. my son got his pilot licence for flying a glider before he could legally drive a car.Arthur, be glad the topic of this coarse interchange is not part and parcel as problem within your society.
To change the subject, I saw a film a few years ago about a Pierpoint, hangman extrodinaire. The last of his scientifically controlled hangings, of course, took place in the 1960s.
We have people here that would, if they could, make every adult prerogative and responsibility revert to 21. Conservatives would love that as younger people generally vote more left, politically.
Where we might have some parity, is that in most states, at least in mine, Colorado, you had to be 16 to get a driver's license, yet you could obtain a learners permit at 15 years and 9 month, and for me it was an eternity waiting for it.
If I recall most places require compulsory school attendance until 16. But that was long ago, that may have changed as well.
As you can see, our death chambers are fully operational. But now, it is a la carte. Take your pick from lethal injection, electrocution or firing squad. Variety is the spice of life, I always say. But they left out the lethal gas, or hanging by the neck.....
It is a madhouse over here in so many ways, and it has not been helping our tourism industry.Picking up on a couple of your points:-
• Yeah, it’s similar here, where people under the age of 25 predominantly vote left, while those over 65 predominantly vote right: Hence, although the Socialist Governments in Scotland and Wales have reduced the voting age to 16 in those nations (which favours them); the UK Conservative Government is resisting lowering the voting age to 16 in England.
• Yeah, our Australian cousins, since they retired have toured most of the world, including Asia, Canada, Europe and more recently the UK. And when they stayed with us overnight, as part of their three month tour of the UK, they state quite clearly that one place they will never tour is the USA because of all the gun violence. So yes, as you said, it’s not going to do your tourism industry any favours!
I have no problem with this.
If they can make drinking illegal till you are 21 they can make buying any form of semi-automatic weapon illegal.
Teenage boys aren't exactly the most mature and responsible portion of society.
If you can't trust them to be mature enough to handle drinking, then the same logic should apply to semi-auto weapons. Unless they are Police or Military.
Age restriction seems even more appropriate when considering a teenager doesn't have much of a background to check. Maybe after being an adult for a few years, the bad apples will expose themselves and the background check will work better.I am having problems with my own OP. One reason is that the issue is about a Right, not a privilege like drinking or driving or joining the military.
Another is the extreme ratio of school shooters to under-21 gun owners. This solution would penalize tens or hundreds of thousands for the actions of dozens. If this idea was proposed for anything other than school shootings it would be hard for me to consider.
However, school shootings are different. The source of the problem seems so easy to identify: the 18-19-year-old gun buyer. And the acts of these shooters are so shockingly horrendous to our society. Much more so than 'just' a mass shooting of adults. That target should be addressable in some way. It's time for a compromise, (obviously, I don't know what that would be, yet), more for the American psyche than just a reduction in deaths.
That compromise must have the flexibility to allow for exceptions. Exceptions like military service, or some civilian training or evaluation period. Or even exceptions for rural-type teenagers like they can get for driving privileges a year, (or two?), before 'normal' 16-year-olds. (I know those privileges are for farm vehicles. still . . .)
I agree with your 'lack of background' point. Their, (the teens), only background, unless they already have a record, is their social media footprint. We've seen some of the Orwellian suggestions for monitoring that. I don't want any part of it.
GAI would have to disagree with the intent (I think) of a part of this. That shootings in a school of young children is "shockingly horrendous", causes lots of tears, and affects our emotions more strongly than other shootings should not be a part of the equation. A mass killing, whether in a old folks home, a hospital or a school are all the same; the killing of innocent, helpless people. Don't use your emotional response to set punishment, guidelines or responses.
That's a fair point, and one that I frequently make. In this case, I think its importance to the American psyche that something be done instead of the 'nothings' of the past is a rational motivation even though it is emotionally driven.
The comprise if there is one, is where reason will come into the picture. It won't be an emotional response of banning all guns, it will a reasoned one of a specific targeted solution.
However, I could be wrong about the emotion part. Still working through it.
GA
I don't see where a teenager (under 21 person) needs a semi-auto.
It really is that simple.
I am allowing them to buy certain rifles, bolt action types, which are the favorites of hunters and sportsmen for the purposes of hunting and sports shooting.
In truth, they could do significant harm with these as well, but as you say, it does two things... it sooths the National psyche and perhaps helps alleviate some tensions... and it deters those lunatics that want to use a semi-auto weapon to commit mass murder.
Another reason I am in favor of this age implementation, as a society we have been extending the "childhood" stage of people, with college kids remaining on their parent's insurance until age 26, with many kids never even holding a job until they are in their 20s... more and more "children" are remaining so well into their 20s with a growing majority having no expectations on them, from anyone, in any economic strata.
When I was 12 I was working my first real paying job, on a farm, bailing hay from sunrise to sunset, when I was 16 I had my first vehicle, by the time I was 19 I was in the Army.
And even for my generation, this was becoming more of the exception than the norm. My grandfather was married, had his own apartment, and had a child on the way at age 16. My father was married, was building his first home, and had a child on the way at age 22 (after serving in the military).
Again, compare that to the fact that a large percentage of "children" today have not even held a job at age 18... and we are coming to a core reason why this is becoming a new phenomenon in America... we have "children" being given access to weapons, that have no concept of responsibility, consequences, etc. essentially nothing to quantify them as an "adult" other than age."I don't see where a teenager (under 21 person) needs a semi-auto"
-----
For the same reason that someone over 21 needs a semi-auto?
Now you want to tell those between 18 and 21 what they can and can't have? What is that based upon?
It's the same "ole song" refrain. Where the previous generation finds the succeeding one somehow unworthy. I can't tell you how many times as a "baby boomer" that I have heard this message. Is it really accurate? Each generation has its own challenges. This current one will have to learn to be productive in a highly more competitive and technological environment than I did, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
They are not all playing video games and mooching from their parents and as this is the generation whose Social Security taxes pay for our retirements, (part of mine, anyway) perhaps a little more respect would be due.No, maybe you should accept the new social dynamics in our society.
I think I explained the changes we see very well, from my grandfather to my father to me to today's younger generations.
It's not just my family, it is the entire society.
In 1920 being married at 16 might have been common place, in 2020 it's unheard of.
Adulthood has been pushed much further out, most 18 year olds are nothing like my generation, let alone previous ones.What new dynamics, Ken?
We are born, we live and learn and then we die, none of that has ever changed, these topics are much like a dog chasing its own tail.
I disagree with your assessment of this matter, as don't remember marriage being necessarily commonplace in 1980, either, really.
Was the world the same in 1820 as compared with 1920?
That's the universal constant "time changes space".
I am not comfortable using your broad brush as an explanation for an entire generation.
I know a few young people working 2 jobs and going to school part time. I did not have so much of a burden when I was their age. Yes, these kids have different sorts of diversions than I had, but my parents and grandparents diversions were also different. For example, I had TV, they didn't. I don't see a world where young people are to devalued as a group, our success as a society, to a great deal, relies on their success. What are we doing to facilitate that, outside of belittling them?
Economics have changed as well as everything else. The past can never be an accurate measuring stick in matters such as these. Social, political, economic and cultural changes are involved, and that is why it is so hard to really predict the future taking into consideration all the engines driving change.Are you deliberately using misdirection or just being obtuse?
You know as well as anyone that expectations for past generations were vastly different.
A hundred years ago a 16 year old was considered an adult, likely had a full time job or was married with kids.
Fifty years ago an 18 year old was considered an adult, able to drink legally, was expected to have a job or be lucky enough to be in college, etc.
None of that is true today, society doesn't expect much of anything out of 18 years old, we have extended childhood into the 20s... As evidenced by changing laws, insurance coverage for kids on their parents dime until they are 26, illegal to drink until they are 21, kids still living at home in their 20s is a new norm, one that past generations did not encourage.Am I obtuse because I disagree with your perspective, Ken? Do you think that I have just fallen from a turnip truck? I have both eyes and ears and was not born yesterday. And based on our interaction, I have been "around" longer than you.
Expectations for every generation are different. Fifty years ago, I could have obtained a job that would have paid enough to support me and a small family without a lot of education or prior training. A time when this country actually manufacturered things and did not move labor overseas to save money. Yes, the times were different but so were the surrounding circumstances.
As of 1971, 18'year olds had the ballot and I was part of that. Resistance to the insane idea that I have to go to war, yet had no say as to who was sending me there. Those "mature" 18 year olds of the past still had 21 years of age drinking restrictions and could not vote. The insurance policy changes do not reflect on the maturity of 18 year olds, it was a component of Obamacare that conservatives resisted anyway, so why should I pay attention to that argument? Inflation and the startling rising costs of living are forcing younger people back home. More conservative claptrap blaming lack of initiative by this group in place of the hard reality of a changing economy. I remember during the Eighties when drinking Ages were changed back to 21 because of auto fatalities that were prevalent among the 18 to 21 year old crowd. But I wonder which next age demographic was almost just as guilty?
---
"Fifty years ago an 18 year old was considered an adult, able to drink legally, was expected to have a job or be lucky enough to be in college, etc."
-------
Not necessarily, we had our own clubs where reduced alcohol 3.2 beer was sold, otherwise known as "Colorado Kool aid". Some of us had jobs, some were in college. The features of the transition status regarding age were still quite present for those in the "no man's" land.One thing that strikes me is an apparent hypocrisy whereby right-wing Republican Americans frequently tell me that the USA is greater than the UK because you have ‘freedoms’ in the USA, and according to right-wing Republican Americans we are not a free society in the UK!!!!!!
However, in reading the exchange of views between you and Credence, it appears to me that adults below the age of 21 are far less free in the USA than they are in the UK?
Yes, I think the message you heard and the one baby Boomers are saying now is accurate. These are different times and respect has to be earned to be held. It might initially be 'given' out of respect but it must be earned to be held.
GAGA, I find it funny that inalienable rights for some always have to be "earned" by others.
I cannot deny people rights based on totally subjective perceptions as to their merit as a group. Hasn't that always been a big part of the American story, and one of its greater failings?
Because these are different times, it might be better to withhold judgement rather than restrict rights and prerogatives as a first response.I wouldn't find that funny. If there were 'inalienable Rights' there would be nothing to earn. It's keeping them that takes earning.
I said "respect." I think the context was also clear—the maturity level of different generations raised in different environments. You are the one that read "inalienable Rights" into my comment.
I certainly wouldn't call this age restriction idea a "first response." Consider how many gun laws we have and how many decades this problem has demanded action.
GAI said "respect." I think the context was also clear—the maturity level of different generations raised in different environments. You are the one that read "inalienable Rights" into my comment.
-------
We come from different environments, we don't seem to have any problems with our respective maturity levels.
look at congress today. What gun control, as the Republicans are virtually putting up a stone wall regarding the idea. As, I said, I have other solutions besides taking guns. But, there is resistance to every idea about controlling access and availability of high capacity semi automatics. Maybe that resistance should be addressed first instead of penalizing a selected class of people. Again, the late Antonin Scalia made it clear that the Second Amendment is not absolute, in the ideas that conservatives cozy up to; that anyone, anywhere should be able to acquire a gun at any time without restraint or restriction."What gun control, as the Republicans are virtually putting up a stone wall regarding the idea."
You know, had Democrats put forth a few "reasonable" ideas (background checks, smaller magazines, limited one time purchases, maybe even an age limit) I don't think Conservatives would have hesitated much. A little debate, some fine tuning and we might had such laws.
Instead we see whole cities declaring themselves to be a gun free zone. We see Democrats intentionally mis-labeling the most popular gun in the country in order to spread fear and then demanding it be banned when people think it is something it is not. We see Democrats forever attempting to delay purchases of guns while making it far more expensive at the same time. We see them demanding a mental health exam before purchasing. We see, in short, every effort imaginable to disarm America, all while exclaiming that they don't want to do that.
Can you understand why conservatives are just a little bit "gun shy" of Democrat efforts?Relative to our maturity levels, we are talking about young adults from different environments, not mature adults that have traveled as far as we have.
I wouldn't be upset with something like your ban on high-capacity magazines idea, but the Ulvalde shooting might cast some doubt on it's efficacy. From the news, the guy had over a hundred magazines with him. I don't know if they were all hi-cap, but even if they were standard 15-round mags he had more than enough. I don't think a magazine ban would have stopped him or reduced the damage.
Someone probably knows if this large number of mags is typical for mass shooters, but if it is, then a hi-cap ban probably wouldn't help.
I'm a bit pragmatic about restrictions on stuff like bump-stocks and hi-cap mags. They're placebos for the public and they can't hurt, much.
GA
I disagree about the teenager and semi-auto gun point. My first semi-auto was a .22 squirrel rifle. At 12-years-old, when It was given to me, I had years of gun familiarization and supervision.
However, the rest of your comment makes points I think are spot-on, (I had even thought about mentioning the insurance age). Earlier I noted that today's 18-year-olds are less life-mature than the teens of our generation.
I think my perspective comes from the same place as yours. I too had teen jobs and worked part-time through school to save for my first used car, (at 16), and joined the Navy at 18. We are seeing different times bud, we may be dinosaurs but I don't think our 'thinking' is wrong.
GAAll you folks are from another planet and that is why we are going to see things differently. My folks never owned firearms and it was unimaginable that firearms would be given to a preteen as a present. Is that supposed to represent a rite of passage or something?
I think that your "thinking" is wrong and I will elaborate further...I agree, I've never owned a firearm, and neither has anyone else I know owned a firearm; and we've never had any need nor desire to either - The gun laws in the UK are so tight that not only is it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to own a gun, but also it's near impossible for criminals to get hold of guns; and criminals have very little desire to because the police don't carry guns, and to be caught in possession of a gun would increase the criminal's prison sentence quite considerably if they got caught, so it's not worth the risk - And I think that's a good thing.
In the UK the minimum sentence for being in possession of a gun is 5 years; with a maximum of a life sentence for being in possession of a gun with intent to endanger life. So few criminals want to take that risk.Indeed, giving something like that, something that is deliberately designed to kill was not a route that responsible parents would take, at least in my world. I have heard of a lot of these rural folks giving children as young as 5 a firearm as a gift. When I would be giving them educational toys and books to read, instead.
But, I wanted you to know that opinions here are quite diverse, as you probably have already noted. The gun culture here remains remains immutable.Thanks for the clarification, which from reading the different discussions I had come to conclude what you say. Yes lots of things in the USA, including guns seem to be very political. Whereas, strangely, in the UK (apart from Brexit) controversial issues most of the time tend not to be political in that most often public opinion cuts across politics.
For examples:-
Blood Sports: Politically and socially, in the UK its the elite, such as the Royal Family, and the upper classes who like blood sports, hence politically it's supported by the Conservatives and opposed by Socialists.
However blood sports (fox hunting) was banned in Scotland in 2002, and in England and Wales by Labour (Socialist Government) in 2004; in accordance with Public Opinion e.g. 85% of the British population oppose blood sports.
NHS: the National Health service, created by Labour (Socialist Government) in 1948, free universal healthcare for all, is pure socialism, and thus disposed by the Conservatives; but 87% of the British Public are proud of the NHS therefore for the Conservatives not to support the NHS would be political suicide.
We are not from another planet bud, we are from another side of America. One that is valued just as deeply, (more?), as you value your side.
And yes, it was a sort of 'Rite of Passage'; from the expected irresponsibleness of kids to the trust of responsibility as a young man, (not young adult). Everyone has them, yours were just different.
More than 50 years after that Rite of Passage, no one in my family, or my siblings' families, or any childhood friends or acquaintances have been involved in gun crimes or gun accident injuries. That may be an anecdotal example, but it covers a hundred folks or so. I think there are millions more like that on that 'other side.'
Whaddayahink?
GAI came back to offer a chuckle. I was doing some clean-up work and when I came across this I thought about your 'from another planet' perspective.
You might like this, (it's mine but I'm not promoting it), it shows where my perspective is coming from. With a chuckle of course.
My First Bear Hunt The finish is in Part 2
GA ;-)Wow, that is something. I always had an aversion to hunting, because I always considered the 4 legged creatures as better than most of the people I knew.
In my transition from LA to Southeast Montana, 40 years ago, I had the opportunity to go hunting with the locals. They gave me a .22 to allow me to carry something giving a sense of participation, while not allowing me to do too much damage. I was the last of a species that fell for the "snipe hunting" joke. Practicing on tin cans, I realized that there was a lot to being a good marksman. I understood that hunting was a male bonding ritual, a place where the guys would bitch about their wives, politics and their jobs. Yet, I was honored that they included me, the city hunter.
On a my first real camping trip to the Rockies with a "hot date", some 15 years later, the issue of bears came up. She was infuriated when she found out that I had packed some KFC and said, "there are bears all over here, are you trying to get us killed"? But, I said, I have the chicken in ziplock. She had some dried casseroles in a pouch that were designed for camping and I was surprised that they made stuff like this. But, for a matter of fact, it was pretty good, nothing like c-rations.
When I think about how we almost hunted Buffalo and bison species to extinction for mere sport on this very continent, I am reminded of Mr. Spock, who said in reference to whales, that hunting a species to extinction is illogical. I have a general reverence for all life, with the exception of vermin, and many species of insects. I am satisfied that I can satiate my appetite for meat at the nearest "Winn Dixie" market.
I am a hypocrite content to let someone else do the dirty work of making it available on the shelves. But, if the time comes when acceptable synthetic substitutes for meat become available, I will probably be first in line, but in the meantime....
Thanks for sharing that experience, seems to be hazardous, interesting and quite alien.From Another Planet!
Credence, your comments in a post above caught my eye, to quote:-
“All you folks are from another planet and that is why we are going to see things differently. My folks never owned firearms and it was unimaginable that firearms would be given to a preteen as a present. Is that supposed to represent a rite of passage or something? I think that your "thinking" is wrong and I will elaborate further...”
In reading your above post, a few relevant points (from my perspective) include:-
• Being a Brit, I’ve never handled a gun; that goes without saying.
• Opinion Polls show that 85% of Brits are against ‘blood sports’ e.g. that’s why fox hunting (which was a pass time sport of the elite and the royal family) was banned in Britain in 2004.
• I’ve been a vegetarian all my adult life.
• We no longer have any dangerous wildlife in the UK, not even poisonous snakes or spiders etc.
At one time we use to have bears and wolves in Britain, but….
• Bears are thought to have gone extinct in the UK just over 1, 000 years ago; gradual and persistent persecution, alongside the loss of its forest habitat, saw the brown bear disappear from our landscape forever.
• Wolves, likewise, persecuted to extinction by 1760 in Britain.
Of the wildlife that remains in Britain are three species of snakes, grass snake, adder and smooth snake; all harmless to humans; and the fox, a timid and shy species of dog that’s completely harmless to humans, and isn’t even a match for most domestic cats.
We also have the ‘slow worm’ a legless lizard that looks like a snake, and grows to over a foot in length; completely harmless, and slow moving, and good for the garden.
Below are photos I took of a slow worm, and of a fox, in our back garden:
There are now two types of foxes in Britain; the urban fox and the rural fox.
Your post makes sense to me. And I can hardly believe that the wolf, the bear, and the fox are extinit or rare animals in a country or kingdom like Britain. The biology of the ecology was very disturbing. But the zoo can contain import spies of the beasts.
The bear and wolf are now extinct in the UK; but the fox is very common place - but the important distinction is that the fox is harmless to humans, whereas teh bear and wolf are not.
There are around 357,000 foxes living in Britain, of which around 100,000 live in our cities (the urban fox).
In Bristol (where I live) there are an estimated 40 foxes per square mile.Thank you, even for correcting where my reading err.
Hi, Arthur, even without my forays into the wilderness, I had to have had a basic knowledge and periodic refresher training in firearm use and safety as part of my military experience. But it was "basic".
I do have this problem addiction to "meat" products.
I have to admire that you in the U.K. have managed to defang all what was once wild animals at one time. It is remarkable still that you manage to subdue the excesses of the two legged ones, as well. Something we need to do a better job of here in America.
Here in Florida, I still have this irrational fear of jaguars jumping out of the bush at night to attack me while I am walking my golden retriever. We have the occasional gators, snakes and such. While, it is hardly anything that keeps one awake at night, it can never be dismissed completely.I get the impression that most Americans have done military service at some point; whereas here in Britain I don’t know anybody who’s had any military experience. The nearest thing to that which most youngsters experience in Britain in this day and age are things like Scots, Air Cadets, Duke of Edinburgh Award and Outward Bound Courses etc.
My son did his ‘Duke of Edinburgh’ and joined the Air Cadets when he was 13. The Air Cadets is not a recruiting organisation for its parent service. Activities in the Air Cadets includes sport, adventurous training (such as walking and paddle-sports), ceremonial drill, rifle shooting, field-craft, powered aircraft, glider flying, and other outdoor activities, as well as academic study and exam for a BTEC in Aviation Studies. A BTEC is a nationally recognised exam qualification that employers accept as qualifications when you’re looking for a job, so having a BTEC under your belt can help you get a job.
In Britain you can legally fly a glider solo from the age of 14 and get your gliders licence at 16; which is what our son did – a year before he could legally learn to drive a car.
While still at school, our son also did his Duke of Edinburgh Award, which gave him more qualifications for his CV (Curriculum vitae).
What is the Duke of Edinburgh Award: https://youtu.be/ctfn4BeI38c
I didn’t do any of that, but when I was still in my 20’s the civil service paid for me to do the Outward Bound Course; two weeks in the Lake District; as portrayed in the comedy film featuring ‘Julia Walter’ in “She will be wearing pink pyjamas”:
What is the Outward Bound Course: https://youtu.be/1yKEwHPyPQA
Yeah, being able to explore the British countryside on foot and not have to worry about dangerous wildlife is something I do appreciate and very grateful for. That being said, they do apparently have wolves in France, but when we’ve camped out in the forests and walked through forests in France we’ve never had sight or sound of them; and thus no worries – Looking on the Internet, there’s an estimated of just 580 individual wolves left in France, which would explain why humans hardly ever see or hear them. Thus in France, they are an endangered species and therefore it’s illegal to kill them.
I’ve never had a problem in not eating meat; but for those who do there are ample meat substitutes to choose from in Britain; in fact vegetarianism is so popular in Britain these days that virtually all cafes, pubs and restaurants almost always offer meat alternatives, such as vegetarian sausages, and Vegetarian/vegan menu options.
Therefore, when we’re on a day trip or on holiday we often stop for an ‘all day’ ‘Full English Breakfast’ in the afternoon, and instead of bacon and sausage I have the vegetarian sausages.
My favourite Vegetarian food manufacturer in Britain is the Linda McCartney Range; a wide range of choice of products. Do you have Linda McCartney in the USA?
What Is The Vegan Linda McCartney Range Like?? https://youtu.be/dtT2nllJAnI
How to Make Breakfast like a Brit https://youtu.be/rmieAqTG1wIYes, indeed, Arthur, there is quite a contingent of veterans here, and that comes with certain benefits.
We have the boy and Girl Scouts. I was a Boy Scout and went out into the mountains occasionally for excursions. We have (Jr. Reserve Officer's Training Corps) in many of the high schools, a sort of military extracurricular activity. I was interested and included it in with my academic curriculum.
Then I joined the University level Air Force ROTC, many of us were in our late teens and as part of training for life as an Air Force Officer, we got to do a lot of neat things, the decompression chamber and the thrill of sitting next to a "top gun" type giving us each a joy ride in his T-38 fighter jet. The "barf" bags strapped to our helmets were certainly used.
To change the subject, I think that it is important to avoid driving any species to extinction. With that said, I salute the French in their effort to preserve what wolves are left.
But, Arthur, do the meat substitutes really taste like meat?
I looked into Linda McCartney Range, before you mentioned it, I had never heard of it. Yet it is available from Amazon and I might just muster up the nerve to give it a try. Was it a creation from Paul McCartney's late wife?
Thanks for the videos, I will have a look....
I see that the McCartney brand is quite popular in Britain. I adored the "breakfast Lady" and her distinct English accent and things that I would call a can she referred to as a "tin". Just a few of the small differences on display.Yes, the Linda McCartney Vegetarian Food Range was created by Linda McCartney (wife of Paul McCartney) as she passionately believed in great tasting, honest, meat free food; which is probably why it’s the most successful vegetarian/vegan product sold in the UK, Norway, Ireland, Austria, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.
Yes the Linda McCartney meat substitutes are a good substitute for meat, good meat like texture, colour and taste. Although in part it’s down to how you cook them e.g. I found that oven baking the products a little longer than the manufacturer’s recommendation improves taste and texture; so you might need to experiment a little to cook them to your preferred taste.
On a couple occasions I’ve had one ardent meat eater at BBQ’s in our back garden who on trying them switched to having my Linda McCartney sausages rather than the real thing because they preferred the taste; and a while later, to my surprise, he became vegetarian himself. I didn’t go without at the BBQ, I just got another pack out of our freezer.
My favourite is the Linda McCartney Vegetarian Quarter Pounder Burgers; if cooked properly they can be almost indistinguishable from McDonalds beef burgers.
So yes, if you can get hold of some, then try a few Linda McCartney products. If you do I’d be interested in your thoughts!
I haven’t tried the Linda McCartney mince yet, but I have tried and love other vegetarian mince which are good for making vegetarian Shepard’s pie and cottage pie etc., and vegetarian spaghetti bolognaise.
Yep ‘tin’ is the British English word for ‘can’, just as ‘rubbish is the British English word for ‘garbage’; it’s surprising how different British English is to American English.
I and many people would agree with you “that it is important to avoid driving any species to extinction”, and I too “salute the French in their effort to preserve what wolves are left”; that being said I certainly wouldn’t want them reintroduced into Britain.
Wow, you did have an active youth. Thanks for your overview of your physical activities in your youth; I was never the sporty out door, adventurous type, so that sort of thing didn’t really interest me – So the Outward Bound Course in my 20’s was my one and only real taste of adventure; which I did enjoy – My favourite activity during those two weeks was the abseiling, and rock climbing was my least favourite.With all that being sold here, I though 'tin' and 'can' can be both use as British English. Critically, llke as in a tin of milk, a can of beef?
Miebakagh, American English and British English are two different languages; ‘can’ is an American word while ‘tin’ is a British English word; for other examples:
• Hood of car in American English is the car’s bonnet in British English.
• The trunk of a car in American English is the boot of the car in British English.
• Apartment in American is ‘flat’ in British English.
• Vacation in American is ‘holiday’ in British.
• Fall in American is autumn in British
Just focusing on Vegetable alone:-
• Eggplant in American is Aubergine in British.
• Rutabaga in American is Swede in British.
• Zucchini in American is Courgette in British.
• Arugula in American is Rocket in British.
• Navy beans in American is Haricot beans in British.
• Romaine lettuce in American is Cos lettuce in British.
• Cilantro in American is Coriander in British.
• Endive in American is Chicory in British.
Cooking is a hobby of mine, but struggle with recipes written in American because many of the ingredients have names that I am not familiar with. So when searching for recipes I tend to stick to ones written in British English.Thank you, Arthur. I do know that the British and the Americans speak and write two different English. And yes, Nigeria being a former British colony, I use the British standard.
Arthur, my spouse has spent a considerable time in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands and has adopted much of what I consider to be a melodic English accent. She also says nappies instead of diapers, for example.
It is amazing with these differences in some words that we can understand each other. I used to take pride in identifying someone's origins based on what I would hear as an dialect or accent in their manner of speech or words chosen. I just, yesterday, identified a German through her accent over the telephone. The Canadians are distinct, as well, but one has to listen more carefully. Instead of about, it is "aboot"
The only part of the culinary arts that I really take a fancy to is the eating part. I make it a point to stay out of my wife's way while she creates her masterpiece, or concoctions. I was a guinea pig for her island based confection, "fish head" soup. I did not like the sound of it, but it actually turned out to be quite good. She is always looking for new recipes and that might take us via the internet, around the world. Before he became so commercial, she always watch Gordon Ramsey's cooking shows.
Fortunately, I have a cast iron stomach and I have not had any ill effects from her experimentation. It is just the shopping for ingredients part that is annoying. How many stores do I have to check to see if the sell "eye of newt"?
I spoke with her about the concept of Linda McCartney vegetarian products, she did not rule giving it a try. She has a strong anti-gmo stance and is all about organic. Even though, i told her that you can't believe everything that is on the packaging.
Thanks for your feedback Credence.
To be able to identify someone’s origins based on their dialect and accent, manner of speech and words chosen is a talent; one that I’m not particularly good at, so I do envy you in having that skill. You’d have a field day touring the UK; across the UK dialects and accents changes often within 10 miles – there are an estimated 40 different accents and dialects across England alone: Just in London there are four versions of English, as follows:-
• Received Pronunciation e.g. Queen’s English; BBC English.
• Cockney.
• Estuary English.
• MLE (Multicultural London English).
I speak Bristolian, which is similar to Summerset and West Country accents. For example Bristolian “Thee's Got'n Where Thee Cassn't Back'n, Hassn't” translates into English as “He’s got it where he can’t back it out, hasn’t he”. Other Bristolian words include words like:-
• Bis = You.
• Girt = Big.
• Ark at ee = Look at him.
Food Packaging is one thing that has been tightened up on in the UK in recent decades; primarily due to pressure groups (Organised General Public group campaigners) lobbying Government, leading to Governments over the years, in co-operation with food manufacturers introducing strict labelling laws. Hence in the UK you can read a food label and have a high level of confidence that it is complete and accurate.
So in the UK food labels have become a handy tool for shoppers in identifying how heathy or otherwise a product is e.g. traffic light colour coding for fat, salt and sugar in products; plus having to give the percentage of each ingredient, with the most prominent ingredient listed first – and for any artificial colour, flavouring and preservatives added. Consequently, because the British Public don’t like buying food containing artificial colouring, flavouring, and preservatives, virtually all manufacturers now only include natural colouring, flavouring and preservatives – which has it pros and cons e.g. because foods like bread etc. no longer have artificial preservatives, so they don’t keep and have to be consumed quickly, or otherwise they’ll go mouldy.
The latest addition to labelling is where cafes and restaurants have to now itemise the calories for each individual item listed on their menus.
Great story! I nod my head to your writing skills. One thing caught my attention at the beginning. Were you really brought along to be pack mule as that was a lot of stuff you and Pop brought with you. Just kidding . . .
I hope you also read the second part, it had the meat of the experience. The first part just set the stage.
I think you are overly generous with your writing praise. I wrote those stories 8 - 10 years ago and as I was going through them for rewrites I was less than impressed with my original efforts. There is a lot of crummy structure, clumsy wording, and halting narrative flow in them. Hopefully, the rewrites will be better, (I think I have picked up a few tips in the following years ;-) ).
As for the pack mule thing, that was that fellow Bob's job. Pop and I got the gravy—arriving at an already set-up camp and only needing to bring 'our' stuff.
Other than offering a chuckle for Cred, I hope these stories show some of the anti-gun folks where many of their opponents' perspectives are coming from. I think, for most liberals, every person in those stories would have been in Hillary's basket of "deplorables."
GAAny person who writes a story better than me deserves praise.
I will go back and go to the second part for 'The End'. I got my camping experience when a lad living in W.Va. from '66 - '69 as a Boy Scout and later in Calif. both in the Mojave Desert and later near the coast in the San Diego area. The only hunting experience I have is with my best bud and his shotgun walking the desert floor looking for jack rabbits. I was fourteen.
Anyway, my 'Hillbilly' days were the best especially since being in the backwoods where if you stepped across someone's property they may run out with shotgun to find out why you were there.That is where I first shot a gun in scouting on the range with a 22 rifle. I was about twelve. Interestingly enough my dad a career Marine when young was the 2nd Marine Division on the east coast champ with shooting the M1 a couple of years. So, I had a good coach.
Later in life I shot Skeet competitively owning 12, 20, 28 gauge and .410 bore shotguns. They were Remington 1100, so semi-automatic in essence, and competition skeet grade meaning better bores and from the same piece of wood. I reloaded my 20 gauge shells. I also have some experience with a Ruger Mini 14 shooting a .223, which with a stretch could be considered a forerunner to a assault weapon. So, I might fit that basket too.Yep, we might be basket buddies. I used to shoot skeet with my Pop too. Not any "competitive" stuff, just backyard fun. He had a similar selection: A Browning 12 ga. pump, a 16-ga. that was his father's, (I don't remember the brand), and a Remington 410 ga. I liked the 410 because the kick of the 16 ga. hurt, and the 12 ga. would nearly knock me back, it wasn't fun to shoot.
An interesting thought just occurred: with all my childhood gun experience, I don't remember ever handling a pistol until my middle teen years. Pop carried one in the car all the time but I don't remember him ever bringing it out, (from under the front seat, of course), or letting me handle it. Hmm . . . maybe he was at least a little 'not irresponsible'?
It is our experiences, that I think many Americans might share, that make me want to see some type of exception for 18-year-olds that share similar experiences. The segment of the demographic most responsible for the need is so small—relative to the whole—that 'fairness' demands some opportunity to mitigate part of the restrictions.
As a concept, suppose a year-long course of training and evaluation mitigated the age from 21 to 19? There must be acceptable solutions other than a broad-brush all-or-nothing rule.
This isn't like 'one bad apple spoils the barrel', it's more like 'one bad apple spoils the whole truckload of barrels'. 'We' just need to find a first point of agreement.
We might be working on that now with the winds blowing in the direction of an age requirement instead of a ban.
GAI had an epiphany. I have a solution. One that is 'scientifically' quantifiable.
It's Introverts. That would fit almost every mass school shooter's profile. The restriction could be targeted to the need instead of the mass. Restrict the introverts and leave the rest alone.
Damn, pure genius. ;-o
GA
"Other than offering a chuckle for Cred, I hope these stories show some of the anti-gun folks where many of their opponents' perspectives are coming from. I think, for most liberals, every person in those stories would have been in Hillary's basket of "deplorable"
Well, GA. As a liberal, I am not anti-gun more than I am against irresponsible policies regarding ownership and access. It is the conservatives that frame the argument as either unfettered access to any firearm by anyone, anytime, vs taking everybody's gun. We need to look solutions in terms of the shades of gray in the middle. Hillary Clinton's comment was unfortunate and may have contributed to her loss. Progressives generally see being different as not necessarily a detriment.
I wouldn't want to say that Hillary's comment represented the thoughts of most liberals any more than I should attribute bigoted comments from the Right as representative of most conservatives, even though I am many times tempted to do just that.
A "culture" that is focused on the "gun" and its brandishing appears somewhat primitive to me, to be honest.I can see the probability that there are many liberals like you; a ban isn't their only consideration. However, just as the Right's 'Taking Heads' proclaims the extreme of every instance, so does the Left.
It is your "talking heads' that on in the media at every opportunity pushing the sole solution of banning or restricting all ownership. As Wilderness constantly stresses, you guys portray yourselves as one-trick ponies—ban, take away, restrict, (in the stronger sense than condition). You shouldn't be surprised at the blow-back.
As for your "brandishing" thought, I never experienced that in my 'gun life'. The 'conservatives' that do that, (like the open-carry folks strutting the streets with their guns), do legitimize your perspective, but it is a false perspective. Those guys don't represent most of us any more than the violent BLM protesters don't represent the majority of the Left.
Unfortunately, I have to consider my own advice to you. I can see why you have that brandishing and gun culture views.
GA
This is another factor, life experience.
You learn a lot when working, when building or fixing your own bikes, cars, on having to be dependant on one's own abilities because help is not just a cellphone call away.
And then there are societal expectations and worker laws.
When I was 14 I was working at a Pharmacy that had a dining fountain, in addition to stocking shelves I worked the grill, served coffee, sodas ... It had soda taps, where you added in the flavors, old school even back then.
I always worked after school and weekends and still found plenty of time to get around and do stuff with others.
Today it's not even legal in most places to work under the age of 16.
Nor is it legal in most places to marry at 16.
Essentially we live in a country today where at 18 kids haven't done anything other than go to school and sit around playing games on their phones.
Kids today are not allowed the experiences needed to help them prepare to be adults come 18. We have pushed those things further into their futures, so we should push the ability for them to buy weapons of the type we are discussing, further into the future as well.I am older than you, and it wasn't legal Colorado for those under 16 to work. That was 50 years ago. What life experiences have you had that I did not have? Everybody's situation is different, broad brushes cannot apply.
You must have been a "country Mouse", I was a city mouse and the skills and expectations needed to learn to prepare for adulthood were different.
Is it so easy for you to deny rights to others based only on your perceptions without any legal basis? Where is your authority to do this? Seems to me that MY rights were denied for an interminable amount of time based upon the same reasoning that you are using here.
If the goal is mass school shootings, then it may help based on what I have read Yet, I have read with school shootings and not mass shootings alone the average age is 16 where one case reported it was a six year old doing the shooting.
The goal I am talking about is specific: mass school shootings. An easily defined event and easily identified potential perpetrator.
GAOkay, yet I think I addressed that with first sentence.
I don't understand why it's so complicated. Simply ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I don't see any reason why you should own them. A hunting rifle yes, shooting for sport, yes, but for these, you don't need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. (what's the sport in that anyways..)
And by the way, I think we should take into account that it is 99% (haven't checked the number) men who are killing with guns. Food for thought!Which brings us back around to:
"Data says the average age of school shooters is 18. It also says the majority of them passed background checks and purchased their guns legally."
A very simple solution then is to move the age of being able to purchase semi-automatic weapons to age 21.
The development and maturity level of teenage boys is notoriously absent in our country, we have identified this is where the problem lies, therefore an easy correction/solution is merely to change the age of accessibility.
We would not be taking American's rights to own weapons away, we are merely making it so that people under the age of 21 do not have access to semi-automatic weapons... unless they are in the military, police, or have passed the requirements to be an armed security officer.Yes, that sounds like a beginning.
Young adults in the midst of their puberty are highly unpredictable in the first place, all pumped-up hormones flying around..
When you're eighteen you hardly think about the consequences of your actions. Moods swing easily from being depressed to deeply in love. And are often very self-centered. in other words, not emotionally balanced.
I don't know what the tests are to get a good to go for buying a gun, but a good feeling of responsibility should be one. (and this is not something fixed to age)It does seem to be common sense does it not?
Does anyone at all think they were wiser, capable of making more rational decisions at age 18 vs 21?
The difference may not be huge, but one key thing that is likely is that a really troubled individual will have exposed himself as such by then.
Where as, at age 18, chances are much better that any issues have not surfaced or been hidden due to being considered a kid.
Background checks can't do much good when a person doesn't have a background that will show up, many issues kids have are sealed away because they are not adults.
There is a lot of 'food for thought' in that fact about the shooters. I would bet that, from the evaluations of the best in the fields of human behavior and psychiatric studies to the views of the most undereducated, you will find a common answer: Of course, it's a man thing, its an 'inadequacy' thing that they are too weak to handle, so they do bad things to either 'show' everyone that they are powerful, or to get revenge for perceived hurts.
I'm a guy, I will own that those defectives come from my side of the fence. (I guess that wasn't such a banquet after all)
To your opening point, I don't share your opinion, and there have been thousands of exchanges to that point, so nobody here is saying anything new. It's just a matter of cultural identity. Not the gun itself, (although that is also true, it's not the identity I mean), but the concept of individual liberty.
GAI don't think you should connect individual liberty and possession of guns.
Do you think people in countries where semi and automatic guns are forbidden have less liberty? I would almost say on the contrary, the more guns in the hands of people, the less free the country seems to me.
I can understand that people identify guns with culture. A lot of Arab countries do the same. Owning a gun is a men's pride. A lot of machismo is involved.
I can understand that it's a cultural thing, but this does not make it automatically a good thing and it's not an argument.
It's tradition... Is as well a terrible argument...As female circumcision is a tradition by some religious people..doesn't make it a good thing.
But yes, it's a strong feeling and understandable and difficult to argue about. But I think you can make laws to change people's behavior. Like what has happened with smoking habits, was it once cool to smoke, now you're seen as a loser. (to use two extremes..) And of course, you will have diehard smokers and the tobacco industry (NRA) against the idea, but if you want fewer shootings you should aim for fewer guns in circulation.
But....
Switzerland for example has an incredibly high percentage of gun owners. And the laws are pretty liberal. Still, there are hardly any mass shootings in Switzerland. So you can also argue that the reason for mass shootings and murder has a different origin.Laws can change some behaviors in some people. I was equating individual liberty with choice, not guns.
I tried not to tie guns to individual liberty, I noted that the point was a cultural concept. Think of it in Locke's terms; in the degrees of individual liberty between the State of Nature and the State of War. Those degrees are choices. Society demands some loss of choice to exist.
So whether it is a loss of material possession, (a gun), or intangible possession, (a loss of action), it is a loss of a degree of individual liberty. The same concept applies to any power we give to the government.
Extrapolate that thought to how many degrees the 'givers', (both individuals and society as a body of rules), will consent to before the scale becomes unbalanced—for them.
With that as my perspective, yes I do think those folks you mentioned have less individual liberty.
GAAh Locke, I will look into them
But talking about the individual liberty package, having the right to buy a gun is low on the list of feeling free.
I don't think you can honestly say that people in Europe have less individual liberty. Perhaps they don't have the right to buy a gun, they do have the right to abortion or euthanasia to name some rights.
In other words, this individual liberty thing is not a strong argument for prohibiting guns (or much stricter rules)
The difficulty of course with this subject, as we notice in the comments is that the laws in the different states are different too. So are people in Texas more free than in California? Give this question to a woman in Texas nowadays and she would say no. Ask it to a gun owner in the same state (probably a man) and he will say yes.
So if you talk about individual liberty you should talk about the whole package and not one detail.
I think the conversation about owning guns should lay somewhere else.
(money/ selling the product, violence, race, class separation, education.)
And to be honest, I feel a bit out of my debt in this conversation as it is a subject with feelings only Americans understand.
That's why my primary comment was a bit simply put. But sometimes it helps not to go too intellectual about it.I thought about my comment, a lot, after I went to bed. You are right, sometimes just the basics is the best path. One of those 'basics' that I ignored in my Locke reference is an understanding of what is being talked about.
In this case, it is the "individual liberty" thing. Everyone seems to see that as the liberty of action or movement, but I addressed it as a liberty of choice. They are really the same thing, I don't mean to be stubborn about that, but I think the difference matters when trying to understand the resistance to change.
In the sense you noted, (abortion, etc.), one of everyday life, I don't think you guys are less free or have less liberty, but in the sense of liberty of choice, you are. You do have less liberty of choice.
However, my direction isn't the one of the discussion, so it isn't helpful. If the point ever becomes one of understanding the resistance to change, the 'How much is too much' understanding, I will bring back my Locke explanation for illustration that it isn't the ownership of a gun that is driving the resistance to change.
Just for kicks, if you do look into Locke's theories, here's a thought tsmog provided; look into Hegel too. His spheres of consciousness, (self-consciousness), relate to the same thing as Locke's States of Nature or War. Just the Cliff's Notes for each will get you started.
GAYes, I can imagine. It's an interesting subject.
Ha. You sure know how to make things complicated. :-)
The liberty of choice.
I think this has not always to do with laws but with position. If you have a million bucks in the bank you have more choice in buying goods than if you have one dollar in your pocket. Whatever the laws in the country.
On the other hand, the liberty of choice also implies that you see the opportunities and different options to choose. You can do a million things with a plastic bag, so the choices depend on knowledge and ingenuity too.
Again not on the laws of the country.
So money and education will help you to give you more choices in life.
You can also put race and gender into the formula. And class too.
Still, we are not talking about the laws of a country. But I think that the liberty of choice is not automatically linked to any specific country. If you are an oil sheik in Saudi Arabia you have all the liberty of choice in the world, as a poor woman in SA you don't.
Freedom of movement is more connected with laws and I see the difference.
Change/the resistance to change is a different thing. Most people don't like change. But again you can change behaviour by changing the law. People have to obey the law if they like it or not and so you can force change. (slavery would not have stopped if it wasn't for laws.)
Do you want a government that rules all your actions? No of course not and by some, this is a fear, pointing to dictatorship regimes as an example. This fear is also used as an argument against ideas. (but it's a weak argument in my opinion)
I think in most countries the society is far more progressive than the government and when the government implants laws they are most of the time already accepted by the majority of the people. (as votes count...)
You always come with interesting points GA.Unfortunately, too many times I seem to be talking to myself. That's not a criticism of other discussion members, it's a puzzler for me to resolve. You folks are too intelligent and non-obtuse for me to not conclude that I am either wrong or just talking about a different perspective.
The entirety of your response is, to me, the proof of my point. Everything you mention is a result of a choice, a choice you had the liberty to make. My point is that the results of the choice aren't the issue, it is the availability of that choice that is. That is liberty.
I will just leave the point and appreciate your view. Or, we can dig deeper in the other Liberty thread. ;-)
GAYou're not the only one talking to him/herself...
I do it a lot, especially when I go for a walk with the dogs..
But yes as I demonstrated with the oil sheik in Saudia Arabia. Liberty is not connected with laws but with money for instance, or education or gender.
A poor black woman has less liberty than a rich white man.
That you are born black, poor and a woman is not a choice. You are born with less choice in life than if you are born as a man in a rich family.
Peterstreep makes a good point above “the more guns in the hands of people, the less free the country seems to me.”; it’s a sentiment I would agree with.
Also, I agree with Peterstreep where he points out that the possession of guns has nothing to do with liberty: That is just purely an American concept that is not shared by most of the rest of the world.Yep, I offered Peterstreep my 'mea culpa' explanation. Even though my comment stated that, in the sense of your point, I don't think you guys have less liberty of freedom, just less liberty of choice. (ha! figure out that contradiction).
GAI would dispute that we have less liberty of choice on this side of the pond:-
Yes, we don’t have the choice to own a gun in Britain, because gun ownership is illegal over here. And it's one freedom of choice I'd rather not have.
BUT…… We do have the liberty of choice to drink alcohol legally in the home from the age of 5 in Britain, and we have the liberty of choice to drink alcohol legally from the age of 16 in public if it’s with a meal and if someone over 18 buys it for us. And we do have the liberty of choice to buy our own alcohol in Britain from the age of 18. In the USA you don’t get that liberty of choice until you are 21.
In Scotland and in Wales, people get the liberty of choice to vote from the age of 16; in the USA (as with England and Northern Ireland) its 18.
Women across the UK get the liberty of choice of abortion; that liberty is currently under threat in the USA.
In the UK, people have the liberty of choice for the transgender counselling, consultation and operation; all offered as a free service on the NHS. According to another forum on HubPages, not only isn’t it free in the USA, but it’s not covered by most medial insurance denying all but those with wealth the liberty to choose such action.
When you start looking into it, there are many freedoms we have in Europe that Americans don’t have; and vice versa.You forgot the freedom to pay for what someone else wants but doesn't want to pay for. The transgender operation is a good example.
America has that freedom, too, but not nearly to the extent the UK does.Ah yeah, the NHS, it’s funded through taxes which operates in a similar manner to ‘Insurance’. You pay medical insurance, and the medical insurance you pay for covers you (and everyone else paying the insurance premium) medical cover when you need it. The form of ‘Income Tax’ we pay in the UK to cover Social Welfare, including State Pension, Unemployment Benefit and the NHS is appropriately called ‘National Insurance’, and it, along with Income Tax to cover all other Government expenses, are automatically deducted from the wages of workers at source e.g. before we get paid, using a system called PAYE (Pay As You Earn). The big advantage of PAYE is that ordinary working people (and people not working) don’t have the bother of filling out annual tax forms.
And that tax on income, called National Insurance, doesn’t just cover the NHS, it also pays for the State Pension and Unemployment Benefits etc., so in my mind is an ‘insurance payment’ that’s good value for money e.g. it’s collected directly by the government, no middle man and no private insurance company to cream off the profits for its shareholders.
The acutely amount we pay the government in taxes to cover the cost of the NHS, State Pensions and Unemployment Benefits is currently:-
• For the first £9,876 ($12,372.90) you earn in a year you pay nothing.
• On the wages you earn from £9,876 to £50,268 ($62,977) per year you pay 13.25% e.g. the more you earn the more you pay, but even if you were on the top wage of $62,977 you’d only be taxed just $6,705.04 a year, which is just under $559 per month to cover all your NHS expenses, your State Pension (for when you reach State Retirement age) and unemployment benefits if you were unfortunately enough to lose your job. That to me seems good value for money.
• And to make it more equitable on the wealthy, you only pay 3.25% on all earnings (wages) above £50,268 per year.
And the NHS is a free service (at the point of use) for everyone, not just the unemployed and the elderly in retirement, and taxing paying workers, but also the Royal Family - And yes the Royal Family do use the NHS.
And it’s not just a basic service; the Ambulance service, doctors and hospitals are all part of the NHS, so unlike the USA where an Ambulance can cost $10,000 in the UK the Ambulance Service is free, and to maximise its use, when Ambulances are not busy dealing with emergencies the hospitals use them to fairy patients to and from hospital for day patient check-ups and when patients are discharged from hospital as a free taxi service.
And we don’t have co-pays so visiting your doctor is free, and for most people prescriptions are free too. So what we pay for our NHS on our taxes is in my view good value for money.
The that I’m retired and don’t pay taxes means that I am not now contributing towards the cost of the NHS, but still have full and free access to all its services is in my view a good thing e.g. it’s one less financial burden for the elderly, at a time, as they get older are going to become more reliant on the free services offered by the NHS. Something I was very grateful for last year when I was rushed to hospital in an Ambulance last year, spending three weeks in hospital, with all the tests and treatment I had at the time, and although I’ve made a full or near full recovery, all the regular follow-up visits to the hospital since as a day patient, just to monitor progress. If I was paying for all that on insurance it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars; whereas under the NHS it hasn’t cost me a single penny.
So in respect to freedom on health, I think we do have greater freedoms in the UK than the USA in that we don’t have to worry about whether it’s covered by medical insurance or not, and or whether we can afford it; its’ just there, as a free comprehensive service.The NHS is a very laudable health benefit of the people of Britain or the British Government. The advantages as you have stated and enjoy them are timeless. It benefits all. If other countries of the would would copy the British example, I think they should be less health risk, and more healthily citizens in the world. Nigeria, was a former British colony. I wondering why she opt f6r the America democracy, but retain the British lawss. Otherwise, I think she would copying the NHS todate.
One of the main reasons the NHS system hasn't been copied elsewhere in the world, and is despised in the USA is that it is 'Pure Socialism'. Albeit most European countries have their healthcare system that's far closer to the NHS system than the American healthcare system.
Are not human beings social beings? Wondering? Health is of utmost basic necessity above all things else. A sick person can't eat eoough food, nor can their produce the amount their can eat. They're at the mercy of the food producer or farming folks. Critically, when humankinds line up for bread, soup, or whatever is in the offering, does it make any difference between an economic and a social being? Still wondering.
Well yes Miebakagh, politics does make a difference. The philosophy of ‘Capitalists’ (right-wing Conservatives) like the Republicans in the USA is that people should pay their way, or earn their living; and they loath the idea of hand-outs, like the homeless, poor and unemployed lining up for even basic handouts like bread, soup or whatever.
Whereas in Socialism (left-wing politics) like the Labour Party in Britain, the philosophy is completely different; socialists believe in taking care of the homeless, poor and unemployed by taxing those who can afford it to pay for the welfare of the less fortunate.
Do you have the freedom to reject and not purchase the NHS insurance? Then it isn't a "greater freedom" no matter how much you like having it.
That's not the issue; that's like saying "Do you have the freedom to reject food and not eat". The greater freedom is that for example anyone in the UK can if they so desire get free gender reassignment counselling, consultation and surgery; whereas in the USA such surgery is generally not available on your medical insurance, so only the wealthy can afford such surgery, for everyone else in America there is no freedom to choose.
I'm guilty of starting a tangent in my own thread. It works for me. Especially to respond to your comment.
So, to the point of liberty being freedom of choice, you contradict yourself in your first statements; you dispute you have less liberty of choice, and then provide an example that shows you don't.
But, with deference to your postings, that perception has to mean we are still talking about a different "liberty", even though you say you are addressing 'my' view.
The examples of 'we have this, you don't', (whichever side is saying it), are still missing the point I started with, they are still talking about tangibles; actions or movements: 'I can go here, or I can own this, or I can do that.'
Maybe I am the one misunderstanding. I haven't intended to talk about those aspects, I have been speaking to having the choice to 'go here or own this, or do that'. Maybe they aren't two different things as I see them.
GAI don't understand your point?
1. We don't have the liberty of choice to own a gun in the UK, but you do in the USA.
2. Yet we have the liberty of choice to start legally drinking alcohol from a young age in the UK, a liberty of choice you don't have in the USA.
So what is the difference?The difference is that you are trading freedoms of choice, I'm not. The freedoms you mentioned are conditioned, (as in when you have the freedom to choose to drink), the liberties I am talking about are not, (the freedom to choose to drink, or not).
From that perspective, guns are a good counter-example. Even though our liberty to own a gun is conditioned we still have that liberty of choice. You don't.
That you can drink at 5-years-old is only a detail of that freedom, that you can drink at all is the liberty that allows your conditioned freedom. The liberty of choice doesn't change with added conditions, it doesn't become a new liberty. You don't become more free, you become differently free.
If we matched our basic liberties, not the conditioned freedoms resulting from them, I wonder who does have more liberty? (that's only a thought, not a proclamation) I also wonder if we could find agreement on what the basic liberties are. It would probably end up with me arguing from the foundation of a box of primary colors and you from a foundation of one of those big 98-color boxes. ;-)
GAI still don’t understand your point?
You don’t have the freedom to drink before you are 21 in the USA; we do. You don’t have the freedom to vote before 18, we do in Wales and Scotland.
I started drinking when I was 16, my wife started drinking when she was 17, and our son started drinking when he was about 13. Going out nightclubbing with friends and binge drinking as a teenager is an important and memorable period of our life; memories that many adults cherish. It’s a period of life American miss-out on because you don’t have that freedom.
And what happens when Republican States start banning abortions, where are your freedoms then?
The only example you’ve given where you have freedom of choice and we don’t is gun ownership; and that’s one I defiantly do not want.I haven't carried my point very well Nathanville, it was never intended to be one where a discussion of who has more freedom was the resulting thrust.
GAGA, All of this Liberty versus freedom stuff seems kind of cryptic to me. I was sort of like Arthur in asking about the differences between his points and yours.
Would you be so good to do us the honors?I've already tried and failed. It just occurred to me that my wife and car might be an example of our disconnect.
My car is gray, the factory color is called silver gray. I, (and others), look at my car and it looks gray. My wife looks at the car and says it's green. And she's serious. Apparently that silver-gray has tones that do offer a hint of green, (not primary color green), to certain eyes. (a ghost of the Gold dress/Blue dress phenomena?)
My point is that without the liberty of choice you can't have the freedom of that choice.
Guns might be a fair example. We have the liberty of choice, so we have the freedom to choose to have a gun, or not. Without that liberty of choice, Nathanville does not have the freedom to choose to own a gun, or not.
That rationalization isn't to criticize or validate either choice, it is simply to illustrate the difference between liberty and freedom. I thought my "jump the fence' analogy was a good one; I might have the liberty of choice to jump a fence, but age and gravity say I don't have the freedom to jump the fence.
I think Arthur's drinking age example is another good comparison. The liberty of choice is whether one can drink, or not, the age conditions are just different measures of that freedom, not contradictions in the choice of whether one can drink, or not.
Beyond that, I'm stuck bud. For me, it feels like I'm stating the obvious and since I have done it repeatedly it can only mean it's not obvious to everyone.
As tsmog noted, in popular culture liberty and freedom have become synonymous. They can be in general usage, but they aren't in fact, and for specific usage, the difference can make a difference in our considerations.
I see the problem being just that misusage. Instead of talking about the costs, (in lost freedoms), of a condition on a choice, the argument is stuck at the front door still arguing about having the choice in the first place.
This brings me full circle back to my OP; is there a way to make the costs of an age restriction on gun purchases palatable to those who think any condition is a loss of liberty?
Remember, I am also coming from a strong [C]onservative perspective of the 2nd Amendment. My view of the difference between liberty and freedom is necessary for me to accept some conditioning of that Right.
When I add my distrust of anti-gun politicians, and what they would try to do with any compromise offered, that liberty/freedom distinction might not be enough to convince me. Even though, on this issue, I want to be convinced.
GAGreat topic, GA
I think that freedom can be described as liberty under restriction or restraint.
I have the liberty to go to moon on a pogo stick, but I don't have
the freedom because of the laws of physics.
We have liberty to worship as and how we choose, but freedom of religion is what we actually have because, you cannot use peyote (a contraband) as part of your worship or use human sacrifices, so your liberty is under restraint.
Such is the case with the idea of liberty regarding speech, theoretically, I can say whatever, whenever, wherever I wish. But, it is not liberty but freedom where liberty is subject to restrictions and restraints, such as not be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
While the terms appear synonymous, I see that subtle difference between the two.
Only the omnipotent can really act on the basis of "liberty".I was trying to explain that as well, in that way, but after reading the post I made...
I didn't connect the dots the way I wanted to. Talk about meandering and losing one's train of thought.. my post is a perfect example.
Not sure any of our states will completely ban abortion. It is what the media is running with, and many here do grasp and run with anything the media feeds them. It's almost like a weird addiction. I was looking the abortion laws in the UK.
"Abortions were illegal before the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act, which initially allowed them to take place up to 28 weeks. This was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990.
Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:
the woman's life is in danger
there is a severe fetal abnormality
the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury"
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19856314
Our laws are pretty much similar. There are a s couple of states that will come close to banning abortions. ( only permit abortion in case of rape, incest, or mothers health) But the majority the greater majority will allow selected abortion at or between 22 - 24 weeks, and then the special circumstance as mentioned.
Will some states change the laws if Roe is done away with, no way of knowing?
I will wait and see, before wringing my hands.
This link gives a good breakdown of the US current abortion laws. As you will see most states mirror the UK.'s abortion laws.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic … 2asc%22%7D
Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus. Fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks .I don't know, it seems to me like Oklahoma, for example, is pretty darn close.
Yes, as I said -- There are a s couple of states that will come close to banning abortions. ( only permit abortion in case of rape, incest, or mothers health) But the majority the greater majority will allow selected abortion at or between 22 - 24 weeks, and then the special circumstance as mentioned.
I think we will see some states truely tighten up abortion laws. I was trying to point out that our current laws are not in most cases any different than the UK. Actually, some European countries have very strict
abortion laws. In some Latin American countries, abortion is illegal, it was illegal in Mexico until 2021.
I think we currently have pretty reasonable abortion laws in the US.
For correctness Sharlee, abortion was not legalised in the UK in 1967, it was legalised in Britain at that time. Abortions have always been illegal in Northern Ireland until 2020; but that’s another story.
Yeah, if Roe is done away with then the freedom for women to choose abortion up to 22-24 weeks may well be abolished in some States in the USA e.g. Republican States – the risk is there, and a real risk. It’s the same in Northern Ireland, if the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) (an extreme right-wing party in Northern Ireland) had their way they would abolish abortion, just as they would abolish same sex marriages if they had the opportunity to do so. But under the Power Sharing system they have to adhere to as part of the 1998 Peace Treaty, the DUP are not likely to get the opportunity to ‘turn the clock back’ – fortunately.I think the point being made is the difference between Freedom and Liberty, they are not the same thing.
You cannot have Liberty without Freedom.
You cannot own a gun, because the Freedom to do so has been taken away from you.
You can drink yourself to death, even at age 5, because that Freedom is allowed you, and there is no restriction on your Liberty to do so.
While America allows the Freedom to own a gun, there have been restrictions put on that Liberty. Those restrictions are based on what is best for society derived from a general consensus of those who establish the law.
It was determined in America that a person should only be able to legally purchase a gun, that is considered an adult, that has no criminal background, and that is not deemed mentally unfit.
Those are restrictions on Liberty.
It was determined in America that a person should only be able to vote, that is considered an adult. In the Scotland and Wales you allow voting earlier.
I think it wiser to not allow drinking, owning a weapon, or voting to anyone under the age of 21, in America, at this stage in our history.
I base that belief on the current general state of our society which has changed significantly in the last 100 years.
100 years ago it was not uncommon for people at age 16 to have a job, be married, be living away from parents, essentially they were adults.
Today it is not uncommon for people at age 18 to be unemployed, be living at home with parents, to not be associated with any of the responsibilities or burdens we attribute to adults.
The Life Experiences, the maturity and responsibility levels have shifted, what was required of a 16 year old 100 years ago, is not required or expected from an 18 year old today.I think it wiser to not allow drinking, owning a weapon, or voting to anyone under the age of 21, in America, at this stage in our history.
-----------
That is pretty hard core stuff. Why should I have to register for the draft to serve, if I cannot vote? I strongly consider that view to be presumtious. You are either a minor or an adult and the twain shall not meet. You are quite opinionated, and your point of view is not held universally.The registering for the draft argument is also outdated, another sign of how things have changed over the course of many decades.
In past generations before mine, it was expected that you would serve, if a man.
Today's military force is all volunteer. They should abandon registering for the draft, it is an antiquated part of society no longer in use.
Ken, from your description of America society these days it sounds very much like how things were in the UK in the 1950s; but we’ve progressed on from those days, the turning point were the hippy era in the 1960s:
In 1950’s Britain:-
• The Voting age was 21.
• All men from the age of 17 had to serve in the Army for two years.
• You couldn’t get into a nightclub until you were 21.
National Service was abolished in the UK in 1960; but these days regardless to sex you can join the Army as a volunteer from the age of 16.
However, a lot of what you say is also true for the UK e.g. the majority of young adults stay on at school and in further education longer, start work later, live with their parents for longer and get married much later than it was back in the 1970s.
But in UK today’s kids are far smarter, far more aware of current affairs, and far more politically aware than they were back in the 1950’s; and I think some of that has to do with the growth of the UK Youth Parliament.
The UK Youth Parliament was founded in 1998, and since 2007 have been allowed by the UK Government to sit in the House of Commons one day a year to debate and vote on issues that are pertinent to children.
369 members of the UK Youth Parliament (aged between 11 & 18) are democratically elected by their fellow school children in secondary schools across the whole of the UK to represent them.
One of the popular campaigns of the UK Youth Parliament is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16; which so far they’ve had partial success with e.g. the Scottish Government lowered the voting age in Scotland in 2015 and the Welsh Government lowered the voting age in Wales in 2020.
So I wonder, if you gave your kids in the USA more credit (for their abilities and understandings) and gave them empowerment to act more like adults rather than treating them like kids; whether American kids would rise to the challenge and surprise you of their ability and maturity?
One thing I learnt when I did a cursory study of psychology was that “People Act the Way You Treat Them” e.g. if you talk down to someone like a child they will act like a child; but if you talk to someone as an adult they will act like an adult! Food for Though?
Alex McDermott MYP: Votes at 16 UKYP House of Commons Debate Speech: https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZsThanks for the information about the UKYP. I've not heard it before. Yes, its good to treat kinds as grown-ups from time to time, giving them ample chance to grow up. It's a training parents can bestow as a legacy, or they remain dumb ass.
Ken, further to my reference in my previous post above empowerment of kids in the UK; another example is back in February 2020 (just before the pandemic), the school children in Bristol organised a ‘day strike’ in support of the Climate Rally and March in Bristol, organised by Greta Thunberg.
I attended that rally and March, and filmed it; and it certainly made its mark that day e.g. schools across Bristol were closed as kids went on strike, and the police had to close all roads in the city centre from about 10am to 3:30pm.
Greta Thunberg in Bristol for Climate Rally and March (Feb 2020): https://youtu.be/0lTpyygrwXcYep, I agree Miebakagh. When we were bringing up our son we took a lot of advice from Dr. Spock (if I remember right) e.g. to treat our son as an adult from an early age, and to never speak down to him but speak to him as if he was an equal; and any decision we made to qualify our decisions with an honest and mature explanation, rather than just say no or giving false simple answer (lie).
Even as a baby we never talked down to him in baby talk, we talked to him more as if he was an adult.
Going back to; "Could a 21-year-old minimum-age requirement to buy semi-automatic weapons help stop school shootings?" That to me means it limits it to being able to purchase a revolver, bolt action rifle, and a pump action shotgun.
I have pondered while visiting Google University for days now since the Texas shooting. As stated earlier it will help, yet it is a state thing. For instance here where I live in Calif under 18 purchases of firearms are pretty much already prohibited.
Yet, I learned Calif has the highest incident rate of school shootings nationwide by state. Note that is school shootings, yet I think the point remains with the OP question. Maybe not. But, I did not research when the law went into in effect vs. the history of the shootings or what weapon was used.
Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess in California
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-la … alifornia/
School Shootings by State
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state … s-by-state
United States school shootings and firearm incidents, 1990-present
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_s … 90-present
I only posted to add food for thought . . .You have put a lot more effort into this than I have. I have been 'free wheeling' from the start.
The details, and the support or rebuttal of them, can come later. This idea is a huge change from a previous position. For now, I am looking for a way to mitigate the 'costs' enough to make them palatable to folks like me.
The intent is to be surgical—a narrow age range with valid exceptions built-in, not 'broad-brush' one-size-fits-all proposals.
GAI understand . . . thanks for clarifying your position in the 'now'. When I said; "I have pondered while visiting Google University for days now since the Texas shooting.", it was not specific to your proposition. It was with a mind of inquiry seeking to answer mainly spontaneous questions fed to me while reading an article or study. Off I went on another tangent as I traversed from region to state to our nation to world wide perspectives as well as cultures and societies that reside in those. And, then comes along psychology, psychiatry, sociology, history, beliefs, belief systems, ideologies, philosophies, and political science/systems.
Yet, as you shared at task is the immediate dilemma with school mass shootings with its statistics as well as the growing trend of mass shootings itself. And, one debated topic it seems to be it is mainly a U.S. dilemma. Emphasis on seems. Most definitely complex as well as for me confounding. I will be continuing my spontaneous inspirations while trying to not just make sense of it, yet discover hope for tomorrow.Yep, I have fallen into a few of those 'rabbit holes' myself. I do appreciate the Hegel direction you offered, it fits with my views—and added to my reading list.
GA
GA, yes at 18 or 21, the American Constitution empower a USA citizen to bear arms. It was very realistic those days the Constitution was being drafted. But these days you have the left, right, and centre saying diferent things that's hardly in tandem. In other words, all these 3 class could never come to an agreement. And, at such immature age, the gun holder sick or not has no control over their mind. Hence, its reasonable that at such early age, they're in the armed force under supervision, and began to bear arms privately at 45 years. So, carrying a gun privately with expertise and experience tells much when to use your gun or not as the scenario demands, especialy when it calls for self defence. Much thanks.
I saw last night on the local news Biden proposed a ban on assault weapons or at least raising the minimum age for purchase to 21. So, it looks like your OP thought is taking hold.
I doubt there will be a total ban, yet see not only the possibility, yet a strong probability of an age restriction. Interesting enough reading different articles most do not report the part of if not banned, then raise the age to 21. Media at its finest exploiting the left/right.I believe the The Luke and Alex School Safety Act is an excellent option for increasing school protection, a common sense bill that only corrupt or deplorable political entities choose to oppose.
I believe raising the age to 21 is also common sense, and the argument of registering for the draft is a non-starter, we should be discussing the dissolution of this practice, we have an all volunteer military force. Military, police, and security forces trained to use weapons responsibly being the exception.
The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is a frightening bill that any American who understands history should fear becoming law. It is the single most dangerous Bill I have ever seen proposed.You don't think that there is no domestic terrorism? The body count is far greater than any danger faced from the outside?
"Everybody" should be required to use weapons responsibly in your America, where theoretically, everyone is armed. This open carry, gunslinging approach assumes that the armed folks are naturally going to responsible people and not express their frustrations down, now a lethal path. Why are we any safer allowing college age students any weapon, why restrict it to semi-autos? I have read of pistols with large magazine capacity. Any gun in the hands of an irresponsible person is dangerous and that is true at 19 or 49. Are you talking about restricting possession or purchase? I have read many accounts here of 5 year olds receiving firearms as gifts, what about that?
That is my opinion...
Let's hope that the ban will work. Does it infrige the 2nd Amendment? And, what does the average American think of the ban?
Have you noticed that no one has mentioned the fact that 14 to 17 year old ganngbangers with "stolen" guns who are killing people daily in America's big Liberal cities are never mentioned in the subject of Gun Control.
Maybe Democrats should make a law that state gangbangers and thugs can't steal a gun until they're at least 21I do notice you are talking about stuff that isn't part of the discussion.
GAThat seems laughable. And, d'you know the conseqnences? Thanks.
Statistically, no.
Firstly, mass shootings account for less than 5% of all gun-related deaths in America. The greatest percentage is suicide and gang-related homicide. Of those, most were handgun and not high-powered rifle incidents. That number is frightening, considering there have been almost 278 mass shootings (as of 5 June 2022) and total gun-related deaths of over 40,000.
Data shows from 1950 to 2000 mass shootings were collectively less than 2022 –and still another six months to go. Each year since 2000 the volume of these events has increased exponentially.
Columbine was perhaps the official public awareness date of this problem. That was 23 years ago, and not much has changed for the better.
So the problem is not the weapon utilized but society. Note how nearly all these events correlate to young males and schools (K - University) as the chosen medium or outlet. That is a huge indicator.
While the Media zeros in on a story of horror and sadness, politics does its predictable lap around the track. All the while, and perhaps unwittingly, they are inspiring copycats by blaming proper owners of guns as a nuisance.
Why have young males in America gone off the deep end? Is it perhaps because from the early 1990s to today, they have been all but vilified, ostracized, isolated, humiliated, and deemed worthless by the new standards? Without proper education regarding their value and purpose, what hope do they have of participating in local, national, and international communities? Furthermore, why does this problem not exist in other countries with larger populations of males? These are questions that need answers.
Adding three years to the wait time will only fester, suppress and exasperate the underlying cause. And, it must be highlighted that nearly six million US citizens, over the age of twenty-one, legally own one or more AR-15 rifles.Your comment is full of 'gun' statistics, but none of them address the question asked: "Could a 21-year-old minimum-age requirement to buy semi-automatic weapons help stop school shootings?"
Why do you think that answer is "Statistically no"? I don't see it.
GATo me, he provided the answer: 'Furthermore, why does this problem not exist in other countries with larger populations of males?'
Because in other countries, these troubled young men do not have access to the weapons to carry out a mass shooting.If that is the "Statistically No" answer you agree with, then why do you disagree that restricting those young men from getting guns isn't a possible answer?
The question was framed narrowly—to one specific segment, it wasn't a 'why does it happen' question regarding the larger problem of gun violence, and it certainly wasn't a 'ban the gun' offering.
GA
I agree we need some sensible new gun laws, which would include the law changed from 18 to 21. I would prefer weapons of war to be very hard to buy, with many regulations.
However, in the majority of school shootings, the teen used a gun that was available in his home. Access to unsecured firearms around the house is one of the culprits. It boils down to parents not being responsible enough to keep the gun out of their child's hands. I read an article after the school shouting we had here in Oxford, that claimed In around 74% of school incidents, the firearm used was obtained from the student’s home or from that of a friend or relative.
So, is it really plausible to think bumping up the age from 18 to 21 will make a difference? Making parents responsible may be a
better route. I know in some states Texas is one of 14 states with a “negligent storage law,” which can make gun-owning parents criminally liable for crimes committed with their firearms by their children.
Maybe this form of law could really help keep guns out of children's
hands. The laws that are now being proposed are sensible, but I doubt very much if they will make much of a difference. Sadly this is political and will provide a bit of a bandaid in my view.
As a society, we need to seek ways to spot and treat the mentally ill.
Too many children slip through the cracks.I'm not very supportive of the 'parental storage' thrust as an effective solution. Of course it will help, but it's not the right direction.
I'm also not completely on board with a rigid 21-year-old age requirement, but it's at least somewhere to focus. I've mentioned a couple 'exception' ideas that would let me get happily, (rather than grudgingly), onboard.
GASo, is it really plausible to think bumping up the age from 18 to 21 will make a difference? Making parents responsible may be a
better route. I know in some states Texas is one of 14 states with a “negligent storage law,” which can make gun-owning parents criminally liable for crimes committed with their firearms by their children.
-----------
Sharlee, I wholeheartedly agree with this concept. If the gun people want to keep their guns, they need to take responsibility for the irresponsible in their charge. Negligent storage is actually a good idea, and it actually comes from Texas? Parents need to have skin in the game. Parents know their kids or should know them, and if they don't they should apply the default by keeping firearms behind lock and key. While, that may be overlooked if the minor broke into the gun cabinet to steal if the weapons were otherwise secured, it would not if you leave a revolver on the kitchen table to be picked up by a 6 year old who used it to kill a classmate.
My response was clear, "Statistically, no."
Changing the age requirement for guns, of any variety, will not change the number of shootings, so long as the underlying issue is not corrected.
As highlighted, nearly twelve million AR-15 rifles are legally owned by persons over twenty-one, not to mention hand guns and illegally obtained weapons. So, how is raising the age to handle any firearm going to alter access to or reduce the number of incidents?But, nevertheless stop selling weapons is a start.
You are right that the underlying problem of daily mass shootings is far more complicated and it shows that the US society has some serious problems.
But this thought should not result in being passive and not taking action.
Making the possession of weapons illegal except for some special reasons sounds like a start. Of course, you can kill with a brick, but you have to take more effort in doing so.Americans are the single largest armed militia in the world. Completely disarming US citizens will never happen, without violence -and stricter laws might only increase the passion for getting one, as exemplified by Chicago and Los Angeles.
Consider that 65% of the entire US population owns multiple firearms. That is a sobering statistic. And the vast majority, over 80%, are collegiate or postgraduate couples, earning 100K+ annually. That alone should scare the bejesus out of everyone.Please post the link to your stats, because I have some serious doubts about the accuracy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … -and-guns/I sourced from multiple platforms, but here is one very detailed:
What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?, (2020), Gallup. news.gallup.comThank you. Like GA, I'm having trouble seeing where you got 65% of American households own multiple guns when only 44% of households even own a gun. Maybe 65% of the 44% of those gun owning households. But you claimed that 65% of American households own multiple guns.
And I see what you did with the stats. You added 36% to 50% to get over 80%. But that's not how you do that. 36% of 225 = 81. 50% of 250 = 125. 206 (81+125) divided by 475 = 43.3%.But numbers aside. The question is:
Why do you need a gun in the first place?
Self-defense? I rather give all my possessions than to kill someone and live with the consequences my whole life.
Possibility of being beaten up? - avoid it by being streetwise
Possibility of rape? - Ah that's a good one. And perhaps the answer to that one is to only allow women to buy and own firearms.
How many women actually are mass murderers? and how many men?
But off course, this answer is too ridiculous to even take seriously in male-dominated politics.
So back to the question.
Why do you need a gun in the first place.
The answer to this question has not enough weight to justify a law regarding the right to keep and bear arms in my opion.
The only reason I can think off to own a gun is for sport and for hunting rabbits. For sport, you can keep the gun at the shooting range.
And you don't have rabbits in the cities.
So I'm sure you can take away 80% (just saying a number) of all firearms and make them illegal.In the 'desired' world your answers might make sense but in the real world we are living they don't, at least to me they don't.
Seld-defense: What if it wasn't your just possessions that would be lost, would you rather be killed than kill? Philadelphia offers a recent example. A woman with a legal gun killed a mass shooter in the act, almost certainly saving multiple lives of folks at a birthday/graduation party.
Be streetwise? This issue isn't just a problem in 'bad areas', it's becoming a problem in the safest of areas. Be streetwise in your home? Of course, we should all always be aware of our surroundings, (streetwise), but your thought implies we be ready to run away at any hint of threat. Nope, that's surrender.
And then, of course, there is the 'need' thing, again. Telling me what my 'needs' are isn't a power I want to give any government.
GAIt's the world I live in. I live in a world where guns aren't needed.
I count myself incredibly lucky.
I lived in Amsterdam for many years and never felt threatened.
As nobody had guns. except for high-end criminals.
So living in a densely populated society and in the capital without guns is possible.
You only want a gun because you are afraid that someone else has a gun.
But if guns are illegal you don't have the situation of a woman shooting someone else trying to commit mass murder.
For protecting your house you can have a camera.
Telling me what my 'needs' are isn't a power I want to give any government.
Ask that to someone who needs an abortion. She would agree with you.
I can understand that if you live in the middle of nowhere that you want a gun. But not in a city.
The gun problem looks to me as a sympthom of other problems and causing more problems than preventing them. That's basically my point of view.Your opening and closing points are right, we all live in different worlds, and our gun problem is only a symptom of a root problem. Your comments about other nations show there is a solution to be found. We just need to find ours.
GAYep. And that's where I have to pass the conversation.
I hope the US will find a solution. It's done state by state I guess.
And although it sometimes looks as if the US only has problems, I won't believe this. As the US has also brought a lot of positive things to this world. But problems are juicier to write about in the news than positive things.
Do you think the cities of Portland, Seattle and others told their people they "don't need" a gun, that police would provide their protection? My bet is on "Yes, they would", even as the riots raged and police stood down.
No, I'm not interested in letting a government committee somewhere tell me what I "need".Some women are in desperate need of an abortion in Texas and won't get one.
A young adolescent has just bought a gun but doesn't need one.
Same government.
You are an anarchist Wilderness. And probably the happiest without any government at all. And this will work in a small village where the laws are made by the people themselves.
But In a larger society, you need rules...
And a government will make those rules.
People need medication and healthcare
People need fresh clean water.
People need sanitation.
If you don't provide these basic needs as a government people die.Since your point is one of basics: healthcare, water, etc., the construction that addresses them should also be basic. I read your thought about who makes the rules as wrong. In the change from a small village, with the people making the rules, to the larger society where the government makes the rules, the 'who' that makes them should be the same.
The people might use representatives to form and direct their government, but it is still the people that should be making the rules through their choice of representatives. Government shouldn't be the authority, it should be the wielder of authority. The authority is given to them by the people.
I doubt you will find many anarchists here, or even in our nation. It's not that 'most conservatives', (or liberals), don't want any government, (both sides make claims for government control), they want their kind of government and their kind of control.
GAI'm sure there will be political anarchists in the US, it's a big country with people with lots of different backgrounds.
But yes, Anarchism is a bit of an obscure political movement and almost forgotten.
Yesterday I saw on Netflix the documentary "Desert Coffee" about a small community in Slab City, California, trying to manage a live as independently as possible. Poor and with its own problems a harsh life in summer. Selling coffee or shower time.
I can imagine that there are a lot of small communities in the US far away from city life and law enforcement where you have to depend on each other to make things work. Not a hierarchy but coming together when the road needs to be fixed or other communal problems need to be dealt with.
I understand your point that politicians are representatives, and it is a workable system. But often politicians can't remember the price of a brick of milk and lose touch with the base. And we have to keep remembering them that they represent us and not themselves.
A funny example was that Belgium was without a government for 589 days after the election of 2010 and it worked perfectly fine, the economy even went up!
I guess, it means that's its often the "bureaucratic apparatus" that's doing the real work and not the government.
I do agree that the government should be in check and not interfere too much with personal life.
But in the end, it does make the rules that we have to follow.
As we do "need" rules not to let society go wild. But too many will create a stressed society too!
And I think a lot of people want rules. Rules to fill up the calendar with work of going to a religious place once a week or going weekly to a sports club. Most people want a regular life with rules to follow. And there's nothing wrong with it.
And yes you are right it should be the people that make the rules, and in a way we do - often in an indirect way by voting or inventing traditions.
Freedom is a difficult thing and comes with responsibility for oneself and for others. Dang! again the word freedom in the discussion..."A funny example was that Belgium was without a government for 589 days after the election of 2010 and it worked perfectly fine..."
Or it worked fine because government wasn't there, interfering in all that was going on.
The problem with government is that it's primary (or sometimes) only goal is to control what others do, and to spend money. Without those two things, government has nothing to do but sit around and watch people that want to control others get mad because the government is not doing it. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, governmental actions are actually detrimental to both people and country as a result of that mad desire to control what others do.I had that 'because the government wasn't there to screw it up' thought too. My first image was of the Brits, as caricatured in their Yes, Prime Minister show. The politicians are just adornment, it's the bureaucrats that run things.
GAYes, the government in that respect is far less important as they think they are. Often more a theater than anything else.
"A young adolescent has just bought a gun but doesn't need one."
Unfortunately you are voicing an opinion for which you have exactly zero information to support. You are not competent to decide who "needs" a gun and who does not.
Yes, I am an anarchist...to a point. Just as your are a socialist...to a point. The only difference is that point as they are pretty widely separated. I want no government the same way you want a government in total control over every action by every business, individual or event in the country.No not really, I don't want government in total control. Creepy. That's a dictatorship.
Not much time to comment on all the other points you made, but come back to it later in a day or so.back..
No I don't want a big sluggish government either controlling everything. Then you get something like the Chinese system, very unhealthy...
But I do not trust the open market either. As you will get Apple and Google and the like ruling your lives.
I think the best is in between. As it's clear that behemoths like Apple and Google need to be controlled. Now it's the other way around they control the government.
I guess the discussion is to what extent do you trust the government or the mega corps. I do neither. But at least you can vote for a government, you don't have any vote in how Meta and Apple control your private life (data). If it's up to them we would have had face recognition and ID control everywhere (privacy is a thing of the past "thanks" to these mega corps. At least governments try to regulate this a tiny bit. (You have to give consent for the use of cookies on websites in Europe for example)"But at least you can vote for a government..."
That is the theory, at least. When in reality the deep pockets nearly always win, when the reality is that incumbents nearly always win, I'm not sure it carries much truth any more.There is nothing wrong with "government", that the people through TRUE representative democracy cannot repair.
I find anarchy as unacceptable.....Fully, 100% agree. Unfortunately we are drifting further and further from that goal.
Yes, I agree, but what is the alternative?
I guess every country has to work out the answer for itself. But so far I think a government with more parties an opposition and a voting system works best in most countries.
I think its because government is not undertaking much reserch and being inovative in technology. Critically, all there were left to privaje enterprise the likes of Google and Apple. Critically also, its no wonder that the later with their mega financial empire dictate to and control the government! The only way government control these private ventures is through how to set up a company.
I think just as you need rules for traffic you need rules for economic traffic. For example, to give the power to one company in the world to sell water would be a terribly bad idea. (so you need laws to fight monopoly positions)
But yes companies can buy countries at the moment. And it is difficult to punish them if they do something wrong as they have so much power.Peterstrep, I agreed with you. But one major fault with the politician is leting greed taking the better part of they mind. They know the big companies can reward them financially more than the government paying them. So, they let the likes of Google and Apple bought them off. And, consequently, the country is sold off. No wonder, the government cannot control them. It's only a high court of competent jurisdiction that can, even on behave of the government. On another note, some judges of courts allow themselves to be bought.
Yes you are right. So it's important that a government set rules for itself. Like not having a second job while in office or owning a company. As if you have a second stream of income besides your job as a minister you are easily bought with "gifts".
But its difficult often a minister gets a job by a multinational after serving for the country as a way of payment during their term in office...
I scrub your back you scrub mine....
That's why independent journalism is important to write about corruption. But still, then it's difficult. Have you heard about the Panama papers? Google it.
A lot of corruption was brought to light.Very well put. Before I retired from the civil service, my second income came from harvesting fish from the river. That's allowed by my country's constitution. Yes, i've heard about the Panama report. The curruption the politicians enact is pure theft.
Yes, that's an incredibly scary thought. And for me, this particular mindset of a great part of the American population is hard to fathom.
One thing that gave me hope that it is possible to change the mind of people is the way we look at smoking cigarettes compared with 30 years ago. And this is purely done by law. rasing the taxes, prohibiting smoking in buildings, restaurants, pubs, shops etc.
But to do so a government has to fight a billion-dollar industry (but the cigarette industry was a billion-dollar industry as well.) And just as the cigarette industry was playing mind games with the populace, so does the NRA. Stalling and polluting the discussion.
As said, the whole thing with weapons and the US is something beyond me.
It's a sad part of the US's history. (and present)You seem familiar and confident in your stats, but a look around Google found contradicting information.
The consensus is that about a third of Americans own guns. Your claim that 65% own multiple guns doesn't seem right. Did I misread your statement or did you mean to say something else?
I didn't look for your 'who owns the guns' stat, but if it is right, (it doesn't sound right, as stated), I wouldn't be scared that 80% of gun owners are high-earner collegiates, I would be comforted, they don't seem to fit the profile of mass shooters or illegal criminal gun owners. What's to be afraid of? Surely you're not afraid simply because the vast majority of guns are being used safely and legally?
GAAmerica has 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation Insider, (2022), businessinsdier.com.
My stats were on the lower end, compared to this. Apologies.
If that is a comfort, I am concerned, given that all these shooting came by legally owned arms. And the people who own them are affluent, middle-class citizens.Nope, no, and hell no.
Nope, I didn't see anything in your link that supported your stats or your claims.
No, your stats aren't on the 'lower end' — they're unsupported, (so far).
And hell no, your last statement is baloney, (no disrespect intended, maybe). "All of these shootings" are not done by the legally owned guns of affluent and middle-class citizens. Of course, I will eat my hat if you can support that claim.
GAHe just added the numbers together. Instead of averaging them. I did the math for him up above. I guess the multiple stats classes I took in college are finally paying off.
I see that you offered the math and that you were charitable by doing just the one.
The error isn't the math, the error is the perspective that thought the math was supportive. The coupling of his perceived messages carried by those stats shows misdirection.
Wait, that isn't intended to be harsh and critical, (as it sounds, sorry), it is meant to be blunt and specific. To cut through the coming layers of defensive rebuttals and 'clarifications'.
The intended message of my response is that I was right, we, (jacharless and I), have been talking about different things. Except for the purchase-age stuff, on that, he has confounded me. When I challenged his stats I was going off-topic too. In my defense, I was looking for a 'given', (ie. oh yeah, those stats were wrong), that could be an accepted place to start from. I didn't find one.
GA
I did note that two-thirds of all gun owners in the US own more than one gun. source --- https://www.pewresearch.org/social-tren … ownership/
It appears your "statistically no" is more of an 'in my opinion, no.'
From the generality of your gun facts your response was "clear" to me, as an opinion.
The basis of this topic boils down to a simple question; would restricting 18-year-olds from buying a gun help reduce mass school shootings by 18-year-olds with legally purchased guns?
I don't think you can support your response. The number of guns in society isn't pertinent to the topic or question. Even if stopping all access isn't possible, cutting off an outlet is, at a minimum, reducing access because there is one less choice available.
GAI have the links to backup the statistics claim.
Regardless, here is a counter question:
If currently a person age eighteen is able to obtain a high-capacity firearm, how is an added three years going to change anything?
Unequivocally, No. Instead, you would have twenty-one year old's committing mass shootings. Can you explain how three years makes a difference? I am not seeing it.
The number of guns is pertinent: choice availability outlets. With twelve million high-capacity weapons already available, plus handguns, how could you possibly reduce said access?We must be talking about different things jacharless. The answer to your question seems obvious.
Adding 3 years to the age an 18-year-old could "currently" buy a gun would change the fact that an 18-year-old 'currently' would not be able to buy a gun. That seems like a big change.
Your premise that we would just be replacing 18-year-old shooters with 21-year-old shooters is, again, not pertinent to the question of the topic. We're not talking about eliminating mass shootings entirely, we're just addressing a solution to stopping one segment of them.
You really stump me with your unequivocal no. You're saying 2+2 does not equal 4. You're saying that not allowing an 18-year-old to legally buy a gun won't stop them from doing mass shootings with guns they legally bought. How can they do a shooting with their legally bought gun if they weren't allowed to buy it?
I guess some of your links would help me see your perspective. Do you have links for the '65% of Americans own multiple guns', or the 80% of guns are owned by high-earner collegiate and post-grad couples?
As for you're point about the futility of trying to reduce "said access", the access of the discussion is the legal purchase by an 18-year-old. If they cannot legally purchase a gun, how can that not reduce their ability to commit mass shootings with guns they legally bought, if they can no longer buy them?
GAWow, no wonder why we (America) can never make any positive change.
At age 18 a person does not have a "background" to check, therefore background checks aren't going to raise any flags. There are kids with issues, and those issues are sealed away, or never make it to a permanent record.
By age 21, they have gone 3 years without laws that protect minors, without laws that keep a minor's misdeeds or mental health issues from being part of their public record.
Hard to imagine that a troubled 18 year old will be able to keep himself out of trouble for 3 years. It seems its teenagers that are most prone to these types of psychotic or suicidal mindsets... that focus on schools.
GA:
I think we are missing the elephant in the room. Mass shootings are committed by mentally deranged people, no matter what age they are. Just because someone is over the age of eighteen is no assurance they are not going to commit mass shootings.
I think the over 21 age proposal is just a stall tactic by the NRA and the GOP. Guns are readily available from many sources. They can be purchased online, in the parking lots at gun shows, bought as ghost guns without any identification and even printed with 3D printers. There is nothing to stop a mentally ill person from access to those sources at any age. Do you remember the Las Vegas Shooter?
"On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. From his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel, he fired more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people[a] and wounding 411 with the ensuing panic bringing the number of injured to 867."
The problem is how does one identify the mentally ill person before they commit the crime? The answer is we can't.
Here is an article that I wrote two years ago on the subject of gun control from a liberal viewpoint as well as a conservative viewpoint. I think all the reasoning still applies today.
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Why … un-ControlYou have to back up a bit peoplepower. I'm not talking about the elephant in the room because I'm not talking about that room.
The point was to consider a remedy for a very definable and narrow segment of mass shooters—school mass shooters. If any agreeable solutions can be found to address the volatile immaturity of the school shooter profile we can then move forward to judge the costs to all for the actions of a very few.
The only relation of the minimum age thing to the mental health stuff you mention is that of being one effort to affect the problem in a very specific way, not to completely fix it.
GA
While I could probably be persuaded to support such a thing, I'm not confident of the results.
First, when we consider an 18 year old to be an adult, with adult privilege's and rights, taking the right to bear arms is most definitely an "infringement". I'm not confident it would pass Constitutional muster without some serious twisting of that document.
Second, when the semi-automatic weapon is by far the most popular, whether a long gun or hand gun, there are just too many other methods of gaining access to one. The disturbed 18 year old that decides to shoot up a school will get it, legally or illegally, and quite possibly do more harm in doing so.
Finally, the old question of "If I take away the gun from a killer, will he kill anyway" comes into being. My guess is that a mentally ill 18 year old would not - the notoriety (being dead doesn't seem to matter) won't be as great, most other methods of mass murder aren't as easy, most kids won't have the imagination or the knowledge needed etc.
So IF we made it law as suggested, IF they couldn't get the desired gun another way, IF they didn't turn to another method in spite of my guess, it might help.I'm working my way through this one. I'm also thinking of the idea as mitigation, not a cure, so your "ifs" are secondary, at this point.
I agree with your points, this idea isn't addressing the problem, which is the violence behind these events, it is no more than a consideration of costs relative to the expected benefit; specifically these typical school shootings.
Could those costs be considered reasonable relative to their impact? I'm thinking that they might and I'm working on rationalizing that thought.
GAcosts vs impact is why I said I could probably get behind it. I don't like it, I think it likely unconstitutional, but I might get behind it anyway if the equation is right.
At the same time I recognize a massive fight from rural states. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, even such as West Virginia and even Virginia (the western half, anyway). Far too many families with young people owning their own weapon and helping to feed the family with it.Yep. I'm backsliding. The 'cost' is not equal to all. As your 'rural states' thought shows. My .22 tube-magazine semi-auto squirrel rifle has been sitting in judgment the whole time.
GALOL My uncle gave his son a .22 rifle...for the kids first birthday. A long time ago, and things have changed, but the mindset is still there for a great many people. Guns are a way of life for millions and they won't be given up easily however loud the screams that they have to go get.
People screamed when they were forced to wear seatbelts to save lives. The act of wearing a seatbelt has become second nature now, with time.
Yeah, very comparable.
People will do anything if they are forced to. Round them up, put them in camps, force them to work. Things like that still work great, just ask the Uyghurs in China.
https://youtu.be/vOgFiwWt0dk
Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) has come out in favor of an assault weapons ban after two high-profile mass shootings in his hometown of Buffalo, N.Y., and in Uvalde, Texas, claimed more than two dozen lives in total.
Jacobs said at a press conference Friday that if a bill to ban AR-15-style weapons came to the House floor, he would vote in favor. He added that he would also back raising the required age for certain gun sales to 21, imposing a federal limit on guns’ magazine capacity and banning the sale of body armor to the public.Is there any proof that any of this will change anything?
If not, it will be as effective as "Gun Free Zones" listed in schools.
Not knowing who to reply to I will place this here. I have been studying Liberty in conjunction with Liberalism and Classical Liberalism on and off for a year or so now. I am not resolute at this time on it, though have a better understanding limited of course on my old guy stuff of forgetting as fast as I learn it.
Anyway, for now I have decided there is a difference between Liberty and Freedom, though used interchangeably. To me liberty has no limitations whereas freedoms always has restrictions. Another way I view it is liberty is philosophical in the sense of the mind, which has power through willing over the body and freedom is legal in the sense it is defined by law(s) even that of nature thus has restrictions.Now you are hijacking my hijacking, but I like the topic, so here you go:
There Is a Difference Between Liberty And Freedom
GAThanks for taking the lead.
I hope it prompts discussion. I am paying bills now. First of the month stuff. At least I get donuts when I pay my space rent at the office. Nice! I will be back with some input. I am going to keep in my the discussion of Liberty of Choice while pondering does one have freedom of choice?The thanks are yours, this is a topic I enjoy discussing.
GA
It couldn't hurt. Why not try it? Look at other countries' numbers. We sure can't do worse than we are doing.
We could require that everyone under 21 remain in their homes, with guards posted outside, too. That would certainly keep them from killing. Why not try it?
The point being that there is zero indication that requiring anyone be 21 to purchase a gun will lower the death toll, and there IS a price to taking that action. Without a strong indication of a reward (a lower death toll) we have no business denying rights, particularly those guaranteed in our Constitution.Do we allow 12-year olds to buy guns? Certainly if the unborn have Constitutional rights, a 12-year old must too, right?
You see, age restrictions for guns exist already. We are already in the business of restricting Second Amendment rights for age, for felons, on planes. Your guarantee is not a guarantee as it already has a variety of limits. Try another argument since that one is clearly false.Don't know about you, but neither I nor the law considers an 12 year old to be an adult, with adult rights and privileges'.
I agree that we already infringe on the right to bear arms. So your "solution" is to extend that infringement just as far as you are able, right up to banning all guns when you figure out that banning one, or to a tiny segment of the population, isn't going to reduce the death toll.
I disagree. Taking rights from those entitled to them should be approached with the greatest of caution and only when there is great need coupled with a high probability of meeting a goal. A goal that is NOT to disarm America.Adult rights? So freedom of speech does not exist until adulthood? Be careful arguing that only adults have rights as that undermines the whole argument undermining a woman's right to choose.
As usual, you take a very minor suggestion and modify it to the extreme to change it to something that was not suggested at all to fit your own warped views.
And yes, we disagree. No right was taken away as those people still have the right to buy other guns. And the need to try something and see if there is an effect is great currently. Children are dying. Mass shootings are out of hand.You're right - watch what happens when a child of 3 sasses or curses their parent and then explain that that child has freedom of speech.
Taking away the most popular gun in the country from some 20 million people is hardly a "minor suggestion".
You need to look up, study and understand that meaning of the word "infringe". It does not mean that you can only do half of what you want because others deny the rest - it means you can do whatever you want withou others "infringing" on that right.
Yep! Children are dying. And liberals sit back on their coattails and declare that one thing, and only]/i] one thing, will help. Armed guards won't (although most celebrities have some and the president has a whole posse of them), better school construction won't help (although federal buildings are built that way to prevent incursions). [i]Only infringing on the right to bear arms.Unfortunately, back here in the real world, there are many infringements on rights. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. You cannot make threats. And you cannot purchase a gun before certain ages.
Extending an already existing infringement a few more years due to many of these mass shooters falling into a certain age range is smart policy. Like I said, for those who cannot wait, enlist. That way, they get the proper training and supervision to responsibly operate such weaponry.
Right now, too many are abusing their rights. And your claim about liberals declaring only one thing continues to be a blatant lie founded in a lack of education. No matter how many times you repeat it. Which seems to be multiple times each day now.Really? After watching a Democrat politician waving his arms in anger and declaring that we will NOT "turn our schools into armed camps", and hearing the majority leader in the Senate saying we will NOT discuss anything except taking guns, I have a hard time believing that liberals want anything else.
What have liberals proposed, and seriously discussed, except limiting gun ownership? Enlighten us, please.Again, not your teacher. If you want to choose to hear only what you want to hear and not the other proposals, that's on you. But just know that every time you claim that liberals only want one thing, you're lying your butt off.
Good response, reinforcing the point. Thank you.
If the point is that you do not understand how to research 'liberal gun violence proposals,' then yes, every day you reinforce that point. I'd say thank you, but I just shake my head instead.
No need to research; One of your heroes, Chuck Shumer, made it extremely clear.
Some people just like to remain uneducated, I guess. Consider who they vote for, this surprises no one.
Just watched a news story - seems that in the aftermath of the Texas shooting New York state is poised to enact major new restrictions on gun ownership. Of course it won't work, so they are also exhorting people in neighboring states to vote for people promoting further gun controls as well.
Not a word, though, about anything BUT restricting guns...
Gotta GET THOSE GUNS! Out of the hands of Americans!All about taking one's feeling of security away. --- Is there anything scarier?
Yeah, watching a news story and failing to understand what you just watched - and then running off to sow disinformation for others who fail to double check the second-hand reporting. That's much scarier.
The misinformation oozing out of the American right is definitely scarier than trying to solve gun violence.The "Right" has proposed something to help.
The Luke and Alex School Safety Act is named after Luke Hoyer and Alex Schachter, two students killed in the Feb. 14, 2018, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. Luke and Alex’s parents, along with members of the group, “Stand with Parkland,” have "fought tirelessly for Congress to take common sense steps like the clearinghouse to prepare schools and protect students from harm in the event of an attack,” the senators said in a news release when introducing the bill.
U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Rick Scott (R-FL) reintroduced the Bill and (D-NY) Chuck Schumer shot it down.
At a minimum, the school safety measures would include threat prevention, preparedness, protection, mitigation, incident response, and recovery, according to the bill summary.
In order to stop someone from committing mass murder at a school with defenseless children, you need someone capable of stopping that potential murderer with whatever force is necessary.
Schumer objected to [the Bill], claiming on Twitter that the bill “could see more guns in schools.”
“The truth: There were officers at the school in Texas,” Schumer tweeted. “The shooter got past them. We need real solutions—We will vote on gun legislation starting with the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.”
The truth is Schumer lied, there were no police, there were no security officers, there was no one on the school premises trained to deal with an active shooter.
Johnson later tweeted: “Not surprising that the Democrat leader would lie about the bill he blocked that parents of Parkland victims have been trying to pass for years. Dems aren’t looking for solutions, they want wedge issues that they hope will keep them in power. Sick.”
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who co-sponsored the bill, blasted Schumer as “a liar and a hack.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who also co-sponsored the bill, tweeted: “The truth: Schumer blocked a bipartisan bill that makes the school safety clearinghouse schoolsafety.gov permanent because radical left wing activists oppose it.”
What the Democrats want to pass instead, will lead them to ridding the country of weapons and allowing them to create a Stalinist like state of control with their Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act
This proposed bill would first and foremost target anyone they label White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists which the bill states is the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.
And what, or who, determines a person to be a far-right-wing extremist?
There are those here on Hubpages that have labeled me as such, and more, there are people on these forums that have come right out and told me they wished me dead... what if such a person, with such political beliefs, were in control of being able to label me a Domestic Terrorist?
How soon after that Bill becomes law, do we become the next Nazi Germany or the next Stalinist Russia?
After all, isn't the very definition of right-wing-extremist someone who believes he has the right to own a gun?The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is not new.
The legislation had bipartisan support when it was introduced earlier this year. A similar measure was approved by voice vote by the House in September of 2020.
GOP lawmakers who voted for the 2020 bill now argue the Biden administration would overreach if the bill is put into place. Many maintain it would allow the Justice Department to label parents criticizing their school boards as domestic terrorists.
"The difference from two years ago and now is that the DOJ has started going after concerned parents showing up at school board meetings, labeling them domestic terrorists, " Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Guy Reschenthaler said on the House floor in response to Democrats' pointing out earlier support for the measure.
So basically, the GOP now wants to protect the people making death threats to teachers and school board administrators and that's why they won't consider something they had previously voted for.Ummm...it wasn't the GOP that refused to discuss the bill. It was Chuck Shumer, the Democrat majority leader of the Senate.
Given that the left has just about convinced people that anyone with a gun will immediately being firing at them, I do understand the feeling of security they expect if they can just get those guns away.
Of course, I also understand that however secure they may feel, the reality is that they will be no more secure after a gun grab than before. Considering that one of those around them might be armed when they need it, they may be LESS secure if they have grabbed that gun, too.
Of course you didn't actually read up on what New York wants to pass. Red flag laws - apparently you want those mentally ill to own guns. Body armor restriction except for those in law enforcement or other state-designated professions. And permitting for those over 21 for rifles.
Again, you watch a news story and all you come away with is that it's about guns. You really do prove my point time and time again that you only focus on your own limited and warped narrative. Either that, or the news source you watch is not giving you the full picture. Gee, what news source might be feeding you half-truths...I wonder.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/0 … s-00036503So the thrust is to limit gun ownership. With a bonus thrown in that we can't buy a protective vest unless a cop. What a way to protect people! I also note that the law is being passed because the red flag laws did not work; not that it includes them. Better take a little more care with your reading.
"But it’s also a response to the failure of the state’s strict background checks and “Red Flag” law to prevent the shooting, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins told reporters in the Capitol Wednesday"
If you will but go back and read the posts you will find that is exactly what I said...and that you denied is true.'Not a word, though, about anything BUT restricting guns...'
Stop lying. Do more research.
Laws pertaining to body armor are things other than restricting guns. I read posts just fine and am sick of your blatant lies.
And the thrust is to limit gun ownership to people who are a danger to themselves or others. Something you seem to have no problem with and is why you're part of the problem.I read your link. Did you? I also mentioned the body armor (so people cannot protect themselves from a shooter) and that the red flag laws and background checks did not work, and thus they were going to expand the laws to be more restrictive. Again, exactly what I said.
The entire thrust (according to your own link) is to limit gun ownership, plus the added benefit of denying a protective vest to people.I read your statement, did you? It's a blatant lie. Own it. You lied.
Who goes around wearing body armor? Seems like law enforcement (who we should permit) and those attacking their Capitol or going to shoot up a bunch of people (who we should not).
The Red Flag Law missed the Buffalo shooter in the same manner that the security doors at Uvalde and extra security forces and training failed. You want to expand the last two in the same way that others are willing to tweak the first option.
And then you lied again at the end of that post saying the 'entire thrust' which is just not in any way true at all. The thrust is to keep weapons away from people who wish to harm themselves or others.Well I just listened to a speech by your hero. I didn't record it, so can't quote, but the gist was:
Take away all those fake "assault" guns. Limit gun ownership.
Stronger background checks, no matter how long it takes to accomplish one. Limit gun ownership.
Require gun safes, holding the homeowner responsible for the actions of a thief. Expensive, limiting gun ownership.
Hold gun manufacturers responsible, driving them out of business. Limit gun ownership.
More red flag laws, like the one that New York says didn't work. Limit gun ownership.
Raise the age to buy. Limit gun ownership.
Interspersed, a lot of tear jerker stories designed to raise emotions. Useful in convincing people to limit gun ownership.
Oh yes, and a couple of sentences about hiring more school counselors.
But liberals have lots of plans outside of limiting gun ownership. Sure they do - just ask the head fool in DC. Or his cohort, the head of the Senate Majority. Or their cohort, the speaker of the house. All hell bent on limiting gun ownership, with nothing else to offer and nothing to discuss but limiting gun ownership. One way or another they WILL get the guns out of the hands of Americans.'One way or another they WILL get the guns out of the hands of Americans.'
You always seem to leave out the important words like
'...get the guns out of the hands of the dangerous Americans.'
See, unlike you, liberals understand that some Americans with a gun are a danger to other Americans, including school children. So while you fight for people like your hero in Buffalo to shoot a bunch of black people, others are working against that. (See, I can make up your heroes for you too based on who you are arguing for)
And the Red Flag Law missed one 18-year old while he was still in high school. As is being reported, there are arrests being made in multiple states where these laws do work.
Oh...and you still lied about New York's laws.And you still haven't supplied anything liberals propose except limiting gun ownership, instead demanding I find it. But I can't, because it isn't there.
New York laws - I got the information from your link, something you obviously either didn't read or changed the wording in your mind to mean something it didn't say. Pretty common, at least for you.
What did you think of your hero's speech? Did he supply a long list of actions NOT involving limiting gun ownership so you can say "I told you so!"? Or just continue the same old same old - take the guns away, which is what I said liberals wanted? Or will you now say that a suggestion to provide counselling in the school counteracts all the "Take The Guns" rhetoric?Clearly you cannot process that we have been talking about body armor, something that does not involve gun ownership, as a simple example of your latest wrong statement. As to your New York laws statement, considering the body armor law is in there, that easily disproves your entire second paragraph weak insult attempt.
And it's clear you just want to argue for argument's sake and and make weird accusations about who my hero's are. At this point, it's become worthless to continue conversing with you.Yeah, I got that. Democrats want to prevent people from protecting themselves from shooters. Presumably so that when cops sit outside more of us will die.
But we were talking about what liberals have seriously proposed as a solution to school shootings, or even mass murders. Prohibiting law abiding people from buying a vest (body armor) isn't going to help there, now is it?
It's a step in the right direction. But could that be enforceable? God save America!
The Democrats have long believed that "it's my way or no way when it comes to trying to negotiate any new gun laws. This is a dangerous concept in a Democracy. It is evident and has been for some time, that they hope to rip up the Constitution.
Scary bunch
Most people that screech about gun control have never held or shot a gun. Sticking an age restriction on buying a gun would just lead to underage gun buying like there's underage drinking, and no you can't just buy a gun super easy, and yes, people do slip by a background check if you've never done anything illegal. The shooter also had help from another person online, go look that up.
I'm sorry, but can you provide the stats about the people who screech about gun control and having never held or shot a gun. Sounds like a perception not rooted in much fact.
Most people that screech about gun control have never held or shot a gun'. (Editing
Saw this article this morning and posting because it seems related. I dun'no . . . To me it demonstrates mass shootings is a social problem/issue as well as the impact of what media presents in the proliferation of mass shootings.
Boy, 10, is arrested for allegedly threatening to carry out mass shooting
https://vt.co/news/boy-10-is-arrested-f … paign=postA 10 years old boy? More than sicking indeed.
I think the topic is getting over board. But it's good for thought. Gun control is an American dillema. But my muse is that between 18 and 21 serve in any capacity in the armd force. Then (editingat 45 retired and own your private gun for fun, or...you choice.
Deaths in America Facts:
2021 Gun-Related Deaths: 12,398
2021 Automobile Deaths: 42,915
2021 Heart Disease Deaths: 696,962
2021 Cancer Deaths: 602,350
2021 Diabetes Deaths: 102,188
2020 Choking Deaths: 4,963
Gun control is political, hyperbolic nonsense. The two leading causes of death in America are cancer and heart disease. Instead of wasting energy and valuable resources on enacting gun control, the political types would be better suited to saving their breath and working towards curing cancer and heart disease. Ridiculous. The amount of energy wasted discussing it right here in this post is mind-blowing. Almost 100 posts of people trying to prove they are smarter and more intellectual than one another. Sheesh! At least start a discussion to ban automobiles! They cause twice as many deaths as guns do!I'm musing the comparison, (and any contrast) is a monkey thinking. Now, compare those who died from cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and so to gun deaths during the first or second world war, and you see gun related deaths are not something one is pondering about. Good as you advise politicians to take care of serious health related diseases, and debase or be-little those here in the forum for wasting time and efforts, could it do anybody any good to pump hot leads into anyone of your relation head? The answer is no. Nevertheless, we expect people who fail to adhere to some or certain health or nutrition principles to fall prey to a chronic disease or death. Critically, how many in 100,000 are mentaly ill, that I don't know as an index statistic. In my neighbourhood, I've seen a family of 7 where 2 or 3 are not mentally sound. One family had all 7 demeted.
In the UK where there is 'Good Gun Control' there were just 35 gun related deaths in 2021, less than 3 a month average; which pales into insignificance compared to the gun deaths in the USA which is more than 1,000 month.
So I would say yes, good gun control does make good sense.Yes, agreed. But the 3 deaths are a serious waste of human life, regretly, and untimely, agreed? Thanks.
Yep, 3 is 3 too many, but significantly better than a 1,000 month as it is in America.
Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-N.Y.) on Friday announced he will not run for a second term in the House, one week after breaking from his party and announcing his support for an assault weapons ban. Jacobs also backed raising the required age for specific gun sales to 21 years old, enacting a federal limit on gun magazine capacities and prohibiting the sale of body armor to the public.
Jacobs on Friday said every GOP elected official who endorsed him in his reelection bid has withdrawn their support since he backed gun control measures last week. He also said he lost the backing of GOP committees and the Republican and conservative parties in New York State.
“Despite this backlash, I truly believe I can win this election, but it would be an incredibly divisive election for both the Republican Party and for the people of the 23rd district, many of whom I have not ever represented,” Jacobs said.
“The last thing we need is an incredibly negative, half-truth filled media attack funded by millions of dollars of special interest money coming into our community around this issue of guns, and gun violence and gun control,” he added.
SMH
I know Upstate NYers well enough... and I know NYs already restrictive gun laws... I am sure his stance is not very popular with the majority of his voter base.
The Luke and Alex School Safety Act is an excellent option for increasing school protection, a common sense bill to a obvious problem... unprotected schools filled with innocent children.
I believe raising the age to 21 is also common sense, we have an all volunteer military force, so do away with draft registration, and move owning a semi-auto weapon to age 21, like with alcohol, they just can't be trusted with that responsibility earlier in life.
Democrats want to restrict or outright ban weapons to all people. Republicans want to protect schools while protecting the right to bear arms.
If you don't represent your party's positions, why should you be supported by that party?'Democrats want to restrict or outright ban weapons to all people. Republicans want to protect schools while protecting the right to bear arms.'
Some Democrats, yes. Not all. Many are more than willing to start with the common sense changes such as raising the age limit on rifles, extend background checks and close loop holes on red flag laws.
The argument, which always seems to be the difference, is that Democrats understand that there are some people who should not get possession of weapons. Whether that be someone with violent intentions or a violent background, or even someone with a history of mental illness. Republicans, in general, are against putting in policy that would prevent guns from reaching these people.
And everyone talks about Chicago and their guns laws and how many guns are there. Those guns come mostly from neighboring states with lax gun laws. Which is part of the reason for the need of a federal solution.
If an 18 year old is old enough to inlist in the U.S. military and die for his/ her country, then their old enough to buy a GUN.
So you're saying any service man or woman is free to bring out the gun and start shoting gbum gbum gbum at any innocent person? That's another monkey thinking.
I said "buy a GUN". What part of that said; " is free to bring out a gun and start shoting gbum gbum gbum at any innocent person?"
I'm waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!Well, yes, 'buy a gun'. And, I'm here too waiting. At 18 a service man was given a gun. Another lad, a civilian buy his. Both can shot gbum gbum! Well, what's the difference? And, you fail to draw the inference. Who gave that 18 years old boy the authority to begin shooting the kids and they teachers?
'enlist', 'they're'
And that is part of the argument. In the military, those who are 18 get training and supervision on how to be responsible with gun safety.
There would be less issue with them generally owning a gun if that ownership included mandated training. But it does not have such a requirement. So we are handing deadly weapons to people that have the potential to be incompetent with their usage. That's pretty stupid policy if you ask me.
Interesting forum.
I got a 12-guage shotgun for a Christmas present at the age of twelve. My friends and I shot cans, and did other types of target shooting. Went hunting for the first time at age 13, and hunted regularly until I finished high school. Many times during the summer we would go to a local dump with .22 rifles and shoot rats. It was thing.
My friends and I ALWAYS had guns. Every type you can imagine. None of us had any idea of shooting anybody. It was like that where I went to school. Guns weren't that big of a deal.
NOW, because one crazy guy who happens to be 18 is the reason we need to keep guns away from 18 year olds? It doesn't make any sense to me. I imagine there are thousands of 18 year olds who are responsible gun owers, yet they are going to be punished because of one person.
It makes no sense.
It's not the gun, it's the person holding the gun. It is an inanimate object that is harmless unless handled by a human.
The other thing that gets me are people who have never shot a gun and wouldn't know how to site it or even clean it are acting as if they're experts.
Common sense gun control would require for someone to have common sense about guns. If you haven't shot a gun, you lack proper knowledge on the subject.And yet, it's accepted that it is the bomb. And you're making assumptions about people and their experience with guns. Wrong assumptions.
RMN, yes, imtereesting forum, and yet, interesting discussion as well. I wonder how many here will agree. You got a gun gift at 12! And, what about them that receive they's at 5? Making an average of 8.5? Critically, both the 18 age mark and the gun is same problem. The little finger has smear the others.
And to buy a car (perhaps to charge into a parade) you need cash. Nothing else.
Not sure your "perspective", comparing selling to buying has any validity at all.
GA:
This article describes why so many school mass shooters are angry young men. I don't know if this will help your cause or not, but it is interesting to understand what motivates them to commit those acts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 … angry-men/This is not unknown, that the prefrontal cortex does not develop until later in life.
While I can support not allowing young people to buy a gun (of any type, not just "assault" rifles or other long guns but handguns as well), I'm not confident at all in what result we might expect. While we certainly hope for a lowered body count (from both mass and single murders), I'm not sure we should expect it.
The reasons are several, but not limited to:
A determined teen or young "adult" WILL find a gun if they wish to bad enough. A friend, steal one, "borrow" one, buy from the black market or even make one on a 3d printer.
As always, the assumption is that without that gun the killer will not kill. Not only an unproven assumption, but one that we see violated every day. There is nothing to indicate that the young school killer will not choose another method, just as others have done and will do in the future.
I also doubt the usefullness of mental tests to prevent killings. Too many psychologists have said that they cannot predict who will kill and who will not. The science just isn't up to it as yet.
I doubt the effect of "red flag" laws as well, for reasons listed above; a determined person will obtain what they want without alerting authorities.
Having said all that, I do support both red flag laws (depending on what is being looked for) and limiting the age to purchase a gun.Thanks for the link. I am familiar with its concept. It is the psychological explanation for the same behavior I am speaking to relative to a min. age increase. The need to get past that dangerous time of unrealistic impulsiveness is the goal. Identifying it and fixing it is a different task.
The kink in that line of thought is that typical behavior in the period of impulsiveness isn't the same across the spectrum. It is the extremism of a very few that is dangerous. It is never a good thing to diminish the freedoms of the many due to the actions of a few.
However, living in society rationally demands just that. So, if it has to be done, (if that agreement can be reached), let's at least mitigate the cost to the many as much as possible.
GA
Government's only goal is to control people? That theory is pretty off.
So government doesn't protect a nation by overseeing its armed forces and police?
Government doesn't negotiate with other nations?
Government doesn't protect its citizens from corporations who endanger them for profits?
Government doesn't make policies in the best interest of local, state, and national interests to ensure that people can live in safe environments?
Maybe in Wilderness' world he likes a world where people can do whatever they want, whenever they want. But over here in the real world, some policies that make the country work and need to be enforced by someone, require a government.It's a pity that these boys seems not to know better, due to a state of mental delution. And, has been noted by experts, such sick children are in the 'million' in the community. Like every normal persons, the millions are alarmed by what the shooters did. Significantly, if it were true that the Uvalde shooter, was moving from one class or room into another, and targeting specific individuals, then the question is: are these that bully him? The answer is not clear. But let the mind expert speaks further.
Raise the age limit for purchase and ban assault weapons. No one but military and police have any reason to have them.
The Constitution does mention that you get to decide if there is a "reason" to have them. Only that they may do so.
If you ban "assault weapons" there is no reason to raise the age limit.
I tend to agree we do not need "assault weapons" but if we are to allow them the age should be raised to 21.
We identified that the people responsible for these mass shootings in schools are age 18 on average.
We know in today's world, we seem to have more mental instability in our society, especially the young, than at any time in history.Ken, raising the age limit to 21, would that do any good? Certain of the shooters were between 21 and 29 years, right? Seriously, the average 21 is not realistic to own a gun at such unstable times. Why not test by putting bombs in the hands of these boys? What does that tell you? I'm laughing and jiggling! So like I once or twice said 45 years would be idea. Nevertheless, bearing arm at the media age of 21 in the 'armed' service of one's motherland is okay.
Good as that may be, your second amendment to be arms privately, should it be remove? I think not.
Bill Maher bringing up another good point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebg2YnBj9II
Keeping guns out of the hands of those who pose a danger is not the only action that is needed.It's hard to go wrong with a Maher clip. He nailed it again.
GA
Well, if this passes, I may have to stop claiming the right is hindering common sense gun regulations:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senators-str … 05828.htmlFrom your link: "A handful of Republicans are supportive of raising the age to purchase assault rifles to 21"
Given that each state has it's own artificial definition of just what an "assault rifle" is, how does Congress intend to address that? Will they come with yet another definition? Have you heard anything about Congress applying their own definition, regardless of what states have done?The question of state and federal definition is compounding the problem. I assume each state definition also defers from one another.(I'm an outsider), a Nigerian. Seriously, and perhaps, it calls for a legislation at the Federal level to reconcil the defering definitions. But this can ran into many problems, considering what happen during the pandemic. God save America!
Following your 'description' thought; the only defensible restriction would be on all semi-autos. As you say, any other selection would be a cosmetically defined one. That's not rational. It's complicated, which means opportunity for interpretation problems.
If the issue does come to the table I'm betting we'll get some Federal definition of dangerous configurations that turn a semi-auto into a semi-auto 'Assault' weapon of war. (obviously, I'm not a fan).
GANot rational...but it is what is being done. It is an effective tactic in convincing people ignorant of guns that those black, scary looking tools of the devil are used by the military and therefore not reasonable for the general public.
A complete fabrication - a lie - but an effective one.And some military men completely disagree with your assessment that those black, scary looking tools of the devil are not equivalent to weapons of war.
https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/po … 25247.htmlFrom your link: "The retired major general went on to write the AR-15 was the civilian version of the M16, a close relation to the M4 rifles currently used by the military."
In other words, used by civilians, not soldiers on the battlefield.Also from my link: “Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war,” retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton wrote on Twitter.
Used by civilians to wage war - against other civilians. Even worse.Yeah. They do it with eggs, with laws, with hatred, with clubs and with everything else, too. All weapons of war...I don't think so.
The fact remains that no matter how hard you, or Eaton, tries to spin it, the common civilian semi-automatic rifle is NOT a "weapon of war", is NOT used by any military in the world, and is NOT found on the battlefield. Saying it is a "weapon of war" merely denotes ignorance or bias, not truth.By your definition, .50 caliber sniper rifles are not weapons of war either since your definition requires a full automatic designation. Tanks - must pull the trigger each time. Weapon of war then?
Pretty sure Eaton and I would disagree with you again.Don't recall saying what you claim I did, for there ARE weapons of war that are single shot. You can even include SAM's, mortars, bazooka's, and many more.
But they are all used by the military, in time of war, to fight battles with. The civilian rifle is not, no matter how many times you claim it is.Well, historically, the AR-15 has been used in wartime, albeit limited usage before the M-16 was determined to be of better service.
1961: Eugene Stoner Becomes a Consultant at Colt
At this time, Eugene Stoner leaves the ArmaLite company, taking a position as a consultant at Colt. Around the same time, the United States Airforce tests the AR-15, commissioning 8,500 for Air Force use.
In 1961, ten AR-15's were sent to South Vietnam, as the United States continued to penetrate into the jungles of Indochina.Link, please, showing that the civilian version of the AR15, without automatic fire, was used in war.
Something more than a test of 10 weapons, please, and preferably something more recent than 60 years ago. Your line of reasoning would apply to a 1776 muzzle leader as it was most definitely used in wartime, but of course has no relevance to the discussion.Here is the historical Link: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/t … r-15-rifle
It was definitely used in wartime, but other versions were found to be superior and it was shelved as an option.
Look, I'll concede that the AR-15 would not suit someone in combat today as it has the limitation to lay down suppression fire due to it's semi-automatic limits. That's the point you are stressing.
And I'll stick to the fact that it's a gun you could wage war upon someone with, albeit you'd prefer to have something more efficient.
'In other words, used by civilians, not soldiers on the battle field.' The M15, M16, and M4 are all the same weapon with lethal character. And according to the ret. Major General, Paul Eaton, the 3 weapons are deadly. But only the 2nd M16 was used by the army to kill the enemy in combat. 3 weapons that has the same capacty to kill and enemy or a friend. To me the ret. Gen. words are plain sense.
The AR-15 is designed as a high velocity firearm. Here is the difference between a firearm that fires a .22 caliber round and the AR-15 that fires a .223 round.
When the .223 round exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
As it passes through human flesh, a .223 round generates a shockwave that kills soft tissue several inches from the entry point. Trauma physicians say exit wounds can be as big as an orange. The longer the barrel, the higher the velocity of the bullet, making it even deadlier.
Here is everything that you wanted to know about the AR-15, but were afraid to ask, including its history and why it is so difficult to define.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/ar15-r … eapon-ban/Here is a catalog and buyer's guide of all the accessories and add-ons, including kits for your AR-15 Rifle. Have fund browsing all the variations.
https://thenewrifleman.com/the-ar15-buy … eat-rifle/Here is a catalog and buyer's guide of all the accessories and add-ons, including kits for your AR-15 Rifle. Have fun browsing all the variations and the various parts you can buy to build your own rifle, so you don't even have to register it or even get a background check. Be sure to view the content under each each tab. We don't want you to miss out out anything.
https://thenewrifleman.com/the-ar15-buy … eat-rifle/
This is an old photo from threads here years ago.
It seems to show that any validity of the "weapons of war" claim has to come from cosmetic determinations. That doesn't make the point of your link wrong, just misleading. I bet that Commander would also say the bottom version, (the one with the wooden stock), could also be a weapon of war because of its capabilities.
The "weapon of war ' thing is a purposeful effort of rationalization for an irrational claim. Most .223 semi-autos have the attributes of the military's M16.
GA
As Wilderness has stated there are different definitions used for an assault weapon/rifle. In other words it is the same as a hamburger. The same idea can be applied to the AR-15 style as a term as there are many versions of it by many manufacturers since its patent ran out 1977.
To get to a starting point the ATF defines a “semiautomatic assault weapon” as a semiautomatic rifle that uses a detachable magazine and has any two of the following features:
** A folding or telescoping stock, which is when the back part of the gun folds or detaches and reduces the length of the rifle.
** A pistol grip that protrudes vertically, similar to a handgun.
** A mount underneath the barrel for attaching a bayonet or a knife.
** A flash suppressor, which is a device that attaches to the muzzle and reduces the intensity of the flash generated when the gun fires (or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor).
** A grenade launcher.
That is the only federal description for it I could find relative to today. I don't know if any new legislation will rely on that or not.
That is from an article by The Trace an online magazine. It also discussed the AR-15.
What Is an AR-15 Rifle, Exactly? (June 7, 2022)
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/ar15-r … eapon-ban/
But, Calif has its own defining descriptors for assault weapons, which includes pistols and shotguns. For a rifle it is similar to the ATF as seen following.
** A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
** A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
** A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
So, in Calif the example GA gave with the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle would be considered an assault weapon once a 20 or 30 round magazine is used.
Senate Bill 23 Assault Weapon Characteristics (Effective Jan 1, 2000)
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2And there you have it. We shouldn't argue about assault rifles, we should be arguing about 'assault' magazines.
That's an easy solution, pick a number, 10, 15, ? and run with that definition. Easy-peasy. The 'solution' won't affect the problem, but it is definable and it is doing 'something'.
That wasn't really sarcasm. It is a reasonable "something" if 'something' must be done. I could agree with it, but I don't think addressing the weapon is the way to go.
GASherriff's demo of how magazine size makes very little difference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
That shown, I have no issues with them making High-Capacity magazines illegal, that is more to do with my understanding that the longer and/or bulkier the magazine, the more prone it is to failure and bumping into things and being problematic to work with in general.My only real comment would be that a smaller magazine (only one), in the hands of a relatively inexperienced shooter would prevent spraying quite so much lead in their efforts to protect themselves. Surrounding people might appreciate that. Same thing for drive by shooters, too - fewer poorly aimed shots.
Your link does show, however, that larger magazines are really not more useful to a shooter than smaller ones are. The time needed to change magazines just isn't enough to make a difference.I've seen those mag change demos before. Even an inexperienced user can do it in seconds.
Youtube's next offered pick was an unexpected gem; another Maher clip: Colion Noir: Gun Nuts
GAThe AR-15 is designed as a high velocity firearm. Here is the difference between a firearm that fires a .22 caliber round and the AR-15 that fires a .223 round.
When the .223 round exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
As it passes through human flesh, a .223 round generates a shockwave that kills soft tissue several inches from the entry point. Trauma physicians say exit wounds can be as big as an orange. The longer the barrel, the higher the velocity of the bullet, making it even deadlier.
Here is everything that you wanted to know about the AR-15, but were afraid to ask, including its history and why it is so difficult to define.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/ar15-r … eapon-ban/Here is a catalog and buyer's guide of all the accessories and add-ons, including kits for your AR-15 Rifle. Have fun browsing all the variations and the various parts you can buy to build your own rifle, so you don't even have to register it or even get a background check. Be sure to view the content under each each tab. We don't want you to miss out out anything.
https://thenewrifleman.com/the-ar15-buy … eat-rifle/I am familiar with the Ar-15, not specific stats, but the general concept. Your lead-in, and follow-up don't support the point I think you intended.
I had to go look, of course. The AR-15 3200 ft/s muzzle velocity is slower than the pictured Rueger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. It has a 3240 ft/s muzzle velocity. But, considering the video's tests, that's a wash.
The ballistics gel test only took a minute to check out. Here is a great comparison between a .223 Ar-15 load and a 30.06 'hunting rifle' load*
The 30.06 load is slower but did more of the same kind of damage the .223 load created. I might bet that almost any hunting rifle load is going to do similar damage. (all bullet impacts create, (mostly massive), shockwaves.
* the 30.06 is a larger bullet and it was fired from a pump-action rifle
Amazing Ballistic Gel Test!! **Hornady 223 & 30-06**
As a side note to ponder, relative to the "velocity/damage" point, I looked at multiple .223 gel tests and didn't see tumbling in the manner of your description. But I didn't see them all, so . . .
On one point you're right, this is just arguing over irrelevant details to support a view, there is no argument that a rifle bullet does cause traumatic wounds.
GAI have to wonder why several states do not allow the AR15 for big game hunting - only small game such as rabbit, coyote, etc.
Is it just the caliber, caught in archaic laws that do not reflect the times or is because it allows bigger game to get away, only to die later and rot in the field?I think that is the logic behind those restrictions. Conscientious hunters agree with such limits. Plus, experienced hunters agree with it because they don't want a wounded large-game animal to be able to get to them. I'm not sure if any hunter would use an Ar-15 on anything larger than a deer. But that's just an opinion.
GAI agree. But what does that say about the massive, horrific damage the AR15 does when compared to a hunting rifle?
Funny story; when elk hunting many years ago we had a newbie in the area that had been warned heavily not to approach a downed elk until positive it was dead. He shot an elk that took a jump and just stood there. He shot it again, and it remained standing. He ended up shooting his entire magazine at it. Come to find it out it had jumped into the crotch of a tree and couldn't fall - he had nothing but hamburger left.Now that's a funny story. We should trade some sometimes. I got one about a 50-year hunting veteran, (on a remote week-long bear camp trip), barricading his tent entrance with lawn chairs.
GADad used to always take a week elk hunting, with a half dozen friends and family, and as I got a little older I joined them. It was a fun time, and useful in providing meat for the family. And just as you say there are some real tales that came out of it.
GA: You never commented on my second post about the AR-15 Catalog. I was looking forward to your and Wilderness' comments. The point I was trying to make is the AR-15 can be purchased in so many configurations and form factors, it is difficult to write laws to cover all the variations and even kits, parts, and accessories. I don't know about 30.06 rifles being used in mass shootings..
Here is the link again:
https://thenewrifleman.com/the-ar15-buy … eat-rifle/I didn't comment because I didn't catch your point and wasn't interested in an accessory list.
Barring any of those accessories modifying the gun to full-auto, or even 3-shot burst auto, your intended point seems to support the view that it is the appearance of the gun, not its capabilities, that you want to be banned.
I will trade you. I will take a look at the accessories and offer a comment to your point of the difficulty of defining a configuration to ban, and in return you can comment on my response to the velocity and ballistic gel stuff.
GAGA: I watched the gel tests, but I don't know what your point was comparing the .233 round to a 30.06. It's great information if you are a hunter.
There are two points I am trying to make.
(1) The muzzle velocity of any AR-15 rifle is high enough to cause extreme trauma to the victim where first responders have difficult time saving victims lives because of the extreme damage done to flesh and bones.
(2) The AR-15 will never be banned because it can't be defined enough to write laws to ban it. And the catalog shows the number of ways the AR-15 platform can be obtained legally or illegally.
Here are two videos that makes my first point.
https://youtu.be/weG-QtQx2-0
https://youtu.be/edsmI6UCj4wI'm just pushing for clarity Mike, not trying to shoot down your thoughts, but they do need to be shot down. Not because they are wrong, but because, as per your links, they are presented falsely.
Your links were great examples of my point, yet you think they support your view.
For example, the ballistic gel stuff. Your links showed the awful damage a high-velocity bullet will do, and it is truthfully brutal, but to emphasize the degree of damage they compare a 9mm pistol with a third of the velocity. Of course, the difference is stark.
Compare that to the link I offered. Side-by-side comparisons of 'other' semi-auto rifles, (the 30.06), show the same, or greater damage than the AR-15. 60 Minutes didn't show that comparison because it would have failed the point they wanted to make. That was my original point about the .223 and 30.06 trials.
I think it is safe to say almost every semi-automatic rifle, except the .22 Long Rifle, has muzzle speeds two or three times the speed of sound, (as your presentations attributed to the AR-15, as if it is exceptional), it's not. The ballistic stats and gels show that.
I can see why you felt those segments were representative of your view. They were persuasive and truthful, in what they said. They didn't say that all rifles will do that same damage; they pinned it all on the AR-15 to promote an agenda and false perspective.
No one is disputing the damage a .223 can do. But all rifles do the same, (or at least comparable degrees of it), damage. My dispute is blaming it on one rifle when, factually, all rifles do it.
To the credibility of your links, they pass all marks except the one for honesty. It is dishonest to present the facts as they did.
GAGA: I don't know of any 30.06 being used in mass shootings. I don't even think there is a precedent for it. Therefore, I focused on the AR-15 which seems to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
Nine mm hand guns are also used in mass shooting as well. That's why they make that comparison. Gabby Gifford was shot by one where the shooter had high capacity magazines. She survived , but with motor skill deficits. If she had been shot with an AR-15, I don't think she would be alive today.By your response, you are focusing on the Ar-15 because it is the weapon of choice, not because it is an 'assault' weapon of war. Most other semi-auto rifles do comparable damage. Other than appearance there is nothing exceptional about the AR-15's capabilities.
It is the most popular rifle sold. I would say that is because of its appearance rather than capabilities. It looks like a weapon of war, just like Rambo's. The perfect macho choice for immature male minds like those of recent school shooters.
There is no other reason to ban these weapons than for their appearance. That's not rational.
GAThat would depend on the goal and the purpose of the ban, wouldn't it? Pretty obvious that if the AR15 is banned some other weapon, probably another, more powerful semi-automatic, will be used, and so the death toll keeps rising.
But if reducing the number of deaths isn't the goal, what then? A ban on the most popular gun in the country, one that has been used to spread fear among the people, would be a great feather in the cap of those banning it.
I see where the House is working on a bipartisan bill to address gun violence - a good thing. They've come up with three different things to do, and appear to have support from both sides of the aisle. But, as some are saying, it isn't much but it's a great first step. From which even my puny intellect easily deduces that there is no intention of stopping there - that they will continue indefinitely to reduce the number of guns in the country. Most likely starting with that dreaded, hateful, "weapon of war", the civilian semi-automatic AR15 and anything that looks similar. The black paint does wonders in scaring people, and it is most definitely useful in convincing gullible people ignorant of guns that it should be banned.GA: My dad and I were deer hunters and I know how much more cumbersome a 30.06 is to carry point and shoot on the fly compared to a light weight portable AR-15 style rifle. Yes they look scary, but I don't think that is the reason they should be banned, it is because of the portability in a mass shooting scenarios.
Can you picture a mass shooter using an 30.06 walking into a school room? I can see him as a sniper in a bell tower, but not in close quarters situations. Yes they are scary looking and they are also highly portable.
The reason they were called assault was because they were easier to use in close combat for assaulting the enemy. That's why paratroopers used them That's why mass shooters use them instead of a 30.06 rifle or .270, or whatever long gun rifle, you want to mention that has the same killing power as the AR-15.I've only shot a few rounds through an AR15, but it strikes me that the portability of a 30.06 would be greatly improved by simply sawing off half the barrel, aka the AR15. True, it won't have a folding stock, but how many shooters have that stock folded up while in use?
You may be right about comparative portability vs. a 'regular' long-barreled hunting rifle, but it isn't when compared to the equally powerful Ranch rifle.
We gave this one a good run Mike, but I think all the angles have been covered. I really believe I have facts on my side and I understand that your position is coming from the heart.
GA
Yup, seems so and from the reading I have been doing that is the aim of many to ban high capacity magazines. That is the aim with the Calif laws for pistols and shotguns too. Ten round magazines is the limit for all three - pistols, rifles, and shot guns.
Even after watching the video shared below by Ken saying it won't make a difference using high capacity magazines, I disagree with it. I would need more than one video to convince me otherwise. The highest capacity magazine for the Ruger Mini 14 I discovered is 50 rounds. Seems one could do a lot of damage with that. Even a 30 round magazine would offer plenty of opportunity to do damage. Maybe it is like an optical illusion.
I pretty much agree with the sentiment that addressing the assault rifle configuration is pretty much futile. As far as I am concerned the only reason to have a pistol grip on a rifle is to use it below the shoulder. To me that defeats what a rifle is. It becomes a pistol with a long barrel doesn't it? I know for hunting I would not want a pistol grip. But, perhaps, that is old school now-a-days. Maybe that is why Calif has a 30 inch length limit?Did you miss the point of smaller magazines? It simply doesn't take enough time to change magazines to have much effect on the total number of shots fired. Even the untrained lady shooting only lost a couple of shots using 10 round vs 30 round magazines.
Yeah, okay, still not convinced. I would rather carry 5 x 30 round magazines in a fight than 5 x 5 round magazines. Maybe like I said it is an optical illusion kind of thing.
Here is a video by Colion Noir a strong gun advocate saying "Why We Actually Do Need "50 Round Clips". As a side note the Navy Seals use a 50 round magazine with the M-16 whereas normal is a 30 round magazine.
I am not stating any position on if high capacity magazines should be banned or not. I am just offering information.
Edit: oops! Here is the link to the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QZ5ZFikoQM
There are a lot of those 'mag change' videos, and they all show the same thing: the difference is 2 or 3 seconds—for an amateur, and a defender would only cover about 10 ft. in that time. It might seem to defy common sense but unless you are nearly next to the shooter a mag change won't help you.
The mini-14 comes with a 20-round mag as standard. And your thoughts about the damage that could do support the reasons an "assault" weapon ban is only a 'something', not a solution. No one looks at that Ranch rifle as an assault weapon, yet it can do equal damage.
The pistol grip is also a benefit for shoulder firing. It is a more stable hold than a thumb-over-stock grip. It's a more natural movement to pull the stock to your should. You can see for yourself: now:
Assume a traditional rifle firing stance (you can do it in your chair); your trigger elbow will be elevated more, and your trigger grip will be overhand instead of the more secure vertical pistol grip.
Use both methods to pull the imaginary rifle firmly into your shoulder. Which 'pull' movement felt more natural to you? (Of course, there are shooters that prefer the traditional stock grip, I'm one of them). The only point was that there are legitimate reasons to use them, other than just the Hollywood way.
GAI can see it, but using the pistol grip method my right elbow was to low naturally. I had to make an effort to hold it parallel with the ground and not twist my hand. That to me is too uncomfortable and not steady. But, then again it may be old school. To be sure I would need to actually do the comparison. But, for the position a pistol grip is better the M-16 today has one for the military, so they know best right.
I'm with you - the feel of a rifle with a pistol grip seems unnatural. But at the same time, when I watch the video of mag changes, the experienced shooter has his right elbow down, very close to his body. It is not up, parallel to the ground as is done without the pistol grip. It might even give more stability to press that elbow into the rib cage, I don't know.
Nevertheless, I still agree with you and GA; I would prefer, I think, the old style without a pistol grip. Only trial with shooting actual guns would tell, but I think I would prefer the old way.Deleted
I agree about the rifle grip. I prefer no pistol grip. It feels more like I'm using a tool instead of a precision instrument. *shrug, maybe it's just an 'old school' thing, as you say. ;-)
GA
Peoplepower, GAAnderson, TSMog, wilderness are the 4? musketers here. You all had the gun experience, either from draft or military background. I don't. The discussions are very engaging. An outsider like me like to learn about the American situation. This definetely increase one's knowledge bank.
Guys, this is a great discussion on the practical working and charateristics of guns. Thank you for all the information.
Related Discussions
- 50
Do you believe the horrific school shootings are being used as an excuse for gun
by Susan Holland 10 years ago
Do you believe the horrific school shootings are being used as an excuse for gun control?Are there other factors that should be focused on to help prevent other tragedies? Parenting? Discipline? Positive and negative reinforcement? Mental health care? Is it the guns or the people that...
- 51
The Santa Fe HS Massacre By Gun May Tell a Different Story.
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
For the 22nd time just this year, somebody opened fire on an America school campus. While most of the others had an AR-15 as the gun of choice, this one was accomplished with a shotgun and revolver. In my mind, that changes the discussion somewhat based on what facts come out.In terms...
- 140
These Gun Safety Ideas WOULD Reduce Mass Killings
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
The following ideas would, I think, go a long way to REDUCE (not eliminate) mass killings in particular and death by gun overall.1. Heavily regulate ownership of any weapon classified as "semi-automatic", whether pistol or rifle. 2. Heavily regulate possession of any magazine over 10...
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
- 132
About school shootings and mass shootings...
by Jinet Marte 10 years ago
What is going on in this young people's minds that pushes them to perform such deadly acts of violence? School and mass shootings have become some deadly sort of grim "tradition" in this world. Alarming disposition of today's youth to just decimate other young and adult people. What's...
- 25
At what age are children no longer considered children?
by Brian L. Powell 11 years ago
At what age are children no longer considered children?I ask because, here in Texas, you can sign contracts at 18 but you can't drink or smoke until 21. I don/t think it is the same around the world. I know parents tend not to see their own children as grown up, so I am talking about everyone else,...